Misplaced Pages

Ardabil, Iran

The city is in Iran. Its not right to say Iranian Azerbaijan, because firstly, its a vast region (not even a single province at the moment) and since when have you ever heard a city being distinguished by its region? I've never heard anyone say Los Angeles (USA California). This is really getting ridiculous. Again, you are blowing something very small and inconsequential into an edit war. Ardabil is in Iran, simple as that.Azerbaijani 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, stop editing the page without agreement. You're truely trying to waste an effort of everyone on this talk page without any respect or consideration to time people on both sides contribute to discussion. Your definition of Ardabil outside historical Iranian Azerbaijan has no historical ground neither in Iranian nor in Azerbaijani historiography. It's simple to mention the fact that Safavid of Ardabil, first proclaimed himself a Shah of Azerbaijan. Atabek 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said Ardabil was outside of Iranian Azerbaijan. Atabek, your really dont read other people's psots before you comment, I can tell...Re-read what I said.Azerbaijani 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since User:Atabek constantly reverts other Wikipedian's edits and constantly starts new edit wars, I will present my suggestion in the talk page. Please read it and explain what you like and what you do not like. I wanted to put this version for at least 24h on the main page, asking other users to read the text and to think about it. Unfortunately, Atabeks automatically reverts all changes, claiming that he is acting on the behalf of ali_doostzadeh and others. I am not interested in edit wars like Atabek, so please read the text in here and discuss it. Tājik 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik's version

The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in Iranian Azerbaijan and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. Predominantly Azeri Turkic in language and Iranian in identity, the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom, reasserted the original Persian identity of the region, and became the first native dynasty to established an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.

The Safavid dynasty had its origins in a long established Sufi order, called the Safaviyeh, which flourished in Iranian Azerbaijan and Anatolia since the early 14th century. Its founder was the Sufi saint Safi Al-Din of Ardabil (1252-1334), a man of obscure but possible Kurdish and/or Persian origin. Originally, the Safaviyeh was a spiritual response to the upheavals and unrest in northwest Iran/eastern Anatolia in the decades following the Mongol invasion. It changed from a Sunni order to extremest Shi'a (ghulat) around 1400. In the fifteenth century, the Safaviyeh gradually gained political and military clout in the power vacuum precipitated by the decline of the Timurid dynasty. After becoming the Safaviyeh leader in 1447, Sheikh Junayd - a descendant of Sheikh Safi Al-Din - transformed it into a revolutionary Shi'ite movement with the goal of seizing power in Iran.

The Safavid ruling dynasty was founded by Shah Ismā'il I. Azerbaijani in origin, he was of mixed Turkic, Iranic, and Pontik Greek heritage and was a distant descendant of Safi al-Din. As such, Ismā'il was the last in line of hereditary Grand Masters of the Safaviyeh Sufi order, prior to its ascent to a ruling dynasty, and believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent.

His rise to power was predominantly due to massive support from the powerful Turkoman tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan who, along with other supporters of the Safavid family, became collectively known as Qizilbash (Ottoman Turkish for "red head"). Shah Ismā'il first proclaimed a Safavid Shia state in Azerbaijan in 1501. A year later, in 1502, he claimed all of Iran.

Ismā'il was also a prolific poet who wrote under the pen-name of Khatāī and greatly contributed to the developement of Azeri literature.

There were many local states in the area traditionally known as Persia after decline of the Timurid Empire (1370–1506) The most important local rulers about 1500 were:

• Husayn Bayqarah, the Timurid ruler of Herat
• Alwand Mīrzā, the Aq Qoyunlu Khan of Tabriz
• Farrokh Yaṣar, the Shah of Širvan
• Badi Alzamān Mīrzā of Balkh
• Sultān Murād, Ottoman ruler of Irāq al-Ajam
• Husayn Kīā Chalavī, the local ruler of Semnān
• Murād Beg Bayandar, local ruler of Yazd

During the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire expanded across Anatolia and centralized control by persecuting Shi'ism, and eventually outlawed it at the turn of the century. In 1501, various disaffected militia from Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia united with the Safaviyeh Sufi order of Ardabil to capture the city from the then ruling Sunni Turcoman Khan, Alwand Mīrzā, head of the "White Sheep" Turcoman confederation. Along with other supporters of the Safavid family, these tribes became known as Qizilbāš - "red heads" - due to their read headgear which symbolized their loyalty to the Safavid Sufi sheikhs.

References

1. Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History,V, pp. 514-15)
2. "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
3. R.M. Savory, "Ṣafawids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006: "... 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 "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..."
4. Roger M. Savory, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Safawids", Online Edition, 2005
5. Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Vol. XII, p. 873, original German edition, " Persien (Geschichte des neupersischen Reichs)", (LINK)
6. ^ Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
7. Encyclopedia Iranica. R.M. Savory. Esmail Safawi
8. The writer Ṛūmlu documented the most important of them in his history.

Tajik, you're the only party still unable to come into terms with what's on the Safavid page right now. We agreed with various contributors over and over on the wording. Safavids were not Azeri-speaking but Turkic-speaking. There is no such thing as Azeri-speaking cited by either Minorsky or Frye. Both say either Azerbaijani Turkish or Azeri Turk. So that edit must say: Turkic-speaking dynasty for all practical purposes as agreed with Ali and many others earlier.

Ismail was of mixed Azeri Turkic, Kurdish and Pontic Greek identity. Your race approach is not acceptable. There is no such identity as "Iranic", but Iranian, secondly, I am not sure if Kurdish contributors will be happy with replacement of the word Kurdish with the word Iranian, but it's up to them.

The claim "reasserted original Iranian identity" is void of references and baseless. Ismail asserted Shiite identity, which is modern Iranian identity, original Iranian identity was not Shiite but Zoroastrian, which was a herecy for Ismail and Safavids. Atabek 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait for Ali and others. I really have no idea who gave you the right to speak on their behalf. Besides that, I did not say "Iranic identity" (I guess you still have not learned how to read), I said "Iranian identity" and linked it to "Iranian peoples". Ismail' claims to be of Sassanian origin, his claims to be the re-incarnation of Iranian epic heroes, the Safavid reintroduction of the Iranian "Surkhjaamegan" movement (Kizilbash), and his belief in the Aryan concept of farr are clear proofs for this "Iranian identity". Instead of only focusing on the language of his poems, you should at least once try to get the MESSAGE of his poetry.

Ismail surely had a bunch of "different bloods" in his vains, so limiting that only to Kurdish, Azerbaijani Turkic and Greek would be wrong. That's why I replaced that with a more general statement. Besides that, I did not remove the word "Kurdish" (just as I said: you are not able to read). The word is directly mentioned in the part about Safi al-Din. And your interpretation of "Iranian identity" is pointless. Because, according to that logic, "Turkic identity" was a barbarian nomadic life-style and pagan Shamanism. "Turkishness" would also include the unique East Asian physical appearance (Mongoloid) - and nthing of this would fit Ismail: Ismail was not a Shaman, he was not a nomad, he was not a "barbarian" horseman of the steppe, and he did not have a Mongoloid look. So why then claiming that "he was Azeri Turk"?! (note: this is according to YOUR logic).

Besides that, modern Imami Shiism contains many elements of Zoroastrism: the believe in the God-like powers of the Imams, the beliefe of God-given rights to lead the Shia community, the belief of a hidden Imam, the belief that the dead have to cross a bridge in order to enter paradise, etc etc etc. These are unique Zoroastrian elements that were (and still are) unknown to original Arab Shias. Shias, however, who were directly influenced by Iranian and Safavi Shiism (inluding the Alevits of Turkey) have adopted these Zoroastrian beliefs. So, again, your claim is pointless. Tājik 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-Listing of evidence that Safavids were Turkic speakers

Tajik, since you have ignored the numerous references which we bring, and constantly are trying to purge out the word Turkic from Safavid page, let me bring you some more summarized quotes. Many of these may be already on this talk page, it's just some people choose to ignore them and uphold their own POV:

• 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.

• The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified. Their eponymous ancestor, Safi-al-Din (1252-1334), was a disciple of Shaikh Zahed of Gilan, a Sunnite Sufi pir or spiritual leader. Safi-al-Din succeeded his pir and settled in Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan, and founded the Safavid Order. He was buried there, and his tomb and the citybecame a place of pilgrimage for his devotees. In the course of time and under the leadership of Safi-al-Din's descendents, the order became a militant Shiite one, with golat or extremist features, receiving support from Turkish and Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, such as the Shamlu, Ostajlu, Takallu, D¨u'l-Qadr, Qajar, and Afshar tribes, who had strong devotional ties to the heads of the Order.

• 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.

• Shah Abbas II (r. 1052 – 77/ 1642 – 66 q.v.) was himself a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani.

• 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 exercised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian".

David Morgan. Medieval Persia, 1040-1797 (History of the Near East) ISBN: 0582493242

• With the exception of some very local dynasties, the Zands were the only Iranian dynasty that had come to power since the Buyids in the 10th century.

• The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty.

Thanks. Atabek 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence"? What "evidence"?! There are wnough sources to disrpove your claims:

• "... The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his ‘‘race’’ or ‘‘nationality’’. His ancestry was mixed: one of his grandmothers was a Greek princess of Trebizond. Hinz, Aufstieg, 74, comes to the conclusion that the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish. Already, his son Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians." -V. Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shah Ismail", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4. (1942), pp. 1053
• "... The establishment of the Safavid state in 1501, like the Arab conquest of Iran in the 7th century, and the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, marks a turning point in the history of Iran. First, the whole of the area historically considered as constituting the heartlands of Iran, was reunited under the rule of a Persian king for the first time since the Arab conquest and islamicization of Iran. For most of the eight and half centuries that followed that conquest, Iran was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans. The only exception was what Minorsky called the 'Iranian intermezzo', the period from 945-1055 A.D., when a dynasty of Persian origin, the Buyids, exercised authority over a large part of Iran. ..."
• "... The reign of Esmā'il is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055). ... When the Safavids came to power, they rested their authority inter alia on the divine right of kings traditionally claimed by Persian monarchs. ... Although his son Sām Mīrzā as well as some later authors assert that Esmā'il composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived ..." Iranica
• "... 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 "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..." Encyclopaedia of Islam
• "... Like his father, Olōğ Beg was entirely integrated into the Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarqand until the Russian revolution 1917 Ḥoseyn Bāyqarā encouraged the developement of Persian literature and literary talent in every way possible At the same time Sultan Ḥoseyn also allowed his famous vizier, the noted poet ʿAlī-Šīr Navā'ī, to further the cause of his mother tongue, the Turkish spoken by the Chaghatay people and to champion its importance as a language of high culture This developement was certainly related, at least in part, to the fact that in the early 10th/16th century Persia was converted by the Safavid dynasty to the Shi'ite branch of Islamic teaching, wheras Central-Asia remained strictly Sunnite. Chaghatay became to some extent the language this religious community, and Persian literary works from the Safavid realm had an aura of heresy. ..." B. Spuler, "Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid Periods", p. 174/175, Encyclopaedia Iranica
• "... Azari lost ground at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular ..." Ehsan Yarshater in Iranica
• "... Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles, and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon, and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court", and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." R. Savory, The Annual Noruz Lecture Series: 16 March 1995, Foundation for Iranian Studies Washington, D.C.
• "... the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population. ..." -Minorsky, in Encyclopaedia of Islam
• "... "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. ..." R. Frye, in Iranica

Why should we only take your sources as "evidence"?! Tājik 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - a comment to David Morgan: D. Mogan says that the Zand were the first dynasty "that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically Persian". In no means does this contradict Savory's and Minorsky's statement that the Safavids were the "first native Iranian dynasty after 8 centuries of Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rule". You should study the different meanings of Persian (ethnicity) and Iranian (peoples). Tājik 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not disprove the fact that Safavids spoke Turkic and Ismail wrote poetry (published by Minorsky) in Azeri Turkic. None of the facts you brought above disproves either these facts or a slew of Iranica and other references I brought above. Nowhere, does the page say Ismail is a Turk, his grandfather Uzun Hassan was a Turk, Ismail was born in Aqqoyunlu Turkic state, and we show his background as mixed Turkic, Kurdish and Greek. There is NO reference above whatsoever to say Ismail was ethnic Persian, NONE! No reference that he or his ancestors considered Persian (that is South-Western Iranian dialect) as their mother tongue. Language used by Uzbeks has no relevance to Safavid discussion, Ismail extensively used Chagatay dialect in his poetry oriented to Qizilbash Turkomans. This is a fact spelled out by Vladimir Minorsky in his article on Ismail's poetry. Read it through the end, instead of opening only the last page of the article after pages of his Turkish poetry.

The problem is you're trying to attribute Iranian to Persian, in modern meaning these are different things. Safavis were not Persian. Atabek 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Noone in here has every claimed that Ismail belonged to the Persian people. He was Iranian in identity - and the identity of the Iranian peoples is immensly influenced by ethnic Persian identity. Besides that, the Kurds, too, are an Iranic people. Safi al-Din wrote his poetry in Old-Tati, a language that is NEITHER Kurdish nor Persian. Yet, given the fact that he also always wrote a Persian translation (see Yarshater!), one cannot deny the strong Persian influence.

So, the point is: Ismail was of mixed Turkic (Aq Qoyunlu, maybe even some other Turkic tribes), Iranic (Kurdish, Tati, and maybe Persian), and Anatolian Greek origin. The problem with you is that you have - for some unknown reason - a grudge against Persians, the Persian language, Persian culture, identity, and so forth. I do not understand where your hate comes from, but it does not help to improve the article. As pointed out by Ali, Ismail considered himself a reincarnation of Rustam and other Persian heros (see Shahnameh). This is fact that cannot be denied as it is directly mentioned in primary sources: Ismail's poetry! So far, I have not seen ANYTHING that could eventually support the claim that he had some kind of "Turkic identity". He wrote his poetry in Turkic, that's all. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of his supporters were Turcomans and - let's assume - had no knowledge of the Persian language (or any other language), it's quite logical that Ismail HAD TO write his poetry in Turkish. After all, the main purpose of his poetry was propaganda! So, the decision to write in Turkic could have had predominantly political reasons. That's exactly what Minorsky means when he says that "the question of Ismail's language is not that of his race or nationality". Ismail's "race" and "nationality" was clearly Iranian, and his identity - as reflected in his own poetry - was clearly Shiite Persian, even though he himself was not of recent Persian descent. So far, you have not presented a single source that could disprove this. So stop using weasle-words. Noone in here claims that Ismail or the Safavids were "ethnic Persians", although they definitly had some Persian ancestry. But it is a FACT that the Safavids acted as heirs to the traditional Persian throne, claimed to be of royal Sassanian origin (why would they do that if not for identity purposes? Considering the political situation of the era, it would have made much more sense to claim descent from Genghis Khan, from the Seljuqs, or from Tamerlane, as did almost all others!) - the last dynasty to claim descent from the Sassanians was the Ghaznavid dynasty some 500 years earlier - so, Ismail's claim marks another turning point in Persia's history: the shift from previous "Turkic" identity that had ruled Iran for nearly 400 years to the epic "Persian" identity! You simply cannot deny these facts. Ismail's language of poetry may have been Turkish, but his identity was clearly Shiite Persian. Tājik 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says the same thing as David Morgan. How can you explain that? And I don’t think there can be another meaning of the word “ethnic Persian”. Safaivds were ethnic Turks, period. This is attested by so many sources, yet you still deny it. Grandmaster 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Dr. Yarshater (NOT Iranica) excludes the Afghans (Pashtuns) who are also an Iranian-speaking people of native Eastern Iranian origin, it's clear that that he uses the term "Iranian" in political sense and strictly limitted to the current borders of Iran, rather than as an ethnic term. That's also why he says "united Iran with its current borders". Besides that, this s not really a proof for your point. In another part, namely the MAIN ARTICLE about Ismail, "Iranica" (as you say it) makes clear that the Safavids were indeed the first native (ethnic) Iranian dynasty. That's why Frye and Minorsky also explain that "Azeri Turks" are actually "ethnic Iranians" of "non-Turkish origin". Roger Savory, the most important scholar along with Minorsky, further underlines this. How do YOU explain THAT? There won't be any consensus as long as you claim that Safavids were "ethnic Turks". Not even Togan, himself an ethnic Turk, believed this! Indeed, he even wrote articles disproving this wrong claim! Tājik 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot be an Azeri Turk and Persian at the same time. And you may have your own interpretation of the meaning of the word Iranian or Persian, but both Yarshater and Morgan do not count Safavids as such, according to them Zands were the only Iranian or Persian dynasty since Buyids and Saljuqs. We cannot simply discard those sources. I think the current intro is fairly balanced and makes account for all major viewpoints. It does not say whether Safavids were Turk or Persian, it just says that they were Turkic-speaking, which is not disputed by anyone. Grandmaster 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the current version is balanced, because I wrote it. Instead of automatically reverting my changes, you should read them first! Maybe you should also check the rest of hwat I have written. And then tell me: do you agree or not?! As for the Zands: the Zands were Lurs and not Persians. And Savory, as well as Minorsky (and many others, including Perry) regard them as the first native Iranian (--> Iranian peoples ---> having an Iranian identity in contrast to Arab, Turkic, or Mongol identities) dynasty. This cannot be denied either. Tājik 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was more or less Ok until you inserted Persian identity again. I'm going to apply for dispute resolution, I hope you don't mind. Grandmaster 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The identity was "Persian" and still is "Persian". I even attached a source to it, and for your information: it is the same source you have used as well: Richard Frye's "Peoples of Iran":

• "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..."

So please stop being a hypocrite. Either accept the entire source or nothing of it! Besides that, your this edit is absolutely hillarious and once again proves that you (like Atabek) do not read what others users write. I had not removed the sentence. Just go through the text. I only added the first part of the paragraph to it. Now, thanks to your impatient edit war, it's been included twice. Tājik 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dariush4444

Can someone explain Dariush4444 that he needs to read the talk page, before blindly reverting the page and inserting clearly baseless ethnic POV in there. Atabek 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: YOU are not the right person to do that. As Germans say: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen." Tājik 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, for the sake of constructiveness, give up on "YOU" in capital letters or insults/attacks. The same accusations that you bring up against me above of allegedly "hating Persians", I can say exactly about you towards Turks. The fact is, you have been arguing all along trying to remove every single reference to word Turkic in the article, and that's not the way it will be. Safavids were Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, that came to power with help of Qizilbash Turkic tribes, their founder wrote in Turkic language and used it as official language of his court. So, until you accept these basics, already accepted above, in most of the versions and supported by most of the scholars, there can be no consensus.Atabek 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied this. In fact, if you would have read my suggestion instead of automatically reverting it with 2-5 minutes, you would have seen that I included in the text that Ismail was an ethnic Azerbaijani and that he greatly contributed to Azeri literature. That his maternal grandfather was an ethnic Turcoman, and so forth. So, the problem is not me, but only you who does not accept the word "Persian" in the text. You also deny the strong Persian influence on the Safavids, the unique Persian identity that is not denied by ANY serious scholar, Ismail's Persian poetry, Ismail's claims to Sassanian origin, Ismail's belief to be the reincarnation of epic Persian heroes and kings, and the vast Persian poetry of Safi al-Din - facts that are not denied by any serious scholar! Instead of provocating edit wars, automatically reverting other people's edits, and removing the word "Persian" from the article, you should at least ONCE read what others write. Tājik 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

If the Safavids were Turkic as you claim, then why was the ONLY official state language of Iran during their reign, Persian. Why was their court language Persian. Why were all of their laws and legal documents written only in Persian!!!

The Safavids culture was 100% Persian. Like I said before just look at Esfahan. You seem to forget that "Azari" culture is actually Persian. The Azari language is made up of 40% Persian and Arabic words. Azari people still celebrate all of the ancient Persian (Zoroastrian) holidays...like Now Rooz. Almost all Azarbaijani people have Persian names. "Azari" music, architecture, cuisine, etc....is PERSIAN!!

The Azari people are racially Iranian. They are not ethnic Turks. Various genetic testing has proven this to be fact. Azari genetics are almost identical to their Persian neighbours. That is why we all look the same. If they were real Turks, they would look like Mongoloids. They would have brown skin, slanted oriental eyes, flat wide noses, and be very short and stocky. Azari people obviously do not look like that because they still belong to the Iranian race. Dariush4444 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What a mess!

Guys I give up, you write whatever you like; and change it as you like. Now I understand why no scholar writes here! I asked a couple of them to take a look and contribute and you know what they said? It is too rude to mention here but be my guest to guess it! BTW I am going to Iran in a couple of weeks for the Nurooz, I will be visiting the Kurdish and Azari towns and people you have never seen (but you write so passionately about them!). I will remember you guys when I talk to my Iranian relatives and friends, and I wish you very happy dreams. BTW Qizil means Golden in Azari and Red in Turkish! You are that close or that far in other statements you make, Yashaseen. Kiumars 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You were the one urging me patience! I think its time to end this two year ordeal. Both sides have good quotes and they want to deny the others quote. I think the best way is to go back to S.A. Vakilians version and work from there. The introduction should be polished, minimal and yet satisfying to both sides. BTW Tajik thanks for the article from EI. It was amazing actually and the best article I have read on Safavids with the exception of books. --alidoostzadeh 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I put S.A. Vakilians version back up again. I do not think the intro should change right now until there is an agreement for a new intro since this would just lead to locking of the article again.. At least we had a semi-agreement on the previous intro. There is already sufficient number of dispute tags. --alidoostzadeh 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna edit the intro, if everyone agrees to refrain from doing the same. Present you proposals here first. I will present mine soon. Grandmaster 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another quote: Shi'ism was reintroduced and imposed by the Safavids many centuries later, and they, I would remind you, were Turks. Until then Iran was a largely Sunni country. Iran in History by Bernard Lewis. Grandmaster 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis , Momen and etc. are not a Safavid historian. Thus their statement has little weight compared to Safavid historians. --alidoostzadeh 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is one of the leading experts on the Middle East and is more famous than any other historian we quoted here. Plus, Frye says the same, so it is not just an isolated opinion. Grandmaster 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Minorsky is much bigger name than Lewis. But the fact is when quoting Mathematicians about Topology we do not quote Ramanujan who was a number theorist. Savory, Minorsky, Mazzaoui, Kasrawi, Togan and etc. have written specific articles and books on Safavids and just on Safavids. Savory specially has written too much to count here. Lewis has not written a single specialized book on Safavids. I doubt he even has a specialized article on Safavids (perhaps at most dealing with Shi'i Islam). Besides that, Lewis in 1979 proposed disintegration of Iran. Britannica says: (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 for Shi'ism. . As per the opening statement, I do not have any qualms with the version proposed by S.A. Vakilian. The opening statement should be short and polished. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is an expert on Ottoman history, and has special knowledge only of the history of Safavid and Ottoman conflicts. He has not written a single special article on the Safavids. And besides that, he is one of the most contrversial scholars in this field, also due to his known anti-Persian, anti-Armenian, and general anti-Shia and anti-Alevit stands. He not only denies the genocide against Armeniens, but also has asked for the dissolution of the Iranian nation on many occasions. So, when it comes to the identity of the Safavids, he is not really the right person to look for. This is also the reason why Savory writes almost all special articles about the Safavids in leading references (Iranica, EI, etc) and NOT Lewis. Tājik 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever his views on unrelated to Safavids issue are, they have nothing to do with this article. Lewis is one of the most respected scholars on Middle East, and has a thorough knowledge on the history if Iran. One doesn’t have to write articles on a on a particular dynasty to be a specialist on the subject, if he wrote books that covered that dynasty among other subjects. But still, I do not propose to say that Safavids were Turks, I think the current intro is a good basis for compromise, but it should be further improved. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A specialist on a subject is actually one that contributes to Safavid history, and writes articles and books on the Safavids. This is precisely the definition of what a specalist in certain field is. I agree Lewis's is knowledgable in his own field. But Middle-east is a general term and requires specialization in many sub-fields. Thus if Savory says something, Minorsky says something, Togan says something and Lewis says something, Lewis's words are superceded by the previous three when it comes to Safavids. Safavids were of mixed origin that is established. Even at least one of Esmail's wife was not Turkomen. One of the other Safavids (I forgot which king but I can easily look it up) married the daughter of the Nematullah Sheykh. All these are known. So Safavids were of mixed ethnic origin is established like Minorsky says. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. Safavids were primarily Turcophone, that is true although for later Safavids although a republic of Azerbaijan site says: due to the cultural importance of the Persian language, the weight of the Persian-speaking bureaucracy and landlords, and the migration into the Persian heartland of the Safavid capital, the Persian language came to dominate the dynasty’s life.. Of course this does not necessarily negate Safavids remaining turcophone, but it shows that Persian was the cultural discourse of the empire. Of course the massive amount of manuscripts proves this and even the Ghezelbash wrote in Persian. But anyways I would like to see your suggestion for the introduction as well. --alidoostzadeh 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some unreferenced text

Would you please substantiate with a reference the following insert, which I oversaw before in Founder section:

As such, Ismā'il was the last in line of hereditary Grand Masters of the Safaviyeh Sufi order, prior to its ascent to a ruling dynasty, and believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent.

If you can't substantiate or provide reference to it, this seems as clear POV and needs to be removed. Thanks. Atabek 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He is probably referring to the Shahnameh poem by Esmail or the Safavid's making up descent from Sassanid through Seyyedship. --alidoostzadeh 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, saying Ismail claimed "Royal Persian Descent" does not seem to be correct. Ismail, as we know, was radically Shiite and claimed descendance from Ali ibn Talib, who wasn't Persian but Arab. Also, the "royal Persian descent" as it's known in times of Safavis was from time of Sassanids, who according to Islam were heretics and Ismail could not have possibly been proud of them. If at all, Ismail was a descendant of Akkoyunlu royalty. Atabek 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. Actually at that time there was lots of Hadeeths made that Imam Hussain (Ali's son) married Shahrbanu the daughter of Yazdegard. Now this is just legend, but it was during the Safavid's time that these Hadeeths (saying of Prophet and Shi'i divines) were propogated and thus making Safavids descent from Sassanid.. Actually not only Safavids, but Ghaznavids and Seljuqids who were strict muslims made claims that they were descendants of Sassanids. And btw the Sassanids did the same by claiming descent from Achaemenids. --alidoostzadeh 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also should add the Buwayids who were really the first powerful Shi'i dynasty of the Islamic world. Shaddadids as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek's statements are totally pointless. Ismail - as very evident from his poetry - considered himself a reincarnation of Rustam and Jamshed. Itr is also no secret that the Safavids claimed descent from the Sassanids, and even re-invented the story of Shahrbanu, the alldged daughter of Yazdgerd III and wife to Husey ibn Ali. Imami Shiism is strictly linked to Persian nationalism and national identity. In regard of "Shahrbanu", Iranica says:

• "... In this context, and when we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the affiliation and sacred nature of the link among the 'awlia' in Shi'ism (Amir-Moezzi 2000, passim), the figure of Šahrbānu acquires special significance. Adding the light of Persian royal glory to that of wala@ya, stemming from Moháammad and 'Ali, Šahrbānu lends double legitimacy - Shi'ite and Persian to its descendants, the Imams of Hosaynid lineage, as well as a double noblility, Qorayshite and Sasanian. At the same time, she endows the kings of ancient Persia, with the status of maternal ancestors of the Imams, thus revalidating the sovereigns and the culture of a nation of which she is the Lady. Thus, she becomes one of the main links in the relationship between pre-Islamic Persia and Imamism. ..."

You are really the only one who denies this! Tājik 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shah Ismael may neither one of prophet descendants nor one royal Persian descent. But he must have claimed that because of achieving legitimacy to become a Shah.--Sa.vakilian 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is true. The Safavids needed support of their Ghezelbash and their Persian population as well legitimacy of Shi'ism. Thus they needed turkomen legitimacy, Persian legitimacy, Shi'ite legitimacy. That is exactly the reason why the Safwat As-Safa was tampered with since all we have from the Safavids is that their oldest ancestor is Al-Kurd Al-Sanjani Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah. Also the statement about Piruz being Kurd was removed from Safwat As-Safa. As well of course making Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili from a Shafi'ite Sunni to a Shi'ite. I think this part should be mentioned in the Shaykh Safi section briefly alongside the ancestery of the Shaykh. I'll try to make a geneological outline tommorow of both the order and the dynasty. It should be mentioned that the Safavid sufi order also continued since Esmail I, Abbas and the Safavid kings were also spiritual leaders of the Ghezelbash tribes. --alidoostzadeh 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Sa.vakilian: You are correct. But keep in mind that the text says: "Ismail believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent". It does not say "Ismail was ...". Besides that, this argument is true for almost all claims. For example: Ismail wrote his poetry mainly in Turkish, because his aim was to push for Safavid propaganda among the Turcoman tribes who did not understand Persian or Arabic. Tājik 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or Turkish sultan, who spoke good Persian :). I think the word "believed" should be replaced with the words "claimed to be". I don't think he believed in any of that, he claimed that for political reasons. Grandmaster 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As you have said, you only think that it was political purpose. You do not know it. Tājik 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I do know that Frye said Azeri Turks were the founders of Safavid dynasty, but I do not list it exactly as said. And the point of poetry, a person can be fascinated by Theodore Dreiser and name his daughter Carrie, it does not mean that person claims descendance from Americans. So the argument that he claimed or believed to be descendant of Royal Persians does not have ground, especially given the fact that Ismail claimed being a descendant of Ali ibn Abu Talib. Similarly, we don't claim Ismail as a pure Turk, based on the fact that he wrote primarily in Turkish. Atabek 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement of Frye is quoted in the text - the whole of it, and not just one sentence, as you prefer it. Besides that - according to Shia legends (and this is what we are talking about) - a Husaynid descent from Ali and Muhammad automatically includes a royal Persian descent from the Sassanids. See Shahrbanu. The 4th Imam of Shiism, Alī ibn Ḥuṣayn Zayn ul-Abedīn is also known as ibn al-Khīyāratayn because of his (alleged) double-noble descent from the Hashemit Qurayshis and Sasssanid Persians. Tājik 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Esmail was not only fascinated by Shahnameh, but he probably learned it at an early age in Gilan. Besides naming his sons and daughter Shahnameh names, the tradition continued with Shah Tahmasp who oversaw the creation of the Shahnameh Tahmasp.. I believe there might be a specialized article on just Safavids and Shahnameh. Adopting Shahnameh as your own culture and ignoring Turkish traditions like Grey wolf and Dede Qorqod ..basically equates to adopting a cultural heritage and myths of Persians. Unfortunately as I pointed out in an Azeri magazine, it says the story of Kawa and Zahak is a foreign story where-as Dede Qorqud and KurOghlu are not. This is just an example of Safavid kings supporting or adopting Persian culture. Another would be Shah Esmail asking one of Jami's son in writing a Shahnameh style epic in Persian for him..--alidoostzadeh 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial tag

I don't think this article is too bad to put this tag on it. There may some POV parts. Thus I suggest to remove this tag and put POV tag on each section you'd like.--Sa.vakilian 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Discussions

I think it is enough to attach one tag until the issue is resolved. No need for that many. Grandmaster 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise for introduction

I propose to add the following as introduction.

The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Turkic-speaking Shiite dynasty which ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736). The Safavid empire originated in the city of Ardabil in Iranian Azerbaijan and had its origins in the Shiite Safaviyyeh Order. Safavids combined the elements of Turkic tribal militancy with Persian cultural identity and the Shiite teachings of Islam to assert the contemporary Azerbaijani and Iranian Shiite identity. During their reign, Safavids established a vast Iranian empire including the whole of modern Iran and the parts of modern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Caucasus and Turkey.

After we finally agree on the introduction, let's discuss next the origins part. Thanks. Atabek 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't you agreed to sa.vakilian's version as a "compromise"? What is this about then? This intro is the compromise you had agreed to. --Mardavich 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the current introduction, but there seems to be unhappiness about insufficient indication of Persian cultural influence. Safavids were influenced by Turkic tribal militancy (Qizilbash), Persian cultural influence and clearly new Shiite identity which defines modern Iran and Azerbaijan. In addition, usage of words like "were considered as" or "greater, greatest" or "Islamic conquest of Persia" etc. just seem to be to loud and bubbly. Conquest was clearly not Islamic but Arabic. If we want to emphasize Islamization of Iran, we should say so. Atabek 05:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a good intro ... Only the part about the influence of Turcoman militancy (keeping out the word "Kizilbash", because it has a wider, more general meaning) is good. Tājik 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the part about Safavid order being Shi'ite is wrong since they were originally Sunni (Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili is explicitly called a Shaf'ite and Safwat As-Safa also is pretty clear). Also Safavids called their domain Iran and thus the parts of modern Iraq, Afghanistan, South Caucus..were called by the name Iran and sometimes Ajamestan.., Molk-e-Ajam, Farsistan... Ottomans also referred to the Safavids as king of Iran and their domain as Iran.

Here is a Persian letter from Shah Abbas to Nur-ad-din Muhammad Jahangir about the victory in Kandahar using Iran:

که بعد از سنوح قضیه ی ناگریز نواب جنت مکان علیین آشیان شاه باباام انارالله برهانه، چه قسم قضایا در ایران روی داده...

Here is part of a Persian letter from Shah Abbas to Sir Anthony Shirely (Welayate-e-Ajam)

بعد از این از ولایت عجم ابریشم به حلب نبرند...

And of course many books from that era (Alem-araayeh-Abbasi, Habib -ol Sayr ...)

Sultan Salim with regards to the battle of Chaldiran: تا ز استنبول لشکر سوی ایران تاختم

Thus the Safavids clearly considered their country/empire/state/domain/geographic territory they ruled over..etc. by the name Iran. --alidoostzadeh 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also interesting that he wrote the letters in Persian, even those to the rulers of England. Once again, this underlines the fact that the Safavids were bi-lingual and that Persian was the main language of court and administration. Ismail's Turkish letters to the Ottoman rulers - as already pointed out by Savory - were propaganda and provocation. Tājik 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the Safavids really had no choice to be at least bilingual. (Minorsky says early age). They needed the support of both the Ghezelbash specially at an early stage and also they needed a language that had a long administrative tradition like Persian besides the fact that Esfahan was primarily Persian. They also intermarried with various Persian and Ghezelbash families and thus were really mixed. Note the Persian by Shah Abbas is very polished unlike the Persian of some Qajar kings. I have some Persian poems from Shah Tahmasp as well.. Note the name Tahmasp which was chosen on Zu-Tahmasp of Shahnameh. Asp (horse) is obvious. Tahm is used as title of Rostam also Tahmtan. Tahm means able bodied, vigorous.. The patronization of Shahnameh Tahmaspi and also Esmail asking for a narrative in the form of Shahnameh itself from Hatifi.. all show strong Persian cultural influence. --alidoostzadeh 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

:) Ali, Safavids established their first kingdom in Azerbaijan with predominantly Turkic-speaking groups and Qizilbash. First capital of Safavid state was Tabriz, second was Qazvin, Isfahan became capital only under Shah Abbas! So, I agree that Safavids could not have remained Turkic-speaking in bilingual empire, still at the time of their rise to power, and well under the influence of Qizilbash, they were predominantly Turkic-speaking. Conflicts between Turcomans and Persians as already described on the page, show how resistant the core Safavids (Qizilbash) were to accept Persian influence. Also, for the sake of clarity, can you use the spelling as it is in literature, i.e. Ismail instead of Esmail, Isfahan instead Esfahan, and Qizilbash (as properly transliterated from Turkic into English) and not Ghezelbash. Thanks. Atabek 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure if Azerbaijan was predominantly Turkic-speaking speaking back then. Peter Golden and Sumer believe that the migration of Ghezelbash really brought Turkification. At least we have lots of taati materials from Tabriz during the Qara-Qoyunlu era. Also Qazvin is still predominantely Persian speaking but there are Azeri (mainly Shahsevans settled by Rezashah) and some Kurds there as well. Anyways my point was that the Safavids were bilingual but primarily Turcophone amongst themselves. But we have substantial amount of Persian from the Safavid kings themselves. Decent amount of letters from Shah Abbas for example. About terms, well I guess I am writing it as I am pronouncing it, but for the article itself of course it will use the popular transliterations although Esmail is used in and Esfahan is also broadly popular. --alidoostzadeh 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Three versions two based on S.A. Vakilians

Thanks to Atabek for giving his version. Tajik, GM, Mardavich and other users should do the same. Here are three versions.

A) Current version:

The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in northern Iran. It was a predominately Turkic-speaking dynasty whose classical and cultural language was Persian. The Safavids established an independent unified Iranian state for the first time after the Islamic conquest of Persia and reasserted Iranian political identity, and established Shia Islam as the official religion in Iran. The Safavids ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736).

(Then unto the Safavid Sufic order which was also part of the dynasty)

B) Slightly rewords:

The Safavids established an independent unified Iranian state for the first time after the Islamic conquest of Persia and reasserted Iranian political identity, and established Shia Islam as the official religion in Iran. The Safavids ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736). The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in northern Iran. The Safavids were a predominately Turcophone dynasty while the ureaucratic and cultural language under their domain was primarily Persian.

(Then unto the Safavid Sufic order which was also part of the dynasty)

C) Encyclopedia Britannica version: (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 for Shi'ism.

--alidoostzadeh 15:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I had already given my version. Here is it again:

• The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in (Iranian) Azerbaijan and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family whose classical and cultural language was Persian, the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom, reasserted the original Persian identity of the region, and became the first native dynasty to established an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.

Please also check the given sources and quotes. I think this is the best solution. Tājik 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik I thin for Persian language, this is an excellent assessment which I brought previously.

Toynbee's assessment of the role of the Persian language is worth quoting in more detail:

About your version I have no problem with it.. Thus we need feedback from Atabek, GM.. on my three versions and your version. --alidoostzadeh 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I have another source for my version of the intro. All points are mentioned - the intro is short and precise. Tājik 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --alidoostzadeh 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This one might help also for the introduction or perhaps for another section. It is by Minorsky: Had it not been for this interval of Iranian domination (Shaddadid and Daylamites), the national tradition of Iran would have become blunted and the Safavids would have found it infinitely more difficult to restore the particular moral and cultural character which distinguishes Persia from her Muslim neighbors (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, London, Taylor's Foreign Press, 1953, pg 110).

Also note the comment from Minorsky about Kasravi on pg 3 of the same book: Kasravi possessed the spirit of a true historian. He was accurate in detail and clear in presentation. Among his accomplishments was a good knowledge of Arabic and Armenian. He was assassinated in Tehran on 20.XII.1945) (pg 3) of the same book. Thus Kasrawi's historical work has scholarly value and Frye , Skajearov..and many others have quoted it. His book on Shaykh Safi wa Tabarash was one of the first to show that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was a Kurd and Shafi'ite. Although the Turkish Professor Togan reached the same conclusion independently and he had better manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa available to him. --alidoostzadeh 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Kasravi is not a historian. He might have "posessed a spirit of" one :), but he was not a historian. He was a good publicist however, his report of 18-year history of Azerbaijan is pretty good.

I do not agree with Tajik's version, which says "Safavids reasserted original Persian identity". This statement is a total POV. First the identity that Safavids asserted (without re) until today is contemporary Iranian Shiite identity, and Shiism is the strongest legacy of Safavids which has influence on current life in Iran. They could not have reasserted it, because Iran was not of Shiite identity before Safavids. And nature of identity asserted was not Persian but Iranian, because it had a broader sense, and Safavids did not come from Persians. Original Persian identity is Dariush and Kouroush, with which Ismail and Safavids had very little in common. Atabek 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, Minorsky says about Kasravi's book (Shahriyaraan Gom-naam): A very good study based on both Muslim and Armenians, the Turkish translation of Munejjim-bashi and references in Persian poet (same page). I think what Minorsky says or when Frye quotes him.. that is what counts. Out of all the scholars quoted so far, Minorsky has the biggest name by far and he quotes and praises Kasravi. Also the Persian identity is based on the Shahnameh more than Cyrus and Darius although Achaemenids are briefly mentioned in the Shahnameh. Shahnameh is the cornerstone of the Persian identity and Safavids paid major attention to the Shahnameh. But alongside Tajik's version , I have also put other versions up as well for contributers. --alidoostzadeh 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Shahnameh is not the identity they asserted, Ali, just because Ismail names his sons after the characters in Shahnameh does not mean he asserted a Persian identity. Many people in the region carry Arabic, Persian or Turkish names, but it does not necessarily imply their ethnic identity. Neither it defines their ideology. For example, Ahmad Kasravi had Arab name "Ahmad", but he was still an Iranian nationalist, not an Arab patriot. Again, Minorsky might have been impressed by works of Kasravi, but it's important to highlight that Kasravi was not a professional historian. If he is, well, then let's start citing here the works of Lev Gumilev about Turkic civilization inhabitting the region all around Caspian from times immemorial. Atabek 06:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, Gumilev is not quoted by the likes of Minorsky, Savory, Togan, Mazzaoui and Frye. Actually reading his wikipedia entry it shows he is not regarded as a scholar and that is why his ideas are not reflected in say Peter Goldens book on Turkic people or in any mainstream publication. Kasravi on the other hand was the first to show Shaykh Safi ad-din was a Sunni and now Britannica 2007 puts the Shaykh as originally Sunni and all sources agree. But Kasravi was the one to prove it first even before Togan. Now going back to Shahnameh. Besides the names of his sons from Shahnameh which was very rare back then as Shahnameh was seen more as Zoroastrian and Iranian nationalists and some throughout history have always denounced as anti-Islam for the glorification of Irans pre-Islamic past, the Safavids patronized the Shahnameh as the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp is the most magnificant Shahnameh in terms of art work. How come Shah Tahmasp did not choose Turkish folklore (like Dede Qorqod for example) to be patronized in such manner? Note I brought an article from a nationalist Azeri website, However, such a plot would absolutely have jeopardized their lives. First of all, it was based on a foreign tale: Kaveh was a mythical figure of ancient Persia, memorialized by 10th century Ferdowsi in Persian verse in the "Shahnameh" (Book of the Kings).. But Shah Tahmasp chose Shahnameh because he identified with the Shahnameh thus it was not foreign to him. Esmail's poem I brought also shows clear Shahnameh identification as well: Today I have come to the world as a Master. Know Truly I am Haydar's son I am Faridun, Khusraw, Jamshid and Zohak. I am Zal's son (Rustam) and Alexandar..." (Note Islamic era Alexander was seen as a Quranic king). Esmail asked for Hatifi to compose poetry for him in the Shahnameh style . The celebrations of the Safavids included even Tiregan an ancient Zoroastrian celebration as well which still exists in cities of Iran. --alidoostzadeh 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Atabek: as always, you simply reject Kasravi's works and achievements, because you do not like what he says. So it's really not a question of scholarship, but that of nationalism. With all due respect: if Richard Frye, Roger Savory, and Vladimir Minorsky do accept him as a great scholar and freely quote him, who are you to say that he was not a historian?! Togan was also not a real historian. He was a Turkish nationalist and a leader of the Basmachi Pan-Turkic rebellion in Russia. Yet, this has nothing to do with his scholarly achievements which are accepted and valued by most historians. Interestingly: even the Turkish nationalist Togan agrees that Safavids were not Turks. In here, I would like to repeat myself: please stop your double-standards. When Frye says that "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty" you take his words as gospel and copy-and-past this quote multiple times into the article. But when he says that Kasravi was a good historian and uses his quotes, you suddenly change your mind and say: "Hey, Frye and all the other experts on Safavids have no idea: Kasravi was not a historian and his works have no value".

As for the Persian Identity:

• Persia did have a strong Shia community way before the Safavids. The Buyyids were Shias, the Assassins were Shia, the Abbasid caliph Mamun al-Rashid was pro-Shia, the Samanids were pro-Shia, and Persia's national poet Ferdowsi was a Shia, and countless famous Persian scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Sina, were Shia. The Khurramites of Azerbaijan were Shia, Babak was pro-Shia, and Abu Muslim was pro-Shia. Iran's post-Islamic history and it's national identity is strictly bond to Shia Islam. From the very beginning, the Shia faith became a symbol for Iran's national resistance against the Arab (and later Turkic) Sunni faith.
• The Safavids reasserted the Persian Shia identity that was once set up by the Buyyids. They Buyyids were not ethnic Persians either, they were related to the Kurds (just like the Safavids). But they patronized and propagated a very unque Persian Shia identity. The rein of the Buyyids marked the fusion between the Shia rebellion and Persian nationalist movements. That's the reason why many typical Shia rituals today are not Arab-Islamic, but clearly Zoroastrian-Persian in origin. Just check Iranica:

• The figure of Šahrbānu may be situated within the complex network of relations between Persians and Shi'ites. These relations naturally belong to the wider framework of the attitude of Persians towards Islam and the authorities and institutions that represent it during the early centuries of the hejra. This latter phenomenon has been studied widely in its many forms (Yarshater 1998, bibliography; Amir-Moezzi 2002a, pp. 532-36). On the other hand, links of a religious and doctrinal nature between ancient Iranian religions and Imami Shi'ism constitute a field of research that still remains almost completely unexplored. The complex material of the Šahrbānu tradition forms part of those elements that link Imamism to ancient Persia and serve to revalidate pre-Islamic Persian culture. Some noteworthy examples: the tradition according to which the celestial Book of Zoroaster consisted of 12000 volumes containing all Knowledge and 'Ali depicted as the Knower par excellence of this Book (Kolayni 1956, I, p. 161; Ebn Bābawayh 1984, p. 206); the tradition praising the justice of Iranian kings, particularly that of Anušervān (q.v.), during whose reign the Prophet was born (Majlesi, XV, pp. 250, 254, 279 ff.); the emblematic figure of Salmān the Persian as the Persian sage, the ideal Muslim and archetype of the Shi'ite initiate adept (Massignon, passim); the glorification of two of the most important Persian festivals, Nowruz and Mehregān in Hadiths going back to Shi'ite Imams (Walbridge, passim); mourning rituals for Imam Hosayn as a continuation of funerary rituals and ancient practices for the Persian hero Siyāvaš (Meskub, pp. 82 f f.;Yarshater 1979, pp. 80-95), etc. In this context, and when we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the affiliation and sacred nature of the link among the awliā in Shi'ism (Amir-Moezzi 2000, passim), the figure of Šahrbānu acquires special significance. Adding the light of Persian royal glory to that of walāya, stemming from Moháammad and 'Ali, Šahrbānu lends double legitimacy - Shi'ite and Persian to its descendants, the Imams of Hosaynid lineage, as well as a double noblility, Qorayshite and Sasanian. At the same time, she endows the kings of ancient Persia, with the status of maternal ancestors of the Imams, thus revalidating the sovereigns and the culture of a nation of which she is the Lady. Thus, she becomes one of the main links in the relationship between pre-Islamic Persia and Imamism.

• Shia identity in Iran IS Persian identity.

My version is perfectly clear, it is sourced, and it is not POV (unlike the countless POV versions you have proposed). I would also like to comment on one of your statments: "...Original Persian identity is Dariush and Kouroush, with which Ismail and Safavids had very little in common ...". Now, this is pure nonsense. If this is about "original identity", than Turks would be "barbarian, Asian-looking, Shamanist-infidel and uncivilized horsemen of the steppe" ... Now, is that what you are trying to tell us? That the Safavids were "uncivilized, Shamnist-infidel, and barbarian horsemen from the East Asian steppes"?! You can't be serious! At least the Safavids believed to be descendants of the Sassanids and Achaemenids (keeping in mind that the Sassanids believed to be descendants of the Achaemenids) and took much pride in it - as you can see in Ismail's poetry. Yet, I do not see any relationship between the Safavids and "original Turkic identity" or any pride in it. Tājik 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that the article on Shirvanshah is very badly done and it just has a non-neutral source from Baku. Shirvanshah considered themselves Iranians and actually supported Persian culture to the maximum and had no relations to Turkics or Turks. They may have been of Arab origin, but were completely Persianized. I kind of see a double standard between this article and Shirvanshah. That article needs a major rewrite to make it encyclopedic and NPOV, and I would like to bring the attention of Ali, Tajik and other interested editors to that article. --Mardavich 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have few sources on Sharvanshs (which is the correct and more archaic pronounciation). Nothing is mentioned of their Persianization and their claim to be descendants of Ardashir-e-Babakan besides being Persian speakers and supporting Persian poetry and culture massively. Also the names are written wrong and I do not understand when Azerbaijani language has the sound kh, why Akhistan is written as Ahistan!(Of course you know Persian tand know hat does not sound good). But I do notice the opening statement of that one saying nothing about Irans heritage (actually no where in the article). I'll get involved in that next week or the week after and that should be easier to handle since the sources on Shervanshah are much fewer than Safavids and there is no debate about their language, culture, ethnic origin and etc even amongst scholars. Suprisingly not, our best source on them is again from Minorsky. --alidoostzadeh 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Identity issues

Perhaps it is best to focus on certain recognized specifics rather than getting bogged down in other issues of contention. Here is what Iranica (the most academic on the web encyclopedia on all issues dealing with Iran) has to say about the Safavids:

The advent of the Safavids constitutes one of the major turning points in Persian history, and this for two reasons: one was the enforcement of the Shi¿ite branch of Islam on the country, the other was the unification of the country under a single rule, which has continued as such to the present day. The first helped the second and gave the country a distinctive character and identity against the Sunnite Ottomans in the west and the Sunnite Shaybanids in the northeast, and made it possible for Persia to withstand repeated Ottoman invasions. It is also a fact that the establishment of Shi¿ism as the state religion in Persia caused a serious break in the confessional continuity of the Islamic world, and, among other consequences, created a barrier between Central Asia and the rest of the Islamic lands, helping its relative cultural barrenness from the 16th century until modern times.

The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified. Their eponymous ancestor, S®afi-al-Din (1252-1334), was a disciple of Shaikh Za@hed of Gila@n, a Sunnite Sufi pir or spiritual leader. S®afi-al-Din succeeded his pir and settled in Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan, and founded the SafavidOrder. He was buried there, and his tomb and the citybecame a place of pilgrimage for his devotees. In the course of time and under the leadership of S®afi-al-Din's descendents, the order became a militant Shi¿ite one, with @gola@t or extremist features, receiving support from Turkish and Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, such as the ˆa@mlu, Osta@jlu, Takallu, D¨u'l-Qadr, Qa@ja@r, and Afæa@r tribes, who had strong devotional ties to the heads of the Order.

In the mid-15th century, Jonayd, the head of the Order, developed political ambitions, married Uzun Háasan's sister, and embarked on holy wars in the Caucasus, during which he was killed in 1455. Esma@¿il, a grandson of Jonayd, assumed the leadership of the Order at the age of thirteen, after his father H®eydar was killed. He was a brave, charismatic youth, whose mother Marta was a daughter of Uzun Háasan from a Byzantine wife. He was practically worshiped by his tribal followers, who were called Qezelba@æ on account of their red headgear. After invading Shirva@n (ˆirva@n) and killing its ruler to avenge the death of his father, he embarked on a career of war and conquest. Driving the Qara Qoyunlu from Azerbaijan, he entered Tabriz in 1501, ascended the throne, ordered coins to be minted in his name, and proclaimed Twelver Shi¿ism as the state religion, ordering conversion of the Sunnites on the pain of death. Within ten years he made himself the master of all of Persia, showing extraordinary daring and bravery in battle. His decisive victory over the Uzbeks who had occupied most of Khorasan was an important event and barred the possibility of a large-scale Uzbek invasion of the Middle East and India. The Safavids continued to have problems with Uzbek raids into Khorasan, but on the whole they were able to keep them off.

Shah Esma@¿il was regarded as invincible by his followers until he had to face the Ottoman Sultan Selim I, a powerful monarch who resented the Shi¿ite propaganda among his eastern Anatolian subjects and the expansion of the Safavid power. The Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan; Shah Esma@¿il faced it with half as many men as the Ottoman army at the battle of Ùa@ldera@n (q.v.; 1514). Shah Esma@÷il and the Qezelba@æ showed extraordinary courage, but the superior number of Ottoman soldiers and their use of firearms and cannons, the use of which Shah Esma@¿il and the Qezelba@æ considered unmanly and somewhat cowardly (Savory, p. 43), decided the outcome. Defeated, Shah Esma@¿il had to cede the Kurdish areas as far as Dia@rbakr, but the Ottomans, who briefly occupied Azerbaijan, could not linger there owing to the severe winter in Tabriz and their army's insistence onreturning at once to Anatolia. Although the Safavids lost some territory to the Ottomans, it was the psychological effect of the disaster that counted most. In a spirit ofdespair and melancholy, Shah Esma@¿il went into mourning, wore black, and gave himself up to drinking. He never again led his army in battle, dying in 1524 after 23 years of rule.

During his reign a problem that was later to become a perennial issue for the Safavid state made its first appearance. Shah Esma@÷il had been beholden to the Qezelba@æ on account of their devotion to him and their having been instrumental in safeguarding his life when he was hiding in Gila@n in his early youth, as well as because of their power base in their respective tribes. But, as his rule was consolidated, he became aware of the necessity of reining in the power of the Qezelba@æ and becoming independent of them. The state needed the services of Persian administrators and bureaucrats, "men of the pen," following the longstanding tradition that had prevailed during the reign of Turkish, Mongol, and Tatar rulers. On the other hand the Qezelba@æ, "men of the sword," looked down on the Tajiks, that is, the Persians, and did not easily tolerate working under them. The state needed both, all the more so as the appointment of the Tajiks to high offices could serve as a check on the insatiable claims of the Qezelba@æ to office. After the defeat at Ùa@ldera@n, Shah Esma@¿il appointed Mirza@ ˆa@h-H®osayn of Isfahan, a Tajik, as the head of the bureaucracy. ˆa@h-H®osayn's power increased to the point that he was able to dislodge the all-powerful Durmiæ Khan ˆa@mlu and send him away from the court to the governorship of Herat (Savory, p. 48). The fact that Mirza@ ˆa@h-H®osayn was assassinated in April 1523 by a group of Qezelba@æ points to the endemic discord and conflict between the Qezelba@æ and the Persians—a situation which continued under Shah Tahmasb (T®ahma@sb) and even later in the Safavid period in spite of severe measures that Shah Abbas I (¿Abba@s) took to centralize power in the Shah's hands and diminish the power of the Qezelba@æ.

Shah Esma@¿il was succeeded in 1524 by his ten-year old elder son Tahmasb (1524-76). Before he came of age, the rival Qezelba@æ chiefs vied with each other for the control of the king, a situation that was repeated whenever the king was a minor or a weakling. At seventeen Tahmasb began to take the reins of power in his own hands and to show his mettle. He was not brilliant at either administration or in military campaigns, yet he did not lack moral and physical courage. Furthermore, after a period of indulgence in wine and the pleasures of the harem, he turned pious and parsimonious, observing all the Shi¿ite rites and enforcing them as far as possible on his entourage and subjects. He managed in the course of his 52 years of reign to hold the Safavid domain together, defending it against continuous threats and invasions by the Ottomans from the west and the Uzbeks from the northeast. It was in fact Tahmasb's reign that consolidated the Safavid rule, defined Persian borders, and spread Shi¿ism in Iran. He also managed to maintain a delicate balance between the Qezelba@æ and the Tajiks.

In addition, Roger Savory in "Iran Under the Safavids" writes that they claimed to be descended from Shia Imams, were the acknowledged leaders of Turkic groups who dominated the military until the incorportion of Caucasian slave soldiers, and invoked a Persian/Iranian identity to maintain their supremacy. In short, this dynasty made claims to unite its disparate parts including the Turks, Iranians and used Shiism to unite the country as it is under this dynasty that Shiism is believed to have truly replace the Sunnis. This is key and is found in other sources as well. Interest in Iranian culture and literature was also common amongst Turks as Persian was the literary lingua franca. The Shahnameh by Firdousi as a manuscript is found throughout the Ottoman areas as well as the Safavid ones and shows a Turko-Iranian tradition more than anything else. The MAIN aspect of the Safavids was their Shiite identity and how they transformed Iran/Persia from a Sunni region to a Shiite one. Their invocation of a Persian/Iranian cultural identity was most likely for political purposes, although from their view the Turks (Qizilbashes, Shahsevan, etc.) were also their kin. When talking about tradition of any sort, the best way to go is to refer to the cultural tradition as a Turko-Iranian one both for the sake of neutrality and because it seems that that is how things were. Shiism and Iranian identity are linked because the dynasty is in Iran and the rivalry intensified with the decidedly Sunni Ottomans as well. While in Turkey, "Turkic" identity assimilated the native Greeks and Armenians etc., Iran remained multilingual and multi "ethnic" and thus we have more complexities to consider. It's a safe bet though that the Safavids, regardless of how they viewed themselves, were looking for ways to exert their supremacy and control over Iran and this would include linking themselves to as many divine lineages and claims as possible. I would suggest following the Iranica model. Tombseye 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree for the most part. Specially the begining sentence is very polished and that could be 6th proposal for the begining (1 by Atabek, 1 by Tajik, 3 by me (2 based on S.A. Vakilians version). But the mechanism of the cultural barreness part upheld b the author should have been made more clear. Although let me add that the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi is purely Iranian tradition going back to the Sassanid era and dede-qorqod for example is Turkish tradition. Of course Iranian traditions and Persian literature affected Turks and Turkic speakers and thus you might call Turks adopting Iranian culture like the Ghaznavids or Seljuqids for example. Iranian speaking dynasties like Shaddadid, Buyids, Turkish ones like Ghaznavids and Seljuqids and Arab ones like Shervanshahs claimed descendt from Ardashir Babakan the founder of Sassanids. Thus for the most part the cultural influence was one way. Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible.. This is mentioned E. J. W. Gibb, author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series. Gibb classifies Ottoman poetry between the Old School, from the fourteenth century to about the middle of the nineteenth, during which time Persian influence was dominant; and the Modern School, which came into being as a result of the Western impact. According to him in the introduction (Volume I):

Here is another source:

• "... Not only did the inhabitants of Khurasan not succumb to the language of the nomadic invaders, but they imposed their own tongue on them. The region could even assimilate the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks (eleventh and twelfth centuries), the Timurids (fourteenth–fifteenth centuries), and the Qajars (nineteenth–twentieth centuries) ..."

Taken from: F. Daftary, Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khorasan, and Trasoxania during Umayyad and Early Abbasid Times, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 4, pt. 1; edited by M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth; UNESCO Publishing, Institute of Ismaili Studies

Tājik 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Identity issues: I am fed up with this ....!

I wasted lots of my time trying to get an agreement on the terms and conditions but some PEOPLE pissed on all they said/agreed and went back to square one! Guys you have agendas and there is no point discussing anything with you! What is the assurance that we will not be at the same point in two years time? Who is running this show and who has the authority to be the single impartial point of contact? Unless we find one, we will be going round and round and round …. Don’t waist your times till we find that person. Kiumars 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious both sides have to compromise. There are now 6 versions available for introduction. So we need to narrow it to one. --alidoostzadeh 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, we have no authority to compromise! Are you a representative of the Iranian people? Am I? What compromise? We are talking about the historical issues that may take decades if not centuries to be resolved! Who are we to compromise? What authorities do we have from our people to compromise? I was not elected by anyone to be here! Have you? What gives you any rights to compromise on behave of the Iranians? Wiki rules say that all evidences must be presented in the article and that is all we can do here, just list what people (some of them experts and some of them the local Gazettes!) have said! Wiki is not a scientific venue! It is only a cheap Gazette that is run by a bunch of unemployed teenagers! Look at the time these people post their posts, could they be doing a full time job and do this unless they are unemployed or are paid for doing what they are doing? NO! Kiumars 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say I am representative.. what we need is an introduction sentence or two where everyone is somewhat satisfied (and no one will be 100% satsified). Wiki takes up unnecessary time. --alidoostzadeh 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, this is not about about "voting someone to speak on behalf of someone", and this is not about "Iranians vs. Turks". The only thing that matters is factual accuracy. Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007; What kind of academic qualifications do you have to decide what the “factual accuracy” is? When I go to a chemist to buy a bottle of aspirin I expect them to be fully qualified for selling it! Are you qualified and recognised in what you (I do not mean you personally but in general) say you are here? What do I know about you but a pseudo name on Wiki? What do you know about me but a pseudo name on wiki? Who am I? Who are you? How qualified are we to make any educated comments? Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from me without checking my certificates? No! But I have to take any shit all the unqualified people here say on this subject! Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from an unqualified person? Why do you expect me to buy a historical story from a bunch of unqualified people? Excuse the expression but it is a shiiiiiiiit! Kiumars 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali you are welcome to censor this (as before) if you wish! Kiumars 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, I really do not care whether you believe that I (or any other person in here) is qualified or not. If you have any problems with the rules of Misplaced Pages, then - with all due respect - you should leave this website to people who at least know a little bit what they talk about. Tājik 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the good thing I like about Misplaced Pages is not wikipedia itself. But when I see a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense, I go research it and try to find the truth of the matter. For the most part I think the average person is aware is that Misplaced Pages is not scholarly source when it comes to many articles..--alidoostzadeh 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Origins section

Can someone edit the origins section and correct the formatting. The sentence "he is believed to be Kurdish" was actually before introduction of Sheikh Safi, so I tried to move to the end of another reference and screwed up the formatting. Thanks. Atabek 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it.Azerbaijani 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That section is next! But what is the point when all those tags are there already? What we need something for the intro first (succint, polished and to the point). I hope to see some comments on the other four versions (three by me and one by tombeyese (sp?) from other users including Azerbaijani and Atabek. I believe we will eventually reach one where everyone agrees although no one is going to be 100% happy.. --alidoostzadeh 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Ali, the addition of tags does not help making the page more readable. I don't see a reason why those tags are there, when all of us are currently cooperating to update the article. Thanks. Atabek 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The tags are there because there is a person who disputes something that falls in those categories. The tags are NOT about cooperation on the talk page.Azerbaijani 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I put it there since Tajik had edited a while back. The current tag emphasizes furthermore that users need to work together to get an agreement and also makes it more clear that content is disputed. Also it hopefully puts pressure on everyone to come up with a solution after two years. I will archive today but will put the 6 proposals we have with a more useful solution method. --alidoostzadeh 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have major disagreements with current version of introduction. However, as I said earlier, words "considered as greatest" are largely POV non-encyclopedic statements. Firstly, considered by who? Secondly, Safavids were not an Empire but a dynasty that built the Empire. I think leaving aside emotions and writing a balanced introduction based on pure facts and quotes is a key. Here is another shot:

The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Shiite dynasty which established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and language heritage and Shiite identity to assert a contemporary Iranian political identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries. They ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736).

I don't see why Azerbaijan is being completely omitted from the introduction, it's very relevant to indicate which region Safavids originated from. Secondly, I think I emphasized enough Persian cultural identity, to the extent well beyond mentioned by scholars. So this seems to be more or less balanced approach. Atabek 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The expression "Iranian political identity" is wrong and POV. Fact is - and that is mentioned in many sources already provided - that the Safavids united Iran under a re-asserted Persian identity. "Political identity" is a concept that did not exist before the French Revolution. So why do you persist on such a POV statement? Besides that, they were not the ones who established the first unified Iranian state after the Arab conquest. Unified Iranian states ("Iranian" being a geographical term) existed under the Seljuqs, Ghaznavids, and even under the Mongols. What was so special about the Safavids was their IRANIAN ORIGIN. They were the first NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty of ORIGINAL IRANIAN HERITAGE who established a unified Iranian state. This is mentioned in Iranica and EI! That's why they are directly compared to the Buyyids - the "Iranian intermezzo" in a time when Arabs and Turks ruled the Islamic world. "Origin" and "heritage" are defined by the male linage. That'S why the Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty of NATIVE IRANIAN ORIGIN. Their male linage was Iranian. All the dynasties of the past had mixed with the peoples they had conquered. The Seljuqs, for example, were also heavily mixed with Iranian and Anatolian populations, to an extent that they even adopted the Persian language. Yet, ALL sources agree that they were Oghuz Turks in heritage and origin - because their male family linage was Oghuz Turkic. In case of the Safavids, it's the other way around. Many of the Safavid Shahs may have had Turkic mothers, but the male linage - and that's what defined their origin - was definitly and evidently Iranian and Non-Turkic! So please stop pushing for POV. Tājik 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Atabek proposes a good version of intro. Iranian origin is subject to dispute, even Iranica says that Zands were first Iranians. So please do not push for inclusion of controversial statements, it leads nowhere. Grandmaster 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the main article about Ismail, Iranica clearly states that he established the first "native Persian dynasty after 800 years of Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rule". I really have no idea why you persist on a side note in some other article. Besides that, I have already asked you to explain why the Zands should be regarded as "first native Iranian dynasty", although decades ealier, the Pashtuns - also a native Iranian people - had created the Hotaki dynasty that ruled entire Iran. So please stop your double-standards. Interestingly, when it comes to the origin of the Azerbaijani people, you reject the quotes from Iranica. I do not support Atabek's suggestion, because it contains mistakes and POV. And I am sure that there are many other's who agree with me. Tājik 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not say so. The article about Ismail, written by Savory, says:

The reign of Esmail 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).

It does not use the word "Persian" in ethnic sense. However, David Morgan says: 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 exercised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian".

And Iranica: With the exception of some very local dynasties, the Zands were the only Iranian dynasty that had come to power since the Buyids in the 10th century. Grandmaster 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC

We cannot discard some sources and use others. It is better to include the facts the sources agree on. Grandmaster 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Zand were purely Iranic and Iranic speaking. Safavids were mixed (Greek, Turcomen, Kurd). We already mentioned they are turcophones. Zands spoke Laki or Luri which are Middle Persian based dialects. Also lets stick to Safavid historians as they are superior sources. Thus while Safavids eldest geoneology is purely Iranic from Shaykh Safi to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurd Sanjani, they were mixed to such an extent that they were not purely anything (turkic,Iranic, Greek..)--alidoostzadeh 13:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote of Iranica is clear:

• The reign of Esmail 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)

Iranica makes clear that the Safavids were neither Arabs, Turks, or Mongols. And that they were - just like the Buyyids - a natiev Persian dynasty.

The reference to the Zands is clearly a "geographical" description and not an ethnical one. Since ethnic Iranian dynasties had ruled Iran before (Buyyids, Samanids, Ghurids, etc), the term must be only a geographical reference.

Morgan's analysis is about the Persian people (ethnic group), and not about the Iranian peoples. Since the Zands were a Lur tribe and thus closely related to the Persian people, they may be reagarded as "ethnically Persian". However, Iranian peoples had ruled Iran before, including the Buyyids (who were Zaza-Kurds), Hotakis (Pashtuns), and Safavids (also Kurds).

Whom are you trying to fool, Grandmaster? As you have already said: why should we accept some sources and reject others? Why should we only accept your sources?

My version is absolutely neutral and supports all sources provided. That:

• Safavids were originally Iranian
• Safavids were predominantly Turkic-speaking
• Safavids were Shia
• Safavids united Iran
• Safavids were the first native Iranian dynasty (--> Iranian peoples and not Persian people) to rule a united Iran after 800 years of foreign rule
• Safavids united Iran under Shia faith and traditional Persian cultural identity (with reference to Savory, Frye, and others).

@ Ali: the Zands were not "purely Iranic" ... none of the dynasties was "purely Iranic". Even the Hotaki Pashtuns were mixed with local Mughal administrators. But - unlike any other dynasty that ruled Iran before - the Zands were natives of the province Fars and thus in some way "ethnic Persians". All other dynasties were from other regions: Azerbaijan, Pashtunistan, or Central Asia.

Besides that, it's the male linage that defines a dynasty's origin. Noone claims that Seljuqs were "ethnic Iranics" only because they were Persian-speakers and had intermarried with local Iranian nobles. They are predominatly defined by their male linage and their descent from Central Asian Qinik Oghuz Turks. The same goes to the Safavids: it does not matter (from a traditional Islamic-patriarchic point of view) whether the Safavid sheikhs had Georgian, Turcoman, Persian, or African mothers. What defined them was their male family linage and their descent from Sheikh Safi ud-Din. That's why the dynasty became known as the SAFAWID dynasy and not as the "Uzun Hasanyd" or "Aq Qoyunlu" dynasty! Tājik 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in Iranica says: 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. Tajik interprets this as: Iranica makes clear that the Safavids were neither Arabs, Turks, or Mongols. And that they were - just like the Buyyids - a native Persian dynasty. However, Iranica simply says that Safavids were not Mongol khans, Turkish sultans or Arab caliphs, but it does not say that they were not Turks, Mongols or Arabs. It is one thing to be a Turkish sultan, and another thing to be a Turk. Iranica article simply says that Safavids were natives to Persia, unlike Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. So no need to add Persian ethnic identity here. I agree with Ali, Safavids were of mixed ethnic origin, and I think no one can deny that the basis for unification of Iranian lands under the single rule was religion, and not any ethnic identity. Let’s keep such claims out of the intro and state the facts sources agree with. Grandmaster 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You always interpret everything the way you want it, Grandmaster. You say "let's state the facts", while you deny the facts that you do not like. Savory - the most important scholar on Safavid history (even though certain people with strong Turkish-nationalist attitudes do not want to believe this) - makes it very clear in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article:

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

This is FACT, and Savory is an authoritative reference. If you do not like this, then it's your problem. If this is about keeping out certain FACTS, only because they do not appear in certain sources, then we also have to keep out the reference to the predominantly Turkic tongue of the Safavids, because this information does not appear in all sources either! And since you seem to have problems to understand the importance of the Ei, let me show you some quotes:

• "... The most important, authoritative reference work in English on Islam and Islamic subjects ..." (Yale University Library Research guide )
• "... The most important and comprehensive reference tool for Islamic studies is the Encyclopaedia of Islam, an immense effort to deal with every aspect of Islamic civilization, conceived in the widest sense, from its origins down to the present day... EI is no anonymous digest of received wisdom. Most of the articles are signed, and while some are hardly more than dictionary entries, others are true research pieces - in many cases the best available treatment of their subject. ..." (R. Stephen Humphreys (1991). Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00856-6. , pg 4)
• "... EI is considered by academics to be the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies ..." Brill

FACT is that the Safavids were of original Iranian origin. They may have been mixed with local Turkic, Iranic, or Greek populations. But their their male family-linage (this is what defines "family origins"!) was evidently Kurdish!

Thus, they were the first NATIVE IRANIAN (--> Iranian peoples) dynasty to unite the traditional heartlands of Iran (--> Greater Iran) under a single rule. They imposed Shia Islam on the population and re-asserted the original PERSIAN CULTURAL IDENTITY (--> Persian culture) of the region, marking the beginning of modern Iran (--> Iran).

These are FACTS and supported by major sources, most of all by the two leading scholars on Safavid history: Savory and Minorsky!

Tājik 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik is right, GM you shouldn't push a certain POV by being selective with sources and disregarding those that do not support your view --Rayis 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelmingly against Grandmasters claims. He is now even questioning Iranica, Brittanica, and several other major encyclopaedia's and historians on the Azerbaijani people article. Grandmaster, what are you talking about? First you deny the Iranian origin of us Azeri's, and now, with all the facts presented to you, you deny those as well. What Tajik says makes a lot of sense. However, I will leave all of this for you guys to deal with, but my only objection is the removal of the fact that the Safavids were from Iran. Why insist on Azerbaijan? Are you trying to confuse readers with the Republic of Azerbaijan or try to show some connection?Azerbaijani 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Savory is not “most important scholar”, he is one of the most important scholars. We have no criteria in Misplaced Pages for establishing the most important ones and rejecting all others. Second, while Savory is the only one who says that Safavids were of Persian origin, other sources say that they were of Turkic or Kurdish origin, or say that the origins are obscure. You suggest now that we reject all those sources and use only Savory, but I’m afraid it is not the way Misplaced Pages works. We can say that Safavids were natives to Iran, but again claiming their Persian ethnic identity is wrong. They were of mixed ancestry, spoke colloquial Azeri Turkic, used both Azeri and Persian as cultural language and Persian as the official state language. These are the facts we all agree on, so let’s include it in the article. As for Azerbaijani people, they are of mixed origin too, as Britannica says. I’m not rejecting Iranica, but once again, you cannot take one source and reject all others. Clearly, there were three major elements that contributed to ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, i.e. indigenous Caucasian and Iranian people and nomadic Turkic tribes that migrated to the area at various times. Azerbaijani people are a result of mixture of these 3 elements, and while Iranian people are one of the most important elements of the equation, they are not the only ones. I tried to explain that on talk of that article, but no one listens and some people try to make undiscussed revisions to that FA article. I’m not gonna discuss Azerbaijani people here anymore, it is a different subject, not related to this article. Grandmaster 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, every human being is of different origins. Yet, only one of them - the direct male linage (father-father's father-grandfather's father-, and so on) - defines the family origin. That's why the Seljuqs are considered Oghuz Turks, although they were heavily mixed with local Iranian noble families to an extent that they were rather Persians than Turks. That's why the Ilkhans are considered "Mongols" although they were heavily mixed with the Iranian and Turkic nobles and were more Turks or Persians than Mongols. The case of the Safavids is the same: they were a family of Kurdish background. Period. It does not matter with what other peoples they had mixed. All sources agree that they were of Iranian, most likely Kurdish origin. Safi ud-Din who lived some 7 generations after Firuz Shah, still wrote poetry in a local Iranian language. It was not until Heydar that the Safavids became Turcophone. Heydar was married to an Aq Qoyunlou noble and was forced to leave his home in Kurdistan. Heydar himself was still Iranian-speaking, but from his time on the family became heavily influenced by the Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans.

Besides that, Savory uses "Persian" and "Iranian" as synonyms. When he says "Persian", he means the Non-Turkic and Non-Arab peoples of Iran ("Persia"). Therefore, the Safavids were a "native Persian" dynasty. Ehsan Yarshater explains in Iranica that the Safavids were originally an "Iranian-speaking clan".

So, it is a FACT to say that the Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty, MOST LIKELY of Kurdish descent, who became Turcophone and Shia. They reasserted the PERSIAN CULTURAL IDENTITY of Iran and united the nation under this identity and the newly introduced Shia faith. They themselvs were predominantly Azerbaijani speaking, but also used and promoted Persian. What's your problem with that? Tājik 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake: it was Junayid who first married a Turcoman wife, not Heydar. Heydar was born to a Turcoman mother. Tājik 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No Compromise

There can be no compromise when it comes to the facts. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. POV and personal opinions should have no place here. All nationalistic feelings should be put aside. The article must be edited by non biased people who are not Turks or Persians.

The Safavid Identity was Persian. They were a predominatly Persian speaking dynasty. That is why the ONLY official language of Iran was Persian. Like I said before, their court language and all of their laws was only written in Persian. It just does not make sense to say that they were a "Turkic" speaking dynasty....If they were really Turks then why did they deny their own heritage so strongly! Iran,during the Safavid era had no "turkic" identity. Some of the best classical Persian literature and poetry was written during their time. Some of the grandest and most extravagent Persian architecture is also from the Safavid Empire. Just look at Esfahan. I will admit that a few of their Shahs were half Azari but that does not make the whole empire "turkic". Most of the Safavid Shahs were predominatly ethnic Persians.

The articles introduction should state that, "The Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty that reasserted the Persian identity of the region".

That is fact and there is no reason to vandalise the article anymore.Dariush4444 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Darius444 welcome to the discussion but please calm down alittle bit. The Safavid identity was truely a mixture in terms of ethnicity and the article should reflect that. Iranian culturally, Shi'i religion but primary Turkic linguistically although bilingual. I think this article can easily reflect this mixture. At the same time Safavid did re-assert Iranian identity. Nowruz, Chaharshanbeh Suri, Tiregan , Shahnameh, Iranian ceremonies like Sofreh, Zurkhaneh.. were supported by the courts as was basically a Persian cultural state for the most part since the Turkomen did not have the weight in the administrative and cultural part as they did in the military. Shi'ism itself has lots of Iranian components which is complicated to deal with and currently Shi'ism is part of the culture. I am going to look for more suggestions before I compile all the suggestions. So please give your suggestion as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dariush, the court language (as well as military) of Safavids was Azerbaijani, along with Persian. Hence, Azerbaijani was an official language, although perhaps not state language of Dowlat-e Safavi. Also, they did write in Azerbaijani, not just poetic divans, but also letters and laws. Here's a sample collection, from a book published in Azerbaijan and using Azerbaijan's State Archives, of transliterated (from Azerbaijani Arabic script into modern Azerbaijani Latin alphabet) 'farmans', laws, and letters, including one faximille of a Shah Ismail 'farman' in original Arabic script and --AdilBaguirov 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

genealogy

Here is a quote from Mazzaoui who in turn quotes Togan. A similar conclusion was arrived at by the great Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan working independently many years after Kasrawi. Togan again worked with several manuscripts of Safwat as-safat, and gave selections from two of them in extenso to show how the original text of Ibn al-Bazzaz had been tampered with. Togan concludes that "II ne fait aucun doute que les souverains Shah Isma'il et Shah Tahmasb se sont donne toutes les peines du monde pour effacer de I'histoire leur origin e kurde, pour attribuer au kurde Firouz la qualite de descendant du Prophete, et pour faire valoir que le Shaykh Safi etait un shaykh turc shiite, auteur de poemes turcs" (babel fish translator: There is not any doubt that the sovereigns Shah Ismâ' ïl and Shah Tahmâsb gave each other all the sorrows of the world to erase their history, their Kurdish origin, to allot to Kurdish Firouz the quality of descendant of the Prophet, and to make the point that Shaykh Safï was a Turkish shaykh shïlte, Turkish author of poems).. Of course as mentioned Prof. Togan has two existant pre-safavid manuscripts. In those manuscripts it says چون نسبت فیروز به کرد رفت translation: since Firuzshah Zarin Kolah was Kurdish. Also in the geneology it put Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani. Thus the geneology of the Shaykh according to the oldest documents we have is: Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul-Fatah Ishaq ibn al-Shaykh al-amin na-din Jabrail ibn al-salih qutb ad-din Abu Bakr ibn Salah ad-din Rashid ibn Muhammad al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah ibn 'awaaḍ ibn Piruz Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani.

So in English:

1) Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah the Kurd of Sanjan

2) 'awaaḍ

3) Muhammad Al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah

4) Salah ad-din Rashid

5) As-Salih Qutb ad-din Abu-Bakr

6) Shaykh Amin ad-din Gabriel

7) Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul Fatah Al-Eshaq (Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili)

8) Sadr ad-din Musa

9) Khwadja Ali

10) Ibrahim

11) Shaykh Junayd (turned to Shi'ism?)

12) Haydar

13) Ali

14) Ismail I 1501–1524 (the rest from the current wikipedia article)

15) Tahmasp I 1524–1576

16) Ismail II 1576–1578

17) Mohammed Khodabanda 1578–1587

18) Abbas I 1587–1629

19) Safi 1629–1642

20) Abbas II 1642–1666

21) Suleiman I 1666–1694

22) Sultan Hoseyn I 1694–1722 (real end of dynasty)

23) Tahmasp II 1722–1732

24) Abbas III 1732–1736

25) Suleiman II 1749–1750

26) Ismail III 1750–1760 (official end of Safavid sufi order?)(have to look it up).

--alidoostzadeh 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

Here is my proposal, based on reworded Atabek’s proposal. Before rejecting it, please explain which line you disagree and which line you agree with. Let’s identify the statements we agree on and try to build a consensus on that.

The Safavid dynasty (1501-1722) was a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736) and established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and linguistic heritage and Shiite branch of Islam, which became the basis of the contemporary Iranian national identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries.

Grandmaster 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. But I have some comments. Safavids actually re-asserted Iranian identity. Also shi'ism is part of the Iranian national identity but re-assertion of Iranian identity as mentioned by Savory is better. I think the former wording with re-assertion of Iranian identity was better and we need to add that they were a dynasty of mixed origin who were primarily turcophone. Also it should be mentioned Safavids officially called their state/government/empire Iran. Also it is a well known fact that Esmail I actually started his conquest from Gilan (Encyclopedia of Islam in Lahijan) but the Safavid Sufi order was established in Ardabil but the great great.. ancestor of the actual founder of the order originated according to the concensus of most scholars in Persian Kurdistan. Also the term Iranian Azerbaijan seems vague since there is no clear boundaries for such a term whereas Ardabil or Lahijan in Gilan are very clear. I have gathered this proposal (see below). I will be waiting for more proposals before I put them in one page. Please feel free to give more proposals as I have given three versions myself. --alidoostzadeh 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, if Iranian Azerbaijan is vague (which can be easily recified by providing boundaries in parenthesis), then what about "Persian Kurdistan"? --AdilBaguirov 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil,the boundaries of Persian Kurdistan is vague as you mention. This is the best term I am aware of due to the fact that Sangan/Sanjan is not clearly located (like Esfahan or Ardabil) although it is mentioned in the literature. There is at least one Sanjan in Iraqi Kudistan. And one in Iranian Kurdistan (does not necessarily correspond to the Sanjan of Safavid or pre-Safavid times). There is one in Khorasan (according to Qesseyeh Sanjan of Parsis). Ardabil is not vague though. It is a province in Iran and is a city with such a name. Also as I mentioned the Safavid rise to political power started when Esmail left from Lahijan in Gilan and gathered in Ardabil. Ardabil was a turning point but his decision to gain political power started from Lahijan. I quote: Ismā�īl left Lāhi��jān for Ardabīl to make his bid for power. By the time he reached Ardabīl, 1,500 followers from Syria and Anatolia had joined him ( .Hasan Rūmlū, Ahsan al- tawārīkh��, ed. G.N. Seddon, Baroda 1931, 25-6). From there, he sent heralds and couriers to summon more supporters from those areas and also from Azararbāyj��ān and �Irāq-i �Aj��am to a rendezvous at Arzin��djān, on the high road between ak Shekir and Erzerum. . Currently we have Ardabil which is fine. I also quote Encyclopedia of Islam: There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistān, and later moved to Azarbayjan, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabīl. I have no problem with such an exact quote. But the original above does not mention Lahijan. I think the current: Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in Northern Iran is accurate. By the context Ardabil, a city in Iran, everything is clear although I think Lahijan can be mentioned. Mentioning Iranian Azerbaijan, Gilan, Persian Kurdistan and etc. in the first sentence seems cluttering (and then which one comes first.. and etc.). Also what is the boundaries of Iranian Azerbaijan or Persian Kurdistan? If you ask PKK and Chehregani you will get about 30% overlap. Ardabil though leaves no ambiguity. --alidoostzadeh 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam reference interpretation

Tajik, you don't correctly interpret your own reference from Encyclopedia of Islam:

Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran ; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns.

The quote above "during whole of that time" applies to 8.5 centuries, during which only once (Buwayyids in 945-1055) were of Persian origin. Safavids only restored Persian sovereignty. Nowhere does it say, Safavids were of Persian or Iranian origin. Atabek 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read the ENTIRE EI article, and Savory (and the other authors) make it very clear that the Safavids were indeed a NON-TURKIC and NON-ARAB native Iranian (="Persian") dynasty. That's why they are directly compared to the Buyyids. In those 850 years, the traditional Iranian heartlands were mostly ruled by foreign - Arab, Turkic, or Mongol - dynasties. Only the Buyyids and Safavids managed to unite these lands under a native NON-Arab and NON-Turkic dynasty. Although other native dynasties did rule other parts of Iran during that time (Samanids and Ghurids, for example), the Buyyids and Safavids were the first native Iranian dynasties who controled Fars, the traditional center of the Persian lands. Like the Buyyids, the Safavids were not ethnic Persians but a related Iranian clan, most likely of Kurdish origin (just like the Buyyids). Tājik 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, wrong quote. At the same time, Iranica and Morgan say that Buyids were first Iranians, same as EI quote above. Grandmaster 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the matter with you guys? Do you really believe that you can fool other readers? Here is the direct quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

• "... 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 ..."

Which part of "Safavids restored Persian sovereignty" do you not understand? BTW, Grandmaster: your suggestion is not good. Tājik 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say “ethnic Persian sovereignty”? Persian sovereignty is sovereignty of Persia, state that Safavids restored. And if my proposal is no good, please explain why. If you agree with any particular line, please indicate that as well. Grandmaster 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If "Persian" ist not used as an ethnic lable (in this case as a synonym for Iranian peoples), then what else does it mean? Wasn't Persia already a state before the Safavids?! And why are they directly compared to the Buyyids?

The problem is that you purposely misinterpret the text. This attitude will lead to nowhere. I do not like your version because it misses important info: that Safavids united Iran under a new Shia faith and by reasserting the Persian cultural identity. And that the Safavids were the first native, non-Arab, non-Turkic, and non-Arab dynasty to rule Iran after 850 years. Even IF the Safavids spoke a Turkic language - their ancestry was clearly Non-Turkic. Tājik 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is too much evidence showing that their ancestry was Turkic, their language was Turkic, their military commanders and regional governors were Turkic, and their powerbase was Turkic. As of the quote above from the Encyclopedia of Islam, which does not work, it does look the same way that many poets are labeled Persian (in terms of language, not ethnicity), and entire armies (Russian sources called Qizilbash armies "Persian"). Just like the world called Soviets "Russian" despite 50% of its being non-Russian. In fact, the interpretation that you insist on contradicts the claim that Safavid's should be regarded as mostly Kurdish. I don't think most Kurds would favor being called "Persian", even though they are also Indo-European people. --AdilBaguirov 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Safavids had Turkic ancestry as well, but more importantly they had a mixed ancestry. They had Turkomen, Iranic, Greek etc. lines. Their language was primarily Turkic but they were also bilingual and Abbas I, Tahmasp , Esmail.. all have Persian writings as well. Their military commanders and regional governments were from diverse backgrounds and the office of Vakils was primarily inhabited by what is called the Tajik (Persian) element. Lots of regional government were from various background. For example a Georgian (georgi khan) was appointed the commander of Kandahar and Afghan regions and also Shah Abbas used a modern army composed mainly of Caucasian christians and some Persians (tats). Another Georgian (Iranica) or Armenian (Valle) was Allah Verdi Khan. A very famous person known by many Iranians and was the chancelor of Shah Abbas and build a good amount of monuments in Esfahan. Allah Verdi Khan was assigned the position of commander-in-chief of all armed forces. and even executed some of the Ghezelbash who had grown powerful. Shortly after this battle, Alla@hverd^ Khan, on orders from the shah, executed the qizilba@Þ amir Farha@d Khan Qara@ma@nlu@ who, like MorÞed-qol^ Khan Osta@èlu@ before him, had grown too powerful and was suspected of plotting against the shah (ibid., I, p. 574-76; tr., p. 762). By this act, Alla@hverd^ Khan became the most powerful man in the Safavid state after the shah.. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By the middle 16th century, 69 emirs out of 74 in Safavid state were Azerbaijanis, which means that the positions of Turkic military and political elite was still very strong. By the way, it would be nice to find a 1936 book by a Hungarian scholar, Fekete Layosh, who was the first to find two Safavi letters (from 17th-18th centuries, of Shah Safi I and Shah Sultan Huseyn) in Azerbaijani to Austrian Emperor and Polish king. Later more archival Safavid letters and orders were found in Azerbaijani, including by a Turkish scholar, Şehabettin Tekindağ. In total, there are at least 11 Safavid official documents in Azerbaijani -- attesting, that even if not state language, it was definitely court and official language even after Shah Abbas I. --AdilBaguirov 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for the 69 Amirs and how do we know they were Ghezelbash people or they were Azerbaijani? I do not deny Turkic military and political elite was very strong, but at the same time the Wakils appointed by Esmail and Tahmasp or Allah Verdi Khan appointed by Shah Abbas were the second more powerful position after Shah. Shah Abbas himself has lots of Persian letters as well. He gave Kurds for example power in Khorasan over Turkic tribes like Gerayeli. Or both Esmail I, Tahmasp and Abbas weakened the Ghezelbash power and empowered Wakils. Thus non-Turkic elements were strong as well in the political elite. Or Zands for example and (Laks, Lurs, Kalhurs) controlled their own areas. Of course both Persian and Azerbaijani were used by the Safavids as I brought two examples from Shah Abbas. --alidoostzadeh 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all true, although not sure about Allahverdi Khan's status and length of that status (and don't really have time to read Gulistan-i Iram and other historic references that mention him). The semi-autonomy of Kurds and Lurs persisted before and after Safavids, so nothing special there. By far the biggest weakening of Turkic domination was during Shah Abbas -- all other Shah's mentioned did it much less (and as I said, in case of Ismail, he definitely was right to punish some of the Qizilbash for the advice before Chaldiran battle to not engage Turks at night and no need for artillery). Indeed, as evidence of official letters in Azerbaijani and on emirs shows, Turkic domination was still prevalent (except in Shah Abbas times). Meanwhile, the data about 69 emirs is from a 2002 book printed in Azerbaijan (same one from which I scanned the following pages that I posted earlier: and ). The book does not have a specific, direct citation of that number, but does mention Tekindağ and Layosh and Soviet scholars as a collective reference on the same and opposite pages. --AdilBaguirov 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a succint article on Allah Verdi Khan in Iranica . Note it says Allah Verdi Khan was the most powerful man after the Shah (mention in EI as well). The standing army of Gholams created by Shah Abbas became the backbone of Iranian army and it was actually what brought the Safavids and Iran to its maximum height. During the period after Shah Abbas (Shah Soleyman), it can easily be argued that the most powerful man was none other than Allameh Majlesi a simple cleric who was not too fond of Ghezelbash since their shi'ism was unorthodox. I believe actually he conduct a semi-purge of the Ghezelbash. So over-all there was always internal power struggles. I didn't think the book would have a direct reference since it would be impossible to tell the ethnic background of 69 of 74 Amirs (these biography would be needed) and etc and ... --alidoostzadeh 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Allahverdi Khan does not specify for how long he was the "second most powerful" man in the empire -- for one month? one year? etc. Meanwhile, if an extensive biography of the 74 Emirs is needed, then same requirement should apply to all the Vakils and others who are claimed to be Persian or otherwise of Iranian stock. --AdilBaguirov 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we know that Allah Verdi Khan. By 1007/1598, only ten years after the accession of Shah Abbas, he had risen to the position of commander-in-chief of all the Safawid armed forces. And Shah Abbas went to his funeral personally and paid respect to his family personally. So that pretty much is a long duration. The Vakils (at least a good amount of them during during Esmail I) are claimed as non-Ghezelbash and Persian in Iranica . And it is noted by the author: .then appointed a Persian to this office, but this policy, in which Esma@¿^l persisted despite the overt resentment and hostility of the qezelba@æ, was even less successful. Between 1508 and 1524, the year of Esma@¿^l's death, the shah appointed five successive Persians to the office of wak^l. Of the five, the first died a year or so after his appointment, and one chronicle makes the significant statement that he "weakened the position of the Turks" (K¨oræa@h, fol. 453b). --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Tajik, and I have to repeat myself as you don't seem to interpret the following quote correctly:

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

This does not say Safavids were Persian, they just restored the Persian sovereignty! Secondly, over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heatlands of Persia, sure, they did restore Persian sovereignty ALSO over central, eastern and southern Iran, traditional Persian heartland. The quote above does nowhere imply or say that Azerbaijan is Persian (ethnic) heartland or that Safavids were Persians by origin or else. Atabek 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By Persian sovereignty they do mean Azerbaijan as well not in any ethnic sense but in geographical sense. Westernes referred to Safavids during their own time as Persia while Safavids used Iran. Restoring here refers to Buyids/Daylamites who controlled the Abbassid and Sassanids, Parthians, Achaemenids.. that is the Safavid re-created the Persian empire in a sense. (That is actually the title of a work I am reading). Perhaps Iranian sovereignty is more clear, but the fact that Safavid called their state Iran should be mentioned. And Savory means all of the Safavid domain: The English, conceding control of the Persian Gulf to the Portuguese for more than a century, attempted to turn the northern flank of the Ottoman empire by opening up a trade route to Russia and Persia via the hazardous sea route north of Scandinavia to Archangel.. --alidoostzadeh 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be known that no one hailing from Azerbaijan can be considered an ethnic Turk, only a linguistic Turk, therefore, Adil's argument makes no sense at all.Azerbaijani 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange conclusion. Considering that the aboriginal, native, population of Azerbaijan (both north and south) was mostly of Caucasian origin, you would be partly correct for the part of not being an "ethnic Turk" (although Turkic presence in Caucasus is rather ancient), but also partly wrong for implying that Azerbaijanis would be aboriginally Iranian (who came to the region, especially Caucasus, much later than the Caucasians). Thus, Azerbaijanis cannot be considered to be "ethnicly Iranian" (?) either. Also, if we are to adopt a strict standard (test) of "ethnic purity", then probably not a single ethnic Persian of Iran is really pure Persian. So to make it short, what's your point? The scholars have spoken -- Ismail, as his ancestors before him, and children after him, had Turkic and specifically Azerbaijani, origin/lineage/heritage/blood/etc, but, like most people on this Planet, were of mixed heritage, i.e., had other ancestry too. Still, his mother tongue was obviously primarily Azerbaijani Turki, he wrote 99% in Azerbaijani Turki, he coronated himself shah in/of Azerbaijan first in 1501 before doing that for Iran in 1502, and he does hold a special place in the history of Azerbaijan as being passed on generation from generation of Azerbaijanis (real Azerbaijanis, not virtual one's ;-). And one of the highest state awards in Azerbaijan today is the Order of Shah Ismail, by the way. --AdilBaguirov 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

@ Atabek: I repeat it once again: instead of criticizing others without any reason, you should READ what others write. Noone in here claims that Safavids were "ethnic Persians" (--> Persian people), although they surely had some Persian blood. But when Savory says "Persian", he does NOT talk about the modern concept of "ethnic Persians" (--> Persian people), but about the traditional meaning of the word "Persian" in Western languages. He is talking about what we in Misplaced Pages call Iranian peoples. The Safavids were an Iranian people from Azerbaijan who restored the traditional "Persian throne" after 800 years of foreign rule by Arabs, Turks, and Mongols.

Neither the Buyyids nor the Safavids were "ethnic Persians". But unlike any other dynasty that ruled Iran after the Arab conquest, they were a native people. They were NOT Arabs, they were NOT Turkic nomads, and they were NOT Mongol warriors. While the Ottomans were direct descendants of the original Oghuz nomads who moved into Anatolia, the Safavids were descendants of a NATIVE - NonArab, Non-Turkic, and Non-Mongol - tribe. Of course, like ALL ruling dynasties of that time - the Safavids, too, had different ancestors. The Ottomans, the Mughals, even the Arab caliphs were mixed dynasties. Many Ottoman sultans had Georgian, Albanian, or Greek mothers. Many Mughal rulers had Persian or Indian mothers. Many Abbasid caliphs (for example al-Mamun) had Persian mothers. But it is always the male family linage that defines ethnicity. The Abbasids are known as Arabs, because their direct male family linage was Arab. The Ottomans are known as Turks, because their male family linage was Turkic. And the Safavids were a native Iranic dynasty, because their direct male family-linage - as shown by Ali - was evidently Iranian and Kurdish in origin. That's why the Safavids RESTORED the traditional Iranian ("Persian") throne after 800 years of foreign rule by Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. Which part of this easy message don't you understand?! Are you denying the FACT that the Safavid family was Iranian (--> Iranian peoples) in origin?! Tājik 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, first of all, I was not criticizing others, I was commenting on the EI quote you presented and its wrong interpretation. Secondly, Ali has not proven that Safavids were "native Iranic dynasty", he only showed that Safi Al Din, one of the male predecessors of Shah Ismail, may have been of Kurdish origin according to several historians. Moreover, there is some question open whether Firuz Shah from several decades before Safi Al Din, was related to Safi Al Din by ethnicity. That's why, we say claimed not confirmed. And two hundred centuries later you have Shah Ismail, son of Sheykh Heydar (himself son of Sheykh Junayd and Akkoyunlu woman) and grandson of Sheykh Junayd, whose own origin cannot also confirmed as non-Turkic. There is clearly more Turkic influence in male and female lineage of Ismail than there is any ethnic Persian. Kurdish, that's still subject of discussion and research.

Also, Turkic in context of Safavids has more local meaning than global Turkic race. Safavid Turks had very little or nothing to do with Mongols, same as Ottomans had very little or nothing to do with Mongols. The definition of Turk then and now, is amalgam of Turkic tribes with local populus which adopted the language of conquerors. Same way Iran is referred to as Persia, this new identity I describe was referred to as Turk, whether in Ottomans or Safavids. So I think we should first disassociate your definition of Turk from Mongol or Turkic nomads of Central Asia, before we move on in discussion. Thanks. Atabek 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there there is more Turkic or non-Turkic is a matter of debate. It is not clear as Minorsky puts it. The definition of Turcophone is different than Turk. I think we need to mention that Safavid had mixed ancestry. About Firuz Shah being the ancestor of Shaykh Safi, who has raised the question? As far as we know, the best source we have on Safavid ancestry is Safwat As-Safa written either during the time the Shaykh was alive or the time of his son. And as far as we have available, this is the only pre-Safavid manuscript on the Shaykhs ancestry where he is mentioned as a Sunni non-Seyyed and etc.. --alidoostzadeh 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik. I am convinced 100% Safavids were of Kurdish origin and it is the concensus of Safavid historians, still the term concensus of scholars suggests a minority of scholars might not be sure (which means although they do not disagree they might not 100% agree or just not be sure or do not care or whatever). We can mention that there is a concensus of Safavid historians and also mention the reason (Safwat As-Safa) and the intentional distortion of the text. I think the intentional distortion of Safwat as-Safa is something definitely worth mentioning. The direct reference of Firuz being Kurdish in the oldest extant manuscripts all pre-Safavids is definitely strong proof when combined with the Shafi'ite ancestry of the Shaykh and his taati poems. I'll have more to say on this soon.--alidoostzadeh 07:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary Language

I will edit the part of the introduction that says, "they were predominatly Turkic speaking". That is not true. Most of the Safavid Shahs used Persian as their first language. I have already provided the reasons and evidence so I will not keep repeating myself.Dariush4444 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not have compromise and we have worked for weeks on that quote now. Providing your arguments is not sufficient for editing, you must be able to come to compromise and discuss. Atabek 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

suggestions

We can all thank GM, Tajik, Atabek for giving their suggestions and they can give various versions. I believe some other users will give their suggestions as well. Thus I reverted my previous edit on the talk page and I will wait for some other suggestions from various users. Darius444 please give your suggestion on the talk page as well. But I believe the scheme I propose may work. --alidoostzadeh 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone correct

As I was adding a quote about Ismail proclaiming himself Shah of Azerbaijan, someone from unknown IP changed the Khoikhoi's version and added "adamm bristol". Can someone update the page and remove this edit, but reinsert the reference to Tapper, which I put in. Thanks. Atabek 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OK now, please, ignore my request right above. THanks. Atabek 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I think we need to discuss all the relevant changes before editing. Note Richard Tapper (the same author you quoted): Shaikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetic Sufis. Their own origin were obscure; probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction, they later claimed descent fromt he Prophet. pg 39. (Shahsevan..). Right now we have the word Perhaps, but probably as you know is much stronger word. Can you provde a primary source where Shah Esmail proclaimed himself the Shah of Azerbaijan? Considering that he had Gilan in his position first before Tabriz? --alidoostzadeh 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I only made an insert replacing the tag with Tapper reference. Your revert, however, removed the Tapper quote to the fact that Ismail crowned himself "Shah of Adharbaijan" (Tapper page 324), this is also mentioned by Savory in Iranica as "he was crowned as Shah at Tabriz (1501)" ] so there are no surprises and/or no crowning in Gilan. In addition, remember again Shah Ismail brought Azerbaijani language to the state level, and not Gilaki or Kurdish. Now, some more interesting stuff from Richard Tapper's article for your information, which for some reason didn't seem to have caught your attention:

The question of the origin, history and distinctiveness of these tribes is not a genetic matter. A systematic physical anthropological study of the Shahsevan and other Turkic groups of north and west Persia would probably, in my view, confirm that these groups are racially similar not only to each other and to the population of Turkey, but also to the "indigenous" population (Kurds and others) of modern Persia. They are also probably distinct from the Turkmen and other "eastern Turkic" groups of Central ASia, to whom they are, however, culturally related. This anomaly arises largely from two processes: Turkic culture has dominated much of south-west Asia since its introduction there, while its bearers have intermarried with the indigenous non-Turkic populations. (p. 322)

So, Ali, if we are to continue to insist over Iranian origin of Safavids, we shall also pay attention to the above quote, and make it clearly that Turkic in this sense means more Turkish rather than Central Asian Turkic. And that's exactly why I insisted earlier on using term Azeri Turkic to make it the clearest. Atabek 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My first statement was that any change in the article should be discussed. That is the best process now, GM and Tajik have also respected it and I have respected it too. Now per your statement, he was crowned Shah at Tabriz is not the same that he proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Two different meanings and statements. So now we have a contradiction. Given this, Savory is right, he crowned himself Shah of Tabriz. This is mentioned in a direct source ('Alem Araayeh Safavi). Also the Tapper quote about Shaykh Safi's origin being probably Kurdish is relevant to the article. Because Shaykh Safi ad-din was not Turkic. But I did not quote Tapper with this regard because I believe in discussing any edits so there won't be any r.v's. Note I also r.v.'ed user Tajik and I am acting in good faith. Now tappers statements about Shahsevan is not relevant to the origin of Safavids since he directly says Shaykh Safi's origin is probably Kurdish. Also per definition of Azerbaijan or Azeri Turk, Frye says the majority of them are former Iranian speakers. Thus this definition does not contradict Tapper either. Note though tapper users the word Turkic and eastern Turkic for turkemens while he uses it for Shahsevan as well. Thus just given the fact that he uses the term Turkic for Turkemens itself causes confusion since he states Turkemens are very different than Shahsevan and Western Turkic speakers yet he calls both of them Turkic. So Tapper has actually pointed to the problem I and many others have with the term Turkic since Azerbaijanis are very different than Turkemens historically and culturally. Minorsky having more weight than Tapper on the matter of Safavids says also a different thing altogether. But the main point is that in order to avoid users insering statements, we should discuss the edits before entering them. I think it is just the right principal since three users: GM, me and Tajik agreed and note I r.v.'ed Tajik. Else with arbitrary edits it will just get the article locked up again where as we are close to agreements in the wordings. Or we are inching there.--alidoostzadeh 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, we've discussed this point before, and I will remind it again -- when one asserts that of the Azerbaijanis, "the majority of them are former Iranian speakers", we should all acknowledge that in turn, before becoming Iranicized and becoming Iranian speakers, majority were Caucasian speakers. So let's not arbitrarily start history from some junction, and instead, try to go back as far as modern scholarship allows. Secondly, Tabriz was and is the capital of Azerbaijan, and thus its interchangeable to say that Shah Ismail crowned himself Shah of Azerbaijan. There are a few Russian-language sources that I would list which could enrich the article:

"В 1501 г. Исмаил I разбил союзника Ак-Коюнлу Фарруха Ясара, а в 1501—1502 гг. — войска падишаха Ак-Коюнлу Альвенда. В 1502 г. Исмаил захватил весь Южный Азербайджан со столицей Тебриз и провозгласил себя шахиншахом (царем царей)." From: O. Экаев. Туркменистан и туркмены в конце XV — первой половине XVI в. По данным «Алам ара-и Сефеви». Ашхабад. Ылым. 1981. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Sefewi/vved.phtml ("In 1501, Ismial I crushed the ally of Aq-Qoyunlu, Farrukh Yasar, while in years 1501-1502 -- armies of Padishah of Aq-Qoyunlu Alvend. In 1502 Ismail captured the entire South Azerbaijan with the capital Tabriz and declared himself shahinshah (king of kings)". From: O. Ekaev. "Turkmenistan and Turkmens in the end of XV - first half of XVI. Materials from "Alam ara-e Sefevi", Ilim: Ashgabad, 1981).

"После падения династии Туркмен-Акгоюнлы власть перешла к Исмаил шаху I Сефеви (1501-1524). Венецианский автор Ласкари в 1502 г. писал о шахе Исмаиле I: «Господин Софи принадлежит к роду Узын Хасана и по причине этого родства стал правителем Ирана и императором». А ведь, действительно, дочь Узын Хасан бега Туркмена Алемшах-бегим являлась матерью Исмаил шаха." "After the fall of the Turkmen dynasty of Aq-Qoyunlu, the power was transferred to shah Ismail I Sefevi (1501-1524). Venetian author Laskari in 1502 wrote about Shah Ismail I: 'Master Sofi belonged to the Uzun Hasan family, and because of this family connection, became the ruler of Iran and Emperor'. And indeed, the daughter of Uzun Hasan bek Turkmen Alemshah-begim was the mother of Ismail shah."

"При шахе Мухаммеде Худабенде Сефеви в Венецию прибыл его посол Ходжа Мухаммед. 1 мая 1580 г. он был принят дожем. Посол привез 2 письма (на туркменском и персидском языках). Интересно, что в Венеции не нашлось человека, который мог бы перевести письмо на персидском языке, так как секретари дожа Милледонне, Доминико Вике, Винченцо Алессандри знали только туркменский язык." "During the rule of Muhammed Khudabende Sefevi, his ambassador Hoja (Khwaja) Muhammed arrived to Venice. On May 1, 1580, he was received by doji . The Ambassador brought with him 2 letters (in Turkmen and Persian languages). Interestingly, that in Venice there could not be found a person, who would be able to translated the letter in Persian language, since the secretaries of doja Milledonne, Dominico Vikke, Vinchenco Alessandri knew only Turkmen language". From: Prof. Ovez Gundogdiyev, http://turkmeniya.narod.ru/turkmen-diplomacy2.html

"1501 - Осенью Исмаил Сефеви короновался шахом Азербайджана." "1501 - in autumn Ismail Sefevi was crowned shah of Azerbaijan". http://safety.spbstu.ru/book/hrono/hrono/psl_mng.html

Some interesting background is also available in Bakikhanov's Gulistan-i Iram: http://vostlit.by.ru/Texts/rus2/Bakihanov/text4.htm

Also, by French scholar Mark Ferro: http://scepsis.ru/library/id_923.html

Armenian chronicler: http://www.armenianhouse.org/kanakertsi/chronicle-ru/volume1.html

And from a Russian encyclopedia Krugosvet: http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/117/1011747/1011747a1.htm --AdilBaguirov 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

before becoming Iranicized and becoming Iranian speakers, majority were Caucasian speakers is quoted by which scholars? Also it seems incorrect since Azerbaijani itself as a group of people came about during Turkic rule when Iranian speakers were established. This was the stage from Iranian speaker to Azerbaijani speaker. But Caucasian speaker directly to Azerbaijan speaker with regards to Azerbaijan region of Iran as well as most of the caucus (given the fact of large number of Kurds, Talesh and Shirvanshahs) seems unlikely. Note by the time Turkic speakers reached Azerbaijan their blood was also very diluted due to the fact they passed through central asia which was Iranian speaking before the era of Christ. Also Those links are interesting. But some comments: 1) Prof. Ovez Gundogdiyev says Turkmen where-as Esmail I did not know Turkmen. Turkmen as a language is different than Azeri. For example Turkemen has 18 vowels where-as Azerbaijani Turkish has 9. 2)Note the other quote you brought: In 1501, Ismial I crushed the ally of Aq-Qoyunlu, Farrukh Yasar, while in years 1501-1502 -- armies of Padishah of Aq-Qoyunlu Alvend. In 1502 Ismail captured the entire South Azerbaijan with the capital Tabriz and declared himself shahinshah (king of kings). I am sure Esmail I did not use the term South Azerbaijan. But going further, Esmail I had control of Gilan first. . But we do not have any statement: He proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Indeed Shahanshah means King of Kings and this most likely means all of Iran although Esmail I did not control all of Iran yet, but he became the most important ruler of Iran after his victories. The term Shahanshah supports multiple provinces and territories since there is only one king of king. What seems correct as Savory mentions is that after Esmail I captured Tabriz, he proclaimed himself Shahinshah. I did not see any evidence from above: Esmail I crowned himself Shah of Azerbaijan from any primary source or any Safavid historian. I may have access to Alem Araay Abbassi and the exact Persian text with this regard which I can bring. That is a primary source. Also I'll add Gilan is not considered Azerbaijan and Esmail I had control of large portions of Gilan before he controlled Tabriz. But he proclaimed himself Shahanshah in Tabriz. That is correct and no disagreement. This source you mentioned according to babelfish translator: Ismail mirza, proclaimed Shah in 906 (1501) g., conducted winter in Makhmudabad. Thus from what is gathered Shah Esmail I proclaimed himself Shahinshah with his capture of Tabriz. But I do not see anything in primary sources which says: "Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. We simply need a direct source from Esmail I himself saying:I am the king of Azerbaijan. If such a quote exists from any primary source, then I am not going to object to this sentence. But I believe such a proclamation from Esmail I does not exist and that is why Savory also agrees with Esmail I after capturing Tabriz declated himself Shah and his words has more weight in this regard has obviously more weight than Turkmen/Azeri/Iranian scholars. --alidoostzadeh 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the proclamation of Ismail as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 is cited in Tapper, as mentioned above, and is verifiable, from an authoritative academic source, is in English, and is from a famous scholar. As such, it deservs to be in the article. You can object to it, but then you need to bring a contrarian source, that would say smth like "Despite reports of being crowned Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501, in reality Ismail was crowned Shah of Khorasan/Khuzestan/etc". Secondly, I didn't quite understand your point about South Azerbaijan -- that's of course not Shah Ismail's words, but an author in a 1981 book. Likewise, "Turkmen" is a common descrption of many Turkic people, such as Anatolian Turks, Azerbaijani Turks, Turkomans of Iraq. Very often Azerbaijani armies were referred to as "Turkmen" or "Turkoman" one's, that's very common. Likewise, Russians often called Iran as "Kizilbashiya", "Kizilbash state", etc . Then, Gilan might be different from Azerbaijan in terms of administrative-political division, but its right next door to Azerbaijan, in fact, Azerbaijan is to its north and west, whilst from its east is the Caspian Sea. It took Ismail several years to conquer Iranian homeland -- only in 1503 he took Kazvin, Qum, Kashan, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kazerun, in 1504 Yazd and Kerman, and in 1510 Khorasan. Yet he proclaimed himself shahinshah in 1501 when he only had Azerbaijan. By the way, those loud title of king-of-kings and shahinshah's were used by Pahlavi's, by defeated Tigranes the Great, even by Caucasian Albanian prince, Arran-shah and Mongol vassal, Hasan Jalal -- so I would not take it at its face value. Meanwhile, do you deny that majority of the population of Caucasus and what is considered as South Azerbaijan were mostly Caucasian and otherwise non-Iranian speakers before the massive Iranian incursion in the end of 7th century BC into the region? --AdilBaguirov 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil in this case it contradicts Savory: he was crowned Shah at Tabriz. No mention of himself proclaiming himself the Shah of Azerbaijan. Tapper is not a Safavid historian and his book is not a Safavid history book. He is an anthropologist and not a historian but part of the department of Anthropology and Sociology. His research is on nomadic tribes like Durrani Pashtuns or Shahsevan and etc. I have access to direct statement from a book quoting Alem Aray that Esmail I proclaimed himself Shahanshah at Tabriz and proclaimed Shi'ism as official religion and thus a primary source takes precedence. If Esmail I proclaimed himsef Shah of Azerbaijan, then there needs to be a primary source for this proclamation from that era. Tapper obviously not being a Safavid scholar or even historian does not provide any source for this statement, and the statement in Alem Aray or some other book obviously should mention such a proclamation. There is no mention of proclaiming himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Esmail I was already Shah of Gilan which is not Azerbaijan and thus why not mention Gilan and Azerbaijan? Thus when there is multiple contradictions and opinions , the issue needs to be clear up by referring to a primary source. (A Safavid era manuscript) and Safavid historians. So my first question again is the same. What is a Safavid manuscript or primary source for: Shah Esmail proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Now about Azerbaijan. The population of Azerbaijan region of Iran, we only have incursions by Urartu but their main center was in Turkey. The language of Manna near SW of Urmiya which is really Kurdish region is not well understood (Iranica) although they had some Iranian titles as well. Medes and Persians are mentioned from at least the 8th century, Mittani Indo-Iranians are from the 15th century B.C. and thus show some Indo-Iranian presence before 7th century B.C. Azerbaijanis are descendants from Iranian Speakers. Now if those Iranian speakers are mainly from Caucasian speakers, that needs to be proven from that era but the scarcity of sources can not prove this. Also on the other hand we have statements that the number of Turks that entered the region was not that large and also major cities were developed before the Turkish incursions. Culturally there is no caucasian albanian component or urartu component in Azerbaijan of Iran. There is tons of Iranian components : Chaharshanbeh Suri, Nowruz, Sizdah Bedar, Yalda and of course primary names: Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Darband, Ganjah, Sharvan, Aras,Baku, Naxchivan, Mughan, Barzand, Lenkoran, Zangan,Maragheh, Shabistar, fire temples, Shervanshahs who were culturally Iranian..etc. Note as I mentioned the Oghuz Turks before entering Turkey, Iran and Caucus were fairly mixed with Iranians. This is mentioned by the Uighyur Mahmud Kashghari directly. Also the percentage of Persian words in Azerbaijani turkish literature and Ottoman Turkish is tremendous and I doubt most Azerbaijanis will understand many of the poems of Shah Esmail I or Fizuli without studying Persian. Or for example one book mentions Mugham music was performed in Persian up to around 100 years ago in the caucus. I can cite other examples of course but I am diverging too much from Safavids. --alidoostzadeh 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, first of all, I wasn't reverting the page, I was only replacing the fact tag, with a reference, which is already on the page. So your claim that I was violating the compromise is rather blown out of proportions. Secondly, if you ask for a written proclamation of Ismail crowning himself as Shah of Adharbaijan, then you likewise, should also provide a proclamation from Ismail proclaiming himself Shah of Iran (or Persia) in 1502. If you don't have one, there is no ground for you to deny the other. In fact, prior to claiming such scholars as Richard Frye and now Richard Tapper, as non-experts in Safavi, simply because their certain quotes don't fit ethnocentric Persian/Iranian theories, you should also provide a proof that you, Ali Doostzadeh, do have academic or otherwise scholarly qualifications to choose and impose the choice of one scholar's claim over another. If you do not, then as an amateur contributor, just like all of us, you should not be questioning the references from prominent or published scholars, unless you show proven ability to judge them. Now, besides Richard Tapper reference, I would like to point you to Encyclopedia Iranica again: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esmail was a master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan . I will provide reference, which I remember seeing in Minorsky, as well soon, but the fact that Ismail proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 was never denied by Soviet, Western or Iranian historiography.

About your successive couple of liners on Persian poetry of Ismail, while avoiding pages of Turkish poetry of his, I would like to draw your attention, as well as attention of Tajik, who claims that Safavids used Persian as language of culture and had Persian origin in later courts. The following quotation in Vladimir Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shah Ismail" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4., p. 1012a):

See E. Rossi, Atti del XIX Congresso dei Orientalisti, p. 207. In his MS. sketch of Turkish, della Valle, without any doubt, describes the dialect spoken at the court of Shah Abbas I

About your claims that Iranian names were more original in Azerbaijan than Caucasian, in your list, you clearly ignore such names as Kabalaka, Partav, Gandzaka (this one was even in Atropatene/South Azerbaijan), Paytakaran, Utik, which were clearly Caucasian Albanian, the ancient language similar to modern Nakh-Dagestani family of languages. Also, can you justify the attribution of name Nakhchivan to Iranian language.

Again as I brought the quote above from Tapper, Turks in Azerbaijan and Anatolia are a mixture of Turkic tribes of Central Asia and local populus. So when we say "Turks" in modern meaning in the region, we mean exactly those mixed people. And Tapper is anthropologist, so he has a stronger say in this matter. And I think referring to them as Turks and their language as Turkish in this context, clearly better reflects the reality than calling them Iranian, when those inhabitants of Azerbaijan neither culturally nor linguistically resemble inhabitants of Pars, Kerman, Zahedan, Khorasan or other provinces, more than they do resemble inhabitants of Republic of Azerbaijan. Hence the terms North and South Azerbaijan describe the spread of populus identified as Azerbaijani Turk. Thanks. Atabek 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. I mean this:n fact, prior to claiming such scholars as Richard Frye and now Richard Tapper, as non-experts in Safavi, simply because their certain quotes don't fit ethnocentric Persian/Iranian theories. I understand discussions can get heated but the best way to move forward is to keep cool. Now Paytakaran, Ganja, Partav are middle Persian names. I am not going to discuss etymology of these names as they well known. Also you won't find any caucasian names in Azerbaijan regions in Iran and Caucasian Albanians had no influence in any ancient topynoms of Iran. Now going back to Safavids I said we should quote Safavid scholars when there is a contradiction. That is standard procedure in Misplaced Pages in terms of having stronger sources (Safavid scholar) or primary sources ..For example where Savory clearly states Safavids have Kurdish origin, then why not put that in the begining of the setence. Now Frye, yes he is not a Safavid scholar. But that was not he main issue. The problem with your quote was that you were not quoting the whole statement in which period of Turkification occured and Frye says Azerbaijanis are descendants of Iranian speakers..and etc. Frye also refers to Yarshater (Azeri article) where in that article Yarshater says Safavids were originally an Iranian clan.

The statement: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. is fine. Since the article of Professor Frye does not deal with Safavids directly where-as Savory's does, then I guess the begining statement should say something about Kurdish origin of the family. I never claimed a statement that Esmail I says: I am the ruler of Iran direclty. Thus I do not need to bring any proof since I did not make a such a claim that : Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Iran. Since by definition a proclamation from Esmail I has to be directly from him mentioned in a Safavid era historical source. Although perhaps such a direct statement can be found anyways but I did not make such claim. Now you claimed: I will provide reference, which I remember seeing in Minorsky. Okay kindly bring the reference from Minorsky that Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. That is what I asked for or even better bring the direct reference since a proclamation of Esmail I has to be located in a direct primary reference eventually. That is Frye. Tapper is an anthropologist and not a historian. Thus his statements with regards to Safavid does not hold weight relative to Savory who is a Safavid historian. The word Turkic is used by Tapper for Turkmen as well. But this is not relevant to the Safavid article. As per Esmail's Persian poetry which we have about 50 verses left, what does that have to do with denying his Turkic poetry which we have 1400 verses left? Did I deny it? Show me where? Minorsky says Esmail composed it for his turkmen followers and it was religious daw'a. Minorsky furthermore made a statement in relation that Turkic speaking does not mean Turkic with direct reference to Esmail. Also when I quoted Minorsky that Kasravi was true historian and his book is very valuable, you said Kasravi is not acceptable. Where-as Kasravi is quoted by Minorsky, Frye, Savory, and hosts of others and these published historians consider him valid.. But quoting anthropologist and not giving a direct source with matters of Safavid history is simply not valid when such a statement is as of yet not corroborated in any of the enteries brought from Iranica or Enyclopedia of Islam. The statement from Iranica is solid and I concur: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. and until we have proof of proclamation from Esmail I himself : I am the Shah of Azerbaijan, then such a statement is not valid. --alidoostzadeh 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, your reference to Misplaced Pages:NPA is irrelevant, as I only asked you to substantiate your qualifications in judging whether Richard Frye or Richard Tapper have lesser importance than Roger Savory. There is nothing personal here. But until and unless you can provide credible qualification to judge which scholar is more or less relevant, all references, whether Minorsky, Frye, Tappper or Savory shall be considered equally credible and weighted. If you still feel this request has anything to do with personal attack, you may join ArbCom case, and we can discuss there what you feel as personal attack.

Your comparison of my Tapper, Minorsky references to your Kasravi reference, is not equivalent either. Kasravi was pan-Iranian nationalist, hence, he is clearly a POV source in this discussion, while both Minorsky and Tapper are NPOV.

Now your statements:

1. The Statement: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. is fine.

2. I never claimed a statement that Esmail I says: I am the ruler of Iran direclty.

leave only an impression, that you accept the fact that Ismail was intially ruler (shah) of Azerbaijan only, and he was not "Shah of Gilan" as claimed by yourself above. There is also conclusion to be drawn from your second statement, that you say Ismail proclaimed himself Shah twice (in 1501 and 1502) and in both cases did not define of the geographic domain of his royalty? Well, then if Tapper, indeed a historian, is unacceptable, I suppose we should also remove titles Iranian and Persian from either Ismail or Safavids, as Ismail never proclaimed himself, according to you, as Shah of Iran either. Atabek 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek again when you call Kasravi a pan-Iranian nationalists and not acceptable, then I can call Tapper an anthropologist which he is. If Kasravi is quoted by scholars such as Minorsky, Frye, Savory then his historical works are obviously acceptable. Also note this: ] Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources.. Note that is why I quoted from Savory, who is a Safavid historian and said that he is stronger source than Tapper who is an anthropologist (sources should be appropriate to the claims made). And furthermore I asked for direct proof if possible. Actually you quote says: Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Now I ask where? And then you bring me a quote from Tapper who is an anthropologist. Then I of course say that Savory who is a Safavid historian with much more qualifications does not claim Esmail I made such a proclamation. It is true that he controlled Gilan also (but perhaps not all of it).. As per Iran , it is mentioned as the country of Safavids by many sources. Including Sultan Selim I when he attacked Iran.

تا ز استانبول لشکر سوی ایران تاختم تاج صوفی غرقه خون و ملامت ساختم. Thus we have a direct source referring to the country of Esmail I as Iran and Selim actually attacked West Azerbaijan province and yet he says his army went on attack in Iran. And as far as I know, I do not need to bring direct reference like this because Safavid historians are strong enough source to quote. But anthropologist whose field is not history necessarily in my judgment should be complemented by a Safavid historian. Thus when you mentioned Minorsky might have such a quote, I totally accepted.

Note I repeat from the source you brought: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. seems correct but either way it is from strong source. But until we have proof of proclamation from Esmail I himself : I am the Shah of Azerbaijan, then claiming Esmail I proclaimed himself shah of Azerbaijan is not valid. He proclaimed himself Shah in Azerbaijan is different though as he was crowned in Tarbiz. And yes he did own part of Gilan as well, and this angle can be argued from Encyclopedia Islam quote which I have brought above already. So basically I am asking you for the Minorsky quote you mentioned but quoting from an anthropologist when it contradicts Safavid historians or when Safavid historians are stronger source in my opinion is not valid.

As per Arbcomm, there are admins I can report personal attacks outside of there and thus I mentioned the warning. You said: because their certain quotes don't fit ethnocentric Persian/Iranian theories in reference to me (anyone can see that).

Also this is nothing personal and we are trying to reach compromise on Safavid article. I am just scrutinizing facts. I will delay summarizing all the proposals so far by Monday. There is three issues: 1) wording of introduction 2) Safavid origin (Kurdish) and wording perhaps, probably.. 3) this recent issue about Esmail I proclamation. I believe these issues can be discussed on the talk page and positive compromises reached. --alidoostzadeh 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

@ Atabek: Professor Roger M. Savory IS a specialist on Safavid history. Even Iranica names him as a specialist on Safavid history: .

Richard Frye is a specialist on Sassanian history: , NOT on Safavid history! Just like Frye, Savory is a CONSULTING EDITOR of the entire Iranica project.

Since - unlike all the other names and sources presented in this article - Roger M. Savory is specialized on Safavid history, he is the most reliable and authoritative source. The Pan-Turkists do not like this FACT only because Savory's excellent works do not support their nationalist POV. That's all! Tājik 10:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, please, provide proofs of your scholarly authority to judge whether or not Savory is more authoritative source than Minorsky, Frye or Bernard Lewis. And proofs shall be in the form, such and such (a prominent scholar) says Savory is more authoritative than Frye, Minorsky, Tapper or Lewis on matters pertaining to medieval history of Azerbaijan and Iran. Same I want to ask from Ali, since, he is claiming that he does not accept Tapper quote unless Shah Ismail himself said "I proclaim to be Shah of Azerbaijan". I would like to ask Ali in turn to provide a quote to precise statement of Ismail proclaiming himself a Shah at all in Tabriz. I provided all with evidence to show that Ismail Safavi proclaimed himself Shah in Tabriz (historical center of Azerbaijan), that he controlled Azerbaijan only (per Iranica, and despite Ali's claims that he was also "Shah of Gilan"), and with basic known fact that at the time of his proclamation in Tabriz, Ismail controlled only Azerbaijan and hence he was the Shah of domain that he controlled. Atabek 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uzbek and Shaykh Safi ad-din and a poem from Esmail I in Persian

Interestingly the Uzbek ruler when fighting Esmail I says:I have heared Shaykh Safi was a Sunni... Also part of Persian letter from Esmail I to the Uzbek Khan: غالبا گروه مکروه و آن طایفه بی شکوه تاراج و یغمای اموال مومنین را رواج و احیای دین خاتم نبیین و خون ناحق و کفر مطلق را رونش ...و در نهایت شقاوت آرای باطله و اهوای فاسه را قوانین مصطفوی و قواعد مذهب مرتضوی انگارند Part of the quincit poem of Esmail I : چو آفتاب رخت نیست ماه در خاور نهاده پیش قدت سرو، سرکشی از سر ندیده است چو روی تو ای پری پیکر ب زیر زلف دو تا، چون نگه کنی بنگر که از یمین و یسارت چه بی قرارانند --alidoostzadeh 05:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
2. [http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html Iran in History by Bernard Lewis
3. "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
4. "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
5. ^ R.M. Savory, "Ṣafawids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006: "... 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 "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..."
6. "... The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty ...". Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
7. "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Iran. The Safavids (1501-1722)
8. Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
9. [http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html Iran in History by Bernard Lewis
10. "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
11. "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
12. "... The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty ...". Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
13. "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Iran. The Safavids (1501-1722)
14. Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History,V, pp. 514-15)