Talk:Safavid dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivity of the aritcle must be improved[edit]

It is quite clear to see a lack of objectivity in this article when it comes to the editorial part of the article. For the Seljuk Empire article, it is clearly mentioned as a turco-persian at the beginning of the article, and Seljuk History is claimed as a part of Iranian history just because Seljuks were heavily influenced by the Persian culture. And that is quite okay. On the other hand, even though the Safavids were heavily influenced by the Turkic culture and Turkification, the article clearly does not mention it as a Turco-Iranian dynasty, unlike the Seljuks. This is a clear example of a lack of objectivity. Another case is some sources are discarded after being labeled as biased even though they were third party sources. And they got replaced with Iranian sources which are now considered as unbiased. Even though the Safavid Dynasty heavily used Turkish in literature and Ismail Shah spoke Turkish just like how Seljuk Empire used Persian in literature and court, in the first paragraph the term Turco-Iranian is not used to describe the Safavid Dynasty. This is a clear evidence of bias. When I checked the talk part of the article, I saw that speaking Turkish does not change the fact that someone was Kurdish but speaking Persian turns a Turkic dynasty into Persian and gives people the right to call that empire as Turco-Persian. This lack of objectivity must be improved. On the other hand, it is quite expected from Iranian sources to erase the Turkic influence in Iran to completely assimilate the Southern Azerbaijanis living in Today's Iran and instead push propaganda in the favour of Kurds. And this is not a personal attack but a critic of sources just like how the previously suggested sources were criticized as Turkish propaganda. All of the third party sources in favor of Turkic influence in Safavid empire is removed, and replaced with Iranian sources which are questionably biased. If anyone is interested in turning the article into a more objective one, I would suggest adding Turco-Iranian term just like in the Seljuk Empire article. Of course, Turkification is mentioned but not in the first paragraph like the Seljuk empire article to create an illusion that the dynasty was fully Iranian. A perfect example of Double-Standards exercised. --HistoryofObjectivity (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Seljuks were not just heavily influenced by Persian culture. They literally spoke Dari Persian language and carried the Central Asian Persian culture with them. If Azerbaijanis are Turkic based on the fact that they speak Turkic then why should Seljuks not be considered Persian on the same fact? Talking about objectivity. Also with the Safavids it's not just the language though the facts actually show Safavids spoke all three languages Kurdish, Turkmen and Persian. With the Seljuks you had the whole package including a Dari Persian culture. While the Safavids clearly followed the Kurdish Safavid order and their whole culture and dynasty was build on it.IranicEducation (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lack of objectivity, simply what the sources state. Nowhere are the Safavids considered like the Seljuks and Turko-Persian. This seems like a WP:JDLI case, unfortunately not rare to find in this talk page. Also, this "new user" seems to have missed what is stated on the top of this talk page; "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Safavid dynasty. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Safavid dynasty at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." Initially this comment was an attack on me, he just slighty changed it (after being reverted) so it doesn't look like so, otherwise every bit of unsupported points/pieces of personal opinion are still there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article, I found it to be balanced and well sourced. The concerns raised appear to be based on someone's personal opinions and not the work of academic scholars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous post, I did not attack a person rather criticized the editorial skills and the bias of a 'certain user' due to a lack of objectivity caused by his or her personal opinion. As I mentioned above, it is clear to see that a 'certain user' actually removed some third-party sources according to his or her own judgment about the biases of the sources. Instead replaced them with his or her preferred sources. Checked the sources in the Seljuk empire which created the term of Turko-Persian, saw that the situation is exactly the same. Just because adopting Persian Culture and language did not change the fact that the ruling class was of Turkic origin. On the other hand, In the Safavid dynasty even though the ruling class was clearly multilingual and adopted Turkic culture as well, the Turkification process of the dynasty mentioned later not in the first paragraph. Wikipedia must be more careful about choosing the right editors for the articles to not let people push their propaganda and narrative. And As I explained before, the article overall lacks of objectivity due to a certain user removed sources and information related to those sources. This problem can be solved and the quality of the article can be improved. Overall edits of the articles should be done with pure objectivity and prevent statements such as 'fictional Turkic origin'.--HistoryofObjectivity (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you calling my a hypocrit, propaganda pusher, and whatnot is not considered a personal attack, yet you considered this a personal attack [1]. You might wanna look up the meaning of the word, you simply can't decide when there is a personal attack and when there's not for your own favour. You're yet to show proof for these baseless accusations (which barely make sense anyways). You might wanna read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, because you're certainly not far away from being justified a block. Your personal opinion is completly irrelevant, you're not an academic historian, and if you don't have sources to back up your statements, then you're wasting your time here, not to mention everyone elses. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If HistoryofObjectivity continues to repeat the same thing then we are done here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask are you a scholar to judge how biased a source is? And I am not calling you a hypocrite, I am just criticizing the editorial part of the article done by a certain user. My sources are already above and I am just gonna copy paste them here for more people to see them. Also, I can see a certain user is also brigading in an argument between us and I am sure brigading is against the policy of Wikipedia. Here are the source a certain user removed due to his or her own belief: Wilhelm Barthold is of the opinion that the Safavids are of Turkish rather than Persian origin.[1] The Russian historian Petrushevsky, on the other hand, has a similar view; "The first Safavid sheiks lived in Ardabil and their native language was Azerbaijani (ie Turkish)," he says. [2] Regarding the lineage of İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı of the Safavids; He writes, "Despite being from a completely Turk origin, they showed themselves from Sâdât-ı Hüseyniyye as a tool for their politics".[3] Similar information on this subject is based on the data in Saffetü's-Safa, where mentions Safiyüddin Erdebilî was called “Türk’ün Piri” (the Turkish patriarch), the sheik lived in the "Turkish village" and he served Turkish disciples better and offered them white bread and honey. In addition, according to many sources, it can be seen that many of Safi's contemporaries, who were originally Persian, in 1272, also referred to him as the Turkish Piri. [4][5] "It was the reign of the Alevî-Bektâşî Türkmen (Turkmen Bektash) dynasty and it was the first dynasty in history with Shiite as its official religion[6][7]

The origin of the Safavid dynasty comes from the Safavid order founded by Safiyüddin İshak, who was the sixth-degree grandfather of Shah İsmâil[8] at the end of the 13th century, in Ardebil.[9] In Gilan, Safiyüddin, who was the disciple of the great Alawi Turkmen leader Sheikh Zahid-i Gilanî, married the daughter of the sheikh and became the head of the Zahidiyye sect, and after Zahid's death, the order was known as Safevîyye.[10] During the reign of the sect of Sheikh Cüneyt, the Safavids, who were under the protection of the Akkoyunlu, started to convert a large number of Azeri and Anatolian Turks to Shia. Since these Shiite [Alevi-Bektâşî] Turkmens usually wear red turbans on their heads, they took the historical name Kızılbaş. [11] Interestingly only reply to the information and statement based on these sources was: False Turkic origin based on biased sources. I am just interested in how the judgement of a source being biased? I am also interested in learning how scholarly acceptable it is to remove a statement based on multiple sources according to personal beliefs? It does not make any sense. I would like to learn more about it as a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofObjectivity (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No one has judged any source biased besides you! You were the one to use the word 'biased' when referring to these so called 'Iranian sources' (whatever that is) without any reasoning. However, we do have guildelines, such as WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE, which we follow, not our personal opinions. Oh, you haven't called me a hypocrite? What's this then [2]? I bet you didn't write this either? Your sources are already up above? I take it you're the IP then - aka the same IP that wanted sourced information removed because... well, WP:JDLI? [3]. The same IP that argued the Safavids weren't of Kurdish origin because, and I quote; "There is no even one poem or other writing in the Kurdish language remaining from Shah Ismail or other Safavid Shahs." (this can be found in the same link). The same IP who kept spamming and edit warring in this very talk page [4], kinda just like you did earlier. Anyways, ignoring the fact that you most likely cherrypicked these sources to fit your POV, majority of the sources doesn't even seem reliable (this is the part where you click and read the three links I've just posted). The actually two sources that are reliable (Newman and Savory) are not even cited properly, and don't seem to have been attributed properly either. You do realize that people can see my comments right? I clearly didn't say "False Turkic origin based on biased sources." Unlike you, I don't throw the word bias around so easily. This is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS - I'm done wasting my time here, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's clearly an academic literature claiming Turkic origin, why can't it be included as a separate discussion section on the article? (Edit: I'm not the previous poster and sorry for replying to an old discussion but I am curious). 88.253.176.178 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article is completely biased. According to it, Safavid dynasty was as much Turkic as Georgian or Pontic Greek, which is funny. The template is needed --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of it being biased, because there's plenty of evidence of the Georgian element in the Safavid empire having been large and extensive. Armanqur (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least mention that this dynasty was Turkic-speaking, the influence of the Turkic culture must be clear from the lead (now it’s not). The current version even being semi-protected is the source of useless and endless edit-wars, I promise you - Devlet Geray (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the influence of the Turkic culture be in the lead when its influence was minimal and superseded overwhelmingly by the Persian culture? That doesn't make any sense. The Ottoman Empire was influenced quite a bit by many non-Turkic cultures, but none of them have found a place in the lead of that article. Armanqur (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are discussing the current article, not the Ottoman Empire article. --Devlet Geray (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the article:

According to historians,[16][17] including Vladimir Minorsky[18] and Roger Savory, the Safavids were of Turkicized Iranian origin
By the time of the establishment of the Safavid empire, the members of the family were Turkicized and Turkish-speaking,[20][21] and some of the Shahs composed poems in their then-native Turkish language

So why isn't it clear from the lead? It's unbalanced now

Compare to Aq Qoyunlu:

was a Persianate[9][10] Sunni[5] Turkoman[11][12][13]

That's why I propose

It was a Turkic-speaking [or Turkicized, or both] Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin Devlet Geray (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why we should compare it to Aq Qoyunlu, as those are two different things. I disagree with the proposal per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (for starters, the Safavids were billingual). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, let it be billingual. Why not mention this in the lead? Is it unimportant information? (besides, see the quotes given above "the members of the family were Turkicized and Turkish-speaking") Devlet Geray (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's irrelevant. They were billingual, so what? Some of them also spoke Armenian or/and Georgian. Ultimately there's more important information to be in the lede. I don't get why it is so important to mention something Turkic-related in almost every sentence to do with the Safavids, when it didn't even play a major role in their history. Sorry, but I'm not gonna answer you further till a outcome has been reached at [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You don't have to answer Devlet Geray (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't bring up the Ottoman page for reference, but you can bring up the Aq Qoyunlu? This feels a bit like POV. Armanqur (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is Aq Qoyunlu are considered an occupying force at the end of the day, Persianised sure, but invasive occupying force none the less.

On the other hand by all the available sources that are able to withstand scrutiny Safavids were Iranian of native stock hence why it literally makes no sense to say they were turkic or perso turkic or turko perso or whatever the else Kane 1371 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ W. Barthold, Soçineniya, C. II, bölüm I, Moskova, 1963, s. 748.
  2. ^ Petruşevski’den naklen, Efendiyev, s. 33
  3. ^ İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, C. II, Ankara, 1998, s. 225
  4. ^ Âlem-i Ârâ-yi Safevî, s. 11.
  5. ^ Heyyət, C. “Azərbaycanın Türkləşməsi və Azəri Türkçəsinin Təşəkkülü”, Varlıq, Tehran 1992, s. 9-12.
  6. ^ R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition
  7. ^ Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, I. B. Tauris (Mart 30, 2006)
  8. ^ Kütükoğlu, Bekir (1962). Osmanlı-Iran Siyâsî münâsebetleri T, 1578-1590. Edebiyat Fakültesi Natbaasi
  9. ^ Uğur, Ahmet (1989). Yavuz Sultan Selim. Erciyes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü. s. 45. Bu hanedan adını Safevî tarikatı reisi Şeyh Safiyüddin İshak'dan almaktadır.
  10. ^ Çiçek, Kemal (2000). The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation: Politics (İngilizce). Yeni Türkiye. ISBN 975-6782-18-8, ISBN 978-975-6782-18-7.
  11. ^ Goldschmidt, Arthur (2002). A concise history of the Middle East (İngilizce). Westview Press. s. 142. ISBN 0-8133-3885-9, ISBN 978-0-8133-3885-9. Under the leadership of Shaykh Junayd (d. 1460) and the protection of the Black Sheep Turcomans, the Safavids began converting the large number of Turks in Azerbaijan and Anatolia to Shi'ism. These Shi'i Turks came to be called Kizilbash (red heads) because of their distinctive headgear.

References[edit]

Suggested grammar fix[edit]

Would suggest that in the second paragraph, "experiencing a brief restoration from 1729 to 1736 and 1750 to 1773" be changed to "experiencing brief restorations from 1729 to 1736 and 1750 to 1773" 82.1.59.112 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2023[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkoman_(ethnonym) It is better to switch the link of Turkomans from present day ethnic Turkmens to the Turkoman( Ethnonym ) link. This would make the readers understand more about what a Turkoman was in Western Asia. 2A02:1810:A44A:7E00:E9BF:8593:2AAF:24E0 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me for now that the existing link is more useful. The link you provide primarily deals with the etymology of the term - is there some reason why this is a more suitable target? Tollens (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollens: 'Turkoman' was a term used to refer to people of Oghuz Turkic origin, not just Turkmens. These are two different things. — Golden call me maybe? 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - thank you! Tollens (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Golden call me maybe? 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2024[edit]

Request to add the flags of the Safavid Empire under Ismail I and Tahmasp I as described on this wikimedia page: Historical flags Klamactocrat (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safavid_dynasty&oldid=1215663407"