Talk:Nader Shah/Archive 1

Nadir Shah is not included in the list of Iranian monarchy nor in that of the Safivids Dynasty. Can anyone tell why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.46.248.220 (talk • contribs) 2003-08-19T11:11:23

because actually he did not have any relation to royal family. he was just a turkic nomad from poor family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.52.13 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-19T04:15:53

In most historical works, Nadir Shah is included in the list of monarchs. If he isn't it is just a mistake (I don't know what books the person who asked the original question is reading). There is not a King or Emperor in history that didn't at some point come from humble beginnings. It is just a question of when. Nadir's parents were members of the Afsharid tribe. The Afsharid tribe was one of the many powerful nomadic tribes that were semi-autonomous in Iran at that time. The Afsharids were of Turkomen origin and moved to Azerbaijan as a result of the MOngol invasions in the 13th century. They were partially moved back to Khorasan by the Safavids in the 17th century, who doubted their loyalty (they spoke Turkish, and as such were potential allies to the Ottomans). This was a common practice amongst dynasties in Iran's history. Nadir's family was part of those that were moved back to Khorasan. Exactly how poor a family he was from is not entirely clear, but the fact that Nader had a grandfather leads historians to believe that his family, although shepherds, were not entirely without means. Nearly all Iranian kings, other than the Pahlavis, came from Tribes or Clans, that provided the initial base of power and support. Lastly, Nadir Shah Afshar was not a Safavid, as his full name makes clear. His rule, however, proved to be short lived although he is known in history as the last great conqueror from Asia. His military accomplishments were phenomenal in the short time of his reign, but like most great generals, his governmental administration was abysmal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.119.47 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-15T16:12:43

You state, "Nadir Shah is not included in the list of Iranian monarchy nor in that of the Safivids Dynasty. Can anyone tell why?". There is a very simple explanation to the second part of your question. The second part of the question, as I interpret it, is saying: why isn't Nader Shah included in the Safavid Dynasty? The answer is he is part of the Afsharid Dynasty. He is not part of the Safavid Dynasty. The Afsharid Dynasty included these kings: Nader Shah, Ali Gholi, Ebrahim, Shahrokh. I think you know this since you state, "Nadir Shah Afshar was not a Safavid". Do you care to explain why you think he should be included in the Safavid Dynasty? Agha Nader 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Cleanup

Article needs:

• Wikification
• Categories
• Image Nadershahtomb.jpg does not have source and copy right information

Mahanchian 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes correcting minor errors. Nader was assassinated at Fathabad, not Golnabad. Abbas III died in 1739, not 1736 (or 1740). The Afghans invaded in 1722 (they merely raided Kerman in 1719). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAx (talk • contribs) 2006-06-14T08:21:25

The images without copy right information should be removed. This article needs more sources. When I started editing it, it barely had any sources. The "Invasion of India" needs improvement. Some categories should be added, such as Nader Shah's religious reform, and economic and social impact. If these are not addressed, I can address them in order to improve the article, with sources of course. Agha Nader 05:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Just my 2 pence

We are building the Project from a global perspective for use across the world, and not from the point pf view of any particular region or nation. Accordingly, contents of historical stubs and pages should reflect the aspiration of wikipedians to build a truly global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 15:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did a complete clean up. I think the article is now more respectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arad (talk • contribs) 2006-04-13T01:26:18

Images?

What happened to the images? why they can't be displayed? (The Unknown 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Turkmen

In Turkmenistan people tell stories about Nader Shah that he is Turkmen and he killed Turkmens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.214.72 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-11T16:09:09

Some errors corrected.

I have corrected some errors, on the basis of my research toward my book on Nader Shah. Most of the facts can be checked in the Lockhart biography and the cambridge history of Iran (added to references). The Afghans raided Kerman in 1719, but the invasion (correct word? the Afghans had been Persian subjects) and conquest of Isfahan took place in 1722. Abbas III died in 1739, not 1736 (or 1740). Nader was assassinated at Fathabad, not Gulnabad, and the date was 19 June. Ahmad Shah Abdali/Durrani was loyal to Nader to the end and supported his grandson Shahrokh in Khorasan later: it was Ali Qoli who organised Nader's assassination and tried to take the throne afterwards.

MAx 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no original research. You state "I have corrected some errors, on the basis of my research toward my book on Nader Shah.", I would appreciate it if you would no longer add original research. Official Wikipedia policy states, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source" WP:NOR. It continues, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research." I greatly appreciate your interest and involvemnet in this article. Nader Shah is an important historical figure, and readers would like to know more about him. I hope you will continue improving this page, but of course without original research. Agha Nader 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Correcting errors is not original research, and the corrections I made are corroborated by published, reliable sources. But some errors are still there. What reliable source says that Reza Qoli planned Nader's assassination in 1747? It was Nader's nephew, Ali Qoli, not his son, Reza Qoli. MAx. PS I appreciate your interest and involvement too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.232.21 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-17T19:54:32

From my understanding it is not known for sure who planned the assassination of Nader Shah. The article says that Reza Qoli is the most probable suspect. Iran chamber writes "He suspected his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded." [1] Iranica writes "When the would-be assassin claimed that he had been recruited by Reza-qoli, the shah had his son blinded in retaliation, an act for which he later felt great remorse." If you have any sources that say Ali-qoli was responsible, that too will be represented in the article. Also please sign your name with four tildes. Agha Nader 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

It is true that no one knows for certain who planned Nader's assassination. But Ali Qoli was already in revolt, made himself Shah immediately afterwards, rewarded several of the killers, and was the chief beneficiary of his uncle's death (Sword of Persia, pp 276-283). He had Reza Qoli killed. One contemporary source says that Ali Qoli was in contact with the chief of the conspirators by coded letter. Reza Qoli was perhaps the instigator of the assassination attempt in the Savad Kuh in May 1741 (to which I think your quotations refer) but by 1747 he was blind, imprisoned in Kalat-e Naderi, and out of the game. Incidentally, contemporary sources suggest it was Mohammad Khan Qajar Erevani who killed Nader (beheading him), after Saleh Khan cut off his arm.86.149.9.65 22:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Our source must explicitly say that Ali qoli was responsible. To say he was responsible based on the fact that he was in a revolt is OR. Please read WP:OR. Agha Nader 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Does your source (what source? any source at all?) say explicitly that Reza Qoli was responsible? The word that appears now in the text is 'probably'. It is far from probable that Reza Qoli was involved. If anyone was involved, it was probably (PROBABLY) Ali Qoli.Period. That is not Original Research. It is Common Sense. Is anyone moderating this? Help please.86.149.9.65 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nader not Nadir

Should change the article name to Nader shah --Spahbod 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NADER SHAH

Nader is the Correct Form ( نادر ) همان نادر شاهی که بد تو دهنی به عثمانی ها زد —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.162.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14T19:25:58

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY--Pantherarosa 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The inadequacies of the arabic script when it comes to short vowels mean that it is rather hard to say what the "correct" transliteration of نادر is in the latin script. In 18th century English it was usually "Nader", in the 19th century and today "Nadir" as this reflects the Indian pronunciation of his name (he became widely known in the West largely because of the sack of Delhi). Doesn't seem that important to me. Sikandarji 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose that Nader Shah be referred to as Nader Shah throughout the article and not Nadir. Why should two spellings of his name be used in the article? His alternative names have already been mentioned in the beginning of the article. I am interested in any objections. Agha Nader 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

He was born in Afshar province in Kurdistan his tribe migrated to Khorasan by the Safavid density to fight the Turkmen raiding and lootings of Khorasan cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.178.133 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-16T05:53:39

Nader was born in Khorasan, into the Qiriqlu Afshar tribe who had been moved to Khorasan years before. MAx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.232.21 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-17T20:06:50

Sunni Shia reconnicliation

The article should include information about Nader Shah's efforts to reconcile the Sunni with the Shia. Agha Nader 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Failed GA

I am removing this article from the list of GA candidates, for the following reasons:

• This article is not NPOV. It makes a number of claims about the greatness and magnificence of this leader, and this will need to be cleaned up to qualify for GA status.
• This article is poorly sourced. Most of the citations are from a single website that isn't even linked. It should be further sourced and the existing sourced cleaned up. Statements like "historians agree that it was the only way to avoid the spread of riot and losing India" absolutely need multiple sources to stand.
• This article needs a copyedit.
• Certain portions of the article could use further wikilinking.

Chubbles 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore this article is not broad in its coverage. There isn't anything about the situation of Iran before rising Nader. Also there isn't anything about his government and dynasty. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• All POV statements have been removed. If you believe any remain please list them so they can be discussed.
• The article is now sourced from 4 websites and 2 books.
• The article was checked for a spelling and grammatical errors. It was also nominated to be copyeditted by the League.
• The article has been extensively wikilinked.

Please list any further problems so the article can be improved. Cheers.--Agha Nader 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

• [2] entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the website's entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and like Encyclopedia Britannica is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

After reviewing the article, I've failed its GA nomination. Below is some advice and the issues I found in the article. Of course, you are more than welcome to renominate the article at a later date if you improve upon the points below or believe my review to be in error.

• The image in the infobox is a little weird. There's no reason to add all those attributes ("thumb," "200px," "right," etc.). See Ahmad Khan Abdali for an example of the way it should look, caption and all.
• The article still needs more references. The "Invasion of India" section has none, for instance.
• Most of the article is relatively out of context. It lists all of Nader's victories, but fails to state why he's fighting all these people in the first place.
• The "Early life" section and other biographical information is lacking. Much of the article reads more like a wartime-resume than a biography. Granted he is known most for his military achievements, but I would like to know more about the person himself as well as the world around him.
• A few remaining POV statements:

• "Because of his military genius"
• "Nader Shah was the last great Asian military conqueror"

• Although this might seem to go against the previous review, there's a bit too much wikification. For example it seems unnecessary to link to "military" or "Asian." This is ultimately a judgment call on your part, but words for which the definition is commonly known are not usually wikilinked.
• The introduction should be a little longer for an article of this size.
• Although it is not required of a GA article, it would be nice to see the references done using a citation template.
• The first sentence of the first section shouldn't start with "He."
• A few statements are left unexplained. For example I have no idea what "Qirqlu branch of Afshar Turkmen" means, and the Turkmen article didn't help much. You must presume a relative lack of knowledge on the part of the reader.
• There's a few unnecessary red links, such as Malek Mahmud Sistani and Mehmandust. If an article doesn't exist don't link to it.
• "Napoleon of Persia" and "Second Alexander" should be in quotation marks, not italicized.
• The bullet point list of the "Defeat of the Afghans" section should be converted to prose. Try to avoid proseline while doing so.
• "The leader of the Gizli Afghans was Ashraf." So? Who is that? Why is that significant? He isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.
• In the "Ottoman Campaign" section, about half of the sentences begin with "Nader was" or "Nader then." Vary the prose a bit.
• "Reza Qoli Mirza" Who is that?

It seems as if the article has a long way to go, but it is certainly not beyond help. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to bring them up here or on my Talk Page. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 10:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP edits

The anon IP which is making edits on this page, as well as that of Qajars and Safavids, should not be modifying the quotes to scholarly articles taken word-to-word. Modifying those is OR. Atabek 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should say Turkic not Turkmen for Nader and the Afshar tribe. Click on Turkmen in Wiki and you go to Turkmenistan etc. The Afshars had nothing to do with the Turkmen of Turkmenistan - Tekke, Salor, Yomut etc. To suggest otherwise is misleading . 86.150.54.147 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic origin

Guys, please discuss on talk rather than edit war. When you have a rough consensus please let me know or request unprotection on WP:RPP Alex Bakharev 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Karent82 said "Turkmans are not Turk, they're Turkic, and this is alerady xplained under origins", which is irrelevant since the article says:

Nader Shah was of Turkic decent. He was a member the Turkic tribe, Afshar, of northern Persia . The Afshar tribe had supplied the military power for the Safavid state since the time of Shah Ismail I. Agha Nader 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment From Michael Axworthy's biography of Nader, The Sword of Persia (I.B. Tauris, 2006), p.17-19: "His father was of lowly but respectable status, a herdsman of the Afshar tribe...The Qereqlu Afshars to whom Nader's father belonged were a semi-nomadic Turcoman tribe settled in Khorasan in north-eastern Persia...The tribes of Khorasan were for the most part ethnically distinct from the Persian-speaking population, speaking Turkic or Kurdish languages. Nader's mother tongue was a dialect of the language group spoken by the Turkic tribes of Iran and Central Asia, and he would have quickly learned Persian, the language of high culture and the cities as he grew older. But the Turkic language was always his preferred everyday speech, unless he was dealing with someone who knew only Persian."

Axworthy notes he has "followed the convention of using Turcoman for the Qezelbash and other Turkic tribes within Persia, and the term Turkmen for the Turkic steppe tribes like the Yomut, Tekke, the Salor and others, who lived on the northern borders of Khorasan. The latter group of tribes were Sunni Muslims and shared a distinctive, separate cultural identity". NB: Wikipedia makes no such distinction ("Turcoman" redirects to "Turkmen").

So Nader Shah was Turkmen (or Turcoman) and Turkic, but not a Turk or Turkish. --Folantin 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not claim he was Turkish, it states "Nader Shah was of Turkic decent. He was a member the Turkic tribe, Afshar"--Agha Nader 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't claim that now, but IIRC an anonymous user added such a statement. I thought that's what the whole edit war was about (perhaps there was someone else claiming he was a "pure Persian" - I can't remember). This can now be unprotected since we have established Nader Shah's origins correctly. --Folantin 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, Turkic-speakers in Iran are usually referred to as "Turk". Atabek 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in English they aren't. --Folantin 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference presented to origin of Afshar tribe clearly says Turkic. I don't see why it should be replaced by Turkmen without proper references to the effect. Atabek 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources are under the origins' section, the intro is suppose to be a summery of the whole article. Turkmen is more specific and more commonly used, Turkic is a racialist term. AlexanderPar 05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkic is not, in any of the reading I have done, a racialist term. It is simply used in usual English parlance to distinguish people speaking languages in the Turkish language group, but living outside Turkey (and those languages), from the people living within the state of Turkey, the Turks. 86.150.53.188 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jafari?

What is excactly meant by Nadir Shah's promoting of the Ja'fari shi'ism? Ja'fari is the Fiqh-school of standard Shia Itha Ash'ariyya, which the Safavids themselves were adherents of. As such, Ja'fari cannot be sat in opposition to Twelver Shi'ism.87.51.211.84 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"good article" nomination

MY Comments were deleted by me.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15

45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources What absolute rubbish. The sources are perfectly reliable, especially Axworthy and the Encyclopedia Iranica (written by Tucker, one of the leading academic experts on Nader Shah).

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. So which material is "likely to be challenged"? There is nothing here that is controversial except his date of birth and (this being Wikipedia) his ethnicity.

Most refs from Axworthy book do not have page nos. That's because those sections are a condensation of the material in the chapters in Axworthy's book. I'm not going to reference every sentence to each page because almost nothing in this article is controversial.

Inline citations required. What? There are inline citations.

This article did not receive a thorough review. You can say that again.

Thank you for your work so far. Thanks for nothing. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Comments were deleted by me.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15

45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. There is certainly no policy saying every sentence must have an inline citation. GA requires inline citations "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". I think this article fully complies with this. I should not have to apply for a Good Article Reassessment. Other users and I have put a lot of work into this and I want a proper Good Article assessment by somebody who understands the criteria properly. I suggest you remove your review and replace this article among the Good Article Candidates. The other minor points you made have been dealt with:

• Ref 3 is link to Encyclopedia Britannica, home page.: Encyclopedia Britannica, home page says nothing about Nadir Shah. EB refs replaced
• I couldn't locate the name "Histoire de Nadir" in ref 21. New ref provided.
• Most refs from Axworthy book do not have page nos. Converted. Thank you. --Folantin (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Indeed, you're right about that, but you still have to have quite a few citations in order to be a good article. Neither of you are completely wrong, both of you are almost right. See WP:CITE. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 11:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to cite material which is controversial or likely to be challenged. The material which is likely to be controversial or challenged in this article has been cited. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"I've reinstated it myself. --Folantin (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)" was comment left on my talk page. So be it. I have removed all my comments from this page.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkic or Turkmen?

At present the article has Turkmen as an adjective to describe the Afshar tribe (in two places at least). This is misleading and incorrect. Click on Turkmen on Wiki and you go to the article on Turkmenistan, and the Turkmen of Turkmenistan are and were unrelated to the Afshars (aside from that they all spoke Turkic languages). Before Nader's time the Afshars had been living in Persia for centuries (having been one of the original Qezelbash tribes that had helped found the Safavid dynasty), had been Shi'a for centuries and were to a significant degree Persianised (though still speaking a Turkic language as their mother tongue). In Khorasan they, like other inhabitants of that province, were frequently the target of Sunni Turkmen slavers (from the Yomut, Salor, Tekke and other tribes) raiding south from Khiva and the region around there (now part of Turkmenistan). The adjective describing the Afshars should be Turkic not Turkmen. 217.44.238.57 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Click on Turkmen on Wiki and you go to the article on Turkmenistan". Wrong. Click on "Turkmen" in this article and it takes you to Turkmen people, which clearly shows the Turkmens are not confined to modern Turkmenistan but also live in Afghanistan and NE Iran. Moreover, our sources refer to Nader Shah's background as "Turkmen", notably Ernest Tucker (a major expert on this era of Iranian history) in the Encyclopedia Iranica here [3]. Nader's most recent English biographer, Michael Axworthy, refers to the Afshars as "Turcomans" too. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Domestic policies

I have found some sources discussing Nader Shah's policy towards Jews and other non-war topics. I am not certain to what extent the domestic policy section should be expanded. Since he is mainly known as a conqueror it may be undue weight to stress his domestic policies. Any thoughts?--Agha Nader (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty more we could add (I have lots more info too), but I don't think we need to at the moment. This is perfectly good enough for a GA. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA Nom

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I see much improvement here since the previous GA nom, but there is still significant work needed to meet the good article criteria. The main area in need of improvement is the tone of the article—it reads more like an historical novel told from Nader Shah's point of view than a encyclopedic article about him.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   This is the main tonal issue mentioned above. I think it stems from using terms like "genius" and "powerful" to describe Nader Shah while using "weak", "traitorous" "treacherous" and "marauders" to describe his enemies. Even though the terms may well be accurate, they also imply a point of view (see Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint)

I believe another way this tone is implied is through using the active voice to describe Naders actions. For example, the phrase "Nader decided he needed to regain the initiative as soon as possible..." really puts the reader inside Nader's head. The only way we might be able to know that's what he was thinking is if we had a diary to reference, and even then it would be better to say "According to his diary, Nader decided to...". In this case, it's better to state what he did without rationalise it, then state what effect it had, and leave it to the reader to judge if Nader Shah actions were intended to have that outcome.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead could be broken up in paragraphs and possibly expanded slight, but this is minor. I also curious why he is referred to as Nader Shah while others are, for example Shah Ismail.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   This relates a bit with the "words to avoid" comment above. While including a single reference at the end of a paragraph is usually sufficient, highly contestable statements should be referenced immediately. Examples of these statements in this article are Nader's "genius", Soltan Hossein's "weakness", and any accusations of murder, treason or assassination (this last is very important; without a reference, it appears wikipedia is accussing the people involved of these crimes!).

   C. It contains no original research:

   Fine provided the editorial tone is cleaned up and contestable facts cited.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Might add something regarding how Nader Shah is viewed in modern times. Is there a holiday in his honor, statues of him, or institutions named after him? Or has his legacy begun to fade from the popular consciousness?

   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:

   This can be resolved by fixing the comments on tone as well.

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:

   Image:Peacock Throne.jpg has an obsolete copyright tag and needs to be updated. Minor issue.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article contains a good amount of information but has quite a few problems with encyclopaedic tone. Once this and the other minor issues have been addressed, I suggest the article be taken to peer review and then renominated.--jwanders^Talk 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I find the comments about the lack of "encyclopaedic tone" ridiculously pedantic. Nowhere do the terms "traitorous" and "marauders" occur in the article. The assassination attempt on him is common knowledge (i.e. every account of Nader's life mentions this) as is the weakness of the late Safavids.

"Is there a holiday in his honor, statues of him, or institutions named after him?" Um, look at the picture: "Tomb of Nader Shah, a tourist attraction in Mashhad". "I also curious why he is referred to as Nader Shah while others are, for example Shah Ismail". You curious, but that just naming convention we must follow.

I've recently been thinking about salvaging an article (Berber people) which is riddled with problems and is barely referenced. Surprise, surprise - when I looked at the talk page I saw it had been passed as a Good Article. This simply confirms my conviction that GA is a lottery and the whole process is broken. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I mistakenly said "traitorous" where I meant "treacherous". "Marauders" is used in the "Defeat of the Afghans" sections, in the phrase "carried off as slaves by marauding Uzbek or Turkmen tribesmen". --jwanders^Talk 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All of these terms are perfectly accurate as can be seen from the context. I specifically checked Wikipedia:Words to avoid before putting this up for review, and as far as I can see, none of those terms are on there. This has been failed for completely subjective reasons while other articles with major POV issues have passed GA with no problems. I find it hard to believe that referring to Nader's assassination is somehow POV. It's historical fact, just like the assassination of Julius Caesar. --Folantin (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I can only imagine how it feels to have an article you've worked hard on not make it past a review, especially after waiting so long due to the GAN backlog. Please understand that the review is not a reflection of you and your work on the article is greatly appreciated. You're right that a number of the GA criteria are subjective, and due to the single reviewer nature of the GA process, some articles do get passed when they ought not to or failed when they should pass. This is the cost GA pays for the benefit of a simpler process than FA. Regarding the articles you've found with major POV issues, I encourage you to follow the steps at wp:good article reassessment to get them delisted.--jwanders^Talk 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounds too much like boilerplate. I want specific answers to my concerns. I and the other users who edited this article have complied with policy and followed the steps necessary for GA promotion yet this article has been rejected on subjective grounds. --Folantin (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you: a number of GA criteria are subjective, and I've given my honest, good faith review of this article against them. But I'm more than happy to be corrected. If you disagree with the review and my decision not to pass the article at present, you'll need to post it at wp:good article reassessment. There, a number of editors experienced at reviewing articles will discuss with you and the article's other editors whether or not it meets each of the GA criteria.--jwanders^Talk 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"You'll need to post it at [[wp:good article reassessment]". Er, no thanks, given the quality of GA reviews I've seen so far I'm quite tempted to put the whole process up for MfD as a fraudulent waste of editors' time. I already had to resubmit this article for GA candidacy after it received a "quick fail" on blatantly false grounds. It's obvious reviewers simply make up their own criteria rather than following Wikipedia policy. Of course, the easiest way to get a pass is to go schmoozing on IRC. Maybe next time we'll use that method. --Folantin (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Folantin has put in a lot of effort here, and that the article has failed GA mainly because someone (on the basis of rather less effort) did not want to take a risk. The assassination of Nader Shah is a known fact. If wiki really is worried about accusing someone long dead of carrying out an assassination, when serious authorities agree on it, then the whole wiki project begins to crumble into impossibility.86.136.74.32 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Portrait

I think the portrait at the top of the article is in the Victoria and Albert Museum (London) collection, not the Smithsonian. There used to be a portrait on this page, that no longer appears, that was given as from the Smithsonian collection. 122.163.198.205 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Timur and Genghis

Please stop spreading baseless rumors and idiotic claims that Nadir idolized Timur and Genghiz. There are no sources to back this claim. Wikipedia, and the hallucinating person who wrote that sentence, are the only people who can claim this. Thank You --Arad (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading a book, maybe even one of those cited in the article, before embarrassing yourself with comments like the above. Thank you.--Folantin (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

122.163.198.205 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

requested change: map

Can we add this image to the article? File:Afsharid Dynasty 1736 - 1802 (AD).PNG — goethean ॐ 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a few problems with the inset in the map, saying "Afsharid dynasty 1736-1802". My understanding is the dynasty ended with the deposition and death of Shahrokh in 1796 (not 1802). It's also obvious that this is a map of Nader Shah's empire. The dynasty's domains began to crumble within a couple of years of his death. From the 1750s they covered little more than Khorasan. --Folantin (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Map is incorrect. Anyone have a better one?

The map fails to illustrate Nader's conquests in Northwestern Central Asia(Khwarezm), India, and in the Arabian Peninsula.(Kaveh94 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)) Found a more accurate map. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Death toll on hindus

Could someone provide his relationship towards hindus ? Was 20,000 killed in one day only hindus ?

And give more factual details on the tower of skulls he supposedly made. Were these skulls that of hindus ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.235.210 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Theres this claim floating on the internet through a propoganda article: "Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone."

how factual is this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.235.210 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nader's Indian campaign was against a fellow Muslim ruler, the Mughal Mohammed Shah. Although Nader was an admirer of Timur, Nader had not initially wanted to imitate Timur's slaughter when he had taken Delhi. The massacre occurred because rumours that Nader was going to impose a large tribute led to riots in which some of Nader's soldiers were killed. As Nader himself approached the Rowshan-od-Dowla mosque, someone fired a gun which killed an officer riding beside him. Nader then ordered his men to kill everyone in the districts where his soldiers had been attacked. The chief ringleaders of the riots against Nader were said to be two nobles, Seyyed Niaz Khan and Shah Nawaz Khan. Since they have Muslim names and the riots occurred in the mosque district, I'd say the victims of the massacre are just as likely - in fact, more likely- to have been Muslim as Hindu. In any case, the motives for the slaughter were not religious. Nader did build towers of skulls of his enemies, but those belonged to rebels in Iran not Delhi. The bodies of the victims of the Delhi massacre were left to rot in the streets for several days until the stench was overwhelming, then dragged off to be buried in heaps under rubble or flung in the river. (Source: Axworthy pp.3-9). --Folantin (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Delhi was muslim city inhabitated by Muslims, upto 1947(before partition) muslims made 50% of delhi population its unlikely Delhi habitants were mostly muslims and nadir shah was no protector of muslims, he made russian empire a catholic empire his ally against declining ottoman empire who were muslims themselves. 122.161.116.167 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

nadir achievements exaggerated

the achievements of nadir shah has been exaggerated by many scholars specially those who are hardcore fans of ancient persia(first he was turk not persian). Second to determine one general strenegth we need to asses the strength of their enemies. His major neighbours were -

1-Russian Empire of Czar(a powerful and formidable empire)

2-Ottoman(or osman) Empire(a declining empire with great speed relies on european powers such as british and french to top russian empire from making inroad in asia minor,in a sense used by british empire as a buffer state against russian empire)

First mentality of both these empire, Russians were fearless of nadir shah even at his extreme some historian who are partial to nadir shah cause try to show that russian feared nadir invasion however that seems unlikely many of nadir shah enemies and fugitives were given asylum by Russian empire of Czar. Even though Russians were immediate neighbours of nadir shah and were more agrresive than ottomans but NADIR remain extremely neutral towards russian empire avoiding any conflict . But he never missed opportunity to bully his co-religionist empire of ottomans who were in their great decline. This raises doubt both on calibre and ability of nadir shah. Asians conquerors were at all time low specially post 1500AD their was a time when Asians were most feared warriors from ancient times, Cyrus the great keep Greeks at bay however his low point was his defeat against small greek armies. However this point of Greeks being greatest warriors was destroyed by Indians who first show how difficult it was for Alexander to conquer a small Indian King Puru(european name porus). Undoubtedly among world greatest conquerors Chandragupta Maurya revenge the loss of indians against greeks by inflicting a crushing victory on greeks and taking empire to south-east persian(now iran). Similarly Genghis Khan and Timurlame dont fear europeans but i have to admit post 1500AD the asians who have given all the legendary warriors , emperors, conquerors to this world who never feared europeans be it greek, roman or anyone by 1500AD even the most powerful asian king nadir shah avoids conflict with russian he made russian his ally against another muslim empire.

Similarly as a student of indian history his victory at karnal(40km north of delhi) will be reviewed by me. To asses this victory impartially we have to asses the strength of "MOGUL EMPIRE OF 1739 AND NOT OF TAMERLANE DESCENDANT BABUR OR AURANGZEB" . This once powerful empire started to show signs of decline in late 1690s and 1700s though because of aurangzeb it was not falling very quickly but yes it was clear that "MOGUL EMPIRE LOST THE WAR AGAINST MARATHA" commonly known as "27 YEARS WAR" from 1680-1707 maratha pushed Mogul empire out of maharashtra and the grip of mogul empire started weakning though Maratha are a small hindu clan but soon they showed that their objective is not only to force mogul empire out of their homeland but out of complete INDIA(including pakistan).

Now Side by side Growth of Maratha Empire and Decline of Mogul Empire. By 1720 Maratha obtained rights of collecting taxes from Mogul provinces as their subordinate however in 1724 AD a large Mogul Army was destroyed by Maratha empire in Bhopal which made clear to Hindustan(INDIA AND PAKISTAN) that now Maratha empire are supreme force of Indian Subcontinent and Mogul empire of Timurid descent is all but over . Maratha army started raiding Mogul provinces which extreme fierce Mogul armies failed to protect their province from these raids made it clear to the population that "MOGUL EMPIRE AUTHORITY DONT STAND ANYONE". However the biggest blow to Mogul prestige came in 1736/1737 when Maratha General Peshwa Baji Rao raided Mogul capital Delhi with just 5000 light cavalry , plundered the sub-urbs of delhi, And soon returned to Pune In South-central india their own capital. The fear of Mogul emperor itself conveyed that Mogul emperor themselves are not secure from Maratha Raids how will they save their province. Mogul emperor was so terror stricken in 1737 that he ordered 20 boats at ready to flee if Maratha army entered the palace(RED FORT) itself to kill Mogul monarch itsef, he along with his harem(wives and children) were ready to flee Red Fort if Maratha force capture it. http://www.hindu.com/mp/2004/01/26/stories/2004012600750200.htm. 2 years after this Nader Shah leading an army of estimated 60,000-80,000 defeated Mogul Empire do you think it is such a great achievement . I dont feel so this victory seems hollow when your enemy is so weak, his only achievement was "KOH-I-NOOR" and "PEACOCK THRONE" out of this "KOH-I-NOOR" was taken by Afghan Durrani empire from iran and from Durrani Empire, Indian Conqueror Maharaja Ranjit Singh captured it by defeating Pathan armies in kashmir valley 1819. From Him British Empire won it in battle.122.161.116.167 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nader's achievements

I suggest you look at the battles of herat, damghan. baghavard, Khyber Pass, murch-khort on wikepedia which i added and then i think you'll change your mind about whether or not he was a genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsa1993 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Defeats in Dagestan

There is currently one dubious source in the article which claims two battlefield defeats Nader suffered in Dagestan. However I cannot find these two alleged battles even though I am pouring through a host of primary and secondary material. Will post again soon. Parsa1993 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that there were no set piece battles in which the Lezgis attained victory. All the successes were in ambushes and raids alongside general harassment of the main Persian army. Whether its Axworthy, Floor, Lockhart or Tucker (modern sources) or Astarabadi, Sheikh Hazin, Marvi and Hanway (primary/contemporary sources) none mention set piece battles in which the Lezgis triumph. Parsa1993 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity playings

Instead of "Afshar", or "Oghuz" as wider term, someone insists on "Turkic" label in start of the article. There's no doubt that Nader was Afshar, that Afshars were Oghuz, and that Oghuz is Turkic, but selective imputs of widest clearly ethnically motivated. There is no labeling of various Spanish, German, Iranian or Indian rulers as "Indo-European", and also there's no categories like Category:Germanic rulers in article about British queen Victoria and so on. Labeling dynasties under ethnic origins is normal and widespread, but such imputs for individual people makes little sense. Beside it, someone has inserted that Shah Sultan Husayn belong to Persian people. He doesn't, he's of mixed origins (also includes Turkic) which clearly show some pan-Turkic "patriot" has tried to played here. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Turkic label is there because that's what it says in the source (Michael Axworthy's definitive biography). Encyclopaedia Iranica also calls the Afshar tribe "Turkic". --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's Turkic but to be as accurate as possible it's better to call him an afshar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.0.214 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note about Nader's religion

I dont have any preconceived biases as far as Nader's religion is concerned i would just like to make sure that we include the fact that he was born and raised a Shia [4]. Michael Axworthy is the primary contemporary biographer on Nader and i think that the religion Nader was born into should also be mentioned. That is all Folantin and i were asserting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamidrafi23 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your link is not working. However, my sources clearly state that he was Sunni [5] [6] I can get many more stating his Sunni background if someone insist. In fact, Nader didn't like Shias much, and in the end the Shias plotted his murdered. This is also very well sourced if you do search.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link again [7]. I never said that that Nader reminaed a shi'a his whole life, i just pointed out that he was born in a shia Qizilbash tribe and raised as a shia. Nader was a political genius who then espoused sunnism in order to expand the horizons of his empire and gain legitimacy in the wider muslim world. This is exactly what is written in the article

Again, it's a dead link to an unavailable page. You typed key words "Nader shi'a Qezelbash afshar" but only result you found was link to unavailable page. The only way to cite a book page as a reference it must state that Nader Shah Afshar was a Shi'a, but there is no book that states this and that's why you are fooling around brining dead links here.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

P.34 is fully available for viewing and it is literally just a matter of clicking on the link. Please let me know if they are any other issues. Hamidrafi23 (talk)

The content of page 34 are not available. Ask others if they can see it.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see the page and it does state that Nader Shah was brought and remained a Shi'a Muslim in his youth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. perhaps panjshirpashtun you cant see it because of your region, maybe it is not available in your country, but in america we can see it. I can send you a pic of it my friend if you want Hamidrafi23 (talk)

I can see it too. The relevant text on that page says:

The name Reza Qoli, like the birth-names of Nader's other sons and his father's name (Emam Qoli), is a strong indication that Nader was brought up and remained in his youth a Shi`a Muslim, as one would expect from his Afshar, Qezelbash background.

I hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see many of the other pages but not p. 34 and I don't think it has anything to do with the regions. Thanks Amatulić for quoting that, but that book doesn't say he was Shia. My sources are from 1885, 1924, 2000, and 2010, and they all say he was Sunni. [8] [9] [10] [11]

“ In the 1730s, Nadir Shah, a Sunni Turkmen tribesman from Persia's northeastern province of Khorasan... ”

“ However, later, in the mid-eighteenth century, when Nadir Shah Afshar, a Sunni commander, gained power in Iran, the Ottomans reluctantly withdew from the province. ”

“ His increasing cruelty, tyranny, avarice and extortion, but most of all, perhaps, his attempt to impose on his Persian subjects the Sunní doctrine, made him daily more detested. ”

“ He also attempted to make the largely Shīʿite populace of Iran adopt the Sunni form of Islam. ”

Therefore, the Wikipedia article should reflect what is presented here. If at least four scholarly sources say he was Sunni then why can't we put that in the infobox? Why does the article attempts to say he was Shia?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that he was Shia throughout his life, it just says that he was born shia and that he later shifted to sunnism as he gained power and desired to reconcile with the sunni ottoman empire Hamidrafi23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I have fully protected this article until this dispute is worked out. During the protection period, consensus-based changes can be made to the article by posting a {{editprotected}} tag on this talk page. If the requested change is uncontroversial and/or has clear consensus supporting it, an administrator will respond to the tag and make the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The money quote concerning Nader's religion is in Axworthy page 168: "Nader, raised as a Shi'a and now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism, had little attachment to the precepts of either sect. Some have speculated that he had little real religious faith at all. The French Jesuit who later became his personal physician said it was difficult to know what religion he followed, and that many who knew him best said that he had none. Russian diplomats must have reported something similar, because when speaking of the notorious atheism of Nader's Prussian contemporary Frederick the Great, the Empress Elizabeth apparently once said, 'He ridicules holy things; he never goes to church; he is the Nader Shah of Prussia.'" And, next paragraph: "Nader's shift towards Sunnism was purely political in its motives. Beyond Persia, his conversion signified a bid for hegemony within Islam as a whole; an assertion of his wider political position that would have been impossible had he and his regime remained Shi'a. At the centre of Nader's motives there was no religious drive; rather an urge to dominate the world he knew, as Timur had done..." --Folantin (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same source over and over, and even your source is telling us that Nader was Sunni. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Sunnis are 90% [12] [13] of the total Muslim population of the world. So, what's the problem here? Why do you keep removing all these valid scholarly sources that state Nader being a Sunni?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Axworthy is the best source currently available. He is the expert on this subject. His book is a 300+ page biography of Nader Shah, not just some brief articles which happen to be on the internet. As I have shown, it discusses Nader's attitude to religion in detail and - guess what - the reason why Nader's exact sectarian sympathies are unclear is because he really didn't care one way or the other. He saw religion in political terms. You are clearly more obsessed by the issue than Nader was. Now please stop your POV-pushing. --Folantin (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of POV-pushing when I'm presenting facts to your face. We're only dealing with Nader's sect of religion here. Does Axworthy say Nader is Shia? You are refusing to accept scholarly sources (Edward G. Browne, M.A., M.B., Thomas R. Mattair, Touraj Atabaki, Britannica, and more) that clearly state Nader was Sunni.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the quotations I've just given from Axworthy? Do I have to type it out again: "Nader, raised as a Shi'a and now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism, had little attachment to the precepts of either sect". Which is pretty much what this article currently says, so there isn't a problem. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear control your emotions, of course I read everything presented to me. Michael Axworthy first suggests that Nader was Shia during his youth based on this theory of his (The name Reza Qoli, like the birth-names of Nader's other sons and his father's name (Emam Qoli), is a strong indication that Nader was brought up and remained in his youth a Shi`a Muslim, as one would expect from his Afshar, Qezelbash background), but in any case, Axworthty concludes that Nader has converted to Sunnism, therefore that makes him a Sunni. All the other scholarly sources that I've presented here also say he is a Sunni. We have to put him as Sunni in Wikipedia as well. So what's the problem?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't you read the current version? He is in Wikipedia as a probable Sunni convert. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, the term probable Sunni convert is your own creation based on your own personal POV. All sources say he was a Sunni and we as non-biased editors write exactly what the scholarly sources say, which is to state that he was a Sunni.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Axworthy (same passage) "now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism". But obviously he has to be a pure Sunni just like a Pashtun. And stop calling me "dear". It's quite evident you are just trolling by now. --Folantin (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

According to what i remember from reading the article, Nader was raised Shia, converted to Sunni to please his Sunni soldiers, friends and family said he was actually non religious. 216.123.0.214 (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Nader Shah's skull

I found an image of nader shah's skull here: http://www.parsine.com/fa/news/269846/%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1 . Should it be put into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.65.128 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read that Nader Shah was a Kurd

I have read that he was a Kurd. In several reports of explorars in the 19, Cent. is written that he was a Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.109.91 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read that Peter I of Russia and Alexander the great were Kurdish. Oh damn, I just don't have the right cites to prove it... LouisAragon (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was also Kurd86.189.233.8 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's hilarious when Kurd nationalists try to call everything theirs. They seem to especially like steal Persian history. The only claim that has some backing is Karin khan being Kurdish 216.123.0.214 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) oh wait I'm not logged in

Nader Shah was not a Kurd, but the founders of Safavid Empire and the Zand Dynasty were Kurds. There is no doubt about that. In fact, Safavid is based on the Kurdish version of Sufi Islam called Safaviya. Ismail I, first ruler of the Safavid Empire, was a direct descendant of the Kurdish Safavi Sheikh. Furthermore, most of the arts and culture of the Safavid Empire were encouraged by Ismail I the Kurd, and later revived by Karim Khan, the Kurdish ruler of the Zand Dynasty. So claiming that Kurds want to steal Persian history is false. Most of what is deemed persian culture was actually encouraged and started by Kurds. The first Persian Empire, the Median Emprie, was one started by ancestors of the Kurds; the Medes. And the last powerful Persian Empire was also one started by Kurds; namely the Safavid Dynasty. This has nothing to do with trying to steal other people's accomplishments, but simply with recorded history and facts. If you can't accept that, that's too bad for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing though, while Nader Shah was so successful, it was eventually in Kurdish lands (Khorasan, where he went to repress Kurdish rebels) where he ultimately found his death. And then the throne was picked up by a Kurd; Karim Khan.

Calling everything Iran has achieved Persian is simply falsification of history. It is Iranian culture and heritage, not just Persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion

I checked page 34 of Axworthy, ironically the same source which I used for the current description, and it does not talk explicitly about Nader's faith at all. It is merely a sentence reporting the naming of his newborn son and the cultural setting of Nader's upbringing (Shi'ite Islam) which the name "indicates". The problem is however that Axworthy goes on to deal specifically with Nader's faith in detail later on in his book and the best summary of the complex topic is already provided with accurate citation t the page numbers. Hence there is no need for change here.Parsa1993 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There most definitely is a conflict in the sources here. The latter source, which is merely a general military history text, talks about Nader being a Sunni Turkmen tribesman and says nothing about a conversion at all. Axworthy which is by far the more appropriate source, but here a page number isn't provided for verification so it's not valid. Also, there is no disputing that he was born a Twelver Shi'ite (Ja'fari Madhab). Also being irreligious does in fact describe one's position as regards to the matter of religion!Parsa1993 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There might be some confusion around the Jafari Mazhab of Sunni Islam so I'll explain in brief. Of course I would urge you to see Tucker for an in depth and scholastic study of Nader Shah's religious policy. One of the main foreign policy aims of Nader with regard to the Ottoman caliphate and his expanding empire (which was incorporating larger populations of Sunnis with each campaign) was to alleviate the tensions between Shia and Sunni adherents by establishing a new sect called Ja'farism after the Shia Ja'fari school of thought. This new sect would be considered as one of the five main schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam but would retain enough of the original Twelver Shi'ite theological concepts to be acceptable to the core of the Perisan population (almost all of whom were Twelver Shi'ites).

So the official faith of the state as espoused and designed by Nader and his theologians was an amalgamation of the original Shia Twelverism with Sunni Islam. He referred to this faith as Ja'farism or the Ja'fari Mazhab. The religious policy section is obviously in dire need of change and expansion.Parsa1993 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are claiming that Nader Shah founded a completely new Sunni madhhab called Ja'farism? A madhhab that happens to share the name of the main Shi'a maddhab? I have searched for this supposed Sunni madhhab but I can find no sources for it. I understand that there has been much debate over the religious beliefs of Nader Shah on this page, but this seems to only add more confusion. The religion portion of the infobox currently states that his religion was "Officially Ja'fari school of Sunni Islam". Yet the linked "Ja'fari school" links to the Wikipedia page of the Shi'a madhhab. I have attempted to change this section to "Ja'fari school of Sunni Islam", but it has been reverted. It is clear that Nader Shah converted to Sunni Islam for political reasons, but it seems inaccurate to label it as Ja'fari when that sect is Shi'a. Unless you can provide evidence that a Sunni Ja'fari maddhab did exist, or the religion section of the infobox is revised to remove a connection between Ja'farism and Sunni Islam, more discussion needs to be conducted to resolve this issue.98.215.241.205 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste time. There are numerous citations which explain Nader's Ja'fari Mazhab. Consult them and shut up about it. Parsa1993 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone kindly posted a source that explained in clear terms what Nader was attempting to create with his Ja'fari school. I was not wasting time, as it was legitimately confusing and not clear. I wish you would display some manners and actually discuss issues with your fellow contributors, but it seems you often resort to trivial insults against those who disagree with you instead. Just because we contest something you wrote does not instantly make us "intellectually sub-par" as you haughtily claim on your user page.98.215.241.205 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

On Nader's nationality

I intend here to cast light on what the modern academic literature has to say on the subject of Nader's national identity, (which is distinct from his strictly ethnic identity). To this end, I have used those reputable sources which deal most pertinently with Nader's identity, starting with Sha'bani and then coming to the English speaking academic world, especially as this is an English language article, with the discussion involving all major contributors to the scholarly discourse on Nader Shah in the 20th & 21st century.

Reza Sha’bani, Tarikh-e Ejtemai-ye Iran dar asr-e Afshariyeh (translation: A social history of Iran in the Afsharid period), Tehran, 1986, pp.116-122 talks in depth on the various views present in the secondary sources on Nader Shah's “his cruel treatment of his own people and how this reconciles with his highly Persianised identity.” Sha’bani is a well-established scholar and has been cited by many Persian language historians as well as by academics in the English speaking world such as Willem Floor and Nader’s most recent biographer and researcher Dr. Axworthy who has contributed tremendously to the study of Nader Shah as a ruler. See his publications on Nader’s army, Nader’s naval policies, and of course his biography of Nader.

Axworthy actually mentions Sha’bani when specifically dealing with the subject of Nader’s identity. On page 292, the notes to his biography, he explicitly agrees with Sha’bani on the matter and also quotes a seal inscription where Nader describes himself as “the Iranian Nader”. There are also many references throughout Axworthy’s literature which unambiguously demonstrate he assumes Nader’s Iranian nationality as a matter of fact. As only an example, take his justification for writing the biography in the first place, “If this narrative does something more widely to stimulate interest in him, and in Iranian history, it will have been useful.” (Preface xix). Also "If Nader and his dynasty had succeeded, he might today be remembered as a figure in Iranian history to compare to Peter the Great in the history of Russia: as a ruthless, dynamic monarch who set his country on a new path." (p.284-285).

A similar assumption of Nader’s Iranian national identity is even more easily perceptible in Lockhart’s biography Nadir Shah, 1938. Not to mention Ernest Tucker’s analysis of Nader’s reign and his philosophical justifications for establishing a new dynasty in Nadir Shah’s quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran, or Willem Floor’s numerous publications on Nader. All of these English language histories and studies mention his ethnic origins as an Afshar Khorasani Turcoman of north east Iran, and all of them assume or explicitly write of Nader as having an Iranian national identity. Those that write of Nader's ethnic origins as what they think is a counter-point to his Iranian identity are rather out of tune with how scholars explain and reconcile Nader's Turcoman and Iranian identities. (For example, see both Axwworthy's and Malcolm's writings on Nader's letter to his son Reza Qoli in which mention is made of Turcoman heritage.)

In conclusion, it is reasonable to say that the modern academic consensus is that Nader's national identity was indeed Iranian.

As an aside, I can say that I was tempted to include a number of my own arguments citing archival material that I have uncovered in the form of royal decrees, personal correspondences, as well as other numismatic and sigillographic evidence which overwhelmingly make the case that both Nader and his contemporaries saw him as an Iranian. Although I strongly believe that Nader's idea of Iran, to say nothing of the concept of nationality itself, would've been markedly different to how we modern contemporaries think of these concepts. In fact, I would argue that any claim of kinship and shared national identity with a distant historical figure or even people, is a fundamentally preposterous claim. However, this is a fringe view and definitely not in sync with the current academic discourse on the matter at hand and even in general. Also, I did not include my own evidence and arguments as Wikipedia is not a platform that allows for "original research", which is on balance, probably a good idea. In my opinion, Wikipedia has no choice but to wait until someone publishes an article specifically studying the subject of Nader's identity. (a wink and a nod)! Parsa1993 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)