Talk:Afsharid Iran

Racism of Afsharids

The subject is about henry mortimer durand the nader shah book, Page 52: My Lord is thinking of fresh conquests already?' Why not? While any country remains to be con- quered, what I have done is nothing.' 'My Lord, it is so much. What other King of Irán has been as great?' Rást ast. It is true. By the favour of God I have taught these Persian dogs what a King of Irán should be.' My Lord, forgive me if I am too bold. Why do you always speak with contempt of the Persians? Are they not the creatures of God, and your people?' Nadir laughed. The creatures of God. Balé. Yes. God is great. It has pleased Him to fill the world with dogs and asses. What am I that I should say a word? But the Persians are not my people. I am a Turko- man.' But you are Shah of Irán, and there are many Kizlbash in the King's army. Why do you hate them?' Why should I not hate them? A look of rage came into his eyes and his face flushed. 'Listen, and I will tell you. And once you have heard, never speak of it again."

Page 106: What evil have you been doing?' and his eyes were so full of good-humour that it gave her courage. Soon she found her opportunity. There was a tray of fruit on the carpet where she had been lying. 'It is a fine country,' he said. There is no fruit like the fruit of Kábul. But my Afghans are a rough people. With all their grapes they make no good wine -nothing like the wine of Shiráz. Sitara smiled. Then the Persians are good for something, my Lord?' Yes. They can make wine, and drink it, but they are good for nothing else. An Afghan is worth ten Persians. And yet, my Lord, you have to punish the Afghans very often. I saw many of them coming from the Presence to-day and... oh! my Lord, it was a sad sight.' Nadir's face clouded over. You have a soft heart. But you should not eat grief for them. Offenders must be punished.

Page 163: The mullas? What trouble are they making now ?' 'No trouble, but one day when I was on the march to Bokhara there was some talk about a verse in the Korán, some silly little difference between Sunnis and Shias, and that fool Mirza Mehdi quoted the Heavenly books. So to get rid of him I told him to go to the Jews and Christians, and get copies of their Scriptures. He came into camp the other day from Ispahán with a camel load of books, and a swarm of mullas and Jews and Armenians, to prove that the heretic dogs of Shias are right." Who is Mirza Mehdi?' He is an ass. "Khar ba tashdid," a doubled ass.¹ He wants a place, and thinks he is wiser than Plato. He has done the pilgrimage to Mecca, and tries to talk like an Arab at the back of his throat. He comes to the Diwan Khaneh and quotes poetry and the Korán till I am sick and want to make him eat sticks. Some day I shall.' Sitara smiled. My Lord has punished men for less. Yes. He is a chattering fool, and the son of a burnt father. But sometimes he makes me laugh, and I have been merciful to him. Once he was talking about his sea-voyage to Mecca, so I told him to go and command the ships on the Caspian." What does he know about commanding ships?" 'Nothing, but as much as any of these Persian dogs. And I thought he might get drowned." It seems that he was not drowned." No. The ways of God are past understanding. But he was very sick, and he wrote to Ali Akbar begging to

Page 164: He came with his mullas and his men learned in the Heavenly books, and talked all day till I was weary and put off the discussion. I said the Council of mullas was to take evidence and have the whole thing ready for me when I returned from the war. But what is it all about?' 'God knows. Some silly little point between Sunnis and Shias. These things serve to keep the mullas amused. When they have done I shall decide in favour of the Sunnis, because it will please the Turks and Afghans and make the Persian dogs angry." I have never understood what is the difference between Sunnis and Shias." Why should women trouble about such things? Or men either. It is all pooch, nonsense. Priests always wrangle about trifles. All religions are good so long as the priests do not interfere in matters which do not concern them." All religions good, my Lord? Are not Jews and Christians accursed?" So the mullas say, but God is great and the mullas are fools. Were there not holy men among your Brahmins?

in this page we should have such this informations to stop manipulates. 95.2.8.197 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Iranian but kizilbash state in the territory of modern iran

The word 'iranian' refers to persian (farsi). Afsharids were part of kizilbash army and ideology. They are mostly part of turkic word rather than persian.the form of state was the same like in Safavid period. We can say that they are kizilbash dynasty 212.47.128.237 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2025

There is a mistake on the page because it says "afsharid dynasty is one of azerbaijans strongest empire" a dynasty is not a empire nor was the afsharid dynasty or empire azerbaijani 2A02:8388:294B:F700:5072:7DA6:417E:1E2 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Day Creature (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the State

Given references absolutely do not support that 'Guarded Domains of Iran' being used as official and/or country name by the Afsharid State. Given page at the book 'Iran: A Modern History' merely mentions Afshar's intend to "defend the Guarded Domains" during his role as a Safavid general. The other reference, 'Pivot of the Universe', the term "Guarded Domains" is used in the context of Qajar period, nothing about Nader Shah or Afsharids. On the other hand, the reference I've mentioned explicitly mentions 'dowlat-e naderiyya' used by Naderian officials in diplomatic documents. Usage of the "Guarded Domains" in this page is WP:OR at best. I hope other editors would be happy with the change. Krsnaquli (🙏) 09:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given page at the book 'Iran: A Modern History' merely mentions Afshar's intend to "defend the Guarded Domains" during his role as a Safavid general
Not sure why the Iran: A Modern History uses that page, it should be page 9 instead; "The “Guarded Domains of Iran” (Mamalik-e Mahruseh-e Iran), which became the official title of the country, perhaps as early as the thirteenth century, implied decentralized autonomy and acknowledged diversity of cultures and ethnicities."
The other reference, 'Pivot of the Universe', the term "Guarded Domains" is used in the context of Qajar period, nothing about Nader Shah or Afsharids.
Not true. "An element of continuity in Iran’s political order is best observed in the endurance of its geopolitical boundaries. The Qajar territorial equilibrium, which with the exception of some losses on the periphery continued throughout the nineteenth century, was founded on tangible historical precedence. The frontiers of the “Guarded Domains of Iran” (Mamalik-i Mahrusa-yi Iran), as the country had been defined since Safavid times"
On the other hand, the reference I've mentioned explicitly mentions 'dowlat-e naderiyya' used by Naderian officials in diplomatic documents.
In the source Axworthy talks about the using "Naderid" vs "Afsharid". The citation refers to the name Nader used in his diplomatic documents only, and not even the rulers after him. Your addition lacks context. I've restored the original revision and fixed the wrong page, please reach WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the page number. And to avoid edit warring, I wont revert unless consensus is reached. but it's okay to engage in WP:BRD to start discussing.
First quote doesnt appear to be explicitly mentioning Afsharid State. Second quote doesn't insist a continuity that compromises Afsharid State. Nor they mention the "Guarded Domains" being the official name. Also the first reference mentions the term being used as the official title, while the second one mentions it as a way of definition.
Thus, it still seems like there is huge OR & SYNTH here. The source must directly support the material. I quote from WP:OR page:
'A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.' Krsnaquli (🙏) 14:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. I find it questionable that you saw no issue in adding "Naderid state" despite its clear issues, yet somehow find faults with this. You're clearly trying to indicate that the Afsharids were not part of the continuity, as if they were not the political rulers of Iran. Do you have any WP:RS that supports this? I find it strange that this has to be spelled out by the author. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HistoryofIran, please keep the civility. I'm sure we can resolve this matter calmly without personalizing it. I didn't refuse the Iranian bureaucratic continuity at all. The reason I supported "Naderid State" term was that the term had historical officiality that we can observe precisely on diplomatics. The earlier source mentions that state's own officials use the Naderid State term in diplomatic documents, and I found another reference [1] that shows the state was mentioned as "Naderid State" or "Dowlat-e Naderiyeh" by its own official records.
To summarize: We don't see the term "Naderid State" being directly mentioned as the "official name of the state", which is not the ideal. On the other hand, the term "Guarded Domains of Iran" is neither directly mentioned as the "official name of the state", nor it is mentioned that the "Guarded Domains of Iran" was used by Afsharid State in any official context. In fact, it doesn't even directly mention that it was used by Afsharids in any context at all. This is why I find it more reasonable to introduce "Naderid State" as the official name rather than "Guarded Domains of Iran". yet I am totally flexible to the usage of another name if a reliable source directly mentions given name as the official name of the Afsharid State.
I believe my concerns are quite reasonable. I humbly expect a little bit more of civility and focusing on content, not the contributor. Thanks in advance. Krsnaquli (🙏) 19:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear HistoryofIran, please keep the civility. I'm sure we can resolve this matter calmly without personalizing it.
I'll tell you here as well; refrain from WP:GAMING please.
I didn't refuse the Iranian bureaucratic continuity at all.
What is "bureaucratic" supposed to mean in this context? I didn't mention the word.
The reason I supported "Naderid State" term was that the term had historical officiality that we can observe precisely on diplomatics. The earlier source mentions that state's own officials use the Naderid State term in diplomatic document
You not only added a diplomatic term which was used by the author as an argument against the usage of "Afsharid", you also used a term that was mentioned to have been used under one ruler. You added the term as a official name. There's no way to justify this.
and I found another reference [3] that shows the state was mentioned as "Naderid State" or "Dowlat-e Naderiyeh" by its own official records.
Can you link a quote and page?
On the other hand, the term "Guarded Domains of Iran" is neither directly mentioned as the "official name of the state", nor it is mentioned that the "Guarded Domains of Iran" was used by Afsharid State in any official context. In fact, it doesn't even directly mention that it was used by Afsharids in any context at all. This is why I find it more reasonable to introduce "Naderid State" as the official name rather than "Guarded Domains of Iran". yet I am totally flexible to the usage of another name if a reliable source directly mentions given name as the official name of the Afsharid State.
Please address my comment fully this time; You're clearly trying to indicate that the Afsharids were not part of the continuity, as if they were not the political rulers of Iran, not the rulers between the Safavids and Qajars. Yet Amanat does not mention this once throughout her work, and thus far you have not proven it. It's common in scholarship that they do not spell everything out, but yet still makes it understandable.
I believe my concerns are quite reasonable. I humbly expect a little bit more of civility and focusing on content, not the contributor. Thanks in advance.
Again, please drop the WP:GAMING. Also, I'm getting some major deja vu here. If you have past account (or more even), you need to link it on your userpage. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refusing the "GAMING" accusation, it is factual that references do not explicitly mention "Guarded Domains of Iran" as the official name of the empire, and thus introduction of the Guarded Domains as the officail name is against WP:OR policy. It's literally at the lead section of the policy that sources must directly support the material.
The term Naderid State is not a mere argument against the commonly used "Afsharid State" term. It was the name of the state as it was used by officials in diplomatic documents. Second reference directly mentions the official document, I'll quote it below.
Here are the two primary issues regarding "Guarded Realms of Iran" being used as the official name of the empire:
1- The "Iran: a Modern History" book doesn't even mention that "Guarded Realms of Iran" was used as as an official name. It says that was how the country was defined. Synthesizing it with reference from "Pivot of the Universe" would be WP:SYNTH. A state name might be same with a country name, yet a state established over that country might not use that name.
2- for continuity, I meant the nominal continuity. Even the exact same states might not have a nominal continuity. for example, In Safavids, the name "Guraded Domains of Iran" replaced "Dowlat-e ‘Alliyeh-e Safavieh" per the book "Iran, a Modern History".
Also, the second source that I mentioned also expresses that there was no continuity in statehood. But this isn't an issue regarding this discussion because state continuity does not imply nominal continuity, so its not about state continuity. However, I will still refer to the continuity from the source as you might be interested.
Here are the quotes from the source:
continuity:
"In addition to the dynastic nature of statehood in diplomacy, the territory, as mentioned above, had its own limited area of validity in foreign affairs. Just as the Ottoman, the Safavid, and the Naderid states were parties to international relations, so were the realms of Iran/Ajam and Rum with regard to geography, territory, borders, and subjecthood. In these limited contexts, there was a continuity of the realm, territoriality, and even the abstract notions of crown and throne, in a way that transcended the current dynastic state. But these concepts were used only within the said limits; they did not play a part in statehood or in the constitution of sovereignty. For this very reason, Iran and Rum were never the states that were parties to treaties, accords, diplomacy, or the status quos."
diplomatic officiality:
The actual status was thereby formalized. Thereafter, until Nāder’s death, every reference in diplomatic writings designated the parties as the “Ottoman State” and the “Naderid State,” not as Iran and Rum.
Footnotes (Infos and reference to the historical official documents):
Dawlat Nādiriyya, rather than Dawlat Nādira, was the more frequently used form.
“Dowlat-e Naderiyeh... Dowlat-e Osmāniyeh,... dowlatayn-e ‘aliyyatayn rā mottahed mi dānim,... dusti ve mahabbat dar meyāneh-i do dowlat” (The Naderid State... the Ottoman State,... We consider the two Sublime States as united,... the friendship and the affection between the two states).“
All of the quotes are from the page 5.
So, we can obviously observe that the term "Naderid State" was used in officiality, while we can't see a reference that that says or shows "Guarded Realms of Iran" was used in officiality.
And lastly, I am quite surprised that you accused me with sockpuppetry. Such accusations need evidence and you don't have one. please carefully read WP:AGF. Krsnaquli (🙏) 16:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to make it short, you still think is perfectly fine to put a diplomatic name used under one ruler as an official name. And you still have nothing but your own conjecture to show when attempting to debunk Amanat, who says that the Guarded Domains of Iran was the official name of the country.
And lastly, I am quite surprised that you accused me with sockpuppetry. Such accusations need evidence and you don't have one. please carefully read WP:AGF.
I didn't accuse of you of sockpuppetry. Please carefully read WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. It is not against the rules to have more than one account. And yes, such accusations does need evidence indeed, which is what just led to this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. okay. Krsnaquli (🙏) 21:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no my "own conjecture". There is obviously WP:SYNTH and WP:OR going on here. I have mentioned for like three times that sources can't be synthesized and the material must be directly supported by given sources. Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not combining those two sources, please refer to the first source ("Iran, a Modern History"). You're the one doing the WP:SYNTH here, adding your own conjectures to texts which does not even mention it in order to oppose them, eg;
So, we can obviously observe that the term "Naderid State" was used in officiality, while we can't see a reference that that says or shows "Guarded Realms of Iran" was used in officiality.
for continuity, I meant the nominal continuity. Even the exact same states might not have a nominal continuity. for example, In Safavids, the name "Guraded Domains of Iran" replaced "Dowlat-e ‘Alliyeh-e Safavieh" per the book "Iran, a Modern History". HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No HistoryofIran, It's your assumption that "it doesn't even mention it". I've already refered to usage of "Naderid State", and its definitely mentioned that Dowlat-e Alliyeh-e Safavieh was replaced by "Guarded Domains" in "Iran, a Modern History". I thought you've read that book since you frequently refer to it.
Here's another reference that states Naderid State's officiality:
"In all of these diplomatic and legally binding documents, the Ottomans’ contracting partner was the Naderid State, not Iran." (Naderid Iran’s Statehood, Territoriality, Status, and Diplomatic Capacity on Ottoman Scale: 1723-1748. Page 5) [2]
This reference not only explicity supports legality and diplomaticity of Naderid State name, but also explicitly states that the country was "Naderid State, not Iran" in relevant documents. On the other hand, you have failed to show any reference that explicitly states Afsharid State was called "Guarded Domains of Iran", either legally or non-legally. Instead, you attempted to synthesize two different statements at two different books [3], yet even the synthesis itself is still OR, as neither of the sources mention the Afsharid State.(this is literally like a WP:OR being multiplied with another WP:OR) That's why "Guarded Domains of Iran" is blatantly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH while "Naderid State" is not.
The reference for that "Dowlat-e ‘Alliyeh-e Safavieh" was replaced by "Guarded Domains of Iran":
"Toward the end of ‘Abbas’s reign, references to the Guarded Domains of Iran were used with greater frequency in the Safavid annals as an alternative for the Sublime Safavid State (Dowlat-e ‘Alliyeh-e Safavieh)." (Iran, a Modern History Page 103)
Considering blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the existence of strong evidence that Naderid State was used in legality, best thing to do for you is to withdraw from discussion. Krsnaquli (🙏) 00:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it mentioned that the term "Guarded Domains" first appeared and was formally adopted during Abbas’s reign? And where is it indicated that "Naderid state" was the official designation of Afsharid Iran? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LouisAragon, I didn't claim at all that Guarded Domains first appeared back then, because I don't know if that is the case or not. In fact, Safavid era has nothing to do with our topic, as this discussion is about name of the Afsharid State. For the Naderid State question, you can see at the discussion that legality of "Naderid State" is explicitly mentioned by reliable sources while we totally can't say this about "Guarded Domains", which makes it WP:OR. Please read the whole discussion. Krsnaquli (🙏) 23:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Krsnaquli, I am asking you for the third time to kindly cease this WP:GAMING/WP:CIVILPOV. You are falsely accusing me of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR while ironically doing it yourself. You are even making more stuff about Amanat now. This, especially combined with your behaviour at Sultanate of Rum, is not a good look. In that article you even WP:JDLI the overwhelming amount of WP:RS, so I highly doubt it's going to be different here, where the WP:RS is still not in your favour. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HistoryofIran, I believe my behaviour is aligning with guidelines both in here and at the Sultanate of Rum. In fact, I must say that I'm shocked that after discussing with me here, you claimed me, a Hindu, to be related with a Turkish ultranationalist group.
Could you please elaborate on what am I "making stuff about Amanat"? I referred to everything above. Reliable sources and policies clearly favor "Naderid State". Pointing out WP:SYNTH & WP:OR is not WP:GAMING.
It's almost clear that in this discussion we can't agree on what to do with the article. I will request for third party comment at RfC to resolve this issue. Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Afsharid Iran's official name

For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies? Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

References supporting Guarded Domains of Iran:

"The “Guarded Domains of Iran” (Mamalik-e Mahruseh-e Iran), which became the official title of the country, perhaps as early as the thirteenth century, implied decentralized autonomy and acknowledged diversity of cultures and ethnicities." (Iran: a Modern History Page 9)

"The Qajar territorial equilibrium, which with the exception of some losses on the periphery continued throughout the nineteenth century, was founded on tangible historical precedence. The frontiers of the “Guarded Domains of Iran” (Mamalik-i Mahrusa-yi Iran), as the country had been defined since Safavid times. (Pivot of the Universe Page 13)"

References supporting Naderid State:

"The actual status was thereby formalized. Thereafter, until Nāder’s death, every reference in diplomatic writings designated the parties as the “Ottoman State” and the “Naderid State,” not as Iran and Rum." (Naderid Iran’s Statehood, Territoriality, Status, and Diplomatic Capacity on Ottoman Scale: 1723-1748. Page 5)

"In all of these diplomatic and legally binding documents, the Ottomans’ contracting partner was the Naderid State, not Iran." (Naderid Iran’s Statehood, Territoriality, Status, and Diplomatic Capacity on Ottoman Scale: 1723-1748. Page 5)

"In his own time his officials described his regime in diplomatic documents as ‘dowlat-e naderiyya’, and when this matter was discussed at the Nader Shah Revisited conference in Vienna in December 2016, where there seemed to be an emerging consensus in favour of the term ‘Naderi’ or ‘Naderid’, none of the experts present could recall a contemporary use of the term ‘Afsharid’." (Crisis, Collapse, Militarism and Civil War: The History and Historiography of 18th Century Iran Page 57)

Background:

In the article, first two sources (that are mentioned under "References supporting Guarded Domains of Iran" above) are referred for "Guarded Domains of Iran" being introduced as the official name. The first source states the "Guarded Domains" became official title at thirteenth century, and the Afsharid Empire was established in 1736. The second source indicates Qajars' usage of "Guarded Domains" has been how the country was defined since Safavid times, and it doesn't mention Afsharids, or indicate officiality and nominal continuity. Both references don't mention Afsharid Iran/Afsharid Empire.

Other references state that the term "Naderid State" ("dowlat-e naderiyya'") was used as the legal name especially on diplomatic documents. Yet it refers "Naderid State" term as legal usage, and doesn't explicitly refer as the "official name" of the state. One reference (mentioned under sources supporting "Naderid State") explicitly states that per diplomatical documents, Ottomans' contracting partner was Naderid State, not "Iran".

  • Option A: Guarded Domains of Iran
  • Option B: Naderid State
  • Option C: Other (please specify)

Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option A Per @HistoryofIran's explanation's in his first reply, the quotes are pretty clear in saying that the Guarded domains have been and were the common name since the Safavid period. Afsharid officials only used "Naderid state" in documents. For a similar case, look at the Timurids. In their era the state was officially referred to as "Turan", or "Iran-o-Turan", but by all means they're referred to as the Timurids today. Noorullah (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I believe it's quite clear that "common name" does not indicate officiality. Not only that, but the source does not indicate that the "common name" was used explicitly in Afsharid period. The name might have been used by Safavids yet not been used by Afshars, and Qajars might still have adopted the name that originates from Safavids. The author might have been ignored Afsharid period for they've ruled Iran for a brief amount of time. But even if not, again, "common name" absolutely does not indicate officiality. Usage in official documents does. It's quite a stretch to consider "Guarded Domains" as the official name of Afsharids. Krsnaquli (🙏) 20:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[4]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I expressed is correct. Krsnaquli (🙏) 14:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guess the three users (two up above, one here) must be all wrong then. The three users at Talk:Sultanate of Rum must be wrong too. WP:GF is running out. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even mentioned anything about the Sultanate of Rum. Apart from that, numbers doesn't indicate truth (WP:!). Even if so, a user down below appears to have supported inclusion of both names. But it's almost completely impossible to contribute in Iran-related topics. I'd rather working on other topics in Wikipedia so have fun with that. Krsnaquli (🙏) 14:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

When commenting, please provide sources and policy-based reasoning. Thanks Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) The RFC should be neutrally worded. Also the first sentence in the discussion is making up rules for responses that do not exist.North8000 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also support reasons based on common sense, logic, and even personal knowledge (e.g., if you happen to be able to translate from 18th-century Persian). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I couldn't have been in Wikipedia for a while. Could you please clarify what did you mean by "making up rules for responses that do not exist"?
Also your earlier comment appears to support inclusively inform on both particular names. Am I right? Krsnaquli (🙏) 11:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afsharid_Iran