Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 5

message: Suggestion: since the Safavid rule was mainly based on religion, I suggest we remove all ethnic lables and theories from the INTRO. The intro should only give a brief summary of the article, i.e. explaining the importance of the dynasty for declaring Shia Islam as the official religion of the country, and for re-igniting the Persian identity of the nation that was more or less lost after the Mongol invasion. 
The "ethnic origins" debate should be presented in detail and in a NPOV way in a special section, giving an insight into all valid theories and sources. What do you think? Tājik 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Bellow is the tomb picture of Sheykh Zahed Gilani, the spiritual leader of
syekh Safi-al-din in Lahijan  :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/interactivity/yourphotos/story/2007/01/070130_lahijan.shtml
Sohanaki 10:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The tomb picture of Sheykh Gilani

message: Very nice pictures from the above user.  We should probably find some pictures from Kalkhuran where members of Safavid family are buried and put it in the article.  --alidoostzadeh 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Professor Momen is very respected scholar of Shi'i and Bahai religion.  After emailing him, he said: It is almost thirty years ago now that I was writing this book , I have not myself specialized in Safavid history and By the way where did you get your information that he (Shaykh Safi ald-din) was Shafi`i from?.  Of course we know the Shaykh was Shafi'i (like virtually all Sunni Kurds and unlike virtually all Sunni Turks (Central Asia and also Tajiks and Afghans and Pakistanis are Hanafi as well)/Turkic-speakers (Turkey) who are Hanafi) from Mustawafi who lived at the time of the Shaykh and directly and explicitly mentions this.  (I can email Khoikhoi the email).   Thus I think it is best to stick with very recent sources like Iranica and Safavid historians in the area.  So far the discussion has been Savory, Frye and Minorsky.  I do not see any contradiction between what these authors have wrote.  Savory is right when he says the Safavid family was originally of Kurdish origin (I downgraded this to perhaps), Frye is right that the Safavids rised from Azeris and in the previous line he says Azerbaijanis are mainly Turkified Iranian speakers (mainly Kurds, Talesh, Tats...) and finally Minorsky is right that language does not equate race or nationality.  Ultimately the Shafi'iteness of the Shaykh and direct explicit reference to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah's Kurdish ancestor leaves no doubt in my mind although I have suggested perhaps.   --alidoostzadeh 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ali, as Professor Momen rightfully mentioned, you should provide at least one reference that says Sheykh Safi was originally "Shafii" as opposed to "Sufi", both exactly as spelled. Now, the discussion here is not about origins of Azerbaijani people, which is a subject of another discussion (you're wrong on claiming that Azerbaijanis are simply Turkified Iranian speakers, because 30+% of Azerbaijanis are Turkified Caucasian peoples as well as descendants of some pre-Oghuz Turkic tribes, such as Huns and Khazars. This page is only about the origins of Safavid dynasty which ruled Iran in XVIth century. Thanks. Atabek 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Momen 

message: What does Ismail I's poetry have anything to do with this page? This article is about the dynasty, not Ismail. Personal details like that should go to Ismail I --Mardavich 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a consensus result, follow the threads above. We only mention that he wrote poetry in this language. Grandmaster moved it actually to Culture section, which was reverted by Tajik. So we are going back to revert by Ali Doostzadeh with "neutrality" claim from Tajik, which he will have to substantiate. Atabek 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whose consensus? Not mine. Personal details like that should go to Ismail I, it simply doesn't belong here. --Mardavich 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ismail I's poetry  

message: The fallowing true and important statements should be added back to the lead:
"which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Iranian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran."  --Mardavich 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay I think this can be added to the legacy and culture section.  But I think the ageement with Shi'ite dynasty should be kept for the first sentence.  At least that part of the agreement Tajik also agreed with and so did Atabek/GM and etc.  --alidoostzadeh 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: Armenian user  Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from  Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions. I call onto Ali Doostzadeh to join back and discuss further edits and the way we can protect them. Tajik, this is also result of your attempts to vandalize the agreed version. Atabek 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop making personal attacks and accusations, consider this your last warning. You have to stop seeing the world from your ethnocentric glasses, labeling editors who disagree with you for legitimate reasons as "Armenian user", "vandal" etc. FYI, I am very much involved in this discussion page, look above your post and you'll see two threads by me. --Mardavich 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page blocked again 

message: !!!!! man ..what a headache.  Can we just mention Ismail wrote Azeri Turkish and some Persian poetry and be done with it?!  More stuff about Ismail and Shaykh Safi ad-din can be put in their relavent pages.  Also my friend Atabek please stop labeling users by their background!  That is definitely wrong also. --alidoostzadeh 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant information, that's the problem. What does Ismail's poetry (In Azeri or Persian) have to do with the Safavid dynasty? --Mardavich 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay so it seems this is the only issue.  Okay my friend, if you think it is unbalance we can say we have some Tati poems from Shaykh Safi ad-din? Or say we have Persian and Turkish poetry from Ismail?  Or if some users really think it is unnecessary it can be removed?    Since the discussion was mainly between me and Atabek, I overlooked other users and this is the second time this week.  I apologize.  I do not think saying Ismail has some poetry is really POV.  Perhaps if we write Shaykh Safi ad-din has some Tati poetry then it is balanced in your view? Let me know.  Anyways I am out of the discussion on the ethnic background part since we had too many sources that discussed it.  --alidoostzadeh 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What seems to be the problem