Talk:Anti-Turkish sentiment/Archive 2

Cartoon
The cartoon has nothing to do with anti Turkism. It was drawn by a Turk (Iranian Azeri), it depicted a cockroach talking in Persian and using a Persian slang word which also happens to be a Azeri word, and it was never intended to be offensive.Hajji Piruz 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The cartoon caused widespread protests in Iran, with millions of ethnic Azeri Turks protesting in majority-Azerbaijani populated cities of Tabriz, Urmiya and others, resulting in police suppression, jailing of scores of people, firing of the editor and temporary closure of the newspaper. And this had nothing to do with anti-Turkism? Both intent and the consequences were specifically connected publication insulting Azeri Turks in Iran. Atabek 09:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a political unrest and not an ethnical conflict: the content of the cartoon is mentioned here: Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy.The reaction does not define the anti-Turkic content, because the political atmosphere was not normal due to the election of the new government. --Alborz Fallah 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that these demonstrations caused by the cartoon happened in places occupied by ehtnic Azeri Turks drives me to the conlusion that the protests were not political but ethnic. I also fail to see how a cartoon would have political meaning, if it did, as you propose would it not be protested in the rest of Iran also?Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenia
AntiTurkism in Armenia is very prevalent I already suppiled some sources, instead of removing the section please try to improve it.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not supported the assertions made in that paragraph, with the exception of the opinion column, which is not a reliable source. "Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in modern history" and "The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda" do not contain any statement significant anti-Turkism among Armenians, while "Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world" simply reproduces a quote from an outdated work, referring to an earlier period and taken out of its context. Kostja (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus Section needs to be re-written or deleted
The Cyprus section on "anti-Turkism" contains no reference to or evidence to indicate anti-Turkism. Instead, it simply lists some un-sourced 1964 civil warfare and some utterly pointless references to the Annan Plan. What is the purpose of this article??? If you intend to talk about such a thing as anti-Turkism, then you had at least better make the content relevant, otherwise I am going to wade in and delete it with good reason.

Copperhead331 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Explanation
picture explanation talks about the person looking arab-like. it is not true, those dresses are not and have never been arabian.

however this shows that the operators of this article are racist toward arabs. they see those clothes as an insult (as they have chosen it the picture to explain anti-turkism) and they have chosen to direct this insult to arabs. this is something they should be ashamed of. i am editing the explanation and changing the arab-like to oriental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.8.209 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Actually, Turcophobia is a more accepted scholarly term, used in several articles. So I think that's how the article should be named. Atabek 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In my opinion "Anti-Turkism" works best.  A brief Google search shows this term to be the most commonly used in the English language:
 * "Anti-Turkism" gets 32,400 hits,
 * "Turkophobia" gets 1,140 hits,
 * "Turcophobia" gets 569 hits,
 * All the best, Aivazovsky 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Google hits, but about scholarly articles. Turcophobia (exactly as spelled) is a known term for centuries, written in articles as early as the beginning of 20th century. I added reference using term Turcophobia. Anti-Turkism not used in scholarly context. Atabek 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Google hits" is a method frequently used here on Wikipedia to demonstrate if a certain term (in this case "Anti-Turkism") is frequently used in the English language or not. It all comes down to the English language, not what a few scholars call it.
 * Also one reference alone does not justify a move without concensus, Atabek. Let's discuss this first and then act. Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although your initial move was without consensus also, I agree that we can discuss this. However, the move does not justify your removal of references or getting rid of category on some pages. So, if you would like to prove your intentions of discussing, stick strictly to the references or categories even during forwards. I don't believe there is a scholarly term called anti-Turkism, however, Turcophobia is a well known and referenced term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic environment, we dig up and use references here to conference and journal papers and books. Google is not a judge of what's considered a historically known term.
 * I am not going to waste my time on this absolutely useless attempt to rename one category to the other. Whether it's Turkophobia, Turcophobia, or anti-Turkism it means the same thing and the category will go onto every topic related to anti-Turk hatred, regardless of whether it appears in Greek or Latin spelling. Atabek 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Atabeks last statement. As long as the different terms are within the article, they will come up on the Wikipedia and search engine browsers. AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sayings
Some of these saying don't really seem like they are bad. For example:
 * Also, when a rare event occurs, a common saying is: "Tgħammed Tork!" ("A Turk was baptised!") because a Turk turning to Christianity from Islam is seen as a rare event.
 * The German repertory ranged from "Türkenhund" ("Turkish dog") to "Türkenknecht" ("Turkish farm-hand"), "Kümmeltürke" ("caraway Turk") and "er qualmt wie ein Türke" ("he smokes like a Turk").

Turks aren't often baptised, on the first one. And the second one needs some context, what do those mean? Are they meant as bad thing? A Turkish dog or farmer isn't a bad thing if you're not using it an as insult. It could just be a fact - a dog from Turkey, a farmer from Turkey. --AW 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone? --AW 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove them unless someone clarifies them --AW 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm German and I NEVER heard 'Türkenhund', 'Türkenknecht' or 'er qualmt wie ein Türke'
 * but 'Kümmeltürke' 'Kanake' or 'Knoblauchfresser' are common  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.246.113 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this should be a section on this page. There are phrases in every language/country which are anti-any culture different then theirs, the fact that they exist does not add to the credibility or enclyclopedic nature of this article. AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis of published material
This article has a lot of good work, but it also has a lot of random Anti-Turkish quotes thrown in -- it seems to violate both WP:OR and WP:SYN: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position." We really don't need 50 Anti-Turkish quotes in the article, as this article should not be a list of people who have said negative things about Turks. What we do need is more about Anti-Turkism as a whole. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

working on it. --Polysynaptic (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks better, but there's still that big list of sayings and quotes. I think a couple references explaining them rather than listing a bunch would be best. --AW (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * why are they in article? The existence and display of anti-turkish quotes does not contribute to the definition of the term.AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In Iran
Fereydoun Safizadeh, [http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1144.html Is There Anyone in Iranian Azerbaijan Who Wants to Get a Passport to Go to Mashad, Qum, Isfahan or Shiraz? - The Dynamics of Ethnicity in Iran] Takabeg (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There many, many sources that show long-standing discrimination and anti-Turkism in Iran: [http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/IrandiscrimLDDHI545a.pdf tHE HIDDEN SIDE oF IRAN: discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. International Federation of Human Rights, Paris, France.] Ethnic and religious discrimination and persecution in Iran, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 15 Dec 2010 Tabriz Demonstrators Demand Right To Education In Azeri, Abbas Djavadi, RFE/RL, August 02, 2010 [http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/panahi/racism-irans-football-stadiums Racism in Iran's Football Stadiums. Open Letter to Mr Joseph S. BlatterPresident, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) from 44 academics and NGO leaders, September 3rd, 2010] [http://books.google.com/books?id=RlY-SQAACAAJ Alireza Asgharzadeh. Iran and the challenge of diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 – 249 pages] Iran after the revolution: crisis of an Islamic state – Page 231 Saeed Rahnema, Sohrab Behdad – 1996 – 256 pages: "Turkish and Arab domination over Iran in the remote past was declared the main historical obstacle to the continuity of the glorious Persian empire. This racist ideology denied the national, linguistic and cultural diversity of Iran." [http://books.google.com/books?id=whVDskeHl2YC&pg=PA460 Azerbaijan Since Independence – Page 460 Svante E. Cornell – M.E. Sharpe, 2010 – 512 pages After the summer 2003 demonstrations, the Iranian government cracked down on student as well as nationalist organizations. A 19-year-old Azeri girl was executed by Iranian authorities in July 2003 for her role in the protests (―Ethnic Azeri Student Leader Killed in Iran—Paper, BBC Monitoring International Reports, July 22, 2002). In an earlier incident, in January 2000, Iranian forces had opened fire on a demonstration in Tabriz (―Azeri TV Says Iranian Police Opened Fire During Rally in Tabriz, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, January 10, 2000).] --Saygi1 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you are copy/pasting random sources where they do not belong. The scholarly definition of anti-Turkism is hostility towards Turks. The sources you're citing do not discuss this topic, which is anti-Turkish sentiment. You're projecting your own POV/OR defintion onto the souces in question.Kurdo777 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are wrong, as anti-Turkism, which is same as Turcophobia, is by definition discrimination against all Turks, all Turkic people. It doesn't matter if they are from Turkey or from Russian Empire or from Iran. The sources I've used are hardly "random". --Saygi1 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If your concern is the mention of Iran, then Iran there now, along with Bulgaria, ,Iraq, Afghanistan, and Greece, where Turkic people also live. Stick to the defintion of the article, which is Turks and Turkic peoples, without inserting your own WP:POV and WP:OR into it. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My "concern" is your malicious edits and POV. Just a few minutes ago you alleged that this article is only about Turks of Turkey, now you admit that it is in fact about "Stick to the defintion of the article, which is Turks and Turkic peoples"? That's progress, I guess. And what "POV" and "OR" have I inserted aside from reverting your unjustified deletion of Turks of Iran from the letter, and inserting some nine verifiable and reliable sources to back it up? Choose your allegations carefully, user Kurdo777. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And you still removed the nine sources above - what a hypocrisy, first try to allege that there is no discrimination (by removing the wording "Turks of Iran"), then changing position to say that the article is only about Turks of Turkey, and now admitting that it's about all Turkic people, re-inserting Iran, but still removing the nine scholarly and otherwise reliable and verifiable sources. You changed your position 3 times in one day - congratulations! --Saygi1 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re Shahnameh
Khodabandeh14, since the discussion is not getting anywhere with endless back and forth, I propose the following in a good faith. We will add a brief paragraph in Iran section of the article, which would reflect on sources which confirm anti-Turkish rhetoric in Shahnameh, as well as add information from countering sources, such as praising of the poem by some Turkic rulers, etc. I am open to suggestion as to how that paragraph should be worded. Third party contributors can make their suggestions regarding the proposal here as well. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

First, the modern Turkish groups in Iran did not exist during the time of Shahnama. So complete WP:OR to have something under Iran. The ethnogensis of some of these groups (like Azeris) were formed much later. Second the Turan of Shahnama is still rooted in Indo-European people and has hardly any relavence to modern day Turks. I am sure Bosworth is much better source. Third the discussions are clear here: Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes...Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed." So I state again that a book on mythology cannot relate to groups whose ethnogensis was not even started during the time of Shahnama.

I recall what Folantin and Dab said:
 * "Khodabandeh has made some sensible, evidence-based comments about Ferdowsi. You have compared Ferdowsi to Hitler. Who is responsible for your coming across as a fool here, him or you? Now if you don't mind I'm off to add Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Anglophobia article. His stories about King Arthur's resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion are dreadfully biased against my ancestors. Let's ignore the fact the English later adopted Arthur as one of their own, it doesn't disguise the innate racism and Celtic supremacism of Merlin and his bigoted ilk. There is no difference between The History of the Kings of Britain and Mein Kampf. "
 * ""I personally don't see how Hitler blaming for troubles of Germany in Mein Kampf is different from Ferdowsi demonizing Turanians/Turks vs Persian pride in Shahnameh. One may look more ancient than the other, and no action would have been taken after Shahnameh, simply because Turks ruled Iran at the time. But it does not change the essence of intolerance." LOL Thanks for the laugh. You really can't see any difference? Ho hum. Oh well...--Folantin (talk) 15:01, 12 "
 * "You would need some pretty solid sourcing to include Ferdowsi as part of the Anti-Turkist brigade. I recently overhauled the Ferdowsi page and wrote "The new ruler Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turk, may have lacked the interest in Ferdowsi's work shown by the Samanids, resulting in him losing favor with the royal court", i.e. he got less patronage from a Turkic ruler than from an Iranian ruler for writing a poem about the glories of the Persian past. That seems like simple common sense. I also believe that Turkic people(s) later adopted Ferdowsi's Shahnameh as part of their own culture (I must find a quote for that). So maybe they were much less thin-skinned back then. Cheers"
 * "Folantin is right. Any sane patriot concerned with a decent representation of their country or people on Wikipedia should try to muck out as much material as possible from the respective "anti-X-ism" articles. I mean, of course there are obvious cases with encyclopedic value, "

So to summarize: 1) The Turan in Shahnama is ambigious 2) The modern Turkish speaking groups in Iran did exist during the time of Shahnama.. 3) The Turanians in the Shahnama are mainly mythological people and hardly relavent to this article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh14, I made the proposal in WP:AGF. There are several references presented to the effect of anti-Turkic nature of Shahnameh. You cannot refer to Dbachmann and Folantin as both obviously demonstrated no interest to get involved on the subject and did not state their opinion pro- or against the provided references. If they do, they are welcome to get involved in this talk page. The parallels between Mein Kampf and Shahnameh can be drawn, but I don't insist on incorporating it in the article. But the neutral sources on the subject, obviously stating the anti-Turkish character of Shahnameh shall be included. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Irrelavent for the topic as "Turk" in Shahnama has a different as meaning as does Turan, then modern groups which did not even exist back then. The Mein Kamp stuff is unrelated and I will report it if you continue.  Only one of your source is a Persian literary expert (Richard Davis) and source one is okay.  But source one talks about anti-Turanism, and the definition of Turan is very vague, and has no relationship to groups whose ethnogenesis came much later than the Shahnama.  Folantin's remark clearly shows that it is irrelavent, as it shows how silly it is: "Now if you don't mind I'm off to add Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Anglophobia article. His stories about King Arthur's resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion are dreadfully biased against my ancestors. Let's ignore the fact the English later adopted Arthur as one of their own, it doesn't disguise the innate racism and Celtic supremacism of Merlin and his bigoted ilk. There is no difference between The History of the Kings of Britain and Mein Kampf. ". I will however list the sources here for future users, incase I am not here, and incase this topic comes up.     --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. Here is another reference:
 * Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1943
 * It is definite that, according to the Shahnama, as a tenth and eleventh century source, Transoxania was the land of the Turks in pre-Islamic times.
 * Atabəy (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Afshin Molavi. "The soul of Iran: a nation's journey to freedom", W. W. Norton & Company, 2005, p.70-71
 * Popular legend has it that as Ferdowsi polished off his epic in 1010, a new invader appeared on Iran's doorstep, a Turkic dynasty, known as the Seljuks, that attacked Iran from the east. The new Seljuk ruler saw little reason to reward Ferdowsi for his work, which bristled with anti-Turkic sentiment and had been commissioned by the previous rulers. Just before Ferdowsi's death in 1020, however, the Seljuk ruler had a change of heart. Perhaps he realized the extraordinary achievement of the Iranian poet and did not want to be remembered as the king who failed to reward such prowess. Alas, it was too late. Just as mourners removed Ferdowsi's dead body from his home, a truck of gold appeared at his door.
 * Atabəy (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This cannot work if I am going to pick top scholarly sources which specialize on the matter and you bring Afshin Molavi who is not an expert in Persian literature or classical history (although good for contemporary political events). I use specialist sources. So we cannot compare Mehmed Fuad Koprulu or Iranica with Afshin Molavi, and give them similar weight. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) And the matter how the Seljuqs perceived it (which the specialist sources I mentioned count for Wikipedia), is irrelavent as moder groups such as Anatolian Turkic speakers, Azeri Turkic speakers, Uzbek Turkic speakers.. did not exist during the time of Shahnama. The Turanians of Shahnama virtually all have Iranian names, and Turan goes back to ancient Iranian history. Also the Shahnama is more complex than to put a one or two sentences here about modern issues "anti-X'ism" which as a concept did not exist in the 10th century in the same fashion.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Turks have been influenced by the Šāh-nāma since the advent of the Saljuqs in Persia. Their last prince in Persia, Ṭoḡrel III, recited verses from the Šāh-nāma while swinging his mace in battle (Jovayni, II, p. 31). There is a great deal of evidence that this influence continued in a more powerful way in Anatolia in the 13th-14th centuries (Ebn Bibi, pp. 71-72, 126, 202; Riāḥi, tr. pp. 52, 55)."
 * Sheila Blair, "The Monumental inscriptions from early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana", BRILL, 1992 . pp 11: "According to Ibn Bibi, in 618/1221 the Saljuq of Rum Ala' al-Din Kay-kubad decorated the walls of Konya and Sivas with verses from the Shah- nama"
 * "Mean­while, the Mongol invasion, which caused a great number of scholars and artisans to flee from Turkistan, Iran, and Khwarazm and settle within the Empire of the Seljuks of Anatolia, resulted in a reinforcing of Persian influence on the Anatolian Turks.  Indeed, despite all claims to the contrary, there is no question that Persian influence was paramount among the Seljuks of Anatolia. This is clearly revealed by the fact that the sultans who ascended the throne after Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw I assumed titles taken from ancient Persian mythology, like Kai-Khusraw, Kai-Ka us, and Kai-Qubad; and that. Ala' al-Din Kai-Qubad I had some passages from the Shahname inscribed on the walls of Konya and Sivas. When we take into consideration domestic life in the Konya courts and the sincerity of the favor and attachment of the rulers to Persian poets and Persian literature, then this fact {i.e. the importance of Persian influence} is undeniable.  With- regard to the private lives of the rulers, their amusements, and palace ceremonial, the most definite influence was also that of Iran, mixed with the early Turkish traditions, and not that of Byzantium" (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's, Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149).

