[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| List of Turkic states and empires]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| List of Turkic states and empires]]

Request details

Extended content

I am requesting mediation for especially the Historical kingdoms and empires section of the article. There are a number of items that need to be added to the list. I also request that the sub-sections Turkic States in Eastern Europe and Turco-Mongol and Turkic Persianate be eliminated. This is an artificial grouping. The article does not have a subsection titled Turkic States in Inner Asia, for instance. While the word Turko-Mongol is a commonly used term by historians the word Turkic Persianate appears to be an Iranian invention (POV). The article should include states, dynasties, kingdoms, and empires established and/or ruled by Turkic rulers.

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

There is a disagreement on the list of historical Turkic kingdoms, empires, states, and dynasties. This is the cause of an ongoing slow revert war. The involved users appear to be from countries whose territories were once inclued within some of the states in question or were ruled by Turkic dynasties. Laveol and Gligan did not accept my previous formal mediation request on Turks in Bulgaria. These users appear to be uncomfortable with classifying the Bulgars and the states Bulgars built as Turkic. This is probably because any emphasis on the Turkic roots of the Bulgars -who lent their name and contributed into the formation of the Slavic Bulgarian nation- goes against the current Bulgarian histography. 07fan appears to be Iranian who while preventing the inclusion of certain Turkic states is pushing for the inclusion of the word Persian in the article. This user is also insistant on using the encyclopedia Iranica as a reliable source to tell the world which historical states or dynasties were Turkic.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to agree on the structure of the disputed section. The article is about the list of historical Turkic states. This requires taking into account the dynasties that either established or ruled these states. Therfore the relevant section title should also include the word dynasties. Also changing the list into a table format with a column for comments might be an improvement.

Mediator notes

Xav is available via email. No matter what it is, it's fine by me. Privacy guaranteed!
2 June 2008 - Discussion will speed up somewhere in the afternoon, UTC. I'm unsure whether this should be discussed on the case page or the article talk page, and haven't had an opportunity to talk with Mm40 about the case (although he can jump in at any time without fear). Feel free to talk amongst yourself, keeping in mind the advise near the bottom of the page (section "Now wait..."). I remind everyone to keep a cool head, and to take breathers every now and then. Anyway, I'm off to bed :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

3 June 2008 - some questions at the bottom, might do some refactoring. I ask that all participants please add this page to their watchlist, since mediation can be a little slow if folks forget it's there ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

11 June 2008 - I'm trying to move discussion to the article talk. This tends to work better for me as a mediator, and for the article and contributors themselves, who'd rather not want the article to languish during discussion. I do not believe this is how medcab (or wikis) work; the case page here is, to me, preamble, and the actual nuts and bolts happen where the project actually works: on the article. So I'm attempting a move there by placing this case sort-of on-hold until contributions happen on the article. Then discussions can happen about the merits of contributions... hopefully, the work done here so far is to discourage editors from discussing the merits of the contributor. When all is said and done, the only abstraction we are allowed as editors is that of editor, not nationality or religion or ideology. Before that abstraction (editor), we have a buncha folks typing furiously at keyboards, all of which generally have 104 keys and lights for numlock and capslock (maybe scroll-lock, but you'd think the keyboards would be cheaper if they'd get rid of that thing).

So: Please edit the article as you were, with respect to the agreement signed below. Anyone who is not a listed party can be briefed about the the aims of that agreement without having to sign it - assume good faith, as always :-)

Areas of agreement

Two editors say adding information about the migration would be helpful to the article
All editors save one have signed the agreement below (I believe one is on a wikibreak atm, so hasn't seen it)

Administrative notes

Extended content

As an uninvolved admin, I have to say that Nostradamus1's conduct on this article and its talk page concerns me a great deal. He appears to have been uncivil at times, and has even used racial slurs against other editors. Here he says, " Therefore, entries by Ajami's citing Iranica in order to push Iranian bias and POV -so that the world recognizes them as somebodies- will not stand here." Ajam is a racist and derogatory term used by Arabs against Persians, and if I had seen that comment earlier I would've blocked him for it.

Upon a further look at this dispute, Nostradamus1 does not appear to be willing or reasonable enough to resolve the conflict. I think that most users have a consensus here that Encyclopædia Iranica is a reliable source, but Nostradamus has been apparently dismissing it on personal and preferential grounds. So, in light of his disruptive behavior on this page, it looks like this "dispute" is in fact one disruptive editor reverting a page against the consensus of the other involved parties. Khoi khoi 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Khoikhoi, if you are an Iranian and admin I ask you not to use any of your administrative privileges in this matter. The Iranian user you are defending is not elaborating on his reasons for removing half a dozen or so items in from the article. According to this user's resonses everything has been discussed and settled and there is no need for further discussions. My version of the list contains all the items in his version. So any disputed items need to be discussed one by one. (BTW, Ajam is not a deragatory term from where I come from. It is a name of a region and Ajami is a person from that region, i.e. Iranian. The corresponding article should make that point too.)-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not Iranian, and most academic sources describe Ajam as a derogatory term. If you use it again you will be blocked. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please do not label people based on their presumed nationality. Khoi khoi 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. I insist that "Ajam" is not a unversally acepted deragotary term. Instead of threatening others do your research. Since you claim that you are not of Iranian background I remind you that WP is not a reliable source of information yet. And that, perhaps, some parts of the related articles amount to original research. How do you explain people having last names such as "Ajami", "Ajem", "Acemi", "Acem", and so on? See Fouad Ajami, for instance. It's a shame WP allows for this to compromise its quality. An admin reads a WP article what might very likely be full of original claims and based on that threatens other users. No wonder the waiter in the restaurant I was having dinner the other night told me that WP was not a reliable source of information. Are we wasting our time here?-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Replied on user's talk page. Khoi khoi 05:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If you don't mind, I would like to archive this discussion. Medcab is generally for content-based disputes, and I want everyone to get a fresh start :-) Would talk page be OK? Xavexgoem ( talk) 05:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I can tell you as an Iranian that Ajam or Ajami is a racist term when used by a non-Iranian toward an Iranian, similar to how the "N" word is used. -- 07fan ( talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

And I can tell you that I did not mean to use it in a deragotary way. (Again the "N" word and Ajami are worlds apart. If Arabs use it in that way then that's a shame.) In any case it was wrong for me to use it anyway and I apologize for it.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Mm40, another medcabalist, has notified everyone that the case has been opened. If you have questions, comments, complaints, rants, acceptance of mediation, rejection, whatever... here's the place to say so :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

To Nostradamus1: the Turkic origin of the Bulgars is still not proved, but is the most probable theory which by the way I think is the correct one, so here you are wrong. And I was busy when you requested the last mediation.

To qualify the First and Second Bulgarian Empire as Turkic country is ridiculous. The fact that the ruling dynasty is of Turkic origin is not enough to make a country Turkic. Between 1885 and 1947 Bulgaria was ruled by a German dynasty, does it mean that in that time Bulgaria was a Germanic country??? I think not. You just don't have arguments. In written sources the Bulgarians consider themselves Slavs, they spoke Slavic language and created the Slavic alphabet which is now used by most Orthodox Slavs. How can a country with Slavic language and culture be a Turkic state?! Greater Turkic propaganda is not for Wikipedia.

And structurally it is not good to mix Turkic countries with Turkic dynasties in one single article. If you want to create a list of Turkic dynasties, go ahead; but do not confuse dynasties with countries.

And finally why do you write Empire for Bulgaria in brackets, is that a sort of irony of yours? If so, change your manner. -- Gligan ( talk) 10:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I accept and thank you for accepting to mediate this case. -- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't see what the point of this mediation is. So far it's impossible to deal with Nostradamus1 in a constructive manner. He's ignored the long-standing consensus on List of Turkic dynasties, and keeps reverting the page without seeking a new consensus. Furthermore, his edits are tenacious, he adds original research to the article, while deleting academic sources like Iranica which meet the requirements of WP:RS on dubious grounds. He also claims "Turko Persian" is an "Iranian invention" when the term Turko-Persian is an academical topic with dozens of books written about it and generates tens of thusands of results on Google. -- 07fan ( talk) 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I said Turkic Persianate not Turko-Persian. Also I am unaware of a WP policy of preventing contributions because of "long-standing consensus". Perhaps, at the time those involved knew only that much. Now it's time to improve upon that.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It's true - I admit that I'm not fully involved with the overall history of the dispute - but consensus can change, and there may be good reason to ignore some rules that keep the project from operating smoothly. We need to forget about claims of OR, tenaciousness, etc at the moment so we can move forward. Otherwise, we continue discussing amongst our selves in an endless cycle, and one that seems to have a lot of vitriol. So please: there are questions on the bottom. After we come to some compromise or resolution of a few important things (some already moving forward, imo), we can begin to move this to the article talk, and work on contributions there.

Not that contributing there now is bad because of the mediation. I think it would be a very good thing, to see how edits are handled and discussed, and simply to move the article forward :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Laveol

Extended content

I was not sure how to indicate I agree to the mediation so I created a section for my opinion on the subject. I do not think that a request for mediation was needed for this case. User:Nostradamus seems to be out of option and does not want to answer the questions we posted on the article talkpage. The fact is all the parties on the case excluding Nostradamus himself have the pretty distinct opinion he's a PanTurkic POV pusher. I wouldn't be that inclined to think so until I was convinced he used some nationalistic (PanTurkic to be precise) websites to back his ideas up. But that was some time ago. We repeatedly asked Nostradamus to give us a definition of what exactly a Tukic state is. All his sources mentioned that some of the rules of the Second Bulgarian empire were of partial Cuman origin. From that he somehow got to naming a Slavic empire (cause you'll never find any scholar calling it something else) a Turkic empire. Not only he ignored the word partial, but he ignored the fact that a ruler does not make a country. If this was so then Bulgaria didn't exist until 1945 cause its rulers were German princes. I now see that Gligan has got the exact same point, but I'll still keep my comment as well. As for the whole Iranian/Turkic theory about Bulgars. Neither me, nor Gligan, evidently, has anything against any of the two theories. The fact is Nostradamus is trying to impose that his view is the only right one. He dismisses all other points and represents only his POV. That violates at least two Wiki policies WP:NPOV and {{Wiki:NOR]] since he's neglecting a view that is far from fringe and making his own assumptions not allowing not only other contributors' opinion, but some scholars' opinion as well. That pretty much sums it up. I'll write again if something else occurs to me. -- Laveol ^T 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Laveol, all you had to do was to indicate whether you agreed for this disagreement to be mediated and let the mediators take the lead. You previously refused my mediation reguest. Your excuse was that I had not invited everyone including an admin. Were you expecting a healthier mediation by having an admin -who apparently is fluent in Greek- in a duspute involving the Turks? (That admin himself told you that he was not part of that discussion to begin with.) I warn you not to call me names such as Pan Turkic POV pusher. I did answer your queries but my previous experiences with you left me with no choice but to request mediation. According to your logic two Bulgarians and an Iranian can write this article and if a user disagrees and requests mediation that can be ignored. We need to argue each item in the list. There are items other than the Bulgarian empires in the list that were taken out. I don't see any use at discussing these issues without mediator's guidance at this stage. I only ask you to point me and others reading this to the location where I "used some nationalistic (PanTurkic to be precise) websites to back his ideas up". I insist.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Now, wait one second! Information

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	List of Turkic states and empires
Status	closed
Request date	18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Mm40 & Xavexgoem
Comment	will remain on talk, but closing as unresolved.

I aim to nip this in the bud. You all know NPOV and civility, so I'm not going to put brackets around them. I want to see Source A, Source B, Source C, Argument A, Argument B, Argument C, from Editors A, B, and C respectively. Never do I (or anyone) want to hear Source A or Argument A is wrong because Editor A is Bulgarian/Turkish/Iranian or anything of that nature. We are Wikipedia editors; everything else is secondary to the functioning of the project, but is still very important to the individual and the growth of the project, and so we will respect that.

Sign agreement here:

Signatory: I agree.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Signatory: I agree.-- Gligan ( talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Signatory: I agree.-- Laveol ^T 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Signatory: I agree. -- -- 07fan ( talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The focus of this mediation will be main-space contributions, and the arguments for their inclusion/removal/revision. If anyone goes off the deep-end, I'll reel them back in. Xavexgoem ( talk) 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Extended content

I believe I've demonstrated my goodwill to discuss our disagreements by requesting this mediation. The three users in question have not accepted this informal mediation process so far. My previous experience with two of them led me to believe that they might not. Laveol and Gligan refused formal mediation on related disagreements. An admin has already recommended mediation to Laveol. I will go up to the arbitration level with this. They clearly are the ones avoiding constructive mediated dialog. Nostradamus1 ( talk) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

An admin has already recommended mediation to Laveol. - What should that mean? -- Laveol ^T 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't worry about it. The mediation cabal (like the mediation committee) handles content disputes, and everything is non-binding. The only difference between the two is medcab is far more informal. Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, let's see why do you consider Bulgaria (First and Second Empires) a Turkic country. I also insist on a clear definition of what the term Turkic country means. I don't know who avoids constructive dialogue. -- Gligan ( talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I suggest that you make a separate article "List of Turkic dynasties". Now, I am competent only on Bulgaria, so for the Bulgarian dynasties you put there, there must be clarifications of the other theories for their origin. For instance Dulo, Vokil, Ugain, Krum's dynasties might have been of Iranic origin; very unlikely but possible, that should be mentioned. Asen dynasty was most likely of Cuman origin but for instance the Romanian authors claim they were Vlachs and so on. -- Gligan ( talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the suggestion. Such a list makes sense. Unfortunately between my job and other disputes very little progress was possible so far. I agree that there should be clarifications. Nothing is purely black or white there are always other shades.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, all :-)

Some questions/ideas

So right now there are three issues raised in this section:

What defines a Turkic country? Should this be elaborated on? Are there definitive texts?
Should dynasty be forked? (Might it be good to state explicitly the definitions in the article?)
Should the article attribute potential origins? How can we resolve these differences (for instance, when source X says origin A, but source Y says origin B)?

Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Good questions. At the disputed Historical kingdoms and empires section we currently have the following:

The following listed kingdoms and empires were at some time ruled by Turkic kings/khans/shahs or other dynasties. Mentioning of any particular entity in this place should not be read to mean that the entity as a whole was Turkic or even had more than a significant minority of Turkic subjects.

