Talk:Ismail I

Protection of article

Hello all, judging from the ridiculous arguments in the talk section put forward by people influenced by extreme ideologies I would like to let everyone know that articles like this, and many Iran and Greater Iran related topics, are under constant attack by vandals. Vandals which cite sources, many of which are full of ridiculous alt-facts and misinformation, to back up their ridiculous claims. The main issue on this article is the origin of Shah Ismail, I believe that many Pan-Turks hijack this page claiming that Shah Ismail was a Turk or Turkish or whatever floats their boats. Not only are these claims baseless and sound ridiculous but they have invaded this article! Most people which do an in-dpeth reserach on not only the Safavid dynasty buy also the Azeri people, will realize that Azeris are Turkic peoples because they speak a Turkic language but they are culturally Iranian/Iranic as well as genetically and historically Iranian/Iranic. Hence, why Shah Ismail is considered an Iranian as he is of Kurdish-Azeri origin. We must protect this page from vandalism. Just a heads up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous article, totally ignores Ismail I's Turk/Turkmen identity

The article is disingenuous, claiming Ismail I was Kurdish is like claiming Queen Elizabeth is German, sure there is some German descent in the family tree but she is the Queen of Great Britain... there seems to be some confusion or purposeful attempts at trying to deceive readers here. Ismail I may have had a Japanese descendant 13 generations back! trying to connect a descendant 13 generations back and link it directly to current ethnicity is simply ridiculous and quite laughable. Over the course of 2-3 generations a persons nationhood and sense of identity can completely change.

This article totally ignores that Ismail I grew up in a Turkmen/Turk sphere of influence, his grandfather married into the Aqqoyunlu, his father was an Aqqoyunlu, at the time of his birth Ismail I's family had been thoroughly Turkicised, directly through marriage/offspring, linguistically, militarily and culturally. Ismail I's mother tongue was Turkish, he spoke the language with the troops, with his family, in the court. I know there is a bit of a chip on the shoulder among some Pan-Iranic minded folk on Wiki but facts are facts. 109.148.253.190 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am interested to know if people now feel that this concern has been resolved. Neither the lede nor the infobox now mention Ismail's Kurdish ancestry, and other parts of the article only mention that he had Kurdish ancestors as well as ancestors of other ethnicities. MPS1992 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

He was not kurd right but of Iranian origins and native middle eastern origins, Ismael mother side which is from Uzun Hassan is mixed as well with Georgian and Greek and Turk and by the way Uzun Hassan was more Greek genetically than Turk, and I won't talk about the deep origins of the turkic peoples like oghuz and tatar because it is a long argument about assimilation, however, accusing the owner of this article of being Pan-Iranist is telling you are a Pan-Turkist like 89% - 97% of Azerbaijanis or Turks from Anatolia, you are accusing anyone's does not agrees with you of being Pan-Iranist while you are the Pan-Turkist here. Ironic... Iranian Historian (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Shah Ismayil Khatai is the son of a Turk, and there are many articles about this, please look at those articles Sərraf Türksoy (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It is funny that most of you Pan-Turkists gets a false informations and eductions that you think "Khatai" is a surname while it is a word/term, Ismael has mocked the Turks according to the Qizilbash Writer: Eskander Beg Turkoman Iranian Historian (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Shah Ismayil Khatai's grandfather was Uzun Hasan Hasan. Uzun Hasan was the ruler of the Aggoyunlu state, how can it be that someone whose father and grandfather are Turks becomes a Persian or a Kurd?Please correct it. Shah Ismayil Khatai is the Shah of Azerbaijan Sərraf Türksoy (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The ethnicity and origins of shah Ismail are well-sourced in the article, please don't use Wikipedia talk pages like a forum, you need to cite reliable sources for your claims.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

I have reverted 3 edits by 2 IPs, deleting sources and infos. Tājik (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original quote by Minorsky. Tājik (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've once again reverted unexplained deletions by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Gumilyov L. (Bosphere and Etnogenesis of the Earth, Moscow, 2001) Shah ismail has purely turkic origin and his native language was Azerbaijani turkish. Therefore, He wrote in Azerbaijani turkish. Dear TAJIK, You have written that According to Minorsky Shah Ismail was bilingual at birth. Firstly, It must be shame for all of us, to say about Shah Ismail bilingual. Secondly, the Idea of Minorsky cannot be used here as a criteria. Therefore, I delete "Minorsky". Shah Ismail HAS TURKISH DIVAN and everybody knows that it was his native language.

Iraq

In Life and Political History section it writes: Baghdad and the holy Shi'a shrines of Najaf and Karbala were seized from the Ottoman Turks, lost and reconquered again.

I think this sentence must be revised. Ismail died in 1524. Iraq had never been a part of Ottoman Empire before 1524. Iraq was annexed by Ottoman Empire in 1534 , ten years after Ismail's death. So there was no conquest and reconquest of Iraq from Ottoman Empire. In fact, Ismail conquered Iraq from Murat Bey of Akkoyunlu Turkmens in 1508 Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On Language

The text in the article now states that he was bilingual 'at birth'. Did he start speaking two different languages the moment he came out of his mother? If so, she might have been somewhat distressed. I think what is meant is either "his household was bilingual" or "he grew up bilingual".

70.18.16.154 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Khatā'ī means Sinner ?

I did my best but could not find the Doerfer's article about the meaning of Khatā'ī . I think it may also be related to Khitan people that in Persian language it is written as Khatā'ī . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

His pen-name Khatā'ī is Arabic (Arabic: خطائي / Ḫaṭāʾī) and means "the one with errors". So the wider meaning of the name is indeed "sinner", but in a poetic way. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Khitan people or anything else.

Alborz is right. Khatai in Shah Ismail's writings refers to Khatai people not sinner. Ismail claimed to be infallible, shadow of god, and the hidden Imam how could he be a sinner? I spoke to a professor that teaches this subject and this is what she told me. --Critical M104 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing edits

I detected Ethnocentric attempt by User:Lysozym‎ and User:Xashaiar. Those edits: A, B etc. are POV pushing. It's very clear that their attempt is to remove the term of Shah of Azerbaijan. However this is historical fact. At first, Ismail became the "Shah of Azerbaijan". And then he became the shah of all of Iran. OK ?POV pushing edit. It's very clear your attempt is to remove the term of Shah of Azerbaijan. This is historical fact. First of all, he became the "Shah of Azerbaijan". And then he became the "Shah Iran". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And do you have any sources for the name "Abū l-Muzaffar bin Haydar as-Safavī" ? I couldn't find it in Reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• "...at Tabriz he was enthroned as Shah of Azerbaijan (1501)." Woodbridge Bingham, Hilary Conroy, Frank William Iklé, A History of Asia: Formations of civilizations, from antiquity to 1600, Allyn and Bacon, 1974, p. 116.
• "...became Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 and Shah of Iran a year later." Curtis F Jones, Divide and Perish, AuthorHouse, 2011, p. 245.
• "...in July 1501 Isma'il was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropædia, Encyclopædia Britannica, 1991, p. 295.
  • Iran: the essential guide to a country on the brink, p. 56.
• "Becoming shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 after conquering Tabriz" The encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1, Grolier, 2000, p. 511.

Takabeg (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocentric? a) of the sources mentioned above, only can be considered relevant and reliable (Encyclopaedia Americana). There are much better sources available, such as Encyclopaedia Iranica, Cambrdige History of Iran, and so forth. Why do you not cite any of those? b) Modern national borders and self-understanding did not exist back then. Ismail did not identify himself as an "Azeri" or a "king of Azerbaijan". He identified himself as a "Safawi" and as a hereditary grandmaster of that movement. His first battles were meant to revenge his father. After defeating the Turkoman confederations, he realized the power vacuum and declared himself king of all of Iran. Read Minorsky or Savory. c) Even though this information is wrong (i.e. that he was "king of Azerbaijan"), it is still mentioned in the article. But it is irrelevant for the introduction. In a very short time, he established himself as the "King of Iran", and he was recognized as such by his Ottoman and Uzbek enemies. --Lysozym (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Shah Ismael was Shah of Iran not Persia. Why when I read wikipedia it states as him Shah of Persia?? I suggest to delete it. My source is

Savory, "The Safavid State and Polity", p. 214 for Roemer's comments; ibid., pp. 206—8, for further examples from Iskandar MunshI showing that Iran was viewed by that historian as a positive entity or state.

The_Cambridge_History_of_Iran_Volume_6 page 352. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Expert attention

I was alerted that someone had changed all of the male pronouns to female. So I changed back, her to his, she to he, girl to boy, daughter to son. The problem is that in some passages it's not clear which is correct as a few of the people were female. Any knowledgeable person who can read through the sections and correctly align the pronouns with the individuals is welcome to make changes to the article.

Particularly confusing is this passage: "His father, Martha, was the son of Uzun Hasan by his Pontic Greek husband Theodora, better known as Despina Khatun.[6] Theodora was the son of Empress John IV of Trebizond. (He had married Uzun Hassan in a deal to protect Trebizond from the Ottomans.[7]) Ismail grew up bilingual, speaking Persian and Azeri.[8][9]" I have no idea whether husband, son, father are correct or were also incorrectly changed.

Thank you! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone do such a thing?! Can anyone explain? I recently studied Safavids so I'll look into this issue when I get a chance. --Critical M104 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

answer to kurdish claims

A short explanation for that sided claims.--83.66.126.43 (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8usSxFs8Eo&feature=relmfu

Youtube is not a reliable source. Unflavoured (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Shah Ismayil Khatai and Yavuz Sultan Selim's talks were in Turkish They spoke Turkish because their roots were Turkish. There are several articles about this Sərraf Türksoy (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

wrong

It wrongly states that Ismail converted Iran from sunni Islam to Ismaili shia Islam, which is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.179.68 (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Iranians were not Sunni? Name of Omar was common in Iran before Safavids e.g. Omar Khayam

Kiumars Irani (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ismail not a Kurdish

Kurdish root of Ismail have presented in only one historical resource but many others are rejecting this claim. I think, the most valuable resource about identity of Ismail is his "divan". He used to so pure Turkish in his divan. The only one claim can not be acceptable for mark him as "Kurdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.51.158 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dears Kansas Bear, IamNotU,

I have objection to below statement, as I see a tendency last 7 years trying to make Shah Ismael Kurdish, which I would like to justify.

"Ismail was born to Martha and Shaykh Haydar on July 17, 1487 in Ardabil. His father, Haydar, was the sheikh of the Safaviyya Sufi order and a direct descendant of its Kurdish[9][10][11] founder, Safi-ad-din Ardabili (1252–1334).".

First I will star from sources where it says that the origin of Sayx Safi ad-Din is obscure however, in this article it was used as reference to justify that he was Kurdish:

"Peter B. Golden: An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples; In: Osman Karatay, Ankara 2002, p.321" - reference 19 in this article.

This citation was published by Peter B. Golden in researchgate. I went through the scholar and couldn't find any statement that clearly says that the founder of Safavi order was Kurdish. Citation was published in 1992, I was unable find any information that suggest it was edited in 2002. Even in his official page in researchgate there is no information about this citation being re published in 2002.

"The Safavids derived from Sayx Safi ad-Din (1252-1334), the founder of a Sunnî ~ûfi order. His origins are obscure, perhaps Kurdish or Türkmen. (page 371) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281319978_An_Introduction_to_the_History_of_the_Turkic_Peoples published by Harrassowitz Verlag

Osman Karatay, Ankara 2002 - is reference to translation of the book by Osman Karatay in 2002 (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iutarih/issue/9612/120071) . If this book refers Sufi order being Kurdish not obscure as it mentioned in original citation, the source can't be considered reliable.

Secondly, the reference number [10] Savory 1997, p. 8. - My question to you guys, is it right way to refer something, as reference is completely not clear. It refers to Encyclopædia Iranica. Is it right to refer some sites which is opened by Iranian Foundation or founded by Iranian foundation? It is like me using links and resources from Azerbaijan Research Centre. Don't you think it will be biased information? Moreover, reference to link doesn't contain enough information to justify he was Kurdish, it just says that during Shah Ismael and Tahmasib time Ṣafwat al-ṣafā revised to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams. Is it enough to justify history? One sentence? Open question to you guys whether this reference is valid or not.

The third reference number [9] Tapper, Richard (1997). Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the Shahsevan. Cambridge University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0521583367. The Safavid Shahs who ruled Iran between 1501 and 1722 descended from Sheikh Safi ad-Din of Ardabil (1252–1334). Sheikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetics Sufis. Their own origins were obscure; probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction ...

Again it says probably and still refers that it is obscure.

Moreover, I can add another reference from Roger Savory "Iran Under the Safavids". In page 2 he refers several sources. Let me give brief information what he wrote:

First theory: He refers to Firuzshah the first member of Safavid family which we have historical data/information. Book refers that Firuzshah migrated from Yemen this is indication of arab origin of the family. In fact, Safavi family considered themselves as "Ahli Beyt" in this case this gives link for family being descendent of prophet Muhammad.

Second theory: Safavid are being of turkic origin was stated by David Ayalon. This statement on same book.

The third theory: Safavid family was pure Arian yet they speak Azeri Turkish. This statement made by Kasravi, however, I would like mentioned that he was working during Shah Reza Pahlavi, which tried to justify Iranians to be pure Ayranians and also include Azeris to this list. Hence, statement may be bias but, it still doesn't clearly refer whether Safavid family migrated from Kurdistan.

Forth Theory: Velid Zekki Togan re-examination of Kasravis work stated that the origins of Safavids family "may" have ties to Mamlan Vahsuda, the Ravvadi prince of Kurdish origin.

Conclusion, As you can see all references used to justify the origin of family was Kurdish doesn't state anything directly and clearly says that the origin is obscure. However, most articles in Wikipedia related to Safavid dynasty mention Safavids being Kurdish without any hesitation, which puts wikipedia information biased. I think this points should be reflected in all articles. All articles which says it is Kurdish should be reviewed and changed properly to reflect obscure origin of family, which may be Turkic or Kurdish. Non of this has not proved yet, so far we know family spoke Azeri Turkish and promote this language to court, not kurdish not persian.

Thank you very much for reading this. just want to mention that I spent my 4 hours to write above statement, checking all sources one by one, in order to avoid being bias due to my nationality and sensitivity to this topic. Looking forward for your comments.

Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (talk),

Welcome back. Please justify whey you think descendant of Safavid family is Kurdish. All references provided saying it is Kurdish, doesn't say and uses word of obscure or "may" be.

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You are writing (spamming) in a section made in 2013, seriously, what are you doing? Also, what you are saying is clearly wrong, anyone with basic English-speaking abilities can see that. Don't remove sourced information again, and stop spamming so many talk pages with your personal theories and questionable interpretations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (talk),

My friend, I don't want to be rude. I am MSc from Imperial College London and I do believe that my English basics are very well. I analyses sources and read referred books and didn't find any statement that says the Safavid family descendants of Kurdish origin. I read all these three books none of them states it, however uses words like "obscure" or "may be". The sentence in below in article is mis interpretation of all these three references.

Ismail was born to Martha and Shaykh Haydar on July 17, 1487 in Ardabil. His father, Haydar, was the sheikh of the Safaviyya Sufi order and a direct descendant of its Kurdish[9][10][11] founder, Safi-ad-din Ardabili (1252–1334).

Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to work on your English skills, it's not my problem. Also, I literally just clicked on one of the citations and I can already see you're wrong/lying ("This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams." [1]). I've already reported you to an admin, and I'm not interested in taking further part in this. DON'T remove sourced information, and DON'T try to pov push. WAIT for consensus before you edit. DON'T writer on my talk page. Thanks and bye. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (talk),

Please read other sources not bring citation from Iranica as I already questioned reliability of this source. I have mentioned source from Iranicaonline which in this case is questionable and not enough to give statement that family descendant was Kurdish as other sources doesn't underpin this as a fact. Iranicaonline is not reliable source. And please also stop making your comments personal ! I am trying to make a healthy discussion here not fight. If you have solid reasoning you are welcome, but attacking me and my competency is not way how we discuss things here.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge University unreliable source?

To the IP that continues to label what he does not like, Cambridge University Press is an acceptable reliable source. Richard Tapper is qualified as a scholar in this field. Continued attempts to label said source(s) will be considered disruptive editing and could lead to you being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Logic vs Historians

Some of the references do not make any sense. E.g. Anthony Bryer, open citation, p. 136 [20] says the Emperor of Trebizond gave his Christian daughter to a Sufi-Muslim high-priest who had no power or army to even protect himself let alone protecting the Trebizond Empire from the superpower of the world at the time (i.e. Ottomans)!

And what are the odds of the high-priest of a religion marring a woman from another faith (even today in the 21st century)? And then the wife goes to a Muslim country and builds churches and promotes Christianity! Do you know what kind of Shia bashing excuses it would have given to the Sunni Ottomans and 80% of the Iranian population that were Sunnis at the time? They would write 1000s of books about it and would burn the entire Shia community to death!

One look at the location of Trebizond on the map and its distance from Ardabil in Iran is enough to question the sanity of such claims. Use the Google map to check it yourself!

If you come to conclusion that the theory is insane then you must think why a so called historian has put it forward as a historical fact! Fortunately the genetic science can solve these puzzles soon! For the time being we need to rely on the good old method of analogical logic.

http://www.orderofsteugene.com/history/Trebizond.htm

Kiumars Irani (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You should spend more time researching and less time ranting. All of these books state that John IV's daughter Theodora married Usun Hasan.

• The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits, 1250-1500, edited by Donald M. Nicol, page 121.
• The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The Fifteenth Century, Kenneth Meyer Setton, page 222.
• The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Steven Runciman, page 173. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Shah Ismail was a great Turkish ruler!

Shah Ismail was a definitely Turk. Accepted view in the everywhere world is like this. Already himself wrote Turkish poems and in Turkish culture. And his ethnic origin was Azerbaijani Turkish, he was born in Turkish city Ardabil. Ardabil's the entire population is completely Turk. How then he was Kurd? Also Safavid State was famous for ruled with Turkish culture and used Turkish Language! 94.123.98.229 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? That's like saying the Ghaznavids were Persians because they spoke Persian or Mozart was Italian because he composed operas in Italian!

You won't gain consensus by spouting opinion or making outlandish claims like, "Accepted view in the everywhere world is like this".

Sources stating Safavids were Kurdish:

• Richard Tapper, Frontier nomads of Iran: a political and social history of the Shahsevan, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 39;"The Safavid Shahs who ruled Iran between 1501 and 1722 descended from Sheikh Safi ad-Din of Ardabil (1252-1334). Sheikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetics Sufis. Their own origins were obscure; probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction"
• Muhammad Kamāl, Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy, Ashgate Publishing Inc, 2006, p. 24;"The Safawid was originally a Sufi order whose founder, Shaykh Safi al-Din, a Sunni Sufi master descended from a Kurdish family."
• Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, p152;"Working independently, the Iranian historian A.Kasravi and Z.V. Togan concluded the Safavids were Kurdish in origin..
• John R. Perry, New Perspectives on Safavid Iran:Empire and Society, ed. Colin P. Mitchell, p86;"The Safavid dynasty, in all likelihood of Kurdish origin....
• Rudi Matthee, Persia in Crisis:Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, p5;"Of Kurdish origin, the Safavids hailed from the Turkish-speaking highlands of Anatolia...".
• Stuart Cary Welch, A King's Book of Kings: The Shah-nameh of Shah Tahmasp, p11;"Although the Safavids spoke Turkish, they were probably of Kurdish origin...".
• Rudi Matthee, The Encyclopaedia Iranica;"As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup."

Also to refute your nonsense, "Also Safavid State was famous for ruled with Turkish culture and used Turkish Language", Persian was the official language of the Safavid dynasty per this source;

• Roemer, H. R.,The Safavid Period, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods, 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.."
  

Again, you will have to gain consensus for any changes to referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Ghaznavids were not spoke Persian, were spoke Turkish. Persian was just official language of correspondence in Ghaznavid. Also I'm not saying do not have any source. Have sources but one or two in millions sources. Accepted view in the everywhere world is Safavid was Turk. Erim Turukku (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Ghanavids spoke Persian. Your continued nonsense of, "Accepted view in the everywhere world is "Safavid was Turk"., is extremely poor English and means absolutely nothing.

• C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids:994-1040, page 129;"Mahmud is said to have known Arabic well, although he disliked the language. His knowledge of Persian was clearly adequate for him to work with his Persian adviors...".
• The Ghaznavids:994-1040, page 130;"As Sultan, Mas'ud was a competent Persian stylist".
• Linda Komaroff, Islamic art in the Metropolitan Museum: The Historical Context, page 10;"Although ethnic Turks, the Ghaznavids spoke Persian and through their patronage they helped establish modern Persian as a cultural language."
• Kees Versteegh, C. H. M. Versteegh, The Arabic Language, page 236;"The Ghaznavids, whose centre was Ghazna in Afghanistan, spoke Persian..."

Yet again, your personal opinion has been proven wrong by reliable secondary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghaznavid Dynasty (Viz language of palace) and other aristocracy, and Ghaznavid army was Turkic speaker. Persian was just official language of correspondence in Ghaznavid.

• C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids:994–1040, (Edinburgh University Press, 1963), 134.

To suggest otherwise is not scientific. Also Shah İsmail was Turk because he was born in Turkish city Ardabil. Ardabil's the entire population is completely Turk. Also Shah İsmail was famous for commitment to Turkish culture and govern with Turkish culture. Shah İsmail prased The Turks in own poems and apothegm for example; Sen ey Türk-i peri peyker/Thou fairy-bodied, angel Shapely Turk! And The great ancestor Sheikh Shafi'i of Sah Hatayi his was called on "Piri Turk" / "Turkish Piri".

