Talk:Shahnameh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iran Shahnameh 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-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.
WikiProject Central Asia Shahnameh is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-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] Transliteration and merging with Shahnama

There is already another article (Shahnama). The two articles should be merged, maybe adding a few informations from this article to the other one. -80.171.123.24 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Shahnama has been in place for years. An anon user, in just the past few months (you?), forked it off to create this article, over-writing the redirect that was previously here, a violation of the rules which no one noticed at the time. Now you want this one to replace the other? The reason the anon user forked it off is because they kept getting reverted in the other article for POV edits. --Stbalbach 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Also you will note that some of the text in this article was copied verbatum from the original Shahnama article, clearly, someone allready knew the other article existed and this was a dishonest attempt to -rewite the article under a new name, a violation of Wikipedia rules. --Stbalbach 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ill give this article a week. If nothings been done to merge, then the redirect will restored. This article was created, just in October for the first time, in violation of Wikipedia rules about intentional forking, and is really invalid. Weve had ongoing problems with anon editors forking this article many times in the past, this is just the latest incident. --Stbalbach 23:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this article. In fact, I am a user from the German Wikipedia who got to this article via language-link. Maybe you should just pick some of the additional information of this article and integrate it into your own article. I don't care which of the article gets the redirect. This article has some more useful information than the other one. -80.171.123.24 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We've had continual problems with anon users forking off new versions, knowingly violating wikipedia rules. The new article appears better than previous forks, but the grammer needs a lot of work, it just needs a lot of work - is it a translation of the German version? Its bothersome that someone would knowingly fork off a new article creating a mess for others to clean up, I certainly dont feel so inclined to clean up after other people who knowingly violate the rules, id rather just restore the redirect and let the person who made the new article do the integration themselves if they want. If it was an honest mistake thats one thing, but it was not, they knew the other article already existed and forked it anyway. --Stbalbach 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is not a translation of the German article. The German article is really short and I hoped to find some useful information in here. I could copy and paste a few information out of this article into yours. We could try to improve the grammar. However, oen of the articles needs to be deleated ... -80.171.123.24 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A copy/paste job along with redirecting is warranted; the merged article will include the content of both articles (and of course future editings will follow), but at the end I recommend the new page be named "Shahnameh" as its the way its pronounced in Persian (a Persian speaker wouldn't use "Shahnama" for a search). Also, alternative spelling would be "Shāhnāmeh" to follow the standard used by many references to diferentiate "a" from "aa" as in "bad" in English versus "Baad" (wind) in Persian. BTW, allow me to advise not to develop a psychological "attachment" to any article (!), what matters at the end is the merged content (which will be constantly in change anyway including the spelling of the article, based on current conventions; in particular, there is a lot to be added to this article, looks like it has been somehow missed by many scholars so far). Gmotamedi 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a native Persian-speaker, and "Shâhnâma" is the correct way to pronounce it. In the eastern dialects of Persian (where the new Persian language originated 1000 years ago), the "-eh" of Western dialects is pronounced "-a". -Tajik 02:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
dear Tajik you are not a native persian speaker. you are native speaker of tajik dialect of persian. moreover, no body is asking what is pronounciation of shahnameh, the point is that the book title in english would letter-for-letter be written as shahnameh. if you dont agree pick any version of shahnameh. Darw. on 21 Feb 2006.
  • We might be referring to the same thing, I can't not sure; BTW, are you Tajik or Iranian Persian? That might be the source of pronunciation difference; in either case, this is a minor issue since it exists with the majority of our words that can be -arbitrarily- written in many different ways in English. Gmotamedi 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there an established way of determining which version should be kept / which pronunciation is more popular? For a Turkish speaker "Shahnameh" would be more intuitive, but that probably is not relevant, as the origin of the words seems to be persian. I could help in merging the contents, just drop me a PM when there is a concensus. --memo 11:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration is not used consistently throughout the article. Could someone check this? Wiki-uk 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] شاهنامه

Shahnameh is the correct transliteration into English. --Houshyar 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis section POV

I think there are some very POV statements in the Synopsis section.

  • "Naturally, the strength and charm of Ferdowsi's poetry have done much to make the story of this period attractive and lively."
  • "Indeed, the Masters' descriptions are so vivid and impressive that the reader feels himself participating in the events or closely viewing them."
  • "Here Ferdowsi is in the zenith of his poetic power and has become a true master of storytelling."

Are there any reliable sources for these claims? Or is it just one editor's opinion? P Ingerson (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to reporting on works of art, it is often a matter of general opinion - generally opinion among experts would probably support these statements (in spirit if not literal words). IMO the POV tag suggests there is controversy when there is not, which is damaging to the credibility of the article as a whole, then any superficial wording concerns. What are your credentials to say these things are not true, how much have you studied the scholarship of the Shahnameh? I didn't write this, and am not saying it can't be improved, but a nag-tag without good reason is sometimes more damaging than leaving it alone. In other words, if you don't know anything about the subject and have not taken the time to research it, why would you question it? -- Stbalbach 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see why these wordings can not change a bit to get rid of the "neutrality trap". Mrjahan Oct. 25, 2006.

[edit] Original theme

The Shâhnameh is one of the few original national epics in the world. Many peoples of the world have their "own" national epics, but more often than not, the original theme of such national epics are borrowed from other, usually neighbouring, cultures. This is not the case with the Shâhnameh, which is based on original Iranic stories. I've removed the above paragraph, as it seems blatantly POV and impossible to support with evidence. Uly 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Arnold

Some discussion of Matthew Arnold's rendering of the Sohrab and Rostam passage (his poem Sohrab and Rustum) would be valuable here 194.176.105.40 11:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Source by Pejman47

Pejman47, the reference is to a very legitimate source, Igor Diakonoff, broadly used on pages related to Azerbaijan and Iran. So please, explain your removal of source on the talk page. It's well known aside from Diakonoff, that Shahnameh was pretty much a bible of anti-Turkism in Iran. Atabek 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between Manuchehr and Feraydun

What is the relationship between Manuchehr and Feraydun/Iraj? On the Shahnameh page, the text says "Fereydūn and his three sons Salm, Tur, and Iraj, and his grandson Manuchehr." However, the Manuchehr page has this: "Manūchehr was the grandson of Īrāj, who was the son of Fereydūn". When I read that section of the Shahnameh in English, Manuchehr's father's identity in not mentioned, though his mother is noted. Who is Manuchehr's father? Is Manuchehr the grandson or great-grandson of Feraydun? This site on Turkish genealogy of kings say that Tur is his father, but that is definitely inconsistent with the Shahnameh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moretz (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the above questions, please consult "Characters of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh" by Iraj Bashiri on Iran Chamber Society. Briefly, Manuchehr was son of Pashang (Afrasyab's father) and a daughter of Iraj, the daughter being born of a slave woman. Thus indeed, "Manūchehr was the grandson of Īrāj"; Manuchehr is therefore a great-grandson of Fereydun. Kind regards, --BF 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S.) I just checked Manuchehr and re-read your above text and conclude that you must be confusing things. Please draw a tree with Fereydun at the top, Iraj and his (slave) "wife" at the level below; below this place Pashang and the daughter of Iraj and below this Manuchehr. You will then immediately realise that you must have been confusing things. In Manuchehr it is clearly, and correctly, stated that: "Manūchehr was the grandson of Īrāj, who was the son of Fereydūn". Here "who" refers to "Iraj", and Iraj indeed was a son of Fereydun. Kind regards, --BF 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Arabism and anti-Turkism in Shahnameh

The direct quotation from Igor Diakonov's book "The Paths of History" can be checked from google book search (p.100) and is also given below:

Quotation: "... Book of Kings (Shah-nama) though, formally, impeccably Muslim, had nevertheless a certain anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias. History became an eternal feud between Iran and Turan. No wonder the book did not have success with Mahmud Ghaznawi, to whom it had been dedicated. ..."

This is an important aspect of the book and should be mentioned at the beginning. Regards. E104421 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to be mentioned with the fact that Asiatic Turks conquered Persia and it was a defensive national reaction. That is why it is in its own section and prelude (defensive nature) is mentioned and hence the re-action. So it is already mentioned alongside that fact. Diakonoff talks about the conquest of Turks of former Iranian lands in the same page. So you can't take a sentence without the whole and fork it in the intro. It was a defensive reaction to political supremacy of foreigners over Iranian lands. You can add the google books link to where Diaknov is mentioned, but the whole story must be mentioned and it is in a separate section. Also the linkage to anti-Turkism is bogus (since Asiatic Turks of Central Asia are not Anatolian Turks, Anatolian Turks did not exist then and are two different groups), also since it was defensive reaction and the fact that some of the conquering tribes conquered(and damaged) Persia then this should be mentioned in anti-Turkism (and the sources are plenty). So you are not adding anything new to the article, since Diakonoff is already quoted. What is there has already been a compromise. Also since you have never read the book, and never participated in this discussion, please do not tell readers what is important to insert in the intro. Also as mentioned the whole picture about the defensive reaction and political climate must be given. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)--alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I find your edit summary rather improper, since you wrote "it needs to be in the context of the barbarians attacking Iran". If somebody considers Arabs and Turks as barbarians, this is nothing but anti-Arabism and anti-Turkism. That's the motivation of behind the Shahnameh. For this reason this should be stated at the beginning. On the other hand, the quotation and google search of page 100 should not be deleted. Interested readers should go and check themselves. Regards. E104421 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about any moden groups. The context is about nomads at a specific time from a specific place that attacked Iran, and hence it is a defensive reaction by Ferdowsi at that time. It has nothing to do with modern groups since no modern group is responsible for anything done 1000 years. The historical context needs to be mentioned or else it is just a POV fork in the intro. The context is that Iran was ruled after the Sassanids for approximately 200 years by Arabs (Ummayyads were specially anti-Iranian). Afterwards, there was a brief period of Iranian rule until another non-Iranian group took political control. Thus Ferdowsi tried to raise Iranian conscious given the above background. At the time of Ferdowsi, Anatolian Turkic speakers and many modern groups did not exist. Thus to link it to an article that discusses modern group is irrelevant. Diakonov had already been mentioned in the article before you decided to edit this article for the first time. You should have read it. It should not be stated as a sentence unless the whole background is given and the background is given later in the text and even on the same page as Diakonoff. And for this reason it has to be in the main body of the text, since the background of the issue must be provided. Also I disagree with Diakonov, since Timurid, Seljuqids, Ilkhanids and host of Altaic speaking dynasties thought of the Shahnameh as their own. So Diakonov's view is only one viewpoint. Dr. Mohammad Amin Riyahi Khoi[1], himself from the city of Khoi and an Azeri, has a different point of view which contradicts that of Diaknov. He rightfully mentions that Ferdowsi thinks of Afrasiyab more than Kawus. Also the two most important figures Keykhusraw and Rustam have Turanian and Tazi (Semitic) mothers. Prof. Khoi is an expert in Persian literature unlike Diakonov, who is a supreme expert in history. Both are good, but the article needs to reflect multiple viewpoints. Prof. Mahmud OmidSalar of UCLA also mentions that the fight with Mahmud Ghaznawi was over Shi'ite and Sunnism not ethnic background. So the issue is complicated and POV fork in the intro is misleading. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
E104421, you cherry picked a quotaion from numerous other ones in this article and put it in the lead to support your unstablished POV. And you still expect us to keep it? Exactly what do you think we are? --Pejman47 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with E104421. The anti-Turkic (which E104421 has - of course - once again linked to Anatolian Turks which is totally wrong) and anti-Arabic nature of the Shahnama needs to be mentioned. In fact, it was Ferdowsi who purposely changed the Zoroastrian word "Dahhak" into "Dhahhak"/"Zahak" (using the letter "dhal" instead of "dal") giving the mythical monster an "Arabic face". But it should also be mentioned that the Shahnama has never been considered as "anti-Turkic" by Turks within the cultural sphere of Iran. From Ghaznavids to the Ottomans: all of them patronized and promoted the stories of the Shahnama, identified themselvs with Iran's heroic tradition and named their children after Shahnama characters, from the Seljuq prince Kay-Qubadh over the Timurid ruler Piran Shah up to the Ottoman prince Cem and the Aq Qoyunlu Khan Rustam. The history of the "Shahnama" reflects the cultural assimilation of Turks and Arabs into the Persian cultural and literary sphere and shows that they considered themselves a part of Iran and Iran's mythical history instead of glorifying some Turkish Khans or pre-Islamic Arab heroes. Even modern-day Turkish nationalist ridicule their own agenda by identifying themselves with ancient Iranian myths and characters (i.e. Turan and Afrasiyab). As Bernard Lewis says: the Turks do not have any memories to their pre-Islamic past. That's because the Turkic identity starts with the assimilation of Turkic nomads into the Iranian cultural sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.192 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Tabari before Ferdowsi uses Zahak. But you are right, the Shahnameh was never considered "anti-Turkic" by Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Ottomons, Timurids and host of others. This is important to mention in light of the background of the other viewpoint. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering Shahnameh as anti-Arab and anti-Turk, is not the majority view (WP:UNDUE).More than that,neither Turanians had any connection to the Turks nor the Arabs(in most parts of the book)to the nowadays Arabs, the real location of the "Hamavaran" or "the Nizehvaran land" is unknown in the Shahnameh. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Igor Diakonov is a world-wide respected scholar. His book "The Paths of History" is published by the Cambridge University Press in 1999. An academic like Diakonov certainly reflects the views of the mainstream. Otherwise, his work would not be published by the Cambridge University press. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't ignore all the comments above. Of course his work is important, but there are other works from Shahnameh experts who have differing viewpoints. Also we have included his work in the body of the text, alongside the background given. The political background is very important and that is why you can't insert a POV fork in the beginning in light of the fact that Diakonov on the same page talks about invasion of Iranian lands. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not ignoring anything. I'm sure Igor Diakonov was never ignored anything, too. He directly says that "... Book of Kings (Shah-nama) though, formally, impeccably Muslim, had nevertheless a certain anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias. History became an eternal feud between Iran and Turan. No wonder the book did not have success with Mahmud Ghaznawi, to whom it had been dedicated. ..." This is not a pov fork, but this is a fact! Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop running circular arguments. Diakonoff in the same page discusses the invasion of Iranian lands by Turks. This political supremacy of foreign rulers is one of the reasons why some scholars believe Diakonov's point of view. This must be mentioned and also different viewpoints about Shahnameh must be mentioned. That means that the introduction is not a place for your one-liner fork. Finally if there is any link given to any madeup article like "anti-Turkism" then the invasion of Iranian lands in the same article needs to be discussed. So yes, you tried to insert a POV fork and the users here do not believe in your fork. You also failed to respond to my longer argument above. You were also never involved in this article, and did not read it at all. Else you would have noticed Diakonov is already mentioned, but balanced by another viewpoint. Specially the fact that Turkic dynasties highly liked the Shahnameh and did not feel it was anti-Turkic. But even if we assume Diakonov's viewpoint, it must be balanced with the stuff he says about invasion. So all these facts are currently mentioned and balanced. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop accusing people who provide sourced information from world wide respected academicians. Igor Diakonov's statements are not pov fork. If you check the talk page above, Pejman47 was previously reported for removal of the sourced information on this. It's clear that you never checked the talk page of this article. You're just accusing people, reverting their edits blindly, and pushing your pov. You should calm down and comment in a constructive manner. I'm always ready to cooperate, but i cannot accept incivility. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Again. Igor Diakonov's statement has been already included in the article. And I checked the talkpage, and the issue of Diakonov was resolved and had you read the article, you would have noticed he is already quoted. The historical context needs to be mentioned or else it is just a POV fork in the intro. The context is that Iran was ruled after the Sassanids for approximately 200 years by Arabs (Ummayyads were specially anti-Iranian). Afterwards, there was a brief period of Iranian rule until another non-Iranian group took political control. Thus Ferdowsi tried to raise Iranian conscious given the above background. At the time of Ferdowsi, Anatolian Turkic speakers and many modern groups did not exist. Thus to link it to an article that discusses modern group is irrelevant. Diakonov had already been mentioned in the article before you decided to edit this article for the first time. You should have read it. It should not be stated as a sentence unless the whole background is given and the background is given later in the text and even on the same page as Diakonoff. And for this reason it has to be in the main body of the text, since the background of the issue must be provided. Also I disagree with Diakonov, since Timurid, Seljuqids, Ilkhanids and host of Altaic speaking dynasties thought of the Shahnameh as their own. So Diakonov's view is only one viewpoint. Dr. Mohammad Amin Riyahi Khoi, himself from the city of Khoi and an Azeri, has a different point of view which contradicts that of Diaknov. He rightfully mentions that Ferdowsi thinks of Afrasiyab more than Kawus. Also the two most important figures Keykhusraw and Rustam have Turanian and Tazi (Semitic) mothers. Prof. Khoi is an expert in Persian literature unlike Diakonov, who is a supreme expert in history. Both are good, but the article needs to reflect multiple viewpoints. Prof. Mahmud Omidsalar of UCLA also mentions that the fight with Mahmud Ghaznawi was over Shi'ite and Sunnism. Since in the court of Mahmud, many other poets praised him as a ruler who fight against Turanians (Qarakhanids in that age were considered part of Turan). From a Shahnameh point of view, these two authors and some others have more of weight. Also as per the lead, besides the political background, we also need to mention that Altaic and Turcophone dynasties highly prized and praised Shahnameh, which also balances Diakonov's viewpoint. For example, the Seljuqids, Ilkhanids, Timurids, Moghuls, Ottomons, Safavids who were Turkic-speaking dynasties and yet they were submerged in the culture of the Shahnameh and praised it and commisioned artists to make magnificant manuscripts of it. So a POV fork in the intro is misleading per the above reasons. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem? Why can't you just write that one quote into the article?! The anti-Turkic and anti-Arab sentiments of the Shahnama are well-known. Turks are described as "slaves of the Turanians", the "Arab king" Zohak is mentioned as a serpent with 3 heads who east human brains (which is most certainly a metaphor for the religion Islam that, in Ferdowsi's eyes, was forced on the Iranians by "eating their brains"), etc etc etc. But this does not change the fact that the actual Turks never regarded the Shahnama as anti-Turkic. This was certainly because of the fact that none of those Turks defined themselves as Turks. Mehmed Fuad Koprulu (in Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, tr. by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149) writes: "... Indeed, despite all claims to the contrary, there is no question that Persian influence was paramount among the Seljuks of Anatolia. This is clearly revealed by the fact that the sultans who ascended the throne after Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw I assumed titles taken from ancient Persian mythology [...] Ala' al-Din Kai-Qubad I had some passages from the Shahname inscribed on the walls of Konya and Sivas. When we take into consideration domestic life in the Konya courts and the sincerity of the favor and attachment of the rulers to Persian poets and Persian literature, then this fact is undeniable. ..." Clifford Edmund Bosworth writes (about the Ghaznavid sultan Mas'ud I): "... Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ūd (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahmūd), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extols the sultan and his forebears both as Muslims and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past ..."[2] All of the quotes are relevant and can be added to the article. @ ali: Rustam's mother, Rudaba, was - according to the Shahnama - neither Arab nor Turk. She was the princess of Kabul. It was assumed that her linage was descending from Zahak (that's why Zal was not allowed to marry her). But with the help of Simurgh, both lovers were brought together. The "Turanian princess" was Farangis, married to the Iranian hero Siavash. But Siawush was betrayed and murdered by Afrasiab. The most Persian-like hero of the Shahnama is Esfandyar who is protected by a magical Zoroastrian amulet while Rostam is supported by the mythical creature Simurgh (the fact that both Rustam and his father were nobles from Sistan implies that they were Parthians and not Persians, unlike Esfandyar).
I disagree on some points. Ferdowsi was himself a Shi'i Muslim and this is proven by Dr. Jalal Khaleqi Mutlaq. So he was not anti-Islam. Note Diakonov also says he was impeccably a Muslim. Zahak can be interpreted as many things. That he had two snakes on his shoulder is not actually a creation of Ferdowsi but part of pre-Ferdowsi Iranian myths. On the Diakonov quote, it is already quoted in another section given the sufficient background. There are various opinions on this matter and we can't take one over the other. That is Diakonov's point of view is included, but other point of view should be included as well. And also the background should be given (foreign supremacy). Indeed as you say, the 'Seljuqids, Ghaznawids, Timurids, Ottomons..) did not consider it anti-Turkic and I agree. So that is why I suggest all these facts be included (note Diakonov is already included). But to just take part of one sentence and insert in the second/third sentence of the introduction is not really balancing the article. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ferdowsi was not a Shia but he supported the Shia political cause (that's why he is described as a "pro-Shia" in Iranica). Shiism is a unique culture of the Iranian lands, heavily mixed with ancient Iranian mythology, and Shias had always been Iranian nationalists, from Khurramites to Safavids. However, this is irrelevant. The point is that although Seljuqs, Ghaznavids etc are regarded as "Turkic peoples" today, the situation back then was different. When Fredowsi speaks of "Turks" he does not speak of the language family but of nomadic warriors whom he (and all other Persians and Arabs back then) considered "cultureless barbarians". By this (historical definition), the Ghaznavids and (to a lesser degree) the Seljuqs were not Turks (at least not in the eyes of Ferdowsi). The meaning of "Turk" (in a historical context) is "barbarian", "nomadic", "backward" in contrast to the "cultured" and "settled" population of Khorasan and Mesopotamia. While E104421's claim of "anti-Turkic sentiments" is correct, his interpretation of the word "Turk" (from Ferdowis's point of view) is totally wrong. The equation of "Turk = Turanian" goes back to that time. Since in the Avesta "Turanians" are described as "nomadic" and "uncultured" (see Scythians), Fredowsi used that word also for the Turkic nomads. although historically the mythological "Turanians" had nothing to do with "Turks", Ferdowsi's wording was typical for his time: "Turks" = "barbarians" = "uncultured" = "Turanians". The same wording was also used in ancient Greece when refering to "uncultured barbarians". They either called them "barbarians" or "Scythians", using these words as synonyms.
Salam. Ferdowsi is Shi'i. In the intro he praises Ali and the prophets household. The Iranica article is written by Jalal Khaleqi Mutlaq who also has a specialized article on Ferdowsi's religion and he convincingly shows he was a Shi'ite Muslim. Also see here:[3]. I quote just one of the dozens: "Also the oldest biographies on him describe him as a Shi'ite Muslim. Like Nizami AruZi Samarqandi describes him as a Shi'ite. Interestingly enough, amongst Iran's top 5 poets or so, Ferdowsi was the only one that was a Shi'i. Anyhow, Ferdowsi I believe was more against foreign domination of Iran rather than say Arabs. So here really considered those that have invaded Iran as Barbarians due to their action not due to any other aspect. For example if he was 100% against Arabs, he would not be a Shi'ite Muslim. But he was against Arab invasion of Persia. There are of course other positions than Diakonov. The main point is that Diakonov's words are already incorporated into the article. His position needs to be complemented with the facts of the political situation of the time, as well as otherviewpoints that might contrast his, and as well as the main other fact you brought up. That is Turkic/Turkophone dynasties like Seljuqs, Ilkhanids, Timurdis, Moghuls, Safawids have praised and commissioned the Shahnameh and submered in its culture. So the main point of the argument was really not about stating the fact that Diakonov brought (which is already stated) but its insertion as a Fork right into the second sentence without mentioning the facts. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Shahnameh is based on Persian nationalism. The anti-Arabism and anti-Turkism in Shahnameh is well-known. Igor Diakonov is just one of the authors reflecting this into his book. There are also others. Whether the Turkic dynasties let it published has nothing to do with this, and does not mean that Shahnameh is not anti-Arabic or anti-Turkic. That's your interpretation. The dispute here is whether this should be mentioned at the intro or not. In my opinion, if this is the main motivation behind the Shahnameh, it should be mentioned at the beginning as i already said above. On the other hand, the issue may be discussed in a separate section below in detail. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
gor Diakonov does not mention any motivation but the motivation was to preserve Iranian culture. Igor Diakonov's statement has been already included in the article. And I checked the talkpage, and the issue of Diakonov was resolved and had you read the article, you would have noticed he is already quoted. The historical context needs to be mentioned or else it is just a POV fork in the intro. The context is that Iran was ruled after the Sassanids for approximately 200 years by Arabs (Ummayyads were specially anti-Iranian). Afterwards, there was a brief period of Iranian rule until another non-Iranian group took political control. Thus Ferdowsi tried to raise Iranian conscious given the above background. At the time of Ferdowsi, Anatolian Turkic speakers and many modern groups did not exist. Thus to link it to an article that discusses modern group is irrelevant. Diakonov had already been mentioned in the article before you decided to edit this article for the first time. You should have read it. It should not be stated as a sentence unless the whole background is given and the background is given later in the text and even on the same page as Diakonoff. And for this reason it has to be in the main body of the text, since the background of the issue must be provided. Also I disagree with Diakonov, since Timurid, Seljuqids, Ilkhanids and host of Altaic speaking dynasties thought of the Shahnameh as their own. So Diakonov's view is only one viewpoint. Dr. Mohammad Amin Riyahi Khoi, himself from the city of Khoi and an Azeri, has a different point of view which contradicts that of Diaknov. He rightfully mentions that Ferdowsi thinks of Afrasiyab more than Kawus. Also the two most important figures Keykhusraw and Rustam have Turanian and Tazi (Semitic) mothers. Prof. Khoi is an expert in Persian literature unlike Diakonov, who is a supreme expert in history. Both are good, but the article needs to reflect multiple viewpoints. Prof. Mahmud Omidsalar of UCLA also mentions that the fight with Mahmud Ghaznawi was over Shi'ite and Sunnism. Since in the court of Mahmud, many other poets praised him as a ruler who fight against Turanians (Qarakhanids in that age were considered part of Turan). From a Shahnameh point of view, these two authors and some others have more of weight. Also as per the lead, besides the political background, we also need to mention that Altaic and Turcophone dynasties highly prized and praised Shahnameh, which also balances Diakonov's viewpoint. For example, the Seljuqids, Ilkhanids, Timurids, Moghuls, Ottomons, Safavids who were Turkic-speaking dynasties and yet they were submerged in the culture of the Shahnameh and praised it and commisioned artists to make magnificant manuscripts of it. So a POV fork in the intro is misleading per the above reasons, which you fail to academically address.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Te interlanguage link

please add [[te:షానామా]] interlanguage link to this article --Dunnob (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did !
Thankyou so much ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About this change

It was been asked if there where any Persian speakers of the Iranian world,in China ? Although Tocharians where previously inhabitants of North-West parts of new China,but that sentence refers to groups in China in more recent days of Islamic expansion to China and Xinjiang .(See also Languages of East-Turkistan).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A leaf of Shahnama

A 19th century folio of Shahnama at Freer Sackler Gallery[4]. (Ekabhishek (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)).