First of all I don't think the section implies historical "Turkic countries". Many states and dynasties were formed as a result of Turkic migrations out of Inner Asia. There are states that started as Turkic -that is they were created by Turkic peoples- but lost their Turkic character in time. There are also states who were created by non-Turkic peoples that gradually assumed a Turkic character, Golden Horde that was established by Genghizkhanate Mongols is an example for this. So in my view, this article is a place to summarize these states, empires, kaghanates, dynasties, etc. (The word kingdom sounds a little bit odd when user for Turkic states). We should comment whenever necessary. Maybe we can even have a table format that has a comments column next to each item.

I agree that a separate article for Turkic dynasties would be useful. However, even in this article it is hard to separate dynasties from states. If I can give a few examples. We have the Seljuk Turks who moved from what is today Kazakhstan to Khorasan (Eastern Iran) and established the Great Seljuk Empire. The majority of the population was Iranian. The creators of the empire were Turkic. In time the empire collapsed and the rulers were absorbed into the majority population. Similarly the Ottomans -from the same Oghuz Turkic stock as the Seljuks- moved from Khurasan to the west into Anatolia to form an empire. There's is a pattern of state formation. Sometimes rulers were assimilated into the subject population and sometimes the existing local population was gradually Turkified in time. Anatolia is an example.

I also agree that we should give proper attribution when there is no scholarly consensus. Bulgars is an example.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Would it help to explicitly clarify the "pattern of state formation" into the article, and make exceptions where necessary? Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Mentioning the Turkic migrations and how some of these states were established should be helpful to the reader. There are many items in the list covering a vast territory. These states were mostly established by conquest. But there are also states established by Turkic slave soldiers (ghulams/mameluks) such as the Ghaznavids, the Mameluks. Due to their military ability many Turks served as high ranking military generals and commanders under various rulers from China to Egypt. Some of these slaves ended up establishing their own dynasties and states by seizing power. (I mean new states not continuation of existing ones.) We can go deeper into these discussions but what concerns me is that 07fan has not yet accepted the mediation by becoming a signatory above. Can this process continue without his participation? What if he simply goes and removes any agreed upon changes we make as a result of our discussion here?-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It's likely 07fan does not have this on his watchlist, but I'm sure he would have no problem signing the agreement :-) Folks may be busy doing other things, too.

If you think something is likely to help the reader, please don't hesitate to add it Xavexgoem ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC) BOLD, revert, discuss has the best discussion on that stuff reply

It seems reasonable to include a description of the migration, I completely agree it would be useful for the readers. -- Gligan ( talk) 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Any news?

Extended content

Just checking for activity... Xavexgoem ( talk) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm here, but what's going on? Apparently we're waiting for the fourth participant - I guess there's no given period for that? -- Laveol ^T 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Egads! We were waiting for 07? I was basically getting this under way...

But I'm also wondering why no-one is editing the article. I'm over there, too. I hope no-one was hanging on that because of this. Sorry!

Anyway, I'll go ask 07fan... but his second-to-last contribution was on this page (June 2), so he may just be away. We can discuss without 07fan, though. I'm interested on your opinions to the questions above, too. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Seems 07fan is away. Shall we continue? Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure how to deal with this kind of conflict where one of the involved parties is not available to mediate. My observation has been that 07fan periodically pops up and restores the article to a version he likes without giving any explanation other than claiming consensus. I also noticed that he was involved in List of Iranic states and empires where even the Ottoman Empire is listed as an Iranic -whatever that means- state located in Anatolia. It appears we are dealing with people who are willing to compensate for Iran having been ruled by non-Iranian dynasties for about nine centuries during the past millenium by turning those who ruled them into "Iranic" states in cyberspace. By this logic Iran can also be listed as an Arabic state and, perhaps, Bulgarians can list the Ottoman Empire as one of the historical Bulgarian empires. Historical states, kingdoms, and empires were not democracies. If the rulers were from different ethnicity than some or most of the population they ruled then who gets the credit for building that empire? To elaborate on Gligan and Laveol's questions regarding whether we should count the Bulgarian Kingdom as a Germanic one since their rulers were Germanic I'd say no. The reason is that these monarchs were put in power by external powers and that they did not built anything. On the other hand Bulgars migrated to the Balkan peninsula around the same time as the Slavs and established an empire. Don't they deserve a credit for that? Same goes for a number of states and empires that were established by the Oghuz, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Timurids etc. in what is today Afghanistan, India, and Iran. In List of Iranic states and empires the Mughal Empire is also listed as Iranic despite the fact that Babur - the founder of the empire- despised the heretic Iranians. It seems to me that we need to distinguish between Persian being used as the language of literature and the mother tongue of the rulers. Just as writing in English would not make us English today such was the case in the past. Ironically both Babur -the founders of the Mughal Empire and Shah Ismail I , the founder of the Safavid Empire composed in their native Turkic -which was not even a language of literature at their times.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

When one of the parties is unavailable to mediate, we tend to mediate anyway. It's a voluntary decision whether you want to participate or not; 07fan has not accepted/denied anything yet, so we're going to move on.

You and Gligan agreed that some elaboration is needed in the article about migration. Maybe it should be added? Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. Mentioning the migrations will definitely help to explain the diverse geographic locations of these states. I haven't read it but there is even a WP article about this, Turkic migrations. Our disagreements with Gligan and Laveol are about the inclusion of the two Bulgarian empires in the list. First, I see no reason why the First Bulgarian Empire can not be listed both as a Turkic and a Slavic state. The history of this state perfectly allows for that since there is a gradual transformation from one to another. I realize that some might point to the alleged possibility of Bulgars not being a Turkic people. I read many sources and they overwhelmingly point to a Turkic background. One explicitly stated that there was no question of their Turkic origin. Others qualified it with the word "probably" or simply stated that Bulgars were a Turkic people. I encountered one enyclopedia describing Bulgars as Mongols but I haven't read or heard of any printed book claiming Iranian origin. There were no Iranian peoples who worshiped the Tengri, only Turks and Mongols did so. Bulgars -without doubt- worshiped Tengri (or Tangra). There is also another issue regarding the inclusion of the First Bulgarian Empire. The article already includes Volga Bulgaria. This state was established by a branch of the Bulgars who migrated to the Volga ( Itil in Turkic) region. Another branch migrated to the Danubean region and established the First Bulgarian Empire. How can we include one but exclude the other one?-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Seems to me there are many different meanings of Turkic for a given context. That's a lot of info for something calling itself a list... :-)

Not that it's my prerogative. However, I really want to move the mediation out of this casepage and into the article talk. Then the contributions will come in, and the article won't be at a standstill (I'm sure this is bugging some of you). I think the agreement above will offset some of the difficulties editing that article. Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, On Safavids it has been discussed in its talkpage extensively. No need to go over the arguments again. Please see here: [ [1]]. The Ghaznavids were also thoroughly Persianized [2]. And so were the Seljuqs who were highly Persianized [3]. Perhaps a compromise would be to list the Seljuq/Ghaznavids dynasties in that page as of Turkic origin but heavily Persianized in culture. On the Safavids it is sourced anyway that they had Iranian origin (other sources might claim Turkic but the consensus right now is Iranic). Most of these dynasties anyhow married also with Iranian families (the Ghaznavid founders mother was Iranian according to some sources). -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I realize that it is hard to convince Iranians that Safavids were a Turkic dynasty but if there are sources stating that Safavids were Turkic why is this information not mentioned in the article (List of Iranic states)? Also if taking Iranian brides is sufficient to make a dynasty "Iranic" why is the same standard not applied the other way around? Shah Ismail's mother was the daughter of Ak-Koyunlu (White Sheep) Uzun Hasan - who was Turkic. His father was Turkic as well. Encyclopedia Iranica or in general encyclopedias are not the best sources for yet another encyclopedia.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Then will you be removing the 4 references[ [4]] of Encyclopedia Britannica Online that are used in the Bulgars article. Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The way you asked the question implies that I used Encyclopedia Britanica as a reference. I did not! WP states that they do not consider encyclopedias as good sources of information. Why don't you go ahead and remove Britanica yourself. I will help you if you need any scholarly references to back up any Turkic origin claims. I did try to contribute to the article but fortunately I have other things to do so arguing with people trying to distance Bulgars from the Turks is not that great of a priority.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Instead of trying to find implications where none exists, perhaps you should be checking references and external links under the article in question. This external resource[ [5]] is written by a "someone" and appears to be this person's own opinion written in a heavy POV. This external resource [ [6]] appears to have been created simply to promote nationalism, and lists NO references.

Encyclopedia Iranica or in general encyclopedias are not the best sources for yet another encyclopedia. --Nostradamus1

