Talk:Safavid dynasty

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

My version

It is not complete yet (will fix it up (grammer and spelling) this weekend with the relevant sources.. I messed up on the reference tag).. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali_doostzadeh/Safavid

Hope it looks acceptable..

(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF THE ARTICLE AS SOME OF THE UNRELATED DISCUSSIONS HAS LEFT A NEGATIVE ATMOSPHERE WHICH USUALLY MAKES REACHING A CONSENSUS MUCH HARDER.). LOOKING AT THE ABOVE GUIDLINES, I WILL TAKE THE LIBERTY OF MOVING ANY NON-RELATED DISCUSSION INTO THE PREVIOUS ARCHIVE.

thanks (Sepaas, Sagh Gol, Shukran). Also with the approach of Nowruz, Noruz, Novruz I would like to wish everyone: Noruzetan Pirooz/Noruzetan Farkhondeh and Novruz/Bayramus Mubarak Olson. Maybe we all can give a Norouz gift to ourselves (minutes of precious life) by compromising.

--alidoostzadeh 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali this looks quite reasonable at a first sight. I need to read it more carefully though. Couple of quick comments:

• "Azeri" term referring to language should probably be replaced with "Azerbaijani" in the article. Currently, some parts of the version use Azeri some Azerbaijani.
• Junayd actually married the sister of Uzun Hassan, not his daughter. It was Heydar (Junayd's son) who married the daughter of Uzun Hassan, and Ismail was born to this marriage.

Thanks and happy coming Novruz to you and everyone as well. Atabek 07:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Ali for taking the time and energy to tackle this difficult issue. This intro line should be improved: "The Safavids although claiming Arab lineage from the Prophet Muhammad were probably of Kurdish descent. Nevertheless they were a Turcophone dynasty and used Azeri as their court language. They also patronized Persian as a administrative and cultural language of their domain and Arabic served as the main religious language during their era."

Notes: Azerbaijani language was not only court language, but military and cultural (since 99% of Khatai's poems are in Azerbaijani). Meanwhile, while Turcophone and not Turkic-speaking, a more widely used description? And since this is Dynasty page, and Ismail being the most important member of that dynasty, the whole "probably of Kurdish descent" cannot be stated. There is absolutely no evidence that by Ismail's time he felt himself Kurdish, whilst his preference of Azerbaijani Turki language in poetry, court, military and official business, coronation in Azerbaijan, priority to subdue Azerbaijan (north and south) before the rest of Iranian Empire, etc., show him as a quintisential Azerbaijani.

Also, since a lot of evidence was presented, I think we should try to reference as many statements as possible. Happy Novruz to all. --AdilBaguirov 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Ali's suggestion, although I think that the intro is a bit too long.

@ Adil: your points do not make sense, most of all because everything has been discussed. Ismail's poetry is no proof at all, because we do not know if "99% of his poems were in Turkish", as you claim. All we know is that most of the poems which have survived are in Turkish - also keeping in mind that many poems were not even written by Ismail himself but centuries after his death by some of his Turcoman followers (see Iranica). You are correct that Ismail did not have any Kurdish identity (he even denied it), but all the rest you are saying is pure suggestion. There is not a single proof for the claim that he had any "Turkish identity". In fact, the Shahnama of Tahmasp - which was started and first patronized by Ismail personally - gives the impression that he did not have any Turkish identity and that he considered Turks his enemies. Also his choice to appoint ethnic Persian amirs for the Turcoman Qizilbash, and to revive ancient Iranian titles underlines the theory that Ismail and his children did not have a Turkish identity and did not consider themselvs Turkic, even though they spoke a Turkic language. Yet again, we should also keep in mind that during Ismail'S time, the word "Turk" was only used for Central Asian nomads and was - in part - a self-designation of the Timurids. The Ottomans and the Safavids did not call and did not consider themselvs "Turks". While the Ottomans had some distant memories to their original Turcoman roots, the Safavids had their origin in a non-Turkic and Iranian Sufi order. Tājik 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Ismail did not have Kurdish identity, and was a founder of dynasty, then part about probably Kurdish origin should move out of intro into origins section. Also, the policy of Safavids was directed mostly against Ottomans and their influence, not against Turks as ethnicity. So anyone associated with Ottomans or originated from Anatolia came under suspicion. It does not mean, Safavids were of different identity. For the same reason, Khamenei is Azeri Turk, ruling Iran, neither himself nor his opponents deny this. But he has probably contributed more to strengthening Persian nationalism and language, than he did to strengthen Azeri/Turkic one. Atabek 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ghaznavids did not have any Turkic identity and they even openly denied any Turkic origins. Yet, in almost all sources they are described as a "Turkic dynasty" and the "beginning of Turkic power in the Islamic world". Therefore, your suggestion does not make any sense. Ismail may have denied his Kurdish origins (the same way Ghaznavids denied their Turkic origins), but it does not change the fact that the Safavid had Kurdish origins, and that the Safavid tariqa - the base of all Safavid claims to Iran's throne - had a Sunni Kurdish origin. They denied their Kurdish origins because they did not want to be associated with the Sunni Kurds who supported the Ottoman sultans. Yet, it should also be noted that they never claimed to be Turks, although Turks were the backbone of their ascend to power. There is no sign of any Turkish identity, and the writings of Ismail as well as the sources from later Safavid periods clearly point toward a Shia Persian identity. So, the Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Kurdish origin who claimed to be descendanst of Arab saints and Iranian Shahs of the past, and who identified themselvs with the Persian heroes of the epic age. All claims of any "Turkic identity" are POV ... even though Ismail's maternal grandfather was the leader of a Turcoman tribal federation, Ismail never claimed to be part of that federation, and he never took pride in his grandfather. From the beginning on, he was a Safavi Sufi Sheikh, and thus, he clearly identified himself with his paternal Safavid heritage and not with any Turkic Khans, tribes, or whatever. Tājik 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence presented so far claims some Kurdish origins of Sheikh Safi. It does mean those were Kurdish origins of entire dynasty, especially given the fact that Ismail had Turkic and Greek blood in him, so did his father Heydar have Turkic origins (his mother was a sister of Uzun Hassan). I was just showing an example with Khamenei, that disassociation with a group of certain people does not mean denying the origin belonging to them. Same is with Ismail. Ottoman Sultan Bayazid was defeated by Timur, it does not mean one of them was not a Turk. I am yet to see any evidence that shows anyone Persian (ethnic) in Safavid ethnic genealogy, except for the fact that Safavids just like their predecessors and successors promoted the language and culture. So apart from minor linguistic and major literary connection, any other reference to word Persian (as opposed to Iranian) would simply be out of place. Atabek 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Timur was not a Turk, he was Mongol - like all Barlas Mongols. That's why they became known as Mughals and called themselvs Gurkānī - derived from the Mongolian word kürügän which means "son in law (of Genghis Khan).

Besides that, the talk is not about multiple origins and all kinds of lines. If that were the case, the the Seljuqs, Ottomans, and Timurids, and ALL OTHER DYNASTIES around the world would have been of multiple origins. Yet, the Ottomans are still defined as "Turks" although most of their sultans had Non-Turkish mothers (mostly Armenians, Georgians, Greeks, Albanians, etc) and they themselvs were only 1/2 or 1/4 Turks.

I know that you have some grundge against Persians, Persian history, culture, and everything else that is somehow connected to the word Persian, but what you fail to understand is that the Safavids had a strong Persian identity. This is not about geneology, but about identity. And the fact that the Safavids promoted Persian language and culture, revived ancient Persian traditions and royal titles, created Islamic legends that connected the Persian people to Arab saints (the story of Shahrbanu, for example, or the special honoring of Salman al-Farsi), and patronized the Persian nationalist works of Nizami and Ferdowsi shows the strong Persian identity of the dynasty. This may be hard for some Turkish nationalists to understand, but keeping in mind that the dynasty had absolutely no Turkic identity, did not promote any Turkic nationalism or identity, did not claim descent from Turkic or Mongol Khans (like all previous dynasties), etc, these Turcophiles are not in any position to criticize the word "Persian".

The geneology of a dynasty is defined by the male family linage. Ismai'l had a Turkic grandfather, and his father had a Turkic mother. Yet, the male linage was Non-Turkic all the way. This male linage defines the Ottomans as "Turks" although they had much more Non-Turkic blood, and this male linage defines the Safavids as "Non-Turks", even though they had some Turkic blood. The Kurdish origins of the Safavids are confirmed. But what is certain is that the Safavids directly descended from Safi al-Din Ishaq, and he was certainly Non-Turkic. In this case, even if the Kurdish origin of Safi ud-Din is denied, his Non-Turkic origins cannot be denied. He is the eponym and the founding-father of the Safavid clan - the same Seljuq was a distant ancestor and eponym of the Seljuq dynasty, themselvs a highly Persianized family with no interest in Turkish language or literature.

I know that certain people do not like the word Persian ... this may be of what ever reason. But simply having a grudge against Persian and Persian identity does not justify anti-Persian POV in Wikipedia. Tājik 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, I am really tired of your ad hominem, yet again stating: "I know that you have some grundge against Persians". First of all, you know nothing about me. Secondly, can you for once cease concentrating on contributors and switch to concentrating on topics. Any discussion with you is really becoming counter productive in light of your personalization of it. As I said before, I have nothing against Persian people or their culture.

I am not trying to prove Safavis were Turkic or Persian or Kurdish. In fact, I almost agreed with Ali's proposal. I just care that if the statement is made attributing them solely (as is done in Kurdish case) to a certain origin, that it reflects the truth. So far, what has been deemed probable is connection between Sheykh Safi and Firouz Shah. Sheykh Safi lived some 200 years before Ismail, Firouz Shah lived another several hundred before Sheikh Safi. And you have not provided any single female or male in the lineage aside from Firouz Shah or Sheykh Zahid to show that Safavids had just plain Kurdish origins. You cannot prove that either Sheikh Junayd or Sheikh Haydar were to be Kurdish, since full genealogy of them (including both male and female) is already not fully Kurdish.

Your reference to Ottomans is misplaced as well. The dynasties usually had origins that they clearly identified themselves with. Ottomans spoke Turkish, so did Safavids, in fact, the latter more so even used it as a language of the court. You can never find Ottomans trying to purge their Turkish origin or hide it in their geneaology, while we do have a proof that Safavids tried to purge any Kurdish reference from their history.

Timur was not Mongol, he was what's today considered as Uzbek. Considering that you call all inhabitants of Central Asia as Turks, it's surprising how Amir Timur suddenly became only Mongol.

I will try to get my hands to some text on Safvat al Safa, which apparently had some reference to Sheikh Safi being referred to as "Pir-i Turk". I need to verify this claim. Atabek 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, the Ottomans DID HIDE their Turkic origin. In fact, it was even considered an insult to call the Ottomans "Turks". What you - as a non-expert on Central Asian history - still fail to understand is that the word "Turk" had a totally different meaning before the so-called "Young Türk" revolution in Anatolia. The word "Turk" was - just like "Scythian" and "Mongol" - a general name given to a whole bunch of different peoples of different origins who just seemed to have a similar way of life. And that was nomadic and bellicose. That'S why Timru and Babur - both ethnic Mongols - considered themselvs "Turks", because the word reflected their way of life: a nomadic dynasty of warriors and conquerors who claimed descent from the great Mongol conquerors of the 12th century. That'S why Mir Ali Sher Nava'i, in his "Muhākamāt al-Lughatain", claims that Hulagu was a "Turk" and Toghril a "Persian"!

thus, the Ottomans - although they were indeed descendants of a Turkic tribe - did NOT consider themselvs "Turks" and their language was NOT identified as "Turkic". It was known as "Uthmanli" and it was regarded completely different from the "barbarian languages of the Turks". Comperative linguistics did not exist back then and people did not realize or know common origins or grammar of languages. The Ottoman language was a mixed language, and contained Turkic and Persian grammar, as well as countless Arabic and some Persian vocabulary. In total, the ammount of original Turkish words was less than 20% (see Iranica). Thus, the Ottomans - in their own view - neither "spoke Turkish" (= Turkic languages of Central Asia) nor had any blood relations to the "primitiuve Turks" (Chaghataid and Timurid Mongols). The re-discovery of their Turkic background was promoted in the 19th century, when extrem nationalism spread throughout Europe. While the European powers claimed to be descendants of the Scyths, whom they labled "Aryans, Turkish-speaking Ottoman intellectuals discovered the ancient Central Asian nomads, labled all of them "Turks" - including multi-lingual and heterogenious groups such as the Huns - and promoted this nationalist view.

That's the reason why YOU today want to lable the Safavids "Turks".

The Ottomans were a highly civilized, Persianized, and Europeanized family. The Ottoman sultans were multi-lingual and spoke all kinds of languages. Ottoman Turkish was only one of the 3 official court languages, along with Persian (the lingua franca of the early Ottomans) and Arabic. Most of the Ottoman sultans had NON-TURKISH mothers. Yet, they are STILL labled "Turks" and "of Turkic descent", because one of their distant ancestors - Uthman - was a Turcoman tribal chief. The Ottomans are even categorized as Oghuz, although the original Oghuz lived 300 years before the creation of the Ottoman Empire and had splitted into countless other tribes.

The Safavids are considered "Kurds" because their family-tree starts with a Kurd. Saying that "Safavids were originally of Kurdish descent" does not mean that they did not have any other ancestors. And what you also fail to understand is that each of the Safavid princess had countless children. So, the dynasty was not only the king, but the entire Safavid family. The Safavids of Qandahar, for example, constantly married into Timurid or Indian noble families. The Safavid governors of Fars married local nobles. Others were married to neighbouring ruling dynasties. All in one, the family was highly multi-cultural. Only because the ruling Shahs wrote some poetry in Azeri (leaving aside their Persian poetry), it does not mean that the entire family was Turkish-speaking. You also totally underestimate the importance of the royal harem and the "first ladies", each of them trying to elevate their sons to the throne of Persia. Some of the harem ladies were Turcomans, some were Georgians, some others were Persians, Indians, or whatever. Have you already forgotten that Mumtaz Mahal, the Persian queen of India, was a Safavid noble?! And she was NOT a Turk but a a Persian.

Classifying the Safavids as "Kurds" is encyclopedic standard: it's because their family-tree stars with Kurds. Both safi al-Din Is'haq AND his wife, the daughter of Zahed Gilani, were Kurds. It was not until Haydar Safavid, himself a resident of Diyabakir - a Kurdish city; until today! - that the Safavids once again moved to Azerbaijan to lead their Turcoman murshids.

Tājik 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, what you say doesn't make good sense - while you are correct to make a point (which we already discussed) that not all poetry has survived the test of time, you should not selectively apply it in case of Ismail only, but in case of all other poets too, such as Nizami, to whose beloved and uneducated Turk wife he must have written love poetry in Turki. Secondly, the point about some poetry being written by his Turk followers is not very rellevant - so instead of let's say 10,000 beyts in Turki, he maybe wrote "only" 5,000. So? The number of beyts in Persian is still only a few lines. How does that help your point? You can't claim that the number of lines in Turki was potentially less, whilst at the same time claim that the number of lines in any Persian dialect was more. Ismail is extremely well-known by his pen-name Khatai, he is remmembered as much by his empire-building and military actions as by his poetry. His poetry is studied, for example, in Azerbaijani middle schools (grades 3-9), and thus is known before or simultaneously with his other activities. So denying Azerbaijani Turkic language its place in the cultural sphere of the Safavid Empire is contrary to verifiable facts.

As of considering Turks as enemies -- sure he did. As he did Uzbeks. And Shirvanshah's. As did Mongols, too, consider Seljuk Turks as enemies. As did Uzun Hasan, the Aq Qoyunlu emperor, who too considered Ottoman Turks as enemies. As did some Azerbaijani Turks when they fought against (Ottoman) Turkey (mostly after Russian conquest, but still). All this doesn't mean he hated, despised, or otherwise ignored his Turkic heritage (whether blood or culture). And his and his descendant's identity being at least partially (Azerbaijani) Turkic is proven by the official letters that they wrote to far-away kings. No one forced them to write in Azerbaijani Turki -- in fact, it were probably easier to write in Persian, especially considering all that stuff you say about Persian amirs and other chancellery and bureaucrats (although even that's disputed by some evidence, as Europeans had easier time to translate from Turkic, than from Persian). Yet they, several Safavid shah's, wrote in Turkic, for some reason. I guess they just practiced their "foreign" language skills in a "hated", if we are to believe you, language, with the very unimportant European kings. It was all just for fun. ;)

Also, you have mentioned before that sheikh Safi wrote in "Azari" language - which would make him, according to the Iranian view, a pre-Turkified Azerbaijani. I have his verses in that language, by the way, too, and hence, him being Kurdish is rendered, by your own information, impossible (although I personally don't doubt that someone in the family throughout the centuries was of Kurdish origin), whilst the whole "Persian Kurdistan" re: Savory is too unspecific (and if the whole premise of Kurdishness is based on that obscure geographic reference, then it's too imprecise). What is Persian Kurdistan to some, is Western Iran to others, Eastern Turkey to yet some others, and Greater or Lesser Armenia to yet others. In addition to "Azari" language (which is closest to modern Talysh, not Persian) and Turki with Persian, he knew Arabic and Mongolian languages.

Meanwhile, don't forget about chroniclers like Hamdallah Kazvini (1280—1349), who was essentially a contemporary of sheikh Safi, and noted ethnic composition of many cities in South Azerbaijan (Northern Iran): Kalantar, Khoy, Urmiya, Garmrud, Maragha, Nilan (Laylan), etc., all are mentioned to have ethnic Turks, sometimes in majority.

Finally, here's a good quote to add to the "Pir-i Turk" user Atabek mentioned above: "It seems that Timur not only transported tribes to the east, to Transoxania and neigboring region's, but that he also sent certain tribes from Iran to the West. At the request of Shaykh Safy-ud-Din Ishag (in Ardebil Azarbaijan) a highly celebradet holy man, Timur consented that the tribes of Turkish origin who had been sent to Syria and Armenia should return to their homelands. These grateful tribes-among whom were also the Qajar-became devoted disciples of the shaykn and were supporters of Shah Ismail,who later founded the Safavid dynasty." Prof. Dr. Ozkan Izgi (Hacettepe University), "Central Asia After the Mongol Invasion-Islam and Sedentray Life as a Consequence", citing: Sir John Malcolm, History of Persia, p.66 and C.R.Markham, A General Sketch of the History of Persia, p.263. --AdilBaguirov 07:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually since there are more Turkish poems from Esmail than Persian(50), so I would probably guess that he has more Turkish poems by what has survived. Just probabilisticly speaking. Although Sam Mirza does not elaborate on how many Persian poems Shah Esmail has but he mentions his Persian poetry and thus it is probably more than 50 verses we have now. On the other hand, for some other poets we do not have a single specimen or any books mentioning it. Also many Qashqai's in Iran (being tribal migratory group) do not have an education but they speak and understand Persian well enough. Some have even composed poetry in both languages..I recall reading about an uneducated man in Iran who was a good poet

. The issue about Ismail's poetry has been mentioned though in my latest edits.

