Talk:List of Turkic states and empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Turkic states and empires article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for List of Turkic states and empires: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 17/12/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] 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. Paparokan 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Turkic_states_and_empires_1fda.html"