Talk:Persianate society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 January 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persianate society article.
Article policies
WikiProject Iran Persianate society is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Central Asia Persianate society is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)