# Talk:Shirvanshahs

Shirvanshah = Kings of Shirvan in Persian right (shah = king)? I put that in.Azerbaijani 01:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Grandmaster 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If they were Arabs why did they have a Persian title?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Their origin needs further research. I don't know if they were Arabs or not. But even if they were Arabs, they were Persianized. Grandmaster 12:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have some info from Boseworth (originally written by Barthold but updated by Boseworth) which I'll put in.  --alidoostzadeh 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this about the Shirvanshah title, the Shirvanshah state, or the dynasty that ruled the Shirvanshah state? Was the state actually called "Shirvanshah" or "Shirvanshah state"? That doesnt sound right, as Shirvanshah means King of Shirvan.Azerbaijani 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is about all three.  Shirvanshah (or more archaic Sharwanshah) where a dynasty who ruled Shirvan.  Their title was Shirvanshah and their state was also the kingdom of the dynasty of Shirvanshah.  The best book on Shirvanshah is written by Minorsky and I have it.  From Minorsky's time there is not really much new information and Minorsky seems to have exhausted all the sources.  The title Shirvanshah actually does go back to pre-Islamic times, so we can mention that.  --alidoostzadeh 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever uploaded the pictures has a good artistic style.  It would be good to have the current city where the impressive monuments are located so future visitors (hopefully myself one day) may visit them.  --alidoostzadeh 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are more in the Palace of the Shirvanshahs. The palace is a very mysterious place. Grandmaster 13:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Very nice.  Have to definitely visit! --alidoostzadeh 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Native state does not mean they were Azerbaijani Turkic speakers.  Inded different groups are considered natives in the republic of Azerbaijan.  For example Safavids and Qajars in many sources have been reference as establishing a "native Persian state" or a "native Iranian state".  Obviously this is a geographical term rather an ethnic term.  The fact that Shirvanshah's were Arab dynasty who married with local Iranian dynasties and established a state in Shirvan is well known.  For an opposite example[1]. (Shah Ismail the first native Persian Rule). --alidoostzadeh 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wario-Man, let's discuss it as you wish. Shahanshah5 (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Great job on the rewrite! Before this article is nominated for GA, I believe there is one issue that should be addressed, and that is the article's current scope. The current article title "Shirvanshah" restricts the scope of this article to rulers of the State of Shirvanshahs, which is not a restriction that the article follows in its current form. To address this issue, what do you think about renaming this article to "Shirvanshahs" or "State of Shirvanshahs" (or any other common name for the state)? There are already separate articles for "State of Shirvanshahs" and "Shirvanshah" in other language Wikipedias. — Golden call me maybe? 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. I wouldn't mind "Shirvanshahs", but I think "State of Shirvanshahs", sounds a bit off, not really being used in WP:RS either, which simply uses "Shirvanshah(s)". --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot about this. The article appears to have been nominated for GA, and since moving during a GA nomination can cause disruptions on bots' functionality, we can wait until the GA is over before proceeding. Best of luck with the nomination! — Golden call me maybe? 12:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shirvanshah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Will review over the following days. Constantine   ✍  18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Did some minor copyedits directly to save time.
Lede
The Arabic name translates to the 'state/dynasty of the Shirvanshah'. Is this deliberate?
Good catch! It's not, changed it to "Shirvanshah". --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, the Arabic and Persian names are now identical. I would merge them (e.g. 'Arabic/Persian: xxx').
Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
rulers of Shirvan give a modern location here
I think footnote #b can easily be incorporated into the main text.
Thoughts? [2] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
That was footnote #a ;), I had no problem with that, but also not a problem keeping it in the main text. I meant The line was also referred to as the Khaqanids.
Ops. There we go [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The first ruling line... This gives the impression there were several ruling lines, but only one is explicitly mentioned. The other line should be mentioned here, or the entire statement should be moved to after the overview of the dynasty (from 861 to 1538) given in the next paragraph
Changed it to resemble the former, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks good.
The Shirvanshahs, existing as independent or a vassal state, from 861 until 1538; one of longest existing dynasties in the Islamic world, are known for their support of culture this mixes up two several things: their duration, political status, and patronage of culture. Suggest splitting these up, or at least treating them in order. E.g. "The Shirvanshahs ruled from 861 to 1538, one of the most enduring dynasties of the Islamic world.  At times they were independent, often they had to recognize the overlordship of neighbouring empires. The dynasty is known for its patronage of culture...."
 Ismail (later regnally known as Ismail I) is redundant, just Ismail I.
Background
Introduce Ibn Khordadbeh (geographer)
Is it likely that the use of Shirvanshah by later Muslim authors is an anachronism? Do the sources mention anything like this?
Good question. The used sources make no mention of this, so I assume they didn't consider that to be a possibility. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The first line of the Shirvanshahs... this belongs under the 'first line' section below
First line (861–1382)
Is it possible to have subsections here?
Unfortunately I can't really think of a helpful subsection. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
When referring to Shirvanshah (and also Layzanshah, Kasranids etc) as a word/title, please italicize it (MOS:WAW)
I'm not sure understand, so every case of Shirvanshah/Layzanshah etc should be italicized? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Where it is a term, e.g. to use the title of Shirvanshah yes, but Shirvanshah Fariburz I or that the Shirvanshahs served as Seljuk vassals no. Also titles like Khāqān-e Kabir etc.
This hurts my non-English brain. I think I did it? [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think yes. Anyhow for GA I think the requirements are considerably less stringent. Constantine   ✍  12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
was closely intervened is closely intertwined.
of the Hudud al-'Alam what is this? Give a brief description.
and onwards either 'and on' or just 'onward'
moderately full collection moderately complete collection
slowly become Persian to 'slowly become Persianized'
ancient rulers would suggest that the Shirvanshahs married with the actual ancient rulers; perhaps 'ancient ruling line'?
descended from figures clarify that these were pre-Islamic, Sasanian-era figures
link 'infidel', 'Kurdish'
Relink 'Georgians' to Kingdom of Georgia?
The current phrasing suggests that both the Abbasid caliph and Malik-Shah were introduced to the coinage, whereas I assume that the caliph was mentioned there since the beginning. So perhaps 'the coins of Fariburz I cite not only the Abbasid caliph, but also the Seljuk ruler Malik-Shah I'?
Use {{transl|fa|}} for transliterated Persian terms per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
Does that only include words such as naulatiya? Or names such as Layla and Majnun, Hudud al-'Alam (as {{transl|ar|}}) too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Only words/terms. Not proper names.
There we go I think? [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Link Maliks of Darband to a suitable article (or even WP:REDLINK)?
Give duration/dates for the Mongol Empire, Ilkhanate, Jalayirid Sultanate
Second line (1382–1538)
As previously, some subsections might be nice (not obligatory)
A reconquest of Shirvan was attempted multiple times some details here? At least some dates?
Culture
Like the Shaddadids and Rawadids 'Like the other regional dynasties of the Shaddadids...' or similar, otherwise the relevance is unclear
Link Nestorian Christian, Armenian
Sources
Not an expert on the topic, but sufficiently familiar with the region and period. The sources cited are high-quality RS, and include some I'd expect to see for medieval Iranian/Caucasian history. Can't say if anything is missing though.
Be consistent in giving locations for books or not
Removed locations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Iranica refs are incomplete; at least give editor/publisher, perhaps an ISSN?
Added Routledge & Kegan Paul as the publisher. Though I'm not sure where to find the ISSNN.
Here you go [6] but for GA I think it can be waived. Constantine   ✍  12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio check not done yet, will do in the second pass.
@HistoryofIran: That's it for a first pass, where I focused mostly on prose. Once these are done, I'll do another pass. Quite comprehensive, good balance of detail and overview info, and well written; at least for me it was easy to follow the narrative. Constantine   ✍  12:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another review, thank you very much Constantine! I'm a bit pressed for time atm, but I'll try to see to it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran:  No worries, take your time. I will keep the review open until you can address it, unless you decide to postpone it. Constantine   ✍  10:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Looks good so far, have responded to your queries above. One request, though: please do not strike through the items yourself, I should be the one to do this (also so I can keep track of what I have checked and what not). Cheers, Constantine   ✍  09:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I did a spotcheck of sources, nothing in terms of direct copyvio, but there is a lot of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing with Bosworth 2011a. Sort of difficult to avoid, given the heavy dependence on it, but it should be addressed. Sentence structure, wording, etc. are pretty close. E.g. The history of the Yazidids is closely intervened with another Arab family, the Hashimids, who were based in Darband vs The history of Šervānšāhs was clearly closely bound up with that of another Arab military family, the Hāšemis of Bāb al-abwāb/Darband etc. Constantine   ✍  10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Understood. I will take a look at the source and do some rewriting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, HistoryofIran, please ping me when you are done. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: I've tried to address the remaining issues. Please let me know if I've missed anything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: all issues taken care of, except for the pretty close paraphrasing ([7]). Constantine   ✍  12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Ops, the thought of using that program didn't even occur to me. I'll get to it asap. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: looks good, am passing now. Well done :) Constantine   ✍  19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)