Talk:Qizilbash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qizilbash article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Tāj-e Heydar?

Dear wiki writers Qizilbash is pure azeri word and means qizil-read (as a color, but also another meaning is gold) and bash- head. There is nothing to do with Tāj-e Heydar, which in persian (also in kurdish) means Heydar's crown. Gulmammad (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the use of the word extremist?

It has come to my attention that the main editors of this article are purposely using disputed and derogatory terms to define the Kazilbash, primarily using the literal meaning of the Arabic word "ghulat" to describe this group. This is a completley in accurate move and I would dispute this if this practice continues. The article on [Ghulat] is itself tainted for it calls the majority Sunni Muslims as the "mainstream". That term in itself should NOT be referenced to as a descriptor for the Kazilbash tribes, and if it has to be so, it should be carefully noted that this "extremist Shiite militant" reference does not have any historical accuracy, except for the fact that they belonged to the minority side of the Islamic tribal paradigm.

If you feel the "extremist militant" term should be continued, please put your reference forth where they committed "extremist militant" acts.

--H2d2 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is based on the academic and schlarly article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In that article - written by R.M. Savory and countless references to scholars such as A. Gölpinarli (still the undisputed expert on Turkish Sufi movements) - the Kizilbash are discribed as a "militant movement" (the word "tribe" is certainly wrong, because the Kizilbash were a religious and political movement and not an ethnic group) and as "ghulat". Here is an extract from the EI [1]. Since the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a primary academic source, I suggest you revert your last edit and restore the previous version. Tājik 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The knowledge and level of understanding of the topic from a book written almost 100 years ago comes out right in the title, where it refers to Muslims as "Muhammadan Peoples". I remain on my point that the "militant extremist" is a derogatory and highly incorrect label to describe the Kizilbash people. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica [2] refers to a Kizilbash as "any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty". And I would take EB's word over another book which probably hasn't update it's article on these particular people since the first edition. Yes they revolted at times and toppled empires at others, but that doesn't mean they were "extremist" or "militant", because if that were they case then I would be personally editing the article on Sparta and make them a "extremist and militant city state". The following are some other links that discuss or define 'Kizilbash':

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/kizilbash.htm

http://www.askasia.org/teachers/essays/essay.php?no=135

http://www.religioscope.com/info/notes/2002_023_alevis.htm

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1999/issue4/zeidan.pdf

--H2d2 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)--H2d2 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"100 years ago"?! The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the most important reference work of oriental studies. It is a monumental online publication, and it is written by more than 400 experts from all over the world. The version you call "100 years old" was published in 2005! Britannica is not an academic source, and it does not cite its references. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, however, always cites its authors (all of them being professors in leading universities all over the world) and its references. The article Kizilbash is written by Prof. Roger M. Savory, the undisputed leading expert on Safavid history. Noone has published more works on Safavid history. This discussion is absolutely pointless, because you compare tomatos with cars. The academic quality of the EI is superior to any other source. There are only a very very few other academic sources that may be able to compete with the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Britannica's version is only focused on the Qizilbash military. The Wikipedia article, onm the other hand, gives a detailed insight into the Turkoman-Persian conflicts and the dual character of the movement - Britannica does not mention anything about this. Tājik 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

203.59.15.253 (talk · contribs) has created a non copyvio virsion of the article. It has been moved to a temporary subpage at Qizilbash/Temp. — Kjammer ⌂ 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Temp page has replaced the main article. RedWolf 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thios article already exists under Kizilbash. Therfore, this one is useless and should be deleated.