Talk:Afsharid dynasty

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

Afshrid dynasty[edit]

This site needs many improvements if possible can someone please add information and pictures... I have done my best to improve on this.Pedram 4:01 PM ET, June 6, 2005

will try :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

While the "Afshars" as a people belong to the Oghuz Turkic tribes, (as far as I am informed), Nadir Shah was not of Turkic origin. He was a native Persian of Khorasan. He and his mother were captured as prisoners and slaves by the invading Uzbek Khans when Nadir was stiull a child. Some time later, he managed to escape while his mother was killed by the Uzbeks. As a young boy, he found refuge in an Afshar settlement in Khorasan. He was adopted by the chief of the tribe and thus called himself "Nadir-e Afshar". Tajik 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since we have Court-TV footage of these events that make them undisputable :)) Where is the source and proof for this heart-braking story? "He managed to escape while his mother was killed by the Uzbeks".. There better be sources to colloborate this story, since it makes specific allegations. Bunch of legends and family-fire stories told at night doesn't make them real.. Where are the eye-witness stories? :) Baristarim 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Afshars are associated with the Oguz tribes and are often mistakenly referred to as Turkic or Turkomen because they were a Qizilbash tribe. However, many Qizilbash tribes, such as the Afshars were ethnically Iranian or Kurdish, and not Turkic.--WingedEarth (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@WingedEarth Why do they speak Turkic? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Afshar tribe is of Turkic origin. Nader Shah considered himself as Iranian because he was from there. This does not disappears his Turkic origins. Persian culture is something I really respect but just get over it; there were many Turkic originated dynasties in the history of Iran, which considered themselves as Iranians but not Persians. They spoke Turkic and aware of their Turkic origins. Being unsuccessful in life makes a person ultra-nationalist but it does not vanishes the reality. AttilaAkay (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AttilaAkay: "Being unsuccessful in life makes a person ultra-nationalist but it does not vanishes the reality" look, if you want to discuss with fellow wikipedians in a civil manner, then go ahead, but that remark of yours clearly shows that you're not here for a collegial discussion. Just for your information, there is no reason to add modern Turkish script for a 18th century Iranian dynasty, even if that dynasty's origin was Turkic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AttilaAkay (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I am not here for personal issues, because this is an objective, academic platform. Rather I saw this act in those trying to refuse a scientific fact, those who suggest things like " The Afshars are associated with the Oguz tribes and are often mistakenly referred to as Turkic or Turkomen ". Like, even in this page there are evidences proves that they have clearly Turkic origins, why are you so quiet about that? Nader Shah's daily language was also Turkish, which shows they also valued Turkish language too. I have solid sources. Also why it is needless to add modern Turkish script to a 18th century Iranian dynasty with Turkic origins, while it is okay to add Persian script to a 10th century Turkic dynasty? Just because they promoted the Iranian culture in some aspects? I am not here to debate whether you or I am right, I am just trying to confront a double standard.[reply]

He spoke Azerbaijani turkic. Gronny2 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaparojdik[edit]

Incase you decide to revert again, I'm making this comment and posting the evidence. The Afsharids were an Iranian dynasty and they thought of themselves so, see this coin: [1]Khosrow II 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, all the coins minted at the time had "Iran Zameen" on them, proving that Afsharids thought of themselves as Iranians, and therefore were an Iranian dynasty. --Mardavich 10:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they ruled over Persia, of course they were going to have to speak its language and cater to local sensitivities, that doesn't make their Oghuz-Turkic origins disappear, right? Baristarim 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: Nadir Shah was Sunni, not Shia, so, considering the importance of religion for self-identification back then, how is that a sign of him considering himself "Iranian"? If he considered himself Persian, he would have become Shia, now wouldn't he?? Gees, what the heck is going on? Baristarim 12:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nadir Shah and his sons were not of Turkic origin, he was only raised by the original Turkic tribe, and later assumed their leadership. He was Iranian, and so was his dynasty, and that's what they called themselves as you can see on their coins. Religions is irrelevant here, many Iranian dynasties were Sunni.--Mardavich 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Turkic dynasties that ruled over Persia were Sunni, I think. Of course they were going to cater to local sensitivities, what were they going to do? Print Turkic coins in Iran? I just don't get it, why is it so hard to accept that Persia has been ruled over by many Turkic tribes for centuries? This is just historical reality. Baristarim 12:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turkic and Sunni are not synonymous. Neither Nadir Shah nor his dynasty were Turkic, they called themselves Iranians. Infact, they fought the Ottoman Turks, and they defeated the Ottoman Turks on several occasions. --Mardavich 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that proves?? Turks also have fought between themselves for centuries, just like the Germanic tribes have done.. Don't confuse ambition for power with ethnic origin.. He was raised by a Turkic tribe, but was not Turkic? It is pretty safe to assume that when you grow up in a family you kinda pick up on the culture.. So, it is even better, Nadir was Turkic by his upbringing.. I mean, I don't get this: there are Turkic elements popping up at every corner in every argument used to prove that they were Persian, you cannot simply put an intro that overlooks this fact as if they dropped from heaven.. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't drop from heaven, they were Iranian, they were born and raised in Iran, they called themselves Iranian, practiced Iranian culture, and spoke Persian. Learn to live with it, the world doesn't revolve around Turks or Turkey. --Mardavich 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda funny that Tajik says the opposite above when he says that Afshars were Oghuz Turkic.. Interesting.. The reality is that a Turkic tribe simply ruled over Persia, because they were stronger.. That's all.. Baristarim 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is talking about a tribe here? Read Tajik's comment, Afsharid dynasty were not Turkic! Nader Shah was not Turkic! Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why are you removing the word "Iranian" from the intro, when the Afsharid dynasty called themslves Irannian and this is documented on their coins, official proclamations etc? Put aside your Turkish nationalistic feelings and be reasonable for once. --Mardavich 13:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baristarim, your not making any sense. The Seljuks also spoke Persian and promoted Iranian culture, along with most other Turkic dynasties of the region. Nadir shah considered himself Iranian, as did the Seljuks, and Ghaznavids. By the way, what did the Ottoman coins say? Did they say Rome on them? Because according to you, Nadir Shah was only trying to please the locals, so why didnt the Ottomans do the same thing?Khosrow II 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment at the beginning of the discussion is wrong. Nadir Shah was a Persian-speaking Turcoman from Khorasan. He was not really an "Afshar", but a "Qirqlu" Turcoman. He lost his parents at a very early age and was adopted by the Khan of the Afsharids.
However, the dynasty created by Nadir was certainly not "Turkic" or "Turkish". It was an Iranian kingdom which understood itself as a continuation of the previous Iranian Shahdoms. That's why he adopted the title "Shah".
See the article "Afshars" in Iranica.
As for Baristarim: 90% of his comments are nonsense. Claiming that "Turks ruled in Iran because they were stronger" is pure nonsense, because none of the dynasties in the Islamic world was "pure". At the time of Nadir Shah, the overwehleming majority of the armies - both in the Ottoman Empire as well as in Iran - were Non-Iranian and Non-Turkish, because both groups - though known as fierce fighters throughout history - had lost all fighting qualities. The Iranianm Turcoman soldiers were already replaced by loyal Armenian and Georgian elite fighters, the Ottoman army consited largely of converted European soldiers. In addition, the army of Nadir Shah was dominated by another elite group, the Ghilzai Pashtuns of Afghanistan, who were fierce fighters - and still are fierce fighters until today. They were regarded a Martial Race by the British who were never able to fully subdue the Pashtuns. Along with the Pashtuns, another relatively unknown group made its appearance as "fighters", the Tajiks of Panjsher and Badakhshan. Although these Tajiks" (modern Panjsheris - see also: United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan or Ahmad Shah Massoud) were already known to Babur (whose army was dominated by Badakhshani Tajiks), they were quite unknown until they defeated the British army during the Anglo-Afghan wars (they are known as "Kohistanis" in historical documents[2]). These regions had always been autonomous and were only ruled by the local tribal leaders (until today; that's why Afghanistan is still such a mess).
In the 18th century, Turks did not play any major role as "fighters" or "conquerors". The Ottoman Empire was a dying nation, the Central Asian Turks were overrun by Russian armies in the following decades, Anatolia was overrun by allied forces.
Tājik 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tajik, Nader shah defeated the ghilzai pashtuns, and conquered afghanistan, later he used them in his army as something like "pawns". The brittish were perhaps not able to subdue the pashtuns, but many others did, including nader shah as said before. Ghilzai pashtuns previously had defeated the remaining safavids, conquering most of persia, including its capital Isfahan, in which they cut the head of 70,000 civilians and built a monument with them, showing the world what a martial race as you call them can do to unarmed civilians. After some 7 years they were defeated by nader shah, the invading force which was trying to flee were all hunted down and killed, including their leader ashraf.

Baristarim, i myself am a ghashgai Iranian, one of the tribes turks claim as their own, much like the afsharids we have nothing to do with turks, we are more Iranian than the people in Irans great cities. It seems you claim every dynasty that defeats you as your own, the safavids and their ghezelbash, and the afsharids are two of which. --213.113.243.25 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, thanks for your comment. I agree with you that Nadir Shah defeated the Ghilzai in mainland Persia, but that he only managed with the help of rival Durrani Pashtuns. Actually, I did a mistake in my previous comment: not the Ghilzai were allied to Nadir Shah, but the Durrani. Ahmad Shah Durrani, the founder of modern Afghanistan, was Nadir Shah's high ranking general and his personal bodyguard - his 4,000 soldiers were the elite of the Persian army and the major force in Nadir Shah's invasions in India.
What I am trying to say is that Baristarims claim that "Turks were stronger as the rest ... blah blah blah" is pure nonsense. People back then did not fight in the name of certain nationalities, the identified themselvs with their religion and their loyalty to a certain king - no matter wether that king was an Arab, a Turk, or a Persian. By the time of Nadir Shah, Turks were not the same fighters they used to be a few centuries earlier ... they had already been replaced with mighty fighters from all corners of Asia, most notably from the Pashtun areas, from the Caucasus, and from the Pamir region.
And none of the dynasties back then actually identified themselvs as "Turks", "Persians", or "Indians".
Tājik 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If none of them identified themselves as such, why are we referring to them as "Persian" in the intro then?? We can say "a dynasty of Persia/Iran" in that case.. Look Tajik, I definitely agree with you that such ethnic identifications were not common back in the day, but all I am trying to say is that it is the preference of one over another is what is inappropriate.. And don't jump so easily on my flamebaits :))) I didn't say that "Turks were stronger than the rest blah blah".. I was just trying to say that they were stronger for a period in Central Asian-Middle Eastern history.. They were not, however, strong at all in 18th, 19th centuries.. Baristarim 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Iranian dynasty" with a Wiki-Link to Iran is OK. However, the old version of the text, namely "Turkic dynasty", was deffínitly wrong.
Tājik 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this and hope all those who speak irrelevant things once listen and do not talk later on. Nader Shah belonged to the Afshar tribe. That is A Shia Turkicspeaking tribe of Iran. Many tribes in Iran are Turkicspeaking. Turkicspeaking tribes have played a major role in the Iranian statehood. Afshars and Nader Shah regard(ed) themselves as Iranians. Nader Shah was very tolerant towards the Sunnis, After he defeated them )Afghans and Ottomans(, but there are no proofs that he was a Sunni himself. It is also not very probable regarding the facts that 1- Afshar tribe was Shia and is Shia 2- His deeds and actions in saving the Iranian statehood were all about defeating the Sunnis. So only after he was secure of the Iranian stability he became tolerant towards them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Afsharid dynasty infobox}}

I am afshar and I am Turkish.[edit]

Unoubtedly Afsharid dynasty is originally Oghuz Turkic tribe. Since I am afshar and I am and Oghuz Turkish.

