Talk:Dahnama

Question about a source

Hello @Klöterisch:

I wanted to ask you if the source you provided by H. Boeschoten in the entry section is meant to support the text I removed. At first glance that phrasing appears to violate MOS:WEASEL. If that source is meant to support the claim, could you please provide a quote from page 75 on that source saying what the removed text says, as the source is not available anywhere for free on the internet, so that we can fact-check it and revert my edit if true?

I also wanted to ask what that unavailable source, which was literally just a [1], was meant to be. Lapahafffe (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

—>Dale 2020, pp.73–74: "Ismāʿīl – who evidently knew both Persian and what has been described as a Southern Turkic dialect, a precursor of modern Azeri Turkish – began his active leadership of the Safavi order at age twelve, supported by a core of Oghuz tribesmen, already converts to the Safavid cause."

Do you mean this source? I was just quoting it verbatim. Elaborate what you mean. Klöterisch (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The second source, I wanted to ask if you could provide a quote from page 75 of the second source (by H. Boeschoten), which you added, that supports the entry I removed. Lapahafffe (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It says volume 75, It is from the ajem turkic wikipedia page that explains that ajem turkic is a precursor to modern azerbaijani, the source was only there to support „Ajami Turkic is seen as a precursor of Modern Azerbaijani“ Klöterisch (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Like you didnt even remove it, Its still there Klöterisch (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant I removed and rewrote this section, which you just added back, because it violates MOS:WEASEL:

in a southern Turkic dialect that is often referred to as Ajami Turkic, and seen as a precursor to the modern Azerbaijani language. It is a written monument of and one of the first poems in what nowdays is considered Azerbaijani literature

Please do not add it back, if you want to contest it then state your reasons here as to why it isn't MOS:WEASEL so we can find a solution. Lapahafffe (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well because thats what the source says, read Dale again, Its a verbatim quote from the source with the „southern turkic dialect thats seen as a precursor to azerbaijani“, I then added that this southern turkic dialect is often referred to as Ajami Turkic (as the source doesnt name ajami turkic, so I added another source that does call it that, therefore often) and then I wrote „It is a written monument of and one of the first poems in what nowdays is considered Azerbaijani literature.“ Why? Because in the 16th century there wasnt a united „azerbaijani literary tradition“, It was southern Turkic dialects of the region and poets using that turkic tongue they called turki to write poetry. Only later would these dialects be classified as precursors to what is now Azerbaijani and therefore included as the literary tradition the modern Azerbaijani language inherited. Therefore Its completely historically accurate. Klöterisch (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lapahafffe do you get what I mean? Klöterisch (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what you meant, however there are multiple issues with that:

1. You stated that you combined two sources, one calling it Southern Turkic and the other Ajami Turkic, to add that "it is often referred to as Ajami Turkic". However, combining two different sources to invent/support your own claim, without any reliable source directly saying that, violates WP:SYNTH. If a reliable source identifies it as Ajami Turkic then we add that without unverified qualifiers.

2. Passive phrasing like "seen as" or "referred to" or "what is nowadays" are violations of MOS:WEASEL because they introduce unencyclopedic expressions of doubt. Also, the word "precursor" was kept by me, because I'm not disputing the fact that it wasn't called Azerbaijani back then, but that the exact type of phrasing you introduced violates Wikipedia guidelines.

3. While you are correct about the fact that it wasn't called Azerbaijani back then, that still doesn't justify phrasing it as "what is nowadays considered Azerbaijani literature". In the 8th century e.g. there was no unified English literary tradition. Nevertheless, Wikipedia describes Beowulf as a monument of Old English literature, not "what is nowadays considered English literature". That's because Wikipedia applies scholarly retrospective terms to history, which is what I'm doing here. Reliable sources such as Encyclopaedia Iranica directly call it Azerbaijani literature:

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.

Even when ignoring all of this, the fact that I kept the word "precursor" right before this section solves this problem. And the phrase "what is nowadays considered as" violates MOS:WEASEL. Lapahafffe (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what u mean now, thanks for the explanation Klöterisch (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem 👍 Lapahafffe (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Lapahafffe (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)