Talk:Shahnameh

Definite article

Apart from the first sentence, this seems to be refered to as "the" Shanameh throughout. Should it be or not? Titles of works usually do not, but old traditional works sometimes do (cf. the Iliad)

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)

Sultan Muhammad Ghazi

The Shahnameh wasn't written for Sultan Muhammad Ghazi, in fact, Ferdowsi started writing the book long before Sultan Ghazi came to throne. Please fix that part. 176.216.189.77 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Change "Zal's son" to "Zāl's son" 77.99.26.246 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done and changed other instances of the name to Zāl. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)