Talk:List of monarchs of Persia

message: Mozaffarids needs to be added. I'll get around to it soon one day--Zereshk 04:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Cambyses and Bardiya are brothers; and Cambyses went to conquer Egypt (525bc) getting killed on the way back. No one ever found out if it was murder. However, his brother Bardiya never found out because he too was murdered to end the family of Cyrus. The Median priests (Magi) selected for their prophetic Mesh-King (their Christos-Xisuthros) one of themselves by the name of Smerdis for the throne so that the murder of Bardiya must occur together with Cambyses (which is why the suspicion of murder of Cambyses also). The name Gaumata is a christening name of a Messiah which means Cow-Mother (Gau-Mata). And in religion it is Maya the mother of Buddha where we find several Gaumata named in India and in China during this period of Cyrus (560-522bc) until Darius which honors 1460-year completion of world (365 sothic leap days) or 1508-year (365 solar leap days). GOOGLE it, if WikiPedia doesn't have it. Thus Smerdis by being christened as Smerdis-Gaumata is being declared the approved fufilled prophecy of God by Magi. The Magi had stopped Jerusalem from being one of the temples built by The Throne (Cyrus) from 526-520bc because the faith itself taught their "christ" would be Persian Mede Magi, not a Jew. This is why three pagan Magi opposing such teaching would be significant to a Christian record. The chart posting a (?) is thus confusing as if another name for Bardiya, and is very faulty like the YouTube evangelist who says his first name is Pseudo (not a name, it means false as in  pseudo-science or pseudo-astronomy). So if you see Pseudo-Smerdis this is inaprapro since it is Smerdis being a pseudo-Bardiya. It is significant that Egypt new year Thoth 1 falls on January 1 for these 4 years between leap day 525-521bc. 75.86.64.46 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaumata is not Bardiya

message: I favor CE/BCE over AD/BC because it promotes ecumenical standards.
Organizations using BCE/CE:
#The History Channel 
#Jewish Virtual Library 
#PBS 
#The Israeli Government 
#Johns Hopkins University 
#Columbia University 
#Fordham University 
#University of California Davis 
#US Naval Observatory 
#Weber State University 
#San Diego State University 
#Judaism Online 
#Iran Chamber Society , since this page is about the history of Iran.
#Christian Travel Study Programs 
#Ask Asia 
#The National Library of Medicine 
#NASA 
#The University of Victoria 
#The US Library of Congress 
#California Academy of Sciences 
#UCLA National Center for World History in Schools  explicitly mentioning their preference.
#University of Haifa, Israel 
#The Smithsonian Institution Center for Education 
#American Jewish Historical Society 
#Danforth Mennonite Church 
#The Royal Ontario Museum 
#Religious Tolerance.org (the Internet's highest volume site on religious subjects) 
Style Guides:
#Ostracon 
#American Journal of Philology 
#Nova Southeastern University 
#Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 
#Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 
#Topia The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies 
#The Anglican Episcopal Diocese of Maryland 
#The Chicago Manual of Style (see ninth question)  
I think we should be using it too.--Zereshk 19:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice compilation!  I've added some links.  Sunray 22:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Many of those can be disputed (NASA, for example) – they may say in some places that they want BCE/BC but people just simply use BC/AD.  Anyone can list opposing links to those that use BC/AD (Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica for a start, with whom we have a lot more in common with) but the bottom line is that we do not have a BC/AD/BCE/CE policy other than to maintain the original author's choice.  violet/riga (t) 15:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CE and BCE

message: A possible compromise vote has begun at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras.  Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style policy change proposal 

message: Perhaps this is the wrong time to add to the mess and confusion, but, in the interests of scholarship: I think it's wrong to list the Elamites as a Persian empire. They didn't speak an Indo-European language; they weren't Zoroastrian; they were possibly matrilineal. 
They influenced the Persians, sure. They were the route by which Mesopotamian culture entered the Iran plateau. Once they were conquered by the Persians, they became the scribes and bureaucrats of empire. (I understand that most of the clay tablets unearthed at Persepolis have been written in Elamite.) Seems to me that this is analogous to the relationship between the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans adopted much of Greek culture, adapted the Greek alphabet, and prized Greeks as tutors for their children. But that doesn't make the Greeks Romans. We commonly speak of Graeco-Roman civilization. Perhaps there's a case to be made for the term Elamo-Persian civilization. But I don't think it makes any scholarly sense to describe the Elamites as Persians, or Greeks as Romans.  
It makes nationalistic sense to various Iranian central governments, which have been promoting nationalism and national pride by stressing the achievements of the Elamite, Achaemenid, and Sassanid civilizations. I'm old enough to remember Mohammed Reza Shah's grandiose self-coronation at Persepolis. But I don't think we have to parrot the government line at Wikipedia. 
I imagine that a couple of my distinguished opponents will leap in here claiming that I'm prejudiced against Persians, that I'm a pan-Arab nationalist, that I want to dismember Persia, etc. etc. No, I'm just a SCHOLAR. I don't like seeing what happened -- which is usually complicated and ambiguous -- simplified and distorted to make a political point. 
Keep the Elamites in the list, if you want, but add a note, or a caveat, or something. Zora 03:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex, please check out Talk:Khuzestan and Talk:Ahvaz if you're curious about where the above comments from Zora came from.  I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions. SouthernComfort 09:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elamites as Persians 

message: The dates for Cambyses II are wrong - he ruled to 521 BCE (or BC if you prefer). This is a reminder for a time when the dispute gets resolved and the article is unlocked.
BeavisSanchez 06:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change needed when this article becomes unlocked

message: There are discrepancies (see: Iranian Monarchy) within the Zand dynasty section, usually date differeneces of a year, but one ruler (apart from 1779 troubles) are missing there:
* Seydmorad Khan 1787-1789
The list over there jumps from Jafar to Loft-Ali in 1789.
Maybe someone in the know can sort this out.
Str1977 15:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zand dynasty

message: The Ghorid Dynasty of Herat and Ghor that destroyed the Ghaznavid kingdom is totally missing. -80.171.43.73 13:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Ghorids dont fall into Iran's chain of dynasties. But then again, I can be wrong.--Zereshk 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghorid Dynasty 

message: I noticed that someone added a couple of kings to the last years of the 6th century -- Bistam & Hormzd V -- for whom I can find no mention in the primary sources (namely the Armenian historian Sebeos & Theophylact Simocatta). Can someone verify that these shadowy personages actually existed? Or are these evidence of some long-forgotten hoax? -- llywrch 03:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct your question to User:Amir85. He is the resident scholar in this area.--Zereshk 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery kings of the Sassanids 

message: We should be consistent in era notations within an article, including any corresponding userboxes. I have requested before and will again, that we should make it Wikipedia policy to include "BC" for years prior to 1 CE, and "CE" for years following 1 BC. There are many advantages to this, which include:
*BC is less POV than AD (which claims Jesus is the Lord) [Some might say BC is also POV, but since no one is going to agree in consensus to remove AD/BC altogether, using only BC is much less POV]
*Both BC and CE are two-letter abbreviations (as opposed to BCE and CE)
*Both BC and CE go after the year (i.e. 50 BC and 50 CE), as opposed to AD which comes before the year
*Instead of users constantly fighting over era notations, which would never end, this would assure that both notations are used everywhere.
*It flows nicely in speech and in text
What does everyone think? I know I should be posting this at Wikipedia:Eras and I will be, but this is a good start. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD in the article -- but BCE/CE in the "History of Iran" infobox 

message: Small point this one, but shouldn't the article be called something like 'List of Kings of Persia/Iran', or at least have a redirect so that anyone looking for 'List of Kings of Iran' gets re-directred to this page? Indisciplined 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Kings of Iran (now) redirects here. "Persia/Iran is UgLy. flammifertalk 08:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In an effort to be "comprehensive" this page has just become unmanageable instead. I believe this page would be better if it focused on the rulers of ancient Persis in the strict sense rather than making a doomed attempt to include everyone who has ruled a piece of land within the modern borders of Iran. I therefore decided to be bold and remove most of the pre Achaemenid entries, there is already a List of rulers of Elam where that material would fit better. I removed as well almost all the empty sections between the Parthians and Sassanids, some of which were only very tangentially related to Persia. The medieval rulers should probably be moved into Muslim dynasties of Iran while the modern era shahs could be put into a List of heads of state of Iran together with the Supreme Leaders of the republic.   Fornadan (t) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Persia/Iran

message: I tried to add an article on the unknown kings of Parthia, one of whom reigned four years and issued coins without a name on them. The powers that be declared it "patent Nonsense." How could it be patent nonsense when the guy existed, ruled a mighty empire, and issued coins and decrees?Ericl (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown Kings of Parthia

message: I added Khomeini and Khamanei, who are Shahs in all but name. Ericl (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not Shahs, you do not have Shahs in a republic. They fought for the removal of the monarchy and Shahs, how can they be Shahs then? Warrior4321talk 04:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ||List of kings of Persia (redirect from Rulers of Persia)|| it seems that rulers of persia redirects to list of kings... how are we to add rulers of persia that aren't kings... we have no other option.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.114.229 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Create redirects and disambiguation pages as appropriate. Lists of monarchs and heads of government are separate for other countries, as they should be. Luwilt (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Supreme Leaders of the Islamic Republic 

message: Hello, I've been doing a project on Rulers of the world, and when I came to look at Persia it was a bit unpleasing to the eye, especially when comparing it to other such pages that list Kings or Emperors. I Think a good way to solve this problem would be to start putting all this information into tables, like on other such pages. I've started this process by doing it for the Early Elamite Kings and the Awan Dynasty. I urge all editor's who have free time to continue this process to improve the page.
Snakus Viper (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table's 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Okay, this is ridiculous. The Mongols were never "Kings" of Persia... Neither were the Arabs or the Turks or even the Greeks. These were invaders, and it's just ridiculous having them on this page because it distorts our own accomplishments and dilutes our history. I'm sure if the Persian kings  were alive today, they wouldn't like the idea of being clumped together with Mongols... For example, the Huns invaded and conquered Rome, but I'm sure they're not Roman "Kings". Anyway, this page needs a major revision. Invaders/occupiers should be removed. I'm sure you won't see our kings (which conquered Greece many times in history) on the Greek page of Kings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.163.64 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision Needed 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Alp-arslan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I feel that there is something of a nationalistic bias in presenting the Achaemenids as the "Old" Persian Empire and, especially, in merging the Arsacids and Sassanids into a single "Middle" Persian Empire. 
* It implicitly states that other periods do not represent 'true' Persian history somehow - when it is becoming increasingly apparent that, for example, the Seleukid/Macedonian Empire was largely focussed on its eastern territories and, in many ways, a continuation of the Achaemenid's empire in structure and culture (Kuhrt & Sherwin-White From Samarkhand to Sardis being the most important work taking this perspective)
* It suggests that these dynasties are to be understood only as periods within the History of Iran (Yet uses the now outdated, Western term, "Persia"), rather than as independent periods in their own right. I'm not saying that there was no continuity - quite the opposite! But it seems arbitrary to recognise that continuity only when the guy who sat on the throne happened to have an Indo-Iranian mothertongue. And, on what grounds can the Medians be cut off from the "Old Persian Empire" - the latter held, initially, the same position in the international political system, the same religion, and much of the same culture (Though this early period is not well attested). Indeed, the Classical Greeks usually failed to distinguish the Medians from the Achaemenid Persians at all.
* In particular, it merges the Arsacids & Sassanids into a single "Middle Persian Empire," which ignores the substantial cultural and ethnic differences between the two states. The Arsacids were a semi-nomadic people from the northeast who spoke a related, but different language from their subjects (Arsacid Pahlavi) and ruled as an ethnic elite (with some parallels to the practice of the Seleukids whom they replaced - indeed their coins continue to include inscriptions in Greek), and the foundation of the Sassanid dynasty is frequently represented as a reaction by the Persian people against rule by such foreigners. That is, there is a substantial break between the two dynasties which makes lumping them together odd.
* It doesn't fit with standard terminology, which is to refer to the dynasties by name. It is particularly confusing because the term "Middle Persian" refers to a period in the history of Persian language and literature. That period stretches roughly from 350/300BC-ish to AD 800/900, far longer than the Parthian & Sassanid periods (250 BC - AD 651). Most attestations of middle Persian language and literature date from the Sassanid period or later Middle Persian literature. 
* Likewise, the term "Old Persian" primarally has a linguistic meaning, which overlaps with the Achaemenid dynasty, but begins substantially earlier.
* It doesn't fit with Wikipedia's own terminology, which elsewhere refers to the Achaemenids, Parthians/Arsacids & Sassanids, e.g.: History of Iran, Template:History of Iran, Template:Iran topics
* It makes it harder to find the individual dynasties from the "contents" box at the top of the page - there's no hyperlink for the Sassanids
* The division into broad periods is at odds with the presentation of other similar pages listing rulers of long-lasting cultural units, which tend to break things down to individual dynasties (except when multiple dynasties reign concurrently). E.g.: List of Chinese monarchs, List of Armenian kings, List of Byzantine emperors, List of Danish monarchs, List of monarchs of Korea, List of Indian monarchs of Holy Roman Emperors List of pharaohs, List of Vietnamese monarchs
For these reasons I think that the "Old Persian Empire" should be renamed "Achaemenid Empire" and "Middle Persian Empire" split into two sections: "Parthian Empire / Arsacid Dynasty" and "Sassanid Empire". I feel like it would be good to split up the "Arab Caliphs" (The switch from Ummayyad to Abbasid represents a significant cultural, political and social shift) and "Modern Empire" sections as well, but I know less about these periods, and am willing to bow to the wisdom of those more expert than I.
Furius (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Persian Empire? Middle Persian Empire? 