And yet, 4 sources(which support Turkic origin) under Bulgars, and 2 highly questionable external resources under List of Turkic states and empires, apparently are acceptable. It would appear that as long as the information says what you condone, then it's respectable, if it contradicts your opinion then it's, "not the best sources for yet another encyclopedia". Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Encyclopedias are sources. I agree in principle, though. but then, where would wikinews get its sources? ;-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You need to read this again: [ [7]]. That is the general concensus of scholars. Plus if you have sources Safavids were Turkic dynasty you can list them in another article. We can only give the view of reliable scholars. --Nepaheshgar 16:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it. I am unaware of any general consensus. If there's any it's probably going to state that the primary spoken language of the Safavid rulers was Turkic. Your argument is that the Safavids were originally Iranic but disquised their true identity and chose to speak Turkic while ruling over a majority Iranic population. Can I include the Safavids in the list given that one of my sources not only points to their Turkic origin but also makes a comparative analysis of the three contemporary Turkic empires, i.e. the Ottomans, Safavids, and the Mughals? Read Findley, C. V., The Turks in World History', 2005, Oxford University Press-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You did not read my argument and I think are misquoting me. I would read the link I showed you again. The concensus is what scholars say is a concensus. Roger Savory, the Safavid Schoalr par Excellance, states there is a concensus among scholars that the Safavids came from Persian Kurdistan. Prof. Savory has written the most articles and books on the Safavids in the Western World and is recogized as "the" Safavid scholar. The oldest biography on the Safavids clearly states they were Kurds. The Safavids became Turcophones (much like much of Anatolia), but the difference is that they remembered their male geneology, and it goes back to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurd Sanjani according to every single Safavid biography (before 1501 and after 1501). There is not a single Safavid biography that traces their origin back to Oghuz Turks. --Nepaheshgar 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of going into arguments to prove a disputed matter I suggest we use sources in deciding whether these empires qualify to be listed here. I have a source that clearly counts and examines the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires as Turkic. I will add them to the list with footnotes. This does not mean they can't be listed elsewhere. As you indicated these a re not mutually exclusive. In many points I agree with you.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually the term Turkic is very simple. There is a Turkic language family. People whose mother tongue is a Turkic language are Turkic. Historically speaking, Turkic peoples were nomadic. They were skilled in military affairs. So I can think of one criteria for inclusion in the list: A state established by a Turkic people can be listed as a Turkic state. -- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

What do others think of this? And to clarify, you mean that Turkic people spoke a Turkic language, basically? Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. Turkic people spoke a Turkic language. There is no state in the list that the rulers of the state did not speak Turkic. Mother tongue is a primary criteria. (That is the reason I had removed the Kara-Khitai who were of Mongol stock. It was resored back.)-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Then please do say so... the article should be self-contained. It might reduce future confusion, and improves upon the article :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

← Given the wealth of information concerning this topic, and the amount of knowledge each editor has, might it be best to turn the list into an an article - or a hybrid, rather? Could make for an interesting GA :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Support - if one POV is neutralized by the other, why not :) -- Laveol ^T 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - The list in Iranic empire can be changed to list of Iranic and Iranicized (or Iranianized) Empires and Kingdoms. That way sourced information can be put in from academic sources and the title would not cause trouble. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
- I still can't see how the Ottoman Empire can be listed as an Iranic or Iranianized state. If some Ottoman poets' composing in Persian language is sufficient to list the Ottomans as Iranic or Iranianized then we should list Iran and , say, the Samanids as Arabic and Arabised states given that people living in these states not only have and had Arabic names but prayed in Arabic many times a day. And this is not and was not limited to a few poets but incudes the masses.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

My main point is on the mechanism of the article and putting sourced information. That is the way the Encyclopedia improves. You can ask for scholarly sources in that article. I didn't put Ottoman empire there by the way. Not sure who did. It does seem a bit out of place. You can put a fact tag and after a month or so, if no one provides a source, feel free to remove it. The emphasis is on culture and I wouldn't necessarily put Ottoman Empire on such a list where-as the Ghaznavids (note the sourced items) is a different matter. The Ottoman Empire was greatly influenced by Persian culture but they were not probably Iranianized like the Seljuqs of Rum. Another example the Rawwadids who were originally Arabs but were Kurdicized. And sometimes the origin of a group is not 100% clear, so it can go in different articles. For example of this, see the Hepthalites where different sources are there (many Iranian)! As long as scholarly sources use the term "Iranic, Iranian, Iranianized, Persianized, Kurdicized dynasty", then that is fine. In terms of some of those that were Persianized/Iranianicized/Kurdicized, we can mention Turkic origin. Thanks. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This is a wealth of information! Why just talk about it ;-) this is an encyclopedia! Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I believe there are enough sources and knowledge between all of you to make the article much much better, maybe to GA status. But that's just me .... ;-) reply

I agree.. Anything that is overwhelmingly sourced can be put in an article else it should be removed. For example on Ghaznavids, there are many sources that say despite being of Turkish origin, they were thoroughly Persianized. So I guess they would fit the category of "List of Turkic empires/states" as well as list of "Iranic and Iranized dynasty". That is the two are not mutually exclusive. That will solve the problem. Again just to repeat, if something is overwhelmingly sourced, then it should stay in an article. So with that, I'll leave this dispute. --Nepaheshgar 19:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense... but it's my rather bold suggestion that the list be refactored into an article, essentially. Not really my call, but I think there is enough areas needing clarification that why not? Anything to get the article moving again. I strongly recommend we move the discussion happening above to the article talk page proper. Does this sound good to everyone? Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately the news are bad. user:07fan is back reverting my recent changes again. This user refuses any discussion. I am left with no choice but refer him to the admins if he repeats it one more time.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I've left a message on his talk page. Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

So far no luck. For how long are we going to wait for 07fan to participate in this mediation. The current status quo is exactly what he wants. Here we have an artile that has been marked as "disputed" and yet any attempts to improve it are being prevented by one stubborn user who does nothing other that revert any changes beyond a version he prefers. There has to be a process to move on and prevent users from stalling the progress. Please, advice. I intend to take this stubborn user to the highest level of dispute resolution just to make sure that I have not been wasting my precious time in WP. He is not the only person with a job or business to attend to.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 21:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Fact of the matter is no-one has to participate in mediation - they do have to communicate, though, and not in edit summaries.

