Talk:Safavid dynasty

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Suggestion

Ali, in the light of EI reference, which you brought above, I think the following version of the first sentence would be an acceptable compromise:

• The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Shia dynasty of mixed Azerbaijani and Kurdish origins, which ruled Iran from 1502 to 1722.

This would fully satisfy the EI reference, because we establish that Safavid dynasty rose in 1501, and it proclaimed to rule Iran in 1502. Atabek 03:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, This is the first line of EI in the entry:"SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722". Then it explains that initialy Azerbaijan in the next line:"The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I [q.v.] (initially ruler of Azerbaijan only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history". More google books have 1501 as the establishment of the dynasty. As a compromise we can either bring the EI quote verbatim or say: "Safavid , a shia dynasty of mixed ancestry (Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Greek) which ruled in Iran as sovereigns from 1501(initially Azerbaijan)/1502(the rest of Iran) to 1722". Else we can have the 1501/1502, as it is now. I don't think the problem of intrepretation will be fixed as I mentioned. SO we can quote a source like EI and make a compromise as I just suggested. The sources on Azerbaijani and Kurdish origin should definitely go in the background section and not two places. Note here:[1][2]. Also another Swietochowski quote should be found instead of: "At the end of 15th century, Azerbaijan became a power base of another native dynasty, the Safavids". There are still lots of Kurds that are native to Azerbaijan. Hopefully this article will be tag free soon due to everyone's effort. thanks--alidoostzadeh 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I made some changes and removed the tag. Note there is some compromises and I retained all information. Just the father-line which is for debate has two sections. If you do not like it, put back the dispute tag. But let me know why also.--alidoostzadeh 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you can't remove the tag until consensus is achieved. I see you moved the sources to origins section. I don't like the idea, as in few edits the reference to Safavids being Azerbaijani will be again removed by someone else, who reads only introduction, and we have to go back to point 0. Also, if you do not mind, in future, please, ask for opinion before archiving the talk page. I use many references that I already brought on talk page, and it makes it inconvenient sometimes to open another window and copy them from there. Also, why did you remove the Cambridge History of Iran quote to Turkish, and not Persian, being the main language of the court. That quote should go back where it was. Please, discuss your changes (that's wait for response for at least 24 hours), otherwise it becomes a one-way communication and thus totally discouraging to edit the article at all. If you want the article to just reflect your point of view, then go ahead and edit it freely, but please, insert a POV/OR tag as it was there, and do not remove it as well as sources without discussion. Regarding Kurds being native to Azerbaijan, the Swietochowski book clearly talks about Azerbaijan and Azeris not about Kurds. Kurds are native to Kurdistan not Azerbaijan, same as Azeris living in Kurdistan are native to Azerbaijan not to Kurdistan. Thanks. Atabek 07:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 1) I didn't remove the cambridge quote. It is there in the section of languages. Language of the court or literature or administation does not have to do with background or else the Tati poetry of the Shaykh can be put in the origin and background. Or the Persian poetry of Shaykh Sadr ad-din and Junyad and etc. So language of the court, adminstration and background are different. Cambridge quote is there in its own section. 2) Kurds are native to Azerbaijan (Shaddadid)(Rawwadid) for example and West Azerbaijan in Iran is at least 50% Kurdish. Or Ardabil in Fotuh Al-Buldan is described to have many Kurdish tribes. Swietochowski remember also said Shirvanshah's are native "Azeri" dynasty. Shirvanshah's were Arabs that were Persianized, so the context is clear. So the book is about Azerbaijan but that does not make the fact that Swietochowski uses the word "native" (which Safavids rose from Azerbaijan) and natives of the land but that is not the same as their "origin". Many sources describe Safavids even as "native Persians" (not just natives of Persia), but the context again is clear. I think you need a more explicit statement from Swietchowski that Safavids were "Azerbaijani Turks" or "Turks" or "Azerbaijani". But saying native of Azerbaijan does not make it so as even Maragheh, Tabriz and many cities of Azerbaijan were not yet "Azeri" speaking before Safavids. We can leave one/two reference in the intro (I just did that since you said people might remove it), but to discuss it in the detail in the intro with dozens of sources is impossible as it has its own section to discuss this point and this will this article will be rid of who is right and who is not, since both views are presented. If you assume good faith, you would notice I also moved the sources on Kurdish from the intro line. Both views are presented in their section. After all, I am giving a compromise here by saying "Azerbaijani and Kurdish". In reality, the book you had said"Azerbaijani or Kurdish"(if we want to be accurate that would be case) and I already explained many times that the male lineage is what defines origin. But nevertheless, I toned it down, removed the word "origin" (put mixed although many dynasties like Ghaznavids, Seljuqids, Abbassids were mixed but had a clear origin) and just described the Kurdish father-line in a section based on the oldest sources. So I think it is more than a fair compromise. And also again I didn' remove any source. I even brought another source along with Cambrdige that Turkish was the language of the court! "According to Professor Michel M. Mazzoui, the court, the language of the rulers and the military language was Azerbaijani Turkish."! So how is that removing sources. So your accusation that I removed it is really not building good will. Indeed if I had bad-will, I would not insert another one about the court and language of the rulers and military! Would I? But that portion does not have to do with origin of the Safavids. Just like the Fahlaviyat (Tati) of the Shaykh Safi is not put in the origin neither is the Persian poetry of his two immediate successors. I can even for example write the Fahlaviyat and their poetry in those sections. But that is just not related to origin. The article currently has no POV (nothing is removed) and it's format will insure that this article will not bias towards one side or another. The only portion of this article that always had problems was if it is Kurdish or Turkish (all 9 archives are about this and it is waste of time to discuss it further since everyone's view is respected but people have their own strong views). Now both views are given clearly. Thanks and please do not associate every edit I make with bad willed action. Note I removed the source of Kurdish origin from the intro (now I put one source back for each) and also I added a source about court, military, and even the primary language of the ruler but moved it in it's appropriate section for the reasons I just cited. If i wanted to be bad willed, I would cquote Togan on how Tahmasp was doing his utmost to hide ..and the other person who said "Safavids of Iranian stocks, and the sources associating them with... are wrong". Thus I am just trying to make the article fair. (Also I do not think opening another window and copying from there is hard! LOL. You can copy the whole thing to microsoft word or emacs or whatever). I archived, because it was getting long and the main point is now to simply have both views presented. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, also thanks for mentioning me on Iranian.com! If you have a problem with me you can e-mail me and we can resolve it. I am not interested in personal issues here. Despite your statements about : "AD removed this", "Shahnameh is that or I can understand why a guy with Shahnameh.."(nothing to do with article to make it personal), "Uzbeks are Iranians"(didn't say that), "Azeris should forget their Turkic roots" (didn't say that).. and many others. I even put "Azerbaijani" Father-line first right now (50th time I am showing good will). The article is fixed and resolved. Both views are presented, and the framework will insure that this article is not tagged anymore. With AT and HP and etc., I am not sure if this article would have been fixed. You claimed the article was POV/OR originally before I touched it recently. I agree, the origin needed to be separated into two sections so that there won't be POV/OR. (This was GM's criticism of Derdoc's changes and HP who wanted 4 sections, but two is all that is needed and we can't minsintrepret sources just because they say "Persian origin".) Nothing right now about the origin is POV/OR. With the current framework it is fixed. Discussins about Safavid origin has been going on with 9 archives and subsequently the article has been tagged for most of the past two years. --alidoostzadeh 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ali would you be so kind to show the link on Iranian.com where I mentioned your name. I never used this website, and don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for putting tags back. It does not matter which fatherline you put first :), I never complained about it being first or last. Thanks for your contributions to the article.

