Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 12

Major editing and improvement of the chapter on the Safavid dynasty
As some of you will recognize, there'sbeen some changes to this chapter since of january 10, 2011.

Prior to that the site was a mess, and needed a cleanup.

Nothing has been deleted, but some new chapters have been added (i.e. society, state and government, economy, legacy of tahmasp, legal system, and the military reform), some have been restructured and extended, and old pictures have been exchanged with new, better looking ones. Emphasis has been put on using citations, and new citations have been created in parts of the text that did not have any before.

The part that needed the most attention though was the first chapter on "Background", which concisted of large sections, explaining different theories on the Safavid Genealogy, put toghether in a random fashion without much coherence. Obviously, there are some conflicting theroies on this, but, in my opinion, any further discussions on this matter should be taken to a different forum. I have tried to compress this section, while including all the different views. Although, the parts on Greek and Armeninan ancestry were taken out, because they didn't become relevant until the late 1500s, and thus were not ancestors of the first Safavids. Instead, I have added a new chapter on their role in the Safavid society under the section: The 3rd force.

Still, some of the older texts on the Safavid dynasty do not have proper citations. And someone should add a section on "Science and medicine" (perhaps even astrology), as this is still lacking. Hopefully though, the readers will approve of the changes that have been made so far.

--User:Mghotbi 85 -- talk February 9 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I while back - even before the current EW - I made this suggestion:. But it was immediately reverted. I think everyone should think about it. It may be an acceptable solution to all sides. It is not prefect, but it leaves out any information on their disputed ethnic origins in the intro (well, at least in academic circles it is generally accepted that they were of Kurdish descent, but they did not speak Kurdish nor did they identify themselves as Kurds). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.231 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is true, Safavids after establishment of the dynasty identified themselves as descendants of the Imams (not Kurd or Turk or anything else), and were bilingual in Persian and Turkish, although primarily Turcophone. However, the origin of the dynasty by standard criteria of historiography goes to FiruzShah. Given this complexity, the origin and identity section should not be in the intro and onle a statement that "Safavid identity is complex due to safavids trying to obscure their identity". The article is about Safavid Iranian empire, not the origin of the family which can be covered in another place. For example, it is well known that the Vazirs were second to the Shah and ran the everyday affair, and were primarily of the Tajik (Persian) stock, but such an information is not in the introduction either. By wikipedia policy, if the origin is disputed, obscure and etc., we should mention it its own section. By blood, the last Safavid kings had Georgian mothers and were thus ethnically at least 50% Georgian. Or Shah Abbas was at least half either a Tajik or Seyyed or Georgian (it was not Turkoman). So this information also should not be in the introduction. I would suggest this on the intro if anything: "The origins of the Safawid family are shrouded in some mystery, and the mystery is compounded by falsifications which were perpetrated, probably during the reign of Ismā'īl I and certainly during that of Tahmāsp I, in order to produce an “official” Safawid genealogy."(R.Savory, "Safawids", Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Ed.). The main point of Safavid era are: All of these can be sourced and are sourced. That should be in the introduction. Things like their court spoke Turkish or their official language was Persian does not need to be in the introduction (it is in the sidebar). This is an article primarily about the Safavid era, not the origin of the dynasty. Things like the fact that the overwhelming manuscripts from the Safavid era are in Persian are also for example not needed. I have no problems with new suggestions but I find it annoying for users not to not read the archives and the above, and claim "Iran was not used as a state designation". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) As per names, I don't care about the latin alphabet, but if users constantly make the false claim that "Iran" did not exist as a political entity, it should be noted that:
 * Spread Shi'ism and total transformation of religious landscape
 * Unified the territories of Iran and yes, used official name of Iran (along with possible other names which no RS source has been provided).
 * Re-established Iranian ethno-political identity and a new Iranian empire.
 * A certain user is making wrong claims about the name Iran. However, the name "Azerbaijani" was not used at all during the Safavid era for any language or ethnicity.  Azerbaijan in its primary history was a land and not an ethnicity.  Its name pre-dates arrival of Turkish languages by at least 1200 years in the region.  Plenty of sources can be brought on this issue, but I do not care.
 * The Turkish used by Safavids is considered the classical period and thus it is not written in the Latin alphabet. New Azeri-Turkish only merged in the 19th century (relative to the classical style of Fizuli) from the classical period.  The phonetics "sefeviler" is not supported by any sources and the classical period (classical Azeri-Turkish) did not use Latin alphabet.  However, as I mentioned, I do not particularly care about this minor nuisance.
 * But if users constantly do not read the sources that clearly use Safavid Iranian empire, Safavid Iran, Safavid Persia and clearly state Safavids used Iran as an official name, then these matters need to be discussed as well. Because it is getting extremly annoying to mention the same thing 10x+ times and eventually, admin attention should be brought to such behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is still no explanation as to why the empire that had official language as Azerbaijani should have only Persian language spelling. If one minds using Azerbaijani, because the language was called Turkic (or Azerbaijani dialect of Turkish), as it remains to be today, that's totally acceptable to me. But any other justification of
 * a) removing Azerbaijani from both language when Minorsky, Savory and Frye think otherwise,
 * b) using only one Firuz Khan Zarin Kollah to justify the ethnic lineage of entire dynasty 7 generations later as not related to Azeri Turkish whatsoever (when founder's mother was half-Turkish, as was the father)
 * do look clearly as clear-cut POV pushing to me. It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue. That should speak for itself. Atabəy (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Atabey does read what others write and thus it is a circle, until we get mediation. I will give it one more try here but I doubt you will read it. No one is denying that Safavid had a linguistic Turkish component but identity is not only language (specially in the 15th century where the Stalinistic notion of language=nationality was not firm and the masses did not based their identity solely on the language of their mother), but also perception (how people saw themselves) and action. As ten pages of archives show, the Safavid identity is not trivial and actually, it should be irrelavent for an article that is discussing the Safavid empire. Also I still do not see a sentence from you that you want to add in the introduction. I just see complaining comments but not a single suggestion for a sentence or two that you want to add in the introduction with RS sources. So unless you can provide a sentence or two that you want to also add to the introduction, then there is really nothing to complain about.

Per the comments:
 * The official language of the empire (adminstration and coinage) was Persian based on RS sources. The court language was predominantely Turkish.  So both should be in the introduction.  However, the court language does not mean the official language of the empire.  They are two different things.  Virtually for every 100 document from the Safavid era that is in Persian, one can maybe find one in Turkish.  The Vizirs that ran the day to day affairs for example affairs used Persian.  I do not see the problem with having both languages as well as Kurdish.  Even Georgian is no problem.  However, there is absolutely no reason for the introduction to say: Roemer, H. R. (1986). "The Safavid Period". The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–350. ISBN 0-521-20094-6, p. 331: "Depressing though the condition in the country may have been at the time of the fall of Safavids, they cannot be allowed to overshadow the achievements of the dynasty, which was in many respects to prove essential factors in the development of Persia in modern times. These include the maintenance of Persian as the official language and of the present-day boundaries of the country, adherence to the Twelever Shi'i, the monarchical system, the planning and architectural features of the urban centers, the centralised administration of the state, the alliance of the Shi'i Ulama with the merchant bazaars, and the symbiosis of the Persian-speaking population with important non-Persian, especially Turkish speaking minorities".    The sidebar takes care of language. For the introduction, the Official language and court language is not important.  I don't particularly care about the latin alphabet but it is anachronistic and is not the alphabet used by Safavids for their classical Azeri-Turkish (not the modern 19th century).  But lets say that problem is fixed as I mentioned.  I prefer Turkish over Azerbaijani myself but lets just write Azerbaijani Turkish for the language.
 * Ethnicity of Safavid is complex and should not be in the introduction in my opinion.  The mother of Shah Abbas, Shah Khodabandeh etc. were not Turkish.  So why concentrate on the mother of the first king only?  Or why care if one of his grrandmother was Greek?  Who cares?  The founder of the order was Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who was clearly not Turkish, but again that is not the introduction.  Why not concentrate on him?  After all he is the founder of the Saffavid family who the Safavid consciously knew about and did not forget.    Why concentrate on one king who described himself not as a Turk but as a Seyyed descendant from the Imam?    I do not see why the complex ethnicity of the Safavids needs to be in the introduction.  It is obviously conflicting information and thus needs to be described in the body.  Because the article is about Safavid empire, not the Safavid family tree which has its own article. The article introduction is not about the founder's mother tongue or Firuzshah Zarin Kolah or the origin of the order (Shaykh Safi al-DinA Ardabili) but the Safavid empire and what they accomplished.  The complex origin of the Safavids in  its own section.  They had a Turkish component (linguistic and through Turkoman mothers) but identity does not mean language in the 15th century for most people as this is a new concept.
 * 1) Safavids saw their identity as primarily religious and Seyyeds when they ruled, not descendant of Oghuz Khan or Turcoman tribes.  This is described by Minorsky.   They were primarily Turkophone but also Bilingual in Persian.  "The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his ‘’race’’ or ‘’nationality’’. His ancestry was mixed: one of his grandmothers was a Greek princess of Trebizond. Hinz, Aufstieg, 74, comes to the conclusion that the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish. Alread, his son Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians." (V. Minorsky, The Poetry of Shah Ismail, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4. (1942), pp. 1053).".
 * They saw themselves as Iranian monarchs: John L. Esposito, "The Oxford history of Islam", Oxford University Press US, 1999. pp 364: "To support their legitimacy, the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1732) devoted a cultural policy to estbalish their regime as the reconstruction of the historic Iranian monarchy. To the end, they commisioned elaborate copies of the Shahnameh, the Iranian national epic, such as this one made for Tahmasp in the 1520s.".. So as one can see they strove to ruler as historic Iranian monarchs not tribal Khans.
 * Saw themselves as descendants of the Imams. R. Savory: "The purpose of the "official" Safavid geneology was to estbalish the secent of the Safavid house from the 7th Shi'i Imam, Musa al-Kazeim, and through him to 'Ali himself, the 1st Shi'i Imam" (R. Savory, "Iran under the Safavids", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980, pp 3).   So they saw themselves as the descendant of the Imams not Oghuz Khan.
 * Were bilingual but primarily Turcophone.
 * Were conscious of their descendant to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah.
 * Safavids actually were weary of the Turcoman supports and put Persians in the highest office (except the King). "The third important problem faced by Esmāʿīl after the establishment of the Safavid state was how to bridge the gap between the two major ethnic groups in that state: the qezelbāš Turkmans, the “men of the sword” of classical Islamic society whose military prowess had brought him to power, and the Persian elements, the “men of the pen,” who filled the ranks of the bureaucracy and the religious establishment in the Safavid state as they had done for centuries under previous rulers of Persia, be they Arabs, Turks, Mongols, or Turkmans. ... Esmāʿīl then appointed a Persian to this office, but this policy, in which Esmāʿīl persisted despite the overt resentment and hostility of the qezelbāš, was even less successful. Between 1508 and 1524, the year of Esmāʿīl’s death, the shah appointed five successive Persians to the office of wakīl. Of the five, the first died a year or so after his appointment, and one chronicle makes the significant statement that he “weakened the position of the Turks” (Ḵoršāh, fol. 453b). "(R. Savory, "ESMĀʿĪL I ṢAFAWĪ" in Encyclopaedia Iranica)

If someone can summarize all this complexity in one or two sentences, I still do not see a reason for it to be in the introduction. The best I can do is:
 * The Safavid kings themselves were Turcophone, but bilingual in Persian, of disputed origin but based their legitimacy on being descendants of the Imams.

However, I believe this is irrelavent to the introduction, although I do not mind.  Why should the fact that certain king of the Safavid had a Turcoman mother and another Safavid king had a Georgian mother be in the introduction? Or that the Safavids were descendants from Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah be in the introduction? The introduction should cover was Safavids accomplished. If we are talking strictly about Safavid identity, then their claimed their legiticimacy based on descent from the Imams not Turkish or Kurdish or any other matter. I believe if anything, this is the most important aspect of Safavid identity since how the rulers saw themselves is more important than what some of their mothers might have been.


 * Finally the article is not owned by anyone.. anyone that has RS sources is allowed to put stuff in the main body . But at least the introduction should highlight the most important spects of the Safavids, not if their ancestor was Kurdish or the mother of one King was Turcoman and the mother of another king was Georgian or they had Persian Viziers.

The most important aspect of Safavids from what I can see to be a non-involved casaul readers:
 * Established a Shi'i Iranian empire and Iranian cultural-political identity with a state that had as an official name, Iran as noted by primary, secondary and teriatary sources. Note also Wikipedia does not care about "official" or "non-official" name for a dynasty but what is used.
 * Primary: Jean Chardin, the traveller to Iran between 1673-1677 provies first hand account of how the inhabitants of Iran called their country: "The Persians, in naming their Country, make use of one Word, which they indifferently pronounce Iroun, and Iran; ...Even to this very Day, the King of Persia is call'd Padcha Iran, and the Great Vizier, Iran Medary, the Pole of Persia. This is the Modern Appelation, the most in Use in that Country.  That which they frequently make use of in the Second Place, is the Term Fars, which is the particular Name of the Province; the Metropolis of which, in ancient Days, was Persepolis, and which gave its Name to All Province of the Kingdom, and the Seat of its Monarch.  This Word Fars, to signify Persia, is very ancient; and the Persians still call the Old Language of their Country, which was in use before the Days of Mahometanism, Saboun Fours, the Tonge of Persia"...  (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988- pp 126).  Also available in google books (page 126:   (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988)  Note " Padcha Iran" is French version of Padishah-e Iran (Great King of Iran), Iran Medary is the French pronounciation of Iran-Madaar (Axis of Iran), and Saboun Fours is the French pronouncation of Persian tonge.).
 * More primary sources here:
 * Secondary 1: RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?
 * Secondary 2: Further evidence of a desire to follow in the line of Turkmen rulers is Ismail's assumption of the title "Padishah-i-Iran", previously held by Uzun Hasan. (H.R. Roemer, The Safavid Period, in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI, Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 339
 * Secondary 3: Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations". (see below for Academic background).


 * Spread Shi'ism (don't think we need a source for this but easily can be found) in the region.
 * Estabilished by Ismail I and the downfall in the 18th century.
 * Their based was Ardabil in Azerbaijan and the order was founded by Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili and the dynasty established by Ismail I.

These are matters in my opinion that should not be in the introduction:
 * Shah Esmail I had a Turcoman mother and his mother tongue was Turkish? Who cares for the introduction that is dealing with an empire?
 * Shah Abbas had a Georgian or Persian or Arab mother? Who cares for the introduction?
 * Shah Khodabandeh had a Georgian mother? Who cares for the introduction?
 * The official language of the empire was Persian but Turkish predominated the court. Who cares for the introduction?
 * Persian was used on coins. Who cares for the introduction?
 * Shah Esmail I wrote poetry mainly Turkish, Shah Tahmasp wrote in Persian, Shah Khodabandeh has Persian letters and Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili has written in Tati dialects. Who cares for the introduction?
 * The Safavids were Kurds because of FiruzShah or the Safavids were Turks because of Turcoman mothers. Who cares for the introduction?
 * Safavids supported Shahnama, weakened their tribal followers and put Persians to be their head and saw themselves as descendants of Imam Musa al-Kazim (AS). Who cares for the introduction?

However if the issue of the mother tongue of Shah Esmail or Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili is so important, I suggest:

The Safavid kings themselves were Turcophone, but bilingual in Persian, of disputed origin but based their legitimacy on being descendant of the 7th Imam of Shi'ite Islam.

That is much more accurate than saying the Safavids were X or Y or Z..

I think if look at it objectively, none of these are important. They all have a place in the body of the article. However, despite these, I have never seen Atabey even suggest a sentence or two to also be added in the introduction. He simply just complains why the word "Iranian" is there.. and ignores the sources such as a Savory, and others who state clearly that Safavids established a Shi'i Iranian empire (the most important thing Safavids actually did).

Another RS source talking about the identity of Safavids, it is from a major Full Professor by the name of Bo Utas who is a giant Iranologist (google search): Bo Utas, “Semitic in Iranian,” in E´va Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaaksson, and Carina Jahani, eds., Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, London and New York, 2005, pp. 74:"The Safavids were Persianized Turks and build a new state based on the Persian administrative establishment and the Persian language, Turkic military stength (especially the so called Qizilbash, 'redheads') and Shi'i clergy, to a great extent Arab-speaking and imported from bahrain and Lebanon". It doesn't matter if people hate or love the source, as it is written by a Full Professor and respected academic, meets WP:RS. Given the diversity of opinions on Safavid background, identity and origin, I personally do not see any reason to mention anything about their identity or mother or father in the lead.

The article does not need any tags as anyone is free to add RS sources to it to the article (based on Wikipedia).. Neutrality tag can only be brought when non-RS sources are put in the article and RS sources are removed. I seriously do not see what Atabey is complaing about (that is RS complaining not forum complaining about sources he does not like by repeating that the name Iran did not exist or was not used by Safaivds...well wikipedia cares about RS so no that is not going to change). What is then the complaint? Which sentence? The Azeri-Turkish name for the Safavids should be there as it was used in their court (I agree). I do not know how to write in the anachronistic latin alphabet, but people are free to write it. If it is removed, it is not a neutrality issue but simply a matter of revert and discussion. Shouuld there be more on the Turkish component of the Kings? Okay,t there is a body space that talks about origin, identity and etc. anyone can put RS sources there. Should the introduction have some other sentences? Well, then please suggest it instead of complaining about it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to repeat also that Wikipedia does not care about WP:SOAPBOX comments from users, but simply high quality WP:RS Professor-level and scholarly sources. Some of them about the origin and language:
 * Vladimir Minorsky(2009), "Adgharbaydjan (Azarbaydjan", in Berman, P; Bianquis, Th; Bosworth, CE et al., Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed.), NL: Brill, http://www.encislam.brill.nl/, "After 907/1502, Adharbayjan became the chielf bulwark and rallying ground of the Safawids, themselves natives of Ardabil and originally speaking the local Iranian dialect"
 * Vladimir Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shāh Ismā‘īl I," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 10/4 (1942): 1006–53. "The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his race or ''nationality'. His ancestry was mixed: one of his grandmothers was a Greek princess of Trebizond. Hinz, Aufstieg, 74, comes to the conclusion that the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish. Already, his son Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians — "
 * Roger M. Savory. "Safavids" in Peter Burke, Irfan Habib, Halil İnalcık: History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, Taylor & Francis. 1999, p. 259: "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. It is probable that the family originated in Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, where they adopted the Azari form of Turkish spoken there, and eventually settled in the small town of Ardabil sometimes during the eleventh century."
 * Ira Marvin Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge University Press, 2002. pg 233: "The Safavid movement, founded by Shaykh Safi al-Din (1252-1334), a Sunni Sufi religious teacher descendant from a Kurdish family in north-western Iran.. "
 * Emeri van Donzel, Islamic Desk Reference compiled from the Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1994, pp 381: "Turkish- speaking and quite probably of Kurdish origin, the dynasty took its name from Shaykh Safi al-Din al-Ardabili and was founded by Isma'il I in 1501. He made Shi'ism the state religion and virtually extinguished the Sunnis in.."
 * Bo Utas, “Semitic in Iranian,” in E´va Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaaksson, and Carina Jahani, eds., Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, London and New York, 2005, pp. 74:"The Safavids were Persianized Turks and build a new state based on the Persian administrative establishment and the Persian language, Turkic military stength (especially the so called Qizilbash, 'redheads') and Shi'i clergy, to a great extent Arab-speaking and imported from bahrain and Lebanon"
 * Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran, Cambridge , Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2002. pg 143: “It is true that during their revolutionary phase (1447-1501), Safavi guides had played on their descent from the family of the Prophet. The hagiography of the founder of the Safavi order, Shaykh Safi al-Din Safvat al-Safa written by Ibn Bazzaz in 1350-was tampered with during this very phase. An initial stage of revisions saw the transformation of Safavi identity as Sunni Kurds into Arab blood descendants of Muhammad.”
 * etc...many more from the archives.

If anything about the origin of the dynasty has to be in the introduction, these sources will also have to be included. My preference is to let the origin, language and etc. be described in the origin section. It is much easier to bring all viewpoints in such a section. However, if need to be, I suggest:

1) The Safavid kings themselves were Turcophone, but bilingual in Persian, of disputed origin but based the legitimacy of their rule on being descendant of the 7th Imam of Shi'ite Islam.

2) The Safavid kings themselves were Turcophone, but also bilingual in Persian, of probable Kurdish origin but based their legitimacy of their rule on being descendant of the 7th Imam of Shi'ite Islam.

I am looking for other legitimate proposals that will take these above sources (as well as others showing different viewpoints) into considerations (I am not looking for comments that talk about a certain Shah composing poetry in Turkish or Persian (Tahmasp) because these sources will not change based on user's comments).

Also "origin" when it comes to describing Islamic dynasties, it does not take into account Turcoman, Georgian or Greek mothers else we would have to say Shah Abbas or another one of them were Georgians. Or the Abbassids were Persian or Turkish (some of the caliphs had Persian or Turkish mothers). Origin when it comes to describing Islamic dynasty, no matter how far the ancestor is through the fatherline and the Safavids actually kept track of their geneology (which makes the argument of being the 1000x ancestor irrelavent factor since technically the origin is that 1000x ancestor). No need to repeat also that Wikipedia does not care about WP:SOAPBOX comments from users, but simply high quality WP:RS sources. So users need to discuss: a) Why should the complex origin which needs several lines be explained be in the introduction? Not that I care but is there a specific reason for it other than nationalistic considerations?  Does it Scientific value to the article?   b) What is their proposal wording (not complaining) which will also necessarily include the above sources, some from the most important Western Safavid scholars like Savory and Minorsky, who unlike all other names mentioned thus far, have written books and articles on Safavids. Their proposal must necessarily incorporate the above sources (and not ignoring them based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)  and make a concise one or two sentences with some of the above sources include. c) Anyone is free to edit the article as long as they add quality RS sources specially superquality ones like Savory, Mathee and Minorsky (Safavid scholars).   There is no need for a concensus when adding some of these quality scholars as their opinion is much heavier than those of users.   d)  Finally, mediators do not care about users opinions but RS sources and they will make a decision based on RS sources. Given the qualification of Savory, Mathee and Minorsky over some of other mentioned names on Safavid studies (articles not about Safavids), I prefer not to waste my time with mediation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Modern national identities and modern concepts of nation and nationalism should not be imposed on pre-modern dynasties. The Safavids did not have a "nation" in the modern sense, nor did they have a "national language" or "national identity". Their primary identity was - without any doubt - Shia Islam. That was followed by a deep sense of belonging to "Iran" (not the modern nation-state, but the cultural realm; that is obvious from the writings and letters of many of the kings; nothing comparable exists to prove the claim, that the Safavids identified themselves as "Turks" and emphasized some kind of "Turkishness" or "Turkish identity"). Besides that, the people back then did not feel alien to each other. There was no real rivalry between Persian, Turkish, and Arabic. The Safavids family - like so many other dynasties - cultivated a Turkish dialect (to some degree). But in that same court and household, Persian and Georgian and perhaps some other languages were also spoken. Turkish may have been the mother-tongue of Ismail, but it was not the mother-tongue of some other Safavid kings and princes. Claiming that "Azerbaijani was a state-language" is pretty overdrawn. Leaving that aside, there is a really good (and authoritative) article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica about the Safavids: SAFAVID DYNASTY. The very first paragraph states: It would be anachronistic to call Safavid Persia a modern nation-state, and it is important to realize that, in many ways, Safavid society continued Mongol and Timurid patterns and practices—ranging from its coinage to its administrative institutions. The Safavids, in fact, consciously built their legitimacy on past tradition. [...] They unified much of Persia under a single political control, transforming an essentially tribal nomadic order into a sedentary society deriving most of its revenue from agriculture and trade. Most importantly, the Safavids introduced a concept of patrimonial kingship, combining territorial authority with religious legitimacy that, with modifications, would endure until the 20th century. The political system that emerged under them had overlapping political and religious boundaries and a core language, Persian, which served as the literary tongue, and even began to replace Arabic as the vehicle for theological discourse . A number of administrative institutions created during the Safavid period or adapted from earlier times continued to exist well into the Qajar era. The article also mentions this important information: Thirdly, military and political power in Persia was generally in the hands of ethnic Turks, while ethnic Persians, called Tajiks, were dominant in the areas of administration and culture. As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup. At the same time, it is important to stress that the Turk versus Tajik barrier could be breached. Over time, many Turks served as bureaucrats while a number of Tajiks held military posts. So, all of you: cool down a little bit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.231 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a side note: the current version really is POV, because it mentiones the (less important) Greek and Georgian influence, but totally leaves out the important Turkish substratum which was the core of the movement around Shah Ismail. The Ustajlu and Rumlu Qizilbashs, for example, played a very important role. Shah Tahmasp's mother belonged to these tribes (the Ustajlu, if I am not mistaken). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.231 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please. This discussion is based on OR: the point is that we have no wikipedia policy that tells us to write the name of a dynasty in any language than Persian. It is true that Kurdish, Georgian, Azari turkic (not the same as what today is spoken), ...had some relevance in the empire but in wikipedia we work according to policies. So people should listen: instead of arguing what language was important, please find a wikipedia policy that supports your addition. Xashaiar (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages. None of them justify the lack of neutrality and POV pushing in the article. I believe you answered your own conjecture by saying: "No one is denying that Safavid had a linguistic Turkish component but identity is not only language...". As far as I see right now, the introduction to the article shows Persian spelling and no Azerbaijani (Turkish) spelling, while the body clearly says that both were official languages, and latter was the language of court (in modern terms main state language). Let's resolve this issue first, before we proceed to other topics. Atabəy (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of accusing me of selective referencing (selective of course from Savory, Minorsky, Mathee and other Safavid specialist..), I would note that I am not the one that has been banned from several articles because of selective referencing. Furthermore, the racist comments on the wiki-coordinating list-serve that was discovered is sufficient for me to know that neutrality is not necessarily your top concern. And yes, unlike you who denies sources he does not like (primary and secondary), I do not deny that the Safavids had an important Turcophone component which needs to be reflected in the article, although their identity was not "Turkish" but rather they identified themselves as Seyyeds and descendants of the Prophet. Thats the fact, no matter how people talk about it. If X identifies itself as a Martian despite having variety of ancestors, the Matian identity is supreme. They conscisouly decided to create such a geneology and unlike the Qajars or Moguls of India who traced their roots back to Changizkhan, they consciously traced their roots to Firuzshah Zarin Kolan and later claimed from him descent from Hejaz. They had a strong national Iranian influence (Shahnama rather than say Oghuz epics whose themes does not occurs in their Turkish poetry), and actually weakened the power of their Turcoman supports, while pursuing policies that strenghtened the Tajik elements of the empire. That is why a Safavid chronicles talks about the Shah's action in appointing Persians as the main Vizier and second in rank only to the Shah as: "Weakening the position of the Turks".. Later on, the Georgian/Circassian components actually ran the mainshow. The religious identity is also noted by the fact that the main enemies of the Safavids were Ottoman Turks and Uzbek Turks, thus it shows the religious identity played a 10x stronger role and this religious identity was strenghtened by claiming descent from the Imams and excising anything about Firuzshah Zarin Kolah. So such an identity is really hard to disect and label with one term.

So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). However, it is obvious that if a person cared about neutrality than Minorsky (who clearly states the language of the dynasty is not the same as their nationality) or Savory would triumph over any of the scholars mentioned thus far who have not written a single specialist book on the Safavids. Safavid specialists are writers who have written articles on Safavids, for example Savory has easily over 100+ articles on Safavids, but his viewpoint is not the introduction about Safavid origin. As I said, the spelling is not an issue for me, but falsely accusing other users of non-neutrality is hypocritical. And no, Turkish was not the official language nor the main state language, as it was not the language of administration, not the language of clerical work, not the language coinage and not the scholarly language(see Shaykh Bahai or Mir Fendereski), etc., else there would be equal amount of Persian and Turkish writings from the Safavid era, where-as I cannot even seem to find a single Turkish book of composition (not poetry) under their reign. If Turkish was a main language, then there would not be at least 50 books on Safavid history written in Persian and not a single one in Turkish. The RS sources clearly state Persian and not Turkish being an official language and core language of the empire. Turkish was the language of the military and also had the weight in the court (although questanionable even there in terms of Shahs Abbas and later when the Turkoman tribes power were reducet considerably), but a small court in a vast country does not make it the main state language since the only citizens of the country were not the royaltly. The people that ran the day to day affair (mainly the Tajik administrators) used Persian as the language. Everyday administrative work throughout the country (which in modern terms means state language) is of far more significance.

That being said, I will restore to the stable version that was agreed upon by users before the current ips and etc. (it had the name in Persian, Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian). If any user has a problem with it, they need to propose sentences (that will take into account the specialist references I noted as well and not just their own references) in the talkpage instead of complaining about the state of the article or not editing it themselves (as long as RS by Safavid specialista and other major historians is not removed). I urge Xashaiar also to not make a big deal on the issue of languages although he is technically right on two points. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Khodabandeh, you are taking time repeating the same old points that were discussed over and over for years. Again, here is from your favorite Roger Savory:
 * On a larger scale what demands attention is the marked interest the Safavid monarchs themselves took in the Turkish language, in addition the factor already touched upon, that most of the expressions used in the government, court and army were in that language. Shah Ismail, the dynasty's founder, essayed the art of poetry under the pseudonym of Khatai; but he composed his Divan in Turkish
 * So before proceeding, why don't you produce evidence of Kurdish or Georgian being used at least on the same scale, using same alphabet, significance as state or official language by Safavids? And which one Kurdish dialects was used by Safavid administrators? Do you have written samples in Kurdish? Which of them wrote official state letters in Georgian? I am asking for references, specifically, instead of pages long posts repeating the same old "justification" that Turkish should not be listed as language.
 * And about "Persianized Turks", "Turkified Persians", and other selective POV to deny Azerbaijani identity, I believe we are, at this point, discussing the official language of the Safavid Empire, so let's focus and resolve that subject first, please. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

However when it comes to identity, as I said, they neither identified as "Turk" or "Persian". They for sure never used the term "Azerbaijani Turk" and I have not seen a single reference of Safavids referencing themselves as "Turks" but I have seen referencing themselves as "Padishah-e Iran".
 * Actually, the article you cited is not from Roger Savory. But Zabiollah Safa who by no means is a Safavid expert in the class of Savory.  So I do not see any reason for misattribution Z. Safa to Roger Savory.   I assume it was an accident and not intentional?  Z. Safa's view on Persian literature during the Safavid era has been supplanted by the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on Safavids which has a lot of details on Persian literature and its blossoming (written by Savory again).  The article you cited is:
 * Zabiollah Safa (1986), "Persian Literature in the Safavid Period", The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-20094-6, pp. 948–65
 * Please note on however the main article on Safavids in the Cambridge History of Iran is by Roemer who is a Safavid specialist unlike Z. Safa who wrote on many diverse topics but mainly on Iranian literature and in particular disliked the Persian literature of the Safavid era with some passion  relative to the Jami and pre-Jami era.  Thus the specialist Roemer states in clear uncertain terms:
 * H.R. Roemer, (1986). "The Safavid Period". The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–350. ISBN 0-521-20094-6, p. 331: "Depressing though the condition in the country may have been at the time of the fall of Safavids, they cannot be allowed to overshadow the achievements of the dynasty, which was in many respects to prove essential factors in the development of Persia in modern times. These include the maintanence of Persian as the official language and of the present-day boundaries of the country, adherence to the Twelever Shi'i, the monarchical system, the planning and architectural feartures of the urban centers, the centralised administration of the state, the alliance of the Shi'i Ulama with the merchant bazaars, and the symbiosis of the Persian-speaking population with important non-Persian, especially Turkish speaking minorities".
 * However, Z. Safa is correct that the court and military, as well as many of the government titles were Turkish (but not the major ones such as Padeshah-e Iran or Iran-Madaar (Vazier)". Overall, we can agree based on most of the sources that the military, and the court used mainly Turkish while the administration and high literature were in Persian.  Still the most important language is day to day running of the show which is the administrative language.  The Safavid coins themselves have Persian poetry as well and coins are an example of official documents.
 * There is no evidence Georgian or Kurdish was used on the large scale. Some users inserted it and I plan to restore it to the stable version it was.  There are articles I can point out that some languages did not exist but they are in the introduction.  I do not know about Georgian, but Kurdish here is like Turkish, it was greatly modified in the last two centuries and is not in the classical form.  Persian on the other hand has maintained its classical term and that is why I can pickup Safvat as-Safa or Safavid chronicles, and understand them (of course one requires class 1 to 12 education).  If I had to do it strictly, it would be Persian and Turkish (based on the classical alphabet).  However, using modern latin alphabets based on a new dialect of Turkish that did not exist during the Safavid era, is anachronism which although wrong, is not a big issue for me.  HOw do we know Safavids used the phonetic Sefeviler and even used such a word to refer to themselves in Turkish?  I am sure Kurdish and even Georgian were used more often than the latin alphabet of TUrkish.  Similarly, usage of Kurdish is shaky.  Thus if we are going to be sdhaky with the latin alphabet, then I see no reason why Kurdish or even Georgian should be removed.  My philosophy has always been the same on old history articles, if it has some relation to the subject, it is fine.  Why fight over it?  It is just important to make sure the importan languages comes first.  Given Georgians were dominant in the end of the Safavid era or the Kurdish origin of the family, those are good enough.  Given Turkish was the major language of the court and military, that is good enough for me and I don't care about the Latin alphabet (although technicially I showed it is wrong).  Given Persian was the core and official language of the empire, then that should be there too.
 * Your comment on "denying identity" is just an emotional outburt (unfortunately very childish and typical which makes this as as forum) as the identity of Safavids is in no way the same as modern Azerbaijani identity in the republic of Azerbaijan, although there is some overlap. The primary identity of the Safavids was religious (not secular) and secondly, they traced their descent to the Imams.  I believe the commisioning of the Shahnama (the Persian national epic rather than Turkic epics such as dede qorqud) and use of pre-Islamic mythology by Esmail I(Iranica: "He wrote poetry filled with pre-Islamic Persian terms and references, referring to himself as Feridun, Khosrow, Jamshid and Alexander, as well as applying religious names, such as “son of ʿAli” and one of the Twelve Imams."), patronizing and writing Persian poetry (how many people from modern republic of Azerbaijan write Persian poetry and identify with the Shahnama), titling themselves as Kings of Iran, commisioning minatures based on Persian literature (again mainly Shahnama), having professional Shahnamakhwaans (Shahnama reciters), composing Persian poetry as well (specially Shah Tahmasp), weakening the position of their own devoted followers8 Turcomans (the real Oghuz Turks) and streghtening the positions of Persians, following Iranian monarchcial lines and etc., are some example of Persian culture components that can not be easily overlooked.
 * Plus, this is not something I am making up, as the historiograaphy in the republic of Azerbaijan that I have looked has a black and white dichotomy which praises Shah Esmail I as a nationalist Turk and Shah Abbas as moving towards the Persian orbit and Persianizing after moving the court to Isfahan. This is of course simplistic. but there no doubt about a strong Persian cultural component to the Safavids alongside their  linguistic Turkish ones.  Unlike you, as I mentioned the Safavid identity was multi-faceted.
 * Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran, Cambridge , Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2002. pg 143: “It is true that during their revolutionary phase (1447-1501), Safavi guides had played on their descent from the family of the Prophet. The hagiography of the founder of the Safavi order, Shaykh Safi al-Din Safvat al-Safa written by Ibn Bazzaz in 1350-was tampered with during this very phase. An initial stage of revisions saw the transformation of Safavi identity as Sunni Kurds into Arab blood descendants of Muhammad.” This is how Safavids wanted to identify themselves it seems.  This does not have a post-20th century Persian nationalist appeal neither as Kings who wanted to claim Arab blood does not fit modern Iranian or Turkish nationalism.  However, unlike many people here, I believe the best way to proceed is to write accurate article.  Lets face it, Safavid identity was foremost religious and Shi'ite, and not a modern ethnic identity.
 * I do not plan to use "Persianized Turks" for the Safavid identity as much as I do not plan to call the Safavids "Azerbaijani Turks" or "Kurds" or anything like that. There are three options I am presenting.  One is the sentence above which I had proposed for the intro (though I prefer not to get into this).  Two is having a small section writing "Safavid identity was complex and ammaglation of Turkic and Iranic elements", and then having a separate section for Iranic and Turkic.   Then each person has their own play ground without interfering called "Perso-Kurdish components of Safavid identity" and "Turkish components of the Safavid identity".  Or the third option is simply that  we list the various contradictatory RS sources which is fine from a wikipedia standard.   I prefer option two and ones, and I believe the various components of the Safavids were unified as a whole, and we can have a section on Safavid identity which does not use generalized terms.   Just like you do not want "Persianized Turks" intro, you also need to acknowledge that the Safavid identity was complex and cannot be summarized in a single sentence.
 * The language issue from my perspectives has always been that if it is related, then include it. The stable four version language accomodates all users. Else if we are to follow strict policy, then the latin alphabet makes no sense to me either as "Sefeviler" seems like neologism.
 * I personally do not see any suggestions from you but just complaints. Also if you are suggesting just Persian and Turkish for the intro, I have to say that the stable four language version (with all alphabets) has ours as a subset so there is no reason to complain.  The order should be Persian, Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian.  Georgian can be removed if people like although Georgians were the dominant force in the end of the Safavid era and some of the Kings had Georgian mothers.  Neither Kurdish or Turkish were standardized of course but as I said, I prefer the inclusive approach.  -Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * side note, Kathryn Babayan, like Roemer and Savory did her Ph.D. on Safavids and the book I cited is mainly about Safavid. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh, I still don't see any evidence of Kurdish or Georgian being used as state or literary languages by Safavid elite. Do you have samples? Asking again.
 * Here is from Savory "Iran under the Safavids":
 * Kasravi, after a careful examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the Safavids were indigenous inhabitants of Iran, and of pure Aryan stock; yet they spoke Azari, the form of Turkish which was the native language of Azarbayjan 
 * Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly. But his conclusion that Azeri Turkish, native language of Azerbaijan, was used by Safavids is a statement of a historical fact, and proofs of the language being used by court are everywhere. As you can see, even Savory admits the fact.
 * Another reference from Iranica:
 * The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, “Safavid Dynasty” at iranica.com), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified.
 * The two references above establish the fact that Turkish (or Azerbaijani Turkish) was used as the main language of the dynasty, and Persian could have been on par or less significant. As you can see, I am not disputing that Persian was official language, I am absolutely disputing the removal of Azerbaijani (which means Turkish, I don't mind either or name) spelling or insertion of Kurdish spelling (which in fact never existed) or Georgian spelling which was never a linguistic identity of Safavid dynasty.
 * I am not sure why you have to AGAIN write pages trying to prove me Persian was official language, when I specifically asked you for proofs of Kurdish or Georgian BEING USED as languages of Safavid administration. If not, they have no place in introduction, only Persian and (Azerbaijani) Turkish do.
 * And whether Turkish used by Safavid was called Azerbaijani Turkish or not, I would prefer to stick with definition used by expert scholars, such as Minorsky, who uses this term. Unless you think you are more qualified to draw judgment about Minorsky being wrong :) Atabəy (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Atabek, I do not see any evidence of Latin alphabet being used by Safavids either. I am sure Kurdish and Georgian were used more often the latin alphabet with the unproven neologism that you are proposing, because there had to be at least one Kurdish or Georgian speaker in the whole Safavid domain, but I can gaurantee you will not find a single person in the whole Safavid era writing: "Sefeviler" with an inverted e, and with "ler".  So unless this contradiction is resolved by yourself, then I will respond accordingly.  Until you show proof that Safavids used the term "Sefeviler" with the inverted "e" that you brought by bringing a book or article from that era, then we are on arbitrary non-scientific ground.  Kurdish and Georgian were not used by the Safavid when they ruled but used by some members of the Safavid family (Firuzshah or Georgian mothers of the King).  However, even these have more weight than the latin alphabet that was not used.  So, strictily speaking, we should only have Persian and Turkish with the classical alphabet.  But since you are introducing anachronism and neologism (sefeviler is a neologism), then you also need to explain the source of this neologism.  To claim that since Safavids spoke Turkish then one can introduce a neologism with foreign alphabet is itself a form of OR and synthesis.  Theoretically, lets assume everyone under the Safavids spoke a form of Turkish.  This still is not sufficient to introduce a neologism "Sefeviler" with latin alphabet which was not used during that era.
 * Language of the empire (core language of administration) is more important than language of the family, since the article is about the empire.
 * Your soapbox comments not standing, giving some of your own comments in Wikipedia (and outside), I would concentrate on Savory rather than accusing Kasravi of being a racist.  Kasravi is praised by Minorsky (I would prefer to stick with terms by expert scholars, such as Minorsky, who uses this term. Unless you think you are more qualified to draw judgment about Minorsky being wrong :) ).  Minorsky and Savory quote the likes of Kasravi which actually is good enough for Wikipeedia.
 * Your second reference is from Ehsan Yarshater in Iranica who again is not a Safavid expert. His opinion is fine and should be included in the body.  I do not like to suppress opinion of experts in order to give the users onesided viewpoints.  However, it should also be noted that Yarshater in another article describes the adoption: "so that even the Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Ṣafī-al-dīn, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular.".    As you can see, this is information that should be included as well.
 * In an article on Safavid, it is important to mention Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who was Iranian-speaking as well as the linguistic Turkicization of the family due to the fact that most of their followers where from Turcoman tribal elements.
 * From weight standpoint, Minorsky and Savory have more weight than Yarshater, Frye and etc. when it comes to Safavids.
 * Roger M. Savory. "Safavids" in Peter Burke, Irfan Habib, Halil İnalcık: History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, Taylor & Francis. 1999, p. 259: "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. It is probable that the family originated in Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, where they adopted the Azari form of Turkish spoken there, and eventually settled in the small town of Ardabil sometimes during the eleventh century."
 * R.M. Savory again, "This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams."
 * Please note that in terms of modern identities, if someone consciously identifies their ancestry as Kurdish or Arab but speaks Turkish (say Abdullah Ocalan) it does not make them Turkish. There are Kurds who in Turkey who do not speak any Turkish but still consider themselves as Kurds due to ancestry.  With the Safavids it is the same and we can say they were Turcophone or linguistically Turkicized.
 * Your point on language is irrelavent because "sefeviler" with the phonetic you spelled it is a neologism and non-existent during the Safavid era. I can gaurantee one person at least spoke Kurdish during the whole Safavid domain (which was their origin) and I can gaurantee you that the invented neologism "Sefeviler" with latin alphabet would have been more strange to any member of the Safavid family than the Georgian alphabet which might have been deciphered by the Georgian members of their family or even their own Georgian blood relatives.
 * Finally, no matter what some modern writer or experts have stated, the Safavid identity was complex but as an identification, they consciously chose to identify themselves as Seyyeds. That is a mere fact which is overlooked by many works although I have found sufficient number of works to insert this fact as well.
 * So this is a pointless discussion on the introduction alphabet. Unless you can also bring firm proof of the neologism "sefeviler" with that spelling during the Safavid era.  It makes sense to have all four alphabets (so unlike your accusation, I did not remove any Turkish language or modern alphabets) if we are being arbitrary since it is hypocritical to introduce anachronism, neologism, non-existent alphabets and unprovable phonetics while say wanting to remove the fact that the dynasty had some Kurdish and Georgian (albeit much strong on Shaykh Safi, much weaker during the initial Safavid empire and much strong Georgian element in the end) connections.  My position on alphabets has been fairly open, if it has some relationship to the Safavid era or Safavid dynasty or Safavid fatherline, then why make a fuss over it?.  But to me, the latin neologism you are introducing has even less of connection than the Georgian spelling, since the latter actually existed in that era.   So, just because Turkish existed during the Safavid era does not necessarily mean the term "Sefeviler" (a neologism and unproven by any text) existed with the latin alphabet.
 * Having said all this, the introduction alphabet is neither a neutrality issue or a weight issue.  You can have a tag stating that the introduction alphabet is being discussed, and I have given my opinion.  I plan to simply restore the four version as that works best for Wikipedia (inclusive policy).  However, if you want to make a technical discussion, first prove to me that someone in the Safavid era used the neologism you introduced with the latin alphabet and exact phonetic, then I'll be happy to further discuss the issue.  --
 * Furthermore, no one is blocking anyone from introducing good scholarly sources ( I support the inclusion of both Yarshater sources), so just because you do not like the current scholarly sources, it does not mean the tags are justified as you have not proposed anything new beyond the irrelavent discussion of alphabets. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Atatbey when he says that Kurdish and Georgian spellings should not be in the intro. There is no doubt that these languages were spoken within the kingdom (and my many officials, soldiers, etc.), but they did not have any political or cultural importance. However, his claim that Azeri was more important than Persian actually shows that his knowledge of that epoch (and of the complex issue of language in the Islamic world) is limited. They Safavid family (especially those associated with the Kizilbash) were Turkish-speaking, but in no point in history had Turkish gained a status higher than Persian. Persian was the traditional language of learning and state. It was the language used in official papers, letters, etc. It was the language of government and the language that was used by the king to communicate with his ministers and his subjects. Like in Iran nowadays, the different peoples and tribes continued to speak their own languages and those languages dominated in regions where they were spoken by the majority. But the "official language of the state" - although this is a unfitting expression - was Persian. And all sources agree with that. I agree with Khodabandeh14 that the modern, Latin-based Azeri version of the language is as much POV as the Kurdish and Georgian one. All of them should be removed, except for the Perso-Arabic versions of the name, both in Persian and Azeri.
 * PS: please refrain from insulting Kasravi. Hey may have had patriotic or nationalist views, but his scholastic work was exceptional. Especially comparing him to Turkish "counterparts", such as Zeki Velidi Togan, who was a notorious Pan-Turkist and even politically active. Nevertheless, Togan, too, had some very good scholastic works. But like Kasravi, he is not a good source for Wikipedia as a direct source (except he is cited by other notable scholars). In this case it should be noted that Togan, despite his extreme Turkish nationalist view, was the first one who claimed/admitted that the Safavids were of Non-Turkish, Iranian Kurdish origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.231 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point on Kasravi and Togan, if some of their works are cited by serious Western Safavid scholars, then those works(and only those works) are good. Although Togan has been criticized by several scholars on historiography but Kasravi has been praised by the best of the best (e.g. Minorky, Frye...). Actually, Togan and Kasravi independently arrived at the fact that Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was not a Turk but a Kurd. It is a rarity that an Iranian nationalist and a pan-Turkist come to an agreement on some point. Anyhow, soapbox comments related to them should be deleted from the talkpage (Atabey specially has a habit of making these) per guidelines as we are here to discuss the article. I will notify admins next time when such a discussion takes place.

