Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 2

message: I am a bit confused as to the true title of the monarch who succeeded Abbas II. He's given as Suleiman I here. The traveller John Chardin, who was at his coronation, wrote a book called The Coronation of Suleiman III. The website isfahan.org.uk  says that his original name was Shah Safi, changed to Suleiman III afterwards. 
Clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Peripatetic 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suleiman I or Suleiman III?

message: Great...another example of Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism against Azeri history...rewriting history to deny Azeris their place in Iranian history...Persians and Armenians are natural allies, aren't they?
: If you say so ... -Tajik 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Farsification" and Falsification 

message: *Safavid dynasty
*Safi od-Din
(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.
Safi od-Din, a descendant of a family of provincial administrators, obtained his early education in Ardabil, where his family held dependencies as a land grant from the central government. Later, in Shiraz, he was influenced by Sufi (mystical) teachings. He then traveled to the province of Gilan (the Iranian Caspian province), where he spent 25 years as a murid (spiritual follower) of Sheikh Zahid, whose daughter Bibi Fatimah he married. The other spiritual followers of Sheikh Zahid, following his death, transferred their allegiance to Safi od-Din, who then returned to Ardabil, where he formed the Safavid order.
Neither Britannica entry mentions their ethnic background unfortunately, only that they were from Ardabil. SouthernComfort 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Britannica

message: *Safavid dynasty
*Ismail, Shah of Persia
(säfä´wd) (KEY) , Iranian dynasty (1499–1736), that established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official state religion. The Safavid state provided both the territorial and societal foundations of modern Iran. Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.
(smäl´) (KEY) , 1486–1524, shah of Persia (1502–24), founder of the Safavid dynasty. He restored Persia to the position of a sovereign state for the first time since the Arab invasion of Persia. Ismail established the Shiite form of Islam as the state religion; this gained him the animosity of the Uzbeks and the Ottoman Turks, who were Sunni Muslims. He warred on the Uzbeks successfully in 1510, and Selim I attacked him in 1514, thus initiating a long series of border wars between the Ottoman Turks and the Persians.
Columbia does, however. But only says they were "Turkic-speaking" and does not identify the exact ethnic background. I don't know about this Kurdish or Persian issue, but I'm more inclined towards Azeri. SouthernComfort 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that they were "Turkic-speaking" was based on the fact that Ismail wrote many poems in Turkish. But as you can read above, it is attested that he also wrote many poems in Persian. Besides that, writing poems does not define the ethnic background of a dynasty. If that were the case, then the Ghaznavids were naturally Persians, because they were Persian-speaking, they supported Persian literature, and many of the Ghaznavid sultans even wrote Persian poems themselvs. However, the Ghaznavids are still considered "Turkish" ... The Encyclopaedia Iranica is specialized on Iranian and Islamic studies. Thus, it has more weight than Britannica or the online version of Columbia. The "Persian heritage" is also accepted my MOST of the modern historians: "... Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. ..." -Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto, 16 March 1995 Tajik 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Monika Gronke is a very reliable source. She has also written important works on the "Kizlbash" and on the Shia movement in Iran. Btw: Safi ud-Din Eshaq's heritage is attested in the "Silsilat al-Nisab Safawiyah" ... he was a descendant of the Firuz Shah "Zarrin-Kollah" al-Kordi you have mentioned in your comment. He was married to the daughter of Sheikh Zahed ud-Din Gilani al-Sanjani, a Persian Sufi grand-master from Gilan (originally from Khorasan). Tajik 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbia

message: May I remind everyone that it is WP stated policy that:
*"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  
*"It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."
Therefore no one has the authority here to make judgments about sources and accuse Dehkhoda Dictionary and Encyclopedia Iranica as being "biased" and "not acceptable as neutral". The fact that it has been cited by these sources which can be verified, makes them 100% sufficient to include in the article.--Zereshk 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP policy

message: The Safavids might have had Turkish origins, and I am sure they spoke Turkish. But like the similarly Turkish dynasties in India and Turkey, the language of culture was Persian. Furthermore Shah Abbas moved his capital to Esfahan precisely to "Persianify" his kingdom. he found the Turkmen, Georgian, and Chechen parties at court to be disruptive to affairs of state. He activly promoted a Persian identity for the nation. Thats history. But who cares? It was the past, let go.
: They Safavids did not speak Turkish; and even IF, that's only true for the first 2 kings. -Tajik 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You fail to understand this because you reject the AUTHORITIVE information taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Important scholars from all over the world attest that the ORIGIN of the Safavids was not Turkish. Safi ud-Din Ardabili (who is known for his NON-TURKISH, Azeri-Persian poems) was 100% not Turkish. And even the claim that "Safavids were Turkish-speaking" is wrong, because Persian has always been an important element of Safavid reign. While during the first 3 Shahs Turkmen Kizilbash were the major factor of the dynasty (and thus, Turkish was used by the leading Kizilbash lords and governours) along with Persian (the language of the "wakils", comparable to "wazir"), this Turkish element was eliminated under Shah Abbas who transfered the power of state on NON-Turkmens - mostly on Georgians and Armenians who spoke Persian. He transfered the capital to Isfahan and took the old title "Shahnshah". He eliminated the old Arabic names for the army and instead re-established Persian titles, such as "Sepahsalar", "Sardar", and so on. You can read all the information in the following EIr-article: Abbas The Great, p.71-75 So, BOTH claims are wrong: Safavids were NEITHER Turkish in origin NOR in language. Turkish was not the language of the Safavids but the language of the early Kizilbash (who later became Persianized - both in language and ethnicity). Of course, Safavids had intermarried with various Turkic clans, the most important being the daughter of Uzun Hassan. However, Uzun Hassan's wife was not Turkish but Greek, and therefore, Ismail was only 1/4 Turkish. This does not qualify him to be called "Turkish" ... if you take a look at the Ghaznavids you will easily realized that the so-called "Turkish" Ghaznavids were much more Persian than Safavids being Turkish: "Ghaznavids", Encyclopaedia Iranica Tajik 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: as you can see in the article about Shah Abbas, the Turkoman Kizilbash used the word "Tajik" as a synonym for "Persian", clearly proving that "Tajik" and "Persian" have the same meaning. Tajik 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tajik, stop persisting. Their origin was definitely Turkic.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 11:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turks but culturally Persian 

message: I am not going to comment on some Persian nationalist propaganda alleging that Azeris are in fact "Turkified Persians". These allegations have nothing to do with neither history, nor sober mind. 
But I am more concerned about the attempt of certain users like User:Tajik to dictate his will to other editors and deny the obvious and well-established fact that Safavids were Turkic-speaking dynasty and originally from Azerbaijan. This issue has been already addressed in detail, and any person can look at Talk:Safavids/Archive1 to find answers to all the questions (s)he has with regard to Safavids origins and mother tongue.
Please, see the posts in Archive1, and particularly,
Quotes from Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia & Dictionary, as well as Iranian sources themselves, which recognize Safavids being Turkic-speaking and of Azeri origin
Excerpts from the Cambridge History of Iran
Excerpts from Wilber, Donald N., Iran. Past and Present. Ninth edition. From Monarchy to Islamic Republic. Princeton University Press; AND Armajani, Yahya. IRAN, The Modern Nations in Historical Perspectives. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood, Cliffs, New Jersey. 1972
Summary of all the sources and facts discussed, from medieval chronicles (Safwat as Safa, to authoritative Western and even Iranian sources
"Encyclopedia Iranica" which Tajik has as the only source, cannot be considered as a neutral source, since it is written by Persian authors and reflect Persian pov. In any case, Cambridge History of Iran is far more respectable source than some "Encyclopedia Iranica", also medieval chronicles such "Safwat as Safa" clearly mention that Sheikh Safi was a Turk. (see Archive 1 talkpage for details)
Also, Tajik in his last edit, where he ostensibly made a "compromise" and accepted that "early" Safavids were Turkic speaking, claimed that Safavids became native Persian-speakers later ("the Turkic elements of the dynasty were replaced by Persian elements "). This is manipulation with the facts, because, even though it is true that after shah Abbas, the role of the Persian ethnic elements in the Safavid state increased, but the dynasty itself never ceased to be Turkic-speaking and Turkic element was dominant untill the very end of the Safavid state in 1736.
Below is the excerpt from Adam Olearius, a German traveller to the Safavid State in mid XVII c. (after shah Abbas and "replacement of Turkic elements with Persian elements" as Tajik put it):
 
"Most of the Persians*, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars (which is the ancient Persia) and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language."
(*)In medieval times, term "Persian" was (mistakenly) used to refer to the whole population of the Safavid state (or Persia or Iran) not considering their ethnic background. 
(Source: "The Travels of Olearius in 17th century Persia" (Translated by John Davies (1662); online: http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/olearius/travels.html
Here is another quote from another German traveller Engelbert Kaempfer who travelled to the Safavids state in late XVII c. 
"'A Turkish dialect, which is a native language of the Safavid dynasty, is widely spread in the Iranian palace. This language differs from the usual speaking language of the country population. The Turkish language is spread in the palace and in the houses of high officials and respectable persons and as a result, it came out, that everyone, who wishes to gain the shah's respect speaks in this language." 
(Onullahi S.M., Hassanov A. G. "About two more unknown letters of the Safavid rulers" (Safavi hokmdarlarinin daha iki na'melum mektubu haqqinda) Baku 1974 p. 85 (in Azeri)
These quotes are sole evidence to the fact that Safavids always remained Turkic-speaking, even at the late stages of the dynasty. Further removal of the brief and precise facts depicting Safavids as a "Iranian dynasty of Turkic-speaking, Azeri origin" should be considered as (sneaky) vandalism. --Tabib 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Late Safavids were also Turkic-speaking

message: User:Tabib claims that the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is "not neutral" and "only written by Persian". However, if you take a look at the official website of the Iranica, you will see that the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is mostly written by western scholars, including the world-famous Richard Frye, Nicholas Sims-Willaims, Mary Boyce, R. M. Savory, etc. In case of the article "Abbas the Great", it is written by no less authority than that of Prof. Savory p. 75, end-notes with reference to Iskandar Beg Monshi, the most detailed biography of Shah Abbas I, and explanation of the "Tathkarat al-Moluk" by the respected V. Minorsky. Here is a list of the "International Committee" of the EIr:  and a full list of "consulting editors" .
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is THE source for Middle Eastern and Oriental, especially Iranian studies. That'S what world-famous Orientalists say about the Iranica: . 
User:Tabib rejects the AUTHORITIVE Iranica (authoritive = being more important and more detailed than all other Encyclopaedias) because the Iranica disproves his Pan-Turkist claims. None of the sources provided by Tabib can be considered "equal" to the Encyclopaedia Iranica, not even Columbia or Britannica.
And therefore ---> revert to pervious version. 
As for "Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya": it is the MAIN source of the Iranica authors and ALL of them (including the famous TURKISH historian Zeki Velidi Togan) agree that, according to the Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya, the origin of the Safavids was IRANIAN (Kurdish) and not Turkic 
Tajik 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None as authoritative as Iranica? But he mentions Encarta and Colombia encyclopedias, Cambridge History of Iran, and so on. El_C 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are talking about Iranian studies, and in this case, the "Iranica" is THE most authoritive Encyclopaedia, because - unlike Encarta (which is not really "authoritive"), Britannica, Columbia, etc - the Iranica is specialized on these issues. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is a grand-project of the Columbia University (in cooperation with many other universities worldwide, including the famous "University of London" or "Universität Tübingen" in Germany) and concentrates on the Islamic and pre-Islamic history of Iran and the Middle East. The Iranica has more information about the Safavids than Columbia, Britannica, and Encarta TOGETHER. It is written by respected orientalists (Richard Frye, Prof. at the Harvard University, is considered the "grandmaster" of Iranian studies, Nicholas Sims-Willaims is the one who translated the "ancient scripts of Bactria", and so forth). In not so far future, the "Iranica" will be the main source for the Britannica or for Columbia. This discussion is totally hillarious. A known Pan-Turkists like User:Tabib is argueing that the Encyclopaedia Iranica - a grand-project of a respected major university and funded by many governmental institutions in the US and EU - "is not neutral, because it is written by Persians". This is totally hillarious! Iranica says that the Safavids - being descendants of the Perso-Kurdish mystic Sheikh Safi ud-Din Ardabeli (who is known for his Persian and Pahlavi peoms) and of the Persian Sufu grand-master Sheikh Zahed Gilani as-Sanjani - were of IRANIAN origin. Besides that, it is attested by the Iranica that during Shah Abbas' reign, the Turkoman elements of the dynasty (including the role of the early Turkoman "Qzelbash") were removed and instead replaced by Persian elements (for example Persian military titles like "Sepahsalar", instead of Arabic military titles that were used by the Turks). He declared the Persian city Isfahan the new capital of his empire, signilizing his independence from the Turkoman militia in Qazvin and Ardabil. He removed all Turkoman "wakils" and instead appointed Persian, Georgian, Indian and Armenian "gholams". Persian became the "lingua franca" of the dynasty, and the main language of court. That's why even the successors of the Safavids - the Afsharids and Qajars, both Turkoman in ethnicty - were Persian in language and culture. Tajik 13:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Encyclopaedia Iranica" 

message: First of all, how could it be called Turkic Azervaijani, when to concept of Azerbaijani identity was non existant in those periods? If my memory doesn't fail me, it was called Turkic speaking in the past history of this article which is the most accurate description. And I find it rather hypocritic from Tabibs part to add a totally disputed tag in another article because while the large majority of historians accept a POV which is different than Turkish and Azeris POV in the other cases. If one was to use his standard a totallydisputed tag should be added in this article because the Iranian POV is not presented. Furthermore, in the past Tabib has deleted a sentence I have included, quoting from a Western Iranologist depicting the identity of the founder, and my action was in good faith trying to resolve the conflict. While I wasn't even denying the Turkic speaking nature of the dynasty, neither the quote I have added was, he deleted it, and the only reason how I could explain this act was because there was the word Kurd in that edit. No matter what, if Turkish positions have spaces in articles where the majority of historians thesis is opposit to theirs, I don't see why Iranian thesis should not have a place in an article in which the majority of historian disagree with that position. Regardless of what is true or not, Wikipedia present positions and I believe that a section on Iranian position would be a fair thing to do, in which the Encyclopedia Iranica is included. And if Tabib is up to his own standards he would add a totally disputed tag in this article until it is done as he does in other articles the content he does not like. Fad (ix) 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "Iranian position"? There is none displayed here. Iranica's contributors are mostly non-Iranian, and they do not operate from some sort of pro-Iranian POV - that's why it's funded by the American government. The issue is whether or not Iranica actually says anything about the Safavids ethnic background, which doesn't seem like it. SouthernComfort 10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to help, my point was more like if this position exist there should be no problem giving it space. As for the Dynasty official language, I also always thought it was mostly Turkic dialects, and I believe previously a better suited proposition saying that it was Turkic speaking was better. Also, some Kurdish origine which I have previously added deleted by Tabib should also be indicated about the founder. Anyways, it's up to you guys to sort this out, I am not getting involved there. Fad (ix) 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian POV do have a space

message: There was no language called Azeri at that time, the position of James J. Reid was that the court language is claimed to be Chaghatay Turkish, but John E, Woods made the distinction between 'elite' and ' lingua franca' and claimed that for this reason it would be a mistake to claim so because the ruling elite according to him still spoke not only various Turkic languages, but also Kurdish and even Luri dialects. Fad (ix) 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ancient Azari language. SouthernComfort 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about the Royal Court, and Azeri as in Azerbaijani Turkic, I don't know much about ancient Azari to comment. Fad (ix) 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Northern Iranian Language ? What is that ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article deals with the pre-Turkic indigenous language of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan). I pointed it out to clarify to Fadix that there has always been a language called "Azari/Azeri," both pre-Turkic and post-Turkic. SouthernComfort 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have looked at the article. I am confused of which it says. Azeri Turkish is just an accent of Turkish. gramatical rules are the same. Do Azeries have some works of it ? I really want to see. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't deal with Azeri Turkish, but the language of Azerbaijan before the Turkic arrival. SouthernComfort 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: During his reign, the official language at the royal court was Azeri

message: The Safavids were Iranian and their culture was Persian. The only real turks are the ones in mongolia and outer China.
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
: by that, I am asking you to stop this non-sense revert war.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 13:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safavids were Persian

message: The Republic of Azerbaijan comprises the Transcaucasian or northern part of the historic region called Azerbaijan. Known to the ancients as Albania, the area was linked to the history of Armenia and Persia, particularly after its conquest (4th cent.) by Shapur II. Overrun later by Mongols, it was divided after the fall (15th cent.) of Timur into several principalities (notably Shirvan). The territory of the present Azerbaijan was acquired by Russia from Persia through the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkamanchai (1828).Zmmz 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what is this supposed to prove? I never argued that many Azeris were descendants of Iranian-speaking people, while many were descendants of Caucasian people, who adopted Turkic language after the Turkic conquest of the area. It does not mean that they are currently Persian or any other people, they are Azerbaijani, Turkic people. For some reason certain Persian editors take Azeri Turkic origins of Safavid dynasty with great animosity, while millions of Azeris are loyal citizens of the state of Iran. I see this as disrespect for Azerbaijani people, who deserve recognition of their role in the history of Iran. Grandmaster 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry man, Azeris are Turkic people. Open any encyclopaedia at all, you’ll see that. The origins can be whatever, but what is really important is the language. Azeri language is one of the Turkic languages, so Azeris are Turks. Of course they have a lot in common with Persians in terms of history, culture, customs, etc, but they still are Turks. I actually find your last edit (native Iranian dynasty who speak an ancient Turkic language) to be pointless, of course nobody spoke modern languages at that time, even Persian, Russian and English of that era were different from the same modern languages. So I suggest you remove the word “ancient” and revert back to your previous version, it made more sense. Grandmaster 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References in Regards to Safavid Azeris as Persians