Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 6

Consensus Survey

Some editors are claiming that the current version of the article is actually a "compromise" and based on "consensus". So I suggest that before making major changes to the article, we actually take a survey of the editors here. Are you actually satisfied with the current version of the article?

Dissatisfied

1. --Mardavich 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --Kiumars
3. --Rayis 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
4. --Marmoulak 11:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
5. --Nareklm 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. --Sa.vakilian 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. --Fad (ix) 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
8. --Tājik 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied

Guys, the history of the page shows 3 people voted “satisfied” but withdraw it soon after! What is going on? Kiumars

Can you say who? Apparently some back-door communication is going on, and a certain user is asking others to withdraw their votes in an effort to disrupt the process and game the system. It doesn't really matter, it's been clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of editors here are dissatisfied with the current version of the article, and we're all working toward a workable solution below. --Mardavich 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the history of the page (set view to 500) and look for changes made to “->Satisfied”. Atabek (withdrew his vote), Batabat (deleted his vote), etc …Kiumars

Comments

Mardavich, before just plainly claiming dissatisfaction, you should itemize the list of things that you do not like. Otherwise, it's difficult to decide whether it's satisfactory or not. There are somethings that I believe should have been included and were not, because it's a compromise. Atabek 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First we need a straw poll to establish if there is indeed a "consensus" for the current version as some have been claiming, then we can get into the details and reach a REAL compromise and build REAL consensus upon it. --Mardavich 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No one says that there was a consensus, there was a compromise. It is a different word. We removed any references to ethnic background, our prefered version said that Safavids were Azeri Turks. We compromised that for more neutral wording for the sake of compromise. If you want the article to claim that Safavids were ethnic Iranians, it is not gonna be a compromise. In that case we will start the argument all over again. There are plenty of sources to prove that Safavids were Turks. Grandmaster 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But compromise is a two-way street, you can't force your "compromise" on other editors. Regardless of ethnicity, the Safavids were Iranian, that's a FACT supported by ALL the sources, and it should be reflected in the lead of this article. Also, if we're going to remove all mentions of ethnicity, then the mentioning of Ismael's poetry should be removed, as it's totally irrelevant to this article, and you only added it there as a POV-fork to put emphasis on ethnicity and language. --Mardavich 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But again, the word Iranian has 2 meanings. We can say that Safavids united the historic Iranian lands under the single rule, but if you want to use the word Iranian as a fork to hint at ethnic origins, it is not gonna work. Suggest reasonable wording, and we can discuss it. And it is a fact that Safavid rulers wrote Turkic poetry, like it or not. It is not POV to mention the fact in the relevant section. And if you think that it was easy for us to give up on inclusion of references to Safavids as Turkic dynasty, you are wrong. It is two way street, and we walked our side too. Grandmaster 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, just sit back and read the article with an open mind and highlight any word that you see inappropriate. The fact is that historian researchers are not going to read this article but ordinary people will and they will come back with more changes and even vandalism if the article is biased in any way. Kiumars

I agree. Please explain what exactly is wrong and we should look for the ways to fix it. However, if it's about Iranian/Turk origins issue, I don't think we can resolve that. Even scholars have different opinions. The only way out is to include only the facts everyone agrees on and present all the existing points of view in a neutral manner. Kurdish version is included in the article. Grandmaster 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, the consensus is established by agreement of all parties, so voting is pointless to decide in this case. Yet you were silent when the discussion went on above, and suddenly started disagreeing when some form of agreement was achieved between myself and Ali Doostzadeh with support from Grandmaster, Tajik, AdilBaguirov, Barefact, etc. Based on that agreement, Ali Doostzadeh requested unlocking and updated the page. So I am not sure how long this is going to go on (and I agree here with Kiumars), that every new appearance will decide consensus is not achieved over one or another word, or old agreement is void, and try to remove old referenced edits.

But I think for the sake of stability of this page, we should stick to what we have and move on from that point. Also neutrality tag is absolutely irrelevant here, because the material which you dispute is actually referenced from mostly Iranian or Iran-related Western sources. So you should provide your counter arguments with references not POV. And further edits will be discussed by all of us, and edits will be made as necessary.

I would first suggest reading the article carefully and making notes. It does clearly state that Safavids were Iranian dynasty, except attempts to show it off as Persian (that is read -- Fars) are completely POV and will not be acceptable.Atabek 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your "agreement" is of no value to me. I don't recognize a consensus when there is none, you want a REAL consensus, you have to reach an agreement with all parties involved, not just your friends. You either compromise, or there will be no consensus. This is just a survey, you shouldn't be afraid of a public survey if there was indeed a real consensus among all editors here, but that's not the case, and you know it as well, even many of the people whom you supposedly reached an agreement with, are not happy with the article now, as you effectively disrupted the agreement by adding irrelevant stuff about Ismael's poetry to the article, right after the page was unprotected. --Mardavich 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The info about the poetry was in the culture section for years. Check your facts before making claims. And once again, please explain what exactly is wrong with the current version? Is it wrong because it does not say that Safavids were ethnic Iranians? Yes or no? Grandmaster 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto here, the section on Ismail's poetry was added by Ali Doostzadeh per mutual agreement, not by Grandmaster. Mardavich, you should really look into history of edits before making gross assumptions or claims. Also, "you either compromise, or there will be no consensus" works both ways. So in order to avoid chaos, the compromise is achieved in stages. First the active users come up with compromise, then the newly active users join and try to further the current compromised version. If every new user will edit erasing previous referenced material, it results in chaos. The objective must be not to come back to this page regularly, but to edit and leave it in such shape that it reflects verifiable references as much as possible. Atabek 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The culture section always mentioned the poetry of Shah Ismail. It even mentioned Turkic poetry by Shah Abbas II. I did not add the poetry of Ismail there, I just suggested to remove any reference to it from the section on Shah Ismail and leave it only in the culture section. Grandmaster 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no lengthy POV mention of Ismail's poetry in the top section of the article, before you added it there after the page was unprotected. [1] Also, no one is saying that the Safavids were "ethnic Iranians" because that theory is disputed among scholars, However, all scholars are unanimous about the fact that Safavid were Iranian regardless of ethnicity (ie they called themselves Iranian and their land Iran) and this should be reflected in the lead. --Mardavich 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add it to the top section, I only moved it down to the culture section. It was there before, check again. And how do you propose to mention Safavids as Iranians by nationality without a POV fork for Iranians as ethnicity? I think it is OK to say that they ruled Iran, and united it under the single rule. Grandmaster 09:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You expanded it. [2] Regardless, it should be removed from the founder's section and if it's going to be mentioned in the culture section, it should be a short mention, as it was before you expanded with irrelevant bits that don't belong on this article. As for your question about the lead, this is my proposal: "The Safavid dynasty was a native Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722. The Safavids are best known for establishing Shia Islam as the state religion, uniting Iran's provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Iranian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran." --Mardavich 09:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did expand, but not much. I think his pen name can be mentioned. I was the first who suggested to move it from the founder section to the culture section. You version is in general OK with me. I just don’t understand what Iranian identity is. Is it identity as an Iranian citizen or identity as an Iranian in ethnic sense? And native Shia also sounds strange, as if Sunnis were not native. Maybe we can keep this part: The Safavids are best known for establishing Shia Islam as the state religion and reuniting Iran's provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty (I changed uniting to reuniting). In my opinion, the lead should be very simple and free of controversial claims. All the verifiable info can be included in the main text. Grandmaster 12:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM just for clarification. Iranian identity is not an ethnic identity. It is a superglue national identity. Unfortunately without any disrespect I do not think many people from former USSR will understand since each country is really an ethnic state with an ethnic name (i.e. Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkomanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan..). Because the USSR kept talking about national questions and ethnics and etc.. And that is why in every multi-ethnic corner of USSR there seems to be some sort of active(Abkhazia, Ossetia, Karabagh, Chechnya..) or semi-active quarrel. Iranian identity though has to do with the intersect of commonolities shared by Iranian people: Nowruz, Chaharshanbeh Souri, Yalda,Persian poetry (which at one time was recited from Balkans to India), Islamic religion.. but the most important part of this identity is the sense of a common history which at least from Safavid times, Iranians were under pretty much continous governments. Thus in the Middle-eastern countries Iran is an example of a natural state whereas Iraq for example was created artificially by Europeans. Iranian identity is still very strong as you can see by the number of Iranians from all backgrounds who give preference to Iran over their peculiar ethnic identity. I also thank you and mardavich for discussing any issues of concern. I thought though it was necessary for me to clarify what Iranian identity is. The most important aspect of any identity in my opinion is a shared common history which glues people together. This can only be achieved due to time and presence of some sort of government ruling over a piece of land for a long time. (i.e. Safavid-Afshar-Qajar-Pahlavi-IRI) over a span of about 500 years. --alidoostzadeh 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)--alidoostzadeh 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was such thing as Soviet identity, but it is no more. But still, do you think Safavids cared about national identity? They were a religious group and united Iran under the umbrella of Shia branch of Islam, sometimes forcefully. So for them it was rather religious identity. I think the lead should definitely mention their role in reuniting the Iranian lands and even expanding them, but I would personally prefer factual statements over interpretational ones. Why don’t we keep the intro simple and short? If someone thinks that Safavids reignited Iranian national identity, we can include such an opinion in the article with a relevant quote. Would that be OK? Grandmaster 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster on one hand. They "They were a religious group and united Iran under the umbrella of Shia branch of Islam, sometimes forcefully." On the other hand we should say Safavids established Iran as a one political independent state which hadn't been exited after Islamic conquest of Persia. It wasn't a national identity but it was a cultural identity and Shi'a was main part of it. --Sa.vakilian 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to GM's inquiry. Religious identity is part of the national identity of Iranians. You tend to forget that unlike USSR Iran is not a secular society, it is right now a Shi'i state just like it was during Safavid times! It was a Shi'i state in Qajar times and Zand times. It is partly Shi'i state in Pahlavid times. Also as per ethnic portion of national identity, the Safavids supported Shahnameh big time and the most exquisite Shahnameh is the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp. They also supported national holidays Nowruz, Chaharshanbeh Suri, Tiregan, Yalda. Religious holidays as well: Qadeer, Ashura and etc. Religion is part of culture. Language does not necessarily mean the same sense of common identity. Case in point: Shi'i Arabs vs Sunni Arabs in Iraq. The USSR countries were all secularized so religion and culture were separated. (I am not saying this is good or bad) but it does not hold for Iran. I'll let other users discuss where they want to put the quotes (I do not mind on top or in a section). But my friend, I am sort of suprised you compared this to soviet identity since soviet identity was based on communism! Iranian identity is based on religion and ethnic commonalities and a common shared history. That is why it is strong. A case in point is that the overwhelming majority of Iranian Azerbaijanis and Iranian Armenians respect each other. Soviet identity on the other hand was not enough. I will have more to say about Safavid's contribution to Iranian national identity. But per your suggestion on where to put it, I'll let you and other users decide where to put it since I made an agreement and I am not going to backtrack, but since I can not judge for others (got a grilling by my friend Mardavich and Tajik were not happy with me), I'll let others discuss where to put the material. But Safavid's contribution to the common shared Iranian identity is very real. --alidoostzadeh 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian ref” On the other hand we should say..”; I am afraid Wiki rules do not allow us to do that, we are not here to “say” thing because it will be seen as Original Research! We are here to compile an article from what other people have said! So if some scholars have said that then we can use their comments in the article alongside the opposition views. Kiumars

The problem I had with this article is the problem I had with all historic figures or places which Grandmaster and Adil have contributed in. Here they are.

Naming conventions in any credible encyclopaedia would request that we name historic people and places by the names they were called for the period the article is supposed to cover. First, since it is English Wikipedia, the English name, if there was no English reference, any notable names from the period.

Was there the name Azerbaijan during Safavid era? Was there anything called Iranian Azerbaijan, it should be called the way it was called during Safavit Iran? Which source refer it that way? Was there any mention of ‘Azeri Turkic’ heritage? Kurds were defined for centuries, while it was first written ‘Koordish’, in English, the Turkish speakers were called Turkish speakers, not Azeri Turkic, and there was no such identity yet.

My comparison still stick, we do not call Phrygians as Armenians, only the fact that we need to use the term Turkic after Azeri, is an indication, that Azeri identity alone is a non-viable wording for the period covered. In fact, Adil has posted lengthy answers claiming and even with one user here on Nezami article, about why Armenia was no more than a geographic area, just because for a long time it was not an independent state, while there was at that time, a define identity with a defined language. But the double standard he has shown here is just that, outrageous. Fad (ix) 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ali about the Iranian identity. And Safavids were Iranian Azeris. Shah Ismaill considered himself as "Shah of Iran" and no Iranian in that era considered them “invaders” (Like Mongols or Arabs). They are also the favorite dynasty in all of the official history books for the history after the Islamic conquest of Iran (before and after the Islamic revolution.) I even remember in the last year riots of Iranian Azerbaijan, governor of Ardabil for cooling the situation called Azeris as “sons of Shah ismaill” “that will never be separated from Iran.” Even the green part of the current flag of Iran is from Safavids. And after Tahmasab I, they even used the lion and the sun on their flag . But of course they were Azeri or Turks and spoke with each other and with their army in Azeri, but they were Iranian and considered themselves and was considered as Iranian, as most of the today Iranian Azeri consider themselves firstly Iranian.

I propose to mention them in the lead as “Iranian” or “Iranian Turks” or “Iranian Azeris” (all of these tags is OK with me.)--Pejman47 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while you use the word Azeri insteed of Turk, you consider the term as something Iranian. While when Azeris contributors use the term, they consider it as a defined people. They were Turkish speaking, and true Iranian, so 'Iranian Turks' will be more appopriate there. Fad (ix) 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s quite a contradiction; you claim Azeri Turks is OK, but not Iranian Turks. Iranica does not use any standards on naming conventions. Britannica does use one. Safavit is a historical period, covering it requires to name things by the name they were called during the period. This was the reason of my analogy; we do not call Phrygians, Armenians. Do you have any historic sources with the term ‘Azeri Turk’? No, but we do have historic sources with the term Turk, we do have the name of many Turkish tribes, those would be relevant to cite, but there is no question that ‘Azeri Turk’ is an identity having appeared after Safavit era. The best term would be to say: “Turkish speaking Iranians” or something such. Fad (ix) 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There’s no such ethnicity as Iranian Turk. We cannot invent terms. On the other hand, if such authoritative sources as Iranica use the terms Azeri/Azeri Turks in historical perspective, I see no reason why we should not. It is better than original research. Grandmaster 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't mind adding the stuff about Iranian identity as long as it is sourced. I think we can create a section called "Legacy" and add the opinions of scholars about the impact of Safavids on the history of Iran and neighboring countries. What do you guys think? Grandmaster 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked, there's already a section called "Political legacy", and all that stuff is already there. I think that should be OK. Grandmaster 06:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, I agree but I also think the article currently lacks a good introduction and does not really inform the audience of the situation under which the regime was created. As for the Iranian Identity of the Safavids, it is already established and is consensus amongst the contemporary scholars (See Why is Safavid history important? (in the External Links). Most of the research carried out on the Safavids is in the last 50-60 years; and they all have agreed with Kasravi that Safavids were Iranian Kurds. Kiumars

So what in your opinion it should be like? Make your proposal, please. Grandmaster 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Iranian/Turk origin, we extensively discussed it, and there are plenty of sources that consider Safavids ethnic Turks, and Kurdish origin is considered just one of the versions. Note that Iranica article says:

The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified. Their eponymous ancestor, Safi-al-Din (1252-1334), was a disciple of Shaikh Zahed of Gilan, a Sunnite Sufi pir or spiritual leader. Safi-al-Din succeeded his pir and settled in Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan, and founded the Safavid Order. He was buried there, and his tomb and the citybecame a place of pilgrimage for his devotees. In the course of time and under the leadership of Safi-al-Din's descendents, the order became a militant Shiite one, with golat or extremist features, receiving support from Turkish and Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, such as the Shamlu, Ostajlu, Takallu, D¨u'l-Qadr, Qajar, and Afshar tribes, who had strong devotional ties to the heads of the Order. [3]

It does not claim Kurdish origin as fact, neither should we. Clearly, the origins of Safavids are obscure, and we should present all the existing versions in a neutral manner. Grandmaster 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GM; Roger M. SAVORY in his article of 1995 says “Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan.” As this article is 15 years newer it can be based on further findings that were not available to him at the time in 1980. This is from the same guy! Kiumars

Hailing from Persian Kurdistan is not equal to being ethnic Kurd. For example, Garry Kasparov hails from Azerbaijan republic, which does not mean that he is an ethnic Azeri. It is quite possible that there is a consensus on where they hailed from, however ethnic origins of the dynasty are still considered to be obscure. And the above article is from online edition of Iranica, and is dated May 2, 2006. It is not that old. Grandmaster 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GM your comparison is really not valid. Persian mountainous Kurdistan is not some sort of metropolis like Baku or Moscrow during the USSR era or New York city now. You need to also take this statement with the consideration of what Roger Savory said in Iranica about Ebn Bazzaz and thus he means that the Shaykh was Kurdish origin. Plus the fact that the oldest pre-Safavid manuscripts directly mention Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah as a Kurd whereas later on during Safavid era all sorts of things were made up (Sassanid, Seyyed, Turk..) as Kurds were mainly allied with Ottomans and that would be damaging for Safavid dynasty. That is why manuscripts of safwat as-safa were altered. These manuscripts is the only thing we have from pre-Safavid era. I do not think Savory is contradicting Frye. Frye also gives reference to Yarshater's article on pre-Turkic Azeri language. All these references seem coherent. Another reason your Gary Kasprov argument is weak is because Gary Kasprov is not Azeri name. Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah fits a nice Kurdish name. If you look at the geonology of the Shaykh all the names in his ancestry are either Arabic or Persian. Anyways we put some scholars as some people wanted. We have also put Turkic speaking. I think if we say something about Iranian national identity in the begining and the Safavid's contribution, Mardavich will be happy (Of course if he is not he will speak his position, but that is what I believe the current diasgreement is and I am trying to help out). And perhaps the poem from Shah Esmail considering himself equivalent to the heroes of the Shahnameh when he declared himself King..I Am fereydun, I am Zahak. --alidoostzadeh 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Terms to be agreed on to resolve the dispute/disagreements:

• Guys, may I suggest we stick to a couple of editing protocols that can make it easier to follow what is going on! The indentation system does not work and after a few posts and leaves a very limited width left for the text; may I suggest we also address the post we are addressing/answering by adding the signature of the post at the beginning of our posts; like: Kiumars 20:17, 9 February 2007; I do not agree with you; xyz ? Kiumars

• Ok, the first thing we need to agree on is a term used to refer to the population of Iran in Englih (because this is an English article); we have two obvious choices Iranians and Persians.

Persia has long been used by the West to describe the nation of Iran, its people, and its ancient empires. It derives from the ancient Greek name for Iran's maritime province, called Fars in the modern Persian language, Pars in Middle Persian and Pārsā in Old Persian, a word meaning "above reproach". Persis is the Hellenized form of Pars, and through the Latinized word Persia, the other European nations came to use this word for the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia

Persia may refer to the following: • Persia was the international name for Iran until 1935. (See also: Iran naming dispute.) • The Persian Empire of ancient and medieval times. • Greater Iran or the Iranian plateau • Persia can refer to a specific region within Iran, more commonly known as Fārs Province, from which the Persians originally came. Also known by the name Pars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia_%28disambiguation%29

Iranians may refer to: • the inhabitants and/or citizens of the country of Iran, see Demographics of Iran • speakers of Iranian languages, see Iranian peoples • a number of ancient peoples and tribes, who spoke Iranian languages, see Ancient Iranian peoples

What should we use? Kiumars

In my opinion, it is better to use the term “Iranian”, as it includes all the people of Iran regardless of ethnicity. However, this term should be used as a denomination for nationality, and not ethnicity, because not all Iranian citizens are ethnic Iranians. Grandmaster 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM there is no such a thing as ethnic Iranians! Is there? But I am happy with that and that is the term we use in Iran too; so we will call the collective people of Iran as Iranian/Iranians; ok?

can we also agree on the name of the languages; so we call the language Farsi/Parsi (not Persian; because it can complicate the issue further down the line!). Any objection? Kiumars

I'm not sure about that, I think some users may object to that, because in English Farsi is known as Persian. Grandmaster 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, how about adding these terms to the beginning of the article so that people who read it know what the terms are, if we use Persian to call the language; soon we confuse things again. Alternatively we may agree on using Persian-Language (all the time). Don’t you agree? Kiumars

We have to use Persian as the official language, besides that, we should use Persia. This is referring to nationality rather than ethnicity here and thats what we have to remember. I don't really see a reason to use Iranian in here unless referring to those that speak the Iranian languages --Rayis 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rayis, the problem is that Persian is also the English word for referring to the ethnicity of the Pars/Fars people! If you are born in the Pars province you are a Persian! So we will end up confusing the words again. Kiumars

I realise that but that is the correct term to use, and I am sure the correct use in the right context would not confuse the reader, i.e. They spoke the Persian language. The Persian empire. I guess the only problem is distinguishing the Persian nationals and the Persian ethnic group - even then I think it would make sense in the right sentence. --Rayis 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• We also need to agree on Azeri / Azeri Turkic / Turkic to refer to language and ethnicity. Any idea? Kiumars

I don't mind the use of any of the above terms, I just think that Azeri Turk might be better term to distinguish Azeris from other Turkic people. Grandmaster 12:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? is the term Azeri generally indistinguishable from other Turkic groups? Thats like saying Indo-European Persians --Rayis 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rayis; most Iranians call the language that Azeris speak in Iran as “Turkey Azeri” and I think that is equivalent to Azeri-Turkic (in English); don’t you agree? Am i wrong? Kiumars

Kiumars, I don't see what Iranians call Azeris in Iran has anything to do with this article on this encyclopedia. Most Iranians also say other things about "Turks" in Iran, that doesn't mean this encyclopedia should include it. See WP:NPOV --Rayis 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM; Shall we use Azeri for ethnicity and Azeri-Turkic for the language? Because all Turkic languages have something in common today but as we know people who speak those languages have different ethnicity and Genetic makeups; as we discussed before on the Azerbaijani People; do you agree? Kiumars

As I said before, I’m OK with any of these terms. The one who objected to the use of the word Azeri was User:Fadix, you should direct your questions to him. Grandmaster 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM when we agree on the terms and framework; I suggest we send a message to all those who have contributed to this article and ask their views; but right now we need to agree on the terms and framework of the article for proposal. Do you agree with this approach? Kiumars

It is OK with me, but if we are gonna invite any new people, there will be no end to this. We will have to start all over every time someone joins the discussion. Grandmaster 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM I am sure new people will see the article and will have their own views and may want to contribute or vandalise; but if we do a good and balanced job I am sure it will encourage people to contribute rather than vandalise. We all will stand behind the article and defend it at the same time that we keep our ears open to any valid points or criticism. Kiumars

GM is correct that at any time in future, there will be a user who comes in and starts making edits to the article whether we like it or not, we have compromise or not. This is a general problem with Wikipedia, which requires constant attention of people to a certain set of pages. I think the only solution is to reference every sentence to a scholarly article (with page no.), so that it becomes difficult to remove references material.

Regarding language issue, if the word Turk is causing nervous reaction, I believe the best thing would be using Azerbaijani language with appropriate link to the page that explains the essense of the language. I have to note though, that major literature experts of Safavid period, such as Minorsky, call it Azerbaijani Turkish. One thing for sure, saying that Persian was the language of Safavids would simply be a forgery on a large scale, as the main language of communication of the dynasty founder and several successors was Azerbaijani as reflected in current text. Atabek 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think only the word Turk, Seljuk etc. should be used, Azeri Turkic, Azeri Turk are all modern words and notions which did not exist during Safavid Iran. Fad (ix) 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I think that is a good idea and can reduce unnecessary confusions but can we find sources that actually use those terms? Let’s not forget that we can not invent things, we can only compile an article from currently available sources. Kiumars

Kiumars, Fadix has obviously not read the references from Frye and Minorsky (both experts on Iranian history and literature respectively), which became the original matter of discussion. Frye's original quote: "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid Dynasty" became the subject of heated debate right above on this talk page. Minorsky calls Ismail's language as Azerbaijani Turkish (exactly as spelled) and actually published his entire Azerbaijani divan with translation in his article "The Poetry of Ismail" which is cited above several times. So actually not Azerbaijani but Turk part of the statement was being debated all through this Talk page. And we agreed that Ismail's heritage will be spelled as partially Azeri Turkic, Kurdish and Pontic Greek (as all three are proven in different sources, such as Savory, Frye and Minorsky). Before proceeding or trying to come up with newer compromises, I suggest reviewing the wealth of references already provided on this Talk page. Thanks. Atabek 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 15:33, 8 February 2007, I think we are progressing pretty well. I have no doubts that we will come across words like Azerbaijani Turkish or many other names that all refer to the same language or entity and are more or less interchangeable but I think using the most neutral one/form can help preventing future arguments.

Now can I suggest that we agree on using this article for the Safavids dynasty and try not to put too much information for the individuals (unless it is absolutely necessary) in this article? We can make an article for each king or individual (if they already do not exist) and link them into this article. The fact is that Safavid dynasty produced so many personalities from Kings to scientists and artist that if we get into the details this will be the longest article on wiki by far. Shall we stick to what the dynasty did for Iran and discuss the general topics like politic, economy, religion, arts, science, etc? Kiumars

Kuimars, I think that's a good idea. Let's divide the article intro four temporal sections:

1. Foundation and reign of Ismail (1501 - 1524)

2. Period from 1524 - 1687

3. The glorious reign of Shah Abbas the Great

4. Decline of Safavids

Atabek 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: in case of the Safavids, it does not matter whether they were Turkic-, German-, Arabic-, or Spanish-speaking. What matters - and this is the CORE of the entire subject in here - that they acted in the name of unique Shia PERSIAN identity, and that they represented (and still represent) a unique "Iranianness" and "Persianness" that differentiates them from their surrounding enemies. The rule of the Persian Safavids in Persia was the reason for the independent establishment of Non-Persian (=Turkic) languages in surrounding areas. The Safavids - as the Persian rulers of Persia - supported Persian Shiism, while the Turkic-speakers - in both Anatolia and Central Asia - saw themselvs as defenders of Sunniism (with the only exception being the Mughals). Until the foundation of the Persian Safavid kingdom, the Persian language was the sole vernacular of both Central Asia and Anatolia (as evident from the Persian divans of the Timurid and Ottoman rulers). After the Safavid rule, the Persian identity became strictly attached to Shia Islam, and the surrounding Sunni kingdoms - most of all the Ottomans - Turkified their kingdoms (or at least tried to do so) in oder to alienate their history and origin from the now Persian pagans.

Ismail Safavid was of mixed origin - Azeri (both Turkic and Iranic), Kurdish, Greek, and Persian. His descendants were also of mixed origins, each prince and princess being born to another woman of the Safavid harem: Albanian, Turkic, Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, Indian, Georgian, etc etc etc.

The only thing that makes the Safavid dynasty so unique (and so important for history of the region) is that they reignited the Persian identity and the historical Iranianness and Persianness of the region - in absolute contrast to Ottoman Anatolia and Timurid Central Asia. And honestly, I have NO IDEA why the "Turkic fraction" in this discussion does not want to accept this fact.

You come up with all kinds of sources from Iranica, while you ignore the MAIN articles that are FOCUSED on the Safavids (your sources are mainly from other articles where the Safavids are mentioned in side-comments; they are not the main subject of the articles):

• "... The establishment of the Safavid state in 1501, like the Arab conquest of Iran in the 7th century, and the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, marks a turning point in the history of Iran. First, the whole of the area historically considered as constituting the heartlands of Iran, was reunited under the rule of a Persian king for the first time since the Arab conquest and islamicization of Iran. For most of the eight and half centuries that followed that conquest, Iran was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans. The only exception was what Minorsky called the "Iranian intermezzo", the period from 945-1055 A.D., when a dynasty of Persian origin, the Buyids, exercised authority over a large part of Iran. ..." [4]

Encyclopaedia Iranica (in the article Esma'il Safawi):

• "... The reign of Esmā'il is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055). ... When the Safavids came to power, they rested their authority inter alia on the divine right of kings traditionally claimed by Persian monarchs. ... Although his son Sām Mīrzā as well as some later authors assert that Esmā'il composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived ..." [5]

And this is what the Encyclopaedia of Islam says:

• "... In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [...] For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..." [6]

The article is POV as long as this FACT is not mentioned.

And, btw: I really do not know why you always speak of "consensus" and "compromise" ... So far, I have not seen ANY. All I have seen is you and Atabek summing up your favousite sources and ignoring the rest. When Iranica says that the Safavids were "Persians" (and this is what the MAIN article about Shah Ismail says!) you reject the source as "POV". But when an another article - not even related to the Safavids - comments some Turkic Azeri origins of the Safavids in a side note, you all jump on it and proclaim it as the "official opinion of Iranica".

@ Atabek: in my comment regarding Richard Frye and Roger Savory, I compared these two scholars (both Iranologists) to Bernard Lewis who is not a specialist on Iran's history. He is an expert on Arabic and Ottoman history, and besides that, he is a controversial person, also known for his extreme anti-Persian stand (the reason why he has not contributed a single article to Iran-related articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam!). But in a direct comparison of Frye to Savory - in regard of the Sfavids - then Roger M. Savory is DEFFINITLY the better choice, and his articles are AUTHORITITATIVE and SUPERIOR to those of Frye. Frye is specialized on Iran's (better: Central Asia's) pre-Islamic history (see his own autobiography in Greater Iran!). He is NOT an expert on Safavid history, especially not if compared to Roger M. Savory and Vladimir Minorsky, the two most important personalities on Safavid history. AnYONE who has studied Iranology (or Oriental studies) knows this. In fact, this is the great weakness of Wikipedia: it's not about the opinion of experts, but about that opinion of the masses. Any wannabe-scholar and wannabe-expert (as you can see in this discussion) claims to have knowledge of the subject, while 90% of the contributers do not even have the basic knowldge about the authors and sources they propagate. Just let me tell you one thing:

writing an article for the EI or EIR is one of the greatest honors for an orientalist. The authors do not ask for permission - they are CHOSEN by an assembly of known scholars and experts (in case of Iranica, the authors are chosen by giants such as E. Yarshater and N. Sims-Williams). And there is a very good reason for the fact that the assembly of scholars have chosen Roger M. Savory and NOT Richard Frye or Bernard Lewsi to write the article about the Safavids. This already says a lot about Savory, and about his status in Safavid studies. If you have problems to accept the authoritative works of Roger M. Savory - the most important scholar on Safavid history - then it's your problem and should not be a problem of Wikipedia.

• "... The Safavid empire was one of the major political and social formations in the early modern world, but has attracted relatively little attention from historians, although this is changing. As a result, the study of Safavid institutions has long been characterized by an over reliance on Minorsky’s excellent translation of the Tadhkirat al-Moluk (published in 1943) in the same way that scholars have overused Savory’s translation of Iskander Beg Monshi’s History of Shah Abbas the Great and his articles on Safavid government. ..." [7]

As you can see, Minorsky and - especially Savory - are THE leading scholars on Safavid history, and their works are the most authoritative sources available - whether you like or not. Their works are still the base of all modern Safavid studies - and Wikipedia should stick to that instead of trying some odd experiments with non-names and side comments in articles that have not really much to do with the Safavids.

Tājik 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 21:07, 9 February 2007; although I agree with you in general I need to remind you of the rules of Wiki (set by a moron!). What you are asking for here involves analysis and choosing between x & Y; which is seen as OR here and Wiki does not allow that! So, we have two options; either not participate in the game or play within the frameworks of the rules. In my opinion the best thing we can do here (under these rules) is to present all views and let people go and find the truth for themselves in the right place/source! Kiumars

Wikipedia allows everyone to edit article. But the MAIN purpose of this web-project is to create a reliable and good encyclopedia for free. By now, Wikipedia is being used by students arround the world for their school projects. The German Wikipedia has become one of the best reference-sources about medicine! We HAVE TO stick to scholarly sources, and we HAVE TO reflect the general consensus among scholars. And the gerenal consensus is that the Safavid family was a Sufi order from (Iranian) Azarbaijan, which - despite having adopted a Turkic language some time between the 14th and 16th centuries - propagated the ancient Iranian traditions of their Non-Turkic past and thus united Persia under a single Persian identity, for the first time after the Arabic conquest (leaving aside the Buyyid and Samanid dynasties). I do not understand why some people in here persist on the Turkic language of the Safavids, totally ignoring the well-known and (well-sourced) fact that they had NO Turkic identity and actively promoted the Iranian identity and culture of the region - the traditions of their own past. As Ali has shown below, even Ismail - claimed by some as a "Turk" - considered himself as inheritor of the Iranian epic. It does not matter what language the Safavid princes and rulers spoke "at home" - what matters is that the Safavid dynasty marked a change in Iran's history: for the first time after the Arabic-Islamic conquest, a dynasty of native Iranian origin came to power and revived and changed the identity of the Persians - to an extent that surrounding Empires, themselvs highly Persianate, started to alienate themselvs from this new Persian identity - which had been their own culture and identity for centuries. This is what makes the Safavids so unique and so important in the history of the Islamic world. The Mughals of India were first speakers of a Mongolian dialect, then became Turcophone, and - by the time of Shah Akbar - Persophone. At the end of the dynasty (until today), they had become Urdu-speaking. It's not the language the defines the existance of the Mughal Empire and its importance in the history of India. It's the fact that the Mughals - considering themselvs as the rightful successors of Genghis Khan and Timur (thus the name "Mughal" = "Mongol") - defended and propagated the Central Asian and Islamic identity of their ancestors - until today! Bahādur Šāh Zafar wrote poetry in Urdu, while his ancestors wrote poems and songs in Persian and Chaghatay. While Babur spoke Chaghatay-Turkic, his descendants did not even understand that language. His grand-son Akbar had to translate the Baburnama into Persian in order to study the life of his grand-father. What I am trying to say is that - back then - the language was NOT the definition of "identity" and "ethnic origin" (and that's EXACTLY what Minorsky is trying to explain by saying that Ismail's language was not his "race"!). The Safavids ruled as Persian kings - despite being of Kurdish origin and speaking a Turkic language. They did not propagate a Kurdih identity or an Azeri Turkic identity - they considered themselvs Shia saints first and then "Persian nationalists". They not only revived the lost Persian identity of the region, but also expanded this identity into Mughal India and Central Asia (see Farsiwan and Hazara!) Tājik 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, sufficient evidence is provided to the Turkic and Kurdish origins of Ismail. So, there is no basis for disputing already referenced information. We have already clarified that his language was Azerbaijani Turkic (Savory, Minorksy and Frye), that his mother was half-Turkic, his grandfather married also Akkoyunlu. As Ali Doostzadeh reinsisted over and over, Sheykh Safi's origin is believed to be Kurdish. So, with lack of any evidence that Ismail ever considered himself a "Persian nationalist", there is no ground to prove anything. Did he build unified Iran - yes, did he contribute to establishment of the great Iran - yes, was he Persian (ethnic or linguistic) nationalist - clearly no. If you want to say Iran is a conglomerate of people and cultures that inhabit it, I agree. If you want to insist that Iran is Persian domain, I don't. So, you may continue disputing but the strong argument based on Savory, Minorsky and Frye is that Shah Ismail was Shah of Iran with Turkic language and mixed Turkic, Greek, and Kurdish origins. Moreover, his deep descendant Shah Abbas II also wrote poems in Azeri Turkic under a pen-name of Tani. Most of the state bureaucratic titles even under Shah Abbas were Turkic, influence of Qizilbash remained for the most period of Safavi reign.

Also, Ali's endless references to Shahnameh vis-a-vis Safavi do not hold any water. Poets like Ferdowsi carried global significance, the same way as Arab-insipired Islamic religion had 1 billion followers. It does not mean they're all Arabs. If we have today Mohammad or Ali, it does not mean that person is Arab. Same way, the reference to Shahnameh does not indicate an origin. Thanks. Atabek 02:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. Actually religion and mythology are very when it comes to their inherent universality. Major Religion are a universal phenomenon (Christianity , Islam, Buddhism) that is meant for all mankind. Mythology is peculiar to its own culture and is a local phenomenon. For example Hindu mythology, Iranian-Persian mythology (Shahnameh which is based on Pahlavi which itself is based on Avesta), Greek mythology, Chinese mythology, Arabian mythology, Turkic mythology, Mayan Mythology, Japanese Mythology, Nordic mythology and thus mythology is organic part of the culture and any ancient civilizations has its own mythology. Even less studied cultures (no insults intended here) like the bushmen of Africa and aborigines of Australia have their own mythology. For example Turkic/Mongolian mythology has the grey wolf symbol. By adopting a mythology of a group people as your own , you are indeed culturally absorbing their values and heritage since myths reflect values and insights that are a product of a culture. Note for example this site which reflects Azerbaijani republican nationalist: First of all, it was based on a foreign tale[8] considers the story of Kaveh and Zahak in the Shahnameh as a foreign myth. Also it considers the story of KurOghlu as fighting against Persian domination (which by that they really mean Shah Abbas the Great). I do not consider that site to be scientific but it does represent a viewpoint (perhaps majority) of what the average citizen in the republic of Azerbaijan's preception is on KurOghlu and Shahnameh. I am not too familiar with the KurOghlu myth, but some websites with a pro-Turkic viewpoint are saying that KurOghlu was against Shah Abbas's extensive Persianization campaign. Of course if Azerbaijani's are Turkic people (not Turkic speaking as I have argued many times) then that is true that Shahnameh would constitute foreign myth with this regards. Unfortunately a small group of pan-turkist nationalists in Iran make the worst comments about Shahnameh and totally abhor it, which is most unfortunate. But they are also showing that they consider Shahnameh as foreign to their Turkichood. This was more aggressive with pan-turkist nationalism in Turkey and there are many anti-Shahnameh statements in that era. Not going off on a tanget, Dede Qorqod is Turkish mythology or at least folklore and it is totally independent of Shahnameh. Note Shahnameh was widely distributed and supported by Safavids and thus from this case of viewpoint, they were spreading Persian culture as a result. Despite my insitence of Shaykh Safi ad-din's background (Shafi'ite and Kurd), we just put some and I did not care and I think that is okay from my viewpoint. As per the point of Tajik and Safavid and Persian culture, there is a new book: Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian empire (2006) which I am reading. Note the title of the book. With regards to this book, the author tries to conevy that Tajik element in Safavids had much more influence than Savory gives them account. The author mentions that the Safavid domain's cultural discourse in Persian and mentions the importance of the Tajik court element in running everyday affair. I think we agreed on Ismail's mixed background (which is a fact anyways) and also we mentioned that some scholars consider Shaykh safi a Kurd..which is a weak statement but nevertheless not important. What I notice is that users who are not happy have different diasgreements. With regards to Fadix's disagreement, I must say I find the term Azerbaijani more scientific. The term Turk is used for anyone that speaks a Turkic language from Uighyurs and Kazakhs and Yakuts to Anatolian Turkic speakers. It is a very general term. Also another issue with this term I have is that Azerbaijani's have been Turkified in speech (much like Mexicans have adopted Spanish) from my viewpoint. With regards to the term Persian and Iranian. These two were equivalent in Western discourse, but I support the term Iranian although clearly the other one is used (rebirth of Persian empire as as a title of a new book). Thus Azerbaijani Turkic speakers or Iranian Turkic speakers is fine, but just because the term Azerbaijani has been applied in the last 100-200 years does not make it unscientific. This is with regards to Fadix's comment. With regards to Mardavich's comment, I am not going to get involved since he was not too happy with me but his suggestion seems to be that there should be stronger statement on the first line about Safavid's rejunevation of Iranian nationhood and also puting Esmail's Azeri poetry legacy in the last portion. I think what Atabek said about unified Iran is good. I think this sentence can be worked out. With regards to Tajik's comment, I believe we can incorporate Safavid's cultural contribution to Persian in the cultural legacy section. I hope these separate issues are worked out. --alidoostzadeh 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tajik, are we discussing Kurdish/Persian vs Turkic origin again? I think it is pretty obvious that the sources do not agree on the issue. Kurdish origin is considered as possible by scholarly community, however is not claimed as a fact. So I think any claims that Safavids were the only dynasty of Persian origin are not valid. There are different views on the issue. I already quoted Iranica which said that the only ethnic Iranian dynasty after Buyids were Zands, here’s another quote:

The Zands were an Iranian people, and their decades of dominance were one of the few periods, between the arrival of the Saljūqs and the twentieth century, during which effective political power was exercised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian".

David Morgan. Medieval Persia, 1040-1797 (History of the Near East) ISBN: 0582493242

I think we should concentrate on discussion of concrete suggested edits, rather than general topics. What is being proposed for inclusion now? Grandmaster 05:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavid Sufi order should not be forgotten, it's a crucial part of the dynasty's philosophy and history, if anything, it should be expanded. --Mardavich 07:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 01:32, 10 February 2007; again I agree with you in principle but as an Iranian I have problem with statements like “Safavids ruled as Persian kings” & “they considered themselves Persian nationalists"; these sentences do not make any sense in Farsi and no Iranian scholar would write “Safavi-ha khodeshan-ra Pars medatestand”. These are English translations and western concepts; an Iranian would never say in Farsi (or Azeri or Kurdish or any other Iranian language) that Safavid ruled as Persian Kings, what they would say is “Safavid ruled as Iranian Kings”. To the westerners Persians means Iranians but to the people of the area Persian means Pars-ha. I am an Iranian-Kurd (and exactly in that order; i.e. Iranian first and Kurd second), I am not Pars therefore I am not Persian but I am Iranian. These sentences mean totally different things to me (and all ethnic groups of Iran and the people of the area) and that is why I started this topic to use English words that correspond with the Farsi words. I have been educated and lived in the west almost half of my life; and I know when an Englishman says Persia he means Iran but despite that I still show resentment to statement like “Safavids were Persians” and correct it to “Safavids were Iranians”; and I am sure every ethnic group in Iran (including Azeris and even Pars-ha themselves) would react the someway. Let’s use English words that correspond closely to the words used in the area (Iran and the neighboring countries) and reduce the misunderstanding and confusions. I am sure our western friends here on the Wiki are intelligent enough to appreciate that Iran means Persia after all this is not a new concept to many of them; anyone who if familiar with Britannia knows that Scots, Welsh and English are all British (and are very proud of that) but at the same time Scots and Welsh resent being called English; and this is exactly the case when people insist on calling Iranian Kurds and Azeris as Persians; they are not Persians they are Iranians. I hope I made it clear this time. Kiumars

Tājik 21:07, 9 February 2007; Wiki is a very good source of information on science and engineering based articles (and other topics that are science based and can be examined and even tested and experimented) but it is a lousy place when it comes to humanities and history! I personally do not trust any of these articles and only use Wiki as a starting point to find good sources. As you said yourself anybody can edit the articles and you never know what you are reading is the vandalized version or not (even if you go thru all archived discussions!). Kiumars

Atabek 10:12, 9 February 2007; I did not disagree with Fadix on the fact that the word Azeri Turk is a new concept and did not exist at the time of Safavids and I find it strange that a historian uses a term that did not exist at the time of the event to refer to the people of the time. If I was going to write a history book the first thing I would try to get right would be the names! Imagine someone referring to the Aryans who migrated to Iran (centuries before the Persian dynasty was established) as Persians! There was not such a thing as Persians at the time! However for the sake of this article we are stuck with these names and must do the best we can to make them as clear as possible.

With regard to Ismail’s heritage makeup; actually it is very misleading if we simply list Azeri, Kurdish and Greek because these did not have equal shares! The only Greek connection is via his grandmother (whose genetic makeup is under question itself!) and his mother (who would be at best half Greek half Iranian genetic-wise); so genetic-wise he was only 25% Greek (at most); I am going to find his Kurdish & Azeri genetic makeup when I find some time. Kiumars

It is true that Ismail was 25% Greek (not at most but was). But his mother remained a christian which makes it sort of significant. Very strange that he mass converted people to Shi'i Islam but did not convert his mother. That is one riddle that I can not figure out satisfactorily. --alidoostzadeh 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

alidoostzadeh 16:00, 10 February 2007; Would you kill your own mother for a religion that you invented yourself to fight your enemies with it? That is why he did not do it either. They used the religion to unite people against the Arabs and Turks, as for why they chose Shia and not Christianity; the answer is clear, firstly; it would unite all Muslims of the world against them to start a Jihad with them, secondly; Shia was an anti-Arab movement already, thirdly; it is easier for people to shift inside their religion marginally than converting to a new religion which would have caused massive protests, fourthly; Christianity is a relatively passive religion compared to Islam and he need people to die for the cause. Just my thoughts! Kiumars 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: no, we are NOT discussing the ethnic origin again (really, Grandmaster, I wish you had the ability to read). We are talking about the IMPORTANCE and HISTORICAL MEANING of the Safavid dynasty. I do not know why you are so much concentrating on the Zand family. The Zands were not Persians either, they were Lurs. And even IF the Safavids had not been a native Iranian dynasty of native Iranian origin (which they were - as mentioned by Minorsky, Savory, AND Frye) - then still the Zands would not have been the "first ethnic Iranians after the Arab conquest", because the Afghan Empire of the Hotaki dynasty - the ones who brought the Safavid Empire to an end - were also "ethnic Iranians" (see Pashtun people). So, in anyway, your claim is wrong.

I have made my points clear, and I provided them with the most authoritative sources possible. That the Turkic fraction does not accept scholarly sources is nothing new. I do not accept ANY version that does not mention the historical importance of the Safavid family in the sense that they were indeed the first native Iranian dynasty after the Arab conquest that united the region under a new and unique Persian identity. It does not matter whether they were Chinese, Mongols, Africans, or Germans ... what matters is that they revived the ancient Persian identity and traditions of the regions - that of their own past.

@ Kiumars: the correct term in this case is "Persian" and not "Iranian". First of all, "Persian" is the general term applied to the Persian Empires of the pre-modern history of the region. Secondly, the Safavid kings did indeed rule as "Persian kings". The concent of an "ethnic Persian people" is a new phenomenon of the modern age. While Kurds, Pashtuns, and some minor Iranian peoples may be considered as "seperate ethnic groups", the Persian-speakers are a large heterogenious group of different backgrounds. So, there really isn't a "Persian ethnic group", but the Persian language is generally a unifying factor for a whole bunch of diffenet peoples and it has always been a symbol of the entire Iranian cultural continent. That's why the language is also known as Dari - the language of kings. And that'S also exactly why the Safavids were a PERSIAN dynasty that revived the PERSIAN identity of PERSIA and united all its different peoples under a single PERSIAN national identity - they had NO interest in any Turkish origin or history. As for the question of "Iran vs. Persia", the term "Iran" is problematic because it only focuses on the modern Islamic Republic Iran, while the Safavids ruled a much larger region, including entire Azerbaijan, most of Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and Iraq - a region that his historically known as "Persia" in Western sources!

Tājik 12:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 12:52, 10 February 2007; have you ever been to Iran? To Kurdish, Azeri, Turkmen, Laki, Luri, etc etc speaking areas whose native speakers are more than the total native Farsi speaking population of Iran? Kermanshahi Kurdi is the closest language to Farsi amongst all this languages and let me tell you that my grand parents could not speak Farsi despite the fact that they were amongst the educated people of their time. They had a radio but hardly used it! I studied in Tabriz University and you will be surprised to know that the vast majority of Azeri students in the university could not speak Farsi properly, let alone the ordinary people on the street and the villagers and tribes in all the areas I mentioned above. I worked in different parts of Iran where the vast majority of people cannot speak Farsi properly even these days! If you set the Farsi language as the most important glue that bonded Iranians together for several thousand years you will be making a big big big mistake. Kiumars

Kiumars, I have lived in Afghanistan (where I was born) and in Iran, and I can tell you from my own experience that in both countries, the Persian language is the language of the majority, the lingua franca of government and media, and by far the most important language. As referenced in all major sources (including Iranica), Persian is the language of up to 60% of the Iran's population, and it is one of the major unifying factors of the country. It does not matter whether in some parts of the country people know Persian or not. As in case of Afghanistan, the people of Kandahar and Jalalabad hardly speak any Persian. But it is still the language of the population of Kabul, and of Western-, Northern-, and Central Afghanistan. The same goes to Iran: while people in Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and the Zagros region may speak other languages, the language of the major cities (including Tehran) and the rest of the country is Persian. Nothing has changed in the past 500 years. And ALL rulers of Iran - whether they were ethnic Persians, Mongols, Turks, Lurs, Afghans, or whatever propagated this identity and culture. So did the rulers of Afghanistan, almost all of them being ethnic Pashtuns and native Pashto-speakers. Hamid Karzai, for example, is a Pashtuns (Zalmay Khalilzad, America's new ambassador to the UN, is also Pashtun), but he uses Persian in almost all of his speeches and he speaks Persian to a native level (that means that you and I won't be able to hear any "strange accent").

Turkic languages, Kurdish languages, Pashto dialects, etc are all tribal and regional languages that do not have the same historical importance as Persian. They have always been attached to a single ethnic group. Persian, on the other hand, is a real international language that does not belong to any particular ethnic group. Althou Iran's Persian-speakers are more than 60% of the population, only a small portion of them is actually of original Persian descent (maybe less than 10%). After the Arab conquest, Persian became a mark of pride for every Non-Arab Iranian - especially in Central Asia, where Persian replaced the native tongues. All the so-called "Persian scientists" of the Middle Ages were actually Non-Persians by ethnicity and belonged to a related Iranian ethnic group: al-Biruni, al-Khwarezmi, Ibn Sina, even Ferdousi - they all were Non-Persians by ethnicity, most of them were either Khwarezmians, Sogdians, or Bactrians. al-Biruni even composed an entire work in his own mother-tongue Khwarezmi, which was much closer to today's Pashto than to modern Persian. Yet, almost ALL of his works were in Persian, and he openly identified himself with that identity. When Ferdousi, who was a native of Khorasan and probably spoke a dialect that was akin to modern Nishapuri or Herati (totally different from modern Tehrani Persian; listen to Herat's Khorassani dialect [9][10]), wrote Persias epic history in the "language of the kings" - in pure Dari Persian, all of Persia - from Kurdistan to Kabulistan - began to identify itself with his work. And when 500 years later, the Safavids came to power, they propagated the very same identity. Tājik 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik I think you are mistaking Persian of 2500 with Persian of post-Sassanid era. Biruni, Khwarazami are also Persian, but their dialect was different than Dari-Persian. Ferdowsi and Ibn Sina though where from Tus and Balkh. The modern Persian-Dari is the Khorani dialect of Pahlavi with influence from Soghdian and Parthian. Gilbert Lazard has a good article on this and I believe he is probably going to write the Iranica article about this. Interestingly enough, the poet Qatran says: The bolbol sings sometimes in Persian and sometimes in Dari. Thus he is calling his dialect as Persian and the Khorasani Persian as Dari. Also in Iran about 95%+ understand Persian right now. Interesingly enough a recent manuscript by the name of Safina Tabrizi shows that the people of Tabriz during the Ilkhanid era spoke a peculiar Persian dialect that was different from Dari and of course it was not Turkish either. The dialect is called Fahlavi(Pahlavi=middle Persian) in the book. Thus the word Persian actually encompasses various related Iranic groups. That is why Biruni also mentions that the people of Khwarazm are a branch of the Persians. Anyways back to the Safavids, you are right that while they were of mixed origin, they supported the Persian language as a cultural medium. The new book I just mentioned gives a lot of example for this. --alidoostzadeh 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with User:doostzadeh. I have read the ideas of at least two Tajik scholars who believed in the same way.Sangak 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I find it fascinating how you're trying to attach everything Iranian to Persian, as if something is proven to be Turkish-speaking in the past, it's almost an insult to Iranianness. My question is why? Ali, you're an intelligent person, as I believe. "Anyways back to the Safavids, you are right that while they were of mixed origin, they supported the Persian language as a cultural medium." You know this is not true, as many cultural monuments (Ali Qapu for example), state nobility titles, and language of communication of Safavis was Turkic. But even if the language was Japanese, I don't understand the hostility towards the fact that it was Turkic. So what? Your writings seem to have a single objective, if something carries the word Turk it cannot be Iranian. Why all this fuss and diatribes over proving someone known to be Turkic to every historian, cited as such, when it's clear that the word Qizilbash has nothing to do with Persian, when it's clear that founder of Safavis wrote in nothing other than Turkic, we try to find 44 lines and claim he was Persian based on those :). What is all this Azeris spoke in Dari/Farsi/Kurdish, but it wasn't Turkish :) OK, Ali, American Indians spoke Iroquis or else, and today they speak English. And your point is, they should not be American :) To be honest, this kind of attitude contributes to nothing but to division of Iran as a conglomerate of various peoples. Because you gentlemen are artificially creating the division between Turk and Persian, and try to exhaustion to prove that even if first had a molecule of the second, he/she must be only second :) Atabek 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I never said the Safavids did not support Turkish and indeed Turkish titles were prevalent. Also Turkish was spoken in their courts as well as Persian. Even in some era Turkish might have been heared more than Persian. All these points I agreed. But what I said is that the cultural discourse of the empire was mainly Persian. Also some Turkish words entered Persian even like those state nobility times. But when you sum it up, just check for example the amount of Persian and amount of Turkic manuscripts produced during all of the Safavid era. The latter for whatever reason comes out much heavier. No one said the Ghezelbash were not Turkic speakers either. But with regards to cultural discourse, the Ghezelbash were not the cultural pillar of the empire. They were the military pillar. And when they wrote something, for example the Ghezelbash historian rumlu, they wrote it in Persian. Also Esmail I has some Persian poetry but few examples are left. I do not think historians are unanimous with regards to Esmail I (Minorsky for example) and obviously he was of mixed origin but Azeri Turkic speaking (which the article reflects). That part is clear. I think these points we agreed upon. About Shaykh Safi ad-din we also agreed upon that area and the 44 lines of Tati is not mentioned in this article. So if I say that the cultural discourse was mainly in Persian it is an opinion based on a recent book I am reading as well the observation with regards to the amount of manuscripts produced in the era and also the nature of Safavid's Ghezelbash supporters who were military men. --alidoostzadeh 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 11:32, 11 February 2007; I agree with you; as a matter of fact you just repeated what I said in my previous posts here on this topic. Iran in its long history always been a very mixed country ethnic-wise and when we look at the history of Iran we see how it expanded and shrank in size many times. The elite who ruled Iran (what ever their ethnic background or genetic makeup) called themselves Iranians (not Esfahani, or Shirazy or Samarghandy or Azeri or Kurd) and that has always been a cleaver strategy because if they called themselves anything but Iranian they would have lost the support of the other ethic groups; resulting in internal wars and division of the country. Iran as the collection of people who lived, worked and contributed to the society that was ruled by an administration (government) spanned from China to Europe and Africa and central Asia in the history. One important aspect of these governments (or central administration) was that they did not see or treat the conquered lands and their people as outsiders; they merged and mixed with them and improved their living standards, wellbeing, security, education, arts, etc (unlike other empires who burned cities and massacred the conquered people). If you look at those countries that were conquered by Iran during its long history you will see that when they eventually separated from Iran they were left in far better shape than when the were attached to Iran. And those periods are probably the best periods they had in their history.

Having read Tajik’s response I understand his objection to using “Iranians” instead of “Persians” in this article. Being an Afghan he would like to be associated with a long gone empire rather than a live and kicking nation on his neighborhood. British advocated that thinking in all countries under their control, it is better to make people think that past is past and gone and cut all ties amongst people. Russia did the same in the central Asian countries they took from Iran. Now Americans are doing it! We have seen the barrage of books and articles and conferences telling us how different we are! If we are really so different why bother to tell us? Didn’t we know it if we were so different? The fact is that the prospect of some kind of unity among these people is a huge danger to the western and eastern interests (i.e. cheap natural resources, etc). And maybe that is why we see people like Brenda Shaffer suddenly become “Kasse Dagh-tar as aash” and tells us how close we are to some groups and how distant we are from another group living 5 km further! This is a story we all know well, so I stop bragging about it.

As for Ali, I must admit I don’t really understand his stand on the issue, some of his posts confuses me! Kiumars 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I do not have a stance right now. I am trying to find out what the main conflicts are. I believe Mardavich wanted something about rejuvenation of the Iranian nation in the first line as the Safavid's most important legacy. With this regard I believe the matter is being discussed. Tajik's section I believe fits into the cultural legacy. We have already agreed upon Shaykh Safi and the founder part (I believe). I think re-archiving would probably be the best way to go to start fresh with matters of disagreement. --alidoostzadeh 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Kiumars: your idea of "Iranian masterhood in history" is nonsense. The modern nation "Iran" - with its current borders - was created in the 19th century and is - just like Afghanistan - a direct successor to the Afsharid kingdom. While in Iran the Turkic nobles continued their rule, the Pashtuns of Afghanistan managed to create their own kingdom which at its birth was the second largest Islamic empire after the Ottomans. The Safavids are a part of the history of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Iraq as they are part of the history of Iran. And that is exactly why I am trying to avoid the term "Iran" by replacing it with the more neutral term "Persian" which - in the English language - is associated with the Persian Empires of the past and not with the Persian ethnicity (whatever that might be!).

@ Atabek: I have presented all of my sources (which - unlike yours - are the most authoritative available, whether you like it or not). You stubbornly reject these sources, and honsetly, I do not see any attampts from your side signalizing the willingness for a compromise.

@ Ali: there are many things about the new article which I do not like. I have no idea why the person of Ismail is discribed in detail. And I have no idea why people want to mention his different backgrounds and his mother-tongue, while not mentioning anything about his importance in Iran's history (he was a 12-years-old military genious who almost brought the mighty Ottoman Empire to its knees, and he was the first person after centuries who revived a unique Persian identity - in total contrast to the Turkic, Mongol and Arab neighbours in the region). And I have no idea why the section about Ismaiul is not integrated into the "Origins" sections. I also have no idea why the various references I had put into the article were removed by User:Grandmaster and replaced withn unsourced POV (usually, this is considered vandalism!). I have summed up reliable sources from Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, but these are being constantly rejected and ignored. And then, the very same people speak of "consensus" and "comprimise". WHICH compromise?! As for the "Qizilbash": the Qizilbash are a unique phenomenon of Iranian culture and have - in the cultural sense - nothing to do with Turks and Arabs. In fact, the very existance of the "Qizilbash" proves the native Iranain origin of the Safavids and the entire now Turkic-speaking tribes of Azerbaijan. The Ṣurxjāmegān movement can be traced back to the time of the Parthian and Sassanian kings. They were known as Mazdakis in pre-Islamic times, as Xurrāmīyah in the early Islamic preiod, and as Qizilbash during the Ottoman domination in the area (the Turkish word Kizilbaş is just the translation of the Persian Ṣurxjāmegān!) - and in their almost 2000 years of history, they have ALWAYS been associated with a unique Persian nationalism, either attached to Zoroastrism or Shiism (again, both religious teachings are strictly linked to Persian identity and nationalism). This phenomenon was extensively analyzed by the great Turkish scholar A. Gölpinarli, one of the main authors of Safavid- and Kizilbash-related articles in both Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam! As Frederick William Hasluck put it, the term Kizilbash "has been associated from the beginning with both Persian nationality and Persian Shi'a religion" ("Christianity and Islam Under the Sultans", -Ed. By Margaret M. Hasluck, Oxford 1929, vol: 1, pp. 140/158-159).

All of these sources and facts are being ignored ... THAT is my problem with this article!

Tājik 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, with respect to your statement:

I have presented all of my sources (which - unlike yours - are the most authoritative available, whether you like it or not). You stubbornly reject these sources, and honsetly, I do not see any attampts from your side signalizing the willingness for a compromise.

My sources were Minorsky and Frye, as well as Savory to some extent, and most beloved Encyclopedia Iranica, which you vehemently reject saying Frye was right in one case, and wrong in the other, Minorsky is wrong altogether for publishing the whole divan of Ismail in Azeri Turkic. I have got to tell you that if your compromise version is to remove every word Turk from Safavi article, and just say Ismail and all Safavis were Persians (Fars), we have a long way to go :). There are other things that you can build Persian nationalist pride upon, such as Zands or Sassanis or even old Persians, such as Achaemenids, but definitely not on Safavis or Qajars as both were majorly Turkic dynasties. Atabek 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 18:16, 11 February 2007; you cannot brush centuries and centuries of excellence under carpet by statement like “the idea of Iranian masterhood in history is nonsense “; how many civilizations can you name that had such achievements and positive impacts in the world on such huge number of people? I am not taking credit for what Iranians did in the history; as a matter of fact I am amongst those who believe that we should not take credit for what our fathers did but for what we have done ourselves, So tell me what have you done yourself?

گیرم پدر تو بود فاضل, از فضل پدر تو را چه حاصل Kiumars 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, "Iran" is NOT the same as "Iran". There is a big difference between the modern nation called "Iran" and the historical empires known as "Iran". Only because the modern nation Iran has inherited the name, it does not make Iran the "only true inheritor" of the past achievements. Do you know that there are attempts to change the name of Afghanistan to Khorasan?! Just inform yourself about Latif Pedram and other political activists in Afghanistan who support that idea. Assuming that the name-change really happens, would that mean that historical characters, such as Ferdousi, Abu Muslim, Jami, Rumi, Ibn Sina, etc - all known as "Khorassani" in historical sources - had nothing to do with Iran, and that only "Khorasan" (Afghanistan) should take credit?!

You are deffinitly confusing the terms "Iran" (modern nation-state), "Iran" (local name of the ancient Persian Empires), "Persian" (historical name of the region in Western languages) and "Persian" (modern term attributed to speakers of the Persian language) ... this is also the mistake Atabek, Grandmaster, and all the rest of the Turkish fraction make.

Ahmad Shah Abdali, the founder of Afghanistan, was a bodyguard and personal friend of Nadir Shah. His Empire - that of the Durrani dynasty - was a dierct successor of the Afsharid dynasty and considered itself the ture heir to the Iranian throne. He was the one who received the Koh-i-Noor after Nadir's death, not the rulers of "Iran". For decades, the Shahs of Afghanistan ruled as "Shahs of Iran" and "Shahs of Khorasan" - the name Afghanistan was imposed on the region by the British 100 years later (see Origins of the name Afghan). And Afghanistan is only one example. Tājik 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 21:07, 11 February 2007; as I said before Iran does not belong to the current population of Iran only, Iran belongs to all those who were part of it and contributed to its glory for centuries. The fact that Afghans want to rename their country to Khorasan is an honor for every Iranian and it shows how close we are (as I said in my previous post), family members are reuniting again soon hopefully; looking forward to that day. We have many things that gel us and very little to separate us.

I don’t care what the foreigners call us, if you ask any person from Chinomachine to Eastern Europe (Ukraine and Romani) where Iran is they all will show you its location on the map (and know its kings by name) but over 90% would not even know what Persia is. Iran is Iran, it has always been Iran and hopefully will stay Iran with the help of all of us. Iran will never die, it is in our blood; Iran is not just a country on the map, it is the pride of every nation that was part of it and contributed to it and made it the Iran we all know. I went to an Indian shop in London a few weeks ago, the shopkeepers were speaking in Farsi to each other, I wanted to know if they knew what it was so I asked them what language they were speaking and they said “Farsi”, they did not say “Persian”. They even cursed the British for trying to change their language! That is why I resent calling Iran and Farsi by any other names. Iran is unique, Iran is Iran; it is not made by British or Americans or Russians, it is made by you and me. (by the way all the examples and cases you mentioned about Afghanistan support my statements!) Kiumars 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, the Iranian origin of Kizilbash is just speculation of some people. It is common knowledge that Kizilbash were 7 Turkic tribes. There might have been some minor non-Turkic fractions among them, but they were very insignificant. And their ideology was Shia Islam, and definitely not Persian nationalism. And I would like to see where any unsourced info was included in the article. And Persian nationalism is definitely POV, Safavids were Turkic speakers and promoted Shia branch of Islam, and not nationalism of any sort. When you claim that something was not included, you fail to mention that sources conflict and if one of your sources claims that Safavids were first native Iranian dynasty in 1000 years, I have another 2 that say that first ethnic Iranian dynasty during that period were Zands. It is better to not include such controversial statements in the article, because then we have to include those who say otherwise. Grandmaster 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Britannica article on Kizilbash:

Kizilbash – Turkish Kizilbas (“Red Head”), any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736) in Iran. The name was given to them by Sunnite Turks and was applied later to the followers of a Shi'ite sect in eastern Asia Minor. It also was given in Afghanistan to the Persian-speaking Turkmens, who settled in Kabul and other cities from about 1737 and engaged in government service and trade. [11]

I don't want to start a dispute on Kizilbash here, but my point is that if someone links Kizilbash to pre-Islamic movements, it does not mean that it is true and there are no other views on this issue. I have more sources to support what Britannica says. Grandmaster 08:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Terms to be agreed on to resolve the dispute/disagreements (Part2):

• 1: The opening Paragraph.

Guys, my original Text was very neutral, adding “The Safavid empire originated from Ardabil”, or thing like that, makes it difficult because then we have to mention all other places that the ancestors of Ismail came from! Let’s not forget that Sheikh Safi al-Din died 170 years before Ismail was even born and there must have been at least 8-10 generations between them, each could be a mixture of different ethnicity!

Those who have objections to the following text as the opening paragraph for the article raise their voice and concern please.

The Safavids are considered the greatest Iranian Empire, since the Arab conquest of Iran some eight hundred years earlier. The Safavid empire originated in Iranian Azerbaijan in northern Iran; reunited Iranians; established Shiite as the official religion in Iran; and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722 (though several rulers were nominally reigning until 1736). Kiumars 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the dynasty, not empire, therefore it should start something like:

The Safavids (1501-1722) were a dynasty that created the greatest Iranian Empire since the Arab conquest of Iran. Grandmaster 13:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM; Safavid dynasty page is redirected from Safavid Empire! BTW the dynasty would not worth mentioning if it was not for the fact that they became empire! Do we need two articles? Do we have two articles for other empires? How can we separate the articles without overlapping them? I have no objection to it, I am just asking. Also, if it is about dynasty why not also mention Tahmasp II 1722–1732; Abbas III 1732–1736; Suleiman II 1749–1750; Ismail III 1750–1760? Kiumars 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just the way the articles are written here. If it is called Safavid dynasty, then the intro should start with Safavid dynasty were … And please guys explain what was wrong with the compromise intro?

The Safavid dynasty was a Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722.

What some people want the word “Iranian” plastered all over the place, but delete any mention of the word “Turkic”? Grandmaster 13:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, English-wise isn’t it better to say “are considered to be” instead of “were”? The latter form is subjective and depends on the point of view and interpretation!

The article is about an Iranian dynasty; do you want the word "Turkic" all over the place? Does it make sense to you? I think we must use the terms when and as required not just for painting the background! Don’t you agree? Kiumars 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, why are you dishonoring your own agreement with Ali, Tajik, etc by putting back "Turkic-speaking" in the intro, when you had all agreed to keep all ethnicity-related neologism out of the intro? How are we going to find a workable solution, and a reach a compromise, if some here are not willing to honor their own agreements? --Mardavich 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We agreed on the version I provided above, I honor the compromise, you guys don’t. Grandmaster 13:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There was suppose to be no "Turkic" in the intro, racial-ethnicity speculations was suppose to go under background, that was the agreement. But since you're not happy with the current version, I'll just re-add the dispute tags. --Mardavich 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The compromise was to keep the intro short and take out all the disputed terms. You broke the agreement, and changed the intro without any agreement on talk. How do you expect others adhere to the compromise if it is not valid anymore? We either both stick to it, or we don't. Grandmaster 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, Safavids are famous for resurrecting Iran from ashes as a nationalistic dynasty! Do you agree that they were Iranian? Do you agree that they were nationalist? If so then what is the problem in saying that in the opening statement? The opening statement should be the juice of the article! Kiumars 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They were not nationalist, their unifying basis was Shia religion. Let’s not ascribe to them something they were not. Grandmaster 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, we have been thru this several times! Read the posts above! You seem to have a short memory. I am not surprised we cannot come to a consensus! If they were not nationalist they would change the name of the country and the language of the country! They managed to change the religion of a nation, couldn’t they change the name and language too? The guy in his poems says “Know Truly I am Haydar's son I am Faridun, Khusraw, Jamshid and Zohak. I am Zal's son (Rustam) and Alexandar." Isn’t that nationalist to you? Kiumars 14:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it's not even clear if, and for how long, the Safavids were Turkic-speaking. Dr. Evan Siegel believes that it's not clear if the Safavids were more Turkic speaking or Persian speaking, and Dr. Vladimir Minorsky says "Shah Ismael was bilingual from an early age". --Mardavich 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This argument remains a speculation, while the fact is that Ismail wrote to Ottoman Sultan in Turkic, while the Sultan wrote in Persian. The fact is that Ismail wrote poetry in Turkic, and the fact is that his followers and supporters were Qizilbash, who were Turkic-speakers. So before speculating and trying to find a needle in a haystack or refer to few lines of Ismail, who may have written something in Persian or could have been bilingual, we should indicate flat known facts by every historian. Atabek 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not up to you to decide. Vladimir Minorsky is the most reliable source on Safavid history, and he says "Shah Ismael was bilingual from an early age", that's all that matters. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Mardavich 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GM & Atabek; I have a suggestion, why you two don’t rewrite the article with all the issues we have agreed so far and put it here on the talk page for discussion? If we do not reach a consensus then I suggest we get a couple of totally impartial administrators/contributors to intervene, is this ok? Kiumars 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I already agree with the balanced edits made by Sa.Vakilian. So if you have arguments against them, present those here. Otherwise, I suggest, you discuss with Sa.Vakilian and also on this page, in an itemized (dot item) manner what exactly sentences you want changed. Thanks. Atabek 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster if you want to insist on Safavid's Turkic speaking, then Mardavich can easily insist on Shaykhs Safi's Kurdish origin and also the fact that Frye says majority of Azerbaijanis are Turkified Iranian speakers. The quote from Savory about the Safavid dynasties disputed and mixed origin means that we should not put it in the Intro. Also Savory is the Safavid historian and his words come first.Azerbaijani 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Terms 3 of Consensus

Mardavich and Kiumars, we have tried to achieve consensus on this page, which the current revision reflects. Mardavich in particular however, as well as Azerbaijani, are trying to one by one fish out the words Turkic from the article, which is not acceptable. I was particularly appalled to see word "Turkic" removed from sentence "Ismail was of mixed Azeri Turkic, Greek and Kurdish heritage". We have spent a lot of time with Ali Doostzadeh to agree on this one, so the violation of the consensus in such a manner, implies we are going back to point 0 and there is no consensus. All of us are watching this article, and the consensus achieved, that is, including quotes from Savory, Frye and Minorsky shall be respected. Mardavich, also, your attempt to remove Turkic-speaking from introduction is absolutely out of line. First and foremost, it was agreed to by several users including Ali Doostzadeh. Secondly, it's a milder version of the firm sentence in Iranica by Frye: "Azeri Turks were founders of Safaid Dynasty". So if you try to change Turkic-speaking, then I request that original quote from Frye go on top of the page as is without any editions. Atabek 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet for you to set any terms. Comment on content, not on contributors, consider this a warning. If you insist on using weasel words like "Turkic-speaking", then I request the full original quote from Frye which clearly states "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers". --Mardavich 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

However, at the time of Safavid ascent to power, the inhabitants of Azerbaijan already spoke Turkic, as did Safavids themselves. So Frye's comment that "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty", precisely implies Turkic-speaking inhabitants of Azerbaijan. So the consensus was that instead of boldly saying Azeri Turks were founders, it's rather better says Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty, which is a fact. Atabek 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you can't cherry pick what parts of Frye's statements you like, and quote him out of the larger context. In the same article that Frye says "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty", he also says "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers" which clarifies Frye's position that "Azeri Turks" are actually Turkified Iranians. Therefore, the full quote from Frye should be used. --Mardavich 19:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, is anybody disputing that Ismail was Azarbaijani speaking as well as Kurdish speaking and Farsi speaking and most of all Greek speaking (his mother was Greek so his mother tongue was Greek then!)? Kiumars 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, Ismail was Azeri Turkic speaker. I don't dispute that he was Farsi speaker as well, I do dispute that he was Kurdish speaker, as Kurdish origin was that of Safi ad-Din, not of Ismail, who was 200 years later. There is no evidence of Ismail's speech or writing in either Greek or Kurdish. Hence making such a claim does not have basis. Atabek 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, he may not have written in Greek but I bet Greek was the first language he learned from his mother and grandmother! Most people of the area could not even write in one language up to fifty years ago, but they spoke several languages! Atabek, according to Wiki almost half of the Turkic speaking population of the area are Kurds! Don’t believe me? Check it! Kiumars 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, I bet is a good argument, but it's not a scholarly one. We have identified that Sheykh Safi had some Kurdish origins based on several articles, kindly provided by Ali Doostzadeh and myself, as well as Tajik. It's known that Ismail's mother Halima Begum was half-Greek and half-Turkic (her mother was Greek, her father, Uzun Hassan, as Akkoyunlu Turk). So, claiming even Halima's language as Greek is too much, let it alone Ismail. But there is nothing Kurdish in Ismail's origin besides Sheykh Safi's ancestry some 200 years before. Uzun Hassan was closer ascendant of Ismail than Sheykh Safi. Nevertheless, we still indicate that Ismail had Kurdish origins, but saying he spoke Kurdish, is too much invention. Which one? Do you have references? Did he speek Kirmanji or Sorani? I think you need to understand, that Qizilbash, Akkoyunlu and most of Shah Ismail's ancestry were identified as Turkomans. We are not writing here based on our ethnic emotions, but based on facts and articles. Atabek 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you dont know what your talking about. I kept your information in there, but unlike you, I actually put things in chronological order. Chronological means: In order of time from the earliest to the latest. If you cannot understand this that I dont know what else to do.Azerbaijani 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, I think first of all, you're on a wrong talk page. Chronological stuff was discussed on Ismail I, not on Safavid Dynasty, where users kept using "chronological" and removing Frye quote. Only in most recent few eds it was added back in life and political section. Secondly, keep "you dont know what your talking about" attacks to yourself, they don't contribute to discussion and may result in my warning of personal attack to you. Thirdly, instead of reverting and edit warring on articles, where I make visible contributions, such as Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Musavat, Safavid Dynasty, please, contribute a single non-distorted piece (not website, but read a paper on your own, and quote it) on some other page. I work hard to get those quotes from books, and spend time to edit the articles, so your involvement in reverting or distorting this work is neither fair nor acceptable. Atabek 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 00:49, 16 February 2007; my last night’s post (which I see has been archived) was to make a point (i.e. my objection to using general terms like Turkic) and intended to provoke you to respond (which you did!). I started the topic of using more specific names instead of generic names to make the article clearer and less prone to misunderstanding. Words like Turkic are very general (cover large groups of people with different cultures and histories), and have lots of associations with other issues (as I demonstrated in my post). You yourself immediately disassociated yourself from the Turks of Turkey when it came to the crunch! I think the point I made is clear and that is the reason I insist on using names that identify the entity very clearly. Kiumars 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, your post lacks any relevance to the topic. And provoking on unrelated topics is useless in this discussion page or in terms of achieving consensus. If you want to know why I use Turkic instead of Turkish, is precisely for that reason, not to associate general origin with a particular modern country. And that's why I usually use the term Azeri Turkic instead of Turkish, Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani Turkish. As for the rest, your idea to differentiate me from Turks of Turkey based on my statement that I am not from Turkey, is really useless. Turkic-speaking people of Azerbaijan and Anatolia share a lot in common, especially in context of Safavids and Qizilbash, this is a fact. Moreover, if you call yourself Kurd, I don't question your origin whether you're from Turkey, Iraq or Iran. Atabek 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

interesting poem from the Esmail I

Today I have come to the world as a Master. Know Truly I am Haydar's son I am Faridun, Khusraw, Jamshid and Zohak. I am Zal's son (Rustam) and Alexandar." (Note Islamic era Alexander was seen as a Quranic king). --alidoostzadeh 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)