Talk:Nader Shah

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. [1] 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 [2]. --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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Add nationality - Azerbaijani Turk Umbayev Tofig (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No source for this. Azerbaijani was not an ethnonym and especially not nationality back then [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Origins

@Golden: Sorry, didn't pay attention on this bit and accidently removed it ("Although he later learned Persian, he always preferred using Turkic in everyday speech. He learned to read and write as an adult."). But why is this necessary? "Nader's native tongue was a southern Oghuz dialect, i.e. "Turkish of Azerbaijan". It does not bring any valuable information, I fail to see how it is better than "The Afshar dialect is categorized either as a dialect of the Southern Oghuz group or a dialect of Azerbaijani". Stöber doesn't need to directly mention Nader; We already know he belongs to the Afshar tribe, unless you mean to say that Nader spoke a completely different dialect than his tribesmen. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting bit of trivia since it deviates from the usual practice of kings of Persia/Iran using Persian as their primary language. It also demonstrates how Nader's roots continued to influence him even after he ascended to the throne of Iran. I find it interesting and I believe most readers would too. The part about him learning to read and write can probably be moved to a section about his Early life. As for the quote from Minorsky, how can it be deemed devoid of valuable information? It specifically addresses the tongue Nader spoke, a topic on which sources are scarce. In response to "We already know he belongs to the Afshar tribe, unless you mean to say that Nader spoke a completely different dialect than his tribesmen", given our cautious approach to avoid making assumptions to the extent that we don't even link "Turkish of Azerbaijan" to the Azerbaijani language article, I think we should seek sources that directly address Nader's language rather than a general source discussing his tribe's dialect. — Golden ^talk 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you partly misunderstood me. I removed this on accident when I removed all the previous information of that section: "Although he later learned Persian, he always preferred using Turkic in everyday speech. He learned to read and write as an adult." As for the language bit, what assumptions are exactly being made? Nader belonged to the Afshar tribe, which is obviously also mentioned in Stöber [4]. The reason that "Turkish of Azerbaijan" is not linked to Azerbaijani language because it doesn't refer that and that the category of the Afshar dialect is disputed (which the information I added adresses), but we have already been through that bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, sure, you can re-add Stöber. My opposition was to the removal of Minorsky since he is the only source that directly addresses what Nader spoke. — Golden ^talk 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you please address my comment regarding Minorsky? I fail to see why it should stay when we have the bit from Stöber. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought I did in my first comment. I'll paste it here: It specifically addresses the tongue Nader spoke, a topic on which sources are scarce. To elaborate: Minorsky is an important source, so I think it would be remiss to exclude what he had to say on Nader's language in the section of the article where we discuss the language spoken by Nader. — Golden ^talk 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to that at 20:12. Stöber already adresses the dialect of the Afshars, I fail too see how a direct (and frankly more vague) mention of Nader makes it special, he was ultimately a Afshar. Moreover, Minorsky calls it a Southern Oghuz dialect, which Azerbaijani is not part of. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it's from an important scholar and provides a different description of the language compared to Stöber. We're not confined to using one source. We can use both and write how different sources have described it. — Golden ^talk 20:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's literally what Stöber does here, he presents both sides. What does Minorsky do different here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I interpret Minorsky's quote as differing from the perspectives represented by Stöber. As you mentioned, it's ambiguous and thus open to various interpretations. I don't see any harm in including his viewpoint here. However, I won't prolong this discussion. Have a pleasant day. — Golden ^talk 20:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And what interpretation is that? If you are not interested in continuing this discussion, then I see no reason to remove it. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not uninterested, I just don’t have time. I thought this would be a quick fix when I joined the discussion, but clearly not and I unfortunately don't have the time to discuss it any further. Feel free to add back Stöber. — Golden ^talk 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And thats fair, you dont have to reply to me as fast as possible. I doubt this discussion is going to take up that much time, the reason for its current length is more due to misunderstandings. If you can resume your participation before 30 days passes, that would be great. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Joseph von Semlin

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