Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 3

Intro

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)

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)

Wikipedia readers deserve pertinent and well researched Information. Not POV!

It is apalling to find sensible, academically arguing editors such as Tajik having to waste precious time in warding off unsubstantiated and, sometimes, downright silly assertians with regards to the ethnical background of the Safavids. This TALK page contains very valuable scientific citations (go back a YEAR, to ARCHIVE 1) which offer very clear and convincing historic sources/evidence, pertaining to a Persian/Kurdish background of the Safavid EPONYM, Sheikh Safi Al-Din Ardebili. The only recorded "Turkish blood" introduced into the family, over the centuries, was that of Uzun Hassan's Daughter , who was half Greek (Daughter to a Trapezunt Princess) and mother to the first Safavid Shah Ismail I. With a Turkish speaking mother, who would be surprized to learn that Ismail spoke the Language and even wrote poetry in it? Also note:

The ORIGIN of the Safavid Family is documented in the "Safwat as-Safa", a chronology preserved to this day, written on orders of the early Safaviyeh Sufi Masters, before the dynasty's founding, narrating the family's descent. It starts with Sheikh Safi Al-Din's tenth century descendant Firuzshah "Zarrinkulah" (Golden Cap). It is said that (according to TOGAN "Origine") he had been part of the conquest of Azerbaijan, together with the Kurdish prince Mamlan bin Wahsudan of the Rawwadid Dynasty, in the 1020s AD and been granted Ardebil as a fiefdom. His descendant, Sheikh Safi's father, Amin-ad-din Gibra'il was a wealthy farmer and his mother was the daughter of Gamal Baruqis Dowlati of the village Baruq near Adebil. The forefathers of Safi Al-Din, as well as his siblings and descendants are documented in many chronicles, that have been preserved until today. There is ample evidence as to their ethnicity. They are universally regarded as Kurds/Iranians, except for a few contenders, who theorize that the Safavids may have had Arab or Turkic forbearers, without accepted evidence, though. The "Disputed" Tag is required to remain in place as the unprepared reader, not aware of this ethnicity dispute, will unwittingly be fed inacurate information. That is certainly NOT THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA! Pantherarosa 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Turkish Zaman newspaper, Dr. Eric Hooglund, is a lecturer in the United States, Iran, and several prestigious universities in the Middle East, and one of the most accomplished experts on Iran. He says:

- Azeris make up about 20 percent of Iran’s population. Since the 17th century they have been the ruling elite of Iran, and remain so. Most leaders in Iran such as Hamaney, the religious leader, have an ethnic Azeri background. The Azeris, who are part of the political elite are bilingual, speak Azeri and Persian. The Safawi dynasty was Azeri. The Kaja were Azeri. The difference between the present Islamic republic and the monarchy that became corrupt is that the domination of the country by Azeris has been diluted. In Tehran, which people joke about as the capital of Azerbaijan, there has been a lot of movement of non-Azeris into the city. So Tehran is no longer considered an Azeri city as it was from 1786 to 1979, almost 200 hundred years. A lot them are just “Persianized”. Among Persians, and virtually everyone in the Iranian government who claim to be Persian, they have at least one or probably four Azeri grandparents who couldn’t speak a word of Persian. They lose the language. Persian is considered among the elite. When you tell an Iranian that Islam mystic Mevlana Jalaladdin-i Rumi spent most the productive parts of his life in Konya, even people in Turk Tebriz, they won’t believe it, they’ll get mad. They won’t agree because he wrote in Persian. [1] Grandmaster 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you missed this part?

• "... One of the big differences between Iran and not just Turkey, but Arab countries; the whole Middle East, is that Iranians are actually connected with a culture that goes back 2500 years. They are the descendants of the same people that lived there 2500 years ago. For Iranians in the war with the Greeks, when the Greek lived in Anatolia, they consider Alexander the Great the Greek who came and conquered Iran, overthrowing the Iranian empire at the time. The Iranians are aware of that as part of their historical memory, and many Iranians have family trees that go all the way back. So they have this history which the Turks don’t have because much if the pre-ottoman history of Anatolia is not Turkish history. The same for the Arabs because Arabs originated in Saudi Arabia, and they do not have a connection to ancient history. The Iranians do. Because they speak the same language basically that was spoken 2500 years ago. You can pick up Persian poetry written 1000 or 1100 years ago and read it as if it is modern poetry. So the Iranians have this awareness of their history, similar to the Chinese. Iranians have kept it even though the fall of Sasanian Empire in 650, when Arabs came, until the Safawi Empire reestablished itself almost 900 hundred years later there was no Iran. Yet in these 900 hundred years no one would forget Iran. They would remember Iran. And amongst the Iranians who are proud of being Muslim, the most fundamentalists of them talk about how the Arabs tried to destroy their culture. They have preserved their culture against all invaders. ..."

So, even your own link protraits them as "Iranian", connected to the culture, language, and history of Iran, clearly distinguishing them from Arabs and Turks. Tajik 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what you quote proves. Does it mean that Safawis were not Azeris? The professor unambiguously says: The Safawi dynasty was Azeri. Whether they were connected to the culture and history of Iran is not disputed. Grandmaster 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavi were Azeri so why don’t we put Iranian dynasty of Azerbaijani origin? Why do we have to mention the Turkish speaking in the intro? The language can be mentioned in the language section and also the language of the court was Persian so there is no reason to stress the Turkish speaking specially not in the intro, we can mention in the language section that the native language of the dynasty was Azerbaijani dialect of Turkish.

Gol 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gol. I suggested such version, but certain people here resist any mention of Azerbaijani roots of the dynasty. They insist that since sheikh Safi was allegedly of Kurdish origin, the dynasty cannot be Azerbaijani. This is clearly wrong, because first there are sources to indicate his Turkic origin, second some sources doubt that Ismail I was Safi’s descendant, and third, no one can claim that all his ancestors were of one origin and he has no mixed blood. It is quite possible that Safi’s own ancestors were themselves of some other origin, say Arabic or Caucasian. So the important thing is what language Safavids spoke by the time they became a dynasty. And all sources agree that they spoke Azerbaijani language and they hailed from the province of Azerbaijan. Since Ismail I, the founder of the dynasty, was an Azeri, we can make the intro like this:

The Safavids were an Iranian dynasty of Azerbaijani origin 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.

