Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 7

message: The ONLY official language of Iran during the Safavid empire was Persian, (Farsi). The founder of the dynasty was Persian. The court language was Persian and all official documents and laws were only written in Persian. The Safavids built the Persian city of Esfahan.
I will remove all of the POV written by Turkic nationalists. 
An encyclopedia is a place for facts and truth, not lies and propoganda!!User: 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Safavids were Persian

message: :One question, wasnt Sheikh Safi al-Din also Persian?Azerbaijani 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was actually Kurdish but many dialects of Kurdish like Kermanshahi are mutually inteligble to Persian.  Amazingly we have manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa before the Safavids (thanks to Togan) and the clear distortions of these manuscripts were made to hide the Shaykhs ancestry and later on Safavids tried to make claims like the Shaykh was Seyyed, Persian (through Sassanid heritage made for shi'ism) and perhaps even Turkish for their ghezelbash followers.  Thus twice the word Kurd was removed from these manuscripts which in my opinion is clear 100% evidence.  The Shaykh himself was a Shafi'ite like 80%+ of Kurds and virtually all Sunni Kurds today.  Virtually all Sunni Turkish speakers have been Hanafite since their conversion to Islam.  Khorasani Iranians were mainly Hanafi also and that is why Pakistan and Afghanistan and Tajikistan are also all Hanafi.  Imam Abu Hanifa himself was actually Iranian.  Another clear 100% evidence that the Shaykh was Kurdish is that there no record of Turks converting to Shafi'ism.  Indeed Sunni Turks and Hanafism went hand in hand.   
I watered that this information on this article for the sake of compromise, but in the long run all the scholarly sources 10-20 years from now will have this information anyway and it is not information that can be hidden since texts of these ancient manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa are available..  And two contemporary sources Safwat As-Safa and the history of Hamdullah Mustawafi is what we have of the Shaykh.  Some informations just take longer to digest in the scholarly world although already consensus by Safavid historians has been reached with this regard and the Shaykhs Sunnism is now a given.  But I do think some scholars have overlooked the mutual relatioshhip between Shaf'ite and Kurds and how these two factors really complement each other strongly.  That is both factors help prove that the Shaykh was Shafi'ite and a Kurd.   Thus the male line of Safavid's is not Turkic and goes directly down to Pirouz Shah Zarin Kolah which is purely Iranic name: Piruz(victor)+Shah(King)+Zarin(golden)+Kolah(hat).  But they were Turkified in speech later on much like most Azerbaijanis who genetically do not share genetic patterns with Yakuts.  Actually the Oghuz Turks according to Kashghari were Persianized and used a lot of Persian words and had mixed with Persians.  So this phenomenon of turkification is probably pre-Islamic and started with Soghdians.  Anyways let me know you opinion on the current article.  --alidoostzadeh 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Guys I archived the past discussion.  Too many things were being put not related to the Safavids.  About the current version looks like Mr. Vakilian and Atabek agree.  I personally do not think it is too bad, and I have no problem with the current version.  I am not going to give my opinion on behalf of other users so if anyone has a problem with the current version and disagrees with, please state it.  --alidoostzadeh 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, the article in its current shape (full of English and other mistakes!) should not be presented even for voting. It really needs a good re-write which can open the door to more arguments. Let’s get it close to a presentable level first otherwise we will end up arguing about changing an “a” to a “the”! We are not in a hurry, are we? Kiumars 19:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the grammer can be fixed.  It is the content that we need to agree upon first.  If you see any grammatical mistakes feel free to fix it.  But right now I need more comments from other users if they agree with the content of the article?  --alidoostzadeh 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should ask some neutral native English speaker to help us with the language. Also, what's up with removal of the word Turkic throughout the article? Can anyone provide reasons for this Turkophobia? And what's the point in a statement that Ismail was an Iranian Azeri? There's no such ethnicity, and back in the day all Azeris were Iranian by nationality. Let's stick to the wording we agreed on, or at least observe neutrality. Grandmaster 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word Turkic speaker or Azeri speaker is correct.  I thought that was what we agreed upon in the introduction of SA. Vakillian?  I have re-added that section. --alidoostzadeh 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attempts at a new consensus 

message: The city is in Iran. Its not right to say Iranian Azerbaijan, because firstly, its a vast region (not even a single province at the moment) and since when have you ever heard a city being distinguished by its region? I've never heard anyone say Los Angeles (USA California). This is really getting ridiculous. Again, you are blowing something very small and inconsequential into an edit war. Ardabil is in Iran, simple as that.Azerbaijani 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Azerbaijani, stop editing the page without agreement. You're truely trying to waste an effort of everyone on this talk page without any respect or consideration to time people on both sides contribute to discussion. Your definition of Ardabil outside historical Iranian Azerbaijan has no historical ground neither in Iranian nor in Azerbaijani historiography. It's simple to mention the fact that Safavid of Ardabil, first proclaimed himself a Shah of Azerbaijan. Atabek 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said Ardabil was outside of Iranian Azerbaijan. Atabek, your really dont read other people's psots before you comment, I can tell...Re-read what I said.Azerbaijani 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ardabil, Iran

message: Can someone explain Dariush4444 that he needs to read the talk page, before blindly reverting the page and inserting clearly baseless ethnic POV in there. Atabek 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing is for sure: YOU are not the right person to do that. As Germans say: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen." Tājik 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tajik, for the sake of constructiveness, give up on "YOU" in capital letters or insults/attacks. The same accusations that you bring up against me above of allegedly "hating Persians", I can say exactly about you towards Turks. The fact is, you have been arguing all along trying to remove every single reference to word Turkic in the article, and that's not the way it will be. Safavids were Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, that came to power with help of Qizilbash Turkic tribes, their founder wrote in Turkic language and used it as official language of his court. So, until you accept these basics, already accepted above, in most of the versions and supported by most of the scholars, there can be no consensus.Atabek 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never denied this. In fact, if you would have read my suggestion instead of automatically reverting it with 2-5 minutes, you would have seen that I included in the text that Ismail was an ethnic Azerbaijani and that he greatly contributed to Azeri literature. That his maternal grandfather was an ethnic Turcoman, and so forth. So, the problem is not me, but only you who does not accept the word "Persian" in the text. You also deny the strong Persian influence on the Safavids, the unique Persian identity that is not denied by ANY serious scholar, Ismail's Persian poetry, Ismail's claims to Sassanian origin, Ismail's belief to be the reincarnation of epic Persian heroes and kings, and the vast Persian poetry of Safi al-Din - facts that are not denied by any serious scholar! Instead of provocating edit wars, automatically reverting other people's edits, and removing the word "Persian" from the article, you should at least ONCE read what others write. Tājik 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dariush4444 

message: If the Safavids were Turkic as you claim, then why was the ONLY official state language of Iran during their reign, Persian. Why was their court language Persian. Why were all of their laws and legal documents written only in Persian!!!
The Safavids culture was 100% Persian. Like I said before just look at Esfahan. You seem to forget that "Azari" culture is actually Persian. The Azari language is made up of 40% Persian and Arabic words. Azari people still celebrate all of the ancient Persian (Zoroastrian) holidays...like Now Rooz. Almost all Azarbaijani people have Persian names. "Azari" music, architecture, cuisine, etc....is PERSIAN!! 
The Azari people are racially Iranian. They are not ethnic Turks. Various genetic testing has proven this to be fact. Azari genetics are almost identical to their Persian neighbours. That is why we all look the same. If they were real Turks, they would look like Mongoloids. They would have brown skin, slanted oriental eyes, flat wide noses, and be very short and stocky. Azari people obviously do not look like that because they still belong to the Iranian race. Dariush4444 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atabek

message: Guys I give up, you write whatever you like; and change it as you like. Now I understand why no scholar writes here! I asked a couple of them to take a look and contribute and you know what they said? It is too rude to mention here but be my guest to guess it! BTW I am going to Iran in a couple of weeks for the Nurooz, I will be visiting the Kurdish and Azari towns and people you have never seen (but you write so passionately about them!).  I will remember you guys when I talk to my Iranian relatives and friends, and I wish you very happy dreams. BTW  Qizil means Golden in Azari and Red in Turkish! You are that close or that far in other statements you make, Yashaseen. Kiumars 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You were the one urging me patience!  I think its time to end this two year ordeal.  Both sides have good quotes and they want to deny the others quote.  I think the best way is to go back to S.A. Vakilians version and work from there.  The introduction should be polished, minimal and yet satisfying to both sides.  BTW Tajik thanks for the article from EI.  It was amazing actually and the best article I have read on Safavids with the exception of books.  --alidoostzadeh 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put S.A. Vakilians version back up again.  I do not think the intro should change right now until there is an agreement for a new intro since this would just lead to locking of the article again.. At least we had a semi-agreement on the previous intro.  There is already sufficient number of dispute tags.  --alidoostzadeh 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not gonna edit the intro, if everyone agrees to refrain from doing the same. Present you proposals here first. I will present mine soon. Grandmaster 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another quote: Shi'ism was reintroduced and imposed by the Safavids many centuries later, and they, I would remind you, were Turks. Until then Iran was a largely Sunni country. Iran in History by Bernard Lewis. Grandmaster 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis , Momen and etc. are not a Safavid historian.  Thus their statement has little weight compared to Safavid historians.  --alidoostzadeh 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis is one of the leading experts on the Middle East and is more famous than any other historian we quoted here. Plus, Frye says the same, so it is not just an isolated opinion. Grandmaster 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Minorsky is much bigger name than Lewis.  But the fact is when quoting Mathematicians about Topology we do not quote Ramanujan who was a number theorist.  Savory, Minorsky, Mazzaoui, Kasrawi, Togan and etc. have written specific articles and books on Safavids and just on Safavids.  Savory specially has written too much to count here.  Lewis has not written a single specialized book on Safavids.  I doubt he even has a specialized article on Safavids (perhaps at most dealing with Shi'i Islam).  Besides that, Lewis in 1979 proposed disintegration of Iran.  Britannica says: (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shi'ite Islam as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country. The Safavids were descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din (1253–1334) of Ardabil, head of the Sufi order of Safaviyeh (Safawiyah), but about 1399 exchanged their Sunnite affiliation for Shi'ism. .  As per the opening statement, I do not have any qualms with the version proposed by S.A. Vakilian.  The opening statement should be short and polished.  --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis is an expert on Ottoman history, and has special knowledge only of the history of Safavid and Ottoman conflicts. He has not written a single special article on the Safavids. And besides that, he is one of the most contrversial scholars in this field, also due to his known anti-Persian, anti-Armenian, and general anti-Shia and anti-Alevit stands. He not only denies the genocide against Armeniens, but also has asked for the dissolution of the Iranian nation on many occasions. So, when it comes to the identity of the Safavids, he is not really the right person to look for. This is also the reason why Savory writes almost all special articles about the Safavids in leading references (Iranica, EI, etc) and NOT Lewis. Tājik 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever his views on unrelated to Safavids issue are, they have nothing to do with this article. Lewis is one of the most respected scholars on Middle East, and has a thorough knowledge on the history if Iran. One doesn’t have to write articles on a on a particular dynasty to be a specialist on the subject, if he wrote books that covered that dynasty among other subjects. But still, I do not propose to say that Safavids were Turks, I think the current intro is a good basis for compromise, but it should be further improved. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  A specialist on a subject is actually one that contributes to Safavid history, and writes articles and books on the Safavids.  This is precisely the definition of what a specalist in certain field is.   I agree Lewis's is knowledgable in his own field.  But Middle-east is a general term and requires specialization in many sub-fields.  Thus if Savory says something, Minorsky says something, Togan says something and Lewis says something, Lewis's words are superceded by the previous three when it comes to Safavids.  Safavids were of mixed origin that is established.  Even at least one of Esmail's wife was not Turkomen.  One of the other Safavids (I forgot which king but I can easily look it up) married the daughter of the Nematullah Sheykh.   All these are known.  So Safavids were of mixed ethnic origin is established like Minorsky says.  I do not think anyone can disagree with that. Safavids were primarily Turcophone, that is true although for later Safavids although a republic of Azerbaijan site says: due to the cultural importance of the Persian language, the weight of the Persian-speaking bureaucracy and landlords, and the migration into the Persian heartland of the Safavid capital, the Persian language came to dominate the dynasty’s life..  Of course this does not necessarily negate Safavids remaining turcophone, but it shows that Persian was the cultural discourse of the empire.  Of course the massive amount of manuscripts proves this and even the Ghezelbash wrote in Persian.  But anyways I would like to see your suggestion for the introduction as well.  --alidoostzadeh 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess!

message: I wasted lots of my time trying to get an agreement on the terms and conditions but some PEOPLE pissed on all they said/agreed and went back to square one! Guys you have agendas and there is no point discussing anything with you! What is the assurance that we will not be at the same point in two years time? Who is running this show and who has the authority to be the single impartial point of contact? Unless we find one, we will be going round and round and round …. Don’t waist your times till we find that person. Kiumars 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious both sides have to compromise.  There are now 6 versions available for introduction.  So we need to narrow it to one.  --alidoostzadeh 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, we have no authority to compromise! Are you a representative of the Iranian people? Am I? What compromise? We are talking about the historical issues that may take decades if not centuries to be resolved! Who are we to compromise? What authorities do we have from our people to compromise? I was not elected by anyone to be here! Have you? What gives you any rights to compromise on behave of the Iranians? Wiki rules say that all evidences must be presented in the article and that is all we can do here, just list what people (some of them experts and some of them the local Gazettes!) have said! Wiki is not a scientific venue! It is only a cheap Gazette that is run by a bunch of unemployed teenagers! Look at the time these people post their posts, could they be doing a full time job and do this unless they are unemployed or are paid for doing what they are doing? NO! Kiumars 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say I am representative.. what we need is an introduction sentence or two where everyone is somewhat satisfied (and no one will be 100% satsified). Wiki takes up unnecessary time.  --alidoostzadeh 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kiumars, this is not about about "voting someone to speak on behalf of someone", and this is not about "Iranians vs. Turks". The only thing that matters is factual accuracy. Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007; What kind of academic qualifications do you have to decide what the “factual accuracy” is? When I go to a chemist to buy a bottle of aspirin I expect them to be fully qualified for selling it! Are you qualified and recognised in what you (I do not mean you personally but in general) say you are here? What do I know about you but a pseudo name on Wiki? What do you know about me but a pseudo name on wiki? Who am I? Who are you? How qualified are we to make any educated comments? Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from me without checking my certificates?  No! But I have to take any shit all the unqualified people here say on this subject! Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from an unqualified person? Why do you expect me to buy a historical story from a bunch of unqualified people? Excuse the expression but it is a shiiiiiiiit! Kiumars 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ali you are welcome to censor this (as before) if you wish! Kiumars 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kiumars, I really do not care whether you believe that I (or any other person in here) is qualified or not. If you have any problems with the rules of Wikipedia, then - with all due respect - you should leave this website to people who at least know a little bit what they talk about. Tājik 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the good thing I like about Wikipedia is not wikipedia itself.  But when I see a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense, I go research it and try to find the truth of the matter.  For the most part I think the average person is aware is that Wikipedia is not scholarly source when it comes to many articles..--alidoostzadeh 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity issues: I am fed up with this ....! 

message: Can someone edit the origins section and correct the formatting. The sentence "he is believed to be Kurdish" was actually before introduction of Sheikh Safi, so I tried to move to the end of another reference and screwed up the formatting. Thanks. Atabek 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.Azerbaijani 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That section is next! But what is the point when all those tags are there already?   What we need something for the intro first (succint, polished and to the point).  I hope to see some comments on the other four versions (three by me and one by tombeyese (sp?) from other users including Azerbaijani and Atabek.   I believe we will eventually reach one where everyone agrees although no one is going to be 100% happy..  --alidoostzadeh 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins section

message: There can be no compromise when it comes to the facts. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. POV and personal opinions should have no place here. All nationalistic feelings should be put aside. The article must be edited by non biased people who are not Turks or Persians.
The Safavid Identity was Persian. They were a predominatly Persian speaking dynasty. That is why the ONLY official language of Iran was Persian. Like I said before, their court language and all of their laws was only written in Persian. It just does not make sense to say that they were a "Turkic" speaking dynasty....If they were really Turks then why did they deny their own heritage so strongly! Iran,during the Safavid era had no "turkic" identity. Some of the best classical Persian literature and poetry was written during their time. Some of the grandest and most extravagent Persian architecture is also from the Safavid Empire. Just look at Esfahan. I will admit that a few of their Shahs were half Azari but that does not make the whole empire "turkic". Most of the Safavid Shahs were predominatly ethnic Persians. 
The articles introduction should state that, "The Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty that reasserted the Persian identity of the region".
That is fact and there is no reason to vandalise the article anymore.Dariush4444 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darius444 welcome to the discussion but please calm down alittle bit.    The Safavid identity was truely a mixture in terms of ethnicity and the article should reflect that.  Iranian culturally, Shi'i religion  but primary Turkic linguistically although bilingual.  I think this article can easily reflect this mixture.  At the same time Safavid did re-assert Iranian identity.  Nowruz, Chaharshanbeh Suri, Tiregan , Shahnameh, Iranian ceremonies like Sofreh, Zurkhaneh.. were supported by the courts as was basically a Persian cultural state for the most part since the Turkomen did not have the weight in the administrative and cultural part as they did in the military.  Shi'ism itself has lots of Iranian components which is complicated to deal with and currently Shi'ism is part of the culture.  I am going to look for more suggestions before I compile all the suggestions.  So please give your suggestion as well.  --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dariush, the court language (as well as military) of Safavids was Azerbaijani, along with Persian. Hence, Azerbaijani was an official language, although perhaps not state language of Dowlat-e Safavi. Also, they did write in Azerbaijani, not just poetic divans, but also letters and laws. Here's a sample collection, from a book published in Azerbaijan and using Azerbaijan's State Archives, of transliterated (from Azerbaijani Arabic script into modern Azerbaijani Latin alphabet) 'farmans', laws, and letters, including one faximille of a Shah Ismail 'farman' in original Arabic script  and  --AdilBaguirov 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Compromise

message: Here is a quote from Mazzaoui who in turn quotes Togan.  A similar conclusion was arrived at by the great Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan working independently many years after Kasrawi. Togan again worked with several manuscripts of Safwat as-safat, and gave selections from two of them in extenso to show how the original text of Ibn al-Bazzaz had been tampered with. Togan concludes that "II ne fait aucun doute que les souverains Shah Isma'il et Shah Tahmasb se sont donne toutes les peines du monde pour effacer de I'histoire leur origin e kurde, pour attribuer au kurde Firouz la qualite de descendant du Prophete, et pour faire valoir que le Shaykh Safi etait un shaykh turc shiite, auteur de poemes turcs" (babel fish translator: There is not any doubt that the sovereigns Shah Ismâ' ïl and Shah Tahmâsb gave each other all the sorrows of the world to erase their history, their Kurdish origin, to allot to Kurdish Firouz the quality of descendant of the Prophet, and to make the point that Shaykh Safï was a Turkish shaykh shïlte, Turkish author of poems)..  Of course  as mentioned Prof. Togan has two existant pre-safavid manuscripts.  In those manuscripts it says چون نسبت فیروز به کرد رفت translation: since Firuzshah Zarin Kolah was Kurdish.  Also in the geneology it put Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani.  Thus the geneology of the Shaykh according to the oldest documents we have is:  Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul-Fatah Ishaq ibn al-Shaykh al-amin na-din Jabrail ibn al-salih qutb ad-din Abu Bakr ibn Salah ad-din Rashid ibn Muhammad al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah ibn 'awaaḍ ibn Piruz Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani.  
So in English:
1) Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah the Kurd of Sanjan 
2) 'awaaḍ 
3) Muhammad Al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah 
4) Salah ad-din Rashid 
5) As-Salih Qutb ad-din Abu-Bakr
6) Shaykh Amin ad-din Gabriel 
7) Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul Fatah Al-Eshaq  (Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili)
8) Sadr ad-din Musa 
9) Khwadja Ali
10) Ibrahim
11) Shaykh Junayd  (turned to Shi'ism?)
12) Haydar
13) Ali
14) Ismail I  1501–1524 (the rest from the current wikipedia article)
15) Tahmasp I 1524–1576
16) Ismail II 1576–1578
17) Mohammed Khodabanda 1578–1587
18) Abbas I 1587–1629
19) Safi 1629–1642
20) Abbas II 1642–1666
21) Suleiman I 1666–1694
22) Sultan Hoseyn I 1694–1722 (real end of dynasty)
23) Tahmasp II 1722–1732
24) Abbas III 1732–1736
25) Suleiman II 1749–1750
26) Ismail III 1750–1760  (official end of Safavid sufi order?)(have to look it up).
 --alidoostzadeh 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  genealogy 

message: Here is my proposal, based on reworded Atabek’s proposal. Before rejecting it, please explain which line you disagree and which line you agree with. Let’s identify the statements we agree on and try to build a consensus on that. 
The Safavid dynasty (1501-1722) was a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736) and established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and linguistic heritage and Shiite branch of Islam, which became the basis of the contemporary Iranian national identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries. 
Grandmaster 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the proposal.  But I have some comments.  Safavids actually re-asserted Iranian identity.  Also shi'ism is part of the Iranian national identity but re-assertion of Iranian identity as mentioned by Savory is better.  I think the former wording with re-assertion of Iranian identity was better and we need to add that they were a dynasty of mixed origin who were primarily turcophone.  Also it should be mentioned Safavids officially called their state/government/empire Iran.   Also it is a well known fact that Esmail I actually started his conquest from Gilan (Encyclopedia of Islam in Lahijan) but the Safavid Sufi order was established in Ardabil but the great great.. ancestor of the actual founder of the order originated according to the concensus of most scholars in Persian Kurdistan.   Also the term Iranian Azerbaijan seems vague since there is no clear boundaries for such a term whereas Ardabil or Lahijan in Gilan are very clear.  I have gathered this proposal (see below).  I will be waiting for more proposals before I put them in one page.  Please feel free to give more proposals as I have given three versions myself. --alidoostzadeh 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, if Iranian Azerbaijan is vague (which can be easily recified by providing boundaries in parenthesis), then what about "Persian Kurdistan"? --AdilBaguirov 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adil,the boundaries of Persian Kurdistan is vague as you mention.  This is the best term I am aware of  due to the fact that Sangan/Sanjan is not clearly located (like Esfahan or Ardabil) although it is mentioned in the literature.  There is at least one Sanjan in Iraqi Kudistan.  And one in Iranian Kurdistan (does not necessarily correspond to the Sanjan of Safavid or pre-Safavid times).  There is one in Khorasan (according to Qesseyeh Sanjan of Parsis).  Ardabil is not vague though.  It is a province in Iran and is a city with such a name.  Also as I mentioned the Safavid rise to political power started when Esmail left from Lahijan in Gilan and gathered in Ardabil.  Ardabil was a turning point but his decision to gain political power started from Lahijan.  I quote:   Ismā�īl left Lāhi��jān for Ardabīl to make his bid for power. By the time he reached Ardabīl, 1,500 followers from Syria and Anatolia had joined him ( .Hasan Rūmlū, Ahsan al- tawārīkh��, ed. G.N. Seddon, Baroda 1931, 25-6). From there, he sent heralds and couriers  to summon more supporters from those areas and also from Azararbāyj��ān and �Irāq-i �Aj��am  to a rendezvous at Arzin��djān, on the high road between ak Shekir and Erzerum. .   Currently we have Ardabil which is fine.   I also quote Encyclopedia of Islam: There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistān, and later moved to Azarbayjan, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabīl.   I have no problem with such an exact quote.  But the original above does not mention Lahijan.  I think the current: Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in Northern Iran is accurate. By the context Ardabil, a city in Iran, everything is clear although I think Lahijan can be mentioned.  Mentioning Iranian Azerbaijan, Gilan, Persian Kurdistan and etc. in the first sentence seems cluttering (and then which one comes first.. and etc.).  Also what is the boundaries of Iranian Azerbaijan or Persian Kurdistan?  If you ask PKK and Chehregani you will get about 30% overlap.  Ardabil though leaves no ambiguity. --alidoostzadeh 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal 

message: I will edit the part of the introduction that says, "they were predominatly Turkic speaking". That is not true. Most of the Safavid Shahs used Persian as their first language. I have already provided the reasons and evidence so I will not keep repeating myself.Dariush4444 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have compromise and we have worked for weeks on that quote now. Providing your arguments is not sufficient for editing, you must be able to come to compromise and discuss. Atabek 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Language

message: We can all thank GM, Tajik, Atabek for giving their suggestions and they can give various versions.   I believe some other users will give their suggestions as well.  Thus I reverted my previous edit on the talk page and I will wait for some other suggestions from various users.  Darius444 please give your suggestion on the talk page as well.    But I believe the scheme I propose may work.  --alidoostzadeh 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions 

message: This is from a French scholar Jean Aubin referencing medieval sources of Takmilat al-Ahbar (1501) and Sirag al-Ansab:
::Dès 906 printemps 1501, avant que le sort des armes ait décidé entre Alvand Beg et Les Qizilbas, Amir Zakarya dans le camp de Shah Ismail, par conviction religieuse s'il faut en croire le Takmilat al-Ahbar parce qu'Alvand Beg voulait lui faire restituer cinquante tomans au dire du Sirag al-Ansab. Shah Ismail, qui avait la manie du sobriquet, montra l'importance qu'il attachait à ce premier ralliement et décernant à Amir Zakarya le titre de "clef de l'Azerbaydjan". (Jean Aubin, "Etudes safavides", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 2, No. 1. (Jan., 1959), pp. 37-81.
English translation (per me):
::In the spring of 1501, before the fate of war was decided between Alvand Beg and Qizilbas, Amir Zakarya passed to the camp of Shah Ismail, by religious conviction (according to Takmilat Al-Ahbar) or because Alvand Beg wanted to make Amir Zakarya pay fifty tomans (according to statement in Sirag Al-Ansab). Shah Ismail, who had the mania for the nicknames, showing the importance which he attached to this first rally of support and granted Amir Zakarya the title of the "key of Azerbaijan".
Obviously Ismail, considered Azerbaijan as a standalone objective achievement and upon entering Tabriz proclaimed himself a Shah of Azerbaijan as cited by Tapper. Also, Takmilat al-Ahbar and Sirag al-Ansab sources may be worth researching. Thanks. Atabek 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is not obvious.  It does not say Ismail I maded a proclamation saying I am Shah of Azerbaijan.  The best source on the matter is Alem Aray Safavi which I will look at during this week to see how exactly Esmail I was crowned and what he proclaimed.  Encyclopedia of Islam again: Although masters initially only of Āzarbayijān, and despite the fact that Al-wand was mustering fresh forces; that another Aq qoyunlu prince, Murād, was still in possession of Fārs and Irā4-i Ajam; and that the Tīmūrids still controlled Khurāsān, the saafawids had in fact won the struggle for power in Persia which had been going on for nearly a century since. --alidoostzadeh 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, again provide the evidence of what Ismail proclaimed himself in Tabriz? He must have proclaimed himself a Shah of something. I have provided you so far with evidence that he did proclaim himself Shah of Azerbaijan from Tapper, supporting evidence from Jean Aubin, that Azerbaijan was his strategic objective at the time of crushing the armies of Alvand, as well as source from EI that shows that at the time of proclamation in Tabriz, Ismail controlled Azerbaijan ONLY. I do not deny that Ismail had aspirations to all of Iran, this is acknowledged by all scholars. I only insist on the fact that Ismail did proclaim himself the shah of what he controlled at the time in Tabriz and what his objective as spelled out by Aubin's quote. Atabek 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to look at Alem Aray Abbassi soon with this regard. But I have a book that quotes it and it says Esmail I was crowned in Tabriz.   It is clear Esmail controlled most of Azerbaijan and parts of Gilan and when he won victory in Tabriz, he was crowned Shah.  The Jean Aubin quote has nothing to do with the proclamation of Esmail.  Esmail I just gave Amir Zakarya a title.  Safavids also gave provincial governors title.  The connection you are trying to make is not linked with what I have said. The problem I have with tappers sentence (and note since he is anthropologist as I described below and since account differs from the two EIs I have the right to argue with this regard and note if you bring Minorsky then I will accept) is the intrepretation of his quote.  What I understand from the situation is that: Esmail I was crowned Shah after capturing Tabriz.  But he never said: I am the Shah of Azerbaijan.  Tappers quote which I believe actually is trying to say the same thing as two EIs refers to this.  I will seek clarification from Alem Aray Abbassi.  Thus until we have further clarification we should just put the information from the two EIs which are written by historians and not add another dispute to the other two matters: 1) introduction 2) Shaykh Safi's origin.  Thus with regards to what the two EIs said, there is no need to bring evedince from anyone.  But with regards to tapper, clearly more evidence needs to be brought and that is direct evidence and not connection of unrelated matters.--alidoostzadeh 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, as I said, instead of countering Richard Tapper, a scholar, with your own statement "Ismail never proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan", you should provide reference to the Shah of what he proclaimed himself in Tabriz. My reference to Aubin is very relevant, since it shows that in 1501 Ismail did have Azerbaijan as his military and strategic objective, and that in spring 1501 right before entering Tabriz, did award the title "Key to Azerbaijan" to Amir Zakarya, he did not award the title "Key to Iran" or "Key to Gilan". Atabek 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know he didn't?  Have you read all Safavids manuscripts to make such a claim that he did not or did?  When one makes a general statement, they need to prove it for all cases and not a single case.  As per reference, Alem Arrayy Abbassi will be my reference. And note your reference has no relationship to the statement of Esmail I making that proclamation according to Tapper who I will repeat is an anthropologist...  Of course Azerbaijan was important for Esmail I as a strategic and base region although the Safavids did survive without Azerbaijan when it was in Ottoman hands.  But we are discussing another issue.  What and where was Esmail I's proclamation.  This is discussed in the 'Alem Arraay Abbassi which I will bring in this article.  But till then, the two EI articles are all we have from specialists about how Esmail I rose to power and what he proclaimed or did not.  --alidoostzadeh 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, if he did, then you should provide the quote that he did award such title, not deny what scholar wrote already with nothing. You have not a single quote yet to prove that Ismail did not proclaim himself Shah of Azerbaijan but a Shah of "something else". I don't want to repeat this discussion, until and unless you do provide full verifiable quote to Shah of what Ismail proclaimed himself. Atabek 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting source

message: Interestingly the Uzbek ruler when fighting Esmail I says:I have heared Shaykh Safi was a Sunni...
Also part of Persian letter from Esmail I to the Uzbek Khan: غالبا گروه مکروه و آن طایفه بی شکوه تاراج و یغمای اموال مومنین را رواج و احیای دین خاتم نبیین و خون ناحق و کفر مطلق را رونش ...و در نهایت شقاوت آرای باطله و اهوای فاسه را قوانین مصطفوی و قواعد مذهب مرتضوی انگارند
Part of the quincit poem of Esmail I :
'''
چو آفتاب رخت نیست ماه در خاور
نهاده پیش قدت سرو، سرکشی از سر
ندیده است چو روی تو ای پری پیکر
ب زیر زلف دو تا، چون نگه کنی بنگر
که از یمین و یسارت چه بی قرارانند
  --alidoostzadeh 05:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uzbek and Shaykh Safi ad-din and a poem from Esmail I in Persian 

message: partial from an article from Safavids in Persian which directly quotes Alem Araay Abbassi and I will mention the Alem Araay Abbassi portion:
هم در اوایل جلوس امر کرد که خطبای ممالک خطبه ائمه ی اثنی عشر علیهم صلوات الله المک الاکبر خوانند. اشهد ان علیا ولی الله، و ، حی علی خیر العمل، که از آمدن طغرل سلجوقی (528 سال قبل)از بلاد اسلام بر طرف شده بود به اذان ضمیمه کنند.
This is pretty much what Encyclopedia of Islam says based on the book Habib al-siyar:
Coins were minted in his name; the ��khut�ba was read in the name of the Twelve Imāms, and the Imāmī rite was proclaimed the true religion.  
Thus I will look into Habib al-Siyar and Alem Arraay Abbassi for the full proclamation of Esmail I.  Till then I believe we should stick with the two EIs or any other source written by any Safavid historian.  --alidoostzadeh 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being discussed now? I think the discussion went off topic again. I proposed a new version of the intro, it was rejected without any explanation. If we could identify what was wrong with it, we could have found the ways to resolve the dispute. I think Ali can propose his own version, and we will discuss it. But I want him also to check my proposal and tell me which part he considers to be unacceptable, and propose better wording instead. Grandmaster 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was discussed above.  --alidoostzadeh 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial part of Esmail I's proclamation  from Alem Araay Abbassi 

message: Again, here is more evidence, on top of the incredible amount of evidence that Tajik and Ali have already been brought up.
Here is a quote from Donald Wilber (Iran Past and Present page 66-67):
"The Safavid period saw the reestablishment of a truly native Iranian dynasty after the lapse of eight centuries, and the resulting revival of national spirit and unity may be compared to the movement which sprang up when the Sassanian dynasty arose after the long Graeco-Parthian domination of the country. The founder and first ruler of the Safavid dynasty, Shah Isma'il, came into prominence as the leader of seven Turkish tribes of Azerbaijan. These tribes, known collectively as the Qizil Bash or "Red Heads," could put 70,000 armed horsemen in the field. Isma'il himself was not a Turkish chief but had won respect as the descendant of a long line of religious leaders and the head of an order of dervishes. The progenitor of his like was Shaykh Safi Ad-din of Ardabil, a Moslem saint, preacher, and workder of miracles, who lived from 1252 until 1334."
Atabek, the evidence is overwhelmingly against your POV.Azerbaijani 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Evidence