Talk:Ak Koyunlu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ak Koyunlu article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

"Turkish: Aq Qoyunlu" doesn't look right to me. I won't pretend to be fluent in Turkish or anything, but as a student of the language I'm yet to find the letter Q in it. The Black Sheep Turkmen are listed in Turkish as "Karakoyunlular", and it wouldn't surprise me if these Turkmen would actually be the "Akkoyunlular"

BigHaz 10:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The q is from Azeri. They are both arbitrary designations for kaf.

Contents

[edit] History of Iran

First of all, Ak Koyunlular is a Turkish state. And there's no reason to put History of Iran. Even in the western language, people says White Sheep Turks (which means Ak Koyun in Turkish) . History of Iran is irrelevant in here. I removed it.

Like I said in the Kara Koyunlu discussion, the capital of both Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu was Tabriz, which nowadays is an Iranian city. It is perfectly fair to say that they are part of Iran's history. Parishan 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-n-Paste Move

There's a history of a cut-and-paste move made by by Tajik in May 2006 ([1], [2]). Such moves sidestepping the normal "move" functionality must be avoided. Wait a moment so I can clean this up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've repaired it technically by merging the page histories of the two versions. Please note that I have personally not the slightest preference whether this should be on the one name or the other. Please work it out together and then do a Requested Move if necessary. Please do not re-create an article at the other location without properly moving this one. For the moment, I've used the "K" version, for the sole reason that it was the older article and hence, on a mere technical level, the more "legitimate" one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub Sorting

Please feel free to reassign this article to a different stub category, but please don't just remove a specific template and replace it with the uncategorised stub tag. Thanks. Jeodesic 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

The CORRECT spelling of the name is Aq 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 almost all other Turkic languages.

The Aq Qoylunlu Turcomans were a Turkic tribe from Central Asia who were deported to the Caucasus by Timur.

Besides the historical facts, the spelling 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 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Iranica, eh? :) You know Tajik, I really don't think that people that lived 800 years ago would have cared if a Q or a K was used for their names in a 21th century online encyclopedia in English language.. More so considering the fact that they didn't even use the Latin alphabet.. But again, there have been edit-wars for much less, so I am really dreading the day this page will be unprotected, sadly. In any case, please remember that this has not much to do with "Q" being lost in modern Turkish, the character "q" is simply not used in Turkish.. I mean, we are not even debating between two completely different sounds!! Q or K - what is the exact difference between these two? Aq qoyunlu would be pronounced in a way very similar to Ak koyunlu.. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm only saying that I just don't see the difference between Q and K in real terms, that's all.. Baristarim 12:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If I may offer my own comment here for once: The difference seems to be that between a common English spelling with "k" (used by many general-purpose sources like Britannica, Columbia, the Library of Congress catalogs etc., and a lot more common on Google), and a more specialist spelling with "q" (used by EncIsl and others.) "Q" is undoubtedly the philologically more "correct" version, as it's the exact transliteration of the historical Arabic spelling, and probably also phonologically appropriate for Older Turkic. The difference is really a lot like that between Koran and Qur'an, or Mohammed and Muhammad. General-purpose literature will often prefer the "simpler" k spellings; more specialist literature geared to Oriental Studies and similar fields will prefer the q spellings. In general Google counts "k" is much more common, but if you count only on .edu, the two are roughly on a par. My gut feeling would have been that Wikipedia should go for the "simpler" English spelling (k), but apparently in cases like "Qur'an" we've chosen the "philological" version with q. Now, do with this whatever you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I still go with the "Q", because even the Azri version - the direct descendant of the language spoken by the White Sheep Turcomans - of the name is Aq Qoyunlu.
Another option would be "White Sheep Turcomans", like the German Wikipedia.
I would lso like to add that Britannica uses both versions. The Anatolian Turkish version "Ak Koyunlu" is certainly wrong. Also note that Wikipedia uses Göktürks instead of the more common "Gok Turks" in English.
Tājik 21:55, 20 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
Also i like to add something. I've look at "Aq Qoyunlu" in Encyclopaedia Iranica (by Prof. Dr. Quiring-Zoche). This profesor tells that: AQ QOYUNLUÚ or WHITE SHEEP, a confederation of Turkman tribes who ruled in eastern Anatolia and western Iran until the Safavid conquest in 907-08/1501­-03. Then says that: The origin of the Aq Qoyunlu tribes likewise remains obscure. I cannot believe this. First he says they are Turks; then adds their origins are not known. How can you trust such a source? I am sorry but I ask for more reliable source in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.124.60 (talk • contribs).
I'm afraid if you want to convince others you'll first have to make a bit more of an effort to understand what others are saying. We are not dealing with a question of "right and wrong" here. Both spellings exist, both are used in the relevant literature, both are correct. It's just a question of what is most common and what is most consistent with Wikipedia usage elsehwere. Please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea! But let's look how this started: Tajik had said: "The CORRECT spelling of the name is Aq Qoyunlū." So that shows us, somebody is trying to prove Ak Koyunlu is not correct; therefore it is wrong. You are saying "there's no wrong or right" to me. Let's look another sentence of Tajik: "The Anatolian Turkish version "Ak Koyunlu" is certainly wrong." As you see, someone constantly tries to prove Ak Koyunlu is wrong. By the way, if you search Aq Qoyunlu it gives 905 results whereas Ak Koyunlu gives 14,800 results. So Ak Koyunlu is much much more common than Aq Qoyunlu. In the Kara Koyunlu article, Tajik comes with same arguments and tries to change the title of Kara Koyunlu. I'm very concerned of these acts; because if the title is changed; this would mislead people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.124.60 (talk • contribs).
So, then the right thing to do for both of you is to stop bickering and stop playing the silly "right or wrong" games. Make an argument with respect to commonness and to Wikipedia naming practices if you must. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I've unprotected both articles for further editing and, for the time being, have changed the intro sentence in both to mention both spellings side by side. I've kept move protection on until the final location has been determined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


آق قویونلو is the correct literation in Arabic, Turkish and Persian. The ق is pronounced as Q in all three languages. Anatolian Turkish due to Greek influence has lots it Q but Q is originally part of all Ataic languages. --alidoostzadeh 05:45, 26 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)
You cannot make your claims based on Azeri Alphabet. Because it had done major changes since the beginning of 20th century. First it was arabic; then turned to latin; then changed to Cyrillic and lately it was changed backed to Latin again. By the way; Greeks didn't have great effects on Turkish as much as Arabs. Turks had used Arabic letters. Also lots of word passed to Turkish from Arabs. Therefore it is not ok to say, Turks lost Q because there was a great Greek effects on Turks. There was actually no 'Q' for Turks. If they had 'Q', they would insert this letter as they insert some special characters as Ç, Ş, etc... Azeri Turks may use 'Q'; but actually there's almost no difference with 'K' character. Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu are pronounced all the same. Therefore I see no reasone to change the title. Also it is much much common to use Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu then Aq and Qara. You can look at the sources I've given. And you can make a googlefight if you like... By the way; I really don't believe that Encyclopedia Iranica is a balanced and unbiased source. You can try Britannica and other sources I've given you. cagataycebi.
Guys, how are you going to resolve this issue now? The two positions have been on the table for weeks, and I'm not seeing any really new arguments being put forward by either side. It's basically still the "more common everyday English spelling" vs. "more philologically exact specialist literature spelling" issue. Now, how do we decide? Further debate here doesn't seem very fruitful. A straw poll doesn't make much sense either, imho - it will just degenerate into a fight for greater numbers, we all know what Iranian-vs.-Turkish polls have looked like lately, and "voting is evil". Want an RfC? Want mediation? My personal recommendation: Just name a trusted neutral referee and let them decide as a tie-breaker and then stick with that. Slightly unconventional method, but maybe sensible in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me remind you something; there's no difference between Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu in pronunciation. I really don't think it is ok to say that "philologically, Aq Qoyunlu is better to use". If it was 'better' to use by philologically, then there'll be some difference in pronunciation. But there's not! Iranians just insist to change the name for assimilation. Look at the article; at first sight, you cannot understand Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are Turkmens. You see History of Iran sidebar which leads to some misunderstanding. Until you start to read article, you believe that Ak Koyunlular were Persian. cagataycebi
There may be no difference in pronunciation in your language (modern Turkish), and in English. There was apparently a difference in pronunciation in the language(s) those people spoke, as there still is both in Persian and in Azerbaijani and other Turkic languages, and there was a distinction made in the script these people used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? If it's possible, It will be good to hear from an Azeri Turk how he says Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. Ak Koyunlu is a Turkish word; therefore it is not important how Persian says. They could pronunce as they like it, but Ak Koyunlu is a Turkish origin word and spelled same even if it is written as 'Ak Koyunlu' or 'Aq Qoyunlu'. (Note that: By saying 'Turkish', I don't only mean the modern Turkish that's used in Turkey.)
Judging from the Azeri spelling as cited in the article, it's actually even two different kinds of sounds transliterated as "q" here, in modern Azeri. I don't know enough about old Turkic to say what it would have been back then. But anyway, the "q" spelling used in the literature is not supposed to be an exact phonological transcription as much as a transliteration of the historical Perso-Arabic spelling. As I said, it's rather like having "Koran" at "Qur'an" and all the rest. If you want native-speaker input, try the babel category for az speakers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I stumbled on this one, while browsing. I am an Azerbaijani speaker myself, so if it is of any help, I'd like to make things a little clear. No matter in what alphabet it is written, the sounds denoted by K are different from Q and it is different from Ğ and that in turn is different from G. Four letters and five sounds, as the letter K can be pronounced in two ways. Modern standard Turkish does not have the sound Q or one of the two pronuncations of K, and the sound Ğ is almost never pronunced. But in this case we do not need to deal with either K or G. None of these three sounds exist in Ağ Qoyunlu. As for the pronunciation, the first letter is pronunced something like French R pronunciation, and the letter Q would sound like G in Group. I don't know how the language has changed in 500 years, but I suspect it must have been pronunced very similar to the modern Azerbaijani pronunciation. Cheers. Bye. --130.63.226.84 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I will reiterate my position that I put forth in another talk page about this issue of "script used"... There was never a "script used".. Back then, alphabetisation rates were lower then 1 percent, so I don't think it would have mattered if they had used Martian script.. Encyclopedias allow for modern-day Turkish renderings of centuries old names, just like in the case of Mehmed II - Mehmed is Muhammad in modern-Turkish. He is known as Mehmed. In any case, there is absolutely no difference between Q and K as cagatay said above.. I mean, in the English language they give the same sound, it doesn't matter how the some hypothetical sound would be transliterated from 500 years old Turkic or Persian script... "Ak koyunlu" gets 14,200 hits whereas "Aq qoyunlu" gets only 920.. This is the English wikipedia, and as such the most common name in English must be used, that's all... Baristarim 14:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, see my reply on the other talk page, it's not just the script, it's the whole language. Regardless, Aq Qoyunlu is the correct Azerbaijani pronunciation. --Mardavich 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I will have a look. However I just cannot see the point of all this.. If this continues for a while, this is definitely going on WP:LAME :)) Baristarim 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


This argument is ridiculous, the sound "q" and "k" in the English language is different, q is prnounded "qju" while k is "kei", in Turkey Turkish K is "Ke", in Azeri Turkish Q is "Qe", the two sounds in spoken language are virtually identicle. In colloquial Turkish spoken in both countries this letter actually sounds more like a "G", so it would be "Ak/Aq goyunlu".

Check "omniglot" letter pronounciations. In conclusion it doesn't matter how its written because its pronounced the same. Torke

[edit] White Sheep / Black Sheep

I am curious as to the history of the names "White Sheep" and "Black Sheep". Do "Ak" and "Kara" literally mean white and black? Did the two groups herd sheep? Or are they just called this because they were rivals, and Western scholars applied the epithet? (Might be something interesting to explain in the articles, as the average reader, like myself, with little knowledge of the region or the history, will find that curious.) Thank you. LordAmeth 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the "sheep" is used, but Ak/Kara literally means White/Black. Someone who knows the etymology can help with the explanation of the sheep though.. Baristarim 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

hey there, the two tribes were of shamanic origin and before converting to islam they had sacred sheep totems so that's why they have that name.-nouserhere

[edit] Iran tag

Pejman47, Akkoyunlu are a Turkic dynasty, they ruled over what's now Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq. So why should there be a tag on history of Iran only, this tag is irrelevant here. Either we should have all 5 tags or none. Atabek 14:52, 12 July 2007 (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.Hajji Piruz 17:34, 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--Dacy69 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleting the Iranian history template is not right. Tabriz as the capital of the dynesty, has always been an Iranian city and in contrast, until recently, Azerbaijan has never been a independent nation /country, so placing such a template seems to be wired ... Anyway, according to the fact that today's Azerbaijan Republic was a province of the Kara Koyunlu , adding the template of Az.Rep history is tolerable , but deleting the Iranian template is impossible .--Alborz Fallah 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Iran is not a Turkic state, while Azerbaijan is. Iranian history never claims Akkoyunlu as predecessors of Iranian peoples, while Azerbaijani historiography does. Atabek 07:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Iran does not consider itself an ethnic state: Iranian nation is multi-ethnic. In fact, the Turkic language dynasties of Iran are the new uniting Iranian dynasties: the Safavids were been Turkic language, but the main builders of the modern Iranian nation. The Ak ghoyunlu and Qhara ghoyunlu were closely related to the safavids and they had marriage with themselves: some of the Safavid's ancestors where from these dynasties.
Over all , I think there may be no template at all , but all of the today's countries in the region, like Iran , Iraq , Azerbaijan Republic , Armenia and Turkey need to know about this states for understanding their history .--Alborz Fallah 09:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree on Safavids, they were Turkic dynasty of Iran who built the modern Iranian identity. But Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu never associated themselves with modern or contemporary definition of Iran. They were very much Turkic states, in fact Jahan Shah was a Shah of Azerbaijan. So for balance and fairness to all countries on whose territory Akkoyunlu and KArakoyunlu existed, it's better to keep the history without numerous tags. Atabek 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt about the difference of that age's perspective toward "national identity" and "state - nationship" comparing to the modern age ideas, but 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 and also wrote many poems in Persian (same as Ismail Safavi), that are more than Turkuman poems of himself....--Alborz Fallah 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Here in Iranica , there is a good prospect of the matter:QOYUNLUÚ or WHITE SHEEP
“ With the conquest of Iran, not only did the Aq Qoyunlu center of power shift eastward, but Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture. In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Hasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations (see J. Aubin, “E´tudes Safavides I: Sah Ismaayil et les notables de l'Iraq Persan,” JESHO 2, 1959, pp. 37-81). The sources mention only four top civil posts, all held by Iranians, in Uzun Hasan's time: those of the vizier, who headed the great council (divaan); the mostawfi al-mamalek, who was in charge of the financial administration; the mohrdaar, who affixed the state seal, and the marakòor (stablemaster), who looked after the royal court. The post of sáadr (head of the religious dignitaries) is only attested to from the reign of his son Yaqub but may have existed under Uzun Hasan. ”

--Alborz Fallah 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See also : Seyyed Ali Mua’yyad Sabeti, “Asnaad o Naameh-aayeh Tarikhi az Avael Dorrehaayeh Eslali taa Avakher ‘Ahd Shah Ismail Safavi”(historical sources and letters from the beginning of the Islamic era till the end of the era of Shah Ismail Safavi), Tehran , Ketabkhaayeh Tahoori, 1366. pages 193, 274, 315, 330, 332, 422 and 430.
See also:Abdul Hussein Navai, Asnaad o Mokatebaat Tarikhi Iran (Historical sources and letters of Iran ), Tehran , Bongaah Tarjomeh and Nashr-e- Ketab, 2536, pages 578,657, 701-702 and 707.سيدعلي مويد ثابتي، اسناد و نامه هاي تاريخي از اوائل دوره‌هاي اسلامي تا اواخر عهدشاه اسماعيل صفوي، تهران، کتابخانه طهوري، 1366، صص 193، 274، 315، 330، 322، 392، 422، 430. نيز ن. ک. به: عبدالحسين نوائي، اسناد و مکاتبات تاريخي ايران، تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشرکتاب، 2536، صص 578، 656، 701-702، 707
“ سلاطين عثماني درمکاتبات خود براين‌هويّت‌ايراني تأکيد مي‌ورزند و پادشاهان آق‌قوينلورا"ملک‌الملوک‌الايرانيه" و "سلطان سلاطين ايرانيه" و يا "شاهنشاه ايران خديو عجم" و "جمشيد شوکت و فريدون رايت و دارادرايت" خطاب مي‌کنند، و شاه اسماعيل را با عناوين «ملک ممالک العجم و جمشيد دوران و کيخسرو زمان». ”

Which translates as :

“ In letters from Ottoman Sultans, when addressing the the kings of AQ QOYUNLUÚ,such titles as “Malak al-Molouk al-Iraniyyah( King of Kings of Iran), “Sultan Salatin Iraniyyah”(Sultan of Sultans of Iran),”Shahanshah Iran Khadiv ajam” (King of Kings of Iran and the Ruler of Persia),”Jamshid Shawkat wa Fereydun Raayat wa daaraa deraayat” (Powerful like Jamshid, Flag of Fereydoon and Wise like Darius) have been used ”

--Alborz Fallah 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I added your information to the article. Very informative, thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Instead of tag warring, it's better just to leave Akkoyunlu alone without tags. Obviously most relevant tags here are those of Turkey (where Akkoyunlu state mostly was), Azerbaijan and Iran. But inserting 3-4 tags is impractical and makes the page unreadable. So it's easier to keep it this way. Atabek 07:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just made some fixes. Its not necessary to say "according to Iranica" as Iranica is the most authoritative source regarding the history of the region.Hajji Piruz 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Iranica is the most authoritative source on the history of Turkey, Caucasus and Iran? Can you please, provide published proofs for your statement. Atabek 08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Iranica being criticized all of a sudden? You could say the same about every source, then there would simply be chaos. I could say, well, is Britannica really authoritative? Is Columbia really a good source? Is Stephen Hawking really an expert in his field? is Michael Jordan really one of the best Basketball players ever? Research Iranica for yourself and you'll know why it is considered the most authoritative source about the Near East.Hajji Piruz 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Alborz, this has been discussed earlier that Ak Koyunlu dynasty, based also in Anatolia, had equal influence on history of Turkey as it did on history of Azerbaijan and Iran. So there is no need to insert a singular template on history of Greater Iran and start a new round of conflict with templates, which yield the page text unreadable. Please, check the past edit by dbachmann with comment "template clutter". I think the template could be discussed if the format of it is changed, to fit the bottom part of the page, just like History of Anatolia template does currently, otherwise, it becomes unreadable. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem.I was -wrongly- undoing other one's (an IP) edit.Then I didn't add that tag.My thanks--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't their a History of Greater and Iran aswell as History of the Turks template, wouldn't it be more logical

Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)