Talk:Khosrow I

message: Looking at the form of the crown (compare with the coins shown in the Khosrau II article) and the date given on the caption card in the photo, I think the king shown hunting on the dish is Khosrau II, not Khosrau I.  86.150.53.188 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added his marriage and his relation with the Turks. He was married to a Turkish Khagan and he also built a couple of villages in the Turkish region. I added these statements with valid citations --Theotherguy1 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: The "Gozaresh-e Shatranj" story is not authentic and as Touraj Daryayee suggests both games were inventions of Indians.31.57.235.65 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Chess certainly is. The name "shatranj" does not make sense in Persian, but its Sanskrit name "Chatur-anga" means "four-limbed; army". See Chess#History for the history. The fact that widely different variants of chess are present in China and Japan also points to an Indian rather than Persian origin. If chess had travelled from Iran to China in Mongol times, Chinese chess would not be so different.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryfranke (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgammon and Chess 

message: thumb|right|7th-century Sassanid artwork
User:HistoryOfIran recently removed the image the image :File:ChosroesHuntingScene.JPG from the infobox, where it had been used for a long time, and inserted :File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg in its place, and has now reverted his new image back in another time . I am strongly in favour of returning to the old image.
:File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg is an artistically worthless, anonymous dime-a-dozen piece by a particularly untalented modern book illustrator of the late 19th century, drawn in an ahistoric, epigonic Europeanizing style and of no historical value whatsoever. In contrast, :File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg is an impressive work of art and an authentic near-contemporary artifact from the subject's own cultural sphere. This work actually shows us something valuable about Khosrau's place in history, i.e. how he was regarded by his own environment and immediate descendants. The nineteenth-century scribble shows us nothing.
The argument that the drawing "shows more detail"  is unconvincing, as none of the graphical detail in the drawing has any documentary value. Needless to say, neither of the two depictions has any value in showing what this person actually looked like, and that should of course not be what we're looking for when using such a picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I'm not talking about the style of the stuff he wears. I'm talking about the style and technique of the drawing itself. You don't know much about art history, do you? Well, let me inform you that this drawing has "made by a mediocre European book illustrator in the late 19th century" written all over it. And if you think it shows what he looked like because it was modelled on ancient coins, then why not use the originals right away and display one of those coins? They too would make for a much more authentic kind of depiction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: What else is there to discuss? I told you why that image is unacceptable; if you can't see its sheer ugliness, there's nothing else I can do to make you see it. So now it's your taste versus mine. What makes you think that your judgment should take precedence? You are so far the only person who wants this new image; you only inserted it a few days ago, the other one has been the stable consensus solution accepted by everybody else for years. You have literally nothing more to offer in this discussion than edit-warring. You were blocked for edit-warring just the other day. Do you really think you will win this by reverting? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: No way. That piece of fascist-style architecture (i.e. imitating stylistic models of contemporary Italian and German fascist architecture) tells us a lot about how Khosrow was seen by Iranian authoritarian regimes in the mid-20th-century, but again tells us nothing about Khosrow himself. An infobox image is meant to show something authentic about the subject's own time and culture; that's why we always use contemporary or near-contemporary depictions where they are available. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It's a content dispute, so it's not really for admins to decide. What we could do would be an RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: File:Coin of Khosraw I.jpg|contemporary coin
File:ChosroesHuntingScene.JPG|7th-century Sassanid artwork
File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg|19th-century illustration, based on the coin of Khosrau I
File:Anoushiravan.jpg|20th-century Tehran monument
*(a) Which image is most appropriate for the infobox? 
*(b) Should image (3) be used anywhere else besides in the infobox? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I have widened the scope of this RfC, adding question (b), since an editor has now insisted on inserting the 19th-century drawing further down in the article, after seeing that consensus was against using it in the box. My objections are directed against any use of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The numismatic website we got the image from, which for these kinds of questions can normally be considered reliable enough. There are many images of similar coins on the web, all with the same type of inscription and symbols, so it appears these can be quite reliably identified. Very similar ones are on display here: , and this one on the website of the British Museum: . The British Museum page actually provides a transliteration and translation of the inscription on their coin; the letters on the right side are in fact the name "Khosraw", and if you look closely you will recognize that the letters on our image are the same. (Pointing that out would of course be OR if we did it in the article; I'm just saying it here to show that there is no particular reason to doubt the identification we got from our source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: which infobox image?

message: There's a lot of great/interesting information on this article, which according to the citations, are from Frye's work, but I can't seem to find it, whether it's his "Heritage of Persia" or the "History of Ancient Iran". This information needs to be cited properly, or otherwise I will unfortunately have to remove it (and replace it with some other information supported by sources). --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: The article assumes that the increased power of the ruler and the central bureaucracy, at the expense of the old landowning families was "good" - this may be so, but a balanced approach of arguments both for and AGAINST the policies of Khosrow the first should be followed - rather than just assuming that the centralisation of the Empire was a good thing. The fact that the Empire collapsed a few years later casts doubt on whether the new centralised system really was an improvement on the old more decentralised (even "feudal") system.2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:94:7EA2:F89B:B366 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rather biased article.