Jump to content

Talk:Aq Qoyunlu

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SporkBot (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 28 January 2023 (Repair or remove missing or deleted templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

[Untitled]

"Turkish: Aq Qoyunlu" doesn't look right to me. I won't pretend to be fluent in Turkish or anything, but as a student of the language I'm yet to find the letter Q in it. The Black Sheep Turkmen are listed in Turkish as "Karakoyunlular", and it wouldn't surprise me if these Turkmen would actually be the "Akkoyunlular"

BigHaz 10:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The q is from Azeri. They are both arbitrary designations for kaf.

History of Iran

First of all, Ak Koyunlular is a Turkish state. And there's no reason to put History of Iran. Even in the western language, people says White Sheep Turks (which means Ak Koyun in Turkish) . History of Iran is irrelevant in here. I removed it.

Like I said in the Kara Koyunlu discussion, the capital of both Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu was Tabriz, which nowadays is an Iranian city. It is perfectly fair to say that they are part of Iran's history. Parishan 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not History Of İran Rayin Əhmədli (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-n-Paste Move

There's a history of a cut-and-paste move made by by Tajik in May 2006 ([1], [2]). Such moves sidestepping the normal "move" functionality must be avoided. Wait a moment so I can clean this up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've repaired it technically by merging the page histories of the two versions. Please note that I have personally not the slightest preference whether this should be on the one name or the other. Please work it out together and then do a Requested Move if necessary. Please do not re-create an article at the other location without properly moving this one. For the moment, I've used the "K" version, for the sole reason that it was the older article and hence, on a mere technical level, the more "legitimate" one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Sorting

Please feel free to reassign this article to a different stub category, but please don't just remove a specific template and replace it with the uncategorised stub tag. Thanks. Jeodesic 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

The CORRECT spelling of the name is Aq Qoyunlū. The q-sound is an original Turkic sound only lost in modern Anatolian Turkish (which replaces it with a normal /k/ sound), while it is preserved in almost all other Turkic languages.

The Aq Qoylunlu Turcomans were a Turkic tribe from Central Asia who were deported to the Caucasus by Timur.

Besides the historical facts, the spelling Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu are also used by major scholarly and academic sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Cambridge History of Iran.

See "Aq Qoyunlu" in Encyclopaedia Iranica (by Prof. Dr. Quiring-Zoche)

Tājik 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica, eh? :) You know Tajik, I really don't think that people that lived 800 years ago would have cared if a Q or a K was used for their names in a 21th century online encyclopedia in English language.. More so considering the fact that they didn't even use the Latin alphabet.. But again, there have been edit-wars for much less, so I am really dreading the day this page will be unprotected, sadly. In any case, please remember that this has not much to do with "Q" being lost in modern Turkish, the character "q" is simply not used in Turkish.. I mean, we are not even debating between two completely different sounds!! Q or K - what is the exact difference between these two? Aq qoyunlu would be pronounced in a way very similar to Ak koyunlu.. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm only saying that I just don't see the difference between Q and K in real terms, that's all.. Baristarim 12:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer my own comment here for once: The difference seems to be that between a common English spelling with "k" (used by many general-purpose sources like Britannica, Columbia, the Library of Congress catalogs etc., and a lot more common on Google), and a more specialist spelling with "q" (used by EncIsl and others.) "Q" is undoubtedly the philologically more "correct" version, as it's the exact transliteration of the historical Arabic spelling, and probably also phonologically appropriate for Older Turkic. The difference is really a lot like that between Koran and Qur'an, or Mohammed and Muhammad. General-purpose literature will often prefer the "simpler" k spellings; more specialist literature geared to Oriental Studies and similar fields will prefer the q spellings. In general Google counts "k" is much more common, but if you count only on .edu, the two are roughly on a par. My gut feeling would have been that Wikipedia should go for the "simpler" English spelling (k), but apparently in cases like "Qur'an" we've chosen the "philological" version with q. Now, do with this whatever you like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still go with the "Q", because even the Azri version - the direct descendant of the language spoken by the White Sheep Turcomans - of the name is Aq Qoyunlu.
Another option would be "White Sheep Turcomans", like the German Wikipedia.
I would lso like to add that Britannica uses both versions. The Anatolian Turkish version "Ak Koyunlu" is certainly wrong. Also note that Wikipedia uses Göktürks instead of the more common "Gok Turks" in English.
Tājik 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia Iranica is not a reliable source. If you look Britannica you would learn the right spelling. If you like you can look at how Turkmes wrote it at The Turkmen Tribal Federation Ak Koyunlu. Or you can look at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. All these resources are valid and famous. No one should think Encyclopaedia Iranica as a reliable source. Because a lot of stuff has been changed in favor of Iran in this Encyclopaedia. My resources are much more known than some Iranic/Islamic unreliable source. Sorry mister, but correct spelling is "AK KOYUNLU" Some other resources: Ackland Art Museum; Iran Heritage Foundation; Middle East Open Encyclopedia; Encyclopædia Britannica Australia; ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ cagataycebi
Also i like to add something. I've look at "Aq Qoyunlu" in Encyclopaedia Iranica (by Prof. Dr. Quiring-Zoche). This profesor tells that: AQ QOYUNLUÚ or WHITE SHEEP, a confederation of Turkman tribes who ruled in eastern Anatolia and western Iran until the Safavid conquest in 907-08/1501­-03. Then says that: The origin of the Aq Qoyunlu tribes likewise remains obscure. I cannot believe this. First he says they are Turks; then adds their origins are not known. How can you trust such a source? I am sorry but I ask for more reliable source in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.124.60 (talk • contribs).
I'm afraid if you want to convince others you'll first have to make a bit more of an effort to understand what others are saying. We are not dealing with a question of "right and wrong" here. Both spellings exist, both are used in the relevant literature, both are correct. It's just a question of what is most common and what is most consistent with Wikipedia usage elsehwere. Please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea! But let's look how this started: Tajik had said: "The CORRECT spelling of the name is Aq Qoyunlū." So that shows us, somebody is trying to prove Ak Koyunlu is not correct; therefore it is wrong. You are saying "there's no wrong or right" to me. Let's look another sentence of Tajik: "The Anatolian Turkish version "Ak Koyunlu" is certainly wrong." As you see, someone constantly tries to prove Ak Koyunlu is wrong. By the way, if you search Aq Qoyunlu it gives 905 results whereas Ak Koyunlu gives 14,800 results. So Ak Koyunlu is much much more common than Aq Qoyunlu. In the Kara Koyunlu article, Tajik comes with same arguments and tries to change the title of Kara Koyunlu. I'm very concerned of these acts; because if the title is changed; this would mislead people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.215.124.60 (talk • contribs).
So, then the right thing to do for both of you is to stop bickering and stop playing the silly "right or wrong" games. Make an argument with respect to commonness and to Wikipedia naming practices if you must. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I've unprotected both articles for further editing and, for the time being, have changed the intro sentence in both to mention both spellings side by side. I've kept move protection on until the final location has been determined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


آق قویونلو is the correct literation in Arabic, Turkish and Persian. The ق is pronounced as Q in all three languages. Anatolian Turkish due to Greek influence has lots it Q but Q is originally part of all Ataic languages. --alidoostzadeh 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Encyclopedia Iranicaspecializes in middle eastern history. Now the term Aq- Qoyunlu is correct because the letter Q exists in Azerbaijani Turkish. The letter Q (Arabic Qaf) does not exist in Anatolian Turkish because the Greeks did not have such a sound. The Persian and Arabic and Turkish spelling of the dynasty is : آق قویونلو. The letter ق is Q. Anatolian Turkish uses the latin script(since 80 years ago) and does not make this distinction. So Aq-Qoyunlu is the correct spelling. --alidoostzadeh 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot make your claims based on Azeri Alphabet. Because it had done major changes since the beginning of 20th century. First it was arabic; then turned to latin; then changed to Cyrillic and lately it was changed backed to Latin again. By the way; Greeks didn't have great effects on Turkish as much as Arabs. Turks had used Arabic letters. Also lots of word passed to Turkish from Arabs. Therefore it is not ok to say, Turks lost Q because there was a great Greek effects on Turks. There was actually no 'Q' for Turks. If they had 'Q', they would insert this letter as they insert some special characters as Ç, Ş, etc... Azeri Turks may use 'Q'; but actually there's almost no difference with 'K' character. Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu are pronounced all the same. Therefore I see no reasone to change the title. Also it is much much common to use Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu then Aq and Qara. You can look at the sources I've given. And you can make a googlefight if you like... By the way; I really don't believe that Encyclopedia Iranica is a balanced and unbiased source. You can try Britannica and other sources I've given you. cagataycebi.
Guys, how are you going to resolve this issue now? The two positions have been on the table for weeks, and I'm not seeing any really new arguments being put forward by either side. It's basically still the "more common everyday English spelling" vs. "more philologically exact specialist literature spelling" issue. Now, how do we decide? Further debate here doesn't seem very fruitful. A straw poll doesn't make much sense either, imho - it will just degenerate into a fight for greater numbers, we all know what Iranian-vs.-Turkish polls have looked like lately, and "voting is evil". Want an RfC? Want mediation? My personal recommendation: Just name a trusted neutral referee and let them decide as a tie-breaker and then stick with that. Slightly unconventional method, but maybe sensible in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you something; there's no difference between Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu in pronunciation. I really don't think it is ok to say that "philologically, Aq Qoyunlu is better to use". If it was 'better' to use by philologically, then there'll be some difference in pronunciation. But there's not! Iranians just insist to change the name for assimilation. Look at the article; at first sight, you cannot understand Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are Turkmens. You see History of Iran sidebar which leads to some misunderstanding. Until you start to read article, you believe that Ak Koyunlular were Persian. cagataycebi
There may be no difference in pronunciation in your language (modern Turkish), and in English. There was apparently a difference in pronunciation in the language(s) those people spoke, as there still is both in Persian and in Azerbaijani and other Turkic languages, and there was a distinction made in the script these people used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If it's possible, It will be good to hear from an Azeri Turk how he says Aq Qoyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. Ak Koyunlu is a Turkish word; therefore it is not important how Persian says. They could pronunce as they like it, but Ak Koyunlu is a Turkish origin word and spelled same even if it is written as 'Ak Koyunlu' or 'Aq Qoyunlu'. (Note that: By saying 'Turkish', I don't only mean the modern Turkish that's used in Turkey.)
Judging from the Azeri spelling as cited in the article, it's actually even two different kinds of sounds transliterated as "q" here, in modern Azeri. I don't know enough about old Turkic to say what it would have been back then. But anyway, the "q" spelling used in the literature is not supposed to be an exact phonological transcription as much as a transliteration of the historical Perso-Arabic spelling. As I said, it's rather like having "Koran" at "Qur'an" and all the rest. If you want native-speaker input, try the babel category for az speakers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I stumbled on this one, while browsing. I am an Azerbaijani speaker myself, so if it is of any help, I'd like to make things a little clear. No matter in what alphabet it is written, the sounds denoted by K are different from Q and it is different from Ğ and that in turn is different from G. Four letters and five sounds, as the letter K can be pronounced in two ways. Modern standard Turkish does not have the sound Q or one of the two pronuncations of K, and the sound Ğ is almost never pronunced. But in this case we do not need to deal with either K or G. None of these three sounds exist in Ağ Qoyunlu. As for the pronunciation, the first letter is pronunced something like French R pronunciation, and the letter Q would sound like G in Group. I don't know how the language has changed in 500 years, but I suspect it must have been pronunced very similar to the modern Azerbaijani pronunciation. Cheers. Bye. --130.63.226.84 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I will reiterate my position that I put forth in another talk page about this issue of "script used"... There was never a "script used".. Back then, alphabetisation rates were lower then 1 percent, so I don't think it would have mattered if they had used Martian script.. Encyclopedias allow for modern-day Turkish renderings of centuries old names, just like in the case of Mehmed II - Mehmed is Muhammad in modern-Turkish. He is known as Mehmed. In any case, there is absolutely no difference between Q and K as cagatay said above.. I mean, in the English language they give the same sound, it doesn't matter how the some hypothetical sound would be transliterated from 500 years old Turkic or Persian script... "Ak koyunlu" gets 14,200 hits whereas "Aq qoyunlu" gets only 920.. This is the English wikipedia, and as such the most common name in English must be used, that's all... Baristarim 14:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see my reply on the other talk page, it's not just the script, it's the whole language. Regardless, Aq Qoyunlu is the correct Azerbaijani pronunciation. --Mardavich 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look. However I just cannot see the point of all this.. If this continues for a while, this is definitely going on WP:LAME :)) Baristarim 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This argument is ridiculous, the sound "q" and "k" in the English language is different, q is prnounded "qju" while k is "kei", in Turkey Turkish K is "Ke", in Azeri Turkish Q is "Qe", the two sounds in spoken language are virtually identicle. In colloquial Turkish spoken in both countries this letter actually sounds more like a "G", so it would be "Ak/Aq goyunlu".

Check "omniglot" letter pronounciations. In conclusion it doesn't matter how its written because its pronounced the same. Torke

White Sheep / Black Sheep

I am curious as to the history of the names "White Sheep" and "Black Sheep". Do "Ak" and "Kara" literally mean white and black? Did the two groups herd sheep? Or are they just called this because they were rivals, and Western scholars applied the epithet? (Might be something interesting to explain in the articles, as the average reader, like myself, with little knowledge of the region or the history, will find that curious.) Thank you. LordAmeth 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the "sheep" is used, but Ak/Kara literally means White/Black. Someone who knows the etymology can help with the explanation of the sheep though.. Baristarim 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey there, the two tribes were of shamanic origin and before converting to islam they had sacred sheep totems so that's why they have that name.-nouserhere

Ak and Kara were used as directions (North - South)--88.247.30.92 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran tag

Pejman47, Akkoyunlu are a Turkic dynasty, they ruled over what's now Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq. So why should there be a tag on history of Iran only, this tag is irrelevant here. Either we should have all 5 tags or none. Atabek 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Greater Iran template covers both, so it should be fine now, no need to insert two different templates when there is one that covers both.Hajji Piruz 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of Azerbaijan is History of Azerbaijan. It might have common area with other countries histories but we hsould not mix templates--Dacy69 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the Iranian history template is not right. Tabriz as the capital of the dynesty, has always been an Iranian city and in contrast, until recently, Azerbaijan has never been a independent nation /country, so placing such a template seems to be wired ... Anyway, according to the fact that today's Azerbaijan Republic was a province of the Kara Koyunlu , adding the template of Az.Rep history is tolerable , but deleting the Iranian template is impossible .--Alborz Fallah 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iran is not a Turkic state, while Azerbaijan is. Iranian history never claims Akkoyunlu as predecessors of Iranian peoples, while Azerbaijani historiography does. Atabek 07:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iran does not consider itself an ethnic state: Iranian nation is multi-ethnic. In fact, the Turkic language dynasties of Iran are the new uniting Iranian dynasties: the Safavids were been Turkic language, but the main builders of the modern Iranian nation. The Ak ghoyunlu and Qhara ghoyunlu were closely related to the safavids and they had marriage with themselves: some of the Safavid's ancestors where from these dynasties.
Over all , I think there may be no template at all , but all of the today's countries in the region, like Iran , Iraq , Azerbaijan Republic , Armenia and Turkey need to know about this states for understanding their history .--Alborz Fallah 09:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree on Safavids, they were Turkic dynasty of Iran who built the modern Iranian identity. But Akkoyunlu and Karakoyunlu never associated themselves with modern or contemporary definition of Iran. They were very much Turkic states, in fact Jahan Shah was a Shah of Azerbaijan. So for balance and fairness to all countries on whose territory Akkoyunlu and KArakoyunlu existed, it's better to keep the history without numerous tags. Atabek 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt about the difference of that age's perspective toward "national identity" and "state - nationship" comparing to the modern age ideas, but as I know , the Jahan shah- e- qaraquyounlu , was not only a king of Azerbaijan . He was also king of the Khuzestan , Kerman,Fars and Herat. He considered himself as Shahanshan and also wrote many poems in Persian (same as Ismail Safavi), that are more than Turkuman poems of himself....--Alborz Fallah 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Iranica , there is a good prospect of the matter:QOYUNLUÚ or WHITE SHEEP

--Alborz Fallah 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also : Seyyed Ali Mua’yyad Sabeti, “Asnaad o Naameh-aayeh Tarikhi az Avael Dorrehaayeh Eslali taa Avakher ‘Ahd Shah Ismail Safavi”(historical sources and letters from the beginning of the Islamic era till the end of the era of Shah Ismail Safavi), Tehran , Ketabkhaayeh Tahoori, 1366. pages 193, 274, 315, 330, 332, 422 and 430.
See also:Abdul Hussein Navai, Asnaad o Mokatebaat Tarikhi Iran (Historical sources and letters of Iran ), Tehran , Bongaah Tarjomeh and Nashr-e- Ketab, 2536, pages 578,657, 701-702 and 707.سيدعلي مويد ثابتي، اسناد و نامه هاي تاريخي از اوائل دوره‌هاي اسلامي تا اواخر عهدشاه اسماعيل صفوي، تهران، کتابخانه طهوري، 1366، صص 193، 274، 315، 330، 322، 392، 422، 430. نيز ن. ک. به: عبدالحسين نوائي، اسناد و مکاتبات تاريخي ايران، تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشرکتاب، 2536، صص 578، 656، 701-702، 707


Which translates as :

--Alborz Fallah 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added your information to the article. Very informative, thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Instead of tag warring, it's better just to leave Akkoyunlu alone without tags. Obviously most relevant tags here are those of Turkey (where Akkoyunlu state mostly was), Azerbaijan and Iran. But inserting 3-4 tags is impractical and makes the page unreadable. So it's easier to keep it this way. Atabek 07:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just made some fixes. Its not necessary to say "according to Iranica" as Iranica is the most authoritative source regarding the history of the region.Hajji Piruz 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranica is the most authoritative source on the history of Turkey, Caucasus and Iran? Can you please, provide published proofs for your statement. Atabek 08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Iranica being criticized all of a sudden? You could say the same about every source, then there would simply be chaos. I could say, well, is Britannica really authoritative? Is Columbia really a good source? Is Stephen Hawking really an expert in his field? is Michael Jordan really one of the best Basketball players ever? Research Iranica for yourself and you'll know why it is considered the most authoritative source about the Near East.Hajji Piruz 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Alborz, this has been discussed earlier that Ak Koyunlu dynasty, based also in Anatolia, had equal influence on history of Turkey as it did on history of Azerbaijan and Iran. So there is no need to insert a singular template on history of Greater Iran and start a new round of conflict with templates, which yield the page text unreadable. Please, check the past edit by dbachmann with comment "template clutter". I think the template could be discussed if the format of it is changed, to fit the bottom part of the page, just like History of Anatolia template does currently, otherwise, it becomes unreadable. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.I was -wrongly- undoing other one's (an IP) edit.Then I didn't add that tag.My thanks--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't their a History of Greater and Iran aswell as History of the Turks template, wouldn't it be more logical

Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

In the introduction it reads: According to Byzantine chronicles, the Ak Koyunlu were present in eastern Anatolia since at least 1340, and most of their leaders, including the dynasty's founder, Uzun Hassan, married Byzantine princesses. Does this mean that Uzun Hasan was the founder of the dynasty ? Of course not; the founder of the dynasty was Kara Yülük Osman, Uzun Hasan's grand father. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ottoman Turkish: آق قوینلو = Aq Quyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu.

q and k are different but in modern Turkish they are not able to be distinguished. Today text q character is replaced to k (kalın) in present Ottoman language textbooks. But here isn't modern Turkish Wikipedia, I recommend you to use q character.

