Talk:Eldiguzids

History Template

I also added the history of greater Iran template.Hajji Piruz 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been determined by a consensus of neutral editors and administrators that the articles under the various countries listed on the Template:History of Greater Iran should receive templates specific to those countries, and NOT the History of Greater Iran template. Please do not impugn the valid use of that template by insisting on placing it on these articles. The more specific history template prevails. In this case, that means the use of the History of Azerbaijan template. --Bejnar 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the History of Iran? Where did this discussion take place? The History of Iran template is relevant at least.Hajji Piruz 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of Azerbaijan template is still more specific than a History of Iran template, which was incomplete last time I looked. That does not mean that the article is not relevant to the history of Iran, it just means that it is not primarily relevant to the history of Iran. Links within the article show this where appropriate. The template issues are entirely different. --Bejnar 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant to the history of Iran. The very name Atabegs of Azerbaijan comes from the name of the Iranian region of Azerbaijan. How could it not be relevant when the very name of the dynasty is Iranian.Hajji Piruz 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion continued at User talk:Hajji Piruz#Atabegs of Azerbaijan. --Bejnar 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy as well as credibility needs to be verified. Azerbaijan as state emerged in 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.91.103 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article must be changed

The name "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" only appears in sources based on the official history told by the Republic of Azerbaijan. Any other source, which is ultimately less biased, makes no reference to a so-called Atabegs of Azerbaijan. The Encyclopædia Iranica doesn't even have an article about it. The state was called "Atabegs of Ildegüzid" or "Atabegs of Ildenizids".

A full debate on this subject must begin in order to ensure the legitimacy and objectivity of this article.65.94.14.31 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, the term "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" is used by others including the Armenian authors who wrote (1994) The Caucasian knot: the history & geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh, hardly Azeri nationalists. Browsing through Google books seems to show that "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" is the common English usage, for example, see the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Persia page 250. "Atabegs of Ildenizids" appears to be a Persian version of the name. --Bejnar (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also used in Persian sources , as I add the Persian link, and the problem is not with the name . About the dominance of Republic point of view , the problem is that the post soviet historians of the republic are not familiar with ancient sources (Iranian sources in Persian language ) and they think that Atabegs were independent . Indeed many Atabags were around Iran as the Atabegs of Lorestan , Atabakan Fars and etc ( See Atabakan,Encyclopædia Iranica ) , and they were only local military chiefs and Saljuq officers and never independent . Plus their territory was not only Azerbaijan region . The Republic view problem can be solved by more contribution of other editors that are familiar with original , historical sources .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The name Eldiguzids are used in Encyclopedia of Islam. Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan is actually a title which seems to have been used later than the dynasty existed. The title is also Persian in the sense that "Atabek" is a Turkish loan word but the 'izafa that is "e/i" (means of) is used in the Persian grammer. In actuality, the only sources using "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" are Persian sources (no Turkish history sources existed even 100 years after these dynasties), and possibly Arabic sources. Iranica also says: "an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids"[1]. I am not sure what the dynasty itself was called (as it was just local rulers who paid nominal allegiance to the Seljuq while they were mostly acting independently along with Shirvanshahs).. Between 1160-1190 (give or take) actually, the Seljuqs were ruling nominally and these dynasties paid allegiance to them, but Iranica also has: ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN ATĀBAKĀN-E FĀRS B. Spuler princes of the Salghurid dynasty who ruled Fārs in the 6th/12th and 7th/13th centuries. ATĀBAKĀN-E LORESTĀN B. Spuler rulers of Lorestān, part of the Zagros highlands of southwestern Iran in the later middle ages. Lorestān had a mixed population of Lors, Kurds, and others. ATĀBAKĀN-E MARĀḠA K. A. Luther a family of local rulers of Marāḡa who ruled from the early 6th/12th century until 605/1208-09. ATĀBAKĀN-E YAZD

Also, part of proper Azarbaijan was in the hands of the Ahmadilis (Atabakan-e-Maragha). I think we need a consistent naming for these articles. Iranica was at one time going alphabetical and so they soliciated for the letter "A" first. In the most popular book on Muslim dynasties, it is "Ildegozids"[2] Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden) which is as equally reliable usesIldiguzids. Using google books, I got about similar results (Ildiguzids/Eldiguzids and "Atabegs of Azerbaijan").

For completeness, I think it is better to change it to something like "Eldiguzids (Atabegs of Azerbaijan)" although "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" is more of a title where-as Eldiguzids is more proper name. As per the modern anachronistic intepretations that the ip and Alborz referred to, none of these "ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN", "ATĀBAKĀN-E FĀRS","ATĀBAKĀN-E LORESTĀN","ATĀBAKĀN-E MARĀḠA","ATĀBAKĀN-E YAZD" have anything to do with a "national state" (as such a concept did not exist in the 12th century Muslim nor were these Turcophone dynasties conscious of any sort of Turkish ethnicities. This sort of projecting modern nationalism back into the 12th century for rulers who were actually Persianized and have not even produced a single Turkish verse from their courts). In all but their fatherline origin, there is really nothing Turkic in cultural contents about these rulers, as Turkic culture in these regions was still confined to the nomadic domain.

It is simply a geographical tile (as the name Azarbaijan had no ethnic connotation then and it was given an ethnic connotation only in the 19th century) and usually these dynasties controlled, surrounding lands but where known by the most important land they controlled. Overall, looking at the poetry of Khaqani/Nezami Ganjavi, the same Shirvanshah, Ildiguzids and Ahmadilis (Atabekan-e-Maragha) who were all rivals are called rulers of Iran and their land is called "Molk-e-Ajam" (Persian realm). Interesting, these poets actually have praised all two/three. These dynasties were all Persianized and there is not a single artificat of say Turkish culture from their courts or even realm. Those nationalist historiography from local writers are not of interest to wikipedia. I think for the completeness of the title "Eldiguzids (Atabegs of Azerbaijan)" would be consistent. For example we can do the same for "Ahmadilis (Atabegs of Maragha)", Salghurids ("Atabegs of Fars") and etc. It makes sense to user both the proper dynasty name rather than the title, but I think it would be good to have both. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To make it short: the article titles should be: "Eldiguzids (Atabegs of Azerbaijan), Ahmadilis (Atabegs of Maragha)", Salghurids (Atabegs of Fars)"...etc. Such a patent is consistent. This covers both the dynasty name as well as the titles used by later historians (to denote that it was still part of the large Seljuq empire although the Seljuqs from 1150-1200 had nominal control over Sharwanshahs, Eldiguzids, Ahmadilis..etc. and could not stop even these dynasties from fighting each other). If anyone has no good reasons to disagree, then I will make the title move although Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden) is probably the best source on using the proper titles. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

I think it is worthwile to point out that "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" is a title and actually the Eldiguzids were not the only ones to be called by that. Prior and contemporary to that, Ahmadilis were also called "Atabegs of Maragha and Azerbaijan". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The history of Seljuq Turks from the Jami 'Al-Tawarikh: An Ilkhanid Adapation of the Saljuq Nama of Zahir al-din Nishapuri". trans. and annoated by K. Allin Luther, e.d. by C.E. Bosworth (London, Curzon Press, 2001). Exact quote from page 141: "As for Aq-Sunqur, the Atabeg of Maragha and Azerbaijan, he was the slave of Ahmadil b. Ibrahim b. Wahsudan who was the ruler of Azerbaijan" Google books link: [3]. Note this is a reference to the rival Ahmadilis (Atabegs of Maragha). So the name of the dynastic family should come prior to any title given to the dynasty used by later historians. For example: "Qajars also rulers(Shah, Atabeg, Sultan,etc.) of Persia" rather than "Shahs of Persia or the Qajars"..etc.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there are really two spellings of dynasty, Atabegs of Azerbaijan is more consistent and general, with more relevant references, to be displayed first as title. Also, I think description of coverage area in present-day geographical terms, especially to a new reader of the article who may not be as familiar with historical-geographical terms. More so, because already in 1860s, Keith Abbott, British Consul in Tabriz, described Azerbaijan as territory contained in both Russia and Persia and stretching in the north to Daghestan. Atabəy (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is best to stick with quality academic sources that mention the Eldiguzids, since Wikipedia strictly avoids WP:OR and WP:synthesis.

A) We must use sources with regards to Eldiguizids that are specialized in the field. Not an obscure source from 1860 as this is muich later than the dynasty and has mistakes putting Media way above its territory, and does not mention them. I am not here to have the Arran, Sherwan, Armenia debate. I can also point out that out of 100s+ maps from Islamic, Armenian/Georgian/Byznatinum and etc., not a single one of them has mentioned Azerbaijan above the Aras in the Caucasus before the 20th century. Also Shirwan was definitely separete from the domains of Eldiguzids. There are also sources that mention all of Eastern Transcaucasia as Armenia (they do exist even though again Arran/Sherwan for the most part are separate territories). There is a map that covers all of the caucasus by the name of Georgia and then there are sources mention Tiblis as part of Arran. Wikipedia guidelines provide the solution. There is no point to bring this issue unless it is a Bosworth like source describing Ildiguzids. So that is why one needs to stick with the wordings of scholars with regards to the dynasty. As per readers, they have been provided with wiki-links.

The wording of Bosworth must be used with regards to the description of Eldiguzids. Wikipedia readers should avoid putting their own wording as much as possible, unless it is a trivial thing. In order to avoid conflicts, only the top scholarly sources relevant to the Eldiguzids should be in the article (like any good article). Not sources that are not about the dynasty. So one cannot synthesize Keith Abbot(1860) with Eldiguzids (1100-1200s). Just like one cannot synthesize 100 existent maps before the 20th century (some from the 1100-1200s) which are pretty consistent in their geographical naming or the 1911 Britannica or Great Russian Encyclopaedia and etc. The way Bosworth has describbed it is the correct way to describe the area for its own time. So one should not synthesize unless you have a reliable source such as Oxford Professor Bosworth (and I mean reliable as Bosworth with 100s of articles and books in the area), mentioning the territory of Eldiguzids for their own time. What matters is Bosworth is the primarily scholar in the field, and his wording in describing the area of the dynasty should be used. More specifically it is consistent with primary sources on the dynasty itself: [4] Bosworth source has clearly used Arran, Azerbaijan, Jibal. If there have been other ways that the dynasty is described, it must be as equally as reliable as Bosworth and Luther. And this still, does not give permission to change the wording of Bosworth, but simply to add additional sources next to it. If we want to describe the present modern names of territories controlled by the Eldiguzids, this must be sourced. Furthermore, it cannot replace the way Bosworth has described their territories for their own time. However, it is not necessary as the reader can click on the territories mentioned by Bosworth. That is why, in Encyclopaedia Iranica or Islam, there is no mention of "modern territories". Arran, Jibal and Azerbaijan are sourced by the primary scholar who has written articles about them in English. So these have been sourced individually now. Anything else, must also be sourced by primarily scholars who have devoted articles to them.

Another issue I have with modern territories is that Dvin (modern Armenia), Ani(modern Turkey) seems to have been in their position or at least under rulers in their command [5]. All being said, their territory as it is defined by Bosworth is the highest form of WP:RS and what their territories coressponds to in modern times requires a very high quality modern source that is specialized.

B) Modern Turkish name is irrelavent. Even the Azerbaijani name is an anachronism, but I have left that in. Unless we know how the dynasty spelled itself in Kypchak Turkish, then it makes no sense to put any other language like modern Anatolian Turkish. The name of the founder is Eldeniz, but the name of the dynasty is Eldiguzids. There are actual Persian writings from the dynasty themselves, beside their court language and etc. So I think Azerbaijani/Persian is fine but Anatolian Turkish seems not to be relavant.

c) Atabeg is a title like Sultan, Shah, etc. Geographic designations for different Atabegs are meant to simply differentiate them by later historians. Even the Azeri and Turkish wikipedia titles of the articles is Eldiguzids as it is in Encyclopaedia of Islam.

One does not put a designation of a dynasty before the name of the dynasty/family itself. For example, it is not "Sultans of Persia or Qajars".. It is "Qajars who were Sultan of Persian". Qajars also had many designations, but one does not use the designation of the family before the name of the family iteslf. That is why Bosworth states: "The Elgiguids or Ildegizids were a Turkish Atabeg dynasty". Or on the Ahmadilis: "This line of Turkish Atabegs"(198) . The proper name of the family/dynasty should come before their title.

Specially since, at least there is a primary source that calls another dynasty as "Atabegs of Maragha and Azerbaijan" [6]. The references called Ahmadilis Atabegs of Azerbaijan, because they controlled this main region at one time. So as one can see, the designation "Atabegs of Azerbaijans" is a geographical designation or else Ahmadilis would not be called "Atabegs of Maragha and Azerbaijan". So that is why designations of the dynasty comes second to their actual dynastic name. Like Qajars, Safavids, Seljuqs, Sassanids, etc. who had many designations, but the name of family-dynasty comes first. Although no doubt, the title was primarily used by Ildiguzids. However the name of the dynasty should come first and then the general designation of "Atabeg of this area". Also there are plenty of sources for Eldiguzids with vaious spellings: [7][8][9]. However, the argument here is that a designation should come after the name of the dynasty (Safavids, Qajars, Sassanids, Seljuqs, etc.).

Another source to illustrate my point: "addresses the Eldiguzid atabek of Azarbayjan Muhammad " (Minorsky)[10]. So That is why the family name of the dynasty comes before any other title. One can say "The Eldiguzids Atabegs of Azerbaijan" and then there is no need to discuss what comes first as it is one word.

D) Anything included must not be synthesis of users, should be modern source, be primarily related to Eldiguzids (specialized source), and should be written by the experts. This way, Wikipedia follows guidelines and users don't argue. I only see three scholarly secondary sources that deal with the dynasty specifically (Two Bosworth from Encyclopaedia of Islam and his book on Muslim dynasties where he has a special section, and one in Iranica). The rest of them, mention the dynasty in passing. There is also a primary source here: [11]. pg 143: "When absence from Arran and Azerbaijan became necessary for Atabegs".. or "The army of Arran and Azerbaijan arrived within days". I have looked at another primary source in Persian with regards to the dynasty (that of the chronicler Nasawi at the time that the dynasty was fighting Khwarizmshahs), and several times "Arran and Azerbaijan" are mentioned. Nasawi, Shahab al-Din, “The adventures of Jalal al-Din Mangubirti”, Bongah Publishers, 1344 (1964). “اتابک سعد ابن زنگی سلطان پارس و اتابک ازبک بن محمد صاحب اران و آذربایجان را طمع در ملک عراق مستحکم شد"(صفحه 22) Translation: Atabek Sa’ad ibn Zangi, the Sultan of Pars (modern Fars Province and surrounding areas) and Atabek Uzbek ibn Muhammad, the Sahib (ruler) of Arran and Azerbaijan strengthened their desire to capture ‘Arak "و چون سلطان جلال الدین آذربیگان و اران را بگرفت"(صفحه 24) Translation: And since the Sultan Jalal al-Din took Azerbaygan and Arran” "بعد از آن که اتابک از حدود همدان گریخته و جان برده, و فرموده که رسم خطبه و سکه در آران و آذربایجان به نام سلطان کند"(صفحه 26) After when Atabek fled the area of Hamadan and kept his life, he ordered that the Khutba (Friday Prayer) and the coins in Arran and Azerbaijan be in the name of the Sultan." "و این قیاس در سایر خراسان و خوارزم و مازندران و اران و آذربیجان و غور و غزنی و بامیان و سیستان تا حدود هند مطرد است.."(ص 82) “And this account is also valid in Khorasan and Mazandaan and Arran and Azerbaijan and Ghur and Ghazni and Bamiyan and Sistan till India” This is an original Persian source during the decay of this dynasty. Unless there are other specific sources devoted to the dynasty itself, they should not be given primacy over these sources. And if such sources exist, they cannot delete the statements of Bosworth/Luther, but rather we can mention this scholars states: "X" and that one states "Y" (of course the scholars should be the same grade as Bosworth). I have no problem putting the modern territories covered by the dynasty, however it should be sourced from expert authors. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Arran (or present-day Azerbaijan) is part of Persia (what is Persia for present-day reader anyway?) is clearly WP:POV. As is using the same Bosworth reference over and over, falls probably under WP:WEIGHT.

It seems to be two issues here:

A) Lets look at Weight WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Bosworth do not need any sort of weight. They are as heaviest they get. They are the highest form of WP:RS available. Weight would occur if you bring a scholar as the same stature of Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bosworth and Luther who are writing specialized article on Eldiguzids, who contradict all of their statements. So two conditions: 1) Western Scholars as the same weight as Luther and Bosworth in Medieval Islamic historiography discussing the Eldiguzids. 2) Sources that specialize on the Eldiguzids (like Bosworth, Luther)

As for Persia, it is used in enough texts during that period. Because for Muslims, the lands were in general divided into 7 countries (the center being Iran). For example, Hamza Isfahani (10th century) states in the "history of Prophets and Kings” writes: “Iran which is also called Fors(Persia) is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”. At those time they did not have maps. However, Rome, Persia, India, China and etc. were the significant lands. The concepts that Muslim geographers had, specially those in the Iranian lands and surrounding areas, was that of the 7 regions. One of them was Persia. So you have poets like Beylaqani, Nezami, Khaqani and etc. praising the Eldiguzids as "Molk-e-ajam Shah" or "Shah-e- Iran" and etc. So as a region, Persia/Iran/Molk-e-Ajam is totally acceptable. Thats just the way geographers saw at in their own time. How the geographers, scholars, poets and etc. saw geography at their time, was their own preception of reality. You can do a good google search for "7 lands, 7 climes, india/persia/china " and etc. Khaqani for example: چون غلام توست خاقانی جز غلام خسرو ایران نشو Since your servant is Khaqani, Do not be a servant, except the servant of the King of Iran از هند رفته در عجم، ایران زمین کرده ارم From hind he has gone to Persia (Ajam), has made Iran a blessed Garden like Iram In praise of Shirvanshahs: فرمان ده اسلامیان ، دارای دوران اخستان عادلتر از بهرامیان ، پرویز ایران اخستان The commander of Muslims, the owner of his age, Axsatan He is more just than the Bahramiyaan, he is the Parwiz (victorious one) of Iran, Axsatan Or Nezami when praising the Eldiguzids:

Let me be clear, no one can even talk authoritatively about the history of the region without knowing Persian, and Arabic, and combing through all these sources. If they do not know these languages, then forget it, they cannot do research and are deprived of the facts. Thanks to internet, these works are becoming accessible very easily. Furthermore, if a person knows Georgian/Armenian/Syraic/Greek, it helps. But when it comes to Muslims, without Arabic and Persian, one cannot glide through the region's history. It is absurd. The rest of us (even those of us that know Persian and Arabic, even if it is not our native tongue), must simply quote the scholars that are authoritative and have gone through the primary sources. I am not here to edit war, however there should be a better justifications for the WP:weight tag. WP:weight would be some third-rate person in a third-rate university with no work on Eldiguzids, not Bosworth.

B) If you find a Bosworth like source (expert in Medieval Islamic Dynasties) to describe the modern territories that Eldiguzids controlled, we can do it in the next sentence. Something like: "At Their heights, the Eldiguzids controlled most of modern Northwestern/Central Iran (excluding Maragha controlled by the Ahmadilis), most of modern republic of Azerbaijan (excluding Shirvan controlled by the Shirvanshahs), and parts of modern Armenia and Turkey". This statement unfortunately is not sourced, but I do not mind it, as it is almost accurate. However, Shirvan is a pretty big territory controlled by the Shirvanshahs. I mean can we speak about modern country of Azerbaijan without Baku, Quba, Shamakhi, Darband and most of its Caspian Sea border? That to me just sounds incorrect, since when someone talks about modern Azerbaijan, the first city that comes to mind is Baku (with 3+ million souls). What does "most" mean? 51% 60% 80%? I would have to give at least 25% to the Shirvanshahs and some to Georgian Kings. My RS solution. Why not find a reliable map of the Eldiguzid domain instead. I think the Cambridge history of Iran possibly has one. Heck even the Azerbaijani wikipedia has a map [12] although it should be sourced with reliable Western sources. I am sure a map from some reputable Western and scholarly book exists. So my solution is to find such a map from a reputable source and then the map legend can be: "Domain of Eldiguzids at their height, covering regions of Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia". Someone can get a wikipedia map expert to redraw it. This will both prevent users from making their own statements and also help in elucidating the territories controlled by this dynasty. The Shirvanshah and Ahmadilis need their own maps too at their height. I have no problem with 20 tags. As long as WP:RS is not removed or not reinterpreted, almost anyone that knows absolutely anything about medieval Islamic dynasties cannot avoid the name Bosworth [13][14][15][16]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Khodabandeh, using single Bosworth reference to rewrite entire facts falls under WP:WEIGHT. It does not matter if Bosworth was an oracle of knowledge on Persia or not. Arran was never part of Persia except for brief period under Sassanids. There was no state or geographical entity called Persia at the time of Atabegs, this is a POV nonsense invented to claim other cultures. After the Islamic conquest, the state known in the West as Persia was revived as Safavid Empire only in 16th century, that is several centuries after Atabegs. Can you find us a single reference where any Atabeg state referred to themselves as Persia? And why don't you provide reference as to how Arran (in South Caucasus) was part of Persia, if Persia did not even exist as a geographical state entity.

There are multitude of references reciting Ildeniz along with Eldiguz, not sure why all Ildeniz quotes have to be omitted just because of a single Bosworth interpretation, not to mention that he also used Ildeniz to refer to the same dynasty. Atabəy (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A) Bosworth is a sufficient source as the source directly deals with the dynasty. There is no weight problem in using such a high class academic source. Undue weight would be a flimsy source from scholars who are not experts in this era, or scholars who do not know Persian/Arabic, not Encyclopaedia of Islam or Bosworth, which is referenced by others (such as Luther who has translated a major work which mentions this dynasty).

B) Arran and Sherwan are considered part of Persia by contemporary poets such as Nezami, Khaqani and etc. They have called their land "mulk-e-Ajam" (Persian land), "Iran", and etc. I have brought references for these, but if you need references again, just let me know. I'll bring just some of the references: One is not talking about concept of a "state" but concept of land which is the 7 regions (Persia, Arabia, India, China...). The concept of national-states are recent phenomenons which cannot be transported to say the 12th century. Such a definition does not need a state. An example is Nezami's praise of Shams al-Din Muhammad در آن بخشش که رحمت عام کردند دو صاحب را محمد نام کردند یکی ختم نبوت گشته ذاتش یکی ختم ممالک بر حیاتش یکی برج عرب را تا ابد ماه یکی ملک عجم را جاودان شاه

In that day that they bestowed mercy upon all, Two great ones were given the name Muhammad, One whose pure essence was the seal of prophecy, The other who is the Kingdom's Seal, in his own days One whose house/zodiac is moon of the Arabs (The Prophet of Islam) The other who is the everlasting Shah of the Persian realm (Shams al-din Eldiguzid)

Khaqani: In praise of Shirvanshahs: "فرمان ده اسلامیان ، دارای دوران اخستان عادلتر از بهرامیان ، پرویز ایران اخستان" "The commander of Muslims, the owner of his age, Axsatan He is more just than the Bahramiyaan, he is the Parwiz (victorious one) of Iran, Axsatan"

Nezami in praise of Shirvanshah: خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان شروان چه، که شهریار ایران

For a king specially like the Shirvanshah What is Shirvan, he is the prince of all of Iran

Khaqani has much more.

If you do not like my translation, see a translation used here: [17] The world entire is body, Persia, heart,—the writer shames not at this parallel; For since that land’s the heart of (all) the earth—the heart is better than the body, sure" Commentary by C.E. Wilson: The sense is apparently: "Since Persia is the heart of the earth, Persia is the best part of the earth, because it is certain that the heart is better than the body"

Or Nezami calling on the Prophet: "

سوی عجم ران منشین در عرب زرده روز اینک و شبدیز شب

Do not stay in Arabia, come to Persia

Here are the light steeds of night and day

"

So if such a concept did not exist, then these poets would not have used for their patrons or asked the Prophet to come to Persia during the era of this dynasty. Also the concept of 7 regions did exist as well.

Bosworth mentions in another artice: "After these controversies had died down, and the Persians had achieved a position of power in the Islamic world comparable to their numbers and capabilities, “ʿAǰam” became a simple ethnic and geographical designation; hence in geographical literature of the Saljuq period and after we find Mesopotamia referred to as ʿErāq ʿArabī, in contrast to northwest Persia or Jebāl, the ancient Media, called ʿErāq ʿAǰamī." [18] Hence you can see the usage of Shah of "Mulk-e-Ajam" (for the Eldiguzids) , "Shah-e-Ajam" (for Dara in Eskandarnama) and etc.

As for what the Eldiguzids referred to themselves, we have no other sources than such sources as these. Do you have a particular source from their own time on how they referenced themselves? They did not for sure refer to themselves as a "state" since a "state" is a new concept, which did not fit the general Muslim world. There was no borders, embassies, visas, nation-station identity between various local rulers of the large Seljuq empire. It was just various warlords and dynasties vying for each other's land, without any consciousness of possessing a "national-state".

As per your statement: "as Persia was revived as Safavid Empire"

The name Iran/Persia/Ajam have been used many times before the Safavids. Even the Ilkhanid Mongol dynasty called their realm Iran and actually expanded the name. The Safavid revived Iran in the sense that they expanded a different religion, which cut it off from the majority of the Islamic Sunni world. Much like the Sassanid Zoroastrian state, with its unique religion. So as a cultural and geographical concept, Persia existed as mentioned by Bosworth. However, as a single state that encompassed most or all of the geographical designation, then Safavids or Ilkhanids would be such states. Since Safavids were from the geographical area, unlike the Ilkhanids, they are given more emphasis.

D) Eldiguz/Ildeniz would be name of the first ruler. Eldiguzids/Eldinizids or variants of these would be the name of the dynasty. So Ildeniz should be further down where the name of the ruler is mentioned, not the name of the dynasty itself. Unless you have a source mentioning it as the name of the dynasty, but as far as I know, Ildeniz is the name of the ruler. Ildenizids would be fine for the name of dynasty. I have added it.

E) On your statement: " There was no state or geographical entity called Persia at the time of Atabegs, this is a POV nonsense invented to claim other cultures.". Please be specific. Who is claiming what? What other cultures (at that time) would that be? Wikipedia works by WP:RS sources. As per culture, there was no difference between the culture during the time of the Seljuqs and the later Atabeg dynasties. Wether in Farsi, Yazd, Kerman, Arran, Azerbaijan, etc, the different Atabeg dynasties did not introduce a new culture, different from that which existed in the Seljuq era. How could they? They were rather accultured to the dominant culture of the area. They intermarried with other dynasties and became accultured to the local customs. They did not introduce any new cultural change. Bosworth clearly states: "The Turkish Ildenizids shared to the full in the Perso-Islamic civilization". An example of local culture in the area at this time specifically is here Nozhat al-Majales.

F) You are free to accept or not to accept these arguments, but I think they are fair arguments. WP:RS from a top Western scholar in the field of Islamic historiography and minor/short-lived dynasties cannot be dismissed, nor does it have a weight problem. In this case, you won't find more heavier scholar than Bosworth with Luther coming in second in describing this rather unknown dynasty. Its a short-lived dynasty and there is a dearth of specialist sources on it. So the few that exist (I mean specialist sources), are the ones that have all the weight. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point B), the dynasty was known under two names Eldiguzids and Ildenizids, so why did you have to remove the whole word Ildeniz instead of adding "id"? Here are some references that mention both names from Yarshater, Encyclopedia Britannica, and even Bosworth himself.

