Talk:Safavid dynasty

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qezelbash vs Shahsavans

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

minor changes

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

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

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

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

Shi'asm and Sunnism

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

this article needs to be fixed

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

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

Wikilinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please don't remove

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

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

Original research

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

The current caption on the map is wrong

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

comment

I have removed the controversial statement from the introduction. The article has a well-sourced paragraph about the origins of the Safavids. And as I understand it, the Safavids had more than just Azerbaijani and Kurdish origins, and were also related to Greek, Turkmen, and Persian nobles. Controversial statements in an introduction is unencyclopedic.

I also suggest to separate the Safavid Empire from the Safavid dynasty. Two articles would give a better overview and would limit specific discussion to one of the articles (i.e. the origin of the Safavid family is irrelevant for the history, politics, and importance of the Safavid Empire, and the cultural life within the Safavid Empire is irrelevant for the history of the Safavid family).

Thank you. --80.171.179.229 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The cultural background of Safavids lay in their beliefs that is some what relevant to Kurdish Alevis and their connection with Qizilbash tribes.Then the well sourced material in the lead should not be simply deleted.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Tajik to me. Grandmaster (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: as always accusing others. No comment.

@ Alborz Fallah: the IP is right. There is no need to make a controversial statement in the intro while there is a separate section for that. The wording of the intro is stupid anyway. The word establish is used 6 times! See WP:STYLE. Also see this example for a well-balanced and well-written text about the Safavids.

Understandably, the Safavids were influential, but couldn't the opening 3 paragraphs be better written?Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Kansas Bear

I agree. What about:

• The Safavids (Persian: صفویان; Azerbaijani: Səfəvi) were the ruling dynasty of medieval Persia from 1501/1502 to 1722. They established the greatest Iranian empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia, and made the Ithnāˤashari school of Shi'a Islam the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in the history of Islam. Despite their demise in 1722, the Safavids have left their mark down to present era by reasserting the Iranian identity of the region[3] and by spreading and establishing Shi'a Islam in major parts of the Caucasus and West Asia, especially in Iran.

Safavid origins

The topic of origins of Safavid dynasty has already been discussed at length, there is no need to remove them so as to start a new conflict. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should removing any references to their origin in the intro start a new conflict?! Actually, it is the other way around, because the current version does not give any credit to the family's Greek, Persian, Tati and possibly Arab backgrounds. Removing controversial statements from the intro and explaining the Safavids' origin in a special section is much better than the current version. What were the Safavids?! Kurds?! Or Azeris?! How can they have 2 different origins, if a family's origin is only defined by the father-line?! Did they have two father-lines?! If only one of the two was the origin of the Safavids in a traditional sense, then why is the other one mentioned?! And why aren't other origins of the family mentioned?! What about the important Greek factor which shaped the Aq Qoyunlu sultanate?! What about the Persian factor?! What about the confirmed Tati origin of Sheikh Safi ud-Din?! There is something wrong in the current version and it should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.157.30 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The detail that Safavids had primary Azerbaijani and Kurdish backgrounds and heritage are established facts. There was no "important Greek factor", one of the Ag Goyunlu leaders happened to marry the daughter of Greek ruler of Trebizond. And that's already mentioned in the body of the article. Persian factor has not been established so far, except for auxiliary language usage in the imperial domain. Tajik, please, we have been through this, it's frankly taking everyone's valuable time. Why is this one topic so crucial so as to return to it over and over, repeat the same stuff, trying to remove the same words and get restricted? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any convincing source that could support your claim that the Safavids had "had primary Azerbaijani backgrounds". All modern sources agree that the Safavids were of "native Iranian origin" and that they "originated in Persian Kurdistan". The founding fathers of the Safavid dynasty spoke Old Tati which is related to Kurdish, but is not Kurdish. Your claim about the Aq Qoyunlu is most certainly wrong. Almost all Aq Qoyunlu leaders were of Greek background, including Uzun Hassan himself (see: Minorsky, V. (1955). "The Aq-qoyunlu and Land Reforms (Turkmenica, 11)". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 17 (3); p. 449). That means that Ismail's maternal linage was half-Greek in the course of some 3-5 generations. You claim that the "Safavids had primary Azerbaijani backgrounds" because from Sheikh Junayid to Sheikh Muhammad Khodabanda all Safavid Sheikhs and kings had Aq Qoyunlu (Turkmen) mothers. Yet, you do not have the same standard for the important Greek background of the very same "Turcoman Aq Qoyunlu" who in fact were half-Greeks and only half-Turcoman. The "Persian factor" was surely more important after the establishment of the Safavid kingdom, because starting with Ismail, all Safavid kings identified themselves as "Shahs of Iran" and tried to find their place in the legends of Persian mythology. That has also been discussed many times and ali_doostzadeh has given you primary and secondary sources. Of course many sources say that they were "Turkish/Turkic" because at the time of the Empire, they spoke Turkish. But this does not define the origin of the family. The current royal family of the UK is "English" because they speak English. But the ORIGIN of the family is evidently German. Queen Elizabeth I's mother-tongue was German and not English! (in comparison: Sheikh Junayid Safawi's mother-tongue was evidently NOT Turkish; he spoke Kurdish and Persian. He was the FIRST Safavid to marry a Greek-Turkic princess of the Aq Qoyunlu tribe; see: "Shaykh Bali-efendi on the Safavids", by V. Minorsky, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph Turner, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57 (1957), pp. 437-450!)

So, my question is: since this is so controversial, why should such a controversial statement be in the first sentence of the article?! And if that is not as important - as you say - then why you do persist on keeping that controversial information right in the first sentence?! The origin of the Safavids is explained in detail in the body of the text, there is no need to mention it in the introduction and certainly not in the very first sentence of the article. This is POV on your side, Atabek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.163 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tajik, Safavid dynasty was of primary Turkic and Kurdish background, lengthy discussion in this regard took place over the course of several months in this article talk page, of which you were a participant as well. The primary court language of the empire was Turkic, so were the Qizilbash tribes, the main factor in Safavid establishment, as was major part of Ismail Safavi's own background. No poet writes 1400 verses in one language unless he feels personal affinity to it. In order to accomodate to the consensus, we have agreed that Azerbaijani shall be mentioned instead of Turkic in introduction. So as I said, we don't need to go back to that discussion, more so, when you're simply banned from editing and are editing Wikipedia in evasion of your ArbCom ban. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not convincing. And you have double standards. In the Nezami article, you and others objected the expression "Persian poet", although all of Nezami's poems were written in Persian. Instead, a consensus was made NOT TO MENTION his origins because a) it was unimportant and b) it was (according to you) controversial. Yet, in case of Ismail, you persist on his poetry. According to Minorsky, Ismail wrote in Turkic because of the Safavid propaganda. According to Ismail's own son, Sam Mirza, he also wrote duzens of verses in Persian and some even in Arabic. And countless sources have been mentioned in this article proving that Persian and NOT Turkish was the primary court language of the Safavids. And your claim is nullified by the sole fact that all so-called "Turkic rulers" of the past wrote poetry in Persian or Arabic and patronized these languages. In fact, the Ottoman ruler Suleyman the Magnificent wrote an entire Divan in Persian and until the rule of the Young Turks, the word "Turk" was considered an insult. Bernard Lewis writes: "in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages" (Bernard Lewis quoted in O. Mehmet, "Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions", 1990, p. 115) Does that mean that the Ottomans were not Turks?! Bayram Khan, himself a Qara Qoyunlu Safawid noble, wrote twice as much in Persian than he did in Turkish. So what was he according to you? A Persian or a Turkoman?!

The CONSENSUS would be NOT TO MENTION anything about their origin in the intro. Let the reader decide for himself after reading the origin section. The Safavid's origin is not clear as you claim, it is "shrouded in mystery" (R. Savory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.163 (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why what Ismail's far less known son Sam Mirza wrote in Persian, should have so much significance over 1400 verses that Ismail himself wrote in Azeri Turkic. Nizami page does currently say that he was a Persian poet, and you would insist that since he wrote in this language he must have been Persian, which is false, because he gratified Turks and his father's origin is unknown while his mother was Kurdish (not Persian).

But then you have completely controversial argument here. There is a large body of references which refers to Safavid dynasty as Turkic, but we don't outline that in the article either. For example: The commonalities among these states start with their Turkic dynastic origins, of which the Ottomans' have already been discussed. The Safavid family, which may have originated in Iranian Kurdistan, moved to Iranian Azerbaijan,where one of its members, Sheykh Safi, founded a sufi order in the 1250s. In a milieu where various sufi orders displayed Shi'i tendencies, the originally Sunni Safavid order split, and its Anatolian branch evolved into a militant ghazi movement that advanced millenarist claims on behalf of its leaders. The Safavid family intermarried with Turkic rulers and propagated its appeal in Azeri Turkic among Turkmen tribesmen in Azerbaijan and Anatolia. Although Sunni and Shi'i religious identities were not yet clearly differentiated, radical Safavid doctrine went beyond what any well-schooled Muslim could accept, whether Sunni or Shi'i. In a way commonly attributed to the influence of pre-Islamic Turkic religious ideas, the followers of the movement known as "sufi ghazis" (ghuzat-e sufiye) or as "red-heads" (kizilbash) because of their red headdress, attributed divine status not only to the Prophet's son-in-law Ali, whom the Shi'i regard as the first imam, but also the head of the Safavid order. Ismail I inherited leadership of the movement and transformed it into a state. He defeated his Akkoyunlu relatives in 1501; campaigned across Iran, Iraq, and Transoxiania; and reunited Iran under himself as shah (r. 1501-24). That Ismail's propaganda was also effective in eastern Anatolia is clear from the one of his Turkish poems: "Those who gave their faith to the sons of the Shah were the akhis, the aghis, and the abdals". Surprisingly, Ismail also later established Shi'ism for the first time ever as Iran's official religion. (Carter Vaughn Findley, The Turks in World History, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0195177266, 121-122).

It's really a waste of time to recite all these basically known material here, Tajik, just because you have only one POV agenda, to regularly return to Safavid dynasty page, evading your ban with anonymous IPs from the same region, and insist on the same racial stance regarding history of Safavids. I believe we (meaning other main editors of this page) have moved beyond that point long ago, by simply indicating that Safavids were of Azeri and Kurdish origin, basic fact acknowledged by many references. And I don't see how your repeated return and insistence on the same POV and fragmented OR, while simply not being allowed to edit at all and clearly disrespecting ArbCom regulations for months now, is going to help this page or your situation. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether Sam Mirza, as Ismail's second-born son is well known or not, does not matter. The fact remains that Sam Mirza attests that his father wrote Persian poetry, and that nullifies your argument that "Ismail must have been a Turk because he wrote in Turkic". But when it comes to Nezami, you say: "hey, it does not amtter in what language he wrote". Let me translate your POV to those who do not understand your language: "If someone writes poetry in Turkish, then he is 100% Turk. But if someone writes poetry in Persian or any other language, the language does not define his language." That's POV. Amir Khusro, a well-known poetry of Persian- and Urdu poetry, was a Turk. His origin is not manipulated by POV-pushers. In case of the Safavids, you persist on that. Countless sources have been mentioned in this discussion proving/claiming that they were NOT Turks. So very obviously the different sources contradict each other. That means that the entire discussion on the Safavids origin is controversial. So why should such a controversial statement be made in the first sentence of the article?!

As for the ban: it has been confirmed so many times that the ban was injust. Your friend, Thatcher131, banned me with a totally false claim, i.e. that the sockpuppet of your well known friend NisarKand (who is right now vandalizing the articles Afghanistan and Demography of Afghanistan) was behind that account. Admin User:Alex Bakharev has confirmed that. So, to sum it up: my ban was well-schemed "screw job", planned by you, Thatcher, and NisarKand, possibly also by E104421 whose collaboration with the German User:Moorudd (who is a well known anti-Iranian racist) well known. So do not hide yourself behind words if you have no arguments left. You are on 1RR because your disruptive behavior and your feuds with Non-Turkic users (be they Greeks, Iranians, or Armenians) is well known. Stop pointing fingers at others, Atabek, because the next controversial ArbCom will get you banned. And unlike others, no "screw job" is will be needed!

As for Carter Vaughn Findley, it is surprising that you quote one part of his work, while you ignore another one. In his book "The Turks in World History", he writes on page 124 that Ismail wrote poetry in the "Turkic language of his followers". And even the part you have quoted makes clear that the Safavids were NOT of Turkic origin but had intermarried with Turkic tribes. Even the degree of their intermarriages is known: ONLY 3 GENERATIONS! And that on the maternal line. You tell me who is the POV pusher: you turn the Safavids into "Turks" because of 3 generations of intermmariage with the Aq Qoyunlu. Yet you ignore the fact that the same Aq Qyounlu were half-Greek - all three generations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.163 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, is there not a way to simply present the information about the Safavids, regardless of their ethnic origins, and let the readers themselves decide whether the Safavids should be 'labeled' as one ethnic group or two or three?Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Kansas Bear

The above IP belongs to User:Tajik, who is a banned user. He admits that. I don't think there's any point in arguing with him, he is not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia by the decision of the arbitration committee. As for the intro, I don't mind better wording, but ethnic origins of the dynasty is also an important info. Please propose your wording and we can discuss it. Grandmaster (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not this Tajik person. So I seriously hope you are not referring to me. In my opinion, the intro doesn't need to have an explanation as to ethnicity. The intro needs to be clear, concise, and direct.User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Kansas Bear

Which IP? 82.83.134.163? Kingturtle (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version is just some POV pushed by Atabek and Grandmaster. There are so many other scholastic sources that do not support their position. For example this one which says: "it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigenous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as is sometimes claimed". The book is called "History of Humanity", is written by Sigfried J. De Laet for the International Commission for a History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind. Why should this source be ignored?! If Atabek and Grandmaster want to mention the origin of the Safavids in the intro, then this scholastic source should also be mentioned. The Encyclopaedia Americana says: "though the Safavid family itself was of Iranian origin, the bulk of its supporters were Shiite Turkoman tribesmen from Anatolia".[7] Why should this source be ignored in the intro?!

• It has been asked "What were the Safavids?! Kurds?! Or Azeris?! How can they have 2 different origins, if a family's origin is only defined by the father-line" .The answer lies in that reality that so-called ethnicities in the old world (Iran) were not "racial and lingual" but "religious and cultural" items. That resulted in the "changing" of their "ethnicity" by time. Iran itself is an umbrella that covers all Kurdish,Azeri,Tajik and other ethnic cultures in one name. No one has ever claimed that "Iran" is an ethnic entity --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not solve the problem. The article claims that they were "Kurdish" (which is most certainly wrong) and "Azerbaijani" (which itself is not an ethnic designation). The Safavids hailed from "Persian Kurdistan", but they were not Kurds in ethnicity. Their eponymous founder, Safi ud-Din, wrote poems in Tati (old-Azari language) which is related to Kurdish, but is not Kurdish. Starting with Sheikh Junayid (Ismail's paternal grandfather), the Safavids intermarried with the Aq Qoyunlu who were a mixed Greek-Turkic confederation, highly Persianized in culture and habits. In the course of 3 generation and due to the influence of former Aq/Qara Qoyunlu militias, a language shift took place. The "home language2 of the Safavids changed from Northwest-Iranian to Oghuz-Turkic, while Persian maintained its role as the predominant cultural lingua franca.

