Talk:Islamization of Iran

Untitled

Since the discussion of Arabicization was taking over the Islamic conquest of Iran article, I decided to move it here. There's room to spread out, guys. Zora 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran to Islamicization in post-conquest Iran

The term "Arabization" in the title implies that there was a successful "Arabization" process of Persia and Iran which is not true. According to Professor Bernard Lewis [1], "Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians." --ManiF 07:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We were supposed to vote on this before you move it?????? Aucaman^Talk 11:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT OK to just move an article without consulting other editors, and especially not to do so for POV reasons. Whether or not there was an Arabization is something to be discussed, which is why it's there in the title. Zora 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article was misleading and based on POV. The reasons for the move were cited and included in the edit summary. --ManiF 13:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You were supposed to request a move and we were supposed to vote on it! What you did is the equivalent of just deleting an article without filing for AfD first. If you wanted a move you were supposed to file a RM, not just move the article. If I were you I'd immediately apologize instead of trying to justify the move. If the move is not obvious enough to require a justification then you were supposed to file a RM first. In any case it's up to User:Zora to decide how we're going to deal with this. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for here. The article's title was unsourced, inaccurate, misleading and POV, and I corrected it by providing a citation from a well renowned Professor of Islam and Middle Eastern Studies, and using one of my user functions. --ManiF 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. If there was article titled "Arabization of Iran" isn't that also POV? So can you just go in there and delete the article???

The point is that there are some mechanisms in Wikipedia and everyone is supposed to follow them. If you wanted the article moved you were supposed file a RM. It doesn't matter how wrong the title is. If you continue to insist you haven't done anything wrong we can just file we can just file a RfC and we'll see whether or not you've done anything wrong. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, I really don't appreciate your aggressive tone, stay civil. From what I understand, you have also moved "Parsi" to "Parsi people" in the past without asking anyone to vote on it or anything. When an article's title is so obviously inaccurate, misleading and POV then it's appropriate to change it. --ManiF 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. SouthernComfort 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page back

ManiF, you don't seem to understand the term Arabization. It does NOT mean that everything in a society has become Arabic. It is a process, that can have great effect (as it did in Syria or Egypt) or relatively little effect (as it did in Persia). It is a term used in academic discussion of the effects of the Islamic conquests. The terms Arabization and Islamization are often used together. Very often you will have one without the other. Christian communities in Syria and Iraq have been Arabized (they use Arabic in their church services) but not Islamicized. Persia was Islamicized, but resisted Arabization. Egypt was, to a great extent, both Arabized and Islamicized. If you don't understand a word, look it up -- don't guess at the meaning and then erupt in anger based on your misunderstanding.

If you'd like, I can put that explanation IN the article, so that other people don't make the same guesses that you have. Zora 23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any opposing sources proving significant "Arabization" in post-Islamic Persia. A source, however, disagreeing with you has been provided. SouthernComfort 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree with the inclusion of the term "Arabization" in the title. By the way, you yourself state that Persia resisted Arabization - I don't understand why you feel it necessary to have that term as part of the title when we are essentially in agreement. SouthernComfort 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article should probably be moved to Islamicization in post-conquest Persia or Islamicization of Persia as per Islamic conquest of Persia, since it focuses entirely on historic issues and events. I'd like to hear what others have to say before agreeing on a new title. SouthernComfort 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Islamicization of Persia sounds more historically accurate. --ManiF 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there was SOME Arabization. Here, the University of Maryland Center for Persian Studies says:

Persian has undergone many changes in the past two millennia, the most significant of which has most certainly been the influence of Arabic since the Islamic conquest of Persia in the year 650. Over the years, Persian has borrowed up to half of its vocabulary from Arabic as well as certain grammatical elements. This impact of Arabic is profound not only because of its magnitude but because the sounds and syntax of Arabic, a Semitic language, are so different than those of Persian. Since the Middle Ages, Persian has been written in a modified form of the Arabic alphabet, although in pre-Islamic times it was written in an older alphabet known as Pahlavi. [2]

Up to half the vocabulary? That's a profound impact. As is a change in the writing system. It's like the change from Anglo-Saxon to Middle English. Anglo-Saxon and Norman French collide -- wham! Anglo-saxon grammar stays, but a huge importation of French vocabulary. An article on "French influence on the English language" would be defensible, no matter how the English felt about the French. Arab/Persian tensions are high now, but that's no reason to deny facts. Zora 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is only in regards to language, not the civilization as a whole. Arabic (Iraqi Arabic, for example) and Turkish also have been immensely influenced by Persian - would you consider their peoples and civilizations to have been "Persianized" as a result? I think not. What you are discussing would be more appropriately labelled Influence of Arabic on Persian language. But I don't think there is enough material warranting a new article, as it can be very briefly covered at Persian language. However, if you are interested in this area, you may wish to also start articles on Persian influence on Arabic language and Persian influence on Turkish language. SouthernComfort 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, that still doesn't justify the use of the word "Arabization" which is generally interpreted as "to become Arab" or "to make Arabic" in the title of this article or any other such articles. --ManiF 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the present title is accurate and warranted as it only deals with the adoption of Islam by the Iranian populace. Use of the term "Arabization" is inappropriate, and Zora's source does not use the term in relation to Iran. Her source is also only discussing the influence of "Arabic language upon Persian language," an entirely different matter than "Arabization." SouthernComfort 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mani, you're not getting it. A process isn't all or nothing. It can be partial. Are you saying that there was NO Arabic influence on Persia? That would be letting your ideology blind you to facts. Zora 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To SC: Yes, of course there was enormous Persian influence on the Arabic language -- and Middle Eastern cultures. I think that those would be great articles, but I'm not sure I know enough to write them.

As for THIS article, you can't just say that in this context, language doesn't count and then, in articles like Persian peoples and Iranian peoples, say that it's the essence of being Persian. As for other parts of culture -- well, Islamicization carried with it profound implications for kinship, marriage, inheritance, all the things that anthropologists usually consider the heart of culture. A great many of those rules were based on the practice in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, so that customs like mehr and temporary marriage have to be counted as importations from Arabia.

It would be easier to discuss this if we had a better understanding of Sassanid Persia, so that we could say exactly what changed and what didn't. Dang library-burning invaders!

I think it's fair to mention Arabization in the title, if only to say that it was limited. It's like saying "latitude and longitude" -- it's hard to understand Islamicization without having Arabization as the other axis. Zora 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I think you're the one who is not getting it. Weather or not, there was any Arabic influence on Persian or Persia is irrelevant to this discussion. Your source does not speak of "Arabization" and the term would be misleading and inappropriate in this context, especially for the title. --ManiF 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, this article is actually unnecessary - the information here should be incorporated back into Islamic conquest of Persia where it belongs. Otherwise we should include a brief summary of this article in its own section in that article. I reread the "Islamic conquest" article and it definitely could use this material. SouthernComfort 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it OUT of there because it was getting so long and contentious. We're not just talking about the immediate effects of the conquest -- we're talking about several centuries of rule by Umayyads and Abbasids. That doesn't logically belong in the conquest article. The conquest article, as it stands, is "just the facts". This article is for the arguments. Which should be ALLOWED here. If we're arguing about whether or not there was any Arabization, that should go in the article. NPOV requires multiple POVs, not just one. Zora 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be best to contain everything in that article and just state things as they are presented? Otherwise this article seems something like a POV fork. And I'm not sure why you are disputing that the Arab conquerors imposed their language upon the subjected peoples - I mean, this is widely accepted amongst historians, is it not? You yourself have also stated that Persians resisted the effects of Arab occupuation - why would they resist if there were no imposition on the part of the Arab rulers? SouthernComfort 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Arabization, especially in the title is extremely confusing and wrong. It implies that Iran became an Arab country like Egypt and Syria did. I know it is not ALL or NOTHING but almost 99% it implies “becoming Arab” this is why in cases such as Iran instead of Arabization writers use “Arab/Arabic influence”

Gol 09:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Arab Migration to Khorasan

I believe the following paragraph should be added to give a clear picture of the situation in 7th-8th century.

Following the Arab conquest, tens of thousands of Arab families moved to the eastern borders of the Islamic caliphate and Khorasan region. While arab settlements were small in western Iran, there was extensive colonization of eastern Iran, in particular Khorasan region. Many Arab tribes such as Bakr bin Wael, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd moved to Khorasan. The Arabs acquired lands in villages and married local women and settled in Khorasan permanently. According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Arab population in Khorasan was huge in the early 8th century CE, and the number of Arab people living in Khorasan was around a quarter of million people (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213).

The Arabs and muslim Iranians overcame their initial differences and cooperated extensively in military expeditions against their common enemies on the Khorasan's eastern frontier. The Arab population in Khorasan, included not only soldiers, but also merchants, artisans, religious scholars, landlords and peasants. They blended well with the local host population. This in turn lead to the integration of Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, and assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and gradual spread of the Arab culture and religion in the Iranian host population (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.214). Heja Helweda 07:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

A random piece of information on an Arab settlement in Khorasan doesn't need a section of its own on every Persia-related article. You have posted this on a dozen articles. --ManiF 07:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the appropriate article, in other words Khorasan. As Mani states, and as I have stated before, you shouldn't go around posting this information on every Iran-related article to prove a point. SouthernComfort 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

hey heja!i read your comment on another article in which you had said that in the time of perso-arab wars iran had a population of about 1.5 million. isnt that a bit funny? how could these 1.5 men and women control such a huge country for at least 450 years?! and beside it wars with romans for nearly all of this period? i think there were at least 30 or 40 million iranians then. (i think your anti-iranian point of view is making you blind!- by the way i live in iranian kurdistan and i and my kurd brothers and sisters have no problem with each other. i don't know why are you so anti-iranian. believe me we other iranians have no problem with kurds the problen is only the goverment) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.219.216.158 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

"Arabize"??

"Arabic influence"? Certainly there was, and no one denies it.

"Arabize"? I wouldnt bet on it. Especially for a title. Maybe we could say "the attempt to Arabize". But not "Arabize" itself. "Arabize" is an "all or nothing" process, contrary to what Zora says. The definition for "Arabize" is clear:

"1. To make Arabic in form, style, or character" [3]

Either you take the form, style, character, and hence become an Arab, or you dont. And that never happened to Persia. Attempted? yes. Influenced? Yes. Arabized? No.

Egypt and the lower Nile in Africa were Arabized. Not Persia.

In fact it was to a large extent the other way around: The Arabs took up and adopted Persian customs, styles, and forms.

As far as Im personally concerned, even the major doctrines of Islamic faith itself are largely a rip off of Zoroastrianism. That's why it wasnt that hard for many people to convert.--Zereshk 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, Islamicization and partial Arabization in post-conquest Persia. With a coda saying that there was a great deal of influence the other way too, perhaps point to an article on it. Zora 07:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as "partial Arabization". You either become Arabized or you don't. As I said before, the term "Arabization" is misleading in this context. --ManiF 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's absurd. SouthernComfort 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Partial Arabization"? What does that even mean? Tell me Zora, are you partly an English speaker? Are you partly a U Chicago graduate? Are you partly human?

Lets use the word "influence". That's much better.--Zereshk 07:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, there is so little in the way of information concerning "Arabic influence" on Persia that it is inappropriate to include that in the title - "Islamicization" is much more accurate and proper. I had suggested to Zora previously that an article on "Arabic influence on the Persian language" could be justified, but again, there is so little to include that it could just be included in the main article on Persian language. SouthernComfort 07:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am arabic but I live in Iran for a few years and I think that there is Arabic influence on Persia in langauge but in fact it still parsian langauge becouse arabs can't understand it, for an arab man it's easy to understand other arabic tongue in Egypt or Marraco or ... but he can't understand Persian, and about Islam you can see that most the arabs are Sunni but Persian are Shia and I think that persian had a great influence on arab and islam. and abuot Arabization I think it's not correct word because if you read the history you will find that many arabs tribes were settlements in Iran but if you visit Iran now you will found no arabs ( except khozistan ) and that is mean that those arabs were convert to Persian and not Persian convert to Arabs, except of this if you visit Iran or Turkey or arabs contries you will find maney similarity in culture. (sorry for my bad English)

Moving the article

Name of this article had been "Islamicization in post-conquest Iran". User:Tigeroo had moved this article to " Post-Muslim conquest social impact in Persia" and then to "Social & Cutlural Impact of the Muslim conquest of Persia". I reverted and simplified its name. Please discuss about its name here before moving it.--Sa.vakilian 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Savakilian's new name rolls off the tongue more easily. But it does not do a good job describing the scope of this article. Half of this article (the better written half IMHO) discusses the cultural effect on Arabs of their conquest of Persia. The other half describes the history of the adoption of many aspects of Arab culture by the Persians. But the title of the article, by use of the word "Islamicization" suggests that the article is primarily about the adoption of Islam, which can possibly just refer to the religion.

Possibly, Islamicization refers not to Islam-the religion, but Islam-the world culture. And this world culture includes major contributions by Persians. In that case, we should define what we mean by "Islamicization" in the openning paragraph, and then we can tee off that the Islam (culture) adopted by the Persians was not the Islam (culture) of the Arab conquerers but the modified Persified Islam that Bernard Lewis writes about.

I think that the current title requires spinning off the half of the article about the cultural effect on Arabs of their conquest of Persia. We could then briefly refer the reader to that article in this one.

Its hard to say whether its better to split this article or change its name. To look for models, I examined other conquests. The British raj has no discussion at all of the effect of the cultural effects of the conquest, even though it led to the adoptation of the English language in some conditions in India, nor French Algeria nor from the Chinese conquest of Vietnam.

The article on Roman Greece has a sentance alluding to the spread of greek culture around the Roman world and of the creation of a unified Greco-Roman culture sphere. This seems like a useful model for us. Roman Egypt has a section on the adoption of the Christian religion by the Egyptians, but does not discuss the other cultural impacts of Rome on Egypt or vice-versa.

On the other hand, there are plenty of "cultural impact" articles including Cultural impact of Elvis, Cultural impact of Star Trek and Cultural impact of Falklands War. More pertinent, there is a section on the cultural impact of the US conquest of the Philippines. The Fall of Constantinople has a section on cultural references with two subsections on references in the East and West.

There really isn't a good model for this article as currently written. David s graff (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong information

One paragraph states that: "Persians had a great influence on their conquerors. The caliphs adopted many Sassanid administrative practices, such as coinage, the office of vizier, or minister, and the divan"

The writer of this must be confused. The words "Divan" and "Vizier" are actually an effect of Arabic influence over Persia and central Asia. Both of these words are Arabic words pronounced differently by non-Arab speakers (originally pronounced as Diwan and Wazir). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.224.169 (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you wish! Both "Divan" and "Vizier" (Vazir) are middle-Persian words. پسر بختیاری (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article

The tone of this article makes it seem as if Iran welcomed Islam; it doesn't mention anything about Iranians being killed for not converting.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We try not to use partisan points of views . Anyway , more modern views from reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica rejects the coercion as a significant factor in conversion of Iranians to Islam (Iranica page 231) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You are spreading ahistorical Islamic radical nonsense. I can provide the sources for the horrific massacres committed to the Persians by the early caliphate. 2600:4040:9012:1100:AD3F:6304:D37C:FCBB (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Upon further research, I couldn't find anything to back up my original statement. Sorry about that, I was up late last night and I was just adding something my parents had told me when I was a kid. I shouldn't have added that anyway because that would be classified as original research. I regret adding my original edit to the article, it was completely unneutral.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir, they came to Persia by invitation. They actually came here with lots of gifts and candies and we accepted them with open arms and asked them if they could spend some 2 or 3 hundreds of years in Persia and teach us how live, speak and some other things! I was there actually! and I'm really surprised that you "couldn't find anything to back up my original statement"! You could at least follow the footnotes of Zarrinkoub's book! پسر بختیاری (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, Whomever "Zarrinkoub" is, whatever good was he, He with no doubt did not mention such sources and he was not a witness of such things and whatever things he say, he can not be considered anykind of a reliable source.--196.205.207.249 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible intro: "Islamization in post-Islamic Iran"

I don't understand the current introduction to the article, "Islamization in post-Islamic Iran", since post-Islamic means something that is after Islam. Iran may become post-Islamic in the future, but the article is about the change from pre-Islamic to Islamic. So i reverted to the former intro: Islamization in Iran - because the intro should correspond with the title of the page. Also, I made the intro easier to read. --Sasper (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

garbled anti-persianism section

(Similar discussion in the anti-persianism article which is similar to this section)

The following paragraph bothered me in the Anti-Persianism section of this article:

It is difficult to imagine the Arabs especially Ummayad dynasty not implementing anti-Persian policies in light of such events, writes Zarrinkoub in his famous Two centuries of silence, where he exclusively writes of this topic . Reports of Persian speakers being tortured are also given in Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni's al-Aghānī. While no accurate references can be found.

