Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 8

Creative Solution..maybe I can wiki patent it

One reason I asked for all parties not make edits was so the article would not be locked. This way we have much better chance to reach a concensus. Thus I want to try something new if everyone agrees..

Pick a date (I'll do mine next monday and I am taking wiki break till monday) and time (approximately an hour) and do some editing on the main page and then save it. After you have the version you are satisfied with (and preferably one that is a compromise solution) , revert back to the current version. [1].

Before making the edits, announce it on the talk page, make the edits (preferably no more than 1 hour and perhaps use microsoft word or some other place for your edits and then paste it) and then save it. Afterwards just r.v. back to this: [[2]]. On the commenting before you save your version, just say per talk page, trying solution.. or something like that.

I welcome Tajik, Atabek, GM.. and any other interested user to try this. Again make sure you announce it on the talk page, save your version and then revert back to the current version. (this way the article won't get locked). I will try mine next monday as I am taking a wiki break as I have to write a paper on something. This way we can have a look on how the introduction and the origin and etc. section will look like. Also make sure to indicate your compromised version if you have done multiple editing with the hour or so..--alidoostzadeh 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that. I don't have time to attend Wiki that often until Monday too. Alternatively, I think we can each create a subpage under our own User pages instead of updating the main article, and then present those pages here for comparison and discussion. Atabek 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay that sounds better. Also I hope everyone tries a compromise version. --alidoostzadeh 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checked in for sec.. wanted to make sure the discussion is on the right track. --alidoostzadeh 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More Evidence

Again, here is more evidence, on top of the incredible amount of evidence that Tajik and Ali have already been brought up.

Here is a quote from Donald Wilber (Iran Past and Present page 66-67):

"The Safavid period saw the reestablishment of a truly native Iranian dynasty after the lapse of eight centuries, and the resulting revival of national spirit and unity may be compared to the movement which sprang up when the Sassanian dynasty arose after the long Graeco-Parthian domination of the country. The founder and first ruler of the Safavid dynasty, Shah Isma'il, came into prominence as the leader of seven Turkish tribes of Azerbaijan. These tribes, known collectively as the Qizil Bash or "Red Heads," could put 70,000 armed horsemen in the field. Isma'il himself was not a Turkish chief but had won respect as the descendant of a long line of religious leaders and the head of an order of dervishes. The progenitor of his like was Shaykh Safi Ad-din of Ardabil, a Moslem saint, preacher, and worker of miracles, who lived from 1252 until 1334."

So far, it has been shown that Ismail was not Turkic (ethnically), that the Safavids were an Iranian empire, that the Safavids were descendent's of Safi Ad-din, and that Safi Ad-din was Iranic.Azerbaijani 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the author clearly refers to association of historical figures with modern Iran and Turkey. Clearly, Ismail was not Turkish (from Turkey) but was "native Iranian", since Ardabil and South Azerbaijan are in modern Iran. But he was of Turkic, Kurdish and Greek heritage. Another interesting quote:

until the Pahlavi period in the twentieth century, "the identity of Iran was not exclusively Persian, but supra-ethnic", as much of the political leadership, starting from the eleventh century, had been Turkic. ("Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity" in The Azerbaijani Population by Brenda Shaffer, pp. 221-225. The MIT Press (2003), ISBN 0-262-19477-5)

Good luck. Atabek 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, thats your POV, the source is very clear. Also, Brenda Shaffer is not a source, there are many scholars who have already debunked her.Azerbaijani 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholars (yet to be presented) can debunk, but I doubt you would be qualified to debunk a Harvard scholar. What was that reference again? milliondollarbabies.com? Thanks. Atabek 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani's source does not say Ismail was not Turk, it says he was not Turkic chief. That's not the same. Ismail indeed was not a leader of any of the seven Turkic tribes, known as Kizilbash. Grandmaster 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Grandmaster: The founder and first ruler of the Safavid dynasty, Shah Isma'il, came into prominence as the leader of seven Turkish tribes of Azerbaijan...Isma'il himself was not a Turkish chiefAzerbaijani 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the author failed to define those 7 tribes and how Ismail was their leader (when he wasn't according to Savory), then this reference simply cannot be taken as serious. Ismail was most certainly not a Turkish chief (as there was no such thing as Turkey), but he was most definitely partly Turkic. You neither Wilbur can deny this, unless they prove Uzun Hassan, Juneyd and Heydar Safavi were of different ethnicity. Atabek 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, here is what you said to me: I doubt you would be qualified to debunk a Harvard scholar. Well, here is what I'm saying to you, I doubt you are qualified to debunk major encyclopaedia's and major famous historians. So far, you have, not through facts or sources, but through your own POV, claimed that several major encyclopaedia's and scholars are "wrong". Hey, werent you also the same person who criticized Savory, and now all of a sudden he is your best friend? Atabek, you still fail to realize what Wikipedia NO POINT OF VIEW actually means. This means that you have to put your POV aside, and look at the facts. I am going to dig up every single encyclopaedia used and every quote by a historian used on the past archived page (most of which were presented by Tajik and Ali, who are infact the ones who brought up the majority of the sources supporting their claims),and I'm going to organize them and list them here, so that everyone can see them in one place and we can finally settle this long dispute using facts.Azerbaijani 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, and thanks for undertaking this useful task of summarizing others edits. Indeed, it's always good to have someone to summarize and format these in one place, while we search for real sources from JSTOR and other scholarly databases. Collect all, also mine and Grandmaster's, as well as AdilBaguirov's. Present them, and then we will see how you prove that Ismail was not of Turkic background despite his mother and his grandmother being Turks, and his father and grandfather having unknown ethnic roots. We will see how you prove pages of Minorsky's listing of Ismail's poems in Azeri as being non-Azeri.

Ahh, and don't forget to make your own version of Safavid page. It's still unclear what you want from the current version. If your attempt is to remove the remaining references to Turkic-speaking and to Ismail have Turkic as one of his origins, we have a long way to go to resolve on your comprehension of historical and scholarly quotes. Good luck. Atabek 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Schaffer

So far, we have seen sources such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and several others, along with reputable and famous historians, rejected point blank through POV assertions by some users. Yet those same users use Brenda Shaffer to back up their claims. Well, as I have said, Brenda Shaffer has been debunked and criticized many times by other scholars. She has an anti Iranian agenda, and is very close to Israeli, neo Conservative, and Azerbaijani (Republic of Azerbaijan) politicians. Infact, the Caspians study program she leads is funded by oil companies and governments, including the government of the Republic of Azerbiajan, who have a vested interest in Iranian territory, as well as other anti Iranian organizations.

Here are some critics of her:

The prestigious Harpers Magazine: [3]

"Harvard's program is led by Brenda Shaffer, who is so eager to back regimes in the region that she makes Starr look like a dissident. A 2001 brief she wrote, “U.S. Policy toward the Caspian Region: Recommendations for the Bush Administration,” commended Bush for “intensified U.S. activity in the region, and the recognition of the importance of the area to the pursuit of U.S. national interests.” Shaffer has also called on Congress to overturn Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which was passed in 1992 and bars direct aid to the Azeri government. The law has not yet been repealed, but the Bush Administration has been waiving it since 2002, as a payoff for Azeri support in the “war on terrorism.”

“Harvard's Caspian Studies Program receives a lot of money from both the oil companies and from some of the governments.” I share Starr's concerns here, and since I briefly mentioned Harvard in my original story, and since several readers asked for more details, let me provide it here. As I had previously reported, the Caspian Studies Program (CSP) was launched in 1999 with a $1 million grant from the United States‒Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) and a consortium of companies led by ExxonMobil and Chevron. The program's other funders include Amerada Hess Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Unocal, and Glencore International... "

Evan Siegel:

Evan Siegel (a Professor of New Jersey City University) in his review states "The book suffers from some general weaknesses. Its author is prone to make plausible generalizations which, however, are underdocumented when they are documented at all. At one point she claims, In the second half of the nineteenth century, some Azerbaijanis espoused Pan-Islamic ideology, and many of the supporters of Pan-Islam identified with Iran at this time. In addition, many Azerbaijanis were interested in their Turkic identity in a cultural sense, but few supported political unity with other Turkic peoples. The source she cites for this says nothing of the sort."

Evan Siegel strongly criticises the book for being full of mistakes; inaccuracies; misinterpretation and misquoting sources and the book's failure to provide documentations to support Shaffer’s observations.

In conclusion Evan Siegel adds "Brethren and Borders is a highly political book on an emotional subject which needs careful, dispassionate analysis. Its chapters on the historical background is full of inaccuracies. Its chapters on current events and trends include a few interesting observations which don’t appear in the literature, but most of it is readily available elsewhere."