Regarding compromises, I actually compromised too by replacing the word Turkish/Turkic with Azerbaijani, as the former wording seems to cause negative reactions among some contributors. As for your wording, my friend, does not your claim that Ferghana was Iranian at the time of Afshin's birth mean Uzbeks were Iranian? My Shahnameh reference is true, and has nothing to do with you specifically (I never referred to you in this context), but as the reference I added confirms on the relevant page, Shahnameh is a bible of anti-Turkism in Iran, and indirectly, it's the reason why Safavid article has been in conflict and tags for two years. It's the foundation of legendary Turan-Iran conflict, the foundation of difficulty tolerating Turkic identity within Iranian context.

Article will continue being tagged until there is consensus on issues. As you know, I worked towards consensus on previous try with you, which was quickly spoiled, and not by me. So this time, we have to work hard and craft every piece of the article until there is no disagreement or conflict. It can be an ever lasting exercise, so please, don't get frustrated.Atabek 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez Atabek. It is obvious your "Azerbaijani" and "Babek" is the other dude who got arbcommed in Iranian.com BM's article. Cmon man, a 2 year old can figure it out, let alone a 28 year old. I didn't put the tags backs. Uzbeks as an ethnic group were not even defined during the time of Afshin. Look it up. Read the article on Central Asia by Richard Frye in Turco-Iran tradition or what Bosworth says about early Islamic times:"In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, “Turan”). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians.". Also saying Uzbeks were not there at the time of Afshin is not equivalent to saying Uzbeks are Iranians. One is about placing the exact arrival of Uzbeks (and say I made a mistake, this would not make Uzbeks Iranians), the other is ethnic component. If Shahnameh was the bible of "Anti-Turkism" then why are the Seljuqs and Safavids (Turcophones by Ismail I granted) supporting it :)? Either they lacked a nationalist Turkic consciousness or your misintrepreting it. I think it is both. Shahnameh is nationalist but it is not ant-Turkish. It is anti-Turkish/Anti-Arab domination of Iran much like Azerbaijani republicans are not happy with Armenians. So Iran was occupied by Arabs and then Turks after Islam and etc.. The best proof is that the ancestry of Rostam from the mother's side goes back to Zahak and that of Keykhusraw to Afrasiyab. Both are the two most important figures. Also the Turks of Shahnameh are central Asian Turks, not Anatolian/Azeri type (these two ethnic group did not exist at the time) and Azerbaijan is praised as the place of the "great ones" and "free" in Shahnameh. بزرگان و آزادگان . So what did Ferdowsi do? Instead of laying back or shouting slogans or editing wikipedia or wasting his life, , he worked hard for 35 years and made a monument that is still easily read by the average Persian speaker (amazing after 1000 years). As per Azerbaijani, Turkish..we know Safavids were Azerbaijani speaking , that is not a compromise. Turkic/Turkish is a general term, so is the term Iranic. I didn't add the tags, but other users did. What is a compromise is when you have "and" instead of "Or". Anyways I am done with this article and I am going back on my break as long nothing weird happens in wiki. I do not see anything wrong with the article (except the tags). I might check back in a month to see if you and Haji (0.01% chance) made a compromise! --alidoostzadeh 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ali, can you please, provide with a link to Iranian.com. I still have no idea what you're talking about, I never use the username Azerbaijani anywhere, and we know pretty well, it's not my username here either. You can email me in private, if you have concerns. And I assume you assume good faith in this regard. I cannot guarantee who else is watching this article, your or my edits here, so how can you make such conclusions? As for Shahnameh, it's an unrelated subject. Azeri Turks contributed to greater Iran, while Armenians never contributed to Azerbaijani statehood, they had their own. So I don't see how your comparison of anti-Turkish in Iran and anti-Armenian in Azerbaijan is reasonable here. Turkish is not a general term, because you know well that inhabitants of Azerbaijan are referred to in Iran as "Tork", and call themselves as such. I hoped that we can reflect the reality in Wikipedia at least to some extent. Sorry, I didn't notice that the tags were inserted by Tajik. I will leave the article as such as well, except maybe wikify it and some English improvements. I expect in a month first sentence of introduction will be changed to remove the word Azerbaijani :) Talk to you then. Atabek 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It surprises me that you, Atabek, are back at accusing people and writing POV again. To make it clear: I am not Tajik, but you and I know each other from previous conflicts, and I am not surprised that you have not changed at all. You are still the same POV pusher, always assuming bad faith. And your constant accusations and assumtions, that everyone who opposes you is Tajik (see here), proves that you are a disruptive Wikipedian, always assuming bad faith, and always messing up articles. After Tajik was banned, obviously due to wrong accusations as he has explained on his talk page, you have developed some kind of "I am the king of Wikipedia" mentality, and you believe that you can do whatever you want. And now, you have even turned on Iranian.com, writing your POV there, and again accusing other Wikipedians. The funny part is that 90% of your accusations are wrong. 90% of your accusations against other users are wrong, and 90% of your accusations, that everyone in here is Tajik are wrong. I editted the article, because you had removed the reference to Sheikh Safi al-Din's Persian protery. What I did was adding what you had deleted. And then I tagged the article because (a) its accuracy is disputed (b) it contradicts itself and (c) because it contains many spelling and stylistic mistakes. You and Ali are not the only Wikipedians in here, and you are most certainly not the "king of Wikipedia" as you believe. Your consensus with Ali does not mean that others have nothing to say. The problem is that you do not even realize that you claim every article for yourself, and that you believe that you own them. The previous introduction was perfect, because it simply left out any detailed reference to the Safavids' orgin. The origin of the family should be mentioned in a seperate paragraph or article, but it should be left out of the intro, because that causes all problems. You are the one who desperately wants to mention a Turkish origin in the first sentence, and whoever disagrees with you is accused of being Tajik (I wonder if you still have nightmares because of Tajik). And this is really, sad, because your argumentations, especially your recent comments about the Uzbeks, simply proves that you do not have the qualification to write articles like this one. You want to talk about Turks, but you have no idea of Turks. You want to talk about Turks in Central Asia, but you have no knowledge and no qualification. Someone who believes that the Uzbeks (who were members of the Mongol Golden Horde and migrated to Central Asia in the 15th century while fighting back and defeating the Timurids) were living in Ferghana 1200 years ago cannot be taken serious. And your recent writings in Iranian.com further disqualify you. Go ahead and ask the admins for another checkuser file. Prove once again that you are always assuming bad faith, and that you scared of Tajik. This will be the 7th time that you ask for a checkuser file against Tajik, and I will be the 50th or 60th person accused of being Tajik. And you will be proven wrong, like before. Someone should use Tajik's checkuser files against you, proving that you assume bad faith in all cases, and that you have a disruptive behaviour against other Wikipedians, always accusing them of being socks. --84.58.175.216 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Qezelbash vs Shahsavans