No matter how famous Zarrinkoub is, and no matter how extensively he writes, his inability to imagine that torture did not take place is not evidence that torture or anti-persianism did take place, certainly paling in comparison to the direct citations earlier. If he wrote so extensively on Anti-Persianism, then there must be numerous better quotes in which he says something to the effect of AntiPersianism did exist in ___ ____ ____ situations and we know because of ___ ___ ___.

Kitab al-Aghani seems like an excellent source, but I can't tell without reading the original which I can't find in English (suggestions appreciated). It needed a more specific reference which I copied from the main Anti-Persianism article. But, AFAIK, ancient sources of this type should not be referenced with page numbers, but with chapter numbers and verse numbers. Different publishers will have different page numbers.

I don't know what to make of the fragment "While no accurate references can be found" except that it seems to highlight that no accurate references have been supplied.

David s graff (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

bernard lewis quate correction

i think that we should mention he ment iranian culture after the great mongol invasion , bernard lewis mentions that the last stronghold of arabian islam were egypt and the romote morroco ,the iranian islam he mentions (persian mongol mix)covered iran and turkey and ended the last stronhold of arabian islam(mamluke egypt after the mongol invasion) in the east and thus the heart of the islamic world was by then under iranian islam.

Panegyric

The New Persian language after Islam, unlike Pahlavi, introduced a decent amount of Arabic vocabulary, which made New Persian a popular language with a famous literature which its predecessor had not been. The newly introduced Arabic words made New Persian more complete which fortified the Islamic Golden Age as well as Persian literature and poetry in the late Middle Ages.

This is ridiculous. Arabic loanwords made Persian literature famous and popular? I guess it's time to borrow English words now, surely this will make Persian literature popular and famous globally.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The New Persian language after Islam, unlike Pahlavi, introduced a decent amount of Arabic vocabulary, which made[citation needed] New Persian a popular language with a famous literature which its predecessor had not been. The newly introduced Arabic words made New Persian more complete[citation needed] which fortified the Islamic Golden Age as well as Persian literature and poetry in the late Middle Ages...."

This part is the personal view of the writer. Since it has no references I'm going to delete it. Ferdowsi's Shahnameh is purely in Persian and yet it is the most famous work in Persian literature. I will keep on deleteling it until you stop or give a reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not your personal diary or weblog! پسر بختیاری (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks major details

This article doesnot mention several details like the following:

• Rate of Conversion to Islam was faster in Eastern Iran/Sogdian cities (Khorasan) than in Iran. Conversion was also faster in urbanized areas than in Rural areas. Sogdian cities (Khorasan) was a much urbanized area than main-land Iran. In the mountainous regions, conversion was even much later.
• At the time of Sassanids, the vast majority of main-land Iran's population belonged to rural areas. The Sassanian agrarian economy was based on the 'qanat' system.
• Some earlier scholar have speculated that taxation played a role in conversion to Islam, however, Scholars like Dennet, has shown that these concepts are not uniform, and, after the arrival of Arabs, the previous Sasanian tax was simply renamed to the new tax without any substantial changes, as in many cases treaties of submission merely stipulated a lump sum to be handed over to the Arabs without specifying how this was to be collected. Under this system, a rural convert to Islam could be taxed even more than his Zoroastrian neighbors. Bulliet has argued that social ostracism would have also pushed converts to move, so that urbanization proceeded with conversion in Iran.
• There are many similar points that needs to be mentioned on this article.

My references are books of Richard Bulliet, Donnet, Levtzion's.. I dont have the sources or proper citation at my hand now, so i am not editing this page. Once I get my hands on the proper sources. I will modify this article to add more information. Thanks --Theotherguy1 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamization of Iran. 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/20070429144545/http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move (after extended discussion). There is no hard and set rule about the use of past or current national titles, so a consensus would be necessary to move from the status quo. bd2412 T 16:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamization of Iran → Islamization of Persia – Persia wasn't called Iran until 1935. This would be like having an article called Seven Bridges of Kaliningrad. Genealogizer (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• Support per nom (n.b. Muslim conquest of Persia) but this discussion may have wider implications. —  AjaxSmack  23:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wrong, Iran is the historic and accurate name of the actual country, you can't compare it to Kaliningrad. -HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

In English, Persia is the proper name of the country when discussing anything that happened before 1935. Bengalis called Calcutta Kolkata for centuries, but it's incorrect to retroactively apply it in English to anything pre-2001. Genealogizer (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Both are used before 1935. Iran is getting more and more used rather than Persia these days. Also, that's a bad comparison again, as Calcutta is the just another form for Kolkata. Iran and Persia have two completely different origins. Persia is the form for Pars/Fars, which is simply a province. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the two words have different origins, but Persia is the only proper name for the country in English when talking about things that happened before 1935. In virtually all western languages, Persia meant the entire country until the Shah's decree of 1935. The fact that it derives from the name of one province is irrelevant. Most Middle Eastern languages call Greece some variant of Yunan, which is derived from Ionia, a former region of Greece that is now controlled by Turkey. Genealogizer (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• "but Persia is the only proper name for the country in English when talking about things that happened before 1935."
  

Says who? I've seen loads of sources etc that favour the usage of Iran.

• "Most Middle Eastern languages call Greece some variant of Yunan, which is derived from Ionia, a former region of Greece that is now controlled by Turkey."
  

Yes, but it is still called Yunan in those languages, whilst Persia is no longer a thing to use for the present-day country. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Places that are officially named are still usually referred to by the proper name for the time period discussed in historical writing. What's next? Battle of Volgograd? Fall of Ho Chi Minh City? Guangzhouese language? I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history. Persia was the proper English name for Iran until 1935, and retroactively applying Iran to events before then is anachronistic and unencyclopedic Genealogizer (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC). <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• "I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history."
  

Seems like you have run out of things to say, and now are targeting me instead. Nice one. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this topic before you make move requests and make silly assumptions about me?

• "Persia was the proper English name for Iran until 1935, and retroactively applying Iran to events before then is anachronistic and unencyclopedic"

Well that's just false. Loads of major scholars use Iran instead of Persia, especially these days. As someone who has done the most contributions to Iranian-related articles I know this very well compared to someone who has absolutely done no contributions in that topic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So then when are you going to propose moving Battle of Stalingrad to Battle of Volgograd? Genealogizer (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Not funny. Also using that silly comparison twice won't make your argument better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Persia was the proper English name for this country until 1935. Why not just use it when discussing events before the name change? Genealogizer (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Since not only is Iran much more accurate by quite a large margin, but it is also used by various (major) scholars. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Iran isn't any more accurate. It's the historical name of the country, just like Julius Caesar was a Roman Emperor, not an Italian King. Genealogizer (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

I... what? I'm sorry, but that made no sense. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Basically per HoI's arguments. The supposed analogies to "Yunan/Volgograd/Ho Chi Minh city/etc" don't hold any ground. I might add that this comment made by the OP (I understand that you may prefer Iran to Persia for nationalistic reasons, but please, don't rewrite history".) was a really unneeded nonsensical ad hominem, and in my opinion, unfortunately (WP:GF assumed), only further shows the OP's lack of knowledge about Iranian history which is needed in order to properly grasp this matter. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The analogies hold a lot of ground, in that they are all examples of places that were officially renamed. Why should Persia be given special treatment? Genealogizer (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Again, this is another example of why you should have knowledge about a topic before you involve yourself in it. With all due respect, I'm not here to educate you about Iran. I have said what should be said. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have all the knowledge I need. Persia was renamed Iran in 1935, just like Burma was renamed Myanmar in 1989 or Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946. Officially renamed places are referred to by the name that is current for the time on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

That's the 3-4 time you have used that example, and it still won't make it any better. Don't you get that Kaliningrad is a name that first appears in history in the 20th-century? Whilst Iran has been a thing before BC? You clearly don't have all the knowledge you need. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that Königsberg/Kaliningrad is a bad example, so here's a good one: Iran is virtually unheard of in English before the mid-1930s, it's completely irrelevant what it was called in the native language of the country. Calcutta was officially renamed Kolkata, the native name, in English in 2001. The natives called it Kolkata for centuries, yet it is incorrect to call it Kolkata in English when discussing events that took place before 2001. I get that you think the endonym Iran is better than the exonym Persia, but that still doesn't make it proper to retroactively apply it in English to pre-1935 events. Genealogizer (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Now this is where I repeat another fact I said earlier which you seem to have ignored; Iran is in present-day very popular when it comes to its history before 1935, so that argument ain't gonna cut it either. Again, Calcutta is the just another form for Kolkata, both words are basically of same origin. Iran and Persia have two completely different origins - not that it really matters since Iran is used quite a lot before 1935. Iran may have been unheard in English back in 1930 and before, but not in present-day, which is what really matters. Major scholars such as Frye, Bosworth, Morony, Axworthy etc etc (I could go on) use Iran quite a lot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, how about Madras and Chennai? Two different words with different roots that refer to the same place. Madras was official until 1996, Chennai since then. Applying Iran to pre-1935 Persia is anachronistic, even if scholars do it. When do you plan on RM-ing Greco-Persian Wars to Greco-Iranian Wars? Genealogizer (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Sigh, are you really putting Wikipedia above prominent academic scholars? But yeah, Persia is more prominent when referring to Achaemenid period, but from the Parthian period and on, Iran is prominent (Islam appeared in the Sasanian period). Also, it's not anachronistic if you, with all due respect, actually had some kind of knowledge the country - anyways quite sure these scholars have more knowledge than both you and me. Also can you please stop with those bad comparisons? Coming up with another random city won't make your claim any better. It can't be compared to Iran at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

High-quality can have different naming conventions than Wikipedia. The New York Times refers to people as Mr. X and Mrs. Y throughout all of their articles, but Wikipedia uses surname alone. Similarly, some scholars may retroactively apply modern names to historical entities, but that is not the custom on Wikipedia. Also, Persia more common than Iran in reference to the Sassanid era.

I do have knowledge of the country, and personally I think it was ridiculous for the Shah to force other countries to call it Iran when they had called it Persia for millennia. After all, you don't see Merkel trying to stop non-Germans from calling Deutschland Germany, Allegmagne, or Niemcy. But my personal preferences are irrelevant here, and Iran should be used for the modern country and for post-1935 history. However, the traditional, historical name should be applied in historical context to avoid creating anachronisms. Genealogizer (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Just because you know about about Reza Shah's decision to change the name doesn't mean you have knowledge of the country. Also I don't care about Germany, these comparisons are just getting worse and worse. Also, I like you how wrote 'Sassanid' instead of 'Sasanian', which is the more prominent name these days both in Wikipedia and Academic sources. Try to write Sasanian instead, and you'll see what makes up the numbers the most. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

