Talk:Turko-Iranian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want to know your opinion about this article. It seems to be supported by separatism and Pan-Turkism ideologists! It may be against Wikipedia:No original research! It is not NPOV. What do you think?

zandweb 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) _ ZANDWEBT

Contents 1 The countries 1.1 Uzbekistan 2 Reasons for revert 3 Iranian is not Persian

[edit] The countries

This is a dab page, which means when they type in a word they're looking for a certain subject. I highly doubt someone looking for "Azerbaijan" would type in "Turko-Iranian". Are there any sources that say this term is used in place of "Azerbaijan", "Turkmenistan", or "Uzbekistan"? —Khoikhoi 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Turco-Iranian is a description, not a definition. First of, saying Azerbaijan has no Iranian culture is ridculous. The very name of their nation and capitol is Persian. Many of the historical things they claim wrongfully to be their's are Iranian, such as Nizami. Uzbekistan's two major cities, Bukhara and Samarkhan, are Iranic cities full of signs of Iranian culture and civilizatoin. The Uzbek government takes great pride in these cities, but ofcourse, they rewrote history in their own minds to imagine that there isn o Iranian cultural influence. The same with Turkemminstan. Remember that the latter two both have the Persian suffix -stan, further showing the Iranian influence within their cultures.Khosrow II 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Khoi, I don’t think that Azeris will like to be labelled as "similar" to Iranians due to the fact that they have their own culture. I don’t think there are any sources which can support this claim. Ldingley 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are not just similar to Iranians, they are culturally Iranian:

"The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" [1] "The population of Azerbaijan is almost 90 percent ethnic Azeri. The minorities in the country consist of Russians, Armenians and Dagestanis. While Azerbaijan's culture is Persian, the national language is a Turkic derivative. Over 90 percent of the country is Muslim, most of whom are Shiite." [2]

--ManiF 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan has no cultural similarity with Iranian peoples. Their ancient culture is mostly nomadic and fighter, but I won't discuss about the culture. If we think as your logic, Turkey's about %30 Greek place names but there are currently 1000 Greeks in Turkey, and totaly different cultures. Zaparojdik 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats because Turkish nationalists wiped them all out. The Turkish language and culture used to be full of Iranian, Greek, and Arab influences, but what happened? Turkish nationalists destroyed it all and pretended it never existed. As per these countries:

• Azerbaijan: the name of the nation, the capital, along with many many other names are Persian. Some of the countries national hero's, are Iranians. The national religion of Azerbaijan is Shia'ism. A study done by researchers has said that the life of Azerbaijani villagers culturally and traditionally is not very different when compared to the life of Persian villagers.

• Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan is undeniably influned by Iranian culture and civilisation, whether the Uzbek government wants to believe it or not. Bukhara and Samarkhand are great examples of this. The architecture in Uzbekistan is Iranian, based on the architecture in Bukhara and Samarkhand. The very name Uzbekistan has the suffix -stan in it, which is Persian. Again, some of the national heroes of Uzbekistan were Iranics. Turkmenistan was one of the bastions of Iranian civilization even after it was conquered by Turks and Mongols. The influence was so heavy that the invading armies adopted Iranian culture and languages, and Iranified themselves. This is still very evident in Central Asia. The Iranologist Richard Nelson Frye puts it this way:

"Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of central Asia, whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values and traditions with only language separating them."Khosrow II 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Samarkand is a Turkic city name and I don't want to discuss you about TURKIC PEOPLES USED PERSIAN AS SCIENCE AND LITERATURE LANGUAGE, if you research scientist who classfied as Iranian by Encyclopedia Iranica used many Turkic words,

"whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion This Iranologist how can't see that Iranians are Shiites and Central Asians are Sunnis. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :)Yes, I see now how Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan practise this great culture of Iranians hahahaa... Zaparojdik 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone now sees Zaparodjik for who he is. Lets see the comments he has made here:

• Samarkand is a Turkic city name

Oh really Zaparodjik? Whats your source for this? The city was founded thousands of years before Turks even started moving into central Central Asia. The Greeks knew the city as Markanda. I'm waiting to see the source for your claim.

• TURKIC PEOPLES USED PERSIAN AS SCIENCE AND LITERATURE LANGUAGE

A bit confused arent we Zaparodjik. At the time, the heroes that Uzbekistan today claims as its own and as Turkic, spoke Arabic not Persian. They were infact Iranians who wrote in Arabic during the Arabic occupation of Iran.

• if you research scientist who classfied as Iranian by Encyclopedia Iranica used many Turkic words,

Who? Please do tell. Also, I can show you how much Iranian culture was part of the Ottoman Empire, if you want to go that route.

• This Iranologist how can't see that Iranians are Shiites and Central Asians are Sunnis. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :)Yes, I see now how Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan practise this great culture of Iranians hahahaa...

Um.... The religion is called Islam... Khosrow II 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Samarkand maybe founded before Turks and there is no need any sourse for a Turkic speaker it means "City of packsaddle" Other names are of Samarkand are; Semerkent, Semerkant, Semerkand. "Semer" means packsaddle and "kent" means city taken by Mongolian.

