Talk:Safavid dynasty

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkoman_(ethnonym) It is better to switch the link of Turkomans from present day ethnic Turkmens to the Turkoman( Ethnonym ) link. This would make the readers understand more about what a Turkoman was in Western Asia. 2A02:1810:A44A:7E00:E9BF:8593:2AAF:24E0 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me for now that the existing link is more useful. The link you provide primarily deals with the etymology of the term - is there some reason why this is a more suitable target? Tollens (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: 'Turkoman' was a term used to refer to people of Oghuz Turkic origin, not just Turkmens. These are two different things. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah - thank you! Tollens (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

Request to add the flags of the Safavid Empire under Ismail I and Tahmasp I as described on this wikimedia page: Historical flags Klamactocrat (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Reintroducing

"Reintroducing a reputable and dependable encyclopedic reference that was wrongfully removed without valid reason."Peoplic (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted that. Remsense's comment is entirely accurate. We should not use sources that are almost 400 years old really at all. They are functionally WP:PRIMARY sources at that point. Wikipedia should rely on what modern scholarship tells us. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense and Eddie891. We should avoid 17th century sources, and use the plethora of secondary sources written about the Safavids. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The argument that we shouldn't use old sources doesn't really stand up, IMHO - although I agree great care should be used with such sources. However, the additions proposed by Peoplic are problematic not because of the source, but because the source is cited to stand up facts that simply cannot be attributed to that source. So, for instance, we have "Because the Safavids left behind a strong government system, a regular army, and clear borders, they are seen as the ones who started the modern Iranian state." sourced to a 1629 document - and, separately, "In the late 1600s, the Safavid rulers were too weak to control the growing power of Shi’ite religious leaders." attributed to the same source. That is clearly an issue. There are a number of other instances of this issue in the proposed additions which rather throws a dubious light on the whole lot, to be honest, so FWIW I would support the reversions and counsel against further such additions. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:OR DOES state, "Further examples of primary sources include: ...medieval and ancient works" so the argument against using a very old text DOES stand up, although I'd still argue 'used with great care' they could be appropriate. These examples do NOT demonstrate 'used with great care'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Remsense Alexandermcnabb - Eddie891 - Kansas Bear

Thank you for your comment. What sources are modern history books based on? Do contemporary and 20th-century historians write their books based on personal knowledge and opinions, or do they rely on historical texts written during the same period as the events they describe? Isn't Herodotus' book, which covers ancient Greece, considered reliable? Aren’t modern history books about Greece based on sources like Herodotus and other contemporary writers of that era? The book I cited was written by an author who lived in the 15th century and described events of that time. Moreover, in the book’s introduction, both the author and translator discuss the entire Safavid period, and their commentary was reflected in the article. So why is a 15th-century book not considered reliable? And why is a 20th-century book that essentially copies from that 15th-century book considered more valid? Peoplic (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Ancient sources are extremely problematic, often prone to exaggeration and bias. Once you start building an article directly from them it's hard to know where to stop. Should we report in our article on Gallic Wars that the war saw almost no Roman casualties and a million+ Gallic, because Caesar reports so in De bello Gallico? This problem is not exclusive to ancient sources: In the same way, we wouldn't build an article on a World War II battle on a first-hand account, even if secondary works on the event rely heavily on that same account.

It is always preferable to rely on modern scholars, who have the benefit of being qualified to assess what these sources are telling us, and make judgment calls about this. Am pinging Gog the Mild or UndercoverClassicist, who may have a better way of explaining this. PS, if you are citing the modern scholarship from e.g. an introduction, that is a good source! You should just cite that chapter specifically, rather than the book with a 1629 publication date. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

"Thank you for the explanation — I cited the page from the book." Peoplic (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is totally pointless and potentially confusing for our readers. What you're adding is redundant and unencyclopedic rearticulations of material that already exists in the article in some form cited by sources we should be using, or elsewhere you are tacking it on to cite material that is already cited. Any new claim you'd actually want to add with this as a citation should be cited to modern scholarship instead. I am running out of patience here. Remsense ‥ 论 07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

As regards the added passage cited to contemporary scholarship by David Blow, I want to further emphasize @Alexandermcnabb's related but distinct concerns about citation to material the source doesn't actually say. However, the paragraph you added here reflects the source too well I'm afraid—you clearly have not fully appreciated previous warnings you have been given about close paraphrasing/plagiarism:

−

The Safavid ruler, or ''Shah'', was seen as a divine figure by his followers. The state was backed by the military strength of the Turkoman tribes, who spoke a form of Turkish, and by the long-standing administrative experience of the local Iranian people. This new and energetic Shi’a Muslim state in Iran quickly rose to power and, for a short time, seemed like it might lead the Muslim world. However, it soon had to defend itself from the Sunni Muslim powers surrounding it — the Ottoman Empire to the west and the Uzbek khanate in Central Asia to the east.

+

The Safavid ruler — or shah — was regarded as divine by his followers, while the state was supported by the military power of Turkoman tribes — tribes that spoke a dialect of Turkish — and the age-old administrative skills of the indigenous Iranian population. This newly emergent and dynamic Shi’i Iran briefly threatened to dominate the Muslim world before being thrown onto the defensive by the hostile Sunni Muslim powers on its borders — the Ottoman Turkish Empire in the west and the Uzbek khanate of Central Asia in the east.

This is completely unacceptable also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Remsense Alexandermcnabb - Eddie891 - Kansas Bear

I am adding sourced content and respecting copyright. Why did you paraphrase the last part, which was about another name for the Safavid dynasty? What’s the issue? The source is modern and directly references the page. Your action has caused disruption, and I will definitely inform the administrators. Removing sourced modern content and replacing phrases is a mistake and error in Wikipedia. Please be more careful!Peoplic (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Your close paraphrasing is egregious plagiarism that takes a lot of time for other editors to clean up. You've done it on every article you've cited the David Blow work on, I checked. You've already been given a final warning by an admin about this—once more, and I'm going to ANI to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do you immediately delete anything related to the Turkism of the Safavids? Ratelnim (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Why no History?

I realise this is currently a sensitive topic, but why is there essentially no history of the Safavid dynasty here? No discussion of how they rose to power, how they consolidated power, what they did with their power, their decline, or their fall (and in this case, their brief resurrection). It doesn't seem like it would be too contentious, but maybe there's something I'm missing (I'm here precisely because I don't know much about the safavids, and especially what came before).

At the very minimum, and presumably non-controversial, it would be desirable to have a link to the History of Iran subtopic, but it's pretty standard in the corresponding pages of other dynasties to have a quick potted history, with possibly a link to the history page for more detail. Urilarim (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)