Jump to content

Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Muhammad Shah Qajar)


title

[edit]

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

Persian, Not Arabic

[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Image

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohammad Shah Qajar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Shah Qajar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link?

[edit]

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

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

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

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

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

Random spotchecks

[edit]

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

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

Source review passed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Amir Ghandi (talk · contribs) 18:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Amir Ghandi, I will be reviewing this one. This will be my first GA review so please excuse any mistakes I may make. As I see it, on my first read through, the article is comprehensive and the sourcing is good. However, the copy editing issues identified by AirshipJungleman29 in the previous GA review are still present. I can note these down here and I will fix the small ones myself, if that is ok with you. In the last review you said you didn't have the time to do the copyediting, so please let me know if that is still the case now, and I will do all the edits myself since I believe the article is too important and comprehensive to be failed for a few pending copy edits.

Also, I am amazed that this article had been nominated on 9 April but hasn't been reviewed so far. I will try to wrap this one up quickly if you're up for that pace. Matarisvan (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Matarisvan. I will be able to copy edit the article. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amir Ghandi, my suggestions:

Prose review

[edit]
  • "Ottoman governor of Baghdad": Link Baghdad to Baghdad Eyalet?
  • In the infobox, clarify that the Fatima Masumeh Shrine is in Qom?
  • "buried in Fatima Masumeh Shrine": "buried at the Fatima Masumeh Shrine" might be better grammatically, consider changing in both the lead and body.
  • "in 1795, while Agha Mohammad Khan": "when" might be better instead of "while".
  • Link "Russian army" on first mention to "Imperial Russian Army"?
  • "(then called Baba Khan)": seems irrelevant here, would be better placed in the Fath-Ali Shah article.
  • "and overshadowed Iranian pride": seems unnecessary and unclear, consider removing?
  • Link to Tabriz in the Childhood subsection?
  • Link to Mashhad in the Early military career subsection?
  • Link to Kerman on first mention instead of second?
    • All done
  • Link John McNeill to John McNeill (diplomat)?
    • I have already linked it
  • Add the inflation template for Shafti's 2.5 million francs?
    • Done
  • Link Safavid to Safavid Empire?
    • done
  • Link blasphemy to Blasphemy in Islam?
    • done

I did the little copy edits myself. Completed upto the Second Treaty of Erzurum section, will resume from there tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ghandi, my last set of comments on the prose:

  • "Khorramshahr, Zohab and Sulaymaniyah": Do we know which Zohab this is? The one in Chenaran, Hormazgan, North Khorasan or South Khorasan? If we do, consider linking?
  • "£1 million as compensation": add the inflation template?
    • Done
  • "torn to pieces": consider replacing with "killed"?
    • Done
  • (In the same letters, he expressed his concerns for the shah's health).: Seems irrelevant, consider removing?
    • Done
  • "was successful in obtaining a fatwa": do we know who issued this fatwa? If so, consider adding?
    • Had to change this because of my own misunderstanding.
  • "given to him by his Jewish doctor, who was assigned to Mohammad when Aqasi dismissed the British and French doctors. The Jewish doctor's": I would suggest removing the word Jewish in both instances and also removing the bit about Aqasi dismissing the British and French doctors. Though it may be a fact that the doctor was Jewish, mentioning this might be considered antisemitic and promoting the article with this bit in it might land me in trouble.
    • I rewrote the sentence. Thoughts?
      • Amir Ghandi, looks good, will resume the review tomorrow. Meanwhile, check out the comments below?
  • "Akhbar-i Vaqa-a": Translate?
  • "Russian navy": Link to Imperial Russian Navy?
  • "These events led to Nicholas I exchanging letters with Mohammad. In a diplomatic sense, Mohammad had allowed the Russian navy to anchor in Anzali.": How did he allow the Russians to anchor? Did the letter exchanges allow these? If so, clarify?
  • Link Gilan?
    • Done
  • Link to Kashan on first mention?
    • Done
  • Abdol-samad Mirza's mother is noted as Ogholbeigeh Khanum, a Turkmen lady. We have not listed her here, why? Also, that would increase the number of known wives from three to four.
    • I couldn't find any source supporting this.

Matarisvan (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
  • There are 7 refs which still use harvnb, consider converting these to sfn like all the other refs?
  • Refs #6, #9, #32, #72, #106, #107, #127, #148, #149: page numbers needed.
    • These citations are all from Encyclopedia Iranica, which is available online. The encyclopedia has its own unique template, which requires the page numbers. That is why the page numbers are mentioned.
  • Ref #149: perhaps we meant Amanat 1997 or 1998 and not Amanat 1999? If so, correct the year?
    • Actually, it was Amanat 1993. Corrected.
  • Andreeva 2010 should be listed after all the Amanat sources. Abol-Hosseini 2007 should be first, followed by Ahanagaran 2013, then Algar 2020, then Amanat and Andreeva.
  • The Abbas Amanat sources will have to be put in chronological order.
  • Bournoutian 2015 should be just before Busse 1982 and not before Başkan 2014.
  • Daftary 2007 should be after Calmard 2004. Green 2020 should be after Ghadimi Gheydari 2010.
  • Calmard 2004 should be before Clawson & Rubin 2005 in the order. Ditto for Ebrahmi 2008 & Ebrahimnejad 2013 before Edrisi 2014, Eskandari-Qajar 2005 before Eslami 1999, Farzaneh 2015 before Floor 2012, Lambton 2012 before Lee 1996.
  • Nategh 2014 needs a translated title and language parameter. Also the link to Paris should be removed.
  • In Navā'ī 1988, the title should not be in all capitals, but in sentence case. Navā'ī 1988 should also be listed after Nategh 2014, and Nelson 1986 after it.
    • All done
  • Location of publication needed for Rypka 1968, Scharbrodt 2008, van den Bos 2021. Also, the link to Jan Rypka should be removed, otherwise you will have to link to all the other authors.
    • Done
  • Will do spot checks soon. Matarisvan (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amir Ghandi, please respond to point 2 in the image review above, meanwhile I will be doing the spot checks now. I will be checking 10% of the 161 refs here, so a total of 16 refs. Please consider setting the URL access levels of all noo.rs and sid.ir sources to either registration or subscription.
    1. Ref #3: ok.
    2. Ref #28: it says Khosrow was imprisoned in Hamadan and does not mention Ardabil at all.
    • Fixed
    1. Ref #38: The source, Piri 2001, is a dead link. You should consider running the Internet Archive bot on the page once, I could also do it for you.
    • It's not a dead link for me
    1. Ref #37: Ok.
    2. Ref #43: I could not check it properly but the abstract mentions that he was treated by Ernest Cloquet. Why have we not mentioned this here?
    • Ref 43 is Daftary 2007, the Ismailis. I have the book and I am looking through it right now and it does not mention that name at all
    1. The page range we have given for Ahangaran 2013 is 11-39, but when citing this source in refs no. 47, 48 and 55, we cite pages 133, 134 and 135, which are way outside of the set page range.
    • My mistake, fixed
    1. Ref #49: Does not seem to support the first two citations, namely "Article 11 of the Turkmenchay Treaty..." and "reunite Persian-speaking tribes ...". Does support the later 3 citations.
    • Well, I'm shocked. I corrected it now. The original text was translated from the Persian version, I guess I failed to factcheck it
    I have only done half of the spot checks I intended to do, because these early results are not very good. Please respond to these and the second point of the image review, only after you do so will I be able to resume the spot checks. Matarisvan (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amir Ghandi, these changes are good, and they resolve the original issues I had raised.
    1. I did not mean ref #43, I meant ref #42, Lambton 2012. It mentions that MSQ was indeed treated by Ernest Cloquet, so I think you should add that.
    2. As for ref #38, Piri 2001, it seems to be 401 forbidden now, but web.archive.org does have a copy. I ran the Internet Archive Bot on the page and you won't have to.
    3. You haven't yet set the URL access levels of the noo.rs and sid.ir sources to registration/subscription. You should do asap.
    • Done
    1. Continuing the source review, ref #68: ok.
    2. Ref #98: ok.
    3. Ref #122: Does not mention MSQ confiscating the lands of Hossein Ali Mirza, and also says that under Fath-Ali Shah 1/8th of lands in Fars and Persian Iraq were in royal ownership. So this ref doesn't support the second sentence from "confiscated the properties of Aqasi" onwards. Does confirm the "Raqabat-e Mohammadshahi" sentence.
      • Fixed
    1. Ref #132: "To counter these problems, Mohammad Shah put forth a three-staged plan in which he would centralize the command, create arsenals, and recover from the losses suffered in the wars with Russia. He consolidated power with himself and Aqasi to centralize the military." These two sentences are all on page 58, and it says the three-phase plan was put forward by Aqasi, not MSQ. And in this sentence, "To create arsenals, he established the Tehran foundry", "he" should be Awasi, not MSQ.
      • Done
    1. Ref #134: ok, but the source doesn't say Colombari was sent to Iran, rather he went himself.
      • Amended
    1. Ref #143: ok.
    2. Ref #150: half ok. Ezzat married not 4 but 5 times. Namely to Taqi Khan, Kazem Khan, Ayna al Mulk, Yahya Khan and Nasrallah Khan.
      • Amended
    1. The publisher of Mojtahed-Zadeh 2006 is Universal Press, not Boca Raton.
      • Amended
    Matarisvan (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammad_Shah_Qajar&oldid=1254062819"