Jump to content

Talk:Turkestan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

Is somebody trying to start a "paper trail" of some kind? This attempt to create a Turkestan on Wikipedia is highly suspect. One might as well try to change the name of Barcelona to "Occupied Catalonia" or France to "Occupied Basque Land" or some such thing. It's impossible to write this article in its present form without losing NPOV. Perhaps a franker discussion of the political goals of some Uyghurs? That could illuminate the term, and how the reader might encounter it in an article. Profhum (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Profhun, you should read up on the subject. Turkestan is a genuine ethnogeographic region, it is referenced in many scholarly books. You should read up on the subject. Here is a reading list for you (all available on amazon com):

  • The Arts and Crafts of Turkestan (Arts & Crafts) by Johannes Kalter.
  • The Desert Road to Turkestan (Kodansha Globe) by Owen Lattimore.
  • Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion. by W. BARTHOLD.
  • Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire by Daniel Brower.
  • Tiger of Turkestan by Nonny Hogrogian.
  • Turkestan Reunion (Kodansha Globe) by Eleanor Lattimore.
  • Turkestan Solo: A Journey Through Central Asia, by Ella Maillart.
  • Mission to Turkestan,: Being the memoirs of Count K.K. Pahlen, 1908-1909 by Konstantin Konstanovich Pahlen.
  • Turkestan: The Heart of Asia by Curtis.
  • Tribal Rugs from Afghanistan and Turkestan by Jack Frances.
  • The Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkestan and the Central Asian Khanates from the Earliest Times by Edward Den Ross.

WillMall (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Only a part of Turkestan

In the Overview Turkestan is identified by these words: " historically as Sogdiana, Ma wara'u'n-nahr wara'u'n-nahr ..." Well this isn't exactly so. Ma wara'u'n-nahr is the territory between the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya. That region is only a part of Turkestan.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding map

Upon the request, I added the map of Turkistan, which is also available in the versions of other languages. The map is appropriate for the description of the term available in the online dictionary of Oxford University Press, Online Edition. BozokluAdam (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did the term come from?

Where did this term come from? Can parts of Europe and America be termed Africastan because there are so many peoples of African ancestry living there? 86.156.253.93 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact is that the term is real and dates from at least the 19th century. It is referenced in many books as the reading list in the article indicates. Turkic peoples are indigenous to the region. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan are all Turkic Republics in Turkestan. WillMall (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it still isn't a country with a flag. This 'article' is propaganda and should be revised properly or deleted.

The comment above is unsigned as I post this. Disagree on the "propaganda" allegation, but I do think that the article should define the article as being about a region with presumably undefinable boundries. The "turkestan" flag is very misleading, and how it is presented probably does cross the line into "propaganda". As an aside, I've understood that the "-istan" suffix meant "woods" or "wooded area", possibly "forest", so that "Pakistan" means (Paki)"woods", etc... If this is true, then the etymology in the 1st sentence seems flawed. Article is worth keeping (opposed to delete), but needs a heavy dose of "full disclosure".Jonny Quick (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-sourced edits.

Parishan has recently begun to make non-sourced edits. Could you please show a source that agrees with the borders of the map? if not, then you are clearly making disprutive edits. By the way, words like these: clearly, because borders of historical regions almost never coincide with modern state borders; and Tajikistan WAS part of the Russian administrative unit of Turkestan, won't help. You have to show a source that shows that Turkestan was like this (and don't compare it to other things). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, starting from those quoted in some Wikipedia articles:
also
  • "Pottery of Tureng Tepe culture from Gorgan plain of Iranian Turkestan ( ~ 3000 B.C.) was studied by Bouchez et al. (1974)." [1]
  • "Not to be confused with the city of Turkestan in Southern Kazakhstan region, Russian Turkestan included most of Alma-Ata and Southern Kazakhstan regions, as well as land in present-day Kyrghyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan." [2]. Parishan (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So what about the source about Iran? by the way the third link doesn't work. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did provide a source about Iran, where it mentions the Gorgan plain as being part of Iranian Turkestan. For the third link, you can go to "www.iranicaonline.org" and search for "Torkestan". Parishan (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The third link doesn't have anything to do with the Turkestan region, it is a mountain range, try to read it more carefully. I am still awaiting a reliable source for Iran. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a mountain range that stretches across Afghanistan. In any event, as I said, there are plenty of sources even cited on the articles I have linked you to with regard to Afghan Turkestan. As for Iran, I have already provided a link: [3]: "Pottery of Tureng Tepe culture from Gorgan plain of Iranian Turkestan (~ 3000 B.C.) was studied by Bouchez et al. (1974)." Parishan (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That link you just showed is not even reliable, if you actually read carefully once again, then you can see that it is a book about science, not history. Thus it is unreliable, it is a book about science from a non-historian. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a historian? Turkestan is not necessarily a historical concept, it applies to a geographical area, and the term is still in use today. Parishan (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is how the rules are; we need reliable sources for these kind of things. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. And what exactly makes you think Geoffrey Longworth is unreliable? Parishan (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? did you even read what i wrote? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly did. What makes you think "I am kidding you"? Parishan (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No because if you really did you clearly wouldn't have asked that question. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with inquiring about your motives to doubt the reliability of Geoffrey Longworth as a source, given that we are not discussing a strictly historical concept here? Parishan (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple as it: he is not a historian, therefor, not reliable. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does he need to be a historian? Turkestan is a geographical area, not only historical. Parishan (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what makes it reliable; a historian. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Says who? Parishan (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Says the Wikipedian rules and every other person who knows the difference between a historian and a scientist. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You are just dragging this discussion for no obvious reason. It does not have to be a historian, so please stop making up rules. If there is an academic source, historical or non-historical, which defines a geographical area called "Iranian Turkestan", this is already a valid enough reason to keep the map.
And here is more: "Weakness of Admiral Koltchak has enabled them to obtain reinforcements via Orenburg, and they count upon seizing Krasnovodsk and obtaining control over the Caspian. The aim of seizing Khorasan was allegedly to set up a link between Iranian Turkestan, the Southern Caspian coast and Iranian Azerbaijan, something that put Khorasan in "imminent danger"." [4] Parishan (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Another source: [5] [6] "das iranische Turkestan umfaßt die Provinz Gorgan sowie die östlichen Randländer der Provinz Chorassan" ("Iranian Turkestan covers the province of Gorgan and the eastern edge of the province of Khorasan"). (Reiner Olzscha, Georg Cleinow. Turkestan. Koehler & Amelang, 1942) Parishan (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion

There was no never such thing as "Turkestan" nor was Northern Afghanistan ever reffered as "Turkestan." This name is coined by Pan-Turkic nationalists who want to claim all of Central Asia to themselves despite not even being native here. Whats the point of having an article about a place that never existed? Akmal94 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that refer to that part of Afghanistan as Turkestan, see the discussion above. Parishan (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

they speak alien bybybybybybybybybybybbybyby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.81.162 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The map is fiction

The map includes Dzungaria and parts of Mongolia whose natives were non-Turkic Dzungars and other Oirats. on the flip side, it excludes massive parts of Turkic Kazakhstan. This map needs to be removed.Rajmaan (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked sockmaster. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan/Archive --Wario-Man (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit tag

As written, the content of the Overview section is just more history of the region. Consequently, we shouldn't have a separate heading for Overview and History. signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Britannica

@HistoryofIran:, you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist. --Beshogur (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you seriously create this section just to accuse me of nonsense? You know, you could just have asked me of proof, like any constructive user would do. I'm on phone atm, gimme a sec. HistoryofIran (talk)
I would wait. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you changed your comment to that, since you yourself linked it [7]. This is what I was about to post: You said it yourself. This article is certainly not one of those "general non-controvertial topics". Claiming Turkestan was half of Asia is pure fantasy. If If I remember correctly, the term is in reality more or less a synonym of Transoxiana, per Rezakhani and whatnot. HistoryofIran (talk)
So do you have other sources to put this aside? If not, why removing it? Also I do not see any controversy here. If that term is for Transoxiana, why is East Turkestan called "east"? It's just your opinions. Considering East Turkestan is 1,6m km2, 2,6m km2 doesn't look a silly claim at all. Perhaps we remove that map? Beshogur (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not my opinion, can you stop trying to assume what I am thinking? I've removed Britannica and added actual reliable sources, cheers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move as Turkestan is the primary topic for the namespace. Seems as though everything in terms of redirects etc is back to the status quo. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Turkestan → Turkestan (historical region) – I made a disambiguation page called Turkistan, however I want to change this to Turkestan. For this we need to move this page as I said. There are lot of articles called Turkistan or Turkestan. Opinions? Beshogur (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Türkistan is a redirect targeting Turkestan but nothing at Turkistan uses that spelling, so I removed it from the intro (and did other MoS fixes). I do prefer the formatting at the newer DAB, so it could be merged into Turkestan (disambiguation), but to nobody's surprise the two DABs have much the same entries. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is, it has to get to that page when we write "Turkestan". So without a "(disambiguation)" tag. Beshogur (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? The disambiguation page is linked in hatnote per WP:DABLINK. Presumably consensus is that the article at Turkestan is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You are, in effect, asserting that there is WP:NOPRIMARY, but you've not shown any evidence of that. Editors should not be linking to disambiguation pages in the article body text. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

*Comment. This nomination is malformed. There's no notice at Turkistan per WP:RM#Request all associated moves explicitly. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)The nominator has reverted it to being a redirect. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkestan/Archive_1&oldid=1210769606"