As per Turan, I already brought much better sources than your 1943 source. The whole article of Bosworth is a critique of Frye and Sayili.
 * Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes...Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed."
 * Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth. "In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Šāh-nāma of Ferdowsī is regarded as the land allotted to Ferēdūn’s son Tūr. The denizens of Tūrān were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jax­artes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, “Tūrān”). Tūrān thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians. "  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh14, mind WP:PRIMARY and WP:PEACOCK using the words "much better sources". And you are repeating the same thing, while missing a simple fact. It does not matter who the epic Turan people were in reality, Turkic- or Iranian-speaking. What is more relevant to this article, is that using the word Turk, Ferdowsi anachronisticially attributed to them an image of alien, an enemy. That is a reason why, compounded with numerous Turkic invasions, a deep sense of anti-Turkism is inherited over centuries in Persian-speaking society. Atabəy (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Colin Thubron. "Shadow of the Silk Road", HarperCollins, 2008, p. 273
 * Among a nation of dissonant identities, the Shahnama popularises the idea of an ancient and proud race, born of a single line. Sometimes it dramatises the antipathy between Iran and Turan, the Persian and the Turk;
 * Atabəy (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PP 281:"We can now reconstruct the history of the ethnic name Turk as follows. The word is East Iranian, most probably Saka, origin, and is the name of a ruling tribe whose leading clan Ashina conquered the Turks, reorganized them, but itself became rapidly Turkified
 * Again, what are the qualifications of such author in Medieval Iranian history. Bosworth is not primary, nor are the sources I mentioned (Iranica, Blair, Koprulu).  The Turan of Shahnama has no relationship to modern Turkic speaking groups (who have separate languages, genetics, and history), specially those in Anatolia, Caucasus, and Azarbaijan, which ere not even Turcophone during the era of Shahnama.   The word "Turk" could mean many things and originally, the word is likely of Saka/Scythian origin.  In Islamic texts it meant nomads of Central Asia rather than linguistic classification.  So it is not related to modern sedentary groups which did not exist during the time of Shahnama.
 * András Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages: an introduction to early Hungarian history, Central European University Press, 1999,
 * Golden, Peter B. "Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples". (2006) In: Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World. Ed. Victor H. Mair. University of Hawai'i Press. "As Rôna-Tas has pointed out, however, there is a Khotancse-Saka word, tturaka, mcaning "lid" (1999,278 - 281)....It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tùrks, per se, had strong connections with — if not ultimate origins in — Irano-Tocharian east Turkistan. They, or at least the Ashina, were migrants to southern Siberia-northern Mongolia, where we seem to find the major concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples. There are a considarable number of Tocharian and Iranian loan words in Old Turkic — although a good number of these may have been acquired, especially in the case of Soghdian terms, during the Tùrk impérial period, when the Soghdians were a subject people, an important mercantile-commercial element in the Tùrk state, and culture-bearers across Eurasia. It also should be noted here that the early Tùrk rulers bore names of non-Turkic origin. The founders of the state are Bumïn (d. 552) and his brother Ishtemi (552-575), the Yabghu Qaghan, who governed the western part of the realm. Among their successors are 'Muqan/Mughan/Mahân/Muhân (553 - 572), Tas(t)par (572 -581), and Nivar/Nâbàr/Nawâr (581-587). None of thèse names is Turkic (Golden 1992,121 - 122; Rybatzki 2000.206-221"
 * Whatever the word Turk means in Shahnama and Turan means in Shahnama, as noted by enough scholars it has no relationship with modern groups whose ethnogenesis did not exist. Also your comment is violating [{WP:NOBATTLE]].  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the context of the cultural perceptions of the word "Turk", it does not matter whether Turks in Ferdowsi's wording were Iranian or Turkic-speaking nomads. It matters that the object of historic intolerance produced by the Ferdowsi's "Shahnameh" were ultimately the Turkic speakers.
 * Again, I don't see why you so vehemently oppose the inclusion of these facts in the article, when both sides of story can be incorporated in a neutral manner, to allow reader to draw his/her own conclusions. Atabəy (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Might I add that both Christians and Muslims in the medieval world viewed the Turks, in religious terms, as the instrument of God against those who had committed sin and been led astray? God had punished them by sending them the Turks, who destroyed the cities, towns and settlements of the region, turning it into a desolate landscape, so goes the narrative of the histories and chronicles. This is echoed in plenty of texts so I'm somewhat surprised that this is taken and equated with anti-Turkism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, you are specifically referring to words of Martin Luther. Of course, it is Anti-Turkism, because it is racism, and Racism is defined as the belief that there are inherent different traits in human racial groups which justify discrimination. And how Hitler attributing all the problems of Germany to Jews is any different from Luther comparing Turks to punishment of God? Atabəy (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually am referring to a hadith from the period quoted by Mahmud Kashghari which went: "God said, 'I have an army that I have named the Turks and I have settled them in the East. When I am angry with a people, I send against them the Turks'." See . And there's plenty more. Speros Vryonis's book, Decline of Medieval Hellenism has a good summary of such quotations, especially by Muslim authors. i don't think the notion of racism was developed at the time, when religion, loyalty to family and tribe were far more important.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The notion of racism as intolerance towards a group of particular origin, was very much present since the times immemorial. And it does not matter if reference is made by a Christian or a Muslim source. The interpretation of it using the word racism appeared later, perhaps in 20th century, but this does not change the essence. There is a more elaborate and historical example of racism, or demonizing of Jews, described at Anti-Semitism Atabəy (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with what Marshall stated and the quote from Kashgari is no different than what Martin Luther has stated. If Martin Luther is mentioned then the quotes from Kashgari (who is Eastern Turkic), and other Muslims who have made similar comments should be mentioned.  There are other Hadiths from the Prophet Muhammad and Imams that are similar.
 * Going back to the Shahnama. @Atabek wrote: "In the context of the cultural perceptions of the word "Turk", it does not matter whether Turks in Ferdowsi's wording were Iranian or Turkic-speaking nomads. It matters that the object of historic intolerance produced by the Ferdowsi's "Shahnameh" were ultimately the Turkic speakers. "... "historic intelorence" again is WP:OR, WP:synthesis and WP:SOAPBOX, which completely contradicts all the sources I brought above that Turks praised the Shahnama, adopted it, gave it as gifts and etc.   No serious source (I do not mean Sumerian -Turkish sources) is given for such a WP:synthesis.  Let me just quote a specialist on Persian literature who is very well known that completely contradicts such a WP:synthesis.  Annemarie Schimmel: ”In fact as much as early rulers felt themselves to be Turks, they conntected their Turkish origin not with Turkish tribal history but rather with the Turan of Shahnameh: in the second generation their children bear the name of Firdosi’s heroes, and their Turkish lineage is ivariably traced back to Afrasiyab—weather we read Barani in the fourteenth century or the Urdu master poet Ghalib in the nineteenth century.  The poets, and through them probably most of the educated class, felt themselves to be the last outpost tied to the civilized world by the thread of Iranianism.  The imagery of poetry remained exclusively Persian.”(Schimmel, A. (1975), “Turk and Hindu: A Poetical Image and Its Application to Historical Fact” Speros Vryonis, Jr. (ed.), Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages, Undena Publications: 107–26."
 * Let me reiterate, the "Turanians" in Shahnama have no relationship to modern Turkish speakers, specially those in Anatolia, Iran, Caucasus whose ethnogenesis comes much later. So one cannot put it under Iran when such groups did not exist during this era.
 * The Turan in the Shahnama are originally Iranian nomads as all the names such as Afrasiyab, Arjasp, Namkhwaast Hezaran, Piraan, Manija..etc.
 * The Shahnama induces Iranianism amongst Turks, but nothing about "intolerance".
 * The Turcophones and their languages in Iran did not exist during the time of the Shahnama.
 * Shahnama's usage of "Turan/Turk" means Central Asian nomads (originally Iranian and then later on Altaic) and has nothing to do with modern sedentary Turkic speaking groups who have a different culture, religion, tradition, DNA and etc.
