Talk:Safavid dynasty: Difference between revisions

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The official state langauge of Persia during the Safavid era was Persian. The Safavids built Esfahan...not Ankara. They were not Turks. Some of the Safavid rulers also spoke Azari but the court langauge was only Persian. Besides, Azeri people are a part of the Iranian race. Countless Genetic tests by WESTERN scientists have proved that Azari people are the same as Persians. The only real "turkic" people are in Mongolia and the eastern part of Central Asia. The people of Turkey are only linguistically "Turks". Even their language is 40% Persian and Arabic.

There is NO controversy regarding the ethnicity of the Safavid dynasty beyond this, and related, wikipedia articles. Almost every heavyweight author/middle eastern specialist ive read states as clearly, completely without ambiguity, that they were of Turkish background. All the myriad references, sources and quotes proving this were put up on this talk page months ago when the debate was raging and, having put up major sources which were contested by nothing more than subjective interpretation of ambiguous statemetns from selected sources by Persian POV pushers i washed my hands of the article assuming that a decent state of affairs would naturally come to be - Alas POV and anti-History now permeate this article and atm it stands as an example of how fallible Wikipedia can be. siarach 17:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"EI is superior to all other sources"

According to whom? One of the constants in the debates related to this article are the insistence of the pro-Persian faction that their, very limited number and usually taken out of context or subjectively interpreted - the Encyclopedia Iranica was the first pet source to be abused but seems now to have been supplanted by the Encylopedia of Islam, sources are superior to the far greater number of those which explicitly contradict their POV. siarach 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Turkish background" by which definition? The article clearly states that from Sheikh Junayd to Shah Ismail, all Safavid Sheikhs had Turcoman mothers. Is that the deffinition of "Turkish background"?! So why then are the Ghaznavids described as a "Turkic dynasty" although starting with Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazna, all Ghaznavid sultans had NON-Turkic mothers (Sultan Mahmoud's mother was a Persian noble from Zaranj)?! Is the language of a dynasty the deffinition for its background?! Then why are the Seljuqs described as "Turkic"?!

Fact is: the origin of the Safavids was EVIDENTLY Non-Turkic, starting with the Tati mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din and his marraige into the Kurdish Gilani clan. THIS is the beginning of the Safavids - both as a family and a mystic brotherhood.

Everything that comes after that has no importance ... The Safavids may had given up their original Iranian dialects in favour of vernacular Oghuz (the language of the Qoyunlu clans), but they have never acted as a "Turkish nationalist movement" (like the Qoyunlu), as a "Turkish kingdom" (like the Ottomans), or as any greater patrons of Turkic language or culture (they did not favour Turkish over Persian).

As for Bernard Lewis: he is not an expert on the Safavids, but an expert on Ottoman history. That's probably the reason why the editors or the Ei asked Prof. R. Savory (THE expert on Safavid history) to write the article about the Safavids, and not him.

Tājik 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need i really point out how utterly preposterous it is to suggest that an academic of Bernard Lewis standing would, either by ignorance or mistake, get something as important as the background, history and ethnicity of one of the most major dynasties in the history of the Middle East wrong? Hiding behind the very lame reasoning that he does not specialise in the Safavids is no excuse - if an incredibly specific, obscure question which only a select few experts in Iran would was what we were debating you might have a case but something as elementary as the ethnicity/background of a major dynasty? No, absolutely not. If the origin of the Safavids was EVIDENTLY non-Turkic then i would expect the MAJORITY of sources to state so rather than the MAJORITY stating that they were Turkic which is the reality. siarach 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. Lewis says that the Safavids were "Turks" ... that's fine with me. But others, such as R. Frye and R. Savory, do not call them Turks. Now YOU tell me why we should reject the opinion of Frye and Savory and favour that of B. Lewis?!

And do you mean with "majority"?! B. Lewis, and couple of books written by some no-names?! Fact is that the most authoritative work on Islamic history - the Encyclopaedia of Islam - describes them as a native Iranian dynasty from Persian Kurdistan and clearly differenciates them from Turkic, Arab, and Mongol invaders. The Iranian background of Sheikh Safi al-Din is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Iranica; Sheikh Safi al-Din's Tati poems have linguistic importance in the study of the Ancient Azari language (that means that the Safawaids were already present in Azerbaijan BEFORE the Oghuz dominance).

Tājik 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shameless way in which you so laughably acclaim any and every source which you abuse to push your POV as "most authoritative" while decrying the huge number which explicitly contradict you as being of no-consequence is really laughable. Incidently the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Islam does state that the Safavids were of Turkic origin, so when you said so emphatically that it did not were you only pretending to have read it or were you lying outright? What sums up the ( sadly justified in this case ) lack of respect accorded Wikipedia by genuine academics was the reaction of the SOAS Near and Middle East lecturer, who specialises in Iran, when i told her of the pro-Persian, anti-historical, POV pushing going on on this article ; "Yes, im not surprised that anything on wikipedia is subject to abuse by those with some kind of ethnic or political motivation". No matter, if i wasnt busy irl id have compiled the myriad sources and quotes previously put forward stating the turkic basis of the Safavid dynasty and edited the article into a reasonably historically accurate state - i should be free to do so by the end of the week i hope. siarach 10:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is published in the Netherlands by Brill and has no connection to Cambridge or any institution of the United Kingdom) mentioned by the other editor is not the same as the encyclopedia you're mentioning. I should also state that Wikipedia's policy of NPOV explicitly requires that any and all reliable sources be used within an article, and those sources, if reliable and authoritative, cannot be judged by individual editors. Which essentially means that the introduction of this article cannot state that the Safavids were of Turkic (or any) ethnicity. However, the current introduction, which states that they are an "Iranian" ethnicity, is perfectly acceptable. I fail to see what your dispute is or why you have a problem with that, but I would suggest that attacking other editors and using a hostile tone will definitely not get you anywhere. User:Metaspheres 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, looking at the section which is in dispute, you are free to add your sources (without removing others, needless to say), though I will say that Bernard Lewis is indeed a controversial one. But you are well within your rights to do so within the limits of NPOV. User:Metaspheres 10:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a more attentive reading of the situation. For one thing there is no confusion over the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Iran - Tajik made a statement, which was false, about the content of the latter in response to the insertion of a valid reference from that book. I really dont see how you can so clearly contradict yourself by first stating that the article cannot state that the Safavids were "of Turkic (or any) ethnicity" while immediately following with a total endorsement of the current statement which, in the view of the great majority of academic sources, incorrectly puts them forward as being of "native Iranian" ethnicity. So what exactly is your opinion? Is it or is it not acceptable to state the ethnicity of the dynasty ? (quite why it wouldnt be i have no idea). The cause of the dispute - the pushing of incorrect information/pov which flies in the face of acacemic consensus - is quite obvious even to those lacking in any intimate knowledge of the subject.

Wikipedia's policy of NPOV explicitly requires that any and all reliable sources be used within an article, and those sources, if reliable and authoritative, cannot be judged by individual editors. Spot on! The cause of the dispute is precisely that one editor has taken it upon themselves to interpret ( bear in mind Wikipedia:No original research ) their own limited select group of sources while removing any which contradict their interpretation.

If you had checked the edit history of the article you would be aware of the fact that no, nobody is free to add sources which contradict the views of Tajik as he immediately removes them and replaces them with his own so you would do well to direct any chiding regarding the removal of sources elsewhere. Bernard Lewis is controversial? Oh yes he is viewed as such in certain respects - NONE of which are relevant to this discussion or article. siarach 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... The reign of Esmā'il is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055) ..." (R.M. Savory, EIr, Online Edition, Link)

This quote makes clear that Shah Ismail was neither a Turk, nor an Arab or a Mongol. He is directly compared to the Buyids, the last ethnic Iranian dynasty to rule Persia before the Turkic domination.

As for the origin of the Safavid family, the Encyclopaedia Iranica states (my comments are in [...]):

• "... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular ..." (Ehsan Yarshater, Book 1, p. 240, Link)

If language and preserved poetry are the only definitions of "ethnicity", as some in here claim, then I do not understand why the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs are considered "Turks", although their neither spoke tor supoorted Turkish.

• "... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. ... Mas'ud I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30) ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. ... The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianized ..." (C.E. Bosworth, EIr, Online Edition, Link)

R.M. Savory - Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto - writes in another article:

• " ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." R.M. Savory

And ths is what the Encyclopaedia of Islam says:

• "... SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722, as fainéants 1142-8/1729-36, and thereafter, existed as pretenders to the throne up to 1186/1773. I. Dynastic, political and military history. The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I [q.v.] (initially ruler of Ādharbāyjān only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history. In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see BUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns. ..." (Savory/Brujin/Newman/Welch/others, EI, Online Edition, PW protected)

Does that need any further explanation?!

I am sure that User:An Siarach disagrees ...

Tājik 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi al-Din lived more than 150 years before Shah Ismail, and wherever there is anything about the Safavid or Shah Ismail there are loads of Fars, or sometimes non-Fars, who are jumping around saying that the Safavid were Fars (Persians) because there was this guy "Sufi al-Din" who was Persian. Even they say that, well, he wasn't Persian, actually he was Kurdish. Or maybe Luri, or something else, but definitely not Turkic. Well, maybe he wasn't the father of the grandfather of Shah Ismail, but the neighbour, who was not Persian, Kurd, Luri, or even Turkic, but rather Arabic?! Does anybody know this? But we know for sure that Shah Ismail was from Ardebil, he was a Turkic speaking Azerbaijani and his fellow soldiers were MOSTLY the same. His father, mother, and even grand father were most likely to have been Turkic too because simply he was from a Turkic tribe. The important thing is that they spoke Turkic and that was their native tongue and the Safavid kept their native tongue for a very long time even when they had their capital city (fearing the Ottoman Turks) in the center of Persian land Isfahan.

I am an Iranian Azeri and I honestly don't give a damn about the Safavid being Fars, Turk, Kurd or whatever. I think we would have all been better off without bullies and warlords such as Shah Ismail, though his poetry is nice. I admire Shah Ismail for his poetry but I don't give a damn about the Safavid. Historical facts show that the Safavid were Turkic essentially, but no-one is pure, everyone has mixes of other ethnicities or races too. Maybe there are just too many unemployed teenagers around here who have just finished Middle-Eastern manipulative textbooks and have become nationalistic all-the-sudden. I am a bit curious about Afghans editing Iranian history though!!

The facts is that the Turkic Safavid were fighting the Turkic Ottomans because of religion. That is pure stupidity and I have no pride about the Safavid. But distorting historical facts on this website is not good because we are just following the footsteps of our local Middle-Eastern ancestory who did not go by the truth but rather by the rule of bigotry or stupid tribal or nationalistic rivalry.

However I am also proud that so many, even Afghans (such as this Tajik guy) are trying to take pride in OUR (Azerbaijani) personalities ;) Bm79 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems to accept scholarly sources, then it's your problem. The reason I am interested in this article (and other Azerbaijani-related articles) is because I am a descendant of the Oghuz Bayat Qezelbashs who were once brought to Afghanistan by Nadir Shah Afshar.

All my changes are based on scholarly sources (as you can see above). The article is about the Safaid dynasty and family, and there is a consensus among scholars that this family was NOT of Turkic descent (as constantly claimed by Turks and Turcophiles), but - most likely - of Iranian Kurdish descent, strongly linked to the Kurdish Sufi-Zahediyah movement as well as Tati-nationalist movements against the Timurids and Il-Khans. What is known for sure is that Safi ud-Din Ardabeli, the origin of the dynasty, wrote poems in Tati and Persian, NOT in Turkish and NOT in Kurdish.

Ismail's father, Seikh Haydar Safavi, was half-Turcoman. He married the daughter of Uzun Hassan, who herself was half-Turcoman and half-Greek.

Noone denies the strong Turkification of the Safavid family (in fact, it is even mentioned in the article!), but claiming that they were "Turks" is most deffinitly wrong, especially in regard of the meaning of the word back then as well as today. The Safavids NEVER acted in the name of Turks in general, nor in the name of the Oghuz (unlike previous rulers, such as the Aq Qoyunlu).

As for the Seljuqs: just like the Safavids and later dynasties, such as the Qajars, the Seljuqs ruled as "kings of Iran". In fact, they even believed (or claimed) to be descendants of the Sassanids and gave their princes Sassanid names, such as Kay Khusrow, Kay Qubadh, or Kay Ka'us. The Qajars - themselvs members of the Oghuz Turcoman tribes of the Caucasus - continuied the Persianization' policies of the Safavids. Just take a look at this old bank-note from the Qajar period:

It clearly says: Shāhanshāh-e Irān. The Qajars were Turkic in origin, but they regarded themselvs Iranians and they also used the Persian language. This tradition was introduced by the Safavids - after more than 800 years of foreign rule in Persia!

So, before starting to insult others (see: WP:civil!), you should take a look at the sources given in the article. If you feel somehow insulted by these scholarly sources, then it's your problem, not that of Wikipedia.

And since you are so currious about the people you call Afghans, just check the article Demographics of Afghanistan to learn more about them.

Tājik 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tajik, I am sure there is no way, and no serious reason to try to prove anything to you or to so many others who have their own POV. But you, and many others, because of having either a numerical superiority or probably more stubborn POV, have proven yourselves to make your POV into articles at Wikipedia. I shall still show how I still DO NOT understand why someone from Afghanistan come and edit articles about Iran, but that's my problem.

Then again I wish to say this, you would definitely like to distort issues so that you get your POV, OK. But if, for instance, I spoke Farsi and some guy from my ancestory 150 years ago was from Tabriz and spoke Azeri (ie, an Azeri) would that make me a Persian (Fars)? If we are talking about ethnicity, that is a different issue, but if we are establishing what an Iranian meas then that is another whole different subject. Safavids were indeed Turkic speaking people. They were Azerbaijanis. This is a fact. Then, of course, no one is pure or needs to be "pure" either ethnically or genetically. They must have had some Kurdish, Farsi, Greek or whatever in their blood. They did indeed re-built the lost Iran (they didn't call it Persia) and IF some Safavid said that he was a descendant of the Sassanids then he must have had really interesting audience back then, probably naive, but if it worked, then good for him. I stop my arguments here. Please people, editors or administrators, change "Turkmen" into Azeri when you are talking about Iranian Shia Turks, because Turkmen is a completely different thing. But then again, if distortion CAN prevail then Wikipedia is still imperfect and has got a long way of solving POV supremacy! Bm79 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone from another country is interested in your country, then you should appriciate it. In case of Iran and Afghanistan, it's not even different histories or cultures - all the same.

What you fail to understand that this talk is not only a bout Sheikh Safi and Ismail, but also about countless other Safawis who lived in those 150 years in between. For example Sheikh Haydar and Sheikh Junayd, or their ancestors.

You also seem to have no knowledge of scholarly sources (in fact, you have not provided ANY reliable sources right now). And as I have said earlier: if you have any problems with scholars or scholarly opinions, it's your problem, not that of Wikipedia. Already your protest against the term "Turcoman" (which you wrongly interpret as Turkmen) shows that you are actually not an expert in this field. Tājik 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate anyone being interested about MY country's history, but I do not appreciate others WRITING or trying to write the history of mt country accoridng to their own opinion. You said turcoman, which is not the term used by editors OFTEN (not all the time) when talking about Turkic tribes of Iranian ruling families. That is completely false. Turkmen means a whole different thing. Please read articles about the Qajar, this article about the Safavid, articles about Shah Ismail I and others and you will see the word "Turkmen" nt turcoman mentioned all over instead of Turkic, Turk or Azerbaijani, which would have been much more appropriate. I AM NOT AN EXPERT. Read wht I write and judge the content, but I did not say I am anexpert. It is written "Persian" when referring to Sheikh Safi which refers not to Iranian (if you click you see) but to the term ethnic Persian, which is not something scholars would agree with. There is no evidence that he was an ethnic Persian, but most probably a mixture. If someone's ethnicity is not very clear then it must be written as so, which has not been the case, because these articles that have alightest information about Azeris are continuously and intentionally manipulated and altered to make them look like Persian, one way or the other or to make them look like non-Azeri, by putting the term "Turkmen". Please take a look at the article about Qajar dynasty too, about Shah Ismail I and this article. Two words used in these articles I have noticed "Persian" when relating to Sheikh Safi and "Turkmen" when relating to Azerbaijanis are false. Bm79 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at any article about Iran's history or Iran's personalities there are editors out there that are continuously and intentionally creating misconceptions.

For example they put the word "Persian" (which if clicked takes the viewer to the ethnic Persians, not Iranians as a whole) before the name mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din, who WAS by no means "Persian" and could have been more likely to be partly or totally Kurdish, but not Persian. But there are so many out there that will revert in case it is removed.

They will often intentionally replace "Azeri" to "Turkmen" for suggesting the ethnicity of the Safavid or even the Qajar. I edited both and they were reversed by different persons, so I gave up, and the reversing had no reason, one wrote "false information." What is false information? The Safavid or the Qajar were TURKMEN???? The word Turkmen refers to the people of Turkmenistan. No Turkmen ever ruled over Iran. There is no proof for this. When you click on "Turkemn" it takes the viewer to the people of Turkmenistan. The editors intentionally replace Azeri in many cases with Turkmen in order to create confusion. The Safavid and the Qajar came from the teritories located by Azerbaijanis, the spoke Azeri language and there is ample evidence, and they were Shia, and there is ample evidence of these. But so many editors out there would like to create confusion, therefore reducing the value and accuracy of the articles. They are either paid to do so by the Iranian regime in order to create confusion or they are simple Persian (Fars) nationalists who have a lot of free time at their hands.

I edited what was related to Shah Ismail (the founder of the Safavid dynasty) and it was reversed too, twice, so I gave up. Shah Ismail's mother was from the Ak Koyunlu (Aq Qoyunlu) nobility, not Turkem. Again, Turkmen is about Turkmenistan, it has nothing to do with people living in north-west of Iran, where obviously the family of Shah Ismail lived. Then again in order to create confusion Ak Koyunlu was changed to Turkmen.

Falsity prospers at Wikipedia as long as there are enough editors out there to write what they wish to be factual and many of them are personally or politically motivated.

I also edited the article about "Iranian Azerbaijan" and it wad all reversed. The article is poor and mostly POV but that serves the POV of so many people who are here to uphold their POV violently and inconsistently.

I think these issues require Wikipedia administration to intervene and not allow changes until they are based on reliable proof or references.

Middle-Eastern people are not like Westerners, Middle-Easterners will not get along amiably to solve problems. Look at Iraq now! If there is no DICTATOR to tell them what to do and what not to do. And at Wikipedia issues regarding the Middle-East and its people (I am Azeri myself, so Middle-Easterner in fact) shall be more dictatorial, less open to individual manipulation, because inaccuracy or chaos will dominate. Bm79 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss about this word because sources do not say anything about "Persian". The article says "Its founder was the Persian[3]mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din (1252–1334), after whom it was named."

I clicked on the name and it was different: "Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili (of Ardebil) (1252-1334), eponym of the Safavid dynasty, was the spiritual heir and son in law of the great Sufi Murshid (Grand Master) Sheikh Zahed Gilani, of Lahijan in Gilan Province in northern Iran. He was of Persian[1] and Kurdish background. Sheikh Safi al-Din's mother tongue was the Iranian dialect of old Tati. He was a seventh-generation descendant of Firuz Shah Zarrin Kolah, a local Iranian dignitary."

So, how did Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili become PERSIAN???? Please bring arguments or edit! As far as I can understand we should wither take "Persian" out because neither Gilaki can mean Persian and neither Kurdish can mean Persian. If it's not about ethnicity but about the country of Persia then why write the word Persian there anyway because no-one ever argued that he was from the greater Persia/Iran of the time (though some people can say that it was split and unrecognised as a country at that time).

Sheick Safi's mother was an Azerbaijani who spoke Azerbaijan's old Tati language, which does not make her a Persian. And his father was from Gilan, who was of "Persian" and Kurdish background. So Sheikh Safi was half Azerbaijani (from mother) and half Kurdish-Persian. How did someone come to the conclusion that he was Persian?

Please dicuss, edit. Thank you! Bm79 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tati is Persian. Again, I doubt you are Iranian. First you say there are no Turkomans in Iran, now you dont even know what the Tati language is (there are still Tati's to this day). Also, the term Azerbaijani as an ethnic term (however, the term Azerbaijani as a linguistic term is about 110 years old) is only 50 years old, so, either way, I dont see how you can call anyone born before that time period Azerbaijani, they were and we still are today Iranian...but today we are just Iranian Azerbaijanis. I guess this term is optional depending on the person and time.Azerbaijani 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I am writing anything to the member "Azerbaijani", I was referring to other members. Thank you! I am looking for other members and if you will be the only opposer then we will need to ask for admins to come in. And I will not respond to your uncivil attitude any more. Bm79 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tati is a Persian dialect, what more do you want? The only basis for your dispute is that you say that Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili spoke Tati and therefore could not have been Persian. But I'm telling you that Tati is Persian. I dont know what else you want here. I'm telling you that the reason for you argument in the first place is incorrect. Simple as that...Are you going to say that Tati isnt Persian? Tats still exist today. The Tati langauge is a Dialect of Persain, just as Dari and Tajiki are. I mean, I'm sorry if this upsets you but I dont know what more to say? Its a very similar language, except if I'm correct, its an older version of the Persian spoken in today in Iran.Azerbaijani 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tāt" is a Turkic term that describes the Persian people. It has the same origin as "Tādjīk" (Taçikler) and the same meaning.

The Tati people are descendants of Persian settlers who live in Azerbaijan since the Sassanian era.

Safi ud-Din ibn Is'haq Ardabeli is perhaps the most important source for the Iranian Azeri language that is now distinct. Only the Tati language seems do have developed out of it, but the language itself disappeared when Turkic languages started to dominate the region during the reign of the White and Black Sheep Turcoman confederations. Safi ud-Din Ardabeli's dubayt collection in that language, and his own Persian translation are the main source for studying that language.

Thus, the term "Persian" is correct. Besides that, the sentense is referenced. The source is the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon which is the German eqivalent to the English Encyclopaedia Britannica. Tājik 14:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik, I am just getting started to learn how this community works and I must say that I had rushed to judge you before, but you seem a reasonable person and bring arguments, which is great. Thanks! I hope I did not upset you :) About the word "Persian" before the name, you see, the issue is that here what we understand from Persian (just click it) is Persians as an ethnicity. And you know very well that Sufi al-Din's ethnicity is not clear-cut by any means. Clicking on his name will just show this, who his parents were. Persian, as an ethnicity, refers to "Persians" as defined in the article about "Persians" and it does not refer to others, and definitely not Kurds. And you can say that even the Tajik are RELATED to Persians but according to the sources Tajik is Tajik and Persian is Persian (ethnicity I mean of course), though their language is very close, written extremely close, but talking not that much. Anyway, Sufi al-Din had a mixed ethnicity, so let's come to a term on how to write about his mixed ethnicity, or just forget about his ethnicity and leave it to the reader to find out by himself, becasue writing "Persian" gives the impression that Sufi al-Din Ardebili was an ethnic Persian, which is not the case, and you know this well. Bm79 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a sensitive issue, and I would even support the idea to remove ethnic lables from all of these articles. Honestly, noone back then cared whether the Safavids were Turks, Persians, or Arabs. What was important was their Shia faith, as a big contrast to everything else that ruled back then. The same goes to the Seljuqs (a powerful Sunni ruling dynasty as a big contrast to the - back then - Shia dominated political scene of the Islamic world), Ottomans, Mughals, and many others. Yet, certain people want this ethnic labeling, and thus, we should try to be as correct as possible.

According to sources (most of all the Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyyah which was written at the Safavid court), Safi ud-Din was a Persian mystic from Gilan who claimed to be a descendant of a certain Firuzshah Zarrinkollah al-Kordi). What we know for sure is that his mother-tongue was neither Turkish nor Persian, but Old Tati. But he also wrote traslations of his poems in Persian, but not in Turkish or Kurdish, not even in Arabic. As for "Tajik": the Tajiks are not only related to the Persians of Iran, they are THE SAME people. They not only speak the same language, but also share the same history, culture, and national identity (going back to the Iranian epic, as preserved by Ferdousi). Only 200 years ago, the Persians of Iran were also known as "Tajik". It just only happens that the Turkish expression "Tajik" establihed itself in Central Asia, while in mainland Iran the term disappeared. The Persians of Western-Afghanistan call themselvs Farsi or Farsiwan, but not Tajik, although most sources classify them as Tajiks as well. Tājik 19:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some of what you say are not recognised by others, and I sincerely don't know about, as related to Tajik. I cannot say anything about that. But somebody writing poetry in Persian is not a characterisation of his ethnicity. The most important thing must either be his mother (native) tongue and/or who his parents were. And you know that none of them were clear persian. So we shall either remove Persian which does not refer to the language with which he wrote, but to his ethnicity, as we understand today. Back then ethnicity mattered but rligion was more important. People had prejudicies towadr ethnicities even back then. It is also known how much the Kizilbash quarreled with their kings about him appointing Persian to positions. So, let's resolve the word "Persian" and I do not care about ethnicity but I care about fairness :) Bm79 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If we remove the word "Persian" from this article, then we also have to remove it from other articles. This also goes for the words "Turkish" and "Mongol" in many other articles, most of all for peoples such as the Seljuqs or Ottomans, or the Timurids and Mughals, who did not have a clear ethnicity either.

You see, in the article about Shah Ismail I., people want to lable him "Turk" because he wrote Turkic poetry (in addition to Persian and Arabic). Yet, in this article, the same people claim that "poetry does not define ethnicity". Where is the logic?! Either remove ethnic lables from ALL articles, or keep them the way they are now.

An alternative to the word "Persian" would be "Iranian", with a link to the Iranian peoples article.

Tājik 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking for Bm79 but as far as I know Shah Ismail wrote poetry in Persian too (I am not so sure but his poetry was mainly Azerbaijani) but his native tongue was Azerbaijani Turkic. It depends on how you define ethnicity. You cannot define it on what language people wrote. I am writing English but I am not English. It depends on what language they spoke as their native language. Beside this it depends on the parentage. One thing is clear Sufi Ardebili was not a Persian becasue theories go that he has a mixture of Tat-Azerbaijani-Kurdish. So labelling him Persian is not according to the sources. Scorpionf007 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is attested by Shah Ismail's son, Sām Mirzā, that his father also wrote poetry in Persian. However, his Persian poems did not have the same effect on the Persian-speaking population as his Turkish poems on the Turkish nomads. The reason for this is very simple: at the time of Ismail, the Persian language had an already established literary tradition (Hafiz, Rumi, etc), and therefore Ismail's Sufi poetry was not anything special ... The Oghuz, however, did not have such a literary tradition. There were only a few Turkish writers. Ismail's poetry had thus a strong influce on the Turcoman nomads, while his Persian poems were lost. He wrote in very simple verses, and his poetry was easy to understand. He was among the very first Turkish poets, but his Persian poetry was no match for the established, more complex Persian poetry tradition. After all, he was still a child (12 years old!)! That's also the reason why the Safavid da'wā -from then on - concentrated itself on the Turcoman nomads and tried to convert them. It'S also improtant to note that a whole bunch of Turkish poems allegedly written by Ismail were the works of later Bektashi Sufis ... written some decades and centuries after his death (see Encyclopaedia Iranica for more information).

As for Safi ud-Din: if you do not like the label "Persian", then change it to "Iranian" with a link to Iranian peoples. That should solve the problem. Tājik 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone else had some talk and some edit and Azerbaijani immediately made another personal attack, probably wanting to say that that member was ME. Anyway, let's ignore that! I am going to change it to "Iranian" and if somebody is against it he/she can see the discussed here. Thanks! Bm79 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Atabek: - This page is being nominated for Safavid topic. If you wish to discuss the Azari identity, you should go to the relevant page. Surena 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in general, but then Iranian stock has nothing to do with Safavid topic either. If you agree, we will remove both references, if you disagree, let's keep them both for clarity. Thanks Atabek 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure to keep you happy is fine with me. My only concern is to convey facts. Surena 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem keeping it the way, by why do you remove the whole thing? It says Azeris are Turks but are proud of Iranian identity. Do you deny that? Let's keep it the way it is. Atabek 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind and don't change it again. Hopwever, Azaris are not Turk, they are Tukish speakers. Surena 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best rev. is by Tajik right now. Let's keep all refs as they are. As for Azeris being not Turk, do you want to deny Frey or Encyclopedia Iranica? Atabek 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course - Richjard Frye is a historican. I rely on science when come to anthropology. Read Cambridge University DNA mapping of Azaris.Surena 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's keep it at Surena's current rev. "With difference that they were of Iranian stock" implies that predecessors were not. I would get rid of Iranian stock wording. Because the fact that Azeri Turks are not of "Iranian stock" does not make them less Iranian. I think that's the major point many Iranians don't understand. This is not about race but about culture and people. Atabek 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azaris are anything by Turk - Culturally, historically, and genetically the yare Iranian. However, being a Turkish speaker, doesn't make one to become a Turk, nor a Turk who speaks English, won’t become an English. Surena 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respect your opinion, but disagree with it as Azeri person. Try to defend your own Rev that we came up to in agreement. Tajik keeps reverting it. This is not serious. Atabek 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version contains stylistic, factual, and spelling mistakes. Its reference to Azeri people is totally misplaced, because this article is about the Safavid dynasty, not about the Azeri people. If you want to have the quote in the article, then place it in the "Ethnic and linguistic controversies" section, but NOT into the intro!

I suggest the following version:

• The Safavids (Template:PerB) were a Muslim dynasty from (Iranian) Azerbaijan that ruled from 1501 to 1736. Despite having adopted the Turkic Azerbaijani language^[1][2], the Safavids were the first native Iranian family to rule a united Persia since the Buyyid dynasty.^[3][4][5] The Safavids patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranic stock. It was the Safavids who made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shiism against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood.^[6] and acting as a bridge to modern Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Isma'il adopted the title of "Persian Emperor" (Pādišah-ī Īrān), with its implicit notion of an Iranian state stretching from the Hindu Kush as far as Euphrates, and from the Oxus to the southern territories of Persian Gulf. ^[7]

Tājik 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first agree on basic fact, which is also part of Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Safavid dynasty was found by Azeri Turks who were found of their Iranian heritage. Do you agree with this wording or not? Then let's move on to discuss Hindu Kush, Euphrates or Buyyids which have nothing to do with Safavid article. Atabek 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the wording "Azeri Turks", because that's not correct. Although Iranica uses this expression in the one sentence you have quoted, it clearifies the complex situation in many other articles (I have already posted some of them further above, including a direct quote from Book 1, p. 240, written by Ehsan Yarshater). The Safavids were Turkic-speaking Azeris, but they were not "Turks" in the classical sense of the word, and they did not consider themselvs "Turks", as 500 years ago, the word "Turk" had a totally different meaning. When Shah Abbas came to power, the dynasty was virtually "Persianized" in all aspects, while the Azeri language remained one of the "house languages" of the Safavid family. Also read the work "Div Soltan" by prof. R. Savory (THE expert on Safavid history), which explains the animosity between "Turks" and "Tajiks" in the Safavid court, and how the Shahs tried to solve the problem. The current version - as it stands right now - is not acceptable. See also the article "Safavids" (also written by Roger Savory) in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THE standard reference work of Islamic studies and history! What makes Safavid rule so special is that the Safavids were NOT Turks. They were the first native dynasty to rule entire Persia since the Arab conquest. The ruled as "Shahs of Perisa" and as "defenders of Persian identity". They even exported this idiology to Mughal India, which served as the main center of Persian language and culture during that time. Tājik 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition Azeri (or Azerbaijani) Turks is used by Swietochowski, Alstadt, Shaffer, Kazemzadeh, M. G. Smith, and you're bringing me one quote from Yarshater? Again, the fact that Azeris are Turks, does not deny their ties to Iran or their pride of it. But trying to take away their origin, is simply racism, which is useless for Iranian side, contributes to nothing but hate. You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at. All you're doing is undermining the seriousness of Iranian references. No one is taking Ismail away from Iran, he was a king of Iran and proud to be Shia. But he was a Turk, admit it, live with it, and move on. It does not mean Turkey can claim him, but he was Azeri Turk as confirmed by majority of researchers. Atabek 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually contrary to of Iranica’s entry, recent historians such as Hillenbrand, and Canby believe that the Safavids were Talishi and Tati speakers (closely related to Kurds)’ and being the descends of Aq-Qoyunlu was propagated to attract Qizilbash Turks to fight for them. Surena 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even go there :) If you want we can post there some poems of Shah Ismail in Azeri Turkic, and then you dare to find me one in Farsi. So why do you think "Kurdish" did not write in "Kurdish" or Persian? Ismail's father Heydar Safavi was son of Safi-al-Din, his mother was daughter of Uzun Hassan (AghQoyunlu) who definitely wasn't anything but Turkic.Atabek 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica calls them "Azeri Turks". We cannot distort the source. Grandmaster 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]