Talk:Nader Shah

message: Nadershah is dead in Kalat, please edit it. Thanks StarTesla (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  place of death  

message: Add nationality - Azerbaijani Turk Umbayev Tofig (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: No source for this. Azerbaijani was not an ethnonym and especially not nationality back then . --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 

message: Sorry, didn't pay attention on this bit and accidently removed it ("Although he later learned Persian, he always preferred using Turkic in everyday speech. He learned to read and write as an adult."). But why is this necessary? "Nader's native tongue was a southern Oghuz dialect, i.e. "Turkish of Azerbaijan". It does not bring any valuable information, I fail to see how it is better than "The Afshar dialect is categorized either as a dialect of the Southern Oghuz group or a dialect of Azerbaijani". Stöber doesn't need to directly mention Nader; We already know he belongs to the Afshar tribe, unless you mean to say that Nader spoke a completely different dialect than his tribesmen. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting bit of trivia since it deviates from the usual practice of kings of Persia/Iran using Persian as their primary language. It also demonstrates how Nader's roots continued to influence him even after he ascended to the throne of Iran. I find it interesting and I believe most readers would too. The part about him learning to read and write can probably be moved to a section about his Early life. As for the quote from Minorsky, how can it be deemed devoid of valuable information? It specifically addresses the tongue Nader spoke, a topic on which sources are scarce. In response to "We already know he belongs to the Afshar tribe, unless you mean to say that Nader spoke a completely different dialect than his tribesmen", given our cautious approach to avoid making assumptions to the extent that we don't even link "Turkish of Azerbaijan" to the Azerbaijani language article, I think we should seek sources that directly address Nader's language rather than a general source discussing his tribe's dialect.  — Golden talk 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think you partly misunderstood me. I removed this on accident when I removed all the previous information of that section: "Although he later learned Persian, he always preferred using Turkic in everyday speech. He learned to read and write as an adult." As for the language bit, what assumptions are exactly being made? Nader belonged to the Afshar tribe, which is obviously also mentioned in Stöber . The reason that "Turkish of Azerbaijan" is not linked to Azerbaijani language because it doesn't refer that and that the category of the Afshar dialect is disputed (which the information I added adresses), but we have already been through that bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, sure, you can re-add Stöber. My opposition was to the removal of Minorsky since he is the only source that directly addresses what Nader spoke.  — Golden talk 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but can you please address my comment regarding Minorsky? I fail to see why it should stay when we have the bit from Stöber. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I did in my first comment. I'll paste it here:  To elaborate: Minorsky is an important source, so I think it would be remiss to exclude what he had to say on Nader's language in the section of the article where we discuss the language spoken by Nader.  — Golden talk 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I already responded to that at 20:12. Stöber already adresses the dialect of the Afshars, I fail too see how a direct (and frankly more vague) mention of Nader makes it special, he was ultimately a Afshar. Moreover, Minorsky calls it a Southern Oghuz dialect, which Azerbaijani is not part of. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's from an important scholar and provides a different description of the language compared to Stöber. We're not confined to using one source. We can use both and write how different sources have described it.  — Golden talk 20:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's literally what Stöber does here, he presents both sides. What does Minorsky do different here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret Minorsky's quote as differing from the perspectives represented by Stöber. As you mentioned, it's ambiguous and thus open to various interpretations. I don't see any harm in including his viewpoint here. However, I won't prolong this discussion. Have a pleasant day.  — Golden talk 20:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And what interpretation is that? If you are not interested in continuing this discussion, then I see no reason to remove it. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not uninterested, I just don’t have time. I thought this would be a quick fix when I joined the discussion, but clearly not and I unfortunately don't have the time to discuss it any further. Feel free to add back Stöber.  — Golden talk 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And thats fair, you dont have to reply to me as fast as possible. I doubt this discussion is going to take up that much time, the reason for its current length is more due to misunderstandings. If you can resume your participation before 30 days passes, that would be great. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Hi. This not-so-well sourced article Joseph von Semlin says that he was the "reputed son of Nader Shah", which was why I added the question mark. I've myself yet to find any information about him in relevant studies about Nader Shah, including the most prominent biographies on him, the Nadir Shah: A Critical Study Based Mainly upon Contemporary Sources. and The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, then you can revert my edit for now. Aintabli (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph von Semlin 

message: The section on Nader's religious policy states that "Among his reforms was the introduction of what came to be known as the kolah-e Naderi. This was a hat with four peaks which symbolised the first four caliphs of Islam". This cites Axworthy and Tucker as it's reference. However, Axworthy in page 76 of "The Sword of Persia" (states the complete opposite of what is cited to be his view) that some "believe that the four points of Nader's version had a religious meaning, but it seems more likely that...they signified the four corners of the territories he aimed to conquer". This thus completely goes against the citation as nowhere in the pages cited is it said that the crown had a religious connotation to it but was rather political. Tucker however does mention that the crown did in fact have the religious connotation as stated in the article. It would thus be better to expand on this and mention the alternative view of the crown symbolising "Persia,India,Turkestan and Khwarezm" (found on page 76 of "The Sword of Persia"). Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kolah-E-Naderi