This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Safavid dynasty 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This 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. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
Armenia,
Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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". [3] 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. [4] [5] "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 [6] [7]
The origin of the Safavid dynasty comes from the Safavid order founded by Safiyüddin İshak, who was the sixth-degree grandfather of Shah İsmâil [8] at the end of the 13th century, in Ardebil. [9] 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. [10] 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. [11] 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)
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)
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)
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 originDevlet Geray ( talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
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
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkoman_(ethnonym) It is better to switch the link of Turkomans from present day ethnic Turkmens to the Turkoman( Ethnonym ) link. This would make the readers understand more about what a Turkoman was in Western Asia. 2A02:1810:A44A:7E00:E9BF:8593:2AAF:24E0 ( talk) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add the flags of the Safavid Empire under Ismail I and Tahmasp I as described on this wikimedia page: Historical flags Klamactocrat ( talk) 12:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Safavid dynasty 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This 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. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
Armenia,
Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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". [3] 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. [4] [5] "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 [6] [7]
The origin of the Safavid dynasty comes from the Safavid order founded by Safiyüddin İshak, who was the sixth-degree grandfather of Shah İsmâil [8] at the end of the 13th century, in Ardebil. [9] 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. [10] 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. [11] 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)
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)
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)
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 originDevlet Geray ( talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
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
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkoman_(ethnonym) It is better to switch the link of Turkomans from present day ethnic Turkmens to the Turkoman( Ethnonym ) link. This would make the readers understand more about what a Turkoman was in Western Asia. 2A02:1810:A44A:7E00:E9BF:8593:2AAF:24E0 ( talk) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add the flags of the Safavid Empire under Ismail I and Tahmasp I as described on this wikimedia page: Historical flags Klamactocrat ( talk) 12:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)