message: I reverted an edit combining the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties under a single setting and it looks like we're at risk of getting into an edit war over it, so I think it's well that I explain why. It is my feeling that this list is by nature rather unwieldy, but that it is much easier to navigate if every major dynasty gets its own heading that one can access from the table of contents. Combining the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties together as if they alternate does not actually improve accuracy either, because in large part they did not alternate, they contested control of the Iranian plateau, ruling simultaneously.
That hasn't been implemented all the way through, as yet, but it is already how we deal with other cases of contemporary rule, such as the Dabuyids and the confused period in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is my strong feeling that this is much better than clumping things together.
Furius (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Furius, I totally agree with you. I don't see any reason to group the Seleucid and Parthian dynasties in a same section. --Sundostund (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping Seleucids and Parthians 

message: I put them back in like I tried to some years ago. If you look at the list, there are elected rulers and rulers who aren't called "shah" The current Iranian constitution makes the position clear and it's clearly monarchical. Ericl (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is intended to list Persian/Iranian monarchs, and that institution ended in 1979. I see absolutely no justification for including Supreme Leaders here (they already have their article, btw). The current Iranian state is republican, and you need very strong, reliable sources in English if you want to equalize the current post of Supreme Leader with monarchs of the past... Your edit is opposed, and you can't include it without consensus (it will be really interesting to see what other users think about this). --Sundostund (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I see where you're coming from, Ericl, but I don't think it's sustainable. Yes the Ayatollahs are in practice dictatorial, but they still maintain a distinction between themselves and the monarchs. The same approach is taken with List of rulers of China, which doesn't include the Kuomintang or Communists, List of Vietnamese monarchs which excludes the South and North Vietnamese presidents, List of Indian monarchs which doesn't include the Presidents, and so on. Furius (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I may, Furius, I'd like to add List of French monarchs and List of German monarchs to the examples you've listed above. It would be possible to list literally countless more lists of monarchs here, but I'll refrain from doing so... Also, please take into consideration the previous discussion on this subject. --Sundostund (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so you went there and brought up German monarchs. The German monarchy was elective. Yes, candidature was limited to the royal class, but it was still elective. The dynasties listed spent tons of money to get the job and there was a pretty much state of permanent warfare among the ruling class. While there was three hundred years of continuous Hapsburg rule, the simple fact is, is that they spent fortunes (officially termed "heroic bribary")to get the title, as Charles V of Spain beat Henry VIII of England. 
Also on the list are "Presidents of the North German Confederation" which included a "vicar" who was merely noble, and Ol'Boney himself, who got the job when he was still First Consul of France, didn't have a monarchical title there. The Poles had an elected king and they were considered monarchs. As to Iran, both Palhavis were born commoners, the father having taken over in a coup. (come to think of it, so did the Qajars). The Ayatollahs are no different from the elected monarchs of Germany and Poland.Ericl (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Ericl, the only thing about French and German lists which is relevant here is this: None of them lists post-monarchical heads of state. German list stops in 1918 (it doesn't include the "Fuhrer", although someone can claim he was a "de facto monarch" too), and French list stops in 1870, after the Second Empire ended. Its doesn't include French Presidents, or "Chief of State" Petain (another "de facto monarch"? Near-absolute rule and no term limit)... Pahlavis (and maybe Qajars) were born commoners, but they officially assumed royal/imperial title at one point, and therefore they have the place in this list, unlike Supreme Leaders. As I said before, you don't have consensus to include Supreme Leaders here, and I'm sure it will remain so. --Sundostund (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ayatollahs redux

message: The Median Empire was the first of all Iranian Empires.
Medes ruled, not Persian. Persians were subjects of the Medes, and there was no such thing as Persia.
Thus, including the Median Empire as being part of Persia, is misleading, even though the empires that followed (like the Achaemenid Empire) were of Medo-Persian origin (referred to as Medo-Persia by Herodotus, not as Persia).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.10 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Median Empire is not par tof ''Persia'' 

message: Above, in the archived move discussion and in some prior comments, please see various remarks about whether pre-Achaemenid rulers in the geographic region of Persia/Iran should be included in the article or not. This is an unresolved question. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of pre-Achaemenid monarchs 

message: #I didn't actually want a close to the move request made without a resolution, but there we are. I agree that we need to prevent nationalist edit wars, and the only way we can do this is by following basic policy regarding sources. This would apply even if the list were renamed to kings of Iran of course, although given what I've seen of histories of Iran that would be a longer and more comprehensive list. Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *I just realised I forgot to put my !vote here. I think the article should be moved to List of kings of Iran and the content should be kept to all Iranian kings. Persian king is misleading term which wasn't really used in the native language for a long period of time see my comments below. Brustopher (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Where are the Ghaznavids? Tafshina (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghaznavids 

message: what happened to cambyses I, tiespes, Cyrus, and the namesake of the dynasty: Achaemenes. They were vassals, but should still be mentioned right? and it says kings who ruled modern day persia, which is the equivalent of Iran. the Medians DEFINATELY was within those borders but i hear that was resolved so (DAMMIT). also can someone get this page protected? ive been seeing cyrus's name being replaced by thing like: Justin bieber. SERIOUSLY.History of Persia (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The pre-Achaemenids are still at List of rulers of Pre-Achaemenid kingdoms of Iran. I don't think that vassal kings belong here anyway - we have separate pages for other vassal kings (e.g. List of rulers of Parthian sub-kingdoms). While the Medians were Iranian kings, they weren't kings of Persia. After Cyrus, "King of Iran" and "King of Persia" are basically the same thing in English, so he's a good place to start the list. Furius (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What about pre-Cyrus kings?

message: I think that one of these should be added or removed. Rashidun were not  *monarchs* and they were elected, as much as Supreme Leaders are *elected*.See Rashidun Caliphate#Electing or appointing a caliph and Iranian Assembly of experts for further information. And Supreme Leadership is absolute power in the regime,And he has actually more authority than of Monarch of the United Kingdom and its for lifetime, and thats the difference between them and similar *democratic* positions like the President of Israel.
NetBSDuser (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To both of you, for your information, monarchs can be elected and there are many examples of elected monarchs in history.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, there have been many elected monarchs throughout the history. My point here is that none of these two titles have been labeled as monarchs in their time and both of them have been completely non-hereditary and the election method and the amount of power of these two in their respective domains have been almost identical. With any logic, either Rashidun Caliphs should be removed as not being monarchs or the Supreme leaders should be added as being monarchs. NetBSDuser (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rashidun Caliphs and Supreme leaders 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of monarchs of Persia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715045224/http://parthian-empire.com/articles/Genealogy-Coinage-Early-Parthian-Rulers-II.pdf to http://parthian-empire.com/articles/Genealogy-Coinage-Early-Parthian-Rulers-II.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074550/http://www.etana.org/coretexts/14913.pdf to http://www.etana.org/coretexts/14913.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't "List of monarchs of Iran" a better name? Because then you can add Median Kings too. As far as I know the first real Iranian King is Cyaxares, and not Cyrus or Achaemenes.
It was Cyaxares who founded so-called Persian Empire, but Cyrus got the credit. (Medo-Persian Empire is better name, because the early Persian kings called themselves "King of Persians and Medes)
Amir El Mander (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran since its more historically accurate and the usage of the word over Persia in academic sources is increasing every year. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Iran is better. However i disagree with you when you say that the first real Iranian king was Cyaxares. Before him, Phraortes and Deioces ruled over the Medes. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran or Persia 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Persia? Iran? This is nationalistic article, Pesia was a name given by Europeans to modern Iran and it has nothing todo with Ghurids, Timurids, Samanids, Safarids and many other Afghanistan historical empires. Aceditor00 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What nationalism, it refers to the empires that ruled Iran, see List of rulers of Tibet for a similar article. There was no Afghanistan back then either and the term Afghan always only meant "Pashtun" until the modern era so idk why you're claiming those as Afghanistan. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the article Shah of Persia 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In this text, there should be states centered in Iran and describing the Iranian monarchy.  It is not right to include the Umayyads, Seljuks and other Arab states.  These states are not Iran-centered or Iranian, they later invaded Iran. 188.227.212.100 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonians, Seleucids, Mongols, these do not belong to the Iranian monarchy. 188.227.212.100 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  states that have nothing to do with Iran.