I've also brought up a few things, myself, since I do not believe anyone is trying to do harm; they have their reasons, and it's best that their concerns are talked about.

Lastly, mediation rarely has a definitive end (usually it just...ends somehow; I have lots of time to spare, so I don't mind hanging around). I've made suggestions to alleviate some of the problems when editors have different takes on things, and will move the suggestions to article talk. That page has been unprotected, btw. Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

My proposal

My proposal is to delete " List of Turkic states and empires" as well as "List of Iranic..." altogether. These pages serve no encyclopedic purpose, and can be categorized as ultra-nationalistic "honor lists" detached from geo-political realities and facts of history. What is after all a "Turkic empire", when some of the dynasties Nostradamus1 is trying to add to this list were either Bulgarian or Iranian dynasties who ruled in the name of Bulgaria and Iran, not in the name of Turks or Turkey, and referred to themselves as Iranians or Bulgarians. The main problem here is that such irredentist lists try to connect unrelated dynasties based on racialist notions, or at best linguistic similarities. These types of lists are not needed, just as we don't need a "List of Mongoloid states" or "List of Germanic states" and....-- 07fan ( talk) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

My 2 cents is there is a wealth of information that could be added to the article, at least to clarify. If it is at best linguistic similarities, may we assume that this isn't just an honor list? Much time has been spent by everyone here editing this article, and the other lists besides. Putting them all through AfD is sure to create enough wikidrama among ourselves to last many months of anger.

What can make the article better? I think everyone here has enough sources and information of their own to bring it to GA quality, myself. Xavexgoem ( talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Not saying deletion can't be done, or isn't an option... just thinking there's a better way. reply

There is a separate WP process for nominating the articles for deletion. There are also a number of articles listing the Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, etc. nations. So I can't see why this one should be deleted. One can make the argument that the nationalists are trying to censor information by preventing its publication. (See Big Excursion for an example.) Now that everyone has signed in I suggest that we continue the discussion in the talk page under the section Xavexgoem created. (This way at least our discussion will be left for others to read and judge for themselves.) I thought renaming the section title and giving a brief description of what is listed below was a good approach. Currently it sounds like an appologetic disclaimer. Another suggestion is to start with items that are less likely to be disputed. Does anyone disagree with the removal of the Kara-Khitai from the list. This was an entirely Mongol state.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That's a sound approach, I think, by starting with least likely to be disputed. What I'm wondering is if it's possible to expand on the text so instead of

Item[cite]
Item[cite]
...

we could have...

Item - a brief summary of this item (who were they, etc)[cite], including controversy of its status.[cite]

It would be a much better list, imo :-) It would also clarify in mainspace what the actual items of contention are, which paves the way a bit better when conflict comes up. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree. My proposal to delete both the Turkic and Iranic lists is in the interest of preserving the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Also, where are these Slavic, Germanic, Celtic "list of empires and dynasties" you speak of? As for Kara-Khitai, I don't think anyone here has an issue with you removing entries like that, the main concern is about adding disputed entries of Bulgarian and Iranian dynasties, and labeling them "Turkic" based on obscure outdated racialist notions. -- 07fan ( talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You're always free to take them to AfD, I suppose. Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Point to me where I spoke of 'these Slavic, Germanic, Celtic "list of empires and dynasties"'? If you perform a search you will find all kinds of lists. In an indirectly related matter in article Babur you appended to my addition from the same source. Thanks. I also inserted the following few missing sentences that you must have overlooked. They will be helpful in resolving some of the disputes in this article also:

According to Saunders, J.J, "Whatever his real or fancied claims to Mongol descent, the great Timur was a Turk in race and spirit; the Mamluks of Egypt were commonly the offspring of Turkish Kipchak slaves; the Golden Horde of Russia grew progressively turcicized, as did the Khanate of Chagatai, and in the sixteenth century the three mightiest thrones of Islam (the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid of Persia, and the Great Moghul of India) were filled by families of Turkish speech and origin. Almost all branches of the Turkish race were by then Muslims, and the more civilized of them had become strongly impregnated by Persian culture. Although a Persian National State did not arise till after the fall of the Safavid dynasty, Persian art and literature captivated the Ottomans and the Moghuls, and the Arabs, whose political independence survived only in the deserts of Arabia, were depressed to the level of a poor third in the scale of Islamic nations." (Saunders, J.J., The History of the Mongol Conquests, 1971, p.177, Raurlegde & Oaul Ltd.)

