Nader Shah

List of Safavid grand viziers doesn't show him. Any source on the date? Can someone verify here? Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to add his job to his infobox as well. But need some sources. Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

,with a turkman language and the turkman army of qizilbash,isnt it?

But its a turkman dynasty,a turkman empire,turkic language,turkic leaders,turkic tribes,isnt it? HistoryOfTurks100 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, read what the reliable sources say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

46.32.177.200 (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not truth. Safavid is Empire and first shah is SHAH ISMAYIL KHATAYI. He was Azerbaijanian not persian. And This empire is not persian.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

In history session, under "decline", paragraph 6, change "irano-russian" with "russo-iranian". Virayeshme (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add peoetry in the info box also to the persian language

Poems werent only written in turkic languages during the safavids. It also gave Persian poetry. Even Shah Imsail wrote in Persian:http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/esmail-i-safawi#ii 2A02:3037:303:1CF6:4CD8:BAE3:6DC4:F4B3 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 7 January 2024

Safavid Iran → Safavid Empire – "Safavid Empire" would be the standard naming convention for this kind of article which focuses on the political entity, its dynastic evolution, its foreign conflicts and diplomatic relations and its global national characteristics. The grammatical form "periodic adjective+country" (as in "Safavid Iran", "Napoleonic France", "Qing China", "Norman England"...) is rarely used on Wikipedia (they are usually redirects), and if it existed for independent articles would more naturally refer to a sociological article about the state of a country and its population during a certain time period (discussing demographics, economy, popular culture... almost to the complete exclusion of dynastic or diplomatic history). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Iran has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Afghanistan has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Armenia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Artsakh has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Azerbaijan has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Georgia (country) has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Iraq has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Former countries has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:WHATABOUT and WP:COMMONNAME. Not that it matters per the first rule, but we have articles just like this too (Bagratid Armenia). The split that led to this name showed this name's prominence in WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That equals to 54.494 results for "Safavid Iran" and 39.511 results for "Safavid Empire".

Leading academics and scholars in this field have all published books with this name;

Even the latest major work on the Safavids, the Safavid World edited by Rudi Matthee and written by numerous authors mentions "Safavid Iran" 239 times (some of them of course being published works with that name). HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of Google counts, but a question of semantics, as explained in the nomination above. "Safavid Iran" is a fairly current expression, but it would normally tend to refer to the geographical area of Iran at the time of the Safavids (demographics, social conditions, economy, popular culture...), whereas "Safavid Empire" refers to the polity, its structure, its policies, its control of various territories and ethnicities, its relations with the outside world (wars, diplomacy) etc... By the way, "Safavid Iran" is unduely restrictive in the context of this article, as the Safavid Empire also ruled over other areas such as parts of Georgia, parts of Iraq, parts of Afghanistan etc... which are amply dealt with here and are definitely not Iran. The content of the current article best corresponds to the title "Safavid Empire", and it is also the Wikipedia standard naming for this type of articles. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been told this before (countless times in fact...), but please stop making up your own rules and meanings, and instead follow the ones in Wikipedia. Safavid Iran refers to the period when Iran was under Safavid rule, whilst "Safavid Empire" does the same, that's it. The name of their realm was "Iran", not Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... it's literally mentioned in the article, there's even a separate article about it [13]. This is akin to back when you said that readers might confuse the "Muslim conquest of Persia" with the Iran–Iraq War, pure conjecture. This is like moving Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Aksum, etc too because they ruled other land too. Article names are based on WP:COMMONNAME, and "Safavid Iran" is clearly the most dominant here. As you were told just a few months ago in the mess that you made at Talk:Maurya Empire; Stop with the non-stop OR.. Your claims directly contradict history, academic sources and the rules on this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which is WP:COMMONNAME. gmap shows them quite close to each other. Safavid Iran is a little ahead, but that edge maybe largely carried by generic geographical-cultural usage as the OP suggests. On the other hand, I don't really see any clear dominance as you might find in, say, Mughal empire or even more starkly in Ottoman empire to go in the other direction.
That said, I am generally disinclined to the term "empire" as being too loosely and promiscuously used. It feels particularly dissonant if its rulers are not explicitly referred to as "emperors" in the article text. But that's my problem. It is admittedly pretty common to see "Safavid Empire" used, and it can be found pretty much everywhere. However, when you look closely, there's also a lot of questioning ("Was the Safavid Empire an Empire?") and conspicuous avoidance of the term (e.g. "Safavid state").
It seems to me that "Safavid Iran" is used more by cautious writers who want to avoid defining the exact nature of the state. But unfortunately the state is precisely what this article is about. And "Safavid Iran" is just too mushy & indistinct. If I want to link to "Safavid empire" in, say, a historical-political article on another topic, I might be inclined to link to the "Safavid dynasty" article, thinking that is the historical-political article, because "Safavid Iran" just sounds like some general socio-cultural survey. Walrasiad (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not sure which is WP:COMMONNAME. gmap shows them quite close to each other. Safavid Iran is a little ahead, but that edge maybe largely carried by generic geographical-cultural usage as the OP suggests."
Respectfully, Safavid Iran is WP:COMMONNAME by far, per the evidence I provided up above and even the gmap, which shows that Safavid Iran has been the more popular name since roughly 1970.
"And "Safavid Iran" is just too mushy & indistinct. If I want to link to "Safavid empire" in, say, a historical-political article on another topic, I might be inclined to link to the "Safavid dynasty" article, thinking that is the historical-political article, because "Safavid Iran" just sounds like some general socio-cultural survey."
If countless scholars (including Rudi Matthee and Willem Floor, leading scholars in Safavid studies) can use routinely use "Safavid Iran" in any context, then I don't see why we can't. We ultimately follow what WP:RS says. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not written for specialist scholars. It is read by more general audiences, so recognizability in the article title is important. I would give greater weight to how it is referred to in works of general reference (the Wikipedia standard). Walrasiad (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is used by more than just specialist scholars though. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. But on the other hand, it hasn't seemed to catch on beyond that, and "Safavid Empire" is the term our readers will likelier come across, e.g. all our maps (in this article and elsewhere) refer to "Safavid Empire". Walrasiad (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what is “beyond that” supposed to mean here? How do we estimate that? “Safavid Iran” is by far the most dominating name, which is ultimately whats most important per WP:COMMONAME. We dont base our names on maps (which exists in various differing forms), and readers ultimately get their information from the text in the articles, not maps. Moreover, “Iran” is a not foreign term either, everyone knows that name. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories