|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qajar dynasty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Qajar map
- 2 Browser error
- 3 Qajar
- 4 Escaping Iran with substantial assets after '79
- 5 The phrase Turkmen is incorrect and misleading when relating it to the ethnicity of the Qajar
- 6 Define "sept"
- 7 Ottomans During World War I?
- 8 Template
- 9 References
- 10 Turkic vs Turkish vs Turkmen vs Turkoman
- 11 Houshyar - revert warring
- 12 Source wording
- 13 Reference to Frye
- 14 maternal relationship
- 15 "Persian" is a nationality, "Pars" is an ethnicity
- 16 New edits
- 17 Flattery
- 18 Reword
- 19 Head of family vs. heir presumptive
- 20 Kaçar
- 21 Relationship With The Ottomans
- 22 Qajar royals and life in Qajar Iran
- 23 Biased article
- 24 My contribution to the article...
- 25 Derogatory comments in introduction
- 26 Original research by user:Karak1lc1k
- 27 Percy Sykes
- 28 Satrapi
- 29 Dynasty VS Kingdom
- 30 Edit warring editor
- 31 External links modified
Though the previous map has been there before, there is evidence supporting this map (wikipedia image): Greatest extent of the Qajar empire.png Evidence: Treaty of Turkomenchai (wikipedia article about it is also available) (Evidence= Svante Cornell. Small nations and great powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001, p. 37.) .. Treaty of Golestan (wikipedia article about it is also available) (evidence= Svante Cornell. Small nations and great powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001, p. 37.) .. Treaty of Berlin 1878 (evidence=modern day borders) .. Treaty of Erzurum (evidence = modern day borders) .. First Goldsmid Arbitration (evidence = https://books.google.ca/books?id=VCTipPJdKBwC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=first+goldsmid+arbitration&source=bl&ots=CDTRKhxiFP&sig=Vq23vR8-yp3YGQEvOyqMirSMECU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nx6bVaTBL4isyQSQx6WwCA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=first%20goldsmid%20arbitration&f=false) .. second Goldsmid Arbitration (evidence= http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/helmand-river-iv (in one of the paragraphs.) .. Macmohan Arbitration 1905 (evidence= https://books.google.ca/books?id=lm_UAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=Macmahon+arbitration+persia&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false.) (Also mentioned in wikipedia article about greater Iran) .. Treaty of Paris 1875 (evidence= Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces Steven R. Ward, p.80 & The Middle East and North Africa 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Lucy Dean p.364)(wikipedia article also available about this treaty) .. treaty of 1893 (evidence= https://books.google.ca/books?id=VCTipPJdKBwC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=treaty+of+1893+russia+iran&source=bl&ots=CDTRKhxmHR&sig=SssjTkM0gya3wvSE1X0vuRQk-Uk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3R-bVYunDM-syASQ_bDABQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=treaty%20of%201893%20russia%20iran&f=false) .. Treaty of 1881 (acctually the treaty of Akhal & a wikipedia article for it is available)(Evidence= Mahdavi, H. A. Tarikh-i Ravābit-i Khareji -e Iran. 1985. p. 286-287. Also an old map of the era shows herat as a part of persia, confirming my maps accuracy.
The existence of those treaties supports this map: http://www.iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/images/182%20Qajar%20Territorial%20Changes%2019th%20&%2020th%20Centuries%20Iran%200%20Map.jpg, and add all the territorial losses of the linked map together and at its greatest extent the map of the qajar dynasty would look like this wikipedia image: Greatest extent of the Qajar empire.png.
Then again the "commonly accepted map" is of persia in the 1900's NOT showing the territory of the 1700's and 1800's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History of Persia (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your first and fourth links don't yield anything readable. Your third link just yields the cover of Syke's volume 2, a book of 616 pages, and is thus of no use. The fifth link (map) could possibly be a good alternative to the present one, but certainly not the one you insist on using, which appears to me to be an original work. Sapphorain (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok then I insist on using the better alternative. Do you agree with using the better alternative in the article? Since though my links were not good, evidence of those treaties eistance can be found and they did happen, the more famous ones having wikipedia articles. History of Persia (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
DOES NO ONE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS?
History of Persia (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The picture captioned "Qajar Persian Empire in 1808" blocks off some of the "origins" section when viewed in Google Chrome.
maybe something about, how the start of the qajar dynasty started the down fall of iran. maybe another revolution, with a proper governemtn could solve the problem.
The Qajar Dynasty
Good article but I made one little edit to the article. The Qajars were a Turkmen tribe that held ancestral lands in present-day Azerbaijan
I changed into: The Qajars were a Azeri tribe that held ancestral lands in present-day Azerbaijan
Escaping Iran with substantial assets after '79
"After the last Revolution, many such Qajars absconded Iran with substantial money, often the result of kickbacks and bribes from governmental posts, and continue to enjoy the fruits of such wealth to this day."
From what I know, I don't belive this to be correct. If you do want to include it, get a good reference and prove it. If you can I wont remove it. However just putting information up on wikipedia (without proof) is't a good thing. It's better to stick to less info, but quality info rather than total rubish.
Furthermore, I know most of the article is not referenced, which is a shame. Maybe you can make a good example by leading the rest of us with a good reference?
The phrase Turkmen is incorrect and misleading when relating it to the ethnicity of the Qajar
The Qajar were Turks, i.e. Azerbaijani Turks, but not Turkmen. Maybe Turcoman, referring to Iranian Shiite Turkic tribes, would be more appropriate, but not Turkmen. Turkmen refers to the Turkmen of Turkmenistan, who had nothing to do with either Azerbaijani or Iranian rulers. Please do not put this word (Turkmen) in the article, because it is purely misleading. Bm79 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- They did not descend from Ohguz Turks, however, they did speak a language of Oghuz origin. To say that they are of Oghuz origin is wrong, because, and this is the most obvious reason, they werent Mongoloid!Azerbaijani 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In "The Qajar rulers were members of the Karagöz or "Black-Eye" sept of the Qajars..." does sept refer to a named branch of 7 branches of the group, to Irish clans, or is this a typo of sect? Dlamblin (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ottomans During World War I?
With all due respect, I find it unlikely that Iran was jointly garrisoned/occupied during World War I by the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and the British... simply because the Ottomans were involved in combat against both of these powers, especially in the Arab Revolt. I would love to see some evidence of how this joint garrison worked, or of its existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GWRunkleIV (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
- I imagine it worked like most joint garrisions between warring nations; they shot at each other. 220.127.116.11 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As per the Azerbaijani history template, its unnecessary. Are we then also going to add Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc... templates? In the Ottoman empire are we going to add Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, etc... templates? It doesnt make sense and is unnecessary. Other than that, I made some corrections.Hajji Piruz 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again Qajars have more relevance to Azerbaijan, as they spoke the same language and shared the same culture as the rest of what's now known as Azerbaijan. Both Ganja and Karabakh regions of Azerbaijan were governed by Ziyadoghlu Qajars, so it's absolutely relevant. Do not remove the template without proper discussion and consensus. I also added some references to Qajars from Iranica, etc. Atabek 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- THis makes absolutely no sense at all. The Qajar dynasty is different than the early Qajars that ruled in the Caucasus, as they are their descendants. Also, I removed some repitition and made other corrections, such as wikilinking Turkmen to its proper article.Hajji Piruz 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz, please, provide references for your edits. Qajars were a Turkic dynasty without any doubt, there are tons of references on the subject. Atabek 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- What did I do? The article clearly says they were Turkmens.Hajji Piruz 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Turkmens are original Oghuz Turks, I don't think we would have disagreement on that. But anyways, I am fine with your current revert of yourself. Atabek 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats only so that I can talk to you about this, because I know that if I didnt revert, someone else would appear to revert me, no use in fighting over it.
- Several things:
- Because Qajars were not quite the same Turkmen as known today (meaning from Turkmenistan). They lived in Anatolia for a long tme, and were also part of Shahsevan tribes in Safavid Iran. It's better to designate them in general as Turkic rather than Turkmen or Turkish, to avoid mixture with present-day countries. Moreover, they, just like Safavids, were Azerbaijani-speaking, and their power-base was Azerbaijan. Atabek 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- But they were not Oghuz, they simply spoke a Turkic dialect. Like almost all Turks in the Middle East, they were simply speakers of Turkic dialects, not actually ethnic Turks. Saying they were Oghuz is highly incorrect. This is only your POV and OR.Hajji Piruz 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the Turkic dialect spoken in modern Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkmenistan is Oghuz Turkic subfamily. It's different from Uzbek, Kazakh, and other non-Oghuz dialects of Turkic group. And I don't see why your reaction is so negative. Just like there are Persian peoples today, which are not quite the same as original Persians of Achaemenid era, there are also Turks/Turkmens/Turkomans/Azeri Turks, who are descendants of Oghuz Turkic tribes and adopted their language. What's wrong with this? I don't think the definition severes ties to Iran. Atabek 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Saying that the Qajars are Oghuz and saying that they speak an Oghuz Turkic dialect are two different things. Actually, there is almost no descendants of the Oghuz in Azeri populations, there is only a linguistic descent, thats it. Saying that the Qajars were Oghuz is pretty hysterical given all the evidence against it. They were Turkomans no doubt, but you Wikilinked it to the Oghuz.Hajji Piruz 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hajji Piruz, saying Qajars were Oghuz Turkic, is the same as saying that Qajars were Turkic/Turkoman/Turkish tribe, which is what tons of references say without using "-speaking" extension. Qovanlu Qajars were part of Shahsevan tribes, which were Turkish from Anatolia. So as I said, you are welcome to make a choice between the above. I think saying Qajars were Turkic is NPOV, rather than using Turkish, Turkmen or Turkoman.
- Same with Achaemenids, we don't say they were Persian-speaking, we say they were Persian. Sassanids were also not Persian-speaking but just Persian. Atabek 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- No its completely different. They were Turkomans, not Oghuz Turks, and they were not Turkic, they were Turkic speaking. Your example with the Sassanids and Persians is completely off.Hajji Piruz 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hajji Piruz, I brought 6 references there that Qajars were Turkoman/Turkmen/Turks/Turkic. I can bring another 66. It's immaterial if the origin is referenced as Turkic, Turkish or Oghuz Turks, they mean the same thing in context of Qajars. Atabek 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Turkic vs Turkish vs Turkmen vs Turkoman
Various sources use any one of these definitions to identify Qajar tribe. So I think for the purposes of disassociating Qajars with Turkey or Turkmenistan, or with modern Turkomans in Iraq, the best is just to use Turkic. Please, provide your comments in this regard. Atabek 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Houshyar - revert warring
Do you even review what you're reverting? Atabek 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted changes back. Please do not remove sourced info without discussion on the talk page. I am not an expert in the matter but some of the removed info seems to be relevant Alex Bakharev 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Alex. Meanwhile, I welcome everyone's participation in discussing the edits here. Atabek 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed that section with info from kadjar royal family's own website, hope, this will clarify all, by the way, i think Qajar dynasty and Qajar (tribe) must be covered in separate articles, because there is much info on this page that relates to Qajar tribe more that to Qajar royal family. Ateshi-Baghavan 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can use their own website to write about their own history...(obviously there will be POV issues involved, as they will tend to be biased towards themselves on some issues I'm sure). Anyway, I made some fixes and Wikilinked topics to their proper articles.Hajji Piruz 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz, renaming Turkoman to Turkmen, when the source webpage of Qajar family itself says Turkoman looks most definitely as OR. FYI, Oghuz family includes Turkmens, Azeris, Turks of Anatolia, Turkomans of Iraq as well, not only Turkmens. Also, the Iranian Turkmens citing is also a POV and OR, as it's clear from the text that Qovanli Qajars that ruled Iran came from around Caucasus and Anatolia. Atabek 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's your original research. The source only says Turkomans, without any further elaboration. Also, Caucasus was Iran at time, all the major encyclopedias call Qajar "an Iranian dynasty" or a "Persian dynasty", look up Qajar on any Encyclopedia out there.   AlexanderPar 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Reference to Frye
Added one more reference to Richard Frye, and reworded the introduction of text. Some sources claim Qajars were Turkish tribe others say Turkmen tribe, I believe the compromise is just to use the word Turkic, as in this context it means the same as both, share your thoughts. Atabek 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, I inserted the word Turkic. I also re worded to for it to flow better.Hajji Piruz 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with replacing Turkish with Turkic. I also think we should replace Turkmen with Turkic along the same lines to avoid association with Turkmenistan. Qajars were not ethnic Persians, so, it's important to improve the flow you mentioned by using the word Iranian. Also, the word "originally" wasn't used by Frye, so let's stick to the source for clarity and avoidance of OR.Atabek 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't interpret sources, when the source says Persian, then Persian it is, that was the official nationality back then. AlexanderPar 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Qajars not only became Persians, but they considered themselves as so. In their trips to Europe, they knowingly identified themselves as Kings of Persia...They were originally Turkic, but after a few decades of rule they had become Persians in every sense of the word.
- Also, Turkmen does not mean a person from Turkmenistan necessarily. The word Turkmen should not be removed, as the Qajars were of Turkmen descent.Hajji Piruz 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- POV and OR. That's not what Richard Frye, who wrote that Qajars were a Turkish tribe, said in a book written after the reign of Qajars. There is no word original there, you can't change an ethnicity in a matter of 80-100 years. Otherwise, we should also recognize that Safavids were a Turkish tribe despite single reference to Safi ad-Din having Kurdish roots. Atabek 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We arent quoting Frye in that sentence, we are just using him as a source.Hajji Piruz 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The anon IP, which is the same editing Safavid page, has modified the reference to say Qajars were of Azerbaijani Iranian descent. Qajar tribe moved from Anatolia into Caucasus and later to Iran. Richard Frye said "Turkish dynasty" and the consensus was that Qajars were a Turkic dynasty. Atabek 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
when your mother is from a dynasty, you are a member of that. There is no difference between mother or father in this case--Pejman47 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I added back the reference that Qajars were of Turkic descent, because that's what Richard Frye reference says - Qajars were Turks. Qajars did not originate in Iranian Azerbaijan, so it's simply false to say that Qajars were Azerbaijani Iranian descent, and then quote Frye on it. Atabek 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I winkilinked some of the subjects in the introduction. These need to be wikilinked so that users can click on subjects that interest them. Also, the Qajars did become Persians. They even referred to themselves as Persians and used the term Persia. Its even sourced.Hajji Piruz 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"Persian" is a nationality, "Pars" is an ethnicity
It is important to distinguish between Persian as a nationality (Persian: ایرانی = an inhabitant of Persia) and Pars as an ethnicity (Persian: فارس or پارس). At the time of Qajar dynasty, the name of the country in English language was Persia (a country named "Iran" did not exist at that time in English language), and, therefore, all the inhabitants of the country were Persian (the adjective "Iranian" was not introduced in English language at that time). In Persian language, however, the name of the country was always "Iran (Persian: ایران)" (in fact, no country named "Persia" has ever existed in Persian language).
Regardless of the fact that the Qajars were ethnically Pars or not, there were all Persian, and they were kings of Persia. It was only after 1934 that Reza Shah (from Pahlavi Dynasty) ordered to use the name "Iran" internationally. Using the name "Iran" in this article (and other articles related to the time before 1934) is, therefore, not appropriate. It will create confusion for the reader if he (for example) refers to a map of that time and tries to find a country named "Iran." I will, therefore, replace "Iran" with "Persia" in this article wherever it refers to the name of the country. Please give your comments here if you consider this not justified. FakhredinBlog 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- FarkhredinBlog, "Qajar Iran" returns about 188,000 hits , while "Qajar Persia" returns 158,000 . Iran is not a name which just appeared in 1930s under Reza Shah, it was used before in Iran itself as the name of the country. Thanks. Atabek 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the Atabek's editions , I think it is better to mention in the opening that Persia and Iran are used as equal words in this text, such as using something alike persia/Iran...Indeed it may be problematic to call the Turkic language Qajars " a Persian dynasty"...( I mean an Iranian dynasty fits better)--Alborz Fallah 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- FarkhredinBlog, "Qajar Iran" returns about 188,000 hits , while "Qajar Persia" returns 158,000 . Iran is not a name which just appeared in 1930s under Reza Shah, it was used before in Iran itself as the name of the country. Thanks. Atabek 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine to put an introductory note, which would clear things up, that in historical Western context Iran prior to 1935 was referred to as Persia, so the words maybe used interchangeably. By the way, intro text used to say Iranian dynasty, because that's what book by Abbas Amanat says "Iranian monarchy", I don't know why it got changed to Persian. I think for the purposes of Wikipedia article, it's better to stick to modern more general definition of Iran. Atabek 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Atabak, thank you for your comment. Just a few points:
1. I completely agree with you that "...Iran is not a name which just appeared in 1930s under Reza Shah, it was used before in Iran itself as the name of the country." To see the point more clearly, we should distinguish between "Persian" and "English" vocabulary. Since "Persian" is the official language of Iran (Persia), the usage of the name "Iran" in Iran itself was limited to Persian vocabulary. In this sense, we have the same point of view. I should emphasize that in Persian vocabulary, the name of the country is (always was, and will be) "Iran." However, for English language it is a different story. The name "Iran" is only introduced into English language after Reza Shah, and before that time, this word did not exist in English vocabulary.
2. The proportion of the hits shows that "Qajar Persia" is also a popular hit, and the hit "Qajar Iran" is only about 16% higher. As both hits receive substantial attention, I think our choice in Wikipedia should be based on scientific and historical facts.
3. I agree with Alborz Fallah to have an introductory note. In this case please take it into account that Persia is not only a historical name. The name "Persia" can officially be used again since 1959 (for more information please refer to the article "Iran naming dispute"). FakhredinBlog 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- During the Qajar era, Persia was the name of the country and Persian was the nationality in the English language, so the correct terminology here is Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is complete nonsense to say that the word "Iran" was introduced into English by Reza Shah in 1935. See the 1911 Britannica for instance, which calls the country Persia, but uses Iran as a geographical term for the plateau on which the country of Persia is located. It was a longstanding synonym for Persia in English well before Reza Shah decided that the country should not be called Persia in English anymore. john k (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Mani1, you have removed the references to the descent of Qajars in your most recent edits. Please, do not remove sourced material from the article without discussion on talk page. Address your points and justify your removal, obtain consensus and then edit. Thanks. Atabek 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kansas Bear, you removed the reference to origin of Qajars. Please, do not justify your edit by reciting concrete sources rather than claiming "sources say...". Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I created Fath Ali Khan using a few sentences from this article, and the copyright bot hit me, citing this website (which is marked as copyright 2007/2008)! I double checked our text wasnt a copyvio, and Talk:Fath Ali Khan has more details. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- The background to this is that s:Durrani Vazir Wali Khan Qajar is a biog on Wikisource that is being considered for deletion as it doesnt appear to be a published source. We are not sure what to do with it. Is that person notable? Could a wikipedia biog be written using the facts on that page? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence implies that the name Iran is something new.
'(the country now known as Iran)'
Head of family vs. heir presumptive
Relationship With The Ottomans
There's no information about the relationship between the Qajars and the Ottomans. Anyone who has enough knowledge about the relationship, please add to the article Mirochi (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Qajar royals and life in Qajar Iran
Title Persian children of the royal family: the narrative of an English tutor at the court of H. I. H. Zillu's-Sultán, G.C.S.I. Author Wilfrid Sparroy Publisher J. Lane, 1902 Original from the University of California Digitized Oct 16, 2007 Length 349 pages Subjects Iran
Title Persian life and customs: with scenes and incidents of residence and travel in the land of the lion and the sun Author Samuel Graham Wilson Edition 3 Publisher F.H. Revell Co., 1900 Original from Harvard University Digitized Feb 2, 2008 Length 333 pages Subjects Iran Missions
- I have removed and changed the terms in question. Also, I changed murder to "death", since I could not find any mention/source for murder. If this is incorrect, then provide a source for the "murder" and change it back. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
My contribution to the article...
I added Turkic to the list of languages of the Qajar dynasty, which I cited from Encyclopædia Iranica. It appears that Turkic was used in court by the Qajar rulers -- at least according to the source in question. This makes me wonder if the Qajar dynasty was indeed Persianized, as the lead sentence of the article suggests, or if this information is actually wrong. I think it's best if the lead sentence simply stated that it was an Iranian royal family of Turkic origin, unless someone could find the quotation that would confirm the dynasty was Persianized. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Derogatory comments in introduction
In the sentence
"In Iran, the Qajar dynasty is commonly considered the weakest dynasty in Iranian history that lost many of its controlled areas to the Russians",
"is commonly considered the weakest dynasty in Iranian history that"
is derogatory, vague, is not neutral, and and is not backed by any source, so I removed it. Its author's (User:HistoryofIran) comment
"i don't think we need a source that the Qajars were one of the weakest Iranian dynasties, i mean look what they did to Iran."
Original research by user:Karak1lc1k
User:Karak1lc1k, continues to edit war Azerbaijani language into the template, yet the source clearly states, "Turkic".
"''Turkic-Iranian Contacts, John R. Perry, Encyclopaedia Iranica, (August 15, 2006);"Turkic was also the mother tongue and, to an extent, the court language of the subsequent Afsharid and Qajar dynasties".
Nothing in the source supports "Azeri Turk". Therefore this, yet again, is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ardabil Becomes a Province: Center-Periphery Relations in Iran, H. E. Chehabi, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1997), 235;"Azeri Turkish was widely spoken at the two courts in addition to Persian, and Mozaffareddin Shah (r.1896-1907) spoke Persian with an Azeri Turkish accent...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit, in which a reference to Percy Sykes "History of Persia" was erased on the ground that Sykes was "not a historian". To be a historian does not depend on having a degree from some university. Sykes book is well known, and is systematically used for instance in the "Encyclopædia Iranica". It is also praised, for instance as "the best history of the country we have today in any language other than Persian" (C. Ghani, Iran and the West, London 1987). Sapphorain (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Sapphorain:, I added Percy Sykes erroneously myself priorly. However, I forgot that he is not a historian. Thus, I'm simply removing my own edit, as he should not be used. Here you have the same Encyclopædia Iranica stating that he was a soldier, diplomat, traveler, and writer who wrote extensively on Iran.. Nowhere is stated that hes a historian. I lastly confirmed this with @Doug Weller: as well, stating the same as well, telling that he should not be used. There is absolutely no reference or note to be found that he is a historian or holds any degree in history.
- I explicity explained why he had to be removed in my edit summary. I would obviously have a solid, easy to check, reason. He [Percy Sykes] has even a wiki page. No one denies he's written nice stories, but he is simply no authority on historical matters, no matter how much he's been praised. Someone who is not a historian should simply not be used as a reference on history-related articles.
- Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- A historical source does not have to be due to a professional historian in the modern sense of the term to be acceptable and used (one obvious reason is that otherwise the historian themselves would have very little to rely on!). As I mentioned, Sykes book is used in Encyclopaedia Iranica. If a source A is criticized by some other source B, then the (sourced) criticism may of course be mentioned. But the source A may not be just summarily dismissed. Besides, if you had not ("erroneously", as you put it) put Sykes in the article, I would probably have done so sooner or later. Bests. Sapphorain (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I understand Sapphorain's argument, however, Sykes work and primary sources are used by historians thus creating a reliable secondary source. Whereas we are to avoid using primary sources and non-historical sources due to the possibility of those sources being used to push a POV, along with their own personal bias. Anything Sykes has stated should, therefore, be able to be found in a reliable secondary source. The historiographical issue is where Sykes got his information, and what bias, if any, has he written into his work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppressed Marjane Satrapi from the list of notable members of the family. I have been in contact with the genealogist of the family on my talk page last August: she does not appear in the genealogy of the family and was unable to provide sources to her claim. I put a "citation needed" last August, and nothing happened. Sapphorain (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Dynasty VS Kingdom
Why is information about the country fused in with info about the royal family? shouldnt these be seperated into 2 different articles? you could have a qajar dynasty article and then a Qajar Empire article. XXxNoscopeGodxXX (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring editor
Here user JesseRafe removed this line  writing " too wordy and likely agenda-laden", though the content was fully sourced in the body, and no references are needed for the lede.
Thereafter, when I reverted him, he reverted it back, using a WP:BATTLE loaded edit summary, describing sourced content written by highly accredited professors in history as "written by blablabla", and demanding me to bring it to the talk page, instead of making a bold move himself (as he's the one contesting referenced/sourced content), per WP:BRD.
You'd think he'd stop by now, but no, afterwards, he unfortunately reverted it once again, continuing the WARRING. Still, absolutely 0.0% legitimation nor the correct steps taken by this user in order to adress his concerns. Afterwards, as he was already at 3 reverts, he simply decided to remove the same material, but now from the body.. Pure disruption on multiple fronts. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with both versions. A claim like "lost many of Iran's integral areas" is very pov: it is the pov of the source that is cited, but since there will obviously be other pov's, (including more realistic ones that would state that the lost territories were actually integral to Armenia, or Georgia, or Azerbaijan) this phrase is unsuitable for the lead. These areas were not "integral" under normal usage of the term, if they were actually integral the loss of them would have meant Iran would have ceased to exist after their loss. What "the concept of Iran" is, is best covered in the body of the article. If sources indicate that the Qajars were especially preoccupied with considerations about the idea of "the concept of Iran", it should not be narrowed down to something as specific as lost territory in the southern Caucasus. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Qajar 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311021034/http://www.iranica.com:80/articles/v10f3/v10f372.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f372.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160113142046/http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/piks3/3_4_v3.htm to http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/piks3/3_4_v3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.