The edit discussed on the dispute resolution page and the edit I did recently are not the same at all and the recent edit was actually the compromise I was willing to do with Jebenoyon on the dispute resolution page when I said: Overall we are in agreement. The thing I agreed to was that I would not write that Barlas as a whole were Persianized, since the references that I provided on the dispute resolution were based off of the Timurids and Mughals (who are branches of the Barlas) and did not say the Barlas specifically.(even though all the references used in the Barlas article currently are related to the Timurids or Mughals). I this is what I told user Jebenoyon:
1.the source which you gave does mention the Timurids but the mention of a Barlas ancestor does not mean the ancestor gave the clan prominence but instead to soley trace the roots of the timurids.
2. Read the sources I gave you which shows that Even Timur was a ideal Perso-Islamic ruler
3. The timurids specifically along most of the Barlas were definetley persianized I gave you 8 valid sources
4. But I understand your point that maybe some segments may not have personally this is my first time hearing this
5. Till I find a source that specifically mentions Barlas in general I will not write persianized;however I do think it is important to mention that Timurids and Mughals were persianized and will reference this with the sources I gave you
6. And PLEASE understand that persianization in NOT ethnic but cultural Read persianization and Turko-Persian tradition
7. Again I did not threaten anyone to be honest you threatened report me I told you not to Edit War and asked Mdann52 if their was forum were a more specialized editor(in this area) could look at the issue
Dispute resolution Noticeboard:
1.The reason why Mdann said at first the sources were out of context were because they used Timurids and Mughals(a subset of Barlas) but later I explained to him that Timurids are part of the Barlas and his position changed
2.Then Jeneboyon argued that not all Barlas as a whole were persianized because only the Timurids were not the only Barlas
3. Then Mdann said that might be WP:SYNTH and I said I will not write Barlas are Persianized as a whole but it is important the only two Notable Subsets of the Barlas were Persianized which is undeniable historical fact and afterwards Mdann made a new proposed resolution where he said stop whining don't know why he purposesly uses the old one even though he got corrected by the admin.
My Edit:
1. Here is part of my edit with which Jeneboyon has contention with (different from dispute resolution):
The Barlas clan is now spread out in Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East,Turkey, and the Caucasus region. Like many other Turko-Mongol Tribes settled in Persia and Central Asia[1][2], many subsets of the Barlas such as the Mughals and Timurids were persianized[3] [4] and made created elaborate Persianate Court Cultures.[5]
2.Now I have not done WP:SYNTH since the sources I use directly use the Timurid and Mughals and meet required burden of proof.
3.My references are valid written by credible historians and I provide the page numbers and use Google books links a reliable way to search through millions of books so that people can look at the references.
4. I sticked to my promise to not write Barlas in general are persianized but instead I am very specific and willing to provide even more reliable Sources if needed.
5. Jebenoyon or Any other editor cannot just remove historical facts that are referenced clearly and then blame the other user for disruptive edits
Why is it Important to mention the Timurids and Mughals persianization?
Now the disagreement between me and Lysozym is whether this verifiable material should be on the page or not due to its relevence to the page. I believe it should be because although the Barlas were an ethnically Turco-Mongol trible the two great clans of the Barlas(all references on Barlas article based off Timurids and Mughals) were ethnically Turco-Mongol but were persianized and an important part of the Persian Cultural fabric and were not just culturally Turco-Mongol which would be a generalization and Selective quoting because we would ignore almost every book on them were they are mentioned, explicitly, as persianized, persianate, part of persian cultural fabric, and/or patrons of Persian culture. This is relevant as long as you include the Timurids and Mughals on the page as removing it would make the page look 2D instead of the 3D with cultural identification.
References edit
- ^ Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present By Cynthia Stokes Brown
- ^ Landlord and Peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration By Ann S. K. Lambton Pg.77
- ^ Imperial Identity in Mughal Empire: Memory and Dynastic Politics in Early Modern Central Asia (Library of South Asian History and Culture) By Lisa Balabanlilar Pg.154
- ^ Timurids In Transition: Turko-Persian Politics & Acculturation In Medieval Iran Volume 7 By Maria E. Subtelny Pg.42
- ^ Periods of World History: A Latin American Perspective By Charles A. Truxillo Pg.130
External links edit