Talk:Turco-Persian tradition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inappropriate use of tags

You don't know what the tag is used for I am afraid, and calling me disruptive and rude for pointing it out is extremely unfair. Did you read this Wikipedia:POV check? I don't think you have. The policy says "The POV check template, {{POV-check|date=December 2007}} , may be added to an article which you feel may need to be edited to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Add the template at the top of the article, and then explain your reasons on the talk page of the article that needs checking (not the talk pages of the template or this article)."

Don't worry, I am extremely well aware of how Wikipedia works, and I couldn't see anything in the talk page. There needs to be a detailed explanation of the disagreements, otherwise such placement of template is what is disruptive. I hope that you will agree with this? That template as is was used for harrassment of the article instead of some legitimate encyclopedic behavior. Tags without explanations, or talk pages without discussions are grounds for the immediate removal of such tags. Please keep that in mind. Baristarim 06:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-check

I've have nominated this article to be chcked for its neutrality, since it's entirely based one a single source. Stop removing the POV check tag. --Mardavich 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And now you write the note. ha ha ha. How about apologizing for having called me "rude and disruptive" when I was just following wiki policy on tags? That would be nice.Baristarim 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone Baris, read WP:Civility. Please revert your last edit, and restore the tag. Thanks for restoring the tag. --Mardavich 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I replaced it with a "POV" tag per POV check tag policy. that tag cannot be used for neutrality disputes. But that tag won't stay there forever either. Please raise your specific objections, otherwise it will also be removed eventually. Baristarim 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What tone? It was you who called me "disruptive and rude" to begin with, right? What do you want me to say since you don't even accept the fact that I was right per wiki policy on pov check tag guidelines.. I also don't appreciate being called "rude and disruptive" just because I was following wiki policy. Please keep that in mind as well. Baristarim 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry if I came across as rude... Baristarim 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, please revert your last edit, and restore the "POV check" tag. I am not disputing the neutrality, I am asking other editors to double check the neutrality since the article is entirely based on a single source. I'm acting according to the Wikipedia:POV check which states : "The POV check template is intended for articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed" --Mardavich 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said the article can be a good article. But it needs major overhaul in grammer and composition. Also I have ordered the main source for the article so until then the tag should stay. This way Mardavich can be satisfied about the accuracy of the content. We can double check it and then move forward. Also I suggest we change the article to Turko-Iranian interactions. The reason is that Soghdians had a big influence on Turkic people. --alidoostzadeh 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tradition sounds better I suppose. As for Persian/Iranian, we can worry about that later. Baristarim 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is totally biased and uses only ONE single book (!) as a reference. It claims societies as "Turco-Persian" that were either not Turkic (Ghaznavids, Mughals, etc) or not Persian (Qarakhanids). It totally contradicts articles of Iranica and EI, and is biased toward a Turkish view of history. Only the title Turkic suprimacy for the Ghaznavid era is pure POV, because the Ghaznavids neither considered themselvs Turks, nor promoted any Turkish nationalism, language, or culture. Besides that, a culture does not become "Turkic" or "Persian" only because some ruler belongs to one of these groups. The present president of Israel is an ethnic Persian, he even speaks Persian at home and owns a Persian radio-station in Israel. But this does not mean that Israel is a "Perso-Jewish state"! The early Turks were a tiny minority in a vast empire, and their original Turkic background had NO influence on the established traditions of the conquered lands! Neither Mongol nor Turkic cultures had any signifcant influence on Islamic culture - they themselvs were assimilated into that culture. The Islamic culture is a continuiation of many cultures that started in Elam. It was conquered by the Persians who were assimilated into that culture (which means that the so-called Persianate culture does not have a Persian origin). It reached the Sassanids via the previous Persian dynasties. After it's conquest by the Arabs, it was Islamized in religion, but not in culture - the Arabic rulers were assimilated into that culture. And again, when the Turks and Mongols arrived, they had NO influence on this ancient culture. The Turco-Persian culture is ONLY the dual-culture of the Timurid era, and to some extent the society of Safavid-Persia. It means that the society was splitted into two equally strong and influential groups: Persians and Turkics. All previous dynasties - from Ghaznavids to Seljuqs - were NOT Turkic in culture or identity. They had no interest in their "Turkishness" (as a total contrast to Mir Ali Sher Nava'i's Turkic nationalism), they had no interest in Turkic languages (the Ghaznavids were the patrons of Persia's anti-Arab and anti-Turkic national epic Shahnameh), and they had no interest in any Turkic identity (as attested by archiological discoveries in Afghanistan, medieval works of the Ghaznavid era, linking the Ghaznavids to the legendary Indo-Iranian past of the region). A good article needs to be neutral ... this one is not! Tājik 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

other sources

Extract from Iranica:

... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. ... The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. ... The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin ... [1]

I would not call that "Turko-Persian tradition"!

Even more interesting:

“ ... Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ud (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahmud), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim ghāzīs and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past (see Bombaci). ... ”

Another article of the Iranica states:

“ ... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ... [2] ”

Tājik 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

claim that "Mughals were Turks"

(copied from Talk:Turkic peoples)

Claiming that the Mughals were a Turkic people, and mentioning some odd Turkish name given to them (Babür İmparatorluğu, a name that does not appear in ANY historical or scholarly sources), is pure POV.

The Mughals were neither Turks in ethnicity (they were originally Mongols, descening from the Timurid and other Chingizid families of Central Asia --> Berlas Mongols), nor in language (starting with Humayun, they were certainly and evidently Persian-speakers; Akbar did not even know Chaghatay - he had to translate his grandfather's memos into Persian to read them! Later, the Mughals were evidently Urdu speaking!)

