Talk:Turco-Persian tradition

irrelevant section
The following paragraph is irrelevant:

''B. Lewis noted the scope of the new stage in the transition to the ethnic-free Islam: "A distinguishing feature of Turkic Islam, from its very beginning is the completeness with which the Turks surrendered themselves to their new religion. Partly because of the simple intensity of the faith as they encountered it on the frontiers of Islam and heathendom, partly because their conversion to Islam at once involved them in Holy War against their own heathen kinsmen, the converted Turks sank their national identity in Islam as the Arabs and Persians had never done. There is no Turkic equivalent to Arab memories of the heroic days of pagan Arabia, to Persian pride in the bygone glories of ancient Iran save for a few fragments of folk poetry and of genealogical legend. The civilizations, states, religions, and literatures of the pre-Islamic Turkic past were blotted out and forgotten. Even the very name Turk came to be synonymous with Muslim, for Turks as well as for Westerners. In the earnestness and seriousness of their loyalty to Islam the Turks are equaled by no other people. It is therefore not surprising that in time a great Sunni revival began and spread under the aegis of Turkic dynasties.''

It is about Turkic Islam and has nothing to do with Turko-Persian tradition (= Persian culture patronized by Turko-Mongol rulers). The paragraph should only focus on the influence of Turko-Persian elements, for example the unique Turko-Persian culture of Central Asia, the strong Persian influence in Anatolia (for example tea-houses, hamam, kebab-houses, music, etc.), the Turkish military-vocabulary still used in Iran or Afghanistan, or the mix Turkish-Persian poetry that became popular in the Safavid and Ottoman Empires.


 * No, that paragraph is quite informative and sourced, since the definition is not as simple as Persian culture patronized by Turko-Mongol rulers, if it was, we did not write such an article in detail. That paragraph summarizes the influence of Turkic people in Islam and compares this with Persian and Arabs. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the ip here. The definition is simple as Persian culture supported by turkish rulers.  That is what two scholars have defined "turko-persian" tradition.  The separate "Turkic islamic civilization" (for example Ottomon Turkish or Chagatay Turkish) should have its own article.  I think this article has no point unless it sticks to the scholarly definition of "turkopersian" tradition.  Persians did not support Turkic civilization since they did not even rule but it was Turkic dynasties supporting Persian culture.  That is what is defined as "Turko-Persian" tradition.  We do not see the word "Turko-Persian" tradition by Lewis in the above quote.  Unless we do, we should simply delete it.  I think the article needs to be cut down quite bit to concentrate on the scholarly definition of "turko-persian" tradition.  This definition was given by two scholars.  Turkic Islamic civilization should have its own article.  On the other hand, the article can be renamed to "Turko-Irano contacts" and contain "Turko-Persian" tradition as a subsection.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ali, you're always in favor of deletion as you did before. That section can be improved or shifted to a new article or merged into another article but your first choice is always dispute and delete. That paragraph is factually accurate and sourced. That's another thing. Removing that section is another thing. That's why i removed the accuracy tags. So, are we going to improve that section? Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the irrelevant tag, and removed the accuracy tag. Since that's the main objection here. Factual accuracy is a totally different issue which is not the case here. I'll look for more references and information to improve that section. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't recall voting for deletion. Surena brought it up and I said we should stick to the definition so it won't have overlaps with other articles.  I am for sticking with the definition.  I am not sure how the B.Lewis quote is related to this particular article.  Also some references to Sasanian were removed in your previous edits.  I will look at the issue in closer detail but the B. Lewis quote should be placed in another article (Turks and Islam) or etc.  I am in favor of actually expanding the article into Turko-Iranian contacts and making the Turko-Persian tradition as a subset.  The reason is that the contacts occur before even Islam (Sogdians for example).  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, better to expand. Now, i'll add the expand tag for that section, too. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also proposing the article to be renamed to "turko-Iranian cultural contacts". This way it can expand.  Turko-Persian tradition as defined by only two scholars so far has a simple meaning which a good of this article is not related to.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, since the "tradition" has a more general meaning. The article has progressed by following this line. There is no need to defocus the article from its main context. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has not progressed based on the definition given by two scholars. Turko-Persian tradition is a subset of Turko-Irano cultural contacts which dates even back to pre-Islamic times.  --alidoostzadeh 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why you are going so ballistic with this article. The article is well-written and its sources are from mainstream scholars. Your proposal is politically motivated. The "Turko-Persian tradition" terminology is not only informative but also concise. Regards. E104421 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider the above a personal attack, so next time I will have to report it. Now, The article could be well written (copy pasted actually) but might not have much to do with the topic or might be a subset of a topic (in this case turco-Iranian contact).  Actually you have used the article as a base base to minimize Persian influence (case point Timurids/Sljuqirds where you removed words that you did not like).   --alidoostzadeh 03:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, i'd like to know where the personal attack is. If i did so, apologizing. The title you proposed, Turko-Iranian contact (in which you wrote T as t) is totally irrelevant to current context of the article, since that title would automatically go into Turkic-Iranian political relations and also cause disambiguations. The current title is the most proper one. Tradition is a set of cultures which develop from one another over a period of time. That's what the article is about. On the other hand, Timurids and Seljuks were the patrons of Turko-Persian tradition. Representing their culture "without Turkic elements" or "with Turkic minimized" is misleading, that's why i mentioned the Turko-Persian tradition in these articles. That's nothing wrong in adding that. In addition, the Turko-Persian tradition article is well-written and almost every sentence of it is sourced. Regards. E104421 13:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is untrue. We can rename it to Turko-Iranian cultural contacts.  Seljuqs did not produce a single piece of Turkic literature.  I am going to have to add exact statements about Seljuqs in this article.  Your intrepretaiton of the word tradition is OR.  I am also including D.Pipes statement in the lead.  It is a summary of what exactly occured.  --alidoostzadeh 15:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no OR. See the tradition article. Please, stop accusing people who provides sourced information. I recommend you to calm down, since there is no OR in my edits. If you're to discuss, you're welcome, but do it in a polite way. Regards. E104421 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tradition here is defined exactly as two scholars have defined it. Tradition has a variety of meanings and so it needs to be in its context.  Over-here Canfield and Pipes have given the context.  --alidoostzadeh 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tradition is tradition. There is no confusion. See the L Canfield article: "Turko-Persian Islamicate culture is an ecumenical mix of Turkic, Persian and Arabic elements...". You changed the first sentence. You're tying to change the Turko-Persian tradition into Persianate society. On the other hand, you're accusing me in the Timur article, while you're deleting the cited references. Actually, adding the word "later" is ok, since he was born into a noble family of Barlas clan, not into a Persian one. You said the addition of "later" was OR, but you did not said anything on your last edit of the Turko-Persian tradition. (Note: I do not remove sources). Regards. E104421 16:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My main concern was the abuse that took place with regards to this article in the Seljuq/Timur article where many sources were removed and then reference was given to a semi-contentious article. If this does not occur, Persinate article is mentioned alongside this article, then I have no opposition. So I am moving the D.pipers reference back down again.  But please do not use this article as a way to cut statements from other articles.  I am willing to give this article a chance although I think some of it is a out of context cut&paste not necessarily related to the definition given by Canfield..  take care --alidoostzadeh 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss all these in a single talk page. I'm tired of travelling between the talk/discussion pages. Best wishes. E104421 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Right but Canfield is not defining Turco-Persian tradition. He defined Turo-Persian tradition differently as given in the same book and it is in the intro and so that statement must be taken into account when he talks about "Turko-Persian Islamicate culture of mix Turkic, Persian and Arabic elements". Remember a while back somebody removed Arabic for one reason or another. I didn't get the connection with Timur you tried to make in your above response. For example Xavier Planhol says the Turkic nomads did not have much of an impact on Iranian culture. It is well known during the Turko-Iranian contacts of the Islamic era, it was mainly Iranian culture that heavily influenced Turkic dynasties of Seljuqs and Ghaznavids. I can easily source this. The current Turkish and Iranian cultures (music, mentality, food, classical literature) are close mainly because of this.  On Timurid, I removed one sourced and the reason is that pg 3 of the google books was not there as it was claimed.  Regards --alidoostzadeh 16:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the diwans of the dynasties were influenced by the Arabic & Persian and the Islamicate culture. Xavier Planhol may say the "Turkic nomads did not have much of an impact on Iranian culture", but this does not mean "Iranian culture did have much of an impact on Turkic nomads". Btw, i checked the B.F.Manz reference link from the Google book search and it's working. Anyways, i already quoted that paragraph into the talk/discussion page. Regards. E104421 19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, E104421, it does. See the references I posted on the Timurids talk page:
 * "... For example, when Ali Sher Nava'i (844-906/1441-1501) wrote Mohakamat al-loghatayn in order to prove the superiority of Turkish over Persian, he used a language that contained 62.6 percent Persian and Arabic words (sample: 122 of 195 words) . ... Persian literature from Central Asia, on the contrary, contains very few Turkish elements. For instance, Navai's contempo­rary, the poet Abd-al-Rahman Jami (817-98/1414-92), still another protege‚ of Sultan Hosayn, used no Turkish words ... Persian literature from Central Asia, on the contrary, contains very few Turkish elements. For instance, Navai's contempo­rary, the poet Abd-al-Rahman Jami (817-98/1414-92), still another protege‚ of Sultan Hosayn, used no Turkish words (Brockelmann, pp. 159-60, 186-87, 196-97, 393-427; Kales, pp. 13-15). ..." (Doerfer, Elemente; idem, 1967; quoted in Encyclopaedia Iranica)
 * "... Translation of Persian works into Chaghatay was common, for instance, Navai's translation of works by Jami, while, in comparison, translations of Chaghatay works into Persian were rare . ..." (Eckmann, 1964a, pp. 293-96; idem, 1964b, pp. 309, 366-69; Köprülü, in ËA II, pp. 296, 301, 321)
 * "... Timur's successors, who were, unlike him, essentially peace-loving, devoted themselves to the support of culture, the arts, and religion and to the preservation of his territorial legacy. His fourth son, Shahrokh (807-­50/1407-47), succeeded him as ruler of Transoxania, though he lived in Herat, and earned a great reputation as a friend of scholars and poets and as a patron of architecture. He installed his son Ologh (Ulugh) Beg as governor at Samarkand, where, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, he enlarged his palace and took steps to prevent the deterioration of many of his ancestor's monuments. His personal interest was astron­omy, to which he made significant contributions (cf. Barthold, 1935). Like his father, Ologh Beg was entirely integrated into Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarkand until the Russian revolution of 1917. Many works of poetry, history, and other learned subjects were composed there in Persian (as later in the empire of the Great Mughals in India) . By contrast, Persian was disappearing in Anatolia at the same period, increasingly supplanted by Ottoman Turkish. ..."
 * "Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna ..." (Bernard Lewis, "The Iranians") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.141.208 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to bring up two points, raised in the above discussion. The first is a that Turko-Persian tradition extends much deeper than the period addressed in the article, both groups infused each other and left traces recorded from the times the written history exists. In this respect, "Turko-Persian tradition is a subset of Turko-Irano cultural contacts which dates even back to pre-Islamic times. --alidoostzadeh" is a very true statement, can be easily supported by references, and should be noted in the introductory section. Turko-Persian cultural contacts also did not cease with later differentiation of a common Islamicate Turko-Persian tradition into national and geographical branches. It is a completely different subject that deserve a dedicated (and balanced) WP article. Also, the fact that Persia was mostly left out from the Turko-Persian tradition, and developed along a different path, is already noted in the disputed section. A further elaboration of the Persian Islam path of development is in the articles addressed to Persia.


 * The second point is that the above citation by "Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized... describes the conditions preceeding the spread of Islam and its characteristic. It is a starting point, and not at all ethnic point, since the ensuing post-Persian spread of Islam was a polyethnic enterprize, involving polyethnic masses, and introduction of the polyethnic conquistadors as a dominating strata over settled "infidel" aborigenes. As a phenomenon preceeding the development of Islamicate Turko-Persian tradition, the fact of that prior development is already reflected in the article. B. Lewis' disputed citation concisely addresses the inherent changes in the new historical developments that profoundly differentiate the Turko-Persian and Persianate traditions. Barefact (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

--

Influence
B. Lewis noted the scope of the new stage in the transition to the ethnic-free Islam: "A distinguishing feature of Turkic Islam, from its very beginning is the completeness with which the Turks surrendered themselves to their new religion. Partly because of the simple intensity of the faith as they encountered it on the frontiers of Islam and heathendom, partly because their conversion to Islam at once involved them in Holy War against their own heathen kinsmen, the converted Turks sank their national identity in Islam as the Arabs and Persians had never done. There is no Turkic equivalent to Arab memories of the heroic days of pagan Arabia, to Persian pride in the bygone glories of ancient Iran save for a few fragments of folk poetry and of genealogical legend. The civilizations, states, religions, and literatures of the pre-Islamic Turkic past were blotted out and forgotten. Even the very name Turk came to be synonymous with Muslim, for Turks as well as for Westerners. In the earnestness and seriousness of their loyalty to Islam the Turks are equaled by no other people. It is therefore not surprising that in time a great Sunni revival began and spread under the aegis of Turkic dynasties."

With the firm guidance of 'ulema', the diverse native traditions were transformed to a uniform mold that crossed borders and customs. The original diverse traditions were consistently shaped to conform to specific norms embedded in the Islamic law. One notable exception in the Turko-Persian tradition was the attitude to the women. The original attitude of respect to the mothers, and protection of the sisters and daughters overcame the tenets imposed by the new religion, and survived as an inherent component of the learned new society. The idea of slaughtering mothers and daughters, incessantly proclaimed from the pulpits, remained a call for action, but not the action in the majority sphere of the Turko-Persian tradition. While the best of the Turko-Persian literature is venerated and admired, the respect for the women and the old traditions of equality generally survived to the present times, except for the areas where the Arab Islamic tradition managed to entirely replace the original native traditions. The early Turkish Muslims accepted and embraced the pre-Islamic traditions and combined them with their own in a form of Sufi mysticism. Less prominent were the strict Islamic law (Sharia) and concept of waging violent external jihad against nonbelievers. Instead, as Islam was diffused into the Turkic world through Persian Sufi influences, it sought to establish a commonality of belief with the indigenous religious practices. Despite a myriad of attempts to curb it, Sufism has survived in the Turkic zone as an underlying institution of revival and alternative thinking throughout the centuries. - Please discuss everything here. Thank you.
 * Hi. This part of the  quote is relavent: "The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna. " which is exactly the definition by Canfield.  That part should be kept.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

This Canfield's complete phrase discusses the spread of the political control, not the influence of syncretic Islamicate culture on Vienna society, and therefore in the context of the culture this citation of yours is just a boastful declaration. Otherwise it would be possible to describe the real impact of Iranian civilization on Austria, Slavic countries, and Slavic-Ruminian Balkans in their respective articles, which material is conspiciously abscent from the WP articles, and for a good reason.

