Talk:Persianate society

Persianate society or Turkiate society, which one?

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

Historical Theft of Persians

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

Iranica

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

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

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

Ottomans

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

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

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

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

Persianate society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persianate society -> Persianate societies?

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns

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

NPoV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merger with Turko-Persian Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y. A. / V. A. Smith quote

Y. A. Smith writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article issues

I completed a full copyedit and have identified multiple issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journal of Persianate Studies

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

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

Kill the Turks because they don't have a culture

Please stop Persianize the Turkish history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.141.60 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)