Content deleted Content added
Line 344:
:::::In that case, it would ultimatly be more appropriate to describe his claim to the throne rather that assigning such a term to him which clearly has neutrality issues. There's no official title for him in Persian or in English and there's nothing which says that it's appropriate to call him the pretender to the throne. In order to settle the neutrality discussion it would be better to just state "Pahlavi claims to be the successor to the throne." There is nothing incorrect or POV about that statement. Your desire for brevity is laudable, but it does not seem possible to be concise in both length and meaning by using "pretender."--[[User:Strothra|Strothra]] 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no neutrality issues with pretender. It is used the world over in many languages. If people don't understand it they can follow the link. That is what links are there for. Wikipedia does not follow a policy of avoiding standard terminology simply because someone won't understand it. They link it to allow them to learn. Given that other pretenders the world over are called pretenders, why is there a problem with calling the Iranian pretender a pretender? As to your proposed sentence, it is factually incorrect. (i) he doesn't claim to be anything. He was the heir apparent to the last shah. (ii) There is no throne to be a successor to. ''Pretender'' covers both of these accurately, which is why the term is used worldwide, in many languages. Wikipedia would look odd being the only one not to use what is a standard term. And Reza Pahlavi would look very strange not being described in the standard form of language used to describe pretenders the world over. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
| |||