This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the imageneeded and imagedetails parameters from this template. The editor who added the request suggests the following: image, not a map
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Read the article, it's like two lines only: not the same as Turan. HistoryofIran (talk)
That's sort of my point, this article is basically empty. From what this one says, Turgistan is another name/spelling for Turan, "Turgistan (also spelled Turan...", so it makes sense to redirect this page to the more developed page.--Goalie1998 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that Turan is about a large region north of Iran, whereas this page is about a location in the southeast of the Sassanian Empire. This article needs more sources, but it should not be redirected. That having been said, I don't see any evidence that "Turan" is an alternate name/spelling of Turgistan. signed, Rosguilltalk05:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... "Turan...may refer to a particular prehistoric human settlement, a historic geographical region, or a culture." Turan also has a section devoted to the Sassanid Era. Additionally, looking at the map from Sasanian Empire, Turan is shown in the Southeast corner of the Empire. So based on this, it appears that the articles on Turan and the Sasanian Empire support that Turan was in fact a location in the southeast of the Sassanian Empire. If we are to assume that the Turgistan article is correct to say that it is another name for Turan, I see no reason no to redirect. I also have not been able to find any other reference to Turgistan. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to assume that Turgistan is correct vis-a-vis calling Turan an alternate name as there's no citation clearly supporting that. The citation cited by the article does, however, describe Turgistan as an administrative area. signed, Rosguilltalk07:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources can be found, yes, but given that HistoryofIran is still around, maybe they can explain why they felt that this alternative name could be added and if they have a source to back it up. signed, Rosguilltalk07:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The three articles (Turgistan, Turan, and Sasanian Empire) do seem to indicate that Turgistan and Turan are in fact referencing the same region/location/settlement... But I suppose that is a bit of original research to make my own conclusions based on the three articles. Goalie1998 (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source contradicts you Goalie. Next time please make actual proper research instead of making things harder for me. There is a Turan in Central Asia, and there is a Turan in southeast Asia, which is referred to by Brunner by its other name, Turgistan. It's not unusual for two different areas having more or less the same name. I will expand this article soon, not sure if I will I do it during Christmas and holidays though. EDIT: Actually, looking at the source, the variant "Turan" is more used than "Turgistan" in the source, however, it's still obviously not the same as the region in Central Asia (I hope I don't have to repeat this every time and it's clear by now). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s actually not any clearer, especially given I don’t have access to the single source used in this article and have found no other reference to the the name Turgistan. Reiterating what I said previously, the articles Turan and Sasanian Empire do seem to show Turan as being located in modern day Pakistan, and was bordered by “Paradan in the west, Hind in the east, Sakastan in the north, and Makuran in the south.” (Your own words). Take a look at the map from Sasanian Empire, which is also used in Turan. Again, I haven’t been able to read the one source used here, but I don’t think Brunner is referring to Southeast Asia as we know it today. Until I can read the source myself and be convinced otherwise, it is pretty clear that this article is the same geographic region as Turan. Goalie1998 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access the source provided at this article and can confirm that it mentions Turgistan as a region within the Sasanian Empire [1]. On page 750 it is listed as a region in the south east partitioned by an Iranian emperor, and on p749 there's a map labeling a region just northwest of the Indus river as Turgistan. signed, Rosguilltalk01:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the same location, which would actually lead me to believe that it's not appropriate to include that map at Turan, or at least not without a clear explanation in the text, because that's referring to the province named Turan, not the Central Asian region named Turan.
Brunner clearly refers to a region named Turgistan in the southeast, but also refers to it as Turān. However, later in that same text, on page 1130, Brunner introduces Tūrān (note the difference in diacritics), and says that it is an alternate name for Transoxiana, which appears to be a Roman name for a region roughly homologous to the main Central Asian region described by Turan.
I think that this evidence makes it clear that we're dealing with two different Turans (which would probably be pronounced differently in Farsi if the diacritics are anything to go off of, such that the Sasanians were unlikely to ever be confused by this issue). signed, Rosguilltalk03:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can link to a full copy of the Brunner text, because I don't think I understand your point. You are saying the map in Turan and Sasanian Empire is accurate to the Turgistan of this article, but not to the Turan of those articles, even though Turan states Turan "may refer to a particular prehistoric human settlement..." which is located in Central Asia (both province Turan and Central Asian Region Turan are in Central Asia) and that "in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Western languages borrowed the word Turan as a general designation for modern Central Asia, although this expression has now fallen into disuse"? Does this not indicate that Turan could have been a province, or "a particular prehistoric human settlement", whose "precise geography and location... is unknown", similar to Turgistan, and that using Turan as to describe a general region of Central Asia is no longer used? I will add that the text on page 1130 is by a different author, Guity Azarpay, which is possibly why they are referring to different locations. Goalie1998 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goalie1998, I'm not sure why you're having trouble accessing this source, which is available on Google books.
I would dispute the notion that province-Turan is in Central Asia. Central Asia generally refers to the region north of modern Iran and Afghanistan, west of China, and south of Russia. Province-Turan appears to have been located in modern-day Pakistan, significantly farther to the south. As for Turan being a "particular prehistoric human settlement", province-Turan is decidedly not prehistoric, as the Sassanian Empire is not prehistoric. signed, Rosguilltalk03:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only certain pages are available to me, not the entire chapter. There do seem to be a few definitions of Central Asia, one including as far south as Central Pakistan. Turan does discuss the history during Sassanid Era as well. I still want to point out that using Turan to describe a general region of Central Asia is not used: "in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Western languages borrowed the word Turan as a general designation for modern Central Asia, although this expression has now fallen into disuse." It can be argued that Brunner may have been under 19th/early 20th century influences, but the book was published in 1983. Goalie1998 (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
