Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 46:
Line 46:
Sorry, I didn't notice that the tags were inserted by Tajik.
Sorry, I didn't notice that the tags were inserted by Tajik.
I will leave the article as such as well, except maybe wikify it and some English improvements. I expect in a month first sentence of introduction will be changed to remove the word Azerbaijani :) Talk to you then. ] 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I will leave the article as such as well, except maybe wikify it and some English improvements. I expect in a month first sentence of introduction will be changed to remove the word Azerbaijani :) Talk to you then. ] 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
: It surprises me that you, Atabek, are back at accusing people and writing POV again. To make it clear: I am not Tajik, but you and I know each other from previous conflicts, and I am not surprised that you have not changed at all. You are still the same POV pusher, always assuming bad faith. And your constant accusations and assumtions, that ''everyone'' who opposes you is Tajik (see ), proves that you are a disruptive Wikipedian, ''always'' assuming bad faith, and ''always'' messing up articles. After Tajik was banned, obviously due to wrong accusations as he has explained on his talk page, you have developed some kind of "I am the king of Misplaced Pages" mentality, and you believe that you can do whatever you want. And now, you have even turned on Iranian.com, writing your POV there, and again accusing other Wikipedians. The funny part is that 90% of your accusations are wrong. 90% of your accusations against other users are wrong, and 90% of your accusations, that ''everyone in here is Tajik'' are wrong. I editted the article, because you had removed the reference to Sheikh Safi al-Din's Persian protery. What I did was adding what you had deleted. And then I tagged the article because (a) its accuracy is disputed (b) it contradicts itself and (c) because it contains many spelling and stylistic mistakes. You and Ali are not the only Wikipedians in here, and you are most certainly not the "king of Misplaced Pages" as you believe. Your consensus with Ali does not mean that others have nothing to say. The problem is that you do not even realize that you claim every article for yourself, and that you believe that you own them. The previous introduction was perfect, because it simply left out any detailed reference to the Safavids' orgin. The origin of the family should be mentioned in a seperate paragraph or article, but it should be left out of the intro, because that causes all problems. You are the one who desperately wants to mention a Turkish origin in the first sentence, and whoever disagrees with you is accused of being Tajik (I wonder if you still have nightmares because of Tajik). And this is really, sad, because your argumentations, especially your recent comments about the Uzbeks, simply proves that you do not have the qualification to write articles like this one. You want to talk about Turks, but you have no idea of Turks. You want to talk about Turks in Central Asia, but you have no knowledge and no qualification. Someone who believes that the Uzbeks (who were members of the Mongol ] and migrated to Central Asia in the 15th century while fighting back and defeating the ]) were living in Ferghana 1200 years ago cannot be taken serious. And your recent writings in Iranian.com further disqualify you. Go ahead and ask the admins for another checkuser file. Prove once again that you are always assuming bad faith, and that you scared of Tajik. This will be the 7th time that you ask for a checkuser file against Tajik, and I will be the 50th or 60th person accused of being Tajik. And you will be proven wrong, like before. Someone should use Tajik's checkuser files against you, proving that you assume bad faith in all cases, and that you have a disruptive behaviour against other Wikipedians, always accusing them of being socks. --] 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 10:43, 29 August 2007
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
Ali, in the light of EI reference, which you brought above, I think the following version of the first sentence would be an acceptable compromise:
The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Shia dynasty of mixed Azerbaijani and Kurdish origins, which ruled Iran from 1502 to 1722.
This would fully satisfy the EI reference, because we establish that Safavid dynasty rose in 1501, and it proclaimed to rule Iran in 1502. Atabek03:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, This is the first line of EI in the entry:"SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722". Then it explains that initialy Azerbaijan in the next line:"The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I (initially ruler of Azerbaijan only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history". More google books have 1501 as the establishment of the dynasty. As a compromise we can either bring the EI quote verbatim or say: "Safavid , a shia dynasty of mixed ancestry (Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Greek) which ruled in Iran as sovereigns from 1501(initially Azerbaijan)/1502(the rest of Iran) to 1722". Else we can have the 1501/1502, as it is now. I don't think the problem of intrepretation will be fixed as I mentioned. SO we can quote a source like EI and make a compromise as I just suggested. The sources on Azerbaijani and Kurdish origin should definitely go in the background section and not two places. Note here:. Also another Swietochowski quote should be found instead of: "At the end of 15th century, Azerbaijan became a power base of another native dynasty, the Safavids". There are still lots of Kurds that are native to Azerbaijan. Hopefully this article will be tag free soon due to everyone's effort. thanks--alidoostzadeh10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, I made some changes and removed the tag. Note there is some compromises and I retained all information. Just the father-line which is for debate has two sections. If you do not like it, put back the dispute tag. But let me know why also.--alidoostzadeh00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ali, you can't remove the tag until consensus is achieved. I see you moved the sources to origins section. I don't like the idea, as in few edits the reference to Safavids being Azerbaijani will be again removed by someone else, who reads only introduction, and we have to go back to point 0. Also, if you do not mind, in future, please, ask for opinion before archiving the talk page. I use many references that I already brought on talk page, and it makes it inconvenient sometimes to open another window and copy them from there.
Also, why did you remove the Cambridge History of Iran quote to Turkish, and not Persian, being the main language of the court. That quote should go back where it was. Please, discuss your changes (that's wait for response for at least 24 hours), otherwise it becomes a one-way communication and thus totally discouraging to edit the article at all. If you want the article to just reflect your point of view, then go ahead and edit it freely, but please, insert a POV/OR tag as it was there, and do not remove it as well as sources without discussion.
Regarding Kurds being native to Azerbaijan, the Swietochowski book clearly talks about Azerbaijan and Azeris not about Kurds. Kurds are native to Kurdistan not Azerbaijan, same as Azeris living in Kurdistan are native to Azerbaijan not to Kurdistan. Thanks. Atabek07:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek 1) I didn't remove the cambridge quote. It is there in the section of languages. Language of the court or literature or administation does not have to do with background or else the Tati poetry of the Shaykh can be put in the origin and background. Or the Persian poetry of Shaykh Sadr ad-din and Junyad and etc. So language of the court, adminstration and background are different. Cambridge quote is there in its own section. 2) Kurds are native to Azerbaijan (Shaddadid)(Rawwadid) for example and West Azerbaijan in Iran is at least 50% Kurdish. Or Ardabil in Fotuh Al-Buldan is described to have many Kurdish tribes. Swietochowski remember also said Shirvanshah's are native "Azeri" dynasty. Shirvanshah's were Arabs that were Persianized, so the context is clear. So the book is about Azerbaijan but that does not make the fact that Swietochowski uses the word "native" (which Safavids rose from Azerbaijan) and natives of the land but that is not the same as their "origin". Many sources describe Safavids even as "native Persians" (not just natives of Persia), but the context again is clear. I think you need a more explicit statement from Swietchowski that Safavids were "Azerbaijani Turks" or "Turks" or "Azerbaijani". But saying native of Azerbaijan does not make it so as even Maragheh, Tabriz and many cities of Azerbaijan were not yet "Azeri" speaking before Safavids. We can leave one/two reference in the intro (I just did that since you said people might remove it), but to discuss it in the detail in the intro with dozens of sources is impossible as it has its own section to discuss this point and this will this article will be rid of who is right and who is not, since both views are presented. If you assume good faith, you would notice I also moved the sources on Kurdish from the intro line. Both views are presented in their section. After all, I am giving a compromise here by saying "Azerbaijani and Kurdish". In reality, the book you had said"Azerbaijani or Kurdish"(if we want to be accurate that would be case) and I already explained many times that the male lineage is what defines origin. But nevertheless, I toned it down, removed the word "origin" (put mixed although many dynasties like Ghaznavids, Seljuqids, Abbassids were mixed but had a clear origin) and just described the Kurdish father-line in a section based on the oldest sources. So I think it is more than a fair compromise. And also again I didn' remove any source. I even brought another source along with Cambrdige that Turkish was the language of the court! "According to Professor Michel M. Mazzoui, the court, the language of the rulers and the military language was Azerbaijani Turkish."! So how is that removing sources. So your accusation that I removed it is really not building good will. Indeed if I had bad-will, I would not insert another one about the court and language of the rulers and military! Would I? But that portion does not have to do with origin of the Safavids. Just like the Fahlaviyat (Tati) of the Shaykh Safi is not put in the origin neither is the Persian poetry of his two immediate successors. I can even for example write the Fahlaviyat and their poetry in those sections. But that is just not related to origin. The article currently has no POV (nothing is removed) and it's format will insure that this article will not bias towards one side or another. The only portion of this article that always had problems was if it is Kurdish or Turkish (all 9 archives are about this and it is waste of time to discuss it further since everyone's view is respected but people have their own strong views). Now both views are given clearly. Thanks and please do not associate every edit I make with bad willed action. Note I removed the source of Kurdish origin from the intro (now I put one source back for each) and also I added a source about court, military, and even the primary language of the ruler but moved it in it's appropriate section for the reasons I just cited. If i wanted to be bad willed, I would cquote Togan on how Tahmasp was doing his utmost to hide ..and the other person who said "Safavids of Iranian stocks, and the sources associating them with... are wrong". Thus I am just trying to make the article fair. (Also I do not think opening another window and copying from there is hard! LOL. You can copy the whole thing to microsoft word or emacs or whatever). I archived, because it was getting long and the main point is now to simply have both views presented. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, also thanks for mentioning me on Iranian.com! If you have a problem with me you can e-mail me and we can resolve it. I am not interested in personal issues here. Despite your statements about : "AD removed this", "Shahnameh is that or I can understand why a guy with Shahnameh.."(nothing to do with article to make it personal), "Uzbeks are Iranians"(didn't say that), "Azeris should forget their Turkic roots" (didn't say that).. and many others. I even put "Azerbaijani" Father-line first right now (50th time I am showing good will). The article is fixed and resolved. Both views are presented, and the framework will insure that this article is not tagged anymore. With AT and HP and etc., I am not sure if this article would have been fixed. You claimed the article was POV/OR originally before I touched it recently. I agree, the origin needed to be separated into two sections so that there won't be POV/OR. (This was GM's criticism of Derdoc's changes and HP who wanted 4 sections, but two is all that is needed and we can't minsintrepret sources just because they say "Persian origin".) Nothing right now about the origin is POV/OR. With the current framework it is fixed. Discussins about Safavid origin has been going on with 9 archives and subsequently the article has been tagged for most of the past two years. --alidoostzadeh14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ali would you be so kind to show the link on Iranian.com where I mentioned your name. I never used this website, and don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for putting tags back. It does not matter which fatherline you put first :), I never complained about it being first or last. Thanks for your contributions to the article.
Regarding compromises, I actually compromised too by replacing the word Turkish/Turkic with Azerbaijani, as the former wording seems to cause negative reactions among some contributors. As for your wording, my friend, does not your claim that Ferghana was Iranian at the time of Afshin's birth mean Uzbeks were Iranian? My Shahnameh reference is true, and has nothing to do with you specifically (I never referred to you in this context), but as the reference I added confirms on the relevant page, Shahnameh is a bible of anti-Turkism in Iran, and indirectly, it's the reason why Safavid article has been in conflict and tags for two years. It's the foundation of legendary Turan-Iran conflict, the foundation of difficulty tolerating Turkic identity within Iranian context.
Article will continue being tagged until there is consensus on issues. As you know, I worked towards consensus on previous try with you, which was quickly spoiled, and not by me. So this time, we have to work hard and craft every piece of the article until there is no disagreement or conflict. It can be an ever lasting exercise, so please, don't get frustrated.Atabek02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Geez Atabek. It is obvious your "Azerbaijani" and "Babek" is the other dude who got arbcommed in Iranian.com BM's article. Cmon man, a 2 year old can figure it out, let alone a 28 year old. I didn't put the tags backs. Uzbeks as an ethnic group were not even defined during the time of Afshin. Look it up. Read the article on Central Asia by Richard Frye in Turco-Iran tradition or what Bosworth says about early Islamic times:"In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, “Turan”). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians.". Also saying Uzbeks were not there at the time of Afshin is not equivalent to saying Uzbeks are Iranians. One is about placing the exact arrival of Uzbeks (and say I made a mistake, this would not make Uzbeks Iranians), the other is ethnic component. If Shahnameh was the bible of "Anti-Turkism" then why are the Seljuqs and Safavids (Turcophones by Ismail I granted) supporting it :)? Either they lacked a nationalist Turkic consciousness or your misintrepreting it. I think it is both. Shahnameh is nationalist but it is not ant-Turkish. It is anti-Turkish/Anti-Arab domination of Iran much like Azerbaijani republicans are not happy with Armenians. So Iran was occupied by Arabs and then Turks after Islam and etc.. The best proof is that the ancestry of Rostam from the mother's side goes back to Zahak and that of Keykhusraw to Afrasiyab. Both are the two most important figures. Also the Turks of Shahnameh are central Asian Turks, not Anatolian/Azeri type (these two ethnic group did not exist at the time) and Azerbaijan is praised as the place of the "great ones" and "free" in Shahnameh. بزرگان و آزادگان . So what did Ferdowsi do? Instead of laying back or shouting slogans or editing wikipedia or wasting his life, , he worked hard for 35 years and made a monument that is still easily read by the average Persian speaker (amazing after 1000 years). As per Azerbaijani, Turkish..we know Safavids were Azerbaijani speaking , that is not a compromise. Turkic/Turkish is a general term, so is the term Iranic. I didn't add the tags, but other users did. What is a compromise is when you have "and" instead of "Or". Anyways I am done with this article and I am going back on my break as long nothing weird happens in wiki. I do not see anything wrong with the article (except the tags). I might check back in a month to see if you and Haji (0.01% chance) made a compromise! --alidoostzadeh03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ali, can you please, provide with a link to Iranian.com. I still have no idea what you're talking about, I never use the username Azerbaijani anywhere, and we know pretty well, it's not my username here either. You can email me in private, if you have concerns. And I assume you assume good faith in this regard. I cannot guarantee who else is watching this article, your or my edits here, so how can you make such conclusions?
As for Shahnameh, it's an unrelated subject. Azeri Turks contributed to greater Iran, while Armenians never contributed to Azerbaijani statehood, they had their own. So I don't see how your comparison of anti-Turkish in Iran and anti-Armenian in Azerbaijan is reasonable here. Turkish is not a general term, because you know well that inhabitants of Azerbaijan are referred to in Iran as "Tork", and call themselves as such. I hoped that we can reflect the reality in Misplaced Pages at least to some extent.
Sorry, I didn't notice that the tags were inserted by Tajik.
I will leave the article as such as well, except maybe wikify it and some English improvements. I expect in a month first sentence of introduction will be changed to remove the word Azerbaijani :) Talk to you then. Atabek03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It surprises me that you, Atabek, are back at accusing people and writing POV again. To make it clear: I am not Tajik, but you and I know each other from previous conflicts, and I am not surprised that you have not changed at all. You are still the same POV pusher, always assuming bad faith. And your constant accusations and assumtions, that everyone who opposes you is Tajik (see here), proves that you are a disruptive Wikipedian, always assuming bad faith, and always messing up articles. After Tajik was banned, obviously due to wrong accusations as he has explained on his talk page, you have developed some kind of "I am the king of Misplaced Pages" mentality, and you believe that you can do whatever you want. And now, you have even turned on Iranian.com, writing your POV there, and again accusing other Wikipedians. The funny part is that 90% of your accusations are wrong. 90% of your accusations against other users are wrong, and 90% of your accusations, that everyone in here is Tajik are wrong. I editted the article, because you had removed the reference to Sheikh Safi al-Din's Persian protery. What I did was adding what you had deleted. And then I tagged the article because (a) its accuracy is disputed (b) it contradicts itself and (c) because it contains many spelling and stylistic mistakes. You and Ali are not the only Wikipedians in here, and you are most certainly not the "king of Misplaced Pages" as you believe. Your consensus with Ali does not mean that others have nothing to say. The problem is that you do not even realize that you claim every article for yourself, and that you believe that you own them. The previous introduction was perfect, because it simply left out any detailed reference to the Safavids' orgin. The origin of the family should be mentioned in a seperate paragraph or article, but it should be left out of the intro, because that causes all problems. You are the one who desperately wants to mention a Turkish origin in the first sentence, and whoever disagrees with you is accused of being Tajik (I wonder if you still have nightmares because of Tajik). And this is really, sad, because your argumentations, especially your recent comments about the Uzbeks, simply proves that you do not have the qualification to write articles like this one. You want to talk about Turks, but you have no idea of Turks. You want to talk about Turks in Central Asia, but you have no knowledge and no qualification. Someone who believes that the Uzbeks (who were members of the Mongol Golden Horde and migrated to Central Asia in the 15th century while fighting back and defeating the Timurids) were living in Ferghana 1200 years ago cannot be taken serious. And your recent writings in Iranian.com further disqualify you. Go ahead and ask the admins for another checkuser file. Prove once again that you are always assuming bad faith, and that you scared of Tajik. This will be the 7th time that you ask for a checkuser file against Tajik, and I will be the 50th or 60th person accused of being Tajik. And you will be proven wrong, like before. Someone should use Tajik's checkuser files against you, proving that you assume bad faith in all cases, and that you have a disruptive behaviour against other Wikipedians, always accusing them of being socks. --84.58.175.21610:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
