Jump to content

Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hoben7599 (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 17 June 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


title

Please read over Arabic transliteration, it applies equally to Persian. This has nothing to do with the Arabic/Persian difference in language. There is a standard for transliteration that only uses 6 vowels: three long, three short. They go a, ā, i, ī, u, and ū. Cuñado - Talk 18:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian, Not Arabic

There is no short 'i' or short 'u' in Modern Persian. Those vowels are used in Arabic, not Persian. In Persian those letters whould be represented by 'e' and 'o' respectively. Those are official rules used for transliterating Persian words by the government of Iran and all licensed translators. What you are doing by insisting on Arabic transliterations in Persian articles is an act of vandalism. --Houshyar 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Arabic vs Persian. It is the same script and follows the same rules of transliteration. Please do some research, start with Arabic transliteration, and show some proof that there is an official way of transliterating Persian that is different from Arabic. Until then, please stop changing the page. Cuñado - Talk 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic transliteration is different from Persian transliteration. Please do your own research or at least learn Persian before your start vandalizing Persian articles with your inaccurate transliterations. --Houshyar 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not very convincing. I've done my research. There are 6 vowels in Persian also, and they are the same six vowels as in Arabic. Three are long, and three are short. There is a short 'U' sound that can be translated as 'u' or 'o'. You prefer it to be 'o', and the standard used across Wikipedia is 'u'. The only exceptions are when at least 75% of references in English use other-than-standard transliteration, effectively making it an English word. For example, Mecca should be transliterated as 'Makkah', but since the word 'Mecca' is pretty much standard English, it is used in the article. Read over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic), and stop saying that it's different cause it's Persian. Cuñado - Talk 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a certain transliteration trend is predominant in Wikipedia, that fact alone does not give you the right to whimsically alter pages without approaching more reputable editors (those who do indeed speak Persian) in a respectful and open manner. Secondly, you are basing your assertions on a strict linguistic method that may not apply to languages that use Arabic script, but vary in dialect. The dialectal tradition of the Persian language is extremely important to recognize, and it is this reason why scholars tend to use transcription when it comes to this particular language. Obviously, the Persian speaker can readily identify differences between the two languages, regardless of the usage of singular script between the two. “In general, transcriptions are used to write for the general public, as in newspapers or a general-purpose encyclopedia.” I believe Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? I will now ask you kindly to change the title back to the state in which you found it. --QajarCoffee 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop vandalising wikipedia Cunado19. Persian kings' names are in Persian, not arabic. --Kash 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK all you ignorant Persians can go on thinking that this is an Arabic vs Persian issue. I'll leave you to your "Persian" ways. Cuñado - Talk 01:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you completely ignore the validity of transcription over transliteration in this case and you call us ignorant? Ah, what a fine representative of the Baha’i religion. One more thing, we are Iranian and not Persian. Please use the correct term when referring to us on a collective capacity. --QajarCoffee 02:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transcription vs transliteration is also irrelevant. If that is the case, then every page on wikipedia should use the same form of the word, since it is pronounced the same, and written the same in both Persian and Arabic. But that's not the case. Almost every page on wikipedia follows the standard format of transcribing/transliterating Arabic/Persian script, which takes the form of "Muhammad".
OK ignorant Iranians, enjoy yourselves now. Cuñado - Talk 08:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really this childish in person? Anyways, you are again neglecting my dialectal premise, which is integral to transcription. Although they may be spelt the same, they should be pronounced according to its corresponding indigenous pronunciation. And transcription takes that into account by “writing the sounds of a word in one language [Persian] using the script of another language [English]. Any reader of the latter language should be able to pronounce the transcribed word (almost) correctly.” For a general-purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, it is important for its viewers to quickly discern each individual pronunciation without necessarily knowing the intricacies of linguistic transference. In this case, there is a clear-cut distinction between Persian and Arabic. Due to scriptal similarities, that cannot be said in the case of transliteration, “which creates a mapping from one script to another that is designed to match the original script as directly as possible.” Something you have already mentioned. For the sake of helping viewers better pronounce Persian words, regardless of formal linguistic rules, we should acknowledge the role of transcription. Is there someway we can reach a consensus on this? Maybe you can add a side note later on in the article which states other linguistic variations of the term—such as Muhammad. --QajarCoffee 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the Prophet's name is pronounced differently in Persian and Arabic? Cuñado - Talk 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, and any other Persian speaker can jump in if s/he'd like, the prophet is indeed pronounced Mohammad in Iran and among Persian speakers in general. Now, it is also important to recognize the fact that many Iranian clerics pronounce his name as Muhammad, which is a clear derogation from its Persian pronunciation. Many have concluded that these elements of the clerical establishment wish to conform to Arab trends, so we can say quite confidently that when they pronounce Mohammad as Muhammad, they have officially vacated from the Persian vernacular. To answer your question again, Mohammad is used most predominantly, amongst Persian speakers, in reference to the prophet of Islam. --QajarCoffee 18:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Persian transcription is Mohammad. It's not an u as in mu (hair). And yes, the Prophet's name is pronounced differently in Persian and Arabic. Just like how there is a difference between wudu vs vuzu, or Ramadan vs Ramezun. Using the Arabic format of transcription for Persian makes no sense. The only simliarity is the script. So, what you, Cuñado, are proposing is the equivalent of using French transliteration for German words. And that is altogether absurd. I personally use UniPers for transliterating Persian, and I encourage others to do it too. Kirbytime 04:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This immage hasn't beeb cleared yet but I think we should use it if/when it dose. File:1618877z.jpg

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mohammad Shah Qajar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohammad Shah Qajar. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Shah Qajar. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link?

Hi @Amir Ghandi:. I think the 2012 A.K.S. Lambton source has been given a wrong URL link (it links to an article about a Mughal ruler). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, fixed it now. Amir Ghandi (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. This review will be used in the WikiCup and the current backlog drive—please consider participating in either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The article needs a thorough copyedit. I would suggest inputting the text into Microsoft Word or a similar spellchecker and inputting corrections.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Having read through the article for the spotchecks, it is clear that the prose is substandard for GA. We can do one of two things—(1) you do a copyedit and when you are done ping me and I'll decide to pass or fail or (2) I fail this nomination now, you submit the article to WP:GOCE, and return it afterwards to WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Fail it for now. I can't attend to it for the time being. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random spotchecks

These are obviously only of sources I can access, Amir Ghandi. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 82 good
  • 102 bordering upon WP:CLOP but just about alright
  • 14 AGF on Persian
  • 75 AGF on Persian
  • 21 good
  • 105 good
  • 73 good
  • 106 good
  • 123 "on the orders of Mohammad" and "This newspaper was untitled and was referred to" are unverifiable by source
  • 98 good
  • 33 good
  • 127 AGF on Persian.

Source review passed

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammad_Shah_Qajar&oldid=1229507708"