Talk:Kara Koyunlu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


History of Iran[edit]

Kara Koyunlular is a Turkish state. And there's no reason to put History of Iran. History of Iran is irrelevant in here. Therefore I removed it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:09, 16 October 2006.

The capital of Kara Koyunlu was Tabriz, which nowadays is an Iranian city. It is perfectly fair to say that Kara Koyunlu is part of Iran's history. Parishan 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't change anything. If you're going to put a History line, it must be History of Turks, instead of History of Iran. They conquered Iran, that doesn't make them Persian. Therefore we have to remove it immediately and put History of Turks. It is not fair to put Persian History Line instead of Turkish History.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:04, 18 October 2006.

Periods of conquest are also parts of a country's history. You can add a Turkish history template if you want, but the Iranian one should stay. Parishan 03:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. There's no need to argue then. I understand, you see Kara Koyunlu as a part of your history. But we see Kara Koyunlu as a part of our history too. So I added ours without removing yours.

Qara Qoyunlu descendants had ruled in Hyderabad India by the name of the Qutub Shahi Dynasty[edit]

Sultan Muhammad Quli Qutub Shah the founder of the City of Hyderabad, India at the remnants of the Golconda Fort, was a direct descendant of the Turkish Qara Qoyunlu clan. His forefather Mirza Ali Quli Beg had migrated from Multan to the court of the Bahmani Emperor Tajuddin Second at Gulbarga and was appointed the governor of the Telengana Kakatiya province. On the decline and decadence of the Bahmani's of the Deccan, five new sultanates came into being from the five governors of the earstwhile Bahmani Sultanate, of which the Qutubshahi rulers of Hyderabad were renowned. The Qutub Shahis were a mixed blooded people of Turkish origin and a good amount of Multani blood in their veins from migration to the Multan and Sind provinces in India in circa 1500. They followed the Shia Isna-Ashariyya (Faith of the Twelve Imams) of the Shia sect of Muslims. The Qutub Shahi sultanate was put to end by victory of the Grand Mughal Emperor Muhiuddin Muhammad Aurangzeb Aalamgir over the last Qutub Shahi Sultan Abu Al Hassan Taana Shah in 1698 AD. Lutfullah (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Lutfullah. Sources: "The Behmanis of Deccan" by Dr. Harun Khan Sherwani. National Book Trust. New Delhi. India. 1985. "Siyar Ul Mutakhhareen" (Persian) by Mirza Khafi Khan. Translation by Dr. Ghulam Rasool Mehr. Taj Company. Lahore. Pakistan. 1949. "Waqaa I Neimat Khan Aali" (Persian Manuscript) 1748 AD. Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library. Patna. India.Lutfullah (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Lutfullah


The CORRET spelling of the name is Qara Qoyunlū. The q-sound is an original Turkic sound only lost in modern Anatolian Turkish (which replaces it with a normal /k/ sound), while it is preserved in allmost all other Turkic languages.

Besides the historical facts, the spellings Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu are also used by major scholarly and academic sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Cambridge History of Iran.

See "Aq Qoyunlu" in Encyclopaedia Iranica (by Prof. Dr. Quiring-Zoche)

Tājik 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source. If you look Britannica you would learn the right spelling. If you like you can look at how Turkmes wrote it at The Turkmen Tribal Federation Ak Koyunlu. Or you can look at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. All these resources are valid and famous. No one should think Encyclopaedia Iranica as a reliable source. Because a lot of stuff has been changed in favor of Iran in this Encyclopaedia. My resources are much more known than some Iranic/Islamic unreliable source. Sorry mister, but correct spelling is "AK KOYUNLU" Some other resources: Ackland Art Museum; Iran Heritage Foundation; Middle East Open Encyclopedia; Encyclopædia Britannica Australia; ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ cagataycebi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Let's keep the discussion together at one place, at Talk:Ak Koyunlu, shall we? Fut.Perf. 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Encyclopedia Iranicaspecializes in middle eastern history. Now the term Aq- Qoyunlu is correct because the letter Q exists in Azerbaijani Turkish. The letter Q (Arabic Qaf) does not exist in Anatolian Turkish because the Greeks did not have such a sound. The Persian and Arabic and Turkish spelling of the dynasty is : آق قویونلو. The letter ق is Q. Anatolian Turkish uses the latin script(since 80 years ago) and does not make this distinction. So Aq-Qoyunlu is the correct spelling. --alidoostzadeh 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aq-Qoyunlu and Qara-Qoyunlu are turkmen dynasties which ruled Iran. They are part of Iran's history and they ruled Iran for good duration. Most of their official documents are in Persian and the capital of the Qara-Qoyunlu was in the Iranian city of Tabriz making it a very important part of Iran's history. --alidoostzadeh 08:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkoman is not Turkman[edit]

Turcoman is not Turkmen. Both have two different meanings. Turcoman comes from the persian words Turk and Manaad which means like Turks. Turcomans were not Turks but iranians who had the same battle clothes and who copied their style of battle.

Please, don't mess here with assimilation propaganda of Iran against Azerbaijani Turks. Even today Turkmen are called as Turkoman in Persian.-- (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


History of Greater Iran template covers both, so it should be fine now, no need to insert two different templates when there is one that covers both. Also, when there was two the formatting got kinda messed up.Hajji Piruz 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan is History of Azerbaijan. It might have common area with other countries histories but we hsould not mix templates. Roman history might covers hostory of several coutnries but templates of each (for example Spain, Italy, Greece) has been legitimately placed--Dacy69 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think too many templates make the page unreadable. It's clear that Kara Koyunlu was Azerbaijani Turkic state, so most appropriate tags here are those of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran. But to avoid confusion, we should just have none. Atabek 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I write here [1], "as I know , the Jahan shah- e- qaraquyounlu , was not only a king of Azerbaijan . He was also king of the Khuzestan , Kerman,Fars and Herat. He considered himself as Shahanshan ... " , then I don't know why the map does not shows the above mentioned areas.Maybe because that is an Arabian map , it is only considering the Arab populated areas and not the places with the vessel kings...

I think it's better not to change the Iranian history tag --Alborz Fallah 07:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, addition of tags makes this article unreadable, we have been through this before. If we add History of Iran to Qara Qoyunlu, then addition of History of Azerbaijan and History of Turkey tags is also a must. Thus, it's better to avoid conflicts and inconveniences and just stay without tags. Let the reader read the article text, and conclude under which history he/she wants Qara Qoyunlu to be. Atabek 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, If we define the greater Iran as the the territories of Safavids and Qajars or even with cultural ties, almost all that area (except Baghdad) was and is part of Greater Iran. And the other important point is what is their "self-consciousness", "what they considered themselves to be", see alborz comment
and being a Turkic dynasty, have no conflict with having Iranian identity.(Qaznavids, Safavids, Qajars,...)--Pejman47 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, Greater Iran is the same fable as Greater Turan. There are independent states now, and there were empire in past with well defined borders. Qara Qoyunlu had very little to do with "Iranian identity", but if you insist on having the tag, then OK, I inserted the tags of other related countries as well. Atabek 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"then addition of History of Azerbaijan and History of Turkey tags is also a must" : Sure it is a must ! I will add this two country myself if no one does that! Don't you think everyone who is studying about the history of Azerbaijan republic or Turkey do needs to know about these two dynasties? The tag "Greater Iran" tends to cover all this categories, but its problem is its name! If that name was something alike "historical states of Iranian plateau and associated regions", that would not provoke negative feedbacks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alborz Fallah (talkcontribs) 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


They ruled the southern Caucasus, Iraq, and Azerbaijan, I dont know why only Azerbaijan and Iraq were mentioned.Hajji Piruz 23:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I suggest removing all tags. But definitely History of Armenia tag is inapplicable because Karakoyunlu dynasty is not even listed in the above mentioned tag list. I suggest that we get rid of all tags for clarity of the article. Atabek 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Herat and Musul[edit]

In the introduction we read that they established their capital in Herat and they ruled over Musul. I think this sentence needs further explanation for Herat and Musul are not neighbouring cities. In fact bird's flight distance between the two is no less than 1,750 kilometres (1,090 mi). Besides the map excludes Herat. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Find sources: "Qara Qoyunlu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Kara Koyunlu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Takabeg (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Mehmet Fuat Köprülü wrote as follows:

',,,'bu Türkmen devletindeki bayraklar hakkında elde kâfi derecede vesika yoktur. Yalnız bunların bayraklarında Karakoyunlu aşiretler ittihadının bir alâmeti olarak kara koyun resimleri bulunduğu rivayet edilir. (About flags in this Turkmen (Oghuz) state, sufficient record is not oabained. But it is rumoured that there was the picture of sheep on their flags, as the simbol of the union of the Qara Qoyunlu tribes.)[1]

Same thing is written in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Ancak aşiret geleneklerini de korumuş olan bu Türkmen devletinin bayrakları hakkında elde yeterli belge yoktur.[2].

In short, there is no proof to verify the historical accuracy of this flag. Takabeg (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, Orhan F. Köprülü, İslâm ve Türk Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları ve Vakıf Müessesesi, Akçağ Yayınları, 2005, ISBN 9789753387248, p. 171. (in Turkish)
  2. ^ Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 5, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1994, p. 252, (in Turkish)

I'm going to WP:BB here and remove it, as it seems to be somewhat fictional. Auvon (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

the article is not following the English common name for this confederation[edit]

I know it redirects from Black Sheep Turks, but that's what they've been know to history in English for centuries. I think the article should be moved to that name. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani spelling[edit]

@İlham Əliyev Heydər Qızı: Do not add Azerbaijani spelling to the article, it has nothing to do with them, their language was Oghuz Turkic, not Azerbaijani, it has been discussed many times on various pages. -- Kouhi (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kouhi:, I am just curious: what rule do you use as a basis when you make claims such as "X language has nothing to do with them"? I am asking because I find your statement extremely bad-faith. Azerbaijani is an Oghuz Turkic language, so it cannot by definition "have nothing to do" with Qara Qoyunlu. Swahili has nothing to do with Qara Qoyunlu. Neither does Tagalog. Do you, in all honesty, believe that Azerbaijani has nothing to do with Qara Qoyunlu? Parishan (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you know using words such as "bad-faith" is against WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. Azerbaijani is an Oghuz language, agreed, but that doesn't make it eligible to be included in the lead section. They didn't use Azerbaijani, they didn't write their name with Latin Alphabet. With your logic, the spelling of the Fatimid Caliphate should be Egyptian Arabic. Besides, even if they used Azerbaijani language (they didn't), Azerbaijani spelling is of no use for readers, because primary sources about them are not in Azerbaijani language. -- Kouhi (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It is against WP:CIVILITY only when it is thrown around without any reason. You have been seen systematically ridding articles of Azeri spellings, hence I have a reason to be suspicious of your good faith, especially when you resort to definitions such as "have nothing to do" for a language which is, at the very least, a direct descendant of the language of Qara Qoyunlu. From where do you derive your argumentation of a language being relevant only of the subject in question spoke it as a first language? Parishan (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if you repeat that one more time, I'll meet you in Admin's noticeboard. And be careful with statements such as "systematically ridding articles of Azeri spellings".
FYI, this is an established rule in the Wiki. The article of Roman Empire (a GA class article) doesn't include Spanish or Italian spellings, only the Latin and Medieval Greek spellings (the languages directly related to them) are included. And based on what arguments you're saying the Azerbaijani spelling should be added? Because they ruled over what is today Republic of Azerbaijan? Because their citizens may be ancestors of today Azerbaijani people? That doesn't make any sense, and such spelling is not useful for readers. -- Kouhi (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Kouhi, I would kindly ask you to please lower your tone. Your threats are not helping your cause on this discussion page, and this is not a productive strategy to assume. I expressed my well-justified suspicion, which I am entitled too, and I will repeat it again: your obvious pattern ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], the list goes on) of ridding history-related articles of Azeri spellings coupled with statements such as "nationalistic" (sic), "propaganda", "made-up", etc., as well as a strong reaction you display (such as now) when someone tries to point it out to you would lead any non-biased observer to suspect that there is a good-faith issue here.
Let me rephrase my question: please point to a specific "long standing" Wikipedia rule that favours foreign language spellings in the lead only if the language in question were the subject's first. Parishan (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, Jahan Shah, wrote poetry in Azerbaijani and Persian. So the Kara Koyunlu can be attributed with using Azerbaijani. Are there any sources for the other languages listed? Armenian? Oghuz? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)