If this is acceptable for everybody, this could be a resolution to the dispute. Grandmaster 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this better than the current version but lets see what others think. Gol 19:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest (as I have previously suggested some time ago) leaving out all mention of their linguistic/ethnic background from the intro paragraph and simply deal with these issues under Origins. Otherwise there will never be an end to these revert wars since both sides cannot seem to come to agreements. It is an impossible situation. SouthernComfort 19:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Safavids were not of "Azerbaijani origin" - their kingdom was simply founded in Azerbaijan, but they themselvs were not Azerbaijani. It was Sheiklh Haydar Safavi, Shah Ismail's father, who had moved to Azerbaijan from Kurdish East-Anatolia. That's only 1 generation - this does not make an entire dynasty of "Azerbaijani origin". Shah Ismail himself was kept in prison in Fars and later escaped to Gilan where he organized resitance against the Aq Qoyunlu ruler. He moved into Azerbaijan AFTER he had defeated the Aq Qyoyunlu. And the reason why he moved into Azerbaijan was because of his ancestor Sheikh Safi ud-Din Ardabeli who was from Azerbaijan and had a stronghold in Azerbaijan. So, in some way, User:Grandmaster is contradicting himself: on one had, he rejects the Iranian origin of the Safavids, because he does not consider Sheikh Safi ud-Din the "origin of the dynasty", yet when it comes to Azerbaijan, he rejects the Gilani origin of the Safavid dynasty (in fact, the Safavid's fight against Turks had started in Gilan and not in Azerbaijan) and points to the Azerbaijani origin of Sheikh Safi ud-Din ... so, either the Safavids were of "Iranian origin" or they were of "Gilani origin", but certainly not "Azerbaijani (=Turkish) origin". Tajik 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you check the link to the word Azerbaijani in the version proposed by me, you’ll see that it leads to Azerbaijani people, and not the region of Azerbaijan. According to professor Hooglund, Iranica and other sources Safavids were Azerbaijani, so there’s no contradiction in my words. I think this version could be acceptable for everybody, it says it was an Iranian dynasty, and mentions the origins of the dynasty (not the clan), we know that at least first generations of the dynasty were Azeri-Turkic-speakers, and we have sources that claim the later generations were Turkic-speaking as well. We can avoid mentioning this all in the intro by using my version. We can’t completely avoid mentioning their ethnic and linguistic background in the intro, because there will always be people who would wish to have that included. So it is better to come up with a solution, and my proposal could put an end to edit wars. I also take this opportunity to wish everybody happy Novruz. Have a good holiday. Grandmaster 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking the Safavids to Azerbaijani people is as wrong as linking Seljuq Turks to Iranian peoples. The problem is that Safavids were not as Turkish as you people claim. You want to present them as "100% Turkish" which is definitly wrong. The Safavids were as much Persian as they were Turkish - while their ETHNICITY and GENTICAL ORIGIN was evidently Iranian (after all, that's also the ONLY thing that makes Seljuqs or Ghaznavids "Turks" and not "Iranians"). They supported, funded, and promoted Persian culture, indetity and history much more than they did with Turkish. The CLAN of the Safavids was Iranian - that is attested in many sources and encyclopaedias. Their dynasty was started in Gilan; later, Shah Ismail crowned himself "Shah" of Azerbaijan (meaning the Iranian Azerbaijan, and not today's nation "Azerbaijan" which in reality is Arran) and extended his kingdom to Khorasan and other regions. May I remind you that the Seljuq Turks and Ghaznavid Turks were Persian-speaking and that they were born in Iranian lands. They promoted Persian culture and language. If we are supposed to call the Safavids "Turkish" or "Azerbaijani", then we also have to claim that Seljuqs and Ghaznavids were not Turks but Iranians. Do you really think that it would be OK to say that Seljuqs were "a Muslim dynasty of Iranian origin"?! I do not agree to your version and I do not accept it. It only points to one version of history and leaves out other sources. Either we mention both the Turkish and Persian elements of the dynasty, or we do not mention ANY ethnic or linguistic information (that's probably the reason why the most authoritive encyclopaedias do not mention their language!). What you are doing is pushing for a Pan-Turkist POV which is not neutral and leaves out important sources. Why should Wikipedia accept Turkish POV and at the same time reject Iranian POV?! Either both POVs have to be mentioned or none. The currect version is not good, but it is one of the most neutral versions we had so far. If that doesn't work out, then we should think of a completly different intro, something like "Safavids were a Muslim dynasty that ruled Iran", not saying anothing about their language or origins. Tajik 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally sick of the basic argument, which seems to be trapped in nationalist posturing on both sides. I will say that I'd prefer "Azeri" to "Azerbaijani." The latter implies, I think, a connection to the modern country of Azerbaijan. john k 19:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, long time, no see. Anyway, the basic argument appears to be convoluted because it deals with the ethnic origins of the Safavids. As far as I know, the Safavids (the dynasty that began with Shah Ismail that is, not the Sufi order it descended from) were of (Turkic-speaking) Azeri heritage (they did not remain Turkic-speaking, however). This is, I believe, the traditionally accepted history of the Safavids. I have never heard of anyone questioning this or saying that Ismail was of Persian and/or Kurdish heritage (or both). My two cents (thrown in for the millionth time, to no avail). SouthernComfort 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I still think that after all this time and all these revert wars and pointless arguments, that the intro paragraph should simply not address the issue of ethnicity/linguistics. The Origins section exists for a reason. SouthernComfort 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously several people are questioning this and saying that Ismail was of Persian and/or Kurdish heritage (or both). Whether or not reputable scholars have done so, I have no idea, although the claims frequently made here that Ismail's distant paternal ancestor who founded the Sufi Order may have been of Kurdish origin don't seem to have been really refuted. I would agree that taking this out of the intro might be the best way to start off, and then deal with the rest of it later on. john k 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Most people have various heritages in their ancestry. If one of Ismail’s ancestors (even the most respected one) 200 years ago was allegedly Kurdish, it does not make Ismail an ethnic Kurd or Persian. It is accepted by all scholars that the founder of the dynasty Ismail I was an Azeri and spoke and wrote poems almost exclusively in that language. I already cited an example of the Russian poet Pushkin, whose great-grandfather was from Ethiopia, but he himself is not considered Ethiopian, he’s the greatest Russian poet. Grandmaster 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If it were accespted by "all scholars", as you claim, then there wound't be an edit war in here. The point is that Ismail heritage, his language, etc etc etc - everything is disputed! I showed you directly from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which is one of YOUR favourite sources) that Ismail's father, Haydar Safavi, was NOT from Azerbaijan but from Kurdistan. He left Kurdistan for Azerbaijan to ally himself with Uzun Hasan against the Qara Qoyunlu. That means that Ismail's father was still "Kurdish" and not Azeri as you claim. Tajik 08:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If Heydar Safavi was from Kurdistan, it does not mean that he was an ethnic Kurd. You yourself claim that being from Azerbaijan is not equal to being an Azeri. And Ismail's heritage is not challenged by any serious source, your favorite Iranica says that he was a native Turkic language speaker. Grandmaster 11:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the Iranica say that Ismail in particular was a "native Turkic-speaker"?! Tajik 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't follow, Tajik. "All scholars" can agree on something, and a bunch of idiots can disagree, and one can still have an irritating argument on a wikipedia talk page. See, e.g. Talk: New Chronology (Fomenko). Not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I will say that there is something to be said for the ethnic heritage of a family being derived from the paternal ancestor. For instance, by the 20th century, the Ottoman Sultans would likely have been largely Circassian or whatever in ethnicity, but are still referred to as a Turkish dynasty, because Osman was a Turk and they spoke Turkish. The Spanish Habsburgs were a German dynasty, even though they had a lot of Spanish blood and spoke Spanish. And so forth. That said, no one has yet demonstrated very convincingly that the Safavid male line ancestry was Kurdish. john k 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, see Iranica:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left)

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.

Vernacular = native language, Ismail I was one of the early Safavids, the earliest one.

Columbia encyclopedia does not unambiguously link the dynasty to Sheikh Safi:

Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.

“Claimed descent” does not necessarily mean that they were descendants. And Dr. Eric Hooglund, an expert in Iranian studies, says: The Safawi dynasty was Azeri. Despite all this you still deny Azeri-Turkic roots of the dynasty. I know that no matter what sources I cite, you’ll still be in denial, but it is not right when one person dictates his will to the community. Grandmaster 19:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the primary problem here is what is meant by "Turkified." That is, were the Safavids "Turkified" in both the ethnic and linguistic sense, or only in the linguistic sense? The sources do not seem to clarify this issue. I think we can all agree that from the time of Ismail, they were native Turkic-speakers (Azari language having become "Turkified" by that point). I don't think anyone is denying this. But what is disputed is if he himself was actually of ethnic Azeri (Azari) background. It doesn't seem like the sources clarify this either. Again, I have to say this, "Azeri" does not equal "Turk" - I think Tajik may have a misunderstanding of this point, that Azeris have an (obviously) pre-Turkic background, and even after the Turkic arrival and the adoption of Turkic language in that region, they remained a distinct ethnic group.

But anyway, I don't think it will ever be resolved completely that Ismail was Persian, or Persian/Kurdish, or Azeri, or Azeri/Kurdish, or whatever. SouthernComfort 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the language Ismail I spoke was Azeri-Turkic, it was his court language, and he wrote poems in that language and is considered one of the greatest Azeri poets. Ethnicity is based on the language in the first place, so it’s beyond any doubt that he was an Azeri Turk, even though he could have various heritage in his ancestry. As for your edit, stating Safavids were an Iranian dynasty is not a compromise, the neutral wording would be stating that they were a Shia dynasty that ruled Iran and thus avoiding any mention of their background. I’ll restore a neutral wording for the moment. Grandmaster 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version is not more neutral at all. Are you denying that the Safavids were Iranian? Up to now you have not disputed this, as there is no cause for dispute regarding their nationality. SouthernComfort 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, unless you and Tajik can come to agreements, I'm definitely going to file for an RfC - this so-called "dispute" has gone on for too long and I'm tired of seeing this article constantly being reverted back and forth. Instead of acting constructively and expanding the article, you both are totally focused on the inclusion of their ethnicity in the intro paragraph. SouthernComfort 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I never agreed with them being of Iranian origin. I just left that part out of discussion, because it is not so important. Even if Sheikh Safi was an ethnic Kurd, it does not make the Safavid dynasty Kurdish. He was just their distant ancestor, whom they regarded as saint, but it does not make Safavid dynasty Kurdish, they did not speak any Kurdish at all. Also have a look at previous discussion with regard to this issue, their Kurdish ancestry is also disputed [2]. Even Tajik agreed to leave their ethnic background out of the intro, but you reinstated it again. Grandmaster 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian is a nationality - it links to Iran. Are you denying that their nationality was Iranian? If you are, then that is something. So, what was their nationality then, according to what you believe? SouthernComfort 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continued on my talk page, but let’s keep it here. Grandmaster 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you can't just take certain parts from a source that suit you and your belief and leave out other major information, only because you don't like it! This is what the Encyclopaedia Iranica says:

• "... The reign of Esma@¿^l 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) ..."

So, the Encyclopaedia Iranica CLEARLY distinguishes Ismail from previous rulers, because of the very simple fact that he was NOT a Turk or a Mongol. It's clearly stated in the first two sentenses that he was NOT a Turk. He is distinguished from Turkic, Arab or Mongol rulers, and instead, he is being compared to the Persian Buyid Shahs! The article goes on:

• "... Shah Esma@¿^l wrote poetry under the pen-name K¨atÂa@÷^. Although his son Sa@m M^rza@ as well as some later authors assert that Esma@¿^l composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived (Sa@m M^rza@, p. 9: one bayt; Fakòr^ Herav^, pp. 68-70: one mokòammas; Tarb^at, Da@neæmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yja@n, p. 136: three bayts). ..."

Your claim that Shah Ismail only wrote in Turkish is wrong. Your entire argumentation is based on this: that Shah Ismail was a Turk because he wrote poems in Turkish. If writing poems in a certain language defines ethnicity, then why do you only consider him Turk and not Persian? It is attested by his son that he wrote poems in Persian as well. So what makes you believe that he was a "pure Turk" and "pure Turkic-speaker"? You purposely ignore sources, Grandmaster, only because you do not like the message! And, btw, "Turkified" is not the same as "being Turkish". Many Turks today are "Germanized", but they do not consider themselvs "ethnic Germans" ... and they are not considered "ethnic Germans" by others, although many of them speak German at home!

Tajik 12:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That’s a very strange interpretation. Yes, Ismail I was not an Arab caliph, Turkish sultan, or Mongol khan, but that does not mean he was not a Turk. You don’t need to be a Turkish sultan to be a Turk. As for the poetry, I did not say he wrote only in Azerbaijani Turkic language, but his poetry in other languages is virtually unknown, while, as Timbits once told you, Shah Ismail's competence in using the Turkish language in such a level that his poetry is considered amongst the best written in Azerbaijani Turkish, is itself a proof that it was his native language. Iranica does not only say Safavids became turkified, it says that they adopted Turkish language as their vernacular. And also, I cited authoritative sources that say that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty and that Safawi dynasty was Azeri. See my above postings. Grandmaster 12:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with "strange interpretation"? That is the ONLY way to interprete the text of the Iranica. There were many Persian-speaking (="Persianized") dynasties in Iran that were of Turkish origin. The Ghaznavids or Seljuk Turks, for example. Yet, the Iranica compares Ismail to the Buyids who were of PERSIAN origin and who revived the Persian traditions of Iran. It is very clear from that sentense that the Iranica does not consider Ismail a "Turk" ... he is discribed as a native Iranian who established a native Iranian dynasty. The Iranica could have set him equal to Turkic Ghaznavids or Turkic Seljuqs who were Persianized Turks (that means that the native tongue and native culture of those dynasties was not Turkish but Persian). But this is not the case. According to the Iranica, he was NOT a Turk but an Iranian, and his reign marked the first NATIVE Iranian dyansty after centuries of TURKIC, Mongol and Arab rule. Tajik 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tajik, but your interpretation of the text is absolutely baseless. The text says that before Ismail I Persia did not exist as a separate entity but had been ruled by Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. Ismail indeed was neither of the above, but the fact that he was not a Turkish sultan does not mean that he was not a Turk. Not every Turkic ruler had a title of sultan. He united former territory of the ancient Persia under his rule and even claimed descent from Sasanids to substantiate his claims to become the ruler of these territories, but this has nothing to do with his ethnicity. There’s plenty of proof of his Turkic origins, including Iranica. Grandmaster 05:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Turkic origin"? The Iranica makes clear that the Safavids were an Iranian clan. That's what you yourself have posted above. It is only your interepretation that "turkified" is the same as "being Turkish" ... if that's true, then almost all Turkic nations in the world were not really Turks, but "Arabs" and "Persians", including the famous Seljuk Turks - the Persian-speaking dynasty that is today considered the "beginning of modern Azerbaijan". Tajik 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, please stop talking nonsense. Became turkified means that they became Turks. Turkic language became their native tongue. What else in your opinion does that mean, that they were Iranian people with native Turkic language? That’s complete nonsense, to say the least. According to Iranica Safavids were an Iranian clan 200 years before Ismail I. By the time they became a ruling dynasty they were Azerbaijani Turks. See the sources. Grandmaster 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Library of Congress Country Studies – Azerbaijan

In the sixteenth century, the Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty took power in Persia. This dynasty fought off efforts by the Ottoman Turks during the eighteenth century to establish control over Azerbaijan; the Safavids could not, however, halt Russian advances into the region.[3]

Shah Ismail I, who was also the first Safavid shah, wrote court poems in Turkish. Fuzuli and Ismail are still read in their original Turkish dialects, which are very similar to the modern literary Azerbaijani. [4] Grandmaster 13:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does this text say that they were Turks? In fact, it even says that they fought Ottoman TURKS. Once again, you base your opinion on one single factor: Ismail's Turkish poetry. Yet, once again, you ignore the fact that Shah Ismail not only wrote poems in Turkish but also in Persian. If writing poems is the definition for a dynasties ethnic origin, then almost none of the so-called "Turkish dynasties" were Turkish, but Arabic and Persian, most notably the Persian-speaking Seljuks and Ghaznavids:

• "... Ruling from their capital at Eşfahān in Iran, the Seljuk sultans used the Persian language in their administration and were patrons of Persian literature. They founded madresahs (colleges) to train future administrators in accordance with Sunni doctrine. After the death of Malik Shah and his vizier, Nizam-al-Mulk, the empire was divided among Malik Shah's sons, and Seljuk power gradually declined. ..." [5]
• "... They (Seljuks) overran Anatolia in two years, went as far as the Aegean Sea founding many small Turcoman emirates where, like in the central administration, the Persian language was used ..." [6]
• "... Because of the influence of Persian aspects coming from Iran among the enlightened, the administrators, the men of arts and the traders, the anatolian Seljuk state became increasingly affected by Iranian culture and language. ..." [7]
• "... This late Seljuk period artistic trend may be related to Samanid epigraphic ware, which petered out sometime in the eleventh century, in terms of its comeback on the relatively affordable ceramic medium and, as we shall see, in terms of its general ethical significance. Rather than proverbs in Arabic, however, this wave of literary epigraphy consisted almost exclusively of poetry in Persian, allowing us to associate the phenomenon, on the modal level at least, with the catalog of inscriptional poetry in al-Washsha’’s handbook. ... The overwhelming majority of poetic epigraphy on late Seljuk ceramics is in the form of the ruba'i (quatrain), in Persian, most frequently treating the subject of love. ..." [8]
• "... The Seljuk culture was one of the Golden Ages of the Persian Arts ..." [9]

