This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Qizilbash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
I have removed the spelling Qazilbash from the intro, because:
Tajik ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the term ghulat from the introduction, since ghulat specifically refers to groups who excessively rever 'Ali in the eyes of both the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shi'a. Ghulat groups include people like the Alawiyyah and Aleviyyah.-- IsaKazimi ( talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the list in this article of Notable people has been filled with non-notable persons, or persons whose notability has not been established. Please see Notability: Lists of People. Each entry must either link to a Wikipedia article for that person, or it must have a footnote, or footnotes, to a reliable, verifiable source that establishes notability and the individual's connection to the list. Entries that do not, are likely to be deleted. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There have been no sources proposed for the suggestion that the Mughal princes were Qizilbash. It is highly unlikely. I have deleted the unsourced paragraph. However, there are sources that discuss the Qizilbash in the Mughal Empire, for example, Rose, H. A. (compiler) (1997) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: Volume 3, L—Z Nirmal Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India, page 259, ISBN 81-85297-71-1, reprint of 1911 edition and based upon the Census Report for the Punjab, 1883, by Denzil Ibbetson, and the Census Report for the Punjab, 1892, by Edward Maclagan which says: Many of the great Mughal ministers were Qizilbash and notably Mir Jutnla, the famous minister of Aurangzeb. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted a good faith edit by an IP. Although his information is sourced, the mentioned tribe was neither a founding member nor part of the politically important or influential groups. See the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik ( talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Much of the history section feels to be cut-and-pasted from another work- can anyone say if this is the case? Mavigogun ( talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is big lie about gizilbash army as pan persian iranian included in wikepedia: source belong to pan persian racist writer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qizilbash:
"The non-Turkic or non-Turkish-speaking Iranian tribes among the Kizilbash were called Tājiks by the Turcomans and included"
while 500 years ago iran recreated by Gizilbash army (7 falilies from Ardebil + Shahsavan people under shah abbas) NO MORE 1- Tājiks and uzbeks were in war with gizilbah for 100 years how they could be a part of it! 2- Qizilbah is just azari word not persian or uzbek or bakhtiari or tajik 3- Gizilbah people were shia and tajiks and uzbek are sunni muslims
please correct this lie in your site
http://books.google.com/books?id=uAzGTtWlp7gC&pg=PA44&dq=qizilbash+open+membership&hl=en&ei=G3tQTf7eOMO78gbUy6zuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=qizilbash%20open%20membership&f=false -- 2.203.152.182 ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Another reference (from another article): "...hundreds of thousands of Kizilbash (Shia) Turcomans from Anatolia arrived into Azerbaijan, being forced out by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I with more to follow."
Azari Language
And, "Azari" or "Adhari" was close to Tat and Talish language. Thanks to Kizilbash (and to Iosif Stalin), it is called "Azerbaijani" now and it is Turkic ;( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azari_Language - nothing "racist"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtick ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Quote from the respective article in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam (one of the most authoritative sources available; article written by
Vladimir Minorsky, one of the foremost experts on the subject),
Roger M. Savory, one of the most renowned experts on Safavid hostory:
“ | KIZILBĀSH (T. “Red-head”). [...] In general, it is used loosely to denote a wide variety of extremist Shī'ī sects [see GHULĀT], which flourished in [V:243b] Anatolia and Kurdistān from the late 7th/13th century onwards, including such groups as the Alevis (Alawīs ; see A. S. Tritton, Islam : belief and practices, London 1951, 83). | ” |
So please do not remove it! -- Lysozym ( talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs resolution by discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Qizilbash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Your original opinion about Qizilbash doesn't matter. All profile sources identify Qizilbash as Turkoman Tribesmen. Your sources ( Voices of Islam, Global Interactions in the Early Modern Age, 1400–1800.) are not specialized neither on Safavid Empire nor Qizilbash. Read the sources:
From its inception Safavid state had relied on the military power of the Qizilbash, the Turkoman tribesmen [1]
Their main supporters were Turkmen tribal groups known as the Qezelbāš (Qizilbāš) [2]
As will be partly evaluated in Chapter VIII, immediately following the foundation of the Safavid state in 1501, two fundamentally different and contesting groups appeared within the Safavid realm: on the one side there was the Turcoman (tribal) qizilbash military aristocracy, which founded the state and held military ranks... [3]
The term Qizilbash, for this paper at least, refers to those Turkmen tribes who had inhabited eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and the Armenian highlands and had become the backbone of the Safavid Dynasty starting with the founder, Shah Isma’il I. It has been argued that the term could also e applicable to certain non-Turkish speaking Iranian tribes such as the Talish, Kurds, or Lurs. However, the vast majority of those who had composed the main force of the Qizilbash were the Turkmen tribes. The Qizilbash tribal structure, according to Minorsky, was subdivided into eight or nine main tribal confederations, depending on the period in question, and had included some of the most prominent tribes that had once helped Shah Isma’il I to establish his empire [4]