Regarding point E), again there was no state or geographical entity called Persia, I asked you to bring reference from Atabeg kings referring to their states as Persia. None whatsoever, the Turkic kings of the time went by the name of dynasty and region, Azerbaijan, Arran, Maragha. This reference is from Bosworth, where he, at the end of page specifically separates northwestern Persia from Transcaucasia, of which Arran was a part. Atabəy (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A) You are correct that it have been better that Iadded an id, instead of removing the Eldiniz part. I added Eldinizds as one of the alternative names. So thats the end of that.

B) There was a geographical concept of Persia/Iran/'Ajam. I brought contemporary sources from their own time as you asked for. Specifically, they are addressed by the poets they have patronized as "Kings of Iran, Kings of the Persian realm", etc. I brought the original Persian for you as well, so you can check with anyone else, if you wish. 'Ajam and Iran are two examples. “ʿAǰam” became a simple ethnic and geographical designation; hence in geographical literature of the Saljuq period and after we find Mesopotamia referred to as ʿErāq ʿArabī, in contrast to northwest Persia or Jebāl, the ancient Media, called ʿErāq ʿAǰamī." [19] Both Iran and 'Ajam have been used by these poets for their realm of these kings. The sources were brought infront of your eyes.

C) You said: "I asked you to bring reference from Atabeg kings referring to their states as Persia". I can ask a better question. I ask you is to bring even several letters from these kings that refers to the name of their domain. But we do not have such letters with such specifics. I have heared there is one Persian letter from the last or one to last guy in the dynasty, but I doubt it has this detail. Even the names Atabegs of Azerbaijan, Eldiguzids or etc are used after their demise. So I am not even sure what the dynasty called itself. These are names that have been used after the demise of the dynasty. So we must look at how others who lived in ther domain, defined their domain. I brought Khaqani/Nezami as two examples of contemporary sources and how they define their domain. They have clearly considered their region as part of Persia and the Kings as Kings of Persia/Iran. So the areas under the control of Eldinizids are part of the geographical and cultural concept of Persia, even if there was no unified government over all of Persia. Just like there could have been dozens of rulers in China, India or etc. Or even in Eastern Transcaucasia (rough correspondence to the country of Azerbaijan), there was the Shirvanshahs or Eldigizuids, so one can say the same that there was no unified government at this time in modern Azerbaijan, or even Iranian Azerbaijan (Ahmadilis). But as a cultural/geographical concept, the region was considered part of Iran/'Ajam, and it contrasted with 'Arab, 'India..etc., which had many local dynasties themselves.

D) I do not necessarily see a separation of Northwestern Persia from Transcaucasia on the last sentence, but more specifically Transcaucasia being zoomed in as a region where they fought local Christian dynasties for territory. However, both versions are described (if assuming there is a contradiction). But the introduction is taken from Encyclopaedia of Islam. WP:RS sources might not be to everyone's liking, but I have brought contemporary sources from their domain which clearly calls their domain as part of 'Ajam, Iran and calls these local rulers in Sherwan, Arran as Shah-e-Molk-e Ajam, Shahriyar Iran and etc. If I did not have such sources, then that would have been another story, although still it is an WP:RS source from Bosworth. But now I have such contemporary sources from their own time that backs up the way Bosworth has used Persia and considered Arran as part of it (which was the case for local Muslim writers/poets), then I consider Bosworth usage of Persia as correct from the perspective of the people of that time.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are responding to question with a question instead of providing reference? Again, I am looking for reference where any Atabeg referred to his domain as Persia? If you are insistent about the non-existent Persia being their identity, then one of them should have said that, no?

There are many references on Ildenizids/Eldiguzids referred to as Atabegs of Azerbaijan, not Atabegs of Persia or Atabegs of Arran. For some reason, instead of choosing to stick to definition, and to describe geographical area that Atabeg state has encompassed in present terms, Iranian Azerbaijan, Jibal, Republic of Azerbaijan and, by the way, present-day Armenia, a single Bosworth reference is chosen per WP:WEIGHT to push the WP:POV that Arran was part of Persia. Attempting to attach Persian nationalist identity to Ildenizids or Seljuk, just because they used Persian as a language of correspondence, is the same as asserting Anglo-Saxon identity on every American or claiming that North America is geographically part of Great Britain. These sort of claims have nothing to do with the essence of this article.

The average Wikipedia reader does not have a clue what Arran or Persia is, these entities do not exist. So to clearly describe historical entity in geographic terms it makes sense to use present-day terms, which is done all over historical articles in Wikipedia. For some reason, when it comes to Safavid dynasty or making up "Greater Iran" templates extending from Himalayas to Egypt, present-day states are used, yet when it comes to describing Atabegs of Azerbaijan, we have to use Arran or Persia and not real terms based only on one reference.

I hope you can notice the inconsistency in your argument which is clearly bending the article and historical reality in direction which is clearly non-neutral. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A) Note your tone please. Bosworth is not a Persian nationalist. Lets not associate the edit of editors with their nationality. Just work on the main points through the guidelines of Wikipedia. B) Wikipedia works by WP:RS and the major articles on Eldinizds are by Luther/Bosworth. How you or I define them, has no bearing on Wikipedia. There is right now, no other specialist sources. We must stick to the sources, and that is the bottom line. If the source was weak, or non-specialist, then your point would be considered. But these are specialist sources, and nothing like WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV applies. We cannot be a spokesman for the average Wikipedia reader. The average Wikipedia reader does not care about Eldinizids, only few scholars and some locals do, and the locals are familiar with these terms. However, Wikipedia is not edited because of our assumption (faulty or not) of what Wikipedia readers know or do not know. Wikipedia works by WP:RS. The average Wikipedia reader might also not locate 95% of the countries of the world, but they will learn by clicking.

C) I don't need to answer your question but I already did. There is nothing from the Eldiguzids themselves on how they define their domain. So the question applies to you as well. Unless you have something, then bring it. That is a contemporary source from them, on what they considered their domain We have no writing from them, except possibly one or two Persian letters, which probably do not give a clue on what they considered their domain, how they named themselves, and etc.

The Eldiguzids/Ildenizids/AtabSegs of Azerbaijan are all names for the dynasty after their demise. Since the most important land (not state, country, or etc) they controlled was most of Azerbaijan which is a Persian name and had no ethnic connotation in the 12th century, they are called by later historians as "Atabegs of Azerbaijan", although not exclusively, as I showed source just close to 100 years after which also uses the title of Ahmadilis. So the title of them is not the name of their territory. Just like Atabegs of Yazd, Mosul, Fars and etc. did not just control one province, but had expansions and contractions. I already told you why Arran must be there, as it is separate from Sherwan, and Bosworth/Luther have used it. Arran and Sherwan in post-Islamic sources were many times separated, although not always. Here it is good to separate it from Sherwan (which was ruled under another dynasty). Wikipedia readers are not dumb, and they can click and learn about these areas. As I said, I have no problem with a map of the Eldinizids empire which will enumerate exactly to what countries they correspond to. Such a map exists. So that is the solution.

As per their Realm. However, the poets like Nezami, Khaqani have called their realm Iran/Persian realm and etc. Now, I cannot add them obviously, since that would be a primary source. Peter. J. Chelkowski pp1: "The culture of Nizami's Persia is renowned for its deep-rooted tradition and splendor. In pre-Islamic times, it had developed extraordinarily rich and exact means of expression in music, architecture, and daily life as well as in writing, although Iran, its center--or, as the poets believed, its heart--was continually overrun by invading armies and immigrants, this tradition was able to absorb, transform, and ultimately overcome foreign intrusion. Alexander the Great was only one of many conquerors, to be seduced by the Persian way of life."(Chelkowski, P. "Nezami's Iskandarnameh:"in Colloquio sul poeta persiano Nizami e la leggenda iranica di Alessandro magno, Roma,1977).

Or even Jan Rypka, who is a Soviet author:"Even the Caucasian Nizami, although living on the far-flung periphery, does not manifest a different spirit and apostrophizes Iran as the Heart of the World".(Rypka, Jan History of Iranian Literature.. — Reidel Publishing Company, January 1968. — p. 76)

Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."

Sure that sounds like it might appeal to some groups , but that is not the concern of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is about reflecting [[WP:RS}] sources, wether it appeals or disappeals. So if these poets had a concept of Iran and called their rulers, kings of Iran, then that is sufficient on the way the term was used during the era of these kings. And there are some scholars that user terms like Medieval Persia, Iran and etc.

As per Arran being used, I already provided sources as well. Primary sources and secondary sources.

If Arran, or Persia did not exist as geographical terms, then hundreds of contemporary sources from that time would not refer to them. They existed a geographical concept, just like Azerbaijan was a geographical concept. Azerbaijan was not an ethnic concept in the 12th century. There was no national borders, or a "Azerbaijani state", nation states did not exist in the 12th century Islamic world. At that time, "Azerbaijan" would be a simple geographical area. No ethnic or linguistic identity could be attached to this in the 12th century or say in the 3rd century B.C. with Atrapatakan. Same with Arran, Sherwan, Yazd, Kerman, Mosul, Isfahan, Khorasan, etc. So only geographical/cultural concepts can really be called out for this time period. Also at least [{Safina Tabriz]] shows that Tabriz had kepts its old language even after the Mongol invasion (called Zaban-e-Tabrizi). So there was no concept of ethnicity attached to Azerbaijan in the 12th century. Simply, it is a geography (with a Persian name), and with people who probably still spoke Iranic languages. Much like the Seljuq empire who controlled a mainly Iranian and Arabic speaking lands.

D) "Attempting to attach Persian nationalist identity to Ildenizids or Seljuk, just because they used Persian as a language of correspondence, is the same as asserting Anglo-Saxon identity on every American or claiming that North America is geographically part of Great Britain. "

As you well know, we can only use WP:RS source, not WP:FORUM arguments. If we don't like sources that are written by foremost scholars, one cannot call them Persian nationalists.

However, on a side note, the Eldiguzids Official language was Persian. The muslim population was mixed, but there was a large number of Iranians. Culturally, we have nothing in Oghuz Turkish (languages prevalent in modern Azerbaijan, Turkey) from them. At their time, Iranian culture was its full height Nozhat al-Majales(not the non-court aspect of the article), but nothing in their own Kypchak Turkish(which would be closer to say Kazakh or Uzbek than modern Turkish). It doesn't matter, if the Seljuqs, Ghaznavids and etc., controlled parts of Persia, just like it doesn't matter if Kings/Princes of different European aristocracies were from different backgrounds. The ministers, administrators, artists, etc. of these empire produced Persian culture and were from Iranian backgrounds (like the Seljuq Nizam al-Mulk). Administrations, Vizirs and etc. of these empires were in the hand of the Iranian speaking popualtion. Just like Shirvanshahs were of Arab background but mixed with locals, and produced Persian culture. Ottomans also controlled Arabia, but there was an Arabia as a geographical/cultural concept. Or Egypt was controlled by Ottomans, but there was an Egypt as a geographical/cultural concept.

As per "Nationalism", we need to simply stick to the way things are described in the 12th century and not attach any sort of nationalism to this article. This means no usage of biased sources or quoting from non-specialist sourcs.

E) Modern Anatolian Oghuz Turkish which is even a major break from the Ottoman language and produced by the Turkish language reform (80-100 years ago), is not relevant to the topic. Modern Azerbaijani I have no problem with.

F) Arguments can go forever, but we simply must follow WP:RS and let the sources do the talking. Not just this topic, but any topic, with any user, that is the approach of Wikipedia. If the sources were controversial, then that must be shown by other sources. However you know well these sources are from the foremost specialist WP:RS.

Thanks and please, just look to argue with sources from the same period or specialist sources. If you have contemporary sources from this dynasty that shows I am mistaken, then lets bring it. However a title by later historians does not define a geographical domain. Atabeks of Fars, Yazd, Mosul, Luristan..controlled surrounding areas or Ahmadilis have also been called Atabeks of Azerbaijan.. So there is no modern nation-state concept here from these names that provided. It simply means "Governor of Yazd", "Governor of Azerbaijan", "Governor of Luristan".. and none of these contradict it as being part of the Persian realm (used by scholars).

G) I do not like to live a bad taste for anyone, but Wikipedia works with WP:RS. Sometimes there are sources I do not like, but fine. I try to find equally valid WP:RS sources (specialized in the area) that says something different. Right now, you have not presented one. Not everyone likes every source. However, your objection about Persia/Arran not being existent is really invalid, as many sources from that time have used these names, and so have Scholars. Just like they use Azerbaijan. Some people (not you) might be trying to attach an ethno-linguistic or national state concept for the 12th century to Azerbaijan, Arran, Sherwan and to the Eldiguzids. Such concept would be foreign for the 12th century Islamic world, where the primarily identity was Muslim vs Christian. Even with linguistic differences, except for a few scholars here and there, the mass of the illiterate people had no concept of a strong ethno-national identity, and absolutely, there was no such thing as a stated-based identity. . That is way Khaqani served both the Eldinizds, Shirvanshahs or Nezami dedicated works the Seljuqs, Eldinizids, Shirvanshahs, and Ahmadilis. So there was no such concept of loyalty.

We can also put modern countries as a legend of a WP:RS map. On Safavids or any other article, from now on, I only work with the top WP:RS sources. Because Wikipedia users might not always agree, and that is fine. If an WP:RS source is invalid, it must be shown by an equally reliable WP:RS source discussing the same topic (Eldiguzids). Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing or Ending Discussions

Anything in Wikipedia must be done through WP:RS and other guidelines. No WP:FORUM which the discussion is increasingly entering, which is a waste of everyone's time. That is why the Safavids wasted everyone's time. It is not going to happen again. On this topic, there are only few specialist sources (Luther, Bosworth) who have devoted articles to the dynasty itself, and secondary such sources as Cambridge History of Iran, etc.). WP:NPOV applies to these authors as they are major university Full Professors in the West, hundreds/thousands of books,articles, citations and etc. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here, since there is only few specialists who have written specialist articles on this dynasty, and these two seem to be the primary ones. If there were 100s of POVs, then selecting one of them only is a weight problem. Weight applies to 3rd rate scholar. So normal procedure is this. If say a certain Wikipedia user doesn't agree with WP:RS source, then they must bring an equivalent WP:RS source about Eldiguzids (not random source) that provides their point of view from a person well versed in Medieval Islamic Historiography, with complete knowledge of the important Arabic, Persian languages, as well as having written a specialist books/articles on the subject matter. Atabek states: "It does not matter if Bosworth was an oracle of knowledge on Persia or not.". Actually from the perspective of Wikipedia, that is exactly what counts and matters. Wikipedia is nothing but parroting top quality WP:RS sources to write articles. If its laws are followed, users will have no problems with each other or topics. If there is a high quality source that criticizes Bosworth on this topic, then it should be brought. If there is a high quality sources that contradicts him, then the better WP:RS wins. But if they can be deemed as of equal weight, then all viewpoints can be incorporated. Bosworth is a oracle of Knowledge on Medieval Islamic historiography and dynasties. So that is exactly what counts. I'll simply wait for WP:RS sources on the quality of Bosworth (specialist in Medieval Islamic Dynasties, with knowledge of Arabic/Persian) with different points of view that Atabek believes are correct. Then these can be incoporated in the article (and no Bosworth will not be deleted, but other equivalent (must be oracle of knowledge on Medieval Islamic dynasties)). Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Khodabandeh, your overuse of Bosworth interpretation wording to push a single point, which actually has no significant relevance to the topic, violates WP:UNDUE. I already brought a reference, where Bosworth clearly distinguished Transcaucasia from Persia. Yet you claim, "he was zooming in". Well that's your interpretation of wording, hence cannot be pushed as WP:RS interpretation.

There are many references already in the article, which refer to the Atabegs of Azerbaijan even without using Persia or claiming Arran was part of it. Caucasian Albania was not part of Persia at the time of Atabegs, simply because Persia did not exist as entity or a state ever since Islamic Conquest several centuries before that. Neither was Caucasian Albania (Arran) ever part of Persia geographically because it was located in South Caucasus. South Caucasus is not part of Iranian plateau, thus not Iranian geographically.

So pretty much your upholding of one Bosworth wording over another is WP:POV. And by the logic you use, for some reason, you don't claim Armenia as part of Persia, when Atabeg state clearly encompassed the territory of present-day Armenia as well. Atabəy (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And here is a source from Iranian author Kaveh Farrokh, who claims:

• The oldest outside influence in Transcaucasia is that of Persia... and goes on attempting to separate Arran definition from Azerbaijan. Atabəy (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And according to this Bible reference, even Media-Atropatena (now Iranian Azerbaijan) was historically not considered part of Persia. So how could Arran be?

• Media lay north-west of Persia Proper, south southwest of the Caspian, ..." Atabəy (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A)That is called WP:SYNTHESIS. A 1863 source and an author who is not a specialist on Medieval Islamic dynasty (Kaveh Farrokh) nor reads Arabic. Media Atropatene would be part of the greater Iranian world of the time, but part of "Persia proper" (rather than Persia), possibly not. Your sources have nothing to do with Eldiguzids, so they are not relevant. And no, an 1863 source nor Kaveh Farrokh is not the type of sources I asked for.

B) WP:UNDO,WP:POV,WP:WEIGHT do not apply to WP:RS sources, specially when there are no more than two/three specialized articles on the dynasty from Oracles of Knowledge as you say. Both wordings of Bosworth are in the article. It is not up to users to intrepret them.

C) There was no unified government in Persia, just like India, China or etc.. But Persia as a cultural/geographical entity existed and depending on the source, Arran/Sherwan and even Armenia were sometimes included it in it (Muqaddesi). For example "Sind" would be part of India, Hijaz would be part of Arabia, and etc., irregardless of how many minor kingds ruled the area.

Here is a 10th century reference from an Arabian historian Al-Masudi: "The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages".

And here is a 13th century reference from Hamdollah Mostowfi, the Ilkhanid historian, chronicler, administrator and writer:

چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه

Some cities of Iran are better than the rest, بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا

these have pleasant and compromising weather, گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق

The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well,

در خراسان مرو و طوس در روم باشد اقسرا Merv and Tus in Khorasan, and Konya (Aqsara) too.

So another one of the many sources showing existence of Iran and Arran from those era before Safavids. This is a highly good source, since the person who wrote the poem was a major administrator and tax-collector of the Ilkhanid era, and he was born in Ghazvin in Iran,.

So two references right before and after the dynasty, as well reference from the time of the dynasty (Nezami, Khaqani) were given. Covering exactly, the period right before Eldigizds, during the Eldiguzids, and right after the Eldiguzids. So it is up to scholars (Bosworth) not Khodabandeh or Atabek to define geographical borders for their own time. The definition of Persia like China, India and etc. can contract or expand depending on the source, time period and etc. Even the definition of Arran can contract or expand. Some sources mention all of modern republic of Azerbaijan and even Tiblis in Georgia as part of Arran.

And here is a modern source: "Although throughout history the Caucasus has usually been incorporated in political entities belonging to the Iranian world, at the beginning of the 13th/19th century Russia took it, along with the Transcaucasus, from the Qajars (1133–1342/1779–1924), severing those historical ties. Since the establishment of Soviet power on Caucasian territory, relations with Persia have been reduced to an insignificant level."(Pierreze Thorez, Encyclopaedia Iranica - "Caucasus and Iran").

The Eldiguzids who covered all the way up to Isfahan (and if we believe the Azeri wikipedia map, pretty much most of Persia) would be such an entity.

Caucasian Albania (Aghvanak) was not used by Muslims. Its name by Muslims was Arran/Shawan. And culturally they would be the extension of the Muslims below Aras, wether their language was Iranic (at that time) or Turkic later. And for sure, under the Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Seljuqs, Safavids, Ilkhanids.. which encompasses most of the history of ttis region, there was a unified control over these lands.

C) I don't claim anything as part of Persia. I am just referencing Bosworth, Chelkowski, and primary references, etc. Even the Sherwanshahs which did not cover any part of modern Iran, their domain was referenced as part of the "Iran of their time" by their own poets/writers. So WP:RS is what counts, not WP:FORUM comments. If several WP:RS conflict (of high caliber), then they can all be incorporated with due weight. But for this article, they must be specialized for the time period of Eldinizids and mention the Eldiguzids.

D) Two can play google books game.

1) [20]. "After the foundation of the Mongol empire in Persia, Arran with Ganjda as capital became one of its provinces"... (modern source)

2) "Christian from the Persian province of Arran in the Caucasus " [21]..(modern source)

3) "Arran, a province of Persia, situated between Georgia"[Arran, a province of Persia, situated between Georgia] (old sourc)

4) "with the Persian Arran"; [22] (old source)

5) Cambridge History of Iran "It is more likely the heir of Jochi felt their rights endangered by the establishment of a Mongol kingdom in Persia. Arran and Azerbaijan, which had been incorporated in that kingdom..."[23]

Its stupid game. So simply we need to stick to specialized sources on Eldiguzids or it is synthesis. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Khodabendeh, the usage of so called "Greatest Iranian world" sort of WP:WEASEL wording by yourself clearly indicates that you are not interested in pursuit of impartial fact finding but to prove that Arran (in Transcaucasus) was part of some non-existent Persia taking words completely out of context and rejecting any opposing reference. You have already rejected 3 references from various authors, pushing 1 reference from C.E. Bosworth, for which you are about to run out of alphabet letters quoting in the article text already.

What does the fact that Albania term was not used by Muslims have to do with anything? It is already shown by dozens of references that Arran was applied to Caucasian Albania, based on the name of its eponymous founder Aran.

It is a FACT that Arran/Caucasian Albania/Republic of Azerbaijan are in South Caucasus, and the latter was never geographically considered Iran. If it was, then the same "favor" should apply to Armenia, which you never apply, do you? Or maybe, C.E. Bosworth or other authors found some magic border which separates Arran from Armenia in medieval times and only that part of Caucasus was Persia? Excuse me, but just because Arabs or Turks conquered and ruled Persia for hundreds of years, do we call Persia part of Arabia or Turkey?

This inconsistent focusing only on Arran, present-day Azerbaijan, misuse of historical references to deny or question the historical reality, again in an inconsistent manner, is very indicative of a non-neutral WP:POV which I kindly invite you to reconsider.

I believe the most fair and neutral approach would be stating that Azerbaijani Atabegs were based in present-day Republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Northwestern Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan and Jibal). That's about the most fair and non-confrontational approach, instead of attempting to place irredentist ideas into article where they are absolutely unneeded. Atabəy (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A) Again everything you just said is WP:FORUM or outright wrong. It is "Greater Iranian World" not "Greatest Iranian World" as you spelled it (assuming good faith unintentionally) and has enough academic references to it. [24] "The Medes and Persians were then merely part of the greater Iranian world that stretched from the northern coast of the Black Sea to what is now Afghanistan.".[25]. A very reliable and modern source. If you have a problem with how scholars(and I do not mean dinky scholars who do not know important historical regional languages and claim expertise, but world class scholars) use these terms, then that is not the problem of Wikipedia as everything must follow WP:RS of the highest quality. And when I mean highest quality, I mean highest quality scholars who know Arabic/Persian and who are world renowned. If you have a problem with what they write, you need an equivalent high quality WP:RS source that criticizes their article on Eldiguzids or how they use the term for that period.

So when you say: " usage of so called "Greatest Iranian world" sort of WP:WEASEL wording by yourself ", is simply an ignorant statement and accusation unless you think I am Richard Frye, M. A. Dandamayev, Janos Harmatta, John L. Esposito..,etc. I would do some research on these scholars.

"It is a FACT that Arran/Caucasian Albania/Republic of Azerbaijan are in South Caucasus, and the latter was never geographically considered Iran, the latter was never geographically considered Iran"

Bosworth, Chelkowski, Cambridge History of Iran, Hamdollah Mostowfi, Khaqani, Nezami, Sherwanshahs and Eldiguzids (who are called Shah of Realm of Persians/Iran) disagree. "Iran/Persia" like any old geographical/cultural territory had borders that contracted/expanded, and in some periods, parts of the Caucasus were included in it. It is up to scholars to decide how they use terminology and Wikipedia users have to follow. Persia as a cultural/geographical for its own time included: dynasties which were based in it (Seljuqs/Ghaznavids) (used by scholars), areas with large number of Persian population/culture or or etc. Each territory must be defined for its own era, not for all times. And there is a concept cultural territory, geographical territory and a state territory.

B) You have not brought any specialized sources. What does Kaveh Farrokh or Biblical reference from 1860 have to do with Eldiguzids. They are not even talking about that time period. Fact is scholars use Medieval Persia, Iran and etc. and some consider Arran as part of it, and it is not up to Wikipedia users to complain about these scholars. Some scholars do, some might not. I brought 7 references (Bosworth, Chelkowski as well as Cambrdige History of Iran and four other references). Among these, only Bosworth and Chelkowski are scholars that know Arabic/Persian,or only deal with this Eldiguzids time-period, and only one (Bosworth) who is writing a specialized article on them. With regards to Eldiguzids there are sources that do, and that is sufficient to use them in the article, unless there are explicit academic sources which criticize such usage for that era. And it is no my problem if some user does not like it. I brought more sources from Chelkowski (related to that time period), and others like Cambridge History of Iran, although not related to Eldiguzids which call Arran part of Persia. If you do not like these sources, then that is not my problem. I brought enough primary sources from that period to justify these scholars (which I did not have to). Also given the few specialist material on Eldiguzids, it is obvious those few sources will have higher frequency of occurence.

C) What you consider fair and neutral is not sourced, nor has any weight compared to scholars like Bosworth who specialize on this period and dynasties. So it is not going to be included as we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. "Azerbaijani Atabegs" is obviously not the most common term (and you accuse others of impartiality!), even less than another name "Pahlawanids"(one in Encyclaopedia of Islam). "Azerbaijani" as an ethnic term was not used then, so only it makes sense geographically, and hence "Atabegs of Azerbaijan", as one of the titles used by later historians, is mentioned, where Azerbaijan was just a simple Persian name with a geographical area, and no ethnic/national identity designation. Wikipedia users must use specialized sources that talk about the dynasty, and not any random source which might fit to what they like. We must follow only the highest quality WP:RS with any subject not what users believe is fair.

D) Your concern about "irredentist ideas"(which is baseless) are now covering scholars like Bosworth, Chelkowski, John Espostio, Hamdollah Mostowfi, Poets of ELdigizuds/Shirvanshah era and primary sources of the era. Actually having a 20th century alphabet for a language that was net yet formed and the Eldigizudis did not know(why not related Kazakh or Kyrghiz for example?), has hints of POV. And to include Armenia(and also Turkey), is fine, as long as it is sourced by the highest WP:RS. If Bosworth had mentioned Armenia, I would have mentioned it too, although the Arran mentioned by Bosworth could possibly cover parts of Armenia/Georgia. There is no favor here, I stick to sources. If Wikipedia users stop this nonsense about Armenia, Iran, Azerbaijan and just follow the top quality WP:RS sources from neutral scholars, then there would not have been two Arbcomms. And please, if you are concerned about WP:NPOV, look at your editing history. But if you are interested in WP:NPOV, then there is a new method that is needed, and the one I will follow is not "what users like or think is fair", but what is the highest quality WP:RS in any article.

E) Finally, Wikipedia does not care about what users think it is "fair", but what is the highest quality WP:RS. In this case, specialized articles on the Eldiguzids by the most respected and cited scholars of Medieval Islamic Historiography trump all else. If Bosworth was talking about Achaemenid Persia or Richard Frye was talking about Eldiguzid Persia, then I would not use them. If they were citizens of countries from the region, then again I would not use them. Also non-specialized articles, books, references trying to push a certain viewpoint should be removed by users. So it is not up to Wikipedia users to judge Bosworth, Cambridge History of Iran, Chelkowski.. (although primary sources support their usage of terminology) or accuse other users of inventing terms they do not like or simple have not heard of.

F) I am not going to consider any non-WP:RS compromises. Thats the bottom line. Also until you admit that you mistakenly accused me of creating terms that world class scholars use(Esposito, Frye, Danmadayev, Hermatta..etc.), then there is no point in trying to find a compromise. As such bad-faith assumptions (and I asked you to stay professional and concentrate on sources, not users) is unprofessional. You can say you do not like the terms scholars use or disagree with it, or whatever, (better for other forums as what scholars use is what Wikipedia cares about), but to accuse users of making them up is simply unethical and violation of WP:NPA. And impartially means we use WP:RS sources of high class scholars and not an 1861 source that has nothing to do with Eldiguzids. Once you take back your badfaith assumption, I will be happy to try to formulate a mutually agreeable solution that I believe does not compromise RS. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Khodabandeh, I don't see why you interpret the discussion as WP:FORUM, while yourself creating a forum of subjects irrelevant to the topic. For example, what does your claim "modern Anatolian Oghuz Turkish which is even a major break from the Ottoman language and produced by the Turkish language reform (80-100 years ago)" have to do with my inclusion of clearly Turkish spelling 'Ildenizid'? That's actually the same way as Kurdish or Georgian spellings ended up on top of Safavid dynasty article. Was there any evidence of Kurdish or Georgian writing, or linguistic significance, in Safavid history?

I don't see a problem with inclusion of WP:RS references, as long as they are all included non-selectively. Why is present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran less significant and should be at the bottom of article, when they more clearly express the geographical positioning of Atabeg State than some Arran, non-existent (in 12th century) Persia, which only confuse readers and create more inconsistency and WP:POV and WP:OR? Follow for example, Achaemenid Persia article, which uses modern regions for geographical description in the introduction:

• At its greatest extent, the empire included the modern territories of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, Asia Minor, Thrace and Macedonia, much of the Black Sea coastal regions, Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and all significant population centers of ancient Egypt as far west as Libya.

And you are incorrect about Atabeg state of Azerbaijan being a province, Encyclopedia Iranica calls it Atabekan-e Azarbayjan, not Atabekan-e Iran. Same thing applies to Kara Koyunlu, who were independent and ruled primarily territories comprising present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. Both Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Kara Koyunlu led the linguistic and cultural integration of historical Atropatena and Arran into a single ethnocultural entity in later centuries. They are a very reason why the nation called Azerbaijanis, living on territories stretching from Daghestan to Hamadan, and speaking Turkic language, exists today as a unique ethnic entity.

Hence is their significance which is well beyond mere usage of Persian as correspondence language or being considered WP:WEASEL "(Greater) Iranian world", which in fact did not exist in 12th century. The entire definition is so WP:OR, like "Greater Turkic world" for anyone who speaks Turkic group of languages, Greater English World for anyone who uses English nowadays. These definitions are purely WP:POV cultural generalizations taken out of context and useless in providing reader with accurate historical information.

Finally, a million dollar question why you consistently omit the fact that Arran could not have been isolated "as part of Persia" as no clear distinction existed between Arran and Armenia for example. Atabəy (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A) Where is your WP:RS(Bosworth level and specialist in Medieval Islamic Historiography, not some flaky source) where modern countries are mentioned in the introduction of the dynasty? I asked you several times. You did not bring it. If you have a such a source (on the same level and quality), it can be mentioned that there territories roughly corresponds to modern countries.

B) There is no such thing as "Atabeg state of Azerbaijan". Atabeg means governor/princes and they are called Eldiguzids, Atabegs of Azerbaijan, Pahlawanids and various names, all given to them after their demise. Don't put words in my mouth. So "Governor Stateof Azerbaijan" or "Prince state of Azerbaijan" or "Ruler state of Azerbaijan" makes little sense. I said "Azerbaijan" was a geographical territory and the different "Atabeg" states were later designated by historians based on their primary territory (Fars, Yazd, Kerman, Azarbaijan), which does not mean that they had all of this territory (like Eldiguzids did not have Maragha). For example, the reference I brought were Ahmadilis are called "Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Maragha", should be a clear example of why the name is not unique to Eldiguzids even, and how the term was denoteed. Simply, it doesn't mean historians at that time included surrounding territories into these geographics as you were given primary sources that they did not. But it seems you simply ignore these sources.

C) Iranica states: "ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids". Not a "state" or name of a country but an influental family. The name given to them(after their demise), is simply because they were governors of some territories, the major portion being Azerbaijan. However the name was not unique in primary sources, as Ahmadilis are also called "Atabegs of Maragha and Azerbaijan". It is just a name for a dynasty, not their territory. Unless you believe Isfahan, Ray, Hamadan are part of Azerbaijan and Sharwan/Maragha (which they did not control) are not. Or you reject all the sources from their own time which mentions their various territories.

Just read it again: "ATĀBAKĀN-E ĀḎARBĀYJĀN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids". The "E" in Persian is equivalent to "of", so "Atabegs of Azerbaijan" was the name of a family (given to them later on and not during their own time). Sure one can say the territories controlled by Eldiguzids, or Eldiguzid empire/state, etc., but these names are all after their demise (and Ahmadilis have also been called "Atabegs of Maragha and Azerbaijan", so nothing unique here).

D) You sate: "Both Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Kara Koyunlu led the linguistic and cultural integration of historical Atropatena and Arran into a single ethnocultural entity in later centuries. They are a very reason why the nation called Azerbaijanis, living on territories stretching from Daghestan to Hamadan, and speaking Turkic language, exists today as a unique ethnic entity. "

Lets stick to the 12th century. Thats called WP:FORUM and WP:OR. Even though it is WP:FORUM, let me respond to this point. And I will respond to it once and next time just ask for a WP:RS source. You speak as if the Eldinizids/Kara Karakoyunlu had some ethnic conscioussness and were trying to integrate these areas into a single ethnocultural entity! It sounds to me like a very POV statement, trying to impose 19th/20th century mentality on a 800 year old short-lived dynasty. Where is your source?

Your statement contradicts major books Nozhat al-Majales and Safina-yi Tabriz from that era, where the culture of time is clearly spelled out. The captial of Eldiguzids was Tabriz, but the language of Tabriz even during the Ilkhanid era was an Iranian dialect as the author of this book calls it "Zaban-e-Tabrizi" Safina-yi Tabriz. "Zaban-e-Tabrizi" means exactly the "Tabrizi language". If the Eldiguzids could not bring a change from "Zaban-e- Tabrizi" to Oghuz Turkish of modern Azerbaijan in their own capital, then how did they do it in other areas? Of course, you will ignore this comment probably, but can you ignore actual old manuscripts? So if the Eldiguzids brought a great "cultural transform" in two generations (the other time being dependent on Seljuqs), then that is remarkable. Here is Zaban-e-Tabrizi:

دَچَان چوچرخ نکویت مو ایر رهشه مهر دورش

چَو ِش دَ کارده شکویت ولَول ودَارد سَر ِ یَوه

پَری بقهر اره میر دون جو پور زون هنرمند

پروکری اَنزوتون منی که آن هزیوه

اکیژ بحتَ ورامرو کی چرخ هانزمَویتی

ژژور منشی چو بخت اهون قدریوه

نه چرخ استه نبوتی نه روزو ورو فوتی

زو ِم چو واش خللیوه زمم حو بورضی ربوه

Can you read it? I can. I can gaurantee to you that it is not Turkic, but this is the language of Tabriz(former capital of Eldiguzids) during the Ilkhanid era. A native person of Tabriz calls it Zaban-e-Tabrizi. It is not Turkic, where one would expect that Turkic would spread from the capital of Eldiguzids (Tabriz). Or do you understand the Fahlavi of Homam Tabrizi, Mama Esmat Tabrizi(local women poet who wrote in the native dialect of Tabriz during Karakoyunlu), Maghrebi Tabrizi or etc?

So you are saying then the Ilkhanids retransformed Tabriz back to this Zaban-e-Tabrizi language? Nope they could not have, because these things took centuries back then! I am not sure why the Eldiguzids did not spread Kypchak Turkish and according to you, spread Oghuz Turkish from Daghestan to Hamadan (which they did not). Yes large number of nomads from Central Asia were coming to the area, specially during and after the Mongol upheavel, but the Eldiguzids themselves were trying to stop these nomads. Hamadan by the way (the city) is Persian speaking as it has been before the Seljuq era. I think you mean areas North of Hamadan, which has an Azeri-speaking population. You might have some valid points on Kara Koyunlu (which can be evaluated in a forum or scholarly journal), but absolutely there is nothing to suggest that Eldiguzids during their short rule, were responsible for the formation of an Azerbaijani ethnic group. There is not a single Oghuz or even Kypchak piece of writing on wood, paper, stone, book, monument, parchment, animal skin from these dynasties or anyone who lived during their time. There are Armenian, Georgian ones. So there is no way Eldiguzids brought a major cultural change. They were nothing but continuation of Seljuqs on the local level. The Seljuqs did not affect Isfahan (their capital) nor did the Eldiguzids have an effect on Tabriz's language. Manuscripts from native dialects exist.

Kara Koyunlu could be a different matter. Also what happens to Isfahan, Ray, Gilan, Hamadan that Eldinizids controlled? How come Ray or Isfahan or Hamadan or Gilan did not experience this linguistic or cultural change? Also Isfahan was even capital of Seljuqs as well. Or what about Sherwan under Sherwanshahs, not under Eldiguzids? How did Eldiguzids have an effect on the large area of Sherwanshahs?

So your sentence is factually wrong. If you have an WP:RS scholarly source from a scholar that knows Medieval Islamic history that you are quoting, then lets bring it.

Also the Ildenizids did not hold Sherwan or had a short hold on Hamadan, but also held Isfahan and Tehran. Why not include Isfahan and Tehran then also.. That is all WP:FORUM stuff. Lets stick to WP:RS. However, as a word of advice, any statement must be backed up with concrete proof (even if it is not related to this article). If no such concrete proof exist, then it does not belong anywhere. I believe this is what occured: "The Turkish Ildenizids shared to the full in the Perso-Islamic civilization" (Bosworth) and I can attest to 100s of poets (all with Persian or Arabic names unlike the Eldiguzids/Seljuqs who had Turkic names) from this era (mainly not associated with court and many of them Women), not a single writing in Kypchak Turkish of Eldiguzids. So not only they did not "lead", but they "followed" the Seljuqs with this regard. So when I speak, I have this Nozhat al-Majales: "Nozhat al-mājales is thus a mirror of the social conditions at the time, reflecting the full spread of Persian language and the culture of Iran throughout that region, clearly evidenced by the common use of spoken idioms in poems as well as the professions of the some of the poets. The influence of the northwestern Pahlavi language, for example, which had been the spoken dialect of the region, is clearly observed in the poems contained in this anthology", backedup by actual books and manuscripts, not heresay or random traveller. Karakoyunlu could be a different matter. But again, I have manuscripts/books from normal women, everyday folks and etc., to dispute your argument. But that would be more in a forum. In reality, the major ethno-linguistic change you are talking about occured during the Safavid era, when large number of Turkomen warriors migrated from Anatolia, Syria, Rum and due to the Safavids themselves. As long as the population of Iranian Azerbaijan remained Shafi'i Sunni (which it did before the Safavids), it did experience that ethno--linguistic change. As long as Sherwan was under the Sherwanshahs, it did not see this major transform. Today, virtually all Sunni Kurds, Tats, and Talysh are Shafi'ite and before Safavids, that was the major faith of Azerbaijan. Turkic tribes that entered the area were overwhelmingly if not absolutely, Hanafi. You might disagree, some sources agree, but eventually, if these sources had access to all the Arabic/Persian/Armenian/Georgians sources, and studied them carefully, they would point to the Safavids (and possibly and partially Karakoyunlu). The Eldinizids did not lead but just followed the Seljuqs. And also they did not run the day to day activities, again like the Seljuqs, the ministers/administrators and etc. were Iranians. Infact, the Seljuqs were at least Oghuz Turks (more related to the language of modern Azerbaijanis which is classified as an Oghuz language), the Eldinizids were Kypchaks.

E) "to do with my inclusion of clearly Turkish spelling 'Ildenizid'". Simple, modern Anatolian Turkish was not used by the Ildenizids. So if you want to say Kypchak, that is fine. Georgian/Kurdish did exist during the Safavid era. Modern Anatolian Turkish did not during the Ildenizids. Unless you mean Kypchak Turkish by Turkish, which again we have no proof of, but at least we can make a case for. But what does the language spoken in Modern Turkey which is about 100 years old (I do not mean Ottoman) have to do with 800 years ago and Eldiguzids? However like most articles (say Caucasian Albania), I had no problem with various spellings. However, including modern Anatolian Turkish is not neessary here. Armenian/Georgian at least can be included since the name of the founder was mentioned in those texts. Lets keep it to at least Persian/Azerbaijani.

F) ":Finally, a million dollar question why you consistently omit the fact that Arran could not have been isolated "as part of Persia" as no clear distinction existed between Arran and Armenia for example. ""

My name is not Bosworth. I just follow WP:RS wording. You can ask Bosworth and I am not Bosworth. I will admit that boundaries between Arran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Gilan, Georgia, Sherwan and etc. were not fixed. To avoid arguments, one sticks with RS and how scholars used the terms.

G) ""(Greater) Iranian world"" was a term I mentioned when you mentioned the Media Atropatene. Hence you brought something that has nothing to do with this article (Medes), and I made a comment. As I said, sources describing the era must be specialized for the Eldiguzids. So, in an article on Medes, I can use those sources that I mentioned, not Eldiguzids. Did you forget the context you brought it in? This is simple poor human behaviour and you know it. Did I mention Media Atropatene or did you? What did have to do with the time period of Eldiguzids? What is next, modern politics? So instead of apologizing for accusing me of making up such a term for that time period (Medes) (which I did not), you try to accuse me further of using it for the Eldiguzid era (which I did not). Some terms are used by scholars, and it is not up to us to decide if they are liked or not. You can't call terms used by major scholars as weasel word. Yes Iranian World (cultural region) extending to Black Sea makes sense for the Medes/Persians, but not today. However, it is you that is trying to take these terms and associate it them directly with modern entities, or politicize them, or raising unwarranted concerns about them. I simply follow the top quality WP:RS on the matter of Eldiguzids.

H) Two million $ question. Why have a discussion when you ignore all the sources you do not like? Is that objective? You even claimed Aran/Persia(Iran) were not used after I showed primary documents (which I did not have to) from this era. Is that objective? Is that impartial? Is ignoring the arguments of the other side objective? Objectively, do you think you have acted objectively? I asked for WP:RS sources on Eldiguzids, not a source about Sassanid Persia or Medes, with your synthesis. These discussions actually do not increase my knowledge, however they seem to not effect your knowledge either, as you bypass every primary source of the time.

I) Finally, the gazillion $ offer. Bring your WP:RS sources from top quality scholars on Eldiguzids (Medieval Islamic Historiographers) mentioning modern countries. Else it is a waste of time. All WP:RS will be incorporated. And I mean WP:RS , I do not mean 1861 source talking about Atropatene. But modern scholarly sources discussing Eldiguzids for their own time with articles specializing in them. Wikipedia is definitely extremly worst than Encyclopaedia of Islam or Iranica. I believe Bosworth/Luther are neutral, but can't say that about Wikipedia users. So we must use the specialized articles in these references as the guide. They are both Encyclopaedias and so is Wikipedia (of much lower quality). If they have an entry on Eldiguzids, it is a golden oppurtunity to write an article on par with these Encyclopedias. And usually, these Encyclopaedias choose the foremost specialists on the topics. Wikipedia users should follow these foremost specialist as close as possible, instead of bringing their own wordings.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

J) PLEASE Bring WP:RS sources from top notch scholars who have written specialized articles on the dynasty and any concerns will be addressed. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you bring me Persian quotes, did I deny that Persian was used by Atabegs as lingua franca? Same as cultured Russians in 18-19th centuries before Napoleonic wars used French predominantly. So what?

The so called WP:WEASEL "full spread" of Persian language and the culture of (non-existent as a state) Iran under Atabegs or Karakoyunlu claim is fully "evident" in the fact that just less than 3 centuries later, a major Safavid state with literary Azerbaijani Turkic being used as a court language, was established. Based on your selective WP:RS research, I wonder if language just fell there from air, if everyone before or after was just so heavily involved in "spreading Persian culture" why did a new language appear out of blue?

Why was Nizami praising Turkic rulers in his poems, speaking fondly of Turkic valor and glory if he was Persian? Not to mention that overwhelming majority of population inhabiting Arran and Atropatene today, and for the past 6-7 centuries, speaks not Persian but Azerbaijani dialect of Turkic as a mother tongue. That's just an example for you, how selected referencing of WP:RS can fall far away from reality and misrepresent history to a Wikipedia reader. That's classical WP:POV pushing.

Again, you can have and repeat your Bosworth reference until you run out of alphabet letters reciting it in every sentence of the article. What does not make sense is your opposing to present facts that Atabegs of Azerbaijan were extending on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, and northwestern Iran. Do you agree or not? The fact must be reflected in introduction.

As far as Safavids, I will attend the discussion page there to make appropriate corrections. What concerns me that you are distinguishing Qipchaq Turkic from Oghuz Turkic and modern Turkish to remove the spelling of the world Ildeniz, while non-existence of a consistent dialect called Kurdish in 16th century along with Safavi denial of having relations to Kurds do not seem to cause an issue to place Kurdish spelling BEFORE the official language of the court? I wonder why so much inconsistency, does not look like neutral to me at all. Atabəy (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

map

Sample map [26] (Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 5 pg 188 (note this could have been a period where the Georgians overan Ganja and the map is only an approximate). According to Iranica: "Amīr-e Amīrān challenged Abū Bakr again with help from the Šervānšāh and the Georgian Queen Tamar, and defeated him near Ganǰa, although Abū Bakr was able to escape back to Naḵǰavān with his life, after seeing his army destroyed. ". I don't plan to use this map, as it might have just been an incidence were Georgians captured Arran. However, the Sharwan part and the Ahmadili part, as well as the extension of Ildegizids till moder Ray (Tehran) has value. It definitely shows the Sharvanshahs close to their height for this period. I hope someone can find an WP:RS map of the extent of the empire. The map is not one of the Eldiguzids at their peak. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)