Talk:Palace of the Shirvanshahs

More information

We need to expand this article by adding more information and pictures to this article. Baku87 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Those new pictures are awesome, great job! Baku87 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

More on the Iranian connection of the Palace

• Explain the Persian name
• Ties to Iran
• The designers (some of who were from outside the area)
• The Iranian period

72.57.230.179

You probably don’t understand what the Wiki project tag is for. It shows that this article was developed by members of a certain Wikiproject. It is not used to show that something belongs to Azerbaijan or Iran. The members of Iran Wikiproject have not contributed a single line to this article, and claiming other peoples hard work is simply not nice. So the tag is irrelevant. Grandmaster 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will develop it and shows its connections to Iran. I already left a stub. So stop tampering with it user:AnMaster. 72.57.230.179

As far as I know you are a member of our Wikiproject, so you should add our tag to the articles. Grandmaster 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

of course I will . i want it faired and balance. 72.57.230.179

This article is made by members of the WikiProject Azeri, so the WikiProject Iran tag doesnt belong here. Baku87 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

This is developed by Azeri wikiproject indeed. so we will keep removing the stub abdulnr 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted deletions by anon, probably Azerbaijani. Grandmaster 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was me, for some reason I was logged off when I pressed save, I was pretty sure I was logged on prior to that.Anyway, the Shirvanshah architecture was not Azerbaijani architecture.Azerbaijani 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How? To this day the buildings in Absheron, Shirvan and other regions are built in the same style. I can show you the pictures. The palace of the Shirvanshahs is the major influence to Azerbaijani architecture. Grandmaster 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt make it Azerbaijan architecture though. If Iran today were to imitate the Achaemenid building style, that would make it Elamite or Babylonian architecture, not Iranian (because the Achaemenids adopted Elamite/Babylonian architecture). The architecture in Azerbaijan is Shirvanshahi architecture, not Azerbaijani, if what you say is true. Grandmaster, you really need to put your nationalism and personal political feelings aside.Azerbaijani 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirvanshah

Since Interfase seems to have a hard time simply clicking and reading a article, looks like I have to help him.

ŠERVĀNŠAHS (Šarvānšāhs), the various lines of rulers, originally Arab in ethnos but speedily Persianized within their culturally Persian environment, who ruled in the eastern Caucasian region of Šervān from mid-ʿAbbasid times until the age of the Safavids.

By the time of the anonymous work Hodud al-Alam (c. 982 AD), the Shirvan Shahs, from their capital of Yazīdiyya (the later Shamakhi), had absorbed neighbouring kingdoms north of the Kur river and thus acquired the additional titles of Layzan Shah and Khursan Shah. We can also discern the progressive Persianisation of this originally Arab family. According to Encyclopedia of Islam: After the Shah Yazid b. Ahmad (381-418/991-1028), Arab names give way to Persian ones like Manūčihr, Ḳubādh, Farīdūn, etc., very likely as a reflection of marriage links with local families, and possibly with that of the ancient rulers in Shābarān, the former capital, and the Yazidids now began to claim a nasab (lineage) going back to Sassanid kings Bahrām Gūr or to Khusraw Anushirwan. According to Vladimir Minorsky, the most likely explanation of the Iranicisation of this Arab family could be marriage link with the family of the ancient rulers of Shabaran. He further states: The attraction of a Sassanian pedigree proved stronger than the recollection of Shaybani lineage. The coat of arms with two lions could be a reminder of the story of Bahrām Gur in Shahnama where Bahrām had to claim the crown from between two lions to be recognized as the king.

Now, do you even have a proper argument? I expect one or else I will change it back to what it was. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As I can see the information about Persianization relates to 11th century, the period befor Derbendid dynasty. And nothing about Persian identity of the owners of the palace. I don't have any doubts about Persian origin of the early Shirvanshahs, but the main topic here relates to the period much after Persianizatio. --Interfase (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interfase: It clearly states that they became Persians in the early 11th-century, which means that they were also Persian centuries later when they constructed the palace, if they weren't, they would have mentioned that. If you can't see that, then you should improve your English or don't edit here since your lack of knowledge in English is a problem for other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If they became Persians in the early 11th-century, it doesn't mean that they were also Persian centuries later. It doesn't mention anywhere. My English is enough good to see that. But your claims about "also Persian centuries later" is typical original research as I think. --Interfase (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interfase: "Sigh", it's quite simple that that they're saying that they were Persians in the long run after being Persianized, but your historicial revisionist POV seems to think otherwise ("probably were already Turkic/Azeri"). Seems more like you just don't like (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) to accept easily readable information from several academic sources. I have come up with several sources now, while you have come up with nothing but your own opinion, which won't work. Either come up with a proper argument instead of your own personal opinion, or I will change the information to what it was. That's how it works here. It is pretty clear what the sources are saying, and that's it. You're denying something that simple that's right in front of your face. By the way, you also broke the three-revert rule (WP:EDITWAR).--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually not, I didn't do more that 3 reverts in the article. But you broke rule WP:CONSENSUS. When you added the Persian spelling I removed it with explanation, that there is no any sources claiming that the owners of this palace were Persians (you still didn't bring any source claiming that). But what did you do. Without any consensus you returned disputed information to the article. This is violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Anyway, I put a template. Untill you don't show any sources claiming that the owners of the Palace were Persians you cannot remove the template. And the information without reliable sources should be removed after month. If you think that you are right, approach to WP:RFM, because I am not agree with your edit. --Interfase (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You clearly did, are you also going to deny that? [1][2][3][4] What explanation? You denied that they were Persian (even though the article clearly states that, it's like saying that I should bring sources that says that the Sasanian Empire was Persian). Again, I clearly did, it states that they were Persian from the 11th-century, but it seems you have a hard time accepting pure fact (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). I couldn't really care less whether you agree with me or not, I have proved my statement with several reliable sources, while you only have your personal opinion. If you're so good at the rules you should know that a personal opinion will never win against a statement backed by academic sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit is not revert. I added template for asking any source about Persian identity of the palace. Not showing Persian origin of the Shirvanshahs for the 11th-century or for Sasanian Empire. As you mentioned your personal opinion is not reliable. You still didn't show any academic sources claiming that the owners of the palace from Derbendid dynasty were Persians. --Interfase (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources clearly says that the Shirvanshahs were Persians from the 11th-century and after, but due to your lack of knowledge in English you have a hard time understanding it. That's all I have to say - expect your disruptive add of information to be removed soon. Reverting once again will result in you being reported. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't say that the Shirvanshahs were Persians from the 11th-century and after, as it seems to you, they say that Shirvanshahs were Persianized in the 11th-century. After month, if there was no any source claiming that the palace was belang to Persians, this original research that was added due to breaking WP:CONSENSUS should be removed. --Interfase (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

One with a little bit of logic/sense would know what the sources are saying, and no that is not original search. It's like stating that we don't know if the Sasanians were Persians after some time, or that Seljuq Empire was Turkic ;'). You're dening it because you don't like it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT), and obviously have a nationalistic POV, which you exposed when you said that they probably were Azeri/Turkic, which is pure historicial revionism. Don't expect me to answer back because I have already proven my statement right. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

First, stop claiming that your opponents have a nationalistic POV. It is violating an ethic rules and shows the weakness of your arguments. Second, we don't speak about Sasanians or Persians, we speak about the dynasty (Derbendid dynasty) of Shirvanshahs who ruled much later after 11 century and there is no any source about their Persian identity. Anyway I see there was no consensus between us. I put a template and will wait a month. --Interfase (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, according to the rules you can remove the template only after showing the sources about Persian identity of the Palace owners. I didn't see them yet. So, please don't continue edit warring and show the sources supporting your claims in the article. --Interfase (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I clearly did, and don't act like you know the rules, because you clearly don't. The sources are right above you, but it seems that you just ignore them because they do not agree with your historical revionistic POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources above say nothing about Persian identity of the Derbendids who built the Palace and lived there (again, we don't talk about the Shirvanshahs of the XI century). So, stop POV pushing and show reliable source supporting your point of view. If you think that you showed them but I didn't understand them approach to WP:RFM as the rules say. Because I still think that you are wrong. --Interfase (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran has provided numerous reliable references that verify the fact that the Shirvanshahs were already Persian well before the palace was founded. That's explicitly stated. From what I can see, it is you who is implying WP:OR here by assuming that they had "magically changed" into something different by the time of the foundation of the palace. If that would be the case, it would be verifiable, which it is not. No scholar, historian, Iranologist etc. mentions any change in the ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, which means that they hadn't changed in identity. Unless that you can show that they went through a change of identity/ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, I believe this matter is done. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran has provided references that verify the fact of the Persianization of Shirvanshahs in the 11th century, but not the fact that Shirvanshahs still had Persian identity while the palace was founded, identity of the younger branch of Shirvanshahs, Derbendids. That is still WP:OR. --Interfase (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Interfase: "Sigh", didn't you read what LouisAragon just wrote? Let me rephrase a important part of it for you: From what I can see, it is you who is implying WP:OR here by assuming that they had "magically changed" into something different by the time of the foundation of the palace. If that would be the case, it would be verifiable, which it is not. No scholar, historian, Iranologist etc. mentions any change in the ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, which means that they hadn't changed in identity. Unless that you can show that they went through a change of identity/ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids. Yet, I am still waiting for you to post something that supports your statement, which you still haven't done. You have three days to do that, if you don't do that within the three days, the information will be changed back. If you continue your reverting after that, you will be reported. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read what LouisAragon wrote and explained why I didn't agreed with him and with you. So don't try to repeat his and your arguments several times. If you will remove the template without any source claiming that the Derbendids were Persians you will be reported for violating of WP:CONSENSUS (the Persian spelling was added without consensus on the talk page) and POV pushing. Anyway I will wait till 8 April. And if I do not see any source about Perisan identity of Derbendids I will remove this original research from the article. --Interfase (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have two users disagreeing with you here. Seems like a fine WP:CONSENSUS to me. In fact, to assume the identity/ethnos had changed with the advent of the Derbendids is pure WP:OR looking at the sources. We don't interpret our sources, please remind yourself of that. If the source(s) states that they were Persianized in every way over time, theres no reason to think that they might had de-Persianised a little bit later. That's pure self-interpretation. Lastly, you haven't provided anything to back this "assumption" of yours up either, to make it even sound like a possibility. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, if another user (in our case, me) didn't agree with the edit (in our case with the adding of the Persian spelling) it means that there is no any consensus for that edit, and if another user reverted that disputed edit, it cannot be added back according to WP:CONSENSUS (see scheme). So, your "seems like a fine WP:CONSENSUS to me" is wrong and the return of this disputed edit is violating of WP:CONSENSUS. If you think that I am wrong let's ask administrators?

Secondly, "they were Persianized in every way over time" is wrong. They were Persianized in the early middle ages. But we know that the population of Azerbaijan was Turkicizated after the conquest of the region by the Seljuq Turks and this process was continued in subsequent centuries during the migration of Turkic groups during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century[5]. So, it is not so clear that Shirvanshahs had still Perisan identity while the palace were formed. So, your claims that Shirvanshahs were Persians at that times is actually self-interpretation and original research. --Interfase (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, what you're saying is pure WP:OR. Come with a source that actually supports what you say instead of making up your own assumptions. Furthermore, Britannica is not reliable, but you already know that since you know the rules so well ;). Even if it was reliable it wouldn't matter, since it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Two days left by the way. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Britannica is reliable source, who said to you that it is not reliable? Also there is many another sources about Turkicization of the region at that times (see History of Azerbaijan). 2. I didn't add nothing in the article (so, don't use WP:OR against me). There is only you who has claims which are not supported by sources. Thus, what you're saying is pure WP:OR. By the way, if you will remove template without providing any sources claiming that Derbendids during the period of the palace had Persian identity, you will be reported for ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW. So, be ready for that and discussion on administrators' talk page. I had warned you. --Interfase (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite some time has passed, but Interfase still hasn't shown a single reference to prove that the Shirvanshahs had a change in identity before, during or even after the time of the construction of the palace. Abundant references have been given on the contrary that verify the fact that the Shirvanshahs were thoroughly Persianized in ethnicity, culture, etc well before the foundation of this palace. Despite all this, user Interase is still objecting against the inclusion of the Persian translation and disregarding the sources simply because he has created a self-made assumption that they (the Shirvanshahs at the time, ruled by the Derbendids) might, I repeat might, have gone through a change of identity with the Turkic migrations, in his opinion. He unfortunately utterly fails to understand that we don't interpret our sources here, nor do we form and apply theories by ourselves. He is implying WP:OR here by assuming that they had "magically changed" from being Persian into something different by the time of the foundation of the palace. If that would be the case, it would be verifiable, which it is not. No scholar, historian, Iranologist etc. mentions any change in the ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, which means that they hadn't changed in identity.

He furthermore blatantly ignores the fact that he's not an authority (e.g. established scholar, historian) so his "opinion" (or virtually about any one else's here, as a matter of fact) regarding the interpretation of historical events without sourcing, unfortunately equals jack shit, as they say. Looking once again at the matter, this is a plain simple case of "I don't like what I'm seeing," which is unfortunately a very common issue on articles of the region. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon, you still didn't show any source claiming that Derbendids (not Shirvanshahs of the 11th century) had Persian identity. Show such source claiming that the founders of the palace had Persian identity and there will not be any questions. Without such source the adding of Persian spelling in the article is nothing but WP:OR. So, such removing of tag (without any source providing) is not acceptable. --Interfase (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Persian language transliteration / Azerbaijan's architecture

Numerous debates apparently regarding whether Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. Shirvan has been shown to be speaking Turkic following Timurids and Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu. All three spoke Turkic. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. People can debate whether Shirvanshah's were Persians but historians have spoken. Can you (debate and close this issue please).

HistoryofIran, you're disputing that this palace represents Azerbaijan's architecture and insist on callings it Shirvan's architecture in line 2. But when I prove that unesco recognizes it as Aserbaijan architecture, you suddenly move this comment down the page. I think this betrays pro-Persian motivation that doesn't belong here. Same insistence on Persian transliteration. Can you substantiate the claim that these are examples of Persian architecture? Amamedli (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is 0.0% evidence that the Shirvanshahs had been Turkified by the time this palace was built, before it, or after it. There are still Persian-speakers in what is historical Shirvan some 800 years after the initial Turkifications, e.g. the Tats. Also, nice try; of course its regarded as "Azerbaijans" architecture by UNESCO, as it is simply located within the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan. The same way tons of Greco-Roman material is considered "architecture of Turkey". If you want to prove something, then please back it up with sourcing. Otherwise it has absolutely no value here. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ok, that's fine, show evidence so everyone can be satisfied and we'll move on.

MY SOURCES (awaiting yours HistoryofIran and LouisAragon please substantiate your claims of Persian language being spoken in Shirvan in the 15th century. Persianized does not equal Persian speaking nor does Tati). Here are conclusions of experts.

Shirin Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union Kegan Paul International 1983. https://books.google.com/books?id=Gd-3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT84&dq=derbent+shirvanshah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2grWPt4fNAhVL1mMKHc2bAGsQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q&f=false “The territory of present day Azerbaijan… was predominantly Iranian speaking at this period (mid-seventh century) and he Arabs who settled here were gradually assimilated by the indigenous population. The next wave of immigrants, however, imposed themselves on the area to such an extent that they radically changed its character. There were Turkic tribes from Mongolia. They began to appear in the eastern regions of Azerbaidzhan as early as the seventh century but the main influx took place during the eleventh century with the Slejuk-Oghuz invasion. Under their influence the whole region became Turkish-speaking.

U.S. Library of Congress http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/5.htm “The Romans annexed the region of present-day Azerbaijan and called the area Albania. As Roman control weakened, the Sasanid Dynasty reestablished Persian control. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, Arabs controlled Azerbaijan, bringing with them the precepts of Islam. In the mid-eleventh century, Turkic-speaking groups, including the Oghuz tribes and their Seljuk Turkish dynasty, ended Arab control by invading Azerbaijan from Central Asia and asserting political domination. The Seljuks brought with them the Turkish language and Turkish customs. By the thirteenth century, the basic characteristics of the Azerbaijani nation had been established.”

Turkish language literature and History, Bill Hickman and Gary Leiser https://books.google.com/books?id=Goy9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=shirvan+shah+language&source=bl&ots=JDWLmo0_dY&sig=b5SxKkHtCLpSlQpRTA80c1P1BEc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj6zu_upIfNAhUC6GMKHXbKB9QQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=shirvan&f=false “…let me now shift my analysis to the area of the Eastern Oghuz, in other words, to the area of the Azeri-speaking Turks. The documents in our possession show clearly that the word ozan was used this in this area in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with the meaning of “popular poet-musician”. P. 212 “The poet Hamidi (b1439-40), who was first attached to the court of Shirvan Shahs and then in 1459-60 went to the court of Sultan Mehmet II in Istanbul were he won great favor, records at the beginning of a terci in his Turkish-Persian Divan that Hilali-I Semerkandi was bested by an ozanci in the council of the Shirvan Shah” p. 213

Amamedli (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, those 'sources' are not reliable - you probably desperately found them in order to support your historically wrong opinion. Heck, one of them almost made my computer crash. If you look up above, you will see that there has been a discussion about this before, where I have listed several sources [6]. These sources are actually from known/prominent academic scholars and encyclopedias. Don't revert again, no consensus has been made - it's against the rules. You should read them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read my sources :)? your opinion doesn't constitute consensus. not does your opinion establish realiability. I say again, list your sources to people can compare the two opinions. Until then Persian is a gonner. Amamedli (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I did indeed read your sources, you should do it too - and while you're at it, go read a English dictionary so you learn what 'banter' means. I will lose this debate how exactly? Because a nationalistic user who supports historical revionism don't know the rules? He don't know what consensus means? He don't know what a reliable source is? Aha, I see - I will lose this debate indeed. Edit warring won't take you far at all, you'll see; unlike you I am actually patient. P.S saying that Bosworth is not reliable really says much about you ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran. I am tempted to give you an English lecture but will refrain. You will lose because you are not understanding the argument I am making (this requires some thought), patient you may be but patience without thinking amounts to idleness (or worse). Look I get it, you're proud of your Iranian heritage, but you lost to the Russians fair and square, wikipedia is not a place for revanchism. These territories were Turkish speaking from centuries before 15th century. I don't understand why you resent this so much, why hate us so much...If it wasn't for Turkish(Azeri) dynasties and Azeri Qizilbash, Iran would have been much worse off today. why so much hatred? Amamedli (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Pan-nationalist; What has this to do with my origins? Why are you bringing the country of my parents up? Why are you suddenly bringing your own biased interpretation of history? English lectures? Oh, so you can teach me how to spell 'realiability' :)? Or it is reliability? hmm. Apparently I do not understand anything, yet who is the person that will get blocked in a few hours? You're all alone on this, which there is a pretty good reason for. And for gods sake stop acting like a child - accusing me of 'hatred' won't get you anywhere. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Need Opinions (transliteration)

HistoryofIran User:LouisAragon User:Interfase User:Grandmaster User:MorbidEntree User:TimBits User:Hajji Piruz

Point #1: Consistent Wikipedia convention to transliterate monument names into language presently spoken first, and originally spoken second (examples below). Etymological connection either to Azerbaijani or Persian has not been claimed/demonstrated on this talk page. Therefore considering that the cite is located in Azerbaijan and official language in the country is Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani transliteration should be listed first.

- Samarkand (Etymology, Present, Past)

- Po-i-Kalyan (Present, Past, Etymology)

- Chichen Itza (present, past, etymology)

Point #2: Persian transliteration can be listed as a second language if it can be demonstrated as dominant language spoken in Shirvan at the time of construction in the 15th century. According to sources below, dominant language in Shirvan in 15th century was Turkish, not Persian. First two sources below demonstrate this broadly for entire territory of present-day Azerbaijan. Third source demonstrates that Oghuz (Turkish Azeri) poems were recited at the court of Shirvanshahs.

Shirin Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union Kegan Paul International 1983. “The territory of present day Azerbaijan… was predominantly Iranian speaking at this period (mid-seventh century) and the Arabs who settled here were gradually assimilated by the indigenous population. The next wave of immigrants, however, imposed themselves on the area to such an extent that they radically changed its character. There were Turkic tribes from Mongolia. They began to appear in the eastern regions of Azerbaidzhan as early as the seventh century but the main influx took place during the eleventh century with the Slejuk-Oghuz invasion. Under their influence the whole region became Turkish-speaking.

U.S. Library of Congress “The Romans annexed the region of present-day Azerbaijan and called the area Albania. As Roman control weakened, the Sasanid Dynasty reestablished Persian control. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, Arabs controlled Azerbaijan, bringing with them the precepts of Islam. In the mid-eleventh century, Turkic-speaking groups, including the Oghuz tribes and their Seljuk Turkish dynasty, ended Arab control by invading Azerbaijan from Central Asia and asserting political domination. The Seljuks brought with them the Turkish language and Turkish customs. By the thirteenth century, the basic characteristics of the Azerbaijani nation had been established.”

Turkish language literature and History, Bill Hickman and Gary Leiser "...ozan was the name given to the popular poet-musicians of the Oghuz." “…Eastern Oghuz, in other words ... area of the Azeri-speaking Turks... the word ozan was used in this area in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries...”. “The poet Hamidi (b1439-40), who was first attached to the court of Shirvan Shahs ... records at the beginning of a terci in his Turkish-Persian Divan that Hilali-I Semerkandi was bested by an ozanci in the council of the Shirvan Shah” p. 212, 213.

HistoryofIran has provided sources that confirm "Shirvanshahs were Persianized" as evidenced by their names changing from Arabic to Persian. However, this is not evidence of Persian language being spoken, which is yet to be demonstrated. As an example, Safavids in late 15th century, while Persianized were Oghuz Turkic-speaking. So were the Timurids

Point #3: Persian transliteration can be listed if the name of the monument is etymologically linked to Persian, which would put it at par with Hagia Sophia (means "Holly Wisdom" in Greek). This has not been claimed or sourced--Amamedli (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

it has been about 3 weeks since this post. Considering there are no responses, I will go ahead and make the change. Any concerns, please react. thank you, Amamedli (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)