Getting back to the issue at hand, the major problem is that the article is both on the dynasty and the empire (but mainly on the empire based on the fact 90% of the material is about the empire). I propose breaking them into two articles, Safavid empire and Safavid family. Safavid family deserves its own independent article. Perhaps the current article, Safavid family tree can be turned into one about the family. If it is on the family, then Kurdish is relavent in terms of the ancestry of Safavids which they consciously recorded and at least in terms of Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili who was the founder of the order which gave rise to the empire in the first all. Georgian for example can be argued to be relavent since the Georgians became the most powerful force at the end of the Safavid era, Georgians were in charge of the army in the end, Safavid bloodlines for some of the Kings was at least 50% Georgian and the Turcomans were greatly weakened. You see, anyone can make a case for what they think is important. X might point to the King writing poetry in a classical Turkish language, Y might point to Safi al-Din Ardabili being Kurdish and Z might point to great abudnance of Persian texts and official Persian language (only Arabic comes close and Turkish, Georgian, Kurdish have no weight here). So anyone can makeup anything to justify their claim and there is no Wikipedia policy on this. Unless relavent policies are cited then we might as well as include everything. For example if we want to be serious and rigorous (users here only want to be serious when it is to their own benefit), just because a classical form of Turkish (not the exact one today) was one of the two languages of the court, it is a synthesis and OR to relate it a neologism from an evolved dialect (modern Azeri-Turkish) with the unprovabale phonetic and anachronistic alphbet/word: "Səfəvilər". Is there a Safavid era manuscript that uses such a term? extremly unlikely (I would be suprised). Is there is a Safavid manuscript with such a phonetic? Extremly unlikely. Is there is a Safavid manuscript with such an alphabet? Absolutely not as it was not used. But I have no problem with including everything and until there is new proposals agreed by users, we should retain the old format before the ip vandal with starting 75.. caused trouble. So all this talk in my opinion is pointless as the best policy is to allow everything instead of wasting time. In order of importance, I believe since this is a page mainly on the Safavid empire, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian makes sense. A Page on Safavid family in my opinion should have Turkish, Persian and Kurdish in that order. However a page on the empire and dynasty is different. There will be some overlap but all the discussion of the Safavid's background can be put in Safavid family, so this might cause more problems as well. So I am not even 100% sure if this proposal of two articles is good as well. But the portion on the background of the Safavid family should be less than 10% of the article and at most one sentence in the introduction (if any). As the empire is more important than the family geneology, language or cultural-orientation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was decided to remove the protection on the article, without leaving even partial protection, while IPs are edit warring in the article. And why was POV tag removed without achieving consensus in the article?
 * Khodabandeh, Safavid dynasty identifies with contemporary Azerbaijan as much if not more than with contemporary Iran. Thus is the addition of both Azerbaijani spellings, in Arabic and Latin alphabets. As I said, I do not oppose the presence of Persian spelling, I don't know why is this being brought up by yourself. Again, there are clear references, a number of them, including Savory brought above, that Safavids used (Azerbaijani) Turkish as the language of court.
 * Also if your concerns is having just "Sefeviler", fine, I added "Sefeviler sulalesi", which means Safavid dynasty. I oppose separating the article into two, because there is no agreement in one article, why do you want to expand edit conflict to two articles now? Secondly, because Safavid family tree is partially described in the article about Safaviyya. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Safavid dynasty did not live in contemporary times to identify with modern Azerbaijan or Iran. However, if they did, they would identify more with A. Khamenei than E. Aliev and would definitely not identify with the Ottomans (modern Turkey). Because Safavid state was a Shi'ite theocracy albeit headed by a monarch than a supreme leader. Anyhow, that would be an interesting WP:FORUM discussion, so I won't pursue it.

Note my response to the ip above, one can make a case for Kurdish (say origin of the dynasty) or even Georgian (domination of the military and some of mothers). For example Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was a Sunni Shafi'ite Kurd, so that is a strong relation. We need to find either clear wikipedia policies or anyone can complain about any name or claim this name is related. For example one can say: Safavid spokes Turkish and another person can say, their origin is said to be Kurdish and another can argue for Georgian. So unless there are clear guidelines, it is a pointless issue. Because we have no criterion to assess that if speaking Turkish in court is important or if Kurdish oirigin of Shaykh Sfi is important or what. BTW "Sefeviler sulalesi" is also a neologism because I do not know of a single Safavid document using as such term and furthermore, the 'izafeh' borrowed from Persian did exist in the Turkish of the Safavid. How do you know the phonetics are accurate? But I have no problem with the issue, as this naming business is a waste of time. I am just pointing out that one can identify problems with any of these names that have been proposed. But as a matter of policy, even in Caucasian Albania, I was the only editor that said all names (including Azeri Turkish which definitely was not there at that time) should be included. However, I do not think the naming issue itself justifies a POV tag as it is not related to the body or any actual sentence of the text. If you want to put a POV tag, you need to also state the changes your proposing to be incorporated in the article, and actually, if they are RS sources (like Yarshater that you cited above), they should be incorporated in the article, at least some attribution (E. yarshater believes that....x, y , z) although Yarshater is not a Safavid expert, but that portion of his article is about Safavids. If you believe some sources are missing that should be there, well if they are from Safavid experts, why not. No one is hindering anyone from inserting RS specialized sources related to the Safavids (except the current ips..). I plan to add something like this to the intro: "The Safavid were a Turcophone dynasty, of mixed origin and obscure fatherline (possibly Kurdish), but were Turkicized by the time they established political power and claimed legitimacy by tracing their descent to the Shi'ite Imams". At the same, I plan to add the establishment of Iranian state and official name Iran per Rogery Savory (no ifs and buts here as R. Savory is R. Savory). And created a mini-section on the Persian-Kurdish (mainly origin but also Persian culture based on patronization of Persian poetry, minature and Shahnama) and also Turkish relations of the Safavids (language, poetry). Well for now, one has to figure out an issue for ip with the range 75/76.. and then proceed. I tried and I am not going to bother again as I got no support when I complained about the ip, but rather I saw others trying to use the ip to push POV (claim Iran was not used and etc..). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I requested semi- or full protection of the article, until all conflicts are resolved. The page has become a battleground for IPs which don't discuss anything, frivolously remove dispute tags, and so forth.
 * Again, the word "of Iran" is repeated in the introduction sentence twice, obviously for POV pushing reasons. The dynasty did not identify itself with Iranian state identity per se, it was a Shiite Islamic state. As far as contemporary relevance, absolutely, Safavids used the present-day state language of Republic of Azerbaijan (not of Iran) as their official court language. Since this article is mostly about the state of Safavids (Dowlat-e Safaviyya), usage of Azerbaijani in both scripts is absolutely relevant. Any opposition to it to using the language spelling seems to be rather of POV pushing nature to deny identity or affiliation of Azeris with the dynasty despite the scholarship. Atabəy (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

None of your views are about policy. The official language used by Safavids empire was Persian, even if they spoke Turkish and did not have the neologism you introduced with the latin alphabet. One can also argue that removing Kurdish is denying the many sources that mention the family is from Kurdistan or Kurdish origin. So unless you have policy cited, it is irrelavent and that mode of argument is not going to get us anywhere. It is just your own viewpoints on right and wrong, not wiki policy. The word Iran will be included several in the intro because it was the title of the dynasty (Kings of Iran), historians have used it multiple times to refer to Safavids, and it is in official usage.
 * As savory states:RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?
 * Note the title of the book "Iran under the Safavids".
 * Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations".
 * Jean Chardin, the traveller to Iran between 1673-1677 provies first hand account of how the inhabitants of Iran called their country: "The Persians, in naming their Country, make use of one Word, which they indifferently pronounce Iroun, and Iran; ...Even to this very Day, the King of Persia is call'd Padcha Iran, and the Great Vizier, Iran Medary, the Pole of Persia. This is the Modern Appelation, the most in Use in that Country. That which they frequently make use of in the Second Place, is the Term Fars, which is the particular Name of the Province; the Metropolis of which, in ancient Days, was Persepolis, and which gave its Name to All Province of the Kingdom, and the Seat of its Monarch. This Word Fars, to signify Persia, is very ancient; and the Persians still call the Old Language of their Country, which was in use before the Days of Mahometanism, Saboun Fours, the Tonge of Persia"... (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988- pp 126). Also available in google books (page 126: [8] (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988) Note " Padcha Iran" is French version of Padishah-e Iran (Great King of Iran), Iran Medary is the French pronounciation of Iran-Madaar (Axis of Iran), and Saboun Fours is the French pronouncation of Persian tonge.)
 * So these kings were called king of Iran by contermporary sources (Chardin) as well as in their own letters. And no Safavids had their official language of the country as Persian as show by the coins circulated and admnistrative language.  But the court was bilingual (noted by many Persian poets serving their court).  They identified with the Shahnama not Dede Qorqud, etc..
 * I suggest we get serious mediation for the article given the strong POV pushing by various users due to natinalistic reasons. You will need to lay out your issues before then.   --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this article needs at least semi protection. These anon reverts are ridiculous. This is simple an act of vandalism. Neftchi (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe the article needs a solution like Caucasian Albania. Atabey is not acting better than the ip, as the ip wants to remove the word Turkish and Atabey wants to remove the word "Iran", and Iranian.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
The anons are vandalizing this article without any consensus or attempt of discussion. Thereby escalating the situation and undermining proces on this article. It is very suspicious how all these new anons are popping up from nowhere. Thats why we need semi-protection. Neftchi (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only one anon, and I will be reporting him, along with other users who throughout the years have made battle-field comments. The solution like Caucasian Albania where it is semi-protected and members of AA1 and AA2 are banned should bring about an stable article. Afterwards, all RS sources talking about Turkish background, culture, and Iranian background, culture should be summarized to end the useless discussion. If these events do not occur, then mediation should be sought. I am not going to revert anyone because I will be reporting this to AE. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points Khodabandeh. This page suffers from wp:forum, wp:battleground, ..I do have problems with people who think wikipedia is a place to "put what we like and prefer". I repeat the points here and I hope one admin will read this and help us with the problem. "Could an admin tell us when an alternative name than English should appear in the firist sentence of an article? My guess is that for an article like Safadid dynasty we need only Persian (or maybe none - many may disagree, but let us follow wikipedia) because the country is just the same (Safavid Iran -> Iran), and the language is also the same. Some users say that since there is a claim of turkic background for some of the shahs of Iran in safavid time (which they maybe right - but this is not my concern), so, they conclude, we have to put the turkic name in that article. But the "safavid dynasty" page is about the empire and not some of the shahs (as individuals) who may have had different background (than others). I also think that many of the European history pages may have something to do with individuals who may have had different background but the pages are different things. For example the page about Stalin has and must have Georgian script but the page about his ruling party (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) needs only Russian. What admins think? I ask for the last time: dear editors before getting hot and telling us anything about the language/script you want to add to the lead, tell us what wikipedia policy allows that. If any appropriate wikipedia policy is mentioned, I will myself add the script and language. Xashaiar (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said repeatedly, the article needs mediation. On the names, I have always been inclusive and I think the 4 names are fine.  But that should be discussed also in mediation.  The ip needs to be blocked as well, and users who do not listen, ignore other people's comment should not edit the article.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We will first need to resolve problems with WP:OWN approach of some users to this article. For some reasons, without producing much evidence of scholarly expertise, some users often make claims to authority of choosing references for the article.Atabəy (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems logical that the criterion should give the most weight to WP:RS sources written by authors who have written multiple cited scholarly works on the field of Safavids. For example, someone writing on the Sassanids and having no publication on the Safavids gets less weight than someone writing 100+ articles on books on Safavids.  However, mediation may resolve any outstanding problems in the article (example if users have problems with hundreds or thousands of google books citation using a certain name), once they are listed. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The most obvious problem is the fact that this article covers both, the Empire and the ruling family. I think that these two different topics should be separated. This article should only be about the Safavids Iranian Empire (and NOT "Azerbaijani", as Atabey claims). The article about the family should only deal with the family, the different kings, their wives, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.231 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources showing Iran used officially with one explicitly stating it

 * Tons of Google books sources use it: A)  (Safavid Persian Empire) B)  (Safavid Iran) (note the tile of the book: "Safavid Iran: rebirth of a Persian empire" by Andrew J. Newman  C) Tons of google books use: "Safavid Persia"  D) Tons of google books use "Safavid empire of Persia"
 * So terms like "Safavid Persia", "Safavid Persian empire", "Safavid Iranain empire" and etc. are completely valid.
 * Further evidence of a desire to follow in the line of Turkmen rulers is Ismail's assumption of the title "Padishah-i-Iran", previously held by Uzun Hasan. (H.R. Roemer, The Safavid Period, in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI, Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 339).
 * Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations". (see below for Academic background).
 * A.A. Ashraf, "Iranian identity iii. Medieval Islamic period" in Encyclopedia Iranica:
 * Excerpt 1: "The Safavid kings called themselves, among other appellations, the “heart of the shrine of ʿAli” (kalb-e āstān-e ʿAli), while assuming the title of Šāhanšāh (the king of kings) of Persia/Iran".
 * Excerpt 2: "Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians” or the “holders of the glory of Jamšid and the vision of Faridun and the wisdom of Dārā.” They addressed Shah Esmaʿil as: “the king of Persian lands and the heir to Jamšid and Kay-ḵosrow” (Navāʾi, pp. 578, 700–2, 707). During Shah ʿAbbās’s reign (q.v.) the transformation is complete and Shiʿite Iran comes to face the two adjacent Sunni powers: the Ottoman Empire to the west and the Kingdom of Uzbeks to the east."
 * Excerpt 3: "“Iran” in Safavid historiography. Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Ḵᵛānda-mir (d. 1524), the first prominent Safavid historian, was one of the last historians of the Il-khanid-Timurid era and the grandson of Mir Moḥamamd Mirḵᵛānd, author of the influential history, Rawżat al-sÂafā. In preparing his general history, Ḥabib al-siar fi aḵbār afrād al-bašar, Ḵᵛāndamir followed the style of Rawżat al-sÂafā and that of such popular historical works as Neẓām al-tawārikò and Tāriḵ-e gozida (see above). The frequency of the usage of Iran, Irānzamin and related terms in the three volumes of Ḥabib al-siar (completed in 1524) reveals the evolution in the usage of these terms in the Islamic era. The frequency is relatively high in volume I, with 28 references to events of the pre-Islamic period; it drops sharply to 12 in volume II, treating the history of the Islamic period up to the Mongol era; and it leaps to 69 references in volume III, dealing with the Il-khanid-Timurid, and early Safavid periods. Other representative works of this period also make frequent references to “Iran,” including ʿĀlamārā-ye Šāh Esmāʿil, ʿĀlamārā-ye Šah Ṭahmāsp, Ḥasan Beg Rumlu’s (d. 1577) Aḥsan al-tawāriḵ, Ebn Karbalāʾi’s (d. 1589) Rawżāt al-jenān, Malekšāh Ḥosayn Sistāni’s (d. 1619) Eḥyāʾ al-moluk, Mollā ʿAb-al-Nabi Faḵr-al-Zamāni’s Taḏkera-ye meyḵāna (1619); Eskander Beg Rumlu’s (d. 1629) Aḥsan al-tawāriḵ; Wāleh Eṣfahāni’s (d. 1648) Ḵold-e barin, Naṣiri’s (d. 1698) Dastur-e šahriārān. Finally, Moḥammad Mofid Bāfqi (d. 1679), in addition to making numerous references to “Iran” and “ʿAjam” in his Jāmeʿ-e Mofidi (q.v.), refers to distinct borders of Iran and its neighbors, India, Turān, and Byzantium as well as the influx of people from those lands to Iran. In a number of cases, he describes the nostalgia of those Iranians who migrated to India but were later compelled to return by their love for their homeland (ḥobb al-waṭan; see below). He makes a number of insightful comments about Iranian identity and various features of the lands of Iran in his historical geography of Iran, Moḵtaṣar-e Mofid. Adopting the model of Mostawfi’s Nozhat al-qolub, he makes some 20 references to Iran, Irānzamin, and Irānšahr, as well as the borders of Iran’s territory, in the introduction to his work. He makes numerous references, furthermore, to Persian mythological and legendary figures in the traditional history of Iran as founders of a large number of cities in Yazd, Iraq, Fārs, Azerbaijan, and other parts of Iran. Finally, he provides readers with a useful list of Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.  On average, on 62 occasions the term Iran and related concepts were used in each of the above historical works of the Safavid era."