• Nihat Çetinkaya, Kızılbaş Türkler, p. 395.

Shah İsmail Khatai nibs, was underestimated and flouted the identity of the Arab, Kurd and Persian in the face of Turkish identity in own council for example; Yetdükçe tükenir Arab'un kuy u meskeni,/Bağdat içinde her nice TÜRKMAN kopar.//Şirvan halaiki kamu Tebriz'e daşına/Mülk-i Acem sorar ki, kıyamet kaçan kopar?'

• Şah Hatayi Külliyatı, Babek Cavanşir, Ekber N. Necef 2006.

Erim Turukku (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you have posted changes what reliable sources state about the Safavid Kurdish origins.

Also, your statement from the Ghaznavids is fake. Falsifying information from sources is not allowed and can result in a block.

You want scientific? Why would Mahmud have his victories publicized in Persian if he himself did not speak Persian? -- "Mahmud preferred that his fame and glory be publicized in Persian and hundreds of poets assembled at his court."

• Hail to Heydarbaba: A Comparative View of Popular Turkish & Classical Persian Poetical Languages, Hamid Notghi and Gholam-Reza Sabri-Tabrizi, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1994), 244.

The Ghaznavids continued to develop historical writing in Persian that had been initiated by their predecessors, the Samanids.

• The Past in Service of the Present: Two Views of History in Medieval Persia, J. S. Meisami, Poetics Today, Vol. 14, No. 2, Cultural Processes in Muslim and Arab Societies: Medieval and Early Modern Periods (Summer, 1993), 247.

Historian Bosworth explains: "In fact with the adoption of Persian administrative and cultural ways the Ghaznavids threw off their original Turkish steppe background and became largely integrated with the Perso-Islamic tradition."

• Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The New Islamic dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, p. 297

And, you still do not have consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why Turkish rahter than Persian words in Urdu, for than reason Ghaznavids spoke Persian?! Also sources is not reliable about that he was the Kurdish origin. There are even dead link. Shah İsmail prased The Turks in own poems and apothegm therefore was Kurdish descent or The great ancestor Sheikh Shafi'i of Sah Hatayi his was called on "Piri Turk" / "Turkish Piri". therefore was Kurdish descent or Shah İsmail Khatai nibs, was underestimated and flouted the identity of the Arab, Kurd and Persian in the face of Turkish identity in own council therefore was Kurdish descent?(!) Erim Turukku (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

1.You seriously do not make any sense. Your "source" from Bosworth is FAKE! There is no such statement made on page 134 of The Ghaznavids:994-1040.

2.According to you, "Also sources is not reliable about that he was the Kurdish origin". Your refusal to get the point simply because you don't like the fact they were Kurdish and used Persian is quite evident in your labeling of these sources as "not reliable":

• Richard Tapper, Frontier nomads of Iran: a political and social history of the Shahsevan, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 39;"The Safavid Shahs who ruled Iran between 1501 and 1722 descended from Sheikh Safi ad-Din of Ardabil (1252-1334). Sheikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetics Sufis. Their own origins were obscure; probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction"
• Muhammad Kamāl, Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy, Ashgate Publishing Inc, 2006, p. 24;"The Safawid was originally a Sufi order whose founder, Shaykh Safi al-Din, a Sunni Sufi master descended from a Kurdish family."
• Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, p152;"Working independently, the Iranian historian A.Kasravi and Z.V. Togan concluded the Safavids were Kurdish in origin..
• John R. Perry, New Perspectives on Safavid Iran:Empire and Society, ed. Colin P. Mitchell, p86;"The Safavid dynasty, in all likelihood of Kurdish origin....
• Rudi Matthee, Persia in Crisis:Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, p5;"Of Kurdish origin, the Safavids hailed from the Turkish-speaking highlands of Anatolia...".
• Stuart Cary Welch, A King's Book of Kings: The Shah-nameh of Shah Tahmasp, p11;"Although the Safavids spoke Turkish, they were probably of Kurdish origin...".
• Rudi Matthee, The Encyclopaedia Iranica;"As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup."
• Roemer, H. R.,The Safavid Period, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods, 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.."
  

If you continue to call the Cambridge University sources and other sources listed as "not reliable" then you simply label yourself as a POV pusher. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Source about Ghaznavid is not fake. And also everything in the middle. If you continue to call the Cambridge University sources and other sources listed as "not reliable" then you simply label yourself as a POV pusher. Shah İsmail was Turk, Accepted view in the everywhere world is like this. You can look at other language's Wikipedias Erim Turukku (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit by Azecorrector

I asked you to discuss the changes you were performing on the talk page before performing the same change. Care to explain why you removed the source from Britannica, and "A History of Asia: Formations of Civilizations, From Antiquity to 1600" and instead replaced it with "Xoндeмиp, 'т.III, ч.4, c.570-571, 599-601, Шapaф-xaн Бидлиcи, т.ц c.169"? Best, --Spivorg (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I will now revert your changes. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained editing

Anonim.lion, you have recently begun to remove the Persian name of Ismail, change Iran with Azerbaijan, what is your reasons for that? do you have any reliable source which calls the Safavids as the king of Azerbaijan, and what are your reasons for removing the Persian name of Ismail? take a look on the sources on the lead of the Safavid dynasty, i don't see the information (which has sources on it) being called a Azerbaijani Empire. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ismail I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seyyed (talk · contribs) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is clearly incomplete and does not cover major aspects of Ismail's life. More information should be added regarding the following issues:

• Child: Ismael's life in Estakhr and Gilan
• Campaigns in Iran:

Ismail's war against Aq Qoyunlu

Establishment of a new government in Tabriz

Wars against the local powers to unify Iran

• Diplomatic relations with Mamluks of Egypt and Venice.
• Religious policies including changing the official religion into Shia, leadership of Qizilbash, invitation of Arab Shia shcolars, etc.
• Legacy: Establishment of new central government in Iran and unification of the country.
• Criticism against Ismail's policies.

I hope you can add all of these information in the article.

---

There is no any improvement in the past 10 days. Thus, the article is failed.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: --Seyyed(t-c) 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination failed.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Original research by DurChalen

Along with off topic additions to this article, DurChalen also is perpetrating original research.

"In 1514, Afonso de Albuquerque succeeded in constructing the Portuguese Fort in Ormuz."
Britannica states, "In 1514 the Portuguese captured Hormuz and built a fort. For more than a century the island remained Portuguese..."
No mention of Afonso and no mention of how this has anything to do with Ismail I. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Persian

please change ((Persian)) to ((Persian language|Persian))

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shah Ismail was in jail at the age of 1 and a half

c. 1488 C.E. in the remote frotress down 1,200+ km in Estakhr in the region of Fars. That is a vital information in my opinion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please could you provide details of the source of this information. MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I will add this, just finishing up the source which has many editors and authors Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Physical Appearance

I added the physical appearance of the Shah as a separate paragraph. Didn't want to mingle on the Origin, or the Life paragraph. My edits are being examined by my mentor @Irondome: Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation to all contributors to this article for mentoring co-operation

I would just like to extend my thanks to all colleagues who edit and improve this article, and your co-operation with my mentoree Alexis Ivanov. I have noted a marked improvement in the working relationship between all parties and the significantly constructive direction that article improvement has taken since my mentorship offer was accepted by Alexis. Mentorship is the often the cinderella of WP. It is underused but can calm and improve working attitudes and collective working hugely while assisting in editor retention. My thanks to you all. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit including Shah Ismail's name in Azerbaijani was reverted

Shah Ismail Khatai was one of the first notable persons in the history to use Azerbaijani language in literature, with his notable works including 1400 verses and books such as "Nasihatname" and "Dahname" in Azerbaijani language. Also he was born, lived most of his life and died in Azerbaijan, and his mother tongue was Azerbaijani. In my opinion, these facts suffice to pay tribute to this remarkable person's love to his mother tongue and to include his name in the intro in his mother tongue as well. It's sad to see that someone is reluctant to do it. I consider the argument that "he may also have had Kurdish ancestry, so then if one mentions his name in Azerbaijani, they should mention his name in Kurdish as well" poor attempt to hide his importance for the history and literature of Azerbaijan. Dear fellow mates, please consider to revert back my edit from 18:24, 27 October 2018. --Guardian of the Divine RabbiT (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a remark, the titles of the above works from Ismail (Nasihatname and Dahname or rather Dehname) are in Persian, not in Azerbaijani, this alone gives a quite clear perspective. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note that new messages must be posted at the end of the page, therefore you can move all this at the right place. thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to bottom, sorry for that. Nasihat is an Arabic word borrowed both by Persian and Azerbaijani. As there are many words borrowed from Arabic to Persian, there are also many Persian words borrowed to Azerbaijani, including numerals such as Dah. This is another poor argument: you can't just completely ignore whole content of the books (which are written in Azerbaijani) and try to pick on just titles that happen to be borrowed nowns. Best Regards. --Guardian of the Divine RabbiT (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i don't speak Azerbaijani and i haven't read Shah Ismail's books (unfortunately), all i said was that the names of his works are in Persian. You focus on the Arabic word "nasihat" but you don't speak about "Nâme", which is purely Persian, this makes the word "nasihatnâme" at least Arabo Persian (it would be "pandnâme" in pure Persian). Also, the word "dahnâme" is completely Persian. How are his books relevant for Shah Ismail's name ? If the Azerbaijani language was so important for him, why wasn't that language at least one of the official languages of the Empire ? or at least one of the languages of literature (which was Persian)? I have no problem with the inclusion of his Azerbaijani name in the article if you can gain consensus about it, but as far as i can see, several editors disagree with that. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have already said, there are many words borrowed from Persian to Azerbaijani (as any other language borrowed from any other language), in fact, let me feed your ego: there are many Persian loanwords in these books that aren't even currently in use in Azerbaijani. The undeniable fact is, these books are written in Azerbaijani language and are one of the first works of Azerbaijani literature. This is a dead end, so let's just move on.

Why do you keep mentioning Safavid Empire and its official language, when the article is not about the Safavid Empire but about Shah Ismail Khatai, who was not just a founder of Safavid Empire who started his glorious campaign at home in Azerbaijan, but also a poet who mainly wrote in his mother tongue, in Azerbaijani language. So adding his name in Azerbaijani is just paying tribute to his mother language that he used mainly in his works and generally, in his life (it was his mother tongue for God's sake).

Besides that, you're saying that you don't speak Azerbaijani, but you have just submitted an edit to the article about Azerbaijani language, stating that "speakers of each language (North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani) may have difficulty fully understanding speakers of the other", where in fact: a) the source you cited doesn't even mention that; b) these are definitely not separate languages but dialects; and c) this is completely wrong: I am born and raised in Baku and I have dozens of relatives and friends living in Tabriz, Urmia, Ardabil, with whom we don't feel any difficulty in understanding each other, as if I were speaking with people from Nakhchivan, Shaki or Ganja (the exceptions may be some handful of loanwords that are not present in both dialects). This fact, unfortunately, alarms me that you're not really interested in finding the truth, but rather distort facts to create an illusion of what you would like to see.

If by several editors, you mean yourself and an ambiguous IP from Ahvaz, Khuzestan, then I would say, let's wait more. Regards. --Guardian of the Divine RabbiT (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"I am born and raised in Baku and I have dozens of relatives and friends living in Tabriz, Urmia, Ardabil, with whom we don't feel any difficulty in understanding each other" : Sounds like POV, nothing less, nothing more. You seem to think that only Azerbaijani speakers can edit an article about the Azerbaijani language, this shows that you have not understood how wikipedia works. For your information, the source unambiguously says that there are significant differences between south and north Azerbaijani language. Sorry to tell you that, but your opinion and the opinion of your relatives from Iranian Azerbaijan are not relevant here.

"So adding his name in Azerbaijani is just paying tribute to his mother language that he used mainly in his works and generally, in his life (it was his mother tongue for God's sake)" : Please leave emotions aside, and cool down please.

"If by several editors, you mean yourself and an ambiguous IP from Ahvaz" Not sure why you become suddenly condescending. No need to be a PhD in maths to understand that 1<2 right ?

"in fact, let me feed your ego" No thanks, i don't need anyone feeding my ego, i'm not here for that.

"I would say, let's wait more" Agreed. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Stating that "North and South Azerbaijanis may have difficulty understand each other" is like saying Londoners cannot understand New-Yorkers. I've seen the edit, couldn't find a source. Both people can understand each other 100%. Of course there are differences in pronunciation (just like how the British and Americans pronounce bath differently). There is no significant differences between these linguistic subgroups. About Shah Ismael. During those ages where someone is from was defined by their birthplace, mother tongue and polity they served for, as there was no DNA test back then. He was born in a majority-Azerbaijani settlement, spoke Azerbaijani as his mother tongue, and served a polity which was created by his forefathers more than a century ago. Since the Seljuk invasions the Turks regarded the Persian language as the language of literature, while Arabic was the language of science and religion. Just like how Latin and Greek had a huge importance in the Christian Europe. They wrote Persian in the palace but spoke Turkic. Imadeddin Nasimi was one of the few to rebel against this idea and left the palace (fun fact, he ended up being tortured to death). So it's reasonably why Ismael and other Azerbaijani people of significance created their works in Persian. Another fact, after the arrival of Seljuks, Turkic language received a lot of Persian and Arabic influences. A modern-day Turkish speaker is no way near understanding the 13th century Anatolian works. Same goes for Azerbaijanis. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 15:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Aykhan Zayedzadeh, your words sound like a pan Turk irredentist :

• You contradict the source (ethnologue) which clearly states that there are significant differences between north and south Azerbaijani. language.
• You support the "unification" of Azerbaijan Republic with Iranian Azerbaijan (while the vast majority of Iranian Azerbaijanis don't want this "unification").
• You support the independence of "East Turkestan".

Would suggest you to read a little more about geopolitics kid and keep in mind that your POV in only your POV and is not considered as a reliable source on Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani, and you sound like an Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar". The sad thing is that your response was directed at me and my beliefs, instead of the topic. Also, me being a Pan-Turkist Irrendist (which I'm, not) has nothing to do with this topic. You have no right in being provocative by question or critics me for such things, as this site isn't about the users. It is clear that you wouldn't know that in your single year of experience. Vast majority of Iranian Azerbaijani want the unification, but cannot voice this opinion because they'll get executed by the Ayatollah regime, which is a religious dictatorship. Yes, I support the independence of Uygurs, because they're being systematically purged by the Communist regime... Get your facts straight. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"and you sound like an Iranian nationalist Shia (which is pagan at this point) who shouts "Ya Hossein", instead of "Allahu Akbar"" : I'm Zoroastrian kid, would suggest you to cool down, nothing in what i said or did could lead you to that conclusion and this is why you're totally mistaken about me.

"The sad thing is that your response was directed at me and my beliefs, instead of the topic. Also, me being a Pan-Turkist Irrendist (which I'm, not) has nothing to do with this topic" : Wrong, it has to do with this topic, since you sound like a Pan-Turk, you have probably some bias about this topic. When you say that there is no significant differences between north and south Azerbaijani while a reliable source like ethnologue claims the opposite, how do you call this ? personally, i call this POV editing.

"You have no right in being provocative by question or critics me for such things, as this site isn't about the users" : Again you're wrong, this site sanctions users who have a POV editing behaviour.

"Vast majority of Iranian Azerbaijani want the unification, but cannot voice this opinion because they'll get executed by the Ayatollah regime" : FYI, Ayatollah Khamenei is an Iranian Azeri, just to give you a perspective. Also, have not found that in any reliable source.

"It is clear that you wouldn't know that in your single year of experience" : I would suggest you to desistt from condescending remarks like that one if you intend to contribute in a constructive way to this project, sounds like WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

"Yes, I support the independence of Uygurs, because they're being systematically purged by the Communist regime" : Good luck kid.

Again, as i said to your countryman above, Wikipedia goes with consensus, therefore, if you can gain consensus for including Shah Ismail's name in Azerbaijani language, then it's perfectly fine for me (and if i'm the only one who disagree with that point, then go ahead and include his Azerbaijani name).

Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So much irredentist WP:TENDENTIOUS nonsense in one talk page section. Seems its that time of the year again. @Wikaviani: "Aykhan Zayedzadeh" has an extensive history of disruptive editing. I wanted to give him his final warning, but it seems User:Kansas Bear beat me to it. Just to let you know. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thanks for letting me know about that, i understand better this user's behaviour. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I'm not irrendist. Your activity breaks the rules of neutrality, as you always stay on the one side of the perspective. Let's get this straight -- our point of views are not fueled by/from state propaganda. The Safavid Order was proven to be of Azerbaijani (also called Turcoman) multiple times in multiple generations. The community must calculate both sides of perspective. There are, just like with the Persian ones, many sources that claims that Shah Ismael was of Azerbaijani descend. Let's be honest here, people like Wikaviani are the ones who claim that "Azeri"s are part of the Iranic ethnolinguistic family. Removing İsmayıl's Azerbaijani name variant was completely wrong and an action must be taken against it. This is my final say. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 10:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Let's be honest here, people like Wikaviani are the ones who claim that "Azeri"s are part of the Iranic ethnolinguistic family" Since you've decided to be "honest", please tell me where i've said that "Azeris are part of the Iranic ethnolinguistic family" ? otherwise, this comment qualifies as a second personal attack toward me (You've been warned by Kansas Bear for the first one). For your information, accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence qualifies as a personal attack. Don't get me wrong, don't attack me again, or i'll find an admin to step in and take a look at your behaviour toward other users. Done with you here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You said Ayatollah Khamenei is an Iranian azeri. It is true but he is not Turk. So called Iranian Azaris are Iranic remnants in Iranian Azerbaijan which survived from 13-15th centuries Turco-Mongol conquests. Azerbaijanis are Turks of Azerbaijan region. We dont identify ourselves as azeri, who does this is not Turk, is not one of us, can not represent us. Our ancestors came this land during Hulagu Khan, Turco-Mongol army eliminated native Iranic people of Azerbaijan just like they did in Central Asia. Keep in mind, Ibn Sina, Biruni, Khwarazmi and many many Persian polymaths were born in Central Asia not present day Iran. Greater Persian civilization was destroyed in 13th century. Khorasan, now is Turkmenistan, Khwarazm now is Karakalpakstan, Transoxiana now is Uzbekistan, all are Turkic lands just like Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.135.153.154 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

All this is your biased POV IP user from Baku, nothing of what you said is true and supported by the scientific sources.

* "We dont identify ourselves as azeri" : Yeah ? why do you call your country "Azerbaijan" then ?

* "Turco-Mongol army eliminated native Iranic people of Azerbaijan" : Wrong, again. Only the language of the nowadays Azeris was changed by an elite dominance process (a small group of invaders impose their language to the vast majority of the population). I quote from this source "present day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one" and this source says "Iranian Azeris have the closest genetic distance to Iranian Kurds and there is no significant difference between these two populations and other major ethnic groups of Iran". also, there are many Iranic peoples living in the caucasus (Ossetians, Tats, Talysh etc ...) and in Central Asia (Tajiks) and the scholars you mentioned above were all living before Turkish migration to that area.

"Khorasan, now is Turkmenistan" Wrong again, only a part of Khorasan is nowaday Turkmenistan, the rest is in Iran.

You can try to mislead people who have no historical knowledge by forcibly making them "Turk" while this goes against all scientific studies (i posted a few of these scientific studies just above), but you cannot change historical facts. Azerabaijanis are a Turkish speaking people, just like Anatolian Turks who are mainly a people of Armenian/Greeks descent who speak Turkish. I would suggest you to read reliable sources instead of trying to spread a Pan-Turkish propaganda. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"You can try to mislead people who have no historical knowledge by forcibly making them "Turk" while this goes against all scientific studies" then he immediately goes to push myths about how there were no Turkmens present in Anatolia and Azerbaijan which is debunked by autosomal studies and suddenly Turkmens whose elites actually adhered to Turko-Persian tradition Turkified Iranians. Which actually goes against all the autosomal studies. I like the irony there. I suggest putting an eye on this guy who passive-aggresively pushes his POV. He is clearly biased and suffers from Pan-Iranism, although I don't understand why he doesn't live in Iran if he's indeed proud. Tasase5 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: I would advise you to be careful of the next words you say, as you are very close to getting reported and most likely blocked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My edit puting Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijan language also deleted by user talk. Reading this discussion and my interaction with this user I see that he is not neutral against Azerbaijani users and always takes side of Persian users. I will raise it to discussion.

Azerbaijani Turkic was official language during Safavids starting with Shah Ismael

Why my reference and text was deleted by someone regarding Azerbaijani Turkic being official language during Shah Ismael time? This is clearly mentioned in WikiPedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_language >> History and evolution >> Second paragraph

Turkic language of Azerbaijan gradually supplanted the Iranian languages in what is now northern Iran, and a variety of languages of the Caucasus and Iranian languages spoken in the Caucasus, particularly Udi and Old Azeri. By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavids and Afsharids.

Why some people trying to cover this fact making Wikipedia bias?

I purpose to add this fact to this scholar, And edit below part

Ismail was also a prolific poet who, under the pen name Khaṭāʾī (which means "he who made a mistake" or "he who was wrong" in Persian), contributed greatly to the literary development of the Azerbaijani language.[7] He also contributed to Persian literature, though few of his Persian writings survive.

to>>

Ismail was also a prolific poet who, under the pen name Khaṭāʾī (which means "he who made a mistake" or "he who was wrong" in Persian), contributed greatly to the literary development of the Azerbaijani language.[7] Starting from him, Azerbaijani Turkic language was spoken language in court of Safavids and eventually this was followed by Afsharids. He also contributed to Persian literature, though few of his Persian writings survive.

I think this proves other information in Wikipedia page and doesn't contradict to any issue and makes this article unbiased. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference about king palace was speaking Turkish language : A PEPYS OF MOGUL INDIA l653-1708 BEING AN ABRIDGED EDITION OF THE "STORIA DO MOGOR " OF NICCOLAO MANUCCI TRANSLATED BY WILLIAM IRVINE (ABRIDGED EDITION PREPARED BY MARGARET L. IRVINE), THE NEGOTIATIONS FAIL page 19 Mirhasanov (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit was completed √

Since he established Safavid dynasty rule in Iran at the beginning of 16th centre, Azerbaijani Turkic language started to be spoken language in court of Safavids and eventually this tradition was followed by Afsharids. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please anyone who will try revert it back talk under this section and justify your change. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Content was vandalized by IP 89.165.69.40 removing reference. Hence, I am adding reference back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop pov-pushing, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran,

Thanks for your comment. If you thing it is POV you can go the reference book which is published by University of Cambridge. I am more than happy to discuss it and solve. This this main reason why I have opened this session here in "Talk" tab.

Regards,Mirhasanov (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What? You added the citation "An Abridged edition of the "STORIA DO MOGOR " of Niccolao Manucci, translation by William Irvine, THE NEGOTIATIONS FAIL page 19"? That's not RS. Also, there's a reason sevral users are reverting you. Reach consensus instead of trying to force your edits. What you have done is clearly not an improvement, and smells of pov-pushing. Also, you might wanna read the name of the users in the edit summary, as it was me who reverted you recently, not that IP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

Thanks for comment. Could you please give more clarification why do you thing that the source I provided is not reliable. This is memories/chronicles that was written by Niccolao Manucci during his visit to Iran and India.

let me give a brief information about Manucci. NICCOLAO MANUCCI, the hero of our narrative, ran away from Venice in 1653, being then fourteen. He hid on board a vessel bound for Smyrna, and was fortunate enough to find a protector in a certain Viscount Bellomont, an English nobleman, then on his way to Persia and India. He followed Bellomont through Asia Minor to Persia, and from Persia to India, meeting with many adventures by sea and land. The sudden death of his master near Hodal, in 1656, left Manucci friendless in a strange land.

If you will read, Persia The Shah's banquet Interview with 'Azamat-ud-daulah, his reply on behalf of the King Negotiations fail, part from book you will see that resource is true and can be used as a reference.

https://www.nytimes.com/1914/08/09/archives/pepys-of-india-curious-memoirs-of-the-venetian-dr-manucci-a-pepys.html - Information about book publised by NY times in 1914.

I even can send you a link to download this book or you can find it by yourself in google. This is publication of university of California Library and there are tons of reference to this book, and you are stating that it is not reliable source?

Looking forward for more constructive negotiation. I don't want it to turn edit war as I am trying to justify my edit in a proper way with references.

Thanks and Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

My friend. In a respect to you and our time since I haven't got any consolidated answer from your side regarding my source being fake, could you please confirm that you we mutually agree on this subject so I can proceed with the change.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? I already told you, it's not RS, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even if the source was reliable, it's irrelevant information to have in the lede, just like what you did at Feyzullah Mirza Qajar - please stop trying to force something something Turkic into the lede. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk)

My friend stating that it is not reliable source doesn't means that you are right. You are just another user like me. I have checked RS requirements and this source fulfils all of them. Moreover, the topic related to Feyzullah mirza Qajar is different which I will come back to it later. Firstly, I want solve this then I will come back more and more researches to prove that the is Turkic and content must be there.

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This pattern of making disruptive edits the whole time (spreading unsourced-irredentist content, writing WP:tl;dr text on talk pages, edit-warring, using links that fail WP:VER/WP:RS, etc.) really needs to stop. You were warned on numerous occassions (incl. AA2), what seems to be to no avail. If you make one more WP:TENDENTIOUS edit, you will be reported. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon (talk),

Could you please justify why you removed my note about Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijani Turkish? Is there any reason why it shouldn't be there? and My I know why I didn't get notice? My actions are proper and I properly reason my edit, unfortunately some users don't, but somehow they got support due to them being more organized in reporting.

Seems like you also involved, so please justify why you removed my note Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijan and why you mention my edits as RV to create fake illusion that I am vandalizing or doing edit war? Is this fair way of discussion?

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Why my edits are wrong?

I added information with with authoritative sources. What is the problem in my edits?SaHiB.SHaKHaYeV (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1. Şah İsmayıl Xətai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert

HistoryofIran, what do you mean by "irrelevant"? It is clearly related to his legacy. And what is "nonsense"?? Remember that you can't revert because you just don't like it. NMW03 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Aliyev regime claiming everything from Armenia to Iran as 'theirs' (Ganjavi, etc) has nothing to do with his legacy. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, and? This sentence proves that you revert it because you didn't like it. You can't revert because you think "they claim everything as theirs". Don't forget that we should provide complete information NMW03 (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by “and”? What is the point of having that information then? If its not about legacy then what is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Please come up with other arguments other than “you dont like it”. Mind you, articles are supposed to be neutral, we dont follow revionism here. Lets stick to academic historians rather than the personal opinion of authortian rulers. HistoryofIran (talk)

I didn't understand your "Aliyev regime" word. It is not "opinion" of authoritian rulers. His works were declaring as state property because he contributed to literary development of Azerbaijani language. There is Nizami Mausoleum in Ganja which built in 1947 by Soviet government. Remember that Ilham Aliyev was born in 1961. There is Khatai station in Baku Metro and Khatai raion in Baku. It is not wikipedians' job to declare something as propaganda. Read WP:VOICE. We should provide every information we have. You're clearly reverting it because you don't like it or you don't want to see his legacy in Azerbaijan. Please give better arguments instead of your own opinions, claims or slanders.--NMW03 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

”Please give better arguments instead of your own opinions, claims or slanders.” Isnt that a bit ironic? Please read WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:GOOD FAITH. I dont think we’re gonna reach an agreement here. HistoryofIran (talk)

Just took a look at the citation, and to no surprise it showed clear signs of revisionism nonsense, it even claims Persian poets such as Mahsati, Qatran Tabrizi, Khaqani and Nizami Ganjavi as their own. This has no place in the English Wikipedia, this is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

May I ask why you did an RfC for this? ¡Ayvind! (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove The government of the Azerbaijan Republic is well known for claiming all sort of bogus things in order to legitimize its pseudo-historic attempts at rewriting history. See Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan. This is nothing new, and is attested in dozens of WP:RS sources written by Western academics. Wikipedia should not kow-tow to such attempts. I might add that I find user:NMW03's attempts at throwing "WP:JDL" straight off the bat at user:HistoryofIran when confronted with sound logic a pretty serious violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:PERSONAL. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude. If you misunderstood me, sorry HistoryofIran. I'm not talking about "falsifying history". Does Azerbaijani government do that? I don't know. All I'm trying to say that we should provide it because it is not some "irrelevant" information as HistoryofIran said. His works were declaring as state property (Azerbaijani: dövlət varidatı) which is relevant and important. Is it another attempt to falsify history? You can add such info to the article you mentioned if you have RS. NMW03 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove: It's important to note here that it's not our job to decide which claims about the subject are true or false. That's the job of reliable sources; our job is just to follow those. We need to consider two things here: reliability and due weight. With regard to reliability, along the lines of AboutSelf, the website for the Azerbaijani government is a reliable source for its own (attributed) positions, an umbrella under which the statement By the Decision No. 211... Ismail's works were... declared state property in the Republic of Azerbaijan falls neatly. However, it seems that right now it would be placing undue weight on the declaration to include this sentence at the moment, as I haven't been able to find any independent RS coverage (or any coverage at all, for that matter) of the declaration. This concern is amplified by the fact that this article is not directly related to the Azerbaijani government, and that AboutSelf warns against including unduly self-serving claims. If I'm mistaken, and there has been independent coverage of this declaration, then my !vote could shift towards inclusion. Srey Sros^talk 17:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Thank you. If I find such reliable source, I will provide it. NMW03 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is this a RfC? The statement is a long way from being WP:RFCNEUTRAL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove: In assessing the suitability of the source (of the one which was provided for that "latest inclusion"), we should consider a number of aspects for the purposes of research: editorial oversight, attributability, expertise of the originator with respect to the subject, bias of the originator with respect to the subject, topic specific criteria and etc. In my opinion, an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. In general, a common sense is required to determine what sources to use and the common sense tells me to cast my vote for remove as per WP:RSUW and WP:CSB. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove Wikipedia goes with what published reliable sources say.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Diacritics

@GenoV84: I think I should start by pointing out that I wasn't practicing my editing skills on this article. I have been on Wikipedia for a decade, and I have never vandalized or changed information on a page out of pleasure. In short, I find the diacritics to be distracting and unhelpful. And I'm not entirely sure if WP:MOSAR applies here. First of all, the manual of style is a guideline and not a policy, so there's no need to strictly follow it. In fact, many pages don't. Persian speakers use the Arabic alphabet while writing words down but the pronunciation varies drastically. In your edit summary you mentioned I should check pages that contain Arabic script. Well, I had already done that. Based on your logic of using strict transliteration, pages such as Karbala would have needed to constantly use the Karbalāʾ variation of the word in the text, which is not the case. Per WP:MOSAR, which you appear to be following, "common English translations should be used as much as possible". This Google Ngram shows way more hits for Ismail I than Ismā'īl I, so your argument that the latter is more common does not hold up. And the articles about other Persian kings do not contain any of the diacritics that are being utilized here, so there's the lack of consistency as well. Keivan.f^Talk 18:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, macrons are very rarely used in Wiki and I so no reason to add it here besides when romanizing a name in the lede. HistoryofIran (talk)

In that case there's already a week consensus to remove them. I'm waiting for a reasonable counter argument from the user in question. If none is put forward, I'll simply proceed with removing all the diacritics, as they're not common in the sources either (not that they have not been used at all, they're just not common). Keivan.f^Talk 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have already removed it, as it is the user changing the original revision that has to reach WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: My point of contention to your edits and the reason for reverting them was that you didn't provide any edit summary or explanation for deleting sourced content and wikilinks, along with the Romanization, which is commonly used throughout most academic sources upon which Wikipedia relies, that contain Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, and Syriac terms or names, therefore I don't see the point to avoid using it on Wikipedia as well. I don't care how much time you have been on Wikipedia, you still have to explain what you are doing whenever you are editing an article, just like everyone else here. GenoV84 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody deleted sourced content, the Romanization (or rather strict transliteration) from the lede, or the wikilinks, so get your facts straight. All I did was removing the diacritics; that's it. As HistoryofIran pointed out, having the strict transliteration only once in the lede is sufficient. There's no need to repeat it twenty more times, and the sources appear to use the normal spelling more frequently as it was demonstrated through an online search, which encompasses books written by Western scholars. Also, I felt the need to point out that I was here for a long time in response to you labeling me as a newcomer and leaving me this message. Just so that you know, I don't take pride in being here for a decade, and I'm not above the rules. I was stating that what I did was neither vandalism nor an experiment. The matter appears to be settled. Keivan.f^Talk 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Thanks for the clarification. Now I know that your edits were made in good faith, but since unexplained edits are very frequent on Wikipedia, they could be interpreted by other users as disruptive rather than in good faith; please provide edit summaries for your edits in order to avoid further misconceptions in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Shah Ismail Khatai

Shah Ismayil Khatai is an Azerbaijani Turk, there are many articles about it, but you deny it. Shah Ismayil Khatai's grandfather was Uzun Hasan, one of the rulers of Uzun Hasana Aggoyunlu state and Azerbaijan Sərraf Türksoy (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There are genuine sources which firmly assert that Shah Ismail's ancestry was mixed, comprised of various ethnic groups such as Georgians, Greeks, Kurds and Turkomans. (Roemer, H.R. (1986). "The Safavid Period" in Jackson, Peter; Lockhart, Laurence. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge University Press. pp. 214, 229 | Blow, David (2009). Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B. Tauris. p. 3 | Savory, Roger M.; Karamustafa, Ahmet T. (1998) ESMĀʿĪL I ṢAFAWĪ. Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. VIII, Fasc. 6, pp. 628–636 | Ghereghlou, Kioumars (2016). ḤAYDAR ṢAFAVI. Encyclopaedia Iranica)

The late professor, Iranologist and specialist on Safavids, Roger Savory states that there is evidence that the Safavid family came from indigenous Iranian stock, and not from Turkic ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. It is probable that the family originated in Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, where it assimilated with local Turks and eventually settled in the small town of Ardabil sometime during the eleventh century. (Roger M. Savory. "Safavids" in Peter Burke, Irfan Habib, Halil Inalci :History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century", Taylor & Francis. 1999. p. 259)

Besides what is deemed as his mother tongue Turki, Ismail I also fluently spoke Persian. Safavid historian Minorsky states that the question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his race or of his "nationality". Orientalist Hinz came to the conclusion that his ancestry was chiefly non-Turkic and that his son Shah Tahmasp even tried to get rid of his Turcoman origins. (V. Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shah Ismail I," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 10/4 (1942): 1006–53)

Regarding your phrase "Azerbaijani Turk", back then these Turks called themselves or were referred to by others simply as Muslims, Turks, Turkomans or even Ajam (meaning from Iran). The term is believed to came into existence or made popular by the Russian authorities who seized the northwestern Iran in the 19th century, when they stopped referring to them as Persian or Caucasian Turks. (Yilmaz, Harun (2013). "The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s". Iranian Studies. 46 (4): 513 | Tsutsiev, Arthur. "18. 1886–1890: An Ethnolinguistic Map of the Caucasus". Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014, pp. 48–50) Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire}

Transcription of the name Ismail Shah

Why is there no transcription into Azerbaijani if Azerbaijani was literally his native language? HistoreIsmail (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

The mans father is not KURDISH. He is a turcoman tribe leader. please correct this. also fathers middle name is OKTAY, which is itself a TURKIC name Bojinho1990 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rehsarb (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

In popular culture

Games

Ismail has been as hero unit and a campaign in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition - The Mountain Royals Dlc.

source: https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Ismail Arthur of Brazil (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fandom is a user generated source and hence is considered unreliable. Liu1126 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Shah Ismail was a Turk, not a Kurd.

Shah Ismayil was born in the city of Ardabil. He is of Turkish origin. He had his own Azeri Turkish. He wrote many works in this language. There is no evidence that he is a Kurd. All this shows that he is a Turk. 109.127.41.99 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

Where are the sources to confirm that the Safavid state that Ismail founded would inevitably lead to conflict between clergy and nobility? What religious leaders? This paragraph should be removed or substantiated. 31.94.4.61 (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)