Since the Iranian Safavids are declared "Turks" because of some Turkish poems written by the founder of the dynasty, maybe we should move the article Seljuk Turks to Seljuk Persians to make things clear... pfffff ... Tajik 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

None of your sources say that Seljuk sultans spoke Persian as their native language. They used Persian in their administration and were patrons of Persian literature, but their native language was Turkish. When Seljuks seized the power in the region, they did not have their own bureaucracy, so they used existing Persian. But they did not write any poetry in Persian, they just offered their patronage to Persian literature. As for Safavids, Azeri Turkic was their native language, and the founder of the dynasty is a classical Azeri poet, his Persian poetry was not as good, because he did not speak the language at the native level. Safavids are Turks not because of the poetry the founder of the dynasty wrote in his native Turkic language, but because the sources say so. The Library of Congress says: In the sixteenth century, the Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty took power in Persia. It does not say that it was Iranian.

Iranica:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left)

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.

Columbia encyclopedia:

Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.

Dr. Eric Hooglund, an expert in Iranian studies: The Safawi dynasty was Azeri. [10] Grandmaster 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then take a look at this text from the Iranica:

• "... 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 ... [11]

So, according to your own words, the Ghaznavids were "Persians" and not "Turks", because they were "culturally Persianized" and their Sultans wrote poetry in Persian (there is no proof that Ghaznavids spoke Turkish, because all sources available point toward a Persian culture and language). Maybe we should correct the article Ghaznavids by making clear that they were "Persians" and not "Turks"!, because - according to you - "Persianized" is the same as "being ethnic Persians". As for Shah Ismail's poetry, can you please prove your claim that "his Persian poems were not good"? Iranica says:

• "... Although his son Sa@m M^rza@ as well as some later authors assert that Esma@¿^l composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived (Sa@m M^rza@, p. 9: one bayt; Fakòr^ Herav^, pp. 68-70: one mokòammas; Tarb^at, Da@neæmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yja@n, p. 136: three bayts) ... Apart from this poetical corpus that is almost exclusively in traditional ¿aru@zµ (q.v.), there exist a sizeable number of poems in syllabic meter that carry the pen-name K¨atÂa@÷^. Although a strong argument was put forth that these syllabic poems should be ascribed to poets belonging to Bekta@æ^-¿Alaw^ circles in Asia Minor (Gandjei, 1971), the possibility that Esma@¿^l I did in fact compose some of them, perhaps with the purpose of attracting Turkish-speaking tribesmen to the Safavid cause, cannot be precluded. " [12]

You are deffinitly giving too much credit to his poetry! Tajik 21:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to divert a discussion to a different topic. What Seljuks, Ghaznavids and others have to do with Safavids? If you want to edit Ghaznavids to state that they were Persians, go ahead and do it, I’m not going to intervene. I showed you the sources that say Safavids were Azeri Turks, if you have the sources that say Ghaznavids were Persians, you can present them on the talk page of the respective article and introduce your changes. But I can see from the sources that you presented that this dynasty was very similar to Safavids. They were a Turkic dynasty, that later adopted Persian language as the official state language. But the language of both dynasties was Turkish, at least of the early Ghaznavids, your source says that while “the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them”, “there are indications of the persistence of some Turkish literary culture under the early Ghaznavids”. Grandmaster 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Tajik, this is from your post on Azerbaijani people talk page:

My father's family is originally Sayyid-Arab from Herat, but totally Persianized. My mother's family is Kizilbashi from the Bayat-clan of Oghuz-Turks (in other words: my mother's family is Azeri and settled in present-day Afghanistan during the campaings of Nadir Shah).

According to your logic, you yourself are not a Tajik or Persian, you are an Arab, because no matter what language you speak now, your ancestors were of Arabic and Azeri Turkic extraction. Grandmaster 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally different case. My family has been living in what is now Afghansitan since the early days of Islamic advent in that region. That's more than 1000 years ... and in those centuries, a very small majority (both Turks and Arabs) intermarried with the native Iranian population and became not only culturally but also genetically IRANIAN. The case of the Safavids is totally different: we are talking of only a very few generation in which you have still to prove that the original IRANIAN Safavids and Zahedis became genetically "Turkified" ... It's true that Ismail's mother was half-Turkish (keeping in mind that not even the Aq Qoyunlu were pure Turks), but what about his father, grand-father? What about his children? So, the case in here is totally different. We are only talking about cultural assimiliation, which was by far not as big as you claim. If the Safavids were "100% Turkish", as YOU claim, then they would have influenced the Mughals of India by directing them to a more Turkish character. But that was not the case: BECAUSE of Safavid influence, the Mughals were culturally and linguistically PERSIAN. That's even what the Iranica says: SAFAVID influence on the Mughals was PERSIAN and not Turkish. Your claim that "Safavids were Turks" is against history ... the Safavids did not promote Turkish nationalism or Turkish language; they were as much Persian-speaking as Turkish-speaking. That's why the Ottoman sultans replied to the Safavid kings in Persian! They were known to the world as "Persians" and not Turks. Even your own sources - most of all that eye-witness report from the 17th century - calls them "Persians". You are ignoring the Persian and Iranian elements of the Safavids which is what they are known for: reviving the Persian identity of Iran after centuries of Mongol-, Arab-, and Turkic rule. If the Safavids were as Turkish as you claim, then Iran today would have been Turkish and not Persian. They would have forced their Turkish language on the people the same way they had forced Shiism on the population and the same way Ottomans forced the Turkish language on the population of Anatolia. But that was not the case. This already disproves your claim that "Safavids were ethnic Turks" ... Tajik 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It’s not so much a different case. Alleged Kurdish roots of Safavids date more that 170 years back before they became a ruling dynasty. By the time they became a dynasty they were Turkic people, as is attested by the sources. Genetics don’t mean a thing, in that case Pushkin would be an Ethiopian and not a Russian poet. What really matters is the language people speak, and sources say that Safavids spoke Azeri Turkic as their mother tongue. The early Safavids promoted Turkish language, in the times of Ismail it was the official language along with Persian. After the capital moved to Isfahan Persian bureaucracy started to play more important role, but the court of Safavids was still Turkic speaking. As for yourself, ethnicity is not based on genetics, there are nationalities consisting of people of various races. Azerbaijanis and Persians are anthropologically identical, but Azeris are Turkic, and Persians are Iranian people. So according to your words if someone in your ancestry was of different ethnicity, you are not who you consider yourself to be, but belong to the same ethnicity as your distant ancestor of other ethnicity. Grandmaster 07:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetics

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)

As iny argument we need to define what is nationality, race and ethnicity. And this is where argument falters, this is where useless polytical passions start as these things are hard to define. I really like Ibn-Khaldun's term "group feeling" (asabiyya). Basically, there is a group feeling of Kizilbash Turkish speaking people (anyone denying it?) that is led and inspired by religious messinianic figure of Ismail Safavi. His language was common Turkic and his poetry was in common vernacular. Safavi dynasty is iranian but Ismail and potentially his son Tahmasp are of Turkish "group feeling". When Kizilbash power is extinguished the dynasty is Persianized. With this argument i do try leave aside the ethnic (inevitably incredibly mixed at that time) discussion Abdulnr 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also arguments that are hard to define are poor preamble to case in question For instance a) define Iranian b) define Persian c) define Azeri ... No one can agree on any of this how can we ever agree on poor Ismail Shah...

Safavids

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)

Sounds good to me. john k 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA will retain the stigma of an "amateurs' playground", with unreflected and poorly substantiated edits as by, e.g., Tabib

Due to his User TALK Page being blocked, i find myself compelled to voice my concerns about his conduct here:

Every minute is wasted in following the escapades of User TABIB on this platform. Not only does his irate conduct insult one's intelligence, it insults the intelligence of readers seeking info on WIKIPEDIA. I have substantiated the related claims I made with dozens of sources and references (see Safavids TALK!), while he picks findings and hearsay out of context and randomly posts bits of them on the subject without reflection (here and on Safi Al-Din) While there are indeed isolated 16/17th century sources referring to Safi Al-Din as Turk saint or youth, these have been proven misinformed and naive by notable scholars such as Falsafi, Minorski, Gronke and Savory (creme of scholars on the subject!). I ask User Tabib in a comparison: If some political fanatics claim that the Khojali Massacre/Genocide was a mere invention by Azeris or had been less dramatic then Azeris would want the world to believe, do you cite this as a verified fact, just because you may have read it in the Washington Post/Pravda/Times????? You are acting in exactly this fashion: You pic an unsubstantiated claim about SAFI AL-DIN out of context and irately post it here without reflection. While there are numerous well substantiated assertions by the relevant scholars that SAFI AL-DIN was indeed of Iranian/Kurdish descent, you seem to find it appropriate to actually POST unsubstantiated ones, which you have chanced upon, out of context. That, without even mentioning the universally established school of thought to the contrary.

Having conducted comprehensive, indepth studies on the subject, I wish to therefor warn all READERS: TAKE HEADE! YOU ARE FACING "REVELATIONS" BY A PERSON IGNORANT OF THIS MATTER, WHO NEVERTHELESS COMPELS HIMSELF TO CONTRIBUTE TO GROTESQUE MISINTERPRETATIONS ON THIS FORUM - TO THE DETRIMENT OF EVERYBODY SEEKING INFORMATION OR SEEKING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION! This unhelpful behaviour has been going on for a year now. Pantherarosa 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The arrogance and narrow minded zealotry expressed in this debate is frankly nauseating. There have been numerous and ample citations of some of the leading authorities on Islam, the Middle East and Persia stating explicitly that the early Safavid rulers were Turkic.

The entire premise of the "No they werent remotely Turkish, they were entirely Iranian in every way" brigade is based on a deliberately subjective interpretation of the facts - namely the fact that Safi al-Din, who was not of course a ruler of the Safavid dynasty of Persia merely the founder of the cult at which they were the head, was an Iranian. To disagree over the early ethnic history of the Safavids is, if in my mind not possible to those who observe the facts objectively, at least legitimate but to arrogantly dismiss those in opposition who have provided evidence every bit as valid as your own as "political fanatics","unsubstantiated", "hearsay" and "random" is quite simply indefensible and pathetic. There was an edit by Tajik some time ago ( which was quickly rv sadly) which i think left the page in a condition acceptable to both views. It expressed the Turkic nature of the early Safavid rulers but also emphasised the Iranian origin of the cult and the very quick 'Persianization' of the dynasty. Perhaps we could return to that and end this ridiculous edit war. An Siarach

• • • • WHO, pray tell me, are these leading authorities??? It is halfcocked statements such as this one that hamper efforts aimed at finding a solution to the silly bickering of hearsay peddlars, whom you seem to be expressly supporting, if not joining, here. It is as silly as if people would claim the Scots had been anglosized, stylizing the Turkic influences by Qizilbash administration and army and the daughter of Uzun Hassan as Turkification. You totally disregard the fact that all efforts were actually directed against Turkic elements (Istambul based Khalifate/Turkoman tribes, etc.) One year and numerous attempts at shedding light on the subject matter by meticulously citing dozens of sources (the créme of experts on the matter) were a futile excersise in the face of ignorant zealots, compellig themselves at offloading halftruths and hearsay, irately picked up here and there. SUFISM was not a cult, by the way Pantherarosa 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The best way to end this dispute is to start an RfC. I’m going to do that soon, I’m just a little busy with other things right now. And by the way, it’s Iranica, who claims that Safavids were turkisized, and all other sources also say they were Turks, you can deny it as much as you want, but let’s see what other people say. And Safavids fought not just against Turks, but against Sunnis, it was a religious war. Grandmaster 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you. The fact that Safavid dynasty was Turkic is attested by all the reputable sources, even Iranica. There’s a dispute as to whether it remained a Turkic dynasty all the way through, Tabib cited sources which indicated that later Safavids also were Turkic-speaking, despite the Safavid administration being significantly persianazed after the capital was moved to Isfahan. I suppose you are talking about this version, which was suggested by Khoikhoi as a compromise:

The Safavids were an Iranian, initially Turkic-speaking 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.

I never really opposed this version, even though I think it can be improved, for instance by retaining the mention that Safavids were from Azerbaijan region from the current version. Grandmaster 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he is talking about this version:

The Safavids were an 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.

Although of Iranian origin, the early Safavid Shahs were Turkic-speaking. However, the Turkic elements of the dynasty were replaced by Persian elements when Shah Abbas I. seized power, marking the beginning of modern Iran.

And it was User:Tabib who once again messed up the article and once again started the edit-war: [13] Tajik 12:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This version has a strange wording. How could anyone replace Turkic elements of the Turkic dynasty he himself belonged to? Did Shah Abbas replace himself, his father and his children with people of other ethnicity? Grandmaster 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what you claim. After all, it is you who believs that Haydar and Junayd "replaced" their Iranian heritage /which is attested in many reliable sources and approved by the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam) with Turkish ethnicity. the same way they "changed" their ethnicity from "Iranian" to "Turkic", Shah Abbas "re-changed" it to Iranian. Tajik 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not sound good anyway, even though I’m not a native English speaker, I can see that it’s not proper English. People can change their ethnicity, but the phrase about replacing Turkic elements of the dynasty sounds strange. Grandmaster 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:An Siarach who is a native English-speaker did not and does not have any problems with it. So, please stop pretending. Tajik 13:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let’s ask him. Grandmaster 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting fact with regard to late Safavids:

Shah Abbas II (r. 1052 – 77/ 1642 – 66 q.v.) was himself a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani. [14] See page 251 Grandmaster 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it does not matter. According to the medival historian Rashid al-Din (in Djami al-tawarikh), the Turkic tribes of Central-Asia considered the founder of the Seljuq-Dynasty, Arslan Khan, a "Sart" and a "Tajik", both words having the same meaning: "Persian". (see: Encyclopaedia of Islam, in the articles "Sart" and "Tadjik"). Almost all of the documents from the Seljuq ear were written in Persian, many Seljuq kings had Persian names (Khosrow, Kay-Kobad, etc), and they were native Persian-speakers (some of the kings are known as Persian poets, like Allah ud-Din Kay-Kobad of Rum). But this does not make the Seljuqs an "ethnic Persian dynasty". Tajik 17:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It actually does matter. It proves that later Safavids were (Azeri) Turkic speaking as well, and Columbia encyclopedia was absolutely right when called Safavids a Turkic-speaking dynasty. So the version proposed by Tabib should be restored, it said that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty from Azerbaijan, which is absolute truth. Grandmaster 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Poems do not define a dynasty. If that were the case, then the Ghaznavids and Seljuks would have been "ethnic Persians" ... Tajik 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Poetry shows that these people were speakers of a certain language. Therefore it is correct to use the same definition as Columbia. I’m going to start an RfC or something similar to end this dispute. Grandmaster 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, the reference to Seljuks and Ghaznavids is not correct, while they offered patronage to Persian literature and used Persian language at their court they are known to be Turkic and no one claims otherwise. If you can prove that those rulers were Persian you can make respective changes to the respective articles. Ghaznavid dynasty was very similar to Safavids. It was a Turkic dynasty, that later adopted Persian language as the official state language. But the language of both dynasties was Turkish, see the article about Ghaznavids from Iranica: 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. Yet given the fact that the essential basis of the Ghaznavids' military support always remained their Turkish soldiery, there must always have been a need to stay attuned to their troops' needs and aspirations; also, there are indications of the persistence of some Turkish literary culture under the early Ghaznavids. [15]

