Talk:Qizilbash

message: I have removed the spelling Qazilbash from the intro, because:
* it is unsourced
* it is uncommon
* it is not confluent with Turkish vowel/vocalic harmony
Tajik (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to unnecessary edits by anon IPs. Tajik (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted and unsourced/false claim by an IP. Tajik (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Qazilbash" 

message: It seems that the list in this article of Notable people has been filled with non-notable persons, or persons whose notability has not been established. Please see Notability: Lists of People.  Each entry must either link to a Wikipedia article for that person, or it must have a footnote, or footnotes, to a reliable, verifiable  source that establishes notability and the individual's connection to the list.  Entries that do not, are likely to be deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable people - notability required

message: There have been no sources proposed for the suggestion that the Mughal princes were Qizilbash.  It is highly unlikely. I have deleted the unsourced paragraph.  However, there are sources that discuss the Qizilbash in the Mughal Empire, for example, Rose, H. A. (compiler) (1997) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West  Frontier Province: Volume 3, L—Z Nirmal Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India, page 259, , reprint of 1911 edition and based upon the Census Report for the Punjab, 1883, by Denzil Ibbetson, and the Census Report for the Punjab, 1892, by Edward Maclagan which says: Many of the great Mughal ministers were Qizilbash and notably Mir Jutnla, the famous minister of Aurangzeb. --Bejnar (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mugul princes

message: I have reverted a good faith edit by an IP. Although his information is sourced, the mentioned tribe was neither a founding member nor part of the politically important or influential groups. See the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV 

message: Much of the history section feels to be cut-and-pasted from another work- can anyone say if this is the case?Mavigogun (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it includes direct quotes from the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct quotes need to be directly quoted- otherwise, it's simple plagiarism; which answers the question.   The whole section needs be rewritten.Mavigogun (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut and Paste? 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=uAzGTtWlp7gC&pg=PA44&dq=qizilbash+open+membership&hl=en&ei=G3tQTf7eOMO78gbUy6zuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=qizilbash%20open%20membership&f=false --2.203.152.182 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good references about Qizilbashs 

message: Quote from the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (one of the most authoritative sources available; article written by Vladimir Minorsky, one of the foremost experts on the subject), Roger M. Savory, one of the most renowned experts on Safavid hostory: 
So please do not remove it! --Lysozym (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that was in dispute, could you properly footnote that in the article? Was Minorsky citing Tritton? --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is citing Tritton regarding the Alevis. The correct geopolitical use of "Anatolia" and "Kurdistan" (which is not part of "Anatolia") is by Minorsky Savory himself. --Lysozym (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

text:  I have to correct myself regarding the author of the article: it's not Minosrky, but Roger M. Savory, perhaps the most important expert on Safavid history right now. Minorsky is being cited in the article. --Lysozym (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdistan 

message: Needs resolution by discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. But there is nothing to discuss here. "Qizilbash" is a name given to a political and religious movement, not to an ethnic group. It was not a united entity and for most of the time, the many fractions of the movement were in opposition to each other, especially the many powerful Turkoman tribes. --Lysozym (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then any ethnic category or template is unnecessary and misleading for this article? Zyma (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully protected for 2 days 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Qizilbash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080929004601/http://www.iranica.com:80/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home/iranica/public_html/newsite/pdfarticles/v4_articles/calderan&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/newsite/logs/pdfdownload.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home/iranica/public_html/newsite/pdfarticles/v4_articles/calderan&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/newsite/logs/pdfdownload.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080929004459/http://www.iranica.com:80/newsite/articles/v7f4/v7f474.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v7f4/v7f474.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071215185602/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v1_articles/amasya_peace_of&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v1_articles/amasya_peace_of&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071006080819/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v1_articles/allahverdi_khan&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v1_articles/allahverdi_khan&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, colleagues! 2 years passed since we were discussing this stuff :D Sorry, couldn't manage to continue contributing English Wikipedia. So, as I remember, you were against my edit  and your only argument was "There were also other elements among Qizilbash, not only Turks". Well, Wikipedia works in this way: We take academic sources (peer-reviewed, specialized on the topic) and write what they write. So, if academic source gives definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen, then we give the same definition in Wikipedia, even if the same source states, that actually there were also non-Turks; definition is definition, it has nothing to do with minor exceptions. And according to generally accepted definition of Qizilbash, they are Turkic tribesmen, so, sorry, everything beyond that is original research. I've shown several academic sources that prove my statement (and I can show literally dozens more, if the problem is quantity), so that's it. And, yes, there were Persian and Kurdish elements, but in negligible size. See, e.g. Cambridge History of Iran. On pp.357 and 629 the source clearly indicate Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen , although pointing that in different periods and places there were other, more broad terms (We can point the latter fact, of course, but I hope we won't give the definition of Qizilbash as Persian merchants :D). On p.342-343 CHI also states that there were actually some Persians and Kurds, but their number, as I already said, was too small to consider them (so CHI still insist on Turkic nature of Qizilbash). Of course, this fact should be in article, but, again, this is not sufficient to ignore the generally accepted definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen. John Francis Templeson (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Should we define Qizilbash as militant groups or Turkic tribesmen. Sources and arguments are above.  John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your concerns to the section above. I have made an extensive analysis and brought several peer-reviewed sources. And you have not explained why we cannot accept these sources. Your only argument was that there were also Iranian elements — well, CHI clearly indicates that, their number and ifluence were too small and defines Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen. I am "spamming" your talk pages, because the procedure of conflict resolution is like this, do you think that I have some other reasons? John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We were already through this a few years ago, I'm not going to delve into this again. Neither me nor seemingly the other users want anything to do with this issue of yours, hence why you are getting reverted on talk pages, and hence why it is indeed spamming/harrassing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already suggested to give two definition, as it always done when there is no consensus among the scholars. And if you will bring sources that support your opinion, we will consider them also. " Neither me nor seemingly the other users want anything to do with this issue of yours, hence why you are getting reverted on talk pages, and hence why it is indeed spamming/harrassing." Oh, cool, if I don't notify, I will be accused in keeping other editors non-acquainted with the issue, and if I do, I will be banned for spamming. Rules in Wikipedia works pretty well, yeah. And yes, I have returned to this issue, because it was discussed only by interested editord and never unbiased comment was given by someone else. The latter is what I want. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I repeat, I notified you and Kansas Bear, because procedure demands it. Do not think that I want something from you or I try to troll you. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that you know the Wikipedia rules and such, yet you just accused several users for being biased because they don't agree with your POV, lol. Clever move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, we are two interested sides, because we are engaged in the same discussion from the opposite side. Points of view sometimes can contradict each other.  It is normal, otherwise there won't be 3O, RfC, DRN and etc. What wrong I said? And yes, I am persistently being accused in all sins. Yes, my conduct was not that well two years ago, but does it mean that I cannot engage in discussion of topics that interest me? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

text: P.S. I know rules in Russian Wikipedia, but there everything is way more complicated and strange. Someone makes a personal attack, I appeal to the Incident noticeboard and everyone threatens me with Boomerang, because two years ago I did something. This is lol. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak for yourself, it seems like you're the only "interested side" here. I'm done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Be less rude. Maybe I've chosen the wrong word -- OK, we are sides of the discussion. And yes, if I will have to notify you, how I'll do? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, John Francis Templeson. The guide about notifications is in WP:NOTIFS. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I repeat that no matter what I have done two years ago. Now, I try to be very polite, constructive, improve my conduct. What I want is just the final decision on this topic. If RfC won't support my suggestions, I will go. What do you want else for me? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

text: , I repeat, my intention is not to troll or vandalize. Let's be more tolerant to each other. You won't loss anything if there will be comment from another editor, yes? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I ask for a reliable source for such a statement in the section "Etymology". "Turkish" indicates Turkey, but there are other Oghuz languages. There is confusion about the names of languages. V.N.Ali (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've just said in my edit summary, please read the end of the sentence, that bit is sourced. What confusion? What should Turkish otherwise indicate? What did the Ottomans speak? This bit is also mentioned down further below in the article; The rise of the Ottomans put a great strain on the Turkmen tribes living in the area, which eventually led them to join the Safavids, who transformed them into a militant organisation, called the Qizilbash (meaning "red heads" in Turkish), initially a pejorative label given to them by the Ottomans, but later adopted as a mark of pride.[26][27]. Consider this your last warning, if you fill articles articles or talk pages with more of your personal opinion this will be taken to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The word Qizilbash derives from Turkish Kızılbaş" 

message: the Qizilbash are a military unit of greater Persia and it's dynasties.
the Qizilbash are not an ethnic group!
11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military unit 

message: the Qizilbash may have been courtiers of the Great Mogul (emperor), evidence suggests that these military units fought the second and third battle of Panipat in favour of a unified "Mogul India".
12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  India