• Arabs made Turks Muslims and Persians helped for practise it. The nearest Islamic country was Persia to Central Asia, it's pretty normally Iranian culture in Ottoman Empire

• Khosrow II do you mean Muslims can be ethnicaly Persians because of the Islam? I will never suprised if you claim that Chineses are Japanesed Persians :) Zaparojdik 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uzbekistan used to be the cultural center of the Iranian civilization during the Samanids, with Bukhara and Samarqand being Persia's capitals. Even today, many Uzbeks celebrate Iranian holidays and festivals and speak Persian as a mother tongue or second language. To say that Uzbkes have no cultural similarity with Iranian peoples, is totally false, it's a politically motivated distortion of history. --ManiF 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UT

The most famous Uzbek poet Navai has created about half of his work in Persian and was a student of Jami. Also Teymur and Mongols promoted Persian culture and poetry. Also a large percentage perhaps 20% of Uzbek has Iranian words and unlike all other turkish languages, Uzbek contains suffixes from Iranian languages (bi,na..). Also Samarkand is Iranian word and the word "kent" meaning city has entered from Soghdian to Turkish. I have a scientific article in case anyone wants to dispute it. Bukhara is another Iranian name. Also Biruni and Khwarizmi were both Iranians but have made their trade mark on Uzbek culture. Also Iranian does not necessarily refer to just Shi'ite Iranians, but large number of Sunni Iranians like Tajiks, Kurds, Pashtuns. Also there are Uzbeks in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and large number of Tajiks in Uzbekistan. Indeed Samarghand and Bukhara are majority Persian speaking cities as of today. Also unlike Anatolian Turkic speakers, Uzbeks celebrate Nawruz like Kurds, Iranians, Tajiks, .. Also the music instruments in Uzbek have majority Persian names. --alidoostzadeh 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ManiF; It's not fact, it's fabrication of propagandist Iranians. I won't revert it because of 3RR violation for now Zaparojdik 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you can not refute anything we said, you should not revert it. The term Turco-Iranian is used a lot [3]. Specially in the Mogual India era where the language was Persian but the ruling class were Uzbeks. --alidoostzadeh 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as Zaparodjik cannot disprove anything we have said above, he must not revert the article again.Khosrow II 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it for ManiF's "Don't remove the whole paragraph, we already placed a ^{[citation needed]} at the end of the paragraph and there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page" sentences. alidostazeh's edits are not acceptable, lie, propaganda, we discussed it before, i will revert it. Zaparojdik 00:54 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is not acceptable and can be reported. Mani put the ^{[citation needed]} there, but then were brought the facts and you did not refute. For example Nowruz is not celebrated by Anatolian Turkic people but it is celebrated by Azeris and Iranians. Or for example Nizami Ganjavi who did not write one verse of Turkish and wrote everything in Persian is celebrated greatly in Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Iran and Afghanistan. So there is a lot of connection between the two countries and also there is large Iranian speaking minorities in Turkey, Azerbaijan andetc.. and there is large Azeri/Turkmen speaking minority in Iran. The celebration of the Spring did not exist amongst Turks prior to their contact with Iranians. (Iranians could have gotten from others perhaps, but the actual word used is Persian Nawruz). Also in Azerbaijan they celebrate Charshamaba Soori(last wedensday) which is celebrated in Iran as well. Also the names of cities of Azerbaijan and regions there are Persian: Azerbaijan, Baku, Shervan, Ganjah, Darband, Moghan, Lankaran. Also the term Turco-Iranian is used in Academia [4]. Also Nelson Frye is a eminent Harvard Professor and his quote has already been mentioned: "Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of central Asia, whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values and traditions with only language separating them." And I can quote another scholar Alessandro Bausani who actually says the Turkic republics have Persian culture but Turkic language and calls it an identical Muslim world of culture. Of course I am not sure if I would go so far, but there is a lot of similarities between the Iranian speaking Muslim world and Turkic speaking muslim world in culture. --alidoostzadeh 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the terms "Turco-Iranian world" or "Turko-Iranian world" are profusely used in the academia to collectively refer to the Central Asian states such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and etc. Here is another example. --ManiF 22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To all: I'm not denying that these countries have a culture similar to Iranian culture (as I've said in the edit summaries). I never said "Azerbaijan has no Iranian culture". Please note, however, that this is a disambiguation page. These types of pages are used, for example, when I want to learn about İsmet İnönü, but I forgot how to spell his first name. I therefore type in "Inonu", and this leads me to three options: the town of İnönü, İsmet İnönü, and his son, Erdal İnönü. If I am looking for Azerbaijan I probably wouldn't type in "Turko-Iranian", which is why it seems out-of-place for a disambig. page. Perhaps this could be turned into a real article? However, as it stands, it seems confusing. —Khoikhoi 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone might want to know what Turko Iranian is, and they type in Turko Iranian and expect a serious of descriptions.Khosrow II 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what a disambiguation page is for, it's to direct readers to certain articles. —Khoikhoi 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzbekistan

Among all modern Turkic-speaking nations, Uzbekistan is the closest to Persian culture and society (not Azerbaijan, as some here may believe). The Uzbek language, a direct descendant of the Chagatay language, is among all Turkic language the closest to Persian, and it is the one that has been influenced most (Uzbek has lost the typical Turkic vocal harmony, it has partly adopted Persian grammar, and more than 50% of the language's vocabulary is made of Perso-Arabic words). The Uzbek people are of mixed origin - Turkic and Iranian, as well as Mongolian and Slavic - just like the Tajiks. It just happens that they speak a Turkic language, while the Tajiks speak Persian. Throughout the past 500 years, Uzbeks have adopted the original Iranian culture of Central-Asia, to an extant that nowadays, many Uzbeks are known as Sart, a term that was originally only applied to Persians. Uzbeks have also adopted many typical Iranian cutoms, such as Nowruz or the use of espand. The "Uzbek dress" is the typical Central-Asian dress of the Sogdian era. Many Uzbek scholars, writers, and even the normal population use Persian and Uzbek in their works or every-day speech. Uzbek musicians, such as Yulduz Usmanova, sing in Persian and Uzbek (see here: [5]).

The term "Uzbek" (as well as "Tajik) was more or less forced on the Uzbek (and Tajik) peoples of Central-Asia by the Russians who "in 24 hours" created new ethnic groups and borders in Central Asia. Before that, the people were distinguished by their ways of life, rather than by language or origin (since almost everyone in Central Asia is of mixed origin and is naturally bi-lingual). The city dweelers and traders were universally known as "Sart", while the nomads were universally known as "Turk". When the Russians conquered Central Asia, the eliminated the terms "Turk" and "Persian" (because they feared Pan-Turkic and Pan-Iranian revolts), and they devided the population by language ("devide and conquer!"): they created two different ethnic groups that were previously one: Uzbeks and Tajiks.

Tājik 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for revert

I think the order Turko-Iranian should refer to its better to be first 'countries' and then the various 'minorities'. as for Nowruz (which i saw in the last edit summary by Zaparojdik), i am not an expert, but what i see from the respective article is that it is an ancient persian holiday, link to Zoroastrianism, so, i can't see any dispute of it having to do anything with the Turkic peoples... Hectorian 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(sorry, i edited this comment without realising that Ali doostzadeh was faster than me in reverting...) Hectorian 22:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian is not Persian

Anyone with some the least academic experience would know that Iranian doesn't mean Persian.. Azeris are not Iranian people that speak Turkish.. They might be Persian, but they are definitely NOT Iranian.. It is like claiming that ancient Romans are all Italians!!! French and Spanish are all originally (more or less) Roman, but they are NOT Italian.. I mean, is this not clear for some people or what????? Iranian and Persian, Italian and Roman define specific things, they are not the same, in fact, they are not even similar.. Iranians are shias whereas Turks are Sunni, so much for same culture, same religion.. A note to pan-Iranian POV pushers: stop pretending that Iran is Persia and that all the peoples who lived next to/under the Persians are Iranian. I mean, where do some people get these ideas that Turkic peoples of Central Asia are Iranian??? I mean, have u ever been to Central Asia?? They don't look at all like Iranians, maybe in the past they could be considered Persian for other reasons, but it is exactly these same reasons that make that THEY ARE NOT IRANIANS TODAY.. Again, Iran is not Persia, never was and never will be, stop living in this dream world... Baristarim 03:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for the Persian language.. Just because some people spoke it doesn't make them Iranian.. Again, Persia is not Iran in the same way that Rome is not Italy.. There are many peoples who spoke Latin and speak languages that are derived from latin even today, and none of them can be remotely considered Italian.. Stop pretending that Iran is so great just because Persia was based primarily in and around today's Iran!! Azeris are Iranians (!), yeah whatever... Alice in Wonderland, eh? Baristarim 03:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do not know exactly what we are talking about on this talk page, then I think its best you dont make long speeches. There are also so many mistakes in your tirade that I dont even want to waste my time correcting.Khosrow II 03:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but it was specifically you that got into a tirade about how Uzbekistan was Iranian because it had the stan ending, have a look at your posts. OTOH if you had said Persian that might have been a different thing.. Don't waste your time, eh? :)) I am aware of what is being talked to in this page, that's exactly why I wrote what I wrote: this whole name game of greater Iran and current Iran is just pan-iranism to make Iran pretend to be the successor of the great Persian empire and its culture and lay cultural claims to other lands and peoples.. It is clear as the sky what Iran and Persia are.. Some people might try to tweak the corners by creating and playing with concepts, but that ain't fooling no-one khosrow.. That's what I am saying... Baristarim 04:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not know what the discussion here is, and you do not know what your talking about.

• There is no talking about Uzbeks being Iranian here. We are talking about the cultural impact of Iranian civilization on Uzbek society.

• The term Greater Iran is used by western scholars much like the term Turkestan is used. As a geographical term describing a region. Greater Iran describes the regions of greatest impact of Iranian civilization, not the Iranian empire, whose borders went far beyond the borders designated by the term Greater Iran.

