Talk:Afsharid dynasty

message: :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)
thread_title:  Afshrid dynasty 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: "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)
thread_title: Origins

message: This link:
*Afsharids entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia Iranica link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The map is wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My Grand Proposal!  

message: 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: 
From Nakhichevan Khanate: 
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: 
From Ottoman Empire: 
From Flag of Iran: 
From Eldiguzids: 
From Timeline of Baku: 
From History of Iran: O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopædia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)
From Cyrtian:  
From Persianate society: 
From Ganja Khanate: 
From Seljuq dynasty: O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK)
From Nowruz: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Afsharid dynasty]] 

message: 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. Parsa1993 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Languages

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

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Fot_grp10%2Fot_nadershah_20060329.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610184508/http://librarun.org/book/63545/195 to http://librarun.org/book/63545/195
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211449/http://m-hosseini.ir/zand/articles-1/30.pdf to http://m-hosseini.ir/zand/articles-1/30.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325105251/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a023.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a023.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: Very well then. See below. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your response is requested. Danre98(talk^contribs) 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why were my edits undone? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Alright, I will try to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you doing that job? Benyamin (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Finally, you've done that job! Thanks :) Benyamin (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Anyone knows which Turkic? Oghuz? If yes, western or eastern? Sounds a bit vague. Beshogur (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Beshogur (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: probably Azeri turkish.Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The map