But wanted to comment on the interesting quote you brought. It is from Sir John Malcom who wrote his book in 1815.(Although I am not sure when the Turkish Professor who quoted him lived but the title of his book sounds new which is suprising). But since that time, Safavid scholarship has improved tremendously. To the extent that now it is clear Shaykh Safi ad-din and Teymur did not meet. Shaykh Safi ad-din passed away around in 1334(born around 1252) and Teymur was born was around in 1336 (died around 1405). But during the Safavid times a myth passed along that Teymur gave 1000 Tatar slaves to the Shaykh after visiting the Shaykh and being impressed by him and these became the ancestors of the Ghezelbash. (Thus in a way trying to say that the Ghezelbash were attached to the Safawid family from the day of the Shaykh). As you can see, Teymur and Shaykh Safi ad-din though did not meet, but this is another example of a myth created during the Safavid era and it shows that in an event of 200 years how myths can even trasnplant people in different times. Thus Sir John Malcom probably was quoting a post-1501 Safavid manuscript.

On the premise of Kurd on Firuz is based on Safwat as-Safa directly calling Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah, Kurdish twice. (plus the shafi'iteness). The Persian Kurdistan could be replaced to Kurdistan for clarity.. Sanjaar/Sangaan Kurdistan. Safwat as-Safa makes it clear though that Firuz migrated and settled in Ardabil.

Also comment about Iranian languages since I study them on the side. Talyshi, Kurdish, old Azeri are all NW Iranian languages and at that time were mutually intellgible. Still Talyshi and some Kurdish dialects are very close. Thus Lurs in Iran can understand Kurdish and Talysh can understand Tati and etc. Laki is close too. They are all very similar. Persian and some dialects of Kurdish are very close as well. For example Kermanshahi Kurdish is very close to Shirazi persian.

About Hamdullah Mustawafi, he mentions specially that the Shaykh was Shaf'ite. Furthrmore, some of the cities like Maragha, Zanjan, Goshtasfi (between Baku and Ardabil) as Pahlavi-Gilani speaking. Urmia he does not give language. He also quotes some sentences from the dialect of Tabriz which was also Iranic at the time (Yarshater, Azeri).

Three sentences from the dialect of the region before Turkification is quoted from Ibn Bazzaz from the Shaykh:

سه جمله از «شيخ صفي» در صفوةالصفاي ابن بزاز: «كار بمانده، كار تمام بري» (= اي خانه آبادان، كار تمام بود)؛ «گو حريفر ژاته» (= سخن به صرف بگو، حريفت رسيده)؛ «شروه مرزدان به مرز خود بي

Note the sentence Goo Harifar zhaata (the middle one). Zh is not a sound in Turkic dialect but Zhaate is now pronounced as Haate in Kurdish which is equivalent to Persian Amad or English arrived. I have some knowledge of with various Iranian dialects., the quatrains of the Shaykh given to Kurdish or Talyshi speaker is understdanble by large.. Note Ibn Nadeem discussed the unity of dialects of Fahlah (Azerbaijan, Esfahan, Hamadan,Ray..) and this is mentioned. Basically what used to be the Iranian dialects of Azerbaijan (dialects of say Tabriz and Ardabil) was located between Talyshi and Kurdish geographically and thus linguistically and both of these are very close (Kurmanji and Talyshi). Talyshi is also not that far from Persian and some dialects of Kurdish are closer to Persian than other dialects. We now have some new information on Tabrizi dialect thanks to the recently discovered Ikhanid era manuscript of Safineyeh Tabrizi. Thus some Iranian dialects are closer (much like say Azeri and Istanbuli turkish) and others are further. But the NW dialects like Talyshi, Kurdi..are fairly close.

Going back though to Sir Malcom, the quote you brought from Sir John Malcom who quotes a Safavid era manuscript is a good and interesting quote in terms of illustrating how Safavid histography became more mythical by each generation and the Shayk was implanted in Teymur's time or viceversa. Of course Sir John Malcom is not to blame by mentioning this quote and it is a good quote showing how history was modified... --alidoostzadeh 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

I am glad everyone is enthusiatic about Nowruz.

I was not done yet.. and that will take into account suggestions by Atabek, Adil and Tajik hopefully tommorow and give it another shot with references that has been brought by myself and others and try make the introduction acceptable to everyone.

Comment for Adil. About the languages of the Safavids I was going with the main language. Azeri was the main court language (Persians was present also), Persian was the main patronized language (judging by the amount of works left) in the domain (I am not totaling all the Safavids Turkish and Persian poetry but Tahmasp, Abbas.. have Persian letters, poems and etc and some members of Safavid family like Sam Mirza have even written books like Sam Mirza). Persian was also the main administrative language. Finally while there are some important religious works in Persian from that time, the bulk of it from what I gathered was Arabic. So I was going with what is considevered overwhelming majority in their whole domain. But I will edit that section probably.

Ali, that's why I suggested to list out all the different aspects of language usage: court language (mostly Azerbaijani, as well as Persian), official language (Persian and Azerbaijani), state language (Persian), military language (Azerbaijani), religious langauge (Arabic), poetic language (Persian and Azerbaijani). --AdilBaguirov 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that would be too complicated for the introduction. Probably these things should be included in : Court life, Cultural life, Religion under Safavid sections..--alidoostzadeh 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment for Atabek. As per Atabek's suggestion that Safwat As-Safa had pir-i-Turk that is not true. I looked at archives with this regardd (I believe GM or someone mentioned something) and the user mentions the book Sisilat an-nasb of Safavids written at least in 1680 (and I am not sure what the oldest extant manuscript is). I have partial access to some passages from this book from Mazzaoui. In it the Safavid family line is given by: (Shaykh Safi ad-din ... (a name abu bakr removed from the Shaykhs ancestor which was in the Safwat as-Safa, the reason is of course that abu bakr is not an acceptable shi'ite name) to firuz shah zarin kolah (removed the Kurdish part) to Imam Musa ibn Kazim to Prophet Muhammad). Note Sislat an-nasab was written at least in 1680. Also it is sufic work and it has some gilaki poems from the Shaykh as well (in another book I have). Uusually in Sufism and Persian sufism, turk has a multiple meaning including bright, light, shining, radiant beautiful as well as cruel lover, raider, without faith and as well as fast, quick, unsettled... (Probably has 20-30 meanings in Persian mysticism). But the main line of Safavids from this book goes back to the Prophet Muhammad. Actually I do not think there exist a single book after 1501 which does not mention the Safavid claiming descent from the Prophet. So all these books are suspect due to their late date and also their contradiction with Safwat as-Safa. Also Professor Togan said that Safavids were at pains to make the Shaykh a Shi'ite descent of the Imams and turkish speaking (perhaps for thei overwhelming turkish followers). Either way not to reject or accept the claim about pir-i-turk , where-as Safwat Safa which mentions the Kurdish origin of the Shaykh was written during the time of the Shaykh's son, the Silsilat an-Nasab was written in 1680 (350 years after the passing of the Shaykh) and the oldest manuscript of it I am not sure where it is from. But anyways in the book it gives the ancestery of the Shaykh from the Prophet Muhammad and removes abu bakr as a name of one ancestor of the Shaykh and removes the Kurdish title of Firuz. Also the fact that Safavids deliberately tempered with Safwat as-safa (and hence really making all post-Safavid manuscripts with regards to their descent ideological innature) shows as you said that they did not want to be associated with Kurds. And of course they did not want to be associated with the Sunnism of the Shaykh which is mentioned in Safwat as-Safa. Basically the Safwat as-Safa because it was written around the time of the Shaykh's son and also because it is the only pre-Safavid document found so far before the rise of their political power, has the most weight amongst scholars and combined with the Shaykh's shafi'ism, is the main reason why scholars have put probable Kurdish origin. Although because there has been so much tempering after the Safavids took power, no one can say with 100% certainty..

As per Tajiks comments. Yes, it is true Esmail did not have Kurdish identity. Of course Esmail I did not have Turkish or Persian identity of today either. He was shi'ite foremost, second he wrote in Azeri ( i put approximately 1400 verses because that is what I read somewhere but I am not sure how many may belong to Bektashi sect as you mentioned) and what has survived in Persian (50) but third he identified with Shahnameh and Persian myths and asked for a Shahnameh style book in Persian to be written about him by Hatefi.. So Esmail I 's identity in terms of today is hard to identity since Turks do not identify shahnameh as their myths/folklore as for the most part Shahnameh is the bible of Persian nationalism and Persians also do not compose Azeri poetry like Esmail I did (even if he did it for his followers still by composing in azeri he is part taking in that culture as well). So probably I will clip some stuff from the intro or emphasize that the dynasty by choice tried to distance itself from Kurdish roots. Esmail I's multi-faceted identity can be discussed in more detail in his own entry. But I agree with users that he did not have Kurdish identity which perhaps the introduction suggest with probable and needs to be clarified that the Safavids distanced themselves from it. Buut he did not have pure Turkish or pure Persian identity either if we are going to be accurate. --alidoostzadeh 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

we'll edit it on saturday due to some stuff... --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Still working on it.. will add more sources from different.. Hopefully will be done soon as I am also covering chaldiran and Esmail after Chaldiran...--alidoostzadeh 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

almost there

The initial feedbacks were positive. I have incorporate most of suggestions by various users. Thankfully the initial comments were positive.

[[1]] (will check grammer..spelling..punctuation tommorow..)

Also need some suggestions on terminology to be consistent.

1) Turcophone or Azeri speaking or Turkic speaking? I have seen all three. I have seen Turcophone in couple of books on Safavids. I like turcophone because it is one word. I also like Azerbaijani speaker on the other hand because it is specific where as Turkic/turcophone can be anything from A (Azeri) to Yakut to Uighyur? Although the context is clear for any scholar that Azeri is meant, but for people looking up Safavids for the first time, they would not know.

Well, Turcophone is just as unspecific as Turkic-speaking language wise. But since Turkic-speaking is more popular, it should be used. To make it more presise, "Azerbaijani Turkic-speaking" could be used. Or just say "Turkic-speaking" and then clarify that in Azerbaijani dialect of Turki later in the article. --AdilBaguirov 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2) Kizilbash, Ghezelbash, Qezelbash or Qizilbash? I have used Qezelbash because of Encyclopedia of Islam. How is the Turkish pronounced?

Qizilbash. It is the closest to Oghuz Turkic languages such as Azerbaijani, and has gained a lot of traction in Western literature too over other alternatives (sole exception being probably Kizilbash, which is probably more popular) --AdilBaguirov 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

3) Ismail (Encyclopedia of Islam) or Esmail ( Iranica)? I am going with Ismail because it seems more common and is close to the Arabic.

I would agree with Ismail too, simply as it's more popular. --AdilBaguirov 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

4) Safavid or Safawid? I am going with Safawid since it is in Encyclopedia of Islam. The name is ultimately Arabic and thus w is needed to pronounce it correctly. Tehrani Persian and most Turkic dialects don't have w.. but Afghan Persian and Kurdish and other Iranian dialects as well as Arabic languages do. I am going with the Arabic pronounciation since it is reflected in Encyclopedia of Islam and also Iranica. But at the same time Safavid is okay although Safawid is more academic. --alidoostzadeh 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The first usage should be Safavid, as its more popular. Many of our names are of non-native origin, but have since solidified their status in our respective languages. Hence, just because the origin of the family name is ultimately Arabic whilst its holders were not, means there is little sense in mentioning it first. However, in parenthesis we should say: "(also spelled as Esmail Safawi)". --AdilBaguirov 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Kizilbash sounds good as it is also in Encyclopedia of Islam. Ismail is good. Safawid is more academic but I do not have problem with Safavid. About Azerbaijani Turkic-Speaking that is just too long although I do not mind it. But how is Azeri-Speaking? For now I'll change to Azerbaijani Turkic-speaking. --alidoostzadeh 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, your current version is far worse that it was initially, I have to disagree with many assertions made there:

• The Safawids were a shi’ite dynasty that established an Iranian empire and ruled it from 1501 to 1722.

• No, Safavids were a Shiite dynasty which established Iranian empire and ruled it from 1502 till 1722. Although having an intention to establish control over Iran, Ismail did not "establish Iranian empire" in 1501.

• Their originated in Ardabil Azerbaijan region of Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires[1] since the Islamic conquest of Persia.

• They originated in Ardabil in Iranian Azerbaijan. Saying Ardabil Azerbaijan region of Iran is actually confusing because Ardabil is town, while Azerbaijan is a region.

• The Safawids established Ithnaˤ'ashari(arabic: twelve) Imami Shiism[2] as the official religion of their kingdom and reasserted the Iranian identity of the region, [3], thus becoming the first native dynasty to establish an independent and united Iranian state since the Sassanids.

• I agree with most of this sentence, except for saying "reasserted". It's clear that identity established by Safavids was not a reassertion (there was no Shiite state in Iran prior to Safavids) but assertion. And the identity was contemporary, because what Safavids defined back then is pretty much the same identity (cultural and national) that Iran has today. Modern Iran resembles more Safavid identity than it does Sassanid or Achamenid identity.

• The Safawid's claimed direct origin from the Prophet Muhammad during the era of their rule, but this is rejected by modern scholars and is seen as an act of the Safawids solidifying their legitimacy.

• The sentence seems too POV and generalizing, what do you mean by rejected and by this? If scholars are uncertain about Safavid identity, how can they be certain that he did not descent from Muhammad or Arabs?

• The Safavids origin thoug remains uncertain but they were probably of Kurdish fatherline[4][5].

• Again POV. Probably of Kurdish fatherline, means entire fatherline of Ismail (founder of dynasty) was probably Kurdish, which is definitely untrue. I suggest moving everything related to Kurdish origins to Origins section out of intro. If it is to remain in intro, then we shall also mention the Turkic and Greek roots of Ismail, which makes the article redundant. As I said, there is some evidence of even Sheikh Safi having Turkic roots (Pir-i Turk), which I am currently investigating.

• Nevertheless, even before the time of their political power, the Safawids were turkified and turkic-speaking and used Azeri as a medium of communication to their followers as well as their court language[6][7].

• "Were Turkified" is wrong statement, it puts Safavids in passive (as were applied Turkification). No one forced Safavids to be Turkified, this was a lengthy natural process, which is yet to be proven to have happened. Turkic-speaking is more balanced and acceptable compromise. Also Azeri should be replaced with Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic (preferrably using the definition by Minorsky - Azerbaijani Turkish or Turkic).

• "They also patronized Persian as a administrative and the main cultural language of their domain[8]

• Now, where did this come from? I accept it was main cultural language not only of their domain, but of many other empires, but administrative?? This is something new.

• and Arabic served as the main religious language during their era. Despite their demise in 1722, the Safawids have left their mark down to our own era by spreading and establishing Shi'i Islam in major parts of the caucus and middle east, specially in Iran.

• Some spelling corrections, it's Caucasus and Middle East (capitalized).

So overall, Ali, your current version is much worse (at least in my view) than was initial you proposed above. I will have hard time agreeing with this version of introduction without some major discussions and reviews. Also "Safawid" is not the right spelling, as majority of sources, except Savory, use Safavid. In both Azerbaijani and Persian, it's spelled with "v", "w" is more Arabic. After all we don't say "Ganjawi" but "Ganjavi", not "Safawiyeh" but "Safaviyyeh". Thanks. Atabek 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually let me work backward here.

1) Safawid is used in Iranica and Encyclopedia Islam by all authors. But okay I will go back to Safavid, Safavviyah. Note though Safawid gets 450 hits in google books and Safavid 770. But the books and articles that use Safawid are more specialized.

2) Administrative language has to do with tax collection, and etc. There is a lot of Persian doucments in this regard. I will remove that whole court language, administrative language, cultural language, religious and etc.. to a later sections (court life, administration, culture, religion under Safavids) as it seems unnecessary for an introduction. The intro doesn't need all that info.

3) I'll see what I can do with the Turkified section.. I'll remove the word.

4) As per the Shaykh having Turkish roots, all post-1501 manuscripts of Safavids claim Arab descent for the Shaykh. Post-1501 Safavid manuscripts do not have as much as weight infront of any unbiased scholar as a pre-1501 Safavid manuscript. Note the Teymur quote above which I made some clarifications about above shows a clear example about manipulation of Safavid histography. The Shaykh meeting Teymur for example is another later on invention where as the two were not contemporaries, but a story circulated that that Teymur visited the Shaykh and then assigned 1000 Tatar gaurds to him and these became the ancestors of the Ghezelbash...(Thus the shaykh (Pir, Guide) of Turks..). Of course the Shaykh probably had Turkis, Mongolian followers as well, but this story as you can see was made up. Such a story is mentioned in post-Safavid trying to make the Qajar tribes an original follower of the Shaykh..I have not seen pir-i-Turk in Safwat As-Safa. Someone mentioned something here about silsilat an-nasab written in 1780 (and I am not sure what the latest manuscript is). In that book, the Shaykh's origin is brought to the Prophet of Islam. Note scholars agree that the Shaykh was probably Kurdish. I can bring 10+ academic sources (not random sources) with this regard. I spoke to for example Professor Momen (and although he said he is not safavid scholar) the proof for Kurdish origin is stronger. Anyways I am going to make that portion more relaxed but I can not do more than that.

5) Re-assertion means that Iranian identity was not start anew but was refreshed. For example the Shahnameh connection or calling himself Shah or calling his territory Iran and etc. shows it. There is continuity here via Persian literature and also memories of past dynasties. The quote is direct from Savory.

6) Majority of scholars do not accept Seyyedship of the Safavids. This is a fact. We can remove the whole portion from inro. Also the Shaykhs most distant ancestor in the oldest pre-1501 is given as Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah. The claim for Seyyedship was asserted in order to legitimize Safavid rule. The Shaykh himself was a Sunni Shaf'ite but in political Shi'ism having a descent from Imam Musa Kazim is seen as acquiring legitimacy for leadership.

7) Ardabil is currently a province as well as a town..I'll clarify it.

8) Your right about the 1501 versus 1502 part.. but technically the empire started in 1501.. For example the US gained independence in 1776 but it doesn't mean all of US is covered.. That is not a big deal we can make it 1502. I'll rework that section alittle bit.

So I'll work on some of the suggestions and give it another shot right now... --alidoostzadeh 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about Iranian ethnic or political identity? Grandmaster 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ethnic but National identity. By promoting national Iranian traditions (Noruz, Charanshanbeh Suri, Shahnameh) and Shi'ite traditions, the Safavid took from the old Iranian identity and renewed it. It does not mean the Safavid identity was exactly the same as Sassanid identity, but there is a continuity between the two identities in the fact that they both celebrated national traditions, considered themselves Iranians, consider their political enemies as Turanians (Uzbeks) and Romans (Ottomans) (exactly as in Shahnameh), had awareness of the pre-Islamic past of Persia and pre-Islamic celebrations were held (Tiregan, Noruz) and in some areas Sedeh, Mehregan and etc. Had basically established similar boundaries. On that sentence we are just quoting Savory who is the most eminent Safavid scholar. --alidoostzadeh 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

another try

I have incorporated some new results based on Atabek's comments. Happy Noruz to everyone and hope to see this article agreed upon by everyone sooner than later.. [2] --alidoostzadeh 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I have a problem with this part of the intro: Their originated in Ardabil city in Azerbaijan region of Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires

It should just say They originated in Ardabil, Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires.Azerbaijani 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I will address your comments in response to my comments separately. This one is in response to User:Azerbaijani, an ArbCom participant, who is trying to exclude the word Azerbaijan or Turk from everywhere he can on Wikipedia or inserting "pan-Turkist" quotes from milliondollarbabies.com. Again, he is forgetting (?!) that there was no political entity called Iran, at the time of Safavid rise to power neither for 8 centuries before that. Iran was not a limited geographical entity (province) either, while Azerbaijan was and is a historical region with well defined limits, where Ardabil belongs. Atabek 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Azerbaijan, but the FACT is that Ardabil is an Iranian city! The Safavids originated in Ardabil, Iran. Simple as that. Arabil is now in Iran. See Van, Turkey for example, no where does it say "Kurdistan". Azerbaijani 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek Iran was a geographical region (not a political entity) before Safavid times.. And just like Azerbaijan, it did not have definite borders either. (A good deal of Safavid sources for example do not consider above the Aras river as Azerbaijan).

Azerbaijani, I do not see any problem with the quote..its not a hair splitting thing.

I think what I mentioned is a compromise between Atabek and Azerbaijani. --alidoostzadeh 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dont know why Atabek is pushing so hard for it not to be mentioned, even though its correct. So far, I have seen no compromise come my way, and I do not understand why Atabek is being so stubborn about this.Azerbaijani 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I think my version is a compromise with this regard and many other issues. --alidoostzadeh 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Azerbaijani, maybe it's hard for you to understand, there was no political entity called Iran in 1501 and for at least 5-6 centuries before that. So calling Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan very well defines the geographical and contemporary belonging. I don't see why you keep fighting it simply out of plain POV. And assume a good faith, before calling me "stubborn", I have seen you compromising on nothing so far.

Ali, frankly, given the amount of material references presented by myself as opposed to Azerbaijani (with his milliondollarbabies or "world Flags"), I consider it almost an insult to intelligence when you say "compromise between myself and him". While you, myself and Tajik spend time coming up with versions, try to always get scholarly references, read them, present them in arguments, all Azerbaijani is involved with is copy-pasting from amateur websites, revert warring or POV pushing in every single Wiki site related to Azerbaijan.

Also Ali, the geographical region of Iran (with certain borders) did not exist until the national redefinition that came during the reign of Qajars (read Firouzeh Kashani-Sabet. "Fragile Frontiers: The Diminishing Domains of Qajar Iran", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (May, 1997)). Iran, just like Turan, was always a mystical definition of national/ethnic domain rather than particular geographic entity with given borders. While Azerbaijan was, regardless of ethnic origins, a geographic entity (province) with well defined borders. This is regardless of your mentioning "north of river Aras", as Ardabil is not north but south of river Aras. It seems that if I or others, "from north of river Aras", won't defend Ardabil as Azerbaijan, the entire Iranian Azerbaijan will soon simply be named as Fars and forgotten as a region, just because people there speak different tongue. But aside from those, Safavids fought their battles north of river Araxes before proclaiming themselves in Tabriz, so that makes your argument double irrelevant in this case. Atabek 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek there was a geographical region of Iran (borders) varying used by various people at various time. It was not just a mystical definition, it is what the Sassanid's called their country and then Islamic sources have used it too. You did not understand my point or maybe I was not clear or said the same thing you did. Geographical designations such as Iran, or provincies/territories Azerbaijan, Armenia etc. did not have define borders they do today. That is why various authors have given various borders. The only thing perhaps that is defined with a certain border is Ardabil here since it is a city.. Ilkhanid era Rashid al-din Fazlollah has used Iran for example as a clear geographical region and not a mystic definition. These attested to in many texts as geographical regions although different authors have given different borders... And of course Safavids used Iran as I already brought relavent texts from Shah Abbas and Sultan Selim and even Mughals addressing Safavids... In fact I have 10 references to Iran during Safavid era of hand. And some in Ilkhanid and of course Ghaznavids, Samanids and etc. Also Turan was not just mystical, it was used for Uzbek regions by Safavids era. It was used as a term for central asia and sometimes Makran/Baluchistan in Sassanid era. For a geographical name, there is no need for political entity if that geographic name has been used throughout history continously. This is the case with the name Iran and its borders are generally defined from Oxus to Euphrates in many texts (pretty much Sassanid Iran). But anyways I think that section which I modified is fine now and has all three, Ardabil, Azerbaijan, Iran. If we wanted to be clear by modern official political boundary it would be Ardabil, Ardabil province, Iran. But right now I made it in a way that all three names people want are mentioned without any political overtone and I have explained this to to Azerbaijani as well. There is no reason to spill what is happening in any other articles between Azerbaijani and Atabek to over here. Lets cut the political stuff and non-relevant stuff and concentrate on reaching a consensus. --alidoostzadeh 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be Ardabil, Iran. Other than that, I think your intro is fine, but my suggestion needs to be included (Atabek does not get to decide on his own what will and will not go into the article).Azerbaijani 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am trying to work out suggestion satisfying everyone. Lets leave that issue for now as it is very minor. --alidoostzadeh 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not minor at all, its actually major.Azerbaijani 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay but you agreed with the rest of my intro. So we can discuss this point after the rest since it can easily be resolved still in my opinion. Also note in my introduction I did not mention that the oldest extant biography of the Safavid family dating before the rise of the rise of political era. I could have easily used the term oldest. So I am waiting for others to compromise. --alidoostzadeh 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ardabil is in Iranian Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan region of Iran. This info cannot be suppressed. Grandmaster 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I have right now. I am awaiting response for other points. --alidoostzadeh 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys I want to add a section (without any text) called religion in Safavid era. I am not going to add any text to that section. But if anyone objects, let me know. --alidoostzadeh 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a section for religion and architecture. I did not see any opposition after mentioning this in the talk page. --alidoostzadeh 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Have not received any response

I have not received any response from some folks who used to discuss here. Even when I took long to propose my version, I was active and at least made a comment. If some people are doing further research let me know, but any new findings can be included in the article after discussing it here on the discussion page. I am guessing GM will definitely be here and I believe he can contact the other users to get their feedback if necessary. So their input is not cut off. I am awaiting for responses to make an agreeable introduction. Given the distortion in Safavid histography after their take on power (and note the example of Teymur above which is one in a dozen and scholars have discussed it), I have worded it all down so the issue is finished and other aspects of Safavids can be attended to. I can definitely say that the the earliest extant biography and the only pre-safavid one... which is definitely true and a correct statement and is independent of what Encylopedia X or Mr Y or Dr Z says. But I am trying to do everyone a favor by finishing the discussion which has gone too long. Personally I do not like topics of conflicts, since usually the debates get out of hand. The immaturity of various users has impeded a solution, specially in this talk page where unfortunately personal attacks and red herrings were more than plenty.

Also I had to make a sidecomment here for Atabek, although I did not want to, but I had to set the record straight in case he was looking for an answer and others might stumble upon that particular comment. On Ferdowsi. Ferdowsi lived in a time when Turks (and at that time Turks were foreigners in the area of Tus in Khorasan) started to invade Khorasan and Iran. Thus his reaction to such events was very normal and so he has some verses here and there about Turks. Although he has at the same time said positive stuff about Afrasiyab (who is really not even a human in Avesta but a mythical creature) in constrast to Keykavus and like any other Persian poet at the time, the beauty of Turks (and these were Turks before the expansion in caucus and Anatolia and looked like Kazakhs today and that is why they are described as Cheshm -Tang (narrow eyeed) beauties in Persian poetry). But Ferdowsi's reaction, in some verses, specially for his own time, is totally understandable and should be seen in its context (time and place) and not the 21st century wanting to be politically correct context (which does not exist anyway). Just had to make this point for clarification and it can be discussed further privately with anyone. --alidoostzadeh 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will provide my input soon. As you all probably aware, most of Azerbaijani and Armenian users are currently party to an arbcom case and are mostly busy with it. Grandmaster 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay at least it is good to get some sort of response. I'll await after Arbcomm then.--alidoostzadeh 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcomm is over. So I think it is time to fix the page.. --alidoostzadeh 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is time to move on. Grandmaster 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we put two sources for Kurdish origin of Shaykh Safi and two for possible Azeri origin and we'll leave it at that? All in one/two sentences. No need to clutter the article. Hope to see solution soon.. --alidoostzadeh 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Back on it

Since I now have more time to devote to this article, wanted to find out what's the current state of affairs on it. I saw the current introduction which does not look that bad actually, and with minor tweaks could become a consensus version. Ali, I know you have version of your own, which has some extensive material. Perhaps, we can discuss those section by section, come to an agreement and incorporate them. Thanks. Atabek 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. I will make a minor edition today or tommorow and ask for feedback.. I think it should be good enough and hopefully the issue will be resolved. --alidoostzadeh 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I gave it another try here: [3].. what I propose is just put two sources in the begining where I meantioned Kurdish, Azeri, Arabic for each. Thus way all views are given. I removed the part about consensus of scholars that Safavids hailed from region X and also removed the emphasis part about the oldest manuscript mentioning Kurdish background. I will also have to convince user Tajik, but I think the current version has what everyone is looking for..--alidoostzadeh 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys let me know your opinion as I think the article needs to be fixed soon. --alidoostzadeh 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I think the current introduction of one sentence on Safavid page is the best. And the rest of the text in your version of the introduction can be moved to other appropriate sections of the article. Don't you think? It just seems to me that we have been concentrating too much on the introduction and this one sentence solution will clear the disputes over what's more or less important. Atabek 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I think we should have something about the importance of the Safavids in the beginning. Check Sassanids or Kushans in wikipedia for example. Let me know which part of my introduction you have a problem with as everything in it is also sourced as far as I know. I have included all POV's and even removed some sourced items from the introduction to make a compromise. Eventually someone else will expand the introduction since one line is really not sufficient. Also everything in the introduction is sourced and there is nothing anti-anyone in it.

Here was intro: The Safavids dynasty (1501-1722) was a Shi’ite Azerbaijani Speaking dynasty that established an Iranian empire. Their originated in Ardabil city inAzerbaijan region of Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Safavids established Ithnaˤ'ashari(arabic: twelve) Imami Shiism as the official religion of their kingdom and reasserted the Iranian identity of the region, , thus becoming the first native dynasty to establish an independent and united Iranian state since the Sassanids. Despite their demise in 1722, the Safavids have left their mark down to our own era by spreading and establishing Shi'i Islam in major parts of the Caucus and Middle east, specially in Iran.. As you can see I have not put the origin of the Safavids in this section and will probably jut put one line on varying opinions on the Shaykh. I would change Azerbaijani speaking to Azerbaijani but some users (not me) in the future one day might object but they can not object to azerbaijani speaking.

As you can see the origin part of Safavids, consensus of scholars that they are from Kurdistan and the oldest and only extant Safavid manuscript describing the families origin is not in intro even though they are sourced. Everything else is currently is also sourced. I think the Shah Esmail section of my version is also balanced. Thus like any other wiki article, there needs to be a paragraph or so. I am currently actually not satisfied with the current page and I am r.v.'ing back to S.A. Vakilian's version until the new version. --alidoostzadeh 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, this is not about references. I just think major disputes can be resolved by just having one sentence in introduction as it was in the previous version before your restored it to sa.vakilians. We can discuss the details in other following sections. It just seems that so far we have been putting too much effort into introduction. The key elements to recall:

• Safavids were Iranian dynasty,
• Ruled from 1502 - 1722
• Asserted Ithnaˤ'ashari(arabic: twelver) Shia branch of Islam as a contemporary religion and identity of Iran
• Originated in Ardabil in Iranian Azerbaijan
• Were Turkic-speaking and used Azerbaijani as a court language
• Had their origins in Safaviyyeh movement, whose founder, Safi al-Din Is'haq may have had Kurdish origins

If you can make one or two (maximum) sentences expressing these facts, we should put it into introduction and then move on to discuss details. With all due respect to this language and culture, minor literary usage of Persian by Safavids or Ismail's obsession with Shahnameh, are not sufficient factors to put Persian language into introduction. Those can go into details of founder of dynasty section and to Ismail I page. Atabek 10:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But I do not see why it should be one or two sentences rather than a pagraph like other dynasties. Actually the Persian language was used widely not just by Safavid dynasty (Azeri was used also by the dynasty) but as the cultural language of the empire given the works they patronized. Also my introduction above did not have Persian language but it is important to emphasize some Safavid's key points in the intro (Iranian dynasty , ruled, religion, unified Iran and re-asserted a national identiy based on national-religious factors within a unified governance, ...). I think the introduction of S.A. Vakilian (which is also sourced) has all these points basically and since it was agreed upon, then we should just leave it or use my introduction which does not have Persian language. --alidoostzadeh 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the above version that Ali is proposing, except for one minor modification to the second sentence.Azerbaijani 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that wording is fine..its very NPOV.--alidoostzadeh 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this version is completely inacceptable?

The Safavid dynasty (1501-1722) was a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1502 thru 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736) and established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and linguistic heritage and Shiite branch of Islam, which became the basis of the contemporary Iranian national identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries.

We can fix some lines here and there, but could it be acceptable in general? Grandmaster 13:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is not bad at all and we are very close. I believe though my version is slightly better because it is sourced and there is one confusion with your last sentence from my perspective. The Safavid's called their empire Iran (Shah Abbas, Sultan Selim)(used other names like Dawlat Saffawiyya as well of course but Iran was a common name). So what was beyond modern Iran's boundary was also called Iran and that might be confusing. Also the Safavid's promoting linguistic/cultural heritage is going to be in the cultural section. What stands out about Safavids is important to emphasize. They established Shi'i Islam (which we hear every day about in the news and if it wasn't for Safavids the middle east would be predominantely Sunnite), made a unified Iranian state since the time of say Sassanids (some might argue Buyids or Samanids), re-asserted or remoulded Iranian identity (using what was existent and injecting it with a government and expanding Shi'ism and making it an important aspect of Iranian identity). If we say Shi'ite branch of Islam became the basis of the contemporary Iranian identity, other users might say it is one of the basis, the other being shared history or etc. That is why it is just best to quote the scholar in this case. --alidoostzadeh 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My sugesstion is that if we can not reach a consensus on the introduction, then we should simply follow wiki guidelines and put sourced info from reliable historians. I do not think it is good to have an article with all these tags like this. --alidoostzadeh 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, can you add what you think is necessary to my version? I see no problem with changing or removing the last line per your comments. Grandmaster 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is important is to have have exactly sourced sentence from scholars who write in the context the way they are. I am not sure what the exact issue is here anymore.. but since we had agreed previously, I am going to keep S.A. Vakilians version and slightly modify it. I put Azerbaijani speaking instead of Turkic since Turkic is actually a language family and it would be appropriate if we did not know the particular language. But I do not mind Azerbaijani either but some users might in the future say something but I am fine with either: Azerbaijani speaking. The Shaykh Safi and Shah Ismail version since there was no problems with that.. I think with that we can remove the tag and be done with this issue since frankly much conversation has not taken place even after arbcomm and it is unfair to have these tags on such an important article. Basically everything is sourced and I think the article is balanced. I think the intro and the two sections (Shaykh Safi and Ismail) is sufficient and the article is balanced. --alidoostzadeh 00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m in general Ok with the current intro. I only replaced the word “established” with the word “ruled”, because it says in the next line that they established Iranian empire, and repetitiveness is not good. Also, I removed the text from Savory quote, because is we are to include text, we should do that for other quotes too. Also, I added back reference to Frye. Otherwise, I’m fine with the intro, even though some fixes could be made to improve English. Maybe we can ask a native English speaker to have a look. Grandmaster 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote from savory is good.. someone might ask for it later on. It is only a sentence. Other than that, I have no problem with anything else and it seems good. Or I will add some of these quotes in an specialized archive page here.. for later reference. --alidoostzadeh 11:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Savory is there, I just removed the quote, because if we are to keep it, we might as well quote Frye. Grandmaster 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind quoting frye in the reference section either but some people might object to the first couple of sentences. I think though it is best to make a special archive section with these quotes and I'll do it. The reason is later on someone might like to look at. --alidoostzadeh 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we might collect the quotes somewhere for future reference. Alternatively, we can add both quotes to the article. Grandmaster 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think if we have an accessible quote, we should added it to the reference section made in the talk page so it won't cause future headaches if other users r.v. for some reason. I basically cut the quote to:...reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties... ..since I do not want to discuss origin and etc. Basically the part about Iranian identity and independent Iranian state in the sentence was relevant to what I was quoting. --alidoostzadeh 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

article if it is not say two paragraphs or something..

The sentence: They originated in Ardabil city in the Azerbaijan region of Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires[2] since the Islamic conquest of Persia. makes no sense at all.

It should be: They originated in Ardabil, Iran and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires[2] since the Islamic conquest of Persia.Azerbaijani 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article is good. That sentence is not confusing. It says: they originated in Ardabil in Azerbaijan region in Iran. Basically has no political tone. --alidoostzadeh 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, your right, your version is much better, my mistake.Azerbaijani 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

“Considered by many” is a weasel wording which we should avoid, also Safavids were not an empire, but the dynasty that ruled the empire, so I reworded it as follows:

and created the greatest Iranian empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia.

