Talk:Ismail I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing Ismail I and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Iran Top‑importance

	Iran portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Georgia (country) Mid‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal 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)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ismail I was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 30, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Safavid dynasty was copied or moved into Ismail I with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Pen name

@Mahan: Can you please elaborate on the WP:FRINGE part? Also not sure what you mean by Iranica being replaced, both the Doerfer 1988 and Savory & Karamustafa 1998 citations were still there, both Iranica citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea...the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." The majority of academic sources agree that the title Khata'i, used by at least three other Iranian poets, refers to the Arabic word for "sinful." The fringe theory that the pen name of Shah of Persia is connected to a region in China to appease the Turkmen followers should not be included in the lead. Regarding the Iranica link, check the difference. Mahan (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you please demonstrate that it is WP:FRINGE? And the quoted citation by Amanat does not say that he connected himself to China to appease his Turkmen followers, it says he wrote his Turkish poetry for them. And please explain the Iranica bit. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There were 3 citation the article, I added another from Islamica to make it more evident that theories such as Khatai's connection to Cathay (a region in China) or Khataei (a traditional Iranian art) are fringe. These theories can be mentioned with appropriate weight under the poetry section (not the lead). Amanat himself confirms the fringe nature of this theory: "A book of Turkish poetry, under the curious pen name Khata'i (presumably someone from "Cathay", today's China), was most likely composed by Isma'il for his Turkmen followers as inspirational literature". Regarding Iranica, perhaps the problem is my bad English skills. In the same link you provided at the beginning of the discussion, it is clear that the Iranica link has been replaced with the book of Amanat. Are you referring to something else? Mahan (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire and Revisiting the Critical Legacy of Shah Ismail: An Inquiry into the Lost Gnostic Tradition of Khatai also use "Sinner", so that's fair enough - it does indeed seem WP:FRINGE considering Amanat does indeed say "presumably". I misunderstood you earlier on the Iranica bit, so never mind that, and the Amanat bit as well, I was a bit confused by the way you tried to present your point, but it's all good. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Misleading infobox image

The current infobox image of a blond European man (Image 1, right) as a depiction of Shah Ismail is graphically appealing, but it lacks historicity and is highly misleading. It is a fictitious portrait created by a Florentine artist, Cristofano dell'Altissimo, who had never met Shah Ismail, and simply embellished and put into colors an earlier imaginatory engraving by Paolo Giovio, an Italian prelate. It is thought that these imaginatory portraits were affected by idealized notions of Shah Ismail as a savior of Christians and Europeans against the Ottomans, complete with rumors of a conversion of Christianity.^[1] It may be for this reason that Shah Ismail's face is idealized in this portrait as "spiritual, nice and bright".^[1] A similar fantasy depiction also appears in Cristofano dell'Altissimo's portrait of Shah Tahmasp I (Ismail's son) who looks like some bearded pirate. Passing fantasy European medieval images as encyclopedic knowledge is wrong and misleading: of course these images are interesting as a matter of discussion (specifically how European imagined eastern rulers, hence the "European portraiture" paragraph), but whenever possible actual depictions from life are by far preferable as the main image.

However, we're lucky that there are actually many contemporary or near contemporary depictions of Shah Ismail from life, made in Persia at that time, by artists who lived at the Persian court and knew Shah Ismail closely. The best one is probably the portrait of Shah Ismail I (Image 2) by Kamal al-din Behzad, his director of the royal atelier renowed for the veracity of his depictions, of which a posthumous copy exists in the Topkapı Palace Museum, H.2169. Then, there are several near-contemporary paintings of Shah Ismail in the battle scenes in the Shāhnāmah Shāh Ismaʿīl (Tabriz, 1541) (hereunder, first two images), a panegyric history commissioned by Shah Ismail himself, but finished a few years after his death, in 1541.

Near-contemporary and later Persian depictions of Shah Ismail
Shāh Ismaʿīl according to the Shāhnāmah Shāh Ismaʿīl (Tabriz, 1541), a panegyric history Ismail himself commissioned.
Shāh Ismaʿīl according to the Shāhnāmah Shāh Ismaʿīl (Tabriz, 1541), a panegyric history Ismail himself commissioned.
Dynastic painting of Shah Ismail, commissioned by Abbas II at Chehel Sotoun, c.1647.
Shah Ismail in a Qajar Iran painting, 19th century

Remarkably, later Persian depictions of Shah Ismail are often fairly consistent and offer the same type of depiction of the ruler, in particular the dynastic painting at Chehel Sotoun, Isfahan, dated to 1647 (above). Even the 19th century Qajar painting of Shah Ismail (above) is fairly similar in its depiction of the king.

So, for the sake of historicity and accuracy, I think we should use for the infobox one of such Persian depictions of Shah Ismail. The best one would probably be the portrait of Shah Ismail I (Image 2) by Kamal al-din Behzad (right). It is both artistically pleasing and accurate. We would still show the European portrait of Cristofano dell'Altissimo at the end of the article in the "European portraiture" segment. The article in this improved form, with the new infobox image, would look: like this. So, for the infobox, should we keep using Image 1, or shift to Image 2? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
Aliyev, Elshad (1 January 2020). "Identification of portrait features of Shah Ismail I according to the 16th century European sources". Problems of Arts and Culture. International scientific journal: 42–43. In our opinion, Paolo Giovio used notes of many travelers, including Maria Angiollello to write this book and it is possible that both portraits of the Safavid ruler were painted on the basis of these notes. Sufi was known as a sheikh, a savior and even a prophet in Europe. It is rumoured that he was very strong, humanistic and fair. That is why rumor about Sufi's adoption Christianity spread, he was expected to be a savior for Christians and Europeans. It is possible that Shah's face was described spiritual, nice and bright in the portrait by Cristofano because of the above-mentioned reasons
[2]
Giovio, Paolo; Stimmer, Tobias (1575). Pavli Iovii novocomensis episcopi nvcerini Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium. Basel: Petri Pernae. p. 254. Portrait of Shah Ismail ("Hysmael Sophus") by Paolo Giovio
[3]
Mahir, Banu (2009). "Album H.2169 in the Topkapi Palace Museum Library (p.465-)". In Géza, Dávid; Ibolya, Gerelyes (eds.). Thirteenth International Congress of Turkish Art: Proceedings. Hungarian National Museum. pp. 471, 476. ISBN 978-963-7061-65-3. The image is of Shah Ismail I, and the note at the bottom edge ('Kalem-i şikeste-i fakir Behzad') identifies the drawing as the copy of an original by Bihzad
[4]
Afyoncu, Erhan (2010). Yavuz'un küpesi. İstanbul: Yeditepe. ISBN 978-605-4052-35-6. Şah Ismail (TSMK, nr. Hazine 2169, vr. 64b)

You did not ping me, the person who reverted you, so not sure who you're speaking to. There is not anything special about these portraits, no matter how contemporary they are. They might as well be the portrait of anyone. The Italian portrait of Ismail I is far more iconic and appealing. And please stop edit warring. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This does not make much sense... the only portrait here which "could be of anyone" is the European portrait by Cristofano dell'Altissimo since he never went to Persia and never met Shah Ismail or any of his relatives (this portrait is more or less like a Renaissance Jesus Christ with a turban... Shah Ismail was supposed to be the saviour of Christianity against the Ottomans). In this vein, some of dell'Altissimo's portraits of easterners are outright ridiculous such as the portrait of Saladin. On the contrary, several of the Persian portraits above are made by painters who either knew Shah Ismail personally and have a reputation for being very accurate in their renderings (such as Kamal al-din Behzad, whom you supported for the lead image of Sultan Husayn Bayqara ), or had quite strong proximity (such as the painters of the 1541 manuscript, commissioned by Shah Ismail himself). And later Persian portraits more or less faithfully followed this tradition. In an encyclopedia, "authentic" and "realistic" depictions are far more important than simply "iconic and appealing" pictorial fantasies don't you think? Hopefully, other users can offer their comments as well. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I restored the contemporary image at Sultan Husayn Bayqara because you had quitely replaced it with a much worse looking contemporary image conveniently uploaded by you, not because I have some sort of fancy towards the work of Behzad. Go ahead and restore it then, I won't oppose it. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And what about the rest of the argument, i.e. "authentic and realistic" vs "iconic and appealing"? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I speak for everyone when I say we want the old Potrait restored. ~2025-40387-65 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed addition regarding Shah Ismail's Turkic origin

Requested move 26 June 2025

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Ismail I → Shah IsmailShah Ismail – Per WP:COMMONNAME ngrams The sources generally mention him with this name. He's known everywhere as Shah Ismail, not Ismail I. So Shah Ismail is rather a better title than Ismail I. Title Shah Ismail, infobox Ismail I. For example Mansa Musa (not: Musa I). Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "Shah Ismail" is probably more current, but "Shah" is generic (for "King" of course). Other articles, especially for this dynasty only use the name of the ruler ("Tahmasp I", rather than "Shah Tahmasp I"), so I guess "Ismail I" without the title is fine. Still your proposal "Title: Shah Ismail, infobox: Ismail I" sounds fine as it combines popularity and official name.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

For example Genghis Khan is purely a title. It's should be "Chinggis Khagan". Thus wp:comonname applies here. Also Güyük Khan, personal name and a title. Shah Ismail is the primary topic here, thus doesn't need I after his name. When I check the sources used here, most of them uses Shah Ismail (without the I). According to ngrams, Shah Ismail I is even used less than Ismail I. So for all these years, this article being titles Ismail I makes not much sense. Beshogur (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:NCROY says that [a]rticle titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. The proposed name "Shah Ismail" would break that convention. Furthermore, "Ismail I" provides better disambiguation to other shahs named Ismail. Tomiĉo (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Nader Shah, Reza Shah, Mansa Musa, Güyük Khan, I can give bunch of others. Your reasoning doesn't makes sense either since Chinese related monarchs have always Emperor in the article name. And those examples given there are European monarchs. Furthermore, "Ismail I" provides better disambiguation to other shahs named Ismail. If you say "Shah Ismail" people talk about him, the titles of the sources used in the article and the talk page proves this. Compared to Ismail II (added "Ismail I,Shah Ismail,Shah Ismail I,Shah Ismail II,Ismail II") You can see he's the main topic here. It's irrelevant whether there is Ismail II or not. Beshogur (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal would result in Wikipedia having a series of articles about a series of shahs entitled Shah Ismail, Ismail II, Ismail III. That doesn't seem very WP:CONSISTENT to me, compared to the status quo of Ismail I, Ismail II, Ismail III. Tomiĉo (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I say that when you speak about "Shah Ismail", Ismail I comes to mind, and not only that, people refer to him directly as Shah Ismail (and mostly without "I") See sources used in the article. Other Ismail's are irrelevant to this. Again Mansa Musa and Musa II of Mali. There is no such rule about consistency. "Shah Ismail,Shah Ismail I,Shah Ismail II,Ismail I" on ngrams" it's the WP:COMMONNAME. "Shah Ismail" has 2.5x more results than "Ismail I". Amd keep in mind that Ismail I of Granada might have huge influence on that result as well. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Tomiĉo. Cremastra (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Related Articles