The current version of the article makes a controversial claim in the first sentence of the article instead of simply mentioning the fact that the Safavids' origin is "shrouded in mystery". That would be the most NPOV version for the intro. The complexity of the Safavid's origin should then be presented in the origin-section also in a NPOV manner, naming all sources and presenting all versions. Then the reader should decide for himself. The current version is POV and ignores the important Greek, Persian, and Armenian/Georgian influence on the Safavids (just for the record: Shah Abbas Safavi, the most important ruler of the dynasty, was born to a Georgian mother!). Most of all, the term "Azerbaijani" is confusing. What does it mean: that the Safavids were from Azerbaijan? That the Safavids were speakers of old-Azari? That the Safavids were Turkic? Or that the Safavids were Turkified Azarais of native Iranian/Aryan origin?! The only NPOV version is moving the sources to the origin section and not saying anything about the Safavids' origin in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The comment in this edit was inappropriate if not outright racist. Removing the reference to spelling in Azeri language, intended to clarify how the word Safavi sounds in what used to be a court language of Safavid empire, is not very useful either. Please, discuss further edits. Atabek (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the origins

Excuse me folks for getting in univited but I simply found this article hilarious. It is like two sides battling each other, one syaing that the Safavid were Turkic while other saying that it was anything but Turkic. Come on folks, make this article a bit more serious than what it is now! Finding the ORIGIN of some one or some people is very difficult especially when we are talking about some people who died hundred of years ago. Who cares what is the origin of the Safavid? Do we know where they lived? Okay, what language they spoke? Okay. The rest can be written as "unclear" etc. 78.96.204.212 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the safavids cant be iranian because sheikh gilani and firuz shah came both from Khorassan where never been kurds are living at that time.and if they were kurds they must be writing in kurdish and not Tati.it`s not logically.and in the safavid papers "safawat-as-saffa" sheikh safi were often called "the turkish pir" and he was living in an turkish district "Deh-i Tork".and also in the safavid paper "cihan-aray-i Shah Ismail" sheikh safi`s teacher sheikh zahed gilani called him a "young turk" (Cevan-i Tork).in the "safawat as-saffa" are also reading that sheik safi has turkish guest in his house.then he must been a turkish-speaker.--Altai Khan (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Bosworths book and he simply says the origin of the Safavids are obscure and that is the wrong page by the way. Some of the sources were Turkish whose accuracy can not be ascertained. But, Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah does not come from Khorasan and they are both (Shaykh Zahid Gilani and Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah) from Kurdistan (Sanjar/Sanjan). Tati, Talyshi and Kurdish (with various dialects) alongside with Gilaki are NW Iranian languages and 700 years ago their divergence was minimal. The two oldest manuscripts of Saffwat As-Safa are already brought in this page and they are the only two pre-1501 manuscripts. [8][9].

Also bring exact citations with full sentences and paragraphs with regards to any pre-1501 or post-1501 Safavid manuscript. All the post 1501 manuscripts consider the Safavids as Seyyeds (descendants of the Prophet). This would mean that even if there is a post-1501 manuscript that calls Shaykh Safi ad-din as Javan-i-Tork (which I have not seen), it would not add much to the inquiry since in the same manuscript he would also be considered a Seyyed. The word "Turk" in general Persian literature beside its obvious ethnic meaning has many other meanings that are not ethnic: "Ruler, beloved, unfaithful lover, Sun-like,.."(host of positive, negative and neutral connotations). So that is why it is important to bring sentences and full sources. The fact is both theories exists and so the article has made a compromise. Also having a Turkish guest does not make you a Turk since his guest might have known Persian or even perhaps the Shaykh knew Turkish (since this was part of the transition region of turning Azerbaijan from an Iranic speaking region to a Turkic one). Thus even speaking Turkish is not sufficient since many people speak Turkish (being the language of rulers and Ilkhanids and soldiers and landlords), yet hardly anyone speaking Turkish would speak Tati. I would further argue that Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah lived before the Turkification of the region and you can note, he does not have any sort of Turkish name in the ancestry. Compare this to say Eldiguzid (later on called Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan),Seljuqs, QaraQoyunlu, Ghaznavids, and any sort of Turkish group who will have a Turkish names in their lineage. The issue is simply with regards to a dynasty (at least in western scholarip) the fatherline defines the origin. For example culturally the Shirvanshahs were Persian and even claimed descent from Sassanids (due to marrying with local Iranian families of the area), supported Persian culture and literature, had Persian names, mixed with Iranian families and etc. But their fatherline was Arabic. In this day and age, I am in favor of culture rather than fatherline when defining a dynasty and even individual. Because eventually all languages (say Iranian was formed by 2000 B.C. and Altaic by 500 B.C. and Proto-Indo-European by 5000 B.C.) were formed fairly recently and all the people except on small islands have definitely a mixed heritage (or else we might have lots of retarded people). But for the sake of consistency and not having double standards, for dynasties, they use the fatherline to define origin (which does not necessarily mean culture as in the case of Shirvanshah). So it is interesting, a dynasty like Rustamid in Africa are considered Persian (despite their support of Arabian culture and eventually melt in) but a dynasty like Shirvanshah is considered an Arabic. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

thats all old arguments.iranian people want that safavids be iranian and some people would see what he want.because safavids are important for the state iran.i dont understand why you cancel my sources.i think you want that the reader of this article should see more pro-iranian sources that turkic.there was no reason to cancel that.safavid order came not from kurdistan, but from khorassan. there was a city who called sincan in the region of merv in todays turkmenistan.iranian scholars manipulate that name and makes sincar from it.if tork have another meanigs than tork than it must be suitable in the sentence.in the safawat as safa from ibn-bezzaz reads that one man call him turkish pir in a normal diskussion and not in an persian phoetry or that similar things.and when you dont know that sheikh gilani calls sheikh safi a young turk is that not my problem.than you must find it.and also in the safawat as safa are reading that sheikh shafi could speak turkish,arabian,persian,mongolian and gilani.but not tati.the tati manuscripts is not proven to are really from him.another interesting thing ist that at the same time the safavid order visited the krim turks and the red-horde.then they must been himself turks.its not important to have an turkish name in your ancestry because they came from are religios family and many religios dynasties thinks they were sayyids.only for prestige.azerbaijan were never been predominantly iranian in the first place.albanian,arabian and armenien sources tells enough information about turkish settlements in azerbaijan (Huns,Subars,Agaceris,Bulgars,Khazars,Masguts,Kipchaks,Pechenegs).this claim is a part of the assimilate poltik from iran.people who were living at that time know it better than todays scholars.if you think the selcuks were the first turks than you have no really knowledge of azerbaijan.it exists enough toponyms to confirm that in azerbaijan were turkic-speakers are living for long time.all turkish dynasties that 1000 years ruled over iran were propagator for persian language and not turkic.how could you say that azeris are turkified.the self meaning azeri is another form from khazar.the khazar-turks ruled over iran for 400 years before the arrival of selcuks.and kurds are not iranians.neither genetically and neither from they language.kurdish is a iranianized language from the time of the assimilate politic of the sassanids and have enough reasons to call it a non-iranian language.that tells us al-masudi.and why you write in the article only azerbaijani and not turkic? i read you are fair.why you cancel my sources? do you think that only you have the privilege to insert a source? are you a guardian?the safavids where more turkish than the ottomans.shah ismail was a revolutionary.he was the first who not propagate persian language.he was proud for his origin and he dont accept any persian official during his reign.turkish culture was at its heritage at the safavid court.the ottomans where more international and therefore they hate the safavids for they pure original oghus-state system.all kizilbash soldiers were turks.if they were georgians and persians in the army, they were not part from the kizilbashs.i dont accept your act that you cancel my contribution.the only reason to dont make it back is because i am new here.which of my sources are turkish.maybe i have the book in turkish language.thats the only reason that my sentence are not in the same page like you.and what is the problem if i use a turkish source? its not acceptable or what? why? do you mean that turkish scholars are lyers? and when one turk like Togan tells another thing you put it directly in the article.Z.V.Togan hat never 100% said that safavids are of iranian origin.i cite you a other part of the same book from togan that you use it for your purposes: "in the azerbaijanian translation (1542) of the "Safawat as-Safa" the turkish poems might be indeed from Safī ud-Dīn Ardabilī.The majority from Ardebil and specially members of the sheih safi order who visited the krim-turks and the (turkish) Red-Horde were indeed Turkish-speakers" (Z.V.Togan sur l´origine des safavids, melanges, massignon, damas,1957,III..s.352) --Altai Khan (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You make a lot of points but some of them are not related to Safavids. For example if you believe: "the self meaning Azeri is another form from khazar.", that is if you believe etymologically the word Azeri is related to Khazar, then discuss it with proper sources in a related article. But I can tell you it is incorrect. آذر is spelled with Dh where-as خزر is with ز. In English and Turkish-Latin alphabet, you will not see this. The form Azar/Adhar/Adur/Adhur goes back to Atur (fire). One would have to explain these sound transformations as well the transformation of خ to آ and several other shifts. I have never seen such a theory and would like to see a Western linguist with the proper linguistic background make such a claim. Acceptable sources in Wikipedia would be modern English language sources with proper citation. That is why we agreed not to bring for example Kasravi which is a cited scholar by many respectable historians. Also there is another reason that I r.v.'ed you. For example I have the same Bosworths book you cited and it says the origin of the Safavid is obscure, perhaps they were from Persian Kurdistan. I have pg 352 of Togan infront of me and he says Le Kurde Piruz Zarrin Kulah and is describing manuscripts A and B. So I just wanted you to bring good English sources, or original manuscripts. Note the only reason I am citing Togan is that this particular article was also cited by several western scholars. There are several Sanjan/Sinjars but there no doubt it is in Kurdistan since Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah is identified as Al-Kurdi Sanjani. I have not seen a single scholar say it was in Khorasan. If you read the actual sources brought here, you will see that. And I am not quoting Iranian scholars. If there was a Turkish translation of Safwat as-Safa and if it was in 1542, then that is after 1501. Which is why Togan shows exactly the disagreements between the pre-1501 and post 1501 manuscripts. As per Togan, he says the Safavids did everything to hide their Kurdish origin. By the way Kurdish is an Iranian language and genetically one can argue no one in the middle east (except Turkomens of Iran) have significant Turkic blood. In the current article, there are two sections (Kurdish and Turkish). The good thing is you can boost your point of view by putting valid sources there. But that is valid English sources or original manuscripts please with full sentences. Bring any valid English/Western source or the actual Persian original for your claims and it will easily be put in the proper section (Turkish fatherline). I have no problem with it. I have a problem with misquoting sources or using non-English sources (with the exception of original sources) written in ME countries or former USSR. You also claim about Shah Esmail "he was proud for his origin and he dont accept any persian official during his reign". But that is wrong. The second most powerful position (after himself) was the Wakil and it was held by Persian officials. Of course if you have a valid English source that says he didn't accept any Persian officials, then bring it. That would mean he was sort of not too smart, since a good ruler would use all the segments of the society to create a powerful kingdom. So we can not use domestic sources which are usually tainted with some sort of bias. I never claimed Seljuqs were the first "Turks" in the region, Huns, Subars (Hungarians), Khazars ..were on the other side of the Caucus mountain, not even in the Caucus, let alone historical Aturpatakan. But they did make some incursions but details of permanent settlements (if any) is lacking (Per Golden). The area in the pre-Islamic era was controlled effectively by the Parthians than Sassanids and their vassals. Later on it was the Arabs (the Khazars made a major incursion after the disintegration of Sassanids but the Arabs pushed them back to the Khazar-Sassanid border (Darband)), then smaller Iranian/Iranified dynasties (Daylamites, Kurdish, Shaddadid, Musafarid, Sajids, Shirvanshahs) controlled the area. Arab travelers of the 10th century to both Azerbaijan and the Caucus note that the language of Azerbaijan was Iranian and that Persian was widespread in the Caucus (used as the common language). Finally, with the Seljuqs, it is a turning point, since we have a Turkish dynasty controlling the area (both caucus and historical Aturpatakan), then we have Eldiguzids (Kipchaks) also known as Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan, Khwarizmshahids (Kipchak), Mongol (most of the elements being Turkic), Ilkhanids ... and so on. So that is why Seljuqs are an important turning. Finally Tati is used as a general term and in the wider concept means a Iranian language, since Tat is the word for "Iranian" in the Turkish language. Much like Kurdish which is a linguistic family with various Iranian languages/dialects (Sorani/Kurmanji being the major two). Think of it as Oghuz with its various branches or even Turkish (is it Uzbek or Yakut or Cyprus Turkish?). Also keep in mind this article is not about politics. Also talking about assimilationist policy of the modern republic of Azerbaijan or Iran is not really discussing Safavids! Also the term "Turk" with its various uses in Persian literature extends to both poetry and Sufic prose (biography of saints and orders included). Also as per your statement: "the khazar-turks ruled over iran for 400 years before the arrival of selcuks.", I do not think that is correct and I have never heard a Western scholar make this claim. So please feel free to add valid and verifiable English sources written by Western scholars (preferably in this relevant field). But keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of Original Research and try to familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia. Keep in mind this article is a compromise version. So bring valid English sources (or even original sources) for that relevant section (from my own research point of view, I do not give any weight to any post-1501 Safavid text with regards to Safavid genealogy and so I have not researched them as thoroughly). Thank you. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi too.In Turkey exist some Villages that called Khazar Suvar or alike.in bitlis,van,ercis and erzurum there are villages who called suvar.in elazig we have the village hazarik, in cemisgezek hazari, siirt hazaran and dogubeyazit kuzar.subars/suvars (hungarians) were former turkic-speaker.the hungarian tribal confederation exist of several tribes and the majority was turkish.that affirms hungarian scholars.the term hungar is of turkic origin and means ten-arrows (onogur).the byzantine ambassadors calls them therefore turks.if the khazars only maid raids in azerbaijan territory then they cant gave some places their name.the muslim caliphate allows some khazar farmers to settle in trancaucasia.not all khazars were jews.there have a great part of muslims under them.the muslims who fought against khazars was mostly Turkish Praetorians.(Boga El-Kebir is one of them).the arabian traveller İbn’ül A’sam’ül Kufi have noted in 926 AD that the most widespread language in todays armenia/azerbaijan were the khazar-language, and Mukaddesi have noted in 966 that the language in the same territory were neither armenian or persian and calls him arran-language.it seems that he means Khazar-Turkish.it exist enough another toponyms with other turkish tribal names.