• If Iran is not what the west calls Persia, then what is? You seem to think that Persia is real name of Iran. Please, do not purport to know things that you do not. Zaparodjik is doing the same thing, and is putting everyone into a lot of trouble for no reason, because neither you nor him can prove any of the things you claim, while we on the other had can. We have called our nation Iran for 3000 years since the time of the Medians. The term Persia comes from the Greek word Persis, which itself comes from Parsa province of the First Iranian Empire (modern day Fars province). The Romans later adopted the same term to refer Iran, Persia. Iranians have always called their nation Iran or by its other variations (Arya, Arianna, Eranshahr, Iran Zamin, Iran, etc...)

• To deny the cultural impact Iranian civilization has played in Turkic history is like denying the European impact in North America. I dont know what you believe, but you seem to be one of those people who claims that "Turks have lived in Anatolia for 5000 years", and "all civilization has its roots in Turkic civilization".

If you cannot refute the facts, or even get your discussion topics straight, you should stop making long speeches and supporting Zaparodjik's edit wars. Thats all im saying. Either refute the facts or accept the truth as it has been laid out right infront of you. Thats all we're asking.Khosrow II 05:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right: Iranian is not Persian - but here, you yourself are confusing some things. You say Persian, while you mean Iranian. And while you say Iranian, you do not mean Iranian, you mean Iran, which is wrong (just click on the Wiki-links to see what I mean). Azeris are Iranian by culture and - possibly - origin, but not by language. The same goes to Uzbeks, and even - partly - to Anatolian Turks. What is for sure is that they are not Persian, because the Persian people are a specific ethnic group. Your comments about religion are baseless. Azeris are Shia Muslims, just like Persians, while Anatolian Turks are Sunnis, just like Kurds and most Arabs. Belief has not much to do with ethnic groups. And your comparison about the looks of certain people in Central Asia is not correct either. In fact, MOST Turkic peoples have Mongolian looks (as did their forefathers, the Göktürks), while modern Oghuz-speaking Turks (the majority by number) have Caucasian (Mediterranian) looks. So, why then do you consider yourself and most citizens of Turkey "Turks"?! Noone in Turkey looks Mongolian/East Asian, noone in Turkey lives the original Turkic culture and habits; in fact, genetical studies have shown that the number of people in Turkey who have some "East Asian" genetic markers is less than 5% (see Turkish people and Azerbaijani people). This thread is not about genetic markers or looks, it's about a certain culture. And - wether you like it or not - the entire so-called "Islamic culture" is built on ancient Persian culture, and ALL invading nomads - Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and others - have sooner or later adopted this culture. The same way European nomads - most of all the Germanic people - have adopted the ancient Greek and Roman cultures of Europe. Just compare modern Turcophone people of West Asia with the Turkic peoples of Siberia. Except for distant language similarities, there is notihng else. "Turco-Iranian" or "Turco-Persian" (since Persians had the biggest influence on Turkic peoples) are terms given to hybrid culture in which the Persian element is dominating, It's not like "Perso-Arabic" where two - seemingly - equal elements mixed (while in the fields of language and literature Arabic is dominating, architecture, art and science were without doubt Persian). "Turco-Persian" stands for a society in which a nomadic society adopted the - seemingly - superior culture of the urban civilization. The Turks may have kept their languages (despite the fact that the are extremly influenced by Persian and - through Persian - by Arabic), but they have TOTALLY lost their original culture. The more they moved to the West and South, the more they became "Iranian". That's why NONE of the Turco-Persian rulers of the past is considered a "foreigner" by the native Iranian population: from Ghaznavids up to the Qajars, they are all considered "native Iranians", because these dynasties represented Persian language, culture, and way of life. "Turco-Iranian" in no means insults the Turkic heritage. Most of the "Turco-Iranian" dynasties were in fact of Turkic or Mongolian origin: Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Ilkhans, possibly Khwarizmids, partly the Safavids, the Qajars, the Afshars, and even the Pahlavis. But these dynasties NEVER tried to replace the existing and ruling Persian culture by pagan, nomadic Turkic culture. In fact, among all invaders in Persia, the Turco-Mongols were the ones who showed much respect for the Persians and for the Persian culture and identity. Unlike the Arabs who - first - tried to eliminate Iranian culture and heritage, the Turks and Mongols openly devoted themselvs to this culture. Persians owe Turks and Turkic people a lot, because they - the Turks - were the ones who promoted Persian identity and culture, as well as the Persian language. Turks and Mongols were the ones who replaced Arabic with Persian, and who brought this culture to Anatolia, Western-Europe, Africa, and India. This symbiosis of Tōrk & Tādjīk is the actualy meaning of "Turco-Iranian", not Persian nationalism, and not what Turkic nationalists interpret into it. Tājik 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am extremely aware of the current ethnic composition of Turkey and how it got there, trust me :)) On the other hand, what is important is choice and not nature, ethnicities and cultures are dynamic.. Race is also a different issue.. Which means that Turks of the 8th century are Turks of the 8th century and Turks of Turkey are the Turks of the 21st century, meaning that it is a group of people that live there and call themselves as such, there is no rule in stone that says a nation has to keep the religion it had 1400 years ago to be called as such, just coz Turks were pagans than and that they became Muslims later doesn't make them any less Turkish. The same for culture, it evolves and it is not for us to judge if someone is what he says he is by looking at how his great-great-great-great-grandfather danced at the local village festival.. As for Persian culture being the standard of Islamic culture, there I will have to disagree.. Blue Mosque in Istanbul was clearly influenced by Byzantine architecture and all the rest of Ottoman architecture was clearly influenced by Byzantine and Roman elements, much more than Persian.. The millet system of the Ottoman Empire had many similarities with the ethnic system of the Roman Empire.. And Ottoman culture was the standard-bearer for Islamic culture for 500 years, so I fail to see the connection with the Persian culture being the standard of Islamic culture.. Which brings me to the reason why originally put up my post, I am aware of all that you have said, I didn't jump here from a posting that I saw on MySpace.. What I object to is this constant inter-changing of the terms Iranian and Persian.. I wiff a sense of pan-iranism here and a leaning to apply these historical research to current day political problems and issues, such as the Azeris.. Azeris are Iranians who speak Turkish?? ha ha.. No political undertone there, right?? Come on, we are not kids here.. If you had said Azeris are Persians (peoples of the Persian Empire) who speak Turkish, that might be a different thing.. Why don't put it that way? Iranians are not Persians (without the name game, see above my reply to khosrov as well) You see what I mean? :)) Baristarim 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't u rename the article Greater Iran to Greater Persia?? That's how it is commonly known anyways, that name is just a POV fork coz it implies something that doesn't exist: that Iran is the same thing as Persia.. That's way too clear.. I wasn't aware until a couple of hours ago how much pan-iranism was going on around here... I will take a closer look at this in the future.. Baristarim 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You dont seem to know that for all of the Ottoman Empires history, the culture was Iranian. The cultural language of the empire was Persian. Islamic culture, from the begining of the Arab invasions of Iran, was founded on top of Persian culture. By the time the Abbasid Caliphate came around, it was more Persian than it was Arab. The Mughals, the Ghaznavids, the Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Abbasids, etc... All adopted Iranian culture and the Persian language for a reason. Why? The same reason the Romans adopted Greek culture, because they believed it was superior to their own. It even happens today. Why do so many non-Western people adopt Western traditions and culture? Becuase they prefer it. Its not for you to decide who the Seljuks identified with, its history's job, and no matter how much historical revisionism you try to use to spin things around, it wont work, because there is such a thing as the scholarly community that isnt so easily fooled.Khosrow II 05:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, talk with some more respect.. You don't know me, so don't pass judgements like that.. If you want, you can take a look at my user page and see if I am one of those people who think that Turks were in Anatolia for 5000 years', that's a lie and everyone in Turkey knows that Turks have come from Central Asia, I have never seen a Turk who seriously believes that - maybe it is you who should get his head straight.. I am an international lawyer and travelled the world much more than you have and most probably read much more than you have about history.. I am a communist as well.. I am perfectly aware of how Ottoman history unfolded.. Ottoman Empire was much more influenced by the Byzantine and Roman culture than the Persian, you cannot fool the scholarly community, either.. A look at Ottoman architecture can easily tell you that, alright buddy (there are tons of sources for this)? Except for Islam, the whole Ottoman culture after 1452 was derived from the Byzantine and Roman culture.. Your efforts to lay claim to the whole culture of the Middle East, Turkish culture through the Ottoman Empire is nothing but pan-iranism, scholarly community, whatever, ahmedinajad community more like.. What you don't see however, is Tajik's claims that nomadic Turcoman "Beyliqs". Countless clans of mostly nomadic Oghuz Turks fought each other for land and power. They were not familiar with the court-life of the Seljuq "Darbār", they were not familiar with the "civilized" Persian court language or with Arabic literature. That's why they promoted their own "house languages" - the Oghuz Turkish dialects - and their subjects were politically forced to learn those languages in order to communicate with the new rulers. At the end of the great war, only the Ottoman "Beyliqs" were left - and soon, they realized that they had to adopted the Persian court-life of the previous rulers in oder to organize their kingdom. Since the Ottomans came to power as a nomadic clan, they had not been influenced by Arabs or Persians that much..

Yeah, whatever, this is coming from someone who put a proud to be Iranian tag in his user page.. No pan-iranism there, right?? :))))))))) It's you who should get his ideas checked, I am not the one who is a nationalist, trust me... Ottomans were not Iranian, nor their culture was so, it was much more Byzantine.. Their language got mixed with Persian because of religion, otherwise there were no similarities, go to Turkey one of these days and have a look.. Mosques of Istanbul resemble Byzantine churches, not Tehranian mosques.. It was superior to their own - yeah whatever, and what does that do to you? You think that it makes you any superior? It doesn't make Iran any superior either, Mr. Ahmed is still busy making nukes in his garage.. And Ottomans, just like the Romans, adopted one culture as basis and later improved it by themselves by also mixing it with other cultures, which makes Ottoman culture NOT Iranian, and in fact superior (similar maybe originally, but not the same - if origins were at stake, I can also say that Iranians are Babylonians), and today's Iran has nothing to do with the Persia of yore, no matter what you say.. What is even funny actually, is the fact that it is worse :)) It actually went backwards.. Put that in context.. Baristarim 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you one of those people who think that Kurds are originally Iranian? What a joke... Baristarim 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about historical revisionism.. All of this is condecending Pan-iranism that pretends that somehow Persians were/are superior to others.. It is accepted by everyone that Seljuqs were Turkish so were the Ottomans, the influences they might have had on their cultures are different, Seljuqs were influenced by the Persian culture and the Ottomans by the Byzantine culture - but they were not assimilated - it is not even comparable to the English royals, the fact that Turkey exists today shows that, at the end of the day, they were not assimilated, how about that for the scholarly community?.. Where does this pan-iranist nationalist rhetoric come from???? Language of the Ottoman Empire was Turkish, and in the court Ottoman, a mix of Turkish-Persian-Greek-and later French was used.. Baristarim 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim, the Ottomans were not "bearers of Islam" for 500 years. I know that this nonsense is taught in Turkey - I guess for political resoans - but it is totally wrong. The Islamic world has never been limited to only one dynasty of rulers. Even at the time of the Ottomans, there were other major Islamic empires that were clearly not influenced by Romans or Greeks, most of all the Safavids of Persia, or the Timurids and Mughals or India and Central Asia.

The Ottoman Empire began as a powerful empire in the 14th century - more than 800 years after the beginning of Islam - and it was based on previous Islamic dynasties. Before the take over of Anatolia and eventually the growing influence of former Christian lands, the entire Islamic culture was based on the old Sassanian way of life - starting with the Abbasids who openply immitated the Sassanids. Not the Ottomans were the beginning of what became known as "Islamic civilization", but countless scholars, scientists, and personalities of previous centuries. Ibn Rushd, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Rumi, or Hafiz had nothing to do with the Ottomans. al-Azhar, Isfahan, Goharshad, and Taj Mahal had nothing to do with Ottomans.

Your writings even contradict the opinion of leading Turkish scholars. Let me quote O. Özgündenli (in Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", [6]):

... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ...

The Encyclopaedia Iranica goes on explaining ([7]):

... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ...

What you are doing here is contradicting and rejecting major sources.

The Seljuqs were not Turcoman Beyliqs ... the Turkish language developed because of those Beyliqs, NOT because of the Seljuqs. The way of prnouncing certain words, the large amount of loand words, as well as typical Non-Turkic intonations of old Turkish words are a clear proof for the Non-Turkic origin of the modern Turkish population and proves the "language replacement" that took place after the fall of the Seljuqs. The "final blow" to the Non-Turkic-speaking population was Atatürk's language reform that was forced on everyone in Turkey. Except for a few powerful resistances (such as the Kurds and a few other), all other Non-Turkic-speaking communities of Anatolia have vanished - NOT because of the Seljuqs, but because of the post-Seljuq era and Atatürk's extreme reforms and Turkish nationalism.

As for "Persian" and "Iranian" ... well, I've tried to explain ... but obviously you did not get it ... *sigh*

Tājik 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev. The same processes also happenned in Italy, until the last century, there were approx 20 languages spoken in Italy and today they have all been wiped by the same process.. Read some political sciences and political history before you gang up on Turkey as if it were the big daddy of nationalism in Europe.. Such nationalism was common in Europe at the time in every single country, please put things in context and avoid anachronisms.. Ataturk's extreme reforms?? loooool. I lived in Saudi Arabia for years and seen all the Middle East, I am used to this Ataturk-bashing.. Well, compared to Iran, I would say that Turkey is in a better situation at the moment... At least Turkey doesn't chop people's hands for stealing or sells heroin to make balance its economy.. You catch my drift??

Well you want a source?? This is not Encyclopaedia Iranica but Encyclopaedia Brittanica, a bit better, u know, just a bit :)) :

[8]

• Nizam al-Mulk - Persian vizier of the Turkish Seljuq dynasty sultans.
• Seljuq dynasty - (c. 11th-13th centuries) Muslim Turkmen dynasty that ruled Persia, Iraq, Syria, and Anatolia.
• Manzikert, Battle of - (1071) Battle near the town of Manzikert (present-day Malazgirt, Turk.), in which the Seljuq Turks (see Seljuq dynasty) under Sultan Alp-Arslan defeated the Byzantines under Romanus IV Diogenes.

• More on "Alp-Arslan" from the 32 Volume Encyclopædia Britannica:
• Alp-Arslan - second sultan of the Seljuq Turks (1063-72), who inherited the Seljuq territories of Khorasan and western Iran and went on to conquer Georgia, Armenia, and much of Asia Minor (won from the Byzantines).
• Nizam al-Mulk - Nizam al-Mulk was the son of a revenue official for the Ghaznavid dynasty. Through his father's position, he was born into the literate, cultured milieu of the Persian administrative class. In the years of confusion following the initial Seljuq Turk expansion, his father fled, eventually to Ghazna (now in Afghanistan), where Nizam al-Mulk, too, in due course entered Ghaznavid service.
• Manzikert, Battle of - (1071), battle in which the Byzantines under the emperor Romanus IV Diogenes were defeated by the Seljuq Turks led by the sultan Alp-Arslan. It was followed by Seljuq conquest of most of Anatolia.

I was asked to check into this via e-mail and therefore I am going to be keeping an eye in these articles for a moment, pan-iranist has to stop. Period.. Baristarim 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

AS FOR PERSIAN AND IRANIAN, you didn't need to explain me the difference, I already knew, and more then you did I am afraid, you are not talking to a fifth-grader here.. In English, and in MANY languages, as well as in political sciences and history, Iran and Iranian refers to the nation-state after the Shah in the 50s (when he decided to impose the name Iran to the world), that is the turning point, everything before that is considered Persia and Persian (NOT persian empire btw, that is the empire that was ended by Alex the Great).. Iran or Iranians cannot impose on the English language, Iran refers to a recent period of greater Persian culture, before Iran is Persia proper.. (anology: Constantinople is the city before its renaming in the 20s, after that is Istanbul, even though the name Istanbul was used on and off for centuries by Ottomans to refer to the city) So please don't lecture others on what it means to be Greater Iranian, Smaller Iranian, Greater Persian, Smaller Persian or whatever.. That is historical revisionism, there is no such thing as Greater Iran, and there will never be, there was Greater Persia and Greater Persian culture, but Iran refers to the state after the 50s Baristarim 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk?? Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are.. Baristarim 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison of Turkey and Iran is totally meaningless to this discussion, because it has nothing to do with the Seljuqs. Besides that, you are comparing a nation that is doing everything to be accepted in the EU (and which is enjoying financial support from Europe and America) with a nation that is being plagued by international sanctions, as well as the late consequences of a bloddy war with Saddam Hussein. Keeping in mind that Iran had to fight a bloody war, that Iran has to withstand countless international sanctions, that many intellectuals have left Iran, and that Iran has the highest percentage of foreign refugees (from Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Kuweit, etc), I do not think that Iran is that much worse than Turkey. I would rather say that Turkey is pretty lucky that right now, Iran does not have the capability to expand its economic and political influence. If Iran had the same possibilities as Turkey right now, then - no question - the Iranians would be way ahead of Turkey.

As for your source: yes, the Britannica is a good source, but it is in NO MEANS as good as the Encyclopaedia Iranica. In fact, there is only ONE other work than could compete with Iranica, namely the Encyclopaedia of Islam. But since both, EI and EIr are written by - more or less - the same author, it's not a big deal. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is the most powerful work in the field of Iranology and oriental studies - it is an authoritative source, and it has more weight than Britannica, because unlike the Britannica, the Iranica is specialized on Iranian and Muslim history. It has the best collection of medieval biographies, and it is being published by the most respected scholars of oriental and Iranian studies, namely Ehsan Yarshater and Nicholas Sims-Williams. Other important authors are Mary Boyce, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, and Richard Nelson Frye, just to name a few. However claims that "Britannica is better than Iranica" only proves that he has absolutely NO knowledge of what he is talking about. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is the collection par exellence of authoritative sources - whoever rejects this fact is nothing but an amateur. And, by the way, here is a quote from Britannica ([9]):

... Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ...

As for "Persian" and "Iranian" ... Oh boy ... you have no clue! Iran is the REAL historical name of the land and it's people. It's a name that is shared by all Iranian peoples (or Aryan, as some still say). It'S the word that is used in the Shahnameh.

Tājik 13:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim Baristam, that the Ottoman Empire was more Byzantine (Greek) and Roman in culture than Iranian is ridiculous. This is the type of things they teach in Turkey because they want to be Western and make it into the EU. Tell me, if the Ottomans were more Greek and Roman in culture, then why was the cultural language of the empire, from the begining to its end, Persian? Why do Turks today still revere some of the greatest Persian poets of all time, like Rumi? Why was 40% of the Turkish language made up of Persian and Arabic words? Why do you have to know Persian in order to read ancient Ottoman cultural texts (for example the poems written by Ottoman sultans)? Why do you have to learn Persian to even be able to understand the Ottoman Turkish language? Tell me, if the Ottoman Empire was so Greek and Roman in culture...

Further more, is that what the Turkish education system has taught you in Turkey? That Iran is not what the west calls Persia and that the Persian Empire ended with Alexander?

• Iran has always been Iran to Iranians. While the west called it Persia, we called it Iran. Furthermore, the decree you are talking about that officially changed Iran's name back to Iran, instead of Persia, in the west, changed the Western name of Iran, to Iran from Persia. Later, that decree was changed so that it allowed both the usage of Iran and Persia as the official name of the nation.

• And the Iranian Empire ended with Alexander? Then who were the Parthians and Sassanids, Turks?

Khosrow II 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, as far as I'm concerned, we need not debate them unless they can refute our evidence. If they start an edit war, we can just report them. If you cannot refute the evidence brought up by us, then you have no argument for a change of the article.Khosrow II 14:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah whatever.. Report whoever you want for whatever you want.. Go to a law and political sciences faculty to learn why Persia and Iran would not refer to the same thing.. It is not only me, but many academicians who refer to the Persian Empire per se as the Empire that ended with the conquest of Alex the Great, pls stop trying to pretend that Iran was the source of all the world's cultures, and maybe even Mars's culture who knows? As for Aryans, yeah whatever, there have been many people who have criticized the usage of that word in modern English language, you can use the word Aryan in Iranian, but in English it has a different meaning and has long been replaced by the word Caucasian, Iranians don't have a right to impose on the English language.. Iran has been Iran to Iranians, but it has not been so for non-Iranians. Is that clear?? You can call it Jupiter if you want.. That decree is very important in the eyes of the world and law, see Bombay/Mumbai et al.. Ok? I have not grown up in Turkey, so stop engaging in ad hominim attacks is that what the Turkish schools have thought you?, if you saw my diploma roll you would flip coz you will never have one that can parallel it, FYI, take a look at my user page.. That's the standard info you get in any Western school, bi1 compris? est-ce t'va le boucher? Even if I went to school in Turkey, I have the impression that it would be better than Iranian universities where they give regular speeches aboutjihad.. Pan-iranism is a disease, is that what they thought you at school in Persia, that Persia was the center of the universe?? As for the difference between Turkey and Iran, yeah whatever :))) I just said that because Tajik said Ataturk's reforms blah blah.. Turkey doesn't enjoy anything from the EU, it has also suffered a war with the PKK.. The ONLY difference is that Turkey doesn't try to build nukes in its garages or hang people by cranes in public stadiums in front of 10000 people. Iran's destiny is Iran's doing, not other people's fault.. Turkey's destiny is Turkey's doing, not other people's fault.. I definitely sense a wiff of caressing the wounds of Iran to compensate for the trauma of the last twenty years.. Period.. Baristarim 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making things so much more easier for us incase we do need to report you.Khosrow II 16:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

is that what the Turkish education system has taught you in Turkey? or This is not Turkey, where every intellectual is put into prison because of "insulting the Turkish nation", yeah whatever, I have only replied to things you an Tajik have said, in exactly the same way.. There is no evidence that I have been disruptive, if I add something to the article, I will never remove something sourced.. So there you go.. Baristarim 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, there is actually a law in Turkey that against "insulting Turkishness" and intellectuals have been persectued, the latest case being a woman who wrote a fiction book that was considered insulting to Turkish identity. And by the way, the Turkish education is really faulty, its as much full of historical revisionism and Irans education is based around religion.Khosrow II 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I really can believe that. I just don't know for certain if their practice of whitewashing past atrocities has reached the extent it has in Japan. --Tzekai 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Every country's education system encompasses propaganda, when I lived in Saudi Arabia half the residents always tried to prove to me that they were the descendants of the so-called prophet muhammed :)))))))).. I have also seen with my own eyes people who had their hands chopped off for stealing over there. So there you go.. As for what you have mentioned about insulting Turkishness and that women writer that got persecuted - well stop using half-lies and follow global politics better.. It was a group of ultra-nationalist lwayers that complained and she was relaxed and charges annulled by the first court of instance during its first sitting. Clear?? And just a couple of weeks ago I also saw a video of a public murder (hanging) by a crane in front of 10000 people in a stadium in Iran.. There is a saying in German: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.. You know, just in case.. :))) Baristarim 17:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the case of the "Tehran desert vampire"? In his case, I think medieval style public executions are the only way to get the message across. Where I live, he would probably be sentenced to life in prison, and then ten years later be released on parole. Kind of gives the wrong message on how seriously each state takes such crimes. --Tzekai 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between historical revisionism being taught in schools, and a nationalistic spin on history being taught in schools. Turkey's is both nationalist and historical revisionist. Also, Thank God that Turkey wants to get into the EU, or all these poor intellectuals would probably be in prison. Me personally am neutral on the death penatly issue, I dont like to take sides because I believe sometimes its necessary. Anyway, stop changing the subject.

There is a great quote by Hafez Shirazi, which applies here very well: Do not consider the intestinal conflicts of sects: For, not having found the truth, they went to the invention.... Please, I urge you guys to find the truth, i.e the enormous amount of facts posted by me and Tajik. Do not resort to the invention (i.e historical revisionism).Khosrow II 18:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of EU opinion on the basic instincts of the Turkish authorities, check this out. --Tzekai 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He was later relaxed, is that that hard to understand?? Yeah whatever, people who support the death penalty shouldnt even talk; as u said, if a country is so incapable of governing and educating its people that it needs to hang people in front of ten thousand people with a crane, than there is something wrong with that country, you see what I mean? lool. Unlike u zekai, I have seen the hells of the middle east, there is a reason why people snap and start being vampires and stuff over there.. I would do too if I lived there!! U dont know the Turkish education system, so refrain from talking, it's only hearsay that u know; in any case I only went to kindergarten and three grades in Turkey!! In Charles Wright Academy [10], a selective private school in Seattle that I attended, it was also mentioned as Seljuq Turks.. Is that historical revisionism too?? :)) Whatever man, at least I would not get my hand chopped off in Turkey for some reason.. The funny thing is, Turkey is actually getting better.. What is important is never where u are, but where u r going.. Iran is actually going backwards.. So, put that in context.. :)) Baristarim 03:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)