Talk:Reza Pahlavi


Question about polling methodology and wording on Citation 41

I wanted to flag a concern about the statement:

“In 2024 a poll conducted by an American research institute found that almost 80% of Iranians prefer Pahlavi over the current Islamic Republic leadership.”

The cited poll appears to rely on non-probability, self-selected online sampling, and the question framing does not seem equivalent to a nationally representative preference or vote-choice measure.

Given Wikipedia’s standards on due weight and reliable sourcing, should this claim be qualified to reflect the survey’s methodology, or contrasted with other large-scale surveys (e.g., GAMAAN) that report significantly lower levels of support?

I’m not disputing that the poll exists, only whether the current wording accurately reflects what it can support. ~2026-18644-5 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How? Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By attributing the result more narrowly.
The cited survey appears to use non-probability, self-selected online sampling, so stating that “almost 80% of Iranians prefer Pahlavi” reads as a nationally representative claim.
A more accurate phrasing would be something like “an online survey reported that nearly 80% of respondents expressed a preference for Pahlavi,” or otherwise note the survey’s methodology. ~2026-18644-5 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No issue “an online survey reported that nearly 80% of respondents expressed a preference for Pahlavi,”, anything else has to be supported by an wp:RS and not wp:or . Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks for the response. ~2026-18644-5 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced place of residence

In this edit, a non-extended-confirmed user (Ali Koya Varakkal) added the unsourced information that As of 2026, Pahlavi is based in Potomac, Maryland, United States. I will remove this for now until a source can be provided. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that it's also mentioned nowhere else in the article except for the lede. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect or Misleading Section on Support from US Iranians

The article states in section "Among Iranian expatriates" that"

"85% of respondents [US Iranians] did not support any Iranian opposition groups or figures." Meaning only 15% support opposition.

But in fact the exact opposite is true. Professional polling of US Iranians indicate that only 15% of US Iranians "the U.S. should stay out of the [Woman, Life, Freedom] movement" which was the primary opposition movement in 2025 at the time of the survey.

The relevant poll and above quote is here: https://paaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-National-Survey-Final-Copy.pdf

The article gives the impression that Iranians are 85% in support of the Iranian Regime currently lead by Ayatollah Khamemei. In fact 85% instead support some form of opposition.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-21006-7 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some grammar problem above. I think a verb is missing in the sentence about "only 15% of US Iranians". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2026

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. VampaVampa puts this more succinctly than I can, but this is a clear case of WP:COGNOMEN#7. As per the sources brought up in opposition to the move (!), "former crown prince of Iran" is used as a description rather than a title, bringing it closer to "Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the former Tsar of Bulgaria" than "Edward VIII". If, by some turn of events, Pahlavi accedes to a restored shahdom, then we can revisit it then, but we're not a crystal ball, we deal with things as they are now. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran → Reza Pahlavi – I am re-opening the requested move to the simple article title of Reza Pahlavi, due to how the previous move had some users express support for this title. I am the person who made the previous requested move to this title, and several users who expressed opposition simply did not respond to my points, and a non-admin closed the move. This time, hopefully there are more users that participate and cite Wikipedia policy. I will reproduce my previous requested move, but I will update it to address additional concerns:

This title being used in this article's name is in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NCROY. He does not hold any official, legal title. This is because Iran's monarchy has been out of power for over 45 years. Muhammad bin Salman, an official crown prince who exerts power in his country, does not label him "Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia" in the article name. Neither does fa:رضا پهلوی, which has no issue disambiguating the three people whose full name contains "Reza Pahlavi". Both in English and in Persian, since the beginning of the 21st century, people who say "Reza Pahlavi" are unambiguously referring to the man born in 1960. His father is referred to as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and his grandfather is referred to as Reza Shah. WP:NCROY states the following: "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of English-language reliable sources use." Reza Pahlavi himself does not use this title. On his website's "about" page, it merely states that he was "officially named Crown Prince in 1967"[1]. In the news articles promoted on his website there is no consensus. The Persian language articles merely call him "Prince Reza Pahlavi", while the English language articles use phrases such as "last Shah's exiled son" or or "eldest son of the last Shah", while one CBC article does refer to him as an "exiled Crown Prince and son of the last Shah of Iran." Note that this is a curated list of news articles on his own webpage.

For these reasons, I propose:

1. This article's name is moved to Reza Pahlavi, removing the unnecessary disambiguation page.

2. References to "the Crown Prince" in this article should be replaced with appropriate pronouns or his actual name, unless it is a discussion of the title itself.

I've reviewed the previous move requests (from 2018 and earlier), and here's my responses to points raised in previous move requests:

Referring to him as Reza Pahlavi II is not commonly used in news sources. In fact, I've never seen him referred to as such, whether in English or Persian. As stated above, referring to "Reza Pahlavi" in the 21st century unambiguously references this article's subject. For this reason, I oppose any suggestion that this article should instead be moved to Reza Pahlavi II.

Reza Shah, aka Reza Shah Pahlavi, has been dead for over 80 years, and is currently not referred to as "Reza Pahlavi", whether in English or in Persian. Unlike Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shah was not born with the name "Reza Pahlavi", only for a brief period from 1919-1925 did he use the surname Pahlavi without also referring to himself as Shah. For this reason, there is no need to disambiguate "Reza Pahlavi" to distinguish between Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah. The hatnote at the top of this article is sufficient, as it currently the case on Persian Wikipedia.

Other objections:

  • Reza Shah has often been called Reza Pahlavi, and he has much greater historic importance and was the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty.
Wikipedia titles should reflect current usage. As of the 21st century, the man born in 1960 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article. Consider how in the 1988 Republican presidential primary debate, the person who is now called George H. W. Bush was simply referred to as "George Bush". Why? Because at that point, his son was not a notable person. However, In the current era, both father and son are notable persons, and for that reason, their middle names are used to distinguish them. This is noted in the George H. W. Bush article, which says it was in the year 2000 that people began to disambiguate "George Bush." Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Reza Pahlavi is the current primary topic, and his name space should reflect that. There are no sources that contemporaneously refer to anyone other than the man born in 1960 as "Reza Pahlavi."
  • The Iranian monarchy being a thing of the past does not change the fact that this individual was the last heir to it.
This does not justify having unnecessary disambiguation in the article's title. The fact that this individual was the last heir to the Pahlavi dynasty is notable and should be mentioned in the article. It is not required in the article title.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an appropriate justification for the current title. But specifically, the situation with Alexander is quite different. For one, the list of people with the name Alexander is long, as listed at Alexander of Yugoslavia and Alexander of Serbia. Second, a simple Google search makes it clear that there is no single, unambiguous primary topic. Searching "Alexander Karađorđević" on Google and you will find multiple people in the search results, such as Alexander I of Yugoslavia, the aforementioned Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, and Alexander Karađorđević, Prince of Serbia. In contrast, a Google search for "Reza Pahlavi" does not provide any search results beyond the man born in 1960. This makes it totally clear that Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia does need disambiguation, while Reza Pahlavi does not. Nevertheless, I would support a move of that article too, but that can be decided at another time.
Separately, Pavlos is a mononymic person. He does not have a last name. He cannot use the article title Pavlos. I am not fully convinced that this is an appropriate article title, but again, the issue of a mononymic person is clearly different than that of Reza Pahlavi.
  • "Reza Pahlavi" is not clear. It is ambiguous.
If it is really ambiguous, then it should be easy to demonstrate this. Is there any media from the 21st century that uses the name "Reza Pahlavi" to refer to someone other than the man born in 1960?
  • You're only suggesting this because you hate Reza Pahlavi and want to defame him
WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm not interested in any political squabble. My focus is on having an appropriate article title for the subject. Persian Wikipedia has used the article title "رضا پهلوی" without issue for years. No additional disambiguation needed. This is also the case for many other language Wikipedias. I'm not convinced that the situation in the English-language Wikipedia is unique and deserves something special.
  • It's standard for crown princes to have their status as crown prince be mentioned in the article title
No, it's not. See Muhammad bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. And unlike how the monarchy in Iran was abolished, the monarchy is active in Saudi Arabia, with the title crown prince having legal status in Saudi Arabia. In contrast, no royal titles have any legal status in modern-day Iran. JasonMacker (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose:
* Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark, not a mononymous person, he even has other titles (Count of Monpezat), and yet still follows this pattern;
* Hussein, Crown Prince of Jordan, not a mononymous person, uses this pattern;
* Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, not a mononymous person, uses this pattern;
* Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco, not a mononymous person even in the title, uses this pattern;
* Georg, Crown Prince of Saxony, not a mononymous person, not in an active monarchy since he was 25, and yet you did not ask for his entry to be renamed as Friedrich August Georg Ferdinand Albert Karl Anton Paul Marcellus;
* Leka, Crown Prince of Albania, not a mononymous person, not in an active monarchy since he was 4 days old, and yet you did not ask for his entry to be renamed as Leka Skënder Zogu, nor did you raise anything about his son, Leka, Prince of Albania, on how his entry should be renamed as Leka Anwar Zog Reza Baudouin Msiziwe Zogu;
also:
* Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan;
* Danilo, Crown Prince of Montenegro, you didn’t ask for it to be renamed as Danilo Aleksandar Petrović-Njegoš;
* and the heir to the above, Michael, Prince of Montenegro, you didn’t ask for it to be renamed as Michael Petrović-Njegoš of Montenegro;
* even the heir to the above, Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro (born 1944), you didn’t ask for it to be renamed as Nikola Mihajlo Frane Petrović-Njegoš;
* Fumihito, Crown Prince of Japan, he has a specific title, Prince Akishino, still, his entry title remained Fumihito, Crown Prince of Japan;
…
The style, ‘Some names, (Crown) Prince of Some place’ never meant to be disambiguation, and disambiguation should not be expressed in that way (disambiguation should be put in brackets, not following a comma), it is a long adopted title style for members of royal houses, including former royal houses—even after they were in exile for generations, I cannot see any plausible reason why Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran, cannot follow this tradition and must be specifically treated. — Boreas. 00:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you seem to be confused as to what a mononymic/mononymous person is. It means only one name. Names and titles are different things. Names for most people consist of a given name and a surname. A person that only has a given name is a mononymic person. So for your first example, Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark, you incorrectly state that he is not a mononymous person. He only has one name, Christian. He doesn't have a last name. "Crown Prince of Denmark" is a title, not a name. You are correct that Hussein, Crown Prince of Jordan is not mononymous person, but he's following Arabic naming custom, which is to use ism+nasab+nisba (Hussein bin Abdullah Al Hashimi), and his last name would be Al Hashimi if westernized. Reza Pahlavi doesn't follow Arabic naming custom, so it's not relevant. Same is true of Moulay Hassan. Haakon, Georg, Leka, Danilo also have mononymous names.
>you did not ask for his entry to be renamed Because I'm only concerned with this specific article. If other users are interested in changing the names of those articles they're more than welcome to do so.
The fatal flaw with your presentation is that you seem to only be focused on articles that conform to your view, and have completely skipped over Muhammad bin Salman, which I directly mentioned. Why did you ignore that? It's not like he's an exception. A cursory glance at Crown_prince#Monarchies_that_use_the_title_of_crown_prince makes it clear that Wikipedia does not have a definite standard of requiring the use of the title Crown Prince in the article title.
But what makes it especially dubious for Reza Pahlavi is that many reliable sources refer to him as the former Crown Prince (see BBC, The Globe and Mail, i24, Jerusalem Post, etc.). What reliable sources do you have that refer to Reza Pahlavi as the Crown Prince rather than the former Crown Prince, and why should they be given precedence over the ones that call him former Crown Prince? JasonMacker (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
> ︎So for your first example, Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark, you incorrectly state that he is not a mononymous person. He only has one name, Christian.
His name is ‘Christian Valdemar Henri John’ (please read the article, it’s right there), similar to my other examples except for the Japanese one, these European royalties often have very long names instead of just one.
The latter part of my sentence was just want to add that his entry title is following the established naming convention, irrelevant to whether he has other titles or extended titles or not, so he could be ‘Christian Valdemar Henri John, Crown Prince of Denmark, Duke of XXX, Count of XXX, Baron of XXX’, but still, we name his entry as ‘Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark’.
As for your ‘especially dubious’ part, please see below, as I explained, whether he is the crown prince or not is irrelevant, even the Pahlavi dynasty cannot eventually be restored, if we assume 100 years from now on Wikipedia still exist, what will the then article be titled? It’ll be ‘Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran’, and his heir? ‘Some one, Prince of Iran’. Just like the ︎‘Danilo, Crown Prince of Montenegro’, ︎‘Michael, Prince of Montenegro’, and ‘︎Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro (born 1944)’ case.
Besides, it’s not that ‘dubious’ as Encyclopædia Britannica claimed him as ‘Crown Prince of Iran’ in the first line. In fact, it’s you, has been constantly only cite sources supporting your arguments and neglect to the many other contradictions.
So my question still stands, why, do you reckon that this long established naming convention must be abolished altogether, or why, this case must be treated exceptionally? — Boreas. 04:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
>His name is ‘Christian Valdemar Henri John’ (please read the article, it’s right there)
Okay, you seem to be confused. The main issue is that he has no last name. Having a bunch of given names doesn't change the fact that the person cannot be disambiguated just by using his first name. What's critical here is that his name, Christian, cannot be the article title. Now, if you want to argue that "Christian Valdemar Henri John" would be sufficient to identify him, fine, there is an argument to be made there that the article title be changed to that.
More importantly than all of this, you are citing zero Wikipedia policy. You have made zero affirmative argument for why the article shouldn't be titled Reza Pahlavi. As WP:NCROY states, "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English..." The most common name is not based on a single source, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, which you didn't even provide a link for. So let's look at their entry. Would you look at that, their entry is simply "Reza Pahlavi." There is no disambiguity necessary here.
>As for your ‘especially dubious’ part, please see below, as I explained, whether he is the crown prince or not is irrelevant, even the Pahlavi dynasty cannot eventually be restored, if we assume 100 years from now on Wikipedia still exist, what will the then article be titled? It’ll be ‘Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran’, and his heir? ‘Some one, Prince of Iran’. Just like the ︎‘Danilo, Crown Prince of Montenegro’, ︎‘Michael, Prince of Montenegro’, and ‘︎Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro (born 1944)’ case.
This is just an affirmation. There's no argument here that's based on Wikipedia policy.
So my question still stands, why, do you reckon that this long established naming convention must be abolished altogether, or why, this case must be treated exceptionally?
Except it's not "long established." You're just making that up. That's why you're only interested in examples that support your view, rather than searching for or evaluating counter-examples. That's called Confirmation bias. It's also why you're citing zero Wikipedia policy.
>overwhelmingly consisting of Arabic princes which I assume they have their different naming convention.
Again with confirmation bias. Check out Rolando Pinedo Larrea. The view that "Crown Prince" MUST be in the article title is simply false. Also, if you're going to appeal to naming conventions specific to different countries, then provide a source regarding Iran's specific naming conventions, and how they require us at Wikipedia to title the article a certain way. JasonMacker (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And to your list given, you must also discovered that that list is overwhelmingly consisting of Arabic princes which I assume they have their different naming convention. Conventions form implicitly and form through history, but challenging them must have good reasons otherwise we’ll be in a constantly restless changing war, if you use a search engine to search site:wikipedia.org intitle:", crown prince of" or site:wikipedia.org intitle:", prince of", you can see how many entries are following this naming convention, many of them were from abolished monarchies, or even descendants of descendants of abolished monarchies. So the convention is proved to have been long established. — Boreas. 04:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - per WP:COMMONNAME, I see sources refer to Reza Pahlavi as simply "Reza Pahlavi" rather then the "Crown Prince of Iran" part.
GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to add that even if you ask to rename all of them indifferently, I will still oppose every one of them as this has already been a long formed convention. Conventions form implicitly but breaking them must require really good reasons. — Boreas. 00:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Irrespective of the length of your submission, I strongly oppose it, as he was designated Crown Prince of Iran from birth until 1979, a title that remains associated with his name. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with how we should title the article? Muhammad bin Salman is designated Crown Prince, as is Rolando Pinedo Larrea, yet neither of them have "Crown Prince" in their article titles. JasonMacker (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to reply to every comment with your defence. We already know it. Wikipedia is based on community consensus and at the moment you’re not showing willingness to do so. You have to wait and see the outcome of this discussion. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He is clearly motivated even though he denies, and that’s why I stopped replying him. He only raise those few arguments that seem to support him, made up his own explanations of concepts and change them every time to whatever form that he thought would justify him. —like he thought a few exceptions could counter proof a long-lasting naming convention that can be easily proved by a web search, and he certainly seemed cannot understand the concept of ‘convention’ well. Conventions are certainly not ‘binding rules’, but a move like this drifting away from such a long-established convention without good reasons would make this site look biased and side-choosing.
Recent few days saw these people alike are becoming desperate by day since now nearly every piece of news from every reliable media outlet referring him (or introducing him) as former / exiled Crown Prince of Iran. ‘Exiled’ is just an adjective describing his status, not invalidating his title, and for those ‘former’ sources, here on Wikipedia we respect and keep the titles of former / deposed royals. And there are sources, including the ︎Encyclopædia Britannica, directly acknowledges him as the ‘Crown Prince of Iran’, in the very beginning, no ‘former’, no ‘exiled’. And yet they choose to null all those sources, so who is motivated and trying to make this site biased has already shown clearly here. — Boreas. 01:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Addition (of course still strong oppose): as to your claim of ‘This is also the case for many other language Wikipediae’, we must not invoke ‘This is how X language Wikipedia said so …’, otherwise people can easily refute with invoking those supporting them, like, Italian, Turkish, Russian, Kurdish, Uzbek and Thai editions also added ‘Prince’ (or ‘Crown Prince’) in the title, while Arabic, Norwegian, and the Spanish Wikipediae already called him ︎Reza Pahlavi II, the Spanish one even claimed him as the ‘Emperor of Iran’. Such invocations must be avoided and we should only consider what is the long established convention here on English Wikipedia, and is there any good reason to overturn that long established convention, or are there reasons that this entry must be specially treated. To me both answers are none, so oppose.
Furthermore additions: Article titles do not certify legal validity; they reflect established English-language naming conventions for historically defined persons. And on WP:NCROY, the pattern ‘Some name, (Crown) Prince of Some place’ is in itself already the common English-language encyclopaedic form (including here on English Wikipedia but also elsewhere), regardless of monarchy status, this is demonstrated across dozens of articles, including inactive, abolished, or exiled royal houses, here and elsewhere (for example, this Britannica page).
So my point is, you must prove why this convention must be abolished altogether here on English Wikipedia, or why this single case is exceptional to this convention.
As for the claim that he is not the crown prince or not the crown prince anymore, even though I’ve already explained above that this is irrelevant, I do suggest that anyone challenging his ‘crown prince legitimacy’ first challenge with Britannica here, where in the first line it reads, ‘Reza Pahlavi is the crown prince of Iran’.
So we are backing to the initial two questions: why do you reckon that this convention must be abolished altogether, or why this entry must be treated exceptionally? — Boreas. 00:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In a period of politically motivated turmoil in Iran, the status quo for his title should be preserved.
The first born son of the Shah, was born a Crown Prince and has been consistent in his willingness to return to Iran soil and establish a Constitutional Monarchy.
In the main, international media refers to the Shah's son as Crown Prince when referencing him, it would seem churlish to remove his title for non-encyclopedic reasons. UKresearcherTV (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-organise the logic behind my opposition to move for the sake of clarity:
1. ‘Reza Pahlavi’ itself is not ambiguous in the current world, so no disambiguation is needed.
Wrong. The style, ‘Some names, (Crown) Prince of Some place’ never meant to be disambiguation, and disambiguation should not be expressed in that way, it is a long established entry title naming convention for members of royal houses, including former royal houses. This naming convention is not only being used on Wikipedia, but elsewhere as well.
2. There is no such established naming convention. You just made it up.
Wrong. Specifically on Wikipedia, if one do a web search on site:wikipedia.org intitle:", crown prince of" or site:wikipedia.org intitle:", prince of", they could see hundreds of entries named in that way.
What more evidently is those in the former group, the search for site:wikipedia.org intitle:", crown prince of"—if we exclude those who are currently waiting to ascend the throne, the rest of them, were or are all failed monarchs, many of them were of course due to their monarchies were overthrown, and yet for many years on Wikipedia, we still followed that naming convention to name them, and their heirs, and even the heirs of their heirs. (examples already given above.)
3. Arab princes’ entries tend not to be named in this convention.
True. So they have their own naming convention. So it’s irrelevant here.
4. Reza Pahlavi’s ‘Crown Prince legitimacy’ is debatable so we should avoid using it to be neutral.
Wrong again. Following established naming convention to name the title of his entry does not break the neutrality, not doing so will look as if we are deliberately taking sides if no good reason is given.
Article titles do not certify or verify his legal validity, nor does it has anything to do with his monarchy status, or whether he himself would like to be called as. Pavlos, the Crown Prince of Greece, is a good example for this. He himself repeatedly and openly stated that he has no intention to restore his monarchy in Greece, and yet nevertheless we, the media outlets, all still calling him the ‘Crown Prince of Greece’.
Thus, following the tradition naming his entry this way actually upholds neutrality—because it has always been done in this way, so we are not asserting his legitimacy, removing it actually will make us look like we deliberately and subjectively rejecting his crown prince identity, and precisely on himself only, despite reliable sources claimed him to be that, that, will make us look like extremely biased and side-choosing.
5. No reliable source support his crown prince identity.
Also wrong, though as I explained, this should not be treated relevant to this issue, but there is.
Encyclopædia Britannica claimed him to be the crown prince of Iran in line one, at the very beginning.
6. The ‘mononym’ claim.
Wrong again. Actually for many cases here on Wikipedia, those people whose entries were named in this style have a rather long name instead of a mononymous one, some even with stacked titles, or, in the case of Japan, the crown prince has a specific title. But we did not name their entries according to their long names, or adding all their titles into it, or use their specific exotic title in the entry’s title. We name them in this naming convention. Which again showed that this convention does exist and has nothing to do with whether the name in topic is mononymous or not or whether name their entries as their names go ambiguous or not.
7. The invocation of ‘This is also the case for many other language Wikipediae’.
This must be rebutted because otherwise people can easily refute with invoking those supporting them, like, Italian, Turkish, Russian, Kurdish, Uzbek and Thai editions also added ‘Prince’ (or ‘Crown Prince’) in the title, while Arabic, Norwegian, and the Spanish Wikipediae already called him ︎Reza Pahlavi II, the Spanish one even claimed him as the ‘Emperor of Iran’. Such invocations must be avoided and we should only consider what is the long established convention here on English Wikipedia, and is there any good reason to overturn that long established convention, or are there reasons that this entry must be specially treated.
Summary:
So at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: are there good reasons that this naming convention must be abolished completely? If so, the moving tasks would be huge in amount—not only those Wikipedia entries, most of them were also on Wikidata and all that; and
Is there any good reason that this case must be specially treated and break this convention only for this entry, risking breaking neutrality and make us look biased?
For both questions, my answer is none, so I strongly oppose to move. — Boreas. 05:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to point 1, if we were to follow that convention, then there will be so many articles that has to be renamed to include "Crown Prince of X" or "King of X." In fact, so many monarchies have more complex naming conventions (where I come from, our previous king was "Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah ibni Almarhum Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah Al-Musta'in Billah," and that is just his name, not even the whole naming convention). There's a reason why WP:COMMONNAME exists. EmpAhmadK (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I said—Arabic princes seem to have different entry naming conventions which I am not familiar of. And I was only pointing to the ‘comma (Crown) Prince of X’ convention, not the monarch one, the monarch one currently nearly uniformly follows the ‘(selected) Name + Roman numerals’ one. The ‘comma (Crown) Prince of X’ convention is proved to have long existed by the web search keywords I’ve given above. — Boreas. 15:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The shorter title would reflect the WP:COMMONNAME. Official or formerly official names can be noted within the article, but aren't necessary in the title in this case. LaborHorizontal (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Reza Pahlavi (born 1960) - which solves both the neutrality problem and the ambiguity problem. The current title uses WikiVoice to assert that he is the rightful crown prince, which is a matter of (currently violent) dispute; better for us not to take sides. Putting the birth date in the title makes it clear which of the four people named "Reza Pahlavi" we mean. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you have that people use "Reza Pahlavi" to primarily refer to anyone besides the man born in 1960? The issue isn't simply sharing a name. It's about who the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. Michael Jordan is not a redirect or a disambiguation page. It's just the basketball player's page. If you search for "Reza Pahlavi" you will not find search results related to Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, or the Indonesian badminton player. You will only find search results related to the man born in 1960. That's because he is the primary topic of "Reza Pahlavi," and so the article should be titled accordingly. JasonMacker (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, Leave as is. It's consistent with other pages as such Crown Prince Pavlos. This is what the 2nd or 3rd attempt now. Stop trying to change the name. GandalfXLD (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 'Reza Pahlavi' as a name is primarily used to refer to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and, to a lesser extent, Reza Shah, but definitely not this subject. Allowing such a move would be a typical case of WP:RECENTISM and, as such, I am not going to support it. Angelo (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should use the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources, and contemporary sources overwhelmingly refer to the subject simply as Reza Pahlavi, not by a defunct or hypothetical title. JoseJan89 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see any substantial contemporary usage of "Reza Pahlavi" to refer to anyone other than this person. There should be no issue in identifying the person, and the long name is just unnecessary. EmpAhmadK (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources use descriptions such as "exiled crown prince." My position is that exile does not, in itself, nullify an individual's status as crown prince. PatriceON (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Exiled crown prince", "former crown prince" - The extra descriptors are additive for political context, "crown prince" is still how he is referred to as. — Cosmic6811 T/C 22:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The qualification "former" effectively negates the status. Is the former USSR still to be regarded as USSR, and so on? Also note the simple rule under WP:NCROY here: Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of English-language reliable sources use. VampaVampa (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of sources: Just to add a few reputable sources here to counterprove those who say no-one refers him as the Crown Prince, in fact, most media outlets have to introduce him first in every passage and this is the most common way to introduce him (whether with ‘former’ or ‘exiled’ or not—or both). Please note that I have already given the Encyclopædia Britannica link several times above so it’s omitted here but in their entry, it claimed that he is the Crown Prince of Iran, no ‘former’ no ‘exiled’. The following are just a few web search results, listed in the [institution: ‘quoted text’] way:
BBC: ‘Reza Pahlavi, the exiled former Crown Prince of Iran’;
NYT: ‘Reza Pahlavi, once the Crown Prince of Iran’;
National Post: ‘Exclusive interview: The exiled Crown Prince of Iran’;
The Telegraph: ‘Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran’;
The Telegraph: ‘Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran’;
Politico: ‘Former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi’;
The Telegraph: ‘Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi in exile’;
BBC: ‘… believed the “only option” would be the former Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi’;
South China Morning Post: ‘Reza Pahlavi, former Crown Prince of Iran’;
The Telegraph: ‘Reza Pahlavi Shah, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran’;
The Telegraph: ‘Iran’s Crown Prince calls on West … Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran, said …’;
Politico: ‘Former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi’;
Reuters: ‘He also declined to offer support to the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi’;
Reuters: ‘Reza Pahlavi, the former Crown Prince of Iran’;
The Strait Times: ‘Exiled former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi’;
National Post: ‘Pahlavi, of course, is his royal highness, the Crown Prince of Iran’;
FT: ‘Reza Pahlavi, the 48-year-old former Crown Prince of Iran’;
CNN: ‘The South Carolina Republican also met earlier today with the exiled Crown Prince of Iran’;
AP News: ‘U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff has met with exiled former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi’;
South China Morning Post: ‘Anti-government demonstrators and supporters of exiled Crown Prince of Iran’;
Politico: ‘Among those opposing the regime is Reza Pahlavi, the former Crown Prince of Iran’;
AP News: ‘Protesters hold pictures of Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran’;
Reuters: ‘Who is the Crown Prince of Iran?’;
CNA: ‘Iran’s exiled Crown Prince rises as a figure in protests’;
The Globe and Mail: ‘Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi called for more demonstrations in Tehran’;
Reuters: ‘Trump said he was not inclined now to meet Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince and son of the late Shah of Iran’;
The Diplomat: ‘with many protesters chanting monarchist slogans and demanding the return of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’;
CNN: ‘Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi urges Iranians to’;
The Telegraph: ‘Where are the pins, the Shir o Khorshid emblems, the pictures of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’;
Politico: ‘Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who called for protests Thursday and Friday’.
Thanks to Google search, we can see as above, from Europe to Asia, from 2000s to today, he is introduced as ‘Crown Prince of Iran’, since that’s the simplest and easiest way to introduce him. — Boreas. 06:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ten of the sources you picked have "former" in the title. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This list here is just counterproving the above many claims that ‘no-one refers him as the Crown Prince, just simply Reza Pahlavi’. And I did say ‘whether “former” or “exiled” or not—or both’, right?
My point here is that he actually is introduced as the Crown Prince of Iran very frequently, as the logic here goes as that he must be introduced otherwise the audience might be confused who this guy is, and to introduce him this way is the easiest way so many media outlets use. Only a few choose to introduce him as ‘the eldest son of the last Shah’, since that invokes a new term to explain—what is a Shah? Therefore it is logically understandable why he is referred this way and in reality as listed above he is referred as this by many reputable media outlets. So all those claims saying that mainstream media only refer him as his name were simply false claim.
This list here is not serving as the proof of his crown prince legitimacy, just to counterprove the abovementioned unrealistic and illogical false claims. And as I said earlier, many times, that using this entry naming convention also does not verify or certify this, just following a naming convention. Not following it would be seen as biased and side-choosing. — Boreas. 14:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the same argument for Andrew Mountbatten page then? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. On Wikipedia, by far, we saw a convention of respecting deposed royals’ titles, in cases I and many others raised earlier. Of course, this may change, and if this convention is to be abolished altogether, I have no objection to it. But if somehow some group of people reckon that Reza Pahlavi’s case must be treated exceptionally, I then see it as a break of convention, being assertive, deliberate side-choosing, and therefore, biased. That is what I am keeping emphasising here—it is not keeping his title in the entry title biased, it’s the removing of it.
Andrew’s case was different and please forgive me for not wanting extending this already long enough discussion further. — Boreas. 18:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to be "respecting" of his (current) title, we should call him the Shah or the Pretender to the Throne. Crown Prince is his former title, and he has asserted his claim to the throne since 1980. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been repeatedly explained—this ‘respect’ comes from the outside, that is, how the English sources respect his status, not how he himself claimed. Like the case of Pavlos, I am sure he has no intention to restore his monarchy in Greece and yes he does not introduce himself as ‘Hello I am the Crown Prince of Greece’, but the English world respected his former title and introduces him as such, it has nothing to do with his own willing. (It will have, in the case if he openly publishes a statement and calling the English world to stop calling him that way and the English world accepts it and stops.) — Boreas. 19:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reading I was mostly seeing Reza Pahlavi. Now you have shown that he is sometimes introduced by his former title, but further down it will just say his name. As all ex-leaders will be introduced by their past position.
All of the above arguments in favour of the move stand. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : proposed name is the most commonly used title to refer to this person. Him being called former crown prince doesn’t justify including that in the title. There’s no comparison with Pavlos or Alexander. Including “prince” in the title is for European royals. Even current crown princess of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait do not include the title prince in their articles. And one more important thing: Reza Pahlavi NEVER refers to himself as crown prince doesn’t. His official communications or website calls him simply Reza Pahlavi. How come Wikipedia is inventing a new title for him he doesn’t use for himself? The current title is misleading and violates naming conventions.Drako (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    how is this different from Pavlos or Alexander? Reza was in fact Crown Prince, same as the other two. I understand the argument for arabic pages. Wikipedia isn't inventing anything, as the title existed and the person in question used it at the time. The fact the he doesn't use the title currently, makes me consider my initial position. Regardles, the opener needs to state former Crown Prince, as he in fact was. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Difference is that those are Europeans. Including “prince” in titles is something we do for European monarchs only (per number 5 in WP:COGNOMEN). We don’t use prince in title of Saudi crown prince, for example. Drako (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fumihito, Crown Prince of Japan (Asia);
    Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco (Africa);
    Hussein, Crown Prince of Jordan (Asia). — Boreas. 03:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting WP:NCROY There is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries, but contemporary monarchs with Arabic names are often treated much as this guideline would suggest.
    If there’s no convention for middle eastern monarchs, you bringing some examples doesn’t prove the current title needs to be used. It just shows the current name can be used. You have not shown why it should be used. I argue it shouldn’t, because the proposed title is by far the most common. Drako (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So it’s not ‘Including “prince” in titles is something we do for European monarchs only’ (your word), right? And if you have read my replies carefully you’ll find that I already raised some days ago that Arab princes have their own convention, but Iran is not a Arab nation. — Boreas. 13:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end of the day, we need to consider what the media and sources are calling him. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all monarchies that still exist. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just giving counterproof to the assertion ‘Including “prince” in titles is something we do for European monarchs only’; for exiled crown princes and their heirs still using this naming style, I already gave examples above, plenty, and I have provided a method to find more in web search to prove that it is indeed a long-established convention to do so. — Boreas. 13:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged it can be used for others. But you didn’t show why it should be used. Bringing up some examples and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument.
    I also showed examples like CP of Saudi. Why should that not be how we treat this? Drako (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Explained so many times: they are Arabic princes. Arabic / Islamic princes predominantly do not adopt this convention, while others predominantly do, both bearing exceptions, while some are of good reasons, see my other reply to you below. And the current discussion is not about adding his royal title to the entry title, it is on whether there is irrefutable good reasons that this part must be removed from the entry title. So it is for you guys to show us why his entry must be excluded from this naming convention and having this part stripped. I am arguing for keeping the status quo as I see the current entry title is convention-aligned and I see no good reason for the move. — Boreas. 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't he at some point refer to himself as Reza II? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He is the Shah now (since 1980), so yes, there is nothing wrong calling him that, and indeed several other languages’ Wikipediae do call him that (see my reply above, I mentioned how other Wikipediae do on this, there are some changes now and currently the Arabic one changed its wording but the Norwegian and Spanish ones still kept the ‘Reza Pahlavi II’ form, though the Spanish one retreated from calling him ‘Emperor of Iran’ to ‘Crown Prince of Iran’)—but again, we mustn’t invoke how other language’s Wikipedia does on this and how he himself treat on this issue (yes, this also should be treated as irrelevant as in the Pavlos case I am sure he wouldn’t call himself as Crown Prince of Greece and has no intention to restore his monarchy, and yet in the English world we still call him as that), he may consider himself as Reza Pahlavi II in 1980, and he may consider himself as just Mr Pahlavi now, it’s up to him and irrelevant to this issue, as what really matters only rest on two things—how the English world refers him as and how the naming convention here functions. At least by my observation, here on Wikipedia, we inherited and internalised the naming convention from older English encyclopaediae that we treat those exiled crown princes forever crown princes and the heirs to them forever princes if they cannot restore their monarchies, regardless how they call themselves. As I have demonstrated above, this can be proved by a simple web search (site:wikipedia.org intitle:", crown prince of" or site:wikipedia.org intitle:", prince of").
    So the only valid argument to disobey such a naming convention without being seen as biased here would be, was he referred as something else overwhelmingly in the English world so the common name rule overrides, and to my observation that answer would still be no as he is still overwhelmingly referred as ‘former / exiled Crown Prince of Iran’ when the media introducing him.
    To once again summarise this issue:
    1. This is not a disambiguation issue;
    2. This has nothing to do with his ‘crown prince legitimacy / status’, naming the entry this way does not certify his ‘crown prince status’;
    3. This has nothing to do with how he calls himself or how other languages (including Persian) treated on this;
    4. We should only consider whether this ‘Name, Title’ naming convention for royals and exiled royals exist on English Wikipedia or not, and to me it is established;
    5. Then, we should only consider if he is overwhelmingly referred as something else so the common name rule overrides, and to me the answer to that is no, and therefore this entry title should not be changed. — Boreas. 14:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly quoted the guidelines saying no such convention exists for Middle Eastern countries (Iran is one) yet you falsely claim it exists. Drako (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you initial falsely claimed it was purely an European thing so then I rebutted on that with examples; only then you quoted that line which clearly ︎disparates with what is practiced in reality where only Arab / Islamic princes’ entry titles were predominantly not following that convention (and even Arab ones have exceptions, which were mentioned above).
    If to make this issue more crystal clear (just to avoid further counterproving): Thai, Cambodian, and Malaysian royals also do not adopt this convention, but they all have good reasons for that: Cambodia’s monarch is elected, so we cannot know who is the next; Thailand, though they do not elect their monarch, the successor to the throne is unknown until it’s settled (there is no succession law in Thailand); Malaysia is another interesting case as that their ‘supreme monarch’ is rotating amongst several lower monarchs so calling them ‘prince’ is inappropriate (for example the current ‘crown prince’ of Malaysia is already a Shah of somewhere and yes, his entry title was indeed in the ‘Name Title’ pattern, though missed a comma).
    So when we once again looking at these entry titles we could see that the convention was indeed widely established and only Arab / Islamic princes are predominantly not adopting such a naming convention (with exceptions exist), while the others, including Iran, Jordan, ︎Japan, Morocco, etc, are using this pattern.
    We cannot took that guildline line literally verbatim as it clearly over simplified a region of different cultural heritages. So that ‘Middle East’ should be taken as ‘Arab / Islamic’, not simply just as a geographical region. — Boreas. 20:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social media disinformation campaign

The text under the subheading "Social media disinformation campaign" can be merged into one paragraph, it seems. Maleviziotis (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Pahlavi, fighter pilot

Reza Pahlavi introduces himself in recent interviews as a "fighter pilot". Should this information be more prominent, such as in the main introduction?

Would this require some collateral, such as receiving aviator wings from the US Air Force where he was trained? Gaskew7 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it requires an RS saying he is, see wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, he had some training for the Northrop T-38 Talon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But did he serve in any airforce? Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's a rhetorical question. As far as I know, the ~7 months he spent in Lubbock as a teenager age 17–18 was the full extent of his U.S. military aircraft experience (although he was apparently "a cadet of the Imperial Iranian Air Force" and had a pilot's license before that, so there may have been other training before that). Both of the aircraft that are mentioned are twin-seat jet trainer aircraft (although being a trainer does not imply low capability – the Talon is a supersonic aircraft and was based on a fighter design). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not rhetorical, to be a fighter pilot, an RS must say he was one. Usually as a result of military service. Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we can say that the "pre call sign" status was supplemented by he was already a pilot for 10 years, and had a healthy allowance. I mean, he could technically purchase an F-14, and probably get it off the ground and push a button. It may be worth noting that his service was probably not nepotism. Iran purchased 80 F-14, and likely trained 100+ pilots in the US. The US Navy had similar training programs where Iranians were occasional students, and would usually pay for the construction of their own classrooms and labs (modular). Their government purchased hundreds of millions in equipment for ships, mostly on credit. Many of the students typically had allowances of $5,000 per week, had nice cars, and hosted parties. Gaskew7 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article does not say he was a fighter pilot. But personally, if I had been at the controls of a T-38 Talon and maybe an F-14 Tomcat as a teenager, I might happily reminisce that I had been a fighter pilot for purposes of the average cocktail party conversation or a passing remark with a political reporter when I'm 65. Flying one of those planes, even under supervision, is no joke. As far as I know, he never said he had been certified with a set of specific qualifications. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can we agree on "The Fighter Pilot of Beverly Hills"? I believe it is an unallocated handle, and makes a good faith attempt of the description. Gaskew7 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Find a soruce that says he is (or was) a fighter pilot. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was a BBC interview so it may take a while as they don't have a comprehensive repo. I can check if someone else has the clip. It was since the most recent unpleasantness started with the usual people in the US recommending that people in Iran take to the streets. Gaskew7 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[03:55] "When Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, I volunteered as a fighter pilot to defend my country"
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/reza-pahlavi-news-conference
PBS News hour 16 January, 2026
Press conference Reza Pahlavi ...
https://www.youtube.com/live/M_ukfe3KaUk Gaskew7 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, although it may be saying less than it seems to say. Volunteering is offering to do something, which is not exactly the same thing as actually doing it. His promotional website says "As an accomplished jet fighter pilot, Reza Pahlavi volunteered to serve his country's military as a fighter pilot during the Iran-Iraq War, but was declined by the clerical regime." So it sounds like he did not actually go fly fighter planes in combat when Iraq invaded. But the site does seem to say he "completed the United States Air Force Training Program" and calls him "an accomplished jet fighter pilot". So it may be fair to say that he describes himself that way. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He had formal training in the US. I'm assuming he knew how to make the words and push the buttons. Consider this: if a person trains with NASA to be an astronaut, are they an astronaut only if they have a mission into space? Gaskew7 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they have to have been employed as one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misc reversions of sockpuppet edits Jan 12 2026

@VampaVampa

I can't read the FT article being cited due to the paywall, but the other two articles being cited directly contradict the "constitutional monarchy" framing, and one of them explicitly uses the term "democratic transition."

[2]""There is only one way to achieve peace: a secular, democratic Iran. I am here today to submit myself to my compatriots to lead them down this road to peace and a democratic transition," he said in a speech posted on X on June 23, shortly before the end of last year's 12-day war."

[3]"Pahlavi, son of the last shah, has campaigned against the Islamic Republic and called for free elections, not monarchy."

Please do not re-introduce phrasing which contradicts the sources being cited for this sentence. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the user who initially inserted this content, [4] has been blocked as a sockpuppet. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the first sentence already introduces Pahlavi as "in exile in the United States." Why should the lead detail exactly where he currently lives? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your last point is fair, but please can you link to the edit where the blocked user replaced "democratic transition" with "liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy"? You are coming here to (selectively) undo changes that have been accepted by other editors without having been involved yourself in a dispute over this content previously, so I have concerns about the validity of your judgment. In general, relying solely on sources from the last week for describing Pahlavi's views in the lead runs a high risk of presentism and seems unacceptable. I do not have the time right now to check who introduced these (undated) sources into the lead, but introducing recent information into the lead should be done with caution. Leaving the sources aside, the reason why "liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy" is immediately more acceptable than "democratic transition" in the lead is that they express long-term views, rather than reactions to an ongoing event. VampaVampa (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Here is the diff for "consitutional monarchy" being added.
[6] Here is another diff where they seem to be selectively removing content to push a POV.
[7] And another where they add "and Israel."
[8]Here they inserted the sentence "Pahlavi has been identified as a Zionist and has supported Israel's right to exist."
This user was edit warring on the 2025-26 Iranian protests page, very persistently removing coverage/mentions of Pahlavi, and at one point [9]inserted a claim cited to Tasnim News, an IRGC-owned press. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely disagree with you, but if Pahlavi has been consistent on his desire for popular self-determination, that should be made clear. "Supports constitutional monarchy" - what exactly does that mean? Because it seems to me that this phrasing is hearing an exiled pretender say "And if the people choose me to be their king, I would love to be their king," and recording it as "expressed support for constitutional monarchy."
In this [10] interview, he suggests "free elections" for a "constituent assembly" to determine the form of government. Immediately follows that with the statement "I'm not here to advocate for a republic or a monarchy."
DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-Fake campaign and his threads on other politicians of opposition missing

The article seems to be a little bit one-sided and critical information about Reza Pahlavi is missing, especially about a very strange deep-fake campaign to push him as a new leader of Iran!

https://citizenlab.ca/2025/10/ai-enabled-io-aimed-at-overthrowing-iranian-regime/

https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/api/product-pdf/public/b0004vcs

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/x-accounts-are-amplifying-an-israeli-minister-in-suspected-foreign-influence-campaign/00000198-7fdb-d343-a3db-ffffc9cb0000

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2025-06-28/ty-article-magazine/.premium/its-easy-to-say-end-the-regime-but-whos-going-to-replace-it/00000197-b242-d95c-a59f-fee6863c0000 (Reza Pahlavi seems to be bullying the other politicians / group of opposition!)

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-04-19/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-shahs-sons-visit-to-israel-is-cynical-use-of-the-holocaust/00000187-9a6d-d50b-a78f-fffda70a0000

I hope, someone has enough time to make the article more "neutral" Martin Mair (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; and have tried to frame it a bit more neutrally according to what's in the press. Tasasiki (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALJAZEERA: "Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict"

@Bluethricecreamman

I'm not sure if you fully checked the material I was removing, as everything I removed was explicitly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Additionally, you reverted my removal of this content: "His stance during the Iran–Israel war, especially his presentation of the Israeli attacks as "an opportunity", has drawn strong criticism from many other Iranian opposition figures, including several high-profile political prisoners in Iran, labelling Pahlavi as a "traitor" to his country of birth,[1] Maybe I'm doing something wrong here but the link leads to an article titled "A free Kurdistan requires a struggle against occupation." DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

al jazeera is regularly used in the arab-israeli conflict area. just attribute it. WP:BIASED states they can be used, though WP:DUEness always matters
the second content is not supported, and the mix of curly and straight quotes suggests a portion of this content you pointed out might have been generated by AI. good catch. I've removed it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Women in Evin Prison warn against "imperialist liberation illusions"". ANF News. 2025-06-25. Retrieved 2025-06-27.

WP:SYNTH issue

Under Criticism: "Critics have also pointed to Pahlavi's failure to restrain supporters who target non-monarchist dissidents, arguing that this has deepened divisions within the broader opposition movement and questioned his democratic credentials, claiming that this shows an authoritarian intent and 'cult-like' behavior coming from Pahlavi and his followers that contradicts his supposed intentions of bringing democracy to Iran.[101][102]"

Even disregarding the grammatical mess here, the second part of this sentence (beginning with "claiming that") seems to be entirely editorial synthesis. Neither article presents these arguments, neither use the words "authoritarian" or "cult-like", and I can't find any phrasing similar to "contradicts his supposed intentions of bringing democracy to Iran." I will be rewriting this; please do not revert unless you can quote where the Time article or the Al Jazeera article make these arguments (on "authoritarian intent", "cult-like behavior", or that his behavior "contradicts supposed intentions of bringing democracy to Iran." DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence lacks due weight to be included in the lead. In the body of the article however it can be mentioned how his supporters behave and what critiques say. Drako (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
why do we have a criticism section? WP:CSECTION provides some good reasons against such a section, especially for bios.
not saying we delete that material, but it should be included in its appropriate section, probably the 2025-2026 protests User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info about reza pahlavis level of support

@Crampcomes why remove info about it being unclear how much support pahlavi has? The material was longstanding in the lede and multiple sources say he doesnt have full support User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That material definitely was not longstanding in the lede. Crampcomes (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it definitely was. after KiltedKangaroo did a few POV edits in early 2025, they were blocked as part of a set of Iranian LLM sockpuppets.
Edard Socceryg continued the POV edits before they were also blocked in 2025.
Wipka placed info about his level of support in August 2025 here [11], which eventually became this text here when I was reverting the blocked sockpuppet. [12] According to other sources, the level of support for Pahlavi is disputed, with experts doubting it is extensive.
some version of that sentence remained until here [13] The exact level of support Pahlavi has is not clear, with some sources stating he has little support from those "who make up the core of the reform movement"
@Crampcomes your bold edit here is removal of unsourced material that has stood up for at least 4 months. [14]
This is editwarring against the long standing revision for your preferred version of the article. The overaddition of quotes also was never addressed, see MOS:OVERQUOTE.
Address these concerns in talk page, or I will revert you in a few days. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
apologies, you didn't remove the sentence in question in the latest diff apologies.
I will say, I'm still not in favor of the overusage of quotes, and sourcing indicates Iranian view of Pahlavi is complicated at best. the quotes by themselves seem selectively chosen, when other negative quotes could have been chosen as well.
in general, i prefer just saying he was the main oppo leader who emerged in the protest, seems to be enough for lede without overquoting and trying to do analysis on his level of support. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Prince of Iran

Does the phrase Crown Prince of Iran in the infobox mean that he currently is the rightful crown prince (in WikiVoice) or that he used to be considered the crown prince? I daresay the current regime would dispute the legitimacy of this title.

We might also want to explain why and how he became the crown prince and summarize what the current government has said about the title (if anything). Uncle Ed (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They changed the title of the article (see consensus discussion above), but I guess overlooked the caption on the photo. Seems like it should be changed. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As well, Yasmine Pahlavi's title on Wikipedia is shown as Crown Princess of Iran (titular), So why is Reza Pahlavi's title shown as Crown Prince of Iran, despite him holding no actual power in Iran? either both should be seen as the titular prince and princess of Iran, or perhaps they should be seen as simply the current heads of the House of Pahlavi instead...P51Fwiki (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, Verifiability issues in the lead

Regarding recent attempts to add highly critical material to the end of the lead:

He has been described as a prominent opposition figure during the 2025–2026 Iranian protests, while critics argue this has benefited the Islamic Republic by enabling it to frame the recent protests as foreign-backed and tied to Iran's former monarchy. The added material being the second clause being "while critics argue..."

This is cited to 3 sources: the TIME article[15] is an overtly polemic piece, but it does support the claim being made. However, the Al Jazeera article[16] being cited is from Jul 2025 and can not possibly be used to support a claim regarding events in Jan 2026. Finally, the Jacobin article[17] makes some related points but simply does not make this claim and can not be cited for it.

Next, the sentence "There has also been reports that an Israeli-linked influence campaign used fake accounts and AI-generated videos to promote Reza Pahlavi to Persian-speaking audiences." I would like to read @Tasasiki's reasoning for why this deserves prominent coverage in the lead. Remember that this is a WP:BLP and therefore should strictly adhere to NPOV. A statement that amounts to "There have also been reports that this guy is being astroturfed by Israel" is obviously contentious. Whatever the intent behind including this material in the lead is, its effect, when placed immediately following a statement noting Pahlavi's prominence in the recent protests is to imply that his support is non-organic -- but the Jacobin article that Tasasiki is citing actually builds a compelling argument against this:

  • "But another undeniable point — and I think those of us who are on the Left usually struggle with this — is that there were sizable numbers of protesters who chanted pro-Pahlavi slogans."
  • "...the repression of [earlier protest] movements has created a political vacuum that has been filled by much more right-wing, reactionary currents and disciples of the Pahlavi family."
  • "We shouldn’t under any circumstances think that the monarchists speak for all Iranians — they certainly do not. But we need to understand that this current has become stronger and more prevalent.”

DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bluethricecreamman and @Crampcomes for input DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
seen both pro-pahlavi and anti-pahlavi folks argue over the lede. as is, seems this is fair enough for current moment. we should still include that the level of support within iran is unknown, pahlavi is controversial, neither universally acclaimed as hero, nor necessarily seen as unqualified villain.
might change in future depending on how protests go, but its sufficient to say pahlavi, for better, or worse, is the oppo leader of the protest in lede, and qualify in body. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced information belongs in the article, regardless of whether DiodotusNicator approves of it. Tasasiki (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it makes up a significant part of teh body. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • DiodotusNicator - "There has also been reports that an Israeli-linked influence campaign used fake accounts and AI-generated videos to promote Reza Pahlavi to Persian-speaking audiences."[1][2][3][4][5]

Plenty of outlets have covered this, and more sources can easily be found. Tasasiki (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • DiodotusNicator - He has been described as a prominent opposition figure during the 2025–2026 Iranian protests, while critics argue this has benefited the Islamic Republic by enabling it to frame the recent protests as foreign-backed and tied to Iran's former monarchy.[6][7][8] - Yes, you object to these sources despite their reliability; as already noted, additional ones can be provided, and hopefully that will put your attempts to ban me. Tasasiki (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing to cast aspersions instead of attempting to engage in good faith is not an encouraging sign.
    "Critics argue this has benefited the Islamic Republic by enabling it to frame the recent protests as foreign-backed and tied to Iran's former monarchy."
    Only one of the sources you are citing argues this, the rest fail verification. DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Time magazine is "polemic"... Tasasiki (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbcmon-20261103 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Israel reportedly funded campaign to restore Tehran's monarchy". L'Orient Today. 8 October 2025.
  3. ^ "Reza Pahlevi, the deposed crown prince raised up by the desperation of the Iranian people". El Pais.
  4. ^ "Israel backs purported Iranian Army defections, but 'deepfakes' raise questions". AMWAJ. 18 November 2025.
  5. ^ Nazari, Sarbas (3 November 2026). "Explainer: Is Iran crown prince's media operation that influential?". BBC Monitoring. BBC. Retrieved 11 January 2026.
  6. ^ "Iran Is Facing Its Deepest Crisis Since the 1979 Revolution". Jacobin.
  7. ^ "Iranians Are Protesting. Reza Pahlavi Can't Save Them". Time Magazine.
  8. ^ "After backing Israel, Iran's self-styled crown prince loses support". Al Jazeera.

Infobox image

User:AhmadKermani1979 recently made an edit changing the picture of Pahlavi in the infobox from this one (added a week or so ago) where he is sat looking away from the camera to this new one where his face takes up most of the frame. I personally prefer the former (it has better lighting) but would like to know what others think. ConflictFan (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the former; the current one is very somber. Tasasiki (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2026

X=Current Y=Adding Category:Iranian Zionists ~2026-86249-3 (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just look on their pages and you will see. ~2026-86249-3 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then start a discussion, this is not a valid edit request. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claims under Italian support section

In my humble opinion that the first sentence of this section is ridiculously biased, as follows:

Reza Pahlavi enjoys the strong support of the Iranian community living in Italy and of Italians, who see him as the rightful future leader of Iran but also as a transitional leader towards a democratic government. Numerous demonstrations in his support have taken place in Italy, particularly in Rome.

I think that there should be better sources, like government declarations and polls, to back that claim, instead of citing the same demonstration over and over again (also you can see the actual number of participants from the videos themselves, so it's better for their image anyway). AmadeoBordigaWarrior1917 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

removed it, it falls under WP:SYNTH. The editor who included it is welcome to discuss in talk page. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism in first paragraph

The following two sentences seem to be a good example of WP:RECENTISM, in addition to being SYNTH-y and centered on a hypothetical future event:

During the 2026 Iran war, after the assassination of Ali Khamenei, he was seen as the most likely candidate for regime change.United States President Donald Trump would dismiss him as a candidate for regime change, saying that he preferred local resistance leaders in Iran rather than Pahlavi's exile.

Please discuss here if you object to my removal DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Create a link to Peacock Throne mentioned in the article

Add link to Wikapedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_Throne ~2026-14843-67 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran