" 

 Good so stop reverting, and keep the ""Iranian"" under the note, because by no means the Brittanica are being clear in the context, since it provided two origins. You're the one who care so much about An Lushan origin instead of someone erases you referenced contributions or whatever crap you wanna to claim. So you should move on and go on with another article. Moreover if you think you are under personal attacks go complain with someone else and stop bothering me. I reiterate your incomprehensible statnment  ""Turkic and Sogdian/Iranian origin"" is really quite coufusing, get that through your head for once alright, Brittanica said is Turkish-Iranian then is should be Turkish-Iranian for Brittanica alone.  "