It is surprisingly inaccurate that there is no reference to either Qezelbashs or Shahsavans in this article. Qezelbashs were so prominent force who brought Safavid to power. They were weakened later on by Shah Abbas the great, who raised Shahsavans in order to lessen Qezelbash influence on the power he had. Is it because some authors like to portray Safavids as a non-Turkic Persian dynasty??? Hope not. Folks lets be more academic and put things in perspective and according to the academic references. Wikipedia is no place for nationalism. Safavids might have been from Persian origins but the strong presence of Turkic Qezelashs was so decisive bringing Safavids to the power. Shah Ismail himself wrote more Turkic poem than his 50 odd Persian verses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Magi (talk • contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

minor changes

I moved the Frye quote out of the Turkic father line section because it clearly states the opposite. Also, the statement that the Safavids were Azerbaijani is incorrect as Azerbaijani was not an ethnic group at that time, so I moved the sources up to the introduction instead. I also changed the intro to say that they were of Azerbaijani Iranic descent, which is more correct. This article could also use a Persian section.Hajji Piruz 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Frye clearly says that the Azeris were of Iranic origin, this should be mentioned as he is the most prominent source cited for that statement. Also, the Turkic father line section didnt require its own entire section, so I moved it to an "Other section".Hajji Piruz 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the source says that the Safavids are of Azeri Iranic origin. Why is this continuously being changed? Furthermore, a one quote section is ridiculous. The info does not merit its own entire section.Hajji Piruz 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, Richard Frye said Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty, and the quote is available in full on this page. Whether Iranic or Turkic, one fact is true that Safavid dynasty had Azerbaijani origins and that's what's written in introduction. Now if you insist on Iranic, while Frye says Azeri Turks, then Turkic would be also included in introduction. Atabek 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shi'asm and Sunnism

So, let me guess, if I try to take out the demonisation of Shah Ismail for bringing Shi'asm to Iran, taking our words like 'mercilessly' driving Sunnis out and other fun phrases, I'll get in trouble for POV? Who will back me up if I take out these horrible edits? Yes, he made Shi'asm the state religion, and curbed the other branches of Islam, but the words used to describe what he did (it even named off all of Iran's 'great' Sunni scholars) makes the reader certainly think it was horrible he did so. So, once again, can I see a show of hands of who will back me up if I return the religious issue to NPOV? I'm personally Shi'ah, so just in case I am totally biased, I'd like some Sunnis to help me out here too. --Enzuru 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