From a linguistic standpoint, Persia vs Iran is just like Germany vs Deutschland, as both Persia and Germany are exonyms that come from a different root than the endonyms. Reza Shah officially demanded that Westerners start calling Persia Iran in 1935, and we have since mostly acquiesced to his demand. Another example: Constantinople was the the most common name of Istanbul in the West by an overwhelming margin until the Turkish government demanded that Westerners call it Istanbul in 1930. Wikipedia uses Istanbul when referring to the city since 1930, but if you go to the Ottoman Empire page, you will notice that the infobox says the capital is Constantinople. And even if you use Sasanian (which my spellchecker doesn't even recognize) instead of Sassanid (which it does), Persia still predominates over Iran, though not as heavily. Genealogizer (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Again, your comparisons are quite irrelevant, it's like you are completely ignoring all the other things I said. Also [4] [5]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Istanbul/Constantinople is a very similar situation to Iran/Persia, I responded to all of your points, you are linking to results from the Danish version of Google, and even those results favor Persian over Iran (78k to 69k). Genealogizer (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Um.. the only difference in my Google is that it's in Danish, otherwise it is the same as yours. They clearly don't if you click on my two links up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Here are screenshots.

77,900 hits for Persia

68,900 hits for Iran

Genealogizer (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

You don't have to post a screenshot. 59.700 for Sasanian Iran and 33.600 for Sasanian Persia here. Funny huh? Anyways, still doesn't change that Iran is still historically more accurate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I did have to post the screenshot since apparently you're getting different numbers than I am. Retroactively applying a modern name to medieval history is not more accurate, regardless of what the indigenous name is. Most Turks called Constantinople Istanbul for centuries, but it's still inaccurate to call Ottoman Constantinople Istanbul IN ENGLISH. Genealogizer (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• "Retroactively applying a modern name to medieval history is not more accurate, regardless of what the indigenous name is"
  

Seems like a personal opinion to me, which is not going to get placed above the work of countless academic scholars. And Iran isn't a modern name. Also, coming up with every city of the world isn't gonna make your argument any better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are mostly based on personal opinion. (i.e. claiming Iran is a more proper name than Persia is an opinion) In an English-language context, Iran is a modern name, as it was virtually unheard of before the 1930s. Similarly, Kolkata has been a Bengali word for centuries, but the proper name of the city was Calcutta until 2001, and Calcutta still predominates to this day. Although Wikipedia keeps the article about Calcutta at Kolkata, Calcutta is still used when discussing pre-2001 history. You keep discounting all my analogies because you think Persia/Iran deserves some kind of special linguistic treatment. Also, many scholars still use Persia for pre-1935 history. Genealogizer (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

I constantly come up with academic scholars as a support for my argument yet somehow my arguments are mostly based on personal opinion? Whilst you come up with irrelevant comparisons with mostly cities and what not. Also, got 49.200 for Safavid Iran and 44.700 for Safavid Persia, but dunno how is this is relevant, since the Islamization of Iran took place many centuries before the Safavids. But I'm sure you already knew that since you have all the knowledge you need. The fact is that Iran is much more accurate/historical and its also supported by many academic scholars, thus there is not anything wrong with using it at all in Wikipedia. That is what matters, not your random comparisons. If you have nothing else to say rather than come up with the same comparisons constantly, then I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I linked to Google scholar results as well, 49.2k vs 44.7k isn't a huge difference, Islamization took place right after the Sassanids/Sasanians, a time period for which Persia is still preferred per my screenshots, and Iran isn't any more accurate than Persia. That's just your personal opinion. A historic name that was used for millennia isn't inaccurate because a dictator decided he didn't like it. (And your user page states that you despise all dictators, by the way) And if you're using scholars as a source for your arguments, there are 437 Google Scholar results for "Medieval Persia" from the last 4 years, and only 183 for "Medieval Iran". Given that the Islamization of Persia happened in the early Medieval era, and that the page about the Muslim conquest of Persia uses Persia and not Iran, this page belongs at Islamization of Persia. Genealogizer (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• "Iran isn't any more accurate than Persia. That's just your personal opinion."
  

Not really if you actually had some knowledge about the country or read my comments. Seems like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me.

• "A historic name that was used for millennia isn't inaccurate because a dictator decided he didn't like it. (And your user page states that you despise all dictators, by the way) "
  

How is this relevant to this discussion? I honestly couldn't care less. Why are you trying to make this political? Not to mention that it made no sense anyways.

• "And if you're using scholars as a source for your arguments, there are 437 Google Scholar results for "Medieval Persia" from the last 4 years, and only 183 for "Medieval Iran"."
  

So yeah, screw all the other sources, lets listen to this argument! Not that it's a narrow way to see this whole subject. Also as a whole its 141.000 for Medieval Iran and 133.000 Medieval Persia, but its still irrelevant though. Now that you have stopped with your comparisons, are you going to link every period of Iran from Google books? That's not going to make a difference. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You're entire argument that Iran is more accurate than Persia seems to be Iran is an endonym, whereas Persia is an exonym that is based on the name of one province. When I pointed out that lots of languages call other countries by exonyms based on provincial or regional names, such as Yunanistan (based on Ionia, which isn't even part of Greece anymore) or Saksa (Finnish name for Germany, based on Saxony), you claimed that the fact Persia is no longer official makes it less accurate or incorrect. While it's true that it is no longer accurate to refer to the modern state of Iran as Persia, that doesn't make it incorrect to use it in historical contexts. (Once again, see Constantinople/Istanbul). Some scholars may acquiesce to modern Iranian political sensibilities and retroactively apply Iran to medieval Persia, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have to. Genealogizer (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Also, when I search for "Medieval Persia" vs "Medieval Iran" in Google Scholar, I get 1,350 for the former and 1,060 for the latter. When I use the regular Google Search, I get 47,500 results for "Medieval Persia" and only 21,300 for "Medieval Iran". I would also like to remind the closing administrator that HistoryofIran is using the Danish version of Google, and therefore, their Google results might not be the most reflective of English usage. Genealogizer (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• Comment The closing admin(/editor) is going to have a hard time with this one. I just hope with your Calcutta - Kolkata discussion, you guys don't propose a change from Kolkata to Calcutta. On a serious note guys, just relax on this one. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, you still don't seem to get it, getting tired of seeing the constant comparisons that don't hold any ground. Also I'm quite sure that the difference between my Google and yours is that mine is in Danish, nothing else. The end of the matter is that Iran is also popular when it comes to pre-1925 Iran, thus I see no reason at all to have it replaced with Persia.

• "Some scholars may acquiesce to modern Iranian political sensibilities and retroactively apply Iran to medieval Persia, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have to."
  

Now you're just making assumptions, again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Regional Googles rank results differently, as evidenced by the fact that my Google Scholar results favor Persia. Honestly, we should probably have a vote on Persia/Iran naming, just like we did on Danzig/Gdansk about a decade ago. Some scholars call Ottoman Constantinople Istanbul, but that doesn't mean we should. Also, Persia was renamed Iran in 1935, not 1925. Genealogizer (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• "Regional Googles rank results differently, as evidenced by the fact that my Google Scholar results favor Persia."
  

If that makes you feel better, alright.

• "Honestly, we should probably have a vote on Persia/Iran naming, just like we did on Danzig/Gdansk about a decade ago."
  

We should probably not.

• "Some scholars call Ottoman Constantinople Istanbul, but that doesn't mean we should."
  

Irrelevant comparison, again.

• "Also, Persia was renamed Iran in 1935, not 1925."
  

Cheers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How else can you explain me getting different Google Results than you? If you think your position is correct and the consensus position, you have nothing to fear from a Persia/Iran vote. Constantinople was renamed Istanbul around the same time Persia was officially renamed Iran. Both "new" names had centuries of history in the native language, but were virtually unheard of in English, and both sets of names are from completely different roots. It's a really good comparison. Genealogizer (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Well, I did get more results, so surely there is something wrong with yours. Anyways, no matter what that does not change that Iran is popular pre-1935 as well, and thus there is no reason to change it at all, especially if this was always the historical name of the country. Indeed, I have nothing to fear, but this been torn out too much, and you have come up with nothing valid but the same irrelevant comparisons that make no logical sense, and efforts to make this somewhat political. So no, this does not deserve a round 2, and as you can see, there are already 2 opposing your suggestion (who with all respect actually have some knowledge about this topic, and have done more than zero edits to Iranian-related articles), and with good reason. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You got more results for your preferred name, so of course you want to throw my results out. Iran was not always the historical name of Persia IN ENGLISH. This is an English-language Wiki, therefore it is completely irrelevant what the Persians/Iranians always called their country. People from Deutschland never called their country Germany, either. My comparisons make sense. As I said before, "Constantinople was renamed Istanbul around the same time Persia was officially renamed Iran. Both "new" names had centuries of history in the native language, but were virtually unheard of in English, and both sets of names are from completely different roots. It's a really good comparison. " What's next, are you going to claim that my Google results are fake news spread by Russian hackers? You clearly don't like the name Persia, but so what? Your personal preferences shouldn't dictate how Wikipedia runs. I'm a huge fan of traditional English exonyms. If I started a Wiki, the article on the Chinese capital would be titled Peking. But I don't own Wikipedia, so I don't try to propose article names that contradict policy, no matter how much I may like them personally. There are two editors on the pro-Persia side and two on the pro-Iran side. If this was a vote, it would be a draw. But discussions on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not just popular vote. Genealogizer (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

You're right, its not like I said that 'Anyways, no matter what that does not change that Iran is popular pre-1935 as well, and thus there is no reason to change it at all, especially if this was always the historical name of the country.', but yeah, I forgot that you don't read half of the stuff I write, which is the reason why you are repeating the same thing over and over again. Your comparisons hold no ground, so I am just going to ignore them from now on. I'm sorry, but how are we going to reach a consensus when you can't understand the simple things I am saying? I'd say it again for the 100th time; The end of the matter is that Iran is also popular when it comes to pre-1925 Iran, thus I see no reason at all to have it replaced with Persia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong to state that Iran was always the historical name of the country. Persia was always the name of country IN ENGLISH until 1935. (Not 1925, you made that mistake again in your most recent comment). You don't understand anything I'm saying, or more likely, you're being willfully obtuse because you disagree with me. Yes, Iran is also popular for pre-1935 Persia, but it's anachronistic, and Persia is still more common for those time periods. I could dig up a few recent sources that call the capital of China Peking, but that wouldn't be a good reason to rename the Beijing article to Peking, even though I personally prefer Peking to Beijing. Genealogizer (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Err.. that still makes Iran the historical name of the country? Also the usage of Iran is nevertheless quite popular among scholars, which you don't seem to get. Also, you don't seem to get the meaning of anachronism either, here you go [6].

• "You don't understand anything I'm saying, or more likely, you're being willfully obtuse because you disagree with me."
  

The only thing you have come up with are illogical comparisons that hold no ground tbh. Besides that, you have either tried to make this political, personal, or been stalking me. This is why you don't involve yourself in stuff you have no knowledge about. Inb4 you come up with your 50th irrelevant comparison. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make Iran the historical name of the country IN ENGLISH. The historical name for Iran IN ENGLISH, the language this Wiki is in, is Persia. If Merkel declared tomorrow that all foreigners have to call Germany Deutschland, instead of their traditional names for it (which is exactly equivalent to what the Shah did in 1935), that wouldn't mean that WWII was started by Deutschland, because the proper historic name for Germany in English will always be Germany. I'm not stalking you, I took one look at your userpage. Have you heard of WP:AGF??? Genealogizer (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

It's still the historical name of the country, and it is also used by various scholars, but aight. Also, stop being a baby, you've just called me obtuse (and accused me of having a 'nationalistic agenda' and 'rewriting history' earlier) and yet you are asking me what WP:AGF is? Also, here you go [7], actually learn something about what you're talking about. I am done here, I have never seen such sheer ignorance in my life. An admin will decide this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's the historical name of the country in Persian, I'm disputing that it's the historical name of the country in English. Genealogizer (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Opposed — Agreed with HistoryofIran. This would be a quite wrong and unreasonable move.
The archaic term of Persia doesn't belong here.
–Rye-96 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of Persia in a historical context is not archaic in English. No offense, but you admit on your user page that you have an average level of English proficiency. I am a native speaker who has scored very highly on several college-level English tests. While you certainly have a much more extensive knowledge of Persian/Iranian history and culture than I do, I am certain that I understand the intricacies of English usage better than you do. Genealogizer (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

• Oppose. The country is called Iran. What it was called before is of less concern. CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Since this is a historical article, the current name of the country is irrelevant, the same way the fact that Constantinople is now called Istanbul is irrelevant to the title of the article on the Fall of Constantinople.

@Genealogizer: You can't say that unless you were graduated from the department of Iranian studies. :) Being a native speaker and having "scored very highly on several college-level English tests" doesn't justify your proficiency on this issue.
Try to keep your comments less personal, if you can.
—Rye-96 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what my degree is in. As a native speaker who lives in an English-speaking environment and studies exclusively in English, I know more about the intricacies of English usage than you do. It's not a personal attack, you admit on your user page that you have an average level of English proficiency. I have absolutely nothing against you personally. I am a native speaker with a very high level of proficiency. I have an average level of German proficiency, so I don't get involved in naming discussions on German Wikipedia, because I recognize that I don't know a lot about what is common usage in German.

The Exonym and endonym article helps to explain both why my proposal should be accepted and why some Iranian users are so resistant of it. "Old place names that have become outdated after renaming may afterwards still be used as historicisms. For example, even today one would talk about the Siege of Leningrad, not the Siege of St. Petersburg, because at that time (1941–1944) the city was called Leningrad. Likewise, one would say that Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg in 1724, not in Kaliningrad (Калининград), as it has been called since 1946.

Sometimes, however, historical names are deliberately not used because of nationalist tendencies to linguistically lay claim to a city's past. As a case in point, the Slovak Wikipedia article on the 1805 Peace of Pressburg does not use any of the city's names then in use (the Hungarian Pozsony, the Slovak Prešporok or the German Pressburg), but today's name Bratislava, which became the city's name only in 1919."

Note to closing administrator - It seems that at least some of the opposing votes have been cast by Iranian editors determined to right what they see as the great wrong of using Persian to describe subjects related to Iran. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term Persia, and many other countries are known in English by names unrelated to their endonym. (i.e. Germany, Finland, and China instead of Deutschland, Suomi, or Chung-kuo) Genealogizer (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Stop casting shade on your fellow Wikipedians. You seem to believe you are helping your cause by commenting on every dissenting opinion cast, Genealogizer - you are most assuredly doing the reverse. You need to learn to respect people even when they don't share your opinion. CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not casting shade on anyone. Arguments made by the anti-Persia editors both on this page and on other RMs make it very clear that they view the term Persia as some sort of mistake that needs to be eliminated from historiography. They're wrong. Sorry if you don't like my tone, but I'd rather say what I think than hide behind layers of euphemisms and double entendres. Genealogizer (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Well continue like this and not only is the RM going to get closed, but you're also going to get blocked. It's funny how you have the audicity to disrespect people like this and also claim 'you know better than them' about a topic which you have not even the tiniest bit of knowledge about. So far the only thing you have done here is to come up with illogical comparisons and made ad hominem attacks, applause. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I know more than you about the English language, as evidenced by the copious grammatical mistakes you have made in this discussion. It's funny how you call me disrespectful yet accuse me of sock puppetry. Also, weren't you going to take your ball and go home? Genealogizer (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Great reply. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support move per the arguments by nom. The historical formal name for the territory was Persia in the English language. I agree with Genealogizer - some opposing !votes casted are only for nationalistic reasons by the editors. 182.188.224.155 (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Only 3 random edits, all of them on talk pages related to RM of articles (which most Genealogizers edits are centered on) - check.

Disrespectful tone - check.

No logical form for argument - check.

Genealogizer is that you ;)?. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not. Also, it's hilariously sad how you accuse me of sockpuppetry but then claim that I am the disrespectful one. Also, your response has two glaring grammatical errors (you wrote "which most Genealogizers edits are centered on", but it should be "which most of Genealogizer's edits are centered on), which really makes me question how well you understand the finer points of English usage. Also, just because you disagree with my arguments doesn't mean they have "no logical form." Genealogizer (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

What has my grammar to do with any of this? Really shows desperate you are when you have started to play grammar nazi. Also, what kind of arguments? Your random comparisons? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to struggle with English grammar means you might not be the best person to ask about the finer points of English usage, such as use of historical names in historical contexts. Genealogizer (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Bobby Martnen

Sigh, you really are a specialton. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.