Material from Safavid dynasty was split to Safavid Iran on 3 January 2020 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Safavid dynasty.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
Safavid Iran is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
Safavid Iran is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
Floor, Willem (2008). Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri. Mage Publishers. ISBN978-1933823232.
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]
Soft Support per nom, while not my area of expertise — the inclusion of 'Iran' in the name tends to have certain partisan overtones in my experience. "Empire" is more traditional, though possibly consensus in the field is shifting. Garnet Moss (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the sound arguments provided by HistoryofIran, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. Wikipedia titles are crafted based on these guidelines, rather than (with all due respect) relying on subjective opinions and baseless analogies. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I am inclined to agree with the OP that "Safavid Iran" very much sound like a general mode of speaking, which can be found in running text, and can refer to a variety of things of that era and region, whereas "Safavid Empire" refers almost certainly to the polity. Particularly since we already have a "Safavid dynasty page, it seems this one should have a distinguishingly different title that more clearly underlines the state aspect. And to that end, "Safavid Empire" does the job better.
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]
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]
Support: the proposed name as the most usefully descriptive given the options. A historic polity and empire it certainly was, while there are various geographical ambiguities and other forms of potential confusion and/or POV issues that accompany either Iran or Persia as accoutrements to "Safavid". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't see any policy-based reason for the move. Meager examples of titles is not sufficient to draw a definite pattern, which is not the equivalent of a rule that must be followed. HistoryofIran has demonstrated that this is the common name. Aintabli (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nominator appears to be arguing that "Safavid Iran" and "Safavid Empire" mean different things. As they have not provided sources to support that view, this RM has no backing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They say different spin, not different thing, don't they? All of the names are already acknowledged as alt names in the lead. Pat simply seems to make the point that the current format is more rarefied as a choice for empires, which is probably correct. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments too highly. If Pat wants to argue that current terminological consensus is incorrect, they should take it up with historians or provide sources that show their perceived spin is superior. I also see no citation for the term "Safavid Empire" in the article or in this discussion at all, apart from hints that it is used in WP maps. Not very well sourced, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not related to ethnicity. Also, unless the Safavids were timewalkers, that is impossible;
"Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
"The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
"As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
"Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): page 37