Sources: Kevin Allan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria

My Sources that you take out was from autoritative Scientist. its not correct.i dont accept that.

And the City Sanjan are not the city Sanjar.they have different endings like iran and irak.

The Azerbaijanian Scholar Mirza Abbasli who use the comments of the arabian geographer Seyhu`l-Imam yakut el-Hamavi show us 3 different places with the name Sanjan and all of them are in Territory with significant turkish population. 1. south of Derbent 2. south of Merv 3.in the Region of Nishapur.

And the Iranian Scientist Sait Nefisi have wrote in 1927 that the location of the Place Sanjan from the Safawat as-Safa is in the Near of Merv in todays Turkmenistan. He writes: „sencan is a place in the near of merv....therefore the forefathers of sheikh zahid gilani came from the region in Khorassan.“

(Mirza Abbasli, Safevilerin Kökenine Dair, p.329)

otherwise safavids cant be of iranian origin because kurds aren`t of iranian descent.

Genetically i can show you some Scientific Works:

1.Genetic distance comparisons have revealed that the Turkic and Turkmen speaking peoples in the Caspian area cluster with the Kurds, Greeks and Iranics (Ossetians). In this study, the Persian speakers are genetically remote from these populations; they are, however, close to the Parsis who migrated from İndia to İran at the end of the 7th century. (American Journal of Physical Anthropology,Volume 46, Issue 3 , Pages 377 – 390)

2. According to a recent genetic study based on genetic distances and haplotypes, Kurds are classified as part of the eastern Mediterranean stock, close to the Turks of Anatolia (The correlation Between Languages and Genes: The Usko-Mediterranean Peoples, Human Immunology, 62, p. 1057, 2001. )

3.According to a recent study, Kurds' ancestors were from an old Mediterranean substratum, i.e. Hurrian and Hittite groups. Moreover the Aryan ancestry of the Kurds is not supported by genetic analyses (HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish populati...[Tissue Antigens. 2001] - PubMed Result )

4.American Center of Khazar Studies: Kurds are the Closest Relatives of Jews and were remote from the Iranian speaking peoples.

5.Genetic Study about Kurds from the Max-Planck-Institute for evolotionary Anthropologie in Leipzig: Kurdes show genetic closeness to People of West-Asia (Middle-East) and great Distance to Central-Asien (Iranian) People.

And Linguistically also:

1.Kurdish was formerly a independent, non-iranian Language.(Dr. Ferdinand Hennerbichler, Origin of Kurdish People)

Certain Scientific Works (including Turkish and Russian Works from St.Petersburg) have revealed that Kurdish was a mixed Language with a high proportion (98%) of Iranian,Arabian and Turkish Words.

Kurdish is grammatically closer to altaic-languages like Turkish.

The best presence Kurdologist Martin van Bruinessen writes:

"Throughout his travels, Evliya gives brief samples of several of these dialects. They include a word-list in what he calls the Sohrani dialect (spoken near Mifariqin), a song in the Ceziri dialect, a long poem in the Rojiki dialect (which appears in fact to be Turkish grammatically, with a high proportion of Armenian words), a few phrases in the Hakkari dialect, and a qasida in the dialect of `Amadiya."(Martin van Bruinessen, “Kurdistan in the 16th and 17th centuries, as reflected in Evliya Çelebi’s Seyahatname”, The Journal of Kurdish Studies 3 (2000), 1-11.)

And know to the End i have a important Eyewhitness:

„the kurds retire to the mountains long time ago and disrupt their contacts to other people because the time were really hard to them and therefore they offtake to high mountains.in their living region there were near to persians and with the time they give up their own language and began to looks (linguistically) like them (the persians).“ (Al-Masudi, Muruc Ez-Zeheb, p.191)

By the Way, the same person tell us another interesting thing:

"so far i`ve not mention about the Guzzes and the Karlukhs.They are Turks and live in Garsh,Siistan, Bust and Bestam.And in Kirman Region, in Kofs, Baloch and Cet are also some of them living." (Al-Masudi, Muruc Ez-Zeheb, p.193)

Turks always was living in Iran and were not "Invadors" as most Iranians say.

Look at this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Jahangir_&_Abbas_I.jpg/378px-Jahangir_&_Abbas_I.jpg Picture. You see the Mughal emperor Jahangir and Safavid Shah Abbas.The image show us the lineage of both dynasties.jahangir have a Tiger under him because his forefather was Babur which means Tiger in turkish, and Jahangir have a White Sheep under him because they saw themselves as the successor of the Great turkish Akkoyunlu (White Sheeps) Dynastie.

i disagree that you cancel my Sources because that was all autoritative scientist. thats not ok. and in the article must stand turkish instead of azerbaijani because a layperson who read the article think that azerbaijani means turkified iranians.that ist pure manipulation and not fair.--Altai Khan (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again. You didn't answer my first set of questions but you posed new ones. You said: "Kurdish is grammatically closer to altaic-languages like Turkish.". That is not true at all and it is classified under Iranian language and some versions of it are very close to Persian (Kalhori, Feyli). Evliya Chelebi was not a linguist so he made a mistake on one dialect which he calls Kurdish. If a traveler makes a mistake, it does not change the whole field of linguistics. Sorani for example is Iranian dialect. Also Arranian language was not Khazarian and Muqaddesi actually calls the language of Azerbaijan (part of the 8th region) as Persian. So does Masudi. So does Ibn Hawqal. Ibn Nadeem and etc. There is not a single reference that Khazarian was spoken widely in Aran. I do not know of a single Turkish work from Azerbaijan before the Mongol(post-Seljuqid) era and so I doubt people were speaking Khazarian Baluchs are not Turkich tribe and Masudi got it wrong in this case (if your translation is correct!). Their nomadic lifestyle might have lead him to confuse the two (Oghuz tribes and Baluch), or it was a manuscriptal era, or perhaps you are quoting it wrong. Of course, there were some migratory Turkish tribes in Afghanistan (most of the area Masudi describes) around 900-950 A.D. (Masudi's time), since Samanids used Turkish tribes in their military. Also you transformed "looks like" to "linguistically took" (when discussing Masudi), on his discussion of Kurds and note Arabs have had many theories about every group, relating them to different myths. There were some Khazar officers(originally slaves) in Baghdad (like Boga) but they were sent from Baghdad and originally they were not from below the Caucus, but they were slaves taken from Arab raids beyond the Caucus, or they were mercenaries. Khazars like Boga and other Turkic speakers like Ashinas, Aytakh formed the bulk of the Caliphs army in Baghdad that fought against Babak. These were originally Jewish (Khazars) but were converted when raised in Baghdad. These were either mercenaries or slaves , that were sent to Baghdad. Anyhow, there are too many issues that can be discussed, but the important issue is to bring valid English sources (not translations)(with proper citation) or the actual original (Arabic, Persian) (not through an intermediatory source). If you believe your theories are correct, then you should easily find scholarly English books/articles subscribing to them. Also if there is a primary source, then it should be intrepreted by appropriate scholar (Western and published hopefully), since Wikipedia allows no original research. Thanks! --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You talk about original sources. but it is proven that the tati paper is really from sheikh safi? You want from me that i bring you good source.i have it but you put it out with a understable argumentation like „these are turkish sources“. do you mean turks are faker?which of my sources are turkish?? and when too? Are the enzyklopedia Britannica anti-persian? Are the world known scholar Bartold not good enough? Are the well known german Islamic Scholar A.Schimmel not good enough? What about petrusevski and melikoff? Are they not authoritative??? You come with your iranica site and i am not to be allowed tu use turkish sources? Your concept is clear. You manipulate the laypersons who are to foul to read a science book about safavids.you put calculated more pro-iranian sources in this article and put the turkish ones out. i repeat that my sources were correct und you cant want more from me.if the time has come i found enough new sources.and what are a better source than from the safavids himself. Sheich safi was called „turkish pir“ in the safawat-as Safa, Tarih-i alem aray-i abbasi and in the Silsiletü´n-nesebi safeviyye. And in the „Cihan-Arayi Sah Ismail Safevi“ he was called from his mentor a „young Turk“.safawat as- safa writes also that he lives in a turkish district.You think that all has another meaning? Thats Laughable. wikipedia is a place who iranians can create his history who where they it like to see.then they selling his „dreamland“ to the bright population.they wrote that all turkish rulers were more persian than turkish because they was „persianate“ or „assimilate“. But there is one problem. Of all things the safavids where fewest of all turkish dynasties who ruled over iran that dont adopted persian language completely and make turkish as they court language.safavids were the most important turkish dynastie in iran for the iranian national sentiment. to make them of iranian stock is very necessary.therefore they take a paper in tati language and claim they was of iranian descent.they displace they former home country from Turkmenistan to Kurdistan, change the city Sincan with Sanjar and know we have a iranian dynastie.applause.i have eyewhitness sources wo show that in Khorassan where living a Turkmen Tribe who called „Kurd“ at that Time.you wrote: I do not know of a single Turkish work from Azerbaijan before the Mongol .Look here:[10] and here [11]

it seems you job here is to watch out that no one make changes in this artikel.it doesnt matter wheter autoritative or not. the ordinary citizen who were the majority on this planet must believe the iranian theorie of safavids.and dont forget that Kurds are not of Iranian Origin.Neither linguistically and genetically.the iranian words in Kurdish Language are not more than 30%.Thats fact.if azerbaijanian scholars and iranian scholars sit at one table and discuss about the origin of safavids, then the iranian scientist would really badly beaten. i dont want to discuss every day with you.if that theme is so important for you and other ones like you,then as far as I'm concerned can you show other people this „Illusion“.I am self a Kurd, but i not claim a theorie who was not the truth.it seems that you dont want to search the truth.never mind.i guess that you know answer with a large commentar and show your scientistic knowledge and so on. hence the diskussion would never find a end.i have written what i wanna say.the theme is finish for me.nice to meet you.have a nice day.--Altai Khan (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For a self claimed Kurd, you also have an interesting name, "Altai Khan". Anyhow, your citation were not clear. Kurdish is an Iranic language and is grouped as such[12]. And scholars use the term Persian Kurdistan for the origin. By now I am convinced you are simply wasting the communities time. I asked for a single Turkish remnant before the Mongols from Azerbaijan and you took me to a site with [13] fake scholarship! and a certain Prof. Fereydun Aghasioghlu (never heared of him in scholarship)[14] who says: "the time of urartu and Saq (Skythian) kingdoms proto-azer turkic kins populate North and South azerbaijan (area where the stones were found as well).". I really doubt they would let the guy be a Professor [[15]]. Those are not valid sources! Of course it says on top ("Real History of Azerbaijan") but that is just an advertisement. As per "pir-i-Turk" it is not in the two manuscripts of Safwat Safa from pre-1501. Someone claimed this phrase is from a post Safavid manuscript from another book (it is not in the Safwat Safa) and they claimed it is in the Silsilat an-Nasab. I have the geneology of the Shaykh according to Silsilat an-Nasab and it is Seyyed going from Firuz Shah back to the Prophet. That geneology was tampered in Sisilat an-nasab relative to Safwat Safa (which is much older) and the name of Abu Bakr (one of the Shaykhs ancestors was removed). Silsilat an-Nasab is written about 300 years after the Safwat Safa. It has poetry from the Shaykh all the way down to Shah Esmail. Only from Shah Esmail's time do we see Turkish poetry (composed by the Shah) in the order. So assuming that in the book he is called "pir-i-Turk", then it still shows that his fatherline was Seyyed (where the geneology of the Shaykh is fully described), but he was called a pir-i-Turk due to perhaps becoming Turcophone (I doubt it since some of the Tati poems are in the same work) or more reasonably due to the sufic nature of the work where Turk has multiple layers of meaning(along with Rum, Habash, Ethiop, Hindu, Khotan,..). So maybe someone will bring the full Persian citation from that book oneday, but again in the same book he is a Seyyed, his geneology was tampered with relative to Safwat Safa (removal of Abu Bakr), pir-i-Turk could mean very bright pir (in Persian sufi symbology) and finally the book is from the late Safavid era, even after Shah Abbass. You also said he was called Javan-i-Turk. Pir means Old, Javan means young. So something is funny about that. I assume you can not read Persian, so you probably can not read any of these books you cite (Jahan Araayeh Safavi, Safwat as-Safa, Silsilat an-Nasab). Britannica is fine, but what year, when was it accessed, bring the whole quote in the talkpage. Bosworth citation was invalid and he says Safavids are of Obscure origin. So that was an invalid citation with invalid pg number. Schimmel is not a Safavid scholar, but cite her with full paragraph and exact quote. Note we are discussing the fatherline of the dynasty, not the fact that the language of the dynasty. Bartold is fine, although he is not a Safavid scholar, but bring the full quote where he is talking about a fatherline. The fact is I consider Safavid dynasty to act like a classical Turkish dynasty (that is lots of Persian cultural influence but some Turkic as well, relying mainly on Turkic element troops, and also more Turkic speaking than Persian since their inception). But their origin according to all the sources goes back to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah (who is explicitly called a Kurd in Safwat Safa at least two) and according to many scholars, he was turned into a Seyyed after the Safavids took power, although some still say it may be possible he was a Seyyed. And so, I brought the comparison with Shirvanshahs who were culturally Persian, mixed with Iranian rulers, but their origin was Arabic. And I do not care anymore if the Safavids where Turkic or Arab or Iranic although I am of the belief that Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah which every book trace the ancestry of the Shaikh to was Iranian. Anyhow, it is not important. The head of Irans national coach is now Ali Dai, an Iranian Azerbaijani and his faviorate(or one of) player is Andranik Teymourian, an Iranian Armenian. This makes me proud of my country at this current juncture. This discussion was going on before me and I entered it and brought actual academic sources and also exact sources with regards to Safavids. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I am surprised as to why would you remove the reference to Bartold? So what if the reference is non-English from Russian source. Did you verify that it's frivolous? After all we have non-English Persian sources in the article, such as Safwat as-Safa, original of which was supposedly written by Ibn Bazzaz in Arabic, but the one which appears on the page is actually in Persian. Moreover, such prominent author in regional history as Minorsky was Russian, does it make him any less credible on any topic? Atabek (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, I did not removed Bartold because he was Russian!!, that is unjustified accusation and not acceptable. That is stupid and childish accusation, specially when I have said: "Bartold is fine, although he is not a Safavid scholar, but bring the full quote where he is talking about a fatherline.". He was removed because the other citation (Bosworth) was not proper and someone should bring the first two three sentences in Russian from Bartold and verify it. So when I used "Russian Source" it is meant to say that the guy gave me a foreign source, without the actual foreign quotes, without the date the book was published, publisher and proper referencing. Else who is a better scholar than Minorsky? Just naming a book in a foreign language and not the actual quote from that language is not desirable. How do I know the actual English translation is correct if the original language is not provided? I always provide the original Persian or Arabic for any primary source. Minorsky lived in the West and wrote in English, so it is much easier to verify his work. USSR history writing over all has some problems, but that is not my concern with Bartold. My other concern is that Bartold lived from 1869-1930. So he is not acceptable source, since much of Safavids scholarship was developed after then and in around Bartolds time, the fact at the time was Shaykh Safi al-din was a Sunni and Turkomen. These assertions were challenged when comparisons were made with different edition of Safwat as-Safa (specially the only two pre-Safavid manuscripts), it was estalibshed that Shaykh Safi was a Shafi'ite, his ancestory went back Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah, who is called Kurd-i- Sanjani and other history books were examined. All this scholarship was developed in the last century and Bartold did not have access to say Togan's article and other facts. So given this fact, I do not think Bartold is a acceptable source, since he passed away in 1930. Also who said Safwat as-Safa was written originally in Arabic? Do you have any source to back up your claim on this? No one , as far as I know, has ever made such a claim, but please your source. If it was translated, it might have the name of the translator, which accordingly would not be Ibn Bazzaz, the writer. Given the many interesting claims by Mr. Khan, including calling an Aramaic manuscript as ancient Azeri Turkish!, Khazar is related to Azer etymologically, Kurdish is not an Iranian language, Arranian was Khazar language, Khazars ruled Iran for 400 years..I think I was justified after seeing that Bosworth was frivolously quoted (I have the original English of the book) and I did not see the whole quote (at least two or three sentences). Some of the other quotes (maybe Bartold's) could be verified or correct, but he is outdated. As per the other scholars, none of them were Safavid scholars, but if full quotes from their original language is brought (German incase of Schimmel I suppose), then I have no problem with it. Also per discussions previously, I believe it is better that the Turkic fatherline be summarized. The issue is that the Turkish fatherline/origin is all based on non-Safavid scholars where-as the Kurdish origin has a mixture of Safavid and non-Safavid scholars, as well as original source. In the future, someone might add a original source if they find anything for the other section, like I brought for Safwat as-Safa, but those sources will be from the Safavid reign. But since this stuff have been grinded over 1000x..the current format is fine and allows contributors to beefen up their own perspective, without denying the other perspective. But no outdated sources or wrongly attributed (Bosworth). And if there is something in a European language like German or Russian, then for the sake of scholars, the original German/Russian should be quoted in the reference, so others can check the translation.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm totally against the removal of sources. The sources other than English are also valid here. Barthold is a major reference. A source is valid unless it's falsified. On the other hand, Barthold is not the only one, since there are other cited references such as A.Schimmel, I.P Petruseviski, Irene Melikoff in [16] edit. In addition, there is a cited reference from the Encyclopædia Britannica [17] in that edit which should not be removed. The quotation is as follows:

"... In reaction to the orthodox Muslim establishment, the nomads developed a fanatical attachment to the leaders of the Sufi and Shi'ite mystic orders. The most successful of these were the Safavids of Ardabil, a Turkish mystic order that had immigrated there from eastern Anatolia along with seven Turkmen tribes (called Kizilbash [“Redheads”] because of their use of red headgear to symbolize their allegiance); the Safavids used a combined religious and military appeal to conquer most of Iran. ..." & "... at the start of the 16th century, a general Anatolian uprising forced Bayezid into a major expedition (1502–03) that pushed the Safavids and many of their Turkmen followers into Iran. There the Safavids turned from orthodox Sufism to heterodox Shi'ism as a means of gaining the loyalty of the Persians to a Turkish dynasty. ..."

• I agree with Ali at one point that the citations were done improperly in the article. I recommend User:Altai Khan to do it more clearly. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, falsification of source was done with regards to Bosworth. As per the Safavid mystic order and Britannica, it did not migrate from Anatolia, it was a native of Ardabil. So the Turkish mystical order is talking about the flavoring of the order way after Shaikh Safi al-din ardabili, when Anatolian tribesmen joined the order and it became Turkish. Finally the Safavids did not migrate from eastern Anatolia, they were natives of Ardabil. So the source is not talking about Safavid pirs, but rather most of the followers of the orders who were immigrants from Anatolia. It has nothing with the father-line of Shaikh Safi. So that source is not about the fatherline. The other one: "the Safavid sheiks were speaking the Azerbaijani-Turkic Language", again nothing about origin or fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-din Ardabili. Yes Safavid Sheykhs like Heydar, Esmail and Shah Abbas were speaking Turkish language. We already mentioned the order became Turkified in speech. Next quote, let us look at the Schimmel quote: "while Shah Abbas were from the Turkmens from White Sheep, Akkoyunlu,..."(the poor translation shows why the whole German paragraph (not sentence) is needed). I doubt Schimmel said that, but again, nothing to do with the fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-din Ardabili! Shah Abbas maybe through his mother side has some Akkoyunlu blood, who knows. But it does not say anything about Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili's ancestry. Next is the Irene Melikoff source, again without the original language. Note it says: " Shah Ismail were from the Tekelü Tribe.". Again nothing about the fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili. Now the contradiction between Melikoff's alleged quote and Schimmel's alleged quote is sort of apparent. How could Shah Abbas be from Akkoyunlu blood while Esmail was from Teklu tribe? Teklu tribe came from Eastern Anatolia, where-as Esmail's fatherline ancestry goes back to Ardabil. The argument is about fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-din Ardabili and that is it. Only two pre-1501 sources exist on this and they call his ancestry a Kurd. Anything after 1501 could say anything but does not have the same weight. Furthermore, what gives it credance is the fact that he has speech in peculiar Iranic language (hardly known to Turks)(recorded in Safwat as-Safa) and the most important fact that he was Shafi'ite Muslim (which is the Sunni sect followed by Kurds, Talysh and Tats and not Turks). As per Bartold, no you can't put a source from 100 years ago here when Safavid scholarship has been much updated. If Bartold is to be mentioned then I will have to cquote Savory which is much newer source and basically talks about how some scholars are wrong and Safavids were Iranian. I did not cquote it, but I will since it will have to show that Safavid scholarship has improved since 80-100 years ago. I have it only as referenced in the notes. After the original Russian with proper citation is brought. So Only Barthold amongst the quotes is talking about the fatherline and his is outdated. Else we did mention that the Safavid order became Turkic in speech and we are not discussing motherline. It doesn't matter if Shah Abbas or Shah Esmail had turkmen blood in the motherline, since we are discussing the fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili. They also had Greek, Iranic and etc. blood. In the end, when historiographers discuss the origin (and not even identity) of a dynasty, they go by the fatherline. For example culturally Safavids at least from 1501 were not Kurdish at all. Neither were Shirvanshahs culturally Arabic. Or even I would argue the Ghaznavids and Seljuqids were culturally more Persian than Turkic (I would even say Shah Abbas/ Shah Esmail who probably had less Turkic blood was more Turkish culturally than say some of the Seljuqids rulers who were of Turkic fatherline). The fact is due to some convention, in Western histography, the origin (not culture) of the dynasty was defined by the fatherline. The Safavids at 1501 with their brand of Shi'ism really were not the same as Shaykh Safi Ardabili with his moderate Sunni Shafi'ite religion. But the origin is defined through the Shaykh Safi ad-din. The fact is no source can be strong as the two pre-1501 Safavid manuscripts, the fact that Shaykh Safi al-Din has words, sentences in the local Iranic dialects and more importantly, he was Shafii Muslim, which is unheared of or very rare amongst Turks, where-as it is the common religion of Kurds, half of Talysh and Tats. The Shafi'i angle (which Safavid scholars did not really look at), in my opinion closes the issue from an unbiased historians perspective. The only reason the article is in its current shape is due to compromise which should be maintained. So if you do not have quotes about Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili's fatherline, then add them elsewhere to the article (with proper citation, original full paragraph of the language, correct translation and publishing house). But 80+ year old source is not acceptable and perhaps it could be acceptable once we mention when Barthold made that statement, which would be before the major researches done in the field of Safavid Scholarship. Note some other stuff of Barthold is outdated, and it depends on the context. It is great for his time, but scholarship has improved since much of the Safavids history books were examined during this 80 year period. I don't except things to change that much now, because all the primary sources (which were not available to Barthold) have been studied by serious Safavid scholars since then. Anyhow please put any valid source with regards to the fatherline in the appropriate section, but the Safavid order did not come from Anatolia (they were established in Ardabil) and Shah Ismail's fatherline does not go back Anatolia (Teklu tribe). So I suspect the translations of some the information is wrong and I think asking for the original is not too much. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I don't particularly see a reason for using such language "that is stupid and childish accusation", when I only questioned your removal of large chunk of references. Please, assume good faith, there is no reason here for such words. There is no justification for removal of Bartold, just because YOU feel the references are unqualified. As mentioned, there are non-English Persian references in this article, and it's not quite credible if you remove non-English Russian references under pretext that you describe. I believe, there has been lengthy discussion on this before in this embattled talk page, that all references must be equally discussed and incorporated in the article. The content that's formulated based on those references is a different matter, which should be discussed and agreed upon. Atabek (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I took your comment as if you meant I had something against Russian. Note the context of my discussion with Altai Khan. And it seemed you were not suprised by any of his weird and baseless comments, but you were suprised when I removed a faulty reference (no original Russian, no publisher) and outdated. But anyhow, the Persian references are brought (original) from primary sources (Safwat as-Safa)(also published in the French article) and their translation is provided. That is what I call honesty. The difference is that virtually everything dealing with Safavid history is in Persian. So of course providing original quotes is not the same as quoting other non-English sources. And there is no scholar that has ever claimed Safvat as-Safa was written originally in Arabic. My sources are primary sources from pre-Safavid era. They are credible since you can check the references. I have not quoted any Iranian scholar, but just primary sources. I already noticed the Bosworth quote was faulty and I asked for the original Russian with publication date, publisher for Barthold (when did he say it). References should have something to do with Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili. Shah Ismail was from the Teklu tribe (which is wrong since Teklu tribe was from Anatolia ) is not really related to Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili and it is OR to put it in the fatherline. Or Shah Abbas had Ak-koyunlu blood is nothing to do with Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili. He also had Greek, Georgian, and who knows what else. We are talking about a specific issue, fatherline of the Safavids which defines the origin of the dynasty. So out of all the stuff, only Barthold seemed legitimate but only if the original Russian, with publishing house and the date Barthold made the statement is provided. As per Barthold, I disagree, since Safavid scholarship has changed in the last 80 years and Barthold who passed away in 1930 could have made his statement say in 1900 or 1920. It doesn't mean everything he says is outdated (it is not), but with regards to Safavids, it is preferable to use modern sources to support any POV since Wikipedia should provide the most up to date research (note the flat earth theory). I am sure a quick google search can yield tons of info on Safavid being a "Persian" dynasty but you know they mean the Safavids were from Iran. So I accept the same sort of good faith and honesty. That is not to use outdated sources. If Bartold is put, then I will also have to cquote Savory with regards to the dispelling of previous theories "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. It is probable that the family originated in Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, where they adopted the Azari form of Turkish spoken there, and eventually settled in the small town of Ardabil sometimes during the eleventh century"(1999). The reason is that Safavid scholarship has improved tremendously since Barthold passed away (in 1930). So I suggest the use of realistic and modern sources in order to bring the status of up to date scholarship and not 80+ years ago which common knowledge was Safavids were of Turkmen origin. Are we trying to make a POV or write an up to date Encyclopedia? The only reason I did not cquote Savory on this (which I can easily do) is due to the fact of compromise (same with Kurdish origin going second or the comment "Azerbaijani and Kurdish" origin. Indeed why not do the same with Shirvanshah "Arab and Persian" origin? Since they married local Iranian dynasties of Shabaran). So I accept some sort of honesty for Wikipedia, which would mean not using sources from at least 80+ to prove a POV. Of course we can mention that that 80+ years, people thought Safavids were of Turkmen origin but many scholars in recent times have challegened this. So in this context Barthold is okay. The general concensus now is that Safavids were a dynasty of Iranian fatherline mixed with Turkmen/Greek motherline, but linguistically they were Turkified by 1501 and developed Turkic in their court while also promoted Persian as the language of literature, history and administration. That is the pre-1501 evidence for all practical purposes points to the Iranian origin of Shaykh Safi Al-din Ardabili through Piruz Shah Zarin Kulah Kurd Sanjani. Anyhow, I accept modern sources relavent to the topic (fatherline) but claiming that the origin of the order is in Eastern Anatolia or Shah Ismail was from the Teklu tribe through fatherline is wrong and OR. Note another compromise was that Kurdish fatherline was put in second although that is the general knowledge. So I do not accept overlooking of 80+ years of scholarship. Recall we had the same issue with Median language article which was mistaken for Elamite 100 years ago and Elamite at the time was classified in the general category of "Turanian" language (along with every othe non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language including Dravidian, Caucasian, Altaic, Uralic, even Chinese..). Now the Turanian language theory is dead. Many theories of course from 100 years ago are still valid, but with regards to Safavid origin, one can not overlook 80+ years of modern scholaship. So accepting modern sources has nothing to do with any sort of bias, and if a modern source says Shaykh Safi al-Din was a Turkmen, fine. I also expect the least, that the original language is brought with publishing house and do not see the need for non-English sources since Wikipedia prefers English sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy early Noruz to all participants: Tajik, Alborz, Atabek, GM. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali, Happy Novruz to you as well, and I wish that by next Novruz, we only have to greet each other :).

As I said before, denying predominantly Turkic background of Ismail just because of one Piruz Shah Zarrin Kollah in his heritage some 500 years before him, is not quite a strong argument, is it? I don't believe we have right to judge history based on our POV or one-sided interpretation of sources, when there are so many references indicating that Ismail had Turkic background. One one side, you argue against reference to Turan term claiming they're outdated and more recent research is more relevant. On the other side, you argue that modern reference to Ismail having Turkic background are invalid, because of Safwat al-Safa. And by the way, there is no source to prove that this work by Ibn-Bazzaz was written in Persian as original either, as you only have access to Persian reprint or republication of it.

I personally have no problem against Median or any other backgrounds being cited in general, for me, Median is also Azerbaijani as much as Caucasian Albanian and Turkic backgrounds are. The question here is not about simply ethnic background of Ismail and Safavi family, which was undoubtedly predominantly Azerbaijani in identity, it's about ethno-linguistic makeup of Safavid family, which most definitely was Turkic-speaking. Anyways, I hope this endless discussion about Turk vs. Fars (Turan vs. Iran), which does not lead anywhere and is absolutely counterproductive will end some time. Atabek (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, I hope to visit your country and give my happy Novruz there. Anyhow it is happy occasion to be with family and fiends and hope everyone gets some good gifts.

Now , I agree the ethno-linguistic makeup of the Safavids by the time of Esmail I was Turkic. I consider it classical Turkic. But culturally, I would not say they were the same as "Azerbaijani" identity today due to the fact that the language used by Ismail is classical Azeri (in Iran you can find poets still composing in it, like the late Hakim Hidaji which according to Swietchowski was a heavily Iranized idiom), he was very religious (not secular), he also had high regards for Shahnameh, besides favoring Persian Vizirs over his Ghezelbash supports. So I call the identity of Shah Esmail as classical Turkic. Note in this regard, Esmail despite his bloodlines was more "Turkic" (classical Turkic) than even say Sultan Mahmud who had a "purer" Turkic (Qipchaq) origin. Now origin is different than ethnicity in my opinion.

Origin of a dynasty due to Western Scholarship is described by the fatherline. With this regard Safwat as-Safa can not be compared to the dead Turan theory. Safwat as-Safa is not a theory, it is a primary source that was written by Ibn Bazzaz Ardabili. There are two pre-1501 manuscripts and they both describe the Shaykh as Kurdish. I do not need any source to say it was originally in Persian, since there is no source that says it was translated. You can make the claim about hundreds of thousands of English books and say they were originally not in English but translated. The fact is the manuscript was written by Ibn Bazzaz and the intro makes it clear. No where or no Safavid scholars mentions it was a translation and the poems in there make it clear. In the Safwat as-Safa, there is enough Tati from the Shaykh. We also have another source from the time of the Shaykh describing him as a Shaf'ite Sunni (very rare amongst Turkic speakers). All these facts (Piruz Shah Zarin Kollah, Shafi'ite Sunnim, peculiar Iranic dialects of Tabriz/Ardabil which are not Turkic) show that Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was not ethno-culturally Turkic. Now I agree Shah Esmail was. He was also a militant Shi'i which had nothing to do with the original characteristics of Shaykh Safi. So culturally, Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili and Shah Esmail belong to different realms. But origin of the dynasty is defined through Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili.

As Alborz pointed out, identities are fluid. Think of it this way. Ostad Shahryar is a great Azeri poet. If this great poet had set up a local dynasty, the dynasty would be of Arab origin (since he is a Seyyed (a descent of the Prophet through the fatherline)), but ethno-culturally, the dynasty would be Azerbaijani. Note I already pointed it out, Shirvanshahs were culturally Persian (classic Persian), intermarried with local Iranian speaking dynasties, but their origin is Arab. Hope that clarifies my POV. As per my arguments with couple of you guys, it just has to do with some old history stuff (from 500+ years ago like Iranic or Turkic origin of Shaykh Safi al-Din or Nezami or Medes or etc.). I have no problem with any any language speaker who has no hostility towards me. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ali.First of all i must say that the Akkoyunlu Dynastie was not a Tribe but rather a Turkmen Confederation which including the Tekelü Tribe.Therefore it is possible to say that Sah Ismail was from the Tekelü Branch of the Akkoyunlu Confederation.And to Atabek :If you wont read the full Chapter of my allegations i can send it to you per e-mail (in turkish).than you can continue your conversation with ali.my english is not good enough and i dont want to discuss about the theme again.--Altai Khan (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Right but the [[18]] leaders of Ak Koyunlu where from the Bayandur tribe. As per Shah Abbas/Shah Ismail,yes their motherline goes back to Ozun Hassan. Ak Koyunlu leaders were from Bayandur but as you pointed out, Ak Koyunlu were a Turkmen federation and might have very well included the Tekelu tribe. My point was that the fatherline of Shaykh Safi al-Din does not go back to Eastern Anatolia (like the Tekelu tribe) or to one of the 7 Turkomen tribes from Eastern Anatolia. There is no tribal identification (unlike Ak Koyunlu, Seljuqs, Ildeguzids, Ahmadilis (Atabekan-e-Maragheh), Qara Qoyunlu) for Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah. So considering the Safavid geneology, much of their motherline could have gone back to one of the Turkomen tribes, but this is not related to Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who is not related in any source with any of the Oghuz Turkmen tribes. As I just poined out origin (not ethno-culture of the actual Safavids) is defined by their fatherline through the Shaykh Safi Al-Din Ardabili. So sources need to be relavent to Shaikh Safi al-Din Ardabili not Shah Abbas/Shah Ismail who had Turkmen mother and Ak Koyunlu ancestry as well. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

they dont must be from the bayindur tribe.they can saw themselves as successor of the akkoyunlu if they were from one of the major tribes like tekelü.i dont believe the kurdish-theorie.it exists enough places with the name sanjan and hence the place sanjar cant be the right.some members of the safavid order of sheich safi`s time were from immigrant familys from the region of balkh.balkh and the place sanjan (Turkmenistan) are near together.thus it is possible to say that sheich safi`s ancestor and the others from the region of balkh immigrate together from that region.religious orders dont want be identifiy with some Tribes for politic reason.if one sheikh are known that he is from the tekelü türks than the other members of that tribe thought they were better like the others and then the other turks from other tribes are began to shall jealosly and strike.only politic.if one sheikh give weight to his tribe it is not advantegous for his own influence.he must show him as a religios man, a man of good, a seyyid--Altai Khan (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree since in the Safwat Safa, Sanjan/Sanjaar/Sangaan comes in with reference of "Lashkar-e-Kurd" (Kurdish armey) and also the fact that the Safwat as-Safa explicitly says: "Chon Nisbat Piruz baa Kurd Raft"(original Persian) (Since Piruz's ancestry was Kurdish). Of course you said the term "Kurd" was also a Turkmen tribe, but I think this is unlikely and I doubt Shaykh Safi came from a Turkomen tribe called "Kurd". Combined with the fact that Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was Shafi'ite, where-as all the Turkic tribes from Khorasan and Central Asia are Hanafites. Even today all Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kyrghyz, Kazakhs, Uighyurs(all the Turkic groups) are 100% Hanafite Muslims where-as virtually all Sunni Kurds (approxiately 80% of Kurds are Sunnis) are Shaf'ite Muslims. Shafi'i Islam was not that strong in Khorasan and Central Asia (besides the Turkic speaking Groups, Tajiks are all Hanafite (except few Shi'i) as well as are virtually 100% of Pashtuns and Baluchs..). For me the Shaf'ite angle (very common amongst Sunni Kurds, Talysh, Tats and virtually almost non-existent amongst Sunni Turks) is the heaviest proof (and effectively rules out Khorasan/Central Asia), followed by Safvat as-Safa designation (the only two pre-1501 manuscripts) of Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah as al-Kurd Sanjani. 80 years ago, everyone also thought Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was a Shi'ite, but he was not. If he were Shi'ite, then him being a Turkmen would have been more likely, but since he was a Shafi'ite Sunni, then Kurdish theory is simply stronger. Of course Esmail/Abbass were related to Turkmens (Ak-Koyunlu)(probably Bayandur tribe I guess since Uzun Hassan must have been Bayandur) but that was not through the direct father-line (father upon father). Overall, Esmail/Abbass are a product of Turco-Iranic symbiosis (which I also refer to classic "Turks" like Ottomans, Seljuqs..). They (Esmail/Abbass) show aspects of both cultures (Iranic/Turkic) (somewhat similar to the Azerbaijani people). But Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili in my opinion was Shafi'ite Kurd. Anyhow the discussion is about the Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili which defines the origin (not necessarily the ethnicity) of the Safavid dynasty. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

above that sheikh safi was a shafiite is not clear.other references show him a sufi.probably the term "kurd" means "mountaineer".thats the same like you said that Turk has also another meanings.but one thing is clear.Sanjan and Sanjar was never be the same.never mind.you have a other sight like me.for me the matter is clear.the safavids were turkish immigrants from Turkmenistan.maybe they change their hanefi believe with shafiite.thats possible because at that time iran was dominantly shafiite.turks changed their believs very quick at that time.many kizilbash turks were former sunnite.but safavids were not iranian in both ways.kurds are in particular not of iranian stock.it needs a lot of time to accept that in the whole world because it is a new discovery.kurdish language has many non-iranian characteristics and the iranian words are maybe 35% at most.not one genetic search support a iranian background.--Altai Khan (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sufi and Shafi'ite are complementary not contradictory. As per Sanjan/Sanjar I think it varies with the manuscript. And I doubt Shaykh Safi or his ancestors converted from Hanafi to Shafi’i (no proof of this), else all the Turks in Turkey should have converted, but they are all uniformly Hanafi. As per new discoveries, I think that is where WP:OR comes in. Professional linguists classify Kurdish as an Iranian language, and that is what counts. It can easily be learned by another Iranian dialect speaker (say Persian or Taleshi). Indeed it is very close to Talyshi. As per genetic research, [[19]], n total, 67 haplotypes of 14 haplogroups were detected. Most (91.6%) haplotypes belonged to haplogroups A, B, C, D, F, G, M*, and Y, which are specific for East Eurasian ethnic groups; 8.4% haplotypes represented Caucasian haplogroups H, HV1, J, T, U, and W. Yakuts showed the lowest genetic diversity (H = 0.964) among all Turkic ethnic groups. Phylogenetic analysis testified to a common genetic substrate of Yakuts, Mongols, and Central Asian (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uigur) populations.. Thus Yakuts (both by language and race) are considered closest to the original Turks. This one shows [[20]] only 9% of Turks in Turkey have a weak paternal gene from Central Asia. This one shows [[21]] that the mtDNA of Azerbaijans of the caucus and Armenians are the same. As far as Turkish DNA goes, note this [[22]]. East Eurasian which 96% present in Yakuts is not present at all amongst Kurds and Persians, and is very slightly present in amongst Turks of Turkey. It is much more present in Central Asia Turkic speakers. In Persian literature too (Sanai, Nizami, Hafez) Turks are referred to as "Tang-chesm"(narrowed-eye) which means that modern Azerbaijani/Anatolian Turkic speakers ethnogenesis was not conceived yet. It was this ideal type of beauty which was the object of celebration in Persian poetry [23] (picture of a Yakut). Anyhow genetic research is being manipulated in Wikipedia and it is best to let scholars actually write books on it. Kurdish and in general Iranian speaking population DNA are of course varied as well (as is Jewish, Arabic, and European populations and etc.), but the presence of East Eurasian genes (heavily present amongst Yakuts) is very low in the region. So either "Turks" of Turkey where original Turks or Yakuts of Siberia. History and literature shows it is the Yakuts of Siberia. So if we want to discuss it from genetic point of view, I doubt Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili looked like a Yakut. So I think it is best to leave out the DNA stuff from the Safavid article.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

it should not compare turks with yakuts.thats the same like persians and germans (if i believe the arian affinity).it is normal that turks have different genetic results if we consider how much route they have outperform.but kurds and persians lived side by side since a very long time.the argument that turks were originally mongols is not true.if you read some eyewhitness sources than you can see that turks were never a homogen people.the centuries at war with china and the chinese princess gifts has given them a lot of mongoloidness.according to arab chronicles turks were often blonde or red-haired with blue and green eyes.the oghus turks are generally like the anatolian turks.tatars looks like mongols and so on.for a shafiite it is more problematically to convert to shiism than from hanefi to shiism because the shafii school is more strict and not so tolerant like hanefi.it is more possible.but according to some sources sheikh safi was called a Sofi what i also believe.--Altai Khan (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to your theories about racial identities so as to isolate and draw lines among people, or classify them. Turkic-speaking people just like Iranic-speaking people have mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in 21st century civilized world, it's not the time to draw borderlines or fight for which one is of which race. After all, modern Persians don't resemble ancient Persians either. And actually I don't see your point of challenging why Azeri or Anatolian Turks should be called as Turks not having close DNA match with Central Asians, then perhaps, we should also ask a question why many Iranians call themselves as Persians, while not being such, why should Armenians with mostly Turkish-meaning names be called Armenian, and so forth.

In any case, I think all these theories are not useful or constructive for anything other than wars and hate. Everyone has his own unique identity and culture, which he choses to be proud of. And no one has perfectly and absolutely strictly single background. I think your opinion also reflects on your argument about Shah Ismail and Kurdish origins of Safavids. So far there is only one source, claimed to be original Persian and the only expert source, to claim that there was a Kurd in Safavi fatherline some 200 years before Sheykh Safi and some 300 years before Shah Ismail. I think that argument is not strong at all for claiming entire background. Atabek (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Atabek I didn't bring DNA stuff, Altai Khan did here. So why not address him? I even said lets not talk about DNA on Safavids! That is why it is a hard to assume good faith obviously (cmon man you can do better!). Did I say racial identities are equivalent to ethnic identities? The man is trying to prove that Kurdish language is Turkish. Did you make a comment on that? Of course not. Anyhow, there is nothing wrong with discussing things objectively and truthfully. If some Azeris feel like a Turk, they are a Turk and I wish them success. If some feel Medes, then I wish them success. And if I feel like a Mexican, learn the language and practice the culture, then I believe I become a Mexican (although of Iranian origin). So for me identity is not racial. I said culture is more important than race. Race is actually important in modern western socities not traditional near eastern socities. BTW, modern Iranians (and this means not only Persians speakers but other groups with the exception of Turkmens in Iran) overall resemble ancient Iranians (check Peresepolis and Darius or the picture of the lst Darius in pompei) [24]. On the other hand here is a picture of a king of the first dynasty (Kul Tegin of Blue Turks)[25]. So if you have older picture of Persians than Achaemenids, let me know.

Altai Khan made some comments on Persian/Kurdish and this light I adderessed the fact that the ethnogenesis of Azeri and Anatolian Turkish speakers is fairly new and so one can not ascribe Kurdish to Turkish. This was with regards to absurd ancient Turkish manuscript while we known the oldest Turkish script is actually the Orkhon script in Mongolia and not that Aramaic writing found in a site that also claims Urartu and etc. were Altaic. As per Anatolian Turkophones, the language disconnected from Ottoman Turkish, but many already know that Anatolian Turkophones are from diverse backgrounds like Greek, Slavic, Albanian and etc. Even Ataturk. So I agree, if one wants to define themselves culturally to be Turkish or even feels racially Turkic or whatever, it is their choice, but the discussion of Safavids and DNA, which was not by me (although obviously this is Wikipedia and people take sides), is futile! .

As per Kurdish background of Safavids, there are several expert sources and of course the oldest manuscript with regards to the Safavid genealogy, besides the fact that it pre-dates 1501 (which is key), besides the fact that Shafi'ism has always been the religion of Kurds, besides the fact that knowing Turkish or Persian was not a big deal, but knowing a peculiar Iranic language is much more rare, besides the fact that there is no Oghuz tribal designation with Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah Kurd Sanjanni (dating even prior to the Seljuqs), besides the fact that there is not a single notable Turkic community (virtually all the Sunnis being Hanafites), besides the fact that Shaykh Zahid Gilani was also not Turkish and married his daughter to the Shaykh and besides the fact that every Safavid manuscript even after 1501 which distort genealogy still trace the ancestry back to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah (dropping Kurdi and dropping another ancestor by the name "Abu Bakr") and then from there to Hijaz. The issue is not about Shah Abbas or Shah Ismail, it is about Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah who defines the origin (not necessarily the ethnicity) of the dynasty. Whatever identity Shah Ismail/Abbas had (and I note it was not the strictly modern Azerbaijani identity or strictly anything else, but a multi-cultural identity because someone like Shah Ismail mentions Shahnameh heroes in his poetry rather than Dede Korkut/Turkic folklore and I believe folklore/mythology plays a role in identity), is not pertaining issue to the origin of the dynasty. If we are going by feeling, then Shah Abbas/Shah Ismail considered themselves Seyyeds or claimed to be one. Their Seyyedship and their preference of religion over ethnicity (heck they fought with Ottomans and Uzebks and if they had any sense of ethnic "Turkic feelings" they would not do so or try to weaken their turkmen followers) in my opinion does not relate them specially to secular modern national identities. So cultural identities of these kings, whatever it was, has no bearing on the origin, since the origin as far as it can be traced goes to Piruz Shah. As I said Shirvanshahs identity was Persian, they claimed descent from Sassanids and they intermarried with Iranian families. But their origin (male-line) goes to the Shaybani Arab governor of Ummayads.

Of course, the Safavid background won't be known 100% for sure, (we are talking about people 700-800+ years ago), but you don't think the argumentare for Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah Kurd Sanjani's background is strong, but modern Safavid scholars do. As per old historiography , let me also add, a while back an old source from 100 years ago was brought about the supposed meeting of Timur and Shaykh Safi al-din Ardabili. It was easily discounted based on the fact that Timur was born 2 years after the Shaykh had passed away. But as you can see, post-1501 Safavid sources specially had changed some facts and then this was picked up uncritically by an English scholar from 100 years ago. Now you won't find any scholar making such a claim anymore since Safavid scholarship was improved. Anyhow we have discussed this issue before and it gets no where.

But on ther other issue, from what I gather, most Armenians have semitic names (like most people in English people:John, Joe, Mike,Mary,..) and a good deal of Parthian names, just like most Muslims have semitic names. Of course all Armenians I have heared of have "ian" which is also in Indo-Iranian (although not 100% sure if it is borrowing from it into Armenian or is it naturally in Armenian). Many Azerbaijanis also have "i"(Hekmati) or "Zadeh"(Hekmatzadeh) which are Persian. And I would say the majority of Iranians have semitic first names from the Qur'an. So please also assume good faith (tell Altai Khan what you told me that DNA and Safavids are too unrelated for this topic and I'll be happy not to continue) and happy Novruz. Note who brought articles about genetics here first and I did not see any protest at the time. But as soon as I bring it, you have an issue with it? Cmon man, be alittle fair please for Novruz's sake ;) Ali expects some credit here after more than one year of discussion where I am sure everyone has learned a lot from the discussions here, even if we disagree! --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now to our new friend Altaikhan, just a correction (and I didn't bring these discussions). German is not considered "Aryan"(indo-Iranian) but Indo-European. In the Germanic language, there is approximately 40% non-Indoeuropean roots where-as for example in Avesta, all the words are Indo-Iranian. In the Vedas it is 5% Dravidian and 95% Indo-Iranian. So the original Indo-Iranians were formed approximately 2000-3000 B.C. and of course they may have come from diverse backgrounds even at that time. Witzel has described the origin issue of Indo-Iranians (Aryans) here: [[26]].

But I disagree with your other point. Arab/Persian chronicles have described people of the North (mainly Slavs, Rus, Vikings) and sometimes the people of the North would be grouped together. But Persian books and chronicles have not described Turks as blond hair/red hair, green eyes/blue eyes. They have all described them with the features of Yakut and this was the ideal type of beauty in Persian poetry explained by many Persian poets. That would make sense too, since the ideal type of beauty is something opposite to the Persian/Near Eastern/Mediteranian poets features and is exotic like Yaquts.

As per Oghuz Turks, even Kashgari (who knews Turks well and was a Turk), has some comments on the issue. Turkology-expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998): ... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kâshghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. N. Light further explains: Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ... The actual original Arabic statement of Kashghari is follows: الغزیة لما اختلطت بلفرس نسیت کثیراً من لغت الترک و استعملت الفارسیه مکانها) Translation (word by word): The Ghuzz due having mixed with Persians(Iranians/Fars) have forgotten many Turkic words and use Persian words instead. Reference: Taymas, Abdullah Battal. “Divan Lagait – Turk Tercumesi”, Turkiyat Mecmuasi, Cilt (XI), Istanbul. 1954, pg. 76” So you could be right about Oghuz Turks, but the reason is obviously because Central Asia was Iranian speaking and they had to go through there and Khorasan and it could be possible that by the time they reached Anatolia and Western Iran and Caucus, they might have not had the original Turkic looks. That needs more study. Here is Professor Golden's take on the issue:With may deduce this from the fact that populations in previously Europoid areas of Iranian speech begin to show Mongloid influences coincidental with the appearances of Turkic people. The physical transformation of these Turkicizing peoples, however, illustrated by the population of Uzbekistan, Karakalpakia and especially the Turkic population of Iran and Turkey itself. To add to the complexity of this process, the Turkic populations that moved to Central Asia were themselves already mixed. In general, then, the further east, the more Mongloid the Turkic population is; the further west, the more Europoid.

Also according to Ibn Athir, when the Mongols reached the Alans (Iranian tribe) and Qipchaq (Turkic Tribe) tribes, they told the Qipchaq: We and you are of the same race, but the Alans are not from you so that you should help. Your religion is also not like theirs. Thus the Qipchaq turned away from the Alans (ancestors of Ossetians), but later on the Mongols attacked the Qipchaq. So the Qipchaqs (Turkic speaking) are still described as different racially from the Alans (Iranian speaking) by this historian (1160-1233).

Anyhow as I pointed out already, talking about DNA of modern groups is not really relavent to the Safavid article. Atabek pointed this out too, but he just singled one person out! In modern linguistic terms, the languages of the region are classified as Turkic, Iranic and Semitic and they have influenced one another. Culturally I believe Azerbaijani is a composite (based on Swietchowski) of Iranian and Turkic elements. But others might disagree, and we'll leave that at that.

So concentrating on the rest of the argument which is relavent to the Safavids. If Shafi'i school is so strict, then of course that makes it hard to convert from Shafi'i to Shi'ism than Hanafism to Shi'ism. But the Shaykh Safi al-din was Shafi'ite, his ancestors were Shafi'ites (since they were from Western Iran) and he stayed Shafi'ite. The Oghuz Turks on the other hand were Hanafites. Also Shafi'i and Sufi are complemntary, since Sufism exist/existed in all of the different Maz-habs and even Shi'ism. C.E. Boswroth brings an interesting praise of the Seljuqs by their Persian historian, Rawandi. The Persian historian of the Saljuqs, Rawandi, dedicated his Rahat al-sudur to one of the Saluq Sultans of Rum, Ghiyath al-Din Kay Khusraw, and speaks of a hatif, a hidden, supernatural voice, which spoke from the Ka'ba in Mecca to the Imam Abu Hanifa and promised him that as long as the sword remained in the hands of the Turks, his faith (sc. that of the Hanafi madhhab) would not perish. Rawandi himself adds the pious doxology, "Praise be to God, He is exalted, that the defenders of Islam are mighty and that the followers of the Hanafi rite are happy and in the lands of the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines and Russians, the sword is in the hand of the Turks, and fear of their sword is firmly implanted in all hearts!(Cambridge history of Iran). Note how Iranians of Sunni background (specially Hanafi but even Shafi'ites too) were overjoyed because the Seljuqs disloged the Shi'i Buyids from the caliphate and Baghdad. Note he mentions specifically what is a well known fact, the Oghuz tribes (Turkomans) converted to Hanafism and not Shafi'ism. In Central Asia all the Turkic speakers are Hanafis. In Turkey the major difference between Anatolian Turks and Kurds (beside language) is that one is Hanafi and the other is Shafi'ite. In Iranian Azerbaijan, the Tats of Khalkhal who have kept the older language of Azerbaijan, are all Shafi'ites. Shafi'ism made some inroards amongst Caucasian people like Lezgins, some Laz and Chechens I believe. So Shafi'ism of the Shaykh (mentioned by his contemporaries) more than anything (and something Safavid scholars have not looked at more carefully) supports Kurdish background more than a Turkic background. This was a good discussion and I like discussing history in other forums once in a while. Ultimately you are another person that disagrees and we will have to learn to disagree, while respecting both POVs which the current article does. But bring please sources that are modern (that reference Shaykh Safi al-Din or Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah) and relavent to the fatherline (we know about Akkoyunlu motherline) from Western scholars. I have no problem with the other viewpoint although I think it is much weaker. --alidoostzadeh (talk) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

you make a lot of points but what i have try to say is only that the safavids are not of iranian origin in both ways.sheikh safi`s ancestors came from Turkmenistan from the Region of Merv which called Sanjan.he was often called a Turk in safavid manuscripts and that has nothing to do with persian phoetry meanings or that similar things.in fact he was called a young Turk from his master and in fact too he was living in a turkish district.and the claim that he was from the shafiite school of law is not safe.more probable is that he was a sufi because he was called in old manuscripts a sufi.and kurds are not a instrument to support the iranian theorie of safavids.i often repeat that Kurds has nothing to do with "Aryens", "Indo-germens" and so on.Kurdish was former a independent non-iranian language and has not more than 35% iranian words.its also fact that kurds were not related to persians.it exists many different kurdish languages.a kurd from kars were i came from and a kurd from diyarbakir cant talk with each other.you mean that it is easy to learn kurdish if you speak persian is not full true.kurds cant speak to each other in their own dialects.all 50km changed the kurdish dialect rapidly in turkey.i know that better.and by the way the alans were definetly Turks.todays karachay-balkarians called himself "Alan",their neighbours (which including ossetians) called them Alan, arabian chronicles called the alans turks.the iranian theorie of alans was invented to make the scythians (who were Turks) of iranian stock.thats a other reason to say that azeris a real turks because scythians (saka) settled in aserbaidschan in 6th century BC.the most beloved theorie to assimilate the turks of iran is the argument that turks were mongoloid.thats not true.every turkish tribe had their special features at that time.kipchaks were blond,oghus were brown-haired, but many of them were blond.for example i shoy you the eyewhitness istakhri:

“The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are blackhaired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars, [Black Khazars] who are swarthy verging on deep black as if they were a kind of Indian, and a white kind [Ak-Khazars], who are strikingly handsome.”

as you can see the turks were generally of white skin at that time.of course there was many mongoloid turks but thats not the typicall turkish appearance.turks never has a specially appearance.

you mean the term Turk has other meanings but probably you never think about that maybe "Kurd" has also another meaning.In Turkey lives also turkish Nomads (yörüks) at mountains and were therefore called "Kurds" from others.only for their kurdish lifestyle.to make the founder of iran of iranian stock you can consider iran allthing.the complete theorie is from begin to end unsafe.It serves no purpose to convince yourself.the theme is in fact so clear but iranians make it complicated.only the fact that sheick safi was called a turk reaches to decay the iranian theorie.Sanjan has nothing to do with Sanjar.Kashgar is not the same like Kashgay and Iran is not Irak.thats all a big illusion.maybe you understand it if you can heir the phrase: "Safavids were also of Turkish Origin" like here [27]--Altai Khan (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per assimilation, all the countries of the region (Turkey via Kurds/Zazas/Laz)(the republic of Azerbaijan via Talysh/Tats/Kurds/Lezgis) and Iran have had or alleged to have assimilation policies. I think it is best to stick to history rather than modern politics.

Again you said: shafiite school of law is not safe.more probable is that he was a sufi because he was called in old manuscripts a sufi. Sufism is a path that is found in all Madhabs (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maleki, Hanabali, Shi'ism). Shafi'i and Sufism complement each other. Sufis can follow Shafi'i school of law and many do. The Shaykh was a Shafi'i, something very common in Sunni Kurds, Talysh and Tats and almost non-existent amongst Sunni Turkic speakers. And the Shafi'ism of the Shaykh is solid, based on both on contemporary accounts when the Shaykh was living and also based on the Safwat as-Safa where his Madhab is described in detail, Per Shaykh Safi being called a "Turk" someone alleged it from manuscript in the 17th/18th century (many centuries after Safvat as-Safa). It has basically no historical weight relative to the oldest manuscripts which are pre-1501. Even in that alleged 17th/18th century manuscript (Silsilat an-Nisab), the ancestry goes back to the Prophet through Piruzshah and then the name Abu Bakr is excised. So even in that same book, Shaykh Safi is not a "Turk" but an "Arab" and his ancestry from Piruz Shah is traced to the Prophet. In that book also there are tati poems from the Shaikh but nothing in Turkic.

BTW Alans, Scythians, Kurds are classified as Iranian speakers by modern scholars. We have samples of Alanian language. As per Kurdish vocabulary, it is Iranian and no has found a non-Iranian substratum. Also although your percentage is wrong, I would mention English (technical English) is mostly Latin/Greek, but its base is Anglo-Saxon. I think you are following discredited theories/old theories or nationalist based theories. For example that sample of Turkish you gave before the Mongol era was fake and is not found in any academic books or scholars, but it is found in a website. As per Kurdish, I know enough of it, to tell you despite its diverse dialects, it is not that hard to learn for Persian speaker. All the pronouns are the same as other Iranian dialects. Vocabulary is largely the same in the Kermanshah Kurdish dialect as Persian. Zazaki is also very similar to Gilaki. I think it is better to leave such matters to linguists. ;)

On the Khazars(assuming your source is correct translation of the Arabi), they ruled a very diverse kingdom (with Slavs, Iranians, Caucasians) so of course there is different variations. And "white skin" does not classify Caucasoid/Mongloid, since Yakuts are "white skin" and lighter than most Europeans and Caucasians. But as I said in Persian poetry, Turks are described as the Yakut type. Arab historians have many times called Soghdians as Turks as vice versa. For them, "Turk" was many time geographical. They have called Baluchs as Arabs (due to similar nomadic lifestyle) and even made theory that Baluchs are descendant of Hamza (during the Prophets time). Or they have said in Sudan they follow Zoroastrianism. Or they have mixed many aspects of Persian myths with Arabic folklore and presented it as history. Even Safavids referred to the Ottomans as "Romans"(Greeks) and in the West, the Ottomans were sometimes called "Scythians". So these sources need careful analysis by modern scholars and you can find many contradictory things. Anyhow I am not convinced by any of your reasoning with regards to the Shafi'ism of the Shaykh. But I guess that is why the matter will not be resolved in Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

look,if somebody who lived at that time mentioned that this or that tribe was turkic speaker, than they are turks.todays scholars dont know it better.show me your samples who establish a iranic background of alans and i show you the reverse.i can demonstrate you easily the turkish origin of scythians (which including the parthians ;o)).i repeat that kurdish language non-iranian origin is a new discovery and it needs a lot of time who accepted that at the whole world.to make the safavids of iranian origin is like to make the ottomans of greek origin.all scholars who supported the iranian theorie have based their sources from faked manuscripts.you cant ignore that the placename Sanjar is not the same like sanjan.you cant ignore the fact that sheikh safi was called Turk.to show sheikh safi of shafiite school is a part of faked works.the evidence for a turkic ethnic origin is in favour.everybody who can think logically can confirm that.Kurds has nothing to do with Iranians.If you can speak German, i can show you the well known accepted scientific work who establish the non iranian origin of kurdish language and genetic.it exist enough well known scholars who accept that scythians were turks since the science of scythians have began.safavids has no connection to iranians.i have never said that turks becomes mongolian features after the mongol invasion.i can show you enough other sources described the turks as blue-and green eyed.the relation with yakuts are lousy.chinese sources described some Turks as like Monkeys.that shows their non-mongolian features.if sufis coplement shafii`s, then all sufis in central-asia were of shafii school of law or what?sufism is a special part of islam and sheikh safi was one of them.but the most important thing is that safavids were never been of iranian origin in both ways.thats fact.i can show you that kurds have not even iranian anthropolgic characteristics but that slide more to racism.it is possibly that arabian chronicle described some people after his lifestyle and show them arab or turk but if the arabian chronicles noted that for example the alans were turkic speakers, than you can believe it because they have heard it.it exist more than one chronic who noted that.--Altai Khan (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish belongs to the family of Indo-European languages and to the Irano-Aryan group of this family. The Iranophone tribes and peoples of Central Asia and of the bordering territories begin moving towards the Iranian plateau and the littoral steppes of the Black sea at the turning point of the second and first millennium B.C. Kurdish, the language of the Kurds, which belongs to the north-westem group of Irano-Aryan languages has never had the opportunity to become unified and its dialects are generally separated into three groups with distinct similarities between them. http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/ Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

i must repeat again that kurdish language was former a independent non-iranian language.thats not my estimation.thats universally valid.all you have written is not relevant since the new discovery.even arabian chronicles have noted that kurdish was former not of iranian origin.your contribution based on old arguments.also genetic studies supportet that.if kurds and persians are related to each other, than they must have common genetics.they lived side by side since a long time but are not one bit akin to each other.--Altai Khan (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First with regards to Safavids, you said:'if sufis coplement shafii`s, then all sufis in central-asia were of shafii school of law or what?. No, Sufism is a general term that is practiced by Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanabalis, Malikis and even 12-Imami Shi'ites. So it has nothing to do with the school of law. The fact of the matter is all Sunni Kurds, Talysh and Tats are overwhelmingly Shafi'i. But you can not find a single notable Turkish community of Shafi'ites and all the Turks of Central Asia (where you are claiming Shaykh Safi is from) are Hanafites. That is if in your opinion Shaykh Safi was not from Sangan in Kurdistan but from Turkmenistan, then you need to show a community of Turkic speaking Shafi'ites. None exist today in Central Asia, where-as overwhelmingly all Sunni Kurds, Talysh, Tats are Shafi'ites.

As per Turkish features, the oldest statue of a Turk from the oldest Turkish kingdom proves you wrong [28] (Blue Turk Kingdom). I also note that unlike Anatolian/Azeri Turkish, the languages of Turkmen, Kazakhs, Kyrghyz and Yakuts are closer to the proto-Turkish. Tocharians (by the way) who had red hair and were assimilated to Turkic and Iranian populations, spoke an Indo-European language.

If I read your comments correctly, now you believe Parthians are Turks too. And of course you ignore the Nisa manuscripts, the Manichean manuscripts and the Tang Sarvak manuscripts. All of them written in the Parthian language. As I said, you won't find one Turkish document from Azerbaijan/Caucus prior to the Ilkhanid era. Even the Ilkhanid cour,t Turkic document is Uighyur because large number of Uighyurs servered in the court of the Mongols. On Alans, we have sentences from the Alanian language. I would read this comprehensive (the most comprehensive book) if I were you [[29]]. Instead of discussing it in Wikipedia, I would write a rebuttal to such a scholarly book. Because this seminal book about the Alans is going to be used for next 50 to 100 years as it has collected everything known about the Alans. It will be the standard reference on Alans.

As per genetics of Kurds/Persians, check the graphs here: [[30]]. Virtually Kurds, Persians, Armenians, Azeris and Anatolians have similar genetics and there are differences with Central Asia. I also do not think you are a linguistic. I would check [www.parthia.com] on the Parthians. Now please just answer one question. Which notable modern linguist has claimed that Kurdish is not an Indo-Iranian language? Just this question please and forget about the rest of the discussion. Also what is your source for Kurdish (which dialect?) being only 35% Indo-Iranian?(Of course you known Ottoman Turkish is only about 20% Turkish). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no,you talk about that sheikh safi was a shafiite but i often repeat that he was a sufi and sufis were a seperate branch of islam.and dont think that turks were never been shafiite.i have the memoirs of babur, the so called "baburname" and he writes that some of his turkish friends were shafiite.hence shafiite ritus is possible among turks.and tocharians were from the beginning turkish.i explain you something.every tribe/people who have a ar/ir/er ending is of turkish stock because that means man or people.for example Agaceri means forest people, subar means water people and Tochar means Mountain People (Mountain Inhabitants).there are many other examples like afshar,kacar,kangar,awar and so on.according to al-kashgari the Tochars were turkish speakers.if the time has come i show you very easily that Parthians were Turkish speakers.and know the alans.if you have kowledge about alans than you must know that they settled in todays spain.know tell me how could it be that in catalonien,spanish,portugese languages are Karachay-Balkarian (Alans) words existed?[31] you read the wrong books.[32][[33]http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/7675/chapt6.html] you want sources about my genetic allegation? it seems that you have forgotten that i put it earlier into this diskussion.scroll up.the only available source from the internet about the kurdish language is this [34][35][36].the discovery about the non-iranian origin of kurds is from Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Hennerbichler.dont compare turkish genetics with iranian genetics.it is normal for nomadic people who wandering all across the world to have different genetics.you cant awaite that gagauzes have the same genes like uigurs or kasaks khalaj turks with yakuts.kurds and persians lived side by side and hence they must been related to each other if they were of the same stock.--Altai Khan (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, many times by now, Shafi’ite and Sufi are complementary (That is like Tea (Chai) and Sugar (Shekar)). But I can not keep explaining it. Fact is Moghuls too were Hanafites and so was Babur. If there was any Shafi’ies in Khorasan (and you are mistaken Sufi for Shafi’ as you keep mentioning them differently because Indian/Pakistan have always been Hanafi land) , it was not Turkish and we do not have a single notable Shafi’ite community in Central Asia or India. So that puts your theory that Shaykh Safi was from Merv to rest. Also Merv before the Mongol invasion was a typical Iranian speaking city and we can easily trace back Shaykh Safi’s ancestry to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah. The fact of the matter is that Shafi’ism of the Shaykh points to much more probable Iranian origin. Turks in Turkey and all the Turkic speakers of Central Asia are all uniformly Hanafi. But Shaykh Safi al-din like all Sunni Kurds, Talysh and Tats was Shafi’i. It is just a matter of mathematics here. Now I looked at your links which were all from Turkish websites or pan-Turkist authors. None of them have any credibility in the Western Academic World. I don’t know Turkish well enough, but I got what Ali Burhan link was implying and it is ridiculous. Claiming Kurdish is a mixed language, he keeps mentioning Farsi words in Kurdish. The fact is that Kurdish and Persian have the same root and so obviously they will have many shared vocabulary. What classifies languages are its structure and basic vocabulary. That is why English (despite technical English being close to 90% Latin/Greek) is a Germanic language and not a Romance/Greek language. The other link about Alans is from a site called tatar.yuldash from a Tatar nationalist. Or the other one from Hasan Mamay about Alans. On the other hand I referred you to the standard reference on the Alans from a Western Academic source. Unlike the three/four page polemic article, this book [37] is the standard reference on Alans. As per Tocharians, they are well known as Indo-Europeans. Subar are considered Hungarians(Minorsky, Golden) and today Hungarian is classified as Uralic rather than Altaic and the hypothetical connection between Uralic/Altaic is not maintained anymore by overwhelming number of scholars. Anyhow, you proved my point. You cannot find a single real Western linguist and scholar that will claim Kurdish is not Iranian language. All the material you brought was from non-academic nationalist sites. Let me leave you here with some Pahlawani Kurdish(Awrami) dialect from an old manuscript: او واته ء یاران ، او واتهء یاران ایمه دیوانین او واته ء یاران

هنی  مگیلین  یک  یک  شاران

تا زنده کریم آیین ایران

There is not a single Turkish/Arabic word here and some of the words are unique to Kurdish (but are in Middle Persian as well, like Waateh (speech), Karim (To do, Persian Konim), magilin... If you know Kurdish, then you should have no problem understanding it. Anyhow, what I understand from this conversation is this: Parthians, Alans, Scythians, Kurds according to you are all Turkish and Iran was ruled by Khazars for 400 years and the word Azerbaijan comes Khazar,Shaikh Safi al-din was a Sufi so he could not be Shafi’ite and he was from Merv. Okay fine, you can have your belief but it is not the standard academic belief, and of course Wikipedia is a great play ground for unsubstantiated beliefs and revisionists to put their material in there. As long as I keep watch once in a while though, I will make sure to remove revisionism and outdated/dead theories although no one can always do it. Thankfully there are good Encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica (not as expert), Iranica, Greek civilization, .. where experts write the articles and any non-academic theory can not be put there. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

are you kidding? the genetic work what you show is to rough or inexact.if i believe that, than turks are of iranian origin.you write somethings that i have never said.i never write that khazars ruled over iran but rather over azerbaijan.thats fact.if you dont believe, buy your a book about that theme.and by the way,the sajids who ruled over azerbaijan before the arrival of Selcuks were also Turks.That writes Arabian Chronicles.And one of their Rulers was named Subuk.Its a Turkish Name.i never said that kurds are of turkish origin. i only said that kurdish is grammatically similar to turkish.thats all.but parthians, alans and scythians are really turks.if i show you the truth than you never ask me that again shamefully.and if the theorie that sheikh safi the rest is what you have for your theorie,then it is very weak.i repeat that it is possibly that a turk can be of Shafiite belief because a eyewhitness have wrote them.i dont believe that sheikh safi was a shafiite (i am not the only one) but that is not enough to affirm a possibly kurdish background.iran was before safavids shafiite and therefore it is possible that turks who lived in the near of iranian districts (like Sanjan) are shafiite.i repeat that turks changed their beliefs very quick at that time.many kizilbas turkmens were former sunni and a couple of scientists means that the akkoyunlus were possibly shafiite.many turkmen tribes changed their identity after the battle of chaldiran to flew from ottoman torture.to be a turk in anatolia at that time was very ill.the turks who flew to iran must convert to schiism and stay as turk, but a turkmen who dont reach iranian territory must release himself as a kurd and after a while they forgotten their mother tongue and convert to Shafiism.it exist a lot of kurdish speaking tribes with turkish and even oghuz names.the Badilli,Duver,Becnevi and Ciniki kurds are in truth the Begdilli,Döger,Becenek and Kinik Oghuses.These are 4 of 24 major Tribes of Oghuses who now are Shafiite.the shafiite theorie is not enough.maybe he was a shafiite, thats makes nobody automatically a Kurd.The Kumyks Turks who lived at the Kaukasus are of Shafiite belief.--Altai Khan (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shaikh Safi was not from Kumyks and Shafi'ism spread in the Caucus only in the 15th/16th century [[38]]. The fact that today all Sunni Kurds are Shafi'ite, but no Turkic community in Central Asia/Turkey is Hanafite (except few migrants from Daghestan to Turkey who have adopted Turkish), lends credence to the Shaykhs Kurdish origin. What I am talking about is probability. If a population is 99% Shafi'ite (Sunni Kurds) and another population is 99% Hanafite (Sunni Turks) and then person X is a Shafi'ite, then there is much higher chance that he came from 99% Shafi'ite population. And of course we will never know the Shaykh's origin 100% (since he lived 700-800 years ago) but the current evidence points likely towards a non-Turkic origin. It will always be disputed by some nationalist, but objective scholars have said: "From the available evidence...", etc. As per Sajids , Subuk was not a Sajid ruler, but one of the servants of Sajids who was entrusted with the government. After him Fath Muhammad, the son of Abi l'Saj (not subuk) took control and that is where the dynasty ended. Sajjids were Sogdian (per Minorsky and Bosworth). Else the name Dewdaad (original Sajid ruler and founder) and Diwdast are not Turkish and are Sogdian/Persian. Besides Encyclopedia of Islam which has a excellent article on the Sajids, Encyclopedia Iranica also has an extensive article on them: [[39]]. Also I would check Encyclopedia of Islam on Sajids also where the dynasty is fully described. And if we are talking about names, then Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah is not a Turkic word. Indeed there is not a single Turkish name amongst any of the Safavids (both dynasty) and also amongst the ancestry of the Shaikh. So, the name also points to Iranic origin. Neither are the name of any Parthian Kings (Farhad, Mihrdad, Tirdad, Gudarz, Bijan, Valaxsh..) Turkish. Anyhow, as I said, you can claim Sogdians (Sajids), Parthians, Scythians, Alans to be Turkic, but that is not what Academicians say. And on Parthian specially, we have more than enough from their language and there extensive books/articles on the Parthian language [40]. Also you said: "kurdish is grammatically similar to turkish". No it is not. Turkish is agglutinative language, and Kurdish is not. Kurdish shows split-ergatavitity and Turkish does not. Turkish has vowel harmony and Kurdish does not. Some Kurdish dialects even distinguish gender and none of the Turkic languages do. On the other hand, all the features of any Kurdish dialect can be found in an non-Kurdish Indo-Iranian language. If you have any doubt look at some academic books and specially the seminal paper: "The Origin of Kurdish" by D. N. MacKenzie (you can google search and find it). I will write a summary of my discussions on Shaykh Safi in my own talkpage in due time and examine all the evidences. Also Khazars did not control Azerbaijan/Caucus for 300/400 years. The Sassanids held them back at Darband and then Ummayyads held them back. For a long period there was a Ummayad/Khazar rivarly but Ummayads won over the Khazars. After that Abbassids held them back. Anyhow, I am not here to Discuss unrelated issues further, have a nice Novruz (which I am sure you believe Iranians borrowed it from Turks ;) ) and take care. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

except few migrants from Daghestan to Turkey who have adopted Turkish....what do you mean with this sentence? did you think Kumyks are turkified? you talk to much confident of sheikh safis possibly Shafiite Ritus but thats not assured.you talk about percental probability.than think about the probability of safavids home country.it exist 3 places with named sanjan and all of them has significant turkish populations.that shows that the origin of safavids is 100% turkish.i never said that kurdish language characteristics are the same as turkish.i only speak about the grammatic, that means block format.and dont think that iranians were the founders of nouruz.thats a common asian holiday.iranians has never influence about central asian turks, but turks know nouruz since a very long time.that tells chninese chronicles.you have great fortune because the manuscript about the non-iranian kurdish origin was deleted from net.if i can show you that you can never say again that kurds were iranians.you talk about iranian words in kurdish language.so what? i never said that kurdish language has no iranian words. i only said that kurdish is a iranianized language and kurds were originally non-iranians.why you compare again turkish with kurdish? it exist enough other scientific works about that kurdish was a non-iranian language.and according to all turkic scientist (including Togan) Sajids were Turks.hypothetical safavids were kurdish.than they are still non-iranian.the iranian theorie was invented when everybody was believe that kurds are of iranian race.but that validly now.i can show you a alive demonstration about turkic settlement in caucasia.the alban chronicler Movses Kalankatvatsi have noted in his book "history about albans" that a hunnic-speaking tribe who called Masguts lived in azerbaijan and they have a strong kingdom there.but now the interesting thing is that this Masgut Turks still living there and were today better known as Meskhetian Turks.--Altai Khan (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I said Shafi'ism spread in the Caucus around 15th/16 century, way after Shaikh Safi. ''http://books.google.com/books?id=GaR8vM0YDRoC&pg=RA1-PA28&dq=Kumyks+shafii&sig=4i-Xwnwjjl_InrGZLycb9qtZyF4. And per the few migrants in Turkey, there are some Chechens, Laz and etc. who have migrated in Turkey, adopted Turkish and might follow Shafi'ism. But by in large that is overwhelmingly, Shafi'ism is the religion of Sunni Kurds, Talysh, Tats and Hanafism overwhelming and historically has been the religion of Turks. Even Hanafism allows a type of drink called Khumis which was part of the culture of the Muslim Turkish nomads and non-existent amongst Shafi'ites. The history of Turks and Hanafism goes hand in hand. By the way Imam Abu Hanifa was Iranian.. but never mind. Thus the Shafi'ism of the Shaykh is another indication. On Kurdish language you are just wrong and all you were able to show me was a couple of papers from Turkish scholars. Sorry, but I rather take my changes with David Mackenzie (MacKenzie, D. N. (1961) "The Origins of Kurdish", in Transactions of the Philological Society). As per Huns, they did make incursions to the Caucus but again there is no proof of permanent settlement. Even Russians/Vikings made incursions to the Caucus but again there is no proof they permanantly settled there and built cities and towns.

You said: according to all turkic scientist (including Togan) Sajids were Turks.. Okay assuming you are correct (and I am not sure if you are), this means that : 1) you have read the work of every single Turkic scientists on history of Sajids. 2) Every single Turkic scientist contradicts Western scientists. I think these are heavy assumptions which I would be cautious about. Their works on the Sajids have not been cited by Western scholars (Minorsky, Bosworth, Madelung). Even Togan's major value (assuming your allegation is correct) on Safavid is simply presenting the two oldest manuscripts on the Safavids geneology. He had access to them, since they were in the Ottoman library. It has value for two reason. Not only these are the two oldest manuscripts but they are from before 1501 when the Safavid dynasty was established. So they simply outweight heavily any post-1501 manuscript on Safavids. And I think per what you just said, you tought "Subuk" was a Sajid ruler, but he was not. He was a servant of the Sajids, and thus this could be the cause of apparent mistake. Bosworth and Minorsky have said Sajids are Sogdian. And the names Divdad and Divdast are not Turkish, showing the clear Sogdian origin of the family. You talked about names, so neither Divdad nor Divdast are Turkish words. And you can not find a Single Safavid king or head of the order that has a Turkish names. Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah has a pure Iranian name: پیروز شاه زرین کلاه. If it was the other way around and his name was Turkish, you would be repeating it every sentence. But for me name was not the only indicator although more importance can be attached to it. Interestingly enough, if you look at Seljuqs, Eldiguzids (Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan), Ahmadilis (Atabekan-e-Maragheh), Aq Qoyunlu, Kara Koyunlu, Timurdis (Timur's name) and etc.. they all have Turkish names in their geneology. But you can not find one Turkish name in the fatherline geneology of Safavids. And note you brought the "names" argument first (and it does have some merit), butI see a double standard. You said since Subuk is a Turkish word, then Sajids were Turkish. But I showed Subuk was not a Sajid ruler, but a servant who was a caretaker for 3 years. On the other hand, Sajid rulers had Sogdian/Persian names like Divdad and Divdast and you ignored it. It is the same on Safavids. Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah has an Iranian name, but you ignore it.

I knew you were going to say stuff about Nowruz, but heck Abu Rayhan Biruni, has listed all the holidays of various nations and Nowruz is Iranian. That is why its name is Nowruz and it is not Turkish word. Have Chinese chronicles used the name "Nowruz"? No, they have not. And that is why until 1996, Turkey had banned Nowruz because it was a Kurdish celeberation and not related to the purist Turkic culture that the founders of modern Turkey envisioned. As per Central Asia, the old civilizations were all Iranians. Sogdians/Chorasmians had an extensive and rich civilization and thankfully we have enough manuscripts from these languages.

And you said: you have great fortune because the manuscript about the non-iranian kurdish origin was deleted from net.. Let me know when you find it via email. For now I'll give you 275 links about Kurdish [[41]] from Western scholars and its relationship to other Iranian language. And I would recommend the seminal paper by Mackenzie. You did not on the other hand provide one link from a Western scholar about the Kurdish language. I think the issue is that Turkic scholars and Western scholars do not agree on many subjects. But in Wikipedia, we will give weight to Western scholars obviously. Anyhow, happy new year. I think we discussed non-Safavid mattters enough and the users will judge. I will though summarize some of the notes I brought later on in another place on Safavids, since I have repeated the same stuff 100x times. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude?! I have never said that sheikh safi was possibly a Kumyk-Turk.You have meaning that all Turks were Hanefi and hence Sheikh safi cant be a Turk.But i show you the contrary very comprehensible.and know you beginn that theme again.you talk about that sheikh safi cant be a Turk because he has no turkic names in his lineage.i have explain you that is not important because safavids were a religious familiy and they saw themselves as religious mans.that is not a argument.they were sufis and were not from a family who were proud for his members if they were great warriors in many battles and given them turkish heroic names.i`m not interested in kurdish studies in the past.that is all not validity now.you ignore that i have often repeat that kurds were former a non-iranian language and its accepted that they are a independent non-iranian population.you talk again about manuscripts who written that the former home country of the safavids is a city named Sanjan and not Sanjar.dont come again with this manuscripts who written that sheikh safi was called a Turk.this manuscripts supported me more than you.and its very probably that many manuscripts are maybe faked.only to make safavids iranian for their national sentiment.elsewhere it was then really agonizing if everybody knows that Turks and not Iranians were the founders of modern Iran.i have never said that chinese people wrote about the word "nouruz".that holiday has other names in central asia.names are not important.i have meaning that the chniese chronicles have written that turks often celebrate a holiday when springtime begins.i`m not a persian speaker but i think i know that Nourouz means new day.Nou means New and Rouz Day.But in persian it must be gramatically written as Rouz-e Nou to write New Day or not?That shows in fact that NouRouz is grammatically/block format turkish.Yeni-Gün means New Day.i can send you the well known Work who shows the non-iranian origin of kurds (linguistically and genetically).if you can speak german its not a problem for you.For now I'll give you 275 links about Kurdish....this sentence is funny.i have never said that kurdish language cant be classified as iranian.i only said that kurdish language was iranianized and was former a non-iranian language and has many non-iranian characteristics.in the last discussions you have often me accuse wrongfully about allegations what i have never said.did you search for a new tactic to show me as a implausible person for the other users?--Altai Khan (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude! I didn’t understand the last three sentences. But I showed you Shafi’ism spread in the 15th century in the Caucus and Oghuz Turks were never known for Shafi’ism. When you have one group overwhelmingly as Shafi’ite and you have another group as overwhelmingly Hanafi, then if person X is Shafi’ite, he is most likely from the group that is overwhelmingly Shafi’ite. Of course this was not the only proof, but one of the many. Turks and Hanafism go hand in hand overwhelmingly in Islamic history, you might have some statistical outliers but we are talking about an overwhelming general trend. And that is the point you fail to grasp. You are trying to show Shaikh Safi was from Turkmenistan from an Oghuz tribe. But you have no proof of Shafi’ism being practiced there. As per Sanjan/Sangan there are many places with that name in Kurdistan and even as far as India and Khorasan. There is even a Kurdish settlement in Iranain Sistan/Baluchistan with the name Sangan. So a place name by itself is not enough. But note in Safwat as-Safa it describes Piruz coming with the Kurdish army, and exactly saying his ancestry is Kurdish. Furthermore, Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah is called al-Kurdi. As per why Safavids did not have any Turkish names in their fatherline genealogy, you stated because they were religious. That is pointless argument because Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah al-Kurd Sanjani is not a religious name and they would have chosen a pure Arabic name, if they were religious. Religious names in Muslim history are always Arabic/Quranic names and not Iranian. So you just invalidated that reasoning. As per your knowledge of Persian,your argument is wrong.. In Persian we have Pir-e mard and mar-e pir, Javarnmard mard-e-javan, Javanshir (Shir-e-Javan) and NoDelhi (Delhi-e-no), Noruz (ruzu-e-no), Nojavan (Javan-e-no). Modern Persian is a flexible language and both have been part of Persian. That is why we see Iran-Shah and Shah-e-Iran. Furthermore, more conservative Iranian languages have the modifier before the noun like Gilaki, Middle Persian and some Kurdish dialects. In the Shahnameh, “Rooz-e-no” and No-Ruz are also used. So I assume you do not know Persian. Thus talking about Persian grammar and Iranian languages, please do not even bring up theories of Turkish origin of Newruz by pointing out something faulty based on grammar. else Sohrab should Absohr (AbSorkh) which is not. Have you studied Middle Persian? And note Abu Rayhan Biruni mentions “Newruz” and not “YeniGun”. Yeah I am sure many people had festivals that might have been close to the spring(assuming the Chinese chronicle you mentioned are actually the original Chinese chronicle and not a faulty translation and assuming they are talking about spring and not just a random festival), but the fact is that the name Newruz shows that Turks adopted it from Iranians and that is why we do not hear anything about “Yeni Gun” in literature, but we do here about Newruz. And in Iranian mythology, Newruz goes back to Jamshid and Fereydun and Kawah, which are pre-Islamic. And it is mentioned by Persian poets way before Ghaznavids (the first Turkic dynasty). Indeed, in Islamic literature too, we have Hadeeth from Shi’ite Imams that it is Iranian celebration and also from Ummayad times that it is an Iranian celebration. Here for example is an original Persian of Abu Rayah Biruni(his Persian book al-Tafhim) who describes Nawruz as a festival of Iranians «ابوريحان بيروني» دانش‌مند نام‌دار ايراني (440-362 ق) در كتاب پارسي خود «التفهيم لاوائل صناعت التنجيم» گزارشي بسيار رسا و شيوا و حاوي نكاتي بي‌نظير و ارزش‌مند از جشن‌هاي ايرانيان عرضه داشته است. وي مي‌نويسد (2): «نوروز چيست؟ - نخستين روز است از فروردين ماه و از اين جهت، روز نو نام كرده‌اند؛ زيرا كه پيشاني سال نو است و آن چه از پس اوست از اين پنج روز [= پنج روز اول فروردين] همه جشن‌هاست. و ششم فروردين ماه را «نوروز بزرگ» دارند؛ زيرا كه خسروان بدان پنج روز حق‌هاي حشم و گروهان و بزرگان بگزاردندي و حاجت‌ها روا كردني، آن گاه بدين روز ششم خلوت كردندي خاصگان را. و اعتقاد پارسيان اندر نوروز نخستين آن است كه اول روزي است از زمانه و بدو، فلك آغازيد گشتن

As per Kurdish being an Iranianized language, again no proof of that, except couple of Turkish non-academic websites. That is like saying Persian was a Iranized language or English is a Germanized language. Language belongs to specific classification and one can say an ethnic group was Turkified or Iranified, but a language classification belongs to a specific family. Some languages have pre-existing substrate, but no one has even shown a non-Iranian substrate for Kurdish. Also you have repeated several times “Kurdish is not Iranian language, and this is a new discovery”. For a guy that does not know Kurdish or Persian language, you make a lot of claim which is probably just cut&pasted from websites. By the way I found more than 250+ academic books about Parthian being an Iranian language [[42]]. Heck I can read (not the script but the transliteration) of Manichean Parthian and understand a good portion of it due to shared vocabulary. So can you show me some modern western academics that have claimed otherwise about the Parthian language and classified it as an Altaic language? ?? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen bro.. we might disagree on some history stuff but that is okay. I always try to follow what I believe is an objective view of history and with this regard, I prefer Western scholar’s methodology over local scholars. Happy Nevruz and Nevruz belongs to both Turks, Iranians and others who celebrate it, afterall it is a gift of nature. No hard feelings from my side (these discussions get heated once in a while) and I am not interested to discuss the genealogy of the Shaykh more than this. Thanks for the interesting discussions, although I was not convinced by any of your arguments, nevertheless, the readers can judge. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ok bro.if you dont believe me the non-iranian origin of kurds i can send it to you.i have original parthian inscriptions who was written in turkish.all what you know about history is a big complott.the scytho-iranian theorie is one of the greatest scandals in world history.i need only use the scythian tribal names and show you very easily which well known turkish tribes was hidden behind the scythian tribal names.every independent scholar know that.you can never find such informations in your censored books and sites.is any admin here who can read and understand German that i can send the work who shows the non-iranian background (genetically and linguistically) of kurds?--Altai Khan (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your viewpoint, but you can send me the information here [[43]]. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

i push often times to your link, but it happened nothing.is any admin here who can read and understand German.i would like to send a work that shows the non-iranian origin of kurds.if somebody here to can check it? thanks.--Altai Khan (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)