On his point 1
Atabey claims: " Safavid state was first declared over Azerbaijan only in 1501;"

This information is already in the body of the article that Safavid king declared himself with the tittle Padishah-e Iran in Azerbaijan in 1501. The Safavid king proclaimed himself Padishah-e-Iran per the high quality sources below (the most important being H.Roemer himself a Safavid scholar). So I do not see what is his point. The article does not cover just 1501. As noted by Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Safavid Dynasty (Iranian dynasty), (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the

So as we can see, Britannica describes the Safavid dynasty even after their establishment in all of Iran between 1502-1736. This article is also about the Safavid empire/dynasty not the identity of the kings. Note Britannica further states: "in July 1501 Ismāʿīl was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan. By May of the next year he was shah of Iran. In the next 10 years he subjugated the greater part of Iran and annexed the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad and Mosul; despite the predominantly Sunnite character of this territory, he proclaimed Shīʿism the state religion." So we are talking about an article from 1501-1730..Not one year. And Azerbaijan was part of geographical realm of Iran as the King himself in 1501 proclaimed the title "Padishah-e Iran". Actually, I can bring primary sources for this (I had a long time ago but can dig up it), the Safavid history chronicles when describing the capture of Tabriz clearly and explicitly state that the King assumed the title "Padishah-e Iran" (King of Iran). But these are in the secondary sources below:

Also three better sources state that in 1501, when Esmail I took Tabriz, he proclaimed the title "Padishah-e Iran"
 * H.R. Roemer, The Safavid Period, in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI, Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 339: "Further evidence of a desire to follow in the line of Turkmen rulers is Ismail's assumption of the title "Padishah-i-Iran"
 * George Lenczowski, "Iran under the Pahlavis", Hoover Institution Press, 1978, p. 79: "Ismail Safavi, descendant of the pious Shaykh Ishaq Safi al-Din (d. 1334), seized Tabriz assuming the title of Shahanshah-e-Iran".
 * Stefan Sperl, C. Shackle, Nicholas Awde, "Qasida poetry in Islamic Asia and Africa", Brill Academic Pub; Set Only edition (February 1996), p. 193: "Like Shah Ni'mat Allah-i Vali he hosted distinguished visitors among them Ismail Safavi, who had proclaimed himself Shahanshah of Iran in 1501 after having taken Tabriz, the symbolic and political capital of Iran".
 * Heinz Halm, Janet Watson, Marian Hill, Shi'ism, translated by Janet Watson, Marian Hill, Edition: 2, illustrated, published by Columbia University Press, 2004, p. 80: "…he was able to make his triumphal entry into Alvand's capital Tabriz. Here he assumed the ancient Iranian title of King of Kings (Shahanshah) and setup up Shi'i as the ruling faith"

Thus the Safavid king declared himself the King of Iran in Azerbaijan in 1501 per the sources here..and captured the rest in 1502.. That is in the body of the article. . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On point 2
"Safavids referred to their empire as Dowlate Safaviyya;"

(Safavid Persia) (4300+ google books hit also the title of a new book). 4) (Safavid Iran, 6400+ hits).
 * First of all no source is given for the above claim
 * Second, This would not contradict the Safavids being called an Iranian empire and calling their realm Iran, as they could use multiple names.
 * Third the term used by Atabey brings zero google books hit
 * Scholars have called it Safavid Persian empire, Safavid Iran, and Safavid Iranian state..
 * Google books and RS sources call it: 1) Safavid Iranian empire   (41 hits), 2) Persian Safavid Empire  (117+ hits) 3)
 * Fourth the term "Dowlat" has various meanings, including fortune, government, but it is not really name of realm. However, thus far I do not see a single English source using such a term, and Atabey should provide primary Safavid documents.  I have provided references to primary Safavid documents (including the travel of Chardin which clearly shows the Safavids were called Iran in their realm).  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On point 3
Atabey: "Safavid dynasty did not identity itself politically or ideologically with any ethno-national but rather with Shiite religious doctrine" Again, no source is provided. Second, the article is about the Safavid empire, not the Safavid family. How the Safavid family saw themselves is irrelavent to the desired outcome, but Atabey is also wrong about Safavid identity. Here I provide the top living Safavid scholar, Roger Savory: The present entry examines the revival of Iranian identity and repeated construction in Persian literature of its pre-modern ethno-national historiography from the 9th to the 18th century, long before the emergence of Western nationalism or ‘Orientalism.’ Iranian identity and the pattern of the use of the term “Iran” in Persian literature evolved in four main phases in the medieval Islamic era: a revival phase under the Persian regional dynasties; a rather complex phase under the Saljuqs, a resurgence phase under the Mongols and Timurids; and finally, the formation of a hybrid Iranian-Shiʿite identity under the Safavids.
 * RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?
 * Mazzaoui, Michel B; Canfield, Robert (2002). "Islamic Culture and Literature in Iran and Central Asia in the early modern period". Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 86–7. ISBN 0521522919, ISBN 978-0-521-52291-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=qwwoozMU0LMC&pg=PA86#PPA87,M1. "Safavid power with its distinctive Persian-Shi'i culture, however, remained a middle ground between its two mighty Turkish neighbors. "
 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica
 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica . As per Iranian identity, here are some elements of it for example by the kings (but the actual article is about the Safavid empire).  "The Safavid kings called themselves, among other appellations, the “dog of the shrine of ʿAli” (kalb-e āstān-e ʿAli), while assuming the title of Šāhanšāh (the king of kings) of Iran. It must be remembered that the title of the king of Iran was also used by Āq Quyunlu rulers (the direct predecessors of the Safavids) who presented themselves as successors to the glorious mythical kings of ancient Persia (Faridun, Jamšid, and Kaykāvus). Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians” or the “holders of the glory of Jamšid and the vision of Faridun and the wisdom of Dārā.” They addressed Shah Esmaʿil as: “the king of Persian lands and the heir to Jamšid and Kay-ḵosrow” (Navāʾi, pp. 578, 700-702, 707). "
 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica . "These dual commemorations became well established under the Safavids and together laid the foundations for the “Iranian-Shiʿite” identity for over 500 years."
 * Rudi Matthee, "Safavids" in Encyclopædia Iranica, accessed on April 4, 2010. "The Persian focus is also reflected in the fact that theological works also began to be composed in the Persian language and in that Persian verses replaced Arabic on the coins." "The political system that emerged under them had overlapping political and religious boundaries and a core language, Persian, which served as the literary tongue, and even began to replace Arabic as the vehicle for theological discourse".


 * So note, it doesn't matter what the origin or the identity of the actual kings were, we are talking about the identity that was reasserted in the Safavid empire and mixed in with Shi'ism in a realm that was majority Iranian speaking. This identity was reasserted due to the establishment of a new dynasty.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On points 4 and Point 5
Atabey (point 4): "Any usage of word "Iran" by Safavids only meant to indicate a control/rule over a geographic region called Iran rather than assuming specifically ethno-national Iranian identity in modern terms. Many medieval European rulers often used the same approach when capturing foreign lands and proclaiming themselves as rulers of those." Atabey (Point 5): "No political entity or state called Iran existed for several centuries immediately prior to establishment of Safavid state in 1501"

(Ahmad Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY i. PERSPECTIVES" in Encyclopaedia Iranica)
 * First this issue is not related at all to the Safavids as the user provides no such sources with regards to the Safavids.
 * Second: "These modernist concepts of national identity are based on the ideal types of modern, civic-territorial experiences of nationhood of European societies. Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit seamlessly into this model. The idea of national identity in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion (Smith, 2004, pp. 132-34)."
 * But this issue has no bearing on the terms scholars use, as when scholars talk about the Safavid era, they are not necessarily talking about the 20th century. It is fact that Safavid domain was called Iran.   First Wikipedia uses RS sources and many RS sources have used the term Iran and Iranian identity for this era as noted above.  So what is the point of arguing this incorrect statement?  But again I do not see any relationship of this statement to the introduction.   I will first note that the term Iran like China, Greece, India, Armenia and etc. has been in usage for an ethno-cultural region for a long time, even if it was not unified as a single entity.  These are not newly invented terms or terms that did not exist prior to the Safavid era. Also we are concerned about the usage of the word Iran in the empire, not just the Safavid kings (who also used Padishah-e Iran).  The second issue is that Iranian identity is an evolving concept, but when we are discussing "Iranian identity", it is about the Safavid era.  However, one can talk about "Iranian identity prior to this era"..  We do not care about modern terms as the discussion is about the Safavid era, although the Iranian identity in the modern term is to a large extent continuation of the Safavid era.


 * I also note that if we are to take Atabey's seriously, then the term "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" should be excised from the article and all articles up to the 20th century. Since:
 * In fact, the very name “Azerbaijani” was not widely used until the 1930s; before that Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else”(Kauffman 2001:56)(Kaufman, S. (2001), Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, Cornell University Press.)
 * The concept of Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. Up until that point Azerbaijan had been a purely geographical area. Before 1924, the Russians called Azeri Tatars "Turk" or "Muslims" Roy, O. (2007), The new Central Asia, I.B. Tauris.

I am not proposing that, but I am just saying that we need to be sincere here. If there was a ethno-geographical region called Iran, then there was an Iranian identity (like Chinese or Indian..and other ancient cultures). Lets see if there was:

Avesta, Parthian and Sassanid times
The Avesta, Parthian and Sassanid times have been treated extensively and we will just limit ourselves to a few quotes. In the Avesta, according to the Encyclopedia of Iranica : In the later Yashts there is only mention of airiiå and anairiiå dainhanuuo "Aryan" and (unspecified) "Non-Aryan lands.

In the 1st century BCE, Strabo (c. 64 BCE – 24 CE) would note a relationship between the various Iranian peoples and their languages: "[From] beyond the Indus [...] Ariana is extended so as to include some part of Persia, Media, and the north of Bactria and Sogdiana; for these nations speak nearly the same language(Geographica (Strabo)|Geography]]'', 15.2.1-15.2.8) ):

The name also of Ariana is extended so as to include some part of Persia, Media, and the north of Bactria and Sogdiana; for these nations speak nearly the same language.

This is one of the earliest references to the name of Iran and is significant from a historical perspective. Because it shows that the name of Iran (in its form Ariana) was used at least 2000 years ago. The use of the term Iran and Iranshahr in the Sassanid era and later Pahlavi manuscripts is described sufficiently in the Encyclopedia Iranica article by the eminent linguist David Mackenzie.

Shapur I's inscription in Naqsh-e-Rostam also lists provinces of Sassanid Iran and Iranshahr is the collective name used by the Sassanids : The list of provinces given in the inscription of Ka'be-ye Zardusht defines the extent of the empire under Shapur, in clockwise geographic enumeration: (1) Persis (Fars), (2) Parthia, (3) Susiana (Khuzestan), (4) Maishan (Mesene), (5) Asuristan (southern Mesopotamia), (6) Adiabene, (7) Arabistan (northern Mesopotamia), (8) Atropatene (Azerbaijan), (9) Armenia, (10) Iberia (Georgia), (11) Machelonia, (12) Albania (eastern Caucasus), (13) Balasagan up to the Caucasus Mountains and the Gate of Albania (also known as Gate of the Alans), (14) Patishkhwagar (all of the Elburz Mountains), (15) Media, (16) Hyrcania (Gorgan), (17) Margiana (Merv), (18) Aria, (19) Abarshahr, (20) Carmania (Kerman), (21) Sakastan (Sistan), (22) Turan, (23) Mokran (Makran), (24) Paratan (Paradene), (25) India (probably restricted to the Indus River delta area), (26) Kushanshahr, until as far as Peshawar and until Kashgar and (the borders of) Sogdiana and Tashkent, and (27), on the farther side of the sea, Mazun (Oman).

Al-Masudi
Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn Al-Masudi (896-956), the Arab historian mentions one Kingdom encompassing Persian lands: The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.

Hamza Isfahani
Hamza Isfahani (894-970) in his book "history of the Prophets and Saints" mentions : Arian which is also Persia is situation in the middle of these six countries and these six countries form its borders. Its SE is China, its North is bordered by the lands of Turk, Its Southern Middle borders India, Its Northern Middle borders Byzantium, its SW borders Africa and its NW is is in the hand of Berbers.

Samanid Gathering and Rudaki
In gathering (approximately 940 C.E.) of the Samanid rule for a remembrance of Abu Ja'far Banuwiyah, Rudaki Samarqandi one of the first Persian poets praises this Saffarid ruler. Abu Ja'far is praised as the king of Iran, ruler of Azadegan (another term for Iranians) and descendant of Sassanids :

شادی بوجعفر احمد بن محمد

آن مه آزادگان مفخر ایران

..

خلق همه از خاک و آب و آتش و بادند

وین ملک از گوهر آفتاب ساسان

..

آن ملک نیمروز و خسروپیروز

دولت او یوز و دشمن آهوی نالان

Translation: The happiness brought by Abu Ja'afar Ahmad ibn Muhammad, The ruler of the Azadegan and the pride of Iran .. The creatures are created from dust and water, fire and wind And this king is from the illuminous jewel of Sassan .. That king of the age and the victorious Khusraw His fortune like a leopard, his enemies like fleeing deers.

Istakhri
Al-Istakhari, a medieval Muslim geographer in his work al-Masalik wa Mamalik writes :There is not a land more prosperous, complete and blissful than the lands of Iranshahr. The pole of this land was Babol which was of the land of Persia and the borders of these lands were apparent in the days of the Persians..

The Abu Mansuri Shahnameh
The introduction of the Shahnameyeh Abu-Mansuri (not to be confused with the more famous Shahnameh of Ferdowsi) divides the region of the world into seven lands and the seventh land is called Iranshahr :And Iranshahr extends from the Oxus till the Nile river and other countries are the ones bordering it and amongst these seven countries Iranshahr is the greatest one in every art.

The Shahnameh of Ferdowsi
In the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, the word Iran occurs around 720 times. It occurs many times in the form: "Bozorgan-e-Iran"(Great ones of Iran), "Barr o Bum-i-Iran"(land and expanse of Iran), "Iran o Turan" (Iran and Turan), "Iran o Rum" (Iran and Rome/Greece), "Iran Zamin" (land of Iran), "Iran o Niran" (Iran and Aniran). The words Tork/Torkan occur 390 times, Chin (China, Western China) occurs 350 times, Chini (Chinese/Western people of China) occurs 190 times, Rum (Rome/Greece) occurs 195 times, Rumi occurs 250 times, Hend (India) occurs about 70 times, Hindustan (India) occurs about 50 times, Hindu (Indian) occurs about 40 times, Taazi (Arab) occurs about 80 times, Misr (Egypt) occurs about 19 times and Misri (Egyptian) occurs about 5 times. Thus as can be seen, the Shahnameh talks about distinct people and countries. One of these countries is Iran and its inhabitants are the Iranians.

Farrukhi Sistani
Farrukhi Sistani, a Persian poet of the Ghaznavid courts has bestowed praise upon Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi. In his Diwan the word Iran comes up 29 times, Iranshahr (twice) and 'Ajam (Persian) 20 times : Original Persian:

خداوند ما شاه کشورستان

که نامی بدو گشت زاولستان

سر شهریاران ایرانزمین

که ایران بدو گشت تازه جوان

Our lord, the king of vast countries

in whose name, rose the fortune of Zabulistan

He is the head of the princes of Iran,

Because of him, Iran became rejuvenated

Hakim Meysari
Hakim Meysari born in 935 A.D. has a written an important Persian treaty on medicine in verse. In the beginning of the book he write : جو بر پیوستنش بر دل نهادم

فراوان رایها بر دل گشادم

که چون گویمش من تا دیر نماند

وُ هرکس دانش او بداند

بگویم تازی ار نه پارسی نغز

ز هر در بگویم من مایه و مغز

وُ پس گفتم زمین ماست ایران که بیش از مردمانش پارسیدان

وُگر تازی کنم نیکو نباشد

که هر کس را از او نیرو نباشد

دری گویمش تا هرکس بداند

وُ هرکس برزبانش بر براند

Translation: When I decided to compose works, many thoughts ran through my mind. I wanted everyone to understand the knowledge I am writing. Either I was going to write it in Persian or Arabic.

Then I told myself that our country is Iran, and the majority of its people speak Persian, thus if I write in Arabic it is not right, because not every may benefit from that language, Thus I will compose it in Dari (Persian) So that people can understand it and recite it

The poet Unsuri
Unsuri, another Persian poet at the court of Sultan Mahmud Ghanzawi praises Mahmud as the Shah of Iran (twice), Khusraw of Iran (three times),the land that Mahmud rules over as Iran (three times) and Iranshahr (twice).

A sample of Unsuri's praise for Mahmud :ایا شنیده هنرهای خسروان به خبر

بيا ز خسرو مشرق عيان ببين تو هنر

خدایگان خراسان به دشت پیشاور

به حمله‌ای بپراکند جمع آن لشکر

و از هياطله گويم عجب فرومانی

که شاه ايران آن‌جا چگونه کرد سفر

Also in another praise of Mahmud and the Prophet Muhammad, Unsuri writes:از آن که بد به حجاز آن و این به ایرانشهر

حجاز دین را قبله ست و ملک را ایران

Muhammad was the lord of Hijaz and Mahmud is the lord of Iranshahr. Hijaz is the center/focal-point (Qibla(Mecca)) of the religion and center/focal-point of lands is Iran.

The poet Iskafi
Abu Hanifa Iskafi, another Persian poet in the praise of Sultan Masud (the son of Mahmud Ghaznawi) :خسرو ایران تویی و بودی و باشی گرچه قو یدست غره گشت به عصیان The Khusraw of Iran is you, was you and will be you.

Fakhr ad-din Gurgani
Fakhr al-Din Gurgani (circa 1040 A.D.), the poet known most well for his famous romantic epic "Vis o Ramin" has used the term Iran 25 times in his work in his famous masterpiece.

Here are some example of the usage of Iran in the book :به لفظ پهلوی هرکو شناسد

خراسان آن بود کز وی خور آید

خراسان را بود معنی خورآیان

کجا زو خور برآید سوی ایران

Translation: In the language of Pahlavi, those who are aware of it,

Khorasan has the meaning: the place that the Sun(khwar) comes from

Khorasan's meaning means bring of the SUN (place of the rising sun)

Because the Khwar (Sun) comes from its direction to Iran

In describing Isfahan, a major city of the Seljuqs where the poet composed his poem:

اگر چه فخر ایران اصفهان است

فزون زان قدر فخر جهان است

Translation:

Although the pride and jewl of Iran is the city of Isfahan

But even greater than that of Iran, it is the pride of the World

Anvari
Anvari (1126–1189), full name Awhad ad-Din 'Ali ibn Mohammad Khavarani or Awhad ad-Din 'Ali ibn Mahmud (Persian: انوری اوحد الدین علی ابن محمد) was one of the greatest Persian poets. He served at the court of Sultan Sanjar of the Seljuqids. When the Ghuzz tribesman devastated Khurasan and captured Sultan Sanjar, Anvari writes a letter to the Khaqan of Samarqand, asking him to liberate Iran from the Ghuzz tribesman : بر سمرقند اگر بگذری ای باد سحر نامهء اهل خراسان به بر خاقان بر کارها بسته بود بی شک و در وقت کنون وقت آن است که راند سوی ایران لشکر.. خبرت هست کز این زیر و ز بر شوم غزان نیست یک پی ز خراسان که نشد زیر و زبر آخر ایران که از او بودی فردوس به رشک وقت خواهد شد تا حشر بر این قوم حشر.. بهره ای باید از عدل تو نیز ایران را گرچه ویران شد بیرون ز جهانش مشمر

O wind of dawn, if you are taken to Samarqand Please take the letter of the people Khurasan towards the Khaqan of Samarqand The situation is ruinous truly and it is time that he gathers his army and sends them towards the rescue of Iran .. You have heard that the land of Iran has been turned upside down by the villainous attack of the Ghuzz tribe, Khorasan is ruined .. This was the Iran, that the people of paradise were jealous from .. A portion of your justice should be brought to Iran Even if it has become ruinous, do not count it out of the world yet

The history book: Tarikh-i Sistan
The Tarikh of Sistan is a history book that deals with the history of Sistan. The first of the book was written around 1062 A.D. while the second part of the book was written around the 14th century. In this book, the term Iran/Iranshahr is used 8 times and the term Moluk 'Ajam (Persian lands) are used 20 times.

In the Tarikh of Sistan, Yaqub Layth praises the commander Muhammad Wasil, and seeks his friendship and calls him the ''greatest person in Iranshahr and Khorasan".

Similarly in the Tarikh of Sistan, it says about a certain Ahmad Sultan :The coming of the messenger of Sultan Ahmad who was a descendant of Chighiz Khan, and his ascent to throne of Iran, and his conversion to Islam and his strengthening of the Muslims..

Naser Khusraw
Naser Khusraw(1004 - 1088 CE) was a Ismaili poet who was ideologically against the Seljuqid Sunni dynasty. In a criticism of the Seljuq Sultan, he states :برون کرده‌است از ایران دیو دین را ز بی‌دینی چنین ویران شد ایران

The devil had excised from Iran, the religion

Due to lack of religion, Ruin has been brought upon Iran

Qatran Tabrizi
Qatran Tabrizi(1009-1072), one of the first Persian poets from NW Iran has several poems praising his patrons as the ruler of Iran. In one of his poems Qatran adds : این جهان بودست دایم ملک ساسانیان                خواست سالارش خدا در ملک ساسان کند نیست کست در گوهر ساسانیان چون لشکری    تا پس آن چون نیاکان شاهی ایران کند همچو افريدون بگيرد ملك عالم سر بسر              و آنگهي تدبير ملك خيل فرزندان كند روم و گرجستان به فرمان منوچهر آورد                 هند و تركستان بزير حكم نوشروان آورد او بتخت ملک ايران بر نشيند در سطخر             کهترين فرزند خود را مهتر آران کند تا همی فرمان داور خاک را ساکن کند                تا همی تقدير يزدان چرخ را گردان کند ملک او را از زوال ايمن همی گردون کند               جان او را از فنا ایمن همی یزدان کند شاد بنشيند بکام دل بر ايوان شهی                    وز فروغ روی خويش آراسته فرمان کند

Translation of relevant parts in praise of his patrons Amir Lashkari: There is none from the descendants of Sassanids like Lashkari, so that he may sit upon the throne of Iran like his ancestors..

While visiting Arran, Qatran states .: تا به اران تویی، مدار عجب که به اران حسد برد ایران

"While you are in Arran, do not be surprised that Iran may become jealous of Aran"

Sanai
Sanai, an important Persian while praising Iranshah (an important minister in the court of Sultan Masud III Ghaznawi) states :تا در ایران خواجه باید خواجه ایرانشاه باد

حکم او چو آسمان بر اهل ایران شاه باد

آن که تا چون دست موسی طبع را پرنور کرد

ملک ایران را چو هنگام تجلی طور باد

In Iran if there is a Khwaja, it is Khwaja Iranshah May his kingly decree like the Sky be upon the people of Iranian He who like the hands of Moses, makes nature full of light May the land of Iran be like the light that Moses Saw at mount Sinai

Hakim Iranshah
Bahman Nama and Kush Nama are two important works of Persian poetry written by Hakim Iranshah ibn Abi al-Akhayr (11th century A.D.).

In the epic Kush-Nama, the name Iran is used 91 times and some of the provices of Iran are mentioned including: Zabol, Sepahan, Mukran, AzarAbaayegaan (Iranian Azerbaijan), Amol, Bukhara, Bistun, Khurasan, Kadarhar, Kufa and Nimruz. On the boundary of Iran, in the KushNama he says : فریدن فرخ سه فرزند داشت که از مهر هر سه دل بند داشت بر ایشان زمین را به سه بخش کرد ز شاهی رخ هریکی رخش کرد به سلم دلیر آمد از بخش روم همه کشور خاور و مرز و بوم دگر ماورالنهر و ترکان چین به تور دلیر اوفتاد آن زمین وز آن بخش ایران به ایرج رسید کجا تخت ایران مراو را سزید ز جیحون برو تا دریای پارس همان کوفه از مرز ایران شناس دگر آذرآبادگان هرچه هست از ایران شمارد هشیوار و مست

From Oxus, which was a domain of Iraj, all the way to the Persian Gulf (Daryayeh Pars) And also Azarabaadegaan and lands of Kufa are parts of Iran

In his other work, Bahman Nama, the name Iran is mentioned about 100 times. For example, Hakim Iranshah mentions : در ایرانیان است یکسر پدید چون ایران جهان آفرین نیافرید

In Iranians one finds completion The world creator has created uniquely

Yaqut
Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229), a Syrian born geographer is famous for his geography bible Mu'jam Al-Buldan. He quotes the famous Iranian Muslim scientist Biruni: ایرانشهر..قال ابوریحان بیرونی: ایران شهر هی بلاد العراق و فارس و الجبال و خراسان یجمعها کلها هذاالاسم

Iranshahr..according to Abu Rayhar Biruni: Iranshahr encompasses the land of Iraq, Fars, Mountains (Media) and Khurasan

Nezami Ganjavi
Nezami Ganjavi uses the term Iran 34 times in his Panj-Ganj (five jewels). He uses the word both in his stories as well as when praising his rulers. For example, Ala' ad-din Korp Arsalan, the ruler of Maragha commissioned Nizami Ganjavi to write a work of his choice and Nezami Ganjavi voluntarily chose the Persian-Sassanid folklore Haft Paykar. In praise of Ala ad-in, he states : همه عالم تن است و ایران دل

نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل

چون که ایران دل زمین باشد

دل ز تن به بود یقین باشد

زان ولایت که مهتران دارند

بهترین جای بهتران دارند

Translation by Professor. Julia Meysami (Haft-Paykar): "

The world's a body, Iran its heart,

No shame to him who says such a word

Iran, the world's most precious heart,

excels the body, there is no doubt.

Among the realms that kings posses,

the best domain goes to the best. "

In praise of Shams ad-Din Abu Ja'far Muhammad, who commisioned Nezami Ganjavi to write a work and Nezami Ganjavi voluntarily chose the Persian-Sassanid story "Khusraw o Shirin". Nizami uses the term "Molk-e-Ajam" which is a popular term used for Persia in Islamic times :" در آن بخشش که رحمت عام کردند

دو صاحب را محمد نام کردند

یکی ختم نبوت گشته ذاتش

یکی ختم ممالک بر حیاتش

یکی برج عرب را تا ابد ماه

یکی ملک عجم را جاودان شاه

In that day that they bestowed mercy upon all, Two great ones were given the name Muhammad, One whose pure essence was the seal of prophecy, The other who is the Kingdom's Seal, in hos own days One whose house/zodiac is moon of the Arabs The other who is the everlasting Shah of the Persian realm.

In praise of his patron the Shirvanshah who commissioned Nizami Ganjavi to versify the story of Lili o Majnoon : خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان

شروان چه، که شهریار ایران

For a king specially like the Shirvanshah

What is Shirvan, he is the prince of all of Iran

Khaqani
Khaqani(1126-1198) has used "Iran" thirty times in his Diwan. For example, in the praise of the Shirvanshah Akhsatan, he states : چون غلام توست خاقانی جز غلام خسرو ایران نشو

Since your servant is Khaqani, Do not be a servant, except the servant of the King of Iran

از هند رفته در عجم، ایران زمین کرده ارم

From hind he has gone to Persia (Ajam), has made Iran a blessed Garden like Iram

In praise of Shirvanshahs:

فرمان ده اسلامیان ، دارای دوران اخستان عادلتر از بهرامیان ، پرویز ایران اخستان

The commander of Muslims, the owner of his age, Axsatan He is more just than the Bahramiyaan, he is the Parwiz (victorious one) of Iran, Axsatan

One famous music theoretician to another
Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, a famous Iranian musician is referred to by Qutb al-Din Shirazi ((1236 – 1311)) as the wise sage of Iran. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam on Safi al-Din al-Urmawi :The sources are silent about the ethnic origin of his family. He may have been of Persian People descent (Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi calls him afdal-i Īrān (A sage of Iran)).

This is a significant usage of the term, since it shows clearly that Iran was called Iran by intellectual Iranians.

Hamdullah Mostowfi
In the work Nuzhat al-Qolub (نزهه القلوب), the medieval geographer Hamdollah Mostowfi writes (Ilkhanid era) :

چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه Some cities of Iran are better than the rest, بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا these have pleasant and compromising weather, گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well, در خراسان مرو و طوس در روم باشد اقسرا Merv and Tus in Khorasan, and Konya (Aqsara) too.

According to the Encyclopedia Iranica : In the Nozhat al-qolub, (tr. Le-Strange, p. 34) it is even reported (from Estakhri) that "Arabian Eraq used to be called the Heart of Iran-Shahr(del-e Eranshahr). The general designation for the land of the Iranians was, however, by this time Iran (also Iran Zamin, Shahr-i Iran), and Iran for its inhabitants.


 * Primary source: Hamdollah Mostowfi, the Ilkhanid historian, chronicler, administrator and writer: "DIVISION I. Description of Īrān as one among the kingdoms of the earth, with an explanation of its latitudes and longitudes and a notice of its frontiers, and of the direction of the Qiblah- point in its various provinces."[Divisions of the Habitable World, according to Hermes Trismegistus, and according to the Persians, the Arabs, the Greeks and the Indians. Latitude and Longitude of the Limits of Īrān: length and breadth of that Country. Explanation of the Map of Īrān. The Frontiers of Īrān, countries to the east, west, north and south. The Qiblah-point: side of the Ka`bah faced from Īrān."
 * More from Mostowfi: "The Frontiers of the Land of Īrān. The eastern frontier lies on the province of Sind, then by Kābul, Ṣaghāniyān, Trans- oxiana and Khwārizm to the frontier of Saqsīn and Bulghār. "

Rashid ad-Din Fadhlullah Hamadani
Rashid ad-Din Fadlullah Hamadani (1247 - 1318), the Persian minister of the Ilkhanids in his encyclopedic history, the Jami al-Tawarikh ("Compendium of Chronicles") which was commissioned by Mahmud Ghazan also uses Iran for the land of Iran. For example when describing the letter of Al-Musta'sim to Helagu the Mongol conquerer : همانا شاهزاده میداند که از خاور تا باختر، از شاه تا گدا، از پیر تا برنا خداپرست و دین دارند، تمامت بندهء این درگاهند و سپاه من؟ و چون اشارت کنم تا پراکندگان جمع شوند ، بیشتری کار ایران بسازم و از ایران روی به کشور توران آرم...

The Caliph according to Rashid ad-Din mentions to Hulagu that from both the lands of Iran and Turan (central Asia) there are many Muslims who are under his command and if he desires, he can unite all of them for battle, from East to West, rich and poor, Old and Young..

Mir Khvand
Mir Khvand(1433-1498), the Timurid era historian mentions: : ایرانشهر از کنار فرات تا جیهون است و وسط آبادانی عالم است. Iranshahr straches from the Euphrates to the Oxus, and it is the center of the prosperity of the World.

Aref Ardebili
Arif Ardabili, a 14th century Persian poet from Ardabil laments the destruction of Iran (presumably at the hand of the Mongols) in the epic Farhad Nama : اگر چه پیش از این از حکم یزدان

بر دست ظلم ویران گشت ایران

ز ایران دولت و اقبال برگشت

به پای پیل نکبت بی سپر گشت

بشد باد درفش کاویانی

سعادت ماند بی تاج کیانی

برفت از مملکت رسم امارت

برآوردند یکسر دست غارت

درازی یافت هرجا دست بیداد

خرابی یافت یکسر ملک آباد

بهشت آباد ایران آن چنان شد

که دوزخ با عذاب آن جنان شد

The first line says:

Even though from the decree of Yazdan,

the land of Iran became ruined through injustice

Fortunate and goodness fell from it

Without a shield, the ill-fortunate feets of Elphants ran over it

...

The heavenly Garden of Iran became so transformed

That the tormenting hell seemed like heaven next to it.

Sa'ad al-din Haravi
The poet Sa'ad al-Din Haravi, originally from Herat visited Isfahan and several other cities within modern Iran and composed the following lines in their praise : نسخهء فردوس اعلی، اصفهان است اصفهان

نیست شهری مثل آن از قیروان تا قیروان

ملک ایران را که از اطراف عالم خوشتر است

همچو شخصی دان که باشد از هنر او را روان

اصفهان او را سر و کرمان و شیرازش دو پای

ری یکی دست است و دیگر دستش آذربایگان

The face of the high heaven, is Isfahan, is Isfahan

There is no city like it from East to West

The land of Iran which is more pleasant than all lands

Consider it like a body where art overflows from it

Isfahan is its head, Kerman and Shiraz its two feet

Rayy is one hand and the other hand is Azerbayegaan

Ottoman letters to Ak Kayunlu
In letters from the Ottomon Sultans, when addressing the the kings of Ak koyunlu, such titles as Malak al-Molook al-Iraniyyah (King of Kings of Iran), Sultan Salatin Iraniyyah(Sultan of Sultans of Iran), Shahanshah Iran Khadiv ajam (King of Kings of Iran and the Ruler of Persia), Jamshid Shawkat wa Fereydoon Raayat wa daaraa deraayat (Powerful like Jamshid, Flag of Fereydoon and Wise like Darius) have been used.

Uzun Hassan and Safavids
Ismail I the founder of Safavids followed upon his maternal grandfather when choosing the title "Padishah-i-Iran" (King-ruler of Iran). According to the Cambridge History of Iran :Further evidence of a desire to follow in the line of Turkmen rulers is Ismail's assumption of the title "Padishah-i-Iran", previously held by Uzun Hasan

Safavid Era
An excellent primary source as I do not want to pull the hundreds of Persian primary sources: Use in that Country. That which they frequently make use of in the Second Place, is the Term Fars, which is the particular Name of the Province; the Metropolis of which, in ancient Days, was Persepolis, and which gave its Name to All Province of the Kingdom, and the Seat of its Monarch. This Word Fars, to signify Persia, is very ancient; and the Persians still call the Old Language of their Country, which was in use before the Days of Mahometanism, Saboun Fours, the Tonge of Persia"... (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988- pp 126). Also available in google books (page 126: [18] (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988) Note " Padcha Iran" is French version of Padishah-e Iran (Great King of Iran), Iran Medary is the French pronounciation of Iran-Madaar (Axis of Iran), and Saboun Fours is the French pronouncation of Persian tonge.)
 * Jean Chardin, the traveller to Iran between 1673-1677 provies first hand account of how the inhabitants of Iran called their country: "The Persians, in naming their Country, make use of one Word, which they indifferently pronounce Iroun, and Iran; ...Even to this very Day, the King of Persia is call'd Padcha Iran, and the Great Vizier, Iran Medary, the Pole of Persia. This is the Modern Appelation, the most in

With regards to the Safavid era and Iranian identity

 * Roemer, HR (1986). "The Safavid Period". The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–350. ISBN 0-521-20094-6, p. 331: "Depressing though the condition in the country may have been at the time of the fall of Safavids, they cannot be allowed to overshadow the achievements of the dynasty, which was in many respects to prove essential factors in the development of Persia in modern times. These include the maintanence of Persian as the official language and of the present-day boundaries of the country, adherence to the Twelever Shi'i, the monarchical system, the planning and architectural feartures of the urban centers, the centralised administration of the state, the alliance of the Shi'i Ulama with the merchant bazaars, and the symbiosis of the Persian-speaking population with important non-Persian, especially Turkish speaking minorities".

gave way to the elitism of Persian culture, language and literature. This not only reflect the growing centrality of the Persian bureauracy, but the very real cultural potency of Iranian mythic history. Shiism defined and distinguished Iranian identity and the Safavid state provided it with a renewed territorial integrity,  such that when the Safavid empire finally collapsed in 1722, successive rulers sought both to emulate and re-establish it"
 * Youssef M. Choueiri, "A companion to the history of the Middle East", Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. pg 322: "That said, it was not long before the radical Shi'ism of the early Safavids

"Socially the Safavids gave the Iranian people a sense of integration, and of recongition as an entity of consequence in the affairs of the world.." "Thus a sect hitherto of secondary importance was raised to supremacy, affording a vigorous expression of Iran's identity-- it might even be said, of Iranian nationalism"
 * Zabiollah Safa (1986), "Persian Literature in the Safavid Period", The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-20094-6)

each other. ...The renowned French scholar of Shi'ism, Henry Corbin, even characterized Shi'ism as Islam Iraniene, or Iranian Islam. White the existence of Persian or Iranian influences at the root of Shiism remains much debated, there is no doubt that the development of the faith since the sixteen century has had a large Iranian component to it" (Vali Nasr, "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future", W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. pg 79)
 * Vali Nasr, "Since the feat was achieved by the Safavid kings of Iran, the faith has become closely enmeshed with Iranian identity and the two have influenced


 * Encyclopaedia Britannica: Ṣafavid Dynasty, (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country."


 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica
 * "The present entry examines the revival of Iranian identity and repeated construction in Persian literature of its pre-modern ethno-national historiography from the 9th to the 18th century, long before the emergence of Western nationalism or ‘Orientalism.’ Iranian identity and the pattern of the use of the term “Iran” in Persian literature evolved in four main phases in the medieval Islamic era: a revival phase under the Persian regional dynasties; a rather complex phase under the Saljuqs, a resurgence phase under the Mongols and Timurids; and finally, the formation of a hybrid Iranian-Shiʿite identity under the Safavids."(ibid.)
 * "These dual commemorations became well established under the Safavids and together laid the foundations for the “Iranian-Shiʿite” identity for over 500 years."(ibid.)
 * "With the spread of Shiʿism in Iran, the idea of the maternal linkage of the Imams with Sasanid stock (real or imagined) was disseminated. The Persian Shiʿites are proud of the lineage of the Imams as maternal descendants of Yazdegerd III, the last Sasanid king. According to tradition, the fourth Shiʿite Imam (ʿAli b. Ḥosayn, Ḥażrat-e Sajjād), is reported to have said: “I am proud to descend from the lineage of my father, Imam Ḥosayn, coming from Qorayš, the noblest of Arab tribes, as I am of the lineage of my mother, princess Šahrbānu, descended from Persian stock, whom the Prophet himself called the noblest of non-Arab peoples” (Dehḵodā, III, p. 1537; Qomi, p. 196; Ebn al-Balḵi, p. 4)." (ibid.)
 * "Considering that the Safavids had also invented a genealogy linking their lineage to the Imams, belief in this narrative also signifies the Persian genealogical roots of the Safavids."
 * " On a number of occasions in the Safavid period—apparently for the first time—the notion of waṭan and the love for it were extended from the love of birthplace and residence to Iran. Šafiʿi Kadkani argues, for example, that the Hadith of ḥobb al-waṭan mena’l-imān might have been invented by Persians, who were more concerned with territorial ties, than Arabs, who were primarily identified with their lineage. Šafiʿi argues that Jāḥeẓ did not refer to the tradition in his comprehensive treatment of the subject, al-Ḥanin ela’l-awṭān; it is rarely found in Sunnite Hadith collections; and the main references to it could be found in Moḥammad Bāqer Majlesi’s Beḥār al-anwār and Shaikh ʿAbbās Qomi’s Safinat al-beḥār (Šafiʿi Kadkani, p. 12). Moḥammad Mofid Bāfqi, a contemporary of Majlesi, in his Jāmeʿ-e Mofidi reports that when a prominent statesman, Mirzā Moḥammad Amin, had been serving as the vizier of the Qotbshahids of Deccan (q.v), he became nostalgic and returned to Iran for the love of his homeland (ḥobb-e waṭan and ārezu-ye āmadan-e be Irān). Other examples include a certain Mirzā Esḥāq Beg and Captain Āqā Aḥmad, who migrated to India and later returned to Iran, or that of Mofid himself, who decided to return to Iran from India in accordance with the Hadith of ḥobb al-waṭan mena’l-imān, in spite of the comfort and hospitality extended to him in Šāh Jahānābād (Jāmeʿ …, III, 1, pp. 92, 453, 475, 804). Still another case is the poet, Nawʿi Ḵabušāni (d. 1610), who, becoming nostalgic during his long residence in the court of the Indian king, Akbar, laments in a moving poem that “my tears flow to cleanse the land of Iran” (cited in Šafiʿ Kadkani, p. 5).


 * RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. "reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties"