Talk:Ismail I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ismail I is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Contents 1 Ismail's Turkish Lineage 2 141.2.37.83 and 83.196.6.103 3 Origin of the Safawid Dynasty 4 Merge Khata'i into Ismail I 4.1 Merge Complete 5 Citation required 6 Compromise?! 7 Birthplace 8 A New Suggestion: NPOV through including all POVs

[edit] Ismail's Turkish Lineage

Changed He was from Ardebil into He was a Shi'ite ethnic Turk from Ardebil Wikipedia should and must not ignore the fact that İsmail's lineage and dynasty are historically verifiably Turkish. Vox Magna 13:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

RV; according to major sources, the Safavids were not ethnic Turks, but - most likely - Kurds. Only Ismail's mother was half-Turk (and half-Greek), his male-linage was Persian and Kurdish (to Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabeli). Tajik 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What sources are that? I gather from your nickname that you are biased in what you deleted. Ismail I was a Turk. That is within all the historic sources already represented on this entry. Please do not change his Turkish lineage according to your persian nationalistic whims. Furthermore they are definitely not kurds. They are irrefutably NOT kurdish. Get your facts straight.

Edit: I have looked upon most of your entries Tajik, and you are always spreading misinformation on Turkic history, and pushing for nationalistic kurdish and persian make-believe histories. This has got to stop, or I will report you to the admins.

--Vox Magna 06:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to some sources one of Ismail’s distant ancestors, Safi al-Din, was apparently an ethnic Kurd. Other sources indicate otherwise. Even if we assume that 170 years ago one of his ancestors was a Kurd, it does not make Ismail a Kurd as well. It’s pretty normal when people have mixed ancestry, which probably was the case with Ismail, but he did not speak any Kurdish at all and never associated himself with Kurdish people. He was an Azeri Turk, and his native language was Azeri Turkic. He’s one of the classical Azeri poets, who made Azeri language a state language of his empire. This was discussed endlessly on Safavid dynasty talk page. Grandmaster 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is from encyclopedia Iranica, [1] see page 246:

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war. Grandmaster 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A hint: in the article, cite the bit that you have just quoted, rather than the one you cited before, and you're on firm ground. —Saposcat 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely say, whatever his ancestry (and this is debated as you see_he was Azeri Turk and never associiated himself with anything to do with Kurds. I am not aware of Kurds claiming him as their national symbol . Neither he is considered greatest Persian poet - for obvious reasons - this title goes to likes of Rumi and Sadi? It is not wise on the pages to indicate ethnicilty of different ancestors if it has no relevance. Remember these discussions cut both ways - look at Nizami, etc. He is denied to Azeris on the grounds that he wrote in Persian and his mother was Kurdish with debated ancestry. Here argument is turned in opposite direction. abdulnr 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All these talks are nonsense anyway, because the modern concept of "ethnicity" did not exist back then. Shah Ismail was native to Iran, he was even raised in Fars and Gilan (see Encyclopaedia Iranica). He was fluent in both Persian and Turkish and - most likely - also in Arabic. He wrote poems in Azeri-Turkish and in Persian (this is confirmed by one of his sons; see Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam). Shah Ismail, like all Safavid Shahs, enjoyed Persian and Turkish poetry. In the medival Islamic community, there was no such a thing as "ethnicity" ... people were characterized by their way of life and by their occupation. For example, "Turk" was a loose expression for various peoples who were known as warriors, not necessairily those who spoke Turkish (for example the Ghaznavids of Khurassan who were native Persian-speakers). Persians, on the other hand, or "Tajik" (sometimes "Sart") as they were known back then, were usually non-nomadic merchants, intellectuals, poets, writers, and some kind of princely administratrs. As I have tried to explain this to Grandmaster before, even the founder of the Seljuq dynasty, Alp Arslan Khan, was considered to be a "Tajik" (Persian) by many (even by many nomadic Turks), because he was Persianized (= he was not illiterate like the typical Turkic rulers of the nomadic clans, he had adopted the perso-arabic way of life, etc). The word "Sart" (origianlly a Sanskrit word), for example, used to be a synonym for "Persian merchants", today it is exclusivly used for non-nomadic Uzbeks in Bukhara and Samarqand. And the word "Tajik", which used to be the name of a certain Arabic tribe, became a synonym for "Persian", then a synonym for the "men of the pen" of the Islamic world, and today it is almost exclusivly used for a heterogenous group of non-nomadic people in Central-Asia who speak dialects of Persian and follow the Sunni sect of Islam. Only 200 years earlier, it was used in the Safavid court as a name for the royal Persian wakils. If you study Persian poetry, you'll see that in many homoerotic poems in Persia and India, the word "Turk" is a loose expression for "handsome slave" or "handsome warrior" (see Encyclopaedia Iranica on "homoerotic poetry in islamic literature"). You might know Saadi's famous verses regarding the love between Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazna (himself of ethnic Turkic heritage) and the Turcoman slave Ayaz (who was referred to as "Turk"). All this ethnic talk is useless and has no wight at all ... Shah Ismail Safavi was as much Turkish as he was Persian. In fact, he himself claimed to be a descendant of the Sassanian Shahs of Iran, which would mean that he considered himself native to Iran and related to its non-Turkic past and heritage. He also claimed to be a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, which means that he also considerde himself Arabic. On the other hand, there is not a single poem in which he exclusively calls himself "Turk" (like Babur or Nava'i did) , nor a single verse in which he calls himself "Persian", "Kurd" or "Arab" ... for a very simple reason: it really did not matter and it does not matter today. Tajik 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are preaching to the quire. Of course it did not matter for religion and culture was overriding , what we are simply doing is projecting modern nationalistic ideas and countering your similarly ahistoric arguments...This is happening because we cannot revert back to the old medieval discourse about society. As an observation - Ismail by virtue of association with warrior Kizilbash class. Also in fact very little of his Persian language works survives - Even (which is unusual), his two lenghty poems are written in Azeri Turkish and his language is quite simple and sometiemes devoid of any Persian and Arabic words (in your vocabulary "unrefined" language) I have to say this is not true of other Turkic poets like Navoi or Fuzuli (who wrote in combersome Ottoman. So when we say Turkish we see that he associated himself against more Persianized Ottomans and with more "Turkish" Shia Kizilbash. Also I know of a verse:

Şah Hatayi Turk guvenir Əliyyə

To summarize,,, we both now when a modern person means "Persian" or "Turk" he means in a modern context and not in the one you are describing. That is why we countering these arguments. abdulnr 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed the issue of his poems many times before, and - as mentioned in the authortive collections of the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia Iranica - the main purpose of his poems was religious propaganda. Ismail needed the support of unsatisfied Aq Qoyunlu warriors (who had been crushed by the Ottomans), and it was much easier to convince them for the Safavid cause than some Persians in Kabul or Badakhshan (wo had their own independent kings; see "Baburnama") or some Persians in Fars (who had just gained their independence after the destruction of the Aq Qoyonlu). When Ismail started writing propaganda-poems, he was not even 12 years old and lived hidden in Gilan.

As for Nawa'i or Fuzuli, the first wrote in Persian and Chaghatai (not Ottoman!) and the second one wrote in Azerbaijani-Turkish (not in Ottoman! and not in Azerbaijani-Persian, as Safi ud-Din Ardabeli did!).

And as for the "Kizilbash" (a name that was given to them by the Ottoman foes and not by themselvs), they were native esoteric Sufi-Shia-organization of Western Iran, with their roots in the old "Khurramiya" revolt of Babak (see "Kizilbash" in "Encyclopaedia of Islam"). The movement existed as an esoteric militant organisation against the Sunni Khalifate even at the time of the Buayids. After the collapse of the Il-Khans, these Sufis allied themselvs with the Baktashis and later with the Safawiyya. The Kizilbash were not a "Turkic nomad-confederation", but a religious alliance of many different Shia peoples of the region, including certain Kurdish tribes, Persians, Deylamites, and of course Azerbaijani Turks. Of course, at some point the former Aq Qoyunlu tribes of Azerbaijan were by far the most important fighters of this militant group. But in its core, the "Kizilbash" have always been a native Iranian resistance-group against Sunni Arabs and later against Sunni Turks. This also what other scholars explain:

"... According to Hasluck, the term Kizilbash has been associated from the beginning with both Persian nationality and Persian Shi'a religion, but has no ethnic significance whatsoever' (Hasluck, 1973: 140); Moosa explains, however, that Hasluck is here referring to Persian Safavid Shi'ism. Moosa notes how other peoples, including Turkmen tribes and 'many Kurdish tribes especially in the region of Dersim (Tunceli) became followers of the Safawi [Safavi or Safavid] order and were also known as Kizilbash.' The 'beliefs, rituals and traditions' of the 'Kurdish' Kizilbash and the Turkmen Bektashi (Bekta§i) orders were identical, with the only difference being a political one of leadership (Moosa, 1987: 7) ..." [2]

If you're interested, just send me an E-Mail and I will send you the article of the "Encyclopaedia of Islam" (PDF).

I simply do not understand why you people insist on calling Ismail a "Turk". The article "Safavids" in the authroitive Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even mention the language or ethnicity of the Safavids, but only points out the the "roots of the Safavid family was somewhere in Persian Kurdistan". I can send you the article "Safavids", too. And, btw, when Ismail called himself "Turk" in that verse (I do not know that verse, but I trust you that it is not fake), do you think that he himself used the modern ethnic meaning of the word "Turk" or the medival meaning of it, meaning "fighter"?! Tajik 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the main purpose of his poems was religious propaganda It is not true. Most of Ismail’s poetry was lyrical, about love, etc. See Iranica: His authentic poetic corpus is mostly lyrical, while religious themes receive less attention. [3] Grandmaster 07:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also from the same source with regard to Kizilbash: In 906/1500 Esmail mobilized at Arzenjan a force of 7,000 Turkman tribesmen from the qezelbash tribes of Ostajjlu, Rumlu, Takkalu, D¨u'l-Qadar, Afæshar, Qajar, and Varsaq (MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fol. 53b; Hasan Rumlu, ed. Nava@÷^, II, p. 61). These men were long time Sufi disciples and believers (mor^da@n o mo¿taqeda@n-e s®u@f^ya-ye qad^m; K¨oræa@h, fol. 446b). Grandmaster 07:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a small extract of the article "Kizilbash" from the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam: [4] And this is a very small extract of the article "Safavids": [5] (note the following: "... In the first place, the Safavids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest ... During the whole of that time, only once ... did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran ...") Unfortunatly, there is not a free access to the datebase of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. I have only these articles in PDF formate. Tajik 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This arouses a number of questions. Are you sure it is a reference to Safavids and not Zands? And still it is not referred to as a Persian dynasty, is it? Also, you claimed that Safi ad-din was Kurdish, how come he’s Persian now? Grandmaster 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Safi al-Din Ardabeli, a known Azari-Persian poet (his "Dobayt"-collection belongs to the most important works written in Azerbaijani-Persian), claimed to be a descendant of a man known as "Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kollah al-Kordi", "King Firuz the Kurd with the golden hat". As for the question of "Persian dynasyt": I do not see any referrence to "Turkish dynasty", "ethnic Turks", or "Turkic-speaking dynasty" either. The text even clearly distinguishes the Safavids from "Arabic rulers, Mongols and Turkic Khans". Tajik 09:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the competence of your source since it does not correspond with what the leading sources claim:

Turkish Kizilbas (“Red Head”), any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736) in Iran. The name was given to them by Sunnite Turks and was applied later to the followers of a Shi'ite sect in eastern Asia Minor. It also was given in Afghanistan to the Persian-speaking Turkmens, who settled in Kabul and other cities from about… [6]

Britannica is written by the leading experts, how come they did not mention which of the seven Turkmen tribes was Persian? Iranica says that those tribes were Ustajjlu, Rumlu, Takkalu, D¨u'l-Qadar, Afshar, Qajar, and Varsaq. It is well known that all those tribes were Azeri-Turkic. And if you want a reference to Safavid dynasty as Turkic or Turkic-speaking dynasty, I provided a number at Safavids talk page. Grandmaster 10:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you questioning the competence and authority of the Encyclopaedia of Islam only because it does not support your nationalistic views?! A few weeks ago, you even regarded the Encyclopaedia Iranica "Persian POV", and since you found a few sentences supporting your views, you can't stop quoting from it. For your information: the Encyclopaedia of Islam is written by the same authros and experts who also write the Iranica. The only difference is that the Iranica focuses on Iranian history and has more detailed biographies, while the EI concentrates on Islamic history as a whole and has better information regarding religious practises and Arabic culture. The artile "Safawids", btw, is written by no less than Clifford Edmund Bosworth. The article "Kizilbash" (which you accuse of being false), is written by no one less than Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (the same Roger M. Savory who has written the articles about Azerbaijan in the Encyclopaedia Iranica)! Britannica is a very good source, but still no match for the Encyclopaedia of Islam in this case, wether you like it or not. Why can't you just accept the truth and the facts given to you by one of the most authoritive sources?! Tajik 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s quite interesting that you accuse Britannica of supporting “nationalistic POV”s. It is also interesting that the articles in Iranica and EOI don’t match. While Iranica describes kizilbash as a union of seven Turkic tribes, EOI talks about their ethnic diversity(?). I just wonder which of those 7 tribes was Persian. Maybe you can elaborate on that. Grandmaster 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse the Britannica, and I do not think that Britannica's information is wrong. In fact, Turcoman clans and families (including my own family, the Oghuz Bayat confederation) were heart of the Safavi Kizilbash army. However, the Britannica's information is not as detailed as the one presented by the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Britannica neither explains the origins of the movement, nor it's meaning. I've posted only a small extract of the article "Kizilbash" (which in total has 5 pages), and the information of the EoI neither contradicts Iranica nor Britannica. Britannica has simply a minimum of information, enough to satisfy curious westerners. The Iranica and EoI (which have identical information in this case) explain everything connected to the term "Kizilbash", and FACT IS, that the Kizilbash movement dates back to the Sassanid era and became a nationalist Persian resistance group against Arabic aggression (in case of Babak and the Khurramids) and later allied itself with various opprssed Shia movements (including the Assassins and of course the Safavids). The point is that "Kizilbash" was not a Turkish movement in Persia, but a native Iranian movement which accepted the support of Turcoman fighters (who later became the most important element of this group). Just accept the truth, Grandmaster! Tajik 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I please see your sources linking kizilbash to sasanid era and assassins? Grandmaster 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I had already posted my source. But here, once again for you: small extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Kizil-Bash" Tajik 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The innocuous little sentence that seems to be causing so much trouble is the following:

He also was a prolific Azeri Turkic poet, writing under the pen name Khatâ'i.

Well, here's an idea. Why not scrap the ethnic bit entirely and just write what is absolutely accurate (as far as I know):

He also was a prolific poet who wrote in both Azerbaijani and Persian under the pen name Khatâ'i.

—Saposcat 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am against that... Or we could add the following - and is considered one of the main Azerbaijani poets. . I am not sure how a person y outside Azerbaijan can dictate to its people which poets they consider theirs. I repeat Persians do not consider Khata'i their main national poet, but they consider him their Shah. abdulnr 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree. Actually, it would be totally enough to say: "... He also was a prolific poet who wrote under the pen name Khatâ'i. ..." Everything else is already explained in the article. But I am sure our Turkish friends in here do not agree. :) Tajik 11:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course he did not consider himself "Turk" in the modern context. If I knew what context you mean Persian, that would be different matter. The problem that us and our Iranian brethren project todays battles onto our ancestors. Its getting too, long and I have no patience... please send me email with the artcile. Regards abdulnr 11:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much (i.e., I know nothing) about the issue of Isma'il's ethnicity, but my own personal opinion (irrelevant as it may be here insofar as I haven't a drop of Turkic or Persian/Iranian blood in me) regarding virtually all matters related to ethnicity tends to echo an earlier stated sentiment of Tajik's: "it really did not matter and it does not matter today". —Saposcat 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. That’s what Iranica says, it calls him an Azeri poet, and not Persian. In fact, it says: Although his son Sam Mirza as well as some later authors assert that Esmail composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived (Sam Mirza, p. 9: one bayt; Fakòr^ Herav^, pp. 68-70: one mokòammas; Tarb^at, Da@neæmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yja@n, p. 136: three bayts). His poetical output in Turkish, however, is sizeable, though indeterminate due to the absence of critical editions.

So his only known Persian poetry is 4 bayts and one mokammas, not enough to qualify as a significant Persian poet. Also Persian literary tradition does not regard him as a great poet, while in Azeri poetry he is one of the classics. Big difference. Grandmaster 11:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So, how about something like this:

He also was a prolific poet who wrote, under the pen name Khatâ'i, in both Azerbaijani and, to a much lesser extent, Persian.

or:

He also was a prolific poet who wrote, under the pen name Khatâ'i, in both Azerbaijani and Persian, though very little of his Persian poetry has survived.

Again, I do not know much about Isma'il—and I do not dispute the fact that (a) he is not considered a major Persian poet, and (b) he is considered a major Azeri poet—but it seems certain that he wrote significantly more poetry in Persian than has survived. The main thing I would like to stress—whatever the sentence ends up finally becoming—is that is extremely easy to avoid any controversial mention of ethnicity in the sentence in question, without unnecessarily angering anyone who has a stake in the issue and without raising matters that can be questioned. —Saposcat 11:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think it is also important to mention his significance for Azeri Turkic poetry, he is one of the greats along with Nesimi and Fuzuli. You know, the discussion above is reason why I was against merging the article about the poet with the article about the king. I knew it was going to be like this. Grandmaster 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the matter this way: in the brief sentence of the introductory paragraphs where his poetic output is mentioned, just drop the matter entirely—he clearly wrote poetry in both languages, and you can simply mention in that sentence that his poetic output in Persian was miniscule, à la the first of my two examples immediately above:

He also was a prolific poet who wrote, under the pen name Khatâ'i, in both Azerbaijani and, to a much lesser extent, Persian.

Then, in the article's section on Isma'il as a poet (i.e., as Khatâ'i), you can stress this difference and emphasize his importance to Azeri poetry. Doesn't this seem reasonable? —Saposcat 12:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.—I realize that you feared this sort of thing would happen if we merged the two articles, but look at the matter objectively for a moment: the ethnic issue here (this time, at least) arose only because of the phrasing (i.e., the direct ethnicity reference) of that original introductory sentence: no one is actually disputing the fact that he is not important in the Persian literary tradition but is so in the Azeri literary tradition.

Also Persian literary tradition does not regard him as a great poet, while in Azeri poetry he is one of the classics. Big difference. Grandmaster...Not only that: unlike all other Turkic Poets (Fuzuli, etc), all of his major poems (20-30 pages) are in very understandable Azeri... He did not compose any signifcant work - i suspect beyond lost quatrains in Persian. If you add apocryphal literature attributed to him in Alevi sources his Turkish output is staggering,,, you cannot compare even Nesimi with him. So leaving aside ethncity completely I would like to strongly emphasize that his is Azeri (Azerbaijani) classical poet. abdulnr 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is your own example on Fuzuli where you emphasize his great contribution to Turkish and Azerbaijani literature: "Often considered one of the greatest contributors to Turkish literature, Fuzûlî was in fact born in Persia—probably in Karbala—of Azerbaijani roots, and wrote his collected poems (dîvân) in three different languages: Azerbaijani Turkish, Persian, and Arabic".

I always trust your judgment, Saposcat, I just think that since nobody is disputing the fact that Ismail is not important in the Persian literary tradition but is so in the Azeri literary tradition, then there’s no reason for not mentioning this fact. Maybe like this:

He also was a prolific poet who wrote, under the pen name Khatâ'i, in both Azerbaijani and, to a much lesser extent, Persian, and is considered one of the classical Azeri-Turkic poets.

I don’t think anyone can dispute the last part. This fact is attested even by Iranica. Grandmaster 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did do that in the Fuzûlî article, yes—and of course, ever since then, I've been waiting for someone to come along and dispute them (but for some reason, no one seems to have done so—I suspect, and am in fact almost certain, that it has everything to do with the fact that Fuzûlî, unlike Isma'il, is neither a political nor a religious figure in any way).

Anyhow, let's simplify the situation thus:

He also was a prolific poet who, under the pen name Khatâ'i, contributed greatly to the development of Azerbaijani as a literary language.

You can, of course, rephrase "Azerbaijani" as "Azerbaijani Turkish" or "Azeri Turkish", at your discretion.

The main thing, let me reiterate, is simply to steer clear of any contentious ethnic claims in a place where, frankly, no ethnic claim is really necessary. —Saposcat 12:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this last version is better. Of course you are right, since Fuzuli was not a political figure, there is no fight over his ethnicity. Grandmaster 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the change. —Saposcat 13:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 141.2.37.83 and 83.196.6.103

I have noticed that there is a low-level revert war going on between two anon users. ([7], [8]).

One user prefers the expression "Turkish Safavid dynasty", another prefers "Persian Safavid dynasty".

As a person who contributed significantly to the Safavids page, I would like to express my  opinion. I believe both sides are correct to a certain extent. Safavids were "Turkish" in a sense that thay were of Turkic origin and spoke Turkic idiom (present-day Azeri). However, they were also "Persian" in a sense that the state they have established was primarily an Iranian state, with strong Persian ethnic and cultural element. 

In order to solve the problem, I suggest removing both "Turkish" and "Persian" references from the initial formulation and instead focusing on the fact that this dynasty was an *Iranian dynasty*. Any other details regarding origins and the role of Turkic and Persian elements within this state can be obtained from the Safavids page. In this circumstance the sentence would be:

Isma'il I (July 17, 1487 - May 23, 1524), was the founder and first shah of the Turkish/Persian Safavid dynasty which survived in Iran until 1736.

• I think it is also necessary to focus on the conflict between Shah Ismail(he was 100% Turkish) and Yavuz Sultan Selim(Selim I.). The reason of this conflict was government policies. The Ottoman Empire used Sunni Islam as the state policy and Shah used Shiite Islam as the state policy. You can find more about this in the book called, History of The Ottoman State, Society and Civilization which edited by E. Ihsanoglu and in the book, pages between 27-31. April 17, 2006 (by Deliogul)

This is just a suggestion which came to my mind. Certainly, there can be other similar or non-similar suggestions. But one thing I would call both parties to refrain from is engaging in fruitless and counterproductive reverts. Hope my message was helpful. --Tabib 12:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Therre is a important difference between Turkic and Turkish. user Tabib and our anonym Friend (like I) believe that the Safavids could be turkish!!!!!

turkish referes to the county Turkey or rather the Ottoman Turks (see Turk). Also turkish is Total false

So what about millenium old "Divan-ül Lügat-it" Türk written by an Uygur to teach turkish for arabs and Acem. Ottoman people started to use name Turk for themselves in 17th century before only europeans and middle-easterns were calling them Turk. They were using Oguz for themselves and they used Turk all non Oguz and Tatars especially for Uygurs and Uzbeks.I dont belive even 1/4 of ismail is Turk though no turk ever showed cruelty as him and no Turk would listen a Turk who isnt noble(see why seljuk collapsed just because the nobility was low rank Uc Ok.

I find the persian correct because at this time, Persia was the official name of iran by the europeans. And albeit his turkic orgin, IsmailI was called by everybody at this time: The persian shah or the king of Persia.

The lowndown that he was from Turkic Parents, is not too much atented by every available encyclopedia. It is only Important that he was the ruler of Persia.

Indeed, Shah Ismail could boast Turkic and Greek blood, among many others. Through his mother, he was a descendant of the Komneni Emperors of Trebizond, the Komneni, Kantakuzeni, and Angeli dynasties of Constantinople, the Bagratian dynasty of Georgia, the Begs of Samatzkhe, the Arpad dynasty of Hungary (who were, of course, Magyars), and Charlemagne himself. Shah Ismail was a fourteenth cousin once removed of his contemporary King Henry VIII of England. Missi 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he should indeed be referred as Turkish. The name Turkish does not necessarily refer to the people from modern the Republic of Turkey. Ethnic Azerbaijani of both Iranian and the Azerbaijan Republic can be referred as Turkish as well as the ethnic Turkoman of Northern Iraq, and ethnic Turks of Balkan republics. As for the Shah Ismail I, he indeed was Turkish not only genetically but also culturally. The state he ruled was Turkish not Persian. As for the Safavid dynasty, only post Abbas I shahs can be called Turkish/Persian shahs. Persia at the time of Ismail and 3 other shahs after him, was only a part of the empire. The Persian culture in the empire was no more important than the culture of other subject people's, say Kurdish or Arabic and not certainly more important than Turkish culture. Therefore, it is my opinion that the dynasty, at least the early period should be referred as Turkish Safavid dynasty.

The commonly accepted distinction between the ethnic and national representations of the word is Turkic (related to Turk etno-cultural identity) and Turkish (related to the country Turkey or a citizen of Turkey). In this respect, Ismail is definitely Turkic, not Turkish. Moreover, historically, the separation of Turco-Persian tradition is not in terms of ethnicity, but rather religion, where Shiite Turks are generally associated with Iran, even this being a hardly well-defined distinction. This has only changed with the rise of nationalism in the last century. Ironically, both leaders in Chaldiran are poets, but Iran's leader's divan is in a Turkic language (which is something closer to Azeri, but also closely related to present day Turkish), while Turkey's (then, Ottoman's) leader's divan is in Farsi. Hence, forcing any ethnic/cultural separation in Turco-Persian history is artificial. I believe Safavids can safely be labeled Turco-Persian, as well as Seljuks. AldirmaGonul 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In every avilable encyclopedia, IsmailI is known as the King of Persia (Iran). For examaple everybody kann read by Encyclopedia Brittanica:

also spelled Esma'il I shah of Iran (1501–24) and religious leader who founded the Safavid dynasty (first native dynasty to rule the kingdom in 800 years) and converted Iran from the Sunni to the Shi'i sect of Islam.

He was himself from Azeri-Turkic (and not turkish) orgin. He started out 1501 to capture Iran. and He begann with Azerbaijan. he called later himselfs the shah of Iran see Safavids. His tittle Shah is applicable only for the Persian rulers.

I find it very Stupid (sorry) when a Person say: Ismail I founded a Turkish State, and Persia was a colony of his empire 81.210.141.75 10:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

One may find it stupid, but it does not change the reality and fact. Persians were not central to the founding of Safavid state. They became more important after the changes by Abbas I. Evaulating Ismail I's reign is different than evaluating the whole Safavid dyansty. This article is about Ismail I. It is therefore most appropriate to say that he founded a Turkish state. Azeri-Turkic and Turkish both can be used. Title shah did not exculievely belong to Persian rulers. Ottoman sultans for example used that title too.o

That may be a personal idea. But by all History-Books, shah ismail is known as the king of Persia (iran). Everybody can see for oneself by view in Encyclopedia Brittanica: or in www.encyclopedia.com and by another sources one can read exact the same. Do you have any sources for your theory???????? when not then i didn´t find correct wenn you write your personal idea without any soutce and argument. :-) regards 81.210.141.75 18:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps: in 16. century, Persia was the ofiicial name of the country Iran. Therefore he is called by the the europeans at that times the "persian shah". 81.210.141.75 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what history books you are talking about but from what I read he was known as Turkish. Again and again, calling him Persian shah is anachronism. The country later became Persia and later Iran. The position of Brittanica is therefore wrong. If everything written there was 100 % correct then what is the need for Wikipedia? Let's copy and paste Brittanie here. Now I'm reverting it again, and hope that people has finally understood the point and will agree on this. Otherwise please talk and agree before reverting again. I am not interested in pushing my personal agenda here. So don't get me wrong. All I want is the correctness of information, people come here and use this as a sou

Please stop. The correct information exist in Encyclopedia Brittanica and in another encyclopedia´s like www.encyclopedia.com:

shah of Persia (1502-24), founder of the Safavid dynasty. He restored Persia to the position of a sovereign state for the first time since the Arab invasion of Persia.

Nobody need here, unbased personal idea. Wenn your Theory is correct why dont you give any source or argument. Not only Encyclopedia Brittanica know shah ismail as Iranian King but also (you see) another Encyclopedia´s do it too. In the article Safavids is Ismail to accepted as Shah of iran. All Historian know that shah Ismail was the king a Turco-Persian dynastie of Iran. Wenn you have any Source or Reason, then we continue this discusiion otherwise no Person by Wikipedia acceppt any Information without any neutral Argument and source.

Ps:It is not clever wenn you believe that in Encyclopedia Brittanica or in www.encyclopedia.com and in another sourrces exist only the false informations and only you know the reality and the fact. I think that another users accept this sources more than your sinnless argument. :-)) regard 81.210.141.75 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ismail was a Turk from the Salur Tribe (Boy) of Turks. Denying this is denying truth and history. Persians were ruled by a Turkic dynasty, and that is an irrefutable fact. Ethnic Turkish, Turkic, Turk they all mean the same thing. Lets not be demagogues.

[edit] Origin of the Safawid Dynasty

According to modern historians - Western, Iranian, and Turkish - the Safawids were of a mixed Persian and Kurdish origin. The claim that they were "Turks" is wrong. This claim is based on the fact, that Shah Ismail wrote poems in Azeri language using the pen-name Khata'i. But writing poems in Turkis (in thsi case Azeri-Turkish) does not make one "Turkish". Language does not define the identity of a dynasty. If that were the case, than the Ghaznavids were Persians and not Turks, because they were native Persian-speakers. ***

• • • Thats exactly true state language of seljuks was also persian though Chatai (modern day Uygur) Turkish was the lingua franca of that time. Even Karamanoğlu Mehmet bey revolted against his sultan for this reason. "From now on,in bazar in market in forum no one will speak in another language than Turkish".

The following text is taken from "Is there an ultimate use for historians? Reflections on Safavid history and historiography" by Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto, (The Annual Noruz Lecture Series: 16 March 1995, Foundation for Iranian Studies Washington, D.C.):

  If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape 
  relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled 
  Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids');
  and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained 
  in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh 
  Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) 
  and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the 
  Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was
  not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded 
  and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar 
  Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same
  conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent
  claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of
  Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, 
  which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name 
  of Khata'i.
  http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/reflections_safavid_history_historiography1.php

-213.39.128.242 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear user. Please, do not misuse the word vandalizing. It is not vandalism accoording to Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that you are talking with this kind of threatining language. As my edits are aimed at the correctness of the information and far from vandalizm, there is no way that I am going to get banned. The reason I am doing this is because someone, before me has consistenly reverted things back without discussion. I did write in duscussin page and asked that before revertng or editing lets talk and agree. That person did not listen. He/she wrote something in a broken English that I am sure not too many people understood. And without lsitening or coming to any discussion reverted back to older edit. If you call my edits vandalism then what are his? Try to be objective. Again I am offering the same, before editing or reverting, lets talk and agree, let's make this as correct as possible and avoid a dispute tag on this article. I want correct information for those who are doing research or preparing assignments. Thank you for your attention.

vandlizing means wenn a Person changes the article without any reason, source or disscussion. two neutarl sources ("Brittanica" and "www.encyclopedia.com") is given in this article. there can you read Ismail I is known as iranian King. Please stop to call my reasons and my arguments vandalism. I think that every user can understand my argument. I asked "for a neutarl source" before your new editting. It is not too hard to understand. Please dont call my reasons and my sources vandalism. another user accept this sources and argument more than your reproaches. regard 81.210.141.75 10:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"vandlizing means wenn a Person changes the article without any reason, source or disscussion."-not at all. see Wikipedia:Vadalism. I will ask you one thing and please don't get me wrong. If you are not competent in English then I suggest you to write in any other language version of Wikipedia. It is available in almost any major language, including German. Of course, everybody is free to write wherever they want, but when you don't really understand what the other person says or what you write is not fully grasped by others then it is preferrable to refrain from this kind of discussion. It only leads to more confusion. I have never called your edits vandalism, I have basically said that if you call my edits vandalism, then your edits are not so different. Now, about sources and reasons. If you call giving a link to some online encyclopedia as giving a source, then I can do the same. Actually I don't even have to do a research. The names of the online sources can be found in Safavids Talk page. I'm just gonna copy and paste it here because you wanted it so much.

1. [Iran Chamber website ]: “A militant Islamic Sufi order, the Safavids, appeared among Turkish speaking people of west of the Caspian Sea, at Ardabil. The Safavid order survived the invasion of Timur to that part of the Iran in the late 13th century. By 1500 the Safavids had adopted the Shi'a branch of Islam and were eager to advance Shi'ism by military means. Safavid males used to wear red headgear...”

Turkish language was spoken at Shah Esma'il's court, but having adopted Persian as official language and much of Persian culture the Safavids were mistakenly thought by outsiders to be Persian

2. [Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition]: “The Safavid state provided both the territorial and societal foundations of modern Iran. Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.”

3. [Friesian School website ]: “The Safavids were actually of Turkomen origin and established themselves first at Tabriz… At first religion was much more important than any ethnic identity, and Esmâ'il created a powerful Shi'ite identity for his dynasty and state. This became a unifying and militant force in Irân, especial vis à vis Orthdox Turkey, right down to the present. Abbas I, however, moved the capital to Es.fahân, and the state began to take on more of a Persian than a Turkish character.

4. [Iranian National Front]: “…Was Iran a country with territorial integrity under Safavids? Yes. Were Safavids Persian? No. Safavids were Azerbaijanis. They did choose Shia Islam and with the force of the sword killed and forced hitherto Sunni Iranians to convert to Shia Islam. Was it necessary to kill and/or convert Iranians to Shia in order to create a "nation-state," or was there a pluralistic and non- violent way?

The fact of the matter is that our Azerbaijanis defended Iran and Iran's territorial integrity from Russians and Ottomans under the Safavids. Iranians from other ethnic groups lived peacefully in one country…”

Now if you are satisfied let me continue. Even though, I put these sources here, I do not beleive that doing this kind of internet search and presenting it as truth can be considered a proper research. Proper academic research should site direct resources such as books. And for that, one needs to do a long research. I personally am willing to undertake it, but not at the current time. I do not have enough time. When I conclude my research, I will write the results here and make proper edits. In the meantime though, let's agree on the text rather than reverting it back. Because, I can take it forever, but I don't think it serves any purpose. The author of the last edit, wrote a personal message in my talk page, suggesting to write Turco-Persian dynasty, instead of Turkish or Persian. In my opinion, there should not be any reference to the ethnicity of the dynasty that Ismail I found. It is irrelevant. This article is about Ismail I, those who want to have more detailed information about the dyansty as a whole, should refer to the Safavids article. It would be relevant if we write about the ethnicity of Ismail I himself. But, still it is not apporpriate, because even though he was Turkish he did not made it as a central policy of his kingdom and his kingdom was cosmopolitan rather than ethnicity based. Therefore, there should not be any reference to the ethnicity of dynasty or himself in the article. Let's just remove the word Persian/Turkish from the word Safavid dynasty. And also, in 1514 Selim I had not yet acquired the caliphate. Other than that, Ismail I, did not have a rival claim to the Sunni caliphate, he was rather friendly with Mameluks. So, there should be chnages to that article too. If you agree to these then let's make appropriate changes for now. And please, do not get me wrong, I sincerely beleive that you are only interested in the correctness of the article an do not have any bias. Thanks.

It is irrelevant what the orgin of Ismail I is. I wrote in this page that he was from Azeri-Turkic orgin. the fact is iran is not the country of Persians. there live many different Ethnic-groups like Azeri (Turks) and Kurds. therefor i bellieve that the word turko-Persian is for the safavid dynasty correct. But i find too better to remove this Word from article.

you are right. the german-wikipedia is (Possible) for me better and i am active too there. but I can understnad what you say and what the another users say. and I understood you believ that Iran was only a colony of this empire. But in [Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition] and in another sources is to read that Ismail I (from Turkic orgin) was known as the ruler of iran. also the word Iran (or shah of iran) is correct in this article. wenn you are realy intrested in the corectness of the article, then it is important to know, that iran is a country with many different People (Ethnic groups). also according all this sources is the word "Shah of Iran" correct in the article. thanks and best regards.

Ps:I called never your editting vandalism then you have began with this vacable. and I was the Person (see signature) who suggsts the word "Turco-Persian" in your talk-Page and not another. 81.210.141.75 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, for attributing the word vandalism to you. I think it is better to use names, cause if you don't, then your IP addresses may cause a confusion. I have never said that Iran was only a colony of his empire. Persia was. First of all not colony, but part. Second, not Iran but Persia. I do not equate the two terms, as Iran being a broader definition. Two words have been WRONGLY used as synonymous by Europeans. It was corrected only in 20-th century when the name was offically changed. I agree with the rest of what you said, and leave it to you to make appropriate edits. --TimBits 21:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. As it has been agreed, I will make necesaary edits. If there is any dispute later on, let's bring it here before editing or reverting. I am ready for discussion. --TimBits 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Tankyou for your trust. I dont find the vacable "Persian" in the reallity correct hier. and I believe that "the first native Iranian dynasty in 800 years" in this article is excrescent. therefore I remove the first vacable. the another can you remove wenn you dont find it correct. I know nothing about the roles of Maluck-sultans in the relation between two empires (safavids and othmans) wenn you know anything, I am happy wenn you write it in the article.

Ps: My major activity is in german-wikipedia where I work with user-name "Peymanpi". but hier I am not very active therefore i want to persist hier anonym. best regards81.210.141.75 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

oh cool you did it already ;-)81.210.141.75 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Khata'i into Ismail I

Generally, articles on one person should treat all aspects of the person on one page. Although I appreciate that Khata'i is a pen name for Ismail I, and so has a separate "persona" this isn't that useful in an encyclopedia which should treat all aspects of the person together. I propose that the information at Khata'i be merged into Ismail I and that Khata'i be redirected to Ismail I so that those searching for the other name will easily find the information here. -- cmh 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well. I am generally against that for the reason that Ismail I is a great political figure and the poet is a great Turkish poet. Maybe the article needs to be completely revamped in this case. Let's see what others think... abdulnr 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Although they may both be great, they are the same person. People have different facets, but their efforts should be treated on one page as this is an encyclopedia. -- cmh 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the article on Ismail as an Azeri poet as a separate article, because I don’t want it to be affected by all the nationalistic POV clashes we see here. Grandmaster 04:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, editor clashes on Wikipedia aren't a reason to put the information into a new article. All information on a the same person should be treated together. -- cmh 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but see Talk:Safavid dynasty. I don’t want this to become continuation of that. But if there’s consensus, I won’t object to merge. Grandmaster 20:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have to say that I agree with cmh on this issue; to put the information on Khata'i into the page on Ismail I would, I think, be better insofar as it would enrich the information on the man himself. It may be true that, as abdulnr says, "Ismail I is a great political figure and the poet is a great Turkish poet", but I think that it is best not to treat them as two separate encyclopedic entities, since it was ultimately one and the same person. —Saposcat 08:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok everyone agrees then, but let's prepare to fight political battles and not discuss literature :) Separate into Life and Poetry section. abdulnr 00:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Complete

As per consensus I have merged the pages. I tried to pick appropriate material from both pages when merging together. As someone who is not an expert on the topic I was confused by one aspect of the move. The poem about "here is the arena" was presented as Khata'i's in the original of Ismail I and as the Sultan's in Khata'i. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of the original text on my part. Anyway, an expert may want to correct that if I've done something wrong there. -- cmh 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation required

I have added {{citation required}} to the statement: The major impact of his religious propaganda, in the long run, was the conversion of many in Iran and Azerbaijan to Shiism. This type of statement can be a red flag to some people, and I think that if it is to stay there needs to be an ironclad reliable secondary source cited specifically for this statement. If no such source can be found then it should probably go, if it is not softened considerably. -- cmh 14:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Don't think anything controversial here. Before Safavids most of the population was Sunni and became increasingly Sunni through the years (see Moojan Momen) Tajik has provided citation already. In fact poems like these were even better tool to convert the population than Shia ulema.abdulnr 22:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ALso make sure you their is citation about the statement that he contributed greatly to the Azari language or otherwise remove the sentence. If you want to also he wrote to a lesser degree cite it with a neutral and unbiased source and just to let you knwo it is not cited right now. Get in the habbit of citing your work, becuase you can not just add whatever you want! 72.57.230.179

If you read the discussion above, you could see plenty of citations. Here’s one for you, from encyclopedia Iranica: Encyclopedia Iranica. Azerbaijan VIII. Azeri Turkish. page 246.

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war.

Btw, if you an Azeri, you must be proud that we have such a great poet, but for some reason you try to deny his contribution to Azeri literature. Grandmaster 05:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also see: Encyclopedia Iranica. Azeri Literature in Iran. Grandmaster 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?!

1- "Sufi Grand Master and belligerent leader of a swelling Shi'a Islam community in Azerbaijan region of Iran"

• Why is this being changed? It clearly says region of IRAN, so why is it being reverted to Azerbaijan which is the country?!

2- "He wrote in the Azerbaijani language and — to a lesser extent — in Persian. His Turkish dîvân, or collected poems, numbers about 400 gazels, together with some 100 kasîdes and rubais, and it remains popular to this day. His surviving poetical output in Persian is much less sizeable:"

• It clearly shows that whatever that is -survived- from his work, is "much less sizable", then why does it need — this much — emphasize?! I have a feeling that some people are almost scared of Azeris having any connection to Persians?! Can we compromise on this matter and stop the reverts?! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting the word Turkish on this article. It is not correct; the term is Azari. Please use it and do not interchange the term Azari with Turkish or join them. 69.196.164.190

[edit] Birthplace

The birth place of any figure also relates the country. I have added Iran Here is the change; Ardebil, Iran in region of Azarbaijan the old birthplace was Ardebil, Iranian Azarbaijan

This will also enlighten other editors why the brth place should be Iran...then followed with Iranian Azarbaijan.

The Persian Empire was a series of historical empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau. The political entity which was ruled by these kingdoms is the country now known as Iran

69.196.164.190

There was no state called Iran or Persia at the time. He was actually born in Ak-koyunlu state. I think you give to much attention to label everything with the words Iran and Iranian. There's absolutely no need for that, everybody understands that Ismail was the ruler of Iran/Persia. Grandmaster 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is that the area he was born with is part of the the political entity which was ruled by these kingdoms is the country now known as Iran. FOr example many German figures were born in areas even when the country of German did not exists officially, although the political entity of Germany like Iran has for ages, but these figures are listed as being born in Germany.Take a look for your self at various articles so that this convention of birthplaces could sink in.

You follow the conventional logic? I also think that we should mention Ak-koyunlu state, with the proper citation. There is nothing wrong with neutral labelling. I am sorry to say terms like 'Azari-Turkish language, Turkish and so on' seem to be labelling and incorrect. These terms are only POV and pleasing to some Turkish editors that are not even Azaris. 69.196.164.190

[edit] A New Suggestion: NPOV through including all POVs

For some reason I've kept this page on my watchlist and periodically hit the diff button to see what's up. Usually it's someone adding or removing Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Persia or some variant on this. This is a waste of time and energy that could be spent making the encyclopedia better.

As someone uninvolved – and ultimately uninterested – in the day to day of this article I want to say that the average reader is not picking up on the subtleties of the wording in this article, and is instead focusing on the interesting dichotomy in Ismail's political and poetic life. I would like to make a suggestion that the article be changed once and for all.

Everyone editing to correct these terms should first review WP's neutral point-of-view policy. Note that it is not the "no point of view" policy, it's more like the "all points of view" policy.

Here are three key policy points (these are quotes from the policy, the emphasis is mine) that I think are relevant to the extended debate going on here:

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views... All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Readers are left to form their own opinions.
• Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.
• We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject...

Accordingly, my suggestion would be to change the article so that it includes a discussion of these terms, and shows all sides of the debate. For example, one could say: According to the encyclopedia of Foo, Ismail was born on Mars. Venusian historians, such as John Smith, however, would describe his birthplace as being on Venus because of the border reconfigurations since his time." Note that when I say all sides of the debate, I mean in an academic sense. We are not reporting our views here, we must cite reliable sources in the article for each position.

Your views? -- cmh 00:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)