Jump to content

Talk:Ali Reza Pahlavi (born 1966)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

Name without birthyear redirects here... savidan(talk) (e@) 07:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince"

[edit]

I moved it back to this title. Please propose a move if you want to change the title of the page. This is non-standard and there is no consensus for including honorifics like Prince in the titles of articles, especially for deposed monarchs. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

To be exact, he studied Old Iranian philology, mostly concentrating on Old Persian, with Prof. P. Oktor Skjaervo at Harvard. I don't have references, but know personally that he actually finished in 2005 and holds a PhD now.--69.228.208.202 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

We need sources, specifically third-party independent reliable sources where he is the primary subject in order to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Note that WP:ROYAL was rejected so there is no proposal to pretend is policy. The Behnam 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! The man was second in line to a throne. He didn't have to do much for it but that's how royalty works! He is by virtue of his name notable enough. "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition.", to put it in WP:BIO terms. And please don't argue with me over the demonstrable thing. Anyone remotely familiar with Iran's history recognizes the name easily, as you will undoubtedly agree. Shervink 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Peacock Throne anymore for anyone to be in line for. However I agree that the subject is a notable pretender. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

How has "He was unmarried and has no issue" survived since April 2010?

Alleged pregnancy

[edit]

Is it known if his fiancee is allegedly pregnant with a boy or a girl?. СЛУЖБА (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

This picture is of crown prince reza pahlavi at his father's coronation in 1967, and not of alireza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmdsivine (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this (and asked about it on the picture's Commons talk page, but no one's responded). I'm going to go ahead and remove the image – if I'm mistaken, of course, please feel free to restore it. Alkari (?), 22 April 2011, 06:44 UTC

""Like millions of young Iranians, he too was deeply disturbed by all the ills fallen upon his beloved homeland.."

Yeah, right, he was so disturbed and sympathetic of the cause and struggle of his people for freedom and constitutional rights that he killed himself...yeah, what a load of garbage coming from the mouth of a scoundrel that recently signed a deal with american and israeli neocons

Daughter

[edit]

I have added a fact tag to the article as I would like to know where has it been announced his daughter will be titled a Princess by the Imperial Family. All that is known and verifiable is that her first names are Iryana Leila. We don't even know her surname. - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on the editor adding the material. Saying that a person automatically receives a (defunct) title is an assumption which needs an actual source otherwise it violates WP:NOR.  Will Beback  talk 
This is a double standard that reminds me of the "birther" uproar. Every other descendent is given such a title and wikipedia mentionings are consistant with that. You suggested earlier you believe this is in doubt because "the parents were not married." Do you have any basis for this? This is why the burden ion you. brilliancetime (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives them these titles, and by what authority? If this is well-known then a source should be available. If we are making that determination on our own, then that's original research.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Pahlavi has no formal process of designation of such titles. They have been inherited by tradition. Every family member born since that time has been given these titles without some sort of ritualist certification, and this has been the case. DWC LR raised objection - exactly wording this: "parents were never married" - this call objection to the rule by DWC LR is not backed by anything or any precedent. So again, why is this individuals title in question...? It's not. Either she's a Princess or none of these kids are. brilliancetime (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's important are sources, not arguments. We need a specific source that either says this person is a princess, or that the daughters Ali-Reza Pahlavi are automatically princesses. What you're giving us here are just claims and conclusions without any support.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Female descendants of the sovereign, in the male line: Vala Hazrat Shahdokht (personal name), i.e. Princess, with the style of Her Imperial Highness." [1] Sources cited on the page. Case closed. brilliancetime (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The website Royal Ark talks about 'legitimate' descendants and Genealogical Gleanings which you yourself used as a source at the line of succession article does not give her a title[2] but regardless of these I have not seen a single source saying she is a princess. A source can be provided to give a title for every other descendant. - dwc lr (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The provisions of succession as exhibited on the website Royal Ark do not support your claim that she would be excluded from the Princess title. I agree, what matters are sources, not DWC's questioning of out of wedlock children with no source, and at that very source is this: "STYLES & TITLES: ... Female descendants of the sovereign, in the male line: Vala Hazrat Shahdokht (personal name), i.e. Princess, with the style of Her Imperial Highness." [1]There is nothing that excludes a female descendent from such a title, simply because her parents were not married. Ergo, she, the granddaughter of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, is a Princess. Are we done here? brilliancetime (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases illegitimate offspring do not have titles like Royal Ark indicates for the Princes and I would imagine also applies to Princesses. All I want to see is a soucre referring to her as 'Princess Iryana Leila' so far every source I have seen does not refer to her as such. - dwc lr (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In most cases" have nothing to do with the rules of this House so you have no basis to make this exclusion. All you have is an assumption. In the line before I quoted, as you just mentioned, discriminates the title of a legitimate/illegitimate male descendant, but does not apply that same discrimination for legitimate/illegitimate female children. What you are asking for is excessive, especially considering the timing (she was just born). The rules of the House give her that title. There is not a single source which would call that into question. Given that the same source, in the exact previous line makes a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate removes any aura of ambiguity or possibility of it being open-ended (meaning you can't argue that the source is perhaps listing generalities and doesn't refer to specific bylaws about legitimate/illegitimate children). Thus there is every reason to include "Princess" and no reasonable or even a 'reaching' question to exclude it. brilliancetime (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogical Gleanings which you presumably accept as a reliable source as you cited it elsewhere explicitly does not give a title to Alireza’s daughter and Royal Ark does not list her at all, and I very much doubt that to be a Prince you have to be born in wedlock but to be a princess you can be born out of it and still be a princess. So far we have one source that explicitly denies her a title while not a single one gives her a title. As not a single source has called her Princess Iryana Lelia it is better to remove this title for the time being until the situation becomes clearer rather than create a false impression. So unless a source can be shown actually referring to her as a princess Wikipeida should not attribute this title to her. - dwc lr (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you "think" or "doubt" or "feel" - what matters is evidence, and this particular piece of evidence shows discrimination to the inheritance when discrimination is due - and it shows that the rules do not discriminate for females - even though it does for males. Period. If it didn't talk about discrimination at all you would have a tiny bit of a weak case to make, which wouldn't be valid anyway because of the burden-of-proof would be put onto you still, but that's not the case here (Not that it matters for this issue but for your own benefit of understanding, it seems logical as perhaps an illegitimate male would want to be kept out from ascending to the throne, should some Shah impregnate a woman 'on the side' or even if someone just claimed that to be so) The Genealogical Gleanings site, which I cited for another page edit and matter entirely, has obviously not been updated if Iryana Leila has not been listed AT ALL and thus is irrelevant in this matter entirely - I'm sure you would agree unless you want to posit the idea that she is not the daughter of Ali Reza at all, and that Genealogical Gleanings site omission of her is evidence to that. It seems as though you are determined to keep the title away regardless of any rational reasoning towards the matter. The facts are facts and unless you can back what you "think" and "feel" please stop editing what is sourced from the facts. Your argument has gone from first saying nothing indicates she's a princess. Then I brought up how her cousins are princes and princesses that inherited the title. Then you said, it could be different for her because she was born out of wedlock. Then I showed a source discussing title inheritance, which even indicates the differences between illegitimate and legitimate title inheritance. Now you're saying thats not enough? You want WHO to say the word princess? We already have that source. It's the source that says she inherited that title. You will only find things to further confirm this not dispute it. You're going after Obama's citizenship with a long form birth certificate in doubt - it's needless and excessive. brilliancetime (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course my views and so on are irrelevance what matters is what sources say. And I said Genealogical Gleanings lists her without any title, Royal Ark does not list her at all. Why would Genealogical Gleanings not give a title to her when it gives one to every single other person if she is definitely a princess like you say? - dwc lr (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the fact that she is not listed in those sources at all does not help your case - obviously she exists - it just makes those sources irrelevant to your point entirely. This is a classic logical fallacy - you are using the lack of an update on this source (less than TWO WEEKS mind you) as evidence of a false positive. If you are not aware, it wasn't until August 5th 2011 that her very conception, let alone birth on July 26th, was announced. You cannot expect these sources to have updated themselves within that time for any one reason. Her existence would be listed no matter what. You cannot presume she was deliberately excluded vis a vis her illegitimacy. What we DO have from those sources are the rules of inheritance which grant her that title, without exception. brilliancetime (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The modern presumption for transmission of titles by inheritance is legitimacy. Indeed, that is so much the case that it is not customary to actually state it when describing the rules of inheritance. A credible source referring to her specifically as "Princess" is needed, at a minimum, to rebut that presumption. FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In THIS case, legitimacy IS factored into the rules, explicitly, and exclusions are made on that basis. As such, this source shows that legitimacy (or illegitimacy) does not caveat the titular inheritance right of a female, as it does for a male. So that lingering question is irrelevant in this case, as the rules DO break with what you say is 'not customary' and in fact explicitly factor the subject of legitimacy. If the source had omitted the subject of legitimacy entirely, you would have a tiny bit more of a point which would be defeated by the hard positive permits of the rule, but that is not the case here. Any other source would extract the same conclusion - these rules show that she has fulfilled all necessary and sufficient qualifications to that title. brilliancetime (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make this more explicit, and to avoid needing a citation request tag in an infobox, I've added a line to the article saying the daughter has the title of princess. However that still needs a citation and if one cannot be found then the title should be removed from both locations.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case it comes up, "GENEALOGICAL GLEANINGS" is a one-person, self-published website that would not qualify as a reliable source.[3]   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No source would take a different deduction. The rules are there, and as such, information can be extracted - no original research necessary. This whole objection began in the first place becasue DWCLR scratched his head about legitimacy. That matter is settled, via a source. What's left to prove? brilliancetime (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the source to the article in the appropriate location.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "the Royal Ark" is also a self-published website.[4] It cannot be used as a source either.  Will Beback  talk  00:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #Self-published royalty websites to get community feedback on the use of these two websites as sources about a living person.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion leads to only one logical conclusion. Unless there is an official announcement to the contrary, Iryana Leila is not to be described as a Princess or a Pahlavi.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.royalark.net/Persia/pahlavi.htm
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ali-Reza Pahlavi. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ali-Reza Pahlavi. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

[edit]

I have noticed that there are two different birth dates for Ali-Reza in his Wikidata item (April 28 and July 28). The later date had Internet Movie Database as source. I did some research and found that www.farahpahlavi.org also writes different birth dates for him in different pages. However, this photo of a very young Ali-Reza was taken on May 11, so I guess it is safe to assume that July 28 is wrong. /Esquilo (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Reza_Pahlavi_(born_1966)&oldid=1204499347"