I do not know why certain users keep putting that POV paragraph into the article. They claim that it is sourced ... but not all sources are good. Why do they ignore the whole bunch of other, mostly authoritative sources (such as the works of Prof. B.F. Manz, THE leading expert on Timurid and Turco-Mongol history; see: B.F. Manz, "Tīmūr Lang", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006)?! They only stick to certain versions of the Britannica ... only those that suite them. They totally ignore other sections of Britannica that actually have a totally different opinion on the issue. For example this one:

• "... Baber: The first Mughal, or Mongol, emperor of India (1526–30) and founder of the Mughal Dynasty there was Baber. He also won distinction as a military commander, a gifted poet and diarist, a statesman, and an adventurer. As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lang ..." [3]

The Columbia Encyclopedia states:

• "... Timur (timoor') or Tamerlane (tăm'urlān), c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. ..." [4]

• "... Akbar (ăk'bär) [key], 1542–1605, Mughal emperor of India (1556–1605); son of Humayun, grandson of Babur. ... Although he was himself illiterate, Akbar's courts at Delhi, Agra, and Fatehpur Sikri were centers of the arts, letters, and learning. He was much impressed with Persian culture, and because of him the later Mughal empire bore an indelible Persian stamp. ..."[5]

One of the most important and strongest sources - only second to Prof. B.F. Manz's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam - is the article of Prof. F. Lehmann in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Referring to Babur, he states:

• "... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ..." PDF download

The paragraph about the Mughals should be removed. Even IF some people believe that they should be listed, only because their FIRST ruler (Babur) wrote his memoires in Turkic, the paragraph should be removed because it's controversial. Memoires do not prove anything, especially in regard of the fact that Humayun's biography is written in Persian (by his sister Gulbadan Begum), and that Shah Bahadur II is known as one of the greatest Urdu poets!

There are no historical documents porving the claim that the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... NONE of the official state-documents of the empire was in ANY Turkic language, NONE of the ruling kings is known as a Turkic writer, nationalists, or whatever. If someone disputes these facts, he should provide reliable sources!

In no way the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... neither in origin, nor in ethnicity, culture, language, or influence.

Tājik 02:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

References

The article is well-sourced. If you check the references, you'll see that the authours of these works are famous historians. These works are published by world wide recognized places such as Cambridge University Press, Columbia University Press, University of Chicago Press, Barnes and Noble ... These are very strong reliable sources. If the information given here is not paralel to iranica, this might indicate that the iranica favours and publishes the articles suitable for the iranian/persian pov. In the article, there are also references to Richard Nelson Frye, Marshall Hodgson, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Ishtiaq Ahmed, and Ehsan Yarshater. Iranica published some works of F.N. Frye but maybe neglegted these cited in this article. If you disregard his work here, and favour the one in iranica, this is a contradiction. Maybe this is just because the iranica selects among the papers of F.N. Frye which is suitable to iranian pov and ignoring or disregarding the others. From now on, perhaps, better to rely on sources other than iranica in order to reflect NPOV. Regards. E104421 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

All these names have written for Iranica. If the article is well-sourced then stop deleting random quotes from it like Ibrahim Tek-Alp did. And do not worry I will get the book soon and will double check each line. --alidoostzadeh 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali, i did not delete anything but put back the deleted references and the wikifications. You're reverting blindly. After doing the your edit provide the references and do not remove the wikifications and refereces of previous editions. These wikifications take 15 mins. Please, respect the fellow editors. I prefer to discuss the issue, rather than putting back all the previous edits all the time. Regards. E104421 13:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is totally useless to try to have a constructive discussion with E104421, because he still calls the Encyclopaedia Iranica - a work which is being written by more than 400 scholars world wide (only a tiny minority is Persian or Afghan), and which is being funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities - Persian POV. He was even advised by [[User:Sikandarji] to have at least a look at the long list of authors of this great encyclopedia [6] ... but E104421 stubbornly ignores this.

In the article Xionites, he once again removed the reference to Iranica and instead replaced it with a bunch of non-name internet-sites.

And in this case, I totally support User:Sikandarji's opinion on E104421: it does not speak well for his neutrality [7].

Tājik 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll provide examples from iranica. Check the Chionites [8], Hephtalites [9], Sassanids [10] articles for the Chionites from iranica. You'll see all differs. For the Chionites, the CHIONITES article says "a tribe of probable Iranian origin", HEPHTHALITES articles says "the second wave of "Hunnish" tribal invaders", SASANIAN DYNASTY article says "a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia". Then what should we do? Should we rely on iranica as a holy reference or search for other references? That's not my fault. Iranica does not seem to me a reliable source, although Sikandarji told me so. Regards. E104421 19:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

E104421, for your information, the Iranica's editors are the most respected western scholars of oriental studies, and the vast majority are American, not Iranian. Also, the founder of Iranica, Ehsan Yarshater, is an Iranian TURK, so I really don't understand what your point is. --Mardavich 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mardavich, read carefully what i wrote above. The entries in iranica contradict to each other. Ehsan Yarshater is cited in the article. Regards. E104421 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

@ E: you are using Iranica in a wrong context. Your deffinition of the term Hun is not that of Iranica. This is what Iranica means with Huns or Hunnish:

• "... The term "Huns" was also used for several tribes who posed a continuous threat to northeastern Iran and northwestern India from the 4th century C.E. Earlier research attempted to establish a connection between the different tribes mentioned in the sources, and to consider them all as Hephthalites (cf. Ghirshman, pp. 69-134). Altheim (III, 1961, p. 7) viewed the Hephthalites as the original tribe of the Huns, from which the European Huns had split off. In addition, he also assumed a Turkish origin for all these tribes (Altheim, I, 1959, pp. 45 ff.). However, this far too simplistic perspective has been succeeded by a more discriminating view based on Robert Göbl's research. According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46). ..." [11]

Tājik 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Got the book

Okay I got the book and will see what the book says.. I think any edits should be discussed here with relavent sources and then we put it in? What do you guys think? --alidoostzadeh 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Tājik 18:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  Alright. E104421 10:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I read the article Turko-Persian tradition article in the book (it is not too long just 34 pages and some maps too). The current article has cut and pasted almost every sentence from there (which I do not think is proper ay of writing articles in Wikipedia) and left out some very crucial quotes. For example what are the components of what makes Turko-Persian traditions. I think we need proper wikipedia quotes. I might be able to scan the article and send it to both of you to read it as well. So if you want it send me an email and I'll get to you.

As per the Hephtalies in the Richard Frye article of the book, he writes that their origin although obscure, he believes they were mainly of Iranian component with some Turkish elites and admixture. Thus that is why you might get different opinions from scholars. --alidoostzadeh 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, reading helps to eradicate ignorance and racism that breeds on it. And for Tājik I would suggest Bamber Gascoigne "The Great Moghuls", 1971, ISBN 06-011467-3, it is a great reading, and a great education, very enjoyable. No offence, we all benefit when we know what we are talking about. Barefact 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I have read enough about the Mughals, including the original German print of H. Goetz' "Geschichte Indiens" ("History of India"), 1962, ISBN 3170880144. Direct quote (p. 159):

“ ... Bis 1562 war das Leben am Moghulhofe rein persisch-türkisch gewesen. Man kleidete sich persisch, hatte persische Hofmaler im Dienste, schrieb persische und türkische Gedichte, baute in dem persischen Stil mit Wänden aus buntglasierten Kacheln und Zwiebelkuppeln. Während der nächsten zehn Jahre mischte sich damit immer mehr die Tradition der indischen Mohammedaner. Und während Akbars letzten 35 Jahren entstand eine hindu-mohammedanische Mischkultur ... Die Hofsprache blieb Persisch, aber in dieser wurden auch Hindu-Themen gefeiert, wie etwa der Opfertod der schönen Rupmati (...) oder der einer Sati (...) ”

Does anyone need a translation? Once again: the Mughals were not Turks, they did not speak any Turkic language, they had no Turkic identity, and they had no interest in any kind of "Turkishness" ... whatever that might be. Tājik 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my suggestion, I only wanted to be helpful. The choice is yours :). Barefact 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

The term Turko-Persian Tradition does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.

To Barefact: All the reference used for creating this article are referring to the the Turko-Persia concept, and not Turko Persian Tradition.. The term Turko-Persian Tradition is bogus. Surena 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You can just put the article up for deletion by taking the proper steps and creating a deletion page, etc.. etc..Azerbaijani 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Azerbaijani. Thanks for the advise - I already have included the deletion heading, but it was removed later by User:Barefact, who originally created the article in the first place. Surena 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the term describes Turks who supported Persian culture. The Turko-Persian tradition is Persian in culture and Turkish in military. This is stated in the main source which the article was based on. I think by clarifying this term, there shouldn't be too much problem with the article. I'll clarify it soon from that source. --alidoostzadeh 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This term is a Wikipedian hoax, and is a campaign by Pan-Turkists here to falsify and replace the internationally, and scholarly known term of Persianate with this nonsensical and fictitious term. Until now they were quite successful to create these two entries (Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition) and unfortunately many Wikipedians have innocently fallen to their trap and contributed without realizing that the term is a recent invention. Surena 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ali. The term "Turco-Persian" (the correct spelling is with a "c") does exist, even Iranica uses it (see the article "Safawid dynasty"), so does the EI. However, "Turco-Persian" is not much different from "Persianate". That's also the reason why I put the "neutrality" tag into the article. The "Turco-Persian" society was a not a dual culture, ruled by two seperate and equal groups ... it was still a fully Persianate culture, except that the rulers were mostly Turks or Turkic-speaking Mongols (who - in some literature - are also wrongly discribed as "Turks"). Tājik 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tajik -- The Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as Encyclopaedia of Islam both are referring to Turco-Persia and not Persian – Turco-Persia/Turko-Persia is a reference to a border-dispute between Iran and Ottomans, and that is nothing to do with this entry as cultural entity. Surena 10:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: This article should be deleted. What the article suggests, does not exist. (ArmanJan 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

I removed the deletion survey since an AfD about this was just closed this morning, and that's not how deletion process works... Deletions are not decided in the talk pages of articles. Thanks Baristarim 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the reading I have done, and I can post several quotes, the invading Turkic armies adopted Iranian customs and culture. Infact, they even left administration purposes to the Iranians. I dont know where the term "Turko-Persian" Tradition comes from, because even the Ottomans adopted the Persian language for their own cultural language, which suggests that Turkic culture was not mixed with Iranian culture, but rather seperate, and that Iranian culture was preferred. Again, I do not know where the term "Turko-Persian Tradition" comes from and it seems very misleading. I have heard of the term "Turko-Persian Empires" before, but never of this term. Also, it should be said that not even the term Islamic culture is valid, because most, if not all, of Islamic culture is basically practices adopted from Iran after the Arabs conquered it. With this said, I'm not saying that Turkic peoples did not leave their traces, because of course they did, this is evident by the Turkic dialects spoke in the Middle East today, however, if we are speaking of culture and tradition, there was only one that was adopted by most peoples, and those were Iranian, from Abbasid Arabs, to the Turkic tribes, to the Mongols.Azerbaijani 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The rule of the Persianate Il-Khans, Timurids, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, Ottomans and - to some extent - Safavids, was certainly Turco-Persian. Unlike previous Persianate states, these ones were heavily influenced either by old Turkic-Mongol traditions (for example Shamanism - see Timur!) or language (all of these dynasties were Turkic in language, meaning that a Turkic language was the house language of the ruling family).

It has nothing to do with culture, because there is not really a "Turkic culture" in modern times. "Turkic culture" is just another version of the Islamic Persianate culture.

I am against deleting the article. However, it should be clear that Turco-Persian is just one modified version of Persianate, and that Persian language and high culture remained the most dominant element of it.

Tājik 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So merge with Persianate?Azerbaijani 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm ... I do not know. The term Turco-Persian needs a proper explanation and definition, no matter if the articles are merged or not. Tājik 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the Turco Persian Tradition article we are talking about, not the Turco Persian article.Azerbaijani 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarifcation. Okay the original user who wrote the article just copy and pasted mainly from one article. Let me bring this relavent portion which I think should clarify this term: This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was "Persianate" in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry; and it was "Islamicate" 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 (Hodgson 1974 i:58). (pg 12, : The Turko-Persian Tradition, Robert L. Canfield). Thus the term is not pan-turkist but it clarifies that the culture was Persianate and the rulers and patronizers were Turkic. --alidoostzadeh 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the term itself is not "Pan-Turkist" ... but the current article has a strong shift toward Pan-Turkist phantasies (although I have already corrected many mistakes and false claims, for example the claim that "Ghaznavid school were predominantly filled with Turkic youths").

Here is another source:

• "... Not only did the inhabitants of Khurasan not succumb to the language of the nomadic invaders, but they imposed their own tongue on them. The region could even assimilate the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks (eleventh and twelfth centuries), the Timurids (fourteenth–fifteenth centuries), and the Qajars (nineteenth–twentieth centuries) ..." -from: F. Daftary, Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khorasan, and Trasoxania during Umayyad and Early Abbasid Times, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 4, pt. 1; edited by M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth; UNESCO Publishing, Institute of Ismaili Studies

