Talk:Nader Shah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unxplained deletion by LouisAragon

LouisAragon (talk · contribs) could you please explain your unexplained deletions of J. Sarkar from this article?

The author of the work, Sarkar, was called the "unquestionably greatest Indian historian of his time and one of the greatest in the world, whose erudite works "have established a tradition of honest and scholarly historiography". and compared with Theodor Mommsen and Leopold von Ranke.

How is his work on the subject a "random" addition? At the very least, deletions should be explained. Thanks.

By the way, the work by Sarkar is also referred to in other history books

"History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contras" : "For a detailed account of Nadir Shah's campaign against Kandahar and his invasion of Mughal dominions, see Jadunath Sarkar's chapter on Nadir Shah's invasion" [1]

"War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849"

"Warfare in Pre-British India – 1500BCE to 1740CE "

and many more...

Also this

It will suffice to refer to Jadunath Sarkar who says, 'The invasion of Nadir Shah dealt such a shattering blow to the empire of Delhi that, after it, the imperial authority was totally eliminated from Rajputana in all but the name.

Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.191.106 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Also finding many more sources that reference J. Sarkar on this here. But the ones above should be enough.

I could list a dozen of "greatest <insert nationality> historians" who specialize in this era, and add some of their euvre to the article. But that would be equally disruptive. The further reading and external links sections are not places meant for dropping every other source or link one can find about a topic. See WP:External links and WP:Further reading.

Having said that, you also seem willing to edit-war. Combined with the fact that you needed to mention his "Indian" origin (as if it makes him better or worse than other historians) and how he supposedly was "THE authority on this time period", it is evident that this is nothing more than WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:AGENDA. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

1. I mentioned Indian origin only because the source I was quoting was calling him the "unquestionably greatest Indian historian of his time and one of the greatest in the world (of his time)". I didn't want to quote something inaccurately.
2. I have also shown above that the addition is clearly not random and well justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.191.106 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
3. I'm counting two reverts from you and one from me, so why should I be the one who is edit warring?
4. Please check the sources above, and the sources here and then please explain how you think that the addition is random and why it should be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.7.191.106 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nader Shah. 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 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/20150610184508/http://librarun.org/book/63545/195 to http://librarun.org/book/63545/195

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) 06:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Language

HistoryofIran, could you give your suggestions for this well-sourced piece of information about the language Nader spoke. If the problem is in creating new section — well, I don't mind if you'll incorporate it somewhere else. If you just don't want to let this information, then you have to take into account that if issue is considered in sources, that's why Wikipedia should consider it as well. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You're pov-pushing/trying hard to shove his Turkic and his non-existent Azeri (he was Turkmen, lol) background into the article, that's the issue. This is not the first time where you're trying to categorize Turkmen-related stuff as Azeri. I'll one day expand the article myself in a neutral and constructive manner, where his Turkmen and Khorasanian background is properly emphasized without having any agenda behind it. Also, you should await consensus at [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that clearly explain that there is a huge difference between Central-Asian Turkmens and Middle Eastern Turcomans, to which Nader belonged. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oghuz turks were called Turkman/Turkoman/Turcoman and Afshars, Qajars were all shia , spoke and wrote Azeri poetry but according to you they are turkmen. Even their descendants are Azerbaijani turks. Qajar and Afhsar are two subtribes of Azeris. Can you please prove how they were turkmen sunnis ? how they were even from present day Turkmenistan ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami2018 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Deciding on the appropriate portrait of Nader Shah

Hi HistoryofIran. I know you claimed that the portrait which you edited back into the article is also a contemporary portrait. I would be grateful if you'd kindly provide evidence of this. The details of Mohammad Reza's portrait are present on the official V&A website, link here: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O81782/portrait-of-nadir-shah-painting-muhammad-riza-hindi/

Also, as you mentioned, the painting by Abol-Hasan is a collective painting where several people are depicted, whereas the one by Mohammad Reza is a focused depiction of Nader alone, appropriate for an article on Nader.

@Parsa1993: I was unable to find anything related to the picture. However, I do recall back when I found it that it was contemporary, since it includes his family members, such as one of his sons (whom he later had blinded) as well. It's a collective painting, yet it looks more detailed than the Mohammad Reza one. Also, if you want to notify me just the use the ping I've used. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: First off I'd like to thank you for letting mw know how to notify others. Regarding the image, I think it best if we limit ourselves to those portraits which are varifiably contemporary. Also, I'm not sure how you deduced that the Abol-Hasan painting must have been a contemporary due to Nader's family members (including his sone Reza Qoli, blinded in the early 1740s) also being depicted. The subject of the painting does not inform us one way or the other when it comes to ascertaining its date of creation. --parsa1993

"Personality" section of Nader Shah

Greetings! I have recently added a whole new section on the personality of Nader Shah to this important article, as I strongly believe that personal characteristics and traits of the great and influential people (military conquerors) in history are the most significant (interesting) information about them. I hope some of you have already had the pleasure of familiarizing yourself with the unique and mostly contemporary description of Nader Shah, who was indeed fascinating in all respects. I invite you to expand this section as much as possible and make similar contributions to other relevant articles about "Makers of history" that are part of Wikipedia's Military history Project! Thank you! Visioncurve (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ja'fari Mazhab of Sunni Islam?

Hi. I saw this in the infobox, and I got surprised because Jaʽfarites belong to the Shia sect of Islam. Is this a mistake? Pahlevun (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nader Shah Sunni

Someone is furiously opposed to me adding Nader Shah being a Sunni, which most sources say he was.[4] [5] I don't understand it, why do we have to be like this? Wikipedia allows all reliable secondary sources to be presented so lets try to understand and be civilized here please. If someone addes sources that state he was a Jew, Christian, Hindu, or Athiest, I wouldn't care as long as they provide some sort of source to back up the claim. But why are these editors so strongly opposed to Sunni?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an atheist so completely sideless here but I have to admit, this was a shock to me. Nader Shah Afshar was born in a Qizilbash(heterodox shia) Turkmen family. After he became the Shah of Iran he made the state religion Jafari. Because he thought it was the most acceptable jurisprudence of Shia Islam by Sunnis in Nader's mind. He wanted to develope positive relations with Ottoman Empire and he thought the extreme Shiizm Safavids conducted isolated Iran from rest of the Islamic World(India and Ottoman Empire). He was against that. He wanted Ottomans to embrace Jafari fiqh as the one and only righteous Shia sect among the 4 Sunni sects(Hanafi, Hanbali, Asharii, Shafii). He made compromises for it, he banned the cursing of 3 caliphs and in exchange he expected Ottomans to accept his demand. They didnt but they did the gesture of allowing Shia pilgrims.

When you say Jafari Sunni, that is an oximoron. Sunni sects are: Hanafi, Hanbali, Asharii, Shafii. There are also less common Maliki and Maturidi not common in Ottoman realm. Jafari is a Shia sect. This is like Islamic theology 101.

Personally yes, he was most likely irreligious. Deist or maybe even atheist. That we will never know.

I think you should look for a different source because obviously whoever wrote that is ignorant on Islamic theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.88.139.198 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nader Shah was not Iranian

I'm an not being disruptive and stop making such unfounded accusations. You even accepted that my edit is factual on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah

MythicalAlien (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• "I'm an not being disruptive (...)"

Then how come you ignore WP:BRD, WP:RS and WP:WAR? That's textbook disruption per Wikipedia's guidelines.

• "You even accepted that my edit is factual on this page"

I didn't accept jack. I only stated that his Turkic origin, which is secondary to him being an Iranian ruler/ruler of Iran/ruler of Persia (per WP:DUE), is already "literally mentioned three sentences further."[6]

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is misleading. That is my only concern here. He was not Iranian and the article should not suggest that he is:

'iranian Ruler' is entirely different in meaning to 'ruler of iran'. The article is misleading in that regard.

MythicalAlien (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The article is misleading in that regard. "

It is not. Napoleon, of Italian origin, is also called "French ruler" in academic works, just like Nader Shah (of Turkoman origin) is called "Iranian ruler or "Persian ruler". - LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"KARS, BATTLE OF (AUGUST 9-19, 1745). The last major battle of the Ottoman-Persian War of 1742-1746. The battle of Kars on August 9-19, 1745, was fought near that city in eastern Anatolia between the army of Persian ruler Nadir Shah and Ottoman Empire forces under Yegen Mehmet Pasha." -- Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2019). Middle East Conflicts from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 695

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkmen or Turkoman/Turcoman/Oghuz turk

Afshar tribe moved from Central Asia and initially settled in what is now Iranian Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Republic, Eastern Turkey. Later some of them were relocated by the Safavids to Khurasan, Kerman and Mazandaran to keep a check on the uzbeks. Similarly Afshar language is a subgroup of Azerbaijani. Oghuz turks were called Turkman/Turkoman/Turcoman and Afshars, Qajars were all shia , spoke and wrote Azeri poetry how are they turkmen? Even their descendants are Azerbaijani turks. Qajar and Afshar are two sub tribes of Azeris. Can you please prove how they were turkmen sunnis ? how they were even from present day Turkmenistan ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami2018 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as i can see, the source does not say that Qajars and Afshars are Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Being Iranian is different from being Persian. In classical English writings, the word Persian is considered equivalent to the word Iran, but Persia is a part of Iran, and Azerbaijanis, Kurds, etc. are part of the great Iran. That Nader Shah Shah of Iran was and is Iranian is true and credible and he was an Iranian. He himself said that I am Iranian and Turkmen is Afshar. Not that he says I am not Iranian. Mahan79 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Origins of the Afsharid dynasty

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think all of you fellow editors would appreciate a piece of additional information about the Afsharid Dynasty. I added an information about the origins of the dynasty. The source is also mentioned on the separate page of Afsharid dynasty. Please discuss on the talk page if you have any other claims. Thank you.Hsynylmztr (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If Nader Shah and his dynasty was of Turkic stock, what else would the Afsharid clan be then? Adding it twice is redunant and not an improvement to the state of the article. Moreover, the way you added implied as if the Afsharids were a Turkic kingdom. Please reach WP:CONSENSUS for this change instead of reverting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Afharids were a Turkic kingdom. He was not from the Persian stock, he was from the Turkic nation. Iran is the place and country, Persian is the nationality and race. So, he was the Turkic ruler of the place Iran. He was Iranian but not Persian, he was Turkic. Just like Safavids. This is a topic that a lot of Persians confuse. What we discuss here is not the entire Afsharid history, which is what you try to do. Details about the Afsharids are on a separate page. So, a brief explanation of the 'Turkoman Afsharid dynasty' should be added to the page. Moreover, I wrote "Turkoman Afsharid dynasty", not the Afsharid kingdom. There is no information on the page that mentions the origins of the dynasty directly. Also, I opened this section. So, shouldn't you reach a consensus before reverting my edit? Should we delete his name too, since it is also mentioned in the article?Hsynylmztr (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I refer to you the section above us. Please mind that we base information on reliable academic sources, not our own personal opinion. Sorry, but your reply is not convincing, how many times should we mention that Nader Shah was of Turkic stock in the lede? Isn't once already enough? No, I shouldn't reach any consensus in this case, and this clearly shows that you didn't read the link - please do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) I would say nothing is wrong with that mention. You say then Napoleon was then Italian. This has nothing to do with this. We see that Nader also focused his foreign policy on common Turkmen descent. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with mentioning a persons origin several times in the lede? How so? Please explain, and please also explain how this does not violate WP:TENDENTIOUS. So what? WP:RS (such as the one above) routinely calls him an Iranian/Persian ruler, same as Napoleon is called French, and not Italian. And as I said earlier, we base information on WP:RS, not what we believe. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Beshogur. Nothing wrong with this mention. It seems like what did you not like here is the word 'Turkoman', since you do not want to acknowledge the Turkoman roots of the Iran Empires. Every Wikipedia page has this type of brief information on the top of the page, not everyone reads the entire page. This mention would be helpful for people who make quick Google search. Hsynylmztr (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? No one is talking about reading an entire article. Should we cater to the supposed people who apparently can barely read more than one line? There is indeed this type of brief information, which is called the lede. Consider reading MOS:LEAD and the ledes of GA/FA article, where do you see anything that supports what you're saying? Also, please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS because you don't like (WP:JDLI) my remarks, this is Wikipedia, not a forum. You reverted me with no WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue, you will be reported for WP:TENDENTIOUS for this and your past edits/comments as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You should have come to a consensus before reverting my edit HistoryofIran. This talk section was opened before your revert. Another user also mentioned that nothing is wrong with this edit. The information I added to the article was already on the page. I just added it to the brief explanation at the top of the page. No content was changed. There is nothing wrong with that.Hsynylmztr (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No I shouldn't, consider reading WP:CONSENSUS and the rest of the guidelines I posted. Also, you're still yet to answer my questions, feel free to do that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

The first paragraph currently states "He fought numerous campaigns ... such as the battles of Herat, ... Karnal and Kars Because of his military genius, ...". There should be a "." closing the first sentence after "Karnal and Kars" and before "Because..." WilsonLi503 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Iranian ruler and conqueror

Why was the information that Nader Shah was Iranian? Nader was an Iranian of Turkic descent.