 * I have filed a report, but I will in the end summarize all the real scholarly quotes (Bosworth, Schimmel, Iranica) (not weak sources which have no studies).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh14, you are not in position to determine which sources are "not weak sources which have no studies", so mind WP:OWN and WP:PRIMARY. Whether nomadic tribes were Iranian or Turkic-speaking, the object of disaffection in Shahnameh was called a Turk! Hence you are derailing the discussion in a completely irrelevant direction. The racism that emanates from Shahnama is anti-Turkish regardless of origin of Turanians, that's what the sources say. That's what American Oriental Society source says, what numerous Iranian sources say, you like more? Here is more:
 * Nicholas Jubber. "Drinking Arak Off an Ayatollah's Beard: A Journey Through the Inside-Out "
 * This association of the mystical land of Turan (the kingdom of the Iranian's great enemy in the Shahnameh) with the Turkic peoples of Central Asia was shared by many of Ferdowsi's contemporaries. Mahmud of Kashgar, who compiled the first Turkic dictionary in the eleventh century, identified Alp er Tonga, ancestor of the Turks, with the great Turanian king of the Shahnameh, Afrasiyab (the same king who slays Siyavash and has Bizhan imprisoned in a pit).
 * Sara Pendergast, Tom Pendergast. "Reference Guide to World Literature", St James Press, 2003, p. 337
 * A dominant theme is war between Iran and Turan: the latter has been read as the land of the Turks beyond the River Oxus
 * Literature: World Masterpieces, Prentice Hall, 1993
 * This starts a long and bloody cycle of wars between the Persians and the people of Turan, a land generally identified with the territory of the Turks. The centuries-long struggle forms the background of the Shah-nama
 * Atabəy (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another perfect example of anti-Turkism within Shahnameh's own lines:
 * Abolqasem Ferdowsi. "Rostam: Tales of Love and War from the Shahnameh" by Dick Davis, Penguin, 2009:
 * "Besides, you're not a Turk, I know you trace Your lineage from a far more splendid race"
 * Need I say more? Atabəy (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So when one of the heroe in one part states: که آن ترک بد ریشه و ریمن است The Turk is evil-natured and evil root And another Turanian in another part states: که ایرانیان مردمی ریمنند The Iranians are evil natured people That is the Shahnama is telling stories through different characters. Yes it is biased towards Iranians winning over Turan, but that cannot be classified into a modern WP:OR/WP:synthesis poorly written article like this. It also has praises for Afrasiyab from Rustam or from Rustam to Afrasiyab. It is like watching an action movie in a sense with different characters talking and battling. So similar quotes can be found about Iranians in Shahnama. So much for your: "need I say more". Original research in the text is WP:OR and you can only quote secondary sources.
 * Again you bring irrelavent sources. The first three sources you brought talks about battle of Iran and Turan in the Shahnama. The Turanians of Shahnama have no relation to Turks today, so it is irrelavent as noted.  It is WP:synthesis to connect battle of Iran and Turan which is from the Avesta stage to a OR/synthesis article called "anti-Turkism" (approximately quote Dbachmman on the nature of the article).  The ethnogensis of modern Turkish groups was not even there during Shahnama.  We all know Turan and Iran battle in the Shahnama, and Turanians are also actually an Iranian speaking group.
 * The Turan in Shahnama are Iranians and "Turk" simply means nomad of Central Asia.
 * As per quoting directly from the Shahnama.. the funny thing is that you are no expert in the Shahnama. In the Shahnama different characters tell stories and glorify each other.  For example when a Turanian states:
 * The last source of yours is quoting primary source without secondary evidence. It falls under WP:OR and let me show you why it is wrong.  In the Shahnama, different characters talk about different people and groups.
 * Yes we can come to know who is scholar on Persian literature and who is not. Schimmel is a scholar.  Bosworth is a classical scholar.  Your sources are just random lines from non-scholars in the field who do not even know the Persian language or are not specialist in medieval history or are not studying the Shahnama.  Look at the name of the book even: "Drinking Arak Off an Ayatollah's Beard: A Journey Through the Inside-Out"!  Can that even compete with AnneMarrie Schimmel or Bosworth?  Nothing is said about "anti-Turkism" and modern society in the three quotes you brought.  Yes we know the Shahnama 101 that there are battles between Iran & Turan.  There are also marriages, heroes who are of mixed Irano-Turanian lineage and etc.
 * The final point is that enough sources were brought that
 * Turan in the context of Shahnama is Iranian speaking. The term Turan is ambigious and mythological.
 * The term Turk is ambigious, denoting simply nomads of Central Asia..irrelavent to this article and even modern country of Iran (Iran in the Sassanid era Shahnama is from Oxus to Euphrates in the Sassanid era and ethnogenesis of modern disparate Turkic speaking groups was some centuresafter the Shahnama).
 * Note the term Turk is not only ambigious in the Shahnama.. it occurs in the Islamic era. M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63:"These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects of the Sassanian empire as Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from every locality. The group from Farghana were called after their district, and the name continued in usage because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya, the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such foreign names. The Khazars who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called Turks on the ground of racial affinity.  However, other groups from Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars under the general description"
 * I believe the third parties gave a sufficient response (clear enough that they thought it is ridicolous to insert it in this article). That is why exactly this went to enforcement. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh14, perhaps you are confused, but you are again derailing discussion to prove that Turanians were not ethnic Turks. That's not the issue here, although such claim is also controversial and many references specifically say Turanians were Central Asian Turks, this is a subject of a different debate. The issue here is how Abolqasem Ferdowsi portrayed an entity which he called Turks, and what connotation that had in later centuries. Turks were not mystical at the time of Ferdowsi, his boss Mahmud Ghazni was a Turk and Seljuks, contemporaries of Ferdowsi, were Turks.
 * Even those who claim that Turanians were not Turks, agree with the fact that Ferdowsi equated them to Turks, whom he demonized. See here: "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them". The author who quoted these words is a Professor of Humanities and South Asia expert at University of Madison, so would not be just randomly quoting any material.
 * Another closer reference is the Russian historian expert on Near East and translator, Igor Diakonoff, in the "The Paths of History", Cambridge University Press, 1999, who claimed that Shahnameh had anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias. Atabəy (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not bring the whole quote from what you called: the expert at University of Madison. It says: ""Obviously, the Turan of Shahnama are not the historic Turks with Firdausi anachronistically equates them"".  So which means it is not related to an article about Turkic-linguistic groups today as the Turan of the Shahnama are not historic Turks.  Just like for example when the Europeans used Scythians for the Mongol horde, they are not talking about Scythians .  It doesn't matter if they used similar words as the content of those words differ significantly (and unrelated to the massive synthesis content of this article).  The Turan of Shahnama are a people in the mythical age of the Shahnama (taken from Avesta and Pahlavid sources).  This long before Linguistic Altaic groups appeared in the area which means they are unrelated concepts.  This massive WP:synthesis article is about Altaic groups not Iranian groups (Turanians).  It doesn't matter if some people at that time used geographical equivalence (not ethnic ones) to denote different people.  That is because the concept of geographical continuity (not ethno-linguistic continuity) was part of the conception of history of the time, but this is not the case with this article which is about a wide range of different ethno-linguistic groups (with all the ones calling themselves "Torks"/"Turks" having an ethnogensis that comes after the Shahnama).
 * Diakonof has many contradictions as noted in another article. However, the quote is nothing about Mein Kemf and "anti-Turkism. It is very mild: "His book of kings (shahnama), though, formally, impeccile Muslim, had nevertheless a certain anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias".   But we cannot cherry pick sources, and we can clearly see scholars are not unanimous.   Bosworth, and other sources I brought clearly show Turanians in Shahnama are not related to modern Turkish speakers.  "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes".
 * The Persianized Ghaznavids who became culturally Persianized (ultimately Ferdowsi's culture becomes the Boss and BTW Ferdowsi was not a court poet) are not necessarily related to the modern Yakut or Azeris or Kyrghyz or the groups mentioned in this article.
 * As long as there is no unanimity on the definition of Turan, Turk and there is no quote mentioning "anti-Turkism", then it is not related to this massive WP:OR/WP:Synthesis article (as Dab has mentioned).
 * What Ferdowsi says about the word "Turk" is irrelavent as it does not talk about the 19th century linguistic definition "Turkic" whose ethnogenesis comes after Ferdowsi and it is the topic of this article. As noted by your own source, the Turan in the Shahnama are not Turks (modern Turkic linguistic groups), but are people in Avesta/Pahlavi. That is why the Shahnama ends with end of the Sassanid dynasty (Turks coming into the scene of World history around 5th century A.D. which means hardly any overlap with the Shahnama)
 * The linguistic definition "Turkic" and the word "Turk" in the 10th century might have similar sound, and even overlap (nomadic people who spoke Altaic languages), but they can also be shown to be vastly different (e.g. Ottomans never called themselves Turks while speaking Turkish while Arab sources use "Tork" for Iranian Sogdians due to geographical nature).  An article that talks about skin heads at one hand, then talks about European comments on Ottoman invaders than talks about Shahnama, is a pure fictional WP:synthesis.  It is not a coherent story, but a fiction putting together distinct groups of people (from Yakuts to Anatolians).  It is like having an article called "anti-Indo-Europeanism".  It does not fly with regards to the Shahnama.   At the time of Ferdowsi, ethnogenesis of Anatolians, Caucasians and Iranian Turkish speakers did not occur.  The groups in Central Asia like Kazakhs and Kyrghyz also historically do not have the definition "Turk".  So if you want to talk about Ferdowsi and Shahnama, they have their own article and it simply says currently: "Ferdowsi was grieved by the fall of the Persian empire and its subsequent rule by Arabs and Turks. The Shahnameh is largely his effort to preserve the memory of Persia's golden days and transmit it to a new generation so that they could learn and try to build a better world. Though formally Muslim, the Shahnameh nevertheless has a certain anti-Arab and anti-Turk bias".  Although I will add also all the stuff about influence on later Turkish culture there.  However, this current massive WP:synthesis/WP:OR article has no place for Ferdowsi/Shahnama, and specially under Iran, when ethnogensis of Turkic speakings groups there did not begin even in the Shahnama era.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, third party Folantin agreed with me and considered even the proposal of the inclusion of Shahnama/Ferdowsi as unreal. Dab also agreed that this article is a massive WP:synthesis, which means that we need to reduce synthesis rather than increase it. Including Shahnama/Ferdowsi is another WP:synthesis as definition of Turan (Iranian people) does not apply to this article and finally Central Asian nomads "Tork" in the 10th century is vastly different definition than modern sedentary groups whose ethno-gensis comes after the Shahnama. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just incase some people do not have a background on Shahnama (and anyone else reads this). The Shahnama mentions battles between two Iranic speaking groups, Iranians and Turanians.  The King of Turan is a person called Afrasiyab and all mention of Turanians are pre-Islamic legendary myths.  The term Turk is also used for Turanians but the term Turk at that time meant Central Asian nomads (not linguistic Turkic definition but both Iranian and Turkic speaking groups as noted in some sources above).  Besides the current article being a synthesis of massive different groups (most of whom were not historically called Turk until the 19th century linguistic definition and virtually none of them calling themselves Torks except groups in Caucasus, Iran and Turkey whose ethnogenesis came after the Shahnama), the mythical Turanians of Shahnama have absolutely no relationship to modern groups whose ethnogenesis comes after Islam and after Shahnama.  For example there is absolutely no relationship between a modern Anatolian Turkish speaker and the Turanians.  Or modern Azeri-Turkish speaker (ethnogenesis about 13th century) and the Turanians of Shahnama (pre-Islamic and even pre-Sassanid era).  So the article is in major violation of WP:synthesis in bringing non-related items.  Consequently all the said variety of information about Turk, Iran, Turan, SHahnama, Ferdowsi, Turcophone dynasties can be mentioned in Shahnama, Ferdowsi and etc, as they do not apply to this massive synthesis article which ranges from skin heads, to Bulgarians, to Uyghurs to Ottomans to who knows what.    The "Tork" in Shahnama is not related to Uzbeks, Anatolians, Azeris, Ughyurs, Kyrghiz or any modern group and the synthesis becomes apparent. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another perspective which is identically related:
 * In Islam and Christianity, the Gog and Magog are group that is described as savages, ruthless and bothersome. Numerous Muslim historians and commentators on the Qur’an up to even the 20th century have made the comment that Gog and Magogs are subgroup of Turks. Biruni, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qazvini, all the way up to Seyyed Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai Tabrizi (the commentator of Al-Mizan) who himself was a native Azerbaijani speaking Iranian from Tabriz (of Seyyed lineage).  However, how can anyone relate Gog and Magogs with say modern Anatolians or Azeris or Kyrghyz or Uyghurs or other Altaic speaking groups?  Note Gog and Magog are brought as there is a strong parallel with Turanians of Shahnama.   Here are the hundreds of references mentioning the Gog and Magogs as a subgroup of Turks .  Now are we going to equate all these Muslim historians as Anti-Turkism!?
 * "Imam Ibn Kathir relates the “The Appearance of Gog and Magog” in Islamic tradition: Gog and Magog are two groups of Turks, descended from Yaafith ( Japheth), the father of the Turks,"  (so is Ibn Kathir anti-Turkism?)
 * "As expressed in early Islamic tradition and al-Qazwini, they likewise were the Turks: Gog and Magog are two mighty tribes of Turks..".  So is al-Qazwini anti-Turkism given the very negative connotations with Gog & Magog?
 * Another definition might not be bad. Alisher Navai considers the Mongols as Turks but the Saljuqs as Persians.  The reason Mongols are always brought as subgroup with Turks is that they both lived nomadic lifestyle.  He calls the Saljuqs as Persians but Mongols who were not Turkic speaking as Turks.
 * The Shahsevan people (migratory group) for several centuries has called themselves Tork but settled people (even Turcophones) as Tat.
 * Arabs referred to all people of Central Asia as "Turk" in many books, despite the numerous Iranian speaking groups there like Sogdians, Chorasmians and etc.
 * So the Shahnama has its own definitions which do not correspond to the modern groups discussed in this article. Just like we do not add the Quran and Bible, and numerous Muslim historians who  mention the Gog & Magog  (who are derided much more than the Turanians of the Shahnama) as a subgroup of Turks (which took variety of definitions), we do not add such synthesis about the Shahnama.
 * Finally, third party Folantin agreed with me and considered even the proposal of the inclusion of Shahnama/Ferdowsi as unreal. Dab also agreed that this article is a massive WP:synthesis, which means that we need to reduce synthesis rather than increase it. Including Shahnama/Ferdowsi is another WP:synthesis as definition of Turan (Iranian people) does not apply to this article and finally Central Asian nomads "Tork" in the 10th century is vastly different definition than modern sedentary groups whose ethno-gensis comes after the Shahnama.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Khodabandeh14, no group called Turanians existed in reality, it was a myth. It was not even mentioned as a Turanian group but as inhabitants of Turan, which is the Persian definition for Turkistan/Central Asia. Called as Turan by Iranians, western Turkistan has also been known historically as Sogdiana, Ma wara'u'n-nahr (by the Arab conquerors), and Transoxiana by Western travellers.
 * When Ferdowsi composed "Shahnameh" in 10th century, Turks (Turkic speakers), specifically Seljuk Turks, were already in Central Asia. Moreover, Ferdowsi's own ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni, along with entire dynasty of Ghaznavids, were ethnic Turks despite being Persianized culturally.
 * So your claim that Ferdowsi writing Shahnameh, and using specifically the word "Turk", implied some mythical Iranian nation called Turanians, which did not even exist, while Turkic speakers absolutely did, is simply not plausible. This is why I highlighted the second part in this reference "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them", because that is more relevant to the subject. Ferdowsi intentionally and anachronistically (in contemporary fashion) equated Turanians to Turks, by using the word Turk. The term Turk was known long before Ferdowsi's time, as far as 6th century, and found on Orkhon inscriptions in the 8th century, implying the Turkic speakers.
 * Again, neither Folantin nor Dbachmann are experts on the subject or express sufficient interest in it. Their participation in this talk page discussion is always welcome, of course. But you cannot refer to third party opinion on their individual talk pages as a justification of your opinion, simply because neither are sufficient experts on the subject, and there is a multitude of reliable references clearly stating that Shahnameh had anti-Turkish bias. I could similarly initiate discussions on other talk pages and claim support for my point of view, but it does not mean anything here.
 * The final basic fact is: Turan is a geographic term (Central Asia). Turk is an ethnolinguistic term, a human being speaking Turkic language, who resided in Turan/Central Asia. Do you agree or not? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

However, what counts here that the Turanians of Shahnama have no relationship to Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, and specially none to groups whose ethnogenesis came long after the Shahnama. Because by the end of the era of the Shahnama (fall of Sassanids), the Saljuqs were not in the scene of history nor were the Ghaznavids. And for many Muslim geographers (not all), anyone from Central Asia whether Iranian or Altaic would be "Turanian" or "Turk". So yes there is a certain anti-Turanian bias in the Shahnama (but not the Mein Kemp type that you brought and ended the goodwill discussion). This cannot be tied to "anti-Turkism" except for WP:OR/WP:synthesis, since bias is much weaker term, but these Turanians have absolutely no relationship to Seljuqs or groups that were formed after the Saljuqs/Mongol push like Anatolians, Azeri, Uzbeks and etc. As long as none of the groups mentioned here have any relationship to Turanians of Shanama (and they do not), it is a massive WP:synthesis to add them. So putting them in this article is a massive WP:synthesis just like putting the Gog and Magog (who are derided much worst in Islamic/Christian texts) and who are seen as groups of Turks would be a massive WP:synthesis, as it has nothing to do with modern groups discussed in this article (which is still a massive WP:synthesis article as the situation of Yakuts in Siberia has no relationship to situation of Altaic speakers in Bulgaria, just like anti-Armenianism and anti-Greek are not the same article despite both groups speaking indo-European languages). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Folantin and Dbachmann as third party neutral users with a good background in history. Their opinion is sufficient that this massive WP:synthesis/WP:OR article does not need more WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR].  Just like Gog and Magog who are equated with groups of Turks throughout Islamic history would be unreal to add to an article about events in Bulgaria and Germany.  Its one big massive WP:synthesis/WP:OR article.  Their opinion on their own talkpage is also sufficient and there is no wikipedia rule that it needs to be in this talkpage.  Just like opinions are given on messageboards or other places.  What counts is that their opinion was given.
 * Besides the massive WP:synthesis, fact is there are a variety of definitons Turan, Turk (in the 10th century) and etc., that is disagreed upon. So it is not proper to include cherry picked definitions in an unrelated article, but rather to have a separate article "Ferdowsi's Turanians" or something.
 * And no I do not agree at all. As quoted already: "Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians."(Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth ).  So Ferdowsi's Turanians are still ethnic Iranians with Iranian names.  There is a group Turan and it its inhabitants Turanians mentioned in Avesta and Pahlavi texts.  They are part of Iranian tribes and consequently no relationship to Turks.  Ferdowsi's material is based on Avesta and Pahlavi texts.  It has nothing to do with the history of Saljuq Turks, Ghaznavids and etc.Prof. Gherardo Gnoli:’’Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht, Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’. G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980.  Ferdowsi's text are also based on the Pahlavi/Avesta tradition and unrelated to Altaic-Group (the modern definition of Turkic) mythological traditions.  Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes...Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed."  Why you ask?  Because the Turanians of Shahnama have absolutely no relationship with Altaic groups in this massive WP:synthesis article.  The Turanians of Ferdowsi have absolutely nothing with modern Ethno-linguistic Turkish groups, except they both use the term "Turk" (but so did Europeans use the term Scythians for Mongols and host of other such wrong nomeclature, although the term "Turk" in the 10th century was not firm ethno-linguistic term either as shown below).
 * Turkic today might be an ethno-linguistic group (althoug with the exception of Anatolians and Iran/Caucasus, no other Altaic group designates themselves as "Turk), but in the 10th century, "Turk" had a variety of meanings. One of them being simply anyone from Central Asia and the other being nomadic groups of Central Asia. M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63:"These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination.
 * As per the quote which was cut in half and you said: " "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks with which Firdausi anachronistically equates them", because that is more relevant to the subject", no it is not more relevant for the first part "they are not historic Turks" is more relevant. This is an article about variety of Altaic speaking groups (itself a massive WP:synthesis, and those Turanians have nothing to with Altaic linguistic groups.  When Turan of Shahnama are not historic Turks, it means it has nothing to do with this massive WP:SYNTHESIS article.  Just like Gog and Magog which have been equated as subgroup of Turks (whether they are mythical or not) does not have anything to do with Seljuqs, Anatolian Turks, Azeris and etc.   But the Turanians of Shahnama have no relationship to Saljuqs or modern Turkic speaking groups.  And  not Ferdowsi but even in Tabari, Ba'lami, Burini and host of other Iranian Muslim historians before and concurrent with Ferdowsi have anachronistically used Turan and "Turk".  So Ferdowsi would not be the first one to equate the terms.
 * Just because there was a group called "Turk" in Orkhon description, it does not necessarily even then equate them with Altaic origin. See the opinion of Golden and Ronas on the Ashina clan (which is of Saka origin) and was the main head of the tribal group.  András Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages: an introduction to early Hungarian history, Central European University Press, 1999.  PP 281:"We can now reconstruct the history of the ethnic name Turk as follows. The word is East Iranian, most probably Saka, origin, and is the name of a ruling tribe whose leading clan Ashina conquered the Turks, reorganized them, but itself became rapidly Turkified".  Of course this is a recent opinion by Golden, Ronas and others.   "It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tùrks, per se, had strong connections with — if not ultimate origins in — Irano-Tocharian east Turkistan. They, or at least the Ashina, were migrants to southern Siberia-northern Mongolia, where we seem to find the major concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples. There are a considarable number of Tocharian and Iranian loan words in Old Turkic — although a good number of these may have been acquired, especially in the case of Soghdian terms, during the Tùrk impérial period, when the Soghdians were a subject people, an important mercantile-commercial element in the Tùrk state, and culture-bearers across Eurasia. It also should be noted here that the early Tùrk rulers bore names of non-Turkic origin. The founders of the state are Bumïn (d. 552) and his brother Ishtemi (552-575), the Yabghu Qaghan, who governed the western part of the realm. Among their successors are 'Muqan/Mughan/Mahân/Muhân (553 - 572), Tas(t)par (572 -581), and Nivar/Nâbàr/Nawâr (581-587). None of thèse names is Turkic (Golden 1992,121 - 122; Rybatzki 2000.206-221)."