Takabeg (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

According to Mehmet Fuat Köprülü (and later it was qouted in the TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi), Akkoyunlular'da ayrıca Bayındır damgası ()nı taşıyan türlü renklerde bayraklar da vardı. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde bulunan bir bayrağın üzerinde Hasan Bahadır ismi bulunmaktadır. (In Aq Qayunlu, there were flags in various colors with the damga of Bayindir. One of these flags that is located in the Topkapi Palace Museum includes the the name of Hasan Bahadur.)[1][2]. But we cannot see the damga of Bayindir in the flag used in this article. Takabeg (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yılmaz Öztuna referred to their flag and wrote Akkoyunlu bayrağı, beyaz renkteydi. (The flag of Aq Qoyunlu was white.)[3]. Dilaver Akkyonlu also mentioned ...ak renkli bayrak... (White flag)[4]. Takabeg (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

The name of the sultanate is Ak Koyunlu . But for some reason which I'm completely unaware of, the article was originally named Aq Qoyunlu. Now it was further renamed as Ag Qoyunlu ? Well Turkish prohibits the letter g at the end of a word. The title should be moved to Ak Koyunlu. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it should be Ak Koyunlu, under wp:commonname if for no other reason. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion should be as: The Aq Qoyunlu, (Template:Lang-az, Template:Lang-tr, Template:Lang-fa; Āq Quyūnlū) also known as the White Sheep Turkomans Beshogur (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google search: "Ak Koyunlu" 34,800 results; "Aq Qoyunlu" 32,500 results. Google Scholar: "Aq Qoyunlu" [3] 718 results; "Ak Koyunlu" [4] 470 results. There is also the variant "Akkoyunlu", but this is impossible to easily assess using Google since it is also a surname. The majority of the "Ak Koyunlu" results are not Turkish-language sources, so an argument to exclude it on "it is just modern Turkish spelling" would be invalid. The results suggests close parity in usage, with "Aq Qoyunlu" on balance slightly ahead. These results would support: The Aq Qoyunlu or Ak Koyunlu, (Template:Lang-fa; Āq Quyūnlū, Template:Lang-tr) also known as the White Sheep Turkomans. This dual naming also follows the format seen on the Kara Koyunlu article. As for the Turkish and "Azeri" spelling, it would be better to have content explaining that the name means White Sheep in Turkish, and I don't see a reason to include modern Azeri since it is identical in pronunciation to the Turkish and is an alphabet that is only a couple of decades old. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undiscussed move: Beshogur unilaterally moved the article title from Aq Qoyunlu to Ağ Qoyunlu [5]. I don't see any grounds for this change; "Ağ Qoyunlu" gets only 19 hits on Google Scholar. [6]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, Orhan F. Köprülü, İslâm ve Türk Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları ve Vakıf Müessesesi, Akçağ Yayınları, 2005, ISBN 9789753387248, p. 172. (in Turkish)
  2. ^ Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 5, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1994, p. 252. (in Turkish)
  3. ^ Yılmaz Öztuna, Başlangıcından Zamanımıza Kadar Büyük Türkiye Tarihi: Türkiye'nin Siyasî, Medenî, Kültür, Teşkilât ve San'at Tarihi, Ötüken Yayınevi, p. 68.
  4. ^ Dilaver Akkoyunlu, Snorya Tarihi, D. Akkyonlu, 1992, p. 6

Turkish, Azerbaijani and Turkmen

Regarding Beshogur's revert, I'd like him to present WP:RS sources that state that the Ag Qoyunlu spoke Turkish, Azerbaijani and Turkmen, and wrote these languages in the Latin script. Until that time, the reinstatement of this is nothing more than, unfortunately, disruptive editing, and will be dealt with as such accordingly. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He just reverted it once again without any source and a load of self-formulated POV as seen right here. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right Rayin Əhmədli (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ağ Qoyunlu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ag Qoyunlu → Aq Qoyunlu – For some reason, without any discussion on the talk page, the name of the article was changed from the common English spelling of 'Aq Qoyunlu' to 'Ag Qoyunlu'. Can someone please change this back? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Azerbaijani language

Can Akocsg provide a source for their change of referenced information? The reference and quote clearly state Azerbaijani language, not Oghuz Turkic language.

@Kansas Bear Uh, Azeri Turkish is Oghuz!? Oghuz is just the name for that group of Turkic languages, including Azeri. And since that confederation is mentioned practically everywhere as being Turkmen / Turkoman, I thought that it is logical that they also used the Turkmen language, thus rendering it more plausible to insert Oghuz Turkic, instead of only Azeri Turkish. I didn't think this would become such an issue, since technically both terms are not wrong. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you missed the part where we only write what is stated by sources and why would we not mention exactly what the source states? Accordingly the Oghuz languages article states there are numerous sub-branches, generalizing it would be OR. AND, I see no source(s) for Oghuz or Turkmen languages.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

qoyunlu / koyunlu

there is no link between Aq Qoyunlu and Kara Koyunlu, because the two have different spellings. please uniformize and link them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AE9:186:8400:356B:6EB8:1DC:E494 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Persianate

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Aq Qoyunlu is not Persianate , Their language is Turkic . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.92.88 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't seem to know the meaning of Persianate. I would advise you to look it up instead of doing disruptive edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand why you insist on language of this goverment they speak turkish not persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.92.88 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read my comment. Read again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their Culture is Turkish so They aren't Persianate . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.92.88 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm closing this "discussion" as this IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia;
1) IP in question continues to disregard the reliable sources, here on the talk page, as well as on the article itself.
2) IP in question has tried, on no less than 4 occassions, to remove reliably sourced content through edit-warring.[7]-[8]-[9]-[10]
3) IP in question continues to make ungrounded self-formulated claims and refrains from presenting any sources that would supposedly cover these claims.
Any further disruptive conduct should be reported at ANI or the 3RR noticeboard. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mismatch with the source

there is no match with the contents of reference and word of persianate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.92.88 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is now. And FYI(for your information), Persianate is not an ethnicity, but a culture.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language usage

Per WikiNutt;

  • "there's no evidence within the cited material which indicates that the Azerbaijani language was restricted to poetry only. Proper citations should also be provided which state in clear English that Arabic language was widely spoken or a state language."

The source given makes no mention of Azerbaijani being restricted to anything, the source states that Sultan Yaʿqub used Azerbaijani in poetry, nothing more. Since the source only mentions poetry I can only state poetry, if the source said court, official, numismatic, et.al., then those could be added.
As for Arabic, why ask for a source for this language yet delete the source that confirms Azerbaijani? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AND, a cursory search of the source shows only one hit for "Aqqoyunlu". This is the one that states Sultan Ya'qub wrote poetry in Azeri Turkish. If you have source(s) that state the Aq Qoyunlu used Azeri Turkish in other capacities then feel free to post them here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article insinuates that the Azerbaijani language was only used strictly for poetry. The cited material does not imply at all, that the Azerbaijani language was restricted to poetry usage only. There seems to be a strong sense of identity politics at play in this article and I'm questioning the impartiality of the individuals editing this page. The article which backs the claim that this dynasty is a "Persianite" dynasty is none other than "Encyclopedia Iranica (Iranicaonline.org)", the citation stating ″With the conquest of Iran, not only did the Āq Qoyunlū center of power shift eastward, but Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture″. If you look beyond the label "Persianite", you'll come to realize quickly that this superficial label only ascribes the notion that this dynasty adopted Persian traits from the subjects they ruled over, but are at essence a Turkic dynasty. The Persian language is not a native language for Turkic peoples. This Turkic tribe, the Aq Qoyunlu, spoke the Turkic language (Azerbaijani dialect) as their native-tongue. I have added citations being needed for Arabic being included in the list of Common Languages. As for Azerbaijani being listed under the Common Languages section but with the caveat that it was spoken only in poetry, I advise to be deleted from the picture.

Pages 47-79 (translated by Scott Bean) from the source "Herat to Shiraz: The Unique Manuscript of Ali Shir Nawai's Poetry from Aq Qoyunlu Circle" describes that the poem language of the Aq Qoyunlu was a partially adapted Oghuz dialect of the Turkic language (presuming to be Azerbaijani), a language that prevailed throughout the entire Aq Qoyunlu state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNutt (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • "There seems to be a strong sense of identity politics at play in this article..."
Which identity would that be?
  • "..and I'm questioning the impartiality of the individuals editing this page."
LMAO. Compared to edit-warring, removal of a reference and referenced quote, not to mention your removal of a reference and referenced information from another article? You would do well to concern yourself with your own impartiality!
From the source you provided, minus your interpretation...

"Although art experts were aware of this manuscript, Uzbek literature experts were unaware of it, and this manuscript was not the object of research in terms of the collection's structure and passing on the text of poems that for example, was adapted to the Oghuz Turkic that prevailed in the Aq Qoyunlu state." --Aftandil Erkinov, « From Herat to Shiraz: the Unique Manuscript (876/1471) of ‘Alī Shīr Nawā’ī’s Poetry from Aq Qoyunlu Circle », Cahiers d’Asie centrale, 24 | 2015, page 49.

I am not sure what is stated here would qualify Oghuz Turkic as lingua franca. @HistoryofIran:@Beshogur: --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's kinda vague, but it doesn't seem so imo. Surely it would have at least been mentioned by sources like Islamica and such? It is a pretty major thing after all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you or Beshogur want to read the source. I used the pdf version which worked fine for me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: there is not a "pre Azerbaijani language" such as Old Anatolian Turkish, thus scholars call it Azerbaijani. Sure Aq Qoyunlu spoke the proto version of it, but I also doubt that Aq Qoyunlu back then called their language Azerbaijani. Book of Dede Korkut, which is supposedly written during Aq Qoyunlu era, embracing Oghuz identity strongly.
  • It was not earlier than the 15th century. Based on the fact that the author is buttering up both the Akkoyunlu and Ottoman rulers, it has been suggested that the composition belongs to someone living in the undefined border region lands between the two states during the reign of Uzun Hassan (1466–78). G. Lewis on the hand dates the composition 'fairly early in the 15th century at least'.[1]
  • According to Lewis (1974), an older substratum of these oral traditions dates to conflicts between the ancient Oghuz and their Turkish rivals in Central Asia (the Pecheneks and the Kipchaks), but this substratum has been clothed in references to the 14th-century campaigns of the Akkoyunlu Confederation of Turkic tribes against the Georgians, the Abkhaz, and the Greeks in Trebizond. Such stories and songs would have emerged no earlier than the beginning of the 13th century, and the written versions that have reached us would have been composed no later than the beginning of the 15th century.[2]
Oghuz Turkic is indeed the lingua franca but I can't say much if the term Oghuz Turkic as lingua france is going to appropriate or not. Beshogur (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kafadar, Cemal (1996). Between Two Worlds: the Construction of the Ottoman State. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520206007.
  2. ^ Michael E. Meeker, "The Dede Korkut Ethic", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), 395–417.
Well, It appears WikiNutt will not be back for a week.
As for whether the Aq Qoyunlu called their language Azeribaijani or not, would fall outside our area of concern, since we can only add what the source(s) states.
If Oghuz Turkic is their lingua franca then we need a source stating that. If we had a scholarly source stating Oghuz Turkic is referred to as Azeri Turkish by modern academics that would bridge the gap(so to speak). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: For two centuries after their appearance in Iran, the Oghuz Turks seem to have had only an oral literature. The origins of the stories attributed to Dädä Qorqut, which are about the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks, probably lie back in this period. The accepted text, however, was compiled only in the 15th century. A written, classical Azeri Turkish literature began after the Mongol invasion, and developed strongly in the 16th century after the Safavid dynasty established its dominance in Iran.[1] although it doesn't directly state that. Beshogur (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran:, your thoughts? I do not believe we have enough to cover the gap of Oghuz Turkish = Azerbaijani Turkish. And since I have already been accused of WP:OR, I would rather be more careful.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I didn't even get the part on how they are the same, so I agree with Kansas Bear atm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, it appears WikiNutt will not be back for a week." Yes, I was accused by "someone" in this same thread of being another user so that they could get me permanently banned, probably because they don't like hearing differing views. I've already talked to a couple Wikipedia admins, proven my identity, and am trying to see if I can get others admins involved in regards to me being unjustifiably blocked from editing for an entire week. I reached out to the admin who issued the block in person, and he never responded to my inquiries. So congratulations to that "someone" for simply creating problems. With respect to what I wanted to originally discuss (now that I'm able to), the abstract entry on the page in clear English states that the Oghuz dialect of the Turkic language was a prevailing language across the Aq Qoyunlu state. All I hear now is mental gymnastics and coping as to why that shouldn't be accepted. I want to reiterate, that my primary and only dispute, is the mere fact that the article directly insinuates that the Azerbaijani language was used strictly in poetry, hence being labeled in the Common Language section as "Azerbaijani (poetry)" and now it's insinuating the same for the Persian language. "Someone" is not making things clear for readers! WikiNutt (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Qaraqoyunlu and Aqqoyunlu 

"As a result of the rule of the Qaraqoyunlu and Aqqoyunlu Turkman in the region, many Turkman tribes moved there, and the rest of them established the Safavid state in Iran.  Today, part of the important heritage they have given us is Gunchikhan Oghuz or Turkman, which is used in certain regions of Gunchikhan Anatolia - mainly in Igdir and Kars - as well as in Iran and Azerbaijan, which are now called Azerbaijani.

Source: M. Behramnejâd, "Karakoyunlus, Akkoyunlus: Turkmen Dynasties in Iran and Anatolia", p.  14
Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic

Why do we need a source for that? They pretty much controlled all of Iraq. Either we remove it completely or add ¨(popular)¨. Beshogur (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume since they were Muslims they used Arabic in a religious capacity. And I can add a source that Uzun Hasan translated religious texts from Arabic to Turkish[sic]. Have to do that after work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: TDV IA says he translated Quran into Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish or Azerbaijani Turkish? The source I found just says "Turkish". So would that be Ottoman Turkish? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My humble opinion is that it was most probably some form of transitional Oghuz Turkic spoken in the area corresponding to the present-day Iranian Azerbaijan, with linguistic structures peculiar to Eastern Turkic (perhaps, the legacy from the former homeland of the Oghuz - Central Asia). The best source to support this claim is the Gonbad manuscript of the Kitab-e Dede Qorqut. --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: Türkçe simply means "Turkish", "Turkic" or could mean any other Turkic language. @Visioncurve: wasn't Gonbad manuscript written during the Qajar era, which also had Chagatay influence? If anyone wonders how Turkish sounded spoken in Aq Qoyunlu: Choq shükür khudāya ki istädüyimizi bulduq.[2] Honestly, it looks a mix of Azerbaijani and Turkish. It's about the decree of az:Sultan Qasım, who ruled Diyarbakir. The author also notes on the very striking mixture of Mongol (not to cause confusion, only loanwords), Turkic, Arabic and Persian terms in the letter. Maybe soon I'll try to make a language section for this article. Historians only vaguely use the term Azeri or Turkish. Kansas Bear also found something: The king's title (right top) and the Arabic quotations are in gold. Should this be enough to prove Arabic is also used in their documents alongside Turkish and Persian? Beshogur (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-x
  2. ^ Minorsky, V. (1939). A Soyūrghāl of Qāsim b. Jahāngir Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 9(4), 927-960. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00135062

@HistoryofIran: what do you mean it's not a proof? From the diplomatic point of view, the document (perhaps called hukm "order", see addition p. 960) consists of (a) the king's titles and tamgha, (b) the text of the grant, and (c) the endorsement on the verso. plus it's not some words: The chart uses an Arabic expression marfu al-qalam maqsur al-qadam also various Quranic verses were used in the decree (see page 934). Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the source states in its very first page "The story of the Persian document which forms the subject of the present article is not devoid of romance." Quranic verses in a Islamic society is not something new, and does not imply that Arabic was used for diplomacy, when the source literally says what language the work was in. Sorry, but this is WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I do not agree with the addition to the infobox. It does not make sense, considering the article states that the Aq Qoyunlu ended in 1503. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Doesn't make sence because the infobox template has a post event section. Mentioning these rump state is worthy. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure I get your first sentence. Anyways, the source does not even mention that the Aq Qoyunlu ended in 1508 either, but 1501-03, just like vast majority of sources. You essentialy did your first edit, but added it somewhere else in the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: I meant your comment. Anyways, the source does not even mention that the Aq Qoyunlu ended in 1508 either, but 1501-03, just like vast majority of sources. which one? You essentialy did your first edit, but added it somewhere else in the infobox. what do you mean, which edit? Beshogur (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the structure of this article

Hello, I had done edits to the German Wiki version of this article quite a while ago and would like to apply some of them on the English article. I suggest changing the structure of the article. Instead of including "Origins" and "Myth" into the "history" chapter, I would dedicate a special chapter for the aforementioned. The table of contents thus would look like this:

1) Origins and Myth 2) History a) Consolidation of Rule under Qara Osman b) Rise to Power under Uzun Hasan c) Stagnation and Downfall

Of course, I'd add all relevant sources, too. Is it possible/allowed that I make such a change? TengriKhagan (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


About The Meaning

Despite what mentioned in the article "The name Aq Qoyunlu, literally meaning "[those with] white sheep"", Aq = white Qoyun = Male sheep lu = -y for making adjective from noun!

litteraly means One/Those who has/have withe sheeps!

There are more samples of using Livestock's name for naming tribes in Turkik tribes. For Instance, there are 2 main tribes in Qajar tribe: Davallo and Qoyunlu. Davvali (Deve + lu, means One who has Camels). Qoyunlu (Qoyun + lu, means One who has Sheeps).

Reference [1]

Source

@OrkhanScience: Hello. This source seems to fail WP:VER: Агаев, Юсиф; Ахмедов, Сабухи (2006). Ак-Коюнлу-Османская война. ISBN 5-8066-1372-0. What is it? Where it is from? It doesn't strike me as WP:RS either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate and give more constructive argument?
this is a historical book, with deep research of War between Ak-Koyunlu and Ottomans. The authors of the book are great academicians. They did thorough research and in fact they are specialized in this topic OrkhanScience (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what you mean. I am being constructive and following the guidelines, please assume WP:GF. Could you please answer my questions? Who are the authors and their qualifications, the name of the publisher, and what language is it in? Azeri in the Cyrilic alphabet? I would also like to remind you of WP:SPS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Wiki's ISBN search book doesn't give the result,
but here is the link to the Book
https://books.google.com/books/about/%D0%90%D0%BA_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%BD%D0%BB%D1%83_%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2.html?id=titbOAAACAAJ
I am adding the bibliographic information so you can check it yourself in google
Bibliographic information
Title
Ак-Коюнлу - Османская война: 1472-1473 годы
Authors: I︠U︡sif Agaev, Säbuhi Ähmädov
Publisher Ėlm, 2006
ISBN 5806613720, 9785806613722
Length 125 pages OrkhanScience (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also attaching here the CV of the author , Sabuhi Ahmadov, sho is a professor at Khazar Unversity of Azerbaijan
https://khazar.org/uploads/schools/Humanities/History_and_Archaeology/cv/Sabuhi_Ahmadov-cv.pdf OrkhanScience (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see anything that suggest that this is WP:RS, especially when it's published by Azerbaijan, very well known for its historical negationism. Fortunately we don't lack in WP:RS regarding the Aq Qoyunlu. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect yet you have not provided an evidence that this resources is "unreliable". You statement is based on very wrong stereotype about the whole Country and its academics.
Is it really how you judge the academical work? You really judge based on the origins of the academics or country of the published book? It is quite strong accusation and I would say "profiling" OrkhanScience (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my concern instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed it. it looks like the Army structure of Aq Qoyunlu I created and try to get rid of it by any means. You referred that the source is not working, Then i proved you that this book exists and provided you the credentials of the authors. Then you started talking about "books being published in Azerbaijan unreliable". What is your problem? OrkhanScience (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please adress my concern in regards to historical negationism? Why we should use this source published from a questionable place, when there are many other opinions? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget what I said, the info isn't controversial, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to have it. What does dilavers, sarvars, mekhtars, Iranzemin askers mean? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
those are types of army units that time.
Also I added an additional source
and added url for the first source OrkhanScience (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ {{پک|Anooshahr|سال|ک=The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History|ص=273|ف=Timurids and Turcomans}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aq_Qoyunlu&oldid=1136067579"