This should give us half a dozen items for the list. Shall we proceed in the article's discussion page?-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Something needs to happen on the article for a discussion to happen on talk. In no way do I mean to increase animosity between Nostra and 07fan, or anyone else. If you can make the article better (at least three people have agreed on adding info on migration), go for it. Bold, revert, discuss :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Saunders, J.J is an obscure source with too much emphasis on race (an outdated notion), I can also go cherry-picking for sources, and claim that Ottomans were actually Iranian and add them to the List of Iranic states (Bernard Lewis , who is the most respected authority on Ottoman/Islamic history, calls the Ottomans " an Iranian dynasty" [8]). So I still stand by my proposal to delete both of these lists. But otherwise, I am against any inclusion of Bulgarian and Iranian dynasties on the Tukic list, unless they're clearly designated as Turko-Persian (which is the case now) or simply as Iranian dynasties, which is the case of Nader or Safavids who were Iranian and ruled Iran, in the name of Iranians. -- 07fan ( talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

"Obscure" according to whom? "Outdated"? Are you pushing for historical revisionism? Also you yourself quoted this "obscure and outdated" source when it suited your purpose. I am not sure who emphasizes race here. You kept reverting my contributions claiming that there was consensus in the article that was marked as "totally disputed". Now you are proposing the article's deletion. Go ahead and nominate it for deletion as Xavexgoem indicated. However, the Safavids and other items will be included in this and other relevant lists as Turkic because the sources say so. Regarding Bernard Lewis' calling the Ottomans an "Iranian dynasty", that is hard to believe. I tried to find it in the link you gave but could not find such an assertion. Lewis would be putting his credibility on the line with such a statement. I seriously doubt he would do that. (But some Iranians listed the Ottoman Empire as an Iranic state located in Anatolia in the list Iranic list anyway. I left it there so that the readers can judge how credible the article is. It will only reinforce some perceptions.) I will continue in the article's discussion page with items proposed for deletion. -- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

"Some Iranians listed the Ottoman Empire as an Iranic state ... I left it there so that the readers can judge how credible the article is."? <turns green like the hulk> That is soo against the agreement, dude. Time to step up:

Here's what I've learned so far about the Safavids (that at present I can't learn from the article, because the data is plain not there): by virtue of the language spoken, they were Turkic. By virtue of being an Iranian empire, they were Iranic. Here's to hoping I'm sufficiently correct: Wouldn't it just be easier to say so? Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Xavexgoem, I am not receiving responses to my questions from 07fan both here and on the discussin page. This process is not moving on. If I add the above mentioned states to the list this user is going to remove them citing lack of consensus. How can we reach consensus if we can not reason. This is not a simple web blog where people can argue forever. There are WP rules. According to these rules a credible source can not be discarted as "obscure and outdated". The same user also made some false statements above by misquoting the well-known Ottoman historian Lewis. I know it is not nice and perhaps appropriate to explain the motives of some users but it would also be naive not to see what is plainly in front of us. 07fan indicated above that he did not care if Kara Khitai -which he had restored- were taken from the list. Too few Mongolians in the world today and too few users that care where this state is listed. That by itself reinforces what I plainly stated before. About the Safavids, this state is already listed as an Iranic state. I am not objecting that. The issue here is that 07fan prevents Safavids and some other Turkic dynasties that established states over a predominantly Iranian population from being listed here. I argued the reasons above. We are not talking about ancient democracies. The above quoted paragraph states it plain and simple. And this is not the only source. I can even provide a very fresh source by Michael Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, 2008, Basic Books, that supports the same views. Carter V. Findley in his The Turks in World History talks about this extensively. So I am not pushing for fringe theories here. It is frustrating to see how a well intended process can be played by and stalled by local nationalists uncomfortable with the worldwide version of events. I will start editing the page by adding the less controversial items first. My queries in the discussin page remain unanswered but this time I expect 07fan to raise his objections in the discussion page instead of restoring the article to its several months old version. It has almost been a month and the only things that can be considered part of this discussion 07fan wrote were the several sentences above. Time is precious and we need to move on.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand your frustration about the pacing. I will close this case, but will remain on talk. Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you.-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 07:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

What would you like to change about that?

Mediator notes

Areas of agreement

Administrative notes

Discussion

Statement by Laveol

Now, wait one second! Information

Some questions/ideas

Any news?

My proposal

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

What would you like to change about that?

Mediator notes

Areas of agreement

Administrative notes

Discussion

Statement by Laveol

Now, wait one second! Information

Some questions/ideas

Any news?

My proposal

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook