Jump to content

Talk:Khosrow I

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

Untitled

[edit]

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

---This page is being re-directed from the page on Tiridates III of Armenia - Khosrau I is NOT Tiridates's father, in fact he lived hundreds of years later - yet another example of Wikipedia being a nice theory but a poor reality - the fact is, when you get amateurs doing things, the results are, well, amateurish. I'm going back to the specialists, I've just had enough of wiki unreliability. Anybody can edit wiki? Well, yes, anybody ca. Sorry, wikiheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.137.147 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

[edit]

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

Backgammon and Chess

[edit]

The "Gozaresh-e Shatranj" story is not authentic and as Touraj Daryayee suggests both games were inventions of Indians.31.57.235.65 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess certainly is. The name "shatranj" does not make sense in Persian, but its Sanskrit name "Chatur-anga" means "four-limbed; army". See Chess#History for the history. The fact that widely different variants of chess are present in China and Japan also points to an Indian rather than Persian origin. If chess had travelled from Iran to China in Mongol times, Chinese chess would not be so different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curryfranke (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]
7th-century Sassanid artwork
anonymous illustrator's work, c.1900

User:HistoryOfIran recently removed the image the image File:ChosroesHuntingScene.JPG from the infobox, where it had been used for a long time, and inserted File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg in its place, and has now reverted his new image back in another time [1]. I am strongly in favour of returning to the old image.

File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg is an artistically worthless, anonymous dime-a-dozen piece by a particularly untalented modern book illustrator of the late 19th century, drawn in an ahistoric, epigonic Europeanizing style and of no historical value whatsoever. In contrast, File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg is an impressive work of art and an authentic near-contemporary artifact from the subject's own cultural sphere. This work actually shows us something valuable about Khosrau's place in history, i.e. how he was regarded by his own environment and immediate descendants. The nineteenth-century scribble shows us nothing.

The argument that the drawing "shows more detail" [2] is unconvincing, as none of the graphical detail in the drawing has any documentary value. Needless to say, neither of the two depictions has any value in showing what this person actually looked like, and that should of course not be what we're looking for when using such a picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by European style? the drawing is clearly Iranian style, look on the clothing and on the crown. File:KhosrauAnushirvanIranian.jpg is a much better picture because it shows clearly how he looked like, the drawing is based on his own coins. Much better than File:ChosroesHuntingScene.JPG which is a unclear picture of Khosrau I. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm not talking about the style of the stuff he wears. I'm talking about the style and technique of the drawing itself. You don't know much about art history, do you? Well, let me inform you that this drawing has "made by a mediocre European book illustrator in the late 19th century" written all over it. And if you think it shows what he looked like because it was modelled on ancient coins, then why not use the originals right away and display one of those coins? They too would make for a much more authentic kind of depiction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those coins are not detailed nor high quality compared to the artwork, and i don't really see any problem with the way the picture was drawn, since it looks good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk page instead of stopping to reply and then edit it back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If we can't agree with each others then lets ask other admins opinion. Since your opinion is not more superior than mine neither is mine opinion more superior than yours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a solution you may also like, why not put this picture on --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fascistic style architecture? ah come on, architecture is architecture, you are not making it easier here, i don't understand why you want a old and bad detailed picture instead of two other good quality pictures. I think it's better to ask for other admin opinions so they can decide. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been here in a longer time than me, can you do it in a way so other admins can decide? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alright. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: which infobox image?

[edit]
  • contemporary coin
    contemporary coin
  • 7th-century Sassanid artwork
    7th-century Sassanid artwork
  • 19th-century illustration, based on the coin of Khosrau I
    19th-century illustration, based on the coin of Khosrau I
  • 20th-century Tehran monument
    20th-century Tehran monument
Note that I have widened the scope of this RfC, adding question (b), since an editor has now insisted on inserting the 19th-century drawing further down in the article, after seeing that consensus was against using it in the box. My objections are directed against any use of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for historical persons, it is always better to use contemporary or near-contemporary images. Even if they are not photographically accurate, at least they present a contemporary image that helps us see how the person was perceived (or at least, how it wanted to be portrayed). As Fut. Perf. says above, the modern images say more about modern perceptions of Khosrau and the roles intended for him at various times in the official modern Iranian historical narrative. And as modern images either way take their stock portrayal of the great shah from Sassanian-era portrayals, it is silly not to use them in the first place but rely on second-hand modern depictions. Between the coin(s) and the dish, I would favour the dish as visually more impressive. --Constantine ✍ 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the artwork is not so clear. ,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since none of the available images tell us much about what Khosrau I looked like, it might be simpler to not include an image in the lead at all (per WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic"). If there must be an image, I agree contemporary is better. I can't even make out the figure of a person in the thumbnail of the dish, so I'd go for the coin, if the right-hand side of the image can be cropped out. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coin is unsourced. Who says it is Khosroe? ,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numismatic website we got the image from, which for these kinds of questions can normally be considered reliable enough. There are many images of similar coins on the web, all with the same type of inscription and symbols, so it appears these can be quite reliably identified. Very similar ones are on display here: [4][5], and this one on the website of the British Museum: [6]. The British Museum page actually provides a transliteration and translation of the inscription on their coin; the letters on the right side are in fact the name "Khosraw", and if you look closely you will recognize that the letters on our image are the same. (Pointing that out would of course be OR if we did it in the article; I'm just saying it here to show that there is no particular reason to doubt the identification we got from our source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the coin, although I'd also settle for the 7th-century artwork at a pinch. Definitely not the modern depictions though. --Folantin (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coin or plate are most appropriate for infobox because both are ancient objects. Considering question (b), I found Fut.Perf. little bit "too much professional" about such issues (which doesn't imply he's wrong, of course). because for example even scholary websites like Livius sometimes puts not-so relevant images (see Otanes or Cyaxares). If image was made by some lad then I would be against any kind of use, but in this case we're talking about historically valuable drawing from notable Iranian Qajar historian. Drawing is modeled on "primary" pictorial representations (coin) so it's not irrelevant like European paintings which are used in tens articles about ancient persons. With precise description, usage is fine. --HistorNE (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "historically valuable drawing from notable Iranian Qajar historian"? It's a drawing found in a book by a notable historian, but it was made by some non-notable and decidedly mediocre Viennese illustrator, so yes, it's another case of "some European guy". The Livius website you cite for comparison is not a professional academic source, so whatever it chooses to do is of no concern to us either; moreover, the examples you point out are again not modern illustrations of this type, so they are not comparable. Just show me a professional modern reference work that uses images like these. None of them do; it would make them look ridiculously amateurish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for explanation. As I said, you're not "wrong", maybe just "too much right". :) If guideline about such issues don't exist I strongly suggest you to write it so we can insert it in similar articles - for example I found similar image-cases in Alexander the Great, Xerxes I of Persia, Tomyris, etc. --HistorNE (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we have any guidelines for this; it's just a matter of editorial consensus and common sense. I've sometimes thought about writing an essay with my personal recommendations for these kinds of situations, but I'm not sure I'll get to it any time soon. I'm also not particularly thrilled about the other examples you showed, but at least they are artistically a little bit better, and they are used to illustrate specific stories and events rather than offering just a random disconnected depiction of the person in question, which to me makes them at least a bit less objectionable somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The coin is the best choice. It's contemporary and sadly, for depictions this old this is sometimes the most detailed verified image available. Numismatics are often a good primary source for stuff like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think we can call it a consensus in favour of the coin by now. The disc is aesthetically more impressive, but I now think the anon editor who wrote the first comment at the very top of this page may have had a point – there's a suspicion this might not actually be Khosrau I but Khosrau II (given the date and the symbols, shape of crown and so on). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Khosrau I to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khosrow I → Khosrow I Anushirvan – His epithet of Anushirvan (different variants being Nowshirvan, Anushiruwan, Anushirwan, Anoshirvan, etc) gets mentioned along with his name the majority of the time. Some examples being; Iranica [7] Cambridge History of Iran [8] The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History [9] and [10]. Reliable sources (e.g. JSTOR, BrillOnline) generally illustrate that the epithet "Anushirvan" always refers to "Khosrow I". According to Brill's New Pauly for example, "Anushirvan" (Khosrow I) was "the most important Sassanid king".[11]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge and Iranica references mainly call him Khusrau or Ḵosrow I without the epithet. No doubt the epithet corresponds to this king, but I'm not convinced that the proposed name is the most common name in English-language sources. There's an article already at Anushirwan which perhaps should be moved to Anushirwan Khan (if "Khan" is good enough here to disambiguate), and the resulting redirect retargeted to the DAB at Anushirvan, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But.. the proposed name is the most common name, I just showed various sources that prove so.. lol. Also, I proposed the name to be changed to Khosrow I Anushirvan, not Anushirvan, the article of Anushirwan has no relevance whatsoever here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most common name used in those sources is just "Kosrow I" (variously spelled). The Cambridge and Iranica references introduce the person with the full name, but don't use it at every mention. The chapter heading in the Cambridge reference is "Khusrau I and his reforms: Revitalization of the Empire", and in IranicaOnline "Ḵosrow I ii. Reforms".
Considering the wide variation in spelling of "Anushirwan" it is necessary to show that your particular spelling is the most common. For example, one of your references uses "Anoshirvan", another "Anuširwān", and another "Anūsīrvān".
The title Anushirwan is a variant spelling, the article there says the person may be named after this person, so WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT are relevant. I added a hatnote there, because obviously someone searching for "Anushirwan" might want a different one: this one, for example. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aight you're clearly not reading what I've posted. Why does a random fresh IP pop up everytime I request a page move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly have read what you've posted, and checked the references that you posted. The current title is WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, so there's no great incentive to change it. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Information

[edit]

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

A rather biased article.

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khosrow_I&oldid=1194968586"