Osterhammel, Jürgen (2019). Unfabling the East: The Enlightenment's Encounter with Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 68, "...that fully a third of the army of the Iranian conqueror, Nadir (Nader) Shah..."

Esposito, John L., (ed) (2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford University Press. p. 71, "In the conflicts following the death of the Iranian ruler Nadir Shah in 1747..."

Asher, Catherine Blanshard; Asher, Catherine Ella Blanshard; Asher, Catherine B. (1992). Architecture of Mughal India. Cambridge University Press. p. 301, "...the Iranian ruler Nadir Shah invaded Delhi."

Tucker, Spencer C., (ed.) (2019). Middle East Conflicts from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 695, "...the army of Persian ruler Nadir Shah and Ottoman Empire forces under Yegen Mehmet Pasha."

Alam, Muzaffar; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (2007). Indo-Persian Travels in the Age of Discoveries, 1400-1800. Cambridge University Press. p. 245, "...invasion of North India by the Iranian conqueror, Nadir Shah Afshar."

Schwartz, Schwartz Kevin L. (2020). Remapping Persian Literary History, 1700-1900. Edinburgh University Press. "...on the triumphs and heroics of the Iranian ruler Nadir Shah (r. 1736–47)."

Emon, Anver M.; Ahmed, Rumee., (ed.) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press. p. 495, "...Iranian Afsharid ruler, Nadir Shah (r. 1736–47)..."

Hofmeester, Karin; Grewe, Bernd-Stefan (2016). Luxury in Global Perspective: Objects and Practices, 1600–2000. Cambridge University Press. p. 27, "...the Persian ruler Nadir Shah (ruled 1736–47) had invaded northern India."

Kaicker, Abhishek (2020). The King and the People: Sovereignty and Popular Politics in Mughal Delhi. Oxford University Press. p. 18, "Persian ruler Nadir Shah's invasion of the Mughal empire in 1739..."

Hodgson, Marshall G. S. (2009). The Venture of Islam, Volume 3: The Gunpower Empires and Modern Times. University of Chicago Press. p. 146, "...Iranian ruler Nadir Shah had sacked Delhi..."

Embree, Ainslie T. (2020). Frontiers into Borders: Defining South Asia States, 1757–1857. Oxford University Press, "...Central Asia fell to the great Persian conqueror, Nadir Shah..."

Wink, André (2020). The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: c.700–1800 CE. Cambridge University Press. p. 15, "...the Persian conqueror Nadir Shah."

Nader Shah was Iranian ruler and conqueror. Ebrohim tirigân (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Axworthy as a source on Nader’s Religion

I don’t think that saying “people who knew him best said he had none” is a good argument, or even a historical one. That’s hearsay and what is the proof these mysterious people said this? If there is, then it should be cited properly. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:E6B (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Converted" vs. "Reverted"

The first line on the section about Nader Shah's religious beliefs reads this:

"The Safavids had forced Shi'ism as the state religion of Iran. Nader was probably brought up as a Shi'a but later reverted to Sunni Islam as he gained power and began to push into the Ottoman Empire."

My main problem with this is that it implies that Sunni Islam is the correct interpretation of Islam, as "reverted" assumes that all other paths, including both other religions and sects within Islam, are deviations. In order to be more neutral, the opening of that section should be changed to:

"The Safavids had forced Shi'a Islam as the state religion of Iran. Nader was probably brought up as a Shi'a but later converted to Sunni Islam as he gained power and began to push into the Ottoman Empire." Praxeria (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Praxeria Neither was correct, I've edited to match the source. Leaving the problem of whether he was agnostic, that needs to be sourced or removed. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but please make sure to mention that the Ja'fari jurisprudence was originally a Shia jurisprudence to avoid giving readers the impression that Nader Shah founded the Ja'fari school, or that the Ja'fari jurisprudence started out as a Sunni jurisprudence. Praxeria (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Praxeria not without a reliable source. If you can find one, ok Doug Weller talk 15:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Here you go, Britannica page on the 6th Shi'a Imam who was founder of the Jafari Jurisprudence:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jafar-ibn-Muhammad Praxeria (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Britannica is barely WP:RS, and there's more than enough better sources than this. Can you post a quote from the site which demonstrates so? Because I couldn't find anything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t make sense that he’d introduce something Shia to get Sunnu support. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

علامت شیر و خورشید

در این مقاله جایی ندارد

واقعا ندارد! آنهم این شکل جدید آن

درود —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.76.37 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) =Claim about "most powerful empire in the world" I will edit this and source it when I can but this claim is patently absurd, and the citation for it is a small excerpt from a small general primer on the region. This is an exceptionally sweeping claim, and right afterwards is essentially contradicted by this own (very limited, with no actual underlying evidence) source which mentions the neighboring powers that would come to dominate the state. In the 18th century Iran was not even considered a great power, let alone the mightiest nation in the world in the established international order. Very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suli18 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Turko-Persian

Im suggesting to change his nation to Turco-Persian.

[[7]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganikgaos (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Persian-Turkish. He was an Iranian Mahan79 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

He was an Afsharian Türk.He never said that he is a persian. Əhməd Əhmədli (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Turkish of Azarbayjan

I think this should be changed to "Turkish of Azerbaijan" since the book is from 1939, which uses obsolete spelling of Azerbaijan. And "Turkish of Azerbaijan is obviously Azerbaijani language. There is nothing wrong with linking it as well. Beshogur (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Also iranatlas lists Afshar language southern west, which means southern of west Oghuz.

• Southern West Oghuz: (which "Afshar (Afsar)" falls in) [135] Bulut (p.c. 2020) mentions that some varieties in Southern West Oghuz, such as Sonqor Turkic, are transitional to Northern West Oghuz. However, most Southern West Oghuz varieties have not been studied closely enough to carry out a definitive classification.

• Hamadān Afshar: [136] The dialectology of Turkic in Hamadan Province has not been studied, but anecdotally, some varieties (tentatively referred to here simply as “Hamadan Province Turkic”) fall within the South Azerbaijani division of Central West Oghuz, whereas other varieties belong to the Afshar division of Southern West Oghuz. Beshogur (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate with those quotes, they demonstrate that Afshar is not Azeri? I don't think he is using an obsolete spelling, considering he calls it a southern Oghuz dialect - Azeri is western. Ignoring the infobox that needs to be adjusted to portray what sources say, the info in Afshar dialect also demonstrates that its classification is disputed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, the book is from 1939 right? Or am I wrong? "Azarbayjan" is definitely obsolete spelling. We change "Turkish" to Turkic generally in topics of Turkic peoples, because Turkic is a relative recent term in English, we should do it here too. [8] For comparison (Azarbayjan,Azerbayjan), those terms decreased significantly.

Regarding Afshar, I don't think there has been any consensus in its classification. From the source material, it says However, most Southern West Oghuz varieties have not been studied closely enough to carry out a definitive classification., in which Iranatlas says it's southern branch of "Western Oghuz". So "southern Oghuz" for Afshar isn't something definitive. (Although some linguists/sources may say that) It could be a dialect of Azerbaijani or it could not. Yet sources don't even claim that Nader spoke the supposed Afshar language. I mean your reasoning for this revert isn't valid imo.

My proposal is, it should be called "Turkish of Azerbaijan", since its obvious that "Turkish of Azarbayjan" (or whatever you call) is Azeri language. Beshogur (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood the bit about obsolete, nvm. Anyways, it's "obvious" that it refers to Azeri, but its not obvious that it refers to the dialect that the Afshars spoke? Nader Shah just spoke a completely different dialect from the rest of his tribe? Let's put assumptions aside; does Minorsky call the language for "Azerbaijani/Azeri/Azeri Turkish/Azeri Turkic/Azerbaijani Turkic/Azerbaijan Turkish? No? Then we don't add it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I had intended to bring up this issue on the talk page. Here is the complete quotation from the source:

As an Afshar he surely spoke a southern Turcoman dialect, similar to that of all the Afshars scattered throughout Persia, i.e. in usual parlance, " the Turkish of Azarbayjan

Today, I was reading another work by Minorsky in which he refers to Azeri language in a very similar manner, albeit with greater clarity. ("A Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts and Miniatures". 1958)

The Turkish of Amir Hidayat is undoubtedly a 'southern Turkish' dialect, as used by Turcoman tribes. Dialectically, it belongs to the same class as the divans of Jahan-shah Qara-qoyunlu, Khata'l (Shah Ismail), Fuduli, &c. The current designation of this dialect is 'Azarbayjan Turkish', but it is spoken by the Turkish tribes of Transcaucasia, Persia, as well as those of Eastern Turkey and Mesopotamia.

Consequently, it is clear that in both instances he is referring to modern Azeri. The wording appears odd to us now because this source is from 1939. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"As an Afshar he surely spoke a southern Turcoman dialect, similar to that of all the Afshars scattered throughout Persia, i.e. in usual parlance, " the Turkish of Azarbayjan"

Disagree, the "but" is an important detail by Minorsky, considering not all Turkish tribes of Transcaucasia, Persia, Eastern Turkey, and Mesopotamia speak Azeri. Anyways, back to the quote; "As an Afshar", i.e. the vernacular they spoke "similar to that of all the Afshars scattered", that is the Afshar dialect, whose classification is disputed. Beshogur said that Iranatlas says that Afshar is a "southern branch of "Western Oghuz"." That is true, and so does EI3, but notice how they say "Linguistically, Afshārī is classified as a dialect belonging to the South Oghuz group of Turkic languages (southwestern branch of Turkic) (Johanson, History of Turkic, 82–3), or else as a dialect of South Azerbaijani (Azeri)." Minorsky also calls it "southern Turcoman" (i.e. Oghuz). Even if Afshar is part of western Oghuz but just its southern group, Azeri is still not part of the southern group of Western Oghuz, as the IranAtlas link by Beshogur clearly demonstrates [9]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "but" was added to clarify that the language was not only spoken in "Azarbayjan" (as the name implied), which is why he then lists every region except historical Azerbaijan. Anyway, I'm okay with leaving the sentence in the article open to interpretation by not directly linking to the Azeri language article until we find a source that provides more clarity. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

He does say "Persia", where historical Azerbaijan is located, but I still don't get what you mean. Clarity for what? The classification of the Afshar dialect is disputed, I think we should leave it at that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologise, I meant clarification, not clarity. And clarification to what language Nader spoke. For all we know, Afshar could have been identical to standard Azeri during Nader's time, so classification of modern Afshar is irrelevant. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well Minorsky isn't a Turkic linguist tho. Even if he was, his classification could be obsolete until today. Beshogur (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nader's Turkic origins

Nader's origin has been mentioned twice, I think only the "Origin and language" part is enough. I don't think it's necessary to state the same information twice. Dêrsimî62 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a lead for purpose. Beshogur (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

place of death

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

Ja'fari Maddhab Of Nader Shah, Sunni Of Shia?

The Ja'fari school followed by Nadir Shah was Shia but was sympathetic towards Sunni Islam and did not approve some Shia practices like cursing the 3 Rashidun Caliphs, however it was still Shia in essence. Nadir only wanted it to be recognized as a part of Sunni Islam because he wanted to legitimize himself in front of the Ottoman Caliphs Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Salman Cooper Mapping is right; "Nadir pursued two novel legitimation strategies. First, he called for the integration of Shi῾i Islam into Sunni Islam as a fifth school of Islamic law that would enjoy the same status as the traditional four Sunni legal schools. This gambit would have allowed him, as the head of the largest Shi῾i polity, to be considered a Sunni ruler like his Mughal and Ottoman counterparts." p. ix, Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran. Ernest Tucker, University Press of Florida

"Despite the more autocratic style of Nader’s conduct at the Moghan, his religious policy gave pious Shi‛as within Persia an escape route. Ja’far was after all an important Shi‛a Emam. The Persians were not simply ordered to adopt Sunnism as practised elsewhere in the Muslim world; they were to retain their own discrete religious identity. Internally, Nader banned certain Shi‛a practices; the more extreme ones, typical of the early Safavid period" p. 166, Axworthy, Michael (2009). The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant

Another source by Tucker, which was published recently; "Nadir proposed to the Ottomans that Twelver Shi'ism be considered a fifth school of Sunni Islam, to be called the Ja'fari madhhab after the sixth Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. In exchange for Shi'i renunciation of such practices as sabb (the ritual cursing of the first three caliphs), Nadir proposed that the Ottomans give this Ja'fari madhhab all the privileges enjoyed by the four Sunni schools, and that a fifth pillar be erected in the Ka'bah in Mecca to commemorate it. He asked that the Ottomans allow him to appoint the leader of the annual ḥajj caravan from Iran."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Aren't Jafaris, Twelvers? Beshogur (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ops, you're right - they were indeed Twelver. Hmm, should we just replace "Shia Islam" with "Twelver Shia Islam" or just remove "Post-coronation: Ja'fari Madhhab Shia Islam"? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the Pre Coronation and Post Coronation and just add it was Twelver Shia Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ja'fari and Twelver is basically the same. Writing Ja'fari and Twelver separately is like writing Muslim and Mohammedan separately (both are words in two different languages that point to the same thing) Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Salman Cooper Mapping: Thanks, but next time please wait before you make any hasty edits/reverts. See also WP:EDITWARRING and WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)