So all your "arguments" are ruined. Also, why you deleted Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi's The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran? It's WP:DIS. Read this, Mr. History of Iran, and improve your knowledge in Safavid history:
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. Second, the language remained the spoken language of the Turkic Qizilbash tribes and was also spoken in the army. [5]. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Kizilbash are mainly associated with the Turkomans who spoke an Oghuz-type language and it is they who have been credited with bringing the Safavids to power. [6]. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 23:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
References
.The point of eminence to be stressed here is that except the Shamlu, which was from northern Syria-eastern Anatolia, and the Qajar from Azerbayjan886, these tribes were all from Anatolia; and almost all were nomadic Turkomans. Among the seventeen prominent qizilbash āmirs marching on Shirvan, records Safavid sources, there were two Shamlu, two Ustaclu, two Karamanlu, one Bayburdlu, one Hınıslu, one Tekelu, one Çekirlu, one Qajar, one Dulkadirlu, and five Afshar
— Riza Yildirim, “Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity in Anatolia (1447–1514)
Still see nothing supporting, "..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans." Sounds like original research. So you have nothing to support said opinion.
Excuse me? I think you have been warned about this as well.
Take your opinion elsewhere. You do not decide policy on Wikipedia. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi, colleagues! 2 years passed since we were discussing this stuff :D Sorry, couldn't manage to continue contributing English Wikipedia. So, as I remember, you were against my edit
[2] and your only argument was "There were also other elements among Qizilbash, not only Turks". Well, Wikipedia works in this way: We take academic sources (peer-reviewed, specialized on the topic) and write what they write. So, if academic source gives definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen, then we give the same definition in Wikipedia, even if the same source states, that actually there were also non-Turks; definition is definition, it has nothing to do with minor exceptions. And according to generally accepted definition of Qizilbash, they are Turkic tribesmen, so, sorry, everything beyond that is original research. I've shown several academic sources that prove my statement (and I can show literally dozens more, if the problem is quantity), so that's it. And, yes, there were Persian and Kurdish elements, but in negligible size. See, e.g. Cambridge History of Iran. On pp.357 and 629 the source clearly indicate Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen , although pointing that in different periods and places there were other, more broad terms (We can point the latter fact, of course, but I hope we won't give the definition of Qizilbash as Persian merchants :D). On p.342-343 CHI also states that there were actually some Persians and Kurds, but their number, as I already said, was too small to consider them (so CHI still insist on Turkic nature of Qizilbash). Of course, this fact should be in article, but, again, this is not sufficient to ignore the generally accepted definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen.
John Francis Templeson (
talk)
14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Also I would insist on the deletion of statement about referring Qizilbash as Shi'a groups, as there are no sources of sufficient quality to claim that.
One of the sources actually gives the definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen (funny fact, yes? :D). I didn't manage to access
other source, but it is doubtful that we can really rely on it. I don't know how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia we use only specialized sources (e.g., we use only monography about Safavids in the article on Safavids, but not some general book about Islam, unless the part about Safavids is written by expert in that field). If there is a special article concerning Qizilbash of Safavids, let it be, but if there is only a sentence or two... nope. There is also Savory, but he considers totally different group, denoted with the same name from XIII c., that is Shi'a sects, e.g. Alevis. I don't think that we can mix them with Qizilbash warriors. And yes, not just some Qizilbash contributed to the creation of the Safavid Empire, but they all and not just contributed, but created (see, Savory; there wouldn't be Safavid Empire w/out Qizilbash). Thank you. Will wait for your response.
John Francis Templeson (
talk)
14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Should we define Qizilbash as militant groups or Turkic tribesmen. Sources and arguments are above. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I ask for a reliable source for such a statement in the section "Etymology". "Turkish" indicates Turkey, but there are other Oghuz languages. There is confusion about the names of languages. V.N.Ali ( talk) 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
the Qizilbash are a military unit of greater Persia and it's dynasties.
the Qizilbash are not an ethnic group!
11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 43.242.179.18 ( talk) 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\
the Qizilbash may have been courtiers of the Great Mogul (emperor), evidence suggests that these military units fought the second and third battle of Panipat in favour of a unified "Mogul India".
12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 43.242.179.18 ( talk) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Qizilbash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
I have removed the spelling Qazilbash from the intro, because:
Tajik ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the term ghulat from the introduction, since ghulat specifically refers to groups who excessively rever 'Ali in the eyes of both the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shi'a. Ghulat groups include people like the Alawiyyah and Aleviyyah.-- IsaKazimi ( talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the list in this article of Notable people has been filled with non-notable persons, or persons whose notability has not been established. Please see Notability: Lists of People. Each entry must either link to a Wikipedia article for that person, or it must have a footnote, or footnotes, to a reliable, verifiable source that establishes notability and the individual's connection to the list. Entries that do not, are likely to be deleted. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There have been no sources proposed for the suggestion that the Mughal princes were Qizilbash. It is highly unlikely. I have deleted the unsourced paragraph. However, there are sources that discuss the Qizilbash in the Mughal Empire, for example, Rose, H. A. (compiler) (1997) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: Volume 3, L—Z Nirmal Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India, page 259, ISBN 81-85297-71-1, reprint of 1911 edition and based upon the Census Report for the Punjab, 1883, by Denzil Ibbetson, and the Census Report for the Punjab, 1892, by Edward Maclagan which says: Many of the great Mughal ministers were Qizilbash and notably Mir Jutnla, the famous minister of Aurangzeb. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted a good faith edit by an IP. Although his information is sourced, the mentioned tribe was neither a founding member nor part of the politically important or influential groups. See the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik ( talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Much of the history section feels to be cut-and-pasted from another work- can anyone say if this is the case? Mavigogun ( talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is big lie about gizilbash army as pan persian iranian included in wikepedia: source belong to pan persian racist writer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qizilbash:
"The non-Turkic or non-Turkish-speaking Iranian tribes among the Kizilbash were called Tājiks by the Turcomans and included"
while 500 years ago iran recreated by Gizilbash army (7 falilies from Ardebil + Shahsavan people under shah abbas) NO MORE 1- Tājiks and uzbeks were in war with gizilbah for 100 years how they could be a part of it! 2- Qizilbah is just azari word not persian or uzbek or bakhtiari or tajik 3- Gizilbah people were shia and tajiks and uzbek are sunni muslims
please correct this lie in your site
http://books.google.com/books?id=uAzGTtWlp7gC&pg=PA44&dq=qizilbash+open+membership&hl=en&ei=G3tQTf7eOMO78gbUy6zuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=qizilbash%20open%20membership&f=false -- 2.203.152.182 ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Another reference (from another article): "...hundreds of thousands of Kizilbash (Shia) Turcomans from Anatolia arrived into Azerbaijan, being forced out by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I with more to follow."
Azari Language
And, "Azari" or "Adhari" was close to Tat and Talish language. Thanks to Kizilbash (and to Iosif Stalin), it is called "Azerbaijani" now and it is Turkic ;( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azari_Language - nothing "racist"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtick ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Quote from the respective article in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam (one of the most authoritative sources available; article written by
Vladimir Minorsky, one of the foremost experts on the subject),
Roger M. Savory, one of the most renowned experts on Safavid hostory:
“ | KIZILBĀSH (T. “Red-head”). [...] In general, it is used loosely to denote a wide variety of extremist Shī'ī sects [see GHULĀT], which flourished in [V:243b] Anatolia and Kurdistān from the late 7th/13th century onwards, including such groups as the Alevis (Alawīs ; see A. S. Tritton, Islam : belief and practices, London 1951, 83). | ” |
So please do not remove it! -- Lysozym ( talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs resolution by discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Qizilbash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
HistoryofIran ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Your original opinion about Qizilbash doesn't matter. All profile sources identify Qizilbash as Turkoman Tribesmen. Your sources ( Voices of Islam, Global Interactions in the Early Modern Age, 1400–1800.) are not specialized neither on Safavid Empire nor Qizilbash. Read the sources:
From its inception Safavid state had relied on the military power of the Qizilbash, the Turkoman tribesmen [1]
Their main supporters were Turkmen tribal groups known as the Qezelbāš (Qizilbāš) [2]
As will be partly evaluated in Chapter VIII, immediately following the foundation of the Safavid state in 1501, two fundamentally different and contesting groups appeared within the Safavid realm: on the one side there was the Turcoman (tribal) qizilbash military aristocracy, which founded the state and held military ranks... [3]
The term Qizilbash, for this paper at least, refers to those Turkmen tribes who had inhabited eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and the Armenian highlands and had become the backbone of the Safavid Dynasty starting with the founder, Shah Isma’il I. It has been argued that the term could also e applicable to certain non-Turkish speaking Iranian tribes such as the Talish, Kurds, or Lurs. However, the vast majority of those who had composed the main force of the Qizilbash were the Turkmen tribes. The Qizilbash tribal structure, according to Minorsky, was subdivided into eight or nine main tribal confederations, depending on the period in question, and had included some of the most prominent tribes that had once helped Shah Isma’il I to establish his empire [4]
So all your "arguments" are ruined. Also, why you deleted Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi's The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran? It's WP:DIS. Read this, Mr. History of Iran, and improve your knowledge in Safavid history:
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. Second, the language remained the spoken language of the Turkic Qizilbash tribes and was also spoken in the army. [5]. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Kizilbash are mainly associated with the Turkomans who spoke an Oghuz-type language and it is they who have been credited with bringing the Safavids to power. [6]. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 23:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
References
.The point of eminence to be stressed here is that except the Shamlu, which was from northern Syria-eastern Anatolia, and the Qajar from Azerbayjan886, these tribes were all from Anatolia; and almost all were nomadic Turkomans. Among the seventeen prominent qizilbash āmirs marching on Shirvan, records Safavid sources, there were two Shamlu, two Ustaclu, two Karamanlu, one Bayburdlu, one Hınıslu, one Tekelu, one Çekirlu, one Qajar, one Dulkadirlu, and five Afshar
— Riza Yildirim, “Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity in Anatolia (1447–1514)
Still see nothing supporting, "..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans." Sounds like original research. So you have nothing to support said opinion.
Excuse me? I think you have been warned about this as well.
Take your opinion elsewhere. You do not decide policy on Wikipedia. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi, colleagues! 2 years passed since we were discussing this stuff :D Sorry, couldn't manage to continue contributing English Wikipedia. So, as I remember, you were against my edit
[2] and your only argument was "There were also other elements among Qizilbash, not only Turks". Well, Wikipedia works in this way: We take academic sources (peer-reviewed, specialized on the topic) and write what they write. So, if academic source gives definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen, then we give the same definition in Wikipedia, even if the same source states, that actually there were also non-Turks; definition is definition, it has nothing to do with minor exceptions. And according to generally accepted definition of Qizilbash, they are Turkic tribesmen, so, sorry, everything beyond that is original research. I've shown several academic sources that prove my statement (and I can show literally dozens more, if the problem is quantity), so that's it. And, yes, there were Persian and Kurdish elements, but in negligible size. See, e.g. Cambridge History of Iran. On pp.357 and 629 the source clearly indicate Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen , although pointing that in different periods and places there were other, more broad terms (We can point the latter fact, of course, but I hope we won't give the definition of Qizilbash as Persian merchants :D). On p.342-343 CHI also states that there were actually some Persians and Kurds, but their number, as I already said, was too small to consider them (so CHI still insist on Turkic nature of Qizilbash). Of course, this fact should be in article, but, again, this is not sufficient to ignore the generally accepted definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen.
John Francis Templeson (
talk)
14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Also I would insist on the deletion of statement about referring Qizilbash as Shi'a groups, as there are no sources of sufficient quality to claim that.
One of the sources actually gives the definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen (funny fact, yes? :D). I didn't manage to access
other source, but it is doubtful that we can really rely on it. I don't know how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia we use only specialized sources (e.g., we use only monography about Safavids in the article on Safavids, but not some general book about Islam, unless the part about Safavids is written by expert in that field). If there is a special article concerning Qizilbash of Safavids, let it be, but if there is only a sentence or two... nope. There is also Savory, but he considers totally different group, denoted with the same name from XIII c., that is Shi'a sects, e.g. Alevis. I don't think that we can mix them with Qizilbash warriors. And yes, not just some Qizilbash contributed to the creation of the Safavid Empire, but they all and not just contributed, but created (see, Savory; there wouldn't be Safavid Empire w/out Qizilbash). Thank you. Will wait for your response.
John Francis Templeson (
talk)
14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Should we define Qizilbash as militant groups or Turkic tribesmen. Sources and arguments are above. John Francis Templeson ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I ask for a reliable source for such a statement in the section "Etymology". "Turkish" indicates Turkey, but there are other Oghuz languages. There is confusion about the names of languages. V.N.Ali ( talk) 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
the Qizilbash are a military unit of greater Persia and it's dynasties.
the Qizilbash are not an ethnic group!
11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 43.242.179.18 ( talk) 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\
the Qizilbash may have been courtiers of the Great Mogul (emperor), evidence suggests that these military units fought the second and third battle of Panipat in favour of a unified "Mogul India".
12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 43.242.179.18 ( talk) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\