Tājik 13:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true. --alidoostzadeh 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Okay the original user who wrote the article just copy and pasted mainly from one article which has used the term alot. Let me bring this relavent portion which I think should clarify this term from the same article: This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was "Persianate" in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry; and it was "Islamicate" 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 (Hodgson 1974 i:58). (pg 12, : The Turko-Persian Tradition, Robert L. Canfield). Thus the term is not pan-turkist or pan anything, but it clarifies that the culture was Persianate and the rulers and patronizers were Turkic. (Ghaznavids, Seljuqids, Moghuls of India..etc.). --alidoostzadeh 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is enough to have the article merged with Persianate, since that is obviously the correct term.Azerbaijani 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali; Thanks for the inputs -- I believe Canfield does not have any book titled The Turko-Persian Tradition, do you mean Turko-Persia in historical perspective? However, as you stated: ...Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was "Persianate"....", and that is my point - the term of Turko-Persian as an independent term is non-existent - the culture and tradition is academically and scholarly being known as Persianate. The term Persianate simply means: "...Persianate culture is an ecumenical mix of Persian and Islamic cultures, which eventually became a predominant culture of the ruling and elite classes of the Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Anatolia, Persian Gulf states, and South Asia. PS. I agree with Azerbaijani to merge the article with Persiante. Surena 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry, it is Turko-Persia and the name of the article is Turko-Persian tradition. I agree that there is much overlap with this and Persianate since culturally they define the same thing culturally. I can send the article to anyone who wishes to read it. --alidoostzadeh 08:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So whats the hold up, lets merge.Azerbaijani 18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is a concensus? I purpose we put the Turko-Persian political tradition as part of Persianate culture (Turkish military dynasties supporting Perso-Islamic culture), since Persianate culture also expanded in India, Pakistan.. where the people were not Turkic. --alidoostzadeh 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There would be one problem with the merger – the current article requires fundamental changes and it needs loads of clearing and cleaning up. For instance, the Safavids in this current-status portrayed as Turks, though everyone known that they were Iranian stock, from Talish and Shah Isma'il was a Tat speaker. Anyhow, I have copied the article and I’m in process of clearing the POVs and I'll forwarded it upon completion, for further edits by everyone. Any agreement? Surena 09:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the ethnicity of Shah Ismail is clear. He was part Tat, part Turkic, part Greek.. I think we can leave it in its own articel. Make sure it is sourced. We can have this article under Turkic dynasties who adopted Persinate culture. That is what the author of the article meant as explained above with reference. --alidoostzadeh 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

With all respect to all participants, the subject is a symbiosis between Persians and Türks, not a genetiical symbiosis, but ideological and literary. In parallel with this symbiosis, there was a genetgical symbiosis, not addressed in the "Turko-Persian Tradition", but extant and which may be addressed in a distinct article. I am talking about Indo-Persian speaking Tadjiks that speak a different lexicon, but genetically and culturally are not distinguishable from the surrounding Türkish speaking people. This symbiosis is most admirable, and along with its litarature contribution it is worth admiring from the Persian and the Turkic side. In this respect, the "Persinate" term is a minuscule reflection of the events on the ground, a term that would be preferred by inspired state builders, but not productive in handshake with the neighbors. The bottom line: Persinate can be incorporated into the bigger "Turko-Persian Tradition", but the "Turko-Persian Tradition" can't be jammed into the miniscule "Persinate". We can't append the "Turko-Persian Tradition" to the "Persinate", but we can append "Persinate" into the "Turko-Persian Tradition" Barefact 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets just put it up for a vote and see what the majority think regarding a merge.Azerbaijani 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

@ Barefact: The "Turco-Persian tradition" was not just a symbiosis between two equally represented cultures. It was a culture ruled by Persianized Turks and dominated by Persian culture, art, and language. The only thing that made this culture "Turkic" was the rule of Turkic or Turkicized rulers. But the influence of "Turkic culture" was virtually zero. The Turks were absorbed into the well-established Perso-Islamic (= Islamicized Persian culture) culture: they adopted Persian and Islamic names, they adopted Persian and Islamic way of life, they married into Persian and Islamic noble families of Persia, they adopted the Persian high culture, etc etc etc. So, the "Turco-Persian" tradition is just a very special version of the Persianate culture, not the other way around.

Your comments about the Tajiks is wrong. First of all, the Tajiks ("Tajik" is just another word for "Persian", the same way "Turcoman" was just another word for "Oghuz") do not speak "Indo-Persian", they speak Central Asian Dari-Persian. Their culture is also Persianate, and the similarities with surrounding Turkic peoples - in fact, it's only the Uzbeks - is due to the immense Persian influence on the Turkic peoples, not vice versa. The Uzbek language is a highly Persianized Turkic language. As the successor of the medieval Chagatai language, more than 60% of its vocabulary (at the time of Nava'i, the ammount of Persian loanwords was ~70%; see Encyclopaedia Iranica) and even its grammar are highly Persianized. Uzbek uses typical Persian pronounciations, lacks any Turkic sound harmony, and uses Persian pre- and sufixes. Uzbeks have adopted ancient Persian traditions of Central Asia, they have adopted ancient Persianate clothing of Central Asia, and many Uzbeks - especially those in Afghanistan - are bilingual. Just an example: Uzbekistan's most famous singer, Yulduz Usmanova, sings in both, Uzbek and Persian (see this). She even gave her daughter a Persian name: Nilofar. Tājik 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're exaggerating the influence of Persian culture on the Turkic people. If they were to adopt the Persian totally in favor of their own, all these Turkic languages would be extinct languages. All languages are affected by the languages they are in contact with. Similar is true for people. Whether they are genetically related or not is important both for language and people to be related. The similarities could be result of long-term contact.

According to the standards set by linguists, languages that make up a family must show productive-predictive correspondences. The shape of a given word in one language should be predictable from the shape of the corresponding word, or cognate, in another language. You cannot consider a language to be Persianized, just because they have somethings common.

Today's Iran's policy is based on nationalistic scholarship. They are claiming that all the ethnic components of Iran are of Persian origin. This argument contitutes the basis of this propaganda. This is nothing but negationism.

I strongly oppose merging this article with any one else. The Turko-Persian tradition article is well-sourced and covers more material than any other article suggested above. Furthermore, it's more neutral than the others. Especially, the latest bad-faith nominations are concerned, it's obvious that the inventors of these just are pushing the same propaganda. By doing so, they are just harming Wikipedia, causing harrasment among users, deleting paragraphs of sourced information in favor of their own, ignoring all the comments and suggestions to push the same pov is not a suitable way to improve Wikipedia. Please, calm down. Regards. E104421 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are talking about the republic of Turkey whose scholarship is seen as ridicolous by the world and it started with ataturk who considered Sumerian and Hittites as Turkish and his discredited sun language and called Kurds as mountain Turks. In Iran it was not necessary to do so. This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was "Persianate" in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry; and it was "Islamicate" 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 (Hodgson 1974 i:58). (pg 12, : The Turko-Persian Tradition, Robert L. Canfield). This clarification needs to brought forth in the begining of the article. --alidoostzadeh 12:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun: "... "Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, "If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture. ..." - The Muqaddimah, Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye (p.91)

Tājik 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• To Ali: First of all, the sun language theory was not Ataturk's. The development of the hypothesis started with the Hermann Kvergic from Austria. The Sumerian staff was suggested by Hilaire de Baranton from France. So, your Turkish scholarship claim is not correct. Yes, sun language theory had entered the educational circles at that time (1930s) upto the time (1950s) the hypothesis was disproven. Secondly, i wrote the above comment for Surena's merge proposal. I have no objection to your quotation from the Turko-Persian tradition article, i strongly agree with the content of the article, but i'm critisizing the pov-view that all these are of Persian origin, as suggested above, the view that ignores everything but Persian. This is the negationism. Regards. E104421 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Turko-Persian tradition is well-sourced and focuses on the composite culture having Persian and Turkic elements. The article is quite different from the context of Persianate society article. Regards. E104421 08:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Truco-Persian Tradition" is only called "Turco-", because it was mostly ruled by Turkic rulers (i.e. Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, etc). So, it was not really a "Turkic culture", but a "Persianate culture patronized and ruled by rulers of originally Turkic origin". This is taken from the source you have given in the article: "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" The "Turco-Persian tradition" is just one special version of the general "Persianate society" ... therefore, these two articles should be merged unter the name "Persianate societies". Tājik 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, This article related with the tradition adopted by Turkic society not only affected by Persian but also Islamic culture. Read the statement carefully. The Persianate society article has nothing to with the current content of the Turko-Persian article. This article is unique in its content, why you're trying to delete this page? Is this due to your nationalistic pov? Sorry, the article is very detailed and sourced in such a way that it cannot be deleted or merged with another one. Regards. E104421 08:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all: WP:CIVIL! Stop accusing others of being nationalistic, although you yourself are notorious for ovbious nationalistic POV-pushes in countless articles. I do not want to delete this article, I want to integrate it into the Persianate society article - because that'S what the Turco-Persian culture was: Persianate. The Islamic element does not really change anything, because the "Islamic" element of the society only deals with religion and custums based on religion. The "Islamicate culture" of the eastern Islamic world was only a continuation of the previous Sassanian culture, and in this case, another "Persianate society". See Abbasid Caliphate and Barmakids! Tājik 08:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're the one who is posting everywhere the accusations for Turkish editors as pan-Turkists. If your pov is critisized, you start attacking everyone. You're the one who banned because of incivility several times. See straw man! E104421 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you call "POV" is the opinion of many leading scholars. And also do not forget that you, too, were banned several times! Your recent pseudo-scientific POV edits in the article Huns already explains everything. Tājik 09:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's simply not correct. Actually, you only consider the ones who support your pov as scholars and others as pan-?-ists. Be civil! E104421 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

21:06, 7 February 2007 Mel Etitis (rv unexplained & unsourced edits)

I thought that the changes are self-evident and housekeeping in nature: The historical sub-sections brought under a common History header, seems an obvious clean-up. On the other hand, if your RV aimed at preventing nationalistic vandalism, it can only be endorsed. For the notation about local specifics of the Islamic tenets embraced by multitude of pre-Islamic local traditions, and attitudes toward women in particular, a {fact} notation would suffice, since the geographical cultural variations are well known and documented. Barefact 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No changes are self-evident; that's why editors are asked always to explain their edits, at least in an edit summary. To make (often extensive) changes and say, in effect: "look at the diff and work out what I did and why I did it for yourself, I can't be bothered to say" is discourteous. As the standard template says: "Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you." --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

sources

Tne Seljuq successors of Kara-Khanid Khanate in Transoxiana brought this culture westward into Persia, Iraq, and Syria. Seljuqs won a decisive battle with the Ghaznavids and then swept into Khurasan, they brought Turko-Persian Islamic culture westward into western Persia and Iraq..

So the Seljuqs brought Persian culture to Persia?

The Kara-Khanids were pastoralists of noble Turkic backgrounds, and they cherished their Turkic ways. As they gained strength they fostered development of a new Turkish literature alongside the Persian and Arabic literatures that had arisen earlier. This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture.

Where are the sources? The Seljuqs also did not support Turkish literature. I think these statements are contradictory. --alidoostzadeh 02:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The sources are already provided. Don't you remember that these issues were already discussed above. You got the main reference book, didn't you? Check again. You can carry your questions/objection here all the time. Calm down. Regards. E104421 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am calm. I see a concentrated effort to attack Persianate and then remove tags from this one. Now on what page does it say the Qarakhnids begins the unique Turko-Persian tradition. Many sentences here are either copyright violation or they are not sourced. If anything, by definition of Turko-Persian tradition, the Ghaznavids are actually founders of such a tradition (Turkish military supporting a Persian cultured). Not Qarakhanids. --alidoostzadeh 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are just revenge reverts. I'm not the only person claiming about the NPOV and OR of the Persianate society article. See the comments on the Persianate society article talk/discussion page. On the other hand, minor controversies do not make any article OR or POV. You should not put the tags for the whole article. Instead, you can use {citation needed} tags. That's it. Regards. E104421 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I made scholarly comments. No citation tags are not all that is needed. And I think you started the revenge attacks on Persianate. Either way all we can do is quote scholarly sources. If I do not see a scholarly source then I believe NPOV should be put. Same with the other article. Regards. --alidoostzadeh 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, it takes time to check the sources, you know. During that period, there is nothing wrong with the tags. The NPOV and OR was also suggested by another user (see the talk page of Persianate society article). Since there exists no consensus on these, the tags are relevant for that page. However, this does not mean that the article is totally nonsense. This simply means that the article requires effort and knowledge to be improved. That's it. Please, do not try to find other meanings from the edits of fellow editors. Regards. E104421 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the copyright violation definitely needs to stay. Sentences have been cut & pasted without giving an author credit. The OR is about t about Turko-Persian tradition which started by Ghaznavids and not Qarakhanids. Once these two issues are resolved I do not have a problem with this article. --alidoostzadeh 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the tradition started way earlier than listed in the article. The first revolt in the Caliphate happened ca 800, and it brought a joined Turko-Persian political influence, which was benefiting the Persian scribes-bureaucracy and Turkic commanders. It was not a cultural event, but still it is inseparate from the Turko-Persian syncretism way before Ghaznavids and Qarakhanids. The Turko-Persian syncretism produced Samanids whose culture and political system develped into and influenced Ghaznavids and Qarakhanids. In 977, Ibn Haukal in his "Face of the Earth" states that Azeri and Persian languages were used as Lingua Franca across the Caucasus. Ditto Central Asia, Turkic, Sogdian and Persian languages were used as Lingua Franca, making many intellectuals able to learn Persian literature. Barefact 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Ibn Hawqal in his Surat-ul-'arz (face of the earth) writes that the people of Azerbaijan know Persian and Arabic. Nothing about Turkish in Aran, Armenia or Azerbaijan. Also Azeri Turkish was not formed as distinct branch of Oghuz languages yet. I have the exact quote: the language of the people of Azerbaijan and most of the people of Armenia (he probably means Iranian Armenia since he puts Tabriz and Maragheh as part of it) is Persian (Al-Faresiyya), which binds them together, while Arabic is also used among them; among those who speak al-faresiya (Persian), there are a few who do not undestand Arabic; and some merchants and landowners are even adept in it. Original Arabic version is available online.

Also the article says: The Kara-Khanid Khanate (999-1140) at that time were gaining pre-eminence over the countryside. The Kara-Khanids were pastoralists of noble Turkic backgrounds, and they cherished their Turkic ways. As they gained strength they fostered development of a new Turkish literature alongside the Persian and Arabic literatures that had arisen earlier. This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture. Whereas The Ghaznavid empire was established before the Qara-Khanids. Also I do not think Qara-Khanid were a Khanate. They were a dynasty. Thus the contradiction on this sentence needs to be taken into account. If Ghaznavids were by definition part of Turko-Persian tradition (Turkic military and Iranian culture), which they were and they actually started, then they came before Qara-Khanids. --alidoostzadeh 15:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contacts between Turks and Iranians does not automatically mean the beginning of a Turco-Persian tradition. Many Turks of back then were slaves (mamluks) who did not have any influence on the cultural life. Besides that, the term "Turk" itself is highly controversial, because it had a more general meaning back then. Basically, everyone who was from Central Asia and/or had an East-Asian look (Mongoloid features) was labled "Turk". This is very clear from the writings of the 11th century Iranian noble Kay Kāūs ibn Iskandar, Prince of Gurgan. He writes in his Qabus Nama as a comment on the "Turkic slaves":

• "... You must understand that Turks are not all of one race and each has its own nature and essential character. Amongst them the most ill-tempered are the Ghuzz [Oghuz] and the Qipchaqs; the best-tempered and most willing are the Khotanese, the Khallukhs [Qarluqs] and the Tibetans. The boldest and most courageous are the Turghay, the most inured to toil and hardship and the most active are the Tatars and the Yaghma, whereas the laziest of all are the Chigil. ... Despite shortcomings, for the (domestic) establishment there is no better race than the Türks ..." -A Mirror for Princes; The Qâbûs Nâma. Reuben Levy, trans. New York: Dutton, 1951

This is the only reason why modern Turks are known as "Turks", while from a strict ethnological point of view (meaning from the point of view of a real Turk) the Oghuz were not "Turks". Mahmud al-Kashgari, the founder of Turkish nationalism and identity, wrote:

• "... We do not consider [those who have mixed to be] among the Turks, since they insert into the speech of the Turks what does not belong to it. ..." -Dīvān ul-Lughat at-Turk 24-26

This is also analyzed by N. Light in Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):

• "... It is clear that he a priori excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kâshghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ..." - "Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world", by N. Light, 1998

N. Light further explains: "... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ..."

So, as one can see, the real "Turco-Persian tradition" begins with the two Oghuz dynasties of the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs: highly Persianized families who were not even considered Turks by other Turks. Tājik 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it all sounds as a bunch of racistic nonsense, with selected citatations and concepts of bygone centuries. You do not need to push these concepts in the Turco-Persian syncretism article, they belong to articles like Persianate. You are not Persian because you are genetically Persian, but because your culture, tradition, etc associate with the Persian culture, versus other, non-Persian cultures. Please, no offence, I do not want to deride you. Same with Tajiks, they are Tadjiks not because they are genetically Arab tribal mercenaries, but because their culture, tradition, etc associate with Central Asian people who by a quirk of a fate happened to be called Tadjiks today. A lot of people have elements of Persian culture, or Turkic culture, without abandoning their own culture, this is the beauty of culture. You do not need to bring your racial views into this cultural picture. Kashgarly liked Kashgar dialect, so what? Beauty is in theeyes of the beholder. We know now that "pure" language is a poor language. And, your citation of Ibn Hawqal is from a wrong section. Azeri and Persian are mentioned as lingua franka in section where he relays that he'd heard that Caucasus has 360 languages, but did not believed it until he traveled there, and every village had its own unique language, and only Azeri and Persian are used as common languages. Naturally, I know this phrase from translations, not from on-line posting in Arabic. His observation is very true even today, only Persian in many places was replaced by Russian. Regards. Barefact 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have ibn Hawqal in front of me. No where is Azeri or Turkish mentioned in Azerbaijan or Caucus. Arabic and Persian is. --alidoostzadeh 07:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh, your ability to deceive and lie never stops to amaze me. Under pretext of a page number, you were reinstalling removed tags (06:38, 20 February 2007 Ali doostzadeh (Talk | contribs)), etc, while complaining about cut and paste you are unhappy that the statement was re-phrased, and you end up deleting a summary phrase outside of the sentence that was used as a pretext when you started the editing war. You are acting like you think that you can fool anybody. Please restore the sentence "This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture.", and if the unique Turko-Persian culture is your real target, why don't you bring it up and discuss it directly and openly. Barefact 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You should end the personal attacks. Qarakhanids came after Ghaznavids. The authors talk about Samanid and then Ghaznavids. For 5 days I asked for the exact statement from the authors and no one replied. Write out the whole Paragraph from a book you claim to find this sentence and then we'll examine it. Else it is obvious I have the right to remove the false statement. --alidoostzadeh 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you have a false pretense and deceiving methods. Your deceptive tactics displays a bad faith. The sentense can't be found, its a nonsense demand of yours under your patently false accusation of copy/paste. Contents can be found in the reference at the page(s) that were indicated before the reference was removed in an act of vandalism, to create artificially a false pretext for contentions. Note that Turko-Persian culture is a historical fact that can't be erased, the time does not go back. The summary phrase you deleted "This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture." is clearly consistent with the historical canvas of the sub-chapter. Once again, if the unique Turko-Persian culture is your real target, bring it up and discuss it directly and openly. Since everybody heard that you've obtained a copy of the book, to demand "Write out the whole Paragraph from a book" is ludicrous and self-deprecating. I would be ready to submit your claims, along with your wrongful and militant reinstatement of tags removed by admins, and along with your deceitful deletion of the summary phrase , to any neutral arbitrator. Barefact 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have warned admins about your personal attacks. I have the book infront of me. As per deceit I think users know best and that is why many of your articles were deleted because they were unsourced. As for this article it actually violates copy right violation in a major way. Just cutting and pasting statements without giving due credit. At the same time, the statement I deleted about Qarakhanids was not sourced. Also there is no Turko-Persian culture. There is a Turko-Persian tradition. Persian was the cultural language, Turkish was the military and state, and Arabic was the religious language (quoting Georgi Zeydan). --alidoostzadeh 10:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are people, they have their culture. alidoostzadeh 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC), citing R. Canfield, stated "Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture". If there were no other variants of Islamicate culture, the Turko-Persian culture variant would be the only one, and it would be totally synonimous with Islamicate culture. Thus, the existence of the Turko-Persian culture as a distinct and definite culture can not be genuinely denied. The deleted statement was not at all about Qarakhanids, as you incorrectly stated, it read, once again, "This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture.", a proper and simple summary phrase for a sub-chapter. In contrast, the preceeding statement about Qarakhanids belongs to R. Canfield, p. 8, and it presently reads "The Kara-Khanid Khanate (999-1140) at that time were gaining pre-eminence over the countryside. The Kara-Khanids were pastoralists of noble Turkic backgrounds, and they cherished their Turkic ways. As they gained strength they fostered development of a new Turkish literature alongside the Persian and Arabic literatures that had arisen earlier." The statement was originally referenced, giving a proper credit, and protecting the statement from potential false charges, the act of removal the reference is traceable.

The summary phrase you deleted "This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture." needs to be restored. Barefact 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see putting this marks the begining of the unique Turko-Perisan after the Qarakhanids in not in Canfield. It should therefore be after Ghaznavids who were the begining of this culture by definition of Canfield. Right?--alidoostzadeh 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

nobody would object to open discussion of a placement of this or that phrase, the objection is to deceptive removal under a false pretense. Please suggest your version of arrangement, the last two phrases were "The Kara-Khanid Khanate (999-1140) at that time were gaining pre-eminence over the countryside. The Kara-Khanids were pastoralists of noble Turkic backgrounds, and they cherished their Turkic ways. As they gained strength they fostered development of a new Turkish literature alongside the Persian and Arabic literatures that had arisen earlier. This marked the beginning of the unique Turko-Persian culture." Note that now the Canfield reference in this redaction is conspicuously absent. What's your version? Barefact 09:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the definition of Canfield, the Ghaznavids would mark the begining of what he has called Turko-Persian tradition (Turkish government and military supporting, adopting and expanding Persian culture). So it has to go after Ghaznavids. Note I did not remove it until I put a citation tag and asked for proof. BTW your sentence: The Kara-Khanids were pastoralists of noble Turkic backgrounds, and they cherished their Turkic ways. is copyrighted and you need to fix that. --alidoostzadeh 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Persian literature

This article is missing a section to address the substance of the Turko-Persian syncretism, its Literature. To list too much is impossible, but there are works that were known by all, spread everywhere, and were widely popular throughout the Turko-Persian cultural zone. These, in my opinion, are 1001 night, Hodja Nassreddin in all his names and incarnations, Nizami, Saadi, Baburname, Indian folk tales, Afgan jokes, and maybe a few more names and titles. Any comments? Barefact 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please re-insert the merging tag. It was removed by E104421 without any discussion or consensus! As for the literature: there is no "Turco-Persian literature", but a strongly Arabized post-Islamic Persian literature, which was the base for later Turkic literatures, both Chaghatay and Ottoman.

1001 Nights was composed during the era of the Abbasids and was based on a more ancient Persian collection known as "1000 Afsāna". It has nothing to do with Turks. "Mullah Nasreddin" is a collection of universal Sufi satires, and is not limitted to the Turko-Persian world. It is also known in places such as Marocco or Sudan. And - I do not know what you people think - but E104421 is clearly vandalizing the page by removing tags without any discussion and consensus. He has done the same in many other articles. Just check his history. Tājik 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

my question was not addressed to you, but if you want to contribute, you may try to suggest something constructive. Barefact 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And that's what I just did. You claim that "1001 Nights" was Turco-Persian literature (whatever that may be). But this is totally wrong. It is Perso-Arabic literature, written during the era of the Abbasids, in Arabic language, inspired by ancient Persian (and Indian) folk tales. Now you tell me: what have Turks to do with this? It really amazes me how certain people stubbornly try to invent some kind of Islamic literary tradition for themselvs by falsefying history and facts. Tājik 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"falsefying" is spelled "falsifying", you should know it better than anybody else. Barefact 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

copyvio ? / merge ?

guys, even when naming your source, you cannot just present entire paragraphs copied from a book. can we remove the copyvio, agree on a title, and merge these articles into a single legal one now? dab (𒁳) 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

you should remove the copyvio independently of other issues, as you state the sources are named, so the accusation of not giving credit is patently false and deceptive, and if you think that "entire paragraphs" is a problem, we can address them one at a time, sorting out "entire" and "copy" from non-entire and non-copy. A blank copyvio tagging, and use it as a barganing chip to achieve title and merging goals is abuse of power. Barefact 08:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm chiming in as the closer of the AFD. Remove the parts that constitute a copyvio (they cannot be there for any reason even if cited). As for merging, merging is an editorial decision that can be made regardless of the outcome of an AFD - merging does not delete an article, nor does it result in deleted content. Therefore, merging and redirecting after a speedily kept (or regularly kept) AFD is fine. --Coredesat 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have the book. I'll try to remove the parts that may constitute copy-vio. In my opinion, the Turko-Persian tradition title is ok. It's a commonly used one. The merger would lower the emphasis on Turko-Persian tradion and would result in systematic removal of its contents. The edit history of the article reveals how the merging proposal come about. This article was first claimed to be original research and pov. After presenting the references, the same group of users voted it for deletion, but it's kept. Now, we have the merging proposal. Yes, if there are copy-vio parts, these should be removed, but i'm against merging. Regards. E104421 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert L. Canfield positively stated that he does not find copyvio in this article, and is objecting to pointed removal of contents based on his work under pretense of copyvio. No part of Robert L. Canfield work constitute a copyvio. I have sent Robert L. Canfield's statement to WP admins. Copyvio tag, and "Not verified|date=February 2007" tags should be removed. The merging proposal tries to achieve the same final objective as the previous bad faith attempt to delete. The merging tag was reinstated multiple times by the same group that first attempted to delete. The merging tag should be deleted. Barefact 14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice from Robert L. Canfield

An extract from an Email, I was forwarded to from Barefact. The real name of a wikipedian is changed to XXXXXX

"Hi XXXXXX, I see no violation of the copyright concerning my Introduction to Turco-Persia in Historical Perspective, and I do not agree with any attempt to use the term to represent nationalistic interests. Best, Robert L. Canfield"

---

Dear Dr. R. Canfield,

I used selections from your book "Turko-Persia in historical perspective", the Introduction section, as a backbone for an article I called "Turko-Persian Tradition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turko-Persian_tradition.

As one of contributors to Wikipedia, I was bothered that WP is often used as a tool of hidden racial agendas, Now this article is being threatened by the very groups that propagate the hidden racial agenda. They accuse the writer (me) of copyright violation, i.e. violation of your copyrights, using the cited sections of the book in the article.

I am asking your endorsement of the use of your work in the article. All sections taken from your Introduction are (or initially were ) clearly referenced, and Robert Canfield as the author is given a proper credit. Would you please confirm that as an author you allow WP to use the posted sections of your work and do not support the copyright violation claim.

I, and the multitude of other WP users, will be greatful for your kind permission. XXXXXXX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

• Then, the copy-vio problem is over. E104421 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In short, ...

This statement: "In Short, the Turko-Persian tradition featured Persian culture patronized by Turcophone rulers." Should not be removed. That is what the article is about.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's discuss the issue here. E104421 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I brought the google page book. I don't see any difference and the statement by Canfield: "It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar 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". So in summary, Turkic rulers adopted Iranian traditions and culture and language, expanded it in their realm and thus that is why it is called Turko-Persian tradition. For example you won't find a single cultural Turkic manuscript from say Ghaznavids, Seljuqs or Ilkhanids. The reason is that the rulers adopted Persian culture and for example like Mahmud Ghazna supported Persian poets (some say he had 40 or even 400 court poets all in Persian). Furthermore Ilkhanids, Seljuqs, Ghaznavids even made genealogies for themselves to take them back to Sassanid era. And if you want to go further, there is a poem by a poet during the era of Seljuqs of Rome which asks the Seljuq King Masud to disperse, imprison and bring "Turks" under control. So in short, these rulers really becamse Persianized but their military was still based on Turkic foot soldiers and later on some Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Georgians. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Before starting the discussion, i want you to remove the italics from the "in short" section. This is just a pov-push. The leading paragraphs are written without any direct quotation, generally. If you do that i'll continue the discussion here. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We put the authors name anyway, so it is good to get a summary. The definition is not different than that of Canfield and also Robinson. That is what Canfield says: "It was Persianate in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar 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" and Robinson defines "Perso-Islamic" as "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." So it is not minimizing the role of Turks into the tradition. The culture was Persian, the military was Turkish and the religion was mainly Arabic, but a good deal of Persian through Sufism. That is how the Islamic empires of Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Ilkhanids, Moghuls operated. Later on Chagatay (for a short time) and Ottomon Turkish (for a longer time) developed. Unfortunately both Chagatay and Ottomon Turkish are now dead languages but Persian is still readable even if the work is from 1000 years ago. Regards to you too. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's quite absurd to make a quotation into the introduction paragraph as "According to X, in short, ..." This sentence should be moved to its relevant place. In that case, there will be no need to write as "according to X". The general definition was already made. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I don't have a problem with the new spot. regards. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

The Bernard Lewis quote has everything to do with the article. It talks about Iranian Islam being brought to Turks and Persian culture being present in non-Persian land. You can't remove a certain part of Lewis and then leave another part. Second, I am not proxying for anyone, if I see good information on the talkpage I will add it. Finally there is no copy-right violation as it is a cquote. It can be rephrased and rewritten, if the quote is too long. But it should be incorporated into the article, and reworded. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, one can add anything related with the context of the article. However, in your case, the block quotation not only inrelevant but also clutters the article. You can paraphrase the parts related with the article. On the other hand, you changed the introductory paragraph which reflects the main context of the article. I recommend to review your edits and do it step by step. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop the tension. You have had a B.Lewis quote cut &pasted for many months that has no relevancy to the article. I have added another quote and there is no copy right violation as he is being fully quoted. If there is a copy-right violation, then you need to remove that other quote that has been there for a while. Also who says Canfield is the only definition? The other definition does not contradict Canfield in any way. And yes B.Lewis can be written if there is a copyright violation, but there is none right now. Also I agree discussion of edits are necessary but you did not do it for Shahnameh. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bernard Lewis quote should be fractured and the different parts should be added to the right place. Unlike the other Bernard Lewis quote which has virtually nothing to do with this article (but is still mentioned in the article), this quote actually talks of a Turko-Persian symbiosis, the Turkic kings and rulers and the dominance of Persian literary and high culture. The sentence that says "the Ottomans brought a form of Iranian culture to wall of Vienna" is very powerful and sums up many parts of the article: originally Turkic rulers who had lost all cultural links to their originally nomadic and tribal origins and had been thoroughly assimilated into the Iranian and Perso-Islamic cultural identity. The Ottomans were in no means successors to ancient Turkic nomad-kings but indeed successors to the ancient, pre-Islamic Iranian throne. The Ottomans (and before them the Seljuqs and various other "Turkic" dynasties) identified themselvs with Iranian culture and identity. Like the Timurids, the Ottomans, too, tried to integrate themselves into the Shahnama and Iranian heroic past. See for example this book: "An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play", p. 98-103. The entire Ottoman architecture (as well as Timurid and Seljuq) are a continuation of the pre-Islamic Sassanian architecture: "... In fact, the dome covered square, which had been a dominant form in Sassanian Iran, became the nucleus of all Ottoman architecture ..." (from Gardner's Art Through the Ages, p. 263). It was the Ottomans who brought Persian cultural identity to Greece and the Balkans. There is an entire chapter about this in the book Greece and the Balkans: Identities, Perceptions and Cultural Encounters, called "The Genteel Life of The Local Elite: The Persian Influence". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.192 (talk • contribs) 00:34; 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote is relavent: "The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna. " which is exactly the definition by Canfield. It can be summarized more though. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)