 * Khodabandeh14,
 * So you disagree with the fact that Turan is a mythical geographic term, Turks is an ethnolinguistic term. I would love to hear third party opinions on such denial.
 * 1. There is no nation called Turanians! There was never one. If you have a WP:RS reference showing that "Turanian nation" has existed, or what was its ethnolinguistic makeup, provide them. Otherwise, your invention is truly WP:OR and WP:POV, to claim that Central Asians were Iranians and not Turkic speakers, when in 10th century A.D., it were Seljuk Turks that were conquering and moving from Central Asia westwards.
 * 2. Turan in Shahnameh implies Central Asia. Talking about the nation that inhabited it, Ferdowsi used the word Turk and not Turanian to describe them. Turks (Turkic speakers) were contemporaries of Ferdowsi. Claiming that Turks in 10th century Central Asia were not ethnically Turkic, is to say the least, an unencyclopedic WP:OR.
 * 4. Dbachmann and Folantin, with all due respect, may be well aware of history. But they are not experts on Shahnameh or history of Central Asia. It is exactly why they did not show much interest to get involved in this article, and suggested you to focus on other subjects. If you persist, invite them to this article, and let them in their wording confirm your WP:OR claim that in 10th century Central Asia, there were no Turks, and all were Iranians.
 * Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And then later by Iranians to denote Iranian nomads of Eurasian Steppes: "Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians."(Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth ). So Ferdowsi's Turanians are still
 * Well again, you have not read the Shahnama. Your claim: "Ferdowsi used the word Turk and not Turanian to describe them." is wrong.
 * As per Turanian nation and its existent. there is no nation also called Turkish nation (the article here puts variety of disparate groups together and calls them a nation). "Turk" in Islamic references of the time reffered to a variety of disparate nomads of Central Asia. However as noted already, there is a Turanian tribe in Avesta.
 * Gherardo Gnoli:’’Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht, Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’. G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980
 * Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes...Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed."
 * Your claim: ". Turks (Turkic speakers) were contemporaries of Ferdowsi" does not matter because Ferdowsi does not talk about contemporary history. His sources are pre-Islamic Iranian sources going back to the Avesta.  That is why the names of Turanians in his book are all Iranian.  And that is why there is no information on real Turks in the Shahnama.  As it says: "Hence as Kowalski has pointed out, a Turkologist seeking for information in the Shahnama on the primitive culture of the Turks would definitely be disappointed"
 * Your point: "Claiming that Turks in 10th century Central Asia were not ethnically Turkic, is to say the least, an unencyclopedic WP:OR." is just putting words in my mouth.  I said the term Turk had a variety of meaning. Some of them very different than this article like "One nomads of Central Asia".  "Two people of Central Asia".  For example: M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63:"These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects of the Sassanian empire as Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from every locality. The group from Farghana were called after their district, and the name continued in usage because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya, the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such foreign names. The Khazars who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called Turks on the ground of racial affinity.  However, other groups from Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars under the general description"
 * Finally in the 10th century, the area was still far away from Turkish as Sogdian and Chorasmian and Persian languages were spoken. C.E. Bosworth, "The Appearance of the Arabs in Central Asia under the Umayyads and the establishment of Islam", in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by M. S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: Motilal Banarsidass Publ./UNESCO Publishing, 1999. excerpt from page 23: "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically, still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian languages.".
 * More importantly, the Turanians of the Shahnama are not about the Islamic era or 10th century. It is pre-Islamic history, which at that time, Turan is largely Iranian territory(see one note above).
 * Either way, as shown by your own sources and above, the Turanians in Shahnama have no relationship to Turks. The Shahnama ends by the fall of Sassanids, far from the time when Seljuqs and Ghaznavids started to take root in the area.   The Turanians of Shahnama have no relationship to modern groups calling themselves "Turk" (which are only Anatolians after the fall of Ottoman era and  Azeris).  No other group except these two has continously called itself "Turk".  And there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Turanians of the Shahnama (which ends by the fall of the Sassanid era) are related to modern Anatolians, Azeris and etc. or 19th century definition "Turkic" (Altaic group).  This waas pointed out by several sources already.  And, as I mentioned the term "Turanian" (essentially Pahlavi word used for all nomads of Central Asia which in the Sassanid era would still be mainly Iranian), has no relationship to modern ethnic groups or to "Turk" in the linguistic sense described in the article.   If there was a coflation between the two, that is no different than
 * Dbachmann and Folantin believe this article is a massive WP:synthesis, as well as the fact that Shahnama has no place in this article. That is the end result of the discussion.  I do not need to burden them again and it is you that needs to change the opinion.
 * You did not comment on the Gog and Magog. You will need to comment on it as they are as real as the Turanians of the Shahnama and numerous Muslim historians have mentioned them as a group of "Turks".
 * I will wait until the current AE as these discussions show that you do not want to understand the fundamental point that the Turanians of Shahnama (described till the end of Sassanid era) (or Gog and Magog for that matter) have no relationship to groups whose ethnogensis occurs much later than the Shahnama and carry the name "Turk" today. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My source says, Turanians (mythical) in Shahnama legend were not related to historical Turks, but they were anachronistically equated to Turks(!) by Ferdowsi. It means Ferdowsi purposefully used the word Turk, as inhabitants of Turan (because they were so in 10th century A.D.) to build an image of enemy. This absolutely proves the point brought already in several references that Ferdowsi's Shahnama, although describing a mythical story, had intentional anti-Turkish bias. One more time, Khodabandeh14, Ferdowsi used the word Turk to describe the nation, not the word Turanian. The Turk was a master of Turan (Central Asia), which Seljuk Turks were in 10th century A.D. A review of information in Seljuk Turks article by yourself would be of benefit to understand that your claim that Turks of 10th century were different from Turkic speakers of today is a WP:MYTH. Following your logic, we should then deny that Achaemenids, Sassanids, Safavids have any relation to modern-day Iranians, because first two spoke different dialects, and the latter were not Persians.
 * Gog and Magog example is irrelevant here, because Ferdowsi specifically used ethnic Turk and geographical Turan terms, not Turanian. Turanian ethnicity does not exist in Shahnameh.
 * If Dbachmann and Folantin believe they can contribute to this article, they are welcome to comment on this page. If they do not, their opinion, with all due respect, is irrelevant. The discussion was not carried out on the talk pages of Anti-Turkism article, did not include any specifics of what is right or wrong, with expert opinions. Nothing of that sort. Anybody can generalize about any article, to support an online friend in the spirit of cooperation, that is not an expert opinion. Again, if you believe they are expert, why not solicit their opinion here, on the talk page.Atabəy (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again Ferdowsi's Shahnama ends in the 7th century. The "anachronism" here is just a name (much like Scythian and Mongol), and not only Ferdowsi, but Biruni, Tabari and host of others conflate the two terms, because of geographical location.  So Ferdowsi is not  the initiator of this anachronism, he was just part of it.  And that source of yours states nothing about "anti-Turkism" so it is synthesis to write an article about it here. You are trying to synthesize variety of sources.  It is important here is that the Turanians of Shahnama have absolutely no relationship to Seljuq Turks that you keep bringing up, and you will need WP:RS source linking the two.  Else it is a moot point.
 * Also what is important though is the content not name. As clearly noted "Turan of the Shahnama are not the historic Turks".  So they have no relationship to Seljuq Turks or any historic Turks.  So it is a moot point.   Ferdowsi never talks about Seljuq Turks in the Shahnama as his Shahnama ends in the 7th century.  The Seljuq Turks themselves became Persianized and took up Shahnama names, etc.  So they did not feel any "anti-Turkism" with regards to the Shahnama as already noted (so including them is OR).  They did not have the modern Turkish identity, but that is irrelevant as the Seljuq Turks are not in the Shahnama.  So all your theories in trying to link Seljuq Turks of the 10th century with Turanians of Shahnama are WP:OR unless you provide some serious books equating the two.
 * Bosworth, C. E. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, Edited by D. S. Richards. Oxford, 1973. pg 2: "Firdawsi's Turan are, of course, really Indo-European nomads of Eurasian Steppes..". .  So I have serious source that the Turan of Shahnama are Indo-European nomads.  So it does not relate to groups that are described in this article.  If you find one of the modern groups in this article being related to Turanians then that is another story.
 * You failed to realize that the name Turk takes a wide range of ambigious meanings in the 10th century. Yes there was Saljuq Turks but there was also much more ambigious term used to denote all sort of Central Asian nomads whose only commonality would be their nomadic lifestyle.   So the term "Turk" itself is ambigious in the 10th century, as noted by M.A. Shaban above.  The Shahnama's chapter ends in the 7th century, so it does not correspond to this massive WP:synthesis/WP:OR or Seljuq Turks.
 * Dbachmman and Folantin found the whole idea of including SHahnama as ridicolous. They do not need to comment on the talkpage here as their comments was sufficient in Dbachmman's page.  They do not bother with even taking such a ridocolous proposal seriously.  However, you need to provide feedback on the Gog and Magog as well, since this is the same issue.
 * Are the Gog and Magog related to modern groups or no? You cannot put Shahnama under Iran because those groups you mentioned did not exist (they were not present in Iran in the 10th century).  YOu need to specifically show the "Tork" in Shahnama are not Iranian nomadic Turanians (which they are) but Saljuq Turks, and then furthermore show that the Saljuq Turks saw "Anti-Turkism" (which they did not and no nonscholarly sources please).
 * Your feedback was:":Gog and Magog example is irrelevant here, because Ferdowsi specifically used ethnic Turk and geographical Turan terms, not Turanian. Turanian ethnicity does not exist in Shahnameh. " . I showed you that Ferdowsi uses "Turanian".  If you can't read the Persian, ask someone to translate.  If not, bring a source.  Also host of Muslim historians (and it seems Christians) describe them specifically the Gog and Magogs as group of Turks.   Ferdowsi also used Turanians as I showed from the primary sources.  Also a Gog and Magog ethnicity does not exist as far as I know, but nevertheless they are mentioned as a "group of Turks" by host of Muslim (and for that matter some Christian) historians and chronicles.   So Gog and Magog are like Turanians...no relationship to modern groups in this article and their ancestors.
 * As I said until the AE board decision is resolved, I will wait. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to not repeat myself, but Ferdowsi uses Turanians as a group: ..Where is Atabek's source that he does not? these are not related to any modern groups discussed in this article.  And Ferdowsi's history ends with 7th century.  The conflation of Turk/Turan is not initiated by Ferdowsi but already occurs with Biruni, Tabari, Ba'lami etc.   And finally, Seljuq Turks did not feel any anti-Turkism if we are talking about the context of 10th century anyway, so although Seljuq Turks are not related to the Turk/Turan of Shahnama, there is no source relating them to Turanians or Shahnama.  All indicators show the Saljuq Turks took the Shahnama positively, and thus if we are talking about Tork in the contenxt of 10th century, then it does not apply to modern groups here. So incase you are pushing for a ethno-linguistic definition of "Turk" out of the variety of definitons of "Turk" at the time, the Saljuqs did not see Mein Kemp, but rather ordered its verses to be on walls of Konya, Sivas and signed the Shahnama.  And so the Turanians do not apply to modern groups such Azeris, Anatolians, Uzbeks whose national identity comes much later than the Shahnama and thus consequently cannot be WP:synthesis in this article.  And note gain the Gog & Magog are derided very heavily in the Islamic texts and they are seen as a group of Turks.. Ferdowsi on the other hand has both criticism of Iranian and Turanian characters, has praises for both Iranian and Turanians characters, and in the end, despite small bias for Iranians,..it is not way sufficient to include him in this WP:synthesis article alongside Skinheads.  It is fairly ridicolous and violates WP:synthesis by the nature of the article. So that is why Folantin/Dab found your reasoning for inclusion of Shahnama here as unsound.   Given the variety of sources and multiple different intrepretations, one cannot choose one intrepretation and you would need really WP:RS sources that Ferdowsi's SHahnama is talking about modern groups of this article or even Saljuq Turks (who prided themselves on the Shahnama and took names from it..etc).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The opinion by Dr. Shaban is just his opinion - to state something so categorically about smth that happened some 11 centuries ago and that contradicts opinions of many others is not really so reliable. Meanwhile, not only did Ferdowsi himself consider Turan in his poem as being a land of Turks and Afrasiyab as the king of Turan and Turks, but such Turkic works as 11th century Divanü Lügati't-Türk Mahmud Kashgarli wrote about Afrasiyab as the king of Turks, as did Yusuf Balasaghuni in his 11th century work Kutadgu Bilig, as did many other medieval Turkic sources. So I guess all those Turks have been wrong for some 10 centuries now.

