Talk:Ismail II

All the information about the infobox photo is very evidently incorrect.

The style of illustration is the reference for Bidjan's Tarikh-i Djahangusha-yi Khaqan Sahibqiran depiction of Esmaeil I and is just standard for nearly all illustrated manuscripts of Alamara-ye Shah Esmaeil.

Tarikh-i Djahangusha-yi Khaqan Sahibqiran https://www.flickr.com/photos/persianpainting/15274587091/in/album-72157647736180392

Alamara-ye Shah Esmaeil https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Malik_Shah_Rustam_in_the_Presence_of_Shah_Isma%27il%2C_illustrated_folio_from_a_manuscript_of_the_Tarikh-i_%60Alamara-yi_Shah_Isma%60il%2C_Isfahan_%28Iran%29%2C_c._1688.jpg

If one looks at the full page it's normal unrhymed prose from a historical work, not set as poetry at all so even someone who doesn't speak a lick of Persian must have to realize that this can't be Shahnameh and I really wonder how this article passed GA review when a glaring mistake like this concerns the very first information in the Infobox.

Uncropped page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IranianShahIsmail2.jpg

Now, if we do speak a lick of Persian the text literally begins telling us the person depicted undertakes military campaigns in Khuzestan as Shah... Shah Esmaeil I certainly did so in 1508 CE, but Esmaeil II? Well the fifteen months he was in power are pretty much described on this page.

Then there is the second character in the picture the one being made a govenor by our Shah in the picture: Shah Rostam Abbasi.

You know the guy with the big beard he has to shave that looks like this in essentially all Persian miniatures of him and who was confirmed by Esmaeil I...

The file on wikimedia was even correctly renamed by @MVafaee two years ago but no one took notice. That's why the file is literally called:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_Ismayil_I.jpg Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Image

@पाटलिपुत्र: I'd like input on which image best represents Ismail II. If you disagree with using the likely contemporary European depiction, I would propose instead using a coin minted during his lifetime. The current infobox image is a posthumous and imaginative representation. Fróis (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Fróis The portrait of Shah Ismail II from a 1587–1592 chronicle of Safavid history, Kholāsat al-tavārikh, is at least Persian, and not far removed from his lifetime, so I believe it is most likely to be the closest in depiction and style (clothing, attitude, scenery...). It is not anachronistic or culturally insensitive. Knowing he was a son of Tahmasp I and the Turkic Aq Qoyunlu Queen Sultanum Begum, his depiction in the Persian miniature is also quite plausible. This is all much better than an imaginary and unlikely European depiction. We do not use coins in Infoboxes of individuals when possible. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hello, @Fróis, generally in historical pages, we prefer the first image of the person to be as historically accurate as possible. The image you have chosen is an imaginative rendering of Ismail II by European artists and therefore not a faithful depiction of him. Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)