Encyclopaedia Iranica link[edit]

This link:

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the website's entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAHABAT KHAN LAL,Quzal baige, was the grand son of Nader Shah and he had come to Chitral in 1749. Mahabat Khan Lal was the Afghani not Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.205.115 (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Can someone please change the map to the one on the Nader Shah article? This map doesn't reflect conquests in Central Asia, Arabia, and India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh94 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive my map (user: Artin Mehraban) accomplished that but user: HistoryofIran is replacing it with the old one even though his map is missing the fact that nader conquered several kingdoms in central asia which as you said, is not the same as the one on the nader shah article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

To Folantin, you brought this source out of nowhere it seems. How come you never sourced it in the days you continuously edited this article? Seems rather strange. I searched for this in the internet and the only quote I got was about Nadir claiming his Turkic ancestry, but not his cultural or linguistic preference. Can you extract the quotes where Nadir said he prefers to speak his "Turkic" language? And exactly what "Turkic" language was it? I have another point to say but I will only say it after your reply.Qatarihistorian (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the major modern biography of Nader Shah in English. You can read the relevant passage at Google Books here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O4FFQjh-gr8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nader+Shah&source=bl&ots=6cWZ6mMreE&sig=WvRg_X85YeYjZkp67j5tyji8rSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ruc7UP6GLumw0AXX94DoCA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=language&f=false --Folantin (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"How come you never sourced it in the days you continuously edited this article?" Why would anyone doubt that a Turkic semi-nomad would speak a Turkic language? --Folantin (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said preferred, not speak. I speak English but it doesn't mean I prefer it. The Emir of Qatar speaks English but that doesn't make it one of Qatar's national languages. Your Google book source makes no mention of your claim that Nadir Shah preferred Turkic. All it says is that he understood it to a degree and may have spoken it with Mohammad Shah of the Mughal Empire. That's about it. I see no point in putting that in the article since it doesn't define the linguistic operation of the Afsharid kingdom.Qatarihistorian (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't read the source. It says quite clearly: "But the Turkic language was always his [Nader's] preferred everyday speech, unless he was dealing with someone who knew only Persian." --Folantin (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see that. I skid to the other pages, you should've told me exactly which page you referred to. But this brings up another question. Which Turkic language? You can't just say "Turkic", it means a load of things. Furthermore, this applies to Nadir Shah. Again, it doesn't describe the mode of operation of the Afsharid kingdom so why put it in the infobox? You might as well put this in Nadir Shah's wikipedia page because it'll make more sense.Qatarihistorian (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page reference is clearly marked in the article. Further, Axworthy writes in his Iran: Empire of the Mind (p.159): "he [Nader] and his Safavid predecessors were of Turkic origin and spoke a Turkic language at court..." I see no valid reason not to mention this. --Folantin (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which Turkic language? You still can't tell me. We know the Safavids occasionally tested their bilingual skills in Azerbaijani even though Persian was the official and predominant language of the Safavid Empire. Unfortunately that reference makes no solution for Nadir Shah's linguistic preference, because ultimately nobody even knows what Turkic language in specific he spoke. And I have a third point to say, but I'll wait for your reply first.Qatarihistorian (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "Turkic" so that's what we put. It's irrelevant whether we can define the exact dialect of "Turki" he spoke. I really don't understand why you are so opposed to simple historical fact: Nader Shah spoke Turkic. --Folantin (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the last part of your sentence. It brings me to the third point I wanted to say. Nadir's preference doesn't mean anything with regards to the Afsharid kingdom, which continued long after he was gone. Persian is the only language which defines the state. Ultimately Turkic may have only defined Nadir's personal life but it makes no relevance to the Afsharid kingdom's officlal/national language claims.Qatarihistorian (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To all intents and purposes Nader Shah was the Afsharid dynasty. The rest were basically nonentities. Plus, you have no evidence they didn't speak Turkic (which seems highly likely). --Folantin (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I am going to bed now. The article is sourced. I see no merit to your arguments.--Folantin (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of your sentence is illogical. There's a question of proving, not disproving. I ask you to prove god exists, not ask you to prove god doesn't exist. So that argument you used is weak. Bear in mind these Turkic dynasties were all highly Persianized. Nader Shah is not the dynasty, neither is he the Afsharid kingdom. Unless you can provide a source which says the other 3 shahs also preferred Turkic and made it integral to the constitution of the country, then it makes no sense adding that to the list of languages. Basically, only Persian was the official language.Qatarihistorian (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he used Turkic as a court language (as did the Safavids), so it was a language of administration. He also used Persian, of course, which is why it's also in the infobox. Michael Axworthy is far more knowledgeable about this subject than you. You clearly have some personal reason for continually pushing your POV and trying to purge Turkic from this article. You do not get to remove material referenced to reliable sources just because you don't like it. It was especially sneaky to do this after I said I was going to bed. --Folantin (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less if you went to bed or not, wikipedia doesn't revolve around you. Furthermore, Persian was the official language of the state. Find me references of Turkic being an official language, otherwise your sources simply reassert Nader Shah's personal preferences, which is irrelevant to the mode of operation of the Afsharid kingdom.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You had no consensus to make those changes and remove valid references. Nader Shah was the only significant member of the Afsharid dynasty. He was an absolute monarch who gave orders in Turkic. His court spoke Turkic. The court of the previous dynasty spoke Turkic. To purge Turkic from the infobox is simply not acceptable and we are simply dealing with your own personal prejudices here. --Folantin (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the title of the article is the Afsharid dynasty, not the Afsharid kingdom. The conventional name of the latter is "Iran" (or "Persia"). --Folantin (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not accuse me of being prejudice. Your accusations cannot be proven. This is a content dispute, not a prejudice war, which is why I took the initiative to resolve this issue here. If you think I am being prejudice then believe you me I wouldn't have wasted my time discussing this with you. Where is the source to say Nader Shah was the only significant member of the dynasty? This is your point of view. Funny you say I have points of view but then you contradict yourself. The state's official language, which usually goes in the country infobox, was Persian. Find me a source that claims otherwise. Do not find me something as ludicrous as one member of the dynasty preferring to speak his native tongue from time to time. That doesn't constitute that language as official.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know that Nader Shah was the only significant member of the dynasty, then you don't know about the Afsharid dynasty. Your bias is obvious. It's not enough for you to have both Turkic and Persian in the infobox, Turkic must be purged. --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I've reported you to an admin for infringing 3RR and general edit-warring. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Childish. You can't even resolve this issue with me and instead taking the easy way out. Just because you didn't revert over 3 times in the past 24 hours doesn't mean you were not partaking in reverts despite me asking you to resolve the issue here once and for all.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not get consensus for your changes on the talk page. You simply waited until I went to bed and then purged the infobox of Turkic again. I suggest you revert your last edit.--Folantin (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't know what the infoboxes are for then.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin: I readded Turkic into the infobox but only with the source that says Nader spoke Turkic in his court because that might be the only relevant one to the Afsharid kingdom, whereas the source of his personal preference should go to his page. Having said that, I will bring this issue up to another person who might or might not be of help in further judgment.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Nader Shah used Turkic as his preferred language of command, making it an important administrative language (probably the most important). Persian was used by the civil service.
However, the current version of the infobox is be acceptable to me so long as we can add that Turkic was Nader's native language. If so, then I will tell the admin that no further action needs taking. --Folantin (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you tell or don't tell the admin is irrelevant because admins will most likely take action against anyone who goes over 3 reverts. Such is the case of wikipedia, which unfortunately is childish. Now for the content, the infobox relates to the country, not dynasty. This is the mistake you're making. The country established by the dynasty has its information put on the infobox. Therefore the Afsharid kingdom's predominant linguistic (and cultural) identity was Persian. That is made clear by the fact the country was Persianate in its mode of operation. Persian was the official language and predominant language. Nader Shah may have spoken Turkic but it does not succeed in its importance over Persian. This applies universally on almost all Turkic-ruled Persianate dynasties so I see not why it should be any different in the Afsharid page. I have only readded Turkic because we are disputing it but I will say that another person's view has to be added because I believe you are mixing the linguistic preference of one guy with the official linguistic identity of an entire kingdom.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about the country (or empire), then other languages - not just Persian and Turkic - would need to be added, e.g. Kurdish, Georgian, Armenian, Pashto etc. The title of this article is "Afsharid dynasty". If the infobox does not fit that, then maybe we should just get rid of the infobox. But it is employed on similar articles. What's clear is that both Persian and Turkic were used in the administration of the realm. Plus, Nader Shah wasn't just "one guy"; L'état, c'est moi is even truer in his case than it is of Louis XIV. --Folantin (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the case with all the other dynastic pages. You have the page talking about the dynasty and then a nice little infobox in the right describing the state that the dynasty established, with its official/court language, etc and sources backing them up. Technically it should only include the official/court languages but you have people (presumably Turks, I don't know) who edit the page and add things like "Turkic (military)" or something along these lines in the infobox as well, which is normally kept intact in order to keep every side happy. But in reality the infobox is for the country which the dynasty founded, and not for the actual dynasty. I don't think French sayings really matter because the eastern cultures are not as black and white as what the French kings used to say. In the eastern cultures, you can be a Turk and Persian at the same time. For example, I am Arab and Jewish at the same time. So it means nothing.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The French means: "The state is me." I only put that there because that was basically Nader Shah's attitude. He was an absolute monarch, so what was "official" or not was of little importance compared to his own personal will. He effectively was the government of Iran, so if he preferred to give commands in Turkic then it's a significant language of government. Of course, he also spoke and used Persian (and probably wrote Persian rather than Turkic - according to Axworthy, it's possible he became literate later in life) and his civil service used Persian.
The only thing I am objecting to is Turkic being excluded here since it was clearly a language of government alongside Persian. As you say, many Eastern dynasties were multi-lingual (as were many Western ones BTW). The Mughal Empire infobox contains Persian, (Chagatai) Turkic and Urdu.
General point: I usually think Wikipedia infoboxes are badly designed and misleading and more trouble than they are worth. --Folantin (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to my earlier point, that the Afsharid dynasty was not just Nader Shah. The dynasty effectively continued for another 49 years after his 11 year reign. It's not always about the state being him or him being the state. His linguistic preference does not contradict the fact that his kingdom's (and therefore dynasty's) official language and court language was Persian. I suppose I can see why Turkic has to be added in the list of languages, but technically Persian remains the dominant one. If a country's linguistic and cultural identity is predominantly and overwhelmingly Persian, and if the ruling dynasty (like others before them) were assimilated into that Persianate mold to the extent they made the Persian language the official/court language of the state, then I can't see how that is in any shape or form overshadowed by the ruler's linguistic preference. Like I said last night, imagine Qatar's emir for a second. He's an absolute monarch so what he says goes. Now to Qatar's shariah, Arabic is the official language and court language of the state. But the emir ironically speaks English and prefers its usage a lot more than he does for Arabic. But it does not change the core/primary linguistic identity of the Al-Thani dynasty, neither does it change the linguistic official identity of the Qatari state which the Al-Thani dynasty established.
Anyway I'm logging off now. I believe we came to an agreement over the languages but it remains to be heard from a third opinion.Qatarihistorian (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turkic was a court language as well as Persian, as it was for the Safavids. Most of the Afsharid dynasty's apparent length is made up by the "reign" of Shahrokh, a blind puppet king who "ruled" over a rump state in name only. It's also highly likely he spoke Turkic too. It's impossible to underestimate the importance of Nader Shah. He's really the only Afsharid who counts. On his death, his empire disintegrated within a couple of years. --Folantin (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Persian was the court and official language as many historians are known to say. So far Turkic was only interchangeably used by Nader when needed be, but this isn't officially regulated or sanctioned by his government. Nader Shah didn't go around sanctioning his native language as the official national/court language. He may have used it from time to time, but that's about it. The only language that was ever truly sanctioned as official/court languages, through all these centuries of Turkic-ruled dynasties, was the Persian language. Which is why these dynasties are all described by various historians as "Persianate" dynasties, i.e. dynasties based on the Persian language/culture/identity, thanks to assimilation with the natives. Again, you can say Turkic was used, and maybe it was for different reasons. But its use is clearly not as overwhelming as you ought to think. These people were acculturated to their nation's native identities first, and looked to their origins second. Shahrokh's likelihood of linguistic choice cannot be predicted from thin air. If we base logic on other resources, we'd assume the same thing for him as we did for previous Turkic dynasties in Iran: almost all were heavily Persianized/Persian-speaking. See you some other time.Qatarihistorian (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except Nader specifically played up his Turkic roots. As Professor Ernest Tucker writes in Encyclopaedia Iranica: "Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by ... promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations...Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals. When describing Nāder’s coronation, Astarābādi called the assembly on the Moḡān steppe a quriltāy, evoking the practice of Mughal and Timurid conclaves that periodically met to select new khans. In various official documents, Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a 'Turkmen' ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word 'Turkmen' to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." Shahrokh was named after this guy. The name was specifically chosen to emphasise Nader's links with the Turco-Mongolian tradition. --Folantin (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IF we are to accept this, "Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", pg 128, and the corresponding sentences, "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time. At the same time, the official language was Persian, the court literature was in Persian, and most of the chancellors, ministers, and mandarins were Persian speakers of the highest learning and ability", as a reliable source, then any dynasty that is sourced by this reference therefore must also be "Turkic-speaking" else the source does not apply! We can not "cherry pick" what we want from a source simply to promote one aspect. --Defensor Ursa 16:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin: There are political reasons for why these rulers would insist on their supposed common ancestry. Today this is considered pseudoscience since these rulers have absolutely nothing in common. When you look at the Mughals, most of them were genetically native to India after mixing with the local Indian populations over the years, and should we ever describe their Turkic roots then ultimately the Mughals go back to Mongolic origins which were Turkicized by eastern Turks. Whereas the Ottomans were of a predominant European genetic stock, and should we affiliate them to their Turkic roots then ultimately the Ottomans go back to western Turkic origins which were heavily intermixed with native Anatolian. And then the Afsharids who were infact not Afsharids in the first place, but were adopted by an Afsharid tribe. Their exact origin might even be controversial because some say they're Turkicized of Iranian stock. So really, these ancestral claims were all fake pseudoscience. Whatever common ancestry Nader Shah claimed, it's evident he was playing up a so called mythical relationship with his neighbors in much the same way Hitler pepped up his blue-eyed blond-haired aryan theory, in order to attract the sympathy of his neighbors and maintain his political immunity. So let's not get ahead of ourselves with Nader Shah's so called patronization of Turkmen ancestry, since in all issues concerned he was nothing but a native of Iran who was adopted by a Turkic tribe and then used his supposed "origin" whenever his political influence saw fit. Ultimately, these Turkic-ruled dynasties in greater Iran used their origin claims whenever they thought it could leverage them against their opponents. First and foremost, they were patrons of their very own country's culture, which was Persianate, which explains why these Turkic-ruled dynasties in greater Iran always upheld the Persianate status quo. Qatarihistorian (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear: Good point. Ultimately I am not going to deny the fact these Persianate dynasties were Turkic (or Turkic-speaking) in origin. I think this is quite evident. However, I am mostly referring to the technical approach of their states. While it is true these dynasties of Turkic (or Turkic-speaking) origin dominated the Iranian plateau for many centuries, it is also true that these dynasties patronized Iran's native Persian linguistic and cultural identity, so far as they sanctioned Persian as the official and predominant linguistic/cultural identity of their established states and courts.
Anyway, I can now understand why it may have been important to place Turkic along the list of languages, but it still remains that this language may have represented the dynastic origin of the family, but did not represent the official state language in the same overwhelming manner that Persian did, hence why these states were always referred as Persianate states, i.e. ones that were built on native principles which sparked beginnings of Iranian nationalism.Qatarihistorian (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he was nothing but a native of Iran who was adopted by a Turkic tribe". No, Nader was not adopted by a Turkic tribe. He really was Turkic by birth. Plus - quite obviously - you can be a "native of Iran" and be Turkic, Kurdish, Armenian, Arab etc rather than a "Persian". Iran has never been a mono-ethnic state. Your arguments are heading into the territory of original research. But, since the current version of the infobox seems acceptable, I'm probably going to leave this discussion now. --Folantin (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got the impression that I said only Persians are natives of Iran. Yes I know that anyone can be native of Iran, so long as he was born there, but that wasn't my point. I was talking about the acculturation of Nader Shah into Iran's native Persianate sphere, which is only logical for a native Iranian to do. Having said that, it's not surprising that you continually misinterpret my comments for something which they are not. Your earlier unproven accusations of me having a "biased" or "prejudice" POV, as well as your accusations of me being an "ethnic warrior" (as you said in the user talk page of the admin), go hand in hand with the fact that you don't know how to interpret people's actions or comments. Next time I think you should report yourself to the admins before reporting others, especially when you cannot prove your claims. Furthermore, what I said here about Nader Shah's adoption does not head into the territory of original research for two reasons: 1. I haven't added this info into the article (yet) so it's not original research, it's merely a discussion in the article's talk page. 2. It's not original research because there have been claims about the non-Afsharid origin of Nader Shah, which I will gladly add into his own article, as well as this dynasty's article, once I find the appropriate English language references for them. Au revoir. Qatarihistorian (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've started off again? WP:LASTWORD? Your behaviour has hardly been exemplary and if you act like that again I really will get an admin to investigate. You haven't exactly revealed a masterful knowledge of the Afsharid dynasty and have been most reluctant to admit any Turkic element. It's obvious that you have a strong POV on this subject. The idea that Nader was adopted is complete fantasy. His court historian made no attempt to disguise his humble origins. His latest biographers Michael Axworthy and Ernest Tucker (in Encyclopaedia Iranica) say he was the son of a Turkic Afshar (from the Qereqlu clan) as does Peter Avery in The Cambridge History of Iran. --Folantin (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know it would be nice if you stop throwing at me Wiki terms in every reply you post. Last time it was original research, even though I added nothing of new to the article. This time you threw at me last word? What in the heck is wrong with you? Seems like you're in a powertrip despite no power, good thing you're not an admin. Actually I'll let you have the last word. This encyclopedia is not for one point of view, it's for many points of views, which all add up to the sum of knowledge attained from such encyclopedias. I have read Arabic books about Nader Shah's origins and I will gladly search for them via Google Arabic and link them here, but I'm sure you'll remove them because you wouldn't know how to read Arabic. Which is why I told you, once I find the English sources which contradict his Afsharid origin, I will add it. This is not controversial. Once again you do not understand our cultures. In Arabic we call this "تبعية", which means to follow something. Nader Shah's lineage is non-Afsharid. Doesn't mean it's non-Turkic. He could be Turkic non-Afsharid or Kurdish non-Afsharid, it wouldn't matter. Learn to interpret people's posts properly.Qatarihistorian (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no controversy over Nader's background. No reliable sources claim that Nader was anything but a Turkic Afshar. His own court historian, Astarabadi, says this. There were various cranky European claims in the 18th century that he was French, Brabantine or Irish but they are obvious nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay my friend. I will stop replying here. But when I find you a reliable English source, I will inform you before adding it. Salam alikum.Qatarihistorian (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you now, you are wasting your time. You won't find a source that will trump Axworthy, Encyclopaedia Iranica and The Cambridge History of Iran. Saying anything other than that Nader was a Turkic Afshar is extreme fringe. I mean, there's even a clue in the name, isn't there? Afsharid dynasty. --Folantin (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Folantin here.. Iranica is fairly reliable on this. As per languages, the administrative language of these Turkic/Turcophone dynastires was Persian however in their courts, they spoke both languages and with their troops, Turkic could have been used more often. Usually the Viziers of all these Turcophone dynasties were from the native Iranian groups. So the format is fine. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong[edit]

The Afsharids never controlled Mosul or Baghdad. They tried to, but failed. The map is simply misleading, particularly since the legend suggests those were the borders from 1736-1802. They were never the borders, let along for 65 years. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map doesnt include baghdad, its close but not including baghdad. yet nader shah did take control of a small city or a very large village that was NEAR baghdad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map is clearly labelled "Safavid Empire" and is therefore the wrong map. I hope someone can replace it with a map that is relevant. Zaslav (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Grand Proposal![edit]

Hello everyone! I have been reading the Safavid and Afsharid Empire articles for while and have read so many books on both. I am proposing to merge the Safavid and Afsharid Empire articles into one article, given that both empires were virtually the same empire with a different dynasty. Much like how the Roman and Byzantine Empires went through different Dynasties, Nadir Shah took over the Safavid Empire and declared himself Shah of Iran, thus a new dynasty was put on the throne of the Safavid Empire and was renamed the Afsharid Empire. What do you all think of my proposal? Keeby101 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I posted this on the Safavid Empire talk page as well to get the topic across both talk pages.

Obvious oppose Um, the Safavid dynasty and the Afsharid dynasty were two different dynasties, that's why they have separate pages. The state they ruled was called Iran (or Persia). We have an article on that too. --Folantin (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't fully hear me out! I was going to have the new page named "Third Persian Empire" and rename the Safavid Dynasty and Afsharid Dynasty Articles as "Third Persian Empire under the Safavid Dynasty" and "Third Persian Empire under the Afsharid Dynasty. For example, the Byzantine Empire has an article of it's own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire, but it also has it's own sub-articles such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Palaiologos_dynasty and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Justinian_dynasty

So with that being said, I was proposing to have an entirely new article created called "Third Persian Empire" or "Early Modern Persian Empire" that would be specifically about the Safavid and Afsharid Empires. Sound good? Keeby101 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one calls it those things. This article is about a dynasty, hence the title. Same goes for the Safavid artiole. --Folantin (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well people should call it those things. Many people do refer to these two dynasties as Empires because of immense territory they possessed at the time. Thus the title "Third Persian Empire" would be legitimate title for the new article. "Early Modern Persian Empire" would also be a legitimate title or even "Early Modern Persia" would be a good title. I should have rephrased my proposal the first time I posted it on both talk pages. I am proposing to create an entirely new article called "Third Persian Empire". When people type "Early Modern Persian Empire" or "Early Modern Persia", it will redirect them to my new article. In the article I will have links to the current articles that are called the "Safavid Dynasty" and the "Afsharid Dynasty". I will add sections to the article. Trust me, it will be great. You can check out what it would look like on my sandbox. It will be great! Cheers! :) Keeby101 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See policies: use common name and no original research. I repeat: the name of the state was Iran (or Persia), the same one later ruled by the Qajar dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty and the Islamic Republic. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah.....no!!! that would not work. though they ruled the same kingdom those are still different dynasties and its completely unnesecary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Afsharid dynasty[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Afsharid dynasty's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "iranica":

  • From Greater Khorasan: "Khorasan i. Ethnic Groups,"' Pierre Oberling, Encyclopaedia Iranica
  • From Delhi: Rafati, V.; Sahba, F. (1989). "Bahai temples". Encyclopædia Iranica.
  • From Nakhichevan Khanate: Oberling, P. "Kangarlu". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
  • From List of Turkic dynasties and countries: O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)
  • From Anglo-Persian Oil Company: Kazemi, F. (December 15, 1985), "Anglo-Persian Oil Company", in: Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. II, Fasc. 1, pp. 61–65. Iranica Online (Last Updated: August 5, 2011). Accessed April 16, 2012.
  • From Adil Shah: J. R. Perry (December 15, 1983), "ʿĀdel Shah Afšār", in: Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. I, Fasc. 5, p. 452. Iranica Online (Last Updated: July 22, 2011). Accessed April 16, 2012.
  • From Nader Shah: Ernest Tucker (March 29, 2006). "Nāder Shāh 1736-47". Encyclopædia Iranica.
  • From Ottoman Empire: Özgündenli, O. "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries". Encyclopaedia Iranica (online ed.).
  • From Flag of Iran: "Encyclopædia Iranica: FLAGS i. Of Persia". Retrieved 12 November 2010.
  • From Eldiguzids: Luther, K.A. (December 15, 1987). "Atabakan-e Ādarbayjan". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved October 28, 2010.
  • From Timeline of Baku: S. Soucek; R. G. Suny. "Baku". Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Columbia University, Center for Iranian Studies. Retrieved March 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • From History of Iran: O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopædia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)
  • From Cyrtian: Schmitt, Rüdiger. "CYRTIANS". Center for Iranian Studies, Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Columbia University. Retrieved 2009-05-09. [dead link]
  • From Persianate society: Özgündenli, O. "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries". Encyclopaedia Iranica (online ed.).
  • From Ganja Khanate: "Encyclopædia Iranica. Ganja". Iranicaonline.org. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
  • From Seljuq dynasty: O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)
  • From Nowruz: MacEoin, Dennis (1989). "Bahai Calendar and Festivals". Encyclopædia Iranica.
  • From Dahae: [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dahae François de Blois & Willem Vogelsang, 2011, "Dahae", Encyclopedia Iranica (23 May 2015).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Languages[edit]

After having checked the sources which were used for the claim that "Azerbaijani Turkish" was the court language, I found that in fact, the sources (both Axworthy publications) stated no such thing at all. Axworthy makes clear in fact that Persian was the language of the high court and large cities on page 19. What kind of an imbecile could come up with "Azerbaijani" as the particular dialect when in fact the Afshars were Turkmen settled in Khorasan, is truly beyond me. Although Nader preferred to speak in Turkmeni, this is not an article on Nader Shah, but on the Afsharid state! However, there is ample evidence that Turkic was still the language used in military terminology and administration. Provided the myriad of references throughout Axworthy's book which prove this. Use of the terms "Minbashi", "Tupchibashi", "Qurchibashi", "Nasaachi-bashi", "Keshikchi-bashi", "Yuzbashi",... are prevalent, alongside other Tukic military nomenclature throughout.[1] Parsa1993 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Axworthy, Michael (2006). The Sword of Persia. I.B. Tauris. pp. 5, 45, 70, 80, 157, 279. ISBN 1-84511-982-7.

flag[edit]

Is that the right flag?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.224.26 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the Blue-Red-White flag be used, i dont think this is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.142.104 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afsharid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery[edit]

@Wikaviani: Puffery is a no-no on an encyclopedia like ours, regardless of the source(s) you use. So why do you keep re-introducing such wording (I count 3 uses of "brilliant" throughout the article) into the lead? Does it really have to go through an RfC? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan : Just because it's supported by a high quality reliable source (added to the article a few minutes ago). More, the burden of proof relies on you because you're the one who is trying to change a stable version of the article. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion. I've explained to you that such wording is unacceptable on Wikipedia, per policy. So the onus is on you to demonstrate (with policy-based arguments) why that "stable" version should remain as it is. Please remove those words and let's save us both the potentially time consuming debates. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what you say or explain to me does not matter here, the sentence is sourced with the best possible source (see Michael Axworthy). Wiki policies also state that sourced content should not be removed, right ? If you want to go for a RfC for this single word you don't like in the article, then go ahead and proceed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And FYI, the "puffery" policy states : " Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information", we're clearly not in this case here since the world 'brilliant" is supported by a reliable source.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. See below. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

There is a clear consensus that the word "brilliant" should not be used to describe Nader Shah and his campaigns/strategy throughout the article.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the word "brilliant" be used to describe Nader Shah and his campaigns/strategy (I count 3 occasions) throughout the article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes according to me, see the source below (however, if you want to remove another "brilliant" from the article, no problem, but there should be one "brilliant" in the lead). Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be one? Why? Just because some loaded word can be found in certain RS, doesn't mean we get to keep material that violates policy in an article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Fitzcarmalan, these words are important because they help to better understand Nader and his reign. Also your statement "Just because some loaded word can be found in certain RS, doesn't mean we get to keep material that violates policy" is completely irrelevant here. The policy you're referring to is by no mean violated, and since you fail to check facts, please read my comment above your RfC. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does "brilliant" help readers better understand the subject? It is a loaded non-NPOV word that serves no other purpose than to glorify the subject. Why not have a more neutral word like, for example, "experienced"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me to ask, but do you know Nader Shah ? do you know in what catastrophic situation he came to power ? Do you really think that this is "puffery" to say that a guy who was enslaved when he was a child in a country invaded by Afghan armies and who managed to escape, rose to power and then defeated all the great powers in that area ? So yes, saying the guy was "humble" as a chikd and a "brilliant" military commander later is actually helping people to understand who he was. Also, you did not give a single legit reason to remove these words from the article (except the policy that is not broken as i said above). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I do know is that I just finished reading this article and in the process helped make it more compliant with WP policy. I'll let future participants in this RfC decide whether I'm right or wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep going on with a Wiki policy compliance but so far, you have not proved that any policy has been broken...---Wikaviani (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is obviously not written from a neutral point of view. The citation in the lead is not particularly helpful, either, since it's presenting a single author's quick characterization as objective fact. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's obviously not neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. While it might be appropriate to devote some coverage in the biography of Nader Shah to how later historians perceived his skills as a leader, it is out of place here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Kerberous (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and that isn't the only example of 'inflated' text. At times it reads more like a 'Boys Own' adventure tale than an ency article about a historical figure. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2018 (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.

Reverts[edit]

Will you kindly evaluate each change individually instead of just blanket reverting? This is becoming very disruptive. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, Please note that you made a massive amount of changes but you did not provide a single source for that (while i provided two reliable sources just for keeping two words in the article). Keep in mind that you don't own Wikipedia (see WP:OWN) and cannot edit here according to your (valuable but unreliable) POV. Please keep in mind that reverting unsourced changes is not disruptive while editing the article without providing a single source is disruptive. If you need any help for finding reliable sources for your edits, just ask, i'll be glad to help you. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I'll limit myself to discussing this edit of mine, which you reverted citing "done without a single source". I don't need a source for the various copyedits that I made. I don't need a source to bypass a redirect, like I did when I replaced Takht e Taus with Peacock Throne. I don't need a source to remove a duplicated link, like I also did with Peacock Throne. I don't need a source to replace "chaos" with "troubles", "jealous of" with "alarmed by", "ease Tahmasp from power" with "depose Tahmasp", "great" with "decisive", "best thing for Nader to do" with "best course of action for Nader", and "rich" with "valuable", among others. I don't need a source to remove the repeated "Nader had his son appointed ruler of Persia while he was away" and "Reza had Tahmasp and his son executed" claims. And I certainly don't need a source to remove peacock words like "brilliant" and "spectacular" among others.
You, on the other hand, should provide a source for "treacherous", which is not used to describe Fath Ali Khan's actions in the Axworthy book. You should add a source at the end of the paragraph containing the POV word "foolhardy", among the many other unsourced paragraphs in this article. You should also admit occasionally that you can be in the wrong when it comes to your editing. And you should also apologize for making me come here and waste my time on this instead of doing more productive things on Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitzcarmalan: : Easy man, cool down and stay cool. If you bothered to take a look at my user page, you would have seen this :
This user is not afraid of being wrong.
which means that it's not a problem for me to confess i'm wrong (but i'm not wrong when i ask you to leave in the article sourced contents). Also, when you say " And you should also apologize for making me come here and waste my time on this instead of doing more productive things on Wikipedia", please note that nobody urged you to come here. You're here because you are not able to provide any source for the large majority of your edits in this article (even if i agree with you that a little number of them are legit, note that the burden of proof relies with you since you're trying to change a stable version of the article) and you try to dscuss the removal of sourced content from the article (like "Nader Shah was a brilliant military commander" or he was of humble extraction), but you're wrong if you think you can do such things. as to your endless "i don't need a source for ...", yes, you don't need a source for each of these additions, but some of them require sources. As i said above, if you need any help, i'll be glad to proceed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of my changes require sources. Did someone convince you in the past that the phrase "you need a source" can be used on any occasion as a free ticket to retain POV crap in articles? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, i have checked a part of your editing history, you seem to be a honest editor with valuable contributions here, so keep going this way and avoid aggressive words like "POV crap", especially while i provided two reliable sources in order to keep two disputed words in the article, ok ? Why don't you just wait for the conclusion of your RfC ? this would be, i think, a good way to deal with this issue, otherwise why have you initiated that RfC ? if you keep editing the article without any other user's input, your RfC would be perfectly useless. Just be patient, everything comes to those who wait. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits undone?[edit]

Persia is the historic name and sounds much better and nicer, Iran is just a name used on Farsi, do we speak Farsi here or English? I don’t recognize Reza Shahs idiotic name change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinoob2939 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Your response is requested. Danre98(talk^contribs) 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's literally not, please do some research, check Iran (word), check the talk page of the move request of Safavid Iran or Qajar Iran, or if you want the real deal then check 'From Oxus to Euphrates: The World of Late Antique Iran' or 'Birth of the Persian Empire' on the word Iran. Also, try to hide your personal feelings, I don't really care what you think about Reza Shah, being angry towards him (a dead man) doesn't make your argument stronger. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

After the split of Safavid Iran from Safavid dynasty (talk) and Qajar Iran from Qajar dynasty (talk), I suggest the split of Afsharid Iran from "Afsharid dynasty". Some uses of the name:

Benyamin (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a kind soul who could do the splitting? Or explain how it works for that matter :d. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be a matter of taking out the more state-focused information and leaving this as an article on the dynasty. However, looking through it, I am having trouble pulling apart that distinction. This article is very much dynasty focused, with perhaps only the Military subsection and the Religious policy section feeling like obvious areas to split (in addition to the infobox), and that would be a quite stubby article. Going by LouisAragon's argument, a page move may be more useful, following which a dynasty article could be split off if other topics are expanded upon? CMD (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will try to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you doing that job? Benyamin (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not atm sorry, I'm not sure how to do properly. Imo I feel like we need more information to do that, but if you wanna do it, please feel free to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you've done that job! Thanks :) Benyamin (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic language[edit]

Anyone knows which Turkic? Oghuz? If yes, western or eastern? Sounds a bit vague. Beshogur (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Beshogur (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
probably Azeri turkish.Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Guarded Domains of Iran"[edit]

@HistoryofIran: is this not name of the Qajars? Could you provide the quote? Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The frontiers of the "Guarded Domains of Iran" (Mamalik-i Mahrusa-yi Iran ), as the country had been defined since Safavid times, were almost the same as those in the fifth-century definition of Iranshahr in the Sassanian manual, Nama-yi Tansar , and those outlined by fourteenth-century geographer Hamdullah Mustawfi, the author of Nazhat al-Qulub." --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However no mention of Afsharid. Beshogur (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mb, the quote doesn't make much sense like this; "An element of continuity in Iran's political order is best observed in the endurance of its geopolitical boundaries. The Qajar territorial equilibrium, which with the exception of some losses on the periphery continued throughout the nineteenth century, was founded on tangible historical precedence. The frontiers of the "Guarded Domains of Iran" (Mamalik-i Mahrusa-yi Iran ), as the country had been defined since Safavid times, were almost the same as those in the fifth-century definition of Iranshahr in the Sassanian manual, Nama-yi Tansar , and those outlined by fourteenth-century geographer Hamdullah Mustawfi, the author of Nazhat al-Qulub".
And another one; "Nader’s personal ambitions into a patriotic objective tied to defending the
Guarded Domains and preserving Iran’s territorial integrity."
"The long shadow of the “son of the sword,” as Nader often referred to his
own lineage, had already been cast over the Guarded Domains" - Amanat, Abbas (2017). Iran: A Modern History.
--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map[edit]

When did the Afsharids ruled modern day eastern Saudi Arabia and Qatar? do you people actually have any historical sources for this map 46.184.88.213 (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afsharid_dynasty&oldid=1198143821"