Here's smth interesting from C.E.Bosworth: "Another important [Persian] poet of the tenth century was Abu Mansur Muhammad Daqiqi (931-78)" who "locates his Turan in a vague 'China'" - and as we know ancient turks were often described to be from China, and of course, that's somewhat correct insofar as Uighurs and many other Turkic people go. 

Here's some more recent (2011) from C.E.Bosworth: "Tomaschek (part 1, 1883, p. 56) thought that the name possibly stemmed from the Iranian term tura(n) “hostile, non-Iranian land”; the name usually applied in the Iranian national epic to the lands beyond Khorasan and the Oxus river, subsequently regarded as the home of the Turks and other non-Iranian peoples par excellence." 

And here's J.A. Boyle in The Cambridge History of Iran: The Saljuq and Mongol periods:

Here's an older source: "In the annals of Persia, all the country north of the Caucasus and river Oxus is called Turan, or Land of Darkness, in contradistinction to Iran, or the Land of the Sun ; and their history transmits the record of perpetual wars carried on between the two nations from the most remote period of antiquity.* [footnote: Some ethnologists have designated the Turanian nations collectively as the Turks; but I have generally called them either Tartars or Turanians, both as being move usually applied to them, and also to prevent a conrnsion with the Ottomans, who, with the 'i'ransoxian branches of the same family (including the SeljukB, &c.), are often exclusively termed Turkomans, or Turks. ]" As we can see, there are plenty of references, including Ferdowsi himself, who considered Turks and Turanians one and the same, and Turan to be the land of Turks. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that is a very older source. But in terms of Afrasiyab..this goes back to the Avesta Frangyan which is long before the advent of Turkish languages in the area.   "Turan" in the medieval centuries came to eventually be land of central asian nomads, however the stories of Ferdowsi's Shahnama ends in the 7th century (end of Sassanid era), which is before the advejt of Saljuqs, Ghaznavids and etc.  I shall
 * "The opinion by Dr. Shaban is just his opinion - to state something so categorically about smth that happened some 11 centuries ago and that contradicts opinions of many others is not really so reliable" . This means exactly that the issue is more complex to have a one line sentence in this article.   You need to show which modern group today is related to the Turanians of Shahnama from the many disparate Turkish speaking linguistic groups who are different cultures/ethnicities.  But I shall provide the references below.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)