this article needs to be fixed

The tags have been there too long..Atabek or GM if you have any suggestions on what needs to be done to remove the tag let me know. Of course I might not agree or disagree, but I do not see the reason for the tags right now. I want this issue to be fixed before I take a nice Wiki-break. Merhaba.--alidoostzadeh 03:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tags as there is no good scientific reason for them. I put the Azerbaijani origin in it's own section but maintained one of the sources for the intro while moving the rest to its proper section. Also Swietchowski uses the word "native" for Shirvanshah and Safavid. Native does not mean ethnicity, but just native of the region or else Shirvanshah were not for 100% of Turkic origin. I think the article is balanced and everything is sourced although the Azerbaijani origin needs to be summarized like the Kurdish theory. As long as the article is sourced (specially by top scholars), there should not be any tags. The fatherline issue has exhausted 7-8 archives and in the end the users are simply forced to accept having both views. Both views are present now. --alidoostzadeh 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Paxse, Azerbaijanis are not Iranian peoples, at least majority of them don't either speak Iranian language as native nor consider themselves as such. So, Iranian in this case, refers to nationality/country rather than ethnicity. Thanks. Atabek 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, We had the link Iranian before but I believe it was connected to Iran. Iranian Azerbaijanis for the most part consider themselves Iranian (which means historically and nationality and culturally). We need to get this article fixed up with the tags removed. I am waiting for suggestions. I am not sure why you/GM believe the tag should be here currently. My suggestion is to simply move the ethnicity which seems like a sort of conflict to the origin. That is one suggestion in order to remove the tags that have been here for a while. We have Roger Savory saying:From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigenous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is times claimed(History of Humanity volume 4, UNESCO, pg 259..) and we have another scholar saying:Within a decade the Safavids, though Turkish by race, had taken control of all of Persia.. I think it is better to move the mention of origin into its own section. I would appreciate feedback on how to resolve the tag issues. I asked for feedback a while back but no one responded. --alidoostzadeh 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 11:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, please, provide us with neutral third-party reports, citing "Iranian Azerbaijanis for the most part consider themselves Iranian". I believe the ethnolinguistic background of Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis inhabitting Iranian Azerbaijan and Republic of Azerbaijan is well defined and unique, so that it's distinguished from just Iranian or Turkish. After all, we don't just plainly define French people as Romans or English people as Germanic. I believe Azerbaijani and Kurdish background in introduction well explains the ethnic background mix of Safavids, to the point that we don't have to dispute over this controversial and ever-non-compromising subject any more. And I would prefer if we avoid further additions of Iranian, Persian, Turkish or else to describe Safavids in introduction, suffice it to say that no such state as Persia or Iran existed in 1501 when Safavids rose to power. Thanks. Atabek 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering I have the stronger sources on the background (Savory's statement for example) I think I compromised on Kurdish and Azerbaijani. Indeed it should be Kurdish or Azerbaijani. This was explained before that dynasties are defined by their fatherline. But here I am making compromise. Indeed, most books would use the term Turkmen/Turkic or Kurdish. I am not bothered by those terms Turkmen/Turkic and they would apply to the Qajars. Anyways, as I have explained before, the concept of Iran as a continous geographical/cultural entity has existed since the Sassanid times. Similarly Persia in the West has existed as a contious concept. But furthermore the argument does not apply here, since the Safavid defined an Iranian state and hence by default they are an Iranian dynasty. If you look up in google books "Safavid" "Iranian dynasty" or "Safavid" "Persian dynasty" you will get approximately 100 hits. So since this item is sourced with approximately 100 google books, I do not believe in taking out the word Iranian dynasty. Some of the sources say "Native Persian dynasty" and so I think Iranian dynasty is a good compromise. So it is well sourced and I do not agree on removing it. Also in Shirvanshah, we called the Shirvanshah a " native Azeri state". But the fact is their territory was called Shirvan and they did not encompass all of caucasian Azerbaijan and they were not really "Azeri" in the ethnic sense. So given these facts, I think Iranian dynasty needs to stay. Swietchowski got it wrong on the issue just like he got that Arrani/Shirvani thing somewhat confused. Then again his book is not about Shirvanshah and he is not an ancient historian and has only one line about them in that book. I don't like to source such a trivality about Safavids with 100 google books sources.

As per the other comments on my talk page, maybe I misintrepted what you meant by neutrality. If participating in discussions (note I did not/do not participate in Arm/Az discussions) make me non-neutral than anyone getting involved in those articles will automatically have some sort of POV. But anyways I never said such a thing about Uzbeks. I said they came to Ferghana much later than native Sogdians/Tajiks. Indeed such an ethnic group was formed after the Mongol invasion. I think this point was explained. About Azeris. I think you misunderstood the point. When the majority of Iranian say Iranian, they do not mean Iranic speaking people. The average Iranian does not know what are Iranic languages! They mean by the term part and parcel of Iran which is a supra-ethnic identity. That is if you ask Iranian Azeris if they are Iranians, they would say yes. For example, by comparison if you ask the majority of Basque people if they are Spanish they would say NO. The matter is well-sourced "Azeris are well integrated into Iranian society and have played a major role..." and can be found in different articles. It is not just citizenship, but part of the culture and history as well. So I think you misunderstood what I meant by the term. So I did not mean that they were an Iranic-speaking people. They are a Turkic-speaking people and if "Turkic" means Turkic-speaking than they are Turkic in that sense of the language although language does not equal ethnicity. But what I meant they are Iranian in the common sense of the word. For example I do not consider Ossetes to be Iranian in the common sense of the word. By common sense of the word I mean the way the citizens of Iran use it and not linguists. I think it is better to use Iranic and Iranian as a separate term in the scholarly community. About Azeri's being Iranic or mainly that, Minorsky/Frye support that they were Iranics who became turcophone (Turkic-speaking). I follow the same line of thought. Believing in such a fact/hypothesis does not make me non-neutral since both of these scholars are quoted heavily as neutral sources. Content disagreement on this issue does not mean I am taking side on other issues between two groups involved in arbcomm. Thanks for finally giving feedback on the article and hope to see further feedback so that the tags are removed soon. --alidoostzadeh 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, again, the article Iranian peoples to which the word Iranian was linked to in prior edit, clearly says in introduction: "The Iranian peoples are a collection of ethnic groups defined by their usage of Iranian languages and their descent from ancient Iranian peoples.". Azerbaijanis are not defined by their usage of Iranian languages in first place, and actually descend from a number of various peoples including Iranian, Turkic and Caucasus backgrounds.

