Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Caucasia B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Azerbaijan B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (country) B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Armenia B‑class High‑importance Safavid dynasty is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Why did the 2nd or 3rd Shah of the Safavids hate his Kurdish origins? Did something happen in the family that caused this tension? The Safavids were originally Kurds, ended up being mixed, but at some point one of the Shahs tried to erase his links to his Kurdish ancestors. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Pure Kurdish also they are not Pure Kurdish. Sheikh Sadr-din Musa, is half-Iranian/Persian and half-Kurdish.

Azerbaijani Turkish remained the court language till the very end of the dynasty and Shah Soltan Hoseyn was even nicknamed yakhshi dir (‹It is good’), because that is what he said to any official who submitted a proposal to him, and Shah Soltan Hoseyn was even nicknamed yakshi dir (this is good) ^[1]

Template:Начало цитатыAs noted above, the fact that the court language was Azerbaijani Turkish of course promoted the use of that language in the capital cities (respectively, Tabriz, Qazvin, and Isfahan). In fact, at court more Turkish was spoken than Persian. In 1607, the Carmelites reported that “the Turkish language is usually spoken and understood and the Shah [`Abbas I] and chief men and soldiers generally speak in it. The common people speak Persian, and all documents and communications are in that language.” The court ceremonial was also in Azerbaijani Turkish. The Italian traveler Pietro della Valle wrote: «that the Qizilbash grandees told him that: ‹Persian is a very soft and sweet language, and really used by women for poetry, but Turkish is manly and fit for warriors; therefore, the shah and the emirs of the state speak Turkish.’»

Under Shah `Abbas II, the Carmelites reported that “Turki [not Osmanli Turkish] was the language of the court and widely used in Isfahan and in the north.” Chardin explicitly states about the Qizilbash, “these people, as well as their language, are so widespread in the northern part of the country, and later at court, and therefore, mistakenly all Iranians are called Qizilbash.” In 1660, Raphael du Mans wrote: “the every day language of Iran is Persian for the common people, [Azerbaijani] Turkish for the court.” According to Kaempfer, who was in Iran in the 1670s, “[Azerbaijani] Turkish is the common language at the Iranian court as well as the mother tongue of the Safavids in distinction of the language of the general populace. The use of [Azerbaijani] Turkish spread from the court to the magnates and notables and finally to all those who hope to benefit from the shah, so that nowadays it is almost considered shameful for a respectable man not to know [Azerbaijani] Turkish.”Template:Конец цитаты^[2] John Francis Templeson (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that there's not much in this essay-like text filled with WP:OR self-interpretion that would warrant the removal of this sourced content plus its source. Also, you can't just drop a title here (Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran // Iranian Studies), claiming that it backs up something, without mentioning a page number. I do agree with you that Azerbaijani was still used as a language at the court up to the end of the Safavid dynasty, but what is meant here in the infobox, is that Persian gradually became the primary court language after the capital was moved to Isfahan. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean what? That Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi are not authorative enough or that there are not such citations in their 14-pages essay? Is it so important to mention the page of small article? I've already cited this essay and you can make sure that they exactly from this book. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00210862.2013.784516?journalCode=cist20 I think we must remove or at least rearrange claim that Azeri language after the transfer of capital to Isfahan was court language no more. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Francis Templeson: A simple claim of having taken all this from an actual source cannot support the removal of a quite valid source from the article. People need to be able to check the source, in order to see the portion which is supposed to support the material in question.
As proposed by LouisAragon, if you could verify it by providing the exact page, we might be able to change that portion.
—Rye-96 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye-96: Here you are! Iranian Studies

Volume 46, 2013 - Issue 4, p.p.569-581

Access to the article is paid, so for your convenience I'll provide you with other reliable sources that claim quite the same.

Richard G. Hovannisian, Georges Sabagh. The Persian Presence in the Islamic World. — p. 240.

