Jump to content

Talk:Qizilbash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Qazilbash"

[edit]

I have removed the spelling Qazilbash from the intro, because:

  • it is unsourced
  • it is uncommon
  • it is not confluent with Turkish vowel/vocalic harmony

Tajik (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to unnecessary edits by anon IPs. Tajik (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted and unsourced/false claim by an IP. Tajik (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qazilbash form appears to be used primarily in Pakistan; it is attested, e.g. in Gupta, Hari Ram (editor) (1956) Panjab on the eve of first Sikh War: a documentary study of the political, social and economic conditions of the Panjab as depicted in the daily letters written chiefly from Lahore by British intelligencers during the period 30 December, 1848 to 31 October, 1844 Department of History, Panjab University, Hoshiarpur, India, page 199, OCLC 460671525; and Khan, Tahawar Ali (1985) "Imtiaz Ali-Qazilbash" Biographical encyclopedia of Pakistan Biographical Research Institute, Lahore, Pakistan, page 101, OCLC 14193680. --Bejnar (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulat

[edit]

I removed the term ghulat from the introduction, since ghulat specifically refers to groups who excessively rever 'Ali in the eyes of both the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shi'a. Ghulat groups include people like the Alawiyyah and Aleviyyah.--IsaKazimi (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit, because the term "ghoulat" is sourced. R. Savory writes in the Encyclopaedia of Islam:
"In general, it is used loosely to denote a wide variety of extremist Shī'ī sects [see GHULĀT], which flourished in [V:243b] Anatolia and Kurdistān from the late 7th/13th century onwards, including such groups as the Alevis ('Alawīs ; see A. S. Tritton, Islam : belief and practices, London 1951, 83)."
Tajik (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wasn't these people who went on to found the Safavid empire as the article claims. The Safavid Empire was founded by Shah Isma'il as i suspect you already know. Shah Isma'il was not a ghulat (i.e. Alevi or Alawi), He was a mainsteam ithna ashari shi'i.--IsaKazimi (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ismā'il was anything but an orthodox Ithnā‘asharī - after all, he claimed to be the "son of God", the "manifestation of God". Ismā'il's claim being the "manifestation of God" was a driving force of the Qizilbash in the Battle of Chaldiran. Keeping that aside, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is authoritative. Ithnā‘asharī Shiism which is not the original Shiism but is highly influenced by traditional, pan-Arab Sunnism, gained ground in Persia after the devastating defeat of the Safavids in the Battle of Chaldiran and after Abbās the Great became Shah with the help of Arab and Persian ulamā. Tajik (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that Shah Isma'il claimed to be the 'Son of God'? Indeed, he did exaggerate his importance as monarch, but that is not the same as claiming some sort of divinity. Remember that his father was a Sunni Sheykh, who converted to mainstream Ithna'ashari Shi'ism. Thus, his son followed into the same religious believes. The defeat in the Battle of Chaldiran proves nothing. The Ottoman Empire opposed all Shi'ism, not just Ghulat Shi'ism. Which is why the fued between the two empires continued after Isma'il I and Abbas the Great. Also, your claim that Twelver Shi'ism isn't the original is disputed and by no means proven on either side.--IsaKazimi (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read this. As for Shiism: as analyzed by Iranian scholar M.A. Amir-Moezzi (who is regarded a 1st-class specialist on Shiism and Shia history), there is a conspicuously large amount of pre-Islamic (Indo-)Iranian influence on Shiism as a whole. This includes the belief in "Imams" and the line of succession from father to son (very similar to the Zoroastrian concept of "farr"), the legendary figures of Shahrbanu and Salman al-Farsi whose existence is rejected my modern scholars, the "Nahj al-Balagha", the characterization of Ali and his family, etc etc etc. All of this had started much earlier, with the proto-Shia and pro-Zoroastrian Khurramites, with the proto-Shia Firdausi, and so forth, but the Safavids were the first ones to fully legitimize this belief and establish it as an alternative Islamic view. The orthodox character of modern Iranian Shiism was formed much much later. Modern-day Alevites in Turkey are a testimony to this. They are descendants of those Safavid supporters who, after the Battle of Chaldiran, were re-located by the Ottoman sultan in order to minimize the Safavid influence on them. They have kept the original Safavid and Qizilbash belief, free of any other influence, while in Iran the religion gradually shifted toward a Sunni-influenced, pan-Arab, orthodox madhhab (which is natural, because the population of Iran was Sunni previously and the Safavid era resulted in a mix of Sunni and Shia views, keeping the overall Shia faith, but heavily influenced by the original conservative habits of the formerly Sunni population). Tajik (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article, it was interesting. However, I object to a few things. To say that Shi'ism has been built on the foundations of Majusi theology doesn't explain how Twelver Shi'ism prevails in Lebanon. The fact is that historically there were at least 11 Imams (even if many reject the 12th), all of whom accepted their Imamate. Yet none of them were Majusi-influenced. You make out that Twelver Shi'a Islam started in Iran, during the Safavid era. This is just not true. As I have said. The same Twelver Shi'a Islam already existed in (what is now called) Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq. Also, which scholars reject the existance of Salman al-Farisi? As for the Aleviyyah, they are just a group who have blended original Turkish/Kurdish shemanic practices with some Sufi and Twelver Shi'a aspects. It is the acceptance of the former that has made them hereodox, not the later. Remember also, that the Safavid Empire invited many Shi'a ulama to come to Iran from the various parts of the Muslim world to help propagate Twelver Shi'a Islam there.--IsaKazimi (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Imams is disputed among Shia groups - and has always been disputed. To make it even more complicated: the actual existence of the first Imams (including Ali and his sons) is disputed by some leading scholars, leaving aside the fact that in modern conferences on Islamic history, the entire early history of Islam is disputed (see Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World and The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran). However, this is off-topic. As for the Qizilbash: they were originally a "ghulat" movement, with heterodox beliefs ("son of God", etc). Their link to pre-Islamic Zoroastrian beliefs is also partially confirmed by their habits, i.e. wearing red robes, very similar to the Khurramites and Mazdakites. Tajik (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the two that write that book 'leading scholars'. As you can see, most of their contemporaries have rejected it. Anyway, I am not denying that the Qizilbash are (or were) ghulat. I am denying that the Safavid Empire were Qizilbash. It is the line that states as such that I am challenging.--IsaKazimi (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two scholars mentioned are indeed controversial, but their expertise is undisputed. Others, for example Rüdiger Puin, are regarded the most important scholars in their field of interest. Puin, for example, was the first to analyze the "Quran of Yemen" (also known as Sana'a manuscripts), the oldest Quran ever discovered. Analyzing it, he came to the conclusion that the entire modern interpretation of the Quran as well as the early history of Islam (as taught in the Muslim world) is wrong. He was the first to postulate that the original Quran was written outside of Arabia and that its original language was a dialect of Aramaic. But, again, this is off-topic. Tajik (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt, that the Safavid Empire was Qizilbash when it was established in 1501. But the state was soon to become orthodox after the death of Shah Tahmasb. Shah Ismail himself was the spiritual leader (murshid-i kamil) of the Qizilbash people, and his hundreds of poems also reveal that he was a Qizilbash. It is also known that Shah Tahmasb also had strong connections to heterodoxy, even though he was more orthodox than his father. But by the time of Shah Abbas, the Safavid Empire, as a state, was "cleaned" from heterodoxy, but still making propaganda among the Qizilbash people in Anatolia. As for the people living in the Safavid Empire, you are right. They were to become orthodox Shi'ites already during the reign of Shah Isma'il. But it is also known, that there lots of heterodoxy existed (e.g. Ahl-i Haqq, Nimatullahi, Mushashaiyya, Khakhsar, Qalandar, Darvish etc.) among those people, before some of them became orthodox. (Xizilbash (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Notable people - notability required

[edit]

It seems that the list in this article of Notable people has been filled with non-notable persons, or persons whose notability has not been established. Please see Notability: Lists of People. Each entry must either link to a Wikipedia article for that person, or it must have a footnote, or footnotes, to a reliable, verifiable source that establishes notability and the individual's connection to the list. Entries that do not, are likely to be deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mugul princes

[edit]

There have been no sources proposed for the suggestion that the Mughal princes were Qizilbash. It is highly unlikely. I have deleted the unsourced paragraph. However, there are sources that discuss the Qizilbash in the Mughal Empire, for example, Rose, H. A. (compiler) (1997) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: Volume 3, L—Z Nirmal Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India, page 259, ISBN 81-85297-71-1, reprint of 1911 edition and based upon the Census Report for the Punjab, 1883, by Denzil Ibbetson, and the Census Report for the Punjab, 1892, by Edward Maclagan which says: Many of the great Mughal ministers were Qizilbash and notably Mir Jutnla, the famous minister of Aurangzeb. --Bejnar (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RV

[edit]

I have reverted a good faith edit by an IP. Although his information is sourced, the mentioned tribe was neither a founding member nor part of the politically important or influential groups. See the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Paste?

[edit]

Much of the history section feels to be cut-and-pasted from another work- can anyone say if this is the case?Mavigogun (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it includes direct quotes from the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tajik (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes need to be directly quoted- otherwise, it's simple plagiarism; which answers the question. The whole section needs be rewritten.Mavigogun (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big lie in wikipedia about Gizilbash army - please read Iran history - cambridge - oxford university

[edit]

This is big lie about gizilbash army as pan persian iranian included in wikepedia: source belong to pan persian racist writer.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Qizilbash:

"The non-Turkic or non-Turkish-speaking Iranian tribes among the Kizilbash were called Tājiks by the Turcomans and included"

while 500 years ago iran recreated by Gizilbash army (7 falilies from Ardebil + Shahsavan people under shah abbas) NO MORE 1- Tājiks and uzbeks were in war with gizilbah for 100 years how they could be a part of it! 2- Qizilbah is just azari word not persian or uzbek or bakhtiari or tajik 3- Gizilbah people were shia and tajiks and uzbek are sunni muslims

please correct this lie in your site

Good references about Qizilbashs

[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=uAzGTtWlp7gC&pg=PA44&dq=qizilbash+open+membership&hl=en&ei=G3tQTf7eOMO78gbUy6zuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=qizilbash%20open%20membership&f=false --2.203.152.182 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Another reference (from another article): "...hundreds of thousands of Kizilbash (Shia) Turcomans from Anatolia arrived into Azerbaijan, being forced out by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I with more to follow." Azari Language

And, "Azari" or "Adhari" was close to Tat and Talish language. Thanks to Kizilbash (and to Iosif Stalin), it is called "Azerbaijani" now and it is Turkic ;( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Azari_Language - nothing "racist"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtick (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan

[edit]

Quote from the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (one of the most authoritative sources available; article written by Vladimir Minorsky, one of the foremost experts on the subject), Roger M. Savory, one of the most renowned experts on Safavid hostory:

So please do not remove it! --Lysozym (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since that was in dispute, could you properly footnote that in the article? Was Minorsky citing Tritton? --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is citing Tritton regarding the Alevis. The correct geopolitical use of "Anatolia" and "Kurdistan" (which is not part of "Anatolia") is by Minorsky Savory himself. --Lysozym (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to correct myself regarding the author of the article: it's not Minosrky, but Roger M. Savory, perhaps the most important expert on Safavid history right now. Minorsky is being cited in the article. --Lysozym (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 2 days

[edit]

Needs resolution by discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But there is nothing to discuss here. "Qizilbash" is a name given to a political and religious movement, not to an ethnic group. It was not a united entity and for most of the time, the many fractions of the movement were in opposition to each other, especially the many powerful Turkoman tribes. --Lysozym (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then any ethnic category or template is unnecessary and misleading for this article? Zyma (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Qizilbash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qizilbash Turcoman

[edit]

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Your original opinion about Qizilbash doesn't matter. All profile sources identify Qizilbash as Turkoman Tribesmen. Your sources ( Voices of Islam, Global Interactions in the Early Modern Age, 1400–1800.) are not specialized neither on Safavid Empire nor Qizilbash. Read the sources:

From its inception Safavid state had relied on the military power of the Qizilbash, the Turkoman tribesmen[1]

Their main supporters were Turkmen tribal groups known as the Qezelbāš (Qizilbāš)[2]

As will be partly evaluated in Chapter VIII, immediately following the foundation of the Safavid state in 1501, two fundamentally different and contesting groups appeared within the Safavid realm: on the one side there was the Turcoman (tribal) qizilbash military aristocracy, which founded the state and held military ranks...[3]

The term Qizilbash, for this paper at least, refers to those Turkmen tribes who had inhabited eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and the Armenian highlands and had become the backbone of the Safavid Dynasty starting with the founder, Shah Isma’il I. It has been argued that the term could also e applicable to certain non-Turkish speaking Iranian tribes such as the Talish, Kurds, or Lurs. However, the vast majority of those who had composed the main force of the Qizilbash were the Turkmen tribes. The Qizilbash tribal structure, according to Minorsky, was subdivided into eight or nine main tribal confederations, depending on the period in question, and had included some of the most prominent tribes that had once helped Shah Isma’il I to establish his empire [4]

So all your "arguments" are ruined. Also, why you deleted Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi's The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran? It's WP:DIS. Read this, Mr. History of Iran, and improve your knowledge in Safavid history:

Throughout the Safavid period there were two constants to Azerbaijani Turkish as a spoken language in Iran. First, it was and remained the official language of the royal court during the entire Safavid period. Second, the language remained the spoken language of the Turkic Qizilbash tribes and was also spoken in the army. [5]. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kizilbash are mainly associated with the Turkomans who spoke an Oghuz-type language and it is they who have been credited with bringing the Safavids to power.[6]. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Persia in Crisis: Safavid Dynasty by Rudy Matthee, p. 27.
  2. ^ Encyclopedia Iranica, Safavid Dynasty.
  3. ^ YILDIRIM, RIZA. TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES. p. 28
  4. ^ A Brief Examination of the Irani Nobility in Mughal India: The Presence of the Qizilbash by Saif Beg
  5. ^ page 569
  6. ^ Ildiko Beller-Hann, The Qghuz split: the emergence of Turc Aiämi as a written idiom
I didn't even get a notification, you'll have to ping me some other way. The only reason I aam here is because I saw you do some editing on my Watchlist. Not even gonna argument with you, since it is simply a fact that the Qizilbash also included non-Turks, such as the Zanganeh, and even Afghans[1] (one of the many reasons you can't call Qizilbash a 'Turkic group', which is only seen in the Russian/Azeri Wikipedia where no one is there to stop your historical revionistic edits) etc etc. Take your disruptive editing to the Russian Wikipedia as you did earlier, thanks. Also, you might wanna take a look here as well [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, what is this? CIV violation, ignoring arguement. Good. I guess you have no idea how Wikipedia works. You think these world-wide known historians are less educated than you and don't know about non-Turkic Qizilbash tribes? See the last source, Turcomans composed the vast majority of Qizilbash confederations, moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans. Somethimg changed after Shah Abbas, but still if 90% of Qizilbash were Turks and 10% Talish, kurd, Afghan etc. we can't deny that Qizilbash in fact was Turkic movement. Yes, how Wikipedia works. We see the source. We see that other sources don't contradict this source. We add former source. And that's all. And your personal views don't matter. Will call for 30. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More ignoring what was stated, I see.
Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the Shahsevan, Richard Tapper, Cambridge University Press, page 44. Qizilbash tribes had an open membership.
  • "Ah, OK, what is this? CIV violation, ignoring arguement."
Ah, no that is what you did here.
  • "..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans."
Stated by what source on what page? Sounds like original research to me.
  • "Good. I guess you have no idea how Wikipedia works."
Wow. Cry foul every time someone says something you don't like, then spew out a personal attack?
  • "And your personal views don't matter."
Neither does your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear:, I offer you to include both views. But you still don't want to add referenced information, supported by specialists above. Why we should hush up one academic view on the question and support other one? This scholars know that there were Talishis, Kurds, Afghans, but still in the first two centuries of the existence of Qizilbash they were solely Turkoman and even after the reforms of Shah Abbas Turkomans continued to compose the vast majority of Qizilbash warriors. John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans."
Stated by what source on what page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, will send you later. Let's talk about essence. You will continue to ignore sources that identify Qizilbash as Turkomans, or we will finally add sources mentioned by me in preamble? John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You will continue to ignore sources that identify Qizilbash as Turkomans..."
Excuse me? I think you have been warned more than enough about misrepresenting other editors arguments(ie. strawman arguments).
Either produce the source supporting this statement;
  • ""..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans.
Or you have nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with WP:CIV. Such threats as Or you have nothing shouldn't be used in Wikipedia.

The point of eminence to be stressed here is that except the Shamlu, which was from northern Syria-eastern Anatolia, and the Qajar from Azerbayjan886, these tribes were all from Anatolia; and almost all were nomadic Turkomans. Among the seventeen prominent qizilbash āmirs marching on Shirvan, records Safavid sources, there were two Shamlu, two Ustaclu, two Karamanlu, one Bayburdlu, one Hınıslu, one Tekelu, one Çekirlu, one Qajar, one Dulkadirlu, and five Afshar

— Riza Yildirim, “Turkomans between Two Empires:The Origins of the Qizilbash Identity in Anatolia (1447–1514)
.
Now. Will you explain on what grounds you oppose the adding of 6 (6!) reliable academic sources?? John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, this 'source' of yours still doesn't support what you said about the Qizilbash. Also, he is not threatening you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still see nothing supporting, "..moreover in XV-XVI century Qizilbash consisted only of Turcomans." Sounds like original research. So you have nothing to support said opinion.

  • "Please be careful with WP:CIV."

Excuse me? I think you have been warned about this as well.

  • "Such threats as Or you have nothing shouldn't be used in Wikipedia."

Take your opinion elsewhere. You do not decide policy on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vladimir Minorsky: Tadhkirat al-Mulūk: A Manual of Safavid Administration (circa 1137/1725) - Persian Text in Facsimile (B. M. Or. 9496), Luzac & Co., 1943, s. 17

Discussion

[edit]

Hi, colleagues! 2 years passed since we were discussing this stuff :D Sorry, couldn't manage to continue contributing English Wikipedia. So, as I remember, you were against my edit [2] and your only argument was "There were also other elements among Qizilbash, not only Turks". Well, Wikipedia works in this way: We take academic sources (peer-reviewed, specialized on the topic) and write what they write. So, if academic source gives definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen, then we give the same definition in Wikipedia, even if the same source states, that actually there were also non-Turks; definition is definition, it has nothing to do with minor exceptions. And according to generally accepted definition of Qizilbash, they are Turkic tribesmen, so, sorry, everything beyond that is original research. I've shown several academic sources that prove my statement (and I can show literally dozens more, if the problem is quantity), so that's it. And, yes, there were Persian and Kurdish elements, but in negligible size. See, e.g. Cambridge History of Iran. On pp.357 and 629 the source clearly indicate Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen , although pointing that in different periods and places there were other, more broad terms (We can point the latter fact, of course, but I hope we won't give the definition of Qizilbash as Persian merchants :D). On p.342-343 CHI also states that there were actually some Persians and Kurds, but their number, as I already said, was too small to consider them (so CHI still insist on Turkic nature of Qizilbash). Of course, this fact should be in article, but, again, this is not sufficient to ignore the generally accepted definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen. John Francis Templeson (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also I would insist on the deletion of statement about referring Qizilbash as Shi'a groups, as there are no sources of sufficient quality to claim that. One of the sources actually gives the definition of Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen (funny fact, yes? :D). I didn't manage to access other source, but it is doubtful that we can really rely on it. I don't know how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia we use only specialized sources (e.g., we use only monography about Safavids in the article on Safavids, but not some general book about Islam, unless the part about Safavids is written by expert in that field). If there is a special article concerning Qizilbash of Safavids, let it be, but if there is only a sentence or two... nope. There is also Savory, but he considers totally different group, denoted with the same name from XIII c., that is Shi'a sects, e.g. Alevis. I don't think that we can mix them with Qizilbash warriors. And yes, not just some Qizilbash contributed to the creation of the Safavid Empire, but they all and not just contributed, but created (see, Savory; there wouldn't be Safavid Empire w/out Qizilbash). Thank you. Will wait for your response. John Francis Templeson (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Should we define Qizilbash as militant groups or Turkic tribesmen. Sources and arguments are above. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Militant groups - we have been through this a billion times, but you only hear what you like to hear. Stop spamming this article and the talk page of other users (including myself). Years have passed and you're still going on with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take your concerns to the section above. I have made an extensive analysis and brought several peer-reviewed sources. And you have not explained why we cannot accept these sources. Your only argument was that there were also Iranian elements — well, CHI clearly indicates that, their number and ifluence were too small and defines Qizilbash as Turkic tribesmen. I am "spamming" your talk pages, because the procedure of conflict resolution is like this, do you think that I have some other reasons? John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We were already through this a few years ago, I'm not going to delve into this again. Neither me nor seemingly the other users want anything to do with this issue of yours, hence why you are getting reverted on talk pages, and hence why it is indeed spamming/harrassing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already suggested to give two definition, as it always done when there is no consensus among the scholars. And if you will bring sources that support your opinion, we will consider them also. " Neither me nor seemingly the other users want anything to do with this issue of yours, hence why you are getting reverted on talk pages, and hence why it is indeed spamming/harrassing." Oh, cool, if I don't notify, I will be accused in keeping other editors non-acquainted with the issue, and if I do, I will be banned for spamming. Rules in Wikipedia works pretty well, yeah. And yes, I have returned to this issue, because it was discussed only by interested editord and never unbiased comment was given by someone else. The latter is what I want. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I repeat, I notified you and Kansas Bear, because procedure demands it. Do not think that I want something from you or I try to troll you. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that you know the Wikipedia rules and such, yet you just accused several users for being biased because they don't agree with your POV, lol. Clever move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
Basically, we are two interested sides, because we are engaged in the same discussion from the opposite side. Points of view sometimes can contradict each other. It is normal, otherwise there won't be 3O, RfC, DRN and etc. What wrong I said? And yes, I am persistently being accused in all sins. Yes, my conduct was not that well two years ago, but does it mean that I cannot engage in discussion of topics that interest me? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know rules in Russian Wikipedia, but there everything is way more complicated and strange. Someone makes a personal attack, I appeal to the Incident noticeboard and everyone threatens me with Boomerang, because two years ago I did something. This is lol. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself, it seems like you're the only "interested side" here. I'm done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be less rude. Maybe I've chosen the wrong word -- OK, we are sides of the discussion. And yes, if I will have to notify you, how I'll do? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, John Francis Templeson. The guide about notifications is in WP:NOTIFS. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that no matter what I have done two years ago. Now, I try to be very polite, constructive, improve my conduct. What I want is just the final decision on this topic. If RfC won't support my suggestions, I will go. What do you want else for me? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LouisAragon, I repeat, my intention is not to troll or vandalize. Let's be more tolerant to each other. You won't loss anything if there will be comment from another editor, yes? John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The word Qizilbash derives from Turkish Kızılbaş"

[edit]

I ask for a reliable source for such a statement in the section "Etymology". "Turkish" indicates Turkey, but there are other Oghuz languages. There is confusion about the names of languages. V.N.Ali (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just said in my edit summary, please read the end of the sentence, that bit is sourced. What confusion? What should Turkish otherwise indicate? What did the Ottomans speak? This bit is also mentioned down further below in the article; The rise of the Ottomans put a great strain on the Turkmen tribes living in the area, which eventually led them to join the Safavids, who transformed them into a militant organisation, called the Qizilbash (meaning "red heads" in Turkish), initially a pejorative label given to them by the Ottomans, but later adopted as a mark of pride.[26][27]. Consider this your last warning, if you fill articles articles or talk pages with more of your personal opinion this will be taken to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military unit

[edit]

the Qizilbash are a military unit of greater Persia and it's dynasties.

the Qizilbash are not an ethnic group!

11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)43.242.179.18 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)11:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\[reply]

India

[edit]

the Qizilbash may have been courtiers of the Great Mogul (emperor), evidence suggests that these military units fought the second and third battle of Panipat in favour of a unified "Mogul India".

12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)43.242.179.18 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qizilbash&oldid=1252607080"