Your insistence on Savory as a primary source borders WP:WEIGHT, after all, we also have another authority Richard Frye, using expression "Azeri Turks". There are another dozen references linking Safavids to Turks as well, so let's not get back to ever continuing and resultless discussion. The fact is Safavids were of Azerbaijani and Kurdish background, let's live with it and move on without any further claims.

Finally, Ali, there is a distinct difference between a reality, when absolute majority of what's known as ethnic Azerbaijanis speak Turkic language and consider themselves a unique identity within Iran, Turkey or elsewhere, and in fact, inside Iran, call themselves Turks, and an abstraction trying to trace any line that would link Azeris ethnically to Iranians and unlink them from Turks or vice versa with mostly political aims. Ultimate choice between the reality and this desired abstraction defines and impacts the neutrality or lack thereof. You say, you support certain hypothesis, which is actually WP:POV because there is always an opposing hypothesis. Naturally POV without N means it's not neutral.

No one denies that many Azerbaijanis live in Iran and consider it their homeland, and are Iranians by nationality/citizenship. It does not mean we should claim them "ethnic Iranian peoples" in Wikipedia or reclaim the ethnicity of Safavids based on one person from 3-4 centuries earlier. In modern scholarship that's called revisionism. After all, all humans descended either from ape or from Adam and Eve, let's now dispute which one it was. Thanks. Atabek 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek actually as was said, the ethnicity/origin of a dynasty is through the fatherline. There is no revisionism here. What Frye says actually complements Savory. Since this was the period where turkification intensified. Frye is also not an authority on Safavids. Plus the most ancient biography agrees. I think the article was linked to Iranian people recently. But Iranian dynasty was there before. The issue is not about the ethnicity of the dynasty which has been solved. The link to Iranian dynasty should be to the country Iran (geography) or maybe perhaps not wiki-linked if there is a dispute. But the term has been used by numerous authors and we can not excise it from the article. Basically, the term "iranian dynasty"/"persian dynasty" is well sourced and has cultural/geographic significants. As per Azerbaijani identity, Iranian Azerbaijanis from what I gather have a complementary identity as Iranians and Azerbaijanis. This is not the same as Azerbaijanis and say US or Azerbaijanis and Turkey. It is more than just citizenship as I mentioned. But that issue is not relavent and you can ask Alborz/Pejman/Mardavich and etc. I also do not think Minorsky/Frye have political aims and supporting their theory/fact/hypothesis does not make a persons behavior in Wikipedia non-neutral!. That said, lets discuss the issue with regards to this article. We might not just wiki-link the term Iranian dynasty if we disagree on what it means, but the fact that the term is fully in academic circles is another matter. And it does not conflict with origin either since we are already mentioning Azerbaijani and Kurdish. If you want change Azerbaijani to Turkmen/Turkic and then the concept is clear that it is Iranian dynasty of Turkic/Kurdish origin. --alidoostzadeh 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, this whole discussion of when Turkification started and when it intensified or died down, is absolutely tiring, time-consuming and useless. If you're talking about Safavid era, they already were Turks by the time of rise to the throne, and if you talk about today, Azerbaijanis are completely Turkified and call themselves Turks in Iran. So if you want to go back 12 centuries and discuss or lament ethnic transformation process, well then why not go 5000 or 10000 years back and discuss how Aryans even arrived in what's today called Iran and mixed with local Semitic or Elamite tribes to form what's known as Persian ethnicity. Using such arguments in Safavid or any other history topic is nothing but political, divisive, insulting and carries no other purpose but that of propaganda. What's amazing is that unlike Iranians abroad, inside Iran majority of people, be it Azeri, Kurd or Persian, don't care about such ideologies or inventions. Everyone knows his identity and history pretty well. So as far "a complementary identity as Iranians and Azerbaijanis" goes, Ali, yes, in any country, there is a definition of ethnicity and nationality/citizenship. So Azeri living in Iran is ethnic Azerbaijani of Iranian nationality, that living in Turkey is ethnic Azerbaijani of Turkish nationality, in Russia ethnic Azerbaijani of Russian nationality. And whatever the history books say or wish to call it geographically, the fact is Republic of Azerbaijan is the only independent nation-statehood of Azerbaijani people and identity. Thanks. Atabek 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing the Safavids so I do not want to really delve into the discussions of "Iranians abroad", modern Iran and etc. out of it. Weather an Azerbaijani in Iran is an Iranian of Azerbaijani background or an ethnic Azeri living in Iran or weather a Talysh in Azerbaijani or is not Azerbaijani (since I guess you said the state of Azerbaijan is for Azerbaijani people. I say the state of Iran is for Talysh, Azeris, Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians.. and hence these are Iranian people not necessarily Iranic speaking) but just a citizen or not or etc. is not my concern.

I do find your sentence: What's amazing is that unlike Iranians abroad, inside Iran majority of people, be it Azeri, Kurd or Persian, don't care about such ideologies or inventions. insulting. Please keep the discussion on Safavids. As I said, manny Iranian Azerbaijanis that I know have different views thus I recommend we do not further pursue this discussion and I am not concerned with political issues (I hardly edit political modern day issues). It has nothing to do with Safavids. I believe some of your political comments border personal attacks like saying "Azerbaijanis are not a Iranian people" or "Iranian abroad" are this/that. Where-as correctly I believe Iranian Azerbaijani people are not Iranic (Indo-Iranian) speaking group but they are Iranians and part/parcel of Iranians and also ethnic Azeris and Iran is their state. I have already described my definition. Anyways, we need to be constructive here which means avoidance of non-related issues.

