Jump to content

Talk:Shahnameh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

شاهنامه

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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 "king" Zohak is mentioned as a serpent with 3 heads who east human 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 Gedrosian ( Balochi ) 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", 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)

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)

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)

A leaf of Shahnama

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

The shahnameh has impacted popular culture, there is even a graphic novel about it found in www.theshahnmaeh.com, referenced in a few dc comic books and in the anime heroic legend of arsalan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.48 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the Name of the Book

The word "Shahnameh" mean "The Great Book", not "The Book of Kings", though this latter can be mentioned as a second meaning of the name. The prefix "Shah" (meaning "great", such as in "Shahkar", a great work) in "Shahnameh" must not be mistaken for the word "Shah" (meaning "King").

I fixed this at the beginning of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.115.6 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

and i fixed your totally wrong and out of context edit. --Xashaiar (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of the Book

Why does not this article explain what the name Shah-Name means in translation? It must be mentioned somewhere in the first lines. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in 'message' section

The section on the Shahnameh's message is fulsome in its praise, without a trace of neutrality. I don't doubt that the Shahnameh is a great work, but some objectivity is needed. More importantly, the section simply praises the poet without actually explaining WHY his work is admired, and how it differs from lesser works. It simply quotes passages (most of which seem quite ordinary, at least in translation) and then says "isn't that great?" We need more description, less arm-waving. 142.177.63.49 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and have therefore removed the entire section. It was strongly POV and unworthy of anything remotely resembling an encyclopedia. 95.96.75.238 (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia , the best way is to edit and not to omit . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When a vandal writes "F*ck!", one shouldn't try to "fix" his edit, one should delete it. When a POV editor writes "Ferdowsi is God!", one shouldn't try to "fix" it, one should delete it. I'm deleting the section again.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved from the section

Scenes from the Shâhnameh carved into reliefs at Tus, where Ferdowsi is buried.

The epic language is rich, moving and lavish. Personal touches in the Shâhnameh prevent it from falling into a dry reproduction of historical narratives. No history has been so eagerly read, so profoundly believed, and so ardently treasured in Iran as has the Shâhnameh of Ferdowsi. If a history were ever to influence its readers, the Shâhnameh has done and still does so in the finest way. Where many "Persian" military and religious leaders failed, Ferdowsi succeeded. An example of Ferdowsi's works illustrates his mastery of poetry and brings to the reader's imagination vivid pictures through the power of language: e.g.

Be rooz nabard Aan yar e arj-mand,
Be Shamshier, Khanjar, be Gorz-o-Kamand,
Boried-o-Daried-o-Shekasst-o-Basst,
Yallan-raa Sarr-o-Sieneh-o-Paa-o-Dasst.

(Translation)
On the day of battle that grandiose warrior,
By Sword, Dagger, by Mace and Rope,
Severed, slivered, shattered, and tied,
warrior's heads, chest, legs, and hands.

Thus, to such an extent Ferdowsi is confident of his masterpiece's endurance and immortality that he versifies in the following couplets:

بناهاى آباد گردد خراب
ز باران و از تابش آفتاب

پى افكندم از نظم كاخي بلند
كه از باد و باران نيابد گزند

از آن پس نميرم كه من زنده‌ام
 كه تخم سخن را پراكنده‌ام

هر آنكس كه دارد هش و راى و دين
پس از مرگ بر من كند آفرين


Banāhāye ābād gardad kharāb
ze bārānō az tābeshē āftāb

pay afkandam az nazm kākhī boland
ke az bādō bārān nayābad gazand

az ān pas namiram ke man zendeh'am
ke tokhme sokhan rā parākandeh'am

har ānkas ke dārad hosh o rāy o din
pas az marg bar man konad āfarin

"Magnificent Buildings will be destroyed
From rain and the radiation of the sun."

"I founded a great palace of verse so high[The Shahnameh]
That is impervious to the wind and the rain"

"Thus I won't die that I am the eternal lord
"As I've spread the seed of the word"

"Whoever who has intelligence, vision and belief
Even after my death will praise me."

I've left the meaningful part in the section, so it isn't completely deleted.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Significant news to be incorporated into the main text

"Shahnameh millennium accepted for UNESCO 2010 calendar of events" (Tehran Times, 9 March 2010), and "فردوسي همزمان با سال هزاره شاهنامه جهاني مي شود" (IRNA, 9 March 2010). --BF 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationhood {{fact}}ed

This voluminous work, regarded by Persian speakers as a literary masterpiece, also reflects Persia's history, cultural values, ancient religion (Zoroastrianism), and profound sense of nationhood.

"Nationhood" is arguably an anachronistic concept here. "Iran", "Turan", "Sistan", "Chin", "Rum" and all the other realms in the book are very loosely defined entities and should hardly be equated with the modern concept of a nation state united by a common language etc. So I'm requesting a source for the "profound sense of nationhood" part.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your ignorance of Persian history is really the only factor fuelling your "anachronistic" views here.

- Iran's borders have more or less remained fairly constant since the annexation of the Sassanid Empire by the Rashidun Caliphate. At the time of writing, Ferdowsi's Iran was not unlike today's modern Iran. (See this map: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Saffarids_900ad.jpg) The first independent Persian state after the Islamic/Turkic/Mongol conquests of Iran is when medieval Iran's borders began to shift significantly, first expanding and then contracting into modern-day Iran: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/LocationSafavid.PNG, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Map_Safavid_persia.png

- Sistan is a real state within Iran and has existed since the Achaemenid Empire when it was known as "Sakastan". (See: Sistan, Sistan and Baluchistan Province)

- "Rum" is simply Arabic for "Roman"/"Land of the Romans" (and consequently Persian as well since it has a lot of Arab loan words) and typically denoted the Middle Eastern boundaries of the Ancient Roman Empire. It was a term successively used by many Islamic states/nations such as the Ottoman Empire (see:Rumelia), hence the meaning changed over time as the borders of Rome shifted. In later periods (such as during Ferdowsi's lifetime) it referred specifically to the subsequent boundaries of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire), see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-en.svg

- Turan was commonly used to refer to Ancient Central Asia (note the emphasis), and roughly denoted the borders of the Ancient Iranian peoples that exclusively inhabited the mountainous steppes of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and some parts of Russia and Afghanistan; during Classical Antiquity. This map is a good approximation: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png

The inherent inaccuracy and vagueness of pinpointing where Turan was stems only from the fact that many of the peoples that inhabited the ancient region were by nature horse-bound, nomads with no clear borders nor a perception or understanding of the concepts of "statehood"/nation. (See: Sogdiana, Khwarezm, Scythians, Massagetae, Sakas, Dahae, Medes).

- The ONLY term you mentioned that wreaks of ambiguity is "Chin", referring to the Ancient Chinese dynasties of the early Imperial Period (from the Qin Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty). This can easily be attributed to the weak or almost non-existent relations between China and Iran throughout classical antiquity (due mainly to distance, geography and the various Turkic/Indic tribes that occupied the lands between them) and the fact that most of China and South-East Asia had yet to be explored or mapped by any contemporary Western/Middle Eastern sources. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't convinced me of your capacity to discuss meaningfully. Neither Turan nor Rum as portrayed in the book have any semblance to the real-life concepts that you mentioned. Neither has ever been a nation-state in real life, and Ancient Central Asia has never been a single kingdom hostile to Iran as it is in the Shahnameh. The Turanians aren't shown as being ethnically distinct from the Iranians either. The whole story is so archaic that it seems very strange to speak of "nationhood", especially when many historians will argue that the concept dates from the 18th-19th centuries. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahnameh manuscript pic

Please add a picture of the manuscript of the Shahnameh

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/mar/1001.html

Ditc (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint-Beuve´s quote

I´m deleting this supposed quote, because this is a self published source. And what is more important, I seriously doubt this "scholar" is serious, because at the end of the paper he says persian poets were better than Homer and Racine. It´s obvious that this "scholar" has a nationalistc bias.--Knight1993 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced materials. The quote is ok as long as it is presented as a quote and not a fact. Xashaiar (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the quote is absolutely obscure. I looked it up in the net and the only page that shows it is (besides wikipedia) this Iranian site (Iran chamber society) . The quote is extremely dubious. And the article from where it´s taken is clearly polluted with nationalistic bias. Can we trust an article written by an iranian scholar, working for an iranian asociation, about an iranian poet, that includes an absolutely obscure quote? And if that´s not enough, he claims that this poet, practically unknown outside of Iran, is superior to Homer and Racine !! This is the most clear exmaple of nationalistic bias I´ve seen in a lot of time. The work of Mokatef is the only source for this quote, so I find it rather unbelievable. If you can provide a better source that would be Ok.
I quote the article: "They came to know extraordinary men whose literary genius equated and surpassed that of Homer, Racine and Achillus". Absolutely priceless
Mokatef also quotes the german poet Novalis saying in his "Song of the night"(the real name is "Hymns to the night"): "Wisdom and philosphic comtemplation can only be found in the Orient".Novalis never said that. I personally looked it up and didn´t find it. Try looking here or here. He quotes Schlegel saying, "To reach the real fountainhead of romanticism and be satiated with it one must travel to the orient". I couldn´t find this quote ANYWHERE. He quotes Goethe and Nietzsche saying:"O Hafiz, your word is as great as eternity for it has no begining and no end...", and " Oh Hafiz, you have created a tavern of philosophy..." blablabla. The only references to this supossed quotes are in Mokatef´s work and in a book called Self Building : An Islamic Guide for spritual migration. They both say the same. And what is more, Mokatef writes "Nitsche", and the other book writes "Hitche". Can we trust something like this? No.
I think this proves my case.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of a literary work

As this is a title, should it not be italicized throughout? Varlaam (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The true meaning of the word Shah

The true meaning of "Shah" is ultimate/super/great; and for this reason kings refer to themselves as the Shah. Thus, Shahnameh means the "Ultimate/Great Book". For example, Shahrah means highway, and not kingway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.70.142 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have had read Shahnameh but I have read some parts of it and I say it is "Book of Kings" because a large section of the book is about Sassanid and Arascid Kings. More like a list of them. Pouyakhani (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean up paragraph

Is there a way we can make the following paragraph (from Cultural role) more readable?

According to the expert Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq, the Shahnameh teaches: Yekta-Parasti (Worship of one God), Khoda Tarsi (Fear of breaking the commandments of God-respecting God), Din Dari (Religious Uprightness), Mihan Doosti (patriotism), Mehr beh Zan o Farzand (love of wife, family and children), Dastgiryeh Darmandegaan (Helping the poor), Kheradmandi (Pursuit of Wisdom), Dad-Khahi (Pursuit of Justice), Door-Andishi (Long term thinking), Miyaneh Ravi (Seeking and Acting in Equilibrium-moderation), Adaab Daani (Acting and Knowing correct manner-courtesy), Mehman Nawazi (Seeking the happiness of Guests-hospitality), Javanmardi (Chivalry), Bakhshesh (Forgiveness), Sepasgozari (Thankfulness), Khoshnoodi o Khorsandi (Being content and Happy with existence), Kooshaayi (Hard Work), Narmesh Yaa Modaaraa (Being Peaceful and Kind), Vafadaari (Being faithful), Raasti o Dorostkari (Truth and opposing anything that is against the Truth), Peymaan Daari (Keeping covenants), Sharm o Ahestegi (Shame at committing immoral acts and also control over one's self), Khamooshi (Not acting loud-modesty), Danesh Amoozi (Pursuing Knowledge-education), Sokhan Dani (Knowledge of Wise Words) and many other moral qualities.[9]

Maybe something like, "According to Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq, the Shahnameh teaches a wide variety of moral virtues e.g. worship of one God; religious uprightness; patriotism; love of wife, family and children; and helping the poor." I wonder whether this paragraph can be deleted altogether. Is Mutlaq even an important expert?

On an unrelated note, are works like Shahnameh, Chahar Maqaleh, Tazkeret Al-Shu'ara, and Baharestan supposed to be italicized? Squandermania (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Your version of the paragraph is much, much better. As for "Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq", I would have said no, delete it, had I not found [5] which led me to use the spelling "Khaliqi-Mutlaq" which brings up quite a bit and makes it clear that he is indeed an expert (although we should not say that in the article of course, the fact that we use his name should be enough). Leave the problem of a source for it of course. Did you look at WP:Italics (the answer is yes)? Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong translation, it means great book not book of kings....

Shahnameh: Shah = King or Great + Nameh = Book

The correct translation is the great book and not the book of kings. In the Persian Wikipedia is also nothing written about that it is the book of kings. That is a term for highway: شاهراه Shahrah and thus would mean way of kings, but that makes no sense, but it simply means great way, because no kings drive on the highway but cars. And when they created the word shahrah in the last 100 years they did not want to say this is a way of kings but a great/tall/big way for cars driving fast.

There is also: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%B2%D8%B1%DA%AF%E2%80%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87 

بزرگراه that is a synonym thereof, and means big/great way.

Other example: Shah-bandar = big harbor shah-rag = Large artery = aorta

In Shahnameh naturally occur also stories of kings, but is primarily concerned with stories of Iranians and Iranian heroes.

Therefore book of kings is a mistranslation.

The great/big book is the correct translation! --82.82.160.39 (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An important addition: In middle Persian language they called the book: Khodajnameh = meaning the BIG book So that is the correct meaning and even in the shahnameh it is written itself, why it is called the big book! --82.82.160.39 (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for translating it as "The Great Book"? All the translations I've seen translate it as "The Book of Kings". Squandermania (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah they mistranslated it, because Shah means king but also great. But people who are not familiar with the content and the history of the book, they may think it is called book of kings. There is no source needed, I am German and Persian native speaker and it is simple wrong translated. The translators think, because there are stories about kings it may be called the book of kings, but the correct translation and meaning of this book is "The Great Book". And how I said in Middle Persian it is called Khodajname, because befor Ferdowsi created this book someone else had already began to written it. It is even in the Shahnameh written, that it is called the Great Book. --82.82.163.90 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but according to Wikipedia's policy (WP:VERIFY), you need a reliable source. As I see it, there are reliable sources like University of Cambridge's Shahnama Project that translate it as "Book of Kings", but I don't see any that translate it your way. Squandermania (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay I am going to add a source in Persian language. But as far to say it is really wrong and even the guys of Cambridge mistranslated it. They are not native speaker. I mean all the great professors of Persian language in Iran say that it is "The Great Book". --82.82.163.90 (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Shahnameh or Shahname

there is no H sound in end of shahname, it is a effect of ه of arabic script on persian! it sounds E and not EH! please move it to Shahname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.184.140.130 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shahin-Shah-nama

Is this the same as Shahin-Shah-nama? 94.211.55.161 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Shahin-shah-nama or Shahanshahname is a 19th century book while it's a thousand years old.Pouyakhani (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

IPs opinion used to remove referenced information

Per,

  • Islamic Civilization, ed. D.S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. p. 2. "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes... Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed."

From the article, "Turan or Persian for the areas of Central Asia beyond the Oxus up to the 7th century (where the story of the Shahnameh ends) was generally an Iranian-speaking land." This sentence is referenced by;

  • Bosworth, C.E. "The Appearance of the Arabs in Central Asia under the Umayyads and the Establishment of Islam". In History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, ed. M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: Motilal Banarsidass Publ./UNESCO Publishing, 1999. p. 23; "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically, still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian languages."<br?

I would strongly suggest the IP in question bring his concerns here before continuing his edit war, since it is quite clear the sources do not support his personal opinion of history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

60,000 vs 50,000

It is not 60,000, it is 50,000. There are manuscripts that contain almost 70,000 verses, but most of them are later additions. The Shahnameh of Ferdowsi contains some 50,000 verses. The version of Djalal Khaleghi Motlagh contains 49,530 verses. -- Bkouhi (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

To the list of Adaptations (section 12.2), please add "Shahnameh For Kids: The Story of Zal & Simorgh (2015) ISBN 978-0692573501, English Children's Book."

Shahnameh For Kids: The Story of Zal & Simorgh (2015) ISBN 978-0692573501, English Children's Book.

The website can be linked http://shahnamehforkids.com Shahnamehforkids (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Persian Quran?

The redirect Persian Quran, which is targeted here, is currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 27#Persian Quran. Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Shahnameh in India

Copies of the Shahnameh illustrated in Persian style are attributed to India from as early as the 1420s, in the late ‘Sultanate’ period marked by political fragmentation of Muslim power after the sack of Delhi by Timur in 1398, and the influx of Afghan chiefs and their followers. Having lost control over Central Asia, the Timurids turned their attention to northern India where one of Timur’s descendants, Babur (1526–1530), from his base in Kabul, defeated the Lodi sultans and founded the Mughal dynasty (1526–1858). The Mughal rulers were avid bibliophiles, Persian culture was dominant at their court and deluxe copies of the Shahnameh were preserved in their libraries. Following the loss and reconquest of northern India under Babur’s son Homayun, an astonishing production of illustrated manuscripts was undertaken for the third Mughal ruler, Akbar (1556–1605). The Akbari style combined major artistic traditions: Safavid from Tabriz, Hindu from Vijayanagar and European styles brought by Jesuit missions and diplomats to the Mughal courts. By the seventeenth century, the western presence was dominant, especially in the treatment of landscapes, and in the eighteenth century its influence extended to portraiture.

The Shahnameh endured as a princely manual on wise and just kingship. It offered splendid opportunities for the portrayal of Mughal rulers and courtiers engaged in hunting, fighting, diplomatic ceremonies, feasts and amorous affairs. It also continued to provide a topical commentary on contemporary events and individuals, extending its relevance to the recent past and the present. Above all, its lasting appeal points to a core of meaning — the eternal strife between good and evil — that transcends specific time and place.[1]

More images of Indian produced Shahnahmeh copies can be found at the following links from the Library of Congress and the World Digital Library. I recommend someone include at least a few of these images as well on the page:

1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/thousand-years-of-the-persian-book/epic-of-shahnameh.html 2. https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11856/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.109.202 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

To the sentence "All of Ferdowsi's characters are complex; none is an archetype or a puppet. [clarification needed]" the following clarification/reference could be added: [http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/shahnameh/structure.html The Fitzwilliam Museum Online Exhibition on Shahnahmeh: Structure and Themes of the Shahnameh: Myth, Legend and History.

And the sentence should be rephrased as "Most of Ferdowsi's characters are complex; none is an archetype or a puppet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Neirynck (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mainly a secondary source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add this to the main page

Thanks, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is still not addressed.

207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The problems on the page will get fixed shortly after the tag is added to the main page.

Thanks in advance, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

103.106.182.213 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bodleian Library's richly illuminated copy of the ShahnamahEmmastanfordx (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Shahnama or Shahnameh

There is is very important point to make about the name of article and Persian script. in Persian script, when letter "ه" comes at the end of the words, it could be both consonant and vowel! For instance, in words Râh(path-راه), Kâh(Straw-کاه), Mâh(Moon-ماه), Shâh(King-شاه), Bah(Wow-به), Dah(Ten-ده) is consonant and pronounced as h. but in words Nâma(Book-نامه), Na(No-نه), Sâye(Shadow-سایه), Dâne(Grain-دانه), Farzâne(Wise-فرزانه), Pâye(Base-پایه), Khâne(House-خانه), Bâde(Wine-باده), is vowel and pronounced as a/e. The word Shahnama (Shah+Nama) is in second category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by برسام (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

We follow WP:RS (in English), which have many examples of both, but I think with a trend towards Shahnama. There is also Shāhnāmah and Shahname (see eg sources/links in the article). Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Name

The correct transliteration of the name is Shāhnāma. The -eh corresponds to the modern Iranian (Tehrani) pronunciation, but it is - from a literary, scientific point of view - incorrect. The Encyclopedia Iranica, too, uses nāma instead of nāmeh or nāme. —2A02:8108:41BF:D5E8:D9FF:A860:C5EB:3D31 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The '-eh' is not restricted to Tehrani only, it is general Persian. 'Shahnameh' is used by scholars such as Daryaee, ‎Yar-Shater, Rezakhani etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The -eh is restricted to Western dialects and does not reflect literary Persian (Dari). Eastern dialects, generally more archaic and with a more accurate representation of ″Ferdowsi′s language″, tend to an -a. Thatꞌs also why it is NOT employed in EIr. —2003:C4:B70B:1F21:4919:3718:B27C:3B4 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, this is an Iranian poem, not an Afghan or Tajik one. Ferdowsi wasn't exactly called 'Ferdowsi' either back in his day. The same goes for many other names. At the end of the day we follow WP:COMMONNAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself.

In the section titled "Influence on the Persian language", there is a bizarre unsourced translation provided of Ferdowsi's famous couplet. The translation in question:

" in order to keep Persian ajam (meaning non-Arabic, or specifically Iranian). "

This is a gross unsourced mistranslation that should be removed. And bizarrely enough, this same verse is repeated in a later section with a more accurate translation:

"I have revived the Ajam with my verse."

The unsourced doctored translated needs to be removed.

2601:644:8500:A520:7126:A74F:2FF7:5C65 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Bibliographic information on translations

Hi there RegentsPark! As you know, I added a footnote containing a proper reference to Davis's translation; you removed this on the grounds that Wikipedia shouldn't cite primary sources.

I get where you're coming from here, but I don't think the rigid application of this principle is very helpful in this case. Readers are likely to come to this article because they want to know what translations of the Shahnameh to read (which is what I did). The fact that the 'translations' section doesn't actually give any of the bibliographic details for the translations makes it less useful than it could be.

We could list the translations separately under 'further reading', but that strikes me as unnecessary duplication and also not very helpful to a reader who, looking for information about translations, goes to the 'translations' section.

So I suggest that adding proper bibliographic information about Davis's (and others') translations back in to the 'translations' section is a practical and elegant approach. How does that sound? Alarichall (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alarichall: I don't think we should be referencing a translation when identifying translations. If a translation is considered significant, we should, instead, include a reference to a reliable secondary source that says so. I would not include it in a further reading section as well since the translation is an original text. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: thanks for the quick reply! OK, there's definitely some confusion here. It's normal in Wikipedia articles to list works of authors, editions and translations of texts, discographies of musicians, etc., giving the proper bibliographic information. This isn't to be confused with the need to give secondary sources for statements made in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Alarichall (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that's more for lists of works by an author. Admittedly, I know nothing about this topic but, on reading the article, it appears that Davis is a well known authority in the area. Surely, there are secondary sources that talk about his translation? Listing all the works of an autor on their page is fine because the notability of the individual is established. However, listing translations on a page of this sort opens it to all sorts of dubious translations. Ideally, you could provide both references (e.g., "a well-known/well-respected translation is by Davis (secondary source, translation source), but there should be a secondary source that tells us that the translation is a meaningful one. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/shahnameh/vgallery/section5.html
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahnameh/Archive_1&oldid=1264796168"