Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar

Strange

The description of his death is strange and it seems fictitious. Using a reliable source, someone needs to research his death.

I agree. The “death by watermelon” story obviously is an apocryphal tale. It definitely has holes. If the servant could poison the watermelon, then he could easily taste it by the same method. I mean if the poison was injected into the watermelon with something like an injection syringe, then the servant could easily have drawn some juice from the watermelon with the same injection and tasted it. And if the watermelon was brought to the king after being cut open, then there was no problem in tasting it. So the story does not gel well.

Sisodia 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why King of Persia?

Why is there a Persian connection here? Were Qajar tribe and Agha Mohamad Persians? It sounds like Agha Mohamad took over the country back from Persians (i.e Karim Khans successors)? This is one last time that Turks took over IRAN (not Persia) until Reza Pahlavi was put in power by the British. Is there any written notes, speeches left from Agha Mohamad Khan (The last Great King of Iran) to anyone who views this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.3.194 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agha Mohammed was a Turk, his native tongue was Turkish, the Qajars are a Turkic people closely related to the Azeri Turks, Turkmen and other Oghuz Turks. The Zandis were not Persian but of lurish descent so no matter how one would twist it, the Qajars did not take the throne away from the Persian populace as they didn’t rule to begin with. Europeans used “Persia” to refer to Iran during that age, so the use of Persia is warranted even though Iranians themselves called it “Iran” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.204.238 (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Timeline confusion.

If Agha Muhammad launched a rebellion in 1794 and proclaimed himself Shah two years later (~1796), then how is it he "was assassinated in 1797...after about 16 years in power." (emphasis added)

Could the 16 refer to the number of months he reigned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.195.100 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There have been no objections after more than a month. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Mohammad Khan Qajar → Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar –

Most sources (especially the major ones such as the Cambridge history of Iran) tend to use "Agha Mohammad Khan (Qajar)". --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question Is not Agha simply an honorific as at Agha (Ottoman Empire)? If so, is the use of that title consistent with WP:SOVEREIGN? 1bandsaw (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a name he became known by after being castrated at an early age. As I said, most sources (especially the major ones such as the Cambridge history of Iran) tend to use "Agha Mohammad Khan (Qajar)". Errr.. why haven't a admin noticed this requested move yet? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shahanshah title

There are various sources that states he used the title 'Shahanshah', which is quite obvious he used [1] [2]. Quite silly that I actually have to post sources about this, it's like saying the Sasanians didn't use the title of Shahanshah. Iranian monarchy, heck, other monarchies as well, usually had a LOT of titles, we're not gonna add every single title on the infoboxes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Iranian kings had numerous titles, everyone with a little knowledge in the field of iranian history knows that. The most widely used was "Shahanshah", meaning "King of the kings" (this title, as that of "Great king" is quite well known in the world).---Wikaviani (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop your sarcasm. Providing a source is not "silly", this is the least thing you should have done when you removed sourced content. And for every ruler you do need to find a source that he used the title. Do not put the emblem in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXUSE. Pahlevun (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Easy man, HistoryofIran gave you sources for the title above. as to the emblem, take a look there : Lion and Sun. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed silly, you don't need a source for the obvious -> its obvious that Agha Mohammad Khan and the Qajars used the title of shahanshah. Again, Shahanshah is more than enough for a title. Also, you might wanna read WP:INFOBOXUSE yourself, as it states that we generally don't put sources in the infobox. Furthermore, stop your disruptive edit warring, no consensus has been reached here, thus you can't just revert it back to your own revision. Same goes for other articles. HistoryofIran (talk)

Note that "infoboxes should avoid flag icons", while "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere." I'm sure you are well-aware of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so deal with it. Pahlevun (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from user talkpage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Pahlevun You don't need a source for the obvious, do I have to find a source that states that the Sasanian monarchs used the title of Shahanshah as well? Heck, a simple Google search will show you more than enough--here, for example [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @HistoryofIran:. "Revival of the title Shahnshah" under Safavid dynasty does not mean every Safavid ruler used the title. I hope you can understand the difference. Pahlevun (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Aight, so I guess we have to find a source for every SINGLE Sasanian/Safavid/Afsharid/Qajar/Pahlavi ruler using the title of Shahanshah? Hmm, no? Stop trolling. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @HistoryofIran: Yes you certainly do, unless you have at least one reliable source explicitly stating that ALL rulers of that certain dynasty used the title. Remember that "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". And for your information, calling other editors "troll" is personal attack, and I'm sure you know what that means. Pahlevun (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC) You've clearly misunderstood the meaning of citation. Go ahead, do the same to other rulers as well, such as the Russian czars etc, state that we need a source that states every Russian king during the empire used the title of czar, and then do the same to japanese, sasanian and chinese rulers etc, and we'll see who is right. Well, it may not be trolling, but it certainly isnt constructive actions.HistoryofIran (talk) Well, I'm not interested to do that and I already know the slight difference between "Shah" and "Shahanshah". And remember that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material which is you, not me. So, instead of wasting time, search for something to prove that you are right. Pahlevun (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Since you both obviously disagree I suggest that this discussion be moved the talk page of the relevant article so that other editors can join in and perhaps help gain a WP:CONSENSUS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @Ad Orientem: There's a discussion here: Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar#Shahanshah title. I hope you will provide a third opinion. Pahlevun (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It is generally accepted that all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial require a citation to one or more reliable sources. The issue regarding royal titles is not cut and dry and we can find diversity of practice. For instance the term Czar, more commonly rendered today as Tsar, is normally applied as one of the many titles of the Russian monarchs as well as the later Bulgarian sovereigns and it is not always cited. However I think that in that case it would pass WP:BLUE as it is something that is such common knowledge that almost everyone, including those unfamiliar with Russian history would know that the title referred to the Russian monarchy. Beyond that, we actually have an article Tsar which can be, and probably should be linked in the lead of biographical articles about Russian Tsars. I am not sure that the same level of common knowledge applies to the title Shahanshah. I am a monarchist, albeit of the Western variety, and was not aware of it. If there is an article Shahanshah I think that linking that term in the lead would be sufficient. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Note that there's a slight difference between Shah and Shahanshah. The latter means 'king of the kings', while the former means only 'king'. So the second one is a title and not all shahs used the title shahanshah. This is the quote from the source removed by User:HistoryofIran:

The self-image of the Qajar shah as the nucleus of the ruling elite and as the supreme regulator with divine rights is evident in the use of titles and honorifics and the way these evolved over time. Although the chronicles of the Qajar period showered Aqa Muhammad Khan with many grand appellations, during his own time as ruler he adopted no more grand a title than khan and later shah. By contrast, his successor, Fath 'Ali Shah adopted not only the ancient Persian title of shahanshah ("king of kings") but also the Torco-Mongol title of khaqan ("the khan of the khans"), symbolizing claims over both the throne and the tribes. The lineage was underscored among Fath 'Ali Shah's successors: Muhammad Shah was referred to as "Khaqan son of Khaqan," Nasir al-Din Shah as "Khaqan son of Khaqan son of Khaqan." These royal titles were embellished with an array of other honorifics reflecting the rulers' desire to present a sense of historical continuity and hence legitimacy. Drawing on the glories of the Persian mythical and dynastic past, the Qajar shah was acclaimed by court chroniclers and in official records as a “world conqueror” (gity sitan) of “Alexandrian magnitude” (sikandar sha'n), a possessor of Jamshid's glory (Jamjah),...

— Amanat, Abbas (1997), Pivot of the Universe: Nasir Al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896, Comparative studies on Muslim societies, I.B.Tauris, p. 10, ISBN 9781860640971

— Pahlevun (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In the above instance, as a claim that is more specific than the existence of the title is being made, and I do not think it is common knowledge, I believe a citation is required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Amplifying I don't think that a cite is required in every use of the title. The easiest way to deal with this is to create an article on that specific title or a redirect to a section of Shah that covers the title in detail with a solid sourcing. It can then be linked when the title is applied in most biographical articles. The above looks like an anomaly because it is differentiating between the titles used by two different monarchs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: That's really a good idea to have an article or section that covers the title "in detail with a solid sourcing". I will not complain when there's a reliable source in the article/section stating that all Sasanian rulers used the title, and you use it on every article of Sasanian empire without citation. But, the question is, can you generalize the title when you have no source for another dynasties using it? I'm not finding a single reliable source in English that calls Abbas I of Persia shahanshah (almost all sources in native Persian language use 'Shah Abbas'), nor a source saying that all Safavid kings used the title. In this case, I don't think that asking for a source is what HistoryofIran calls "trolling". What do you think of the word used in front of |succession = in the infobox? I don't think that using the title Shahanshah makes sense there and it should be used for |title= . Pahlevun (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not common knowledge and therefore BLUE does not apply, we fall back on WP:V. In this instance I believe we should steer clear of using that particular title until some form of reliable sourcing can be found. I would also note that we are not limited to English language sources and given the subject, it is entirely possible that solid sourcing may exist in another language such as Persian. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here you go Pahlevun, the third time I'm doing a simple Google search for you. Consider this the last time I'm spoonfeeding you, look at page 17-18. [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you have hoisted with your own petard, on the page 18 it says "... and Shah/Shahanshah again by the Safavids, Qajars and Pahlavis" [Notice Shah/Shahanshah], implying that some kings of those dynasties did NOT use the title and the source is not generalizing the usage of the title Shahanshah. On the page 17, it says that Safavids revived the title, that doesn't mean all of them used the title either, as I said before. If I were you, I would concentrate more on finding a source rather than efforts to attack others blatantly. Pahlevun (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, interpreting a source in your own POV and making stuff up for yourself, I don't have time for this. Nowhere does it imply what you just said, you're making stuff up. The source simply states that they used used both Shah/Shahanshah, which is obvious. This seems more and more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, accusing me of 'attacking others blatanly' isn't gonna make your case stronger. The sources have been showed, end of --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not an interpretation. "/" is a substitute for the conjunction "or", anyone understanding just a little bit of English will definitively assert that. So, read your source, again, "... and Shah or Shahanshah again by the Safavids, Qajars and Pahlavis", without any further interpretation. Pahlevun (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It interpretated in a way you like the most. Take note that the Afsharids, who didn't all use shahanshah, aren't mentioned amongst those dynasties. Honestly I think you're gonna rebuke every source till there is a source that literally names all the rulers that used the title of shahanshah, which there isn't, since that's not how sources work. Find me a source that states not all Safavid rulers used the title of shahanshah. The source generally states that the Safavids revived the old tradition of using 'shahanshah', which means it was customary to use that title, just like any other title for any other ruler. And that's more than enough, you not liking this fact is not my concern. EDIT: Here is another source [5] The Safavid kings called themselves, among other appellations, the “dog of the shrine of ʿAli” (kalb-e āstān-e ʿAli), while assuming the title of Šāhanšāh (the king of kings) of Iran.. Case closed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the user who wants to add content, which is in this case you, and asking for a source saying that something did not happen is merely argumentum ad ignorantiam. You claimed that "Shah/Shahanshah" means "both" titles were used, while it means one of these two were used. Anyway, considering your unconstructive attitude towards discussing a dispute, I am no more continuing this with you. Pahlevun (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well of course you're not continuing, I just showed another source that proved you wrong, and which can't be interpreted in any other way. Well, I may have been a tad passive aggressive, and I apologize for that, but then again, you should have come to the talk page first instead of starting your removal of information crusade, not to mention your edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about using the title "Shahanshah"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to include a source if using a particular title such as "Shahanshah" (though if it is sourced in the prose it doesn't need to be sourced in the infobox). There is a general apathy/no consensus regarding where in the infobox that information should go. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Shahanshah (lit. 'the king of kings') is a title that some Shahs (kings) of Iran used and some did not. The question is:

1. Should the articles about rulers of Iran, cite a source stating that certain shah did use the title shahanshah or it is OK to use it without a source?
2. Should the title Shahanshah be used for |succession= in the infobox, or |title= will suffice?

You can see the discussion above over the dispute. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC). Pahlevun (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Since we cannot find a source for this for every Iranian ruler and also because there is no need to cite sources for some obvious statements like this, i would say no.

2. The important thing is that the title appears, no matter which "box" it appears in.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• I wandered in here from RFC/A. It seems to me that if there is any ambiguity here then we should be very careful -- the titles used by long-dead royals are definitely not WP:BLUE territory. The aesthetics of putting a citation in an infobox don't really matter, since the point can be established in the body. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• 1 yes, with or without cite, 2 no (Summoned by bot). Doesn't have to be in any infoboxes. please ping me ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Invited by the bot) If some used the title and some didn't, then without finding the info in a source, its not only not sky-is-blue, we don't even know if it is true or false. On the subject of whether or not to cite it in the info box, if the implicit statement in the infobox is the same as a sourced statement in the body, then IMO it doesn't need citing again in the info box. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• 1. yes should find source. agree with North8000. (It may be we cannot find a source for this or every Iranian ruler. not a reason to use title.)
• 2.can't think of any reason |title= would not suffice. (Summoned by bot) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ashuradeh caspian sea.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Farther north?

The article states:

In 1778, Agha Mohammad Khan moved his capital from Sari in his home province of Mazandaran to Tehran. He was the first Iranian ruler to make Tehran—the successor to the great city of Ray—his capital, although both the Safavids and the Zands had expanded the town and built palaces there. One of the main reasons noted for moving the capital farther north was ...

The reference to "farther north" is confusing. Khan moved his capital from Sari to Tehran. Sari is north of Tehran, therefore the Khan moved his capital south, not north.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with the use “mazandaran” here. Agha Mohammed was born in Gorgan, not Mazandaran. It is true that before 1997 Gorgan was part of mazandaran but nowadays it is misleading. The Qajars did live natively in eastern Mazandaran, but it arguably was not Agha’s native province in a modern sense as he was not born nor raised there but in what is now Golestan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.204.238 (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

He also raped 50 Punjabi Muslim girls on his expedition to Punjab, a part of former Mughal Empire; but he failed to conquer the Punjab. So he destroyed the cities of Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar and Muzaffargarh. And he forced the regional Maulavis to supply him 50 Regional Muslim Teen Girls as a part of Ransom for leaving their region. 2405:205:C929:D527:B26A:A137:9FC8:2E0C (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Dangling ref

I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a source that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Khorasan map

User:HistoryofIran, Kurdish chieftains didn't control Kalat and Darra Gaz. Darra Gaz was controlled by Chapshlu Turkic khans, while Jalayer tribesmen controlled Kalat. Read Christine Noelle's book "The Pearl in its Midst: Herat and the Mapping of Khurasan (15th-19th Centuries)" and [6] for more information. Also my map lists the sources involved in it's creation on Wikimedia Commons (although i made that map before I read Christine Noelle-Karimi's book, so it needs to be updated as it excludes a few minor ones like Darra Gaz). Although they may have been considered De jure Afsharid, they effectively acted entirely independently from the weak government in Mashhad and frequently fought with Nasrullah Mirza Afshar and Nader Mirza Afshar. The map shows de facto control and not de jure control. Kailanmapper (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your map uses the Russian Wikipedia and John Malcolm, who lived in the 18th-century. Sorry but that's already pretty big red flags. Whether they were autonomous or not, if they were de jure Afsharid that should be somehow shown, as in every other map. The quality of the map isn't the best either, which makes even a guy who has seen such maps of eastern Iran loads of times hard to comprehend what is going on. For map-making, I would highly advise Inkscape. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran I wouldn't use John Malcolm if his source wasn't correlated with multiple contemporary and modern sources. The Siraj al-Tawarikh, Mohamed Yusuf's book "A History of Afghanistan; from 1793 A.D. to 1865 A.D.", the Farsnama, The Dynasty of the Qajars, James Braille Fraser's book on his travels in Khorasan from 1821 to 1822, "THE AFGHAN - IRANIAN CONFLICT OVER HERAT PROVINCE AND EUROPEAN INTERVENTION 1796 - 1863: A REINTERPRETATION",the book by Christine Noelle-Karimi that I already mentioned etc also have information that supports Malcolm's claims. Thus I think it's valid to say that Malcolm isn't an invalid source in this case. As far as Russian Wikipedia, it was literally me looking at Eshaq Khan Qarai's page to see the date they gave for his overthrow of Najaf Qoli Khan, pretty minor honestly and shouldn't take away from anything. I would have shown de jure Afsharid control but again, the map was meant to be de facto and not de jure (although i might write a little note about it on the map). Finally wdym the quality of the map is bad? That's pretty vague criticism, can you give a more detailed response so I can improve the map? It doesn't seem that bad honestly compared to the loads of garbage wikipedia maps out there but still feedback is necessary so can you just give me a more detailed criticism of the quality of the map? Kailanmapper (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"It doesn't seem that bad honestly compared to the loads of garbage wikipedia maps out there" doesn't sound very promising. A more zoomed map generally looks worse with the same details as a more outzoomed map, amongst other things because there is more place for zoomed map to make the area more detailed. Cities and rivers would be a good start. Perhaps create a box where you can amongst other things add the name of the entities instead on the map itself? That would make lots of space for other details (cities) - Something akin to this [7] [8] [9] [10] Not sure how to explain this bit, but some of the colors kinda look off. All this is much easier to do in Inkscape. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you a lot for the feedback. I usually add cities but for whatever reason I didn't on this map so I'll fix it. I'll add a textbox also, but I won't add rivers. Since rivers have shifting passes due to erosion and such, I don't add rivers to my map unless I have detailed information on their historical paths. Kailanmapper (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't need detailed information to add the rivers, you can find them about everywhere. Amu Darya and Helmand would be a good start. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try and work on it later today. Kailanmapper (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot; regarding Malcolm, just because he is often cited in secondary sources, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to use him. Lots of primary sources are cited; that is, well, how we have our secondary sources. But primary sources also often suffer from biases and errors, which secondary sources will for the most part correct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)