Going back, the main point I brought had to do with ANI and neutrality with regards to another issue. Thus if I believe in the hypothesis/fact mentioned by Frye/Minorsky, it does not make me non-neutral with regards to behavior of users. Thus if I believe that Frye/Minorsky are correct this does not make me a party to one-side or another in Arm/Azer issue. Simple as that. That is the clarification I wanted to make.

Linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan was occuring even during the Safavid era (Golden/Faruq Sumer). For example Awliya Chelebi, the Ottomon traveler says the language of the women in Maragheh is Pahlavi and another author descrives tati as the main language in Shervan and etc. There is nothing ideological going on here. Pir Zehtab Tabrizi and Mama Esmat Tabrizi have tati poems 50-100 years before Safavids. BUT. No one is using such arguments on Safavids. I am not using the linguistic turkification of Azerbaijan in any issue. I am simply quoting top-notch scholars on the origin of the family. The origin of the family has its own section and we already mentioned Kurdish and Azerbaijani. The fact is Safavid traced their lineage to Shaykh Safi ad-din, which dozens of sources have mentioned as Kurd and knew of their clans heritage and knew their background and their founder was Shaykh Safi. The fact is that the Safavids considered themselves ultimately as Seyyeds and Shias when they took power and in terms of ethnicity many times they favored tajik elements over turkic ones. From the present evidence, they didn't have Dede Qorqod but they liked Shahnameh. And finally the fact is that as Wikipedia users, everything should be sourced (even if users disagree then as long as it is heavily sourced there should not be a dispute tag) and not based on ideological or political issues. Mentioning that the Safavid clan became turcophones is a fact mentioned by Safavid scholars. I do not see it as insulting. Issues of modern politics should not be injected into it. But we have already mentioned these facts and it seems we got around that problem. Now there is not issue on "Turkic", Kurdish, Turkification, Safavids and etc. Since that is solved. I have compromised heavily on this. I can for example even cquote Savory on the relevant section:From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigenous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is times claimed or Togan or etc. I also compromised on the word "and" (which is somewhat OR since dynasties are known by their male ancestry but heck no big deal). I have compromised on other issues.

