Talk:Khosrow II

Name

"Khosrau" is an inaccurate transcription of his name. We must either use the more accurate transcriptions of "Khosrow" (as in Encyclopædia Iranica), or simply "Khosro" - as these are closer to the actual Persian pronunciation. Or we can use the Latin name as we do with Parthian and Achaemenid rulers (in this case, "Chosroes" or "Cosroe").

Some articles are deliberately using "Khosrow" (such as Piruz Khosrow) while others are using "Khosrau" (and even Khosro). This makes no sense. We need a single unified spelling here, rather than using every permutation and combination of the name possible.--Grinevitski (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to the GBooks ngraph, Khosrow is on the rise in recent times, whereas Chosroes (unsurprisingly) dominates older publications. On the other hand, a search for the specific king brings "Chosroes II" clearly on top. Most modern works with a background in Iranian studies seem to prefer "Khosrow" (as does Britannica), but I see also many notable scholarly works using "Khosrau". So if there should be a move, than it should be to "Chosroes", but IMO this classizing name would be at odds with increasingly established modern practice in all historical fields, as well as with the naming of the other Sasanian kings, so it is best to leave it as it is. Constantine ✍ 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But "Khosrau" is simply a phonetically incorrect transcription. In Persian the name is pronounced as xos-row (kos-row in Latin), thus making "Khosrow" a much more accurate transcription. I agree with you that Chosroes is the best option, since it is consistent with Achaemenid and Parthian rulers maintaining their classical spelling (Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Mithradates, Orodes, etc.). Why should there be a double standard for Sasanian kings? Grinevitski (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the vagaries of transliteration... Regardless of how "correct" a transliteration is, its use in Wikipedia is determined by usage "in the real world". I am not competent to argue on the accuracy or reason for the different transliterations, but they are there, and are used. Indeed, if "Khosrau" is used by experts in the field without further commentary, then any discussion about accuracy is moot; it is like a Greek complaining that "Aristotle" is "inaccurate" and that it should be "Aristoteles". From the moment there is wide usage in credible sources, any form of the name is legitimate. Furthermore, if we move the Khosrau articles to Chosroes, then we'd have to move Kavadh to Cavades, Hormizd to Hormisdas, etc. The problem here is that the trend in modern scholarly sources is not to latinize names, at least not for the Sassanid rulers, but to use transliterated forms like Khosrow and Khosrau. It is different for Achaemenid and Parthian rulers, where the "Classicist" consensus on latinized names still prevails, but even there there are authors who have begun using transliterated Persian names. Now, as to the choice between Khosrow and Khosrau, I have no problem with a move, but there needs to be consistency. You need to begin a WP:RM for all Khosraus, and include usage statistics to back up your position from Google Books and/or Google Scholar, as well as the most relevant reference sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica etc). Constantine ✍ 07:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to the "Khosrow" variant. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Khosrau II → Chosroes II
• Khosrau I → Chosroes I
• Xosrow → Khosrow

– In Wikipedia various different transliterations are in use to refer to this specific king (and him), such as "Khosrau" here and also "Khosrow" in another article. Other spellings like "Xosrow" and "Khosro" are also currently in use. I believe there needs to be consistency, we cannot use every permutation and combination of the name possible. To avoid arbitrary transliterations, I suggest moving the page to the original classical name of "Chosroes" (we have maintained the classical names for Achaemenid and Parthian rulers, I do not see why Sasanian rulers should be an exception). According to the GBooks ngraph, Chosroes ranks on top.

OR, if a transliterated name has to be used, it must be moved to "Khosrow II". Because most credible sources such as Encyclopædia Iranica, and Britannica use "Khosrow". Many modern scholarly sources like that of Dr. Daryaee, and Dr. Farrokh also use this form. According to Google Books, "Khosrow" is also statistically much more prevalent than "Khosrau". "Khosrau" is simply a phonetically incorrect transcription used only by a minority of authors. Grinevitski (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support to move this page to "Khosrow II" because these days this spelling has gained more popularity as corroborated by nom's ngram, and it is also a phonetic transliteration. Strong Support move of Khosrau I → "Khosrow I", and of Xosrow → "Khosrow" too for consistency. Khestwol (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support for "Khosrow", as this in line with most modern works, especially among Iranologists. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Research / meeting with moderator

I am conducting research on the Sasanian and Paduspanid empires. Can I schedule a telephone or email meeting with the moderator of these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.59.78 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia conference-call? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.29 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

muhammad's letter

There's a few pages on wiki specifically devoted to these letters, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State. So, if this information were removed, it wouldn't be off of wikipedia, it would just be in the more appropriate place. This page is about the history of Khosrow II, unverifiable stories that are almost assuredly false, to my mind, should not be included. Or the other idea would be to add a legacy section, which he did have quite a legacy, and then it could be mentioned in that section with a link to the more appropriate pages mentioned hitherto, as well as the effects of his policies on the Sassanian empire, and how he is remembered. I feel like this would increase the integrity of the page. When you look at the Emperor Trajan's page for example, under Legacy, there's the story of him being resurrected and baptized, in a single sentence, which links to the appropriate page, and the article moves on. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

Intro unclear

"Khosrow II's imprisoned son Sheroe (Kavad II) imprisoned and killed Khosrow II" This sentence is unclear to me. Though I don't know the history, it seems like it could be simplified to "He was imprisoned and killed by his son Sheroe (Kavad II)" Idrathereatpie (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for input at WP:ERRORS

This article will be featured in the Main Page "On this day" section in two days' time, and a concern has been raised about the phrase "last great king of the Sasanian Empire", which appears in the OTD blurb and in the opening sentence of this article. Any input from editors familiar with the subject-matter would be appreciated. The discussion is here. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)