Safavid dynasty was almost the same, this Turkic dynasty used Persian language in state affairs, because its subjects were not only Turkic people, but the dynasty remained Turkic-speaking even after it moved the capital to Isfahan. Grandmaster 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just say yourself that "language defines ethnicity"?! All documents and papers from the time of the Ghaznavids point toward a native Persian-speaking dynasty. The Ghaznavi Sultans were not only known for their love for Persian language and the Persian way of life, they even wrote Persian poetry. I am quoting the source you have provided above:

• "... Mas¿u@d III was an enthusiastic warrior whose armies were active in India against the infidels. It seems that Mas¿u@d, like the rest of his dynasty, employed the spoils of war and the temple treasures of India to beautify his capital GÚazna and to construct gardens and palaces (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 35, 87-89). Adjacent to the minaret of Mas¿u@d (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahámu@d), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim g@a@z^s and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past (see Bombaci). ... 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. ... The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. ... as emerges from the pages of Bayhaq^, Mas¿u@d I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30); ¿Abd-al-Raæ^d commissioned the copying in GÚazna of a superb manuscript on traditions describing the Prophet which survives today (Stern) ..." [16]

Now, according to your own words, the Ghaznavid Sultans should be considered "ethnic Persians", because they not only supported Persian life-style and culture, but also promoted the Persian language and they themselvs wrote Persian poetry (Mas'ud I. who wrote Persian poetry and texts was the 4th Sultan of the dynasty; 11 others followed!). There are no proofs for the use of Turkish at the Ghaznavid court (except a few Turkish poems among their soldiers), nor any proof for the claim that Ghaznavids were Turkish-speaking.

And what exactly do you mean with "ethnic Turks"?! Are you talking about "genetic heritage"?! If that's the case, then why do you not accept the "genetic Iranian origin" of the Azeris?! If "ethnic Turk" means "native Turkish-speaker", then why do you consider these dynasties "Turkish", although there was absolutely nothing "Turkish" about them, except the fact that they were genetical descendants of Turkish slave-soldiers.

As for the Safavids, they were ethnic Iranians (meaning genetical descendants of Iranians) who - at some point of their history - adopted Turkish as their native tongue. However, since the status of Persian has always been much higher than any Turkic language, Persian always remained an important element of the Safavid court, which is attested by Shah Ismail's decision to call himself "Shahnshah" and not "Khan" or "Sultan" like other Turks of his time.

Here are some informations regarding the Safavids and their Kizilbash soldiers (taken from the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam):

• Kizilbash (explaining the Non-Turkic and pre-Islamic origin of this militant group)
• Safavids (explaining the Persian origin and identity of the dynasty, and its meaning for the Persians)

Because of copy-right reasons, I can only post these small extracts of the article.

Tajik 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that Ghaznavid sultans were originally Turkic-speakers and promoted Turkish literature. Ismail and his descendants were also Turkic-speakers. Plus, if you want to describe Ghaznavid sultans as Persians, you can do that by citing an authoritative source. So far I have not seen a single source attesting that Ismail (not his remote ancestor) was Persian. And see Britannica for Kizilbash:

Turkish Kizilbas (“Red Head”), any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736) in Iran. The name was given to them by Sunnite Turks and was applied later to the followers of a Shi'ite sect in eastern Asia Minor. It also was given in Afghanistan to the Persian-speaking Turkmens, who settled in Kabul and other cities from about… [17] Grandmaster 09:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well known"?! Your own source claims something different, namely that there was no Turkish identity, way of though or language present at the Ghaznavid dnyasty. And I think we have discussed before that when it comes to Iranian or Islamic history, the Britannica is really no match for the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the Encyclopaedia Iranica. BTW: while in the Article "Turks" (in the Encyclopaedia of Islam) Qara-Khanids, Seljuqs, Aq Qoyunlu, Ottomans and certain other dynasties are mentioned as "being Turkic", there is absolutely no referrence to Ghaznavids or Safavids. The article has 88 pages (PDF formate) - which should clearly prove that the Encyclopaedia of Islam is superior to Britannica or Columbia when it comes to Islamic history. I'll send it to you if you have interest. Tajik 10:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Which source claims that there was no ethnic identity? If you are talking about Ghaznavids, it is explicitly stated there that The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish. Not much to discuss, is it? And the quality of encyclopedia is measured not by the amount, but by the accuracy of information. Please send me your source on my e-mail, if you can. Grandmaster 10:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Then please do us all a favour and practise what you preach. The article "Safawids" of the Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly distinguishes the Safavids from "Arabs, Mongols, and Turks" and calls them "the first dynasty of Persian origin that controlled the whole of Persia after the Arabic conquest". The EoI is an authoritive source, and the Safawid-article is written by no less than E.C. Bosworth! Ghaznavids and Seljuqs were Turks, good, we all accept that. And now, you accept that Safavidsw were NOT Turks but Iranians. EOD. Tajik 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Safavids were Turkic. There are so many sources to prove that, and you have just one source to claim that they were of Persian origin (i.e. had a Kurdish ancestor 170 years before the dynasty was founded). Grandmaster 11:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - this is not even an issue which is shrouded in ambiguity or controversy ( except on this sorry pages ) . The Safavids were Turkic - this is stated as explicitly as possible in histories dealing with them. I cant help but notice that the quite clear quotes i provided stating so months ago here have been ignored - i happily invite the "Safavids were Persian" crew to tell us why exactly the books/authors referenced are wrong. Il provide another little gem while im here : "The Zands were an Iranian people, and their decades of dominance were one of the few periods, between the arrival of the Saljūqs and the twentieth century, during which effective political power was exerised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian" " ( Morgan, David Medieval Persia 1040-1797 ) An Siarach

I have quoted R.M. Savory in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (and in the Encyclopaedia Iranica) before and I will do it again:

"... The establishment of the Safawid state [...] 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 [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "the Iranian intermezzo" [...] did a dynasty of Persian origin pervail over much of Iran; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..." [18]

This is taken from the article "Safawids" in the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam, written by Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus (University of Toronto), and THE expert on Safavid history.

This article (with referrence to works published by experts, such as the Turkish scholar Abdülbaki Göpenarli, "Fellow of the British Academy" C.E. Bosworth, and E. Yarshater) clearly distinguishes the Safavids from their Arabic or Turkish and Mongol predecessors.

It does not surprise me that turcophiles and Turkish nationalists reject and/or ignore this academic source. But fact is: according o the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam (and the Encyclopaedia Iranica, since both encyclopaedias are written by the same authors), the Safawids were clearly NON-TURKS, and therefore, there is absolutely no reason why they should be called "Turks" in this Wikipedia article.

Tajik 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reference to the Persian ethnicity of the Safavids, Persian origin only means that they were natives of Persia, which distinguishes them from the rulers of Turkey. The quote from the US Library of Congress: In the sixteenth century, the Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty took power in Persia was rejected on the grounds that Azerbaijani was a reference to the territory and not ethnicity, this is no different. As for Iranica, I don’t see Iranica supporting Tajik’s claim that Safavids were not Turkic. This is from encyclopedia Iranica, [19] see page 246:

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war.

As is known, the Azeri-speaking rulers of the 16th century were Safavids. Grandmaster 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And labeling other editors as "turcophiles" and "Turkish nationalists" is clearly a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, so I urge you stop making personal comments and keep it to the subject. Grandmaster 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reasonable resolution of the dispute could be the following wording:

The Safavids were a native Turkic (or Azeri)-speaking Iranian dynasty from Azerbaijan or something like that. Such version would allow avoiding mentioning their ethnicity. Grandmaster 11:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To support your claims, now you even deny the existance of Persians?! The point in here is NOT proving them Persians, but to show that Safavids were NOT Turks (as you claim). IF they WERE Turks, then the Iranica or the EoI would have called them "Turks" ... but this is NOT the case. The author of the article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam uses the word "Persian" to clearify that they were NOT Turks. There were many dynasties in the past who were native in Persia, but were NOT ethnic Iranians (Ghaznavids, Kara Koyunlu, even Ak Koyunlu) ... these native Iranian dynasties of Turkic origin are clearly distinguished from the Safavids. Instead, the Safavids are compared to the Buyyids, the ONLY native Iranian dynasty of IRANIAN origin that ruled this area in the time between the Arab conquest and the restoration of Persian sovereignty by the Safavids. It's really funny to watch Grandmaster totally change the meaning of the article and interprete it the way he wants, only because he cannot accept the simple fact that Safavids were NOT Turks. As for the text in the Iranica, "Azeri-speaking" is not a synonym for "Turk", the same way "Persian-speaking" is not a synonym for "Persian" (see Mughals or Ghaznavids, two native Persian-speaking dynasties of Mongol and Turkic origin).

The language of the Safavids is already mentioned in the text and thus, it is not needed to mention in in the intro. Tajik 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, you’ve been provided with such an endless number of authoritative sources, proving that Safavids were Turkic, that your denial is simply ridiculous. I don’t need to deny anything to support my claims, I have plenty of authoritative sources to back them up. Safavids wrote and spoke Azeri-Turkic, this fact is confirmed even by the sources you were referring to. The ethnicity is not judged by remote ancestors, in that case Safavids are not even Kurdish or Persian, but quite possibly Arabic, as some sources suggest. See some of the sources previously provided by other contributors, in addition to those provided by An Siarach, I won’t repost them to save space. [20][21] So the version proposed by me is quite a logical solution. Grandmaster 19:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a bunch of authoritive sources myself, proving that the Safavids were NOT Turks. And here is another you could add to those authoritive source: Encyclopaedia Britannica:

• "Safavid dynasty - Persian dynasty. It was founded by Isma'il I, who, by converting his people from Sunnite to Shi'ite Islam and adopting the trappings of Persian monarchy, planted the seeds of a unique national and religious identity. He captured Tabriz from the Ak Koyunlu and became shah of Azerbaijan (1501) and Persia (1502). 'Abbas I (r. 1588–1629) brought the dynasty to its peak; his capital, Esfahan, was the centre of Safavid architectural achievement. The dynasty declined in the century following his reign, pressed by the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal dynasty, and fell when a weak shah, Tahmasp II, was deposed by his general, Nadir Shah." [22]

Tajik 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? Persian dynasty = dynasty of rulers of Persia. Grandmaster 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does not surprise us that you deny the existance of a Persian people. What does "Turkish dyansty" mean? "Dynasty that ruled Turkey"?! Were the Ghaznavids (whom you consider "Turkish") ruling "Turkey"?! Tajik 20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s very ambiguous and open for various interpretations. They use either Persian or Iranian dynasty in their articles, meaning the same thing. See:

Safavid Dynasty Encyclopædia Britannica Article

(1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shi'ite Islam as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country. The Safavids were descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din (1253–1334) of Ardabil, head of the Sufi order of Safaviyeh (Safawiyah), but about 1399 exchanged their Sunnite affiliation… [23]

And when did I deny existence of Persian people? And how about this, super authoritative Cambridge History of Iran:

1) "The establishment of the Gajar capital in Tehran at the end of the eighteenth century was merely the last manifestation of what may well be a permanent tendency in the life of Iran. There are manifold reason of this phenomenon. Moreover, the Turkish and Mongol origins of the earliest dynasties certainly played a major part in causing the capitals to be situated in the north, and especially along the main invasion route following Alburz into Azarbaijan. The princes of these basically nomadic states were anxious both to be near their tribes and to avoid the excessive heat of the climate farther to the south. This helps to explain the evolution of Tabriz, which, despite all the vicissitudes, was the capital successively of the Mongols, the Qara Qoyunlu, the Aq Qoyunlu, and finally the Safavids, all of whom stemmed originally from the Turkmen tribes of the north-west from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries. Tabriz was abandoned only for short periods, and always for other cities in the same region: Maragheh, whose, fertile pasture land had attracted Hulagu, Ardabil, the cradle of the Safavids; and Sultaniyeh."

The Cambridge History of Iran (in eight Volumes). Volume 1. The Land of Iran. Edited by W.B.Fisher, Cambridge at the University Press, 1968. Page 434.

Or this:

"The Safavid threat to the Ottomans was rendered at once more acute and more intimate by the Turkish origin of the Safavid family and their extensive support in Turkish Anatolia"

"The Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins"

Lewis, Bernard The Middle East

I've got plenty more. Grandmaster 21:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You simply do not understand, Grandmaster, that ethnicity simply did not matter back then. The entire Safavid family was a mix of different ethnic backgrounds. As stated in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, from Djunayd to Tahmasp I., all Safavid Sheikhs had Turcoman wives while many of the other princes had Persian, Kurdish, Georgian or Armenian mothers and wives. However, Tahmasp married a Non-Turcoman wife (which engared the Turcoman Kizilbash and started a short-lived civil war in which certain Kizilbash tried to kill Tahmasp), and from then on, the Persian nobles and Georgian nobles (represented by their queens in the Shah's harem) played a major role within the Safavid family and in the kingdom. Simply "turkifying" the entire dynasty does not make it. The Safavids as a family were a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual clan who neither considered themselvs "Turks" nor "Persians" or anything else BUT "Shias".

The best solution would be to take the article Ottoman Empire as an example which says:

• "... The Sultans had a very mixed ethnic lineage because the Sultans married women from various backgrounds. They spoke their mother tongue: Ottoman, Persian, Turkish, Greek, Arabic and some European languages. All ethnicities who had their own language continued to speak their own language in their family, in villages where two populations lived together, the two populations would often speak each other's language (Cyprus:Greek/Turkish, the Balkans: Albanian/Greek/Serbian/Bulgarian, Eastern Turkey: Kurdish/Turkish/Armenian, Northeastern Turkey: Laz, Georgian, Greek, Turkish). In cosmopolitan cities, people often spoke their family languages, some Ottoman if they were educated, and some Arabic if they were Muslim. In the last two centuries, French and English emerged as popular languages where the elite learned French at school, and used European products as a fashion statement. ..."

That's exactly why Shah Ismail wrote in Turkish and Persian, that's exactly why Persian and Turkish (and later even Georgian) were equally important at the Safavid court (as mentioned by the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the vast number of literature produced at the Safavid court was in fact Persian and not Turkish).

Tajik 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Edits

beyond ethnic question. Article has become too long and full of redundacies - for instance reference to Kurdish region of dimdim on lake Urmia for two paragraphs. also lenghty description of Shah Abbas I.abdulnr

Proposal

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)

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)

But intro already professes Iranian and Persian aspirations of the Shia dynasty. I just don't feel the denigration, from for example mentioning Turkic elements in Safavids. If I were Iranian I would feel great pride in the achievements of the dynasty irrespective of the language(s) spoken at court. abdulnr 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Tajik, GM: how about the following intro, that would avoid talking about the ethnic 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)

Page move to Safavid dynasty

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. SouthernComfort 08:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Grandmaster 11:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Tajik 10:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit by Tajik

May I know why you deleted the reference to such prominent scholar as Bernard Lewis? Is he not a reliable source? This is clearly against the rules, you refer to such sources as old edition of Britannica in the article about Nizami and remove references to one of the biggest names in the Middle East studies. Here are quotes:

The Safavid threat to the Ottomans was rendered at once more acute and more intimate by the Turkish origin of the Safavid family and their extensive support in Turkish Anatolia.

It is ironic that in the increasingly angry correspondence between the two monarchs that preceded the outbreak of hostilities, the sultan wrote to the shah in Persian, the language of urban, cultivated gentlemen, while the Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins.

Bernard Lewis. The Middle East. ISBN: 0684832801

Same with other sources that you removed. And why are you trying to hide Ethnic and linguistic controversy section at the bottom of the page? Grandmaster 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My edit is a compromise. Either we create a list, mentioning ALL available sources, or we stick to this version which is accepted by the Encyclopaedia Iranica and by the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the two most authoritative sources regarding this issue.

What YOU do not understand is that the Safavid family (which was much much larger than you believe) was of diverse ethnic backgrounds, with the Shahs and princes having Armenian, Kurdish, Persian, or Turkic mothers.

The FACT that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan and had NON-Turkic origins is accepted by the Encyclopaedia of Islam and by the Encyclopaedia Iranica. And the FACT, the the Safavids - origianlly an Iranian and Iranian-speaking family - became "Turkified" in Azerbaijan, is also mentioned.

And I moved the section down, beucause it has no importance to the article and is just an additional info for those who are nationalistically biased.

Tajik 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Bernard Lewis no less or maybe even more authoritative than Iranica or EoI. Still you chose only those sources that suit your POV and ignore the others. And if you are against nationalistic bias, why did you change the compromise intro to Nizami? Grandmaster 13:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not deny, ignore or reject Bernard Lewis authority. However - as you yourself have said - "newer works are superior to older ones". Bernard Lewis is an expert on Near Eastern Studies and the history of the Ottoman Empire. He is no expert on Safavid history, unlike Roger M. Savory, the expert and the authority regarding Safavid and Kizilbash history.

The problem with you is that YOU always refer to sources that only suit YOUR POV, and now you even claim that the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica "are POV" (yes, that's what you ahve just said), only because they clearly reject your claims that "Safavids were Turks".

The Encyclopaedia of Islam is THE authoritative work in here, and - adding the Encyclopaedia Iranica to it - has more weight than any other source (except for the other works of Roger M. Savory, the author of the EI article).

Tajik 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that Iranica and EoI are POV? Show me the exact line. I said that you stick to those two ignoring other sources because currently they suit your POV. If they don’t, you will abandon them and find another “most authoritative source”. They don’t have more weight than other authoritative sources, they have equal weight. As for Lewis, he’s a specialist not only on Ottoman empire, but the whole Middle East, and yet you reject such an authoritative source, while according to the rules you should make account for all existing authoritative sources. And it’s not only Lewis, there many others. Grandmaster 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care wether you get or not: Roger M. Savory is a specialist on Safavid history, and one of the very very few orintalists who have SPECIALIZED on Safavid history. MOST of the published works of Savory are about Safavids, including highly complex issues, such as the assassination of Wakil Mirza Salman (I doubt that Lewis has anything comparable!). There is a good reason for why the Encyclopaedia of Islam asked Savory to write the article about the Safavids (and Kizilbashs) and NOT Lewis (who is also a notable author of the Encyclopaedia of Islam!). Just accept the facts! Tajik 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is a specialist, but not the ONLY one. And how do you know that EoI asked Savory and did not ask Lewis? Maybe he simply was not interested or available at the moment. The thing is that it’s not only Lewis. There are so many other sources. How about Cambridge History of Iran, they are also not enough knowledgeable on the subject?

As for newer works being superior to older ones, it is the case when we deal with the same source, and newer edition of Britannica is indeed superior. In fact, even Wiki rules discourage from using older Britannica. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Older editions such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica often have fuller articles than current editions on some subjects, though there is always the danger that the information is outdated. Grandmaster 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "Persia"

1. In this article, both words "Iran" and "Persia" were used without any preferences (which sometimes created false phrases, such as "Iranian carpet" in place of "Persian carpet"). This would make a great confusion for international readers.

Although the word "Iran" will (and must) be used in Persian text to describe the country during its whole history, in an English text it implies the country as it is only during the last 70 years. Since the word "Iran" (as the name of a country) entered the English language in 1934, It may not be used to describe the country before that date. (Please read my post: Persia today)

Please note that "Persia" and "Persian" are English words referring to the country "Persia" not to the ethnicity of "Pars." (Please read my post: Persian: Nationality or Ethnicity?).

2. "Esfahan" and "Isfahan" are both used in English text. "Esfahan" implies the correct pronunciation of the name of the city, and therefore is more favourable.

This article is based on long and detailed discussions. At the end, most of the authors of the article agreed to use the more neutral term "Iranian" instead of "Persian", which would be incorrect anyway. Tājik 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to clarify why Iranian is a "more neutral term," and why Persian is "incorrect anyway?" I relay on the facts that:

1. The word Iran, as the name of a country, has entered the English language after 1935. This name, therefore, is not applicable to the country, in English language, before that day.

2. The word Persian is not the English translation of the ethnicity. All the inhabitants of Persia (Arab, Turk, Pars, Baluch, etcetera) are called Persian. If the base of the discussion on Iran being a more neutral term was the ethnicity, it is not justified. It is very easy to see this distinction in other European languages as well. In Dutch language, for example, "Pers" is the ethnicity of Pars, "Perzisch" is the nationality of Persia, and "Perzië" is the name of the country before 1935. As you see, in Dutch language, a "Perzisch" may or may not be a "Pers." Similarly, in English, a "Persian" is not always a "Pars."

3. Nevertheless, if most of the authors agreed on something, it should be used consistently. If you read the article carefully, Iran and Persia are used interchangeably, which create more confusion for international reader.

I should not forget to emphasize some strange phrases that are emerged by using the word Iran instead of Persia. "Iranian carpet" is an example of such terms.

--Fakhredin 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Safavid dynasty → Safavid Empire – Here are only a few (not all) of the reasons:

1. The Safavids ruled Persia for 235 years (1501-1722 according to Wikipedia). This is the fourth longest period (after Parthian [476 years], Sassanid [424], and Achaemenid [318] Empires). In Wikipedia, Ghaznavid, Seleucid, Seljukid, and Timurid are also called "Empire," while their periods were much shorter.

2. The size of Persia at the time of the Safavids was one of the largest sizes in the history, comparable to the size of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid Empires.

3. The Safavids coexisted with the Ottomans, the same way that the Sassanids coexisted with the Romans. As the Sassanids, Romans and Ottomans are all called Empires, the name "Safavid Empire" will give a better perspective of the balance of power between those kingdoms.

4. The Safavids contributed to a large part of Persian Heritage as we know it today. Esfahan, their capital city, is one of the most famous sites of tourist attraction today and registered in the list of UNESCO's world heritage. This fact, by itself, implies the existence of an "Empire" and not just a "dynasty."

5. The phrase "Safavid Empire" is already used in the current article in at least three occasions (the title of the map, under the title "Shah Abbas," and under the title "Ethnic and linguistic controversy." Fakhredin 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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)

Oppose Basically I agree with the user above. I say we change all of the titles to Iran related dynasties to "Achaemenid Persia", "Parthian Persia", etc... "Safavid Persia", and so on... This way, we can recognize the different dynastic changes and also know that it was the continuation of the same empire (therefore all of these dynasties would be ruling an empire).Khosrow II 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Although I agree with the terms "Achaemenid Persian Empire" or "Sassanid Persian Empire," such terms may not be applicable for "Seleucid Empire" (who were Greek) or "Ilkhanate Empire" (who were Mongol). Clearly, there has been rises and falls in the history of the Persian Empire, and we can have three main periods. The first Persian Empire that coexisted with Greek Empire and ended with the invasion of Alexander the Great. The Second Persian Empire that coexisted with Roman Empire and ended with the invasion of Arabs. The third Persian Empire that coexisted with Ottoman Empire and ended by its decline in power and loosing big pieces of land (mainly at north and east). The main dynasties in the third period of Persian Empire, therefore, should be noted as "Empire" to clarify the existence of the third Persian Empire. Among those, the Safavids contributed the longest period of time and the highest influence in Persian cultural heritage.213.222.3.133 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Seleucids should be a dynasty, like the Ptolemies. Septentrionalis 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per RandomCritic; and the chaos no more makes a new country than the Five Dynasties or the Wars of the Roses. The only reason to use even Achaemenid Empire and Sassanian Empire is that they are clearly distinct states; if it were not for the Greek incursion, we would have a single article called Persian Empire, like Roman Empire. Septentrionalis 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.