There is only one issue which you mentioned.. This is what we should concentrate on and leave the rest behind!. If you have a problem with "Iranian dynasty" mentioned in the beginning, it is heavily source through independent reliable sources. Not just one or two but dozens. Also the Shirvanshah mixed in with Iranic speaking groups, spoke Persian and considered themselves Persians and descendant of Sassanid kings. But we have the word "Azeri" state since they are in the territory of modern day republic of Azerbaijan. They referred by many of their praises as Kings of Iran (for example Khaghani Shervani/Nezami). But we mentioned "Azeri state" based on one source which has only one/two lines about them and it is a book on modern day Azerbaijan. It is the same with the Safavids except there are easily much more sources and there exists many documents of the kings considering themselves kings of Irans and there exists many google book sources calling them Iranian/Persian (I chose Iranian but both terms are valid geographically..) dynasty. They considered themselves Shahs of Iran and thus an Iranian dynasty. The issue is heavily sourced and thus there is no reason for dispute tags on this issue. So I see no valid reasons for the dispute tag. Again, I am not interested in having discussions on modern politics or identities or even turkification (if it is sourced about Safavid Clan I will simply insert it since it is Safavid related but I am not interested in its philosophical discussion in this article or Iranians abroad and Aryans/Turks) because we might diverge too much and I do not want it to affect the constructive discussions on Safavids. I learned a lot from the discussions here as I am sure you and others have. But I have not learned anything from the modern political discussions, so I might have to ignore any further discussion on modern politics on this entry and I will just discuss Safavid portions. Thanks for engaging int that discussion (even if I disagree with it on modern issues and I am an Iranian abroad Iran..thus lets focus on Safavids. This whole thing started with ANI and I believe I presented my case that I am neutral, and if you disagree, fine and lets move on) and lets try to resolve the issue of tags on this article. We can't have the tags forever and I am consulting with you, but ultimately we can not have a tag for something as simple as "Iranian/Persian dynasty" (not in the ethnic sense and I chose Iranian) mentioned in dozen of reliable sources. And it is of course clear that Iranian dynasty does not denote ethnicity since the same sentence mentions Azerbaijani/Kurdish background which makes it very clear. --alidoostzadeh 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, your bringing of issues of Turkification to article on Safavids yet again is a minor detail of Safavid history. I completely disagree with the fact that origin of Safavids can be defined based on Piruz Shah Zarrin Kolah some 3-4 centuries before Shah Ismail (founder of Safavid dynasty), when father of Ismail, Sheykh Heydar, was already a half-Turk and his mother was half Greek half Turk. Just because only one reference, Savory, with extremely overdue weight given to him says something, we can't make conclusions denying basic identity of the founder of dynasty. As I said, I have no problem with Iranian dynasty or dynasty of Iran, which is what Safavids were. I do, however, have a problem with linking Iranian in this context to "Iranian peoples", when it clearly is a racist statement which has no objective historical ground. Neither Kurds nor Azeris are Iranian peoples, although Kurds do speak Iranian language, they never associate themselves with Iranian world, but consider themselves as a standalone ethnic entity. Let alone Pontic Greeks, which formed another part of Safavid ethnic identity, far from being Iranian peoples also. Finally, regarding your statement above: "your political comments border personal attacks like saying "Azerbaijanis are not a Iranian people" - excuse moi as Azerbaijani (without needless race suffixes or prefixes, like Turkic or Iranic), I believe I have a right to make such statements, don't see how saying that "personally attacks" someone. I absolutely do not consider myself an "Iranian people" (race), neither do majority of my compatriots both north and south of the Araxes river, and I mean those who can freely speak up about their ethnic identity. Azerbaijani is a well defined term within the boundaries of geographic and historical region of Azerbaijan. Please, keep these politics outside of historical article, they do nothing other than fueling further conflict, in place where it's absolutely not needed and not constructive. Indeed, this ethnicity question and denial of basic facts has become so annoying as to completely devastate the focus of this article: History of Safavids. I am sure Shah Ismail would laugh if someone told him that he is of Iranian stock or that he is Aryan and not Turkic. This kind of stuff was not his objective neither as human being nor as ruler of empire. Safavid dynasty had far more importance to history of Iran in terms of its modern religious identity, culture, architecture and literature. It has changed and established a unified Iranian identity of today, so let's stick to that rather than go into lengthy details of who was Turkified, Persianified, Arabified, Kurdified, etc. Most importantly, as I believe you're concerned with also, neutrality, the NPOV is the utmost objective. Thanks. Atabek 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, again 12-14 sources say Kurdish right now (easily more can be found but I think that sufficient for it to be included) and they are all sourced alongside the oldest biography and only pre-Safavid one. It is not Savory only. I said Savory's statement can be cquoted. That will not be undue weight since he has written every single Iranica, Encyclpedia of Islam, and dozens/hundreds of articles and books on Safavids and is the most prolific author and expert on the area and is recognized as such by his peers. So yes he has more weight in the academic circles on the issue. Giving weight to non-Safavid scholars is undue weight. But I compromised here already. Anything sourced by Safavid experts will of course stay. You say:"I completely disagree with the fact that origin of Safavids can be defined based on Piruz Shah Zarrin Kolah some 3-4 centuries before Shah Ismail ". Fine, that is your opinion and I disagree and have given my reasons dozens of time and scholars today define dynasties by their fatherline. You can disagree with the origin and I can disagree with your opinion. But it is all about sources and anything heavily sourced will be put in the article. No more modern politics please, I disagree with you on what it means to be "Azerbaijani", "Iranian", "Kurdish", "Turkic" and etc and I have explained the difference between "Iranic" and "Iranian" but the article is not about it, so it is not my concern. I don't think one person should think that they represent every "az", "ku" or "ir" opinions. I am concerned with what sources say on Safavids. If a source mentions Iranian (Iranic in ethnicity)(and Kurd is defined as an Iranic group by dozens of sources since it is a language group) and Turkmen background, then it can be linked to Iranian people (for example John Perry I believe). But I agree, that is not what the literature means when they say a "Iranian dynasty". Iranian dynasty should either be linked to the country of Iran or just not linked to another wiki article if it causes conflict, but since you don't have a problem with it and since it is heavily sourced, it has been put in the article. The ethnicity of the Safavids is explained on that same line. We have gone over the origin of Safavids dozen-dozens of times and we are not going to reach any sort of compromise. In the end we will have to just accept the fact to insert academicly verifiable sources. If you have no problem with Iranian dynasty then I will remove the tag although there is no valid Wiki basis to have problem with something that tens or close to a hundred sources can be readily found on it from academic books. . --alidoostzadeh 12:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, if you rise up Shah Esmail from the dead and get his opinion, I believe he will identify himself by his fore-fathers and he was aware of Shaykh Safi and Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah.  :) Unfortunately this can not happen, and we will have to leave the article for scholarly opinons on the matter. --alidoostzadeh 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, to make long and exhaustive discussion short, the word Iranian in the introduction should be wikilinked to Iran or Persian Empire and not Iranian disambiguation page. I was just about to say that after that you can remove the tags, when I noticed this [3]. Don't know what User:Tajik wants from this article again, but such major rewrites removing or replacing references, apart from basic sockpuppetry of banned user, are simply not acceptable, counter productive, disruptive and destructive for this already embattled article. Let's keep the tags, until this issue is addressed. After Tajik sock issues and relevant edits are resolved, I believe we can talk about lifting tags. Thanks. Atabek 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And per my comment above, I added POV tags to sections edited by User:Tajik, mainly concentrated on removal of words Azerbaijan and their replacement with native Iranian, etc. Atabek 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also updated section on language. Don't know why the reference on some little known scholar claiming that Shah Ismail adopted Farsi language is put above the reference from Cambridge History of Iran. It's quite clear that Shah Ismail used Azerbaijani as a primary language of court and military, as well as his poetry. And I hope we don't have to go back to this exhaustive dispute. I updated the section to reflect the fact that while court and military language were Azerbaijani, the administrative language is Persian. Atabek 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not Tajik, and I really do not care if you believe it or not. Honestly, your opinion has no value to me, Atabek. Your ideologically motivated nonsense was also noticed by users who have nothing to do with you: [4]. Most of the time, you are busy with reporting others, usually users who are either Iranian or Armenian. I have not removed anything. The section about the Qezelbash was directly copied from the Qizilbash article. The article and the paragraph you want to have restored was written by Tajik (whose ban, by the way, may be lifted since the accusations against him were proved wrong). I removed the parts not necessary in the article:

• the meaning of their name is irrelevant
• the ethnic composition of the Qezelbash is irrelevant

Furthermore, I summarized the information about the Shahsavan. I have no idea why you put the neutrality tag on that paragraph. With all due respect, Atabek: I hope that you get banned from Wikipedia. You are the most disruptive user in all Iran-Armenia-Azerbaijan articles and you are in constant conflict with Iranian and Armenian users.

Same old, a user from the same IP range in Germany again edits Safavid article and again claims he is not Tajik, but then inserts paragraph written by Tajik :). Sure, I expect administrators to take action on this sockpuppetry case which has really gotten off hand pretty much undermining any ArbCom enforcement.

I don't see a point of discussing content changes with a user who is banned by ArbCom from editing, let alone respond to targeting of myself based on ethnicity. Thanks. Atabek 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what you claimed a while ago. Your claim, that Tajik-Professor was Tajik was proved wrong. In fact, Tajik-Professor is now unblocked. You claimed that DerDoc was Tajik and used the same IP range. Checkuser has revealed that DerDoc was editing from Austria, again proving you wrong. And now, you claim that my IP (82.82.128.27;Arcor) is identical to Tajik's (80.171.47.194, HanseNet). Go ahead and ask for another checkuser file. Last time, your friend Dmcdevit showed up and prevented the checkuser file which would have depanted you. If you are so confident, do not hide yourself behind Dmcdevit. I do not care what ethnicity you belong to. It is you who is obsessed with the ethnicity of others, insulting and targeting all users who are either Iranian, Afghan, or Armenian. Once again, you assume bad faith, Atabek, and accuse others of using sockpuppets. Go ahead and launch another checkuser file. Because if you are wrong again, your bad faith attitude will be used against you. Do not forget that any assumption of bad faith may get you reported to admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.128.27 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any checkusers are needed to prove that a contributor from the same IP range, who edits the same article, gets reported 7 times on the same violation, advocates the same user, pushes the POV of the same user is a sockpuppet. And yes, since you mentioned it, the case will be reported for further action until you, as a banned User:Tajik stop disrupting this article. Atabek 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Of couose you think that checkuser is not needed, because it would prove you wrong, Atabek, as it already has on so many occasions. And why does it not surprise me that you have once again contacted the same controversial admin who had banned Tajik without consulting checkuser or any other admin?! The case of Tajik was reported to User:Jimbo Wales and I presonally wrote an email to Thatcher131, but he keeps ignoring the mails, although his accusations against Tajik and Tajik-Professor were proved wrong (Tajik-Professor was unblocked, but Tajik is still blocked!). Tajik was reported 7 times, you were involved in all cases, and all of them proved one thing: that Tajik did not have socks: [5]. And in this article, you are the only one who actually claims that this is "POV". You won't be able to find another Wikipedian with good faith assumtion who would consider that edit "POV". It is only you and your notorious general bad faith assumtion turning this into a new battle ground. A simple comparison with this shows that I was merely modifying a blindly copied text.

please don't remove

Whoever is editing, as long as we do not remove sourced information the article can be fixed. I had made the political legacy section a long time ago. [6]. It didn't have the parenthesis in it and this is the version true to the source mentioned. But I do not mind that extra parenthesis if there is a clarification that is needed although this can be discussed with other parties. So while the version without the parenthesis is true and correct, I do not mind the additional parenthesis. Its up to users to decide that particular case but I don't want to be involved. For ip 99.238.133.62, I changed the link to Iranian in "Iranian Dynasty" but I changed it to Iran. Also the Saffavid did not claim to be Greeks, neither do the scholars have such an idea. They claimed to be from Hijaz as described in a 17th century book and claimed to be Seyyeds. This is discussed extensively. I added a quote from Savory in the political legacy section and renamed political legacy section that I had create to legacy. I reordered the cquotes in the language section. My ordering basis was based on the follows. 1)Toynbee is the most eminent of all the fellows listed. 2) Iranica and Cambridge are both about Iran (editor E. Yarshater), but the Iranica article was newer, so I put that first. 3) Cambridge because of Academic importance. 4) É. Á. Csató book is specialized towards linguistic and is very recent. So very good source. 5) The next two were arbitrary. I won't bother to edit for a week and hopefully the article will be calm again. But please DO NOT edit the article before discussing it or if you do, give a justification like I have. One Ip seems to be from europe but the other one is from Canada. I might be back in a week or so, this article took enough of my time this week. --alidoostzadeh 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags. If different ip's edit the page and remove stuff, then it should simply be locked. Else grammer correction or ip's putting source stuff is not really vandalism. In any case, supposing there is vandalism, it is different than content dispue and it can easily be r.v.'ed and the admin can get involved in such a case. So for now I removed tags and I am taking a break although will keep watch for any serious vandalism in terms of content (like changing Arab to Greek or vice-versa). --alidoostzadeh 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research

User:Tahmasp is adding original research to the article, he should probably discuss his changes on the talk page with references. Thanks. Atabek 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current caption on the map is wrong

The Safavid empire was larger after the Battle of Sis. Look, Sis is all the way in Anatolia. Tourskin 08:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Safavids were Turks!

I cannot believe that Pan-Iranist vandalize all Turks-related articles! Safavids were Turks! They were real Oghuz Turks. These bastard Iranians falsify all articles. Babur, Timurid dynasty, Barlas! Just ban them. All of them! These dirty bastards! -85.176.90.113 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to discuss and provide the references before making edits removing those. The introduction to this article has been discussed for months, and although I concur with you that Safavids were primarily of Turkic identity, their diverse ethnic background is worth mentioning. Moreover, the indication of Azerbaijani identity is essentially inclusive of the primarily Turkic element.

Also per one of the prior edits, the Turkic/Azeri, Kurdish, and Greek elements in the identity of Safavids is referenced elsewhere in the article. If there is a proof of Georgian origin as well, please, provide reference and then include it in the article. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Safavids were neither Kurds nor Georgians or Persians. They were pure Turks, descendants of the great Hsuing-Nu and Kök-Türk Empires. All great Empires in Asia were Turks. Turks were creators of culture and civilization. These bastard and dirty Iranians want to claim all Turkic achievements while they oppress millions of Turks in their dirty country! They even claim that the great Turkish hero Babek was Persian while it is known to every scholar that even their king Bahram Chobin was an ethnic Turk. They even claim Ibn Sina and Mevlana Rumi although they, too, were pure Turks! These bastard Iranians need to be banned! Wikipedia is better off without them. These stinky idiots!