Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 3

message: Turkish sounds confusing and reminds readers of people of Turkey. These people spend their entire lives fighting the Turkish rulers of Ottoman Empire. They considered themselves Iranian of Azerbaijani origin. Also even today people of Azerbaijan are referred to Azerbaijani. And their language is Azerbaijani which is a dialect of Turkish. 
They were not Persian either so I think this would be a better intro:
Safavid were an Iranian dynasty of Azerbaijani origin. 
And by Iranian we mean Iranian nationality and the link will direct the reader to the main page “Iran” so there wont be any confusing. In the language section we can mention that although the language of the court was Persian, the native language of the dynasty was most likely Azerbaijani dialect of Turkish. 
there is not need to mention the Turkish speaking in the intro since the language of the court was Persian.
Gol 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language of the court was Azerbaijani even after Shah Abbas rule, but the official language was Persian. I have sources to demonstrate that. With regard to your suggestion see the discussion below. Grandmaster 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro  

message: Not only was their nationality Iranian, so was their race, and ethnicity. Their culture was obviously Persian and this fact deserves to be apart of the article. Dariush4444 03:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: These absurd arguments aside, I believe that this article should be moved to the more appropriate Safavid dynasty. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safavids

message: Tajik, GM: how about the following intro, that would avoid talking about the ethnic background yet recognize that SF dynasty (this is separate from Kizilbash) were Turkic speaking 
The Safavids were initially a Turkic-speaking Iranian dynasty that ruled from 1501 to 1736, and which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Persian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran.abdulnr 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solition is not to mention the language of the dynasty in the intro at all ... Tajik 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Weak Oppose – My impression is that the use of a term such as "kingdom" or "empire" implies a distinct state which is qualitatively different from its successor states; while "dynasty" should be used for changes in the ruling family of a single monarchical state.  The question is really whether the nature of the state of Iran changed drastically in the early 1700s -- e.g. in the form of government, or the borders of the territory governed.  If not, then we can say that from at least 1501 to 1978 there existed a single Empire of Iran, which was governed by different dynasties (Safavis, Qajars, and so on) but remained recognizably a single state throughout the period -- whereas pre-Safavid dynasties governed miscellaneous territories that are not clearly forerunners of the later Iranian state.  No one can doubt the impressiveness or imperial nature of the Safavid rulers; but the real question is not "does the title give sufficient honor to the Safavids" but "Is the Safavid state continuous, other than in terms of the change of dynasty, with the later embodiments of the Iranian state?"  On balance, I think the answer is yes; Nader Shah's reign was very eventful, but he seems to have regarded himself as simply the next emperor after Abbas III.  The half-century of chaos between the death of Nader Shah and the rise of the Qajars might plausibly be regarded as the death throes of one state and the rise of another, qualitatively different state, but even so we would have to count two distinct dynasties -- the Safavid and the Afsharid -- within a single Empire. RandomCritic 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Seleucids should be a dynasty, like the Ptolemies. Septentrionalis 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey