Talk:Mohammad Nadir Shah

Origin and Rise to Power

This section of the article is almost completely incomprehensible. It is filled with so many grammatical errors and awkward syntactical fragments that it serves only to confuse the reader. In the interests of maintaining a standard of quality above an elementary school level, I would suggest that it be either rewritten or removed. I do not feel comfortable rewriting the passage, as I am not familiar enough with the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.159.47 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable claim about the fate of Mohammad Nadir Shah's assassin

I am very familiar with this claim and know it to be quite false. The motives of the assassin as well as the punishment are far from the truth. The shooter was promised, by a family feuding with with the Musahiban brothers, their daughter's hand in marriage in exchange for the assassination. Only the student was executed, rather gruesomely. That much is true. The boy's family had nothing to do with the plot and they definitely were not harmed. The family involved in the plot was exiled. They were later granted amnesty and invited back to Afghanistan by Mohammad Zahir Shah. I have first hand accounts of this. I intend on removing this claim from the article if a solid, verifiable source is not provided.

Furthermore, I intend on removing all bias POV when I find the time. There is clearly plenty of that present in the article. Any thoughts?

--Khampalak 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is not only blatantly biased but it is poorly written.

Operaman215 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits - August 8, 2007

I have rewritten the paragraph about Nadir Shah's assassination. I've provided the two most widely known theories and have provided a reliable source. There is still much left to be done in terms of removing seemingly biased claims which lack reliable and verifiable sources. --Khampalak 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "self installed" bit. Most kings, by definition, are self-installed or self-imposed. The source I've provided suggests that he was actually reluctant to assume the title. --Khampalak 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam, the text you added for his rise to power looks exactly like something that was removed a while ago. The sources I've read say nothing about a truce or signing an oath on the Quran. It does say that he was promised reprieve, but executed due to the demands of the tribal leaders in the army. I think that should be clarified. I can provide the exact text from my source. --Khampalak 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

refImprove tag...

Anoshirawan, you cannot simply delete this tag when another editor has inserted it. Do it again and I will report you. The article history documents everything you do. --Khampalak 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tag should stay for now. --Behnam 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Army

The section on "Rule" seems to contradict itself about the army, saying that it remained weak, but that it put down all the rebels in just a year or two, and that the army grew to be 40,000 strong in three years! Do we have some citations for this? --Bejnar 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism without any reference

"Muhammad Nader Shah was criticised by many Afghan historians as an agent of Britain in Afghanistan. During his regime hundred of thousands of innocent people were killed in Afghanistan. His family held the highest positions during his reign. His brother Sardar Hashim was Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Sardar Mahmud was Defence Minister of Afghanistan. And most of his Ministers were from his tribe called Mohammadzai. Most of the people call him a Dictator."

All these claims but no reference? Encyclopedic content must be verifiable [1]. If the editor does not provide reliable sources to verify his/her claims, the content will be deleted. (Ketabtoon (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

http://books.google.com/books?id=N5rtPgAACAAJ&dq=afghanistan+in+the+course+of+history&ei=Fcp3SqXtBZCqkATpnqybCw --Inuit18 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias

There is obvious anti-Nadir Shah bias in this article, particularly towards the end. In addition, it is poorly written and edited. Please clean up and provide more neutral POV.

Operaman215 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:Inuit18 has re-added the information which were deleted by Operaman215. First of all the user should try to discuss such issues before re-adding such controversial and biased material. Second, based on WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." - "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.".

Even though we are supposed to automatically remove biased and unreferenced POV, I will avoid doing that. However, the information should be cleaned up and reliable reference(s) should be provided in a week. When providing references, Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight ("Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.") should be kept in mind. If foreign sources are used, the exact passage along with its English translation should be provided.

(Ketabtoon (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

I do see that Louis Dupree's book, "Afghanistan" has been used as a source for one of the sentences. I don't know if the book covers all that material. It would be a good idea to quote the exact passage(s). (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Born date

Which one is his born date, April 9, 1883 or April 10, 1880? Because upsite is writed April 9, 1883 and downsite April 10, 1880. So which one is right..?84.106.208.23 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to be full of material pushing the claim that MNS was an agent for the British. This seems to be largely sourced to dubious, non-reliable sources. It ought to go. john k (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All these Afghanistan related articles are being vandalized by Tajiks, which is a minority ethnic group in Afghanistan who are rivals of the Pashtuns. There are these two big anti-Pashtun (anti-Afghan) editors Tajik (talk · contribs) and Inuit18 (talk · contribs). Tajik is in Germany and his first edit in this article was back in 2006 [2] then he created the critism section in September 2008 by using his IP from Germany [3] to spread his racist anti-Pashtun POV. There was this other ethnic Tajik (User:Beh-nam) who was busy vandalizing this article in the past but I think that one decided to give up.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Another anti-Pashtun is this User:Hadi1121, an ethnic Hazara, who spewed his hateful edit here in 2006.

The reason why Afghanistan is the most poorest and undeveloped nation in the world is because these ethnic groups are busy destroying one another while the rest of the world are laughing at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazolo (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Wierd Section

In the info box, it seems that Shah's children are listened under "issue", if there are no complaints or if there is not some weird dynastic terminology or Afghani terminology that I am unaware of for children, then I will change this to children - AH (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Mohammed Nadir Shah → Mohammad Nadir Shah – Correct romanization of the vowel ('e' to 'a') as per local Afghan naming pronunciation. - Furthermore, this spelling is used in this academic source, this Indian government source from the 1930s, and perhaps most importantly this official script of the Kingdom constitution from the 30s.

References

WR 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). WR 00:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I support this move due to his ancestors Dost Mohammad Khan being referred to as the correct term. (Also aforementioned on Daoud Khan's page.) Noorullah21 (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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