Because I don’t think that there were greater empires than Safavids after the Islamic conquest. Feel free to rv if you disagree. Grandmaster 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay cool. I hope the article stays pretty much this way and the intro is fine. Hopefully anything else that is sourced by people is added to other sections. Now to fix the other article soon.. --alidoostzadeh 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling corrections

Ali, the current version needs a lot of spelling corrections and addition of some article references, which we used on the talk page. I made some spelling corrections and typo edits, and will continue working on those later. THanks. Atabek 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Made some more typo corrections (Islamil to Ismail, etc.) and added references to Shah of Azerbaijan in addition to Tapper's. The added references are from Archive 7, no text or semantics on that were changed. Thanks. Atabek 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also added references to maternal genealogy of Ismail and proper names of Uzun Hassan's wife and daughter. I guess this should not cause any disagreements. Atabek 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Ali's version was added on the top, while other stuff at the bottom is from old version and is redundant, we have to merge those together with the rest of the top version. I tried to rearrange the section on Conflict with Ottomans, but the rest need to be done as well. Please, do not alter references if taking the task of rearranging. Atabek 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree but I think putting too many non-related sources for that is extensive. I mean it's like putting 20 sources for the Kurdish origin of Shaykh Safi. I don't disagree with the statement but I think one/two sources convey the same thing. --alidoostzadeh 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I don't know why you keep removing references to published books. If you agree with reference, and more than one book tells it, why not present all the sources? Atabek 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I didn't remove the reference since there are two references I kept (I have no problem with the satement). It is just referecing the same fact with 20 sources makes the wikipedia article not look good. Also two of the sources were not really in "context". For example putting 20 references about the Kurdish origin of Shaykh safi would make the numbers 1,2,3,4,...20 all clutter after one word. i just think an encyclopedia article should use good references, but the same fact doesn't need to be references by 20 books. It is just to make the article look good as you have done by spell checking. For example if I put 20 references after the word Iranian dynasty for Safavids.. So the statement is not in dispute. --alidoostzadeh 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Human Rights.

When Safavid Tribe came to power in Iran one must remember the history that they were not Iranians but as we Iranians say there were Am-Iranians, None-Iranians: They were of Mongul descendents. As You see the historical and political development for the past 1000 years in the Middle East is based on Lawless Behaviour by political and religious leaders who just empowered themselves rather than caring for their own people. The lack of Human Rights for this period and the decisions made by these incompotent leaders have brought us to what We are to today. It will take time to bring back Law and Democracy to The Region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Anon IP edits

Someone with Anon IP edited the article inserting all kinds of POV without references and changing the discussed version. So I am reverting to Ali Doostzadeh's last version. Ali, please, watch your edit when you have time. Thanks. Atabek 11:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep a watch although might not have time always in the summer. But if future users add stuff with sources, it will be hard to r.v.. I am sure someone in the future might want to mention the tati poems.. (I personally do not care either way), and they can source it. But the introduction and different sections have taken a long time to work out, so it would be good if they use the talk page. Also the anonymous ip did some positive stuff like wikifying uzun hassan and etc.. So I think someone should do that in the future. Thanks Atabek for keeping a watch. ..Okay looks like ip did put the tati again.. I do not like to remove sourced information, but I removed the origin stuff, turkification, iranian clan.. and etc.. although it is sourced. But I did mention the extant tati poetry, without any implications on origin (check diffs). But if the ip user wants to put the other information in, I recommend he register with wikipedia, comes in the talk page and then insert it. I'll try to keep an eye on this article, but I have more than dozens of articles on the watchlist. My latest focus in wikipedia will be on Persian poetry rather than topics that cause controversy once in a while. But if this article ever reaches a problem stage, users can always go back to the consensus. --alidoostzadeh 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous user needs to get consensus for his edits on talk of this article. Current version is a result of many months of discussions and is a compromise supported by all parties. Grandmaster 04:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree.. the current version is balanced. I have no problem with sourced info, but the anonymous user should register with wikipedia, bring his argument in the talk page, get feedback and etc.. This article is just too much trouble unfortunately but I thank users for trying to keep the consensus. --alidoostzadeh 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new was added. I only added a qute from Ehsan Yarshater to the article. The major information of the quote, that the ancestors of the Safavid dynasty were Iranian speaking, was already mentioned in the article and in the Safi al-Din article. I simply copied that info from the other articles and added a link to Encyclopædia Iranica to it. See E. Yarshater's quote: Azari lost ground in Azerbaijan at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular. What is wrong with putting these 5 sentences into the article? Does this shift the balance? Everything is fine now. The article describes the Iranian-speaking origins of the Safavid family, and their adoption of a Turkic language in the 15th century.

What is obvious that several anon IPs emerged and try to make their - (or indeed a single point) Consenus reached previously shoud be kept. Argument is weak and based on one scholar opinion.--Dacy69 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the opinion of one scholar but that of many. If you read the previous discussions (as I have done) you'll find lots of quotes. The very same author (Ehsan Yarshater) has been quoted many times in the article. So why should this one quote be removed?! After all, it is not a new info, but an elaboration of a given paragraph. The addition does not break the consensus and it does not change the balance. As a side note: no one owes Wikipedia articles.

The just archived checkuser case stated a decision that this anon IP editor shall be "dealt with as a vandal" [4]. Atabek 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain which part of my edits you consider vandalism and POV? Is it the quote from Iranica? Or is it the message of scholars that you do not like? You do not owe this article. And nothing new, POV, or insulting has been added to the article. Your versions says: Nevertheless, even before their ascend to political power in the 15th century, the Safavid family had become Turkic-speaking and used Azerbaijani Turkish as a medium of communication to their followers.[8] In addition, my version says: Nevertheless, even before their ascend to political power in the 15th century, the Safavid family - originally an Iranian-speaking clan[3][7] - had become Turkic-speaking and used Azerbaijani Turkish as a medium of communication to their followers.[8] My version is supported by two scholarly references, one from Encyclopaedia of Islam and one from Encyclopaedia Iranica. And you call these two scholarly references vandalism and POV?! It is sad that the article focuses on Ismail's and the Safavid's Turkic language in several paragraphs, yet, when it comes to the Tati poetry of Safi al-Din and the important quote from E. Iranica, it is automatically regarded vandalism and POV.

I also believe that consensus should be adhered too as mentioned by couple of users. That's my two cent. We have mentioned the Safavid's Iranic origin as well. That is Shaykh Safi was probably a Kurd. He had tati poetry. Ismail was of mixed heritage. He was a big patron of Shahnameh. Mentioned his Persian poetry. We have acknowledge their mixed heritage. So everything is mentioned. If I was anon , I would register and then discuss it with other users and etc. The article currently acknowledges the Safavid's mixed heritage and I believe is balanced. Even Tati poetry is mentioned as well. I do not like to delete any information, but I believe the current version has mentioned both the Safavid's Iranic and Turkic heritage (moder Iranians , Azeris, Persians and etc.. as Atabek said nicely several pages previously have influence from both, some more and some less..) and is balanced. Anyways I believe adhering to consensus. But I have spent too much time on this article as the history of the name Azerbaijan. As long as people do not remove the intro, and the other quotes, and are able to work out a new consensus, then that would be good and I will accept a new consensus. But until a new consensus, the old consensus should be adhered too as mentioned by users. So that is why discussion in the talk page is necessary and we should adhere to the consensus. That's my two cents. --alidoostzadeh 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that 5 simple words directly copied from E. Iranica is against the consensus? What kind of consensus is that? This is not about Ismail's poetry or about Shah Abbas, but about the early history of the Safavid family, way before their ascend to power. What is wrong about adding 5 words to the article, quoting one of the most respected scholars of Iranistics? I did not change your consenses but only elaborated a given information by adding 5 words to it. --82.83.158.90 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Salam to you and everyone else writing here. I can see already things are not going in the right direction. But NO, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that consensus should not be changed else someone can easily bring 20 sources about the shaykh being a kurd and another person brings 20 sources for their view and the article will simply concentrate on the shaykh's background with 40 or so references in one sentence. I have mentioned the tati poetry already and Dr. Yarshater's article is linked and there are many other sources like his available. So it is not about the correctness of the source. But I would first register with wikipedia, then discuss it in the talk page, and etc and if you do not like the current version, then get a new consensus and use other wikipedia procedures (talk and etc.). So it is not about content but just the fact that we should not ignore anyone. You are free to discuss on the talkpage with a registered user name or even your ip and get a new consensus. Until there is a new consensus, I believe in adhering to the old consensus and personally I do not see a need for a new consensus. I will respect any new consensus as well. But I very firmly believe that a balance has been reached not emphasizing any view too much. Scholars will in the long term decide and wikipedia is not taken really serously by scholars. The stronger sources show the Shaykh was a Kurd (which is mentioned also) and the same sources mention Safavids by the time of their rise were Turkic (which is said). I think everything you mentioned has been already said. It is just a matter of not repeating the same thing for me. But as I said if you work for a new consensus, then I have no problem. But till then the old consensus which took months should be respected and I am not going to go through a whole new process again on this article. --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From the pattern of edits and comments, it's pretty familiar who this IP vandal is. So I may file another checkuser request. But until then, as proposed, the IP vandalism shall be stopped. The user must register, identify him- or herself and then join the discussion and editing of the article. "No consensus needed" or "Atabek is known for anti-Iranian racist remarks" are not at all useful or appropriate comments for editing a Wikipedia article. Atabek 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I am not into this article's conflict anymore, I have still reverted to the anon's edits, since his edits were neither "vandalism" nor "POV", as Atabek claims. He had wikified the new paragraphs, corrected spelling mistakes, and added usefull information - including sources - to it. Honestly, I have no idea why the notorious gang around Atabek jumped on his edits and reverted the one part they did not like. This is not what a "consensus" is. @ Ali: if you say that "... Nevertheless, even before their ascend to political power in the 15th century, the Safavid family had become Turkic-speaking ...", then this indicates that they were not Turkic-speakers before. His Tati poetry, written in a relatively unimportant local dialect, is a clear proof that he was a native Tati-speaker. Why else should some write religious poems in an unimportant local dialect wherelese other languages - such as Arabic or Persian - were much more familiar to the people back then?! The consensus is that Safi ud-Din and the entire Safavid clan - up to the 15th century - where speakers of a local northwest Iranian dialect. And so, the anon's edit is absolutely correct and there is no need to remove it, only because certain people do not like the fact that the origins of the Safawid family were Iranic and not Turkic. "That's my two cents" ... I am out again. Have fun. Tājik 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me of an argument I had with you. You claimed that the fact that Ismail wrote poetry in Azeri Turkic was not a proof of his ethnicity. Now you make claims about origins of the family making the same argument about the poetry. Isn’t it strange? Also, assuming good faith implies that you should not use the words like “notorious gang” to refer to other editors and make no personal attacks. I never reverted this anon, but I remind you of another quote from Yarshater:

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.

So basically we stuck to this. This scholar says that Safavids “may have been of Kurdish origin”, but your version says that they “were” of Kurdish origin. That makes difference. Grandmaster 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked

I've blocked 82.83.158.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for edit-warring and violating the spirit of the 3-revert rule. I make no judgement on the validity of the anon IP's edits, but would urge him/her (and everyone) to discuss proposed changes here first and work toward consensus here, rather than trying to implement changes through brute force and edit-warring. After all, there is no deadline. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, welcome back and thanks for editing under the username now :) Please, discuss your edits here before making edits. Thanks. Atabek 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP editor was Tajik. I have indefinitley banned him unless he agrees to participate in the arbcom case filed against him (which he seems to have been intentionally avoiding). Thatcher131 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical corrections, formatting, wikifying

The article as it is right now looks as the most acceptable version content-wise. So I took the liberty to improve its grammar, sentences, correct typos, and so forth. Please, review the changes and comment. No content changes were made, and no references were removed. Atabek 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some POV leftover quotes and redundant texts

The article as it stands now contains plenty or rendundant text and sections, especially closer to the bottom. The whole Beginnings section for example is useless now. Also, some POV quotes, which were not part of consensus version by Ali Doostzadeh [5], got somehow included in between some version, particularly this one: "Safavids patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranian stock". I think the stock part was discussed at length before and deemed unacceptable before. I didn't make edits to the article per this commentary, but we should probably discuss to clean it up. Thanks. Atabek 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the begining section is a repeat. If everyone agrees, we should remove it. As per that sentence, I'll change it since the word stock might seem redundant as the background of safavids was discussed already. --alidoostzadeh 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The origins were discussed earlier, however, there was no political entity called Iran or Azerbaijan at the time of Safavid rise to power. So more appropriate wording would be "with the difference that they originated locally" or "with the difference that they were not newcomers to the region". Atabek 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But there was sure a geographical and cultural entity. For example Ilkhanids, Atabeks, Seljuqs have all used the term Iran for the land or part of the land they ruled. The current version does not imply there was a political entity named Iran or for that matter Azerbaijan or Ardabil or etc. If it does mention a political unified state, then that would be wrong of course. But in my opinion it says they were from the territory of Iran (geographical convention) themselves,. Also I think the "begining" section should be removed since no one else is looking over the article. But the terms like Persia in the west or Iran is also a geographical convention for example Ilkhanid Iran or Abbassid Persia...The Safavid's golden age should also be merged with the cultural section. --alidoostzadeh 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, yes, we should merge some facts from "Beginnings" section, like the years when Ismail took which city to the rest of the article, and get rid of that redundant section and slowly work on other parts. Regarding your comment on political entity, just like Iran was geographic region, Azerbaijan where Ardabil is located and where Safavids originated from, was also referred to in history - "Atabakan-e Azerbaijan", etc. So, why does the quote has to say because "they originated in Iran", ignoring Azerbaijan. I think the mildest would be, "as opposed to their predecessors, they were indigenous to the region" or "they originated locally, in Iranian Azerbaijan", etc. Atabek 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek in the begining line it already says where they originated from. So that information is there. The sentence was about previous dynasties who ruled Iran, and thus we said they were natives of Iran unlike previous dynasties. Actually If you note, I did not mention the consensus of scholars where they were originally originally from. So Azerbaijan, Ardabil and etc. are mentioned in the first line of the article. I do not see what is the point about mentioning azerbaijan, ardabil or etc. for that same sentence since the emphasis is on dynasties that controlled all over Iran in prior. I have not ignored Azerbaijan as you can see from the first line. Actually the scholarly consensus now believes they orginated from Kurdistan per the oldest extant safavid manuscripts, but I did not mention this either. So I just put Iran here again, so that controversy is not there and we know at least 7 generations before Shaykh Safi. On a side note, it is interesting to note that poets in the court of Atabakan-e-Azarbaijan have also praised them as rulers of Iran. But that is another issue. I believe the best way to handle this safavid article is to go king by king. I do not see anymore controversial items in this article and anyone that has sourced information from reliable safavid historians and scholars should add non-redudanant sources to quickly make this article good. I do not have patience that much after waiting for 2-3 months and since there is no controversy I think people should just assume good faith and edit the article to make it better. We know more about Safavids than Sassanids, but the Sassanid wikipedia article currently is much better and informative. So I will be adding sourced information on all the kings and I think the only obstacale to this article before was the endless origin (countless archives) issue which is now balanced in my opinion and people can move forward. --alidoostzadeh 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, they originated in Iran (Azerbaijan region of Iran), not in the Caucasus. Atabakan-e Azerbaijan does not mean that Azerbaijan extended into the Caucasus, infact, if you read about them, you will know that their kingdom included specifically both Arran and Azerbaijan, which were seperate regions, but was called Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan was the bigger and more important of the two. Arran and Azerbaijan were two different entities, the Safavids originated in the Iranian region of Azerbaijan, not the Caucasus.

Iranica on the Atabegs: ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚD¨ARBAÚYÔAÚN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225.

Atabakan-e Azerbaijan is just a descriptive name, it doesnt imply anything about the extent of the region of Azerbaijan. Att he time of the Safavids, the only Azerbaijan was the Iranian region, and the article rightly says that they came from the region of Azerbaijan in Iran, so that readers dont confuse it with the modern Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agha! Please, please do not bring this issue of Aran/Azerbaijan/Atabekan-e-Azarbaijan and etc. here. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one that did so, Atabek said that we should not mention Iran in the intro, and if we do, we should also mention the Republic of Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan "included the Caucasus". I didnt start the discussion here, Atabek did:

"Regarding your comment on political entity, just like Iran was geographic region, Azerbaijan where Ardabil is located and where Safavids originated from, was also referred to in history - "Atabakan-e Azerbaijan", etc. So, why does the quote has to say because "they originated in Iran", ignoring Azerbaijan."

As you can see, Atabek made the first comment, and I merely corrected him. Overall, I agree with Ali Doostzadeh's comments.Azerbaijani 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay but let's not get into that discussion. Also I r.v.ed anon [6] and will start editing the article soon for other kings. Some of you guys need to chill and listen to some googoosh (I like her azeri songs a lot too).--alidoostzadeh 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

moved around

I moved around some sections (renamed some sections) for chronological order without any major modification. I think the article is in chronological order now. Also took care of the artifical problem .--alidoostzadeh 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

I added something under the Architecture heading. I also left a reference for those curious as to it's sincerity. Hope I didn't mess things up TOO much. Kansas Bear 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Kansas Bear

Anon edits

Reverting anon IP edits of the well known user. This POV needs to be discussed before editing for consensus. Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version. Thanks. Atabek 00:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert Kansas' bears edits in the first place?Azerbaijani 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism. Do not removed every single edit when all you want to do is change one part of the article. It is not Kansasbears obligation to re-do his edits simply because you felt like removing everything over one or two sentences on another section. I restored Kansasbears edits. Next time, only change the part of the article that you have a problem with, instead of removing entire legitimate sections.Azerbaijani 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, please watch your lingo as well as WP:AGF and WP:NPA before accusing me of vandalism. As clearly indicated above, the version reverted to was a consensus, on which we all worked very hard. So any edits, especially those again trying to revive discussion on "Azari" language and its linkage to Kurdish, which have no major relevance to the topic, or playing with words "probably" vs "possibly" already discussed at length, shall be noted and agreed to on talk page in a constructive manner. I have no problem with the architecture text, as long as its properly referenced. Atabek 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should the info about the sheikhs poetry be removed? this has nothing to do with consensus. The information is sourced, and his poetry is important for the history of the Safawi order. The sheikh wrote poetry in his native Azari language (related to Kurdish), and translated them to Persian. Therefore, his poetry has linguistic importance today for studying the old Azari language. Shah Ismael's poetry is also mentioned, so the sheikh's poetry should also be mentioned. What is wrong with mentioning his Persian poetry? (50% of his poetry was in Persian). Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and everyone is allowed to edit the article. It is not owned by a few people. --84.58.40.137 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)