Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries

This article was nominated for deletion on 17/12/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

What is a Turkic state? (September 2008)

Could someone please add a lead to the article with a definition or a description of what a "Turkic state" or "Turkic empire" is? This is essential for the uninformed reader (and also required by Wiki standards), and should be added even if disputes exists. Also see "Definition" section below (March-June 2008). Thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman is Turkey, Safavid is Persia

Ottoman lands are Turkey. When it was first founded it was under Mongol(Persia) occupation. It gained independence from Ilkhanate in 1330's from Timurlane in 1400's. Ottomans are enemies of Persia in all history. It is not a Persian state. It is influenced by Persian culture, but it is also influenced by Roman, Arabian, European, etc. burgaz 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Sultanate was formed after the collapse of the Seljuk Empire in 1299 and not in 1330s. Mongols were a powerful player in Anatolia during the 14th century but they weren't the "rulers" of Ottomans. Also, nobody gained any independence from Timurlane too. In 1402, Bayezid the Thunderbolt lost the Battle of Ankara against the Timurid Empire and the Ottoman rule over Anatolia collapsed just after its formation. Ottomans rebuilt their systems during the reign of Mehmed I and ruled over three continents afterwards. On the other hand, we can't live together with Persians thanks to some religious and cultural differences which cause big conflicts between these two nations(for example Battle of Chaldiran). Deliogul 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why Persia warned the Ottoman sultans not to kill their brothers? burgaz 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Cut and paste

This is cut and pasted from Turkic peoples to remove the ballast in that article. I added the disputed tag as I actually do not agree with many of the classifications, but I am too tired to sort this now Refdoc 00:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In every article I read on the Huns and the Hunnic empire and the Magyars is that they were / are turkic peoples. Look at the articles anywhere you like current scholar ship says that is so. Hfarmer

To Kennethtennyson

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan are described as Turkic countries and their official languages are Turkic. If you can cite sources that say otherwise, then please do so. Otherwise do not revert the page. --Son of the Tundra 03:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

hungarians and huns

The hungarians are uralic(related to finnish and estonians) not turkish. wen they came to the area there were ten tribes and one of the tribes was cuman(turkish) but the others were magyar(uralic)

The huns were turkic but have nothing to do with moderday hungarians who came to the area later than huns

[[1]]

I dont know about that. According to this there are some people in Hungary who would dispute that Hungary blocks Hun minority bid. or this [http://www.filolog.com/languageStrangeCake.html Hungarian Language School]. In particular the second page refer's to Arpad and names like it, the fact that the burial rites and artifacts of the Magyars, were Turkic. The propper interpretation of this matter, in my opinion, is that Hungarians specifically Magyars are the most westerly of Turkic peoples.

By the way I like the way that category was edited. Much better than the way I had it. --Hfarmer 05:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Turk and Turkish nationals

There really should be a distinction between Turkic people and Turkish people. Those who speak a language described as Turkic, should not be called Turkish, as the meaning of the word Turkish is in just a slightly more stricter, simply someone or something born of the nation of Turkey. Is it appropriate to call a Yakut or Buryat a Turkish? Only if he/she is from Turkey. People of the nation of Turkey are called Turkish, those who speak a Turkic language is not Turkish. What's wrong with the educational system that's perpetuating these misnomers? Is this how we breed the Turkish nationalism that lay claim to everything in Asian history? User: i don't bother loggin in 05:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.169.102 (talk)

Ridiculous

Whoever is adding incorrect information in here needs to stop. You cannot call everthing Turkic just because a few Turks live there. Whats next, claiming Germany as a Turkic nation? Give me a break! LOL Khosrow II 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have never heard Germany call itself as a Turkic State like in Yakutia, Altai, Tuva, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Gagauzia, Chuvashia, Bashkortostan. Now let me laugh your ridiculous thoughts.

I didnt take off Yakutia, Tuva or Tartarstan, i only took out the mistakes. Dagestan is not Turkic, and neither are the ones i took out. Yes turkic people do live there, but they are not even close to a majority. that does not make the Autonomous turkic states. Wikipedia is not a place for what you think is right, its a place for facts.Khosrow II 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? This is ridiculous. I have contacted other Users.Khosrow II 15:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You may start fight with Minister of Education of Turkey because there is a map called "Turkic World" on the latest page of all school books. You can search about it. Zaparojdik 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL The turkish education system is not reliable at all. Turkey is well known for historical revisionism. Please, stick to western sources.Khosrow II 15:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are also actually priggish. Why you don't edit something about Kurds? They are ethicially belong to Persian people. You don't know nothing about Turkic Geography. Western sources always partial like you. Here is the map, perharps it may stop you being a Vandal; http://www.geocities.com/turkfolkloru/jpg/turkdunyasi.jpg 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place for your pan Turk propaganda. I know more about Turks than you do. If you revert one more time you will be warned.Khosrow II 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit with respecting to 3RR. Zaparojdik

3RR states that a user may only revert an article 3 times within a day. I have done my three and you have done your three. I suggest you dont revert again, because then you will be breaking the rules.Khosrow II 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this warning is for you, priggish! Zaparojdik 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I understood that the first two times you told me. I know the rule buddy.Khosrow II 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NOT ALL TATARS ARE TURKIC - THE KAZAN AND VOLGA TATARS ARE NOT TURKIC AS THEY DESCEND FROM THE BULGARS WHO WERE NOT TURKIC, AS GENETIC AND NUMEROUS OTHER EVIDENCE STRONGLY SHOWS - DNA EVIDENCE FROM 2010 SHOWS/PRROVES THIS - FOR THE LINKS GO TO THE "COMPLAINT OF RACISM" LATEST SECTION OF THE TALK PAGE. SO IF THE BULGARS WERE NOT TURKIC, AT ALL, THEN THE KAZAN AND VOLGA TATARS ARE NOT TURKIC AS WELL, SIMPLE AS THAT, NOTHING DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why don't we create a new section called "sometimes considered Turkic states" (on the basis of Regions of the Middle East). That way Zaparojdik can include who he wants to include but in a way so it's not presented as absolute facts. What do you guys think? —Khoikhoi 00:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not about us fulfilling what Zaparojdik wants to put in the article, its about putting factual information on Wiki articles. I will not budge on this issue, because non of those regions are considered Turkic except evidently by the Turkish governmnet (Which by the way is known for historical revisionism and lies). These regions dont even come close to having a Turkic majority. Whats next, Zaparojdik putting down Berlin as a Turkic city state?Khosrow II 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, whether you like it are not, there are many, may people out there who follow pan-Turkism. Wikipedia articles should include all points of views, including the ones you don't like. Saying that you "will not budge" is not going to help the situation. See WP:V - it's not about facts, but verifiability. If Zaparojdik can back up his claims with reliable sources, then he can include them. Please try to be more reasonable. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, now your saying that Pan-Turkism has a place on Wikipedia? Do you know what Pan-Turkism is? Its like Nazism in regards to viewing history. Would you want to have Nazi historical view points? I dont think so, so why Pan-Turkism? Did you know that Pan-Turkists also claim Etruscans, Greeks, Sumerians, Ossetians, Scythians, and Kurds (amongst others) as Turkic peoples origionally? Did you know that Pan Turkists claim that Turks have been living in Anatolia since 2000 BC? Did you know that Pan Turkists claim that Pan Turks claim the history of peoples whose lands they now inhabit, just because they live there now (example would be teh R. of Azerbaijan, on whose Italian Embassy page the government declares Zoroastrianism as a Turkic religion!)? Did you also know that Pan-Turkists lay claim to almost about everything, from languages to cultures. Pan-Turkism is not only about uniting all Turkic peoples, its about rewritting history. So please, if you want to have Pan-Turkist ideologies on Wikipedia, then I hope to see you also ask for having Nazi ideology, Pan-Iranic ideology, Pan Arab ideology, etc... Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff, only facts. Now please, based on what evidence is Zaparojdik saying that all these lands that are majority non-Turkic are Turkic? His school book, which is published by the Turkish Government!

But I will tell you this, if we are to include the regions I took out, then I will aslo be adding Germany, along with any other place where Turkic people live. Now do you see how ridiculous that is?Khosrow II 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, clam down. If the POV of the Iranian government and Iranian academics can be included on Wikipedia, is there any special reason that the POV of the Turkish government and Turkish scholars can't? Are you aware that most sources show Azeris as a Turkic people? See Britannica for example. Also see the Britannica article on Timur.

From your point of view, Khosrow, pan-Turkism is some huge attempt to rewrite history. However, if you talk to someone from Turkey or Azerbaijan, they're probably going to tell that the Iranian view on Azeris is "government propaganda".

You're not going to convince Zaparojdik and Zaparojdik isn't going to convince you, but if both of you cite sources, we wouldn't have this type of problem. —Khoikhoi 01:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the difference though. Everything in that article is factual, based on facts that no one can deny. Nothing in that article has to do with the Iranian government. Our government right now doesnt even care about that, all they care about is Islam. Our government is Pan Islamists, not Pan Iranic. They barely even teach Iran's pre-Islamic history. Thats the difference. On issues such as Islam, yes, the Iranian government is faulty, but on other issues, they hardly even comment. Everything you hear about the Iranian government doing this or doing that is a lie. I wish our government cared enough to teach Iran's pre-Islamic history but they dont. And I cannot tell you how many times I have talked to Turks online who have claimed the craziest things just to be proven wrong later. Everything I use on Wikipedia is from Western sources. To tell you the truth, I can neither read nor write in Persian, and I did not even attend one day of school in Iran.

Khoikhoi, answer this question: Would you allow Nazism ideology on Wikipedia? If yes, then I will let you add anything to this article you like, with the exception that you also add Nazi ideology to every article related to it. If no, then I suggest you leave well enough alone, and not insist on including pan Turkic ideology on Wiki articles.

I dont understand what is so wrong about me trying to correct misleading information. Let me tell you what I took out:

• Altai Republic: 57.4% Russian, Only 36.6% Turkic, so what makes this a Turkic region rather than a Russian region?
• Dagestan: Avars make up 29.4%, Turkic people combined only make less than 20%, so what makes this a Turkic region rather than an Avar/Caucasian region?
• And the list continues with the other ones.....

Khosrow II 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow II; First of all, I'm not Pan-Turkist and you are a big liar, Pan-Turkists never claim that Etruscans, Greeks, Ossetians and Scythians as Turkic peoples, it's impossible already but the issue about Sumerians were Turkic peoples is a theory because of there are about  %25 of Sumerian language's words belong to Turkey's Turkish language and it being about %50 with other Turkic languages. Sumerian language Also, this theory isn't accept just by Turkish historians, there are many western historian who grouped Sumerian languages in Altaic language family and to Turkic peoples.

• Regarding about Kurds, It seems impossible to group Kurdish people in Turkic peoples. I'm agree with you but if we observe historians who says that Kurdish people belong to Turkic people there are some logical thoughts. Turkic peoples were mostly nomadic people and they migrated to so different geographies, one of this was Anatolia. There were Greek and Persian peoples in Anatolia. It's so normal to forget language and entegrating with local people. If you want to give an example to you, i can say that is you, your ethicially is Iranian but said that couldn't say any word in Iranian.
• I don't know why you show me Altai's and Dagestan's Turkic population, it's not important how many Turkic people live there, because these country's name are Altai Republic and Dagestan Republic. Is it Russian Republic or Avar Republic? It's not! Dagestan is "Dağıstan" in Turkic and means "land of mountains". You are also priggish and violating, because you don't respect Turkish Historical Society and Republic of Turkey Ministry of Education. Turkish Government always has talks with these Turkic countries. There are schools which is teaches in Siberia, Yakutia Turkish language. You are not good at Turkic history, please learn about your national stuffs.

• Khoikhoi you have good idea but it's disputed if Avars Turkic peoples. Hungarians ancestor are Avars but Hungarian language belongs to Finno-Ugric language family. As I said people entegrating with local peoples and their languages. Here some Dagestani people who identifies themselves as Turkic peoples. Turkish Historical Society accepts together Avars as Turkic with some western historical societies. I belive that Avars are Turkic peoples and trust to Turkish Historical Society but I will be respecting if you create something like "sometimes considered Turkic states". Because world historians really confused about this. Sincerely, Zaparojdik 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can show you sources where pan Turkists HAVE said that Etruscans, Sumerians, Greeks, Kurds, Ossetians, and Scythians as Turkic peoples. Also regarding Sumerians, a lot of matching Indo-European words have also been found. The thing is when you try to find anything matching in any language, you will find it if you look hard enough, whether it is correct or not. Pan Turkists today use methods like this frequently to find or misconstrew anything Turkic in anything that actually has nothing to do with Turkic languages. A good example is the name Azerbaijan. Although the name Azerbaijan dates back to before the Turkic tribes even invaded the area, Turkish historians insist that the word is Turkic, even though it clearly isnt Turkic.
• As per your comment about Kurds....Khoikhoi do you get my point now?
• The name of Dagestan is a Turkic word, but that means nothing. The majority of the people of Dagestan are NOT Turkic, so how can you call it a Turkic republic? Guess what, the names of Uzbekistan, Azerbiajan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc... are all derived from Persian (Tribe name + stan, Azerbaijan = "land of fire"), but does that mean these countries are Persian? Also, if you say Dagestan is a Turkic region just because some Turks live there, than can Turkey be an Iranic region because some Iranics live there?
• As per your comments about Avar's....See Khoikhoi, do I need to say anymore?
• The Turkish education system is filled with flaws and historical revisionisms. Turkish historians for the most part are not objective, just like you said earlier, they consider whatever they want to be Turkic, whether the evidence is there or not.
• It doesnt matter what you or the Turkish government believes, what matters is the facts, and the facts are against you.Khosrow II 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Azerbaycan name comes from the Hazar(After "Azer") Turks and the "+istan" means "land" in Turkish! Hazarstan is old name of the country. I have just something to say you, these Turkic countries has their native language as official status in Russian Federation and these languages are TURKIC! Please understand! and don't write me something about this issue anymore cause I don't like to listen western and divisive Iranic peoples lies. My sources are reliable. If you really trust your information about Turkic people and their history, talk to me in any Turkic language. I understand most of them. (Azerbaijani, Turkish, Turkmen, Uzbek, Tatar, Gagauz, Altai, Kazakh) Zaparojdik 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi I hope now you understand the situation. Have you reconsidered your position now that you have read this users unreasonable posts?Khosrow II 16:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The matter won't be solved with your demagogies! Turkic state's official languages show us what they are. Zaparojdik 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia is a federation now, it recognizes all the languages, INCLUDING THE ONES IN THE MAJORITY IN THOSE REGIONS. You dont seem to understand that Turkic peoples are NOT the majority in those regions, and non-Turkic languages, that are ALSO recognized, are the majority. What dont you understand about that. These are not recognized as Turkic regions by anyone except evidently Turkey.Khosrow II 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Arrrghhhh

We can spend out time debating about every ethnic group out there or we can solve this little dispute. Zaparojdik, what do you think about my suggestion? —Khoikhoi 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how's this? It seems pretty fair to me (this is how these republics differ from Germany). The only issue remaning is Dagestan. The article says the official languages are Russian and languages of the peoples of Dagestan. Does this mean it has 11 official languages? Perhaps someone could do more research on this. —Khoikhoi 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But Khasas account only 12.0% in their own republic. Don't you think that's pushing it? And I don't get what you said, Russian is not the Khasas' native language. —Khoikhoi 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very good Khoikhoi regarding Altai and Khakassia is not right. Many students come here every year for Turkish language oliympics from these countries. Russians have been applied assimilation politicics to Khakassians in 1989 and now just %50 can speak their native language. Actually, it's not %12 Zaparojdik 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because other Turks go there doesn't necessarily make it a Turkic state. So you're saying that the Khasas account half of Khakassia? Where did you get this information? Look what I found from Hunmagyar.org:

The sense of national identity among the Khakass is determined by a strong identification with clan and family systems. There are also strong assimilationist forces at work, with over 70% of the Khakass speaking Russian, and with more than half of them marrying ethnic Russians. After Glasnost and the fall of the Soviet union, various Khakass cultural groups have become active, working for reforms and to promote Khakass cultural institutions. There have been demands for independence, and measures to ensure that Khakass occupy leading political posts in the province, and there have been attempts at forming special Khakass militias. In response, special military units have been formed by Russians claiming to be Cossacks.

—Khoikhoi 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Russians hiding their real population, I think it's more than %12 As there writes %70 speaks Russian. Also there writes what I said in 1989, only around 45% of the Shors spoke the Shor language, while virtually all of them spoke Russian. Meantime my sources are Turkish.[2]: Zaparojdik 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, but remember that the official census statistics should be the main source. Your source can still be included, but it has to be attributed properly (shouldn't be presented in the article as absolute fact). Anyways, I don't think we even need to mention the number of Khasasses (sp?) in the article. What is important is what classification Khakassia should go under. —Khoikhoi 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope the latest version satisfies everyone. I Also edited Taymyria which has small Turkic majorty on article. Stoping edit war? Zaparojdik 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Former Soviet Republic

Why are Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc. placed under a separate subheading saying that they are former Soviet republics? 15 years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and these turkic republics have since been independent and each is known in the world in its own right. So I would suggest removing that subheading and listing these countries on the same level as Turkey.

Shatuo Turks

I am surprised that three Turkic-ruled Chinese dynasties are not included in your historical list of Turkic kingdoms. They are the Later Tang, Later Jin, and Later Han.

Check out the Shatuo Turks and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period pages.

POV

This article gives unwarranted legitimacy to the puppet regime enforced by a foreign power on the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus. This is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, specifically the WP:NPOV#Undue weight clause. I'd like someone to see to my concern.--Tekleni 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Describing an independent nation as "puppet regime" is unacceptable. The changes should be reverted immediately. Kaygtr 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a note about TRNC in the notes part. Please check the the footnotes. Visitors will not be mislead by presenting TRNC on the page as a Turkic independent state, they can easily check the footnotes about the disputes. The page also does not violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because it does not present TRNC as an ordinary independent state. It clarifies the situation of the country. Thanks Caglarkoca 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus needs to be removed from the list of Turkic countries immediately, since it is a Greek country, and the turks of the island have already been represented by trnc in the list. Also turks only make up 18% of the population of the island and are a minority, thus it cannot be defined as turkic or else you would have to include places like Bulgaria were there is a big turkish minority. I can't believe you haven't realised this. --Stavros15 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottomans: Turco-Persian or Turkish?

There is a general discussion on whether ottomans are Turco-Persion or just Turkish, or in a better expression Turkic. There was a very good support for the Turco-Persian POV on the language. It is better to discuss it here rather than entering an unnecessary edit-revert war. Yes, Ottomans were speaking Persian along with Arabic and Turkish, but the origin of the country is Oghuz, which is also a Turkish ethnic group. The main reason of such an issue is the fact that Persian is considered to be the scientific language of the era while Arabic was considered to be the Art language in Islam. Hence educated people were speaking in Ottoman, a language combination of Persian, Turkish and Arabic. Answering the question about the ottoman poetry, yes I can understand the ottoman poetry with a little effort. If we are to analyze such poems, I can do that if someone really wishes, we will easily see that only the phrases and some words are taken from Persian. Comparing with Turkish, the order of the words in the phrases are reversed in Persian. Sentence structures mostly remained Turkish. Zevk-i elem (Pleasure of anguish), a Persianate phrase constructed by Turkish words by Fuzuli, means elem zevki in Turkish. For analogy, it is no different than the differences between modern day English and Shakespearean English. Native speakers also find works of Shakespeare hard to understand. Thanks Caglarkoca 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Royal Academy of Arts exhibition "Turks:Journey of a thousand Years 600-1600" refers to them as "Turkish speaking Ottomans" [3]. The exhibit was co-created by a Harvard professor, and the academy itself is run by some of the best academicians in their respective fields. Blankly labelling Ottomans as "Persianate" as if they are some sort of donmeh is really overdoing it. Respective articles of OE mention the influence of Persian culture on theirs, but there is no need to push it further. It is widely known that Ottoman sultans married and had kids from many girls of all types of ethnicity, so it would be more appropriate to label them Slav, Arab, Kurd, Turk, Greek etc as much as Persian. Same goes for culture. There needs to be a distinction of religious influence and ethnic influence. Of course the Ottomans were influenced by Islamic cultures since they were Muslim. But to confuse this with some sort of cultural colonization is also misplaced. That's all I am trying to say. Baristarim 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Noone denies the Turkish origin or language of the Ottomans. However, this does not disprove a Persianate character of the Empire. Persianate is a term to describe NON-Persian kingdoms (that means NOT of Persian or Iranic origin) who were highly influenced by Persian culture, or whose culture in a whole was based on the established Persian high culture. The Ottomans were such a "Persianate" state. For example, the Persian language was essential for sultans or government-staff, all diplomatic letters of the Empire were either written or at least translated into Persian (see the famous letter-exchange between Shah Ismail of Persia and the Ottoman sultan; also preserved in Turkish museums). Many of the Ottoman sultans, for examples Murad II or Suleyman I, are known as Persian poets who have composed entire divans (source is gioven in the article). This is exactly the deffinition of Persianate. As for Fuzuli: he was also a Persian poet; he has written as much in Persian as in Turkish; he had also some Arabic poems. Many dynasties of the region used Persian as a state-language (and in the Ottoman Empire, too, Persian was a n official state-language!). This was not only limitted to Turks, but also for Pashtuns: the founder of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali, was an ethnic Pashtun, but he is also known as a Persian poet. His mother tongue, however, was Pashto. Persian and Arabic have a totally different status than Turkish, Pashto, Kurdish, or other languages of region, just the same way Latin and English have a different status than Polish, Dutch, or Swedish. Tājik 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you tajik. Ottomans are not directly influenced by Persian culture. Persian overall, had an influence on Islamic states, hence Turks, after converting to Islam are affected from Persian language as well as arabic language. In Islam, Persian is the language of Science. Therefore it is why Ottoman sultans know Persian. If we are to call Ottomans Persianate, then as the empire get weakened, western cultures, especially French culture affected Ottomans as in language and poetry. Sultans learnt French and Turkish instead of Arabic and Persian. Are we to call Ottomans Frenchate? (I don't know a word equivelant to Persianate for French) Anyone the solution offered by Baristarim is probably the best, it solves the disputes for now. Thanks Caglarkoca 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way Tajik, if Golden Horde is considered to be a Mongol state just due to the fact that it is ruled by a Mongol elite, than how can you suggest that Ottomans can be Persianate? Ottomans are also ruled by Turkish elites, and according to your logic, it is unreasonable to claim that Ottomans are also Persianate. Caglarkoca 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, this whole argument is quite ridicolous. Academic sources always refer to the Ottoman Empire as a Turkish empire, or a Turkic empire. Never have i seen this "Turko-Persian" description except here on Wikipedia. It would be foolish and unrepresentative to categorise it as Persian because the court may have spoken Persian, no more than it would be to call it an Arab empire for using the Arab script. --A.Garnet 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article "Golden Horde" clearly explains that they were Turkicized Mongols, the same way the early Timurids were Turkicized Mongols. The term "Turkicized" is a reference to their language.

The same goes to overwhelming majority of Azerbaijanis and Turkey-Turks: they are Turkicized - linguistically (the same way South-Americans and Africans became Europeanized during the colonial era). The Safavids, for example, were originally an Iranic Tat family who had been assimilated by the Turkic nomads of Azerbaijan.

On the other hand, in the course of history, original Turkic peoples became fully Chinese, Slavic, or Iranic in language. Best examples are the Ghilzai Pashtuns, the entire Seljuq family, or the Mughals of India (although the Mughals were not Turkic in origin, they came from a Turkicized Mongilian family).

As for the Ottomans: they were NOT assimilated like the Seljuqs or the Mughals (that means that their native tongue was still Turkish, wherelse the Mughals and Seljuqs were fully Persophone). However, the high culture of the Orient at that time was (still) based on the Persian tradition. ALL Islamic-Oriental kingdoms - from the Abbasids up to the Mughals and Ottomans - were based on the centuries-old traditions of the Persian Empire, ALL of them were "cultural descendants" of the Sassanids. That's why today, Islamic mosques have the same architecture as Sassanid architecture 1500 years ago, that's why the sultans ruled like the former Sassanian Shahnshahs, and that's why nearly ALL of the Non-Arabic Islamic dynasties - be they Persians, Turks, Kurds, or Mongols - claimed to be descendants of the Sassanids.

In later times, European powers did have a strong influence on the Ottomans (and European cultures today are the dominant influence in modern Turkish cities) ... but at that time, that influence was not comparable to that of the Byzantine Empire or that of the Iranian culture. Only the fact that Turks still pronunce certain Arabic loan-words with a typical Persian pronounciation is the best proof for this. That's why the Ottoman court is a classical Persianate court, fully dominated by Persian life-style, high culture, and poetry (though the influence of Persian literature had declined). The Ottomans even celebrate Norouz, another proof for the strong influence of Persian culture on the pre-Atatürk Turkish dynasties.

Tājik 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: User:A.Garnet has removed the authoritative source from Encyclopaedia Iranica, claiming that it's a "minority opinion". Well, here are more sources:

Here are more scholarly sources:

• "Persian in service of the state: the role of Persophone historical writing in the development of an Ottoman imperial aesthetic," Studies on Persianate Societies 2, 2004, pp. 145-163.
• "Historiography. xi. Persian Historiography in the Ottoman Empire", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 12, fasc. 4, 2004: 403-411.
• S. Nur Yildiz, "Persian in the service of the Sultan", Istanbul Bilgi University - Early Ottoman History ([4])
• F. Walter, "Music of the Ottoman court", Chap. 7 The Departure of Turkey from the "Persianate" Musical Sphere [5]

I would not call that a minority opinion ... also interesting: one of the sources is from the Istanbul Bilgi University, the Iranica source is written by a Turkish professor. There is no Persian conspiracy! Tājik 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik - no one disputes the Persian influence in the Ottoman Empire, what i dispute is that this cultural influence, one among many, should be used to characterise the Ottoman Empire as a Turko-Persian empire. This is wrong. --A.Garnet 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Noone says "Turco-Persian" - it says "Persianate" (= influneced by Persian high culture). Turco-Persian and Persianate are two different things. While a "Persianate society" is influenced by Persian high culture (like the Ottomans), the "Turco-Persian" society is a dual society. The Ottomans were not a dual society with Persian administartirs and Turkic soldiers, the Ottoman Empire was simply influenced by Persian high culture. The term is "Persianate", NOT "Turco-Persian". The Timurids, for example, were "Turco-Persians", because their society was splitted into 2 different groups: the setteld Persian nobles, administrators, and scholars. And the nomadic and semi-nomadic Turkic clan-chiefs and soldiers. That's the difference between "Persianate" and "Turco-Persians". Tājik 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottomans were "also" greatly influenced by Byzantine (Greek) and Slavic cultures of Balkans, whereas they are influenced by Turkish culture, too. Same situation for Persian culture... Noone disputes Persian influence. It makes no sense to refer Ottoman Empire as Persianate or whatever. We do not need to refer Ottoman Empire as Persianate or Turco-Persian, it is known as a Turkish Empire. This term should be deleted. Kaygtr 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the Ottomans were influenced by other (mostly European) cultures or not does not matter. What is important in here is that the Ottoman Empire (as well as the entire Anatolian Turkish culture) sprang from a strong Persian element ... That's why the Ottomans were "Persianate" ... until the "Young Turk" revolution, the Persian language was among the "official languages" of the Empire. Some Ottoman rulers, for example Suleyman or Murad, are known as Persian poets. One cannot really compare the Perso-Islamic influence to any other one. Tājik 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pff.. Are you trying to own the Islamic culture now? "Perso-Islamic"? Ottomans were influenced by Islamic, Byzantine and Persian cultures, as well as many others. Ottoman Empire didn't have an official language btw. It didn't have a constitution or something similar. Whatever language they spoke, it just was. Ottoman Empire was a Turkish Islamic Empire, that's all. Persianate is not even a real word to begin with :) Baristarim 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfff ... these words from peoples who claim everyone and everything - from Adam to Bill Clinton as "ethnic Turks" ... Persianate is a real word and it is used in scholarly works ... I had given you the sources before, two of them even taken from the University of Istanbul! What you do not understand is that "Persianate" is not really the simple "influence" of a certain regional tradition, it is the discription of a way of life that was based on the Persian Sassanian traditions that became a major element of the Abbasid Islamic world. That's why it is called Perso-Islamic (gosh, you people created the Turko-Persian Tradition article to claim even pre-Turkic Islamic traditions as "Turkic", not to mention all the other POV statements about "Turks here, Tuks there, Turks everywhre" ...): a symbiosis of Islamic (=religion) and Persian (=political) elements. When the Turks became Islamaized, they were converted to this culture ... that'S why the first Turkic sultans spoke Persian, dressed like Persians, acted like Persians, and believed to be Persians. The Ottomans sprang from this highly Persianized culture ... thus "Persianate Ottoman Empire": Ottomans ruled like Persian Emperors centuries before, they still dressed like earlier Persian Emperors, they had exactly the same Persian administration system (Padshah --> vizier --> ghulams --> etc), they used the Persian script, they used the Persian language in official documents, etc etc etc). Are you really claiming that the European subjects of the Ottomans had the same influence on them?! Tājik 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, it is obvious who has paranoia issues + comments bordering on racism. Nobody has claimed that Bill Clinton was a Turk, and nobody said that Turks were everywhere, so cut down on the crap and avoid the straw man. Comments like "you people" are nothing but racism. What people Tajik? Is this a gang war? "Let's get down to the hood dawg, those "people" are getting it down with our "peeps" - holla back!" :) Take your coffee-house banter someplace else please. Thanks. Baristarim 10:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism?! What the heck are you talking about ... "You people" - a gang of unemployed pseudo-historians - have messed up countless articles in Wikipedia. That'S why there is almost no article about Turks which is NOT disputed. Turko-Persian Tradition in which the authors (including yourself) claimed everyone and everything as "Turks", is such an article, and it still remains disputed, although I have tried ti filter all the Turkish-nationalist POV and try to clean it. The article Turkic peoples is still a mess, in some parts contradicting almost ALL standard reference works and pushing for an extreme Pan-Turkist view. That's the big problem with "you people". Tājik 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Tajik :))) Yeah, I am down with "my peeps" dawg! Argue on content, not people, and try to avoid the straw man. Baristarim 10:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, Baristarim ... just take a look at this discussion and you'll see that it is not me who is argueing people. Gosh ... BTW: Turkification is another POV article ... one of the many Turks-related POV articles in Wikipedia. Accuracy disputed! Tājik 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever.. Just like Turkey and Turkish literature are Featured Articles.. Watch for civility please, and try not to use terms like "you people". Thanks. Baristarim 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here the list of loan words in Turkish:

• Arabic: 6463
• French: 4974
• Persian: 1374
• Italien: 632

As you cann see Persian is the 3rd language in Turkish. Why don't we call Ottomans as "Turco-Arabien" or "Turco-Frank". 88.76.231.153 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

Evidently some editors find certain parts of this article "POV". In that case, I suggest those editors to bring forth their specific objections so that we can all find a concensus to address those concerns. So, what seems to be the problem? Baristarim 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll mention one problem: The Xiongnu. Several references are listed as supporting the claim that the Xiongnu were Turkic. If you read the references carefully, however, they do no such thing. The highly technical article on genetics actually says the Xiongnu had a mix of Asian and Indo-European genes, with Turkic genes only turning up in later burials. Thus they speculate that a Turkic component emerged later in the Xiongnu culture. This is also what the "All Empires" article on the Gök Türks says, "They might have been part of the Xiongnu". It doesn't claim they *were* the Xiongnu. Lastly, Vovin is not the only scholar to identify Yenisseian cognates to Xiongnu words, this was also done extensively by Pulleyblank. There is only one word, the word for 'heaven', that is known to be cognate between the Xiongnu language and the Turkic languages, and that word also appears in Mongolic, and (and Vovin argues) in Yenisseian. 140.247.244.33 14:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting information. As I have said from the beginning on: this article is focused too much on POV. Tājik 14:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate people questioning all this annoying Turkish nationalism that is popping up and it's weasel and condescending language that seem to be "railroading" the facts and truth. I think anti-Chinese sentiments, and anti-Asian racism is behind much of this. I see a great example of this, following up on what's being said here, is the article on Modu Chanyu, where Turkish (and white?) nationalist ridiculism cited an author Christopher Beckwith's claim that "although the only source of information about Modu Chanyu is written in the Records of the Grand Historian by Han Dynasty's Sima Qian, it SEEMS to contain legendary elements", SO therefore let's ignore it, and believe me when I say Modu Chanyu is likely Turkish. Better yet! Here's a statue of Modu Chanyu! (the image of which is phtographed in Turkey of all places). User: i don't bother loggin in 05:31 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Safavids

The Safavids do not belong on this list as they themselves said they were of Iranian origin! Just because a group speaks a language does not make them of that ethnicity. So the Mughals, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, and Kharezmians were all Persians Empires?Azerbaijani 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Safavids were speakers of Azerbaijani Oghuz. But it is important to mention that they were not of Turkic origin, but only highly influenced by the "White Sheep Turcomans" of Azerbaijan. They were originally of Persian Tati and Kurdish background. Sheikh Safi ud-Din Is'haq Ardabeli - founder of the Safavid tariqa - wrote poems in Tati. He claimed to be descendant of a Kurdish saint, Firuzshah Zarrinkollah. And when Ismail came to power, it was clear that he was ruling as a Persian Shah (that's why he revived the ancient title "Shahnshah"). Tājik 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how you can call Seljuks a persian empire ...haha....You only make me laugh by owning up for every historical empire you see, how bout we start calling the Byzantines a persian empire too? That would definitely make you guyz happy!!!

You do not know what your talking about! You are the ones claiming that who ever speaks a Turkic dialect is Turkic, yet you guys refuse to then say that every empire, such as the Mughals, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Khwarezmians, etc.. WHO ALL SPOKE PERSIAN were Persian. YOu cannot have it both ways. Language does not determine ethnicity. You want to know something funny, Turks from Turkey arent even ethnic Turks.Azerbaijani 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not about whether the majority of the population was Turkic. In this case the rulers, the people who established these dynasties, the management, or the shepherds were Turks. Sometimes I wonder why there would be states such as Black Sheep, or White Sheep. There must have been a lot of them around.Nostradamus1 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide whether the Turks of Turkey aren't ethnic Turks? Have you conducted any research, genetic or social in order to come to this conclusion? Stop making obnoxious, baseless comments and try to improve wikipedia in other articles than anything related to Turkic peoples. It is people like you who hold others back from helping to improve wikipedia.

I didnt decide, the facts decided it! Look at yourself in the mirror, that alone should prove it to you.Azerbaijani 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can do is laugh at you...you're not even worth arguing with, I would not want to fall to your level.

I added back the Safavids and Mughals since both were established by Turks.Nostradamus1 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

The Persianate character of the dynasty (in regard of cultural and linguistic heritage) is supported by scholarly sources, attached to the article. Removing these scholarly sources only because one disagrees is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. If you believe that there were also other influneces on the Ottomans, then add them to the article, instead of deleting reliable and scholarly sources. Noone denies Greek and other European influences on the Ottomans (especially in the 18th and 19th centurie). But in the first centuries of the dynasty, especially in the 15th, 16th, and even 17th centuries, the dynasty was clearly dominated by a very Persianate way of life. Some of the Ottoman sultans, most of all Sultan Suleyman, are known as poets of the Persian language. They composed divans in Persian. The life-style of the Ottoman sultans - their large palaces, harems, luxurious way of life, and their "Padishah" (from which the modern Turkish word "Pasha" derives) - reflected this Persianate culture. Besides that, the article said: they may be regarded as Turkic Persianate. Tājik 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tajik on this. The clarification is definitely necessary so the less informed readers appreciate that it was not wholly Turkic, removing it is tantamount to "cultural robbery" (something I thought was uncommon in this part of the world). It's sourced, so don't remove it please.--Domitius 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW A.Garnet says "I do not see why Persian should be the only one mentioned here". If you have sources for other such significant influences (Byzantine, Arab or anything else), feel free to add them. The OE is a significant part of many people's history, presenting it as a purely Turkic achievement is POV pushing.--Domitius 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, tell me why does its Persian cultural influences require a special disclaimer whilst its Arab and Byzantine influences do not? There is a disclaimer already at the top of the section stating "Mentioning of any particular entity in this place should not be read to mean that the entity as a whole was Turkic or even had more than a significant minority of Turkic subjects." This is enough. It is simply not practical to go through every empire and list every cultural influence on that dynasty. --A.Garnet 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol Have you actually read what Domitius wrote?! I do not think so ... Tājik 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, there was an edit conflict. My point remains. --A.Garnet 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"tell me why does its Persian cultural influences require a special disclaimer whilst its Arab and Byzantine influences do not?"

I repeat, No one is stopping you adding one. Frankly I don't believe that this article should exist at all, it should be a category or something so more than one can be included in each article. Would you support that?--Domitius 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Ottoman Empire could be included in the List of Turkic states and empires#Turco-Mongol and Turkic Persianate section.--Domitius 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW I think the existence of this section refutes A.Garnet's assertions.--Domitius 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Crimea etc

Is it appropriate to include states such as these? After all, Turkic speaking populations are minorities in these states.--Domitius 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, that's not the case for Tatarstan where, like Xinjiang, the "Turkic nation" is slightly over 50% making it the majority.--Domitius 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Altai Republic as well.--Domitius 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Gumuljina?

How exactly was this "Turkic"?--Domitius 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the Ottomans: I do not care where the dynasty is listed, but removing authoritative scholarly sources just does not make it. As for the rest: many claims in this article are odd and do not necessairly reflect the opinion of scholars. Please not the comment of an IP-User further above: [6]. As pointed out, some users have posted "fake sources", giving the wrong impression that their claims are somehow "supported by scholars". On other occasions, scholarly sources are simply misinterpreted in order to give a certain theory more legitimacy. An "accuracy disputed" tag would not be a bad idea. What do you think? Tājik 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add one.--Domitius 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus

Cyprus (the de facto southern part of the island) isn't a Turkic nation state, the de facto Northern Cyprus state is. It is a bit absurd to claim that a state is Turkish because the language is recognized. I mean: for instance Belgium recognizes German (only 80 000 of 10,5 million people speak it), but it isn't a German state. Only a minority of Cyprus speaks Turkish. The same applies for Ukraine: while there is a considerable minority of Crimean Turks, the country isn't Turkic. Sijo Ripa 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When Cyprus is mentioned in this article, it is not referring to the de facto Greek south, but to the Republic of Cyprus which was created under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and is recognized by everyone except Turkey. It is a co-Greek co-Turkish state, so it belongs here. Removing it is Turkish POV (in fact, including the "TRNC" is also Turkish POV and undue weight considering the extent of its acceptance, but I understand it is kept for compromise purposes). You seem confused; Crimean Tatars are an extremely small minority in the Ukraine and are also a minority in Crimea itself (the majority are Russians). Furthermore, Crimean Tatar is not a co-official language of the Ukraine, not the case here. If ethnic composition is in issue, then states such as the Altai Republic which has a Russian majority shouldn't be included either.--Domitius 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite POV to me to call a state where only a minority is Turkic to be a Turkic "nation state". And the Turkish are a minority in both the de facto or de jure Cyprus. Sijo Ripa 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? It's a state shared between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and therefore because of this significant Turkic element it merits being in the list. Being a majority is not a requirement (which explains why Crimea and Altay are in the list), and none of the listed states are 100% Turkic. Anyway, how about this compromise? If you're hoping to include only the TRNC and not the ROC, you're wasting your time, it was agreed above after a long and tedious edit war.--Domitius 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you said. There's really no need to offend me. I want to be make clear that a nation is not the same as ethnicity. It's a common mistake to confuse the two terms. (While a nation can be equal to an ethnic group, this is often not the case.) This mistake should not be made on Wikipedia, which strives to be a quality encyclopedia. I do not deny that there is a Turkish element on Cyprus (= one of the ethnic communities is Turkish). But Cyprus isn't a Turkic nation-state as this would suggest that the national identity and culture of Cyprus is mainly Turkic, which isn't the case for either de facto or de jure Cyprus. While it is possible that a minority exercices the largest influence on the national identity, this does not apply for Cyprus. Only the de facto northern state is a Turkic nation-state, as the Turkic ethnic group constitutes the nation. I find your current approach hostile to destructive. This can and should be debated and corrected. Ignoring the valid comments of a new contributor on this page, merely because there has been an edit war, cannot be considered reasonable. I understand that there has been quite some tension on this page. I'm not here to create tensions, but to improve. Sijo Ripa 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is ignoring your comments; I'm responding and trying to find a compromise compatible with what everyone agreed with earlier. Please understand though that the "TRNC" is recognized and considered a state only by Turkey (it's an illegally occupied territory in the eyes of everyone else), including that in itself as a "Turkic state" raises WP:NPOV#Undue weight (i.e. neutrality) issues. If I had it my way, both the Republic of Cyprus and the "TRNC" would be excluded, alas, not to be. How about referring to it by the Turkic people which both states claim, the Turkish Cypriots and mentioning the controversy in a footnote?--Domitius 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise.Sijo Ripa 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about you create a section "non-recognised and autonomous states" and put it in there? --A.Garnet 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. If I recall correctly, that's the approach taken at the Russian Wikipedia, they always have a "unrecognized states" section.--Domitius 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you would put it as the TRNC. --A.Garnet 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would be unnecessary to include the ROC right next to it because it wouldn't be presented as a state of the same caliber as Turkey or Kazakhstan.--Domitius 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say it is of the same caliber but go ahead ;) --A.Garnet 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, finally, agreement on something :) --Domitius 10:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the list of unrecognised states articles Domitius, there is a problem in that TRNC is listed as partially recognised. Perhaps we should change it to Partially recognised or defacto states section. What do you think? --A.Garnet 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with either as long as the wikilink to the list article isn't removed.--Domitius 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

turks will write own history...

turks will write own history...--Offical 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know ethnic groups could own history. Khoikhoi 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ottomans were Persian(ate)?

"because the culture of the ruling dynasty, the House of Osman, was largely derived from the Persian culture, the Ottomans may also be regarded as Turkic Persianate" I suggest we add "the Ottomans may also be regarded as Turkic Arabic" since "the House of Osman was largely derived from" Arabic culture as well and they were muslims, a religion originated from Arabia. Plus Ottomans were "Greco Turkish" since they inherited Byzantian culture and institutions to a large extend. Besides, I propose to add the same to the Turkish Republic since it is comprised of descendents of the Ottoman Empire. Plus, with the same reasoning, we should label all nations which were a part of Ottoman Empire as such. Not to forget Turks were influenceed a lot from French and later on from English cultures. Further on, we should label all current and historical European states as being Greek and most as Latin by a similar reasoning. Filanca 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I currently agree with [7] version. The Ottomans were a dominant group among others of course the French, Arabs, and many others influenced them, thus concluding the rest and pin pointing the well thought out ones by major historians that are efficient in there experties on this subject should stay. For example historians like Abu-Rayhan Biruni and/or modern historians who are experts on the region like Ehsan Yarshater have mentioned the large influence of Persian culture among the House of Osman, I have reviewed this for years the large derivations from Persian culture are important and should stay. Minitéi 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Persian culture had a significant influence in the Ottoman ruling class. However, as someone pointed out previously, Arab culture had a significant influence too, in fact its impact on modern spoken Turkish is more than Persian. And historians are increasingly convinced of an important Byzantian (Greco-Latin) influence. This is the page for listing states in which Turks played a significant role. NOT the place for listing which cultures influenced them. Filanca 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to above: If you are still convinced in adding Persian influence next Ottoman Empire in this simple list of states, consider mentioning Arabic and Greek influences too, both of which are early and very important. Filanca 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab culture was largly based on Persian culture. See Abbasids and Sassanids. Arabic words and Muslim customs were introduced to Turks by Persians. Arabic words in Turkish have typical Persian pronounciations, for example the name Ridha is pronounced as Reza, exactly as in Persian. Majority of Muslim scholars and writers were Persians anyway, even those who wrote in Arabic, and they have influenced all other Non Arab Muslims since then, especially the Turks who were converted to Islam by Persians (see Samanids, Saffarids, and Ghurids). If you think that the Ottomans were also influneced by Greeks, feel free and add that information to the article instead of deleting sourced academic quotes. Also see the quote by [Ibn Khaldun]] who says "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). In addition, Toynbee says: "For this vast cultural empire the New Persian language was indebted to the arms of Turkish-speaking empire-builders, reared in the Iranic tradition and therefore captivated by the spell of the New Persian literature, whose military and political destiny it had been to provide one universal state for Orthodox Christendom in the shape of the Ottoman Empire and another for the Hindu World in the shape of the Timurid Mughal Raj. These two universal states of Iranic construction on Orthodox Christian and on Hindu ground were duly annexed, in accordance with their builders' own cultural affinities, to the original domain of the New Persian language in the homelands of the Iranic Civilization on the Iranian plateau and in the Basin of the Oxus and the Jaxartes; and in the heyday of the Mughal, Safawi, and Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element over the whole of this huge realm, while it was also being employed as the official language of administration in those two-thirds of its realm that lay within the Safawi and the Mughal frontiers." (see Persianate). According to Bernard Lewis "The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna." [8] Please do not remove sourced information.

• "Arab culture was largly based on Persian culture" then call Arabs as Persianate too, but this is not true. There is a unique Arab culture. Arab language is rather different from Persian one, and it had equal or more influence on Ottoman Turkish. All Ottoman rulers but two had Arabic names. Remaining two had Turkish names. None had a Persian name.
• "Arabic words and Muslim customs were introduced to Turks by Persians" Turks had direct contact with Arabic armies beginning with Talas war, but what if that is true? Arabic culture is still Arabic no matter "introduced" by whom. And I hope you will not go as far as claiming Greek culture was "introduced" to Ottomans by Persians.
• "Arabic words in Turkish have typical Persian pronounciations" Not always, what about "cumhuriyet"? Are Arabic loan words in Turkish coincide with those in Persian? Some Persian words are used in Turkish according to Arabic grammar. Like "matruş" (shaven). In fact, Ottomans used both Arabic and Persian words in their way, in their idioms, with their pronounciation, sometimes with changed meaning. Again, if you are right in that issue what does it prove? That there was no significant Arabic and Greek influence to Ottomans?
• "Majority of Muslim scholars and writers were Persians anyway" not relevant, even if true.
• "If you think that the Ottomans were also influneced by Greeks, feel free and add that information" Ottomans were influenced from Arabs AND Greeks as well as Persians and later on from west Europeans. If there is insistance of writing Persian influence, I'll certainly add those. The point is this is NOT the place to go into depths of cultural specifications. This is a list article, if you have not noticed.
• Your attempts at proving "superiority" of Persian culture are also irrelevant. Try to put the adjective "Persianate" to pages on Arab culture and see what happens.
• Bernard Lewis' quote on "... Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element" is certainly true. Arabic was also heavily used by the ruling elite. Ottoman subject written books in Arabic as well as Persian and Turkish. Persian was not the only element in Ottoman literature and science.
• About deleting sourced material: It is perfectly OK to delete them under some circumstances. Like the ones in question, cultural influences on Ottomans are irrelevant to this article. We should either delete "Persianate" (right thing to do) or write all influences (which is not consistent with the aim of this article). THIS IS A LIST ARTICLE, not an article for in-depth examination of cultural influences in all of those states. Filanca 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

former states

hi, what about adding Republic of Kars or South-Western Democratic Republic( 1 December 1918-15 April, 1919) and Turkic Republic of Aras to the list of former republics? i think in Turkish sources there is more info about them. Elsanaturk

What a great, I found wikipedia articles for both states and i'll put them into article.Elsanaturk

I added some information to the Qajar and Safavid parts making things more clear as per the other ones listed.Hajji Piruz 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted deleted information by the IP. Next time please explain your removals.Hajji Piruz 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Which are not Turkic states?

I dont think some states should be in this article. Namely Safavid and Timurids as they are not 100% Turkic. However maybe we could have a section with partially Turkic states? We could also implement this in the List of Iranic states as well. This should help mixed empires be able to be more categorised? Londium 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

These two dynasties are partially Iranic/Mongolic.

• Timurid dynasty (1370-1506) (Turkicized and Persianized dynasty of Mongol origin.)
• Safavid dynasty (1501–1722) (Rulers of Persia from a predominantly Turkic-speaking family originally of Iranic, most probably Kurdish, descent who hailed from Iranian Kurdistan)

Something needs to be done about it? Londium 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dynasties for possible inclusion?

Should the Anatolian Beyliks be listed in this article? Since they were a series of small Turkic states based all over Anatolia? Londium 22:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Safavids were not Turkic in origin, thus they do not belong on this list.Hajji Piruz 23:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire

First of all, it is an Empire, not a Kingdom. And second and most important - the First Bulgarian Empire which existed between 681 and 1018 was one whole political entity and must not be separated. How can you write the years 681-864???? Before 864 and after 864 it was still Bulgarian Empire, one and the same state, ruled by one and the same ruler. The Empire was Slavic; the origins of the ruling dynasty is not a reason to consider the Empire to be a Turkic and the Bulgars were a minority. The Second Bulgarian Empire was also ruled by Turkic dynasties at some moments but it is again a Slavic Empire. --Gligan (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK.Thanks for the corrections. You're right. I will change the word "Kingdom" to Empire but I am sure some others scholars would call it "The Danubean Bulgar Khanate". I will also correct the time period. It is generally accepted that the Bulgars became Bulgarians after Khan Boris I converted to Christianity in 864 and assumed the title of tsar. But the Turkic Asparuhid dynasty ruled until 1018. Origins of a dynasty is sufficient to list it here. The list is not limited to states/empires with a Turkic majority. For instance, see Mughal Empire.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my God. The Asparuhid dinasty? What the hell is this? And if you are by some chance referring to Dulo, how come they ruled till 1018? And how come the Bulgars become Bulgarians when they were called Bulgars before and Bulgars afterwards? (And if we abstract from English most of the other languages still call us Bulgars (Българи, а не Българианци)). Thanks for the lesson in history, really. --Laveol ^T 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not respond to any of my comments (I'm so surprised), but I have another one: What constitutes calling a country this or that - the ruler or the people. If you say The ruler as you obviously do - than the Third Bulgarian Empire (or Bulgaria since 1878) is clearly a German state. Or even German-Italian-British since Boris III is of partial German-Italian-British descent. So what do we do now? I'd like to see you change all the info about all the countries in Europe before coming back here to promote whatever you're trying to promote. --Laveol ^T 09:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Asparuhid dynasty is the dynasty that ruled the ancient Danubean Bulgar kingdom. It starts with Asparuh. Dulo is the name of a clan. Bulgars and Bulgarians are two ethnically, linguistically, and culturally distinct peoples. The former contributed into the formation of the latter but all that is left is their name in the country of present day Bulgaria. Secondly, there is a big difference between importing royalty, such as the Germans tsars of Bulgaria, and those who establish states and rule them as a dynasty. Bulgars established and ruled the First Bulgarian Empire, the Cumans played a very important role as rulers of three dynasties of Second Bulgarian kingdom (or empire, whatever you like to call it). Cumans settled in Bulgaria and also formed the nobility. There were even Tatar rulers of Bulgaria, see Chaka Khan. I do realize that we can't have a simple flat list that implies that every member of it is equally Turkic. Therefore I will add comments in a separate column so that the reader is informed of its weight.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the last NPOV version with the disclaimers and the sourced texts that User:Nostradamus1 had removed. --07fan (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping disclaimers and dubious sources, such as the Encyclopedia Iranica, you removed information from the article. This article is not about Iranian or Bulgarian culture, it is about the states and the rulership of Turkic peoples. Whether Seljuks ruled over a majority Iranian popularion or not, they were clearly a Turkic poeple. Babur and Timur might have been fond of Persian poetry but they were no Persians.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is not a "dubious source", it is a reliable source in line with WP:RS, authored by the most notable Western scholars of orient. --07fan (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is full of Iranian BS and has no place here. An encyclopedia is NOT A GOOD SOURCE of INFO for ANOTHER ONE. (and will not be tolerated.)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Iranica is a project of Columbia University, and an academic source. On what ground do you claim that "Encyclopedia Iranica is full of Iranian BS"? Do you have an academic or a published source saying anything to that effect? If not, stop removing sourced material. --07fan (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1, who do you think you are to define which sources are reliable and which are not???????

The article is not about Iran, Iranica, or any associated non-Turkic peoples. 07fan, who do YOU think you are to eliminate more than half a dozen entries from the list citing "agreement" or discussion. The list I edited contains the items on the list you have insisted on restoring -the result of which amounts to the deletion of items from the list. Iranica will not be an authority about the list of Turkic states. I am restoring the list and warning you to request citation in case you have a problem with any entries in the list. Also again, an encyclopedia is not considered to be a good source of information according to WP standards. Therefore, entries by Ajami's citing Iranica in order to push Iranian bias and POV -so that the world recognizes them as somebodies- will not stand here.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The article must begin with a definition of what a Turkic state is. --Gligan (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many states established by Turkic peoples. There are some states establisthed by non-Turkic peoples with a significant Turkic population. Both can be included in the list provided that there are scholarly references. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a definition. Imagine that Turkey as it is not is governed by a King who is Slav and his dynasty is Slavic; would that mean that Turkey is a Slavic country? I think not. Please find a definition for a Turkic (Slavic/Latin/Norse/whatever) country. Here you misinterpred the sources - it is true that some Bulgarian dynasties were of Turkic origin BUT this does not mean that the country is Turkic. Find a source in which Bulgaria is called a Turkic country or rename the article to List of Turkic dynasties. --Gligan (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I double Gligan. The Bulgarian empires were Slavic - there's no scholar that denies that. Or you have some other info on the subject, Nostradamus? --Laveol ^T 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians doubling each other, what a surprise. Now, the Bulgarian "empires" were not Slavic. The first Bulgarian "empire" was established and ruled by a Turkic people for almost TWO centuries before adopting Christianity and losing their true identity during the THIRD century of their existence. The second Bulgarian "empire" too was founded by a Turkic Cuman dynasty and ruled by THREE successive TURKIC dynasties. Majority of the noble families too were of Cuman origin. How does that EXCLUDE the two empires from being Turkic? Furthermore, I provided direct scholarly quotations. We can not exclude these states from the list just because the resulting population occupying the same land turned out to identify itself as "Slavic" more than HALF A MILLENIUM after these events.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But your own sources state only that the rulers were from partial Cuman origin. And you know it more than well. First this is the rulers, second - from partial origin. Further - why don't you cut with the OR - there are three theories about Asen and Peter's origin, but you single-handedly adopt one of them that suits you. And you haven't answered the main question - What is the definition of a Turkic state? Provide us one before trying to introduce your (and it is only yours) POV--Laveol ^T 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My source states that

The Cumans were the founders of three successive Bulgarian dynasties (Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids), and the Wallachian dynasty (Basarabids). István Vásáry (2005) "Cumans and Tatars", Cambridge University Press.

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ROMANIA

Dear Nostradamus1 don't forget to add in your funny list Romania! A turkic state created by one cuman (turk) - Basarab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.247.180 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect she does not qualify to be listed as such.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Medcab case

I'd like to remind everyone who wants to participate that the mediation cabal has picked up a request for this dispute, and is located right here. I'd prefer to move the discussion here at some point, so it's not necessary to be over there, although I've asked a few questions that you'll find at the case page. Would anyone who is involved in the dispute please add that page to their watchlist, though? At any rate, I prefer keeping the discussion on the article talk, so please don't think that the mediation is in anyway keeping you from editing this page normally. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Rewriting the introductory part of the "Historical kingdoms and empires"section

I suggest that rewrite the current section introduction which sounds more like a disclaimer than an explanation of what is listed below. Perhaps something as follows would be more explanatory

Turkic peoples, a group of peoples defined by their Turkic languages and by certain shared elements of culture and history, built and ruled a large number of states in a territory stretching between the eastern end of Inner Asia, what later became Mongolia and environs, in the east and the Hungarian plains in the west over the last two millenia.

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the two sub-sections

It is quite obvious that the "Turco-Mongol and Turkic Persianate" section was added by Iranians (perhaps the same people who also added the Ottoman Empire to the List of Iranic states) pushing for recognition. Also "Turkic States in Eastern Europe" section simply makes no sense. Why Eastern Europe but not North East Africa, for example?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Content, not contributors. I understand that this can be difficult, dealing with POV, but this is an article that people of all nationalities are going to be editing. Please, I implore you, address the removal of the section with a focus on the content, not the contributors who made them. People are quick to suspect motives on the part of others that aren't really there :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Timurids, Mamluks of Egypt, Khanate of Chagatai, Ottoman Empire, Safavids, and the Mughal Empire

According to the following quote I propose the addition of the Timurids, Mamluks of Egypt, Khanate of Chagatai, Ottoman Empire, Safavids, and the Mughal Empire to the list

"Whatever his real or fancied claims to Mongol descent, the great Timur was a Turk in race and spirit; the Mamluks of Egypt were commonly the offspring of Turkish Kipchak slaves; the Golden Horde of Russia grew progressively turcicized, as did the Khanate of Chagatai, and in the sixteenth century the three mightiest thrones of Islam (the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid of Persia, and the Great Moghul of India) were filled by families of Turkish speech and origin. Almost all branches of the Turkish race were by then Muslims, and the more civilized of them had become strongly impregnated by Persian culture. Although a Persian National State did not arise till after the fall of the Safavid dynasty, Persian art and literature captivated the Ottomans and the Moghuls, and the Arabs, whose political independence survived only in the deserts of Arabia, were depressed to the level of a poor third in the scale of Islamic nations." (Saunders, J.J., The History of the Mongol Conquests, 1971, p.177, Raurlegde & Oaul Ltd.)

THE KIPCHAKS WERE NOT TURKIC - EVERYONE DESCRIBED THEM AS BLOND AN BLUE EYED - SOMETHING WHICH IS GENETICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR TURKIC PEOPLE - USE YOUR COMMON SENSE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Any objections should be addressed below.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nostradamus1, it seems the details and sources should remain, because it is not clear what you mean by Turkic and there is no concensus about some empires you added.--79.132.198.6 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The introduction section clarifies this. States established and ruled by Turkic peoples can be listed here.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The other user is correct. Do not remove the sourced details that are not line with your POV, you have no consensus or authority to remove sources just because you don't like them. As per introduction, your proposed intro is original research and POVish, the common definition of "Turkic" is one who speaks a Turkic language, not some pan-Turkist fringe theory involving race and mythology. --07fan (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove these comment because before I could some other user had already done so. These souced details are with your POV. Is that the reason you keep pushing for them. What value do they add. Readers can browse the corresponding articles. This is a list. The introduction section will include the reasons these states are listed. It can not be a disclaimer. Furthermore, we need the list to be chronological. So sub-sections are not needed. If you want to create a separate article about the states who were built by the Turks over a predominantly Persian population feel free to do so. (By the way, I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that Bernard Lewis called the Ottomans a "Persian" dynasty.)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are going to have to do a better job than throwing out these cheap shots. Which fringe theory you are talking about? Every dynasty and state listed were established and ruled by native Turkic speakers. People of Turkic origin. And, yes, that includes the Safavids. And how do I know that? Because the sources YOU and I have already quoted say that. So there is nbo way that you can get away with removing the Safavids from this list. I will take this as high as I can just to prove the worthiness of WP to myself. I have sources stating it clearly and they will receive the necessary recognition. I am restoring the article to the latest version. Along some other questions you did not explain why the article should have a sub-section for Turkic states in Easter Europe. Even if it did were the Avars and the Crimean Khanate the only ones? Why is, say, Khazars or the Ottomans, not listed, for example.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---"Readers can browse the corresponding articles. This is a list." Let's assume that they don't want or don't have time to do that. This page itself should be clarifying, because in the title you have only "Turkic".---"If you want to create a separate article about the states who were built by the Turks over a predominantly Persian population feel free to do so." They were not just what you intend to say. They were "Turco-Persian". The title of the article says "Turkic". What do you mean by "Turkic"? Your version reads: "Turkic peoples, a group of peoples defined by their Turkic languages and by certain shared elements of culture and history," What are those "certain shared elements of culture" between say "Xiongnu" and "Afsharids"? ----"I will take this as high as I can just to prove the worthiness of WP to myself. I have sources stating it clearly and they will receive the necessary recognition." As I see you have already removed some sources which didn't fully support your ideas.--79.132.198.7 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be self clarifying and that is the reason the relevant section shoud explain what is listed below rather than sound like a disclaimer. My version clearly points to the language but why are we applying special standards here. Sufficient sources list Xiongnu as Turkic and point to the Turkic origins of the Safavids. On the other hans how many sources list Abbasids, or the Ephalites, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Mughals as Iranic? Anyone who needs to laugh should take a look at the List of Iranic states and empires.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You have removed Helen Chapin Metz and Iranica (R.M. Savory. Ebn Bazzaz and R. N. Frye). I think all sources should remain. Iranica is not a dubious source, because just you see "Iran" in its name. I can equally claim that Britanica is dubious because of one time colonialism. In one sentence you say: "My version clearly points to the language", and in the other: "Sufficient sources list Xiongnu as Turkic and point to the Turkic origins of the Safavids". At last, is this article about language, culture, origin or what? Another source about Safavids also claim otherwise. You say: "On the other hands how many sources list Abbasids, or the Ephalites, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Mughals as Iranic?" Abbasids and the Ottoman Empire were heavily affected by Iranian culture and language and it is not a fringe idea. I agree about the disclaimer, the relevant section should be like that of the Iranic article. Dear Nostradamus1, many of the dynasties are shared by all the people of the middle east, we cannot separate them so easily, it would be impossible or very hard. I agree with 07fan, both articles better to be removed; Or merged somehow, or at least the titles and contents should be clearly clarifying.--79.132.198.8 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. [07fan replaced the reference I provided with the one he preferred and I restored it back. [[9] [10] It is clear to me that the aggressors and the source of the problem in this article have been users from nationalities who, on the average, have difficulties in accepting historical views that some of the historical dynasties and/or states that they have been taught to be proud of are listed as Turkic. I already indicated that this is not a mutually exlusive list. The problem is that some Iranian users insist on removing or having certain items listed according to their POV. What is the reason for insisting that the Ghaznavids are listed as "Turkic Persianate"? Ghaznavids are still Turkic, aren't they? I can find you a ton of sources for that. The behavior of these users can only be explained as primitive nationalism. As I said I will not contest the Iranic states article about the Ottomans and others. After a certain point I'd like to leave it to the rest of the users' and readers' judgement. (Not that I am confident that everyone will get it. See the section titled Turko-Persian below.) Somehow a few Ottoman poets composing in Persian entitles this empire to be listed as an Iranic empire? I do not think so and I have not read a single source to categorize them as such. The native language and origins of the Ottomans, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Safavids, Timurids, Mughals, Khwarzemshahs, Afsharids, etc. was Turkic. That by itself is sufficient to list them in this article. And yes, this article is about language and origin because this is what makes them Turkic. If Babur wrote his memoirs in Turkic and clearly stated that he is a Turk then the state he and his Turkic followers established can be listed here without additional qualifiers.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of these users can only be explained as primitive nationalism. You know this can easily be attributed to you as well (and perhaps cynically is already)? But I trust you as a contributor at any rate, so I'll defer judgment on that matter. These personal attacks, which can be read "Nationality X cannot edit Article Y", is not helpful. Again, I'm not making any judgment, since over the 'net things like this can be muddled. But consider a different approach, focusing on edits and not editors next time around. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality X CAN edit Article Y. I have been asking a number of question that still remain unanswered. I also made suggestions to remove the sub-sections. I expect those who insist on having these sections to explain why. I'd also expect an apology from those who 1) accused my with pan-Turkism 2) accused me of editing the article as a sock-puppet under an IP address. 3) accused me for deleting references. None of these were true.

I ask again to those who insist on these items: 1) Why should the section introduction should read as a dislaimer instead of outlining the criteria and explaining what is listed below? 2) Why is there a sub-section for Eastern Europe but not for other regions? 3) Why should there be a single sub-section that lists the Turko-Mongol and "Turkic Persianate" states together? --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooh... I was only fighting for Featured list criteria, and Leads in lists... things that make a good list (the first link in particular). I'm still standing by my main point that this could be made a very good list given everyone's knowledge in the area, and could - with effort - pass GA. It's much easier to qualify the dispute inside the text than on the talk page. The Safavids, for instance, qualify as both Turkic and Iranic given the criteria given on each. Is there a way to clarify this? Is there a reason that it shouldn't be clarified, and would clarifying it hurt the project? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not sure whether it's "Safavids" or "Safavid Empire", so I apologize in advance if I don't have the nomenclature down ;-)

Basically, we have been edit warring on the historical states section. Without constructive dialog we can not resolve the differences. The are items in the list that will be controversial but we should be able to overcome them. For instance, regarding the Xiongnu there are grey areas. However omitting Xiongnu from a list regarding the histography of Turkic states would by itself be a POV. Any history book about Turkic peoples would mention them. The same goes, pretty much, for the Safavids. Safavid dynasty built and ruled the Safavid Empire where the majority of the population was Persian. This could easily be explained in the list. The controversy around the Safavids is because the Safavids became champions of Shia branch of Islam to which the present day Iranians adhere. As a result it becomes a matter of national pride and naturally there is a tendency to Iranianize them. Not only the Safavids but also their main power base followers -the Kizilbash (Red Heads)- that helped establish the empire were Turkic. There are sufficient scholarly references to qualify them for inclusion in the list. We can indicate any controversy appropriately. But first we need the constuctive participation of all edit warring parties. Everyone should demonstrate that they are willing to improve the article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

← Everyone, by default, is willing to improve the article, albeit with some edit warring, which is evidence that the dispute needs to be taken to talk. So: we, as Wikipedians, can use edit warring to our advantage. Instead of actively participating in one (I'm glarin' at you too :-p), we can step back and bring ourselves to talk. There is no True Version, remember :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been no responses to my questions above so far. I will remove the subsection for Eastern Europe and separate the Turko-Mongol and Turkic-Pesianate. The section introduction still remains as a disclaimer. Is this an article to state what it is not about? It should be the other way around.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How should it read? Currently, it's "Mentioning of any particular entity in this place should not be read to mean that the entity as a whole was Turkic or even had more than a significant minority of Turkic subjects." I agree it's more of a disclaimer than a clarification, but I think it's easy to put a spin on that (I'm a little tired). What are your thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1, among his latest edits, has attempted to censor the undisputed fact that Seljuqs and Moghols were predominantly Persian-speaking. This is an unacceptable censorship of important information about the identity of these two dynasties. --07fan (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I dispute that these were predominantly Persian speaking. These states were established by Turkic speaking dynasties. Futhermore, why should the article focus on Persians when the article clearly is centered around the Turkicness of the listed items. These states were built and ruled by Turkic peoples. Not only a single family but entire tribes, clans or armies. The credid has to go there.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Turco-Persian

Posted by Nostradamus[11];

"While the word Turko-Mongol is a commonly used term by historians the word Turkic Persianate appears to be an Iranian invention (POV).

From Bernard Lewis' book, "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", p29;

"Even when the land of Rum become politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of the Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia. The literature of Seljuk Anatolia was almost entirely in Persian, and when a literature in Turkish first appeared under the early Ottomans, it drew its inspiration from Persia and Central Asia"

and Lewis' book, "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East", p44;

"The center of the Islamic world was under Turkish and Persian states, both shaped by Iranian culture."

So much for "an Iranian invention". Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I do not know what sort of animosity you have against me but since you have been following me around in WP you better read the full context of my writings. 07fan already made the same mistake and I answered him as below in the mediation page:

I said Turkic Persianate not Turko-Persian. Also I am unaware of a WP policy of preventing contributions because of "long-standing consensus". Perhaps, at the time those involved knew only that much. Now it's time to improve upon that.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that some of us here are confusing literature and language of diplomacy with statecraft. Persian was the lanuage of literature and diplomacy at the time. Rulers and states who used it were not necessarrily Persian or Iranians. In any case the Ottoman Empire is listed as an Iranic empire and I won't even bother to try to convince anyone that that is not the case. Let it stay there and let readers judge it for themselves. I challenged 07fan to back up his claim that Bernard Lewis wrote that the Ottomans were a "Persian dynasty". So far he failed to do so. You migh want to help him and the rest of us since you seem to have some of his books. But I doubt Lewis can write something like that.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are confusing real research with "animosity". If anyone has any animosity against anyone, I'd say you have a great deal against Iranians. Three times(so far) I've read statements by you that ring of racism.

"Persian was the lanuage of literature and diplomacy at the time. Rulers and states who used it were not necessarrily Persian or Iranians."

And where is Lewis' statement of this? His was that the Ottoman Empire expanded Persian language and culture.

Since there is such a drastic difference between "Turkic Persianate" and "Turko-Persian", why don't you explain it. Considering that it wasn't simply a misspelling or misunderstanding on the editors part. From what I've read, the word is used once(in the article) and may be an attempt to expand upon the word Turko-Persian(which is clearly used in the same sentence). Seems some of us have confused an attempt at elaboration upon the word Turko-Persian, and turned it into a racial rant.

"In any case the Ottoman Empire is listed as an Iranic empire and I won't even bother to try to convince anyone that that is not the case. Let it stay there and let readers judge it for themselves."

You mean the one that has SIX references?? Have you taken the time to check their references? Speaking of references...

This "reference" is simply one person's opinion, and connected to a history forum[12]. Also, this external source is simply someone's personal opinion, thus violating NPOV[13]. This external source is a webpage[14], created by another "someone" which lists NO references, another violation of NPOV.

Another major difference between the "List of Turkic States..." and "List of Iranic States...", is that the "List of Iranic states" doesn't have written statements used as references. Compared to references #6, #11, #16, #21, and #26 on the "List of Turkic states" article, which are all written statements and should be removed.

Definition of reference; a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

Also, if you feel I've been "stalking" you, then by all means NOTIFY AN ADMIN. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read sufficient number of history books to know that Ottoman Empire can not be listed as an Iranic empire. I also have been long enough in WP to know that appending references does not necessarily mean the sources actually state what is implied by appending the reference. I bet if I examine those references for, say, Ghaznavids or Mughals I will find that the sources did not indicate that these were Iranic empires. You can see that from the comments for the Ottoman Empire in that list and from 07fan's misrepresentation of Lewis' view. I am not sure about the Seljuk or Gok Turk Empire references but my position on this is simple and I expressed it before. Web links and encyclopedias are not good sources of information and scholarly work should be used instead. I would normally expect any unbiased user to express concern when they see clear violations but I did not see much of that here so far. Late a look, for instance, what 07fan did recently. He replaced my reference with his own. My reference was simply stating why this item is in the list. 07fan replaced it with another one according to his POV. Now, some other user can come and take that item out based on this change. Another change was also editing the references I listed in the article. I used different editions of some of these books and I am not sure the page numbers I used are valid anymore. Finally regarding the written statements in the notes section. I am not sure this is against any WP rules. Notes and footnotes can be used to clarify points. What is listed in these sections does not necessarily have to be a reference. But I won't oppose their removal or combining them with the actual source that succeeds them.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottomans were influenced of many cultures, one may call them Hellenic or Arabic as much as Persian. Ottoman language contained more Arabic words than Persian and their state structure and many customs were based on those of Eastern Roman Empire. In spite of all influences they had a distinct Turkish identity which was transformed into modern day Turkish culture. And this is a list article, not a place to detail which Turkic state was influenced from which cultures. Filanca (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bahmani Sultanate

Larno Man, I've reverted the Bahmani Sultanate and added (possible) and a reference to support the possibility of Turkish origin. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! It is lkely that they were Turkish origin. However, I read somewhere that they had migrated from Iran. I don't insist on that unless I find that reference.--Larno Man (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't even think to check Encyclopedia Iranica. Good additions, both here and Bahmani Sultanate! Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids, OH MY!

"The importance of the settlements of Turkic and Mongol peoples in the north Danubian plains, their cohabitation with the local Slavic and later Romanian population, and their role in the creation of the forms of political organisation of the area...", p135, "Cumans and Tatars" by István Vásáry.

"Just as, in the case of contacts between the Bulgaro-Turks and Southern Slaves, the Bulgars organised a state, gave it political stability, and were assimilated into the numerically stronger Slavic population, so the Cumans organised the Vlakh settlers and within a few generations had become culturally assimilated into them.", p. 136, "Cumans and Tatars" by István Vásáry.

"To replace Ivailo, the Bulgarian bolyars chose Georgi I Terter, possibly a Cuman in ethnic origin.", p.84, "The Balkans: from Constantinople to Communism", D.P. Hupchick 2002.

"As a consequence, groups of the Cumans and the Tatars settled and mingled with the local population in the various regions of the Balkans.", p.i, "Cumans and Tatars" by István Vásáry.

Citations given. Kansas Bear (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The above citations provide nothing to support the claim that all three dynasties -Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids- were of partial Cuman origin. That claim is made by you and user:Laveol. Vasary clearly states that "The Cumans were the founders of three successive Bulgarian dynasties (Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids), and the Wallachian dynasty (Basarabids)" and some users who do not like that and are trying to cast doubt on that by insisting on the word "partially". There are no partial dynasties. Even today the paternal lineage counts. It has always been like that. Are we going to create different standards for Bulgarians? Also since you are at it would you like to add Vassary as a reference to support the Bulgars were a Turkic people?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why does Vasary state that they "cohabitated" and "mingled" and Hupchick says that George Terter was "possibly a Cuman in ethnic origin."? I'm sure that you think that everyone has the same mentality that you do. Unfortunately, I don't have any feelings for any ethnic group(unless of course they make Single Malt Scotch, just kidding!). I went looking for information to determine if the Cumans intermarried and found it. You seem to be extremely wrapped up in ethnic and racial labelling and to become a real historian you have to move beyond ethnic and racial bigotries. If the information from Vasary and Hupchick said that the Cumans didn't inter-marry with Slavic peoples, wouldn't that information be just as relevant? Unlike some people, I don't simply cherry-pick certain sentences and leave out relevant information, just to suit my own purposes. You continue to question my ability as a historian, perhaps you should question your own objectivity as a researcher! As for Vasary as a reference for Bulgars, present the information and we can go from there. I prefer more than one reference to support any opinion(Philip V for example). It removes the possibility of bias attributed to one author. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that you consider Cumans intermarrying with the Slavs as sufficient reason to list the three dynasties in question as "partly" Turkic. Do you realise that the user pushing for this word has an ethnic agenda too. I happen to be familiar with that part of the world where states with the full support of part of their population not only altered the identity of the dead and gone but also did the same to the living human beings in front of the eyes of the world. Bulgarians are inclined to cast doubt on the Turkic origin of Bulgars. (You can even find some claiming that the Bulgars were actually a Slavic people.) They will try to squeeze in the word "partially" for the three Cuman dynasties implying that they were also Slavs. It will also not take that long for them to bring up the standard complaint about the 500 year long suffering under the bad Ottoman Turks. And in order to be able to paint the Turks as the alien invaders any pre-Ottoman Turkic presence in Bulgaria will have to be erased or minimized. Maybe you do not realize but that is the reason Bulgarians will go wild if, say, in the Turks in Bulgaria article some user tries to add content about the medieval Turkic peoples. They will fight to remove it. You have Hupchick's book. Does he talk about the Cumans, Pechenegs, Oghuz, and Bulgars as a Turkic people that were present in Bulgaria? Yet some of us have to fight for this. It should not be that hard but it is. I am normaly not a quitter but unfortunately I have lost my interest in WP since I have seen how it can be abused and manipulated. Time is precious and I will let the nature take its course. I am sure this will be a welcome news to some. Feel free to remove anything you want from this article. "Partly" or "probably" are all fine from this point on. At least I tried.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Taymyria is not a republic"

Dear Mttll, you are right, of course, but then Taymyria is an autonomous okrug and as such the equivalent of a republic in the administrative divisions of Russia. The republics in the Russian federation do not have more autonomy than the autonomous okrugs. If the republics are listed, then perhaps all the automous okrugs (not just Taymyria) should be listed - if they are populated by Turkic people using Turkic languages. The list of autonomous okrugs in Russia is here. They are all in Siberia. You do not have to list them as republics: you can put them under the existing heading "Other autonomous Turkic regions" or add a new heading "Other autonomous Turkic regions in Russia". The main point in my view is to reflect the ethnic (Turkic) background of these peoples -- something that I am not qualified to judge. Will you consider this issue please? --Zlerman (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A new heading with an accurate explanation is the best option in my opinion.--Mttll (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some issues

So I was looking at ways to improve this article, and I decided to click a few links because some of them appeared to be interesting. However, it occurred to me that some of these seem to have been added without sources or were added wrongly. Also, some of the references used as sources do not make the claims that they are cited to support, and if anything, are indirect and original research. Here are the ones that I may have some issues with:

The following seem to be original research: Xiongnu (the sources used to cite this do not say anything about the Xiongnu being Turkic. Also, the Wikipedia article on them says no such thing.)

(note, the ones below are based on the original research assumption that the Xiongnu were Turkic, none of these are cited using sources that specifically call them Turkic, its all OR) Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms) Northern Han Dynasty Northern Wei (including east and west)

Huns (this one is unknown, they were most likely a group of many different peoples) Hephthalites (possibly Turkic, this should be noted in the article)

I guess the most confusing ones are the ones relating to China. Also, some are listed more than once in this article. The repetitive ones should be taken out.Kalifo (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many states

The historical list contains too many names. The list should be reviewed.

• Linguistic evidence is inadequate to name some Asian tribes or khaganates Turkic before the emergence of the Turkic Khaganate in the 6th century. This also applies to Great Bulgaria.
• Although some families might show up in places where no Turks lived (India, China and pre Mameluke Egypt) they were quickly absorbed in the local population and they can't be properly listed as Turkic.
• The link to Rasulids shows a false interpretation of Turkic identity.
• Saqsin was a name of a city.
• Asenids,Terterids, Shishmanids, and the Basarabids were the names of dynasties rather than states.
• Kipchaks, Kumans and and possibly Kimeks refer to same people and they can be treated under a single heading.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU MAD,DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORY - THE KUMANS AND KIPCHAKS WERE MOST PROBABLY 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ETHNIC PEOPLE WHO, LATER ON MET AND FORMED A CONFEDERATION, THEY WERE MOST PROBABLY NOT THE SAME PEOPLE - EVEN THE BOOK "CUMANS AND TATARS:ORIENTAL WARFARE (GOOGLE BOOKS) SAYS SO, AND THE KIPCHAKS WERE PART OF THE KIMEK'S CONFEDERATION - HOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM THE SAME PEOPLE - WERE GREEKS THE SAME AS THE TURKS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE? AND BESIDES THE KIPCHAKS WERE DESCRIBES AS BLOND AND BLUE EYED, AND THE CUMANS ALSO, BY EVERYONE, WHILE THE KIMEKS WERE NOT - SO NOT THE SAME PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from changing quotes taken from references. That constitutes vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with this, as long as we can establish that those names/tribes/dynasties we are removing were not a state or empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias

In this list, there are many systemic biases and most of them are caused by the History Thesis of the Republic of Turkish and Turkic republics.

Xiongnu

Evidences can prove only that Xiongnu might be one of the ancestors of modern Turkish people. We must remove Xiongnu. Takabeg (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So Chinese dynasties bulit by Xiongnu; Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms), Han Zhao etc. are not Turkic dynasty. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huns

Why Turkic ? Takabeg (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hephthalites

Why Turkic ? Takabeg (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tuoba

Tuoba ? So Chinese dynsties bulit by Touba; Northern Wei, Western Wei, Eastern Wei are not Turkic dynasty. Takabeg (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Taymyr

Taymyr is not Turkic region. Taymir is Turkic resident. Only 13.9% of total polulation is Dolgans. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimia is not Turkic region. Only 12.10% of total polulation is Crimean Tatars. Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is now, but what about this:

• Crimean People's Republic
• Crimean Khanate

Юе Артеміс (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the definition, now if a Turkic people speaks an official Turkic language, then they are in the list. This is more relevant in this list, I guess. Kavas (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming

"List of Turkic states and dynasties" is more suitable. Takabeg (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every Turkic empire has a Turkic dynasty. Kavas (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kavas (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my word!!!!!!!!

Why do you people add the Kipchaks here? You do know, right?, that they were reported by many, many countries to be blond and blue eyed - all their names Cuman, Kun, Polovtsy, Folban, Vallani all mean blond, yellow etc. Now in terms of science and genetics: blond hair and blue eyes is a genetic impossibility in Turkic people (unless they are mixed a lot with a Caucasia and Iranic race). These traits do not occur in Turkic people the same way that blond hair and blue eyes do not occur in Chinese and Korean people for example - there is nothing difficult to understand here - it is logic and common sense. So all in all, the Kipchaks then simply could not have been Turkic - I mean really.

So for all your "logic and common sense", I do not see any reliable source to support your opinion. Whereas you continue to remove referenced information. Read WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All of your "sources" just says "Turkic" and nothing else - it doesnt explain if they are culturally and linguistically Turkic or if they are just genetically Turkic. I dont understand people like you - I am certain that you undertsand my logic and the fact that Turkic people can't be naturally blond and blue eyed, if you don't then there is something wrong with you (no offence), (the same way that Chinese can't be blond and blue eyed naturally), but you just don't seem that you want to admit it - and you want to follow the strict rules of wiki that in this case do not properly apply (have you read "ignore all rules" and the other similar thing, forgot its name - it says that if rules dont make sense for a particular thing then they can be ignored or something like that, and in this case they dont make sense) - so i cannot fathom why you are so adament in disaagreeing with me and resisting this so much and the fact that Turks cant be naturally blond, when you know (I am sure of it) that I am right. It makes one think why would a person like yourself go into so much trouble in reverting and just using wiki rules to his aid. Tell me - what do you gain out of this - you very well know, as anyone should that Turkic people( genetically Turkic people) cannot be naturally blond - don't you think it is best to keep wikipedia more factual, and actually using our own mind for once in understanding certain things, instead of strictly abiding the rules and never questiniong any thing that makes no sense whatsoever(and never once actually arguing about the issue at hand - that Turks cant be naturally blond and blue eyed - you never once talk about that and discuss it, its always just wiki rules and wiki rules) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And where are your sources for the Kipchaks? Your opinion and "actually using our own mind for once" mean nothing here. Read WP:RS, since you continue to preach to Jingiby about sources.[15] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Vasary "reference" does not say anything about Scythian or Iranic on page 40. However;

Vásáry, István, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental military in the pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365, (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 6; "..two Turkic confederacies, the Kipchaks and the Cumans, had merged by the twelfth century.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Kipchak(Kıpçak)Turk from Turkey. The Kipchaks were Turkic! Böri (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Bandera dels turcmans d'Iran.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bandera dels turcmans d'Iran.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Political movements in this article

This article is related with dynasties and countries. But some political movements are included in this article. I think we have to remove them. Maybe regions can remain in this article. Takabeg (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Flags

What is this flag ? In the article Flag of Nakhchivan, this is separatists flag. Takabeg (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"the six independent Turkic states?"

Turkmenistan says:
"Turkmenistan is one of the six independent Turkic states" ....with Turkic states as a hyperlink. (A typical lazy hyperlink.)

"Turkic states" redirects here. Yet it's not defined in the lead section, nor quickly (if at all) defined. Please correct.
--68.127.91.226 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Article Naming

I suggest to remove the part "List of", since the plural term "dynasties" or "countries" implicite includes a listing.
I sugesst renaming to "Turkic states and dynasties" to be more readable.--93.132.28.191 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But I think the current name is good. It's a list and there are many article like this in the Wikipedia. Xooon (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wusun

Wusun people were Turkic. Böri (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

========

why the people of southern Azerbaijan (occupied by iran in 20th century, 25 000 000 souls) and of Uighuristan (occupied by china, 20 000 000 souls) are not mentioned in this articles?

also proto turkic people, like Scythians and Huns or etruscans, trojans and fins should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.130.128 (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)