Talk:Saffarid dynasty

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

Saffarid Maps[edit]

Hi. I noticed the 2nd map on this article shows the Umayyad Caliphate lands, even though the Umayyads had fallen over 100 years before and thus weren't directly related to the Saffarids. I have a map of the Saffarid Dynasty lands in 900 AD (immediately before they were defeated by the Samanids). The map also depicts the neighbors of the Saffarids at that time, which is educational and very helpful for people reading the article. I will upload it soon and would like to replace the Umayyad map. Are there any objections? Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik nation[edit]

(1) There is no Tajik nation. (2) The Saffarid dynasty was prior to the Mongol invasion which completely altered the locations and relationships of the various peoples in the area. (3) No citation is provided for a relationship between the Saffarid dynasty and the non-existent Tajik nation. Obviously, I am not talking about Tajikistan which is perfectly real. --Bejnar (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More tendentious editing[edit]

Nasir, again, removed referenced information from the lede, placing it where HE wants. I see no discussion or consensus for this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to re-write this article because it was not written very unencyclopedic, and I explained my changes in the edit summary. Why would I need a permission from anyone to correctly write a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? You do not own this article and the way the information was presented was slightly wrong.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this little edit war while patrolling recent changes—remember, decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. If you edit something, and someone else reverts your edit, as has happened here, stay calm and try to figure out what the problem is. Talk pages like this one are the best places for discussing changes to an article, so that compromises can be reached and everyone can be happy with the way the article is written.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The page was written very bad, couldn't follow what it was explaining so I improved it by using an encyclopedic tone. I have various books about this and the other dynasties and they are written by the leading experts so I know what I'm doing when I make changes to them.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good; just remember to cite those books when you pull information from them, so that everything remains verifiable. (Citing sources has the added advantage of giving other users a starting point for finding sources such as books that may go into detail about other topics related to the article, too.)  dalahäst (let's talk!) 02:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not explain nor justify the removal of references which state Saffarids were a Persian dynasty. Nasir Ghobar/NasirKand's anti-Persian edits are getting tiresome. Removes referenced information he doesnt like since he is here to keep Iranians from stealing Afghan history.[1]
  • "Saffarids: A Persian dynasty.....", Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, Volume 2, edited by Julie Scott Meisami, Paul Starkey, p674[2]
  • "There were many local Persian dynasties, including the Tahirids, the Saffarids....", Middle East, western Asia, and northern Africa, by Ali Aldosari, p472.[3]
  • "Saffarid, the Coppersmith, the epithet of the founder of this Persian dynasty...", The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary, by Garland Hampton Cannon, p288.[4]
  • "The Saffarids, the first Persian dynasty, to challenge the Abbasids...", Historical Dictionary of the Ismailis, by Farhad Daftary, p51.[5]
  • "...with the establishment of the Saffarids, considered the first autonomous Persian dynasty under the Abbasids...", Frontier Fictions: Shaping the Iranian Nation, 1804-1946, by Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet, p186.[6]
  • And more and more...[7]
The false accusation of misrepresenting a source.[8]
Odd how this information is suppressed by Nasir, by removing such information from the lede under false or blank edit summaries. Like this[9], which Nasir removed "Cambridge History of Iran" reference, stating, "I edited according to what mainstream historians know about this "dynasty")". According to Nasir, "There is no reliable information available about the ethnicity or ancestry of the Saffarids." There is your censored history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear, you are forcing your beliefs/opinions on others and that is not good. You are claiming that the Saffarids were Persians but according to experts their ethnicity or origin is uncertain and unconfirmed. This is what I was trying to address but you found a misleading/decieving way to make them Persians. You should try to understand basic history that by 642 AD Arabs had conquered Persia, and many of these Arabs settled in Persia, including in Sistan. Even the governor of Zaranj was an Arab (Abdur Rahman bin Samara).

  1. "Some of these Arabs, interestingly enough, were called Saffarids. It is not suggested here that the Saffarids of Sistan were of Arab origin, though the possibility cannot be totally excluded." Islamic History: Volume 2, AD 750-1055 (AH 132-448): A New Interpretation, by M. A. Shaban, p. 98.
  2. Their names are clearly Arab names, and you CANNOT call Arabs Persians.
  3. A number of book writers claim that they were Plebeian by origin. The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, by M. S. Asimov, p. 57.
  4. The books that you listed do not explictely state their ethnicity.

Wikipedia is suppose to explain to the readers about what mainstream historians say about the subject, NOT what one particular group of book writers say or claim. It appears that your policy is to make everything Persian in Wikipedia by any means possible and that is not good. Your view is so radical that you NEVER add any other ethnicity but always Persian, Persian, Persian. I understand why you're trying to discredit me, you want readers to think that you're telling the truth while I'm trying to make up lies, and that doesn't impress me.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks and accusations are getting old and tiresome. Keep it up and you will be reported.
As for Asimov, you clearly do not understand what "plebeian" means.
Plebeian - belonging or pertaining to the common people.
One book is not "a number of writers".
"It is not suggested here that the Saffarids of Sistan were of Arab origin, though the possibility cannot be totally excluded". Sounds to me like he is saying he isn't suggesting they were of Arab origin. --Defensor Ursa 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He also says "though the possibility cannot be totally excluded". He is basically reminding readers that nobody knows the true origin of the Saffarids. I didn't attack you. I first read in the dictionaries what Plebeian means before adding it here. There are many more books, you want me to list all? Did you read about Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari? Why are you deleting sources that mention them being NON-Persian?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted nothing on Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari and have never edited that article. Yet I noticed another incarnation has edited the exact same way as you.[10] I know exactly what plebeian means, it means common person(people)[11]. This is the context Asimov uses it. If you seriously believe he means Roman, you need to get an education.
It is your hatred of Persians, Persianate, etc that has blinded you to the facts that have been listed here. You came to this article, removed sources(Cleanup according to your edit summary[12]) and then proceeded to make accusations against me. The statement, "...Persian empire...", had been in the article long before I ever added a reference,[13] therefore your statement, "It appears that your policy is to make everything Persian in Wikipedia..", is unfounded. --Defensor Ursa 16:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)." The Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1996. HighBeam Research. (September 3, 2012). [14]
Here Savory explains the difference between plebeian and aristocrat. "It is true that the background of Ya qub b. Layth, the founder of the dynasty, was plebeian, and contrasted sharply with the aristocratic origins of the Tahirids and the Samanids, the rivals of the Saffarids for power in eastern Iran." --Defensor Ursa 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Plebein has 3 meanings, but you only mentioned the 1st. It is YOU who removed a reliable published source that stated that they were of Plebeian origin.[15] On the other hand, if you follow my Clean Up [16] I did NOT remove the sources, I just moved them down to the Culture section which is where it should be. You are making this dynasty of Persian origin while all historians disagree with your theory. This is what I mean by you forcing your belief/theory/opinions on everyone. The way the introduction is written right now is really disgusting.[17] It reads as: "The Saffarids (Persian: سلسله صفاریان‎) were a Muslim Persianate[2] dynasty, of Persian origin, who established a Persian Empire,[3][4] between 861 and 1002, in much of eastern Persia, including Khorasan, Afghanistan and Balochistan.[5] The dynasty was founded by Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, a native Iranian of Sistan, who worked as a coppersmith (ṣaffār) to becoming a warlord.... "
  2. The first thing that common English readers notice is that whoever edited this is definatly a Persian nationalist who want everything to be Persia, Persian, and Iranian. With all that Persian this Persian that, readers lose concentration. Us English readers believe that Iran was created as a country in 1935 so how can there be Iranians in the 8th century? "Persian" is an ambiguous term, it could mean from Persia, Persian ethnicity, or a Persian-speaker.
  3. Clifford Edmund Bosworth states that "The Saffarid chiefs were plebeian in origin". The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, p. 173.
  4. Many other historians and book writers state that they were Plebeian in origin.
  • The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, by R. N. Frye, p. 107.
  • The Persian Presence in the Islamic World, by Richard G. Hovannisian, Georges Sabagh, p. 233.
  • The History of Iran, Elton L. Daniel, p. 73.
  • Age of Achievement: A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, p. 57.
  • Indo-Persian Historiography Up To The Thirteenth Century, p. 90.
5. As soon as I added this into this Wikipedia article you and the edit-warrior below quickly removed it. In fact, you don't even want the word "plebien" appearing in this article and that explains alot about what you are up to.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Are you seriously suggesting plebeian is an ethnicity??? LMAO. Plebeian means of common people(ie. non-noble). Read it again from Roger Savory, "It is true that the background of Ya'qub b. Layth, the founder of the dynasty, was plebeian, and contrasted sharply with the aristocratic origins of the Tahirids and the Samanids, the rivals of the Saffarids for power in eastern Iran". LOL. Persian nationalist? LMAO. It would help if I were Persian. More fantastical accusations while trying to pass plebeian off as an ethnicity. I think this fairy tale of yours has gone far enough. --Defensor Ursa 04:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)." The Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1996. HighBeam Research. (September 3, 2012).
"The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255. --Defensor Ursa 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did NOT ever suggest that it was an ethnicity, are you OK? I added "Plebeian origin" because that's what all the books state. English is my primary language and I know what the word means. You are repeating the 1 defintion and ignoring the other 2. I don't care if you're Persian or not but your contributions suggest that you are. I don't think there is a single American guy on earth who edits ONLY Iranian related material in Wikipedia. In fact, most Americans are anti-Iranian and they generally don't want to have anything to do with Iran or Persian related stuff. That's why nobody even gets involved here to help. I think you're another Persian nationalist probably living in USA and trying to pass for a white guy. The Iranians that I know try to do that but they don't look white at all. You are skillfully selecting books that support your theory and ignoring the ones that disagree. You are only destroying Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source, and you don't impress me. I already told you that Persian is an ambiguous term, in the broader sense even the Sikhs were Persian (Persian-speaking). As for the Saffarids, their ethnicity is undetermined. People living in Sistan in the 9th century were not all Persian by ethnicity, there were many different people including Arabs. I am not trying to give the Saffarid any ethnicity, it is YOU who is doing that and that's forcing your belief/theory/opinion on others.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why link plebeian?? Why continue to deny, with out any viable argument, other sources that blantantly state they were Persian?
  • "Saffarids: A Persian dynasty.....", Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, Volume 2, edited by Julie Scott Meisami, Paul Starkey, p674[2]
  • "There were many local Persian dynasties, including the Tahirids, the Saffarids....", Middle East, western Asia, and northern Africa, by Ali Aldosari, p472.[3]
  • "Saffarid, the Coppersmith, the epithet of the founder of this Persian dynasty...", The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary, by Garland Hampton Cannon, p288.[4]
  • "The Saffarids, the first Persian dynasty, to challenge the Abbasids...", Historical Dictionary of the Ismailis, by Farhad Daftary, p51.[5]
  • "...with the establishment of the Saffarids, considered the first autonomous Persian dynasty under the Abbasids...", Frontier Fictions: Shaping the Iranian Nation, 1804-1946, by Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet, p186.
  • "First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)", The Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1996. HighBeam Research. (September 3, 2012).
  • "The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255.
As usual, since you have no viable argument, you continue to comment on editor(s) and not on content. Even Bosworth calls Ya'kub a Persian! --Defensor Ursa 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bosworth states that "The Saffarid chiefs were plebeian in origin". The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, p. 173. If you don't know what that means, he's saying that the rulers (Ya'qub and his brother) were plebeian in origin. Other historians who are expert on this say that their ethnicity is undetermined, unknown, obscure, unconfirmed. Why do you deny this fact? It is you who is talking about me on every talk page. I told you that whenever one source says X and the other says Y then we must add both. You are rejecting all except the ones that mention "Persian". This is obviously what Persian ethnocentric POV pushers do. It is not my job to add the Persian claim, if the linking was a bad idea then all you had to do was unlink it and explain your self.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, since you have no viable argument, you continue to comment on editor(s) and not on content. My question stands: Why continue to deny, with out any viable argument, other sources that blantantly state they were Persian?
No. I reverted a horribly incorrect addition linked to Roman plebs. I reject this. Nothing else. Seeing how "plebeian" means "common" that is no reason to remove "Persian". Unless you are substituting one ethnicity for another. I've seen only one "historian" listed that says "probably". I have not seen historians listed that say their ethnicity is undetermined compared to the NINE listed that state Persian. Even Bosworth states Ya'kub is a Persian. As previously mentioned by yourself so I will use it, "It is not my job to...unlink it and explain...".
I see no reason not to reference "Persian origin" in the lede sentence. Even Bosworth, whom you are more than happy to use, calls Ya'kub Persian. How does "Persian plebeian origin" sound? Bosworth can be used twice. --Defensor Ursa 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also change the opening two sentences from, "The Saffarids were a Muslim Persianate dynasty, of Persian origin, who established a Persian Empire, between 861 and 1002, in much of eastern Persia, including Khorasan, Afghanistan and Balochistan. The dynasty was founded by Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, a native Iranian of Sistan, who worked as a coppersmith (ṣaffār) to becoming a warlord.", to this:
"The Saffarids were a Muslim Persianate dynasty that ruled much of eastern Persia, including Khorasan, Afghanistan and Balochistan from 861 to 1002. The dynasty, of Persian plebeian origin, was founded by Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, a native of Sistan, who worked as a coppersmith (ṣaffār) to becoming a warlord". "The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255. --Defensor Ursa 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to add people's origins in the lead, especially when it deals with people from over 1,200 years ago and is disputed. What we know is that they lived in Sistan (part of Persia) and they likely spoke Persian but we don't know their true ethnicity. We cannot label them as Persians by ethnicity because there is no evidence. So, your latest version seems appropriate and easy to follow.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary for you to ignore the same source you were pushing(C.E.Bosworth) simply because he states something you don't like! You have no viable argument, you were damned determined to place a horribly incorrectly linked "origin"(while removing Persian, your true intent) and now you decide consensus? I have NINE sources that state Persian origin, Persian dynasty. "We cannot label them as Persians by ethnicity because there is no evidence." That is a blantant lie. Still ignoring facts that have been posted here Ad nauseam. "The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255.
"First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)." The Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1996. HighBeam Research. (September 3, 2012) --Defensor Ursa 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add another one, "Other Iranian dynasties, that of the Saffarids in 867, and the Samanids in c.892, soon established themselves in other parts of Iran.", The Arabs in History, Bernard Lewis, p 104.[18] That makes ten sources. --Defensor Ursa 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the hits just keep on coming, "Nishapur became the Tahirid capital, it maintained that position, when a second dynasty of Iranian origin, the Saffarids, succeeded to power little more than a half century later.", Peerless Images: Persian Painting and Its Sources, Eleanor Sims, Yale University Press, p26.
"The first of the regional dynasties to establish itself as a real rival to central authority was that of the Taherids of Khorasan (821-873), followed by the Saffarids of Sistan (861-873) and the Samanids of Bokhara (875-999) - all dynasties of Iranian origin.", A History of Iran, Michael Axworthy, p127-128. --Defensor Ursa 19:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Later there was a sequence of local Iranian dynasties (Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids) under whom there was a flourishing of culture and economic developement.", World:Interactions in Culture and Cultural Politics, Thomas J. Barfield, University of Washington Press, p66.
"The first Iranian dynasty under Islam, the Saffarids, was founded in Southern Iran in 871..", Modern Iran, Laurence Paul Elwell-Sutton, p43. --Defensor Ursa 19:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in most cases, Nasir Ghobar (the sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab) is on his general anti-Persian trip, but does not have much knowledge of the subject. He certainly does not understand the meaning of "plebian" and he also has no idea which sources are considered reliable as per WP:RS. There is an excellent article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica about the Saffarids, and in there, the author states that Yaʿqub’s early success against the Kharijite bands of northern Afghanistan and his overthrow of the Tahirids seem to have prompted poets to compose panegyrics on him (Tāriḵ-e Sistān, p. 209, tr. pp. 166-67), but these were in Arabic, which the Amir could not understand. Therefore, continues the local history, Yaʿqub’s chief secretary, Moḥammad b. Wāṣef, began writing verses in the vernacular, i.e. New Persian, lauding his master’s subjugation of the Kharijites and his campaigns against the Zunbil (pp. 209-10, tr. p. 167ʿ Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids, pp. 176-77). Of historical interest is a consideration of the early Saffarids’ eulogists as the expressers of a certain sense of Persian proto-nationalism. Connected with Saffarid expansion westwards into the caliphal lands is the Arabic poem of a secretary of the ʿAbbasids, Abu Eshāq Ebrāhim b. Mamšāḏ, who at some point went over to Yaʿqub when the latter was being borne on the crest of military successes in Persia. The poem was carefully analyzed by S.M. Stern, who noted its assertion of Yaʿqub’s illustrious origins in Persian legendary history times, and its anti-Arab message and call to Yaʿqub to revive the ancient glories of the Persians. The skeptical Amir cannot have swallowed all this, but the poem is indicative of the appeal of such nations at this time (see Stern, “Yaʿqub the Coppersmith and Persian National Sentiment,” pp. 535-55ʿ Bosworth, “The Heritage of Rulership in Early Islamic Iran,” pp. 59-60ʿ idem, The History of the Saffarids, pp. 177-80). Moḥammad b. Wāṣef remained active in ʿAmr’s court circle, and wrote a poem celebrating the Amir’s final crushing of Rāfeʿ b. Harṯama in 283/896 (Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids, p. 239). Whether the Amirs themselves were of Persian origin or belonged to a related people is not fully clear, but what is certain is that they did not understand Arabic and that they were surrounded - and actively sought the company - of writers, intellectuals and loyal chiefs who were anti-Arabic and inclined toward Persian nationalism. The author of the EIr article, by the way, is Clifford Edmund Bosworth. --Lysozym (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You are a sockpuppet of User:Tajik, see your blocks [19] and tell us how many times you were blocked and for what you have been blocked. As for me, I already made it clear to everyone that I'm just using this one account.
  2. You don't impress me. You are doing the same thing what some Sikh editors are doing at Talk:Ranjit Singh, purposly ignoring some facts that they don't like while repeating to me something that I already know. It is time to change your attitude. Learn the fact that it is a big waste of time to be arguing over things like this in 2012 because we all have a tool (PC) in our hands and can search for info in seconds. What you and Kansas Bear are doing is just destroying the reputation of Wikipedia.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear based on WP:weight and WP:undo that major scholars (Bosworth, Savory) and the most up to date sources. Another point to add to the article: "Later eulogists of the Saffarids fabricated a glorious descent for Yaʿqub and his family, back through the Sasanid emperors to the legendary Iranian kings, but Yaʿqub’s origins were in reality firmly plebeian; from his birthplace, the village of Qarnin, he came to Zarang as a coppersmith (ṣaffār, ruygar), while his brother ʿAmr was a mule-hirer (Gardizi, p. 138; Tāriḵ-e Sistān, pp. 199-202; tr. pp. 158-60; Juzjāni, I, pp. 197-98)."(http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/yaqub-b-lay-b-moaddal).

  • "Of historical interest is a consideration of the early Saffarids’ eulogists as the expressers of a certain sense of Persian proto-nationalism. Connected with Saffarid expansion westwards into the caliphal lands is the Arabic poem of a secretary of the ʿAbbasids, Abu Eshāq Ebrāhim b. Mamšāḏ, who at some point went over to Yaʿqub when the latter was being borne on the crest of military successes in Persia. The poem was carefully analyzed by S.M. Stern, who noted its assertion of Yaʿqub’s illustrious origins in Persian legendary history times, and its anti-Arab message and call to Yaʿqub to revive the ancient glories of the Persians. The skeptical Amir cannot have swallowed all this, but the poem is indicative of the appeal of such nations at this tim"(http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saffarids).
  • As per origin, Savory and Bosworth were brought (with dozes of other source)..these are two top class world scholars, which means the issue is finished.
  • "First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)." The Journal of the American Oriental Society.
  • The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255.
  • The statement about "Persian empire" on Saffarids is not contested by any source.
  • "plebeian" is not a en ethnicity and I also believe Nasir's push in order to make it an ethnicity shows POV pushing.
  • Please read WP:fringe and WP:RS. Per WP:RS: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" (Done). And WP:RS: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research".
  • Based on the statements from Kansas Bear, it is clear his viewpoint is majority. Easily one can comeup with 100s of google books/scholars on this issue. The fact that Encyclopaedia of Islam and Britannica show not contestation on the issue is also a sign that fringe views are not taken seriously. Per WP:RS, the viewpoint of Kansas Bear is mainstream. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. You're repeating Kansas Bear's argument. In fact, you even behave like him with the same POV and reverting back to his version. Regardless that your location shows up as Virginia, it's possible that the above argument was prepared by Kansas Bear who sent it to you via IM or email and then you posted it here.
2. I never said to anyone that plebian was an ethnicity. Kansas Bear accused me and now you're accusing me. Read the 3 defintions that you see under the word and that is what I believe it is. I'm going to repeat this one more time that there's no evidence for "Persian ethnicity". It is possible that they were Arab, Turkic, Baloch, Afghan (Pashtun/Kuchi), Tajik, or Persian, and/or mixed. That's why I put Iranian peoples instead because that covers most of these. The current version is inaccurate, it contains too many obvious errors. For example, in 900s Afghanistan was ruled by Samanids and Ghaznavids, inhabited by Turks but here it says Saffarids ruled it until 1002.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baluch, Turkic,Arab, Afghan , etc.. Please read WP:OR: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"".. And your viewpoint is not majority. It is not even minority, it is WP:UNDOE and WP:fringe. You only have one source which is not about Saffarids, that makes no judgment where as other users have brought at least 10-20. Savory or Bosworth have written specialized articles and are fairly recent sources. Because the sources for Persian are overwhelming and from top world scholars such as Bosworth and Scavory, then you are simply pushing POV and if it continues, administrator attentions needs to be brought into account.
  • As per there not being any evidence of "Persian ethnicity"..that is not your issue to solve. If Savory and Bosworth state it clearly, that is all that matters. Although the fact that Yaqub did not understand Arabic, and poets around him were tracing him to ancient Iranian legends, and he was seen as reviver of Persian culture and he was the first to ask for Persian poetry in his court..is all sufficient. But, we do not discuss such matters here. What we discuss is simply WP:RS facts and as per above, Kansas Bear has brought numerous WP:RS sources, which shows your opinion is WP:fringe.
  • I am not any of the user you mentioned but they have brought sources, where-as you have lacked. And your personal accusations have no bearing, if you have a problem, go to the admins. Bringing up where users work, vacation or leave is a privacy violation.
  • You can fix any errors with dates without removing Persian, so that is not good execuse. Wikipedia follows WP:OR and WP:synthesis policies. We do not make arguments about anything, but simply state what common scholarly sources state and do not try to bring one or two fringe sources vs hundreds.
  • Currently your version is not accepted by three users and for all effective purposes, it is fringe. I do not need to search for 100s of google books/scholars that state Saffarids were Persian. You know they exist. There is not even 5 that mentions them as anything else (Turkic, Arab, Afghan, Baluch..) that you mentioned. The dozens or so brought by Kansas bear is good enough to show that is the scholarly concensus and scholarly opinion. So there is no need for OR.
  • So as in any other wikipedia article, one simply follows the rules set by wikipedia WP:RS without any WP:OR and WP:fringe. Thanks.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please again read WP:UNDOE:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (Done here)
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. .

So your viewpoint about "anything else" and there is no "proof" is WP:fringe or at best case, "extremly small" minority. It has no weight here, just like top references such as Encyclopaedia of Islam do not consider it. Wikipedia is not a WP:forum,..simply we must follow the laws of Wikipedia and the opinion of the majority of scholars over 1/2 sources which are ambigious, is the one that is represented. Savory and Bosworth..etc., know better than you and me about what they state, and if you do not like their opinion or you do not think their opinion is not correct, you must bring many equivalent and equal weight scholars stating different opinions.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finally, the Savory and Bosworth article (Encycloapedia of Islam) are about Saffarids specifically. Then there were many other sources Kansas Bear brought with hundreds more in google books/scholars he did not brought. When you can bring the same number of sources (that is at least 10 with a different opinion), then your view is not WP:fringe. Else there is no point in arguing wikipedia's policy which relies on WP:RS, and does away with WP:fringe, WP:UNDO, WP:OR and WP:synthesis. Thanks. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the good sources Kansas Bear presented in the talkpage. Specially, the Savory source is an article specific to Saffarids and of course Bosworth is a world class scholar. *There are literally hundreds of sources:
  • Here is one from Richard Frye (Professor of Harvard University) (and very well distinguished scholar) under the chapter "The Iranian dynasties" in the book the Golden age of Persia. "The Saffarids were more of an Iranian national dynasty than the Tahridids, for not only did they rise from the people, but inability of Ya'qub to understand Arabic is cited as the reason for the developement of Persian literature"(pg 119, R.N.Frye, "The Golden Age of Persia", A Phoenix Press Paper, 2nd impression December 2003".

So we must follow the rules:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (Done here)
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you

Thanks.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave this article for someone else to fix.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is simply not a place for WP:OR and WP:fringe, WP:synthesis. If this fundamental rule was understood by everyone and an exam was given to all members before they can join in on these policies..then hundreds of articles like these would not have issues. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written introduction[edit]

The intro is written very poorly, it is not properly put together and has a strong pro-Persian POV-pushing tone as well as obvious errors. "The Saffarids (Persian: سلسله صفاریان‎) were a Muslim and Persianate[2] dynasty of Persian origin[3][4][5][6][7][8] from Seistan who established a Persian Empire in eastern Iran,[9][10] between 861 and 1002, which included Khorasan, Afghanistan and Balochistan."

  • The Saffarid military (actually bandits) began a campaign in the year 870, they left Zaranj and moved eastward in the name of "spreading Islam" into Bost and other smaller kingdoms in southern Afghanistan. They kept moving along the road, and after Ghazni they invaded Kabul. From there they went north to Bamyan, then Balkh, Badghis, and Herat in the west. All of this happened inside Afghanistan in the span of one year, and the looting of these cities of non-Muslims made them rich enough to create and run a kingdom. About 30 years later, in 900, the Saffarids lost hold of Afghanistan to the Samanids followed by the Ghaznavids.
  • The intro of this article attempts to say that Saffarids ruled Afghanistan until 1002, which is grossly incorrect.
  • There is also no evidence regarding what ethnic group the Saffarids belonged to. Sistan, where the dynasty was born, was a region that had settlements of many diverse groups, including Arabs who settled there after conquering the area in 642, as well as Baloch, Afghans/Pashtun, Makranis, and Tajiks in addition to Persians. The intro attempts to force readers into believing that they were Persians by ethnicity but references used for this are just selected theories of modern historians/book writers, and they do not claim them to be Persian by ethnicity but Persian by language. All the different ethnic groups used Persian language, which was and still is the dominant language of the region. "Persian" has also been used as a geogrpahical term, a person from Persia. Whoever tries to fix the intro needs to be reminded of these facts.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "Persian" is simply overused. "Persiante", "Persian origin" and "Persian Empire" in one sentence - that is too much. Nasir's claim, however, that they were Arabs, Pashtuns or Beluchs is - quite frankly - nonsense. There are plenty of historical accounts proving that they did not undestand Arabic. As for Beluchs: there were no Beluchs in that region at that time. The Beluch are an offspring of the Kurdish people and their migration from Western Iran to what is now Beluchistan was triggered by the Turkish invasions some 300 years later. As for Afghans/Pashtuns: there is not a single source confirming the claim. It's quite the contrary: the Saffarids, considered by some to be "Persian proto-nationalists", were the first Islamic empire to defeat the Eastern Iranian ancestors of modern Pashtuns and convert them to Islam. The first Pashtuns in that region were the Abdali - some 800 (!) years later - who were granted lands north of Zamindawar and Kandahar by Shah Abbas the Great. Prior to that, the Pashtuns lived some 1000 km further east, in and around the Sulaiman Mts. Hence, going by language, identity and by the way the Saffarids were seen by others - friends and foes - they were by definition a Persian dynsty and are to be labled as such in Wikipedia (as one can see in the sources provided). --Lysozym (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a version for the first two sentences:
""The Saffarids were a Muslim Persianate dynasty that ruled Afghanistan, Balochistan and Khorasan from 861 to 1002. The dynasty, of Persian plebeian origin, was founded by Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, a native of Sistan, who worked as a coppersmith (ṣaffār) before becoming a warlord". :::Referenced by this, "The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255.
Of course, Nasir and his disdain of anything or anyone Persian changed it and called it consensus.[22]
What do you think Lysozym? --Defensor Ursa 16:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are again wrongly accusing me!!! Where did I make a claim that they were Arabs, Pashtuns or Beluchs???????????
1. I said: Sistan had settlements of many diverse groups, including Arabs who settled there after conquering the area in 642, as well as Baloch, Afghans/Pashtun, Makranis, and Tajiks in addition to Persians.' That's NOT claiming them being Arabs, Pashtuns, Beluch or anything. The Beluch being offspring of Kurds is irrelevant to this topic, plus don't add theories here.
2. This statement by Lysozym is only a theory: "the Saffarids, considered by some to be "Persian proto-nationalists", were the first Islamic empire to defeat the Eastern Iranian ancestors of modern Pashtuns and convert them to Islam."
    • It was the Turkic Ghaznavids who Islamized Afghanistan in the 11th century. This is what all the historians say.
    • Lysozym is asserting that the Zunbils and Kabul Shahis were Pashtuns, lol. Better yet, he asserts that Bost, Ghazni, Kabul, Bamyan, Balkh, and Herat were Pashtun cities in 870, during the Saffarid raids, lol. There's nothing to support this theory. The origin of modern day Pashtuns is unknown, there are many theories regarding this but none are conclusive.
3. Defensor Ursa (Kansas Bear), get your facts straight, Afghanistan and Khorasan were NOT ruled by Saffarids from 861 to 1002. These were ruled by them from 870 to 900 (for 30 years only). Samanids and Ghaznavids ruled them from 900 to late 12th century followed by Ghurids.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same ip as above. Let me make it clear again: We must follow the rules and not have WP:forum or WP:synthesis or WP:OR discussions. Comprende?

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (Done here)
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  • It is that simple
  • The Bosworth and Savory sources are specialized sources and clearly state "Persian stock" or "Persian". It is not up wikipedia users to try to intrepret these thems but simply state them as the scholars state them. Persian stock is very clear. And it will stay as it is a specialized RS source.

There is no need for any WP:forum type arguments and etc. We simply state what theese scholars state and clearly state it. We do not add any theories about Baluch, Turk or etc.. because they are not sourced.

  • Per the wikipedia rule above. The majority (overhwelming) state Persian and there is not a single specialized source (having to do with Saffarids) that state otherwise. Wikipedia then has no choice to reflect the opinion of such scholars.
  • I also agree with the sentence of Kansas Bear with the addition of the Savory source as it is specialized towards Saffarids and readers who want to learn about Saffarids deserve specialized sources.
  • So since three people agree (Lysozim, Kansas Bear and I)..I believe this is a concensus.
  • I am going to notify a serious admin again to look at the discussion here. Wikipedia has no place for WP:OR arguments and theories. If users do not like what scholarly sources overwhelmingly state, then they are pushing POV which should result in a ban. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ IP: I totally agree with you. And the most reliable sources are clear. Yet, that still does not justify the exeggerated overuse of the word "Persian" in the article's intro. It's totally enough to mention it once - "a Persian dynasty in Eastern Iran", that is totally enough. --Lysozym (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and Kansas Bear. Thanks for Kansas Bear for being WP:BOLD with multidute of RS sources. I think the new introduction by Kansas Bear is cleanedup and good. Take care.--108.18.145.11 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baluch in Saffarid army[edit]

Baloch also been saffarids armies, even a tribe baluchs Saffari and afgans Baloch saffarzai call themselves, and there are tribes and ahiri tahirzai that you vow to tell pleass? Rahmanirani (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were defintetly no Baloch in the Saffarid army considering that the Baloch were still in Syria and Northern-Western Iran during this time period and didn't migrate to the region until 200 years later. What you said falls under WP:fringe and i bet you cannot find one source that supports what you are saying. Akmal94 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits of Stalker1988[edit]

Stalker1988, please provide sources for your edit.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

User:HistoryofIran I didn't see the other sources after, I checked them, they all say "Persian" specifically, how about changing it to "Sunni Persian" in the lead then? --Xerxes931 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persian?[edit]

O.k i dont even know what to discuss in here. really? there is NO reliable source that confirms (as i stated before) they were persian by ethnicity. Infact ALL consider it either iranic or persianate. So if it is not a POV then what it is? I hope it is not a discussion for the sake of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.102 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping some people. @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani: Wait for their response. What do you think about this anonymous user's concern? Replacing Persian with Iranian? --Wario-Man (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Persianate is a culture not an ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the current lead says "was a Sunni Persian..." not Persianate. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "there is NO reliable source that confirms (as i stated before) they were persian by ethnicity." Oxford is a reliable source, i quote : "One of the first indigenous Persian dynasties to emerge after the Arab Islamic invasions."---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we better move citations to proper locations to avoid future similar issues. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At best i can say it is"very misleading"

1- Ethnic origin of yakub himslef is not certain. 2- WHY pick and choose minimum sources and ignore the majority and modern scholarship just to fit the purpose? 3- There will be "future" issues because the article is POV and the editors will change it. Thanks.

The article is well sourced. If you think Persian is wrong, then you should provide enough reliable sources about the origin of Saffarids. And your #3 is a rant. If someone disrupts or vandalizes WP articles, I assure you there will b some very effective ways to deal with them. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, i suggest you take a look at WP:NOTFORUM. I added the above Oxford cite. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly was “Sunni” removed ? Xerxes931 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Expansion of the articles in medium-long future[edit]

I dont have time to do this myself, but, for any interested in medieval-early modern Islam, the catalan wikipedia had interesting articles waiting to be translated.

Example , the saffarid dynasty article: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saff%C3%A0rida

Even the google translator can be used to do a early job.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saffarid_dynasty&oldid=1194953767"