Talk:Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Contents

[edit] old comments

well i go to school with his daughter, one of the princesses, so he lives in Maryland

Has Reza Pahlavi II ever talked about the excesses and oppression of his fathers regime?

This article says he lives in Virginia, but some other sources say Maryland, for example the article about his wife. So where does he really live? I also thought the article was quite confusing about when he moved to the USA. "In 1978, he moved to the United States to complete his higher education." "[...]since 1984, the United States."?--ursel

[edit] A reminder

All participants, please sign your comments!. This must be the most confusing discussion page I've ever read :)--inks 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, please use edit summaries!--inks 23:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The text refers to the recent elections as undemocratic, but offers no links or evidence supprting this allegation.—GJK 12:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That refers to almost all elections held since the revolution of 1979 (which is not to say that those before the revolution were democratic!). The elections are not free, i.e. undemocratic, because of the lack of freedom of parties, freedom of speech, of publication, and because a majority of Iranians with non-Islamic political views cannot be candidates. Also, religous minorities (Sunnis, christians, etc.) cannot run for offices such as presidency. Many high rank politicians are filtered out ideologically before the elections and thus their names never appear at the polls. This information is considered common knowledge, I think, and therefore needs no references. If you like, you can refer to the numerous independent media reports, as well as human rights reports and related documents on Iran in which lack of political (e.g. electoral) freedom is described. I hope that answers your question. Shervink 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Shervink
Okay, fine, but either add that to the article with reputable and objective citations or remove the allegation. GJK 11:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot, to flee or not to flee!

1. Him being a pilot or an aviator of any kind? please show proof no records exist of such skills either in the US, europe or Iran.

1a) The young prince trained as a fighter pilot at Reece Air Force Base in Lubbock, TX in the 1979-1982 timeframe. I know this first hand as I was there, at Reece, and witnessed his training. Further, he did not flee Iran. He lived in Lubbock before and during the Iranian revolution. You cannot flee something before it occurs. He completed his training in early 1982.

70.251.238.208 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Tom in Dallas.

2. he did flee iran, flee means to leave a place in haste under duress (ie: you will die if you don't leave)

3. exile : he has been in exile since he fled. usually people who flee a place, leave for one reason or another. has he gone back to iran since? why hasn't he? some suggest he can go back if he renounces his claim to the throne? which throne i ask? which monarchy? iran like many other countries in the world has changed its governing system.

Please, first READ what other people write and then answer. He is a jet fighter pilot, I think you can see some info on his web page, along with pictures, moreover you can open up any book dealing with his family's situation during the revolution days. As I said, he did not flee. He left one year before the revolution for educational matters. He was in texas when the revolution started.

I think he is right, no proof of a "real" license. A photo would be nice of him flying a so-called jet fighter by himself. I think the Iranian military gave a lot of honorary titles to members the shah's family during his reign. just remember the word honorary, as opposed to legitimately.

so i think the above changes should remain

Your changes are so biased and your arguments so ridiculous that they are hardly worth replying. Since you are not willing to do the reading yourself (which you should do BEFORE STARTING TO WRITE ANYTHING), i will give you the main points:

- This has nothing to do with the honorary titles. He was trained as pilot in the US army. This is by the way, very common in royal houses. You will find similar training periods for many crown princes in europe, for example. - He LEFT Iran, for EDUCATION. It had nothing to do with the revolution. Just as his father left Iran to study in europe for several years. These things had nothing to do with the political situation in Iran, which was still very stable when he left. - As for the license, I don't think you really expect him to put copies of his degrees and licences on his webpage! I suggest you stop vandalizing this page.

Since you are so non biased maybe you can tell us why Reza Pahlavi II is "de jure Shah of Iran", when the monarchy has been long abolished? Which law is this refering to and can you give us a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melca (talk • contribs) .

You got a point!

If you have no arguments, which you obviously don't, you should stop this childish behaviour. Shervink 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Shervink
Because of the vandalism and repeated reverts of an anonymous user, I suggest to 1.Edit the Pahlavi-related articles to an agreeable form together and then 2.Block them for editing for a while to protect them from this improper behavior. Shervink 12:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Shervink

If anybody is still not convinced by the above discussion that RPII is a pilot and that he did not really flee Iran (which he of course would have if he was in Iran when the revolution happened!), I hope they are willing to tell us about it here. Otherwise, it is totally improper behavior to keep falsifying an article or removing relevant facts from it. Also, since you are continuously editing here, I suggest you get a user account. Shervink 12:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

There's no doubt that he was a pilot: I've read it in numerous authoritative sources. One is The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation by Sandra Mackey. In fact, the book mentions that he sent a message to the Iranian government volunteering to fly in their army at the start of the Iran-Iraq war, but was understandably turned down (one might even accuse him of bluffing, since the revolutionary government could hardly have let him back in Iran). --Saforrest 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Imperial Majesty

Should he really be referred to as "His Imperial Majesty"? —Ashley Y 12:13, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't be. The person who wrote this is probably a pro-monarchy idiot.

I don't understand why someone from Ireland (Jtdirl) is so obsessed with demonstrating his opposition to the abolished Iranian monarchy. Of course there is no monarchy anymore in Iran. But that does not mean you can simply ignore the fact that Iranian shah's and crown princes such as Reza Pahlavi, have been referred to like this before the revolution, and it is only a matter of good manner to still refer to them like this. Royalty should be addressed with approprite titles, whether or not it is the ruling royalty does not have any significance. And no, I'm not a pro-monarchy idiot. "Imperial Majesty" is simply an equivalent for the persian "a'la hazrat", "olya hazrat", or "vala hazrat". It's not a symbol of my affiliation with them, which I do not have, it is a matter of accepting history and not trying to falsify it. The behavior of wikipedia editors in this matter completely shakes my confidence in the correctness of other material I read here. It is shameful. Nothing less than that. Shameful and biased.

I am not expressing any views on the Iranian monarchy. I am reflecting editorial standards in an encyclopædia. All publications have house styles which are applied across its content. If (and it used to be the case) Wikipedia editorially decided to include styles in the front of articles then I would be supporting it here. That however proved controversial. So we adopted a new policy — no styles at the start, but a style box in the article. That is the Wikipedia policy and that is the policy we all follow. This policy is automatic and no royal page on Wikipedia can deviate from it. As is normal in every publication on the planet, the house-style was applied, which in this case meant (and will continue to mean) the automatic deletion of His Imperial Majesty just as it would mean the automatic deletion of Her Majesty from the article on Queen Elizabeth, for example.
Secondly His Imperial Majesty was the style of a reigning Iranian monarch. Reza Pahlavi never legally reigned so it cannot be used for him, except by breaking Wikipedia's fundamental NPOV rule, which it cannot do.
Thirdly, all those who claim to inherit either a defunct throne or a throne held by someone else are automatically pretenders. The fact that he would be Shah if the throne still existed, and that he is the legal heir, is irrelevant. The son and heir to the last King of Italy is a pretender. The son and heir of the last Austrian Emperor (until he 'abdicated' the role) was a pretender. It is simply a formal term used to describe the claimant to a throne that no longer existed.
So your edits (i) breached house style (something no publication accepts and always changes back), (ii) breached NPOV in giving to HIH a monarchical style even legally he is not a monarch, and (iii) deleted the valid term for describing the heir to a defunct throne. That is why they were changed. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any views on the Iranian monarchy and would have been done in any of Wikipedia's 700,000 articles that similarly broke with housestyle, NPOV and correct terminology. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 19:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jtdirl. We should follow establshed conventions for articles. Also, Reza Pahlavi II is, as of now, a private citizen living in the USA. Having never ruled, the honorifics do not apply to him. Also, the monarchy was deposed 28 years ago, any one claiming the throne is correctly termed as a "pretender". Thanks. --Ragib 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
That was 26 years ago! But generally, thanks jtdirl for the enlightening explanation. I understand your position now. That the honorifics do not apply to him as a king is obvious. I think, that they do apply however as a (former) heir to the throne. As I beleived the honorific used for the crown prince in Iran (vala hazrat) also to be equivalent essentially to HIM rather than HM, I thought it would be better to include HIM. I may be wrong however. May be a better translation would be simply HM.


82.210.119.108 reverted edits by 59.154.24.34. What is your reason for that? As i se it 59.154.24.34's edit is more correct since Reza Pahlavi had no choice but to flee iran and he is infact living in exile since he can not return to Iran. I hope that 82.210.119.108 will come up with an appropriate reason.

The reason is very simple. He left Iran in 1978. One year before the revolution. Iran was perfectly safe at that time with no sign of any threat to the Pahlavis. It is thus not accurate to claim that he fled Iran. He can very well return to Iran, as a private citizen, if he gives up the claim to the throne, as was announced a few years ago by the Islamic republic government. As for the other points, I do not see why his field of study and details of his education should be omitted.
Ok i can accept him not fleeing, but if what you are saying, about him being able to return as a private citizen, is true, he is still living in exile since he has not given up his claim to the throne. As for the other points being omitted i agree with you. I dont know why they were removed, unless they are false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melca (talk • contribs) .

[edit] POV Article

This article reads like a promotional page for Reza Pahlavi II, Inc. Who agrees/disagrees with this?

--IRelayer 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Agree. I have put an Neutrality disputed tag on it. It really is the most appallingly biased article. And why the heck is he allowed to have an ordinal (number)? Only reigning monarchs can use ordinals. He never reigned, and is merely a pretender, so cannot use an ordinal. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree at all, what POV exactly? what promotion? "the most appallingly biased article"?!
Article's name is so it would not be confused with his grandfather Reza Shah Aka Reza Pahlavi.
I am going to remove the POV tag until there can be an explanation of what exactly is POV with it. -- - K a s h Talk | email 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is in fact very unbiased. All information is publicly available and undisputed. There shouldn't be a POV tag unless a very good reason is provided. Shervink 11:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)shervink
I found it to be quite balanced indeed. There's nothing to be biased about yet. Kitabparast 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think that balanced, I'd hate to see your definition of POV.

Among the many flaws are

  • loaded emotional language that encyclopaedias can't use: "Since the tragic passing of the late Leila Pahlavi"
  • hagiography inconsistent with an encyclopaedia: "Reza Pahlavi is a political campaigner, preaching human rights, democracy and unity among Iranians all over the world. He has continuously expressed his desire for a free Iran. His political goal is to lead the Iranian nation to a point at which they can choose freely, in a referendum, the future form of government for Iran". "believing that the people of Iran do have the power to change their future for the better by themselves"
  • POV language not allowed under WP's NPOV rules without sourcing: "undemocratic elections"

The article contains no detailed citations of sources, no alternative viewpoints and does not follow the structural criteria used in royal and biographical articles. It is nothing more than a weak attempt at hagiography that needs professional editing and sourcing. Nor is the naming acceptable under WP rules. As a crown prince of a defunct throne the article should be at Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. He is not entitled to use an ordinal as someone who is not a reigning monarch, merely a pretender. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One point here, the Pahlavis never abdicated, therefore, while the current regime is the de facto government, there would be no continuos legal system, so no legal standard really applies 66.72.215.225

As he was not shah at the point where the monarchy was abolished, he cannot inherit a non-existent title. If you want to crusade to push his agenda, find a POV site to do it on. You cannot do it on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few links and sources, I agree it needs work. I will work on it more soon -- - K a s h Talk | email 22:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to promote "his agenda", my only point was that there are disputes about the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, of course the article has to point out he is not actively reigning, my only point is that the Pahlavi family did not abdicate like some other monarchies (i.e. Italy), therefore the claim that he is the rightful "shah" is not completely without merit,66.72.215.225

Anybody is entitled to use an ordinal. Many ordinary people call themselves "Humbert Humbert III", "Holden Caulfield V" etc. An article about a pretender ought to use the title by which he describes himself. Scolaire 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think in most cases those are names given at birth. The uses of ordinals among commoners and among monarchs are substantially separate issues. In any case, the subject does not use one. -Will Beback 21:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Is see no way in which any reader would confuse this article's subject with that of Reza Shah. At no point in that other article is the subject called "Reza Pahlavi". Since the two are chronologically separate, I don't think anyone would mix them up, and a simple disambiguation can suffice. Monarchs take a numeral when they assume the throne, and the throne no longer exists. The subject has never ruled Iran. So I suggest that the article be moved to his personal name, not the title he claims. -Will Beback

The disambig is already there at Reza Pahlavi. Also, you said it yourself..that no one would confuse them, so what is your point? The throne does exist.. just under a different title ;) See Supreme leader of Iran -- - K a s h Talk | email 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Correction: The "Peacock Throne" does not exist. -Will Beback 08:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, you are correct, so what do you suggest for article's name? How about Reza Cyrus Pahlavi? Thats his full name I think although I am not sure. On his website [1] "Reza Pahlavi.org", he only uses the name Reza Pahlavi..-- - K a s h Talk | email 09:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What's his legal name? He lives in the U.S., I'm sure he doesn't sign his checks "Reza Pahlavi II". Alternatively, what is he most often called? That's the name we should try to employ. We can use an identifier in parentheses if truly necessary. -Will Beback 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And, if there's no other suggestion, "Reza Cyrus Pahlavi" sounds fine. -Will Beback 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
He probably does sign his cheques as Reza Pahlavi II actually, he has major followers in America especially in California where there are many Iranians and Iranian businesses. If there are no objections, I will move the article in a few days -- - K a s h Talk | email 09:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the Pahlavis never abdicated. Reza Pahlavi II assumed the duties of emperor after the death of his father, under the title Reza Shah II. One might agree or disagree with him, but he has made the continuation or removal of monarchy dependent on a free referrendum (with emphasis on free, rather than the show which took place after the revolution), meaning that as long as that has not taken place, he is still to be considered Shah. Shervink 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
"He is still to be considered Shah" by whom? A few hundred [or several thousand?] adherents? Does he really think that he is the Shah of Iran while he is living in Maryland? Does anybody? Don't be ridiculous. -Will Beback 11:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be harsh. Legitimate pretenders, like the subject of this article, have every right aspire to glorious thrones of the past [and they sometimes succeed to them]. While encyclopedias needn't be cynical they must be realistic. At the present time, the aspirations of this pretender are interesting and should be noted, but they must always be identified as "hopes", until such time as they are fulfilled. -Will Beback 11:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that in a press release posted he says of himself:
  • Reza Pahlavi, who has been leading a campaign of political defiance by calling for nonviolent acts of civil-disobedience against the Iranian theocracy, is the former Crown Prince of Iran.
So he does not call himself "Reza Pahlavi II", and does not claim to be the Shah. -Will Beback 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard way on Wikipedia and many sources that pretenders to a defunct throne who were the heir apparent when the throne was abolished are referred to is [[first name(s), Crown Prince of <country>]], eg, Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, since he was crown prince at the moment of abolition and royal titles like king, emperor, queen, etc go from being constitutional titles to courtesy titles for the lifetime of the holder, unless they abdicated in which they become ex-king, etc. The titles then die with them. The alternative is to use a particular title if they had one for crown prince, eg, Prince of Piedmont, Prince of Wales, Prince of Asturias etc. If Reza had a specific title as crown prince, then he would be named [[Reza Pahlavi, <title>]], as in the last crown prince of Italy, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples. Indeed the Victor Emmanuel example is useful. Like Reza, his supporters use an ordinal to describe him, "Victor Emmanuel IV". However Wikipedia correctly doesn't as it implies an actual or past reign where in fact he never did at any stage do so. The naming conventions cover all this in the case of deposed heirs to thrones. It makes sense to follow precedent all over Wikipedia and elsewhere on this, for consistency sake. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Support That is certainly policy; see the articles on the (several) claimants to the throne of France, for example. Septentrionalis 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. As I indicated above, Pahlavi calls himself "the former Crown Prince of Iran", not the current Crown Prince or the Shah. We'd be following both Wikipedia custom, and the general principle of common usage by omitting the "II" from the subject's name. -Will Beback 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Incompetent person"

The role of "godfather" involves responsibility for religious upbringing. Any non-Christian person would be incompetent at the job, so far as I know. Sources? -Will Beback 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What...? -- - K a s h Talk | email 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A "godparent" is someone present at a christening who promises to make sure that the infant is brought up inthe Christian faith. -Will Beback 11:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sounds good. -- - K a s h Talk | email 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Catholics now invite non-Catholics to fulfil the role, to the fury of the Catholic Church. Reza's invitation was not unusual. However in this case the Church took a stand of "no way" and the Belgian Government said "we would prefer if you didn't" so he was named as an "unofficial godfather". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

I am not an expert on the subject of this article but I do know something about the style guidelines of Wikipedia. I see a number of problems which need to be addressed before the POV tag should be removed.

  1. The title - Page should be moved to Reza Cyrus Pahlavi (do not simply copy and paste the content!). Instead of saying "also known as Reza Pahlavi II it should say "who claims the title Reza Pahlavi II" after "pretender to the throne of Iran". That is, of course, only if he in fact claims this title. If he does not it should not be included. Some other pretenders do have ordinals in their article titles, but as far as I can tell that is because they actually were confered with that title at some point. Otherwise, those articles should be changed too. The same goes for the name under the picture.
  2. Weasel words - "some Iranians still regard Reza Pahlavi II as the current Shah of Iran." Who? This needs a source. I suspect that some Iranians are monarchists who would like the Shahs to return, but who actually thinks that he is the Shah?
  3. The "Politics" Section - a) "He has continuously expressed his desire for a free Iran" Don't use abstract and POV words like "free Iran"; say what he actually has called for specifically (e.g. "He has repeatedly promised to hold a referendum on an Iranian constitutional monarchy were he to return to the throne") For this obviously there have to be sources. Look through what he has actually said publicly and attribute it to him.
  4. "Undemocratic elections" - I think the best solution to this problem is specificity and attributing views. For example, "Phalavi condemned the result of the Iranian presidential election, 2005 for X reason". The link to that article allows readers to follow up on other views about the election while focusing only on what is relevant to Phalavi in this article.
  5. Succession box - title should be changed to something like "Head of House of Pahlavi" if that's what it's actually called. See Umberto II of Italy and the the successors to the House of Savoy.

The other issues appear to have been resolved already (i.e. his education and pilot training). Let me know if I missed any other points of contention. However, do not remove the POV tag until at least these issues are resolved at a minimum. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points, article needs work -- - K a s h Talk | email 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The name change is ridiculous. Although apparently he has the second name Cyrus, he virtually never uses it and is not known by that name. He is commonly known as Reza Pahlavi, Reza Pahlavi II (which has nothing to do with him being a king or not, it is to distinguish him from his grandfather as is common in many non-royal families.) This article should be moved back to either Reza Pahlavi (with a note to distinguish from Reza Shah I) or Reza Pahlavi II. Shervink 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
Your unilateral changes are more ridiculous. There is an overwhelming consensus on this talk page for Reza Cyrus Pahlavi over Reza Pahlavi II, both differentiate him from his predecessors, but one is a title which is only used by those who support his claim to the monarchy and thus not NPOV to present as fact. Not only that, but your blind revert is simply repetitive: Wikipedia convention is to list the full name in bold at the beginning. It is assumed unless otherwise stated that people do not go by their middle name. Your "disambiguation" notice at the top is unecessary given the new consensus title, and the fact that your proposed name would require such a notice is an independent reason why your intro/name version is worse. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made any changes to the article lately, so I would appreciate if you would tell me which unilateral changes you actually mean. Numerics such as II, III, ..., or suffixes such as Jr. etc. have nothing to do with monarchy. He is commonly known as Reza Pahlavi or Reza Pahlavi II, be it among monarchists or not. To use an uncommon name, however, reduces the value of the article as it might not be clear to many readers who the article is actually about. Shervink 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

[edit] POV issues: I took a look at the Politics section

So, I took a look at the first paragraph of the "Politics" section. It went like this:

Reza Pahlavi is a political campaigner, preaching human rights, democracy and unity among Iranians all over the world. He has continuously expressed his desire for a free Iran. His political goal is to lead the Iranian nation to a point at which they can choose freely, in a referendum, the future form of government for Iran. If that would be a constitutional monarchy, it would mean the return of his family to the Persian throne. Nevertheless, Pahlavi has made clear that his objective is to help establish and maintain a democratic system of government, the choice of the exact form of which (constitutional monarchy or democratic republic) would be made by the people.[1]

When following the footnote, I found that the source given, a page on Pahlavi's website, doesn't in any way live up to its status. There is nothing on the page linked about monarchy being only one possible outcome of democratic elections — monarchy isn't mentioned at all. Pahlavi's page goes like this:

This is a critical moment in the history of my homeland. The Iran of my youth was a nation at peace with its neighbors and respected within the International community. Our economy was among the strongest in the region, and our people were prospering. But twenty-two years ago, a catastrophe descended upon my homeland and reversed decades of progress. Today, Iran has fallen into the abyss of: international isolation, an extremist government, high inflation, huge unemployment, and rampant corruption. The clerical regime brutally suppresses the fundamental human rights within Iran and is the leading exporter of hate and terror beyond its borders. Today, however, the time has come to write a new chapter in the history of my country. My goal is simple, achievable and straightforward. I envision an Iran: wherein its prosperous economy gives every Iranian an equal chance for hope and opportunity; An Iran where its women fully participate in the political, socio-economic and cultural life of their homeland; An Iran where its press is free from intimidation, harassment, imprisonment and torture; This vision includes a progressive, civil and stable society in which the separation of Religion and State is recognized. Finally, the Iran of tomorrow ought to have a foreign policy based on principles of harmony and mutual respect. To get there however, Iranians seek a political system in which participation in free and fair elections are guaranteed for all freedom-loving individuals and political ideologies. I have called for unity among all groups dedicated to a democratic agenda and outcome to work together for a common cause - the establishment of a democratic and secular government. I intend to lead this movement culminating in a national referendum, beyond this system, and with international supervision, as a means to guarantee freedom and self-determination for the people of Iran. I am confident that momentum is building and I am certain that the world will witness a dramatic political evolution in my homeland. It is my hope that Iranians will benefit from all the moral support the world community of nations can demonstrate for our quest for liberty. May God protect Iran and Iranians.

(I've removed the spacious "paragraphing" for readability and space, but these are the exact words.) See? Nothing about monarchy. If the monarchy argument in the article — "If that would be a constitutional monarchy..." — is pure editorializing, it has no place here. If it can be sourced, then please do so. Meanwhile, I've removed the paragraph, placing it here for convenience, and replaced it with the few things that the cited page does provide a source for. I can't help but note the foot-shuffling on the Pahlavi page about WHO would get to take part in the "free and fair" elections — apparently not people of all opinions or parties of all ideologies, but only "freedom-loving individuals and political ideologies", a rather vague but clearly restrictive phrase.

If the original paragraph can be sourced, please feel free to edit it for tone (the tone now is too admiring and peacocky, which comes from the vagueness of word choice that Savidan notes) and put it back. I intended to treat the next paragraph in the same way, because reading something this POV in Wikipedia is painful, but had to leave it because my software had trouble with the media files that are cited as sources for it. (I hope the problem is with me rather than the files.) Bishonen | talk 13:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

The previous version, written mostly by me, is in fact almost word for word taken from the many speeches, articles, and interviews of Reza Pahlavi. Did you read his book yet, by the way? How many of his speeches have you listened to? There is not a single word that is at odds with what he has directly said, so please take your time, read the book especially, and the other material there. Before that, do not ruin other peoples' work here. About the tone, it is not admiring. It is simply polite, as should be in a writing of high standard. You don't have to like the guy, but that doesn't justify the removal of any hints of positive aspects about him on this page! Shervink 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

"Any hints of positive aspects?" lol That has got to be one of the funniest things on this page. The page was so hagiographic it was a scream. It couldn't physically have been more glorifying him except to suggest that he was the world's greatest lover, saved millions of old ladies from drowning and was secretly superman (with an XXXL sex organ). Give us a break and try understanding what NPOV actually means? Propaganda isn't part of the deal on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel pitty on Wikipedia for uncivilized editors like you vandalizing its pages. Just read what you have written in response to me and be ashamed of yourself. Shervink 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)shervink
Shervink, I'm sorry to have angered you; obviously I haven't explained my edit very well. :-( . No, I haven't read the book, and I didn't remove your paragraph because I thought it wasn't true, but purely because it wasn't verifiable. This policy is considered central, in fact there's a link to it right under every edit window; please check it out. Could you provide a footnote for the paragraph, or several notes, that refer/s to these sources that you mention here, before you restore it? I'm sure you see what I mean about the webpage linked to — note 4 — not containing complete verification of your text, and all I want is for you to add that verification.
About the tone; of course tone is a subtle matter, and so there'll always be room for disagreement about it. All I can say is how the tone impressed me: I found it too polite. I hasten to add that it's not supposed to be rude! But neutral, factual, encyclopedic. Think about the Encyclopedia Britannica, if you will; IMO, if you find yourself being politer than the EB, you may have a tone problem. But I absolutely did not intend to remove all "hints of positive aspects". Do you find my version to contain preponderantly negative aspects, or a negative tone? If it sounds like that, it's not intentional. Again, I'm very sorry my edit appears as destructive. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC).
Thank you for the explanation. You are right in the sense that I didn't provide footnotes or links at the time of editing, simply because back then almost nobody seemed interested in the article and thus I just took some time to sum up what I had read about him and write it here. I assure you that those things are verifiable still, and once I find the time I will add sources accordingly. For the time being, I don't intend to enter into a discussion with so many Pahlavi-haters (I'm not talking about you) on this page, simply because I have neither the time, nor energy, nor motivation. Shervink 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

An editor made a revert which had the effect of removing sourced, attributed material, so I reverted it back. It appeared to me that the added material was properly NPOV. -Will Beback

[edit] Title, Intro, etc

OK Thanks for everyone who has been contributing to the article, however as discussed above, he rarely uses his middle name, and although it is appreciated that all mentions of Reza Pahlavi II has been replaced with Reza Cyrus Pahlavi (on this article and everywhere else on wikipedia it seems!), Still, we should make it obvious to the reader that he is infact, what everyone who knows him calls "Reza Pahlavi", therefore can you please stop removing the top part of the article that reads:

This article is about Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, for Reza Shah, his grandfather please see Reza Shah. For other uses please see Reza Pahlavi

If you wish to adjust it, thats something else but to remove it completley for the third time without explanation is just ridiculous. -- - K a s h Talk | email 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on this talk page, on my talk page, and on your talk page, there is no need for such a disambiguation given the current title of the article. Reza Pahlavi is a disambiguation page. None of the other ones go by "Cyrus" at all. No user who reaches this page, either by that disambiguation page or by typing in his correct name could reasonably be expected to be looking for the other two. Additionally, that disambiguation attempts to sneak in the honorific "Prince" which he no longer goes by. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambigulation lines are only used where there is a reasonable chance of confusion. As the article now uses a name unique to only one person, there is zero chance of someone coming here thinking they are going to a completely different name elsewhere. So the disamb line is totally pointless and unnecessary. It was only needed when the article used a name that could be confused with someone else. That no longer applies. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

I've created a {{pretender}} box for pretender pages to pull together information in a uniform infobox that can be used in all similar pages. I have deliberately not placed it at the every top of the page, for NPOV reasons. Office infoboxes like those of monarchs and popes are placed at the top of the page. Pretender isn't a formal title, but a general title used to describe people regarded as the person would be monarch if a monarchy was restored. Giving it identical placing would imply an equality in terms of status for the different boxes. This box is not formal status-orientated but information and co-ordination orientated. Placing it at the end of the first paragraph gives the box a clear visual impact without any POV implications of compatibility with constitutional offices. I've been placing the box in in the same way all over, ie first paragraph down on the right. It also aligns best with the toc box on the left. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The box is fine, but I don't understand your reasoning at all for not placing it at the top of the page. I do not think that placing the box at the top of the page implies equal standing with the monarchy boxes, given that every single infobox is usually placed at the top of the page for aescetic reasons, even for actors, corporations, etc. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the former Crown Prince

I added the text:

  • but now refers to himself as "the former Crown Prince". [citation needed]

Which someone tagged with a citation request. I got that information from the press releases on his website. I can't link to them because the website is all in java. But here is the last paragraph of the second most recent release, June 2005. It's similar to the language in many of the press releases:

  • Reza Pahlavi, who has been leading a campaign of political defiance against the Theocracy of Iran, is the former Crown Prince of Iran. He is an accomplished jet fighter pilot and graduate of US Air Force training program at the former Reese Air Force Base. Author of Winds of Change, The Future of Democracy in Iran, he is a Political Science graduate of the University of Southern California.

Since we say that he declared himself "shahinshah" at 21 we should also mention what he calls himself now. -Will Beback 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair point. So do I. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can he be the son of a shahinshah? The Pahlavis deprived of power all the provincial princes, so Mohammed Reza was an Dictator or only a selfcrowned Shah named himself emperor.

[edit] Title

Good job guys but my concern about this article has not been answered yet, everyone calls him Reza Pahlavi and I do not think his full name is even mentioned on his website, do you think the article's name could be improved at all because currently the article seems to focus too much on his middle name which hardly anyone uses, I have personally listened to dozens of his interview but I do not recall anyone ever calling him that, thanks -- - K a s h Talk | email 08:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but this is not an urgent problem due to redirects and disambiguations. -Will Beback 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No evidence has been produced"

"No evidence has been produced, however, that such an alliance is on the cards, or that they would accept him playing any role in a post-Islamic Republic Iran. "

You must be joking right? All the parties outside Iran are against the regime or else they would be in Iran! However I don't think inclusion of this sentence is necessary. The alliance he is talking about is forming in a month or two in London, it is similar to MEK's National Council of Resistance of Iran, however this alliance is said to be more representitive of the parties rather than just a front face for a specific party.

Also, he has not mentioned in his interview that they would accept him as anything, so why would you mention that there is no evidence of it?!! Give me a break and make this less POV -- - K a s h Talk | email 09:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wordings

Oh my gosh I had a quick look at the wordings and look what I see..

"Criticism of Pahlavi exists beyond the current ruling elite in Iran. "

Oh really, haha! this wording is pathetic. It sounds like the article so far was a critic of Pahlavi, and now there is more to come!

Seriously, we have some POV issues here. I will leave it to you or I will fix it when I come back -- - K a s h Talk | email 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw accusations of "POV" around. Seri, not every member of the set of all people not an Ayatolla of Iran thinks this guy is the best thing since sliced bread. savidan(talk) (e@) 12:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What exaclty are you talking about? See WP:BLP, it has to follow NPOV and also use credible sources not one interview. -- - K a s h Talk | email 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"(elections he calls "undemocratic")" This phrasing implies that he actually used the word undemocratic, for which there should be a source. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine

If Pahlavi is criticised then that criticism belongs in the article. Biographical articles include both positives and negatives. This is a biography, not a hagiography. In my view the magazine article is unfair. But its comments do reflect some people's opinions on the guy and so have to be included, as indeed should praise of the guy. Deleting criticism, or praise, once it is sourced, is not how one writes a biography. Not including criticism is not an option under NPOV. It would be nice if Kash could stick to being constructive in this page rather than just constantly deleting things that don't reflect his opinion or agenda. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the POV is properly quoted and sourced there is nothing to discuss. The reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability. --- Melca 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kash's behaviour is getting odder. Now he asks for a citation of the statement that criticism of Pahlavi exists outside the ruling elite in Iran. The entire paragraph is referring to criticism in a magazine. That does rather show that there is criticism of Pahlavi outside Iran's ruling elite, as the left wing magazine isn't produced by Iran's ruling elite but in the US. Putting in a demand for a citation in a paragraph which proves the truth of the first line is perverse at best, vandalism at worst. Kash's antics here are increasingly bizarre. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you assume good faith especially since you are apparently an admin, very bizaarre indeed -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please everybody, let's not talk about each other, let's just talk about the article. Kash, what was it that you wanted verified? -Will Beback 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said currently I have problem with the title of the article, as well as how it has been set out as a criticism of him. Why is one american left wing criticism of him should be included in this article? Especially under its own section and with wordings such as I stated that I have problems above. Secondly, "current ruling elite of Iran" sounds wrong as well and needs better wording. -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's stick with the {fact} request. If "current ruling elite of Iran" isn't right then what would be better? I think the idea we are trying to express is that there is opposition to Pahlavi both inside and outside the country. -Will Beback 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the critic, why wouldn't we include him? -Will Beback 00:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean lets stick with the fact request?! There are problems with the page and they should be sorted out! -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't fix everything at once. This section is devote to discussing one paragraph. The section above is devoted to the title. -Will Beback 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Kash, They are current. They do rule and they are an elite. It is a standard phrase used in articles on WP and elsewhere to refer to . . . current ruling elites!!!
Given past blanket deletions of verifiable facts, allegations of republican bias and reverts to highly POV edits it is somewhat hard to keep assuming good faith. At this stage I see nothing to presume good faith about, just perverse edits such as demanding citations for something that the following lines explicitly confirm. I had added in sourced stuff critical of Pahlavi and sourced stuff praising him, information claiming that he is dismissed as a potential influencer of the future of Iran and quotes from people in Iran indicating interest in him as a potential influencer. As I find information, positive or negative, I add it in. It is frustating then to be accused of bias when unlike original writers of the article I have backed up additions, both supportive and critical, with detailed sources. This article had not a single footnote when I came to it first. Now it has detailed footnotes sourcing the BBC, Wall Street Journal, supportive sites, critical sites, etc. It would be a nice change if instead of blanking text and adding in dodgy {{fact}} templates Kash actually contributed NPOV text to the page rather than removing and disputing anything that is not biased towards one side of the argument. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop saying my name, I really don't have time to deal with your personalization of the matter. You assumed bad faith from your very first edit here, I even have evidence of you spamming other user's talk pages posting accusations of "Iranian monarchists pushing POV" while referring to me. -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
OK Under this section:
  • "Current ruling elite of Iran", What does that even mean?! Who is really, the "current ruling elite" of Iran? I suggest something easier to read, if its something thats already mentioned in the article, does it have to be repeated again? if not, please remove it.
  • Two: Why is this one magazine article deserve to be mentioned? What is it's significance beside being one critic of him? Is there really any point of having a section devoted to it? -- - K a s h Talk | email 00:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved this comments down because these threads within threads are unnecessarily confusing (to me, at least). The only reason we have "current ruling elite" in the sentence is to say that they aren't the only critics of Pahlavi. I don't think we need that clause, the sentence would be just as sensible if it read something like, "Pahalvi also has critics in the United States." Regarding the second point, why shouldn't we mention this critic? "Counterpunch" is a well-known political publication. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that we include all points of view. Inevitably, this article concerns both Pahlavi and the restoration of the Iranian monarchy. -Will Beback 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that he probably has more praises than criticisms in USA. He has major following there, so that sentence may confuse the reader. How about the truth of it, which is "There is one published critic of Reza Pahlavi in united states"?! You see where we are going with this? I think if we are going to include that criticism we should include something that balances it out. Perhaps his charitable work. He spent the last Norouz by a surprise turn up in London where there were a few immigrant families living together in a flat -- - K a s h Talk | email 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If we have a reliable source for his charitable works those should be included too. -Will Beback 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Im sure there is more than one published critic of Reza Pahlavi in the US. This article is in no way finished yet. And i dont see how just visiting a few immigrant families can be considered "charitable work". Did he donate money or did he arrange for them to live in a bigger flat e.g. Can you be more specific? --- Melca 08:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he donated money to each family, but more importantly Norouz is the new year festival established for noble families from around the Persian empire to visit the king and bring gifts. Reza did the opposite by going to the poor families and spend the norouz with them instead thats the real significant thing about it really. -- - K a s h Talk | email 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "for every bad thing we say about him we have to say something nice." All that matters is notability and verifiability. The inclusion of his charitable work or anything else is a separate issue, which you should not try to horse trade. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretender of iranian throne a son of a Shah-en-shah without Shahs?

My opinion: Why not an empress? His sister! It's an iranian throne, here is only important who is better for the job and more popular! So I ask me why a pahlavi prince? Iran has so many princes and anyhow it could be also a totally new one! Why only one prince? Could not be several princes in the modern-day the representants of the iranian monarchy? A Shah-en-shah we do'nt need in a democracy but princes which help to represent and to market their cities and provinces in the world and have the respect and the power of their tribes can be a additional complementary column of an better future democracy. So I think the monarchists should only focus on their tribe-prince to give him a power and make him more known in the adequate region as a additional direct voice of the people. —, 2006 May 15 (UTC)

[edit] A Comeback

Should not be mentioned also the former relations of the Pahlavi family? Which relation exists with the german-iranian prince of Birjand 'Shah Seyyed Marcel Kazemi', the sons of premier Alam or the sons of Shah Kalil Bachtiary (think about the german-iranian princess Soraya) today and in history? Please view therefor the german wikipedia. It's more extensive. Why the jordan royal family, which is friend with the Pahlavis, wanted only the Prince Marcel for princesses Raiyah and Haya? Even princess Madeleine of Sweden wanted him! Why no Pahlavi prince? With Princess Raiyah he should be an honorary doctor and jordanian admiral! Also the airport should be renamed and money he should be got. Why he rejected the marriage offer? Only because the princess Haya and Raiyah were not virginal? Is it so important for an iranian prince? Had Reza Pahlavi any influence? After his reject Haya had a forced marriage with the prince of Dubai because she would 30 and in islam this is the max age for marriage. Only Raiyah is still free. So the Pahlavi era is maybe forever past if she would be also forced marriage! Or is there any hope that the children of Reza Pahlavi would have new chances? —Hans Y 12:13, 2006 May 12 (UTC)

Is the vegetarian prince Marcel the prince of the arabs in south Chorasan or also of all Sagarthian? He is also a member of the emperor court, so he can be competitor of the empire throne! — 13:27, 2006 May 15 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG assertion by "prominent pro-reform journalist" Mashallah Shamsolvaezin visavis AFP

Wrong! In Spain it was actually General Franco himself who had destined Don Juan Carlos de Borbon to rule, as his successor, and to reassume the throne that his grandfather had abdicated. Juan Carlos ascended upon the death of the Generalissimo. Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As a favor for Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali, I will note that I was incorrect in my revert commentary by calling his previous edit to the article "vandalism." I had believed that it was vandalism until I noticed that he is a new user and instructed him on the proper usage of edits and the article talk page. Unfortunately, I cannot go back and edit the comments made on old edit histories. My apologies. User was not warned for vandalism. --Strothra 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Has this been fixed? I'm not quite sure I understand what the mistake is. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretender

Why "pretender"? Thats not a neutral word and for people can be hard to understand. He claims a throne thats not there anymore but also says that its up to Iranian people if constitutional monarchy is restored and who becomes monarch so "pretender" doesnt seem right. Khorshid 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See the article on pretender. It's the term of art for someone who is the head of the royal house but not currently on the throne. As I explained in my edit summary, claimnant is when there are multiple people who claim the same throne. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There could be some Qajar or Safavi who claims the throne. Its possible at least even if they are lunatic. The problem with "pretender" is that for many people it could give a wrong impression. I know this is english wikipedia but many people here are not native speaker so idioms like "pretender" can give a wrong idea and maybe taken as insult. I think there must be a better word to use. Khorshid 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Theres a link to the pretender article which generally indicates its a term of art. I can find no verification of any other claimants. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no other word to use. Pretender is the standard word used in English to describe a claimant to a throne. This is English Wikipedia so the standard English word has to be used. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, it would ultimatly be more appropriate to describe his claim to the throne rather that assigning such a term to him which clearly has neutrality issues. There's no official title for him in Persian or in English and there's nothing which says that it's appropriate to call him the pretender to the throne. In order to settle the neutrality discussion it would be better to just state "Pahlavi claims to be the successor to the throne." There is nothing incorrect or POV about that statement. Your desire for brevity is laudable, but it does not seem possible to be concise in both length and meaning by using "pretender."--Strothra 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no neutrality issues with pretender. It is used the world over in many languages. If people don't understand it they can follow the link. That is what links are there for. Wikipedia does not follow a policy of avoiding standard terminology simply because someone won't understand it. They link it to allow them to learn. Given that other pretenders the world over are called pretenders, why is there a problem with calling the Iranian pretender a pretender? As to your proposed sentence, it is factually incorrect. (i) he doesn't claim to be anything. He was the heir apparent to the last shah. (ii) There is no throne to be a successor to. Pretender covers both of these accurately (it simply means the person who would be monarch), which is why the term is used worldwide, in many languages. Wikipedia would look odd being the only one not to use what is a standard term. And Reza Pahlavi would look very strange not being described in the standard form of language used to describe pretenders the world over. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You just stated "he doesn't claim to be anything. He was the heir apparent to the last shah." Then, how can you claim that he is then a pretender? You can't ascribe a verb to someone who isn't doing anything. --Strothra 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As has been explained to you extensively, Reza doesn't have to do anything to be a pretender other than the head of a deposed royal house. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true then there would be sources which use this word, but I can find none except 884 links on google many which seem to be copies of this article on the web. it is also not neutral because the man in question would not describe himself as "pretender" or agree that he is a "pretender". I suggest "Reza Pahlavi claims to be the heir to the throne of Iran, which was abolished after 1979". it is only one sentence and it does not take up space. maybe other articles about dynastic heirs to abolished thrones should do this too because "pretender" does not sound neutral. Khorshid 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
also i dont know about other languages but in persian we dont have equivalent of "pretender" (not in this use anyway, as to "pretend" - "claim" is different and not the same). Khorshid 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That text is probably ok for the intro, but the term "pretender" is used elsewhere, such as the category:pretenders, where that compromise isn't practical. Though the term has a possible meaning of "chartlatan", that isn't the meaning used here. As User:Jtdirl has pointed out, it's a technical term used for people in the subject's position. -Will Beback 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is about as ridiculous as people who claim that the word "niggardly" is racist. As you will see in the pretender article, in the original French there is no implication of the claim being correct or not. How the person would describe themselves is never a necessary criteria for NPOV. For example, all anti-Popes are described as such even though they would claim to be the actual Pope. Lets focus on actually improving this article rather than arguing over whether the English language itself is biased against the subject of the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 13:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is with much regret that i see that you do not take my comments seriously or with care. it is disappointing the lack of humanity and those who refuse to listen with an ear. it is regretful. Khorshid 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes we take them seriously. The trouble is that they are seriously misinformed. We cannot base an article on your misunderstanding of a standard widely used term. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus

All documents I have seen published in European languages during his father's reign refer to him as Prince Cyrus Raza. This sounds in line with Mohammad Reza Shah's admiration for Cyrus the Great. I haven't however, seen any usage of the name Cyrus in Persian texts refering to the prince. ~mirfakhr

Is there any evidence or source asserting that he indeed has the middle name Cyrus? Has he ever used it? I haven't seen such a thing in any credible or solid source so far, so I think it should be removed from the page if there is no evidence to support it. Shervink 09:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

From what I understand his real name is "Reza Pahlavi II" or "Reza Pahlavi the 2nd". I think that is actually his legal birth name. I have never heard this "Cyrus" before either. Khorshid 04:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regnal Name in box

he doesn't claim this name nor any royal title, as per his own website ... supporters call him Reza II, but that shouldn't be in the box ... Mowens35 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former

How can one be a Crown Prince when there's no crown? Why would we call Reza the Crown Prince when he calls himself the "former Crown Prince"? What exact policy requires we give him an inaccurate and unused title? -Will Beback 11:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I see your point, perhaps we should say the Last Crown Prince, see guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), he should definitely be referred to as Crown Prince, however. (Couter-revolutionary 11:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) does not cover this situation directly. It says that deposed monarchs should get one treatment, but this is not a deposed monarch. Elsewhere it discusses pretenders, but since he doesn't claim the title he isn't really a pretender. Since he calls himself the "former Crown Prince" I think it's best if we do as well. If he decides to claim the Peacock Throne we're ready to change that, but for the time being he appears to style himself as a commoner. -Will Beback 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, "naming conventions" are guidelines about the naming of articles, not the naming of people. We've named this article "Reza Cyrus Pahlavi". The conventions do not directly address how to refer to a person within the body of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) addresses usage withing an article, but again there isn't anything which obviously covers this case. -Will Beback 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Motives Section

I really fail to see, having read through this section, how it could ever possible apply to a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. It is clearly bias and I propose it be removed. If no one comments then I shall remove it. (Couter-revolutionary 00:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

I don't object. It seems like a lot of space to devote to one marginal critic. -Will Beback 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving article

Reza Cyrus Pahlavi → Reza Pahlavi.

  1. Most importantly, he does not refer to himself by this name, and no where on his official website http://www.rezapahlavi.org/ is there such middle name used.
  2. There are no sources to confirm that this is part of his name, or that it is his middle name.

So I am going to request to move this article to Reza Pahlavi --Rayis 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Please cast your vote here --Rayis 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally in favor of this proposal. Adding the (never used, unsourced, and possibly fictional) middle name was a very bad idea anyway. I'm not sure I understand the voting procedure at the link you give above, though. (?) Shervink 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)shervink
The page has been moved, so I'm removing the request listing at WP:RM. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest Reza Pahlavi II. --Kaaveh 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Naturally, thats probably the best name however due to a few wikipedians strongly opposing this title, it was renamed --Rayis 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Reza Pahlavi II is naturally the best choice, and I still don't understand what the problem with it was! Shervink 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pahlavi coat of arms.jpg

Image:Pahlavi coat of arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pahlavi coat of arms.jpg

Image:Pahlavi coat of arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The removal of the "Prospects of a royal restoration" section

IMO User:Affirmation was quite right to remove the speculative section "Prospects of a royal restoration". It's obviously slanted, and certainly not "well sourced" as BananaFiend claims. It is true that the speculations come via the BBC and the Wall Street Journal, which are of course, as such, reliable sources—but these publications don't make any claims about the "prospects", from themselves, they merely quote, and quote some very poor sources. Neither Rob Sobhani nor an anonymous 17-year-old student (!) become reliable sources by virtue of being quoted by the BBC or the Wall Street Journal! Obviously, it's possible to find Iranians who say that Iran is "thirsty for leadership" or that Pahlavi spoke "beautifully"—it would be very odd indeed if you couldn't find some who thought so. Putting it into the Wikipedia article isn't "well-sourced" and isn't "information: it's mere propaganda.
On the other hand, the statements of Pahlavi himself quoted in this section, for instance in the Frost interview, are information, and could well fit into the article. But not under such a heading as "Prospects of a royal restoration"! I have removed the section again. Please be reasonable and don't keep restoring that very poor section, which lowers the article's quality. Use the usable information contained in the section elsewhere in the article instead, that's the encyclopedic way to go. Little Stupid (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

I removed the section because it referenced reliable sources and there was very little explanation of it's removal - I mentinoed that there should be some discussion, and there has been - I will not be removing it again. BananaFiend (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, BananaFiend. I appreciate your open-minded response. Little Stupid (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC).