Talk:Qizilbash/Archive 1

message: Also this article has no specific dates, which are useful for, you know, historical context.
Um, so which religion?  Islam?  That would be kind of good to know. NickelShoe 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious group

message: Hezbollah, there is no evidence presented to refute these studies of the kizilbash in turkey.  Please stop removing them from the entry. Nygdan 1-24-2006
Hezbollahi 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: I presumed that the name cited in the first paragraph, Haydar referred to this person: Qutb ad-Dīn Haydar, so I corrected the wiki link. Could someone please verify? Thanks. Alcarillo 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sheikh Heydar Safavi was not the same person as Qutb ud-Din Heydar. Tājik 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clarifying that. I noticed that Haydar (Safavids) hasn't been created yet. Would you be interesting in at least starting a stub page? Or maybe an article on Sheikh Heydar Safavi would be more accurate. Alcarillo 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heydar/Haydar 

message: Qizilbash is the most common spelling of this word in English texts. It's also closer to the original pronounciation. Jahangard 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Qizilbash]]

message: It has come to my attention that the main editors of this article are purposely using disputed and derogatory terms to define the Kazilbash, primarily using the literal meaning of the Arabic word "ghulat" to describe this group. This is a completley in accurate move and I would dispute this if this practice continues. The article on [Ghulat] is itself tainted for it calls the majority Sunni Muslims as the "mainstream". That term in itself should NOT be referenced to as a descriptor for the Kazilbash tribes, and if it has to be so, it should be carefully noted that this "extremist Shiite militant" reference does not have any historical accuracy, except for the fact that they belonged to the minority side of the Islamic tribal paradigm.
If you feel the "extremist militant" term should be continued, please put your reference forth where they committed "extremist militant" acts. 
--H2d2 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of the article is based on the academic and schlarly article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In that article - written by R.M. Savory and countless references to scholars such as A. Gölpinarli (still the undisputed expert on Turkish Sufi movements) - the Kizilbash are discribed as a "militant movement" (the word "tribe" is certainly wrong, because the Kizilbash were a religious and political movement and not an ethnic group) and as "ghulat". Here is an extract from the EI . Since the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a primary academic source, I suggest you revert your last edit and restore the previous version. Tājik 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The knowledge and level of understanding of the topic from a book written almost 100 years ago comes out right in the title, where it refers to Muslims as "Muhammadan Peoples". I remain on my point that the "militant extremist" is a derogatory and highly incorrect label to describe the Kizilbash people. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica  refers to a Kizilbash as "any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty". And I would take EB's word over another book which probably hasn't update it's article on these particular people since the first edition. Yes they revolted at times and toppled empires at others, but that doesn't mean they were "extremist" or "militant", because if that were they case then I would be personally editing the article on Sparta and make them a "extremist and militant city state". The following are some other links that discuss or define 'Kizilbash':
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/kizilbash.htm
http://www.askasia.org/teachers/essays/essay.php?no=135
http://www.religioscope.com/info/notes/2002_023_alevis.htm
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1999/issue4/zeidan.pdf
--H2d2 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "100 years ago"?! The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the most important reference work of oriental studies. It is a monumental online publication, and it is written by more than 400 experts from all over the world. The version you call "100 years old" was published in 2005! Britannica is not an academic source, and it does not cite its references. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, however, always cites its authors (all of them being professors in leading universities all over the world) and its references. The article Kizilbash is written by Prof. Roger M. Savory, the undisputed leading expert on Safavid history. Noone has published more works on Safavid history. This discussion is absolutely pointless, because you compare tomatos with cars. The academic quality of the EI is superior to any other source. There are only a very very few other academic sources that may be able to compete with the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Britannica's version is only focused on the Qizilbash military. The Wikipedia article, onm the other hand, gives a detailed insight into the Turkoman-Persian conflicts and the dual character of the movement - Britannica does not mention anything about this. Tājik 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Temp page has replaced the main article. RedWolf 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the use of the word extremist? 

message: Dear wiki writers Qizilbash is pure azeri word and means qizil-read (as a color, but also another meaning is gold) and bash- head. There is nothing to do with Tāj-e Heydar, which in persian (also in kurdish) means Heydar's crown.  Gulmammad (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tāj-e Heydar?

message: I have restored the original intro of the article which is based on the scholarly article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, written by Prof. R.M. Savory. In that article, the Qizilbash are described as a "wide variety of militant Shi'ite groups" and as "extremist" (ghulat). Savory quotes the Turkish scholar A. Gölpinarli, an renowned expert on Alevite and Qizilbash history. 
The section about the Turkoman tribes was a double-entry, because they were already mentioned (in detail) in the section "Turk & Tajik". 
Tājik (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: On 1 December 2008, editor Cplakidas changed "Sahkulu Uprising" to "Shahkulu Uprising" indicating a spelling error.  Google books provides a source for each usage: Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923 at page 101 for "Sahkulu Uprising"; and Contrasts and Solutions in the Middle East at page 441 for "Shahkulu Uprising".  As is common in names from the Middle East and South Asia, whether a particular "s" should be an "sh" is a common question, usually answered both ways.  Which of these two, verified in English language formal publication, is more likely to reflect the general English usage? I note that in the Turkish Wikipedia there are three related articles Şah Kulu, Şahkulu and Şahkulu İsyanı that all use the "Ş" with the cedilla indicating that at least in transliterating from Turkish the  "sh" variety should be used. --Bejnar (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have Finkel's Osman's Dream, and it is written Şahkulu, not Sahkulu, following the modern Turkish spelling (Google Books does have a tendency to simplify exotic spellings). Since "Ş" represents "Sh", and since the meaning of the term is "slave of the Shah", "Shahkulu" is doubtless the correct transliteration. Regards, Constantine   ✍  00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahkulu Uprising or Shahkulu Uprising

message: I have reverted the edit by an IP. Although it was not factually wrong (partially), the modern Alevi community developed out of the early Shia movement of Iran, but it is not identical with it. Tajik (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and since Alevi are generally considered Shi'a by the ulema and Western scholars, it is redundant to state. --Afghana [talk] 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV