This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We need to expand this article by adding more information and pictures to this article. Baku87 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
This is developed by Azeri wikiproject indeed. so we will keep removing the stub abdulnr 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Interfase seems to have a hard time simply clicking and reading a article, looks like I have to help him.
ŠERVĀNŠAHS (Šarvānšāhs), the various lines of rulers, originally Arab in ethnos but speedily Persianized within their culturally Persian environment, who ruled in the eastern Caucasian region of Šervān from mid-ʿAbbasid times until the age of the Safavids. [1]
By the time of the anonymous work Hodud al-Alam (c. 982 AD), the Shirvan Shahs, from their capital of Yazīdiyya (the later Shamakhi), had absorbed neighbouring kingdoms north of the Kur river and thus acquired the additional titles of Layzan Shah and Khursan Shah. [2] We can also discern the progressive Persianisation of this originally Arab family. [2] According to Encyclopedia of Islam: After the Shah Yazid b. Ahmad (381-418/991-1028), Arab names give way to Persian ones like Manūčihr, Ḳubādh, Farīdūn, etc., very likely as a reflection of marriage links with local families, and possibly with that of the ancient rulers in Shābarān, the former capital, and the Yazidids now began to claim a nasab (lineage) going back to Sassanid kings Bahrām Gūr or to Khusraw Anushirwan. [2] According to Vladimir Minorsky, the most likely explanation of the Iranicisation of this Arab family could be marriage link with the family of the ancient rulers of Shabaran. [3] He further states: The attraction of a Sassanian pedigree proved stronger than the recollection of Shaybani lineage. [3] The coat of arms with two lions could be a reminder of the story of Bahrām Gur in Shahnama where Bahrām had to claim the crown from between two lions to be recognized as the king.
Now, do you even have a proper argument? I expect one or else I will change it back to what it was. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, according to the rules you can remove the template only after showing the sources about Persian identity of the Palace owners. I didn't see them yet. So, please don't continue edit warring and show the sources supporting your claims in the article. -- Interfase ( talk) 11:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite some time has passed, but Interfase still hasn't shown a single reference to prove that the Shirvanshahs had a change in identity before, during or even after the time of the construction of the palace. Abundant references have been given on the contrary that verify the fact that the Shirvanshahs were thoroughly Persianized in ethnicity, culture, etc well before the foundation of this palace. Despite all this, user Interase is still objecting against the inclusion of the Persian translation and disregarding the sources simply because he has created a self-made assumption that they (the Shirvanshahs at the time, ruled by the Derbendids) might, I repeat might, have gone through a change of identity with the Turkic migrations, in his opinion. He unfortunately utterly fails to understand that we don't interpret our sources here, nor do we form and apply theories by ourselves. He is implying WP:OR here by assuming that they had "magically changed" from being Persian into something different by the time of the foundation of the palace. If that would be the case, it would be verifiable, which it is not. No scholar, historian, Iranologist etc. mentions any change in the ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, which means that they hadn't changed in identity.
He furthermore blatantly ignores the fact that he's not an authority (e.g. established scholar, historian) so his "opinion" (or virtually about any one else's here, as a matter of fact) regarding the interpretation of historical events without sourcing, unfortunately equals jack shit, as they say. Looking once again at the matter, this is a plain simple case of "I don't like what I'm seeing," which is unfortunately a very common issue on articles of the region. - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Numerous debates apparently regarding whether Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. Shirvan has been shown to be speaking Turkic following Timurids and Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu. All three spoke Turkic. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. People can debate whether Shirvanshah's were Persians but historians have spoken. Can you (debate and close this issue please).
HistoryofIran, you're disputing that this palace represents Azerbaijan's architecture and insist on callings it Shirvan's architecture in line 2. But when I prove that unesco recognizes it as Aserbaijan architecture, you suddenly move this comment down the page. I think this betrays pro-Persian motivation that doesn't belong here. Same insistence on Persian transliteration. Can you substantiate the claim that these are examples of Persian architecture? Amamedli ( talk) 03:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
LouisAragon ( talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ok, that's fine, show evidence so everyone can be satisfied and we'll move on.
MY SOURCES (awaiting yours HistoryofIran and LouisAragon please substantiate your claims of Persian language being spoken in Shirvan in the 15th century. Persianized does not equal Persian speaking nor does Tati). Here are conclusions of experts.
Shirin Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union Kegan Paul International 1983. https://books.google.com/books?id=Gd-3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT84&dq=derbent+shirvanshah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2grWPt4fNAhVL1mMKHc2bAGsQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q&f=false “The territory of present day Azerbaijan… was predominantly Iranian speaking at this period (mid-seventh century) and he Arabs who settled here were gradually assimilated by the indigenous population. The next wave of immigrants, however, imposed themselves on the area to such an extent that they radically changed its character. There were Turkic tribes from Mongolia. They began to appear in the eastern regions of Azerbaidzhan as early as the seventh century but the main influx took place during the eleventh century with the Slejuk-Oghuz invasion. Under their influence the whole region became Turkish-speaking.
U.S. Library of Congress http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/5.htm “The Romans annexed the region of present-day Azerbaijan and called the area Albania. As Roman control weakened, the Sasanid Dynasty reestablished Persian control. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, Arabs controlled Azerbaijan, bringing with them the precepts of Islam. In the mid-eleventh century, Turkic-speaking groups, including the Oghuz tribes and their Seljuk Turkish dynasty, ended Arab control by invading Azerbaijan from Central Asia and asserting political domination. The Seljuks brought with them the Turkish language and Turkish customs. By the thirteenth century, the basic characteristics of the Azerbaijani nation had been established.”
Turkish language literature and History, Bill Hickman and Gary Leiser https://books.google.com/books?id=Goy9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=shirvan+shah+language&source=bl&ots=JDWLmo0_dY&sig=b5SxKkHtCLpSlQpRTA80c1P1BEc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj6zu_upIfNAhUC6GMKHXbKB9QQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=shirvan&f=false “…let me now shift my analysis to the area of the Eastern Oghuz, in other words, to the area of the Azeri-speaking Turks. The documents in our possession show clearly that the word ozan was used this in this area in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with the meaning of “popular poet-musician”. P. 212 “The poet Hamidi (b1439-40), who was first attached to the court of Shirvan Shahs and then in 1459-60 went to the court of Sultan Mehmet II in Istanbul were he won great favor, records at the beginning of a terci in his Turkish-Persian Divan that Hilali-I Semerkandi was bested by an ozanci in the council of the Shirvan Shah” p. 213
Amamedli ( talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran User:LouisAragon User:Interfase User:Grandmaster User:MorbidEntree User:TimBits User:Hajji Piruz
Point #1: Consistent Wikipedia convention to transliterate monument names into language presently spoken first, and originally spoken second (examples below). Etymological connection either to Azerbaijani or Persian has not been claimed/demonstrated on this talk page. Therefore considering that the cite is located in Azerbaijan and official language in the country is Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani transliteration should be listed first.
Point #2: Persian transliteration can be listed as a second language if it can be demonstrated as dominant language spoken in Shirvan at the time of construction in the 15th century. According to sources below, dominant language in Shirvan in 15th century was Turkish, not Persian. First two sources below demonstrate this broadly for entire territory of present-day Azerbaijan. Third source demonstrates that Oghuz (Turkish Azeri) poems were recited at the court of Shirvanshahs.
HistoryofIran has provided sources that confirm "Shirvanshahs were Persianized" as evidenced by their names changing from Arabic to Persian. However, this is not evidence of Persian language being spoken, which is yet to be demonstrated. As an example,
Safavids in late 15th century, while Persianized were Oghuz Turkic-speaking. So were the
Timurids
Point #3: Persian transliteration can be listed if the name of the monument is etymologically linked to Persian, which would put it at par with Hagia Sophia (means "Holly Wisdom" in Greek). This has not been claimed or sourced-- Amamedli ( talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We need to expand this article by adding more information and pictures to this article. Baku87 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
This is developed by Azeri wikiproject indeed. so we will keep removing the stub abdulnr 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Interfase seems to have a hard time simply clicking and reading a article, looks like I have to help him.
ŠERVĀNŠAHS (Šarvānšāhs), the various lines of rulers, originally Arab in ethnos but speedily Persianized within their culturally Persian environment, who ruled in the eastern Caucasian region of Šervān from mid-ʿAbbasid times until the age of the Safavids. [1]
By the time of the anonymous work Hodud al-Alam (c. 982 AD), the Shirvan Shahs, from their capital of Yazīdiyya (the later Shamakhi), had absorbed neighbouring kingdoms north of the Kur river and thus acquired the additional titles of Layzan Shah and Khursan Shah. [2] We can also discern the progressive Persianisation of this originally Arab family. [2] According to Encyclopedia of Islam: After the Shah Yazid b. Ahmad (381-418/991-1028), Arab names give way to Persian ones like Manūčihr, Ḳubādh, Farīdūn, etc., very likely as a reflection of marriage links with local families, and possibly with that of the ancient rulers in Shābarān, the former capital, and the Yazidids now began to claim a nasab (lineage) going back to Sassanid kings Bahrām Gūr or to Khusraw Anushirwan. [2] According to Vladimir Minorsky, the most likely explanation of the Iranicisation of this Arab family could be marriage link with the family of the ancient rulers of Shabaran. [3] He further states: The attraction of a Sassanian pedigree proved stronger than the recollection of Shaybani lineage. [3] The coat of arms with two lions could be a reminder of the story of Bahrām Gur in Shahnama where Bahrām had to claim the crown from between two lions to be recognized as the king.
Now, do you even have a proper argument? I expect one or else I will change it back to what it was. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, according to the rules you can remove the template only after showing the sources about Persian identity of the Palace owners. I didn't see them yet. So, please don't continue edit warring and show the sources supporting your claims in the article. -- Interfase ( talk) 11:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite some time has passed, but Interfase still hasn't shown a single reference to prove that the Shirvanshahs had a change in identity before, during or even after the time of the construction of the palace. Abundant references have been given on the contrary that verify the fact that the Shirvanshahs were thoroughly Persianized in ethnicity, culture, etc well before the foundation of this palace. Despite all this, user Interase is still objecting against the inclusion of the Persian translation and disregarding the sources simply because he has created a self-made assumption that they (the Shirvanshahs at the time, ruled by the Derbendids) might, I repeat might, have gone through a change of identity with the Turkic migrations, in his opinion. He unfortunately utterly fails to understand that we don't interpret our sources here, nor do we form and apply theories by ourselves. He is implying WP:OR here by assuming that they had "magically changed" from being Persian into something different by the time of the foundation of the palace. If that would be the case, it would be verifiable, which it is not. No scholar, historian, Iranologist etc. mentions any change in the ethnos with the advent of the Derbendids, which means that they hadn't changed in identity.
He furthermore blatantly ignores the fact that he's not an authority (e.g. established scholar, historian) so his "opinion" (or virtually about any one else's here, as a matter of fact) regarding the interpretation of historical events without sourcing, unfortunately equals jack shit, as they say. Looking once again at the matter, this is a plain simple case of "I don't like what I'm seeing," which is unfortunately a very common issue on articles of the region. - LouisAragon ( talk) 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Numerous debates apparently regarding whether Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. Shirvan has been shown to be speaking Turkic following Timurids and Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu. All three spoke Turkic. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. People can debate whether Shirvanshah's were Persians but historians have spoken. Can you (debate and close this issue please).
HistoryofIran, you're disputing that this palace represents Azerbaijan's architecture and insist on callings it Shirvan's architecture in line 2. But when I prove that unesco recognizes it as Aserbaijan architecture, you suddenly move this comment down the page. I think this betrays pro-Persian motivation that doesn't belong here. Same insistence on Persian transliteration. Can you substantiate the claim that these are examples of Persian architecture? Amamedli ( talk) 03:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
LouisAragon ( talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ok, that's fine, show evidence so everyone can be satisfied and we'll move on.
MY SOURCES (awaiting yours HistoryofIran and LouisAragon please substantiate your claims of Persian language being spoken in Shirvan in the 15th century. Persianized does not equal Persian speaking nor does Tati). Here are conclusions of experts.
Shirin Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union Kegan Paul International 1983. https://books.google.com/books?id=Gd-3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT84&dq=derbent+shirvanshah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2grWPt4fNAhVL1mMKHc2bAGsQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q&f=false “The territory of present day Azerbaijan… was predominantly Iranian speaking at this period (mid-seventh century) and he Arabs who settled here were gradually assimilated by the indigenous population. The next wave of immigrants, however, imposed themselves on the area to such an extent that they radically changed its character. There were Turkic tribes from Mongolia. They began to appear in the eastern regions of Azerbaidzhan as early as the seventh century but the main influx took place during the eleventh century with the Slejuk-Oghuz invasion. Under their influence the whole region became Turkish-speaking.
U.S. Library of Congress http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/5.htm “The Romans annexed the region of present-day Azerbaijan and called the area Albania. As Roman control weakened, the Sasanid Dynasty reestablished Persian control. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, Arabs controlled Azerbaijan, bringing with them the precepts of Islam. In the mid-eleventh century, Turkic-speaking groups, including the Oghuz tribes and their Seljuk Turkish dynasty, ended Arab control by invading Azerbaijan from Central Asia and asserting political domination. The Seljuks brought with them the Turkish language and Turkish customs. By the thirteenth century, the basic characteristics of the Azerbaijani nation had been established.”
Turkish language literature and History, Bill Hickman and Gary Leiser https://books.google.com/books?id=Goy9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=shirvan+shah+language&source=bl&ots=JDWLmo0_dY&sig=b5SxKkHtCLpSlQpRTA80c1P1BEc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj6zu_upIfNAhUC6GMKHXbKB9QQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=shirvan&f=false “…let me now shift my analysis to the area of the Eastern Oghuz, in other words, to the area of the Azeri-speaking Turks. The documents in our possession show clearly that the word ozan was used this in this area in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with the meaning of “popular poet-musician”. P. 212 “The poet Hamidi (b1439-40), who was first attached to the court of Shirvan Shahs and then in 1459-60 went to the court of Sultan Mehmet II in Istanbul were he won great favor, records at the beginning of a terci in his Turkish-Persian Divan that Hilali-I Semerkandi was bested by an ozanci in the council of the Shirvan Shah” p. 213
Amamedli ( talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran User:LouisAragon User:Interfase User:Grandmaster User:MorbidEntree User:TimBits User:Hajji Piruz
Point #1: Consistent Wikipedia convention to transliterate monument names into language presently spoken first, and originally spoken second (examples below). Etymological connection either to Azerbaijani or Persian has not been claimed/demonstrated on this talk page. Therefore considering that the cite is located in Azerbaijan and official language in the country is Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani transliteration should be listed first.
Point #2: Persian transliteration can be listed as a second language if it can be demonstrated as dominant language spoken in Shirvan at the time of construction in the 15th century. According to sources below, dominant language in Shirvan in 15th century was Turkish, not Persian. First two sources below demonstrate this broadly for entire territory of present-day Azerbaijan. Third source demonstrates that Oghuz (Turkish Azeri) poems were recited at the court of Shirvanshahs.
HistoryofIran has provided sources that confirm "Shirvanshahs were Persianized" as evidenced by their names changing from Arabic to Persian. However, this is not evidence of Persian language being spoken, which is yet to be demonstrated. As an example,
Safavids in late 15th century, while Persianized were Oghuz Turkic-speaking. So were the
Timurids
Point #3: Persian transliteration can be listed if the name of the monument is etymologically linked to Persian, which would put it at par with Hagia Sophia (means "Holly Wisdom" in Greek). This has not been claimed or sourced-- Amamedli ( talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)