You also need to reverse your undiscussed change of "Timurid Turks" to "Persionized Turks", made under a cover of a Canfield's citation. If you desire to discuss why Timurid Turks are not Timurid Turks any more, and why you raised them to a status of Persionized Turks, it should be done openly on the Talk page. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Canfield. He uses "Persianized Turks".  We can not change the wording as it is exact wording used by the scholar.   The exact sentence is there: The Mughals- Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strenghthened the Persianate culture of of Muslim India.  There is really nothing to discuss, since it is from the same article you have been quoting and it is the exact word of the scholar.  You can't simply choose which part of the article you like and which part you do not.  As per "The Ottoman turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna" that is very relevant to the definition of the article.  The definition of the article as I take it and Canfield, Pipes take it, is the fact that the military of many Islamic dynasties were Turkish, their culture and administrative language was Persian and their religion was Islam.  Let me quote the exact definition: "It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite".  Remember I didn't vote for the merging of the article, so nobody owns the article.  Also you forget this is not a discussion group.  If you disagree with Canfield, bring another source that contradicts it and then we will put both sources for the readers.  In Wikipedia, specially with relationship to history articles, we quote scholars and I do not have to explain in detail why such a scholar made such a statement that the Moguls were Persianized Turks.  That is the judgment of a scholar more qualified than me or you.  As per why Moghuls were Persianized Turks, I can give you an example from my own analysis.  When they conquered India, they made Persian the lingua franca of India and we have more documents in Persian from India, then even probably Iran.  Forget about the Muslim culture even.  Persian became extended so that even the Brahmans were reciting the poetry of Hafez, Rumi, Sa'adi and etc.  Even many if not most of the original holy texts of Sikhs is in Persian.  All this is due to Moghul rule and the spread of Persian language through this dynasty.  Had the Moghuls not taken over, this would not have been so.   They did not make Chagatay, their original native tongue as lingua franca.  Where-as when the British took over India, English became the lingua-franca and they actually banned Persian.  If the British for example made Latin the lingua franca, then I would called them Latinized Anglo-Saxons.  Note I do not need justification for inserting a statement from Canfield!(he is a very qualified scholar to make such a judgment!), but I am just giving you perhaps what could be one of the reasons amongst the many that he used such a term.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sending the link, it is very visual. It would be nice if the argumentation came first, and editing later, after revisions are discussed, that's what the cool-down period and direct appeal to use the Talk page help to institute, instead of rv wars and using retaliatory editing. With the past experience of resorting to subversion and rv wars, a prudent approach would be to announce a proposed change, finalize text, and then post it, especially true for this article, because it caused overly inflamed response from the first hours. This article describes a phenomenon of enourmous influence in the history of Muslim and indigenous world, a symbiosis of many cultures and peoples, and any petty nationalistic attitude is counterproductive and diminishing to its contents and its editors. The Persian contribution was immensely important, as it is rightfully shown. Mechanically replacing "Timurid" and "Turkic" and what else with "Persianate" would undermine the substance of this great phenomena.


 * because there was no further discussion of impact of Iranian civilization on Austria, Slavic countries, and Slavic-Ruminian Balkans, that point of contention must be accepted as closed.


 * Canfield's citation is what it is, WP rules require no more than respect for a source, so I think it only right to keep it. But, at the same time, anonimous editor(s) removed/distorted a whole section without discussion. Would you mind reverting it and imploring that anonimous editor to dicuss his/her revisions first, before replacingthe section witha a new text, so that we can get a consensus? Barefact (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are talking about me. Before accusing anyone, you should at least read the discussion. I tried to discuss the issue here, and I am still convinced that the entire section "Influence" is irrelevant right now. You are right that many different cultures and peoples contributed to the "Turko-Persian tradition" or - in its core - the "Persianate society". Some of the greatest poets of this culture were Turks (Amir Khusro) or Indians (Muhammad Iqbal), so even the "Persianate society" is a highly multi-ethnical society. So is the "Western civilization" of today. We have all kinds of European, American, and East Asian peoples contributing to it: French, Italians, Japanese, etc. But the fact remains that the English language and the American way of life are overwhelmingly dominant. Everyone tries to be like Americans. People dress like Americans (Jeans, T-Shirts, etc), people from different countries choose to sing in English (because of this, even the rules of the Eurovision song contest were changed!), scientific publications are being published in English, and slowly but surely, English even replaces Latin and Greek in those publications. All other languages and local nationalities are somewhat unimportant while the Americanized Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere is dominating everything. 1200 years to 300 years ago, Persian had the same role in the Eastern Islamic lands. No matter where people came from: they wanted to be Persianized. and those who refused, such as the Turkmen nomads or the Pashtun tribes of the Hindukush, were considered as barbaric and backward by the rest. The same way modern "Western civilization" is almost identical to "Americanized civilization", back then "Turko-Persian" and "Indo-Persian" were identical to "Persianaized/Persianate". It really does not matter who the kings were back then, where they came from, and what tribe they belonged to: they had to be fluent in Persian, they had to be Persianized while speaking Turkish, Hindi, or some other language was not a necessity. And today, in the Western world, knowing English is a must, dressing accordingly is a must, and even acting accordingly is a must. Using English slang in German or Italian is cool, using Polish or Czech words in English is somehow weird. 90 years ago, Atatürk changed the entire society of Turkey because he wanted to be like the Westerners: he copied their writing system, he ordered to dress according to European traditions, and today Turkey wants to be a part of Europe. 1000 years ago, the Turks came in contact with the Persian civilization and wanted to adopt it the same way Turks today are trying to adopt Western customs. 1000 years ago, the impact was probably much bigger, since the fully nomadic Turks came were assimilated into an urban and educated society.
 * The problem in here is not the content, but actually Turkish users who want to interpret modern standards of Turkish national identity to peoples of the past - something that did not exist back then. Persian and Turkish national identity were both created in the 20th century. But the difference is that Persian nationalism is based on a written history and pride in bygone glories of ancient Persian kingdoms. Turks do not have something comparable. And as such, they also want to remove any reference to the Persian history because they feel offended by it. Instead of accepting that the Turks in the past were Persianized and were and important and integral part of the Persianate society, the rather Turkicize them, see in them some kind of Turkish heroes of the past - a picture that does not reflect those people at all. If the Seljuqs or early Ottomans were alive today, they would have identified themselves with Iran or the Arabic nationas rather than with Turkey or the Central Asian Turkic nations. And the Gök-Turks would have identified themselvs with modern nomadic tribes in Mongolia than with Anatolian Turks or Balkan Turks.
 * The easiest way would be accepting history the way it is: there was a Persianized and Persianate culture, ruled by an ethnic Turkic elite. There were intermarriages, noble families mixed, each ruler had large harmes . The Ottoman sultans had mostly European mothers, other Turkic rulers were born to native women in Persia and Central Asia (Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna was the descendant of Turkish soldiers, but his mother was Persian noble from Zaranj). Almost all of these Turkic dynasties were de facto ruled by powerful Persian viziers and nobles, as well as influential scholars and religious leaders (Abu Hanifa, al-Bukhari, and Ibn Hanbal, just to name 3 of the most important Persians in this regard; others would be Rumi or Ibn Sina). The contribution of Turks to the Persianate society (or "Turko-Persian society") was immense (mostly as rulers), but that does not mean that "Turkic culture" and "Persian culture" were equal. Turkic culture is a variation of Persian culture (enriched by some elements of other cultures, recently immensly from Western cultures), not vice versa. And as such, it needs to be written in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.128.9 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonimous 82.82.128.9, I agree with much of your discourse, but disagree with as much, mostly with egocentric myope and disrespectful attitude to others. We can discuss our differences until a second coming, but yours and my personal opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you can't remove a reference just because you disagree with a scholar. You need to restore the section, and then propose amendments to it for discussion, to avoid an rv war and come to a consensus. And as a starting point in the discussion, could you please think of a concise list of differences between these two cultural traditions. Regards, Barefact (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I moved the Lewis-quote to the discussion in order to discuss it. I still doubt that the quote has any relevance in this article. It is indeed very relevant in the Turkic peoples article, but not in this one, because it only explains the relationship of Turks and Islam, but does not say anything about the Turko-Persian tradition in particular. The other Lewis quote, dealing with Ottomans and Iranian civilization, is relevant, because it speaks of the influence of Persian, the influence it had on the Turkic Ottoman Empire and on Islamic(ate) civilization in total.
 * The differences of these two civilizations are summed up in two Turkish poems from the Seljuq and Ottoman era, written by Turkish poets:
 * "... Mahrem idinme kendine her Türk-tab'i kim -- Elbette ahmak olanın olmaz sadakati ..." (translation: "Do not be intimate with one who is Turk-natured -- Certainly, the one who is foolish does not have fidility"; Hayretî, Dîvân, ed. Mehmed Çavoşuğlu, M. Ali Tanyeri, Istanbul 1981, p. 414)
 * "... Nedir bildin me sin âlemde Türk'ü -- Ola eğninde kürkü, başında börkü -- Ne meszheb bile, ne din, ne diyânet -- Yumaz yüzün ne abdest ü tehâret ..." (translation: "Did you know who is the Turk in this world? -- The one who has fur on his back and a fur hat on his head -- He does not know about religion, or religious sects, or piety -- Never washes his face, perform ablutions, or cleans himself"; Agha Sırrı Levend, Divan Edebiyatı, Istanbul 1984, p. 597)
 * Turks did not identify themselves as "Turks" before the Young Turk revolution. The above quoted verses are not my words, but the verses of Turkish poets, written in the Turkish language. So, when we in here are talking about "Turko-Persian tradition", we are in fact talking about "Persian tradition" and "Persianate society". I still suggest to merge this article with "Persianate society", because the "Turko-Persian tradition" was "Persianate society" only ruled by Turkic rulers. The influence of Turkic traditions, culture, language or whatever you call it was almost non-existent. "Turko-Persian tradition" is only one small part of the "Persianate society", like the "Indo-Persian tradition" of the Mughals (who are wrongly named "Turko-Persian" in this article), Suris, Lodis, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.130.117 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * About Ottomons and Iranian Islam. Of course it is talking about Muslim population (mainly Ottoman themselves).  The reasoning is clear too.  Islam was brought to Turkic people by Persians and most Turkic people follow the school of Abu Hanifa (whose father or grandfather was a Zoroastrian convert to islam)).  So this Islam was filtered through Iran before it reached Turkic lands.  Thus the impressive influence of having the 6 Hadeeth collectors (Bukhari, Tirmidhi..), and many Mystics being from Khorasan/Iran. made a big influence on Turkish Islam.  So that is why Bernard Lewis is correct.  He is not talking about the influence amongst Austrians, and etc..  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the article talks about Turco-Persian sysmbiosis, the Persian side is already there without drumming it up, I hope we all appreciate this. The question is the relevance, and unfortunately the answer above is quite shallow. A partial and much compressed citation of B. Lewis tells about major impacts that changed the culture and flow of history. I will not dwell on each point, each can be easily expanded into a cycle of lectures, but what is remarkable is that they make culture different from the initial Arabic and Persian stages:


 * Supra-ethnic society, supra-ethnic culture, supra-ethnic religion. There is no Turkic equivalent to Arab memories, to Persian pride in the bygone glories. The civilizations, states, religions, and literatures of the pre-Islamic Turkic past were blotted out and forgotten.
 * Not directly mentioned in the quotation switch from the autocratic rule to elective rule. The religious rulers are elected, the rule is not not inherited by blood line. Change from ordination to meritocracy, where ulema plays a role of kurultai. A great Sunni revival began and spread under the aegis of Turkic dynasties.
 * Religious tolerance, opennes to other's ideas and culture, first of all Persian (in literature), but also to M.Asian and Indian, and Arabic, all local cultures that fell into the zone of Turko-Persian tradition. Emergence of syncretic Islam, conversion of Islam from tribal to world religion. Uniform mold that crossed borders and customs.
 * Attitude to women. Equality of sexes was ingrained in the Turkic culture, and survived as an inherent component of the learned new society, and the old traditions of equality generally survived to the present times.
 * Less prominent were the strict Islamic law (Sharia) and concept of waging violent external jihad against nonbelievers. Instead, as Islam was diffused into the Turkic world through Persian Sufi influences, it sought to establish a commonality of belief with the indigenous religious practices.

May I note that these differences are much unlike wearing jeans and similar cultural traits noted in the previous exchange. These traits also do not fit in the Persianate scheme, at least none of supra-ethnicity, religious tolerance, women status, etc are discussed in the Persianate article. Regards, Barefact (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New edit war
I have protected the article for three days. Please solve the difference on the talk page, rather than edit war. Locking a particular version is not an enforcement of it. In particular I am worried about blanking of a large citation. Do we need it? If there is a consensus I can editprotect the article `Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

B.Lewis quote
"It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India."

That is very important part and thus so is the process of the filtering of Islam in Iranian lands. So one sentence beforehand does not change the article and it gives important background information. If you have time you can summarize it and post it. Also the background of Safavids is not clear and obscure, so just link to the article. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, first of all i recommend you to stop the tension. As already commented out before that quotations should be revised and copy-edited. For this reason, until that's to be done, please do not revert the article. Thank you. E104421 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Salam. I don't see any tension here.  We just have a differing POV which is fine..  I do not see a reason for commenting this part out.  If you want to revise the quotation, then propose it on the talk page.  But the fact is that: "It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India." is very relavent to the article.  And it has no meaning unless the previous sentence is brought up. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that part as i commented out before. I revised the quotation as it includes the "Persian Islam". Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, you reverted again. E104421 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay but it needs a background sentence in my opinion. The sentence just seems awkward without it. "'It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. " starts with "It".  So the reader will get confused.  Please first revise both quotes by B. Lewis in the talkpage and we can discuss. Also for example Qarakhanids really had nothing much to do with Persian-Turkic contants.  They were very much Turkic culturally unlike the Ghaznavids but they have been placed in the article.  So one sentence by B.Lewis which is necessary for the subsequent sentences is also useful.  Also on Safavids, please just leave it for their own article.  The issue is just too complex to deal with in this article.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As i said before, the Turko-Persian Islam was previously discussed in the article, so if you want to cite B.Lewis just cite that "Iran in History" article at the relevent places. In addition, you can add a short quotation if you want. Since the article is online there is no need to do that, in my opinion, but the choice is up to you. The first quotation is somewhat irrelevent for that section, since Ottoman Empire carried to all its territories somethings from its own.

The "diwans" of the "dynasties" were influenced by the Persian Islamicate culture, but that's not true for all the peoples of the empires. The Ottoman, Seljuk, and Timurid diwans were Persianate, while the folk poets like Karacaoglan, Dadaloglu, Koroglu were writing in Turkish. The dynasties just tried to increase their influence on the people they governed by Islam which they mostly learned by Iranian peoples. The parts adopted in time continued as a new tradition. Regards. E104421 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are following the definition of the term "Turko-Persian". The B. Lewis quote exactly fits the definition since it was Persian culture expanded by Turkish dynasties.  That is the definition of Turko-Persian tradition by the two scholars who define them (Canfield and the other guy).    Encyclopedia of Islam on Timurids says: "During the Timurid period, three languages, Persian, Turkish, and Arabic, were in use. The major language of the period was Persian, the native language of the Tajik (Persian) component of society and the language of learning acquired by all literate and/or urban Turks. Persian served as the language of administration, history, belles lettres, and poetry.".  So it was not just Diwan (administration), but the language of history, belles lettres, poetry and etc.  In another words, it was the language of the urban and cultured element of many of these Turcoman dynasties.  Folk culture is pertinent to any local culture (Kurd, Oghuz, Qipchaq, Alan, Persian, Pashtun, Indian and etc.), but the common culture was Persianate.  So folk culture is not part of Turko-Persian tradition, where-as the Persianate culture supported by Turkish rulers is exactly the definition of Turko-Persian tradition.  For example there are more than 1000+ manuscripts of the Shahnameh and only two manuscripts of Dede Qorqud.  So that is why the quote of Lewis is very relavent since it fits the exact definition of Turko-Persian tradition (Persianate culture and influence expanded by Turkic rulers).  Also even if we assume it was not the common of the common Oghuz tribesmen, still the elite culture and the culture of the high class will have tremendous influence and effect on the common folk irregardless of the number/size of the elite.  I mean even if we assume 1% of the population was literate (taking an extreme case), the influence of that 1% is much higher than 1% and possibly reaches 50%+.  For example maybe 1% were literate in Arabic and the Qur'an but 99% of the population were influenced by the Qur'an.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact definition of the Turko-Persian culture is already given in the introduction of the article. The sentence "Persianate culture and influence expanded by Turkic rulers" is your interpretation. The army of Timur was Turkic speaking not Persian or Arabic as you might remember from the Timur article. They were nomads, they did not have the literary tradition, they adopted the Iranian literary tradition in Islam while they were adopting Islam. The tradition is not Persian but Turko-Persian. I gave the example on the folk language just to show that the diwans (both the administation and literacy) of the "dynasties" the were Persianate, while the local Turkic people were writing in Turkic languages. The composite Islamicate culture which was adopted mostly by Iranian peoples that were expanded, not the original Persian culture itself. As already written in the article (Canfield): "The Turko-Persian distinctive Islamicate culture flourished for hundreds of years, and then faded under imposed modern European influences. Turko-Persian Islamicate culture is an ecumenical mix of Arabic, Persian, and Turkic elements blended in the ninth and tenth centuries, and eventually became a predominant culture of the ruling and elite classes of West, Central and South Asia". Regards. E104421 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your misinterpreting it. "It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite.".  So in terms of culture, it was Persianate.  It was centered on Iranian traditions, not Dede Qorqud or KurOglu or such folklores.  You won't find any Timurid/Ottoman.. art on Dede Qorkud, KurOglu and etc but there are many on Persian works (Shahnameh, the five jewls of Nizami, the conference of the bird by Attar, stories from Sanai). The tradition is turko-Persian as far as it is promoted by Turkic dynasties is Turkic and it is Persian as afar as the culture it promoted was Persian.  But originally it was taken from Sassanids and later Samanids and Persianized the rulers of Turkic dynasties. That is was Canfield says and the role of Sassanids in important in this regard.  They and Samanids set a paradigmn for later Turkic dynasties.   The Turkic element is military /dynasty and the Persian element is culture.  Folk language is a peculiar to culture it developed.  For example you won't find one work of minature on dede-qorqud but you will find many commisioned by Safavid, Moghuls, Seljuqs, Timurids on the Shahnameh.  We are talking about Persianate culture which was supported by Turkic dynasties.  They also expanded the language, that is the Persian language from Balkans to India.  "Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture".  I can quote from the book whose editor's work was taken in the article turko-persian in a copy paste manner: In describing the second great culture of the Islamic world as Perso-Islamic we do not wish to play down the considerable contribution of the Turkish peoples to its military and political success, nor do we wish to suggest that it is particularly the achievement of the great cities of the Iranian plateau. We adopt this term because it seems best to describe that culture raised both by and under the influence of Muslims who used Persian as a major cultural vehicle. ...the Perso-islamic culture was fundamentally the culture of those who ruled(page 105, Francis Robison, Perso-Islamic culture in India from the 17th to the early 20th century). Note the first definition also given by Canfield: the composite Turko-Persian tradition was a variant of Islamic culture. It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic in so far as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite...  And note Canfield calls the Timurids as "Persianized Turks".  So going back to the Lewis quote it fits very well within this article, since it talks about Persian culture and views on Islam being spread by primarily Turkic dynasties (which is turco-Persian) tradition.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As i already explained above i gave the folk poetry language as an example to the contrast between the "diwan" of the dynasties and the people they governed. That's it. You seem to be misunderstood my comment. The culture is a composite culture. The definition is quite clear. Regards. E104421 (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * E104421's claim about Timur's army is not correct. Beatrice Manz writes:
 * "... In Temür's government, as in those of most nomad dynasties, it is impossible to find a clear distinction between civil and military affairs, or to identify the Persian bureaucracy solely civil, and the Turko-Mongolian solely with military government. It is infact difficult to define the sphere of either side of the administration and we find Persians and Chaghatays sharing manys tasks. ..." (Beatrice Forbes Manz. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge University Press, 1999. pg 109)
 * The "Silkroad Foundation" writes:
 * ... Those who saw Timur's army described it as a huge conglomeration of different peoples - nomad and settled, Muslims and Christians, Turks, Tajiks, Arabs, Georgians and Indians. ..."
 * That's the big problem with E104421: he always takes the sources he likes and ignores all others. That's also what he did in the article Timur.
 * As for the culture: "Islamic culture", especially after the Abbasids, is itself an extended "Persian culture". See: Durant, Will, "The Age Of Faith", The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4, and Zarinkoob, Abdolhossein, Ruzgaran: Tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi, Sukhan, 1999. ISBN 964-6961-11-8 (this book is almost fully dedicated to the Sassanian influence on Islam). "Turko-Iranian contacts" had started much earlier. Iranian royal titles in ancient Turkic, for example Yabghu or Khatun (which is a Sogdian word), are a testimony to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's well-known that Timur's troops were essentially Turkic-speaking (see for example: "Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube" by Gerard Chaliand). For a simply reachable source see the Columbia Encyclopedia article: Timur. In addition, please do not miss the note by B.F.Manz: "In discussing the settled bureaucracy and the people who worked within it I use the word Persian in a cultural rather than ethnological sense. (Beatrice Forbes Manz, "The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane", Cambridge University Press, 1999. pg 109). So, please avoid cherry picking. Regards. E104421 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the definition. "It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite.". So in terms of culture, it was Persianate. It was centered on Iranian traditions, not Dede Qorqud or KurOglu or such folklores. You won't find any Timurid/Ottoman.. art on Dede Qorkud, KurOglu and etc but there are many on Persian works (Shahnameh, the five jewls of Nizami, the conference of the bird by Attar, stories from Sanai). The tradition is turko-Persian as far as it is promoted by Turkic dynasties is Turkic and it is Persian as afar as the culture it promoted was Persian. But originally it was taken from Sassanids and later Samanids and Persianized the rulers of Turkic dynasties. That is was Canfield says and the role of Sassanids in important in this regard. They and Samanids set a paradigm for later Turkic dynasties. The Turkic element is military /dynasty and the Persian element is culture. Folk language is a peculiar to culture it developed. For example you won't find one work of miniature on dede-qorqud but you will find many commissioned by Safavid, Moghuls, Seljuqs, Timurids on the Shahnameh. We are talking about Persianate culture which was supported by Turkic dynasties. They also expanded the language, that is the Persian language from Balkans to India. "Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture". I can quote from the book Canfield: In describing the second great culture of the Islamic world as Perso-Islamic we do not wish to play down the considerable contribution of the Turkish peoples to its military and political success, nor do we wish to suggest that it is particularly the achievement of the great cities of the Iranian plateau. We adopt this term because it seems best to describe that culture raised both by and under the influence of Muslims who used Persian as a major cultural vehicle. ...the Perso-islamic culture was fundamentally the culture of those who ruled(page 105, Francis Robison, Perso-Islamic culture in India from the 17th to the early 20th century). Note the first definition also given by Canfield: the composite Turko-Persian tradition was a variant of Islamic culture. It was Persianate in that it was centred on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic in so far as it was for many generations patronised by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite... And note Canfield calls the Timurids as "Persianized Turks". So going back to the Lewis quote it fits very well within this article, since it talks about Persian culture and views on Islam being spread by primarily Turkic dynasties (which is turco-Persian) tradition. The article is not about Dede Qorqud or Kur Oglu and such folklore which every nation possess. What is interesting is that these dynasties (Timurid, Seljuqids, Ilkhanids, Safavids (mixed dynasty but turcophone since at least1501),Moguls) commissioned Persian literature and folklore (Shahnameh). They also as Lewis has said, adopted Islam from Iranians. That is it was Iranians who converted them and obviously a good show of this is the Hanafi Madhab who most Turks of the world follow. So this is exactly why it is called Turko-Persian tradition. While Turkic dynasties controlled areas from Balkan to India, they promoted Persian culture and language. According to Britannica this could be due to: "Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam.". Again note this fits with the Lewis quote: "Instructors in Islam". This could even go back to pre-Islam or early Islamic period. At least specially with regards to Oguz Turks. The Oghuz Turks who turkified some areas linguistically were not themselves pure Turks according to Mahmud Kasghari.
 * Turkology-expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):
 * "... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kashghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ..."
 * A Chinese source reports on Turks: "The Turks themselves are simple-minded and short-sighted, and dissension may have been roused among them. Unfortunately many Sogdians live among them who are cunning and insidious; they teach and instruct the Turks." (Sergey G. Klyastorniy and Vladimir Aronovic Livsic, "The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised," Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 20 (1972), pp. 69-102.)
 * Mahmud al-Kasbgari, a central Asian Turkish philologist of the eleventh century, who quotedthe Turkish proverb tats'iz tiirk bolmas, bass'iz bork bolmas, "without Iranians, the Turks amount to nothing, without a head, a cap is nothing."( Mahmud al-Kasgari, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwan Lughat at-Turk, 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1982-5, I, p. 273, II, p. 103.
 * Furthermore, al-Kashghari reports that "because the Oghuz had mingled a lot with the Persians, they had forgotten many of their own words and had replaced them with Persian words". (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's, Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149)
 * Note Canfield:"The Mughals- Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strenghthened the Persianate culture of of Muslim India.". So, yes their army was probably Turkic speaking and even the language of the army was probably Turkic. But the language of culture was Persian and it was Persian culture that was spread in India by these Persianized Turks and it is the elite that influence the local culture. And in pre-Islamic time it was Sogdians (another Iranian group). The first actual letter from a Turkic dynasty is preserved in Sogdian. Note many if not most of the old literature of the Sikhs in India is in Persian. And there are Hindu works in Persian and Brahmins recited Hafiz and Rumi. All this is due to the influence of the elite culture on the common folk and the cultural language of the elite irregardless of their ethnicity was Persian. So the Turkic part of this is the fact that the dynasties were Turkic and depended on a primarily Turkic army while expanding Persianate culture instead of Turkic ones (like Dede-Qorqud, KurOglu and etc. which you mentioned). I am not sure why we are discussing Timurids again. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I introduced the Timurids as an example to the "diwan" language and "peoples" language comparison, but Tajik re-introduced it. Regards. E104421 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The army is not really the people's language, just like we can not say the Diwan was everyone's language.  Probably dozens of languages were spoken under Timurids (Pashtu, Persian, Sogdian, Oghuz turkic, eastern Turkic, Mongolian, Indian dialects and etc.), but the common cultural language of the empire and the people was Persian.  Same with Moghuls which probably had many more languages under them.  But what makes these dynasties Turco-Persian tradition is simply the fact that while they were based on Turkic military, they also spread and commissioned Persian culture.  Hence we have probably as many manuscripts from India as in Iran in Persian.   That is significant since the dynasties that caused this (Moghuls, Ghaznawids..) were of Altaic origin. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note besides B. Lewis, I can quote a Turkish scholar who pretty much says the same thing: ''The Turks adopted a great many elements of Islam not directly from the Arabs, but via the Iranians. Islamic civilization came to the Turks by way of Transoxiana from Khurasan, the cultural center of Iran. Indeed, some of the great cities of Transoxiana were spiritually far more Iranian than Turkish. Also, the Iranians were no strangers to the Turks, for they had known each other well before the appearance of Islam. For all these reasons, it was the Iranians who guided the Turks into the sphere of Islamic civilization. This fact, naturally, was to have a profound influence on the development of Turkish literature over the centuries"(Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just comparing to show the difference. The Timurids army were essentially Turkic-speaking, but the diwan, on the other hand, was mostly Persian. Of course, many different languages were spoken. One can talk about the language of "diwan" or "dynasty" or "rulers" but it's impossible to state that Persian was a common culture of the peoples, since they were nomads, they did not have the literary tradition, local cultures surely survived but were affected each other, and resulting in a composite one. M.F. Koprulu reference is no different from what's written in the article. It's "the Persianate literary tradition in Islam " that influenced the Turko-Persian, not the entire Persian culture. That's the difference. Of course, that's also a part of the Persian culture. The whole and its parts, ... etc. That's it. Regards. E104421 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Persian was the language of "high culture". Just note the Timurid minature paintings for example, their theme are based on Persian poets and works: Shahnameh, the Khamsa of Nizami, the conference of the birds of Attar, the garden of Sanai and etc.  They all have some Persian poem in them.  Nomads did not produce for example minature painting.  But the minature paintings (virtually all of them having Persian poems) were commisioned directly by the rulers.  Yet the same high culture (specially classical Persian literature) probably affected the culture of the empire, since educated people from any local culture would be acquainted with persian literature since it was a written literature, unlike say the literature of the nomads.  I can give you another example.  Two Turkic dynasties (Eldiguzids of Arran/Azerbaijan and Ahmadilis of Maraqah) commisioned a Persian poet to write a Persian romantic epic and he  chose Sassanid-Persian folklore (that is he chose it not the rulers and considered these stories amongst the sweetest stories).  There were of course many more Persian/Persianate cultured poets who were supported by these rulers.  Mahmud Ghaznawi had 40+ Persian poets, but not a single Turkish poet in his court.  So this was the culture of the court.  Nomads did not produce architecture.  So when a historian looks at the culture, the first thing they would look at is cultural remnants and whas has survived.  Nomads usually do not leave cultural remnants.  Neither do soldiers.  Of course local cultures survived and affected each other, but they were not the culture that the elite expanded, commissioned and supported.  Also anyone educated from the local culture, would naturally be educated in the Persian language.  Given the influence that the educated have on the large uneducated masses, they naturally would be a vehicle for the spread of Persianate culture.  Anyone educated in India during the Mogul period spoke Persian as they speak English now.  But hardly anyone in India spoke Turkic in the Mogul era and the Moguls themselves became Persian speaking.  So that is why despite the Moguls being of Altaic origin, they expanded and supported Persian culture (as per canfield) and  according to him:"strenghthened the Persianate culture of of Muslim India.".  That is the part historians find amazing.  That is basically all these non-Iranic origined dynasty "strenghthened the Persianate culture" and commisioned and supported it.  Why should a turco-mongolian dynasty support Persianate culture and become Persiano-phones despite the fact that Iranians did not have the military power?  Many different reasons have been give.  One reason is that basically had no alternative (in a way Persianate culture was imposed on them just like they imposed their rule through conquest), since a high Turkic culture was not developed yet (except small work in Chagatay again based heavily on Persian and of course the later on Ottoman Turkish which was heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic vocabulary filtered through Persian).(and an interesting side note:  Unfortunately due to political reasons, you can hardly find anyone from Turkey or Uzbekistan that can read Ottoman literature and Chagatay.  But any Iranian can read Shahnameh or Rudaki or Nizami or Hafez..from 1100 years ago till today.).  So I agree the Turko-Persian had Turkic elements too (military and the origin of the dynasties, and even the symbol of Turk-Hindu in Persian literature), but these dynasties were Persianate in culture.  The foundation of their culture (that is the ruling elite who after their conquest tried to separate themselves from the nomadic supporters) like most culture, was music, literature, epic poetry (note these rulers did nothing for say Dede Qorqud and KurOglu but many manuscripts of Shahnameh were commissioned by them.), minature and etc.  All these were Persianate.  The language of the army does not constitute a foundation of culture.  Literature on the other hand is a foundation of culture.  I would say literature is the main foundation of culture since it survives very visibly throughout the centuries.  And note, where as dynasties vanish, their military withers, their soliders die and pass away, it is literature that has survived to a good extent the test of time.  So we shouldn't expect a historian to discuss issues that have not survived or barely survived.  They will look at Timurid minature and literature and ascertain the culture through that.    Regards.   --alidoostzadeh (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * @ E104421: I think it is you who is cherry picking. Of course the word "Persian" is a cultural designation, not merely an ethnic one. But so is also the word "Turk". Many so-called "Turks" were ethnic Mongols or belonged to other, related peoples. The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes:
 * "... The name Türk spread as a political designation during the period of Türk imperial hegemony to their subject Turkic and non-Turkic peoples. ..." (G. Ambros/P.A. Andrews/Ç. Balim in Encyclopaedia of Islam, article "Turks").
 * That's why Manz uses the word "Chaghatayid" instead, in order to prevent confusions.


 * This page is about Islamic states which were using Persian language as the state language and also had Turkic military elements or were ruled by Turkic dynasties. This page is not about Turkic Islam or all aspects of Turkish culture or random quotas about Turks and Islam. Alefbe (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Turkic influence is ignored
The article just repeats itself and goes on and on about the glory of Persian culture while totally ignoring the influence of the Turks.

If we were to "believe" this article, there would be no Turks today and definately no remnants of Turkic culture.

However, the reality is, Turks have continued expanding for a millenia and their culture has made a firm impact on the region.

Alot of the article deals with Persian sufism while paying no attention to Turkish sufism.

Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi is not even mentioned, the most influential sect in early Turkic sufism, the early Turkic way of life was fused with the new Islamic religion. Timur restored his shrine centuries later. There is no mention of the Alperens, Ahis and Aqsaqal which are ancient Turkic institutions, still prominant today.

The Turks treatment of woman is not commented on, the higher level of social status that they enjoyed, the female rulers, first female organisation Baciyan-i Rum, the descriptions by travellers of the age like Ibn Battuta.

There is no mention that Turkish literature flourished during these periods. The Turkic rulers in addition to being patrons for Persian literature also did the same for Turkish. They had the Turkic legends and epics written down for example The Book of Dede Korkut, Koroglu, Alpamysh, the Ottomans sultans learned the Oghuz Kagan legends, Oguzname epics and traced their lineage to Oghuz Kagan. The epic of Saltukname has the first written stories of Nasreddin Hoca in existance.

The Turkish sufi poets, produced alot of literature for Yunus Emre, Nasimi, Shah Ismail. Turkish literature became very well known, for example the works of, Mahmud Kashgari, Yusuf Balasaghuni, Nava'i. Poets like, Fuzuli and Nedim were fusing Turkish and Persian styles. Turkish folk poetry and literature was and still is very popular for example Pir Sultan Abdal, Karacaoglan, Magtymguly, the ashiq/bakshy music tradition is popular across Central Asia, through Iran and into Turkey. Musical modes like Bayat, Bayat-e Turk, Karcigar makami etc have influenced other musical fields.

This is just a brief example, there is so much more, I hope this article becomes a little more realistic.

--Torke (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not about Turkish folklore (Dede Qorqud, KurOglhu, Oghuz Khan) or Persian folklore/myths (Shahnameh, Garshaspnama, Kushnama, Darabnama, Samak Ayyar, Eskandarnama, Banu Goshnasp Nama..and etc.). Nor is it about a philologist like Mahmud Kashghari (who was not known until the last century) or Asadi Tusi.  The article is about Turkic/Turcophone dynasties (not nomadic groups or settled group but actual dynasties) who adopted and spread Persian culture. That is the scholarly definition as it was centered around Iranian letters and Persianate culture.  Dede Qorqud, KorOglu are part of Turkic epics but did not have any impact on Iranic people and were not spread by these dynasties.  On the other hand Shahnameh had a huge impact on the Turkic and Turcophone dynasties and we see the Seljuqs inscribed Shahnameh verses in Konya, Timurids commisioned artworks and minature based on Shahnameh,  while there is no mention of Dede Qorqud (which is deemed as the greatest Turkic epic by some) by such dynasties.  The fact that Ghaznavids for example did not produce a single Turkish writing while they had many Persian poets and etc.  So the article's focus is on the behaviour of some dynasties who were basically a vehicle in spreading Persian culture and language.  For example, Professor Schimmel mentions the subsequent Persianization of the Turkish rulers in India and the Persian poets of Turkish origin (Ghalib, Barani): “In fact, as much as the early rulers felt themselves to be Turks, they connected their Turkish origin not with the Turkish tribal history but rather with the Turan of the Shahnameh; in the second generation their children bears the name of Firdosi’s heroes, and their Turkish lineage is invariably traced back to Afrasiyab-whether we read Barani in the fourteenth century or the Urdu poet master Ghalib in the the nineteenth century.  The poets, and through them probably most of the educated classes felt themselves to be the last outpost tied to the civilized world by the thread of Iranianism”.  You can write about authentic Turkic folklore (Turanians and Afrasiyaabs were Iranian myths) in its own article and write about Koroglu, Oguznama and etc. But the article is about Turko-Persian tradition, not Turkic and Iranic cultures.  So there is no mention of for example Sammak Ayyar or Darabnama.. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, i agree with Ali. The article is not on Turkic culture or Persian culture, but the composite Turko-Persian. Yes, one can claim that there is no need to repeat Turkic and Persian here, again and again. However, i'm in favor of mentioning them briefly but focusing on the composite Turko-Persian. The Turko-phone empires somehow expanded the Persianate culture in Islam, since they adopted the Islamicate literary tradition of Iran, but not the entire Persian culture, of course. Otherwise, there would be no need to call it as "Turko-Persian tradition". That's emphasized in the Canfield reference. Regards. E104421 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized, when i was about to paraphase the B. Lewis quotations, that the first quote is not a one-to-one quotation but a selection of the several sentences from the article "Iran in History by Bernard Lewis". For this reason, in order to prevent both the dublicate and selective editing, i'm summarizing that quote. Please, do not quote partially, since this kind of editing changes the main context of the cited references, and their interpretation. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your alleged summary was POV and was interpretation itself. While B. Lewis says "Iranian civilization", you changed that to "Islamic culture of Iran". You left out the important note that it was the Iranian culture that shaped the Turko-Persian world (see the sentence: "... The center of the Islamic world was under Turkish and Persian states, both shaped by Iranian culture. ..."). I have reverted the edits, but modified the quote, adding [...] to it. Readers can click on the link and read the entire article of B. Lewis.
 * And if you want to summarize the text, summarize BOTH quotes. The second quote of B. Lewis is still irrelevant, because it only deals with Turkish Islam which basically had no effects on the Iranian world. It talks about Turks submitting to Islam and losing all their memories to their pre-Islamic past. What has that to do with the "Turko-Persian tradition"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.85 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2008


 * Readers do not have to fill-in the blanks in the quotations. Your selective editing is misleading readers. E104421 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should propose the summary in the talkpage before implementing. I agree we need to summarize both quotes.  Until there is an agreement, we should have the full quotes.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your quoation is not a full one-to-one quoation but a compilation of selected sentences from the article "Iran in History by Bernard Lewis". Up to yesterday, i did not recognize it, since i trust you. Please, do not quote partially, since this kind of editing changes the main context of the cited references, and their interpretation. For this reason, in order to prevent both the dublicate and selective editing, i summarized that quote. You can also summarize it. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are talking about. It is a full quotation .  I have just taken the fourth paragraph up to "A seventeenth..".  So it full.  Of course I can not quote the whole article so I am just quoting four sentences. Four sentences is itself a summary but we can summarize further as long as it is discussed in the talk page first.  Also I should have put a "..." for the last sentence, but all the sentences are from that article.  I just copied it I believe from here (the talk page).  I will summarize it soon myself, but the other B.Lewis quote should be summarized as well, since some parts are not relavent.  Thanks--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Turco-Persian traditions?
What is the hell a Turco-Persian tradition? Turks didn´t and still don´t have an own culture nor any kind of traditions. They have adoptet the persian culture from 1000 A.D to modern days. It´s a fact. Some so-called turkish dynasties (Ghaznawids, Seldjukes, Khawarismians, Ottomans...) hadn´t a turkish culture or traditions but have adoptet Persian customs along with the arabic Islam. This article is a joke. Turks, as originally nomads and they are still dominantly nomads, came close to civilizations so some of them adoptet the native traditions. The article should get renamed into Persian culture/traditions and the turkish invasion with its consequenses


 * Why such a negative prejudice? Every group of people have it's own cultural items . Either Turkic tribes of post migration/invasion to Iran or after that, had their own cultural figures.Although Turkic culture was not a culture of big cities , but still it was a tribal and nomadic culture. They had many traditions.After migration/invasion to Iran, their culture changed so much and turned to a new civilization . The ancient culture of Iran (Persia), also gained many figures from Turkic tribes culture :Indeed the backbone of Iranian military in all time after the Turkic migration was Turkish. Oral traditions of common Turko-Persian culture had many Turkic elements and also some -although not many- literal innovations....The religious domination of Shia in Iran took place only after Turkic element mixed with "Persian Islam" (which was not uniform and heterogeneous)and many other notable cultural items ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Sure, Turks had their own barbaric and savage stepe culture but when they entered the civilizised world they adoptet islam and with it the culture of the native population, Persians and other iranic people. Show me only one aspect that Persians have adoptet from Turks, just one aspect. If you believe Shia faith is a result of Turkic elements and Islam than you are wrong. Shia faith was always (from the 6 century) a symbol for anti-arabism and when Persians have adoptet Islam it was turned more into a nationalistic movement. Turks have nothing to do with Shia group, nor with any kind of culture or civilization. The only thing they did was to spread the iranic civilization up to Vianna and India and with it the Persian culture, also some strong and great Persian dynasties did it before the Turkic invasions of India and Balkan (Ghurids, Samanids, Kart Maliks, Ganjshakaris, Sassanids...)--84.59.202.126 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the only one who in this context shows that he hasn't got a culture is you. Do you even yourself really believe in this things you are talking about here? In your "argument" I just see a little bit of hate against Turks caused by complexes against them. What you show here is typical for Paniranists. They always try the same way by telling Turkish history is their own, Turkish empires are their own and so on. They even say that Turks doesnt exist. lol. It is pretty funny to watch but yeah you do your job great. :) Why it is so hard to understand that the Iranians are ruled by Turks over hundred of years and that the most of them in the past were turkic? Why do you believe that the people living there haven't anything adobted? Even now you are ruled by Azeris (and you try to make them Iranians) so what are you talking about? From which Persian tradition are you talking right know? Does the one who rules over some others adobt something or is the other way more serious? Just use your brain and you will get the answer.


 * "Turks didn´t and still don´t have an own culture nor any kind of traditions ... bla bla bla... Turks had tehir own barbaric and savage stepe culture ... bla bla bla .. nor with any kind of culture or civilization" haha you made my day. How big must a complex be to talk some real bullshit like that? You should read less paniranian propaganda and just look into some history books even if the reality is hard for you. Orano (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not "Persian Culture" that influenced Turks. It was Islamic culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.199.137 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But the guy above is right. Turkic people, originally nomads that entered central Asia, and even today mostly nomadic, have adoptet the culture of Indo-European people of Asia from the ancient times. There is a big difference between Turks who live isolated from so-called islamized Turks as there is a difference between Turks who came as nomads with Mongols to central Asia and modern Turks. Those who are Muslims have adoptet the Iranic culture and even their identity (calling themself sons of Iranic heroes is only one part of their seeking for a new urban identity-->Ghaznavids, Indo-Ghurids, Mughals of India, Seldjukes, Khwarezmian Shahs, Timurids...). They were promoting Persian language and Iranic culture and at the same time fighting every aspect of arabic influence. Remarkeble is also, Turks became Muslims in the ranks of Iranic soldiers and traders (Samanids, Ghurians, Abbasides...). In that case Turks are surely Iranized since they have adoptet the Iranic Islam of central Asia, called by Arabs Islam e Ajami - Persian Islam. Turkic culture is different than of Arabs, but the same as Iranic people have, in faith they are surely close as Sunni Muslims to Arabs but also far away of them since central Asian´s Islam is different than that of Arabs, who follow strictly another islamic school with another philosophy that had never influence in Asia.--Draco of Utopia (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories
The Turko-Persian tradition is a tradition had practiced about 1000 years and almost all dynasties and kingdoms in Iranian plateau, Anatolia and Central Asia as well as many other dynasties in India are involved. It covers 1000 years of history of these countries. Therefore it is simplistic to limit it to only Samanids and Otamans.--Larno Man (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That would mean that Turks ruled all over these regions for 1000 years which is absolutely wrong. There were more Iranic dynasties that influenced Turkic states after the Turko-Mongolian invasion than there were Turkic dynasties that took Iranic culture and language to India and Europe.--Draco of Utopia (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They did not take Iranic culture, rather Iranic culture has been heavily influenced by Arabs and Islam with approximately 40% of Farsi words being Arabic in origin and the great social and cultural impact Islam had on Farsiwan lands (cannot be limited to modern day Iranians). The Turks were simply integrating into a broader Islamic world, and Iran which was Sunni at the time, was simply a part. So many of the influences from both Persia and the Arabs was due to Islam. Also, the Sufis who wrote a lot of texts in Farsi were an important part of this process as Turks essentially came into Islam via Sunni-Sufism. It is a very narrow POV you Iranian nationalists are promoting. Not to mention, the Persians whom the Turks learned Islam from were Sunnis and their concentration is in Central Asia, not modern day Iran. Historynerdboy (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Article title = FAKE
In English, the correct compound prefix for "Turkish" is "Turco-" (from Latin). This article was obviously created as a pet project by a person unfamiliar with [academic] English. For further insight, see wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.11.111 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Name change; Not Turco-Persian but Turco-Islamic
It would be wrong to call this Turco-Persian. Because this culture among the Turks emerged after the adoption of Islam. Therefore, a mixture of Arab and Persian culture and Turkic culture was experienced. For this reason, I think its name should be called "Turco-Islamic tradition". Please do not make stupid claims. Ulpionz (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What you think is completely irrelevant. It's what the sources say that matters. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ulpionz, it was Islamic influence and this article is neglecting the role of Arabs and Arabic culture which heavily influenced Persia. Some estimate that approximately 40% of Persian words are Arabic origin. Arabs and Islam had huge influences on Persian culture and society. Historynerdboy (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing Encyclopedic Content
If Wikipedia requires sourced information only, how come this article is allowed to be filled with claims with no citations? The fact that many sentences (a full article) are written before citations are given is suspicious. Is the task here to make the claims then to find any sentence in any book to back it up later? He2020 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Very Biased Article
The article treats Persian culture as monolithic and ignores all Turkic influence. It also fails to address the Arabic and Islamic influence on Persian culture, which adds to the monolithic perspective of a single Persian culture that has existed since ancient times. Reality shows that Persian culture, language and society has been heavily influenced by Arabs and Islam. Almost 40% of Persian words are Arabic origin, yet this article neglects that as well. It neglects the Greek influence on Persia. It neglects the Turkic influences on Persia and says that Turks gave up everything except their lineage. This is nonsense. Rather, Turks were integrating into a broader Islamic world and Persia was seen as a part of the Islamic world, not as a continuation of Pre-Islamic Persian culture. Historynerdboy (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)