Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 9

message: I am glad everyone is enthusiatic about Nowruz. 
I was not done yet.. and that will take into account suggestions by Atabek, Adil and Tajik hopefully tommorow and give it another shot with references that has been brought by myself and others and try make the introduction acceptable to everyone.  
Comment for Adil.  
About the languages of the Safavids I was going with the main language.  Azeri was the main court language (Persians was present also), Persian was the main patronized language (judging by the amount of works left) in the domain (I am not totaling all the Safavids Turkish and Persian poetry but Tahmasp, Abbas.. have Persian letters, poems and etc and some members of Safavid family like Sam Mirza have even written books like Sam Mirza).  Persian was also the main administrative language.  Finally while there are some important religious works in Persian from that time, the bulk of it from what I gathered was Arabic.  So I was going with what is considevered overwhelming majority in their whole domain.  But I will edit that section probably.
::Ali, that's why I suggested to list out all the different aspects of language usage: court language (mostly Azerbaijani, as well as Persian), official language (Persian and Azerbaijani), state language (Persian), military language (Azerbaijani), religious langauge (Arabic), poetic language (Persian and Azerbaijani). --AdilBaguirov 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but that would be too complicated for the introduction.  Probably these things should be included in : Court life, Cultural life, Religion under Safavid sections..--alidoostzadeh 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we'll edit it on saturday due to some stuff...  --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still working on it.. will  add more sources from different.. Hopefully will be done soon as I am also covering chaldiran and Esmail after Chaldiran...--alidoostzadeh 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for the suggestion 

message: I have not received any response from some folks who used to discuss here.  Even when I took long to propose my version, I was active and at least made a comment.  If some people are doing further research let me know, but any new findings can be included in the article after discussing it here on the discussion page.  I am guessing GM will definitely be here  and I believe he can contact the other users to get their feedback if necessary.  So their input is not cut off.  I am awaiting for responses to make an agreeable introduction.   Given the distortion in Safavid histography after their take on power (and note the example of Teymur above which is one in a dozen and scholars have discussed it),  I have worded it all down so the issue is finished and other aspects of Safavids can be attended to.   I can definitely say that the the earliest extant biography and the only pre-safavid one... which is definitely true and a correct statement and is independent of what Encylopedia X or Mr Y or Dr Z says.  But I am trying to do everyone a favor by finishing the discussion which has gone too long.  Personally I do not like topics of conflicts, since usually the debates get out of hand.  The immaturity of various users has impeded a solution, specially in this talk page where unfortunately personal attacks and red herrings were more than plenty.  
: Also I had to make a sidecomment here for Atabek, although I did not want to, but I had to set the record straight in case he was looking for an answer and others might stumble upon that particular comment.  On Ferdowsi.  Ferdowsi lived in a time when Turks (and at that time Turks were foreigners in the area of Tus in Khorasan) started to invade Khorasan and Iran.  Thus his reaction to such events was very normal and so he has some verses here and there about Turks.  Although he has at the same time said positive stuff about Afrasiyab (who is really not even a human in Avesta but a mythical creature) in constrast to Keykavus and like any other Persian poet at the time, the beauty of Turks (and these were Turks before the expansion in caucus and Anatolia and looked like Kazakhs today and that is why they are described as Cheshm -Tang (narrow eyeed) beauties in Persian poetry).  But Ferdowsi's  reaction, in some verses, specially for his own time, is totally understandable and should be seen in its context (time and place) and not the 21st century wanting to be politically correct context (which does not exist anyway).  Just had to make this point for clarification and it can be discussed further privately with anyone.  --alidoostzadeh 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will provide my input soon. As you all probably aware, most of Azerbaijani and Armenian users are currently party to an arbcom case and are mostly busy with it. Grandmaster 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay at least it is good to get some sort of response.  I'll await after Arbcomm then.--alidoostzadeh 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcomm is over.  So I think it is time to fix the page.. --alidoostzadeh 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is time to move on. Grandmaster 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we put two sources for Kurdish origin of Shaykh Safi and two for possible Azeri origin and we'll leave it at that?  All in one/two sentences. No need to clutter the article. Hope to see solution soon..  --alidoostzadeh 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Have not received any response

message: Ali, the current version needs a lot of spelling corrections and addition of some article references, which we used on the talk page. I made some spelling corrections and typo edits, and will continue working on those later. THanks. Atabek 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some more typo corrections (Islamil to Ismail, etc.) and added references to Shah of Azerbaijan in addition to Tapper's. The added references are from Archive 7, no text or semantics on that were changed. Thanks. Atabek 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also added references to maternal genealogy of Ismail and proper names of Uzun Hassan's wife and daughter. I guess this should not cause any disagreements. Atabek 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Ali's version was added on the top, while other stuff at the bottom is from old version and is redundant, we have to merge those together with the rest of the top version. I tried to rearrange the section on Conflict with Ottomans, but the rest need to be done as well. Please, do not alter references if taking the task of rearranging. Atabek 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree but I think putting too many non-related sources for that is extensive.  I mean it's like putting 20 sources for the Kurdish origin of Shaykh Safi.  I don't disagree with the statement but I think one/two sources convey the same thing. --alidoostzadeh 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ali, I don't know why you keep removing references to published books. If you agree with reference, and more than one book tells it, why not present all the sources? Atabek 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atabek, I didn't remove the reference since there are two references I kept (I have no problem with the satement).  It is just referecing the same fact with 20 sources makes the wikipedia article not look good.  Also two of the sources were not really in "context".  For example putting 20 references about the Kurdish origin of Shaykh safi would make the numbers 1,2,3,4,...20 all clutter after one word.  i just think an encyclopedia article should use good references, but the same fact doesn't need to be references by 20 books.  It is just to make the article look good as you have done by spell checking.  For example if I put 20 references after the word Iranian dynasty for Safavids.. So the statement is not in dispute.  --alidoostzadeh 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling corrections

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

message: I've blocked  for 24 hours for edit-warring and violating the spirit of the 3-revert rule. I make no judgement on the validity of the anon IP's edits, but would urge him/her (and everyone) to discuss proposed changes here first and work toward consensus here, rather than trying to implement changes through brute force and edit-warring. After all, there is no deadline. MastCell Talk 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tajik, welcome back and thanks for editing under the username now :) Please, discuss your edits here before making edits. Thanks. Atabek 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor was Tajik.  I have indefinitley banned him unless he agrees to participate in the arbcom case filed against him (which he seems to have been intentionally avoiding). Thatcher131 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP blocked 

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

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

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

message: Reverting anon IP edits of the well known user. This POV needs to be discussed before editing for consensus. Kansas Bear, you can make your architecture edits over this version. Thanks. Atabek 00:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you revert Kansas' bears edits in the first place?Azerbaijani 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atabek, your last edit on this article could be considered vandalism. Do not removed every single edit when all you want to do is change one part of the article. It is not Kansasbears obligation to re-do his edits simply because you felt like removing everything over one or two sentences on another section. I restored Kansasbears edits. Next time, only change the part of the article that you have a problem with, instead of removing entire legitimate sections.Azerbaijani 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Azerbaijani, please watch your lingo as well as WP:AGF and WP:NPA before accusing me of vandalism. As clearly indicated above, the version reverted to was a consensus, on which we all worked very hard. So any edits, especially those again trying to revive discussion on "Azari" language and its linkage to Kurdish, which have no major relevance to the topic, or playing with words "probably" vs "possibly" already discussed at length, shall be noted and agreed to on talk page in a constructive manner. I have no problem with the architecture text, as long as its properly referenced. Atabek 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read about what a personal attack is before you try to use it against people. YOu took out an entire section in order to change one thing? Thats vandalism.Azerbaijani 13:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted User:Tajik, who keeps coming back despite the ban. Edits of banned users should be reverted on spot without any consideration. Grandmaster 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, be respectful and stop sockpuppeting. Your attempts to reinsert unagreed text while being banned are counterproductive. Atabek 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting how Germany based IPs turn up to make the same edit about Tati poetry and claim that they are not Tajik, who is also based in Germany. Tajik, you are not supposed to edit wikipedia, unless your permanent ban is lifted. Grandmaster 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Salam.   I did not see any new sources actually that was added.  Just a rewording of sentence.  Can you please discuss the sentences you want to change and get a feedback?  The Safavids after 1501 were mainly Azerbaijani speaking.  Of course they supported the Persian Art and Persian poetry, Shahnameh, and etc.. Iranian architecture and all of this is also mentioned.  The Kurdish origin is also mentioned and although scholars are not unanimous, the classical sources have excluded turkomen origin for the Shaykh by the fact that all sources either say Kurdish (the oldest ones) or Arabic (newer ones after 1501).  The Tati poetry is also mentioned in the article.  All of these have been discussed and I believe it is reflected in the article.  --alidoostzadeh 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edits

message: The architecture section is a good start.. but can be improved tremendously.  As per the intro, we should stick with consensus of users unless there is a massive discussion on the talkpage..which I am not going to go through again for this article.--alidoostzadeh 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, I am afraid, there will be no consensus and we will have to go back to discussion of major topics again, if users Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani and Tajik with his socks don't leave the page content alone and edit it after discussing. It's sad that because of these two disrputive users, we cannot maintain a consensus on the page, which tooks us months to discuss and agree on. Atabek 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture 

message: The history of Greater Iran template is for articles that have to do with Greater Iran in general. The Safavids were a direct part of Iranian history and Iranians. The history of Iran template is the one that applies here, as per Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Qajars, and the Pahlavis.Azerbaijani 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted recent edits that had no consensus. Grandmaster 05:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left Ariana a message asking him to discuss his edits from now on for this article: Azerbaijani 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fascisnating how Tajik, his socks, and yourself are trying hard to prove that Safavids are even remotely related to Persian ethnicity, when it's well known that they never were. Puny attempts to prove Kurdish origin of Safavids with a sole purpose of distancing them from contemporary Azerbaijani identity are not quite credible. It's very well known and proven that Safavids spoke Turkic and were, what today is known as Azerbaijani. It's sufficient to just read some poetry of Ismail to see that it's the same language that 99% of Azeris on both sides of Araxes use today. So, given these facts, it's rather sad to see your persistent edit warring and the bitter attempts to misrepresent own history based simply on ethnically intolerant and inflammatory views. Atabek 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Why is it that everytime you comment on a talk page its to express your POV and OR or to attack other users?Hajji Piruz 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you fail in a content dispute the above comment looks more like a standard of yours, accusng people of POV or OR :). I urge you to calm down, do some reading, and stop misrepresenting your own history. Atabek 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atabek, what are you talking about? Why dont you talk to your buddy Grandmaster, I'm trying to help you guys out, so that instead of you guys having to edit war on this article, you can try discussing the issues with Ariana. OMG, you need to calm down and relax, get to know whats going on before jumping to conclusions. And its so amazing, its as if you forgot your own comments made not more than minutes ago, accusing me of POV pushing. This is truly one of the strangest interactions I've ever had with another user...its like your two different people.Hajji Piruz 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Grandmaster is not "my buddy", he is just another Wikipeditor. So again, you fail to AGF. There is NOTHING you have helped with so far on Safavid page, your contribution of references here has been pretty much zipple. This page has been a result of major contributions from Ali Doostzadeh, along with myself, Tajik, Grandmaster, and others. You were the only one here to spoil consensus or start revert warring. Sufficient to check archives, and actually that's what your revert parole is for, primarily the Safavid page. So please, do calm down, AGF and finally start editing constructively. It's not hard to do so, if you can separate traits from objective attempts to edit encyclopedia. Atabek 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for only confirming my point about your inability to AGF. Atabek 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF does not apply to you, to me, or anyone who is in an arbcom, or has used socks, or has committed vandalism, or whatever.... why wont you understand that?Hajji Piruz 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Iran

message: Just came from work.. Whats going on here ? It looks like a discussion forum rather than wikipedia talkpage. anyways as long as the sourced sentences I put in are not removed, you guys have fun.. I recommend listening to Googoosh or Rashid Behbudov or Shahram Nazeri or something and don't get upset.  No one will remember it when they die.. I recommend you all work together in a peaceful manner, put any verifiable western scholarly source written by major historians(regardless if it supports a viewpoint or not) and calm down.  Since this seems like a discussion form, just wanted to add that our region is messed up because Kurds don't like Turks, Azeri don't like Armenians, Persians don't like Arabs,Arabs don't like Persians..  Europeans learned their lesson after WWII and they are more tolerant towards each other (I am no sure if they are more tolerant towards Middle Easterns).  Anyways guys I recommend taking a one or two day break and then re-editing.  Also perhaps archiving is not a bad idea.--alidoostzadeh 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LOL

message: Added couple more referenced quotes from EI article on Shah Abbas, which I posted above. Thanks. Atabek 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I also added some information on this from Shah Abbas I expelling Ottomons from Iranian territory from Savory.     --alidoostzadeh 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ali, I made some more spelling, typo and other minor fixes to that fragment. Atabek 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more edits to Shah Abbas section, hopefully, the same references are used in Shah Abbas page. But there is still more work to do on this page with typos, grammar, etc. Atabek 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I hope the article can be fixed up soon with respect to grammatical and structural mistakes. --alidoostzadeh 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions from Shah Abbas EI article 

message: As is well known, User:Tajik is a permanently banned user. As such, he is not allowed to edit Wikipedia and all his edits must be reverted on spot without any discussion or consideration. Such reverts are not considered violation of arbcom parole. Please see WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits:
Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. 
So don't waste your time on pointless discussions and just revert all the edits of banned users as required by the rules. Grandmaster 07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tajik 

message: Here is the confirmation that User:German-Orientalist is a sock of User:Tajik . Now, I would like to ask User:Tajik, aka German-Orientalist, to continue contributing to talk page on the topic of Safavid dynasty content, and hopefully, we can constructively edit the article. Atabek 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually didn't notice the prior edit by Grandmaster in this regard, but anyways, wanted to make it clear that Tajik should present his thoughts on the article on the talk page, we can discuss and incorporate them. That way he won't need to employ more socks to edit the main article against Wikipedia rules. Atabek 12:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Orientalist 

message: Removed "were" and replace with "was". Also, made "Originating" as the beginning of sentence 2, instead of "they" since the reader should already know who "they" are. All in all, made it easier to read and HOPEFULLY less "choppy".Kansas Bear 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few "tweaks" 

message: I guess the behavior of both Ariana310 and Houshyar will need to become a subject of extensive discussion at ArbCom. What's amazing though is the recent revert by Ariana310 to version where grammar was much worse, removing several Wiki links. Can you, Ariana310, explain what's the point of blind revert warring? Atabek 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ariana310

message: Hajji Piruz, the Iranic descent OR has been discussed before. Safavids were not of Iranic descent, as the very founder of the dynasty was a mixture of Greek and Turkic origins. Discuss your further edits on the talk page. Atabek 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Safavids were Iranic. Safi ad-din was Kurdish. The Safavids were originally a family from Iranian Kurdistan. Furthermor, it is virtually accepted in the scholarly community that the Azerbaijani Turkic speakers of Iran are Iranic by descent, so technically I'm not the one with the POV here, because all the facts say that the Safavids are of Iranic descent. Azeris are an Iranic people by ethnicity (not by langauge), and I, like you, know that the later Safavids definetly mixed with Azeris also, but that would still make them Iranic, as Azeris, just like the Kurds, are Iranics. It is practically universally accepted that Azeris are Iranic in origin. Also, note that I inserted "Iranic descent", thats fact, its a fact that Azeris and Kurds are both of Iranic descent, so whats the issue? Its fact.Hajji Piruz 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The Safavids were originally Kurds, not originally Azerbaijani speaking, although they became Azerbaijani speaking later.Hajji Piruz 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fabianblue

message: As was expected - . I don't see how can one edit an article in presence of such POV and OR, just plain removal of references without any explanation. I am inserting another OR tag until everyone can learn to respect sources and edit in a constructive manner. Atabek 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the user should not delete sources. But I do not see any need for long cquotes.  For example I have lots of the sources, but I did not cquote them.  The section should be summarized and the actual quotes in the bibliography.  For example I could cquote many quotes like this:"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." or "Safavids were at pains to hide their Kurdish identity".. I think it is good to keep the section short.  --alidoostzadeh 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Ali, on the subject of language of court, this reference was very definitive and strong, especially considering that it's Cambridge History of Iran, a very respected source. Atabek 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend, I mean the origin section.  If I have to cquote 10-20 sources, it is not good.  So I put it in a paragraph.  If you can put it in a paragraph it would be great.  --alidoostzadeh 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 10-20 sources refer to Kurdish origins of the dynasty, which we are discussing above and I have another 10-20 Turkish sources. What was cquoted is language references. I think Cambridge History quote puts clear dots over "i" as to what was Safavid court language. Provided the 1400-verse divan of Khatai as well as the usage of Azeri in poetry as late as 17th century Safavid state, I think it's safe to say that Turkish was the main language of court, while Persian was the language of culture. This in no way, lowers one language over the other, Persian was a lingua franca and to some extent a court language even in Ottoman Empire. Atabek 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay cquote for one or two quote there is okay.  I am referring to cquoting every source on Kurdish or Turkish.  As you can see I condensed it to a paragraph.  To be fair, if we say "The Safavid  were at pains to hide their Kurdish identity and to protray themseves as Seyyeds" or "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." are strong claims.  They can be cquoted.  But I didn't do it.  So lets just condense the origin to one paragraph as I did.  Also I agree the court language was mainly Turkish.  The administrative language was mainly Persian and so was the cultural language.  I have no problem with the truth.  --alidoostzadeh 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay now there is no pressure now as you can see.  I agree, the issue before was that one side or another was putting a tag. Now they have no execuse to put a tag in accordance to wikipedia law.  So as you see I removed all the origin stuff (even Kurdish origin) to a background section.  So my intention was not bad, but it was based really on your comment that the Safavid article is OR and POV.  Now it won't be.  Because there is no pressure.  Both sides have their viewpoint (and they are respected as person despite disagreeing).   But of course any of the sources can be cquoted (by wikipedia). I suggest we do not cquote it or else it is obvious one guy will cquote the strongest statements.  And note while there are strong statements comparing the Kurdish and Turkish theory and then totally denying the Turkish theory (like the two quotes mentioned), there is none that say "Safavids were either Kurdish or Turkish, but Kurdish is ruled out and is a mistake".  I think simply keeping that section to a paragraph is good.  --alidoostzadeh 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Source