Talk:Qajar dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qajar dynasty article.
Article policies
WikiProject Iran Qajar dynasty is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Qajar

maybe something about, how the start of the qajar dynasty started the down fall of iran. maybe another revolution, with a proper governemtn could solve the problem.

The Qajar Dynasty

Good article but I made one little edit to the article. The Qajars were a Turkmen tribe that held ancestral lands in present-day Azerbaijan

I changed into: The Qajars were a Azeri tribe that held ancestral lands in present-day Azerbaijan

Because this way it would be easier to understand that it were the Azeris and not the Turkmen from other Turkic tribes.

[edit] Escaping Iran with substantial assets after '79

"After the last Revolution, many such Qajars absconded Iran with substantial money, often the result of kickbacks and bribes from governmental posts, and continue to enjoy the fruits of such wealth to this day."

From what I know, I don't belive this to be correct. If you do want to include it, get a good reference and prove it. If you can I wont remove it. However just putting information up on wikipedia (without proof) is't a good thing. It's better to stick to less info, but quality info rather than total rubish.

Furthermore, I know most of the article is not referenced, which is a shame. Maybe you can make a good example by leading the rest of us with a good reference?

[edit] The phrase Turkmen is incorrect and misleading when relating it to the ethnicity of the Qajar

The Qajar were Turks, i.e. Azerbaijani Turks, but not Turkmen. Maybe Turcoman, referring to Iranian Shiite Turkic tribes, would be more appropriate, but not Turkmen. Turkmen refers to the Turkmen of Turkmenistan, who had nothing to do with either Azerbaijani or Iranian rulers. Please do not put this word (Turkmen) in the article, because it is purely misleading. Bm79 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They did not descend from Ohguz Turks, however, they did speak a language of Oghuz origin. To say that they are of Oghuz origin is wrong, because, and this is the most obvious reason, they werent Mongoloid!Azerbaijani 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottomans During World War I?

With all due respect, I find it unlikely that Iran was jointly garrisoned/occupied during World War I by the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and the British... simply because the Ottomans were involved in combat against both of these powers, especially in the Arab Revolt. I would love to see some evidence of how this joint garrison worked, or of its existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GWRunkleIV (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I imagine it worked like most joint garrisions between warring nations; they shot at each other. 74.36.192.238 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

As per the Azerbaijani history template, its unnecessary. Are we then also going to add Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc... templates? In the Ottoman empire are we going to add Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, etc... templates? It doesnt make sense and is unnecessary. Other than that, I made some corrections.Hajji Piruz 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again Qajars have more relevance to Azerbaijan, as they spoke the same language and shared the same culture as the rest of what's now known as Azerbaijan. Both Ganja and Karabakh regions of Azerbaijan were governed by Ziyadoghlu Qajars, so it's absolutely relevant. Do not remove the template without proper discussion and consensus. I also added some references to Qajars from Iranica, etc. Atabek 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
THis makes absolutely no sense at all. The Qajar dynasty is different than the early Qajars that ruled in the Caucasus, as they are their descendants. Also, I removed some repitition and made other corrections, such as wikilinking Turkmen to its proper article.Hajji Piruz 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hajji Piruz, please, provide references for your edits. Qajars were a Turkic dynasty without any doubt, there are tons of references on the subject. Atabek 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What did I do? The article clearly says they were Turkmens.Hajji Piruz 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Turkmens are original Oghuz Turks, I don't think we would have disagreement on that. But anyways, I am fine with your current revert of yourself. Atabek 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats only so that I can talk to you about this, because I know that if I didnt revert, someone else would appear to revert me, no use in fighting over it.
Several things:
a)Why did you wikilink Turkmen to Oghuz Turks, when there is an article about Turkmens already: Turkmens
b)Why is the Turkmen stuff in the introduction when it should be in the backgrounds section.
c)Why is anything Turkish linked to Oghuz Turks?Hajji Piruz 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Because Qajars were not quite the same Turkmen as known today (meaning from Turkmenistan). They lived in Anatolia for a long tme, and were also part of Shahsevan tribes in Safavid Iran. It's better to designate them in general as Turkic rather than Turkmen or Turkish, to avoid mixture with present-day countries. Moreover, they, just like Safavids, were Azerbaijani-speaking, and their power-base was Azerbaijan. Atabek 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
But they were not Oghuz, they simply spoke a Turkic dialect. Like almost all Turks in the Middle East, they were simply speakers of Turkic dialects, not actually ethnic Turks. Saying they were Oghuz is highly incorrect. This is only your POV and OR.Hajji Piruz 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Turkic dialect spoken in modern Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkmenistan is Oghuz Turkic subfamily. It's different from Uzbek, Kazakh, and other non-Oghuz dialects of Turkic group. And I don't see why your reaction is so negative. Just like there are Persian peoples today, which are not quite the same as original Persians of Achaemenid era, there are also Turks/Turkmens/Turkomans/Azeri Turks, who are descendants of Oghuz Turkic tribes and adopted their language. What's wrong with this? I don't think the definition severes ties to Iran. Atabek 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Saying that the Qajars are Oghuz and saying that they speak an Oghuz Turkic dialect are two different things. Actually, there is almost no descendants of the Oghuz in Azeri populations, there is only a linguistic descent, thats it. Saying that the Qajars were Oghuz is pretty hysterical given all the evidence against it. They were Turkomans no doubt, but you Wikilinked it to the Oghuz.Hajji Piruz 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz, saying Qajars were Oghuz Turkic, is the same as saying that Qajars were Turkic/Turkoman/Turkish tribe, which is what tons of references say without using "-speaking" extension. Qovanlu Qajars were part of Shahsevan tribes, which were Turkish from Anatolia. So as I said, you are welcome to make a choice between the above. I think saying Qajars were Turkic is NPOV, rather than using Turkish, Turkmen or Turkoman.
Same with Achaemenids, we don't say they were Persian-speaking, we say they were Persian. Sassanids were also not Persian-speaking but just Persian. Atabek 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No its completely different. They were Turkomans, not Oghuz Turks, and they were not Turkic, they were Turkic speaking. Your example with the Sassanids and Persians is completely off.Hajji Piruz 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz, I brought 6 references there that Qajars were Turkoman/Turkmen/Turks/Turkic. I can bring another 66. It's immaterial if the origin is referenced as Turkic, Turkish or Oghuz Turks, they mean the same thing in context of Qajars. Atabek 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Oghuz were a people from 1000 years ago. We have an article called Turkmen, thanks for showing everyone that your basing all of this on your own POV and OR.Hajji Piruz 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic vs Turkish vs Turkmen vs Turkoman

Various sources use any one of these definitions to identify Qajar tribe. So I think for the purposes of disassociating Qajars with Turkey or Turkmenistan, or with modern Turkomans in Iraq, the best is just to use Turkic. Please, provide your comments in this regard. Atabek 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houshyar - revert warring

Do you even review what you're reverting? Atabek 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I have reverted changes back. Please do not remove sourced info without discussion on the talk page. I am not an expert in the matter but some of the removed info seems to be relevant Alex Bakharev 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Alex. Meanwhile, I welcome everyone's participation in discussing the edits here. Atabek 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I fixed that section with info from kadjar royal family's own website, hope, this will clarify all, by the way, i think Qajar dynasty and Qajar (tribe) must be covered in separate articles, because there is much info on this page that relates to Qajar tribe more that to Qajar royal family. Ateshi-Baghavan 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can use their own website to write about their own history...(obviously there will be POV issues involved, as they will tend to be biased towards themselves on some issues I'm sure). Anyway, I made some fixes and Wikilinked topics to their proper articles.Hajji Piruz 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source wording

Hajji Piruz, renaming Turkoman to Turkmen, when the source webpage of Qajar family itself says Turkoman looks most definitely as OR. FYI, Oghuz family includes Turkmens, Azeris, Turks of Anatolia, Turkomans of Iraq as well, not only Turkmens. Also, the Iranian Turkmens citing is also a POV and OR, as it's clear from the text that Qovanli Qajars that ruled Iran came from around Caucasus and Anatolia. Atabek 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your original research. The source only says Turkomans, without any further elaboration. Also, Caucasus was Iran at time, all the major encyclopedias call Qajar "an Iranian dynasty" or a "Persian dynasty", look up Qajar on any Encyclopedia out there. [1] [2] AlexanderPar 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Frye

Added one more reference to Richard Frye, and reworded the introduction of text. Some sources claim Qajars were Turkish tribe others say Turkmen tribe, I believe the compromise is just to use the word Turkic, as in this context it means the same as both, share your thoughts. Atabek 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I inserted the word Turkic. I also re worded to for it to flow better.Hajji Piruz 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with replacing Turkish with Turkic. I also think we should replace Turkmen with Turkic along the same lines to avoid association with Turkmenistan. Qajars were not ethnic Persians, so, it's important to improve the flow you mentioned by using the word Iranian. Also, the word "originally" wasn't used by Frye, so let's stick to the source for clarity and avoidance of OR.Atabek 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't interpret sources, when the source says Persian, then Persian it is, that was the official nationality back then. AlexanderPar 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The Qajars not only became Persians, but they considered themselves as so. In their trips to Europe, they knowingly identified themselves as Kings of Persia...They were originally Turkic, but after a few decades of rule they had become Persians in every sense of the word.
Also, Turkmen does not mean a person from Turkmenistan necessarily. The word Turkmen should not be removed, as the Qajars were of Turkmen descent.Hajji Piruz 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
POV and OR. That's not what Richard Frye, who wrote that Qajars were a Turkish tribe, said in a book written after the reign of Qajars. There is no word original there, you can't change an ethnicity in a matter of 80-100 years. Otherwise, we should also recognize that Safavids were a Turkish tribe despite single reference to Safi ad-Din having Kurdish roots. Atabek 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We arent quoting Frye in that sentence, we are just using him as a source.Hajji Piruz 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon IP, which is the same editing Safavid page, has modified the reference to say Qajars were of Azerbaijani Iranian descent. Qajar tribe moved from Anatolia into Caucasus and later to Iran. Richard Frye said "Turkish dynasty" and the consensus was that Qajars were a Turkic dynasty. Atabek 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maternal relationship

when your mother is from a dynasty, you are a member of that. There is no difference between mother or father in this case--Pejman47 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I added back the reference that Qajars were of Turkic descent, because that's what Richard Frye reference says - Qajars were Turks. Qajars did not originate in Iranian Azerbaijan, so it's simply false to say that Qajars were Azerbaijani Iranian descent, and then quote Frye on it. Atabek 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I winkilinked some of the subjects in the introduction. These need to be wikilinked so that users can click on subjects that interest them. Also, the Qajars did become Persians. They even referred to themselves as Persians and used the term Persia. Its even sourced.Hajji Piruz 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Persian" is a nationality, "Pars" is an ethnicity

It is important to distinguish between Persian as a nationality (Persian: ایرانی = an inhabitant of Persia) and Pars as an ethnicity (Persian: فارس or پارس). At the time of Qajar dynasty, the name of the country in English language was Persia (a country named "Iran" did not exist at that time in English language), and, therefore, all the inhabitants of the country were Persian (the adjective "Iranian" was not introduced in English language at that time). In Persian language, however, the name of the country was always "Iran (Persian: ایران)" (in fact, no country named "Persia" has ever existed in Persian language).

Regardless of the fact that the Qajars were ethnically Pars or not, there were all Persian, and they were kings of Persia. It was only after 1934 that Reza Shah (from Pahlavi Dynasty) ordered to use the name "Iran" internationally. Using the name "Iran" in this article (and other articles related to the time before 1934) is, therefore, not appropriate. It will create confusion for the reader if he (for example) refers to a map of that time and tries to find a country named "Iran." I will, therefore, replace "Iran" with "Persia" in this article wherever it refers to the name of the country. Please give your comments here if you consider this not justified. FakhredinBlog 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FarkhredinBlog, "Qajar Iran" returns about 188,000 hits [3], while "Qajar Persia" returns 158,000 [4]. Iran is not a name which just appeared in 1930s under Reza Shah, it was used before in Iran itself as the name of the country. Thanks. Atabek 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Atabek's editions , I think it is better to mention in the opening that Persia and Iran are used as equal words in this text, such as using something alike persia/Iran...Indeed it may be problematic to call the Turkic language Qajars " a Persian dynasty"...( I mean an Iranian dynasty fits better)--Alborz Fallah 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine to put an introductory note, which would clear things up, that in historical Western context Iran prior to 1935 was referred to as Persia, so the words maybe used interchangeably. By the way, intro text used to say Iranian dynasty, because that's what book by Abbas Amanat says "Iranian monarchy", I don't know why it got changed to Persian. I think for the purposes of Wikipedia article, it's better to stick to modern more general definition of Iran. Atabek 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabak, thank you for your comment. Just a few points:

1. I completely agree with you that "...Iran is not a name which just appeared in 1930s under Reza Shah, it was used before in Iran itself as the name of the country." To see the point more clearly, we should distinguish between "Persian" and "English" vocabulary. Since "Persian" is the official language of Iran (Persia), the usage of the name "Iran" in Iran itself was limited to Persian vocabulary. In this sense, we have the same point of view. I should emphasize that in Persian vocabulary, the name of the country is (always was, and will be) "Iran." However, for English language it is a different story. The name "Iran" is only introduced into English language after Reza Shah, and before that time, this word did not exist in English vocabulary.

2. The proportion of the hits shows that "Qajar Persia" is also a popular hit, and the hit "Qajar Iran" is only about 16% higher. As both hits receive substantial attention, I think our choice in Wikipedia should be based on scientific and historical facts.

3. I agree with Alborz Fallah to have an introductory note. In this case please take it into account that Persia is not only a historical name. The name "Persia" can officially be used again since 1959 (for more information please refer to the article "Iran naming dispute"). FakhredinBlog 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

During the Qajar era, Persia was the name of the country and Persian was the nationality in the English language, so the correct terminology here is Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.133.62 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

Mani1, you have removed the references to the descent of Qajars in your most recent edits. Please, do not remove sourced material from the article without discussion on talk page. Address your points and justify your removal, obtain consensus and then edit. Thanks. Atabek 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)