Touraj Atabaki:

Dr. Atabaki (a Professor of International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, Netherlands) strongly criticises the book for its lack of academic values and its unbalanced and sometimes even biased political appraisal. Atabaki also criticises Shaffer for her vivid shortcomings in the methodology; and her lack of academic accuracy in the data she offers. Atabaki in his review says “With Brenda Shaffer's Borders and Brethren one would expect a contribution to our understanding of future developments in Iran as well as in the neighboring countries. Within the first two chapters, however, the reader becomes disappointed with the unbalanced and sometimes even biased political appraisal that not only dominates the author's methodology but also shapes her selective amnesia in recalling historical data." Atabaki concludes his review by stating "Borders and Brethren is an excellent example of how a political agenda can dehistoricize and decontextualize history".

As evident, Brenda Shaffer is not a neutral source, as the program she is leading is being funded by the Azerbaijani government and its lobbying group. Furthermore, if you read any of her articles, she clearly has an agenda. I will bring up more information later.Azerbaijani 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, it's funny that you bring Eric Siegel's quote, who opposes Brenda Shafer claiming that at the turn of 19th century Azerbaijani people had pan-Islamic and pan-Turkic aspirations. After all, it's you, who is inserting pan-Islamic and pan-Turkist quotes all over Azerbaijan-related articles regarding Musavat, which expressed the ideals of Azerbaijani people at the time. Are you saying now, Eric Siegel proves you not right? What a relief, I guess we should go back and remove milliondollarbabies.com references now, don't we? :)

And Atabaki, just like any other scholar whose research is infected by pan-nationalist sentiments, so far has not contributed a penny of useful research to either Iran or Azerbaijan, but only embittering and creating further enmity between two countries.

The government of Azerbaijan has no anti-Iranian agenda recorded anywhere on paper, diplomatic meeting or its intentions. If you have seen a single piece of proof with Azerbaijani government official being of anti-Iranian nature, please, present those with the appropriate references. Otherwise, don't look for enemies where there are none. Because doing that is called provocation. This kind of hatred spread by Iranians, such as yourself, serves not even interests of Iran, but only interests of a third country.Atabek 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said the Azeri people were pan Turkist or pan Islamist (show me a single diff where I said such a thing or tried to put anything of the sort in an article), I merely put the fact that the Musavat party was both pan Islamist and pan Turkist. Evan Siegel does not contradict anything that I have inserted into Wikipedia (heavily sourced). Also, you asked for me to bring up evidence showing that Brenda Shaffer is not a source that can be used, yet I have asked both you and Grandmaster continuously to bring up any evidence that Atabaki is not a reliable source, neither of you have done so. You also failed to comment on Evan Siegal and Harper Magazine's comment on Brenda Shaffer. I will also bring you anti-Iranian sources from the Republic of Azerbaijan (such as historical revisionism). Lastly, I'm looking at the archive, and you are the only person not using facts to support your statements, just your POV criticism (like you are doing right now) and you frequently flip flop from one source to another (again, like your doing now). You are breaking Wikipedia's policies, and I'm not even sure why there you are involved in this debate, as you seldom support your statements with facts. Grandmaster, Ali, Tajik, and I who recently joined this debate, are the only ones presenting facts which support our arguments. Anyway, I'll post all the facts later, leaving out everyones POV interpretations. Seeing the plane facts is what is most important.Azerbaijani 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You never said? Your POV pushing from milliondollarbabies.com and Armenian scholars appears on every single page related to Azerbaijan, whether or not Musavat needs to be mentioned there or not. This is all already reported on ArbCom page, so no need to discuss this further, if you have counter arguments present them there.

Regarding, facts, I have presented tons of references so far from Iranica, Savory, Frye, Tapper, just 4-5 recently on Ismail's control of Azerbaijan, another French reference from Jean Aubin. You, who has been in this discussion all along, were silent with only POV pushing and counter arguments without references.

The final agreement was for everyone to make their own version of Safavid page and present it for discussion. So no one after that needs your paragraphs of stuff about Brenda Shaffer, just because I, quite legitimately so, used her as reference. Atabek 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical revisionism endorsed by the Republic of Azerbaijan:

The most ancient Azerbaijani States maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Shumer and Akkad, were part of the overall region of the Mesopotamian civilization and were ruled by the dynasties of Turkic origin. The Turkic-speaking peoples that inhabited the territory of Azerbaijan from the ancient times were fire-worshippers and professed one of the world's oldest religions - Zoroastrianism. The name of the state originates from the present-day form of the Turkic word combination meaning “land, noblemen who keep the fire”. (from the Azerbaijani Embassy in Italy)

And thats only one example, I cant bare to keep reading, its gets even more funny! And you think that the Republic of Azerbaijan, which has been involved in historical revisionism for atleast 90 years, cant be anti-Iranian? I mean, their re-writing of history is a direct challenge to established facts, and it is obviously politically motivated (...I wonder why). Further more, Gunaz TV gets some of its support from the Republic of Azerbaijan, as does the anti-Iranian Brenda Shaffer. Also, we cant forget about the governments support of Gamoh and its leaders can we?

Here is another one (taken from an Azeri "news" source, which is full of historical revisionism trying to bolster the government of the Azerbaijan republic in the dispute that erupted in 2006 between Iran and the Azerbaijan Republic, in which several Azerbaijani delegates called for the separation of Northern Iran):

Suleymani tore into these speeches in a press release from the Iranian embassy on March 17. "Iran is deeply upset about the participation of some anti-Iranian elements in the Congress and their provocative statements on the issues of Iran's domestic affairs," it read. "The Embassy considers these steps to contradict the friendly relations between the brotherly nations and those commitments taken by the Azerbaijani government in the treaty of 2002, sighed in Tehran. The Embassy is very surprised about the references at the Congress to the Turkmanchai Treaty of 1828 and mentioning Azerbaijan as a divided country."

Atabek, stop from trying to divert the topic. This is the end of my discussion on this section. I have proved what I came to prove and we should get back to talking about the Safavids.Azerbaijani 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, you should really end this discussion, because yet again, you haven't provided any single government source. None! The quote above from Afshar Souleimani, former Iranian Ambassador in Baku, is regarding a Congress of Azerbaijani diaspora held in Baku, and statements made there about Iran were from South Azerbaijani political activists, not from the government of Azerbaijan. To his irresponsible statement, Souleimani got the answer he deserved from Tahir Taghizade, the assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told him simply "to talk responsibly and be sober". So unless you have sufficient proofs of Azerbaijani government's involvement or support for anti-Iranian policies, you should just stop this misinformation, which as I said serves only third parties (i.e. your revert warring allies in ArbCom case). Similarly, if Iranians in parliament of Iran make irresponsible and attacking statements against the Republic of Azerbaijan, it is the direct irresponsibility of the Iranian government, but we say nothing about it. Atabek 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys take non-related stuff somewhere else

Guys this is a Safavid article ..(and I do not even have time right now to participate in non-Safavid discussions). Also the quote of modern scholars concerned with politics who are post-docs (like Shaffer who is not even yet an assistant professor and are not actually part of harvard but part of JFK school of government affiliated with Harvard) and non-Safavid scholars do not have any weight with regards to Safavid history. (I mean this for any non-Safavid source or things written by non-established post-doc). I do not think using non-related sources will make us reach a compromise as we need academic sources in relation to Safavids written by well established professors and scholars of Safavids history. There are more than enough English and western sources from Minorsky, Savory, Encyclopedia of Islam , Iranica, Mazzaoui.. (and lets say Tapper even), so we have enough basicaly to discuss and sort out the details. Thus no sort of post-doc or irrelevant non-Safavid historian should be quoted in compromise pages. Also everyone please take non-related conversations somewhere else (I mean both users and not singling anyone out). Note to be a Safavid scholar, knowledge of Persian is necessary as there are dozens of books about the history of the time from Safavid era. And I will add to understand the personality of say Esmail I, knowledge of Azeri is also necesssary. That is why I archived the last page as discussions were becoming non-related to Safavids. Note the wiki guideline above: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Safavid dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.. So now we are not even discussing the article's subject even. So I urge you guys to have e-mail discussions or whatever but matters of modern politics and post-docs who write about modern politics have absolutely no relation to a detailed and complex historical article. If the discussion is diverted I will complain to the admins since I have been working patiently to try to reach an acceptable compromise solution and I am glad Tajik, Atabek, and Azerbaijani are doing the same. --alidoostzadeh 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, dont forget about Donald Wilber. I am also going to bring up a source from Edward G. Browne, who has written quite extensively on the Safavids. I agree, we must also stick to the topic (as I told Atabek to do), but we just had to get that Brenda Shaffer thing out of the way, so we wont be bothered by her pseudo-science and historical revisionist agenda.Azerbaijani 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Browne is a scholar of Persian literature not really a Safavid historian. If he says something about the literature of the time, it might be okay. Shaffer of course is really not a scholar [[4]]. She is a post-doc. Wilber seems okay from his biography in wiki, but probably it is better to concentrate on Safavid scholars since a compromise should also make an article of high quality where prime scholars are quoted.. I hope we can make a compromise that is both academic and of high quality. --alidoostzadeh 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is only one true expert on Safavid history, and that is Roger M. Savory. This is what the academic world says about Savory:

• The study of Iranian history in the Timurid and Safavid periods has been particularly prominent in the Canadian academic tradition. Roger Savory, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, has had a profound influence on the study of the Safavid period (1501-1722). His numerous books and articles on Safavid political and military history, administration, bureaucracy, and diplomacy - translated into several languages - have done much to deepen our understanding of the period, particularly in the field of political and administrative history. Following in the footsteps of his eminent teacher Vladimir Minorsky at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Savory has worked meticulously on the complex structures of officialdom and bureaucracy in the 16th century (See "The Principal Offices of the Safawid State During the Reign of Isma'il I (907-30/1501-24)," BSOAS 23, 1960, pp. 91-105, and "The Principal Offices of the Safawid State During the Reign of Tahmasp (930-84/1524-76)," BSOAS 24, 1961, pp. 65-85). He was the principal organizer of the first academic conference in Canada on Iran ("Iranian Civilization and Culture," Dec. 10-11, 1971); and the ensuing publication of the proceedings (Iranian Civilization and Culture, Montreal, 1972) heralded Canada's formal entry into the Iranian academic world. His Iran Under the Safavids (Cambridge, 1980), a survey of the rise of and fall of the Safavid dynasty, continues to undergraduate and graduate students with a succinct introduction to this important dynasty. This was supplemented by Savory's magnum opus, his translation of the monumental Safavid court chronicle, Eskandar Beg Monshi's Tarikh-e Alamara-ye Abbasi as History of Shah Abbas the Great (I-II, PHS, Boulder, Colorado, 1979; III (index), Bib.Pers., New York, 1986). C.P. Mitchell

He is the authority on Safavid history. Tājik 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wilber is a specialist in Iranian history, which qualifies him just as much. I will post the Browne source anyway later.Azerbaijani 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Browne is the master of Persian literature but on Safavids I am not too sure. --alidoostzadeh 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik Seems to be correct

Tajik seems to be correct, here is another quote:

The rise of the Ṣafawí dynasty in Persia at the beginning of the sixteenth century of the Christian era was an event Historical im­portance of the Ṣafawí dynasty. of the greatest historical importance, not only to Persia herself and her immediate neighbours, but to Europe generally. It marks not only the restoration of the Persian Empire and the re-creation of the Persian nationality after an eclipse of more than eight centuries and a half, but the entrance of Persia into the comity of nations and the genesis of political relations which still to a considerable extent hold good. Mr R. G. Watson in the brief retrospect with which he opens his excellent History of Persia from the beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the year 1858 * shows a true appreciation of the facts when he takes this period as his starting-point, for in truth it marks the transition from mediaeval to comparatively modern times. The Arab conquest in the middle of the seventh century after Christ overthrew the Zoroastrian re­ligion and the Sásánian Empire, and reduced Persia to the position of a mere province of the Caliphate, until the Caliphate itself was destroyed by the Mongols or Tartars in the middle of the thirteenth century. Both before and after this momentous event there were, it is true, independent or quasi-independent dynasties ruling in Persia, but these were generally of Turkish or Tartar origin, like the Ghaz-nawís, Saljúqs, Khwárazmsháhs, and Houses of Chingíz and Tímúr; or, if Persian like the Buwayhids, exercised control over a portion only of the old Persian Empire. To the Ṣafawí dynasty belongs the credit of making Persia “a nation once again,” self-contained, centripetal, powerful and respected, within borders practically identical in the time of Sháh 'Abbás the Great (A.D. 1587-1628) with those of the Sásánian Empire. It was then that Iṣfahán, whither he transferred the seat of government from Qazwín, became, as the Persian saying runs, “Half the world” (Niṣf-i-Jahán), or “Medio mundo” as Don Juan of Persia has it, abounding in splendid buildings and skilful craftsmen, frequented by merchants from distant lands, and visited by diplomatic missions, not only from India, Transoxiana and Turkey, but from almost every European state from Russia to Spain and Portugal.(A Literary History of Persia By Edward G. Browne)

Again, we have the Safavids distinguished as seperate from the Turkic, Arabic, and Mongolian dynasties of Iran, and compared to the Buwayhids.Azerbaijani 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, again neither the underlined part nor whole of the text above say Safavids were Persians or of Persian origin. It only says they were different from other Turkic dynasties in emphasizing Persian influence. Again, as consensually agreed, you can make your own version of Safavid page (under your user subdirectory) and present it to the audience by Monday. Atabek 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep your POV out of this. The quote speaks for itself. I'm not talking about the Safavids being Persian, but it clearly shows that they were not Turks either.Azerbaijani 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your source (which you did not identify, btw) does not say whether Safavids were ethnic Turks or Persians or whatever. It only says that they recreated Persian empire. This one says they were Turks:

In 1501 Ismail, the leader of a Shiite religious group the Safavids, became Shah of Persia. Ismail was ethnically Turkish, as therefore was the Safavid dynasty that he now founded. His accession to power and the establishment of his family on the throne reignited the border wars between the rulers of Iran and those of the Middle East.

Christopher Catherwood. A Brief History of the Middle East: From Abraham to Arafat. ISBN-10: 1841198706 Grandmaster 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The source I posted, along with the source Tajik posted, both clearly distinguish the Safavids from the Turkic dynasties that ruled Iran before. It is clear and your POV wont change that. By the way, I added the source.Azerbaijani 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys (I mean everyone) do not bring non-related sources. From Abraham to Arafat does not seem like a Safavid source and of course Minorsky has precedence over such sources. Hopefully by monday we will see some compromise versions. Or else I can find 10s non-safavid books in google books making one POV or another. What is important is to have quality scholars and sources. User tajik has given a sneak preview here: [[5]]. I hope to get my version out by monday or tuesday and we can all compare. --alidoostzadeh 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, with all due fairness, where did you see Minorsky source mentioned by Azerbaijani above? So far I see Edward Browne, who wrote on literature. I remember that when I try to use Richard Tapper, expert on Shahsevans tribes, important element of Safavi and Qajar era, Tapper is being questioned as being anthropologist. Atabek 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, please read my comments on Browne to Azerbaijani! I said Browne is an expert on Persian literature (even during the Safavid era literature), but he is not a Safavid historian to talk about Safavid geneology and etc! Basically he belongs to the literature department just like Tapper belongs to the anthropology department. I believe I mentioned it twice. I can live with Tapper since I saw an article about Shahsevan during the Safavid era from him in JSTOR. --alidoostzadeh 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Predominantly Persian speaking or Turkic speaking?

The Safavids, particularly early in their history, spoke both Turkic and Persian, but were they PREDOMINANTLY Turkic speaking or Persian speaking? I assume that for the most part of their history they became more predominantly Persian speaking, like the Seljuks, Khwarezminas, Ghaznavids, etc...Azerbaijani 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Safavids were certainly bilingual and knew both Persian and Azerbaijani to a native level. Yet, given the fact that their Shahs prefred Azeri Turkic over Persian in their poetry, we have to assume that they were predominantly Turkic speaking. This question is not easy answered, because other characters of the Safavid court, for example Ismail's son Sam Mirza or the famous Mughal vezir Bayram Khan Qizilbash, favoured Persian over Turkish (see Iranica for details).

I think that - in regard of the sources provided - "predominantly Turkic-speaking" should be mentioned in the intro. However, it should also be mentioned that the traditional and cultural language of the Safavid court was Persian, because the vast majority of literature was written in Persian. Only the Mughal court in India produced more Persian books than the Safavids. The Ottomans slowly began to favour Turkish over Persian and had the smallest number of Persian books written in their courts and libraries (as compared to India and Iran). Especially after Abbas made Isfahan capital Persian began to dominate the court, while the Shahs themselvs continued to write in Azeri Turkic. Tājik 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The court spoke Turkic, whcih is attested by Olearius, who visited Iran at the times of later Safavids. But Safavids patronized Persian literature, along with Azeri one. At the same time, Persian was widely used in administrative affairs, which can be mentioned. Grandmaster 10:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Safavid page version by Atabek

Safavid Dynasty - this is my version of the first 3 introductory sections, which were the reason of heated debate. My solution on above mentioned language issue, is just to say in one sentence that Safavid court languages were Azerbaijani and Persian, and avoid the rest of arguments. I will update the subsequent sections as we go along. Please, provide your own versions (made under your user pages) for discussion. THanks. Atabek 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not good and thus not acceptable. The intro lacks both the information that the Safavids were the first NATIVE dynasty to rule a united Iran after 850 years of foreign rule ("united Irans" existed before, for example under the Seljuqs and Ghaznavids). Your intro also misses the important info that the Safavids were of Kurdish descent. In this case, it does not matter whether Ismail himself was of 5, 6, or 20 different backgrounds. What matters is that the family's origin were in Iranian Kurdistan, and that the founder of the clan was a Kurdish saint who wrote poetry in Persian and Tati (a local dialect related to Kurdish). This is the standard in Wikipedia. In the Seljuqs page the intro mentions that the dynasty was originally of Oghuz descent. It does not mention the countless different backgrounds of the ruling dynasty which was mixed with all kinds of peoples, from Arab over Persian to Turkish nomads. Tājik 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The dynasty was established by Ismail, who was not Kurd. So we need to mention his ethnic background, which Atabek did. Grandmaster 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ismail, too, was of Kurdish descent. He was in the line of Safavid Sufis and he was a direct descendant of Safi ud-Din. Thus, the Safavid dynasty was of Kurdish descent - not Persian, not Turkic, not Arab, and not Greek. Tājik 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ismail was of mixed descent. He had ancestors of different ethnic backgrounds, and he was the founder of the dynasty. Grandmaster 10:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Seljuqs and Ghaznavid sultans were also of different backgrounds. According to Mir Ali Sher Nava'i, even sultan Toghril was a "Persian" and not a "Turk". Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi, the founder of the Ghaznavid empire, had a Persian mother, while the background of his father is unkown. Yet still these dynasties are considered "Turkic". The Ottomans had all kinds of different backrounds, including Armenian, Albanian, etc. The Ottomans, too, are considered "Turks". So why should we have this double-standard?! Ismail was a direct male descendant of Safi ud-Din, and it does not matter whether his mother or grandmothers were Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Chinese, or Germans. What matters is that his direct male linage - that of the Safavid clan - was Kurdish in origin. That's the reason why the Safavids became known as Safavids and not as "Aq Qoyunlu" or something else. Tājik 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman rulers considered themselves Turks, despite mixed blood. Mixed blood was typical for ruling dynasties all over the world, because the marriage was a political instrument for creating aliances. However Iran was not a state of Persian people neither in Safavid times, nor later. It was a state of various people, inhabiting Iran, where Persian language was lingua franca. Therefore claiming that Safavids had Persian ethnic identity is not accurate, they had more religious than ethnic identity, and supported both Turkic and Persian culture, themselves writing Turkic poetry. I think the intro should be plain and simple, avoiding any controversial statements. Grandmaster 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the Ottomans considered themselvs "Turks", although their rule was certainly based on their Sunni religion and not on their ethnicity. In the Ottoman realms, Turks were a minority.

As for the Safavids, it is very clear that they considered themselvs "Iranians" and NOT Turks. Their Iranian titles, their claims to be descendants of ancient Shahs, Tahmasp's Shahnama which celebrates Iran's victories over Turks, Ismai's choice to give his son's traditional Iranian names (Sām and Tahmasp, for example, in contrast to the "Turanian" names of the Timurids: Pīr and Mīrān, for example). The Safavids revived the traditional name "Irān" for their kingdom, removed or reduced the titles "Sutlān" and "Amīr" and replaced it with "Šāhanšāh", etc etc etc. It is very clear that the Safavids considered themselvs "Iranians".

If you prefer "short and precise" intros and want to "avoid controversial parts", you should also reject the part about their language or origin. Because the part that says they were "predominantly Turkic-speaking" is also an assumption and taken from the sources provided. Tājik 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually just a side comment.. Ottomans did not consider themselves Turks. The word Turk for whatever reason was looked down upon in the Ottoman empire before the Ataturk era and was mainly used for turkomens and villagers. Ottomans considered themselves Othmani (Uthmani-Ottoman). --alidoostzadeh 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Safavid page version by Tajik

This is my version of the intro. Tājik 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment. Safavid dynasty was of mixed origin. There's a difference between the Safavid clan and Safavid dynasty. The dynasty starts with Ismail I, who was the first ruler in the dynastic line, and he had ancestors of different ethnic backgrounds. Also, mentioning Arab, Turk and Mongols as opposite to Safavids is an original research, many sources consider Safavids to be Turks. So that line is redundant, it is better to avoid any such comparisons. It is an indirect way of saying that they were not Turkic, which is not acceptable. As for classical and cultural language, Azeri Turkic was cultural language as well, and Safavid rulers wrote Turkic poetry themselves. Persian was prevalent in administrative affairs, because Persian was lingua franca of the region. Therefore I don't think Tajik's version is acceptable, I think Atabeks version is more neutral and factually accurate. Grandmaster 11:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT original research, it is a direct quote taken from Roger M. Savory, the most important and leading scholar on Safavid history. Tājik 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a direct quote, it is distortion of the quote, which said that "Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns". Indeed, Safavids were neither caliphs, nor sultans or khans, but it is not the same as saying they were not a Turkic dynasty. Grandmaster 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a distrotion, but the perfect summary of the entire comment:

• "... 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 ..." (Iranica)
• "... 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 ..." (Roger M. Savory)

Savory uses the words "Arab", "Turk", and "Mongol" as a contrast to "Persian". In this case, "Persian" is used as a synonym for "Iranian", since the Buyyids were not ethnic Persians either, but - just like the Safavids - ethnic Kurds.

Besides that, poetry does not define ethnicity. The Ottoman sultans wrote poetry in Persian, but this does not turn them into Persians. Thus, Ismail's Turkish poetry does not turn him into a "Turk". He considered himself Iranian, he considered himself the reincarnation of ancient Iranian heroes and kings, he ruled as "Shah of Iran", and the "Shahnamaye Tahmasp" as well as the Safavid's glorification of the Persian-nationalist writings of Ferdousi and Nizami proves that they considered themselvs "Iranians" and in some way "Persians", although they were of Kurdish descent. Tājik 11:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is an original research. You cannot include your interpretation of sources into the article, you can only quote, and not only the sources that you like. Clearly, Savory does not call Safavids a dynasty of Persian origin, we discussed your quotes in much detail before. Grandmaster 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is not an original research, and it is - so far - the only version which includes most of the sources presented (unlike Atabek's suggestion, which is only based on the sources he likes). If Savory says that the Safavids restored PERSIAN SOVEREIGNTY in Iran for the FIRST TIME SINCE THE ARAB CONQUEST, than this is clear. He further explains: ""Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" Which part of this don't you understand?! Didn't you just explain that Ottoman rulers considered themselves Turks, despite mixed blood. ?! So now, why are you persisting on the claim that the "Safavids were Turks", although - and that is very obvious - they did not have any "Turkish identity" or "Turkishness"?! Can you prove your claim that "Safavids considered themselvs Turks"?! Why this double-standard?! Tājik 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, the claim that Safavids were of Kurdish origin (without the word probable) is nothing but OR. Secondly, you say "North-Western Iran" while linking to the page titled Iranian Azerbaijan. So why the word Azerbaijan omitted from intro altogether, while this geograhic region played a key role in rise of Safavids? There was no political identity Iran at the time of Safavid rise to power.

And it's surprising your usage of word Azeri-speaking, when how you were the one who wrote about Safavids being predominantly Turkic-speaking. You yourself admitted that their court language was primarily Azeri Turkic. I don't understand the radicalization of your stance, but you're only pushing far away from the agreement rather than closer to it.

I think I was too conceding and see that my numerous compromise versions yield only to emboldening of opposite stance. So, I will rewrite my intro to reflect more the proven Turkic heritage of Safavids. Thanks. Atabek 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, once again I warn you not to accuse other users and to stay civil! Your accusations against me and against Azerbaijani are baseless, because - in fact - it was YOU who changed "Iranian Azerbaijan" to "Northwestern Iran" while keeping the link: [6]. You have a bad memory, my friend!

As for the Kurdish origin: it is a consensus among modern Safavid historians that the Safavid clan was Kurdish in origin. Safi ud-Din's Tati poetry, his ancestor Firuz Shah the Kurd, and his Shaafi-Sunni religion point to a Kurdish origin. But if you want to insert the word "probably", then it'S fine with me. Saying that the Safavids were "probably of Kurdish origin" is much better than denying their Kurdish origin in total (as you have done in your version).

Besides that, I used "Azeri-speaking", because in modern terminology the word "Azeri" is the name given to the Turkic language spoken in Azerbaijan. I do not think that it is necessairy to write the word "Turkic". That's like saying "Iranic Persian" or "Germanic English". If people want to know more about the language, they can click on the link.

You claim that "Safavids had a Turkic origin" is pure nationalistic POV. That way, we will not come to any consensus, because you continue to reject authoritative scholarly sources. The Safavidsw did NOT HAVE a "Turkic origin". They - as a family - were just mixed with surrounding noble families: Turkic, Iranic, Greek. It was a common thing back then. All ruling dynasties were mixed. What matters is NOT the Turkic heritage, because that was only the female line. It's the male Kurdish origin of the family - that's what traditionally defines dynasties. That's also the reason why Ottomans and Seljuqs are considered "Turks", although most of their princes had Non-Turkish mothers. If we are to lable the Safavids "Turks" only because their founder had a half-Turkoman grandmother, then we also have to remove the words "Turkic" or "Oghuz" from the Seljuq and Ghaznavid pages, because these dynasties, too, were of mixed descent.

Either we mention their Kurdish origin, or we leave everything out: language and origin. Tājik 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As there is no ground for your accusation, I shall simply ignore your so called "warnings". In order not to waste time, stick to the topics. In the rest, your version is POV, because it claims Safavids were of Kurdish origin. And it's not quite fair, to say the least, to claim as you do:

• What matters is NOT the Turkic heritage, because that was only the female line. It's the male Kurdish origin of the family - that's what traditionally defines dynasties.

And who told you that? You had generations of female queens in England since middle ages. The most powerful lady in the history of Ottoman Empire was the Ukrainian wife of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent. One of the most powerful monarchs in Russian history was Catherine the Great.

As I said until and unless you provide full genealogical line from Safi al-Din to Ismail consisting of Kurds ONLY, there is no basis for you to claim Safavids of Kurdish origin. I never said it should say they were of Turkic origin either, but it shall say they had mixed origins, Turkic and Kurdish. That was the initial consensus agreement, before you appeared with Persian POV.

Taati is not Kurdish, and Firuz Shah was only one of the ancestor of Sheikh Safi. In fact, in the ethnic makeup of the region hardly anyone cared who is ethnically Turk or Kurd until the end of Qajar era, when Persian POVers appeared dividing nations along ethnic lines and imposing their language, denying or trying to reinvent other people's origins, etc.

I completely denounce your version as not being even remotely close to consensus as it simply has not a single trace of neutrality. Atabek 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not care if you ignore my warning or not. Next time you repeat your pointless accusations, I will report you.

We are not talking about England, Russia, or USA. We are talking about the Safavid dynasty, the heridetary Sufi Grandmasters of the Safawiyah, and the Shahdom of Persia. The "origins" of a dynasty are traditionally defined by the direct male family linage. It is the identity that passes from father to son, and then to the grandson, and so forth. That's how ALL dynasties in the Islamic world were defined. That's why the Abbasids are considered "Arabs" (although many of the Caliphs, including Al-Mamun) had Non-Arab, motsly Persian mothers. That's why most of the so-called "Turkic dynasties" are considered "Turks", although they were more "Non-Turks" than "Turks" - especially the Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, and Ottomans.

Tati is a Northwestern Iranian language and it is closely related to Kurdish. The difference is as small as between Azerbaijani Turkish and Ottoman Turkish.

Since you and Grandmaster both claim that all so-called "Turkic dynasties" were 101% "pure Turkish in blood" in centuries, I ask you to provide the full geneology of the Seljuq and Ottoman dynasties and prove that they were "pure Turks". Otherwise, you should stick to your own points and edit the respective articles, removing the claims that Seljuqs or Ottomans were "Turks".

The concept of ethnicity was not introduced by Persians, but by Russians and Turkish ultra-nationalists, most of all by Atatürk whom Adolf Hitler considered his biggest inspiration. He was the one the created the modern concept of "Turkishness", and that's also the reason why you are pushing for Atatürk's POV, claiming all kinds of peoples as "Turks" who did not have any interest in "Turkishness". Now, you even deny the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family ... this may be because of the usual hatered Turks have against Kurds, but I don't know. I mean, you are also known for constant attacks and Turkish-nationalist POV in case of Armenians-related articles in Wikipedia.

The version you have suggested is pure Turkish nationalist POV. You purposely deny the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family, you deny the Iranian origins of the clan, you deny the Iranian identity of the Safavids, you have not provided a single source for your claim that the Safavids considered themselvs "Turks", you have not provided a single source for your claim that the Safavids had a "Turkish identity" (whatever that may be, keeping in mind that they lived centuries before Atatürk and that this modrn concept of "Turkish identity" - the POV which you are pushing for - did not even exist).

Your version is totally inaccaptable. Tājik 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike yours, Tajik, my version does say Safavids had probably Kurdish origins. Taati is an Iranian language, but it's not Kurdish (neither Sorani nor Kirmanji). As I said previous posts, you misinterpret the word Turk in modern and medieval meaning of Iran with Turkic race. Turk is a mixture of Turkic nomads with local populations, the result which was just called Turk nominally. Fascism and racist ideology has its core in Aryanism. Nothing else to say on that. And not quite relevant to the topic of Safavids. Atabek 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your version does NOT mention the Kurdish origin of the Safavids, which is a common consensus among modern Safavid historians. Here is your version:

• "... The Safavids (1501-1722) (Persian: صفوی‎ , Azerbaijani: Səfəvi) were a Shiite dynasty which established a unified Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia and asserted the contemporary Iranian Shiite identity. Originated in Ardabil in Iranian Azerbaijan, Safavids were a predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty, whose court languages were Azerbaijani and Persian. The Safavids ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736), extending their empire well beyond the borders of modern Iran. ..."

Where does the intro mention the Kurdish origin?!

Besides that, it is not me who is misinterpreting words, but you. As I have mentioned earlier, you seem to have some grudge against Persians, Persian culture, Persian language, and everything else that has to do with the word "Persian". You are pushing for POV, for a definition of the word "Turk" that did not exist before Atatürk's fairy tales. First of all, "Turk" is not a "mix of Turkic nomands with local populations", even though Turkish nationalists still persist on their claims. Turkic nomads do not even make up 5% of the "genetic origin" of the local populations in Iran, Anatolia, and elsewhere. Only in Central Asia the original Turkic influence is more important. This "Turkic-Iranian mix" is another fairy take of Turkish nationalists, just like the "blond and blue-eyed Aryans" fairy tales of European fascists.

As for "modern nationalism": say what ever you want, but it is well known that the modern concept of ethnic nationalism and racism was "exported" by the Young Turks. You should read the books of Falih Rifki Atay, a Turkish journalist and a personal friend of Atatürk. In his last book ("Cankaya", 29 books in total), he quotes Adolf Hitler (German trasnlation):

• "... Mustafa Kemal hat uns bewiesen, dass er ein Mann war, der einem von allen Mitteln entblößtes Volk geholfen hat sich zu retten, und ihm erneut die Schaffung aller Mittel ermöglicht hat. Sein erster Schüler ist Mussolini, sein zweiter bin ich. ..." (p. 319)

Both Mussolini and Hitler considered themselvs pupils of students of Atatürk. Turkish/Kurdish scholar H. Isik who translated some of these books into German further comments that it was Atatürk personally who defined the Kurds and Armenians as "internal enemies" and all neighbouring peoples as "external enemies of the Turks". He was the one who first used the sentence: "A Turk does not have any friends except other Turks!" The Turks were the first to kill 1.5m people (Armenians) because they had another religion and language - the forerunner of the European Holocaust. But you are right ... this is out of toppic. Tājik 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again how Hitler considered himself Aryan, adopted Swastika through Aryanism, how Reza Shah Pahlavi, the reinventor of Aryanism, was begging to be his puppet and was deposed by Allied powers because of that is not related to Safavid discussion. As for Ataturk's statement "Turk does not have friends except other Turks!", he was just stating a fact, which is perfectly reflected in your POV above. Or is this attempt to remove every "Turk" reference and "reassert" so called "Persian identity" considered friendly? Anyways, leave this POV aside, and concentrate on the topic.

Regarding Kurdish origins, I did mention them in Origins section about Sheikh Safi, where they do belong. In intro the only relevant origin of Safavids is the fact that they were Shia. In fact, I didn't even say that Safavids had Turkic origins, but I suppose I should reflect that too now in origins section. Atabek 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to calm down Atabek, and keep your conspiracy POV theories out of this discussion in an attempt to divert the subject. I suggest you stay out of the discussion for awhile until you calm down a bit.Azerbaijani 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not in authority to teach me how I should behave. So concentrate on topic not on personality. I suggest that you stop editing the page to prevent causing further griefs. Atabek 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The swastika is common in many cultures, and "Aryanism" was just one face of a phenomenon back then, when certain peoples tried to identify and glorify their nomadic ancestors. Even centuries before Hitler, Europeans began to identify themselvs with Scythians (this claim is nowadays copied by modern Turkish nationalists), and then with the Vedic Aryans. The Turks practically copied this. First, they also claimed to be "Aryans", then they changed their minds and created their own version of history. They began to glorify Central Asian nomads, began to claim that the Xiongnu "were Turks", that "Huns were Turks", and that "Turks created all cultures", including the Sumerian culture. Decades before the Nazis, the Young Turks integrated these fascists pseudo-scientific theories into their politics, oppressed Non-Turks (back then the majority in Anatolia), and when Atatürk came to power, he created his own version of the Turkish language (the present language spoken in Anatolia), and forced it on everyone. The Turks were the first fascist power to commit a genocide which was fully based on racism and religious fundamentalism. Atatürk created the modern definition of "Turk" and forced this new artificial definition on the Anatolian population, and up to this day, these "Turks" believe that they are descendants of Central Asian nomads (you are the best example), the same way once (and even today some) Germans believe that they are "descendants of ancient Aryans" - of course the artificial Aryans created by the Nazis. The difference is that nowadays, Germans have accepted the wrongs of the past and they also accept Germany's fault. In Turkey, these lies are still protected by the state: the Armenian genocide is denied, the almost non-existing influence of Central Asian Turks is totally exeggerated, the fairy tales about "One Turkish race and one Turkish language" are propagated, Non-Turkish-speakers are still being oppressed, and those who want to speak the truth are automatically declared "enemies of the state" - the Article 301 is part of thise state apparatus. And now, YOU want us to accept this odd and artificial definition of "Turk" and integrate it into the article?! This is like accepting Hitler's version of "Aryan" as a scientific standard. You do not even have to try to change your intro in order to make it more Turkish nationalist. It will be rejected anyway. Tājik 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, before accusing me of "Turkish nationalism", you should yourself cease the heavy impact "Aryanism" is having on some of your edits, especially the ones trying to question the fact of Huns being Turkic. Below is the quote, which should remind you a bit about the reality:

"Opinions differ over their linguistic affiliation, but the best guess would seem to be that the Huns were the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe" (Peter Heather, "The Huns and the End of Roman Empire in Western Europe", The English Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 435, February 1995, p. 5 citing O. J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, Berkeley, 1973, ch. 9)

Apart from that before trying to accuse Ataturk, who built the modern Turkey from ashes of Ottoman Empire, established the definition of Turk as citizenship/nationality, and actually fought 3 foreign powers to liberate Anatolia of fascism, you should really recall Persian Reza-Shah, who was "mopping the shoes" of Britons, and later (during 1930-1940) the Germans. And on Aryan racism resources, you should really pay a close look the new book by Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh titled "Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles", which is now available on Amazon. Good luck, but I prefer if you keep such baseless and irrelevant POV outside of Safavid topic. Atabek 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Asgharzadeh is a pan-turkist who quotes major history revisionists like Zehtabi (who claims Elamites, Medes, Sumerians..were all turks) and actually anti-semites like Pourpirar (who believes achaemenids, sassanids, Salman the Persian, Babak Khorramdin..were created by jews and did not exist). The guy does not have a serious academic position and is just a lecturer in sociology (not even an assistant Professor position). [7]. He curses Cyrus the Great and gets happy at the destruction of Persian empire by Alexandar. So some of these guys are really the last people to talk about racism! specially people that quote Pourpirar who is the most rabid anti-semite in Iran. Again like Shaffer who is a post-doc. These sort of attacks against Irans heritage will not go anywhere as we have direct proof for Indo-Iranian civilization from 3500 years ago (Mitanni) and Gathas of Zoroaster are 3000 years old. Also there is no Aryan racism in Iran, Iran simply means land of Aryans by etymology. If there was racism in Iran, there would not be so many inter-ethnic marriages nor would Reza Shah mary an Azerbaijani and his son mary an Azerbaijani and his mother would be an Azerbaijani. Germans, Russians,..are not Aryans as only Indo-Iranians are Aryans. As per Reza Shah his mother was Azerbaijani and he was really not Persian. Rezashah actually probably saved a lot of Azerbaijanis by getting rid of Simko I do not support Pahlavids. But if Rezashah is bad, then by definition ataturk who wiped out Greeks is also bad where-as Rezashah did not commit any sort of ethnic cleansing. Also let me clarify that Irans embassy during the time of Rezashah saved jews and Iran was a refugee center for many poles of christian and jewish origin during the allied occupation. Jews in Iran have never been harassed in the Pahlavid era and virtually you will find all of Iran's jews as patriotic and even the ones in the US perform their services in Persian and hold on to their culture. After being subjugated to centuries of British/Russian colonization, Rezashah thought Germany can balance them out (since it was the main enemy of English who took Bahrain from Iran and Russia who took more) but at that time there was no knowledge of holocaust. I think these things can be discussed somewhere else, but by definition Ataturks removal of Greeks does not really make him a mother theresa (neither is Rezashah of course who tried to emulate Ataturk). So Tajik, Atabek.. forget about Rezashah/Ataturk and lets concentrate on this page. I should have my version within a few hours hopefully. I am archiving this page so unrelated discussions do not take place in the new page.--alidoostzadeh 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My version

I will make it soon after reviewing Tajiks and Atabeks carefully. Hopefully by Tuesday or Wednesday.. No need to rewrite the same back and forth arguments until my version is done. So please do your best if you can to end arguments until my version is also presented. But I am glad to say that both versions proposed so far are very close and we have taken a big step. Both versions are good and there seems to be just a minor argument, but the bulk of both versions intersect (have more in common) for the most part.--alidoostzadeh 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a major controversy in Tajik's version, Ali. Attribution of entire Safavid origin to being Kurdish is simply ridiculous and plain POV. The word Persian is used in wrong context, as Safavids had very little to do with ethnic Persian origin. I suggest changing some Persian spellings to Iranian, we are in 21st century, when the country and nation is known as Iran not Persia. Also, Azerbaijan shall be mentioned in introduction, as region where Safavids rose. Hiding it simply paints a wrong picture about the dynasty. Thanks and looking forward to your version. Atabek 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem now?! You reject the word "Persian" because you want to use the "modern meaning of the term" while you stubbornly persist on the word "Turkic", although the modern meaning of "Azeri" is clear to everyone in here?! Why this double-standard again?! Tājik 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Azeri, but Azeri Turkic or Azerbaijani. If you put Azeri now, later there will be yet another "historian" trying to prove us what the definition of Azeri means, relying on Persian nationalist Ahmad Kasravi. So either Azeri Turkic or Azerbaijani, but not Azeri, is acceptable.Atabek 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "Azeri Turkic", "Azeri Turkish", "Azeri dialect of Turki" and variations thereof are widely used and accepted by scholarly community, such as Enc. Britannica [8] Meanwhile, according to the Azerbaijani Constitution, and all previous constitutions and laws of the land, the language is known as Azerbaijani, not Azeri. We should abide by official and standard names and titles. --AdilBaguirov 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijan

The link goes to Iranian Azerbaijan anyway, so why Atabek insists that it should say just Azerbaijan is over my head... Are you trying to manipulate information to give false perceptions? Besides, it is talking about the order, which flourished in Iranian Azerbaijan and Anatolia, it is not about where the Safavids fought battles or where they conquered.Azerbaijani 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Safavid family originated from Iranian Azerbaijan, which shall be reflected in introduction instead of obscure and clearly POV attempt to purge it out with "North-Western Iran". Secondly, if we are talking about the domain where Safavid order gained ground, it wasn't just Iranian Azerbaijan but Azerbaijan in general. I provided a fact that Ismail fought with Alwand before entering Tabriz near Sharur, which is in Nakhchivan, not in Iranian Azerbaijan. Atabek 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT about where Ismail fouth. Ismail fought in a lot of places. The Safavid order flourished in Iranian Azerbaijan, NOT Caucasus Albania. Also, the Safavids came from Northern Iran, no where else.Azerbaijani 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, you may keep repeating yourself as much as you like. The fact is Safavids fought for power in North Azerbaijan as well, as Ismail's victory over Alwand near Sharur is just one proof. There was no Caucasian Albania in 16th century, both North and South Azerbaijan were part of Qaraqoyunlund subsequently Aghqoyunlu states, followed by Shirvanshahs and Safavids. I suggest before the next round of POV pushing, you read the following quote:

Iranian nationalists considered the land mass between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf - not, say, Asia Minor, - as the heartland of the Iranian state (or Iran-zamin), though they did often nurture expansionist fantasies of extending their boundaries to "Rum" and beyond. The historical precedent of defining certain regions as "Iranian", or "Kurdish", or "Armenian" endured and played an important ruole in the creation of nation-states, many of which correspond to regions existing on medieval and early modern maps and texts. However invented these abstractions were in their inception, they are to be distinguished from those "imagined communities" not represented by territories.

...In the Iranian context, the study of frontiers shifts the debate to the land-based origins of Iranian nationalism in the 19th century and traces the theme in the following decades when the Iranian nation, once recognized, grows aware of its vulnerable borders as it confronts separatist movements from within.

...At a time when imperial greatness was synonymous with imperial space, Iran grappled with its ambitious neighbors for its territorial share, but by the end of the 19th century, it would have to forgo its claims to the Caucasus, Herat, Central ASia and the Persian Gulf. As the century drew to a close, the Iranian space could no longer be termed imperial, even if Iran's imperial imaginings lingered. (Firouzeh Kashani-Sabet. "Fragile Frontiers: The Diminishing Domains of Qajar Iran", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (May, 1997), pp. 208-209)

So, stop the imaginings from lingering. Thanks. Atabek 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are so confused, this is what the article says: The Safavid dynasty had its origins in a long established Sufi order, called the Safaviyeh, which flourished in Iranian Azerbaijan and Anatolia since the early 14th century.

This is about where the Safavids had their origins, in the SAFAVIYEH ORDER WHICH WAS IN IRANIAN AZERBAIJAN AND ANATOLIA, not where the Safavids fought or where they went on their conquests. And your right, there was no Caucasus Albania, there was no "North Azerbaijan" either, there was Shirvan, Ganja, baku, Arran, Armenia, etc... and Azerbaijan south of the Aras.Azerbaijani 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, keep your personal attacks to yourself please. Now, Safaviyeh order "FLOURISHED" in both Azerbaijans, there was no border or a wall between North and South Azerbaijan during Safavids, and the population of North Azerbaijan did not become Shia out of blue. So, if it's originated, it's definitely Iranian Azerbaijan and shall go as such into introduction. If it's flourished, then it's general Azerbaijan and Anatolia, that's a statement of a fact. Atabek 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was only ONE Azerbaijan at that time, so no, your statement is POV! Secondly, do you also want to mention Kurdistan, Armenia, and every other region the Safavids were involved in? Also, you are mistaken in thinking that the Safavids had anything to do with what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there was one Azerbaijan that spread over North and South accross Araxes river. It was already so, since just 5 centuries earlier, it was called the state of Atabakan-e Adarbaijan, and included both North (Arran) and South (Iranian Azerbaijan). Safavids spoke and used the language of court, which is a state language in the Republic of Azerbaijan. So yes, Ismail has more to do with Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis (of both Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan) than he does with the newly invented "Persian identity" for himself. Atabek 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The kingdom was called Atabaken-e Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan was the major and most important part of the kingdom. Chroniclers of the time clearly said that the kingdom was made up of "Azerbaijan (Iran), Arran, Shirvan, Djibal, Hamedan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Isfahan and Rei". As you can see, other regions were also included that were not a part of Azerbaijan. You are trying to use your POV here and you are clearly wrong. The Safavids came out of one Azerbaijan, the only Azerbaijan of the time, and that was Iranian Azerbaijan. Stop trying to make historical connections to a place that has only held the name Azerbaijan for 80 years. Mind Wikipedia NPOV. You also need to stop attempting to tarnish everyones name. You have tried it several times and have failed every single time.Azerbaijani 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, neither Arran nor Shirvan included such part of Azerbaijan as Naxcivan, which even Iranica admits was the "powerbase" of Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan, and their family burial place. And even Dr. Yampolski in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia writes that Atropatena extended north of Araxes, and included Naxcivan at times. And Arab geographers and historians divided Azerbaijan into Upper (North) and Lower (Southern). Hence, once more, the concept of Azerbaijan includes lands north and south of Araxes. But what's more important, the terms South Azerbaijan and North Azerbaijan have become widely accepted in the academic community, generate more search results, and are geographically and historically appropriate. --AdilBaguirov 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I wrote this and later noticed you removed your comment. I am posting my response nevertheless, but if you feel this is unnecessary, feel free to remove my response as well: Ali, when the concepts of South/North Azerbaijan appeared, is of limited significance -- many other concepts appeared much later, like cell phone, pager, Timor, Republic of Montenegro, etc. Although having North/South Azerbaijan since 20th century, as you claims, shows they've been used far longer than both of us have been around, and thus once again, deserve to be mentioned, no matter whether someone considers them as propaganda (of what?) or geographically and historically appropriate. Secondly, having the South Caucasus called as "Arminiya" in Arab times is not very rellevant either -- the name Arminiya has little to do with the Hayk people and with Hayastan -- the self-name of the present-day Armenians, and, according to Enc. Britannica and other sources, has been applied to them by mistake. Thirdly, your reference to Yaqubi and Marageh has been addressed by scholars, who explain it easily: "It should be paid attention to a clear error in the text of al-Yaqubi (it is entirely possible, that it is a mistake of the scriber), according to whom the path from Ardabil to the north lays through Barzand - Varsan - al-Baylakan, and from there to "al-Maragha" (?) - city in Upper Azerbaijan". Here is a clear typo (compare spelling of the words Maragha and Barza'a in Arabic language); instead of Barza'a (Barda), which in reality was the end point of this path, Maragha is named -- city, located south-west from Ardabil. This [correction of Yaqubi's text] is proven also by the fact that later [lower in the text], al-Yaqubi among the cities of Azerbaijan also names Barda" (N.Velikhanova, "Changes of historic geography of Azerbaijan as a result of Arab conquest", in "Historic Geography of Azerbaijan", Institute of History of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Elm Publishing House: 1987, p. 81).

Then, another Arabic language author, Kudama ibn-Djafar (end of IX century), calls Barda as the "capital of Azerbaijan" (Kitab al-kharaj va san'at al-kitaba, Ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA Leiden, VI, 1889, p. 244). Ibn-Khawkal in his map, picturing Caspian Sea, calls the entire territory from Derbent to Gilan as Azerbaijan. According to al-Kufi, "al-Adi'ya [ibn Adi'ya al-Kindi, who was sent by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, 717-720 AD] travelled to the country of Azerbaijan and stayed in Baylakan... Al-Kharis ibn-Amr [the ruler after Adi'ya, appointed also by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz] left for the country of Azerbaijan and stopped in Barda". Mentioning the stay of al-Jarrah ibn-Abdallah al-Khakam [ruler of Azerbaijan in 722-725, 729-730] in Sheki, al-Kufi writes: "He [caliph Hicham] ordered al-Jarrah ibn-Abdallah to stay in Azerbaijan". According to the information from at-Tabari and Ibn al-Asir, in year 91 (709-710) Maslama ibn-Abd al-Malik made a new conquest campaign against Turks (i.e., khazars) "and reached al-Bab in the province of Azerbaijan, where he conquered cities and castles". So as we can see, there are plenty of references that name lands north of Araxes as Azerbaijan, and that name is both geographic, historic, political and administrative, whereas any additional names, such as Arminiya to denote all of South Caucasus (including Georgia), was a temporary and purely administrative name. So please pass my regards to those "some Iranians", you refer to, who want to call Azerbaijan as "East Armenia" (?!) that it simply won't work and doesn't correspond to reality, since that has never been done. Meanwhile, the "Arminiya" administrative name in relation to all of South Caucasus, whilst appropriate for only a period of Arab hold from VII to IX centuries, does not cancel out historic, geographic and political name of Azerbaijan, Arran, Shirvan, Daghestan, and Georgia (Iberia, Kolchi, etc). Indeed, if you want, I can involve Georgian editors into this, along with all other Caucasians, to get their opinion on the wishful thinking of "some Iranians". But I am not doing that for now, because I realize that most of us are smart and intelligent individuals, interested in truth. --AdilBaguirov 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil I never said some Iranians want to call Azerbaijan republic as east Armenia! I said such names are simply provocative for some Iranians like what east Armenia would sound like for republic of Azerbaijan person. Or for example North Ossetia and South Ossetia might be for Georgia. Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan region in Iran sounds more NPOV. For example it would like calling the republic of Azerbaijan or Armenia as Northern Iran. Or how the government of Turkey does not like the name West Kurdistan.

As per Yaqubi, I have the entire Arabic version of Yaqubi which the way to go. For example both بردع and برذع are correct. I do not think that scholar from the academy of sciences has it correct since actually the arabic ذ is closer to d than to actual z. In Persian that Arabic ذ has turned into z by phonetical mistake and thus that scholar is not looking at Arabic but Persian translation (probably by Ibrahim Ayati). But more classic Persian both ذ and د are used equivalently. For example in Aflaki's writing both بود and بوذ. So Yaqubi's transliteration is actually not Barza but برذع . Ibn Hawqal in his book actually puts Tabriz as part of Armenia but his map I will need a closer examiniation of [9]. برذع is also mentioned in different books Lesan al-Arrab , Al-insab..etc. Of course I am interested in the truth of the matter and that is why I am collecting all the sources (pro-Aran,pro-Armenia,pro-Azerbaijan,pro-Georgia if there is any so far I found one russian map).

Also Yaqubi spells همدان as همذان ..

As per VII to IX, I have found some sources from that era. But Minorsky's studies of caucus has some sources after IX (Monjem Bashi for example). I thought it would be necessary to point out that Yaqubi does not have Barza but برذع and he has not made a mistake with this regard as برذع is in many texts and there is no Barza except the author did not know how to pronounce the Arabic ذ. َAlso if we are after the truth then one needs to examine all of Yaqubi's quote. Anyways I do not want to go off topic but thanks for the other sources which I will examine the original Arabic in due time. I also ask all users specially not to bring the Arran, Azerbaijan debate to this article. thanks --alidoostzadeh 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two more maps from ibn-Howqal that I can scan, if needed, both from "Kitab surat al-ard". But ibn-Howqal is different from al-Yaqubi, about whom you've initially inquired, so let's not mix things up. Also, as I said, there is no objection whatsoever to using the name Arminiya as long as we point out the relevant note from Britannica and other sources that this toponym predates the Hayk people by centuries. Also, al-Mukaddisi at one point declares Tiflis (Tbilisi) as a city in Arran ("Ahsan al-takasim fima'rifat al-akalim", Ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA, Leiden, 1876, II, p. 373)

Meanwhile, Dr. Velikhanova is using the following Yaqubi edition: "Kitab al-Buldan", Ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA, Leiden, 1897, VII, p. 217. So where is Dr. Velikhanova incorrect in her explanation of the error that crept into Yaqubi's book? Since you have the whole book in original Arabic, we can analyze all thse quotes in full, as you suggest. She does make a good case for her explanation, since it makes perfect logical and geographic sense that Maragha cannot be an end-point in the travel to the north from Ardabil through Baylakan -- it must be Barda (whether spelled as Partav, Berda, Barda'a, Barza'a, Barzand, Varsan, etc). --AdilBaguirov 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Velikhanova is making a mistake with regards to pronounciation. There is no Barza' in Yaqubi it is برذع. In Persian ذ is pronounced as z now. But in Arabic it is still a d sounce. Also let me add that Varsan is also not Arabic version it is Varthan وارثانَ which is correctly transliterated as Varthan. But in Persian the arabic th is transliterated as s thus Varsan. But the correcter transliteration is the Arabic which is Varthan. Of course middle Persian does have a sound th. Also Ibn Hawqal's map and texts are online(arabic google). But anyways thats off topic. I'll be glad to send the original arabic of that section via e-mail. --alidoostzadeh 06:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "th" vs. "s" is not her mistake, but my translation/transliteration, so if you want to consider it as a mistake, then please do so against me, not her. Meanwhile, the "d" sound is of course more appropriate for the city of Barda. How is he spelling Maraga? Also, unrelated to this, were you able to locate those Atabaki-cited letters of Rasulzadeh? You mentioned the letter was from 1924. I cancelled the book order as you recommended. --AdilBaguirov 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil unfortunately I did not have time yet look into those sources. About Maragha it is spelled as مراغه by Persian/Arab books. It's etymology is not 100% certain but some have connected to the word Mede since Mar is used as a word for Medes in some local languages. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said

Guys, everyone, friends, doostaan, doostlar, Baradaran, Gardashlar..Before enganging in discussions please wait for my version! Thank you! Some of you guys Azerbaijani, Atabek are in arbcomm..so calm down and have some patience. So I request everyone to cease commenting till I present my version since some of the discussion are diverging. I am being patient with my edit due to both time constraints as well as trying to sift through the various users edits. Just give it a slight day or two ... Thanks for your patience! --alidoostzadeh 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (hopefully).

I changed Iranian Empire to Iranian dynasty, since the intro got changed to simply the name of the dynasty. It makes more sense.Azerbaijani 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for now it doesn't matter since all the tags. But the reason I put the march 2nd version in so that there won't be further edit wars until new concensus is reached. So if you don't mind let me r.v. it for now. --alidoostzadeh 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Azerbaijani and Tajik feel like freely editing the page, while we are discussing. Everyone can create their version under their respective user pages by just typing the Wikipath/User:username/TOPIC. So yes, Ali, please, revert to March 2nd version, and let everyone respect it, until we come to consensus. Atabek 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to keep a constant version and march 2nd is good till a new concensus.. Guys with all these tags already in there, no one is taking the current article seriously. I hope everyone can wait till my proposal as I am going to do my best to incorporate all viewpoints from all users. for now lets keep the march 2nd. --alidoostzadeh 03:22, 150 March 2007 (UTC)

The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia.

That is what the article says now. Does that make sense to anyone here with a basic knowledge of the English language? Last I check, the Safavids themselves were not an empire, they were a people. Atabek, you need to calm down, take a few days off.Azerbaijani 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

true.. but lets just keep the current version until a new concensus is reached. Else if everyone does random edits the article will get simply locked up where-as I believe we are closer to making this article work once and hopefully for all. Trust me is not worth editing the article right now with two disputed tags..the article simply has no value with those tags and one might as well just say farfunugen or something. --alidoostzadeh 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

request

I make friendly request to everyone to keep the march 2nd version right now and don't make any changes. Also any topic not related to the discussion should not be discussed as per guidelines of the talk page (I removed one of my comments not related but users can check it in history and discuss it via e-mail). I am studying tajik's and atabek's version in detail and first sifting the agreement parts out (and I have to say there is 90% agreement) and then will propose my own version for commenting. It will take some more time but I am hopeful it can work. --alidoostzadeh 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect the way it sounds now. The Safavids were human beings, they were not a "thing" to be called an empire. If the intro says Safavid Empire, then it makes sense to say Iranian Empire, however, when it says The Safavids, referring to the dynasty, it should say Iranian dynasty, because, as I said, the Safavids are humans, not an empire. Its not even that major of an edit to need consensus. It is a simple correction. Atabek is finding every excuse to start an edit war over ridiculously stupid things...Azerbaijani 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it does sound sort of incorrect although technically Achaemenids are also called an empire. But right now there are two tags anyways, readers will know there are other stuff incorrect. I think we are going to resolve this article soon anyways. With the two tags you might as well write Safavids were fish, .. basically normal readers will notice the multiple tags and move on until the article is fixed up.. Scholars simply ignore wiki anyways. So it will be fixed soon. --alidoostzadeh 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what one of the tags says:

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling.

You can help by editing it now. A guide is available, as is general editing help.

This article has been tagged since February 2007.

I was doing exactly what is said on the tag: You can help by editing it now. A guide is available, as is general editing help.

User Atabek is looking for an excuse to bait anyone into an edit war, that is the only logical explanation, or else why would anyone be so quick to revert an edit that has nothing to do with any dispute, but is merely a grammatical correction?Azerbaijani 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true minor edits should not be a problem. But under the current condition where musunderstandings unfortunately arise, it is best to stick with the version right now (which goes back to S.A. Vakilian) until the article is fixed. The article as I mentioned with the current tags is nothing to worry about (from any POV).. since it clearly says the article is not encyclopedic. I think for now lets just keep everything as is. --alidoostzadeh 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding. Atabke can clearly see the diff's, unless he is blindly reverting, which is even worse! Anyway, what Atabek did (twice) is was not acceptable, he continuously reverts good edits, edits which have nothing to do with any of the disputed content.Azerbaijani 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, will you quit mentioning my name, baselessly accusing me of edit war, when you're the one editing the page without agreement. My revert was per note of Ali on this talk page, about going back to version of March 2nd. Abide by the rules of Wikipedia, discuss your edits, come to consensus, then update the page. Come up with a single version of your own, instead of endless arguments on talk page, which lead so far nowhere. We have managed to preserve this page from being blocked, discuss our edits. If you're to violate this policy, we shall request then the full blockage of the page, until you come into terms of accepting consensus and discussing edits.Atabek 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

user "Azerbaijani", you are acting as an agent provocateur on this page. What part of request to refrain from edits you didn't understand? Refrain from any edits to the page for a day or two until a compromise version is presented and discussed. Don't push this into a revert war and don't blindly accuse others when you yourself engage in disruptive edits. Your so-called "fixes" can wait a day or two. --AdilBaguirov 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The request is to not edit any of the disputed content, not grammatical and structural mistakes within the article. I suggest you keep a cool head. Take a break for awhile, your obviously in no shape to be discussing these issues with calm.Azerbaijani 15:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The current intro should also be reverted to an earlier version, because it is almost identical to Atabek's suggestion. Why should his version be prefered?! I suggest to put up this intro until the problems are solved:

• The Safavid dynasty was a Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722. [10]

Tājik 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

guys will need a little more time to get my version... Hope to have it soon. But I am making it coherent. Azerbaijani, I appreciate all the spell checks and grammer fixes, but I am going to just r.v. for now to the march 2nd but your grammer and spell fixes will be incorporated in the relevant portion as soon as consensus is reached. --alidoostzadeh 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I request that everyone just has a little more patience. thanks --alidoostzadeh 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alot needs to be done!

This article needs a lot of work, and I mean a lot. Right now, I am going through it and fixing the grammatical and the smoothness of the article, but those are not the only problems. Random information is all over the article. We really need to organize this article, its a mess! Hopefully we can make it a featured article.Azerbaijani 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys, I read through a lot of the article and fixed a bunch of mistakes. I did not change anything that is in dispute. Again, I did not touch anything that is within the dispute.Azerbaijani 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I was able to eliminate atleast one of the tags.Azerbaijani 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

archived

I have archived this since some non-relevant discussions were taking place. --alidoostzadeh 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)