Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 13

Important point
Besides WP:RS, WP:synthesis and WP:NPOV that should not be violated, when writing about Safavids, one should use Safavid scholars. That is sources that are not written by Safavid historian should only be used if they do not contradict Safavid historians. The establishment of criteria for Safavid historian is simple, if the author has written books and articles on Safavids.

Examples:
 * Roger Savory
 * Vladimir Minorsky
 * Rudi Mathee

and etc. The primary person who really made Safavid studies viable in the West today is Roger Savory.

Other important proposals for the article

 * Create a separate section about "Safavid royal family" and rename the article to Safavid Empire or Safavid Persian empire. The reason is that the identity of the family should have its own section (or possibly te article.  In the identity of Safavid family, there should be three sections: Origin, Turkish in Safavid identity, Iranian (in the sense of languages not geographary) cultural elements in Safavid identity,
 * Remove the disputed ethnicity of the dynasty to the body as it is not of primary importance and is disputed... the current form is a synthesis which is not needed. Actually remove it to Safavid Royal family and this will solve a lot of issue.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the introduction of the article and also the identity of Safavid dynasty
The current edits on Safavid dynasty article attempt to portray the dynasty as solely Iranian or belonging to Iran only, by changing introduction to Safavid dynasty of Iran instead of just Safavid dynasty as the title of the article says. This does not reflect the historical reality:

Observations

 * 1. Safavid state was first declared in 1501 over Azerbaijan only, and a year later, in 1502, over Iran;
 * 2. Safavids referred to their empire as Dowlat-e Safavi (The State of Safavids);
 * 3. Safavid dynasty did not identity itself politically or ideologically with any ethno-national but rather with Shiite religious doctrine. Attempts to link Safavids to only one particular modern ethno-national identity, such as Iran, fall short of the historical fact that Safavid identity was defined for a far more diverse audience than what modern Iranian/Persian identity does.
 * 4. Any usage of the word "Iran" by Safavids only meant to indicate a control/rule over a geographic domain 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. Safavid ideology was not defined based on Iranian/Persian ethno-national factor but based on a Shiite religious doctrine. For the same reason, the name of Ottoman Empire is not "Ottoman Turkish Empire" or "Ottoman Empire of Turkey" or "Ottoman Empire of Anatolia".
 * 5. No political entity or state called Iran existed for several centuries immediately prior to the establishment of Safavid state in 1501
 * 6. Safavid historical identity was as much (if not more) uniquely Azerbaijani in modern terms as it was Persian/Iranian.
 * 7. There is not a single piece of material written in Kurdish from the Safavid era which could ever prove the linguistic identity/association of this dynasty with Kurdish language, thus warrant the spelling in introduction.
 * 8. The dynasty did not identify itself with Georgian language or ethnic identity. Some later royal intermarriages with Georgians do not imply the identity of the dynasty, neither warrant the spelling in introduction.
 * 9. In order to judge whether a particular book/article reference falls or does not fall within WP:RS, WP:POV or WP:OR, a person contesting them would have to produce evidence of scholarly qualification to do so.

Proposal

 * a. Rename the article to "Safavid State" (dovlat-e Safavi) or "Safavid Empire"
 * b. Create a separate article "Safavid dynasty" which incorporates Safaviyya article as well as WP:NPOV description of Safavid family lineage.
 * c. Remove "of Iran" WP:OR from introduction as Safavid officials and correspondence did not refer to their state under this formal name, and because Safavid state was not a nation-state, and Iran was used purely as geographical term, as a territory under Safavid order.
 * d. Remove spellings in Kurdish and Georgian from intro, as no evidence of relevance of these languages to royal court or state correspondence can be produced.

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Observation 1
References supporting the argument that Safavid State was declared in Azerbaijan in July 1501, and over Iran almost a year later, in May 1502:
 * 1) Encyclopedia Britannica. Ṣafavid Dynasty
 * The founder of the dynasty, Ismāʿīl I, as head of the Ṣūfīs of Ardabīl, won enough support from the local Turkmens and other disaffected heterodox tribes to enable him to capture Tabrīz from the Ak Koyunlu (Turkish: “White Sheep”), an Uzbek Turkmen confederation, and 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.


 * 1) Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324
 * Shah Ismayil defeated the Aq Qoyunlu leaders Alvand and Murad, the former at Sharur in 1501, the latter near Hamadan in 1503; he was crowned Shah of Adharbayjan in July 1501 in Tabriz, where he proclaimed the Shia Ithna-ashriya creed as the state religion 

Observation 2
References to Safavid Empire being called as "dovlat-e Safavi" (Safavid State), and not Safavid State of Iran, in formal correspondence:
 * 1. Ralph Kauz, Giorgio Rota, Jan Paul Niederkorn. "Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im Mittleren Osten in der Frühen Neuzeit" ("Diplomatic ceremony in Europe and the Middle East in the early modern period"), VÖAW, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009, p. 222:
 * According to Mohammad Hasan KAUSI ERAQI (ed.), Asnad-e raväbet-e dowlat-e Safavi bä hokumathä-ye Itälyä (Tehran 1379)
 * 2. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Journal of the German Oriental Society), Volume 155, Franz Steiner, 2005, p. 480:
 * Nofudh-e Devist Saleh-ye Khandan-e Mohaqqeq Kereki dar Dowlat-e Safaviyyeh. Qom 1382/2003

Observation 3
References to the fact that most historians concur about Safavid State being non Persian/Iranian nation-state and that Safavid State was not Iranian at the time of establishment:
 * 1. H.R. Roemer. "Safavid Period" in "Cambridge History of Iran" Vol 6: "Timurid and Safavid periods", edited by Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 343
 *  Even though fewer and fewer historians still maintain the view that the Safavid empire was a Persian national state, it is undeniably true that the state founded by Ismail was from the outside exposed to strong Iranicizing tendencies, which ultimately led to the integration of Turkmens. At all events there can be no question of a Turkicisation of Iran at the hands of Safavids.
 * 2. Richard Nelson Frye, one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history, in Encyclopedia Iranica
 * The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiʿites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty.
 * Regardless of whether they were Turkified or not, if the ethnic and geographical identity of Azeris is distinguished from that of Iran/Persia by a scholar of the caliber of R.N.Frye who says "Azeri Turks founded Safavid dynasty", how can the dynasty or empire which had Azeri as its official language, be called solely Iranian/Persian?

Observation 4
References to the fact Persia/Iran was only one of the geographic entities within Safavid domain:
 * 1. James Reston, Jr. Defenders of the Faith: Christianity and Islam Battle for the Soul of Europe, Penguin, 2010:
 * His ambition was to establish a great Shi'ite empire that would encompass eastern Anatolia, Azerbaijan, Persia, and Iraq. Importantly, Shah Ismail's embrace of Shi'ism was as much political as religious.

Observation 6
References to Azerbaijani (Turkish/Turkic) identity of Safavid State, which would question the validity of "of Iran" attachment to Safavids:
 * 1. Audrey Altstadt. "The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule", Hoover Press, 1992 p. 12:
 * Shah Ismail (e.d. - the founder of Safavid dynasty), who wrote much Turkish poetry under the name Khatai, is regarded not only as a political unifier of Azerbaijan but as an important contributor to its culture.
 * 2. Frederik Coene. The Caucasus: an introduction, Taylor & Francis, 2009, p. 204:
 * In the sixteenth century Azerbaijani was used increasingly in literature, partly through the statesman and poet Shah Ismail I, better known under his poetic pen name Khatai, under whose reign (Saffavid dynasty) Azerbaijani became the official state language.
 * 3. Massoume Price. Iran's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook, ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 66:
 * The establishment of the Safavid regime in Tabriz in 1501 had a major impact on the development of the identity of the people of Azerbaijan. The shah was a native Turkic speaker and wrote poetry in the Azerbaijani language. It is estimated that during the Safavid era 1,200 Azerbaijani words entered Persian. Tabriz remained the capital and flourished as a result.
 * 4. Google search results:
 * for "Azerbaijan Safavid dynasty" - 2,010 results
 * for "Azeri Safavid dynasty" - 3,990 results
 * 5. Google Books search results:
 * for "Safavid Empire" (without Iranian/Persian/Iran/Persia, etc.) - 5,450 results
 * for "Safavid Persian Empire" - 51 results
 * for "Safavid Iranian Empire" - 3 results
 * for "Safavid Empire of Iran" - 89 results
 * so the number of books search results without Iran/Persia in Safavid title is about 50-100 times more than with it.

Observation 7
Looking for the contributors with a different opinion on this specific subject, produce specific references to Kurdish and Georgian writings in Safavid era/administration.

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

More comments by Khodabandeh14 (see long comment in Archive 12) and why I believe the premise of the RfC is faulty
Atabey claims: "The current edits on Safavid dynasty article attempt to portray the dynasty as solely Iranian or belonging to Iran only, by changing introduction to Safavid dynasty of Iran instead of just Safavid dynasty as the title of the article says. This does not reflect the historical reality"

Actually, the two terms Safavid dynasty and Safavid dynasty of Iran are both valid. The Safavid dynasty had a name for its realm and it was Iran/Persia as showed by the many sources discussed below, and used by many auathors. So the premise of the RfC is faulty as the user is trying to show a contradiction between these two terms, but has no source that these two terms contradict each other as Safavid Dynasty of Iran also gets 248 google book hits, (some from top Safavid scholars).

This is what standards Encyclopaedias mention. For example Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica ..(see below) Encyclopaedia Briannica states: "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."

I have commented amd responded to all the 5-6 points above in detail with WP:RS sources here:

 However, the premisis of the RFC and the name of this section is faulty, as the article is about the Safavid empire, and not the ethno-linguistic identity of the Safavid family themselves (which is secondary or should have its own separate article...but it should be in a possible section here). When we ware discussing the Safavid dynasty, we mean the Safavid realm and empire, not the actual Safavid Kings. Also the articles mentions "Safavid dynasty of Iran" which is well soucred in google books, and Atabey is not showing what statements he has a problem with and what he wants to add or delete. This is just a bunch of statements (mainly incorrect) that is not bearing on what the user wants to delete/add to the introduction. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given all this, I have responded to each of the points above noting that some of these points are not even contradictatory with the existing state of the article, and are in the body as well, while others points are wrong, or have no bearing on the article. I ask users not to edit that space above, as I have been the most active user in this article throughout the years and have written many of its sections (most recent is the philosophy in Safavid era).  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note my response above is long, because these things have been repeated many times in the talkpage, but users have ignored them.. They have been ignored repeatedly, So I shall put them again one section above and touch upon each point of Atabey (many of them not even related to anything that is in the article or to RS sources) in detail. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be no need for long responses if users accept valid secondary sources from top Safavid historians such as Roger Savory.. but that is not the case. In other words, in two sentence, the following scholars and single primary source have refuted all the points above:

This is Wikipedia and we have to accept WP:RS sources based on the top Safavid scholar Roger Savory unless there are equally strong RS SAFAVID SPECIALISTS who have made a contrarian claim. However, if users want details, they need to look to the above for much more reference on each argument...I also request any sources that is posted should have something to do with the Safavids or else it is in violation of WP:synthesis and WP:OR.. we are not here to make debates but simply insert reliable sources about Safavids. The introductions from Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia Britannica can provide a good guidelines as well and also per wikipedia guidelines other common terms such as "Safavid Persian empire", "Safavid Iran" and "Safavid dynasty of Iran" should be mentioned as equivalent names in the introduction.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 tongue (Zabaan-e Farsi/Furs)).
 * Roger Savory, has refuted all of Atabey's points: 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" --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC).. By very simple definition a state was established in a realm that was called Iran by its inhabitants and rulers, thus "Iranian state or Safavid dynasty of Iran".
 * Alireza_Shapour_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". (note the above point is suppored by many primary sources posted above).
 * A. 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."
 * A. Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY i. PERSPECTIVES" in Encyclopaedia Iranica: "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)."... So just like the ancient Greeks or Romans or Indians had an identity like this, so did Iranians, and Safavid era saw an evolving of this identity based on a Iranian-Shi'ite pattern. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that I might take one week wiki-break next week (maybe from the weekend till weekend), but if there is no agreement, then per EdJohnston guidelines, nothing should be changed, and the end route will be mediation on any points that needs mediation. I have asked user Folantin and user Kansas Bear (two users not from the region) for a 2nd opinion. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On point 1 of Atabey (with further comments)
I have commented onthis claim in [] in detail and it has no bearing in the introduction of the article. It is also already cited in the body of the article under Ismail I.. Just like it is cited in the body of Britannica. However, if this is discussion about the introduction, Britannica clearly states in the introduction: "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. ".

The point Atabey is making is in the body, and the sources state that Esmail I actually used the title Padishah-e Iran in 1501 when captured tabriz. Also Azerbaijan is formally part of Iran now (the azerbaijan with reference to 1501 of Safavids), as well as during the Safavid era. I do not see what Atabey is trying to propose, but the article mentions that Safavid base was in Azerbaijan and from that base they conquered the rest of Iran. However, the Safavid State in any book or scholarship is the state defined all over greater Iran, not just in 1501 over a small portion. Also there was no state called "Azerbaijan", because Safavids never used such a term as a state in a document. Rather they simply started from their based in Azerbaijan. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 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..but they had only captued Azerbaijan... The rest of Iran was captured mainly 1502 and they had it till 1730.. That is in the body of the article. When discussing Safavid empire, not a single soruces just concentrates on 1 year tenure. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On the sources mentioned by Atabey which is a titles of book, not a content of a source.
This is in my opinion complete violation of WP:OR. The argument goes like this: The "official name of X was Y" because two books have a title Y! This is actually violation of Wikipedia policy, specially WP:synthesis, WP:OR and has nothing to do with the point Atabey is making. First Atabey is trying to claim that the name he has found in the title of two book contradicts the fact that Safavids were called Iran officially. This is a major WP:OR, as I have pointed out, Safavids used Iran officially (below) but could also have used other terms as well (but Atabey provides no proof). Also as I have pointed out, what is important is what secondary English sources use, not what the Safavids used themselves (although they used Iran officially as the sources below demonstrate). But since when does one make such generalized statements based on the title of two non-Englih books! Atabey could not find yet a single English book using "Dowlat-e Safavi" and stating explicitly that it was "the official title". Instead, hee is referencing titles of books in Persian and provides no content from these books to support his statement. The two books Atabey is using has only the desired word he is seeking in their title, but state nothing about this title being "official" or "the only official title".. These books have nothing to do with "Safavids referencing themselves as dowlat-e Safavi" which is the claim Atabey made. The source says no such thing, it is just a title of two book pubished, one in 1379 (about 2000) and one 2003. Probably, the user just checked all libraries in the world to find such a word, but going from a word in the title of two modern books to the claim that Atabey is making: "Safavids were not called Iran" is many steps of OR: a) It is not a formal correspondence that uses such a term! b) Safavids empire could be called many things but Iran was one of them. c) One cannot make any definite statement based on the title of a book. d) Atabey Needs English sources stating specifically that Safavids used the name X officially, which would not even contradict their usage of the term Iran officially.
 * Asnad-e raväbet-e dowlat-e Safavi bä hokumathä-ye Itälyä' (2000) (translation: The sources about the relationship between the state of Safavids and governments of Italty)
 * "Nofudh-e Devist Saleh-ye Khandan-e Mohaqqeq Kereki dar Dowlat-e Safaviyyeh. Qom"(2003) (the two hundred years of influence of Mohaqqaq Kereki in the Safavid state).

It would be like citing tons of Safavid books titled "Safavid Persia", "Safavid Iran".. and then based on these titles, claim official names. Also the source of Atabey brought is not even in English and thus showing exactly that the name he is using is not concurrent in English. For example, if I want to do OR, I can claim: The politics of trade in Safavid Iran: silk for silver, 1600-1730
 * The practice of politics in Safavid Iran: power, religion and rhetoric (2009)
 * Safavid Iran and her neighbors (2003)
 * Safavid Iran: rebirth of a Persian empire (2006)

If I were to do WP:OR, based on titles of all these books, which are in English as well (the language of this Wikipedia), I can say Iran was used officially. But I shall proceed with real secondary sources that explicitly mention an (or the) official name'
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia does not care what the Safavids called themselves (they called themselves Padishah-e Iran, Selseleyeh Iranshahi Safavids amongst other names), but what secondary sources call them: (Safavid dynasty of Iran is one of them). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

فریدون بیگ، منشآت السلاطین،چاپ دوم، استانبول، 1275 هجری قمری Volume 1: Pages with regards to Shah Esmail using Iran-Shahi Shah Esmail (345) Volume 2: Pages with regards to ShahTahmasp using Iran-Shahi Shah Tahmasp (38, 42,43..)  Pages with regards to Shah Abbas using Iran-Shahi Shah Abbas (252, 254, 257,261)  Pages with regards to Shah Abbas using Iran-PadeShahi Shah Abbas (249)  Pages with regards to Shah Khodabandeh using Iran-Shahi Shah Khodabandeh(283)  Pages with regards to Shah Safi using Iran-Shahi Shah Safi(299,301,317..).. Official letters of Shah Abbas using Iran in Matini, J. (1992). Iran dar gozasht-e ruzegaaran [Iran in the Passage of Times], Majalle-ye Iran-shenasi [A Journal of Iranian Studies] 4(2): 243-268.
 * Atabey needs to show an RS source which clearly states that such sources are wrong: Alireza_Shapour_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". (note the above point is suppored by many primary sources posted above).
 * I have primary sources from the letters of Safavids calling themselves "IranPadeshahi", "Iranshahi" and etc. (meaning Iranian rulers, rulers of iran, etc.). All of them posted above. For example:
 * The book Monšaʾāt al-salāṭīn compiled by Fereydun Ahmbed Beg which contains official letters of the Safavid kings has been published in Istanbul. Here I will quote from the 2nd edition the pages that use the title "IranShahi (Royal Kingdom of Iran or King of Iran) (Matini, J. (1992). Iran dar gozasht-e ruzegaaran [Iran in the Passage of Times], Majalle-ye Iran-shenasi [A Journal of Iranian Studies] 4(2): 243-268.):


 * Atabey is also thinking that "Dowlat-e Safavi" is a contradiction with "Safavid Iran" and the name "Iran" used by Safavids. This is WP:OR.   Thus far he has failed to bring a single source (the source above is a title of the book and makes no such claim). But at most, the names of Iran and Dowlat-e Safavi are complementary (once Atabey actually brings reliable sources stating explicitly that Safavid realm was officially also called X).  The source must use the term "official" and must be reliable English language source.  Of course none of this really matters, as Wikipedia cares about common terms used by scholars.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On point two of Atabey (with further comments)
(Safavid Persia) (4300+ google books hit also the title of a new book). 4) (Safavid Iran, 6400+ hits). 5) Safavid dynasty of Iran  (247 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 hits   (just title of two books in Persian!)  Okay but why ignore "Safavid Persia" with 4000+ hits
 * 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 the name of realm, which is the most important things for the article. However, thus far I do not see a single English source using such a term, and Atabey needs to show such a term is current in the English language and is the offical term.  I have provided references to primary Safavid documents (including the travel of Chardin which clearly shows the Safavid lands were called Iran in their realm and their Kings have formally used Iran as the name of the country in their letters, and one of the official names was Iran).  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On the sources mentioned by Atabey which I believe is OR
This is actually violation of Wikipedia policy, specially WP:synthesis, WP:OR and has nothing to do with the point Atabey is making. He is referencing a book in Persian with title called: Asnad-e raväbet-e dowlat-e Safavi bä hokumathä-ye Itälyä (translation: The sources about the relationship between the state of Safavids and governments of Italty). This has nothing to do with "Safavids referencing themselves as dowlat-e Safavi"! The source says no such thing, it is just a title of the book pubished in 1379 (about 2000). It is not a formal correspondence that uses such a term! It would be like citing tons of Safavid books titled "Safavid Persia", "Safavid Iran".. Also the source of Atabey is not even in English and thus showing exactly that the name he is using is not concurrent in English.
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia does not care what the Safavids called themselves (they called themselves Padishah-e Iran, Selseleyeh Iranshahi Safavids amongst other names), but what secondary sources call them: (Safavid dynasty of Iran is one of them). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Atabey needs to show an RS source which clearly states that such sources are wrong: Alireza_Shapour_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". (note the above point is suppored by many primary sources posted above).
 * I have primary sources from the letters of Safavids calling themselves "IranPadeshahi", "Iranshahi" and etc. (meaning Iranian rulers, rulers of iran, etc.). All of them posted above. For example:
 * The book Monšaʾāt al-salāṭīn compiled by Fereydun Ahmbed Beg which contains the letters of Safavid Kings has been published in Istanbul. Here I will quote from the 2nd edition the pages that use the title "IranShahi (Royal Kingdom of Iran or King of Iran)(Matini, J. (1992). Iran dar gozasht-e ruzegaaran [Iran in the Passage of Times], Majalle-ye Iran-shenasi [A Journal of Iranian Studies] 4(2): 243-268)

فریدون بیگ، منشآت السلاطین،چاپ دوم، استانبول، 1275 هجری قمری Volume 1: Pages with regards to Shah Esmail using Iran-Shahi Shah Esmail (345) Volume 2: Pages with regards to ShahTahmasp using Iran-Shahi Shah Tahmasp (38, 42,43..)  Pages with regards to Shah Abbas using Iran-Shahi Shah Abbas (252, 254, 257,261)  Pages with regards to Shah Abbas using Iran-PadeShahi Shah Abbas (249)  Pages with regards to Shah Khodabandeh using Iran-Shahi Shah Khodabandeh(283)  Pages with regards to Shah Safi using Iran-Shahi Shah Safi(299,301,317..)
 * Atabey is also thinking that "Dowlat-e Safavi" is a contradiction with "Safavid Iran" and the name "Iran" used by Safavids. This is further WP:OR as he has no source stating that it is contradiction.   Thus far he has failed to bring a single source (the source above is a title of the book and makes no such claim). But at most, the names of Iran and Dowlat-e Safavi are complementary (once Atabey actually brings reliable sources stating that Safavid realm was officially also called X or Y as well).  The source must use the term "official" and must be reliable English language source.  Of course none of this really matters, as Wikipedia cares about common terms such as "Safavid dynasty of Iran".  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On point three of Atabey
Atabey here is trying to differentiate between "Azerbaijani" and Iranian, but Safavid realm included Azerbaijan. Furthermore, most Azerbaijanis in the world live in Iran today and are both Iraniand and Azerbaijanis. At the time of Safavids, the Turcophones of the empire (the name Azeri was adopted in the 20th century), identified with the Safavid realm, which was called Iran. Iran, like Turkey, republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iraq, United States of America, Russia and etc. is a multi-lingual country. The majority speak Iranic dialects but a good minority speaks Turkic dialect (90% of them being from Azerbaijan). For example, the current supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei is a Turcophone Iranian.

Please note, during the Safavid era, Azerbaijan was part of Iran as one of its provinces. So was the Caucasus (with the modern republic of Azerbaijan):
 * Pierre Thorez: "Although throughout history the Caucasus has usually been incorporated in political entities belonging to the Iranian world, at the beginning of the 13th/19th century Russia took it, along with the Transcaucasus, from the Qajars (1133–1342/1779–1924), severing those historical ties. Since the establishment of Soviet power on Caucasian territory, relations with Persia have been reduced to an insignificant level.". (Encyclopaedia Iranica - "Caucasus and Iran)
 * Here I will quote Altsdat, who was quoted by Atabey.. She is actually very modern pro-Azerbaijan republic source.  Audrey Altstadt. "The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule", Hoover Press, 1992. "From the 16th to the mid-18 centuries, all Azerbaijan would be part of Safavid Iran, interreputed only by two occuputations"

So Azerbaijan as shown in the maps of the Persian empire of that era, was part of the Persian/Iranian empire:

So there is no contradiction between the definition of Azerbaijan (back then it was a geographical region with ethnic implication) being part of Persia/Iranian empire as shown by a map..

I would Atabey to show a map or source from the same era calling the empire by any other name.

H. Roemer talks about unification of Persia/Iran
I do not see where in the introduction it says Safavids were a "Persian national state". Note the word "national" is the key here. No where it occurs in the introduction. Atabey is trying to conflate this term with "Safavid dynasty of Iran", "Safavid Persian empire" and etc.. which do not have the key word "national". Once again the issue of ethnic character of the Safavid kings is not relavent to the discussion as this article is about the Safavid empire. The source he brings states: "Even though fewer and fewer historians still maintain the view that the Safavid empire was a Persian national state, it is undeniably true that the state founded by Ismail was from the outside exposed to strong Iranicizing tendencies, which ultimately led to the integration of Turkmens. At all events there can be no question of a Turkicisation of Iran at the hands of Safavids." Yes Safavids were not purely ethnic Iranian/Turkish or whatever, and they actually claimd to be Seyyeds. The Turkmen tribes from Anatolia also established Turkish in some regions of Iran. All of that is agreed upon. But an Iranian state is very different than a "Persian (Tajik) national state". The Safavid empire was multi-ethnic but the state nevertheless was called Iran by its inhabitants. However, the source Atabey is talking about mentions an ethnic "Persian" national state. The fact is that Safavids were a multi-ethnic country just like Iran,.. They established a state by the name Iran and scholars continue to reference it as a Safavid Persian empire or Safavid Iranian empire. The key is that the ethnic charactter of the Safavids (who were Turcophones) has no bearing on the fact that they state they established was in Iran.. Just like the Moghuls of India established a state in India despite being Turo-Persia phones.

Also it is instructive to bring Roemer's quote in Full: ""Given the powerful impetus which animated the Qizilbash, their rise to political power ought to itself to have brought about a Turkicisation of Persia, but things took a different course. Even though fewer and fewer historians still maintain the view that the Safavid empire was a Persian national state, it is undeniably true that the state founded by Ismai'l was from the outset exposed to strong Iranicization tendencies, which ultimately led to the integration of the Turkomans. At all events, there can be no question of Turkicization of Iran at the hands of the Safavids. How is this to be explaind?...". So Roemer is saying that events took a different course from "Turkicisation of Persia". Fast forwarding in the same section:  ""The final chapter of these dramatic events saw the destruction of Turkmen supremacy by Shah Abbas I..." Note Roemer mentions the same facts: "Given the tremendous importance of the introduction of the Shi'i for Ismail's future and for Persia, we must ask ourselves what made him take this decision" (194) "The Safavid Shah combined in himself the blood of both Turkmen, and Iranian ancestors" (214) But here are more (from the same source Atabey is using). foreign dynasties" Even Roemer is clear:
 * "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
 * "Not until the Safavid era did Iran witness the rise of a state similar in importance to the Ottoman empire..." (189)
 * "The historical achievements of the Safavids was to establish a strong, enduring state in Iran after centuries of foreign rule and lengthy period ofpolitical fragmentation" (189)
 * "But the religious revival and unification of Persia which came about two centuries later are unthinkable without the brotherhood he founded" (193)
 * "Whether on the other hand Shaikh Safi envisaged a Shi'i Persia is quite a different question" (193)
 * 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. "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". (331)
 * 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
 * Alireza_Shapour_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". (note the above point is suppored by many primary sources posted above).
 * Note the recent article in Iranica which rejects the modern notion of nation-state but also states clearly: "The period of the Safavids, the dynasty that took control of Persia in the early 16th century, is often considered the beginning of modern Persian history, just as the state they created is said to mark the genesis of the Persian nation-state. 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. ...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"

By very simple definition a state was established in a realm that was called Iran by its inhabitants and rulers, thus "Iranian state or Safavid dynasty of Iran"... It was not a state in terms of modern nation-state but it was a state called Iran. Terms such as "Safavid dynasty of Iran" are not necessarily the same as a "national Persian state". These things need to be carefully distinguished. What is important is that the Safavid established a state that was called Iran, and sources also call it an Iranian state. The term "Persian national state" is not in the introduction, and thus there is no point in discussing something that is not even in the article. Atabey cannot conflate terms and expand the word "Persian national state" (with national being a key) to include "Iranian state of Safavids" or "Safavid Persian empire" which have a totally different conception. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Frye and what I consider unrelated commentary by Atabey which is contradicted by Richard Frye
First let me put this statement of Richard Frye first: Richard N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enough in google books

Atabey makes the comment: "Richard Nelson Frye, one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history, in Encyclopedia Iranica "


 * Actually, Richard Frye is a distinguished scholar of Iran, but absolutely has zero writings on Safavid history! Richard Frye's speciality is in Sassanid Iran and ancient Iran.  He has no books, articles etc. on Safavid Iran.

Atabey continues by quoting Frye: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiʿites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty. "


 * Well the above quote is in the article. There are also other opinions on Safavid identity.  eg 1) [Roger Savory], who is an actual Safavid historian. 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."  2) 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.”
 * Please note that if one were to write research paper on Safavids they would quote Safavids scholars.

Atabey continues: "Regardless of whether they were Turkified or not, if the ethnic and geographical identity of Azeris is distinguished from that of Iran/Persia by a scholar of the caliber of R.N.Frye who says "Azeri Turks founded Safavid dynasty", how can the dynasty or empire which had Azeri as its official language, be called solely Iranian/Persian? "


 * This is a major disconnect as Richard Frye claims no such thing. First the name of the article is "IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN" ... So Azeris are Peoples of Iran per the article.
 * Second Richard Frye complete contradicts the commentary that Atabey made about his quote in the same article: "Most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves and are referred to as Turks but also insist on their Iranian identity, buttressed not only by the religious bond—being mostly Shiʿite in contrast to the Sunni Turks of Anatolia—but also by cultural, historical, and economic factors."
 * Third Richard Frye contradicting Atabey's commentary again in the same article: "The eventful modern history of Azerbaijan, and its contribution to the progressive movements in modern Persian history, most notably the Constitutional Revolution (q.v.), and to the development of institutions such as the press, has shown how highly influential it has been in shaping the history of modern Iran and its national identity. A survey of the nationalbiography of eminent Iranians would show a high percentage of people of Azerbaijani origin appearing in different spheres as ranking politicians, clerics, merchants and military commanders, including such outstanding scholars as Sayyed Ḥasan Taqizadeh, Aḥmad Kasrawi, Moḥammad-ʿAli Tarbiat, Reżāzādeh Šafaq, and such prominent educators and social thinkers as Mirzā Ḥasan Rošdiya, Kāẓemzādeh Irānšahr (q.v.), Taqi Arāni (q.v.), and Moḥammad Naḵjavāni among others. Also included is a large number of high ranking officials and statesmen, such as the influential prime ministers, Ebrāhim Ḥakimi, Maḥmud Jam (qq.v), ʿAli Soheyli, and Moḥammad Sāʿed. Confirmed and vocal Iranian nationalists, these scholars and statesmen had made significant contributions to the territorial integrity of Iran during the troubled periods of 1905-20 and 1941-46, when the country was in the midst of revolution, civil war, and foreign occupation."

Please also note the following quotes by Richard Frye which shows that there is a sharp break between what Atabey has quoted and what he is actually commenting about with regards to Richard Frye:


 * R.N. Frye (1989), "The Heritage of Persia", Mazda Publishers: "The motif of the founder of a dynasty beiing raised by shepherds or poor people who do not know, or who conceal the true royal descent of the child, becomes part of the charisma of Persian royalty repeated under the Safavids and other rulers in Persian history. I term it the West Iranian 'national' or 'royal' epic as compared with the East Iranian 'religious' or 'heroic' epic series" (pg 87)

in google books
 * Richard N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enough

the Islamic history of Iran" (ibid. 160)
 * "Such fascinating figures as Mir Damad and Mulla Sadra in the Safavid period, took their origins from Avicenna. So the peripatetics have been very well represted in

"In Qandahar Indian influences were strong and this frontier region passed back and forth from Iranian to Indian political control from the time of the Achaemenids and the Mauryas to the Moghuls and the Safavids" (ibid. 45)

The opinion on the background of the Safavid dynasty by Richard Frye, who is not a Safavid historian, is in the body. But the commentary added by Atabey to Richard Frye in my opinion falls under WP:OR, as Richard Frye's own words contradict Atabey's commentary on his quote.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Observation four of Atabey
I do not understand what a book called "Defenders of Faith: Christianity and Islam Battle for the Souls" which barely touches upon the Safavid dynasty has to do with this article. The author James Reston, JR. does not show up at all in Iranian studies. However, Atabey might have missed this point from the same book: "Nevertheless, the Persian Empire, the Safavid dynasty, and its Shi'ite faith had survived. Tabriz became the Persian capital once again without a struggle."

But no where does the author make the claim: "Persia/Iran was only used as a geographical realm". However, Persia/Iran being used as the geographical realm of the Safavid dynasty is sufficient to be in the introduction. I have already mentioned Primary and Secondary sources mentioning this issue.

Secondary sources showing Iran used officially with one explicitly stating it

 * Thousands 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).
 * Roger 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? "
 * Alireza Shapour 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 the identity of Safavids
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 for such a statement. Second, the article is about the Safavid empire, not the Safavid family. How the Safavid family saw themselves is irrelavent to the desired outcome of the empire which as a strenghtening of an Iranian-state identity with a mixture of Shi'ism, the ethnic elements of the empire, and active support for Philosophy, theology, Persian minature, Persian literature and art, and etc.. under the realm of Iran.  Note Iranian identity like American identity is not defined as a mono-lingual identity.  But just like the multi-lingual Indian or Greece (has many dialects, some not mutually intellgible), or Chinese identity,  a re-emergent identity due to a centralized system developed in the Safavid era.


 * We need small section for Safavid identity, discussing the Turkish (main one being Turcophone), Iranian components as well as the Seyyed claimed origin and likely Kurdish origin.
 * The introduction is talking about Safavid unificaiton of Persia and reassertion of Iranian identity through a centralized state.  Safavids identified themselves as blood relatives of the Prophet Muhammad, but the article is not about that.
 * We are discussing an emergence of a hybrid Iranian-Shi'ite identity in that era. Here I provide the top living Safavid scholar, Roger Savory:


 * 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?


 * Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, V, pp. 514-15, "in the heyday of the Mughal, Safawi, and Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element over the whole of this huge realm, while it was also being employed as the official language of administration in those two-thirds of its realm that lay within the Safawi and the Mughal frontiers"


 * 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 "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.


 * 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."


 * 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.)


 * 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."(ibid.)


 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica "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.)


 * AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica "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."


 * "AA Ashraf, "IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD", Encyclopaedia Iranica "On a number of occasions in the Safavid period—apparently for the first time—the notion of waṭan[comment this word means homeland] 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)."


 * 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".


 * 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 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"


 * 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): "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"


 * 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 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)


 * 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."


 * 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".


 * George Morrison, "History of Persian literature from the beginning of the Islamic period to the present day, Volume 2", Brill Archive, 1981. (pg 145): "Since the Safavids came from Persian Azarbaijan, and Azarbaijan had adopted the Turki language in the years of their emergence (the language before Turki having been the ancient Iranian language called Azari), they spoke both Turki and Persian, but since their soldiers were drawn from Turki speakers (and perhaps for other reasons as well) Turki became the court language of the Safavids: however all literary works of this period, whether poetry or prose, are in in Persian, with the rare exception of certain poetry, notably that of Shah Ismai'l, which is in Turki over the tkhallaus 'Khatai"


 * E. Yarshar, "IRAN ii. IRANIAN HISTORY (2) Islamic period" in Encycloapedia Iranica) . "He made Isfahan his capital, enlarged it, and embellished it with a very large piazza surrounded by a number of monuments, some of which, like the Shah and the Shaikh Loṭf-Allāh mosques are among the masterpieces of Persian architecture. "" He lent support to the arts; beautiful color tiles were made, and calligraphers and painters found patrons both in the person of the shah and some of the state dignitaries and rich merchants. Influence ofEuropean works of art began to appear in Persian paintings. The arts and architecture of his period are considered to represent the zenith of Safavid art." "The advent of the Safavids constitutes one of the major turning points in Persian history, and this for two reasons: one was the enforcement of the Shiʿite branch of Islam on the country, the other was the unification of the country under a single rule, which has continued as such to the present day."   (This is an article Atabey referenced before and I wanted to point out that Safavid family is called practically Turkish here, but their realm (Persia), Persian art and architecture, and unificaiton of Persia is also mentioned).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Safavid ideology is not a concern but the identity of the Safavid realm saw a flowering of Iranian cultural activity, with a new identity based on Shi'ism and pre-Safavid Iranian cultural elements (Philosophy, art, literature, paintings, mode of governance, etc..) -Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Invalid comparison of Iran with Turkey
Atabey states: "Safavid ideology was not defined based on Iranian/Persian ethno-national factor but based on a Shiite religious doctrine. For the same reason, the name of Ottoman Empire is not "Ottoman Turkish Empire" or "Ottoman Empire of Turkey" or "Ottoman Empire of Anatolia". "


 * Wikipedia needs sources that state that fact, not intrepretation of sources. However, this is completely wrong.
 * Modern Turkey is a sharp cut off from Ottoman empires but Safavid Iran is not.
 * Iran was used in the Safavid era and its inhabitants called it Iran... This is unlike Turkey.. the term "Turkey" was never used by its inhabitants. Actually, the most popular term was "Rum".  Even Ottoman poets and Turkish poets such as Fizuli call their language as "Rumi"..  So Turkey was never used.  Iran was one of the official names of the Safavids (or perhaps the only official name as we have no other sources for any other official names).
 * The boundary of Safavid empire is pretty much modern Iran, specially all the capitals were in Iran and all the major portions that were not lost and won against the Ottomans/Uzbeks (Caucasus, Afghanistan..)
 * The Kings of the Safavid empire were called Kings of Iran, and their realm was officially called Iran. The name Turkey on the other hand was never used in the Ottoman era.
 * The Turkish language spoken in Turkey has a new alphabet and due to the Turkish language reform, it is a very different language. A modern TUrkish speakers from Turkey cannot read even early 20th century texts, let alone Ottoman texts.  A modern educated Persian speaker (one to twelve) has no problem deciphering Safavid era texts and books.
 * No one in the Ottoman empire called themselves "Turks" until the late 19th/20th century! While, the inhabitants of Safavid Iran called themselves Iranians as noted in the many soruces above.
 * Modern Turkish identity is based on the modern Turkish language and racial identity. Iranian identity has several factors: One is Shi'ism (like Safavids), the other is the Persian language as the language of literature and culture (like the Safavids) which was actually part of the identity of Samanids, Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Safavids, which is not a language specific to any ethnic group as it has been a widely used language. The other is the dual factor of Turkish and Iranian speaking elements in the state apparatus which is continuation of the Safavid era, and is seen still today.   I am not saying modern identity in Iran is the same as Safavid era, but it is a evolution rather than a radical cut-off like Turkey.
 * Also again, the name "Turkey" is a modern name used by the inhabitants since the 20th century. The name Iran was used by people during the Safavid era as the quote from Chardin (above) clearly shows.   So "Turkey" and "Anatolia" were not used in that era,  Iran was.  Furthermore, scholars use Iran/Persian as "Safavid Iran" is the most popular term right now in google books with regards to designation.   Iran and Turkey have a different history.  Iranian state identity was established before the modern era, while the identity of Turkey based on Turkish nationalism of Ataturk and is a new concept.  Example is the Persian language which has a continous tradition of 1200 years while the modeern Turkish is cut off and not a continuation of the Ottoman language.
 * An excellent article on Iranian identity is provided in Iranica, specially  .. It is an identity that has evolved throughout history (like Chinese or Indian or Greek..), and of course when we are discussing Safavid era Iranian identity (the identity of the people under their realm), we are not trying to make a statement about modern 21st century countries and this is already known for any reader.  Just like when discussing the Sassanids, we are not talking about modern Iran per se, but rather identity during the Sassanids...   --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On point 6 of Atabey and why I believe that Atabey's comment is OR.
Here are series of non-specialist sources, who lack any academic affiliation and speciality on Safavid studies. The claim: "References to Azerbaijani (Turkish/Turkic) identity of Safavid State, which would question the validity of "of Iran" attachment to Safavids, which is OR. First, the term "Azerbaijani" was not used in the Safavid era, second most Azerbaijanis live in Iran and third, the sources state no such a claim (about weakening attachement). I shall demonstrate below what I consider pick & choose quotes from these sources by Atabey which contradicts some of his other observations.

Massoume Price
1.Massoume Price. Iran's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook, ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 66: The establishment of the Safavid regime in Tabriz in 1501 had a major impact on the development of the identity of the people of Azerbaijan. The shah was a native Turkic speaker and wrote poetry in the Azerbaijani language. It is estimated that during the Safavid era 1,200 Azerbaijani words entered Persian. Tabriz remained the capital and flourished as a result."

This is what I call a non-specialist source. That is an author that has not written a single book or article on Safavids, and is not affiliated with a university. However, it does not question the validty of "of Iran" attachment of Safavids. The source just says the Safavids played an important role in the identity of the people of Azerbaijan.. Fine, I do not dispute it.. Where does question any other validity? Note the same author in the same book states: However, it is ridicolous to use such a source that is not written by an academician with no affiliation to any university--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shah Ismail I revived the monarchist tradition of Iran and united the country within a defined territory that more or less has remaned the same until now"  (pg 65- 2nd sentence when defining the Safavids)
 * "With both Turkmen and Persian ancestry, Shah Ismail utilized the military supported of the Turkmen followers of his Sufi order, but once in power, he placed Iranians in charge in order to control the Turkmen and create a balance" (pg 65)
 * "Modern nationalists in Azerbaijan regard the Safavids as an Azerbaijani dynasty and an important symbol of Azerbaijani identity and common history" (pg 66)

Frederik Coene
Author does not have a doctorate, nor is specialist in history.  "Frederik Coene is no stranger to the Caucasus. Currently the Attaché dealing with post-conflict assistance in the European Commissions’ Mission to Georgia, he has also worked in organisations on both sides of the Caucasus Mountains, dealing with conflicts and developments. It is unfortunate that Mr Coene’s on-ground experience – he worked in the North Caucasus during the savage violence of the Beslan school siege, for instance - does not always come through in this informative, but sometimes slightly shallow, volume." "The desire to cover so much ground inevitably leads to a lack of focus. The historical section is a dizzying blur of kings, with different empires rising and falling in the space of a few pages. To be sure, the evidence for many of these states and individuals is often scarce, and reading about the ebb and flow of Kartli or the Safavids may be a useful primer, but it cannot be much more than this. " "Indeed, the main accusation that could be leveled at this volume is that its strength – its broad sweep – is also its weakness – a lack of any thorough assessment." "Frederik Coene is currently Attaché dealing with post-conflict assistance in the Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia. His research on the Caucasus began in 1999 during his internship in the Office of the Secretary-General at NATO Headquarters. Since then he has researched, worked and travelled in all parts of the Caucasus."

The author cannot be considered a specialist on the Safavids..! These type of sources are ridicolous for writing an article on Safavids when there is Encyclopaedia of Islam, Iranica and etc. The author mentions "Azerbaijani literature" in the 11th century where as it is Persian literature (Qatran Tabriziby all academic sources)... Please.. There was no Azerbaijani-Turkish identity in the 11th century.

Let me just quote some portions from this book as well which Atabey forgot to quote with regards to Safavids from the same book:

"Ismail I became the shah of a new Persian kingdom in 1502" (120)

"During the seventeenth century some Kumyks and Lezgins converted to Shia Islam after they had turned to the Persian Safavids for help in the struggle against Russian expansion"(pg 86)

"Initially, the official language was Azerbaijani, but over the course of the years the Safavid dynasty--	which was in fact Turkic --- lost its Azerbaijani character" (120)

Of course, the Safavid official language was never azeri, it was their court language. Persian was the official language as it the language of coins, administration and etc. Two strong sources from Full Professors specializing in Safavids relative to a person that does not have a doctorate degree and has never written a specialist books on Safavids bear on this point:


 * 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"
 * R. Mathee, "Safavid dynasty" in Encyclopaedia Iranica.. :"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"

This mode of citing sources is actually in my opinion a POV and not inline with wikipedia WP:RS.. can really one ignore such important Safavid scholars as Roemer and Mathee, and cite a person that does not have doctorate and no academic affiliation?

Altsdat
Another non-specialist source having no weight against someone like Roger Savory, where the author lacks a single book or article on Safavids, and her book has been severly criticized. Nevertheless, this book contains words which contradict some of the observations that were pointed out by Atabey. Audrey Altstadt. "The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule", Hoover Press, 1992. "From the 16th to the mid-18 tencturies, all Azerbaijan would be part of Safavid Iran, interreputed only by two occuputations" (pg 2).. So note the term Azerbaijan is part of Safavid Iran. "Audrey Altstadt. "The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule", Hoover Press, 1992 . For the Turks of Azerbaijan, the results were two fold (1) a strenghtening of bonds with the Iranian state and what was by the 16th century its Turco-Persian culture (the Safavid court language, according to various European scholars and travelers, was Turkish") (pg 5) (Okay she uses the term Iranian state which Atabey is arguing against!)

Besides Altsdat is not really a good source as the first two chapters, she acknowledges that she is providing sources from the historigraphy of the republic of Azerbaijan.


 * Manz, B.F (1994), "[Review of:] The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule by Audrey Altstadt",.Russian Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul), pp. 453-455. "A clear discussion of existing controversies and of the ideological constraints behind the Soviet account of Azerbaijani history would have been a great help here. As it is, the reader is not certain whether Altstadt is presenting her own view of Azerbaijani history or that of Soviet Azerbaijani scholars"


 * Bournoutian, George (1992), "[Review of:] A.L. Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks: Powers and Identity Under Russian Rule", Armenian Review, vol. 45/3:63-69. " Professor Altdsatd's study abounds with typographical and historical errors, a few of which have been highlighted above. Some of the transliterations are awkward and the bibliography is incomplete. Altogether, Altsdat does not do service to her subject. The back cover explains that Altsdat has used original sources. She may have done sone in the second half of the book. The first half is basically an English translated of biased Azerbaijani sources"

Altsdat's book is not only severely criticized, but she acknowledges that the first two chapters are retelling Azerbaijani historiography. Altsdat by the way is not a Safavid specialist, has never published a book or article on Safavids and is actually biased according to some sources. She cannot read Persian/Arabic, so she lacks ability to do independent research. However, she has used "Safavid Iran", "Iranian State" for Safavids. I do not understand when we have Savory, Minorsky, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Mathee and etc., why is one quoting Masoume price, Altsdat, and Frederik Coene. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No google.com in wikipedia as Wikipedia uses google books/scholars
As per the google.com search results, they are not relavent as Wikipedia cares about google books and scholars Wikipedia does not use google search! It uses google books and google scholars.. Atabey knows about this fact, so this is not good.

Atabek claims: for "Azerbaijan Safavid dynasty" - 2,010 results for "Azeri Safavid dynasty" - 3,990 results
 * Google search results:

Else one can also use google.com (Safavids of Iran) (Safavids of Persia)

But since when does wikipedia use www.google.com? Wikipedia uses google books and articles, we don't care about the tons of nationalist websites, blogs and youtube video (the first link that comes up actually!)

However lets look at google books: "Kurdish Safavid dynasty" (1 hit) "Azeri Safavid dynasty" (2 hits) "Iranian Safavid dynasty" (98 hits) "Persian Safavid dynasty" (157 hits) Standard Encyclopaedias such as Britannica simply use Iranian Safavid dynasty. "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" (zero hits)[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Persian+Safavid+dynasty%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Safavid+dynasty+of+Azerbaijan%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cf9eb01f1b86abe2 "Safavid dynasty of Iran"  (247 hits)

Plus Atabey wrongly claims Iran was not used at the time of Safavids for their state. Actually it was, but the term "Azerbaijani" and "Azeri" was not used until the late 19th/20th century for the Turcophone speakers of the Caucasus and Iran. So this is a new anachronism actually.. In reality, we need to look at Safavid scholars and sources, Savory, Roemer, Mathee and etc. and see what terms they have used.. Else doing random google searches is not the way to proceed. I propose if the author has no academic affiliation to a serious university then hen it should not be used. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

google books has the top hit for "Safavid Iran"
New comment of Atabey: "Google Books search results: for "Safavid Empire" (without Iranian/Persian/Iran/Persia, etc.) - 5,450 results for "Safavid Persian Empire" - 51 results for "Safavid Iranian Empire" - 3 results for "Safavid Empire of Iran" - 89 results so the number of books search results without Iran/Persia in Safavid title is about 50-100 times more than with it."

Response:

Actually, the issue is that these names are not a contradiction. The Safavid Empire was established somewhere, and obviously it is in Iran. Here is an example of a book with this regards: "and Turkmen nomads from the Safavid Persian empire. They, and a steady flow of immigrants from the Safavid empire and the Uzbek principalities with linguistic and " Bonnie C. Wade,"Imaging sound: an ethnomusicological study of music, art, and culture in Mughal India ", University of Chicago Press, 1998

Cengage Learning, 2008.pg 481:"The Safavid Empire, 1502–1722 How did the Safavid Empire both resemble and differ from its neighbors? The Safavid Empire of Iran (see Map 17.1) resembled its long-time Ottoman foe in many ways.."
 * R.J. Abisaab,I.B.Tauris, 2004, Converting Persia: religion and power in the Safavid Empire, introduction of the book:"Converting Persia is vital reading for anthropologists, historians and scholars of religion, and any interested in Safavid Persia, in Shi'ism, and in the wider history of the Middle East."
 * Richard W. Bulliet, Richard Bulliet, Pamela Kyle Crossley, "The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History: Since 1500",

So lets take a look (this is what Atabey might be proposing)
 * (Azerbaijani Safavid Empire - Zero)
 * "Safavids of Azerbaijan" (zero)

This is what is popular:
 * (Safavids of Iran - 341 hits)
 * (Safavids of Persia 405)
 * (Iranian Safavids 110)
 * (Persian Safavids 206)
 * (Safavid Persia 4370 hits)
 * (Safavid Iran, 6410 hits)

I also noted this fact, that many books reference "Safavid" as a "Persian empire" (upperbound 2920)

Thus Safavid Iran is the most popular name.. note the title of the famous book:
 * "Safavid Iran: rebirth of a Persian empire" (Andrew J. Newman - 2006 - 281 pages)

So all this shows that popular names need to be the introduction... something like:"Safavid Iran, also called "Safavid Empire", "Safavid Persia", "Safavid Persian Empire"... As shown the terms "Safavid Empire", "Safavid Persian Empire", "Safavid Iran".. are all complementary and it is WP:OR to assume they contradict. The above sources show the complementary nature of these terms.  "Safavid Iran" is also a title of several books showing its wide usage, as the name of the realm was Iran.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Article is about Safavid empire, but on the identity of the dynasty, one can full professor sources that say different things

 * 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"


 * Professor Babayan who did her thesis on Safavids. 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.” --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.."
 * Giant orientalist Minorsky: *"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)."


 * 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."..  Note I mentioned the Shahnameh, because if one looks at the archives, Atabey calls it a Persian nationalist phamplet (which to an extent it is).


 * George Morrison, "History of Persian literature from the beginning of the Islamic period to the present day, Volume 2", Brill Archive, 1981. (pg 145): "Since the Safavids came from Persian Azarbaijan, and Azarbaijan had adopted the Turki language in the years of their emergence (the language before Turki having been the ancient Iranian language called Azari), they spoke both Turki and Persian, but since their soldiers were drawn from Turki speakers (and perhaps for other reasons as well) Turki became the court language of the Safavids: however all literary works of this period, whether poetry or prose, are in in Persian, with the rare exception of certain poetry, notably that of Shah Ismai'l, which is in Turki over the tkhallaus 'Khatai"

(This last quote shows why we cannot conflate the identity of a family with the whole empire).

I don't care about the identity of the Safavid family, that needs to be in a separate section/article, with two subsections (Turkic components-Iranic components)... We are here discussing the whole Safavid empire. However, what I do care about is when a source like Roger Savory or Alireza Shapour Shahbazi or Rudi Mathee is looked over for a Massoume Price, Frederik Coene and Audrey Altsdats.. I have a clear criterion, if a Safavid specialist or distinguished historian states something, you need equally strong sources to refute them. Else it is a waste of time to continue this effort as it will get no where. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On observations five of Atbaey
Atabey claims: 5. "No political entity or state called Iran existed for several centuries immediately prior to the establishment of Safavid state in 1501 "


 * (responded extensively and brought WP:RS stating Safavids called their state/empire/entity Iran, where called by others as Iran and secondary sources use Iran throughout.. Also mentioned and brought hundreds of google books references). This has been responded to here:  "On the name Iran/Persia being used by Safavids and others for their state".. also the introduction of Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Britannica on Safavids mention Iran/Persia.. as do the secondary RS sources:

in google books
 * Roger 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?
 * Alireza Shapour 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".
 * Britannica: "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? ".
 * Richard N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enough


 * However, a much more extensive list is given here:  from several dozes of quotes and 30+ sources: --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Observation six of Atabey

 * 6. Safavid historical identity was as much (if not more) uniquely Azerbaijani in modern terms as it was Persian/Iranian.
 * Safavid dynastic identity is different matter than Safavid empire. Safavid family had a dual Turco and Iranian component, that can be dealt with in the body or in a separate article.  Not relavent to this article.  Also one does not care about things in modern terms but we are discussing history... Safavid considered themselves Seyyeds not Oghuz Turks, they were a Iran-Shi'i state, and also patronized the Shahnama (which Atabey has called in the archive to partial correct extent, a Persian nationalist pamphlet)... so one can argue back and forth on this WP:FORUM issue, which is not relavent to wikipedia.  The "modern terms" section is not even relavent to the article.  One can have a legacy section or discuss the influence of Safavids on the Azeri identity in a section on family "Turcish influences and components of Safavid family" and then have another section "Iranian influences and components of Safavid family"..  here all RS sources should be included from distinguished scholars..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Oservations 7 & 8 of Atabey
I do not know what the exact wikipedia policy is, but Atabey's arguments are also contradictatory. Some users when they put Azerbaijani-Turkish in Caucasian Albania, I had said it is no problem. My proposal has always been to include all languages that are very broadly related... However, this proposal needs to be applied equally. Else if we are to set stringent conditions, then one can make any argument they desire. For example: The Turkish of the Safavid language had some major differences with modern Azerbaijani Turkish as it is a classical Turkish language:
 * "The hold of Persian as the chief literary language in Azerbaijan was bro­ken, followed by the rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artifi­cial, heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position. This process of cultural change was initially supported by the tsarist authorities, who were anxious to neutralize the still-wide­spread Azerbaijani identification with Persia. In doing so, the Russians resorted to a policy familiar in other parts of the em­pire, where Lithuanians, for example, were sporadically en­couraged to emancipate themselves from Polish cultural influences, as were the Latvians from German and the Finns from Swedish.( Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. p 29. ISBN: 0231070683)
 * "A specific Turkic language was attested in Safavid Persia during the 16th and 17th centuries, a language that Europeans often called Persian Turkish ("Turc Agemi", "lingua turcica agemica"), which was a favourite language at the court and in the army because of the Turkic origins of the Safavid dynasty. The original name was just turki, and so a convenient name might be Turki-yi Acemi. This variety of Persian Turkish must have been also spoken in the Caucasian and Transcaucasian regions, which during the 16th century belonged to both the Ottomans and the Safavids, and were not fully integrated into the Safavid empire until 1606. Though that language might generally be identified as Middle Azerbaijanian, it's not yet possible to define exactly the limits of this language, both in linguistic and territorial respects. It was certainly not homogenous - maybe it was an Azerbaijanian-Ottoman mixed language, as Beltadze (1967:161) states for a translation of the gospels in Georgian script from the 18th century." (É. Á. Csató, B. Isaksson, C Jahani. Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, Routledge, 2004, p. 228).


 * The Azeri Turkish that Atabey is referencing althoughrelated to modern Azeri-Turkish of Baku, but it is not the same exactly. Note in Iran the dialect spoken is called South Azeri and would be closer to the Safavid era Turkish.  However even that is exactly not the same as the classical Oghuz Turkish of the Safavid.

And also:
 * Second the latin alphabet associated with the languages were never used during the Safavid era. They are completely anachronistic in every way and have no relavence.


 * Third, the Safavid official state language was Persian, and so Persian with the Persian script is natural, and no user seems to have a problem with that. But the other scripts and languages have changed significantly in the past 400 years.. Persian because of a strong written tradition has remained fairly constant over the last 1200 years (One can read Rudaki 1100 years ago).


 * Safavid origin is said to be Kurdish by most sources today, thus I thought Kurdish is significant.


 * The last Safavid kings were actually of mainly Georgian blood, so I thought it might be significant.


 * Given all this, I do not know the exact policy for language introduction, but the latin alphabet seems very off place (note I myself removed modern Persian alphabet from Achaemenids and put Old Persian). However, I believe any language that is broadly related should be in the introduction.  But I look forward for a uniform policy clarification on the issue although the latin alphabets in the introduction seem very out of place.  Until there is actual wiki policy shown, I do not think there is a solution to this issue.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Observation 9 of Atabey and list of real Safavid historians

 * Atabey wrote: "In order to judge whether a particular book/article reference falls or does not fall within WP:RS, WP:POV or WP:OR, a person contesting them would have to produce evidence of scholarly qualification to do so."
 * I believe WP:RS here means books and articles written by Historians with university affiliations. I contest any author that is not a historian or a Safavid specialist, or any writing that is not an article or book about Safavids, if their works contradict the top Safavid scholars. I believe this is fair.   --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A list of real Safavid historians (scholars who have written books, encyclopaedic enteries and peer-reviewed articles on Safavids):
 * Roger Savory (fully distinguished) (Single handedly carried Safavid scholarship in the West)..see resume here:
 * Vladimir Minorsky (fully distinguished) (see article in Iranica about him here:
 * H. Roemer (fully distinguished)
 * Heinz Halm (fully distinguished)
 * Rudee Mathee (see bio here: ), "Safavid Dynasty" in Encyclopaedia Iranica
 * Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, IB Tauris (March 30, 2006).
 * Kathryn Babayan
 * Michel Mazzaoui

A list of distinguished historians and scholars quoted in the article (some not specializing on Safavid era):
 * Richard Frye  (Iranologist)
 * Alireza Shapour Shahbazi (Iranologist)
 * Arnold J. Toynbee
 * Prof. Ahmad Ashraf of Columbia University and editorial of Encyclopaedia Iranica
 * John Esposito
 * Ehsan Yarshater
 * Ira M. Lapidus
 * Robert Canfield


 * Note the common denomitaor of all these scholars in Safavid studies: "They know the Persian language".  Thus they can do independent research on Safavids and should have top priority on controversial matters.  This is supported by Wikipedia RS/weight, where specialist sources on the subject have more weight.
 * Note the commmon denominator of all the other distinguished scholars: affiliated with a major ranking university, and specializing in Near Eastern, Iranian or Islamic studies, have written books and articles about classical history

I suggest on matters that might be problematic, such historians be used. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Points I semi-agree with

 * Create a separate article "Safavid dynasty" which incorporates Safaviyya article as well as WP:NPOV description of Safavid family lineage.
 * However, the name should be "Safavid family" or "Safavid dynastic family", so that it is not confused with the article on Safavid empire. Actually, the name should be something like : "Origin and identity of the Safavids".  That article should only discuss the background of the Safavid lineage, with their culture, linguistic heritage and etc.  Nothing more.  Safavid dynasty should be renamed to Safavid empire, because that is more common in Encyclopaedic enteries as they discuss the empire.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Introductions from Encyclopaedis
I believe the following points from the introductions by Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Britannica, as well Roger Savory and Alireza Shapour Shahbazi should be in the introduction.. there is no point in discussing removal of RS sources, as it is again wikipedia policy. Atabey instead should concentrate on incorporating statements from Safavid specialists that he deems significants and are actually relavent for the introduction. This way, actual progress can be made. Else, there is no point in discussing the removal of Safavid specialist sources by what I personally believe is OR and misintrepretation of 3rd rate sources.

What Safavids did should be in the intro
Encyclopaedia Iranica by R. Mathee, '''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. " (Encyclopaedia Iranica, Safavids, R. Mathee) Encyclopaedia of Islam written by the supreme master of Safavid studies, Roger Savory, who is the foremost recognized Safavid expert in the world::
 * Established Shi'ism and spread the religion.. (This is easily sourced, so I did not bother now). This is the most important point.
 * 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.
 * The Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously.. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see SBUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans.  "


 * Roger 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?
 * Alireza Shapour 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".

(the point is Iran was being used)

I find it completely unacceptable to delete sources such as Roger Savory with the most impressive Safavid resume [] in the world and then push sources such as Frederik Coene or Massoume Price who have absolutely no writing on the Safavids.. Or for a user to ignore all the secondary sources mentioning the fact that Safavids officially used Iran (they might have used other names as well) or for a user to bring up normal google search, and then ignore google books. Either we are editing an Encyclopaedia or this is a place where people can argue forever until they try to remove the scholarly sources they dislike. I personally cannot consider any source with regards to controversial material whose author is not academically affiliated or distinguished in classical history. Hundreds of Frederik Coene's do not have the weight of a single Vladimir Minorsky, Roger Savory, and etc. I think it is time to seek mediation and then possibly arbcomm (if necessary), if users want to remove someone like Roger Savory and insert someone like Frederik Coene. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Legacy Safavids left behind

 * 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". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What should not be in the introduction

 * The dispute origin and identity of the dynasty, .. At most we can simply say it was a complex mixture of Turkish and Iranian elements....I think we can point these out in the article on Safavid family..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the disputed claims do not come in the introduction per wp:lead. I propose removal of all these origin things from the lead.,Also at most put the Kurdish Persian script as the "scholarly consensus" (per most reliable sources in the article) is that the safavid were from Iranian Kurdistan. This is because in the wikipedia policy we are required to give the main weight to the "scholarly consensus" right? Xashaiar (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we need a third opinion on the languages and script, as the arguments are repetitive. I personally believe Kurdish (without the latin) is more relavent than any sort of roman/latin font.On the issue of ethnic and cultural identity of the Safavid family, I think the small section after the lead can can have brief sections titled: Origin and identity of the dynasty, then two or three subsections: Turkic elements in Safavid identity, Iranic elements in Safavid identiy and Safavid geneology.  This will disentangle the issues.  As much as I hate creating such a section, but many users simply have not edited beyond such sections.   On the lead, as I stated, two important points:
 * the Safavid were responsible for a major religious transformation of the landscape.
 * the Safavid created a centralized and united Shi'ite-Iranian state/empire (which is mentioned in primary and secondary sources, it is called Iran by its inhabitants (Chardin), in official Safavid documents (Fereydun beg) and by scholars (the most important such as Savory and Shahbazi).
 * Then other important points can go under legacy (in the end of the article) or in other sections that is relavent (for example it is discussed that Esmail I first captured tabriz, became ruler of Azerbaijan (in Iran) and proclaimed himself Padishah-e Iran in 1501). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
RFC will probably not solve the issue. I have asked User:Folantin to mediate and I believe he will accept on the condition that both parties agree with his arbitrations, without any complains. I will notify EdJohnston to watch the mediation carefully, but will Atabey accept the suggestions and arbitrations of Folantin and the results of his mediation? If not, then this can easily become an arbcomm issue which both, I and specially Atabey with two previous arbcomms would probably not want. Folantin can help in writing a good introduction for the article. I also believe the article's name should be chaged to the Safavid empire, but there could be a small section on origin (likely Kurdish) and identity (Turkish with strong Iranian elements later on) of the dynasty, since creation of a new (on second thought) can cause new problems. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am continuing to monitor the situation. Technically, User:Atabəy's ban from Iranian topics remains in effect until 6 August 2011, but he is allowed to participate in this RfC. If he negotiates here in a normal manner and shows himself willing to accept consensus, the ban may be lifted. If you think you see any problems at all regarding Arbcom sanctions, let me know. Folantin is welcome to state whatever conditions he wants for his mediation assistance; I have no role in that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long message, but I am having problem seeing how normal google search (with youtube videos and blogs, and ignoring google books and scholar) are relavent or some of the sources which are not written by Safavid scholar or even historians. Also the other issue is that user Atabey points to the title of two books (a title can be anything and one cannot make a judgement on it, the title of the bookjust says: "Letters between the governments of Italty and Safavid State"), and then based on that, he makes an WP:OR that the name Iran was not used by Safavids! This sort of argument is no worst (although discerete and most admins won't care about it, as they think it is a content dispute!) than edit-warring. It is like me saying, there is a book with the title "letters between Washington and London", and then claiming the name "United States" is not used! This cannot be seen as a content dispute, but it is more like Tendentious editing. The problem is that a concensus cannot be reached with such an attitude. Some of the sources I have literally brought 10x (explicitly stating that official name was X) were from very distinguished writers, but Atabey has ignored them. So either admins can see through this sort of editing behavior and put an end to it, or we need an outside 3rd party mediation. I as one side, will completely agree with anything that an outside mediator states, as I am confident if the mediator sees the type of sources I am referencing, they will be incorporated in the article. There is only a few users that have enough knowledge and experience on this issue, User:Folantin is one of them. So I have asked that user to kindly mediate, else we are back to square one where one side make OR arguments and disregard specialist Safavid WP:RS sources (and sometimes bring random books whose authors are not even historians and then intrepret those random sources). From day one, I have said that we need to incorporate all high quality WP:RS Safavid specialist sources (meaning authors who are distinguished historians specially those that have written books and articles on Safavids). Concensus cannot be reached when the highest quality historians on Safavids are ignored. If user:Folantin does not accept to mediate on the contentious issues (and both sides must accept his points), then there is stalemate. Concensus on some issues hasn't worked even in several years. Also please note that some of the sources Atabey quotes like Britannica, and even non-specialists like Altsdat, make points contradicting some of Atabey's thesis (see above).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Too long, didn't read. You guys do realize that the point of an RfC is to solicit outside opinion, not for the regulars to keep bickering among themselves until they build a wall of text so big that nobody is going to read it, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it, the main issue is this. DO these three distinguished historians Roger Savory and Alireza Shapour Shahbazi, Richard Frye and Encyclopaedia Britannica meet WP:RS:
 * Roger 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?
 * Alireza Shapour 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".
 * Richard N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enough in google books
 * Britannica:. First line: "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. "

All the long discussions in my opinion are due to simply the fact about the acceptance of these quality WP:RS sources. I will await your opinion on these sources, and I have provided a wikipedia link for both authors. Incidentally, a longr resume of Roger Savory is here:. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going on vacation for 1 week, and I would rather spend my time relaxing. So I hope when I come back, User:Atabey has made a comment on EdJohsons page on whether he accepts or rejects Frye (relavent section is there). Furthermore, 1 week is plenty enough time for Atabey to comeup with a proposal. Then I will be ready for mediation, if there is no progress made and there is no alternative proposals. The proposal has to take into account distinguished authors/historians: And must take into account the above four WP:RS sources as well as the introductions of Britannica, Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. Remember this article is about the Safavid empire and its main achiement (1. Spread of Shi'ism. 2) Creation of Shi'ite-Iranian state as mentioned by Roger Savory with the official name Iran, which unified Iran politically, culturally and religiously (Frye)) 3) Introduction is not about not the identity of the members of the Safavid family, but can have one sentence at most such as:" Safavids were Turcophone (although bilingual in Persian), and of mixed heritage". On the identity of the family, it has its own section which can be expanded. I have never denied that Safavid family was primarily turcophone (although bilingual too), and had Turkish heritage as well. But the family is not the same as the empire. The Moghuls were Turks as well, but they ruled India and created a united Indian empire. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on RFC
I'm not sure I want to "mediate" here. I've edited articles on various figures from the Safavid dynasty but I've always avoided this one because it's so contentious, as the 12 archived talk pages prove. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I have read up on it – although I am somewhat rusty at the moment - and I have no "dog in the fight" since I'm not from the area. I haven't read through all of the above discussions. FWIW here are my opinions on the issues:
 * The current opening sentence is bad, even from a grammatical point of view. It should read: "The Safavid dynasty ... was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran." There is no need for the repetition of "Iran."
 * The name of the article should be "Safavid dynasty" per the equivalent on Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as in line with other Wikipedia pages such as Qajar dynasty.
 * Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France. I'm not sure that Iran is regarded as a nation-state today either.  Obviously, Safavid Iran was a multi-ethnic empire and contained many non-Iranian (or non-Persian) peoples and I'm not sure they were typically referred to as "Iranians", just as AFAIK the Finns, Armenians, Poles etc. of 19th-century Russia were never called Russians. They were Turcomans, Armenians, Afghans etc. who were subjects of the Safavid Shah of Iran. But the name(s) of the subject people(s) is a different issue from the name of the state.
 * As a rider to the above, the introduction should indicate that the Safavid empire at its height did not just include the territory of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran but all, or part, of the territories of the modern states of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and so on.
 * As the title of Newman's book also indicates, there is a general consensus among historians that the Safavid realm was the first time there had been an independent state called "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanid Empire. This is an important point. Of course, the new empire was by no means simply a revival of the old one and was very different in many ways, containing Islamic and Turkic (or Turco-Mongolian) cultural and political elements in its make-up as well as Persian ones.
 * The languages in the introduction should be limited to Persian and Azerbaijani, the chief languages of court. The Azerbaijani should be in the Arabic script in use during the Safavid era. Giving the names in various languages is little more than "cake decoration" as far as most readers of English Wikipedia are concerned. If anyone wants to know the other versions they can click the relevant Inter-wiki links in the left-hand column of the page anyway. If we have Kurdish and Georgian then why not Armenian, Arabic, Mazandarani etc.?
 * Fussing about the exact ethnic make-up of the Safavids is a waste of time. As far as I can see, it is the normal condition of many, if not most, royal families to be multi-ethnic.
 * Turkic as well as Persian culture was important for the Safavids, with Turkic influence probably predominating in the early 16th century at least (this is dealt with by the "Turks and Persians" section of the article). Using this fact to try to make the Safavid shahs into either modern ethnic Persians or Azerbaijanis seems to me totally anachronistic and misguided.
 * The legacy section should be re-written and should maybe focus on the importance of the Safavids for the modern world. After all, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran had the Safavids not converted the country to Shi’a Islam. The end of Safavid rule led to a breakdown in the close relationship between “church and state”, which would eventually result in the stand-off between the Pahlavis and the clergy and the end of imperial rule. A similar thing could be done for the importance of the Safavids in Azerbaijani history etc. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.. I think you solved the whole issue, that I can check wiki without wasting time this time. I request that you also implement all the changes you mentioned, if not, I shall proceed.  As a neutral 3rd party user with no ties to the region, all your comments are acceptable by me and you are the top non-affiliated to the region expert on the issue in Wikipedia who has edited this article.  I hope this will finish the useless debates.  I shall notify EdJohnson, who allowed one side to participate on the RfC despites despite their ban on this important RfC comment.  If this RfC does not work out, then unfortunately arbcomm is where things might end up.  I am looking forward in implementing all the matters mentioned above so that we may put an end to this 12 page archive saga.  I also agree with the anachronism you mentioned (whether with regards to modern alphabets or modern preceptions of Safavid family) and I plan under the origin section to mention in alittle bit more detail (say 3 to 4 sentences) the Turo-Iranic components of Safavid family.  I feel the origin/identity of the dynasty is not really a WP:lead item as the article is about Safavid empire.  But it is anachronistic in some sense as some of these terms have evolved.  I also feel it is not important issue, as we are discussing a whole empire, from philosophers like Mulla Sadra to mosques in Isfahan.


 * I just wanted to comment on your point when you mentioned: "I'm not sure they were typically referred to as "Iranians", just as AFAIK the Finns, Armenians, Poles etc. of 19th-century Russia were never called Russians. They were Turcomans, Armenians, Afghans etc."  I can speak to this point, since I have read some of the Safavid era primary history texts in their original language. In the Safavid primary history books, which are all in Persian (possibly few in Arabic but nothing else), the people of Ottoman empire are called "Rumiyan"(Romans) (Whether Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Kurd, Slavic, Arabic...etc), the people of Moghul India are called "Indian" (Hendovaan), the people of Central Asia are called ("Turanian" whether Persian or Turkish), the people of China are called Chiniyaan (wether ethnic Han or not),  the people of the West are called Farangi (from the Germanic Frank)s whether they were Germans, or non-Germans)..and finally the people of Safavid Iran are called "Iranian" (whatever language they speak). If there was a need to actually differentiate ethnicity, of course "Tat/Tajik" was used for Iranian-speakers, "Tork" was used for Turkish speakers, "Armani/Georgian" for Armenians/Georgians and you also had the category of "Seyyeds" who despite speaking Persian/Turkish or any other languages, identified themselves as the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (e.g. Safavids).  See also  (see the section  "THE “IRANIAN-SHIʿITE” IDENTITY UNDER THE SAFAVIDS".  Interestingly enough the Ottomans called all people (or at least Muslims) under Safavid realm as "'Ajam".  This tradition continues today (e.g. Mir Huseyn Musavi or Ayatollah Khaemeni who are native Turkish speakers, but are Iranian citizens and use "Iranian" to refer to themselves as well.  On a side note, in the Ottoman empire, people called the "Ottoman Turkish language" as "Rumi" and "Othmaani", and hardly ever, "Turkish" was used.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I look forward to implementing all of your suggestions.  Infact, I would be happy if you implement it yourself, but if not, I shall proceed next week.  Thank you again.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I have no real plans for a thorough overhaul of this article, but I might make a few changes - although, I've got to say this page is virtually impossible to edit, given the huge number of references shoved into it. I also have no plans to get involved in any edit wars as I don't have the time or inclination for that kind of thing any more. Ultimately, if people want an objective article on the Safavids, at least there's one on Encyclopaedia Iranica online, written by an actual expert on the subject. The only trouble is its Google ranking is much lower than Wikipedia's. --Folantin (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, you don't have to worry about an edit war. I won't edit for at least week (well make it two or more if you wish, and I do not plan to change any of your wordings), unless I see vandalism (from AA arbcommed sanctioned users, so I won't touch your edits). The other side is blocked from editing it till early August.  Babek Khorramdin, the other user that r.v'ed your edits a while back, is banned.   All the ips are blocked as well.  And there are serious admins (e.g. User:EdJohnston which you can report any attack or soapbox or unrelated comment to) is watching the page and I believe ready to clamp down on the slighest battle-ground comments.   So the article is all yours, to fix up, and so I request you to kindly (as a third party user with no regional affilications) to expend some effort on the areas you see that needs improvement.  I just ask you, if you feel like,  to kindly also look at the high quality sources in this page that that you personally deem fit.  I have mentioned the scholarly qualifications of some the authors that have been quoted .  BTW, I totally agree with you that it is stupid for google to bring Wikipedia before Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam.  If this issue is solved, probably most people in these sort of topics might also leave wikipedia.  Unfortunately google does not care about quality--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on the one hand it's a shame about Google, on the other it's a real bonus having Encyclopaedia Iranica online and it makes Wikipedia's need for coverage a lot less urgent. I do have long-term plans to revise some of the Safavid history articles but I don't have time this year. It would also involve a lot of re-reading. Anyhow, it's been a while since I looked at this article but it looks like people have improved it and it no longer has quite the same obsessive focus on the precise ethnic make-up of the Safavids. --Folantin (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes you implemented and your RfC suggestion. Please be involved in the article.  I also wish google wakes up.  I am glad lots of the obsessive stuff was thrown out.  The article is about the whole empire, but since there are users that are obssessive on the ethnic makeup of the family, one can create an article Safavid family.  Probably one or two lines about the family in the section on Origin won't hurt (I think it should be mentioned they were primarily Turcophones as well, and I'll put a quote on that).  One of the outstanding features of the dynasty is revival of traditional Islamic philosophy.  Infact, it was the only place in the whole Muslim world were Greek philosophy and early Islamic philosophy, was studied and then produced the likes of Mulla Sadra, and Mir Damad.  This tradition of philosophy continues to be studied till this day. So I think such intellectual developments need to be given more space.  Thanks again.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Folantin, I also added something about their geographical extent at their height per your suggestion. Despite not wanting to do so, I also wrote two/three short balanced sentences (if you don't believe it is balanced, please let me know) in the identity section.  The rest of the identity section, if any should go into Safaviyya, as this is an article about the dynasty/empire.  Thanks for your help and responses, it was good to get a neutral 3rd party opinion on this issue and I think all the points you outlined should be reflected in the article (the current version is except for the legacy section which can be expanded).  Personally, I would have preferred "Safavid Iran" to be the title of the article (per the most google books hit), but since as you mentioned, Iranica uses "Safavid dynasty" and it is your suggestion as well, I have let go of the issue.  I hope you continue to edit the article.  Thanks again. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Folantin, thank you for your time and contribution to the RfC. I agree with most of your points, which seem to concur with what I have requested in the RfC anyway, and the subsequent edits in introduction which emanated from your suggestions.

The only part of your comment I would slightly disagree with is using only the Arabic script for Azerbaijani, because the language is the same regardless of script. The official ISO script of modern Azerbaijani is Latin, hence the reflection of both spellings to highlight the languages of the dynasty in present-day linguistic terms would not hurt.

I would be glad to contribute to the Legacy section as your suggested to reflect more on the profound impact of Safavids of formation of modern Azerbaijani identity as well. That of course, depends on the decision made to allow my participation in editing of this article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be possible to give the names of the Safavid dynasty in the various relevant languages in a footnote, simply to avoid clutter in the opening sentence. I've seen this done on similar articles.
 * You should certainly contribute to the "legacy" section, ideally using the relevant English-language sources. I don't know enough about the Azerbaijani aspect of the topic to handle it myself, I just get the impression it deserves coverage here. --Folantin (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Folantin. I work with English-language sources anyway, but will prepare information on Azerbaijani aspects of legacy, specifically the influence of Safavids on modern Azerbaijani identity. Atabəy (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe we need to follow Folantin on all the matters that was outlined by Folantin. I do not just agree with "most of the points" of Folantin, but all of them. I also agree, any other names and spellings can be put in the footnote, and only the ones Folantin left are the ones that count. What matters for the article is how Safavids used spelling during their own era. The major point of contention was solved as noted by Folantin: "Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France. I'm not sure that Iran is regarded as a nation-state today either.". However, comparison with Turkey is invalid as the name Iran was used officially by the Safavids, by their inhabitants and by other foreign nations. Members of the Ottoman empire did not use "Turkey". But as Folantin pointed out, it is only what modern English-speaking Historians and sources use that counts foremost for Wikipedia. Once again I thank Folantin with his RfC response and hope he becomes an involved user. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with his point that the legacy section in the end could be expanded.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Other, unrelated points

 * There should be some mention of Safavid Iran being one of the gunpowder empires along with its neighbours, the Mughal and Ottoman empires. That should give it some context in the history of the Islamic world.
 * The introduction needs to resolve the discrepancy between the two different dates it gives for the end of Safavid rule: 1722 and 1736. I can see the reasoning behind both but the Safavids enjoyed a brief restoration 1729-36 when they were de jure Shahs of Iran, although real power was increasingly in the hands of Nader Shah. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:BOLD --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Folantin and Khodabandeh, thanks for contributing and being bold. But I have some concerns and proposals: The lead needs more work. Xashaiar (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The modern non-english names-translitration: There should be only Persian or nothing or else Kurdish and Arabic too. The reason: Scholarly consensus is: they came from Persian Kurdistan and (hence Kurdish), also they are claimed as "seyyed" (hence Arabic). Can someone tell me why in this article we need non-english names? and how choosing of the languages is done (wikipedia policy link please)? So I propose removing all languages until cons. has reached.
 * It is better to keep the introduction strictly "faithful" to sources. Why not using Britannica? There we have "Safavid dynasty (Iranian dynasty)...". It is true that we should not repeat the same words over and over but there is a difference between "..dynasty .. ruling Iran" and "Iranian dynasty...".
 * Complete removal of the short sentence.. " It was of mixed ancestry..." from the lead.


 * I don't think the language issue is a big deal.. I totally agree with what Folantin did on the issue.
 * The introduction here is good per Folantin's edit, all of his points were exactly the points that I had agreed upon.
 * I would also remove the ethnic concentration in the introduction, but it is not a big deal for me. The article is about the Safavid empire, one can talk more details about the ethnicity of the Safavid family, etc.  in another article which is not a matter of concern for this article.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran ???
What's "Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran" ???


 * Google Books: "Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran" -Llc 0

The name must by Safavid dynasty. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC) St albany (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Its highly disputed whether Safavid was just dynasty or independent empire based on territories of several areas including Caucasus, Middle east, Iran plateau, part of Afghanistan and Central Asia. Its possible to refer tens of books mentioning about Safavid Empire, so please do not make such arguments referring just on one book and saying "must". Me and thousands of others have different view of point based on academic sources. We don't think that the name "MUST" be Safavid dynasty of Iran, please avoid such behaviour in future.

Background – The Safavid Sufi Order
In 700/1301, Safi al-Din assumed the leadership ..

What does 700/1301 mean?

Also what does † mean?

46.64.75.124 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
The article says that the dynasty was of mixed ancestry and then adds the following:

(Azerbaijani,[23] Kurdish[24] and Turkmen,[25] which included intermarriages with Georgian[26] and Pontic Greek[27] dignitaries)

This is just a mix of different sources and proves that the authors have no clue of the subject. To sum it up:

The origins of the dynasty were Kurdish (i. e. Tati), meaning the direct male linage from Safi ud-Din to the Shahs. The identity of the dynasty was Shia Muslim and (without any doubt) Iranian, even claiming Arab Sayed descent. The language of the family was Azeri Turkish, due to their long history of intermarriages and symbiosis with the Turkish-speaking clans of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Of course there also were marriages with local Georgian, Persian or Greek families, but that did not have any influence on the identity or culture of the Shahs. As for "Turkmen": it is in this case the same thing as "Azerbaijani". Peter Golden and Richard Frye mean the same people by saying "Azerbaijani Turkish" or "Turkmen". As for Golden's claim: in this case he is evidently wrong, as proven by Savory and Minorsky. Even Togan, a known Turkish nationalist and (partially) revisionist historian, accepted the undeniable facts that the Safavid family had Non-Turkish origins. In fact, it was Nadir Shah Afshar who for a very brief period tried to establish a "Turkish identity" in Iran by proclaiming the same ancestral linage for himself, the Ottomans and the Mughals (claiming that all three were "Turks" and of "royal Turkish descent"). His attempts failed and he was forced to re-establish the Iranian national identity. --Lysozym (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reign of Shah Isma'il II
I propose changing the years of his reign from (1576-1578) to (1576-1577), according his own Wikipedia page and every other source I have seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.177.24 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

orign of the Shakh İsmail
Its explains enough http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8usSxFs8Eo&feature=relmfu--83.66.126.43 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My Grand Proposal!
Hello everyone! I have been reading the Safavid and Afsharid Empire articles for while and have read so many books on both. I am proposing to merge the Safavid and Afsharid Empire articles into one article, given that both empires were virtually the same empire with a different dynasty. Much like how the Roman and Byzantine Empires went through different Dynasties, Nadir Shah took over the Safavid Empire and declared himself Shah of Iran, thus a new dynasty was put on the throne of the Safavid Empire and was renamed the Afsharid Empire. What do you all think of my proposal? Keeby101 (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose Um, the Safavid dynasty and the Afsharid dynasty were two different dynasties, that's why they have separate pages. The state they both ruled was called Iran (or Persia). We have an article on that too. Plus an article on its history. Are you also going to propose we merge the Ming and Qing dynasty articles because they both ruled China? --Folantin (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, You didn't fully hear me out! I was going to have the new page named "Third Persian Empire" and rename the Safavid Dynasty and Afsharid Dynasty Articles as "Third Persian Empire under the Safavid Dynasty" and "Third Persian Empire under the Afsharid Dynasty. For example, the Byzantine Empire has an article of it's own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire, but it also has it's own sub-articles such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Palaiologos_dynasty and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Justinian_dynasty

So with that being said, I was proposing to have an entirely new article created called "Third Persian Empire" or "Early Modern Persian Empire" that would be specifically about the Safavid and Afsharid Empires. Sound good? Keeby101 (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, NO I am not going to propose we merge the Mingd and Qing Dynasties into one article. But I will propose to merge the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire articles into one article, the Romanov's ruled the Tsardom after all. Keeby101 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just no. --Folantin (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Just "NO" on what?? The Russia topic or this proposal on Iran? If you mean this, then take a look at what I posted on the Afsharid Empire talk page. I rephrased my proposal. Then go to my sandbox and see what the article would look like. It will be great. Again. Cheers! :) Keeby101 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It will violate a number of Wikipedia policies and be deleted. --Folantin (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! Did I seriously just read that from you correctly? How would it violate Wikipedia Policies. I was going to ask permission from the administrators to do this as well or ask permission from whoever is in charge of this stuff to create this article. I simply came on to these 2 talk pages to announce the proposal. The people who would have the big say so would be the Wikipedia administrators. Hopefully it will not get denied. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary and Genalogy
Two points: --Lysozym (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The summary is too long and has an overload of information. See also: WP:SUMMARY.
 * The genealogy section is cunfusing and needs a clean up. For exaple, Frye and Minorsky are quoted as if they contradict themselves what is most certainly not true. Both Frey and Minorsky/Savory agree that the Safavid dynasty was - for all practical purposes - Turkic-speaking, but not Turkic in origin or identity. That's why Frye in the very first sentence says that the Turkish-speakers of Azernaijan are descendants of Irannian-speakers who were linguistically Turkified. That's also exactly what Minosrky says.

Beylerbeylik (Safavid Persia)
Hi, I created the stub Beylerbeylik (Safavid Persia) by disambiguating Beylerbeylik.

However, apart from the sources already there I can't find any evidence that the Safavids divided their provinces using a turkic name. It is possible, given the Azeri Turkic heritage of the Safavids and the Turko-Persian tradition of the region, but would be grateful for help from anyone here with more knowledge of the region.

Once resolved we can describe the same in this article.

My guess, for what its worth, is that the Beylerbeylik name was used in the early Safavid Empire, but then phased out over time as the Persian language became more influential among the ruling elite.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Intermarriages with Circassians
Quite a few Safavid Shah's and princes had Circassian dignitaries or wifes, so I'm adding them as well to the list with the proper references.

Shah Ṭahmāsb had several wives from the Caucasus, and, of his nine sons who reached adolescence, at least five were of Caucasian mothers, four Georgians (Eskandar Beg, I, pp. 133-34, tr. Savory, I, pp. 215-17) and one Čarkas (Eskandar Beg, I, p. 133, tr. Savory, I, p. 215) 

''A very influential figure in the middle of the 10th/16th century, from the latter half of the reign of Ṭahmāsb to the beginning of the reign of Solṭān-Moḥammad Ḵodābanda, was Parī-ḵān Khanom, daughter of the Čarkas woman, Solṭān-Āḡā Khanom (Qomī, p. 671 (Qāżī Aḥmad Qomī, Ḵolāṣat al-tawārīḵ, ed. E. Ešrāqī, 1359 Š./1970, Tehran.) ), a wife of Ṭahmāsb''

''During the reign of ʿAbbās I, Farhād Beg, a Čarkas favorite (moqarrab) of the shah who had begun his career as a falconer (gūščī) and had been promoted to the office of “chief of the hunt” (amīr-e šekār) was suspected of forming a seditious relationship with the shah’s eldest son, Moḥammad-Bāqer Ṣafī Mīrzā, whose mother was a Čarkas. ''

''Shah Abbas II (Persian: شاه عباس دوم‎) (born 31 December 1632;[2] died 25/26 October 1666) was Shah of Iran from 1642 to 1666. He was the seventh Shah of the Safavid Dynasty. He was the son of Shah Safi I and a Circassian, Anna Khanum,[3] -> (^ Andrew J. Newman Safavid Iran (I.B.Tauris) p.81)

''Suleiman I (Persian: شاه سلیمان‎) was a Safavid shah of Persia who reigned between 1666 and 1694. He was the elder son of the previous shah Abbas II and a Circassian slave, Nakihat Khanum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_I_of_Persia)

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
It seems that a few posters of Georgian origin(?) as of recently have been vandalizing articles about the Safavids and Ottomans.

Kartli and Kakheti were under long intermittent Iranian suzerainity, starting from the time of Ismail I of the Safavids. During the same Safavid era, Imereti was also included shortly during their peak under Abbas I. The same goes for Kabardino-Balkaria.

All sources agree on this, however, it seems that wishful thoughts might hold stronger arguments than those conducted by actualy scholars and academics.

If more reversion will be going on, people will have to be reported for vandalism. Also, arguments about ‘’inconsistent w being vassal states‘’ by some of these users can in my opinion better be thrown into the Wikipedia garbage bin, as according to that logic we might as well remove all maps from former empires.

LouisAragon (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Isfahan is Half the World"
I have reverted revision 411762286 which renamed the "Architecture" section to "Isfahan is Half the World". Such a heading by itself would only be appropriate if it was in quotation marks and the section was about the phrase, or it was the title of something (and appropriately formatted to indicate that); to simply use it implies that it reflects Wikipedia's opinion, and Wikipedia should not be asserting such subjective opinions, even implicitly. It could include this phrase with something more descriptive as a subtitle (e.g. "Isfahan is half the world": The architectural legacy of the Safavids), but only if this usage was explained in the section and actually related to the subject specifically. As it is, the only mention of "Isfahan is half the world" in the entire article is under "Culture", and I gather the phrase doesn't refer exclusively to architecture, so I believe its use here is inappropriate. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notes and References
There being a number of footnotes with extensive explanatory text, I propose separating the "substantive" notes from the pure references (in order to direct a reader's attention to ones with additional information). I don't think this should be controversial, but I will not attempt to do so for a week or so to see if there is any objection. If not, I will do the separation and in the process try to make the reference notes more consistent (e.g., using the same abbreviation for previously cited works, using the same types of bibliographic information for each published work, etc.). AnthroMimus (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight in the lede
There's some undue weight in the lede that needs to be removed. It can be added to the legacy section or something, but its absolutely unnecessary.

What Im talking about are these sentences:

that had neither the power, wealth nor longevity of the empires of the Ottoman (its rival) nor the Mughal (its occasional ally).

(...)

''The empire presided over by the Safavids was not a revival of the Achaemenids or the Sasanians, and it more resembled the Ilkhanate and Timurid empires than the Islamic caliphate. Nor was it a direct precursor to the modern Iranian state. According to Donald Struesand, "[a]lthough the Safavid unification of the eastern and western halves of the Iranian plateau and imposition of Twelver Shii Islam on the region created a recognizable precursor of modern Iran, the Safavid polity itself was neither distinctively Iranian nor national."[24] Rudolph Matthee concluded that "[t]hough not a nation-state, Safavid Iran contained the elements that would later spawn one by generating many enduring bureaucratic features and by initiating a polity of overlapping religious and territorial boundaries."[25]''

(...)

''Unlike the Ottomans and the Mughals, the Safavids did not gradually extend their territory over successive generations. Rather, in an initial burst of religion-infused enthusiasm ("a blend of ghuluww, Turko-Mongol conceptions of kingship, and the folk Sufism of the Turkmen"[26]), they reached their geographical apogee almost immediately, soon lost large chunks of territory, mostly to the Ottomans, and spent much of their history contesting that loss and protecting against further territorial constriction, until they rather suddenly succumbed to rapid collapse in 1722''

If there are any objections against this, please let me know.

- LouisAragon (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are going to move the paragraphs you have mentioned into the Legacy section, I have no objections. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if you move them to other sections. --Zyma (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've moved a big chunk of it that is really useful material for the legacy section as proposed, while the rest I've deleted for now. It just doesn't feel like its stuff that should stay in this particular article. I'm just letting you both guys know as you both replied here. If there are anymore opinions/objections about this, please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Safavid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050312234058/http://www.iranica.com:80/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f4/v7f446.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Safavid Empire not Safavid Dynasty
This article should be renamed to Safavid Empire Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
208.65.16.226 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

falsified sources
please check from time to time for falsified sources. for example someone added this article of Iranice about modern people of Iran as a source to claim the Safaviya order as Azerbaijani mixed.

However nowhere in the article is a word lost about the Safaviya order being part Azerbaijani. Please have an eye on these kind of issues. Wikisupporting (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-v1-peoples-survey

Isn't the turkic element underplayed in this entry ?
i'm sensing that the turkic origins of this dynasty were deliberately whitewashed and the whole thing is chalked up to " turkicized  iranians ".

Wasn't the founder of the dynasty the grandson of the sultan of the turkic Aq Qoyunlu dynasty ? why isn't that mentioned with the circassian and georgian origins in the first paragraph ? weren't the first 4 shahs of the dynasty born to turkmen mothers from Iraq ?

so we basically have dynasty of partial ( and overwhelming for the first sultans )  turkic ancestry  ,that self identified as Turks, and spoke a turkic language as native tongue. yet that's not enough to describe   the dynasty as " turkic " ? .

The founder of the dynasty was Firuz Shah Zarin-Kulah he came originally from Diyarbekir and had Kurdish origin. Ancient sources point to that. Wikisupporting (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaiijani or Turkic/Turkmen/Turkish
Azerbaijani is not an ethnicity the entry is misleading it was not an ethnicity during the era. Oguz Turkmen, Turkmen, Turk, Turkic would be correct titles for the era even today in Iran the term used is Tork (Turk)

86.166.168.3 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Double standards - Persified used for non-Persian ethnic empires so why is Turkified/Turkicized not used for Safavids?
When a Turkic empire uses Persian elements in their governance some here are quick to apply the term Persianate but here we have an empire using the Turkish language and cultural elements so why are the Safavids not referred to as a Turkicized empire?

86.166.168.3 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Azerbaijani Turkic was used as the court languange till the very end of Safavid Dynasty (also after the transfer of the state's capital to Isfahan)
Azerbaijani Turkish remained the court language till the very end of the dynasty and Shah Soltan Hoseyn was even nicknamed yakhshi dir (‹It is good’), because that is what he said to any official who submitted a proposal to him, and Shah Soltan Hoseyn was even nicknamed yakshi dir (this is good)

John Francis Templeson (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there's not much in this essay-like text filled with WP:OR self-interpretion that would warrant the removal of this sourced content plus its source. Also, you can't just drop a title here (Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran // Iranian Studies), claiming that it backs up something, without mentioning a page number. I do agree with you that Azerbaijani was still used as a language at the court up to the end of the Safavid dynasty, but what is meant here in the infobox, is that Persian gradually became the primary court language after the capital was moved to Isfahan. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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


 * Here you are! Iranian Studies

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


 * Access to the article is paid, so for your convenience I'll provide you with other reliable sources that claim quite the same.
 * Richard G. Hovannisian, Georges Sabagh. The Persian Presence in the Islamic World. — p. 240.
 * The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant — p. 33 John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I suggest we tweak that part that part into;
 * "Persian (official,[3] coinage,[4][5] civil administration,[6] court (primary after Isfahan became capital),[7] etc...." and "Azerbaijani language (court, (secondary after Isfahan became capital)[7] etc." Or alternatively "Azerbaijani language (court, (primary until Isfahan became capital)[7].... -- doesn't really matter to me which one.
 * Let me know, and I'll fix the part in question, and will add your sources to it as well., would you concur with this wording? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I guess you misunderstand. I have already given you authoritative sources, specialized on Safavid period, that mention primary sources, reporting that Turkish was primary language of the court till the very end of dynasty. Instead, You prefer generalized overview of the History of all Islamic States (New Encyclopedia of Islam), in which author only suppose (he uses probably) that after the transfer of capital to Isfahan Turkish was suppressed by Persian. -- John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not about my "preference". Its about blanket removing reliable sources, and claiming stuff without, in the first place, citing the sources correctly. Only late in the discussion it was that this matter was solved. Anyway, I will change it back to what you made it to originally (*Azerbaijani language (court, religious dignitaries, military)), add the sources you brought to it, and I will move that reference (Cyril Glassé 2003) somewhere down in the body of the article. Hope its solved then. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Names of Safavid Empire
Ok, mr, Savory and others are reliable no more? Your sources don't tell anything about the name used by Safavids themselves. Matthee only refers to some primary source. Savory describes many names that were in use by local people towards Safavid state and Shah Abbas. So, I ask you: Why you deleted sourced information. John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your Savory source also doesn't state "Safavids used this or that to refer to their empire". But of course, Iskandar Beg was a court historian, which makes him a Safavid. So what should we do by your logic? Should we keep Iran (since it is an official Safavid name) and delete Qizilbash realm (since by your logic, it is merely mentioned in some unofficial primary sources not related to Safavids)? You other sources are not in English, and you have to cite them in accordance to WP:NOENG, you should provide exact translation, and also you should cite them correctly, with page number, ISBN, etc. And do not cite outdated sources or those which aren't written by specialists on Safavid history. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Name in Azeri
Do you understand that reverting information, when there is a consensus among scholars that Safavids' native language was Azeri Turkish is vandalism and I will soon ask administrator to do smth with you? John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Read MOS:FORLANG, "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses" -- Mazandar (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, so you decide to erase Azeri, not Persian, although absolutely all reliable academic sources say that Safavids used Azeri as the first (native) language? Sorry, dude, you did edit warring (revert of revert). John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with native tongue. The primary sources about Safavids are mostly in Persian language and Persian was the official and administrative language. So Persian should be in the lead. Also, your Azeri spelling is made-up and is not supported by primary sources, while numerous primary sources can be cited for the Persian name. And I didn't edit-warring, I removed something which was against MOS:FORLANG. -- Mazandar (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was against FORLANG only in your mind, it doesn't matter. This article is about dynasty (family). Family hasn't administrative language, family has just the language that it uses as native. Your machinations are relatively acceptable only for Safavid State. Secondly, primary sources — it's not about Wikipedia. We use only secondary ones.

And we have enough secondary  sources that show Azeri spelling, it's not a problem. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Wikipedia, so you can't invent names, WP:OR. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, this article is clearly not only about the family, the majority of the information is about the state really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, so we have a problem and you use another problem as the proof that first one isn't a problem? Ideally, there must be two articles for state and dynasty, but this one is about dynasty. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


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


 * No, comrade . Don't fool me. We discussing the foreign language equivalent for SAFAVID DYNASTY and Dudmane Safavi has exactly that meaning., note that primary sources are not reliable for Wikipedia. Try to find secondary ones.
 * Both of you. We have authorative sources which reassert that native language for the members of Safavid dynasty was Azeri Turkish. I am waiting for disproof. John Francis Templeson (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY:
 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * First, there's no interpretation, second, it can be verified by any educated person, so it's perfectly OK to use a primary source. -- Mazandar (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK guys, let's continue. So you say that article named Safavid dynasty is not about dynasty but state and want to add the name of dynasty in Persian because administrative language of state was Persian? Lol. Native language of Safawids from XV c. to at least 1722 was Azerbaijani Turkish so we can add only Azeri name of this dynasty. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)