Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Georgian Circassian and Armenian

Well, comrade Mazandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is not enough to have a source that claim that someone talked Armenian or Georgian. It does not mean that either Armenian or Georgian were the court language. You need source that say exactly about court language. For instance I can show you many sources that reassert that Azeri Turkish was the language of the Safavid court. By the way, Azeri Turkish was often used in diplomacy, but it doesn't mean that the language of diplomacy was Azeri Turkish. Guess you understand. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "it is not enough to have a source"

• According to whom? According to you? David Blow is a Professor in history and Iranian studies and teaches at Cambridge and SOAS.

• "(...) that someone talked Armenian or Georgian."

• That "someone" is undisputably regarded as the most important ruler of the dynasty in question.

• "It does not mean that either Armenian or Georgian were the court language."

• You should start READING before claiming stuff that you know yourself ain't right. The page/passage in question explicitly mentions the spoken languages at the court.

• "You need source that say exactly about court language."

Not sure if srs. David Blow, p. 165/166;

"The court was a rich mix of peoples. Foremost among the courtiers were the old nobility of Turkoman Qizilbash amirs and their sons. Although no longer controlling the state, they continued to provide many of the senior army officers and to fill important administrative and ceremonial offices in the royal household. There were the Persians who still dominated the bureaucracy and under Abbas held the two highest government officices of Grand Vizier and Comptroller-General of the Revenues (mostoufi-ye mamalek), which was the nearest thing to a finance minister. There were also the ghulams or "slaves of the shah", who were mainly Georgians, Circassians and Armenians. As a result of Abbas' reforms, they held high offices in the army, the administration and the royal household. Last but by no means there were the palace eunuchs who (...) The primary court language remained Turkish. But it was not the Turkish of Istanbul. It was a Turkish dialect, the dialect of the Qizilbash Turkomans, which is still spoken today in the province of Azerbaijan, in north-western Iran. This form of Turkish was also the mother-tongue of Shah Abbas, although he was equally at ease speaking Persian. It seems likely that most, if not all, of the Turkoman grandees at the court also spoke Persian, which was the language of the administration and culture, as well as of the majority of the population. But the reverse seems not to have been true. When Abbas had a lively conversation in Turkish with the Italian traveller Pietro Della Valle, in front of his courtiers, he had to translate the conversation afterwards into Persian for the benefit of most of those present. Georgian, Circassian and Armenian were also spoken, since these were the mother-tongues of (from here on p. 166) many of the ghulams, as well as of a high proportion of the women of the harem. Figueroa heard Abbas speak Georgian, which he had no doubt acquired from his Georgian ghulams and concubines."

-- Mazandar (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, be careful with WP:CIV. Secondly, if there is no direct "The court language was Armenian" your claim is just WP:OR. So, mister, I see no other way — call the mediator. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the WP:CIV as some sort of way to dodge what he's saying, it won't make a difference. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So I call someone for 3O. My point is: Someone spoke Armenian in Safavid court and The official court language was Armenian is not the same. I can show dozens of sources twhich reassert that the official court language was only Azeri, although someone could speak Perisan, Armenian, Circassian, Georgian and whatever else. John Francis Templeson (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources: Throughout the Safavid period there were two constants to Azerbaijani Turkish as a spoken language in Iran. First, it was and remained the official language of the royal court during the entire Safavid period.

The Safavid state, which lasted at least until 1722, was essentially a "Turkish" dynasty, with Azeri Turkish (Azerbaijan being the family's home base) as the language of the rulers and the court as well as the Qizilbash military establishment.

While the court of Delhi, i.e. the Turkish court of India, spoke Persian, the official language of the Safavi court (XVI century onwards) was Azerbaijani Turkish...

I am still waiting for sources about Armenian as court language)) John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Azeri Turkish is already mentioned as a court language in the article. Regarding Armenian and other languages, see the above source which clearly mentions that these languages were spoken in the court. -- Mazandar (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Safavid dynasty and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Finally, I have gotten back to this—sorry about time wasted. After checking the article, I think it would look better the way @HistoryofIran: thinks. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, that this topic doesn't even need a 3rd opinion. It's just 'John Francis Templeson' that doesn't like (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) what he is seeing, and is thus interpreting the sources in his own POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It was listed in WP:3O. So I am here. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Em, sorry colleague. According to the WP:OR original research includes includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. So, "someone spoke Armenian in the court" as it provided in source and "the official language of the court was Armenian" as it shown by Iranian colleagues are not equal statements. Guess you, guys, don't mind if we will ask for administrator's mediation? John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, even though your argument is flawed, we could write "Armenian (spoken in the court)" instead of "Armenian (court)". Next. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Let's go get an admin. Straw man argument(Armenian official court language, started by "John Francis Templeson"[1], and is the only editor to state this) and battleground behavior("Iranian colleagues") will be short work.

• "'"the official language of the court was Armenian" as it shown by Iranian colleagues" --John Francis Templeson

Where exactly does anyone, besides you, state that Armenian was the official court language?--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, lol see the template, language section. Battleground behavior. What? Iranian colleagues is somehow offensive?

OK guys, before we will apply for admin, I want to suggest compromise variant. We leave in template only official languages. For example, Azerbaijani Turkish was often used in the official correspondence , but it should not be in template, because the main language of the official correspondence was Persian. Instead we add a good section about language of Safawids and Safawid court , where we also add information about Persian, Armenian , Circassian etc. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk and no explanation for the straw man argument.

• "lol see the template, language section"

LOL. I have. It says "common languages", nothing to suggest "official". Still, no answer to my question, "Where exactly does anyone, besides you, state that Armenian was the official court language?"

• " Battleground behavior. What? Iranian colleagues is somehow offensive?"

What? Then why assume, much less mention, another editor's ethnicity except to insinuate their point of view is based on their ethnicity?

Judging from the 23 times ghulam is used in this article, I suggest listing Georgian, Circassian, and Armenian with (ghulam-court) in the infobox.--Kansas Bear (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Collapse list

Hi The collapse list is not good for phone users and the list is not big. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't base our articles on what is good for only for phone users, and the infobox is quite long as it is. I think it would benefit from being trimmed further. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What you say is meaningless. It is important to consider the comfort of mobile users if at the same time, this "collapse list" does not bring comfort to PC users. Not only is the list not long and in addition the collapse list does not reduce it. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Currently the infobox spans multiple sections when I view it, significantly spilling over from the lede section. Not sure if this is just a quirk of my small yet functional display, but interested to hear what other editors think. "Changing the infobox because it looks better on my display this way" is not a good reason for a change. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the collapse list does not add anything positive to the absence of a list. I see no reason to keep it. On the other hand, I see that nobody participates in the discussions here and the article is abandoned, I propose a "request for comment". --Panam2014 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think RfC is necessary for this. The lede section needs improvement, there are too many sections and the infobox and layout in general need to adjusted to display well on different kinds of displays, not just mobile. For an RfC, ot would be better to propose a significantly improved infobox. If you can't get consensus for it from the editors watching this page, I think you should just let it go, it's a pretty minor issue. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System has pointed out that the infobox spans multiple sections when they view it (presumably on a phone). Consider proposing the removal of some of the infobox material. (Suggest asking for opinions before you try doing it). There is a sense that the infobox is duplicating a lot of stuff. Also, some items are unwieldy: like the 'Preceded' and 'Succeeded' sections which appear to be a laundry list. Why does 'Currency' need a whole section in the infobox, where space is precious? EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with EdJohnston — additionally, is it necessary to list every context in which Persian was used? Including some notable exceptions is reasonable, for exmaple if Armenian was used as a court language — but we probably don't need to include that Persian was the language used for "belles-lettres (adab)" in the infobox. It should focus on the important information that those viewing the article will actually want at a glance. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should talk to the technicians of the encyclopedia. I do not know, however a user tried to remove all countries without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

better to add at the 1st paragraph

{{By the time of the establishment of the Safavid empire, the members of the family were native Turkish-speaking and Turkicized,[18][47]}} Samuel4321 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Safavid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6SYOXY2Np?url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/carkas-cherkes-term-used-in-persian-arabic-and-turkic-for-the-circassian-people-of-the-northwest-caucasus-who-call-thems to http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/carkas-cherkes-term-used-in-persian-arabic-and-turkic-for-the-circassian-people-of-the-northwest-caucasus-who-call-thems
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Safavid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120194533/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377424/Safavid-dynasty to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377424/Safavid-dynasty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Safavid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.encislam.brill.nl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008114155/http://www.events.ir/no002/002d.htm to http://www.events.ir/no002/002d.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008023151/http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?print=589 to http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?print=589
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616060412/http://imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3021 to http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Error in graphic about Map Safavid Persia

Hello everyone,

I noticed an error in the text of the Map of Safavid Persia;

it should say Aq Qoyunlu (White Sheep) and Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) but there is Qara Qoyunlu twice; how to correct this?

best,

Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troydavis (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Biased or Innaccurate Wording

There is a section reading 'Democratic Institutions in a Totalitarian Society.' No where else in the article are the Safavids called 'totalitarian' and while certainly not a liberal democracy, calling them totalitarian seems pejorative and inaccurate. It seems to imply that the Safavids were a sort of Stalinist or fascist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.155.13 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty ended in 1736 or 1773?

The Abbasid dynasty's effective rule was between 750-1258 AD. However, four years later (1261-1517), they "ruled" again as mere figureheads under de facto Mamluk power. Yet both dates are mentioned in their article. Meanwhie, the Safavids' effective rule (1501-1736) ended in 1736, but they began to rule again as mere figureheads from 1750-1773 under de facto Zand rule. Should we mention the latter date of when they ruled as a ceremonial dynasty on the article as well? DunhamMyer (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know sources state that the Safavid dynasty ended in 1736, thus it should stay like that imo. The dynasty was heavily weakened in 1722, and ended for good in 1736 --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like that the article completely neglects the 1750-1773 period or when other Safavid pretenders ruled like Suleiman II. It mentions Ismail III in only half a sentence and I think that mentioning the aforementioned period would help draw attention to this era. DunhamMyer (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty genealogy

Hello,

I recently added research by seyyed-studies specialist Kazuo Morimoto, showing that manuscripts (1460s) dating from before what was considered to be the oldest manuscript (1480s) of Safvat as-Safa, show that the Safavids were already considered as Seyyeds before they came to power. Why shouldn't this be included in the article?

Thank you. Pikermerle (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make the genealogical claim less doubtful. We have several actual known academic scholars questioning their seyyed claims. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it does make the genealogical claim less doubtful. The claim was doubtful precisely because Kasravi claimed, and the scholars that you referred to built on that, that a 1480s manuscript that predates their rise to power doesn't mention any descent from Muhammad and the Imams, and that those claims appeared after they obtained power. The article that I mentioned, by a renowned Seyyed-studies scholar, shows that earlier manuscripts predating the 1480s manuscript, do detail the Safavids' claimed descent from the Imams. This find refutes the claim on which Kasravi's (and subsequent scholars') doubts on the Safavids' genealogy were based. It doesn't mean the Safavids were without any doubt Seyyeds, but it does make them more likely than not to be Seyyeds. Pikermerle (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the opinion of the majority of academic scholars weigh more than your so called 'renowned Seyyed-studies scholar'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, he's not my "so-called renowned Seyyed-studies scholar". Morimoto is a professor at Tokyo University. Learn to be polite when you discuss with other people. While I understand that actual academics don't have the time to edit Wikipedia everyday and all-day long, I do expect the people who do edit here to conform with basic rules of dialogue and discussion. Second, this is supposed to be an "encyclopedia" and is supposed to reflect updated academic findings. The "majority of academic scholars" who are mentioned in this article died decades ago. Few could doubt that they would be willing to revisit their claims if new research came to light. Pikermerle (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not been able to find reliable sources supporting a seyyed claim. So far, you have not been able to provide reliable sources supporting this claim either. Unless you are able to provide the required sources, i would suggest you to drop the stick.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor at Tokyo University = "renowned Seyyed-studies scholar and more reliable than other much more known and acknowledged academic scholars whose opinions are unreliable because they are dead lol"? Cmon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• "At the time of Shah Esmāʿil I, a genealogy was fabricated according to which Ṣafi-al-Din descended from the seventh Imam, Musā al-Kāẓem (d. ca. 800)." -- Matthee, Rudi (2008). SAFAVID DYNASTY. Encyclopedia Iranica.[2]
• "They (Safavids after the establishment of the Safavid state) fabricated evidence to prove that the Safavids were Sayyids." -- R.M. Savory, "Safavid Persia" in: Ann Katherine Swynford Lambton, Peter Malcolm Holt, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge University Press, 1977. p. 394

- LouisAragon (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

firuzz shah zarrin kolah was not kurdish , but was ARABIAN from yemen . https://nbsh.basu.ac.ir/article_1140_e51efcaaadda9e1cf846a4314ece8633.pdf 5.134.156.9 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)turboratur

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split "Safavid Iran" from "Safavid dynasty". Orkhonien (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I suggest split of Safavid Iran from Safavid dynasty. The name of "Safavid Iran" is based on WP:COMMONNAME. Benyamin-ln (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Per Benyamin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This article is 113kb, per wp:SIZERULE "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". ---- Work permit (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been almost 2 months. Admins? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There are three editors in agreement, no one has complained. Do you need an admin? Could you not just follow just follow wp:SPLIT and do it yourself? If you like, you could ping editors such as @LouisAragon to get additional views before proceeding.---- Work permit (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Two days ago, "Safavid Iran" was splitted from "Safavid dynasty" in Persian Wikipedia. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Aryzad (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Cut-and-paste split"

I have noticed that the discussed split has been performed as a cut-and-paste of 90% of the article to Safavid Iran. I feel that it would have been more elegant and practical (e.g. for the the article and talk page histories) to first move the whole article to Safavid Iran and then split the smaller part "back" to Safavid dynasty. To rectify this, I propose undoing this split and then re-doing it in the way I described. ping @Benyamin: (split proposer) @Orkhonien: (split performer). BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why admin deleted Oxford source about Safavids?

You deleted My OXFORD source. HistoryofIran PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Population of Iran, and iranian zoroastrians in time of safavid dynasty.

I just want to know, how much was the population of Iran and iranian zoroastrians in the time of Safavid dynasty, specially specially in 1501, and i have heard it was 6 million people ns the population of zoroastrians was also 2 million people in that time; i just wanna know what the the others who have done research on it, know, please tell me. Thanks آذرخسرو (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkish characteristics of the Safavids seem underrepresented in the article

According to Encyclopaedia Iranica (hardly a biased Turkish nationalist source):

"The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin, but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified."

However, in the lead, the only sentence where the word "Turk" is uttered is this:

"It was an Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin but during their rule they intermarried with Turkoman, Georgian, Circassian, and Pontic Greek dignitaries."

This makes it seem like Turks were just one of the groups the Safavids happened to intermarry with and hold no more significance than Georgians, Circassians or Pontic Greeks.

I propose that Turkish characteristics of the Safavids are given their due weight in the lead of this article (as well as of the article Safavid Iran). -- Endleofan 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Weren't Uzun Hasan a Oghuz Turk and related to, too many Safavid Shahs IranicSakaOrigin2 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Endleofan: I couldn't find where in Encyclopaedia Iranica, sentence you mentioned is used. Could you please provide more information, if possible a link to it? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Here it is: Link -- Endleofan 20:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Taking a random sentence (even from a good source like Iranica), and making it more meaningful than it actually has is quite easy. For your information, the same Encyclopedia Iranica says here : "Thirdly, military and political power in Persia was generally in the hands of ethnic Turks, while ethnic Persians, called Tajiks, were dominant in the areas of administration and culture. As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup. At the same time, it is important to stress that the Turk versus Tajik barrier could be breached. Over time, many Turks served as bureaucrats while a number of Tajiks held military posts. Nor should the tension and rivalry created by mutual suspicion and divergent interests between the two groups be exaggerated.". Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The passage you quoted provides even more evidence of the Turkish characteristics of the Safavids. I don't understand your argument. -- Endleofan 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to article (and infobox)

To add to this article (and its infobox): the capital(s) of this dynasty. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020 (add link to see also header)

Add link to Safavid Dynasty#See Also

• Trade in Iran's Safavid era

PunchyTurtle (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkic–speaking Iranian dynasty

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "rv, further back - not at all, please see WP:RS and WP:SPS. They were bilingual per Minorsky and whatnot". I think info is relevant and should be included.

It was a Turkic–speaking Iranian dynasty...

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no clarity on this subject, and the general opinion was that the Safavids spoke more Persian and were Multilingual. WP:RS Make sure you read the rules here well, "Be clear and simple !" ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maintly Turkish origins of Safavid dynasty

Please change "It was an Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin,[3] but during their rule, they intermarried with Turkoman,[4] Georgian,[5] Circassian,[6][7] and Pontic Greek[8] dignitaries." to

"It was the reign of the Alevî-Bektâşî Türkmen (Turkmen Bektash) dynasty and it was the first dynasty in history with Shiite as its official religion

The Turkmen tribes assisting to the establishment of the Savafids are Şadıllı, Şamlı, Afşar, Kaçar, Çağırganlı, Karamustafaoğlu, Tekeli, Beğdili, Humuslu, Ustaclu, Dulkadirlu, Varsaklar.

Wilhelm Barthold is of the opinion that the Safavids are of Turkish rather than Persian origin. The Russian historian Petrushevsky, on the other hand, has a similar view; "The first Safavid sheiks lived in Ardabil and their native language was Azerbaijani (ie Turkish)," he says.

Regarding the lineage of İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı of the Safavids; He writes, "Despite being from a completely Turk origin, they showed themselves from Sâdât-ı Hüseyniyye as a tool for their politics". Similar information on this subject is based on the data in Saffetü's-Safa, where mentions Safiyüddin Erdebilî was called “Türk’ün Piri” (the Turkish patriarch), the sheik lived in the "Turkish village" and he served Turkish disciples better and offered them white bread and honey. In addition, according to many sources, it can be seen that many of Safi's contemporaries, who were originally Persian, in 1272, also referred to him as the Turkish Piri.

The origin of the Safavid dynasty comes from the Safavid order founded by Safiyüddin İshak, who was the sixth-degree grandfather of Shah İsmâil at the end of the 13th century, in Ardebil. In Gilan, Safiyüddin, who was the disciple of the great Alawi Turkmen leader Sheikh Zahid-i Gilanî, married the daughter of the sheikh and became the head of the Zahidiyye sect, and after Zahid's death, the order was known as Safevîyye. During the reign of the sect of Sheikh Cüneyt, the Safavids, who were under the protection of the Akkoyunlu, started to convert a large number of Azeri and Anatolian Turks to Shia. Since these Shiite [Alevi-Bektâşî] Turkmens usually wear red turbans on their heads, they took the historical name Kızılbaş. " 5.92.168.169 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. More attempts to deny a Kurdish origin in favour of a fictional Turkic origin with questionable sources. In other words a normal day in this article. Hell, even Zahed Gilani (a native Gilak of Lahijan, who wasn't even Alawi, lol) is thrown in the mix this time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no even one poem or other writing in the Kurdish language remaining from Shah Ismail or other Safavid Shahs. While there exist many poems in Turkish and Persian from them. Shah Ismail has written in the Azerbaijani language, a branch of Turkic language. His other serious works include the Nasihatnāme in Azerbaijani language, a book of advice, and the unfinished Dahnāme in Azerbaijani language, a book which extols the virtues of love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.92.168.169 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Because he didnt write in Kurdish he wasnt one? What logic is that? Read the notice on this talk page, this isnt a forum, take this somewhere else. HistoryofIran (talk)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Ethnic Origin

It isn‘t important that the Kurdish Family intermarried with Georgians, caucasians or greek. Most important is which origin the Safavid ruling house got, so why we just don‘t write „of Kurdish origin“ without the „intermarried“ thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.232.230 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete

Someone should expand on the decline of the Safavid dynasty or at least explain the where the Safavids went post reign, as the article reads as incomplete at present. JJNito197 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Kurdish Origin?

Who was Kurdish? You can't just claim Kurdish because of a singular source of a possibly mistaken individual. Who was Kurdish? KY-Acc (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:JDL. The sources are literally quoted, read them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Safavid Dynasty was Turkish : *In Iran entered a period of relative obscurity and seclusion under two dynasties of Turkish origin: the Safavids and the Qajars.[1] *The Safavids were of Turkish descent, while others interpret the available records differently and claim an Iranian-Kurdish origin.[2] *As with their Safavid predecessors, the new dynasty was of Turkish origin ; and administrative institutions similar to those the Safavids had attempted to build up were revived.[3] *There was a real need for the Safavids to disassociate themselves from their arch-foes by playing down their own Turkish origins.[4] *The Divan of Shah İsmail, the founder of the Safavid Dynasty was written in Turkish,, because he was of Turcoman origin.[5] *The Safavids (1501–1722), two major dynasties of Turkish origin.[6] *The modern history of Persia really begins with the rise of the SAFAVID dynasty in 1500. Although these rulers were also Turkish in origin, they espoused the SHITTE form of Islam and established a state.[7] *The Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires. Though political and ideological rivals all three empires were of Turkic origin and belonged to the same Persianate cultural universe.[8] *Form of Shi'ism under pressure from the Safavids, originally a Turkic Sufi order who were themselves former Sunnis.[9] *The three Islamic empires of the early modern period – the Mughal, the Safavid, and the Ottoman – shared a common Turko-Mongolian heritage.[10] *Safavid power with its distinctive Persian-Shi‘i culture, however, remained a middle ground between its two mighty Turkish neighbors. The Safavid state, which lasted at least until 1722, was essentially a "Turkish" dynasty, with Azeri Turkish (Azerbaijan being the family's home base) as the language of the rulers and the court as well as the Qizilbash military establishment.[11] *Under the Safavids, the Azeri Turks came into conflict with the expanding Ottoman Turks[12] *A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the l lth and l2th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shi'ites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty.[13] *The modern history of Persia really begins with the rise of the *Safavid Dynasty in 1500. Although these rulers were also Turkish in origin, they espoused the Shi'ite form of Islam.[14] *The Caucasus was a battleground between the Sunni Ottoman Empire and the Turkic Shia Safavid Dynasty of Persia.[15] *Shah Isma'il I (1500-24), the founder of the Safavid dynasty of Azeri origin, made the Shi'a branch of Islam.[16] *This family, reported by some sources to be of Azerbaijani origin[17] *Three major Islamic empires emerged, all with Turkic roots to varying degrees: those of the Ottomans (1300–1922), Safavids (1501–1722), and Moghuls (1526–1858).[18] *The Ottoman eastward expansion was stalled by the rise of another Turkish dynasty, the Safavids, in Persia.[19] *The Safavid Turks, who had their genesis in a Shia dervish order in Azerbaijan.[20] *Selim I captured the Capital Tebriz also and thus put a check on the growth of the military power of the Safavid Turks.[21] * “gunpowder empires”: the Empire of the Ottoman Turks (centered in Turkey), that of the Safavid Turks (centered in Iran or Persia)[22] *Discuss the religious and political issues that separated the Ottoman Turks and the Safavid Turks.[23] *See Ottoman Empire; Safavid Turks Turks, 10 revolt against, 225 Safavid, 30 Twelver branch.[24] * In the early 16th century, the Azeri dynasty of the Safavids ( r. 1501–1736 ) took power in Tabriz and developed a culture that influenced much of the region.[25] *Of three great empires: the Mughals in South Asia, the ?afavids in Persia, and the Ottomans in the west. The three empires shared basic features such as Turkic dynastic origins.[26] *What most Iranians are not told (neither by the Shia clergy nor ultra-Iranian nationalits) is how the Turkic Safavids slaughtered thousands upon thousands of Persians (Sunnis), starting with the elite, the thinkers and scholars.[27] *The rule of the Turkic Safavids completed the process of linguistic Turkicisation of modern Azerbaijanis which was initiated by the Seljuks in the eleventh century.[28] *Buyids (Iranian) (945—1055) . Ghaznavids (Turkic) (994—1030) . Seljuks (Turkic) (1045—1217) . Mongol/Ilkhanid Dynasties (Turkicized Mongols) (1221—1338) . Timurids and Turkmen (Turkic) (1383—1501) . Safavids (Turkic) (1501—1722)[29] * Although arising from a local, originally Sunni Sufi order in Azerbaijan, the Turkish Safavids speedily became the vigorous upholders of Shi'ism.[30] *The Safavid and Qajar dynasties,rulers in Iran from 1501 to 1722 and from 1795 to 1925 respectively,were Turkic in origin[31] *Understands political achievements of the Safavid and Mughal Empires ,how Persia was unified by the Turkic Safavids.[32] *Therefore, the student is able to: 5-12 Explain the unification of Persia under the Turkic Safavids.[33] *To bolster its legitimacy, the Turkish Safavid dynasty created the fiction of an ancestral link.[34] *The Turkic origin of the Safavid dynasty,which is rarely acknowledged in u conventional Turkish nationalist historiography.[35] *Shah Ismail, a Turk of the Shi'i sect of Islam, arose as leader of both Turkic and Iranian adherents of this sect, who placed more emphasis upon religion than upon ethnic origin.[36] * The Safavids were originally Turkic, ghazis like the Osmanlis and succeeded, like them, in distancing possible rivals.[37] * The Safavids were descended from a family of Turkmen Sufi sheikhs from Ardabil, in Azerbaijan.[38] * In the early 1500s, a thirteen-year-old Turkmen named Ismail, who lived in western Iran, conquered the whole country[39] * Yet even Iran's foreign conquerors — such as the Turkic Safavid, Afshar, and Qajar dynasties.[40] Sources: *1-Women, Religion and Culture in Iran*2-World History DeMYSTiFieD Stephanie Muntone McGraw Hill Professional-Page 238 *3-Modern Persian Prose Literature-Page 9*4-Comparative History of Civilizations in Asia: 10,000 B.C. to 1850 Edward L. Farmer Westview Press-Page 430 *5-Cultural Horizons: A festschrift in honor of Talat S. Halman,Volume 1 Jayne L. Warne Syracuse University Press, 2001 *6-Women's History in Global Perspective,Volume 3-Page 82 *7-New Catholic Encyclopedia: A-Azt-Page 140 *8-The Eckstein Shahnama: An Ottoman Book of KingsWill Kwiatkowski Sam Fogg,2005-Page 9 *9-Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present-Page 192 *10-Safavid, Mughal,and Ottoman Empires(Cambridge University Press) *11-Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective(Cambridge University Press)-Page 86–87. *12-Global Security Watch—The Caucasus States-Page 30 *13-Iran II: Iranian history - Iran V: Peoples of Iran,Volume 3 Ehsan Yarshater The Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation,2006-Page 325 *14-New Catholic Encyclopedia-Volume 1.-18.-Page 161 *15-Caucasus:Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide-Page 3 *16-Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2003-Page 104 *17-Azerbaijan, Mosques, Turrets, Palaces Ilona Turánszky Corvina Kiadó,1979-Page 21 *18-The Turks in World History(Oxford University Press)-Page 94 *19-Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East(Columbia University Press) *20-The Rising Tide of Cultural Pluralism: The Nation-state at Bay?(Univ of Wisconsin Press) *21-Proceedings of the All Pakistan Political Science Conference,Volume 4 *22-Expansion and Global Interaction, 1200-1700 David R. Ringrose Longman,2001-Page 135 *23-Student Study Guide and Map Exercise Workbook to accompany Traditions and Encounters,Volume 2 BENTLEY McGraw-Hill Companies,Incorporated *24-The Politics of the Middle East Monte Palmer F.E. Peacock Publishers,2002-Page 425 *25-Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art & Architecture: Three-Volume Set(Oxford University Press)-Page 236 *26-The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics Emad Eldin Shahin, ?Peri J. Bearman, ?Sohail H. Hashmi - 2014 *27-Son of Sunnah-Persian Sunni scholars VS the King of the Safavids *28-Routledge Handbook of the Caucasus *29-Christianity in Persia and the Status of Non-Muslims in Modern Iran-Page 275 *30-Encyclopaedia of Islam Ian Richard Netton-Page 570 *31-Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East-Page 707 *32-Content knowledge: a compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education John S. Kendall, Robert J. Marzano Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory,1996-Page 243 *33-National standards for history National Center for History in the Schools (U.S.), Charlotte Antoinette Crabtree, Gary B. Nash-Page 180 *34-Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East: Continuity and change-Page *35-New Perspectives on Turkey,36-37.-Page 230 *36-The Middle East and South Asia,Stryker-Post Publications,1968-Page 10 *37- The History of the World JJohn Morris Roberts, Odd Arne Westad (Oxford University Press)-Page 403 *38-The Safavids and their Successors - The David Collection *39- Iran the People – Page 10 *40- Iran and the world: continuity in a revolutionary decade(Indiana University Press)-Page 11 QafqazXan42 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Safavid Empire

Both seem to be a duplicate? --TataofTata (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

Change the following: The Safavids have also left their mark down to the present era by spreading Twelver Islam in Iran, as well as major parts of the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Persian Gulf, and Mesopotamia.

To the following: The Safavids have also left their mark down to the present era by enforcing Twelver Shi'ism Islam on the majority Sunni population of Iran, in addition to major parts of the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Persian Gulf, and Mesopotamia.

All major sources include this information 82.28.199.31 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Hello, we are two premaster students of Middle Eastern Studies at Leiden University (the Netherlands). For a Wikipedia assignment for our History class we would like to request access to this page in order to add new information and make a couple of changes.

New topics we would like to add: - Pre-Safavid (Origins) - How the Safavid Dynasty emerged from the Safaviyya family - Economy (Silktrade) - Shah Abbas' reform policies and improvement of infrastructure / Armenian merchant role in the trade of silk / competition with the Ottomans - Architecture (Culture) - Significant buildings / Safavid architectural style

We were also thinking about making small adjustments to the introduction section by implementing (parts of) the "Origins" part. Furthermore we want to add short descriptions to the different kings in the "Safavid Shahs of Iran" section (which is now in pop-up style). We have been working on these topics in our sandboxes, you can check them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YutongZhao1/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wijbrand/sandbox

Thank you very much for your time and consideration and we hope that you can grant us access to the page for this assignment.

Yutong Zhao and Wijbrand Luth Wijbrand (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wijbrand: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your time!

Firstly, this page has been extended-confirmed protected by an administrator. This means that only accounts with 500 edits that are older than 30 days are capable of editing this article. It is not possible to grant permission to edit the article on an account-by-account basis. If you would like to move forward with your suggested edits, you could make a new edit request and present exactly what you would like added and where. You would also provide reliable sources to support your desired prose. Then editors with the appropriate permissions will review the request and, based on Wikipedia policies and established consensus, will either deny the request or implement it.

Secondly, it is possible that you two are sharing the account. Do note that this is currently not allowed on Wikipedia. Only 1 of the 2 of you should have knowledge and access to the account's credentials. If the credentials are known to the both of you, that would need to change. If the account is currently not being shared, and one person is simply speaking on behalf of the other person (i.e Wijbrand is the owner of the account and speaks on behalf of Yutong within the edits, or vice versa), then all is well.

Cheers, and happy editing! —Sirdog (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sirdog, thank you very much for the reply and extensive explanations. We (Yutong and I) both have our own accounts and I am speaking on behalf of her indeed. We will use only one account (mine) to submit the suggested edits and I will have access to the credentials only. I understand about the other conditions you mentioned and will make a new edit request to present what we would like to add more precisely. Kind regards Wijbrand (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This should be removed as it's not properly sourced.

", nevertheless they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified.[10]"

I never heard of this, so I clicked the source, and it just took me to another wikipedia page, which the part they highlighted was not even there. Probably due to unsourced wikipedia edit. Can someone please remove that bit?

Thanks!

This is the wikipedia page they sourced as proof:

Extremely odd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.14.47 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that section should be changed to something more along the lines of "nevertheless, they spoke Azerbaijani as one of their primary languages" to better reflect the reality of their dynasty. Praxeria (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, the source provided has been fixed now. Praxeria (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Praxeria, you're replying to an almost one year old written by a inactive IP who was only here to engage in Kurdish-related pov editing. See their edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Objectivity of the aritcle must be improved

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

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

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

After reading the article, I found it to be balanced and well sourced. The concerns raised appear to be based on someone's personal opinions and not the work of academic scholars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed. If HistoryofObjectivity continues to repeat the same thing then we are done here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Huh? No one has judged any source biased besides you! You were the one to use the word 'biased' when referring to these so called 'Iranian sources' (whatever that is) without any reasoning. However, we do have guildelines, such as WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE, which we follow, not our personal opinions. Oh, you haven't called me a hypocrite? What's this then [4]? I bet you didn't write this either? Your sources are already up above? I take it you're the IP then - aka the same IP that wanted sourced information removed because... well, WP:JDLI? [5]. The same IP that argued the Safavids weren't of Kurdish origin because, and I quote; "There is no even one poem or other writing in the Kurdish language remaining from Shah Ismail or other Safavid Shahs." (this can be found in the same link). The same IP who kept spamming and edit warring in this very talk page [6], kinda just like you did earlier. Anyways, ignoring the fact that you most likely cherrypicked these sources to fit your POV, majority of the sources doesn't even seem reliable (this is the part where you click and read the three links I've just posted). The actually two sources that are reliable (Newman and Savory) are not even cited properly, and don't seem to have been attributed properly either. You do realize that people can see my comments right? I clearly didn't say "False Turkic origin based on biased sources." Unlike you, I don't throw the word bias around so easily. This is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS - I'm done wasting my time here, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there's clearly an academic literature claiming Turkic origin, why can't it be included as a separate discussion section on the article? (Edit: I'm not the previous poster and sorry for replying to an old discussion but I am curious). 88.253.176.178 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• We are discussing the current article, not the Ottoman Empire article. --Devlet Geray (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is from the article:

According to historians,[16][17] including Vladimir Minorsky[18] and Roger Savory, the Safavids were of Turkicized Iranian origin

By the time of the establishment of the Safavid empire, the members of the family were Turkicized and Turkish-speaking,[20][21] and some of the Shahs composed poems in their then-native Turkish language

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

Compare to Aq Qoyunlu:

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

That's why I propose

It was a Turkic-speaking [or Turkicized, or both] Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin Devlet Geray (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why we should compare it to Aq Qoyunlu, as those are two different things. I disagree with the proposal per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (for starters, the Safavids were billingual). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ok, let it be billingual. Why not mention this in the lead? Is it unimportant information? (besides, see the quotes given above "the members of the family were Turkicized and Turkish-speaking") Devlet Geray (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant. They were billingual, so what? Some of them also spoke Armenian or/and Georgian. Ultimately there's more important information to be in the lede. I don't get why it is so important to mention something Turkic-related in almost every sentence to do with the Safavids, when it didn't even play a major role in their history. Sorry, but I'm not gonna answer you further till a outcome has been reached at [7] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You don't have to answer Devlet Geray (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So we can't bring up the Ottoman page for reference, but you can bring up the Aq Qoyunlu? This feels a bit like POV. Armanqur (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference is Aq Qoyunlu are considered an occupying force at the end of the day, Persianised sure, but invasive occupying force none the less.

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

References

Suggested grammar fix

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