Talk:Safi-ad-Din Ardabili

Untitled

I looked some of books. And All of it writing that : İranian intelligentsia said for Şeyh Safiyüdin (Safi-ad-din Ardabili)patron saint of Turks (Pir-i Turk - Türklerin Piri)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.207.178 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to discussion of article Sheikh Zahed Gilani The phonetics Issue must be solved in General!

Kurds

To Pantherarosa. The article on Kurds does not say they are the same as Persian people.

Kurds speak the mostly mutually-intelligible dialects of the Kurdish language, which is an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. Their ethnic origins is uncertain but some sources state they are ethnically close to other Iranian groups such as the Persians and Lurs. Modern Kurds are commonly identified with the ancient Kingdom of Corduene inhabited by the Carduchi. Kurds are often classified as an Iranic ethnic group. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, "The classification of the Kurds among the Iranian nations is based mainly on linguistic and historical data and does not prejudice the fact there is a complexity of ethnical elements incorporated in them." Grandmaster 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1.You should accept that Kurds are indeed ( meaning "infact" and NOT "identical" as you understood, judjing by your curt rvrt comment!) commonly counted among Iranian/Persian ethnicities [[1]] The Safawid sheikhs themselves claim descent from the Kurd Firuz-Shah Zarrin Kulah in their own Genealogy [[2]]. So it is not for you to impose POV here.

2. "apparently" is pure POV on your part (sounds like " I don't know better.. but...apparently")

3. Safi's own order was called Safaviyeh in contrast to the Zahediyeh which he inherited from Sheikh Zahed Gilani. No need to state "it was to be called."

4. The word "slowly" is POV in connection with the Safaviyeh's development to shiaism. The proper ENGLISH term would be "gradually" to indicate the pace of development. Pantherarosa 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need specifically mention in this article that Kurds belong to Iranian people? It is a known fact, plus it has a link to the article about Kurds. So I edited the first line to say that he was apparently of Kurdish extraction, because there are also sources that say he was of Turkic origin. Grandmaster 12:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you will definitely not find any substantiated claim that Safi Al-Din was of Turkic extraction, while admittedly there are people who argue that his descendants, 170 years later, the SAFAVID shahs were purported to have had Turkic roots, due to use of Turkic language as well as Qisilbash support and large Turkish/Anatolian followership. Pantherarosa 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Descent of sheikh Safi Al-Din

I wish to state, that Safi Al-Din is widely accepted (according to findings of relevant scholars) to have had Kurdish ancestors, such as the Kurdish Prince Firuz Shah "Zarrin Kulah". This forebearer lived however c. 300 years earlier. One can therefor not nessessarily conclude that Sheikh Safi Al-Din was of (pure) Kurdish extraction. Judging by his well recorded, more immediate ancestors, who were Persian speaking and who can definitely be regarded as Iranians, the family would appear to have been IRANIAN by then. Titles to the family's land and affiliated rights in Persian have also been recorded for several generations-before and after Safi Al-Din. The Genealogy later commissioned to be written about the Safavid family by descendants of Sheikh Safi [[3]] , (of which I happen to hold a copy in the original diction), is written in Persian. There are also related court rulings as well as chronichal documents, preserved to this day, all written in Persian, which have been cited by Scholars, such as Monika Gronke in her habilitation DERVISCHE IM VORHOF DER MACHT. It would therefor actually make more sense to state the facts, namely that Safi Al-Din (and even his descensdants all the way down to Junayd, who married Uzun Hassan's daughter, the mother of Sheikh Isamail, who later was to be the first Safavid shah) were Iranian of Kurdish extraction or ancestry. The Kurds are nevertheless regardable as one of the Iranian people and are considered as close to Iranian/Lur ethnicity as the epitome of Iranian tribes, the Bakhtiaris. Pantherarosa 13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget that: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources”. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. According to Wiki rules, we don’t need to fact check or establish the truth, if we have a reputable source claiming a certain fact, we need to include it into the article. So the Turkic origins of Safi al Din were claimed by reputable sources, see talk page for Safavids [4], one of the sources even claims that Safavids were originally Arabic, who assimilated with other ethnicities. I’m not insisting on inclusion of the version of Safi’s Turkic origins into the article right now, I just think that adding the word apparently is enough to show that Kurdish origin is one of the existing versions. I hope those who wish to expand the article in the future will cover all the versions of Safi’s origin. As for Kurds, no one disputes that they are one of Iranian people, but we don’t need to explain that every time we mention Kurds, it is enough to provide a link to the article about them. Grandmaster 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is the basis for all scientific claims, not only at Wikipedia! Having analysed the subject matter on a broad scale for several years, and having weighed the findings of the most notable scholars, i have in fact been able to isolate the most substantiated and exhaustedly verified schools of thought. Contrary to some Zealots on this forum, i do not chose to post "hearsay" that's been picked up here and there, just because i think it may be "reputable". There is no sense in tearing themes out of their context and post them here for the sake of posting. WE ARE REQUESTED TO SERVE THE INFO SEEKING PUBLIC with a coherent overall picture. The Arab roots reference, for example, never came from a SAFAVID but was asserted by sufi followers who tried to project a glorious ancestry by claiming there was descent from the Prophet. Others attempted to trace the Safavids' roots to the last Sassanian rulers, for the same purpose. Turkic descent has NOT been purported by any accepted school of thought, in connection with Sheikh Safi Al-Din, as there were no indications whatsoever. Pantherarosa 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is from the posting by Tabib in Safavids talk page. It shows that there are sources that dispute Kurdish roots of Sheikh Safi, therefore it is better to not unambiguously state that he was Kurd, but say that he apparently was of Kurdish extraction. It would be more accurate.

In one of the versions of “Safwat-as-Safa” (XIV c.) Firuz-shah mentioned in the family tree of the Safavids is really named as “Al-Kurdi-al-Sadjani (Sagani) Piruz-shah Zerrin Kulah”, which is later reproduced in “Silsilat-an-Nasab-i-Safaviyyeh” (XVII c.). However, and this is of utmost importance, in that very same chronicles, Sheikh Safi is numerously referred as “Turkish/Turkic saint” (“Pir-i-turk”) and “Turkic young man/Young Turk” (“Genj-i-turk”)!

Al Kordi-Al Sanjani relates to Sheikh Zahed Gilani who hailed from Sanjan in ancient Greater Khorasan not to Safi Al-Din Ardebili or his purported Kurdish Ancestor!! WRONG CITING! Pantherarosa 12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Turkic belonging of Sheikh Safi was later documented in XVI c. chronicle “Djahan array-I shah Ismail Safavi” – one of the major sources on Safavids written during Shah Ismail I. Grandmaster 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA will retain the stigma of an "amateurs' playground", with unreflected and poorly substantiated edits as by Tabib

Due to his User TALK Page being blocked, i find myself compelled to voice my concerns about his conduct here:

Every minute is wasted in following the escapades of User TABIB on this platform. Not only does his irate conduct insult one's intelligence, it insults the intelligence of readers seeking info on WIKIPEDIA. I have substantiated the related claims I made with dozens of sources and references (see Safavids TALK!), while he picks findings and hearsay out of context and randomly posts bits of them on the subject without reflection (here and on Safavids) While there are indeed sources referring to Safi Al-Din as Turk saint or youth, these have been proven misinformed and naive by notable scholars such as Falsafi, Minorski, Gronke and Savory (creme of scholars on the subject!). I ask User Tabib in a comparison: If some political fanatics claim that the Khojali Massacre/Genocide was an invention by Azeris or had been less dramatic then Azeris would want the world to believe, do you cite this as a verified fact, just because you read it in the Washington Post/Pravda/Times????? You are acting in exactly this fashion: You pic an unsubstantiated claim about SAFI AL-DIN out of context and irately post it here without reflection. While there are numerous well substantiated assertions by the relevant scholars that SAFI AL-DIN was indeed of Iranian/Kurdish descent, you seem to find it appropriate to actually POST unsubstantiated ones, which you have chanced upon, out of context. That, without even mentioning the universally established school of thought to the contrary.

Having conducted comprehensive studies on the subject, I wish to therefor warn all READERS: TAKE HEADE! YOU ARE FACING "REVELATIONS" BY A PERSON IGNORANT OF THIS MATTER, WHO NEVERTHELESS COMPELS HIMSELF TO CONTRIBUTE TO GROTESQUE MISINTERPRETATIONS ON THIS FORUM - TO THE DETRIMENT OF EVERYBODY SEEKING INFORMATION OR SEEKING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION! This unhelpful behaviour has been going on for a year now.Pantherarosa 12:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thsi discussion is useless. It is attested by the Encyclopaedia Iranica and by the Encyclopaedia of Islam that Sheikh Safi ud-Din is known for his poems written in the Iranian language once known as "Azerbaijani" ... in fact, his poems are among a very few Old-Tati scriptures that have survived the Turkish invasions. The Safavids, starting with Sheikh Safi ud-Din Ardabeli, were an Iranian family, both in language and heritage! Here, read the following article of the Encyclopaedia Iranica: "The Persian language of Azerbaijan" Tabib is once again filling the article with Pan-Turkish nonsense! Tajik 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to your own words, Writing letters or poems in Azeri does not make one Turkish or Azerbaijani. [5] Now you changed your position in accordance with the situation and claim that writing poems in a certain language is a prove of one’s ethnicity. You should already decide whether you support or oppose a certain argument. I suggest including or removing both versions. Grandmaster 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that YOU are the ones who is convinced that "poetry defines ethnicity"?! In this case, there is not a single poem of Safi ud-Din which is written in any Turkic language. ALL of his poems were written in Old-Azerbaijani (=Old-Tati) and Persian (unlike Shah Ismail, who not only claimed to be of Sassanian-Persian heritage but also wrote poetry in Persian). Your claims of his Turkish background are baseless and wrong. Safi ud-Din was Persian - probably of Kurdish ancestry. Nothing Turkish about him. Tajik 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Ismail was Azeri because of his poetry, I cited sources that prove his Azeri Turkic origin. And Persian and Kurdish are not the same. Kurds are just one of Iranian people, same as Persians. Plus Sheikh Safi was referred to as a Turkic saint, so the rules require us to include both versions, which I did in my edit. Grandmaster 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not "prove" anything. There are enough sources to "prove" his Non-Turkic origin. And there are enough sources that clearly prove that he himself considered himself Iranian. That's why he claimed to be descendant of the Persian Sassanids - unlike Turks, who always claimed to be descendants of Turkish Khans (like the Qajars who claimed to be descendants of Gingiz Khan!) The "sources" you are talking about are actually once source, the Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya. This document has been studied by many scholars - Iranians, Turks, and Western scholars - and almsot all of them agree that Safi al-Din was NOT a Turk. There were no Turkic saints in Ardabil in the 13th century, and certainly no Turks who composed poetry in Tati! Can you please name a single Turk who spoke Old-Azerbaijani or wrote poems in that language?! Old-Azerbaijani was only native to the Iranian population of Azerbaijan - the official and dominating language back then was Persian. That's why Safi al-Din always wrote Persian translations of his poems. If he were a Turk, he would have at least witten a few poems in Turkish. The Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya was written in the 17th century, that means almost 500 years after his death. Btw, the following text is taken from the CD-version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

• "... Safi al-Din Ardabili ... born 650/1252-3, died 12 Muharram 735/12 September 1334 at Ardabil ... Iranian saint ... eponymous founder of the Safawid Order of Sufis and hence of the Safawid dynasty, rulers of Persia 907-1148/1501-1736 [see Safawids ] ... Under Safi al-Din's leadership, the Zahidiyya order, under its new name Safawiyya, was transformed from a Sufi order of purely local significance into a religious movement, based on Ardabil, whose religious propaganda ( da'wa ) was disseminated throughout Persia, Syria and Asia Minor, and even as far away as Ceylon (H.R. Roemer, The Safawid period, in Camb. Hist. Iran , vi, 192). Even during his lifetime, | [VIII:801b] Safi al-Din wielded considerable political influence, and his designation of his son Sadr al-Din to succeed him makes it clear that he was determined to keep this political power within the Safawid family. ..."

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (and the Encyclopaedia Iranica, because both Encyclopaedias are written by the same authors) consider him an IRANIAN saint who took over the Zahediya, and transformed it into a strong political movement, thus marking the beginning of the Safavid DYNASTY. And that's exactly why both Iranica and EI say that: "There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistān, and later moved to Āzarbayjān, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabīl."

Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 260:

• " ... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified ..."

Tajik 12:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya is not good because it was written 500 years after Safi’s death, then your sources are not good either, since they were written another 300 years later. Grandmaster 12:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the "Encyclopaedia of Islam" is based on the writings of Ibn Bazaz Tawakkuli bin Ismail, written only 24 years after Safi ud-Din's death. His writings were the main source of the "Safawat as-Safa":

Encyclopaedia of Islam, CD-Version, "Safi al-Din Ardabili":

• "... Darwish Tawakkuli b. Isma'il Ibn Bazzaz, Safwat al-Safa , written about 759/1357-8, some twenty-four years after the death of Safi al-Din. It is a mainly hagiographical work. Because the whole question of Safawid genealogy is extremely complex, and because later copies of the Safwat al-Safa were tampered with during the reigns of Shah Isma'il I and Shah Tahmasp [q.vv.] to produce an “official version” of the origin of the Safawids, the two copies of this ms. ..."

It was mainly duriong the reign of the first 2 Safavid Shahs that the Safawat as-Safa was changed and tempered. Keeping in mind that both Shahs needed the support of Turkoman tribes and warriors, it sounds pretty logical that parts of the Safawid chronology and history was "Turkified" in order to please the Turkoman nobles ... Tajik 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed a quote about Sheykh Safi's "mother tongue" allegedly being Taati, as there is no reference provided to such effect. Any comment with respect to ethnic or linguistic origin of a historical religious figure without supportive evidence, in form of valid reference from a historical source, shall be deemed invalid. Atabek 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what citation needed tags are first. Those are what you place for awhile in order for a person to be inclined to cite a source.Azerbaijani 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the tati poems are in Safawat as-Safa. There are also Azari (I mean old Azari language) sayings of the Shaykh as well in couple of books. --alidoostzadeh 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

my edits

User:HistoryofIran The edit I did was pretty clear. The sources I gave already say what happened. You have no reason to take it back. You're deleting sources like Bartold and Petrushevsky.--85.104.66.21 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What you have done is very questionable. None of the sources seem to have called Safi Turkic, but the Safavid family Turkic, which isn't wrong, considering they were Turkicized Kurds by the time of their advent. But for some reason you are claiming that Safi was Turkic as well, which is misuse of sources. There is no dispute for the original origin of the Safavids, which was indeed Kurdish, and is acknowledged by the majority of scholarship. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Bartold,Petrushevski, Hans Roemer, Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşı, M. Ismail Marcinkowski, David Ayalon and many other historians say that they were Turks in origin. In the source I gave, it was clearly stated along with the evidence. You can't delete it. .--85.104.66.21 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The first citation simply translates to The victory of the Safavids in Persia and scine repercussions on the Shiites of Anatolia in the 16th century. The two last citations, both by Riza Yildirim (who I can't confirm the reliability about) simply quotes a passage about Safi, where he seemingly isn't even talking about his origins / trying to argue about supposed Turkic origins. Hephthalites and Sogdians are called Turkic as well by contemporary historians, doesn't make them one. Also here's what Roemer actually says about the Safavid origins in the Cambridge History of Iran vol 6 (1986, page 214); “the Safavid Shah combined in himself the blood of both Turkmen and Iranian ancestors. It is irrelevant, therefore, whether the founder of the dynasty, Shaikh SafI, was descended from Iranian dihqans, from 'Ali, or from Kurds, since Isma'il himself was connected equally with the military and the administrative aristocracy” No mention of any Turkic origin for Safi whatsoever. Are we done here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

what she(Hanna Sohrweide) wrote in the first source is indicated in the third source. Also, what does Turkish pir or Turkish youth mean? Can you say? It is an ethnicity. Also you have no reason to revert Bartold and Petrushevsky.--85.104.66.21 (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, read my comment up above. Sorry but so far you have (whether by accident or not) misused most of these sources (if not all) to state something they're not. I would advise you to read the guidelines here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never misused a source because this is my source [6] not Cambridge History of Iran --85.104.66.21 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but you have. I just read Riza's work, he isn't even arguing about a Turkic origin for Safi, but when the Safavids became Turkicized (people are free to read it here ([7]). He quotes Sohrweide, who says that Turk was meant a synonym for “beautiful” in the work, which you for some reason omitted. And which page I am to read in the German work by Roemer? Also I posted the Cambridge History of Iran because it was written by Roemer 30 years later than this work, so it gives a better view of his current opinions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I translated them from the Russian and Azerbaijani Wikipedia. But how can "Turkish" mean beautiful? That's impossible. Anyway, I'm sorry for my mistake. Have a good day --85.104.66.21 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's on page 158. The author states that "Turk" was used to mean "beautiful. In other words, it wasn't used as an ethnic designation. Armanqur (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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:

• Sheikh-safi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Reversal of the inclusion of different opinions in the article

@HistoryofIran you have reverted my edits

"instead putting forward a source from 1980 to present it as "disputed" is not an improvement. Savory, whom you are relying on a lot, said later in 1997 that they were of Kurdish origin https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-bazzaz. If you have concerns, please use the talk page and reach

I see that you are claiming Encyclopaedia Iranica cites Savory from 1997. However, Encyclopaedia Iranica does not specify in which book by Savory the relevant sentence appears. Savory is cited as a general source, but there is no specific reference to the sentence for related quote. If you know, could you share it, in which book?

Additionally, you implied that Savory said this in the 1980s and later abandoned it in his subsequent works. However, the book was also published in 2008, and the source I quoted is from the 2007 digital edition. Therefore, if there had been a change in his views, as you suggested, he would have revised the relevant source. Given your username, I assume you are knowledgeable enough about the topic to recognize this.

On the other hand, my edit was not reflecting a single viewpoint but rather conveying the perspectives of all historians who have studied the period. Since the views of various historians such as Hinz, Ayalon, Ahmad Kasravi, Togan, Gelvin, and Roemer on the subject have been reflected in the article, I do not find the justification for reverting my edits reasonable. I should point out that, from a neutral point of view, the reversal of my edits was an incorrect decision. However, I hope we can resolve this content dispute as soon as possible.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

TarantaBabu (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I revisited the sources because you mentioned, "Savory, whom you are relying on a lot, said later in 1997." From what I can see in the bibliography here, it seems unlikely that Encyclopaedia Iranica is quoting from a 1997 Savory source. TarantaBabu (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are claiming Encyclopaedia Iranica cites Savory from 1997. However, Encyclopaedia Iranica does not specify in which book by Savory the relevant sentence appears. Savory is cited as a general source, but there is no specific reference to the sentence for related quote. If you know, could you share it, in which book?

The article itself is authored by Savory.

Additionally, you implied that Savory said this in the 1980s and later abandoned it in his subsequent works. However, the book was also published in 2008, and the source I quoted is from the 2007 digital edition. Therefore, if there had been a change in his views, as you suggested, he would have revised the relevant source. Given your username, I assume you are knowledgeable enough about the topic to recognize this.

High quality works are commonly republished (for accessibility / its value I guess?) without being changed. Looking at page 2, it is clear that the source has not been "modernised".

On the other hand, my edit was not reflecting a single viewpoint but rather conveying the perspectives of all historians who have studied the period. Since the views of various historians such as Hinz, Ayalon, Ahmad Kasravi, Togan, Gelvin, and Roemer on the subject have been reflected in the article, I do not find the justification for reverting my edits reasonable. I should point out that, from a neutral point of view, the reversal of my edits was an incorrect decision. However, I hope we can resolve this content dispute as soon as possible.

But it didn't. Just right above there are five citations that support a Kurdish origin (not all of those citations probably deserve a spot, but still). Rudi Matthee, one of the most prominent scholars for Safavid studies, also say that they were originally of Kurdish origin [8] HistoryofIran (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Rudi Matthee because in the first chapter of the The Safavid World book, he compiled after the Encyclopaedia Iranica, there are the following statements:

early life, in contrast to his lineage and religious background, are more or less clear. (...)

While Kasravi argues that the Safavids were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (i.e., Indo-European rather than Turkic), various early editions of Safvat al-Safā call Sheykh Safi al-Din ‘Pîr-i Turk’, or ‘Master/Guide of the Turks’. Later scholars, on the other hand, postulate various other possibilities for the family’s ethnic and linguistic background, including Arab and Kurdish. (The Safavid World, Page 18)

While this historian, whom you also value, states that there is no clarity on the matter, I do not understand why an experienced editor like you insists on including only a single perspective in the article, despite Wikipedia's clear policies. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.

As far as I understand, you do not accept the inclusion of the content I added under any circumstances. Different historians have different views, and these historians are notable. You have not pointed out any aspect that contradicts Wikipedia's content policies for the inclusion of this material in the article.

Assuming you have read page 2 in Savory, I ask the following: Why did you say that Savory's views changed (said later in 1997 that they were of Kurdish origin), even though there is no difference of opinion on this subject (obscuring Kurdish origins) between what is written in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and what is written in the book? I would like you to show me the difference between Savory's own views expressed in his book and what he wrote in the Encyclopaedia Iranica.

In which of my edits did you see a sentence suggesting that Savory says/does not say they are not Kurdish? Different scholars have different views, and in the interest of a neutral point of view, these views should be included in the article.

Just right above there are five citations that support a Kurdish origin (not all of those citations probably deserve a spot, but still).

What is written in multiple sources is not sufficient justification for removing other views from the article. The sources and historians we can follow present different views. The existence of multiple sources also does not mean that something is definitively true. The article should include the views of notable historians. Most of the cited sources are not specifically focused on studying the genealogy of Safi-ad-Din Ardabili, and we often cannot trace the footnotes supporting their statements about him being Kurdish. Therefore, I must remind you of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS regarding the mentioned sources. TarantaBabu (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Rudi Matthee because in the first chapter of the The Safavid World book, he compiled after the Encyclopaedia Iranica, there are the following statements:

That chapter is not authored by Rudi Matthee. Though he is the editor of the book. Tbh, I'm not sure what to make out of this.

While this historian, whom you also value, states that there is no clarity on the matter, I do not understand why an experienced editor like you insists on including only a single perspective in the article, despite Wikipedia's clear policies. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.

Please see WP:DUE and WP:AGE MATTERS. You might have a point, but the execution was, respectfully, not good.

Assuming you have read page 2 in Savory, I ask the following: Why did you say that Savory's views changed (said later in 1997 that they were of Kurdish origin), even though there is no difference of opinion on this subject (obscuring Kurdish origins) between what is written in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and what is written in the book? I would like you to show me the difference between Savory's own views expressed in his book and what he wrote in the Encyclopaedia Iranica.

I'm not sure I follow. In the book, Savory portrays it as uncertain by citing other scholars, while in his later Iranica article, he outright says that they were Kurds.

What is written in multiple sources is not sufficient justification for removing other views from the article. The sources and historians we can follow present different views. The existence of multiple sources also does not mean that something is definitively true. The article should include the views of notable historians. Most of the cited sources are not specifically focused on studying the genealogy of Safi-ad-Din Ardabili, and we often cannot trace the footnotes supporting their statements about him being Kurdish. Therefore, I must remind you of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS regarding the mentioned sources.

This goes back to the WP:DUE and WP:AGE MATTERS part. But, I did also say that probably not all of those citations deserve a spot. In other words, we should assemble what actual experts in Safavid studies say, and not just cite as many random Google ebooks as we can find (which may have been done with some of those citations). Savory and Matthee are amongst those. Willem Floor is another big name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

First of all, I reiterate that my contributions did not include any comment on whether Savory considered Safi to be Kurdish or not. Therefore, what exactly that led you to write that in the edit summary? I would be very nice for me quote my words from the contribution.

Earlier, while reverting my contribution, you claimed that Savory's opinion had changed in 1997, citing the Encyclopedia Iranica.

Encyclopedia Iranica:

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.

In Savory's book:

...deliberately set out to obliterate any evidence of their own origins which would weaken the thrust of this ideology and call in question the premises on which it was based...

Where is the uncertainty? If one would replace "own origins" <=> "Kurdish origins", do you think that meaning changes? No.

You directly labeled historians who specialize in Safavid history as "many random Google ebooks" without providing any names or examples. Among the historians Hinz, Ayalon, Ahmad Kasravi, Togan, Gelvin, and Roemer, which one is a "random ebooks historian"? Can you name one?

If the person you are referring to as a "random Google ebook" is Rıza Yıldırım, I can tell you that he meets the WP:RS (Reliable Sources) criteria. This is because Rıza Yıldırım wrote the Third Chapter of the book edited by Rudi Matthee, whose work you also value. This demonstrates that Yıldırım's work is recognized in academic circles and can be considered a reliable source. Therefore, citing his work would align with Wikipedia's reliable source policy. If you have a bias against Turkish authors, I must point out that this is an even more problematic issue.

Quote from you:

That chapter is not authored by Rudi Matthee.

At what point did I say "authored" that you are responding to my statement with a correction saying "is not"? I did not say that Rudi Matthee was the author of that chapter. I said Rudi Matthee compiled it. The chapter of the book aligns with contributions of mine. Therefore, according to WP:AGE MATTERS (the book dated 2011), Rudi Matthee's compilation makes point closer to my view is being discussed.

From the communiciation above, it seems that you have an inclination toward Wikipedia:Ownership of content. From 2020 in this talk page, your message says: "There is no dispute for the original origin of the Safavids, which was indeed Kurdish, and is acknowledged by the majority of scholarship". However, the dispute is there.

You have not yet demonstrated in what way the contributions I added are incorrect. Despite clearly asking how I should contribute to the article, you did not provide a response. What Willem Floor has said is not directly related to our discussion. If he has said something specific about this topic, you can add it to the article along with the source.

As we are not reaching to WP:CONSENSUS, I have to escalate the situation here to other places. TarantaBabu (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I reiterate that my contributions did not include any comment on whether Savory considered Safi to be Kurdish or not. Therefore, what exactly that led you to write that in the edit summary? I would be very nice for me quote my words from the contribution.

You heavily relied on a 1980 book by Savory (a leading scholar in Safavid studies) to present it as disputed, which is how he presented it. However, a decade later, he did not consider it to be disputed anymore.

At what point did I say "authored" that you are responding to my statement with a correction saying "is not"? I did not say that Rudi Matthee was the author of that chapter. I said Rudi Matthee compiled it. The chapter of the book aligns with contributions of mine. Therefore, according to WP:AGE MATTERS (the book dated 2011), Rudi Matthee's compilation makes point closer to my view is being discussed.

You did not, however, you presented it as that made Rudi Matthee's remark in Iranica about them having Kurdish origins obsolete, despite him not writing the chapter. I though that was pretty clear. Though, as I said, I'm not sure what to make out of that.

You directly labeled historians who specialize in Safavid history as "many random Google ebooks" without providing any names or examples. Among the historians Hinz, Ayalon, Ahmad Kasravi, Togan, Gelvin, and Roemer, which one is a "random ebooks historian"? Can you name one?

I'm referring to the citations about the Kurdish origin at the start of the article, not yours... re-read my comment.

From the communiciation above, it seems that you have an inclination toward Wikipedia:Ownership of content. From 2020 in this talk page, your message says: "There is no dispute for the original origin of the Safavids, which was indeed Kurdish, and is acknowledged by the majority of scholarship".

Well, so much for expecting a proper discussion. I'm not sure how you find a diff from 5 years ago relevant to cite, I didn't even remember that comment, not that I find anything wrong with it. We ultimately rely on WP:RS says and its consensus, which I'm sure I was aware of back in 2020, despite how you are trying to misrepresent it. You also omitted the first part of that comment, in which I mentioned that the IP was misusing sources, or did that not with fit with your narrative of me? I would like to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

You have not yet demonstrated in what way the contributions I added are incorrect. Despite clearly asking how I should contribute to the article, you did not provide a response. What Willem Floor has said is not directly related to our discussion. If he has said something specific about this topic, you can add it to the article along with the source.

I mean, that's just plain wrong. And it seems you did not understand what I meant by the Willem Floor bit either.

As we are not reaching to WP:CONSENSUS, I have to escalate the situation here to other places.

The discussion has just started, and I have shown being open to you actually having a point, but you are not doing a good job of presenting your case. Please be aware of WP:GAMING. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has just started

Our discussion is not leading anywhere. Your reason for reverting was based on the claim that Savory's views had changed. I asked which part of my contributions to the article included the alleged change in Savory's views that you mentioned. I am hoping to see quote from my contribution.

I'm not sure how you find a diff from 5 years ago relevant to cite, I didn't even remember that comment, not that I find anything wrong with it.

You keep responding to my comments by taking them out of context repeatedly. You ask where I found this information, but I already mentioned in the previous message where it is—this very the talk page. You can scroll up the page a little to see your own comment.

Similarly, even though I did not say that about Rudi Matthee is the author of the section, you implied that I said "the author of the book said that." Can you quote me? Where did I say that?

That is the very reason I am seeking other editors' views from this point onward. TarantaBabu (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Some bits which you didn't reply to, curious. I think you should read WP:BATTLEGROUND. I see you have reported me, looking forward to a possible WP:OUCH.

Our discussion is not leading anywhere. Your reason for reverting was based on the claim that Savory's views had changed. I asked which part of my contributions to the article included the alleged change in Savory's views that you mentioned. I am hoping to see quote from my contribution.

It certainly won't if you keep violating WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please re-read my comment(s) about Savory again.

Similarly, even though I did not say that about Rudi Matthee is the author of the section, you implied that I said "the author of the book said that." Can you quote me? Where did I say that?

Sigh.. I mentioned that Matthee called them for originally Kurds in the Iranica article, then you replied to that by citing a chapter of a book edited by Matthee, but the chapter itself was not written by Matthee. As I openly said, I don't know what we should make out of that. This is the part where you reply to that, instead of being combatitive.

You keep responding to my comments by taking them out of context repeatedly. You ask where I found this information, but I already mentioned in the previous message where it is—this very the talk page. You can scroll up the page a little to see your own comment.

Not at all. In fact, it seems you don't understand what I am saying, instead assuming the worst, when I am simply trying to have a proper discussion with you. A shame, really. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)