Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic states and empires


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Turkic states and empires

 * — (View AfD)

from its title and its contents, it is obvious that it was created for Pan Turkism propaganda. I don't think, we have any such kind of articles (e.g.: Aryan states and empires) in Wikipedia now. --Pejman47 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it has somehow some similarities to this: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16--Pejman47 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However, this was voted for keep: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23..Baristarim. In any case, the criteria for TfDs is much more lax than for AfDs. See the relevant Wikipedia casework for more information. Baristarim 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the subjects of them were two different things. the later was only about the countries with an official turkic language, the second was created just for propaganda and was deleted by humblefool&reg; because of a "a nasty pan-turkic bias" an admin can view the deleted templates and articles and I invite him to compare this article to that template. The last thing: I don't thing, your vote campaigning (via email?) make the things different. --Pejman47 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepThat you think it was created for Pan Turkism is your opinion, i dont think the article implies that all. It is a noteworthy list of states with a Turkic heritage and it does have academic footing, for example see Hugh Pope, 2005. Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World or Carter Vaughn Findley, 2004. The Turks in World History. --A.Garnet 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nomination following many edit-wars in Turkic-Persian articles. There is nothing in there for "pan-Turkist" propaganda, the comparison with "Aryan states and empires" is childish, in bad-faith and not academic. Turkic peoples and Turkic languages articles exist. This is not a template either. There is nothing wrong with such a list, there are many states that have been considered "Turkic" for many major academic works. I woud like to remind that, even though many editors tried to argue until the sky turned green how the usage of the word "Aryan" in the English language has definitely shifted from the anthropological definition, this has not gotten through to some people. "Turkic" has never suffered such a degeneration. The comparision is baseless: there is no such article Aryan peoples, nor are there serious academic sources that advocate such categorization. However, there are articles such as Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples The case here is similar to "Hellenic empires" or "Hellenic states". There is a similar article at Hellenistic civilization. Many of those states listed have been categorized as "Turkic" by major academic sources over the centuries. Extremely bad-faith nomination and unencyclopedic behavior. The actual countries listed have also been listed as "Turkic" by major academic and news organizations. If editors would take a close look at the article, they will see that arguments center on 5-6 states of 14th century Central Asia that have been listed, with arguments such as "Turkic-speaking, but not of origin" or "Turkic origin, but not of culture". That is not the basis for the article's deletion.Baristarim 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the template Turkic-speaking was voted to keep in the TfD that you mentioned Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23..Baristarim 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry, i corrected the link. and something else, do you consider pan turkism as an inusult? I just wanted to remind you that you have also used pan iranian many times (e.g. )--Pejman47 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, and calling the creators of this article as pan-Turkist is much worse. You reverted my addition of the reference from the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition, so don't be pretending that you were reverting some good ol' pan-Turkist. It is you who should get a grip. In any case, I would strongly suggest you to not engage in ad hominim attacks. Baristarim 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the website of the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition, co-created by a professor of Harvard University, entitled "Turks: The journey of a thousand years: 600-1600 ..Baristarim 16:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite some disputes over the content of some sections, it's a fairly well defined list. This comment isn't part of the discussion, but wouldn't a list of "Aryan" nations be pretty short? "Pan-Aryanism" kinda got put out of business in May 1945, didn't it? ;-) Tubezone 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * again, the motivation of the creators of this article is obvious. It is also POV. I don't have time to answer all of your long replies. (from that TfD, I have memorized your responses) (I will let the admins or users decide, by readying that article). and my last reply to you: do we have Semitic States, Arabic States or Iranian States or .... articles? and most of the sources provided are not academic. And it is also interesting that you have put e.g. Khazars Huns Kara-Khanid Khanate Later Tang Dynasty Later Jin Dynasty Later Han Dynasty in China Ghaznavid Empire Siberia Khanate and etc.  by looking at those articles, every body who hasn't a solid idea before; will decide who has a "bad faith"
 * so, i let the admins decide; good luck--Pejman47 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't put those in these, I've never edited the article. Also, they're in the disputed section, you can always bring up content disputes on the article's talk page. Some of the other articles you mention apparently already exist under different names. Tubezone 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely bad faith comments of non-academic character. Later Tang Dynasty Later Jin Dynasty Later Han Dynasty in China were founded by Shatuo Turks, see the relevant articles before you insult others by calling them pan-Turkist etc. Here is the link from Brittanica for Shatuo Turks . This is really unacademic and insulting behavior for such nominations to take place. Baristarim 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The level of hate and unacademic behavior is astounding. From the article Late Tang dynasty: It was also the first in a series of three dynasties ruled by the Shatuo Turks,. Got any more questions? I suggest you read the relevant articles, make some research on the subject before insulting others of "pan-Turkism". Is the Brittanica also pan-Turkist? Baristarim 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Why someone does not want to have a list of turkic states? This page is a good directory page for someone who wants to read about the history of Turks and Turkic states. If we don't have the list of Semitic States, Arabic States or Iranian States, then someone who has the knowledge and the sources must create them. If there is a problem on historical accuracy, then we must discuss it in the talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there already is Template:Semitic-speaking --A.Garnet 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep.."Delete" proposal is nationalist aproach not the article.Some admins should take into consideration these all anti-Turkist attacks. Must TC 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Besides the fact that this article contains sountless POV, has no reliable sources, and serves Pan-Turkistic propaganda, there are no articles called List of Germanic states (containing Germany, USA, UK, etc) or a List of Slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria, etc) either ... Tājik 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tajik, you have been blocked countless times for edit warring and incivility on a wide range of Turkic-Persian articles, so please spare others the accusations of disruption. Many of those states have been called Turkic for centuries by major academic sources. There is nothing wrong with creating an article for states that have been founded by slavic peoples either. If it hasn't been done, that's not our concern. Please stop accusing others of racism. Criteria for AfDs is not the same as TfDs, and I would like to remind you that template Turkic speaking easily survived a TfD, and a template Semitic speaking also exists. This article is a simple grouping of states that have been founded by Turkic peoples over the ages. Your concerns center on 5-6 states in the list, and that with arguments such as "turkic origin, but not turkic speaking" or "turkic-speaking, but not of turkic-origin". Please take these disputes to the article's talk page. Maybe you should have gone to that Royal Academy of Arts exhibition I mentioned earlier :) I easily addressed another non-academic allegation that Pejman made about the three dynasties, so this shows what a bad faith nomination this is.Baristarim 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned above, if we don't have such pages like germanic states etc, we certainly must create them. We already have the page on Turkic states and trying to delete it means damaging wikipedia intentionally. Caglarkoca 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Am I dreaming or are there other articles at Arab world and Slavic Europe? I am sure that the creators of the article made a reasonable choice of words there. They could have also used "Turkic world" or "Turkic Eurasia". Tajik, you just said "there is no article "List of Slavic states grouping Russia and Bulgaria etc" - well, take a close look here and stop your insults of racism. And if I am not having problems with my eyes, I just saw Russia and Bulgaria shown together on a map. Such articles and templates already exist. Baristarim 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the fact that you didn't even know that there was a list of slavic countries listed under a same article, and your God-like affirmation to its non-existence, when it actually existed, casts serious doubts on your good faith and so-called knowledgability of the subject matter. Pleas stop throwing around affirmations of non-truths around; it is called disruption.Baristarim 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tajik, what utter non-sense have you been spewing around? Germanic Europe article also exists.. As well as Latin Europe And all this after your GOD-LIKE affirmations that "there are no Germanic states in one article!", "there are no Slavic states in one article!" These are your words: there are no articles called List of Germanic states (containing Germany, USA, UK, etc) or a List of Slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria, etc) either ...  So may I ask what the hell are Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe and Latin Europe articles doing there? Not to mention Arab world.. Please, I really wanna hear your response after all those insults of pan-Turkism aimed at many editors of Wikipedia and your affirmations that there have never ever been such articles and that this article is racist, pan-Turkist and blah blah... Baristarim 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Germanic Europe regroups Germany and the UK, so your argument that "there are no lists or maps that regroup Germany/UK monsieur!!!" simply, and utterly, falls flat out I am afraid. I would be keeping it down if it weren't for the fact that certain users have been constantly edit warring on Turco-Persian articles for ages. This bad faith nomination is really the last straw. Baristarim 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments: Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe are only LISTS of PRESENT Slavic-speaking states ONLY in EUROPE. This article, however, is another attempt of Turkish nationalists to infiltrate Wikipedia with their POV. The article would be totally correct if it were only limitted to the present Turkic states, with a small notification that these nations also include large numbers of NOn-Turkic minorities (Russians, Kurds, etc). But this article is POV because it tries to establish the biased claim that these nations are "Turkic by nature". It also contains a totally POV section about history - of course the way Pan-Turkists want history to look like. All kinds of historical kingdoms and states - some of them still a big myth (Huns), some of them not really Turkic (Khwarezm Shahs, Ghaznavids) - are claimed as Turkic states, and the confusing intro does not justify ANYTHING. Tājik 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, FALSE... First of all, it is normal that there only the slavic states in Europe, since there have never been slavic states in Africa. If there were, I am sure the title of the article would have been modified to take that into account. This article also lists only the Turkic states in Eurasia, since there haven't been any Turkic states in South America. Secundo, this article lists current Turkic states, and those that have been defunct in 20th century to begin with, and then gives another list of states since the Gokturks. Slavic Europe does a similar thing, there are also the mentions of "Mongol invasion", "Ottoman invasion", "Holy Roman Empire", "Austria-Hungarian Empire", "Imperial Russia" in the article. Stop using the chewbacca defense and please stop trying to confuse other editors in to believing non-truths. The article's format is very similar to other similar articles. If you think that the article's history section could be better formatted, please raise those objections in its talk page. Personally, I would also prefer it to be extended so that it is not a simple list, but there are no editors that work on this article 24h a day, so give them a break. Of the whole list, your only objections center on 5-6 entities, and that only on grounds of "Turkic-speaking, but not of origin", or "Turkic-origin, but not of culture". They can all be addressed using the talk page. Some editors, including you, have been working to extend the history section so that it is more informative. So what is the problem? Baristarim 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are wrong! OF COURSE there are "Slavic states" outside of Europe: Kazakhstan's population is 1/3 slavic, most of Russia is in Asia, and even Alaska used to be Russian territory. There are countless Germanic states outside of Europe, including the USA, South Africa, and Australia. However, there no such a list containing all of these nations and propagating some sick Pan-Germanic or Pan-Slavic propaganda. None of these articles contains a list of pseudo-historical claims. THAT's the difference. Tājik 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again wrong.. The chewbacca defense at work again. Russia is already listed. Did you take a look at the article? The fact that Russia is transcontinental is not our business. As for Kazakhstan, its inclusion concerns the editors of that page, that's a content dispute more appropriate to its talk page. I would like to remind you that there are only "seven" nation-states that are listed there? There is no sick pan-turkic propaganda, otherwise Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, Iraq, Iran etc would have been included as well. There is no such list in this article, please stop spreading non-truths around. You first claimed that there was no such list, it was proven to be wrong. Than you said it was only for modern states, that was also proven to be wrong, since there are mentions of states of 13th century. Just keep going :) Baristarim 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Articles are better to be written by someone who knows the topic well enough. I find this article as well as Slavic Europe is wrong in more then a couple of things, so any efforts to improve them would be welcomed.Dreambringer 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Very useful page. There are similar pages in Wikipedia, so why deleting the Turkic-related ones. The accusation of pan-?-ism is turned out be a main slogan of the ones who try to dispute every Turkic-related entry in Wikipedia. I'm wondering whether these attempts are the part of anti-Turkic propaganda. If it is, this would be a good arbitration case. Regards. E104421 10:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. Grandmaster 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Simple facts are listed there. No need to be agitatedneurobio 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Baristarim, Tubezone; the analogy with the Germanic/Slavic articles is compelling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Simply having a list of Turkic states does not and cannot serve any ideology. Listing one common factor about these countries is well within the scope of wikipedia. --Free smyrnan 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep What's next? Delete Turks?--Doktor Gonzo 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Why delete subject that is exisiting in debates and discussions.  If someone wants to find out about "Turkic States", why not to find the answer in Wikipedia?--Ulvi I. 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Is usefull information 195.169.153.80 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is useful first of all. Academically reasanoble - there is a group of Turkic-speaking people. There is a number of publication on Turkic peoples and states. Just type in Amazon.com. Anyway, it is in spirit of Wikipedia - openness, democracy and inclusiveness.--Dacy69 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but with a mass of corrections, since there are a great number of mistakes in the article. All mentioned Autonomous Republics in Russia are just Republics now or  or, in all mentioned Republics official language is Russian, and, in some cases, other secondary official languages. Next – I don’t get it why to mention all former Soviet Republics in defunct countries, because they are just the same countries, that mentioned in Nation states…Dreambringer 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep, but clean up the problems noted by Dreambringer OinkOink 00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.