The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant — p. 33 John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John Francis Templeson. I suggest we tweak that part that part into;

"Persian (official,[3] coinage,[4][5] civil administration,[6] court (primary after Isfahan became capital),[7] etc...." and "Azerbaijani language (court, (secondary after Isfahan became capital)[7] etc." Or alternatively "Azerbaijani language (court, (primary until Isfahan became capital)[7].... -- doesn't really matter to me which one.

Let me know, and I'll fix the part in question, and will add your sources to it as well. @Rye-96:, would you concur with this wording? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, LouisAragon, I guess you misunderstand. I have already given you authoritative sources, specialized on Safavid period, that mention primary sources, reporting that Turkish was primary language of the court till the very end of dynasty. Instead, You prefer generalized overview of the History of all Islamic States (New Encyclopedia of Islam), in which author only suppose (he uses probably) that after the transfer of capital to Isfahan Turkish was suppressed by Persian. -- John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about my "preference". Its about blanket removing reliable sources, and claiming stuff without, in the first place, citing the sources correctly. Only late in the discussion it was that this matter was solved. Anyway, I will change it back to what you made it to originally (*Azerbaijani language (court, religious dignitaries, military)), add the sources you brought to it, and I will move that reference (Cyril Glassé 2003) somewhere down in the body of the article. Hope its solved then. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[3]

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.^[4]

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... ^[5]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ok, mr Mazandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Savory and others are reliable no more? Your sources don't tell anything about the name used by Safavids themselves. Matthee only refers to some primary source. Savory describes many names that were in use by local people towards Safavid state and Shah Abbas. So, I ask you: Why you deleted sourced information. John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Savory source also doesn't state "Safavids used this or that to refer to their empire". But of course, Iskandar Beg was a court historian, which makes him a Safavid. So what should we do by your logic? Should we keep Iran (since it is an official Safavid name) and delete Qizilbash realm (since by your logic, it is merely mentioned in some unofficial primary sources not related to Safavids)? You other sources are not in English, and you have to cite them in accordance to WP:NOENG, you should provide exact translation, and also you should cite them correctly, with page number, ISBN, etc. And do not cite outdated sources or those which aren't written by specialists on Safavid history. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that reverting information, when there is a consensus among scholars that Safavids' native language was Azeri Turkish is vandalism and I will soon ask administrator to do smth with you? John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS:FORLANG, "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses" -- Mazandar (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, so you decide to erase Azeri, not Persian, although absolutely all reliable academic sources say that Safavids used Azeri as the first (native) language? Sorry, dude, you did edit warring (revert of revert). John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with native tongue. The primary sources about Safavids are mostly in Persian language and Persian was the official and administrative language. So Persian should be in the lead. Also, your Azeri spelling is made-up and is not supported by primary sources, while numerous primary sources can be cited for the Persian name. And I didn't edit-warring, I removed something which was against MOS:FORLANG. -- Mazandar (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was against FORLANG only in your mind, it doesn't matter. This article is about dynasty (family). Family hasn't administrative language , family has just the language that it uses as native. Your machinations are relatively acceptable only for Safavid State. Secondly, primary sources — it's not about Wikipedia. We use only secondary ones.

And we have enough secondary sources that show Azeri spelling, it's not a problem. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Wikipedia, so you can't invent names, WP:OR. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, this article is clearly not only about the family, the majority of the information is about the state really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, so we have a problem and you use another problem as the proof that first one isn't a problem? Ideally, there must be two articles for state and dynasty, but this one is about dynasty. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trolling? This is literally about the state as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, comrade HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't fool me. We discussing the foreign language equivalent for SAFAVID DYNASTY and Dudmane Safavi has exactly that meaning. Mazandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), note that primary sources are not reliable for Wikipedia. Try to find secondary ones.

Both of you. We have authorative sources which reassert that native language for the members of Safavid dynasty was Azeri Turkish. I am waiting for disproof. John Francis Templeson (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

First, there's no interpretation, second, it can be verified by any educated person, so it's perfectly OK to use a primary source. -- Mazandar (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]