Talk:Babak Khorramdin

1. Archive 1

Babak was Persian, Azeris as an ethnciity did not exist back then

Back then, there were no such thing as an "Azeri" (Ethnically atleast). Old Azerbeyjan consisted of mainly TAt Persian speaking people. Turks or Turkic speakers did not live in the midd-east back then, they were still in central asia, and were in noways close to the persian provinces.

Azeri itself is a Persian word (from old middle-Persian pahlavi) meaning fire, and Azerbeyjasn is a old Persian word that means the land of fire.

Now, Babek's name is a Persian name also. Babak did not look Turkish/Asiatic, and he even admitted that he was fighting for the persian people and zoroasterianism (A Persian religion)...

Also, it is simple fact that Azeris are turkified Persians, you can even see from their look, that they do not resemle Asiatic lookign turkics, so they obviously have foreign (Non-Turkic blood). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.227 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

" Of course we can not use our personal visual perception as a scientific source, but most scholars agree to the fact that the majority of the Azeri's of Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan are Turkified Aryans, Aryans as in part of the Iranian plateau and Turkified as in linguistically Turkified, but ethnically and culturally still Iranian. One of the most important researchers on this field is Ahmad Kasravi, an Iranian Azeri himself. One of the main arguments that supports this fact is the fact that before the Seljuk invasion of the province Azerbaijan, the name and language already existed, though not yet Turkified. Pan Turkism has had a major impact on the global concencus concerning this issue, just as Pan Arabism has had a major impact on the global concencus of the term "Persian Gulf". "--خرمدین۸۹ (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The correlation between language and ethnicity is a new-world idea . The Azeris did exist in that time , but they were not distinct from other Iranians because their language was not Turkic in that time . Indeed also today , they are not still distinguishable without considering their language . In old world , language was not an important determinant in ethnic and cultural differentiation.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguments considering looks (that he doesn't looks like Asiatic Turkics of Central Asia) are irrelevant. Many Turkics don't have Asiatic looks (in fact a numerical majority); for example Oguz (modern Turks, Azeris and Turkmens), modern Tatars, etc. Asiatic looks penetrated Centarl Asian Turkic societies after Mongol period, during which many peoples migrated from East Asis to Central Asia and intermingled with local peoples.

He was PERSIAN

The part: Ancient historical figure and modern nationalistic debates is not scientific and I do not think any journal has referred to such a debate. Indeed it is useless debate since Azerbaijanis have Persian/Iranian heritage as well. (According to Swietchowski it is harmonic symbosis of Iranian and Turkic culture and Planhol has said the ratio seems to be more Iranian but acknwoledges the other factor). Babak Khorramdin according to classical sources is called Persian (Ibn Hazm, Vardapet) and also Encyclopedia of Islam, and other scholars. I don't think that is an issue between historians. Simply the language of Azerbaijan before Turkification was mainly Middle Persian dialects and also Babak's father was from Mada'in (Sassanid capital of Iraq) according to oldest sources. Also the article should focus on the history of what babak did. So I am going to fix this article and make it more encyclopedic.--alidoostzadeh 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie

I created the article for the movie: Babek (film). Therefore, I removed the movie section of the article, as this article is about Babak the person, not the movie. I'll expand the movie article later.Azerbaijani 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will put links to that article you created on this page as it is related subject.--Dacy69 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry - you did already.--Dacy69 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Azeri or Persian?

The article says Babek was born in a Persian family, such a statement without any objective source is very POV. Most historians agree Babek was Iranian of Azeri ethnicy. So now I also ask you, what is the difference between Persian and Iranian? Arent Persians also Iranians, so why not simply refer them as so. I corrected this mistake, or else Iranians of Azeri ethnicy will also have the ability to claim everyone as Azeri rather then Persian. Baku87 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The only source shows that he was half Persian and half Azeri, so best thing we can do is just note Iranian. This is most objective. Baku87 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical sources use "Persian". See the introduction. Persian means speaker of Middle Persian/Persian dialects, in the west used equivalently for Iranian and has other meanings. It does not necessarily limit itself to one Iranian dialect (Modern Dari-Persian) or region. So it has a wide definition [1][2]. So context here is important. It is the same even with the word "Azerbaijani". Is a Zoroastrian or Tat or Talysh or Kurd from Azerbaijan an Azerbaijani? Geographically yes, nationality yes (citizen of the republic of Azerbaijan), but in the 20th century or so, the term "Azerbaijani" as an ethnicity became associated with Turcophone people of the area. So in order to be clear without arguing which definition applies, the issue with this regard is Babak's language/ethnicity rather than anything else. We can't apply 19th/20th century ethnonyms here. So perhaps you mean Babak was an Oghuz Turk? I disagree. At the time of Babak and even at least up to the Ilkhanid times, Persian and Iranian dialects were prevalent in Azerbaijan. For example the name Azerbaijan itself is of Iranian origin and not Turkic (now I am speaking about language and the context should be clear). All the cities mentioned with regards to Babak: Barzand, Khash, Daval-Rood, Ardabil, Saderasp/Saterasp, ZahrKosh, Badh have Persian names as well. Babak was also the name of the founder of the Sassanid dynasty and is a Persian name. One of the dialects of Persian is Khorasani Persian or Dari. But Middle Persian languages are also called "Persian". "Azeri" Turkic did not exist in Azerbaijan during the time of Babak and it was not spoken in Azerbaijan or Arran. His master's name was Persian: Javidan Poor Shahrak. His wife's name was Persian: Mah-roo. And the language of Azerbaijan at the time of Babak was a Middle Persian dialects and Iranian languages like Talyshi or Old Azari language. His name is Persian: Babak. His sect is also Persian: Khoramdin which is a descendant of Mazdak movement, itself a sect of Zoroastrian. Classical sources (Arab, Armenian) as well modern Historians have used the term Persian. Also Greek-Byzantium documents call the Khorramdins as Persians. M. Whittow, "The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025", Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 195, 203, 215: Excerpts:Azerbaijan was the scene of frequent anti-caliphal and anti-Arab revolts during the eighth and ninth centuries, and Byzantine sources talk of Persian warriors seeking refuge in the 830s from the caliph's armies by taking service under the Byzantine emperor Theophilos. [...] Azerbaijan had a Persian population and was a traditional centre of the Zoroastrian religion. [...] The Khurramites were a [...] Persian sect, influenced by Shiite doctrines, but with their roots in a pre-Islamic Persian religious movement. " . Indeed Khorramdini is just a continuation of Mazdakism itself a sect of Zoroastrianism.

In terms of Khurramites, Persian/Iranian refers to linguistic/ethnic term. See here for example: [3] The term was also used specifically for those Iranians who fought the ¿Abbasid caliph Mo¿tasáem be'lla@h (r. 833-41) and enrolled in the Byzantine army of the iconoclast emperor Theophilos I (r. 829-42). . Babak's last words were also Persian: "Zahi Aasaani" or "Asaaniyaa". So yes Iranians today can be of Turkic-speaking background (due to the long rule of Turkic speaking dynasty and movement of Turkish nomads, some areas of Iran became Turkic-speaking), but this did not exist during the time of Babak-e-Khorramdin. Note the name "Azerbaijani" as ethnonym to Turkic speakers if fairly new (late 19th or early 20th century), and from a geographic point of view, at the time of Babak, Azerbaijan would strictly be identified with North-Western Iran. For example, in terms of modern setting, historian Ighrar Aliyev is both Azerbaijani (a Talysh from the country of Azerbaijan). But we need to use definitions that were used at the time of Babak.

If he was of Turkic-Oghuz origin (which is what I assume is what you mean by "Azeri" and modern Turkic speakers of the Caucus identify themselves with it seems(from the general feeling I get in Wikipedia)), classical sources and modern academic sources would have identified him as so. Actually most of Babak's enemies were rather of Turkic origin. For example, not only the Cailph Muta'ism (himself born of a Turkic mother) and the main enemy of Babak, but also Ashnaas, Aytaakh, Boga Kabir (Turkic gaurds of the Caliph from Khazaria or Central Asira) whom Babak fought against. Afshin was most likely of Sogdian origin (per Encyclopedia of Islam and per the book "A thousand swords"). And Maziyar's(an ally of Babak in Mazandaran) Brother, Kuhyaar, writes to Afshin and Babak: "We have three enemies: Arabs, Berbers (the North African slaves who served as Soldiers in the army of the Caliph), and Turks". Note I do not agree/disagree with that statement(perhaps due to its own political conditions it might have been understandable or something?), I am just bringing it to show that the Khorramdinan were not a Turcophone movement. Rather they were a sect with roots in pre-Islamic Iran and they predate the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan by many centuries. They also had a close connection with Abu Moslem Khorasani, and in some soures, Babak identifies himself as a descendant of Abu Moslem through the daughter of Abu Moslem. Anyhow the Khorramdinan were a psuedo-Zoroastrian sect, where-as the Turkic people in Central Asia were Shamanistic and when the Seljuqs conquered the area, they were Hanafi Muslims.

Also let me add Babak Khorramdin was really popularized by nationalists in Iran and by the USSR in the caucus (due to the communistic nature of Mazdakism). This was all in the last century or so. So in order to understand the Khorramdin belief (a sect based on Mazdakism and itself a reformist sect of Zoroastrianism), it should be approached with dispassionate analysis. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article shows clearly he was half Azerbaijani and half Persian, that makes him an Iranian. And please next time just give me decent argument rather then just copy and paste somebody else his story Baku87 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Decent arguments were given, so please read them. The article doesn't show anything except what is sourced. Azerbaijani today is defined as Turkic speaking and mainly Shi'i people. At the time of Babak Khorramdin, this modern group was not present in Azerbaijan and this came about as a synthesis of Iranian elements and Oghuz migrants, which changed the language although probably did not have a wide genetic effect. So if you are assuming that Babak was Turkic speaking (or any of his family for that matter) because his mother was from Azerbaijan, that is misplacing time and history. That is a geographical argument, but from History point of view, Azerbaijan was not Turkic speaking during the time of Babak. Just like ancient Egyptians did not speak Arabic before Islam. That is why the article says his mother was from Azerbaijan. She sure was not Turkic speaking since the population of Azerbaijan was not Turkic speaking during the time of Babak. Babak's mother was Iranic speaking much like much of Azerbaijan back then. Mahroo is the name given in classical sources which is Persian. Babak is also an Iranic name (founder of the Sassanid dynasty was called Babak). His master's name was also Javidan the son of Shahrak. And his sect is Khurramite/Mazdaki (both Persian words) which is not Turkic but an off-shoot of Zoroastrianism (Iranian religion). All classical sources have stated he was Persian (Armenian, Iranian, Arabic) and his sect was a Persian (Khorramdini) and Azerbaijan had a Iranic speaking population back then. That is why his name is not Turkic and his sect was a offshoot of Zoroastrianism, which is an Iranic not Turkic religion. We are not talking about nationalities or 19th/20th century or modern citizenship. We are talking about background here, which today Babak would be identified as Tati. Note Mark Whittow: M. Whittow, "The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025", Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 195, 203, 215: Excerpts:Azerbaijan was the scene of frequent anti-caliphal and anti-Arab revolts during the eighth and ninth centuries, and Byzantine sources talk of Persian warriors seeking refuge in the 830s from the caliph's armies by taking service under the Byzantine emperor Theophilos. [...] Azerbaijan had a Persian population and was a traditional centre of the Zoroastrian religion. [...] The Khurramites were a [...] Persian sect, influenced by Shiite doctrines, but with their roots in a pre-Islamic Persian religious movement.. Ethnically Babak was Iranic speaking and he came way before the Turkification of language in Azerbaijan, which started from the Seljuq era. The Khorramdin religion is also a Iranic sect. I would read the scholarly references in the article. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To Baku. Ali gave you decent argument. Persian in the historic use had hda another meaning than the contempoaray Persian-speaking ethnic group in Iran. More or less it is the same as the contemporary Iranian (in wider use). It is equal to what Greeks and Arabs called Persian. In Arabic sources both terms Al-Furus (Fors) and Ajam is used. Arabs also used the deregoatory word Ajam to refer to Iranians (hence also to Azeris, Khorasanis, etc...) later on the Ottoman Turks and Sunni kurds used the word Ajam as well as Arabs (untill today) exclusively to refer to the Shiite Iranians (in wider use, the Fars,Talysh, Lur, Qashqai, Azeri etc...)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Babak change to Papak

His true Name is Papak and not Babak.in the years of the arab invasion the change the p to a b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaidenFM (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the texts it is written as a B, but the Arabic based Persian Alphabet at that time was not well developed at that time and did not contain the letter P. It is now pronounced with a B. We do not know whether the sound shift had occurred at his time or not. Any way it was post-Islamic time, so it seems probable that the sound shift has already happened.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Turned in for reward

Vacio, before inserting POV OR next time, please, provide sources for the claim. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted a rather unencyclopedic edit by a user. Tajik (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Idolisation in Azerbaijani SSR

I think we need a part dealing with Babak's idolisation as an historically erroneous proletarian and proto-communist Turkic leader in Azerbaijan SSR. The heritage of this idolisation lives on among Azerbaijani Turkish nationalists in the Republic of Azerbaijan as well as Iran. Behemoth (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Born in Iran

User tajik has changed Babak's birthplace from Iran to greater Iran. This POV edit should be reverted, his birthplace was Iran whether he likes Iran or not, as greater Iran article itself is nothing more than a POV push of the afghan nationalists, saying Iran and greater Iran is not the same, and Iran is just a modern state of greater Iran and nothing more.

All references to Greater Iran and the article itself should be changed to "Iranian Cultural Continent" which is exactly what Encyclopædia Iranica calls it. The way these editors have made it seem for example by changing the birthplaces of national heroes and scientists is that greater Iran was a country itself which is inaccurate. Iranica is referring to the spread of Iranian culture not to a country of some sort. The same region was called Iran back then and was occupied by Iranians/Persians. Modern Iran is the same as historical Iran, its just smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.184 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Eccentric spelling

Tabriz is apparently the same in Arabic, Farsi and Azeri: تبريز.
This article invents the spelling Tabrēz. Why?
It is pronounced the same way as the correct spelling, Tabriz.
What is the point? Varlaam (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Standard literary Persian (Dari) - like Middle Persian (Pahlavi) - pronounces the "i" as an "ē". "Tabrēz" is the correct Middle/New Persian pronunciation. Tajik (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As I already indicated, I read Farsi phonetically.

We are not talking about Farsi or Dari; we are talking about English, where Tabrēz 1) is pronounced the same as Tabriz, and 2) does not exist as a spelling so why is an encyclopedia using a spelling that does not exist?

You don't get to invent English language words.

U dohnt git tou invvnntt Inglish wwerdz in an encyclopedia.

Varlaam (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BABAK WAS ARMENIAN !!!

BABEK WAS TRUE ARMENIAN HERO. NOT TURK AND NOT PERSIAN BUT ARMENIAN! HIS NAME MEANS LEADER IN ANCIENT ARMENIAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.51.2 (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK just stay calm. There is enough babak for everyone!

His genealogy as well as the reason for his uprising are well documented, go find someone else please. And I need to say that up until 1900s many scholars believed that Armenian is an Iranian language due to the large body of parthian and persian loan words in the language, so it's possible that Babak is one of these words too.13:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs)

National hero

This edit was reverted by a user. What is the reason? The source says "..where Babak is a cult figure and a national here. Indded, it is ironic that the Pan-Turkist ex-president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Abulfez Elcibey, should identify as his hero Babak-e Khoram din because he resisted Arab domination." Why that edit of mine is reverted again as vandalism? If the wroding is a problem we can correct that or make a direct quote. But the fact is really undisputed. Xashaiar (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not the reverter, but I agree it is not a good insertion. "Ironic" is not an appropriate word here. It's subjective and judgmental - let the facts speak for themselves. Alternatively, find a way to put the cite on a sentence indicating there is criticism of this idolisation of Babak Khorramdin. 76.118.179.58 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was listed by IP address; however, I am user Ogress, and I am actually signed in. There appears to be some software issues. Apologies for any confusion. - Ogress

Much more seriously, it is not what the source says. Having said that Babak is a national hero, it goes on to say that it is ironic that one particular leader, a Pan-Turkic ideologue, acclaims Babak and makes a hero of him.

Two assertions; one of them is exactly what needs to be sourced; the other is off-topic here, and belongs in a biographical article. Neither of them is what Xashaiar has inserted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But the specific person is the one who "introduced Babak as national hero". Also what I added was "..by pan-turkist fugues". Xashaiar (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those insertions is supported by the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to a new section, within proper context. The WP:Lead is not the proper place for this kind of stuff anyways. The entry's lead should be limited to importnat facts about the subject itself. You don't see "In the the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Alexander the Great is considered a national hero" in the lead of Alexander the Great - even-though many source may say so. This is an a similar situation, not much different. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably reasonable; the chief question is whether the subject resembles Alexander or King Arthur; the tradition about Arthur is the proper subject of his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's an identical situation to Alexander the Great. Iranian Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan Republic topics are in general very similar to Greek Macedonia/Macedonia Republic topics, but not as disputed/controversial, and this is just an extension of it. See History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan#Azerbaijan_as_the_name_of_an_independent_republic. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although Babak is non-Muslim and he isn't ethnically a Turk in the Republic of Azerbaijan Babak is a national hero. Babak is an administrative divisions in the Republic of Azerbaija, there is Babak City in Azerbaijan, many statues of Babak there are in Azerbaijan, Ballet of Babak composed in Azerbaijan, Film of Babak produced by Azerbaijanfilm. If he is not a hero here who is he? It is a fact that Babak was the Persian revolutionary leader, but also it is a fact that Babak is a national hero in the Republic of Azerbaijan. In Islamic Iran he is only a Kaffir.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Youtube. The Babak Castle announcement of Azerbaijani Political activists in Iran--Melikov Memmed (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is a not forum, keep your comments limited to the subject at hand. Nobody is disputing that Babak is called a national hero in Azerbaijan, but that issue is already covered under the proper section. It doesn't belong in the lead of the article, a lead is suppose to a summary primary important facts about the subjects, read WP:LEAD. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

“Babak Khorramdin was proclaimed as a national hero in the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic”. The difference is that the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the Soviet Union but the Republic of Azerbaijan is an independent state. Many Soviet heros are not called a hero these days in the Republic of Azerbaijan. But Babak calls a national hero in the Republic of Azerbaijan too.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if "Babk as a national hero of Republic" is going to be mentioned, it should be mentioned that this is ironic (per source used by Melikov Memmed). Of course Babk can be national hero of everybody (armenia too) but we have to mention all sides of story. I think that this whole issue is very minor and for this I would suggest complete removal of this. Otherwise a tiny note somewhere in the article (not the lead per wp:lead) about him being a national hero elsewhere and that this is not normal should be the way forward (kudo777 version). Xashaiar (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "ironic"? Nations are free to idolize whoever they want. "Ironic" or similar terminology are not encyclopedic, and do not belong here. Dear Melikov, your edit was fine, I just copy-edited it a bit, and provided some new sources. Cheers. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

modern nation building ?

The headline: "Babak and modern nation building" is simply incorrect. None of the sources use the term "modern nation building". And the section is not about "nation building". Its even ironic that the Soviet Union would want to create an Azerbaijani nation within the Soviet Union. I suggest this headline to be changed to "Legacy", it is not only more objective and general but the same approach is done in many other articles.Neftchi (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the edit to 'legacy'. Neftchi (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)