Talk:Persianate society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Persianate society

The singular isn't an error, it's the Wikipedia manual-of-style naming convention. Please don't go against it. Also, the first reference in the article doesn't in fact back up anything that's said, being merely a link to a society's page which says nothing about the subject (at least, not that I could find). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia policy is to misinform, as you are implying here. The Wikipedia manual-of-style naming convention is not applied here; and if what you are claiming here is correct, therefore you should change the following articles from plural form to singular: United States, Allies, Society Islands, etc. If you conduct a Google search for "Persianate society (in singular form), you would get only 10 results including the Wikipedia article; - however, if you change your search title to the "Persianate Societies (plural and correct term), 824 results -- Thus this shows the correct term. However, I don't believe that you are an expert in this field, and therefore, you should stop deleting, and if you are not happy with the entry, just add {{Fact}} to the body of the text, to request further citation(s). Surena 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

United States, Allies, and Society Islands are not analogous; there is no entity called "Persianate societies". The fact that most people refer to such societies (in the plural) is irrelevant to the naming convention.

Your revert of my edit is also unacceptable; not only have you reverted to a version in very poor English, but the supposed citation doesn't in fact back up anything that's said in the lead. If your intention is to justify your claim about the article title, then take it to Talk — but it doesn't do that (any more than the existence of the Society for Christian philosophers would justify an article called "Christian philosophers" rather than "Christian philosopher"). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your English may well be better than George W. Bush, but your knowledge on this topic is almost non-existent. Deleting entries supported by appropriate citations are improper and childish. Surena 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this matter, then first, stop making personal attacks, and secondly, actually repond to what's been said, rather than accusung the other person of ignorance.

I repeat, the reference did not support anything that's in the article, and so was not a genuine citation.

As I've explained on your Talk page, you are close to violating WP:3RR on this. Please calm down and discuss this properly — without insults, and with reason. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys lets work together, there is no reason not to have the article per MoS - but lets not stop other contributers from working on the article too. Thanks --Rayis 12:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think is going on here, nor what you think your intervention will achieve, but you've just reverted all my copy-editing, correcting of wikilinks, and MoS-based improvements. Given your edit summary, which had nothing to do with the edit, that would normally count as vandalism. I'll assume that you did it under some kind of misapprehension, but please don't do it again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits [1] don't show just 'wikification', changing "is" to "was" is not considered correctly grammar when it is incorrect. It is very important for the article to match MoS, however currently the article does not make sense - the lead which you keep reverting to:

"A Persianate society is one of the Persian-speaking states, in particular Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan."

is not what the article is referring to. These are Persianate societies, it is not a singular concept. It is a term that refers to Persian-speaking states. So I ask you to please let the contributers edit and add information, then discuss your needs here on the talk rather than what you are doing at the moment which can be considered as vandalism. --Rayis 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, while I realise that your first language isn't English, I still don't see how you can misunderstand both this article and the MoS so badly. Article titles (in line with most encyclopædia article titles) are in the singular; the article may then discuss many such things (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns). The lead is written consonantly.

Secondly, you're not, however, just changing the singular to plural — you're reverting all my edits, including extensive work copy-editing, removing incorrect italics, correcting links, etc. The article is at them moment in appalling English, much of it simply not understandable. Despite your accusation that I'm not letting other editor edit, it's you who are reverting all my work. My change to the past tense was based upon the poor English of the rest of the article, which misled the reader.

Thirdly, there is no possible interpretation of "vandalism" under which my edits could be considered so; wrongly accusing others of vandalism is, however, considered a violation of WP:NPA.

I've raised this at the administrators' noticeboard in order to see what other admins think. I'll also place this article at RfA, as it seems clear that a couple of editors are not prepared to let it be improved. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A "Persianate society" is a society that is based on Persian linguistic, literary and cultural elements. The modern nations Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan are just the modern faces of this culture that had emerged 1400 years ago. The introduction HAS to be more general. Tājik 16:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now, good job! --Rayis 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but Ali has reverted to a previous version. Hmmmm ... Tājik 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he reverted to a version in which, for example, ludicrously poor English such as: "Persianate is another term of Persianization, which is a distinctive culture that flourished for nearly past 14th centuries. Persianate culture is an ecumenical mix of Persian and Islamic, which eventually became a predominant culture of the ruling and elite classes of the Greater Iran , Anatolia and South Asia." has been corrected, and a section which doesn't mention etymology is nevertheless given that title. If editors can't tell the difference between incomprehensibly mangled English and correct English, could they not revert others' edits? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mel here. I think the article has well sourced information but the grammer, coherency and syntax should be improved upon. --alidoostzadeh 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with that. All I did was some copy-edit on the intro which was - in my opinion - not good. I think it has some improvements now, but the rest of the article is still a mess with bad English, hardly to understand. Tājik 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I r.v.'ed back to Mel's version which has definitely improved the grammer and syntax. If you need to change the introduction please do so without removing the improvements made by Mel. --alidoostzadeh 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have already explained, I am totally fine with that. I just did some copy-edit on the intro. Everyone should be happy now ... at least in this case. Some other parts of the article are still a mess and need general copy-edit. Tājik 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Persianate society -> Persianate societies?

Shall we move the article? the sources seem to use that term --Rayis 13:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course sources that talk about societies use the plural. Please read the MoS on naming. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I thought the issue was something else. Persianate Societies sounds more correct. --alidoostzadeh 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns

"Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers)." --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPoV

I've added the {{NPOV}} template as, the more that I read the article, the clearer it becomes that it's mostly a piece of original research. That's not to say that it doesn't include references, as any decent original research should, but it's arguing a one-sided case concerning the struggle between Persian culture and Arab culture, expressed in partisan terms. I think that it can be brought into line with Wikipedia policy without too much difficulty, but I'll continue for the moment just trying to make sense of the English and copy-editing accordingly. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. Do have any suggestions how to improve the article? Thanks. Tājik 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I intend for the moment just to copy-edit the article as and when I can find the time. When I see an obvious PoV problem that I can deal with, I'll do so; it really needs expert eyes on it, though. My College colleagues in this field aren't really Wikipedia types; perhaps the RfC will raise some interest. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I concur. The article seems to be an original research and highly biased. For this reason, better to have the "original reseach" tag, too. Since the article is supposed to be compilation from the sources given, it would take time to check each of the sources. I still doubt that the references really support the arguments given in the article, cause the language of the article also reflects the POV-style. I appreciate the works of the fellow editors but the POV and OR tags are deemed appropriate. Regards. E104421 09:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no OR. I checked the article. The grammer can improve. If users see OR, they should be specific. --alidoostzadeh 03:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's your POV. See Mel's comments above. Even Tajik agreed on this. Regards. E104421 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Mels argument. That was from a week ago but no example was given. I reread the article and I do not see any unsourced references. --alidoostzadeh 03:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Turko-Persian Tradition

This article seems to be devoted to Persian cultural influence on the lands of the Caliphates and its descendent states. Providing a closer look at one specific aspect of the caltural state and developments over huge territories with their individual traditions and historical events, this angle has its independent and complimentary value. Merging "Persianate society" with "Turko-Persian Tradition" would not add anything to the "Turko-Persian Tradition", which already covers, and should cover its Persian component, but will distract the contents outside of the "Persianate society". There were important and valuable influences of the indigenous peoples and their traditions on Turko-Persian societies, religious developments in the individual states under Turko-Persian Tradition, influence of the indigenous cultures on the hybrid Persianate culture, and other aspects that differentiate the Turko-Persian from Persianate and Persian cultures. Do not merge, just clean up gigantomaniac and too jingoistic POVs Barefact 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What influences are you talking about?! Could you maybe name a few?! Could you name Turkic influneces on the Persian societies?!

Fact is: the Turkic peoples had almost no influence on the native Iranian peoples. The reason why some sources speak of a "Turco-Persian society" is simply because for many decades and centuries, Turks and Turkic-speakers were ruler of the Persianate society. This is even mentioned in the article. "Truco-Persian" does not mean a 50-to-50 influence and share of culture. The Turco-Persian tradition was in fact the same society as the traditional Persianate society. It was only ruled by Turks or Turkic-speaking Mongols or Iranians. That's it. These Turkic rulers had no interest in Turkic language, culture, or whatever - not until the emergance of the Anatolian Beyliqs and Timurid Khans. Still, even during these very early days of Turkic national identity, the society was still very Persian. As mentioned by Mir Ali Shir Nava'i, up to the 16th century, almost every Turk in Central Asia knew Persian to a native level, although only a very few Persians found it necessairy to learn Chaghatay Turkic. The influnece of Turkic culture on Persians is virtually zero, while the Persians have significantly influenced and changed the Turkic identity and way of life. Today, Turks in Central Asia and Anatolia identitify themselvs with the Persianate society that already existed way before the Turks came to Iran. But no Iranian identifies himself with the original Turkic culture or identity. Tājik 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I daresay that "Turkic peoples had almost no influence on the native Iranian peoples" is not a "fact" so much as an opinion, if not an ideology. However are you going to establish a claim like that? At best, you can narrow the claim to linguistics, and even there you are looking at a rather non-trivial task. dab (𒁳) 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. [2]. I can quote from the book whose editor's work was taken in the article turko-persian in a copy pase manner: In describing the second great culture of the Islamic world as Perso-Islamic we do not wish to play down the considerable contribution of the Turkish peoples to its military and political success, nor do we wish to suggest that it is particularly the achievement of the great cities of the Iranian plateau. We adopt this term because it seems best to describe that culture raised both by and under the influence of Muslims who used Persian as a major cultural vehicle. ...the Perso-islamic culture was fundamentally the culture of those who ruled(page 105, Francis Robison, Perso-Islamic culture in India from the 17th to the early 20th century). Note the first definition also given by Canfield: the composite Turko-Persian tradition was a variant of Islamic culture. It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic in so far as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite..

Also I will note the article [Turko-Persian tradition] is in copy right violation as I can show you later.. I guess the solution is to simply let both articles stay, but if anything this one should be the main one as it is not in copy right violation and contains more sources and also the term Turko-Persian tradition used in the same article as the above quote was taken (Canfield).. --alidoostzadeh 13:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Ali that both articles should stay. For the copy-vio that's another discussion. In my opion, the article will probably be improved in the future and reflect neutral and sourced information. Regards. E104421 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Y. A. / V. A. Smith quote

Y. A. Smith writes:

“ Both Turki and Persian were spoken at his [Emperor Akbar's] court, but the former tongue in the course of time dropped out of use, while the latter became the recognized official and literary language. The highly Persianized form of [western] Hindi known by the name of Urdu, or the camp language, which developed gradually as a convenient instrument of communication between natives and foreigners, was often almost identical in vocabulary with Persian as spoken in India, while retaining the grammatical structure of an Indian tongue. ”

I moved this quote to the talk page for several reasons:

1. The cited name in the article is Y. A. Smith; however, the reference citation identifies the author as V. A. Smith.
2. Why is this author so notable that the article needs a quote from him/her instead of paraphrasing?

--*momoricks* (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your copy editing. I disagree with removing it. Here is the quote: [[3]].

The book is the best known biography of Akbar. The author's name is Vincent Arthur Smith. I think if you can paraphrase that portion it would be better. Else leave the whole quote there. But the book is referenced and verifiable book, so it should not be removed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the second edition of the book with the same quote [4] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Google search also shows notability [5] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Nepaheshgar. My main reason for moving the quote here was the author name discrepancy. Readers shouldn't have to do extensive research to find the cited source. It should be correctly cited from the beginning. In addition, the article is full of quotes—too many per WP:QUOTE. With no information about why this author is notable it seemed like clutter to me. I don't have full internet access right now and I am not comfortable paraphrasing the quote. I'll leave that up to you or another knowledgable person. --*momoricks* (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

I completed a full copyedit and have identified multiple issues:

• Weasel words: "the earliest great poetry"; "it was only natural for them to express it in lyrical terms"; "One of the most celebrated"; "the most gifted of the Safavid artists"; "the most extraordinary example"
• Original research: the article reads like a term paper or thesis, from the ibid citations to the conclusion section
• POV: "E. J. W. Gibb is the author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series."
• Too many quotations: the Ottomans section is essentially just a collection of quotes, all of which should be paraphrased and cited
• Nonsensical sentences:

"The language that appeared in the 9th and 10th centuries was a new form of Persian, derivative of on the Middle-Persian of pre-Islamic times, but enriched by ample Arabic vocabulary and written in Arabic script"

"The crowning literary achievement in the early New Persian language, Shahnameh (The Book of Kings) compiled by greatest of Iranian epic-poet Ferdowsi, presented his Shahnameh to the court of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1030), was more than a literary achievement; it was a kind of Iranian nationalistic resurrection"

"Mahmud of Ghazni the rivals and future hirers of the Samanids ruled over southeastern extremities of Samanid territories from the city of Ghazni"

• Jargon: "fine artisans intermingled and cross-fertilized"; "sack of Baghdad"; "The bent towards Sufi mysticism"; "and patronized whole 'Men of Pen'"
• Length: it is a bit cumbersome to read (and edit) and may need to be broken up into separate articles

--*momoricks* (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Persianate Studies

there is the Journal of Persianate Studies being published by Brill Publication. I do not want to add it just as an external link. Maybe we create a little section on this? I think we can extract certain stated aims, scope, .. from this journal. The publication house is a highly respected one.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

for example this editorial definition.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Iranica

I can assure you all that the Iranica is a reliable source conforming with WP:RS. Sources to the website should not be removed. It is also notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Just my two cents. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to find many references which do not agree with Iranica. Indeed, iranica in itself is not consistent. So I would ask sources other than Iranica to support the facts in Iranica. Thanks Caglarkoca 16:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

it is a good idea for you to read reviews by the scholars. according to this one, one reviewer of Encyclopaedia Iranica wrote that it “can fairly be compared in scope to the human genome project.”--Xashaiar (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottomans

Ottomans are not Persianate. They have their unique culture, and is only affected from Persian culture linguistically. Otherwise, Ottoman culture is influenced by French, English and Arabic cultures much more than Persian culture. Caglarkoca 23:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Persianate refers to dynasties who either adopted the Persuan culture and language like the Tirmurids, or were linguistically and culturally influenced by Persian culture and language like the Ottomans. It's not nice remove references that say something contrary to your point of view. --Mardavich 08:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I do not trust iranica because it is a reference which contradicts with itself. Next time, I will prove that Iranica is not consistent at all. But you are right to say that I shouldn't have deleted a reference before showing that it is not reliable, hence I will not revert this page until I bring my proofs. Sorry for deleting them without discussing. Thanks Caglarkoca 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Great lie :) persians don't have a culture. They is like Arab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.28.190 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted 2 fist topics/sections (both are Non-NPOV and Biased)

I erased the 2 first sections. because they have no references and based on Non-NPOV on ideology. Both are biased and not historical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorasani-Man (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical Theft of Persians

This article's contents is 100% wrong and has wrote in nationalistic and fascistic form. All turk's heros and dynasties have been shown persian heros and empires. Ottomans and seljuqids were not persian and Afrasiab and al farabi were not persian but all were Turk. Afraasiaab were a Turk Hero and his original Turkic name were Alpertunga (Refer to:Al Kashgari's Diwan) and afraasiaab is not persian name but is muarrab or arabized form of Alpertunga. Ferdowsi, first Persian poet, belived that Turks and Turanians were same(Refer to: Shahnameh of Ferdowsi). Some scholars believed that even Sumerians and Mesopotamia's first civilisations origin were from asianic peoples or Turk related or prototurk peoples, and they derived hundreds similiar prototurkic and Sumerian words; For example Sumerian's god were Tengri and protourks god were Tengring (tangri in todays Turkistan variants or Tanri in Turkish and eastern Turkic languages (refer to Russian scientist Olzhas Suleimenov's AZ-i-IA book or Homel's books)). Persians destroyed middle east most civilisations and after the Achaemenians attacked Mesopotamia, all old civilisations such as babylon, Assyria, Elam ,Akkad and so were cleaned from human history and totly destroyed their culture, their deep civilisation, and killed all their oppressed peoples. This event is known as Purim Genocide in Torah. Greeks referred to persians as berbers and the 300 movie is based on this belief. Old Turks referred to Persians as Tat that its meaning were berber and uncivilised peoples (Refer to: Al Kashgari's Diwan) and Arabs referes as Ajam to Persians in that meaning, even todays. Todays, there are no Persian in world and peoples in Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan that say their selves persian are from mixed race. Persian Iranians that makes max. 25 percent of population of Iran are mostly from Arab, Turk, Greek, Armenian, indian and a little old persian peoples mixing and genetic testing have proved this fact. Tajiks living in Afghanistan and Tjikistan are mostly Turks and Indians that speak persian and genetic testing have proved this fact too. Thus Persian people is a wrong word to refer to that peoples and the correct word is Persian speaking people. 70 percent of todays persian vocabularies are Arabic(mostly entered after Islamic era) and also 10 to 15 percent are Turkic (before and after Islamic era) and Turkic languages, in addition to influencing the vocabularies, affected grammar of persian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmycardiel (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Deranged nonsense. -- Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Persianate society or Turkiate society, which one?

Persianate society is a wrong term and talking about it, is wrong too. But we can talk about Turkiate society because it is actually exist. Examples of non Turk Turkiate societies were the abbasid caliphate, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mughal empire, Russian empire and so, as well as todays Afganistan,Iran, Iraq, Russia, Syria, Kosovo, India, Pakistan, Mongolia and so countries. The term Turk Uluslari is used in Mahmud al-Kashgari's Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk book to refer koreans, tibetans, Mongolians and Japanese that is not turk. Turkiate society can be translation of Turk ulslari or in Arabic: ملل الترکیه that proposed by Al Kashgari (boss of them used in of Dīwānu l-Luġat al-Turk Al Kashgari), but existance of Persianate socity is proposed in 20 or 21th century. Al kashgari in his map of world drew Tibet, Siberia, central Asia and even Japan, China, Korea and Western Russia as belonging to turk or turkic culture. Turkiate culture and civilisation spreaded from about 2000 years ago throughout eurasia, and it was dominant culture of almost all Islamic related dynasties and with Arabic culture formed Islamic culture. It must mentioned that, some scholars believes that presence of prototurk peoples in Middle East goes back to six thousands years ago and Turkiate societies in last two millenniums can be shown such these: Befor Islamic Era: Xiongnu Confederations, Sakas or Scythians, Parthians, Huns, Bulgars,Göktürks, Uyghur Empires, Sassanids(not Turk but Turkiate),Hephthalites,Khazars,Karluks. After Islamic Era: Number of after Islam Turkiate societies can be reached hundreds of societies, but here I only give greate and important Turkiate societies: Kara-Khanids, Abbasid Caliphate,Samanids, Ghaznavids, Graet Seljuk Empire, Ayyubids, Mongol Empire,Ottoman Empire,Ilkhanates, Timurids, Mughal Empire, Fatimids, Safavids, Central Asia Khanates, Qajar dynasty. Even Tengriism has effected various nations and it was the major belief of prototurkic pepoles and ancient Turks and effected budism, Confucianism and Zoroastrianism in ancient times. It focuses around the sky deity Tengri and incorporates elements of shamanism, animism, totemism and ancestor worship. Thus taking about Turkiate Society is better than talking about vague Persianate society. Jimmycardiel (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 (talk)

Turkiate is better and more logical than persianate.92.242.196.226 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.25.186 (talk)

Name me a Turk scholar, scientist, poet and I'll give you 10 Persian ones. You think Persians killed and destroyed? Have you read your Turkish history? Genocide of Armenians? and thats only in modern times, Turkish Empire was known to brutally oppress and destroy everything, you have some nerve calling Persians those things..Greeks and Europeans hate Turks, because Turks invade their lands and killed people, but European, Middle Eastern people love Persians because even though Persia was invaded by Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, and Turks, foreign occupiers found a richer culture in persians than that of their own. Even son of Rumi Sultan Walad one said "God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. Oh ignorant Turk! Give up this idea and undertaking. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks". And now onto your claim that Persians destroyed Mesopotamia, is that why Persians were not resisted when they entered Babylon? Cyrus the Great is noted in the TORAH (BOOK OF JEWS) as a messiah, what the hell are you talking about Purim genocide? Purim is a religious Jewish holy day in the BOOK OF ESTHER which celebrates the freeing of Jews from persecution by Haman's plot to annhilate them. Persian Kings are in the Jewish and Christian holy books, and what about the Turks? They were and still are, considered by many, to be nomadic people, who's history only starts 1000 years after Persia's. The places your referring to were Persian inhabited states and the people there were slaughtered and killed by Turks. There are many, many, many jokes in Iran about Turks, because their known for using their swords and very little for their brains. You dont need to talk about Arabic grammar when Persians helped develop it buddy, don't be teaching Persians something about history and culture when you yourself have none. The stink of jelousy because Iran has such a rich history?

Greater Iran included much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, with cultural influences extending to China, western India, and the Semitic speaking world. Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed.Richard N Frye.

Many Iranians consider their natural sphere of influence to extend beyond Iran's present borders. After all, Iran was once much larger. Portuguese forces seized islands & ports in the 16th & 17th centuries. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire wrested from Tehran's control what is today Armenia, Republic of Azerbaijan, & part of Georgia.

Iranian elementary school texts teach about the Iranian roots not only of cities like Baku, but also cities further north like Derbent in southern Russia. The Shah lost much of his claim to western Afghanistan following the Anglo-Iranian war of 1856-1857. Only in 1970 did a UN sponsored consultation end Iranian claims ...to suzerainty over the Persian Gulf island nation of Bahrain.

In centuries past, Iranian rule once stretched westward into modern Iraq & beyond. When the western world complains of Iranian interference beyond its borders, the Iranian government often convinced itself that it is merely exerting its influence in lands that were once its own. Simultaneously, Iran's losses at the han...ds of outside powers have contributed to a sense of grievance that continues to the present day.

If learning were suspended in the highest parts of Heaven the Persians would attain it. Muhammad

The Persians ruled for a thousand years and didn't need us Arabs for a day, we have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour. Abbasid Caliphate

The name India is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, and from Sanskrit Sindhu. Hindustan, originally a Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” referring to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India. For five centuries prior to the British colonization, Pers...ian was widely used as a second language in the Indian subcontinent.

he word "Punjab" is a combination of the Persian words Pañj پنج (Persian for Five) & Āb آب (Persian for Water), giving the literal meaning of the "Land of Five Rivers". The official language of Punjab remained Persian until the arrival of the British in the mid 19th century. After 1947, Urdu which has Persian & Sanskr...it roots & is written in the Perso-Arabic script, became Pakistan's national language (Zaban-e-Qaum)

"Paradise" (Hebrew פרדס PaRDeS) used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden shares a number of characteristics with words for 'walled orchard garden' or 'enclosed hunting park' in Old Persian. The word "paradise" entered English from an Old Iranian root, attested in Avestan as pairi.daêza. The literal meaning of this East...ern Old Iranian language word is "walled (enclosure)", from pairi "around" + -diz " to create, make" The creation story in Genesis relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush). There are hypotheses that place Eden at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates (northern Mesopotamia), in Iraq (Mesopotamia), Africa, and the Persian Gulf. Nastaʿlīq (also anglicized as Nastaleeq; نستعليق nastaʿlīq) is one of the main script styles used in writing the Arabic alphabet, & traditionally the predominant style in Persian calligraphy. It was developed in Iran in the 14th and 15th centuries by Mir Ali Tabrizi & is the core script of the Persian writing tradition..., & equally important in the areas under its cultural influence. Notably the languages of Afghanistan (Dari, Uzbek, Turkmen, etc.), Pakistan (Punjabi, Urdu, Saraiki, Kashmiri, etc.), India (Urdu, Rekhta), and the Turkic Uyghur language of the Chinese province of Xinjiang, rely on Nastaliq. Under the name Taʿliq, it was also beloved by Ottoman calligraphers who developed the Diwani and Ruqah styles from it. پارسی گو گرچه تازی خوشتر است — عشق را خود صد زبان دیگر است Say all in Persian even if Arabic is better – Love will find its way through all languages on its own. Mowlānā Thus says Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him &strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more: I will go before you levelling the heights. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am Yahweh. Isaiah, in Isaiah 45: 1-3

At the height of its power the empire encompassed approximately 8 million km2.The empire was forged by Cyrus the Great, & spanned three continents, including territories of Iran, Afghanistan & Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, Asia Minor, Thrace, much of the Black Sea coastal regions, Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan..., Israel, Lebanon, Syria & all significant population centers of ancient Egypt as far west as Libya. Arabs no longer understand the role of Iran & the Persian language in the formation of Islamic culture. Perhaps they wish to forget the past, but in so doing they remove the bases of their own spiritual, moral & cultural being. Without the heritage of the past & a healthy respect for it, there is little chance for stab...ility & proper growth. Richard N. Frye And the Persian language, how did it happen? With so much elegance and goodness such that the meanings and elegance that is found in the Persian language is not found in Arabic. Shams-e-Tabrīzī

The first translator of the Qur’an was Salman the Persian سلمان فارسی (one of Muhammad's companions), who translated Fatiha into Farsi during the 7th century. He translated part of the Qur'an into Persian, thus becoming the first person to interpret the Muslim holy scripture into a foreign language. The first complete ...translation of the Qur'an was into Persian during the reign of Samanids in the 9th century.

For millennia Iranians were dominant in a broad region spreading from Anatolia to Uzbekistan, to India, then back along the Persian Gulf to Iraq and Syria. To historically conscious Iranians, Iraq, for example, as been more often an integral part of their country than a foreign state, while much of Afghanistan and what... we call Central Asia has long been a center of Iranian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.218.194 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice Persian/Iranian racist theories about Turks, shows clearly through which mentality this article was created.DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Article suffers heavily from jingoism

What is "Persian culture" in the first place, is there a definition of this? Ancient Iran before 7th century itself was not some kind of "pure Persian" society, it consisted of different ethnic groups and was largely based on the older civilizations of Mesopotamia(Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaic). Today Iran itself is only 50% Persian, with many other Iranic language speaking groups, but in the past itwas probably less. Who or what is considered to be Persian? After the Arab conquest in the 7th century ethnic groups of Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia underwent massive influence of Islam and Arabic language. Their religion, script and language changed. Today Persian still has numerous words of Arabic origin. Most of the names of Iranic inhabitans since 7th century are Arabic for example.

The present article seems to consist of some kind of anti Islam/Arab/Turk thesis, glorifying Ancient Persia, Shia Islam and Persian nationalism by distorting medieval history. There is no reason for so much exaggerated confusing jingoism.

It is not clear what the criteria is for Persianate. Present article seems to be based on the role of Persian poetry notably Shahnameh.

So the reality seems that instead of calling the entire society of different medieval states as Persianate it would be better to make it clear that it actually refers only to the literary development of a small court culture. The spread of medieval Persian literature does not equal to claim an entire different society as Persianate. For example the case of non Iranic speaking areas such as India and Anatolia.

The article needs rewriting and must emphasize that Persianate refers and consists (almost) only of the spread of medieval Persian literary culture, nothing more.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As the article covers, the term includes artistic and musical culture as well, and (as it does not cover to speak of) many other areas of life such as food, clothing, manners and so forth. It is a very well-established term. No doubt your sceptical position is shared by some WP:RS, in which case you should find them & add some opposing views to the article (avoiding competing jingoisms from Azerbaijan etc). WP:OR grumbling is no help here. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No I am not advocating Azerbaijan jingoism or any other. The article does WP:OR itself and manipulates people to believe in this too. The term Persianate refers in the sources to some Islamic dynastic courts who were influenced or used medieval Persian literature, nothing else. This has nothing to do with "Persian" "artistic, musical, food, clothing, manners and so forth". These are not even named, there are no examples. Furthermore there is no definition of what "Persian artistic, musical, food, clothing, manners" is. As I already explained above the culture of the people of Iran was diverse and never static, it dramatically changed throughout the ages. So to speak of a unchanged continuing "Persian" culture during milleniums is jingoism and false.

As an example: Persian miniatures are named ""Persian" because this was how the West called them, Iranians themselves called them simply miniatures, these miniatures have different styles and evolved throughout the centuries, 15th century Timurid miniatures are different than 17th century Safavid miniatures for example. But all these different styles are now lumped together under the wrod "Persian" which suggests some kind of ethnic art. This ethnic renaming of products is very handy for modern nationalists who can use this as a prove of their continuing nation. This is anachronistic because nationalism is a 18th-19th century invention.DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I've added the definition by Marshall Hodgson who coined the term "Persianate," still a neologism, unrecognized by either the OED or Webster's Unabridged, though obviously used by historians, especially those with focus on "World History." I have also removed the gushing prose of Frye from the lead, because it has nothing to do with "Persianate," being only a vanilla glorification of Persian culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete this Article

This Article contains nonsence materials and all of it is like a dream of a person! In all over the Wikipedia I have never seen such a non-scientific article. Deletion of this article can be mor logic than its keeping. Hochvoltag (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"In all over the Wikipedia I have never seen such a non-scientific article." Well then you haven't seen this one yet. BedriIST (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire shouldn't be listed under the sub-header of "Persian-speaking states" because it simply wasn't Persian-speaking. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman....Persianate society

1. 1.06:41, 17 May 2014‎ Kutsuit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,997 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (The Ottoman Empire was not Persian-speaking.

After being reverted, Kutsuit's states;

1. 2.That's not the actual quote. Persian wasn't the official language; it was merely the preferred language of the upper class until it lost its popularity.

• A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, page 182, "In a way, Ottoman resembled Latin as used in medieval or early modern Europe. It supplanted Persian, which had served as the literary language of the cultured upper classes during the first three centuries of the empire."
• Therefore, the Ottoman Empire was Persian speaking. Kutsuit's attempt to mitigate this fact by her second statement is a straw man argument. In no way did I say the Persian language was the official language, simply that the Ottoman empire, even its Sultans used Persian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: her second statement.
Anyway, the sub-header clearly says "Persian-speaking" states. To me, the wording suggests that the state has to be Persian-speaking; ergo, that the official language has to be Persian. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So, your interpretation is that "Persian speaking states" means Persian is the official language. I believe that is called original research. The opening sentence of the article states, "A Persianate society, or Persified society, is a society that is either based on, or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art, and/or identity."

I see no mention of Persian language having to be "official".

• The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, Daniel Goffman, page 64-65, "In the sixteenth century, the culture as well as the institutions of Ottoman governance drifted closer to European standards. The bond deepened despite the fact that the foundations of Ottoman society seemed so Asiatic(Turkoman, Persianate, and Arab)." --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize. I'll revert the article back to how it was. I'm sorry if I caused you any inconvenience. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing subject matter in the "vessels of Persianate culture"

I noticed this article briefly touches on Persian poetry (Sufi poetry), Persian painting, links to Persian music, and mentions Iranian celebrations of Nowruz and Chaharshanbeh-Suri but no mention of traditional Persian theatre, Persian dance or links to the appropriate articles. Was this intentional? Jooojay (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sikh Empire

I've added the Sikh Empire to the examples list. Whilst not officially a Muslim kingdom like the others, there are a lot of features that make it arguably fit the template:

• Persian was the language of administration
• Literature of the Sikh Empire was written in Persian
• Indo-Persian cultural norms (in terms of dress, food, music etc) were dominant
• Islam was very important, Muslims made up a majority of the population and held positions at all levels of society
• The Shahmukhi script, one of three Punjabi scripts, is based on Persian
• Sikh architecture was heavily influenced by Mughal styles

Not exactly sure how to use the source citation function, but most of this information is already on the Sikh Empire page here. 81.147.31.18 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your elaborate opinion regarding as for why it should be added. However, as far as we can see on the Sikh Empire page, as well as in the sources available, Persian was only a court language. The rest of the points mentioned above by you (points which, according to you, should merit for its inclusion on this page) are either not sourced anywhere and/or not verifiable. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Persian as language of the Ottoman Empire

On my own user page I have provided what I believe is ample evidence against the absurd claim of this article that Persian was the official, administrative, or literary language of the Ottoman Empire at any point in its history. Literary Ottoman Turkish was heavily influenced by Persian, it is true, but that does not make it the same thing as Persian, just as the profuse borrowings from Latin and French does not make English a Romance language. I will not bother to argue about removing the Ottomans from this page altogether as I think the whole concept of 'Persianate societies' is absurd, but if you want so badly to have it, then fine, but try at least not to have any glaringly obvious historical errors in it. I want to remove the statement 'At the end of the 17th century, they gave up Persian as the court and administrative language, using Turkish instead; a decision that shocked the highly Persianized Mughals in India', but the user Kansas Bear keeps restoring it. As I said, see my user talk page for references to the contrary.

128.232.251.99 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"A Persianate society, or Persified society, is a society that is based on or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art and/or identity."

Sources for the Ottomans usage of Persian, both in bureacratic, literature(historical), poetry, etc.

• "Ironically while Persian had become the Ottoman court language...." -- The Western Christian Presence in the Russias and Qājār Persia, c.1760–c.1870, by Thomas O Flynn, page 30.

• "The use of Persian as the language of high culture linked the various imperial courts of the Muslim lands, Ottoman, Safavi..." -- The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516–1918: A Social and Cultural History, by Bruce Masters, page 107. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• M. Sukru Hanioglu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, page 35, "In a way, Ottoman resembled Latin as used in medieval or early modern Europe. It supplanted Persian, which had served as the literary language of the cultured upper classes during the first three centuries of the empire."
• Culture and Learning in Islam, edited by Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, page 54, "In later periods, Persian was in current use in the Ottoman Empire amongst men-of-letters and in courts."
• Turko-Persian in Historical Perspective, by Robert L. Canfield, page 19;"The empires that arose in the sixteenth century were the Ottomans in Asia Minor, the Safavids in Iran..[..] Unlike Iran they gradually shed some of their Persianate qualities: they were the first of the gunpowder empires to give up Persian as the court language, using instead Turkish..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And your quote from Cambridge History of Turkey is take from this chapter:The literature of Rum: The making of a literary tradition (1450–1600), which oddly you have seemed to miss:

• "Arabic was established early in the Muslim courts of Rum as the language of sciences, and Persian was defined as the language of literature; both were employed for bureaucratic purposes. Until the earlier decades of the fifteenth century, the Rum elite were ambivalent about employing Turkish in their works....", page 558.
• "However paradoxical it may seem, the development of a high literary version of written Turkish by the bureaucrats along with the reformation of education institutions entailed the advancement of learning in Arabic and Persian during the reigns of Murad II and, especially, his son Mehmed II.", page 558. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2, page 434, "Ottoman visions of social order and politics draw heavily on the Persianate tradition of manuals of statecraft.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that every edit made by the IP has removed references and referenced information:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
  

Along with a personal attack, " If you are going to be chauvinistic at least use proper sources.". In response, I have quoted the Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol 2, seven times, which prove that Persian was used by the Ottomans in their bureaucracy, personal learning, and statecraft.
I have yet to see anything that refutes the references currently in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

More:

• Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2, page 435;"..and specifically Ottoman, understanding of social order and government, with Kinalizade Ali's Ahlak-i Alai as its most important representative. Once again, this literature builds on Persianate models..."
• Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2, page 488;"Interest in illustrated manuscripts of Persian literary works continued into the reign of Bayezid II..[...]..where Persianate iconography and visual norms representational choices specific to the Ottoman court were often deployed together."
• Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2, page 491;"The words Sukri-i Bidlisi put into Selim's mouth highlight the acutal and perceived dominance of Persianate cultural forms in the Ottoman courtly milieu of these decades..."
• Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2, 498;"Thus the manuscript attests to the enthusiastic embrace of the books arts of the Persianate world on the part of Ottoman designers and audiences who over the decades maintained a dialogue with this tradition." --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You are deflecting the real issue here. The sentence in question in this article is not about the influence or usage of Persian language in Ottoman arts, it is the use of Persian as the official court language. You are quoting many sources, none of which confirm your case that Persian was the official court language of the Ottoman Empire 'until the 17th century'. The quote you yourself give from the Cambridge History says it was abandoned in the 15th century, the other quotes are about the abandonment of Persian or about its use in literature. What part of this is difficult to understand?131.111.185.66 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh no.

• "On my own user page I have provided what I believe is ample evidence against the absurd claim of this article that Persian was the official, administrative, or literary language of the Ottoman Empire at any point in its history." - IP128.232.251.99
  

and,

• "A Persianate society, or Persified society, is a society that is based on or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art and/or identity." -- Persianate article
  

So now, you start moving goalposts(ie. deflecting) to cover your inept ability to push your anti-Persian POV since the book you thought would solve your problems, uses the same term in the same aspects as the Persianate article!
Can't read?
Court & Administrative language:

• "Persian was defined as the language of literature; both were employed for bureaucratic purposes.
  

What does bureaucratic purposes mean?

• Turko-Persian in Historical Perspective, by Robert L. Canfield, page 19;"The empires that arose in the sixteenth century were the Ottomans in Asia Minor, the Safavids in Iran..[..] Unlike Iran they gradually shed some of their Persianate qualities: they were the first of the gunpowder empires to give up Persian as the court language, using instead Turkish..."
• "Ottoman visions of social order and politics draw heavily on the Persianate tradition of manuals of statecraft.".
• Culture and Learning in Islam, edited by Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, page 54, "In later periods, Persian was in current use in the Ottoman Empire amongst men-of-letters and in courts."
• "Ironically while Persian had become the Ottoman court language...."
  
• "The use of Persian as the language of high culture linked the various imperial courts of the Muslim lands, Ottoman, Safavi..."

Literary language:

• "The words Sukri-i Bidlisi put into Selim's mouth highlight the acutal and perceived dominance of Persianate cultural forms in the Ottoman courtly milieu of these decades..."
• Culture and Learning in Islam, edited by Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, page 54, "In later periods, Persian was in current use in the Ottoman Empire amongst men-of-letters and in courts."
• Turkish Language, Literature, and History, edited by Bill Hickman, Gary Leiser, page 226;"The Persian poems of the Ottoman Sultan Selim I specifically drew his interest...."
• Depicting the Late Ottoman Empire in Turkish Autobiographies, by Philipp Wirtz, [9], "The appraisal of the Persian language expressed in these two examples of educational narratives is not surprising, as it reflects the continuing value Persian had in high Ottoman culture..[..].Persian in manifestations such as the divan literature, had been part of an Ottoman upper-class culture, since the early time of the empire..."
• Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide, Page 286, Peter Bakker, ‎Yaron Matras, "Ottoman-Turkish poetry was essentially modelled on Persian poetry in style, diction, and meter, only slightly adapted.. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is you who are deflecting and misleading people. I stand by all that I said; it is your inability to see beyond the mentions of Persian language to the rest of the very sentences you quote that is causing this debate to drag on. You quote:

"Persian was defined as the language of literature; both were employed for bureaucratic purposes."

whereas the full quote, given by yourself earlier, is:

"Arabic was established early in the Muslim courts of Rum as the language of sciences, and Persian was defined as the language of literature; both were employed for bureaucratic purposes."

'Early in the Muslim courts of Rum'. The Turks entered Anatolia in 1071. The first 'Muslim court of Rum' was that of the Seljukids, and nobody is disputing that Persian was their artistic, literary etc. language. This quote itself says nothing about Persian as an administrative language in the Ottoman Empire. Clues as to whether it was or not is to be found in the other quotes which I have provided. To wit:

"Still, unlike many Turks brought under the Persian spell, the Ottomans did not adopt the Irani tongue as the language of their court and literature; on the contrary, they retained as such their native Tatar dialect, but embellished with every beauty that the Persian speech could lend" (from Gibb)

All the other quotes which you have littered this page with have to do with the use of Persian as a literary language. I never denied that Persian was one of the languages in which literary production occurred in the Ottoman Empire, even though the primary language of expression was Ottoman Turkish. Let's examine them one by one:

"However paradoxical it may seem, the development of a high literary version of written Turkish by the bureaucrats along with the reformation of education institutions entailed the advancement of learning in Arabic and Persian during the reigns of Murad II and, especially, his son Mehmed II."

How do you understand this to mean that Persian and Arabic were official languages? Sure, the Ottomans studied these two languages intensely, just as the English studied Greek and Latin in school and made allusions to classical literature, even composed works in these languages. What this quote is revealing is 'the development of a high literary version of written Turkish by the bureaucrats', which, to repeat myself once again for your sake, tells us in plain language that the bureaucracy used TURKISH.

"Ottoman visions of social order and politics draw heavily on the Persianate tradition of manuals of statecraft." This quote has nothing to do with my original point, which pertains to the use of Persian as administrative language, not on the influence of Persian culture on high Ottoman culture. I am not moving goalposts, my request was to remove a faulty quote which you are deliberately misinterpreting to set up a strawman argument, which you try to demolish with references bearing no relevance to what I have actually been arguing so far.

"..and specifically Ottoman, understanding of social order and government, with Kinalizade Ali's Ahlak-i Alai as its most important representative. Once again, this literature builds on Persianate models..." building on Persian models (in literature no less)=/=using Persian as administrative language (or even literary language). I would pull up some quotes about the difference between form and content, but I can't be bothered, so you can educate yourself on this in your free time.

"The words Sukri-i Bidlisi put into Selim's mouth highlight the acutal and perceived dominance of Persianate cultural forms in the Ottoman courtly milieu of these decades..." Ditto.

"Interest in illustrated manuscripts of Persian literary works continued into the reign of Bayezid II..[...]..where Persianate iconography and visual norms representational choices specific to the Ottoman court were often deployed together." I am tired of repeating but nothing to do here with writing in Persian. In my free time I like to browse Japanese woodprints and translations of haiku. That does not mean I use Japanese in my everyday life.

"Thus the manuscript attests to the enthusiastic embrace of the books arts of the Persianate world on the part of Ottoman designers and audiences who over the decades maintained a dialogue with this tradition." I would never deny that Ottoman high culture 'maintained a dialogue with the Persian tradition'. I am not sure what relevance this has to what I have been writing all along.

"The empires that arose in the sixteenth century were the Ottomans in Asia Minor, the Safavids in Iran..[..] Unlike Iran they gradually shed some of their Persianate qualities: they were the first of the gunpowder empires to give up Persian as the court language, using instead Turkish..." This is supposed to support your point how? It is saying that the Ottomans gave up Persian as a court language. Giving up does not really imply the Ottomans ever having used it, as in the context of the history of Turkish empires in Anatolia it is probably referring to the Seljukids as part of a continued tradition. But even if we accept that they ever did use Persian as an official language, how do you arrive at the conclusion that they did so until the 17th century? I have provided sources that say they began using Turkish in the 15th century. The burden of proving that they used Persian before that is on you, but this quote says nothing to that effect. It merely says that the Ottoman Empire rose in the sixteenth century, an after an elision of we don't know how many sentences or even pages, it says the Ottoman gave up Persian as a court language. If you read this quote to mean that the Ottomans gave up Persian at the same time that they began to 'rise', ie. in the sixteenth century, you really are not justified in doing that, because there is nothing on or between the lines that signals this. And even if there was, it would gainsay the claim in this article that the Ottomans gave up Persian as a court language in the 17th century, which has been what I am arguing against all along.

And, finally, let us look at the only quote among the many you have provided, which may with any modicum of reason be interpreted to falsify my claims, that:

"Ironically while Persian had become the Ottoman court language...." -- The Western Christian Presence in the Russias and Qājār Persia, c.1760–c.1870, by Thomas O Flynn, page 30.

I have found this book online, and I must say it is very informative indeed, not only about its ostensible subject of discussion but also about the sort of strategy you have presumably been using to support your argument heretofore. The full sentence of this quote it: "Ironically while Persian had become the Ottoman court language, Turkish was adopted as the official court language in Isfahan."

At the end of the sentence there is a footnote, which reads:

"Osmanli Turkish became the chief speech of European and Asiatic Turkey, and the official language of the Turkish Empire. It differs from other Turkish dialects mainly in its considerable use of Persian and Arabic vocabulary terms, especially in jurisprudence and theology."

Therefore it should be obvious, unless one is blinded by the anxiety of upholding a hopeless argument which one knows is crumbling at the very foundations, that the author is making a distinction between court language ie. language used by a portion of the elite for the purposes of literary composition, and official language which is used in official and bureaucratic matter, which AGAIN, it has been my point all along to prove was Ottoman Turkish. I have not denied that Persian was used for literary composition with more or less frequency during certain periods, but it was always secondary to Ottoman Turkish. The reign of Selim, which is what is being discussed in this passage, was one where poetic composition in Persian was in vogue, but as I have quoted before, the dominant language of literature too was Ottoman Turkish.

To conclude, I must say I regret wasting so much time trying to prove something which you did not bring any coherent evidence or argument to gainsay. Instead, you just drew up a great number of quotes concerning the influence of Persian culture on the Ottoman high culture, and the sporadic use of Persian in literature (alongside and never displacing Ottoman Turkish), which from the very beginning of my argument here I never denied. I object to the use of the term 'Persianate society' as a historical paradigm, but that is a larger issue to tackle and I have not attempted to do so here. My goal was to have removed the sentence in the article which claimed that the Ottomans gave up Persian as an administrative language in the 17th century. The quote is still there, but I believe have made my case. I will not bother to keep up this discussion anymore as it is scarcely worth that name; when someone else besides yourself directs their attention to this talk page, they can be the judge of who is in the right. For now, enjoy having the run of your little Persianate reverie. All the best. 128.232.251.99 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This coming from the "person" that couldn't read the very book they cited their "so-called" information. This very book which is inundated with the word Persianate, which you couldn't seem to find. Yeah, all the best. You will need it!

Oh, I am not required to answer any of your "requests", I am simply proving what the article already stated, "At the end of the 17th century, they[Ottomans] gave up Persian as the court and administrative language, using Turkish instead; a decision that shocked the highly Persianized Mughals in India." & "The Ottoman Sultan Suleyman wrote an entire divan in Persian language.".

And I have proven that the Ottoman Empire used Persian as a court language and administrative language, AND proven that it was used as a literary language.

Typical of self-inflated egos, to think I was responding to "your" requests. LMAO

• "But even if we accept that they ever did use Persian as an official language, how do you arrive at the conclusion that they did so until the 17th century?"

This is the strawman(created by you), no where in this article does it state Persian was the official language of the Ottoman Empire. Court and literary, yes, official, no. Pity you can't read the article, guess that pesky bias of yours is tripping you up again! Same one that kept you from reading Chapter 12 of the Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 2.

• "The quote is still there, but I believe have made my case."

That you do not read your own source(s) or the article in question, and have absolutely no idea about Persian and its usage by the Ottoman Empire, got it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persianate society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205073939/http://bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ti/Timurids.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109191214/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sasanian_dyn_20050301.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sasanian_dyn_20050301.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Abu Sahl Testari

Can the writer of this article to enlighten me of the name cited in the Subject? I could not find it in the Net.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasYehYeh (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman "pashalyq" of Buda

I am now trying to translate the English version into traditional Chinese, but I have trouble in making out the meaning of "pashalyq", the word appears in the excerpt of Toynbee's work in A study of History.

I would guess the word could be "Budapest" in Hungary.

Would the writer help enlighten me of this?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasYehYeh (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)