Talk:Seljuk dynasty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Persian POV

This article is riddled with many factual inaccuracies. Some are being discussed already. First one that I want to point out is: The Seljuks might have used the Persian language, but saying that "Today, they are remembered as the patrons of Persian language..." is misleading. They may be remembered as such only by the Persians. This sentence should be reworded. Another one is: unbelievably, Tajik and Khosrow try to prove that the Seljuks did not retain or use the Turkish language. How is it that Today's Turks know and speak Turkish? It is only through the Seljuks as they were the ancestors of Today's Turks. They try to separate what the Seljuk "family" did from the their fellow masses. Give me a break, how is it that the family became persianized but the rest of the Turks did not, rather they continued by themselves to establish the Ottoman Empire? I cannot even believe we are discussing this.

One more thing, if I may add, Tajik seems to quote from Urban II's speech, claiming he refers to the Persians rather than Turks for the Seljuks. What he does not know or convey is the fact that there are many versions of this speech and almost all authorities agree about the fact that the Pope talked about the Turks mainly. The Fordham (Jesuit) University has a good site on this:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html. Another one is from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm. Finally one from the Crusades Encyclopedia:http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/fulcher1095.html. I will not get into edit wars, I am just inviting those who might have the time (Personal attack removed) to tackle this issue. We should not allow certain historical facts to be distorted. As I repeatedly say, I care about the truth. I loathe people who distort even the well-established historical facts and try to sell others the same junk. Also, My Turkish friends: forgive me! I told Tajik the fact that the Ottomans used the Persian language and loved that language. Now I am afraid they, by hook or by crook, will persianize the Ottoman Empire as well. Sorry :(( -Ur

What you call "Persian POV" is actually the opinion of leading scholars, and two of the most powerful scholarly sources are used as references: Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Your claim that "Seljuqs brought Turkish to Anatolia" is totally wrong. They neither Turkicized Anatolia (that was the work of their sucessors, the beliqs) nor did they invade Anatolia to give Turkish normads new lands (this theory is very popular among Turks, but totally contradicts historical reports and letters) confirming that Alp Arslan's only motivation to attack the West was to impose Sunni Islam on the Shia Fatimids who ruled Egypt and West-Asia). So, the fact remaisn, that there is no "Persian POV" in this article ... they only "POV" is yours ... Tājik 12:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you use Encyclopedia Iranica as your "source." So much for not having a Persian POV. Or should I have said "Iranian POV?" Maybe that would have comically matched well with your reference "Encyclopedia Iranica" :)) (For those interested, this encyclopedia was initiated by an Iranian, Ehsan Yarshater, and as you can guess contributed mainly by Iranian scholars) Also, you speak about "beliqs," I guess you mean "Beyliks." They are nothing more than the continuation of Seljuks. It is like claiming that the modern Turks and Ottomans are different people. Opps, I forgot we are all Persians, right? :)) (Personal attack removed) -Ur

This is the problem with you people. You always talk of "POVs here" and "POVs there", although you are nothing but amateurs. You look up in Wikipedia and feel insulted in your own nationalist feelings. You have no idea of orientalistics or professional studies of oriental history. You people just read the word "Iranica" and believe that it is POV, although any person who has some knowledge of this field knows that the Encyclopaedia Iranica is among the most powerful and most reliable sources available. I mean ... what are YOUR words compared to those of leading scholars: [1]?!

Wikipedia is to become a realiable and trusted source ... and therefore, nationalistic POV, such as yours (honestly, I have no idea why you consider yourself an adherent of Sufism?!), have no place in here. Tājik 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an ethnic Turkish, I am Kurdish ethnically, hence do not blame me with nationalism. My motives are for the sake of the Truth not some sick ideology. That is number one. Number two, If I were you I would answer the charges, not do demagogy. I don't certainly mean that the whole E. Iranica (EI) is not realiable. My charge is that you seem to deny the fact that the Seljuks were Turks,you don't even want to call them "Seljuk Turks", and they did not open the anatolia to Turks etc etc, and force EI down our throats as your proof. If you are honest to yourself you can do a little bit of searching on the web and see what the authorities are saying about all these debates we are having. Let us see: Encyclopedia Britanica:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066688/Seljuq

"also spelled Seljuk ruling military family of the Oguz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Their advance marked the beginning of Turkish power in the Middle East."

Columbia Encyclopedia:

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Turks

"At the beginning of the 11th cent. a great wave of Seljuk Turks, led by Tughril Beg Tughril Beg (tg`rēl bĕg), 990–1063, founder of the Seljuk Turk dynasty ruling (11th–14th cent.

..... Click the link for more information. , conquered Khwarazm and Iran. They entered Baghdad in 1055; Tughril Beg was proclaimed sultan. Under his successor, Alp Arslan Alp Arslan (älp ärslän`), 1029–72, Seljuk sultan of Persia (1063–72). In 1065 he led the Seljuks in an invasion of Armenia and Georgia and in 1066 attacked the Byzantine Empire."

Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm

See what the University of Calgary History Dept. page says (there are tens of such Scholarly articles on the web, only for those who are not fooling themselves):

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/seljuk.html

Well, listen this is not for you. I am putting these for those who really objectively want to see the reality of what is being claimed by you guys here, and for objective editors to take action. Hopefully, they will be able to judge for themselves whether high quality means only talking from the "Persian" perspective, or what the world historians think about it. I recommend they read all these articles fully, as I could not paste them here altogether. -Ur

This article is almost implying that the Seljuk Turks were actually Seljuk Persians. Miskin 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Seljuqs were actually "Seljuq Persians" - a highly Persianized family of originally Oghuz Turkic origin (the same way Timur - an ethnic Mongol - was highly Turkicized). Claiming that only Iranian scholars see the Seljuqs as patrons of Persian culture and language is POV. In fact, the Seljuqs are among the most important patrons of Persian culture and language, while they had virtually no interest in Turkish language. There are almost no Turkish works from the Seljuq period, and the state burocracy was in Persian. Besides that, the article as well as the respectiv information is well-sourced. Tājik 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is a very reliable source Ur.Azerbaijani 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Template needs to be removed.

This template implies a number of Turkic dynasties and empires were exlucsively Persian in character, or exclusively part of Persian history. To have this big template dominate the Seljuk and Timurid dynasites among others is simply misrepresentative. --A.Garnet 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem?! There is also a "Turkey-related toppics" template attached to the article. The template "History of Iran" gives a summary of the historical empires that existed in the geographical region known as Greater Iran. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion. Tājik 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The template is simply too big and vague to justify covering half the article. This is a primarily Turkic dynasty, yet the template would have readers think it is exclusively part of Persian history. For now i've removed both templates. --A.Garnet 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Seljuqs were not a "primarily Turkic dynasty". This is your POV and has no base in scholarly research and studies. All the sources are given in the article. And even IF the Seljuqs were a "primarily Turkic dynasty", as you claim, then the template would still be correct in place, because it is about the history of the geographical region known as Greater Iran - it has nothing to do with ethnicity, language, or religion.

As for the length of the template: you should have checked the talk-page of the template first. There is an on-going discussion and vote about splitting and re-naming the template. Tājik 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it does not only concern Iranian history does it. What about a template on Turkish, Azeri, Islamic, Armenian, Byzantium history also? All these topics can rightly claim to be associated with Seljuks in one way or another, why therefore should half the article be devoted to an Iranian template? --A.Garnet 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the topic but I think that the Turkish editors have a point. After all, the existence, religion and language of the republic of Turkey are a proof that the Seljuks were Turkic. Just because some members of their dynasties were assimilated into Persian culture, doesn't mean that the original Seljuk tribes were Persian. This is like using the Yuan Dynasty as an argument to support the claim that Mongolians were in fact Chinese. Miskin 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed so many times before. The Seljuqs were NOT the ones who brought the Turkish language to Anatolia, but their successors, the Turcoman Beyliqs. Noone claims that the original Seljuqs tribes were Persian, and even IF: what has that to do with the template "History of Iran"?! From 1100 until the 20th century, almost all of Iran's rulers were Turkic-speaking. So what?

May I remind you that it is mostly the Turkish fraction that claims everyone and everything as "Turks". I really do not understand this double-standard of the Turks. When it comes to the Seljuq family - a dynatsy that was evidently Persianized in language and culture - they all claim that "language does not define ethnicity". But when it comes to the Timurids, they claim that the entire dynatsy was "Turkic" because the dynasty's founder was a Turkic-speaker, rejecting the fact that his origin was evidently Barlas-Mongol. Could you please make up your mind?!

And again: what has THIS to do with the template?! If you think that orther templates should be adde: feel free and add other templates to the article. Tājik 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using this as an argument to remove the template of the history of Iran. Also I do not support the extremist pan-Turkism claims of some editors, in other words I don't think that anything which appears in history as 'Turkic' or 'Turk' can be regarded as historical heritage of modern Turkey, for the same reason that Germany does not claim the history of the Vikings, Normans and all Germanic peoples in existence. I think that as a result of modern nationalism, some people's historical perception of 'Turks' is often misunderstood, for in reality there was never as much cultural unity between Turkic people to regard them as one single "ethnic group" of various cultural sub-branches. This was the case with some peoples, but not with the Turkic ones. However, I do believe that at least the Turks or Turkic peoples who appeared in Asia Minor, do have a direct connection to the history of modern Turkey and the Turkish nation. And although I don't think that removing the template of the histories of Iran and Turkey is a solution, I do justify Turkish concern on the article. Miskin 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The template makes no such statement that all these empires are Persian, it is simply the history of Greater Iran and by the way, the Seljuks did adopt Iranian customs and the Persian language, so how can you say that they are not a part of Iranian history? Evidently they thought they were.Azerbaijani 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from any probable content issue, the main sticking point at this stage is its sheer size: it covers half the articles it is placed in and has become and article upon to itself. Vertical format is for short templates and not ones that link to thirty+ articles. Have a look at {{Turkey-related articles}} for example: That's why I created it as a horizontal bottom-of-the-page template to begin with + it has a "hide" function. It is a question of style: have the template but don't let it disturb the article and distract the reader. That's all. Baristarim 04:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is also way too long, but the only problem I have is people trying to take it out point blank.Azerbaijani 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turks of Iran etc are Turks due to Seljuk Turks

This article is ridiculous, a millenia ago there were a few thousand Turkic speakers West of the Caspian Sea, now there are 100-120 million speakers. However, some Pan-Iranists are trying to re-invent a history in which the Seljuks wern't Turks. Seljuks bought with them their language, they are the reason that today's Turkey is Turkey, they are the reason for migrations of Turks to Azerbaijan and Iran. It was during the late Seljuk era that Turkish became the official language in all levels of government.

All this is pushed aside and were made to believe that this was infact a "Persian" Empire, its just some extremists looking for a history for themselves.

Any historian would just laugh at this page, I hope the Administrators do something about this vile attempt to pervert history. Not only this, there is a table at the side in which it writes, "Greater Iran" and includes Turkic states, this is a blatent attempt of Pan-Iranism. How can this romantic nationalism be tolerated on an encyclopedia.

Why is there no reference to Turkic states and Empires on the side bar?

johnstevens5

I agree, this is ridiculous. I'll quote, from Encyclopædia Britannica:

"also spelled Seljuk ruling military family of the Oguz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Their advance marked the beginning of Turkish power in the Middle East.

During the 10th-century migrations of the Turkish peoples from Central Asia and southeast Russia, …"

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066688/Seljuq

SeljukTurk

I admit, Persians are still good at politics, lets put a referendum to be a state of Iran, later we can revolt and take it all like we always do--Utku a 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with johnstevens5. Seljuks were ruled on present day Iran, along with other lands, and they were Turkish/Turkic. Turkish culture and language spread to the Ottoman Empire and present-day Turkey through Seljuks. By the way, "Greater Iran" is a very nationalistic statement, an obvious POV. Filanca 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Secondly, Greater Iran is a geographic term, not a political term.Azerbaijani 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"makes no sense" hmm a very fine objection.. Filanca 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The template needs to be removed ASAP. It doesn't reflect reality. SeljukTurk 13:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anons, please do not vandalize the article. Removing sourced information without a reason can be considered vandalism. I reinserted the sourced information, as it was removed with no explanation whatsoever, and there has recently been a lot of anon's removing information from certain related articles (historical figures and such...).Azerbaijani 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please do not use actual articles for practice. Your edits ruined the intro so I had to go back to the previous version.Hajji Piruz 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Seljuk Empire

Imho, we need two different articles for the dynasty of Seljuk and the Great Seljuk Empire, just like the system we have for the Ottomans (Look at the Ottoman Dynasty, Ottoman Empire). An article for the dynasty that had nothing to do with Iranians and an article for an empire which controlled Iran and many other modern day countries. Deliogul 09:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a separate article for the Seljuk Dynasty and one for the Seljuq Empire.

If there is no opposition, I will create a special article about the empire and modify the article of the dynasty when the protection on the article will end. Deliogul 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To the editors Mardavich and ajji Piruz

Can I ask why the history of greater Iran template is included in this article? Iran was subjugated under Seljuk rulel. I am not going to get drawn into any debates but I've been drawn to this article and a few others via some edits of User:Hajji Piruz, which in my view are heavy Iranian POV. Please dont add that History of Greater Iran, as a template for this article, it is misleading by suggesting that the Seljuk empire were one of the Persian empires. It is a well known fact that the Seljuk empire was a Turkic empire, regardless or not if the later decided to adopt Persian Language and culture, please dont remove this information as that can be considered vandalism Londium 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Seljuqs ruled as kings of Iran for many centuries, and most of their kingdom was located in Iranian realms. Besides that, the template is just a tool for navigation and includes links to other important articles. The Turkic origin of the Seljuqs does not mean that they did not have any importance for the history of Iran or neighbouring countries. There is also a template of the Turkish Republic attached to the article, although the Seljuqs had not much to do with what is now Turkey. However, they played an important role in the history of Anatolia, as well as in the historsy of many other countries in the region. The Turkic origin of the Seljuqs is mentioned twice in the article, there is no need to mention it a third time, especially since the sole existance of the Seljuq dynatsy was a zealous Hannafi Sunni identity and not really an ethnic identity. All major decisions of the Seljuqs were based on religion, that's why they became the target of both, the Christian Crusaders, and Islamic rivals, such as the Assassins. The Seljuqs themselvs identified themselvs both with their Turkic origins and their Turkic subjects, as well as their new Persian culture/language and their Persian subjects and advisors. Claiming a purely Turkic or Iranian identity for the Seljuqs is wrong and gives a wrong impression that the Seljuqs were Turkish or Persian nationalists. The current introduction is fully OK: The dynasty had its origins in the Turcoman tribal confederations of Central Asia and marked the beginning of Turkic power in the Middle East. -DerDoc 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that each mention of Turkic-ness is for a different thing, anyway there is no reason to remove that one at the top, it is an important and correct information and the reader should be able to know about it right from the start, at least there is no problem with it. About the template, just make a horizontal template and put it below the Turkish one. Deniz^T_C 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The reader does understand from the beginning on that the Seljuqs were Turkic. It clearly says: The dynasty had its origins in the Turcoman tribal confederations of Central Asia and marked the beginning of Turkic power in the Middle East. So the "Turkishness" of the Seljuqs is mentioned twice in the intro. Additionally, the intro also explains that they are considered the cultural ancestors of modern-day Turks. There is no need to put the "Turkishness" a third time in the intro, given the fact that the Seljuqs acted as a Muslim dynasty and did not care much about Turkishness. Pushing for a third copy of the word "Turk" is POV and really unnecessairy. The introduction is clear, because it FIRST mentions the Sunni identity of the dynasty, THEN explains the Turkic origins of the family, and THEN - at the end - hints to the important cultural influence of the Iranian nobles. Seljuq activity must always be seen from these three elements of the dynasty: the missionary concept of their rule (by far the most important character of the Seljuqs), the need to stay in touch with the powerful Turkish fighters in their army - and thus to stay in touch with their own origins, and the Persian wezirs - the de facto rulers of the dynasty. Above all of them was the Sultan, then came the wezir, then the religious teachers, and then the important military advisors from the ranks of Turkish begs. Exeggerating the "Turkishness" of the Seljuqs falsifies the article. And exeggerating the "Persianness" of the dynasty does ultimately the same. Right now, the beginning of the article is well balanced. It should stay that way. -DerDoc 03:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DerDoc I agree with you on this, the Turkishness is mentioned twice in the introduction. Try and explain this to the editors who revert it. Perhaps they are not happy with some of the wording of the introduction. I was going to comment earlier but I've been falsely accused of sockpuppetry and banned. -- simple:User:Londium -- 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Main page: WP:Sockpuppetry

All Wikipedians have a main account from which they may edit. The main account (or primary account) is a prime username that may be the most important account to that person. It may be chief in size as far as number of edits or otherwise perceived by others to be the leading account of that person.

Although not common, some Wikipedians create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. There are limited, acceptable uses for alternate accounts. For example, a prominent user might create an alternate account to experience how the community functions for new users. If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them.

Multiple accounts include the main account and all alternate accounts. While use of the main account is encouraged, use of alternate accounts is not encouraged. In particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making controversial edits with one account and non-controversial ones with another, or otherwise stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in blocking of that account and will affect that Wikipedian's ability to operate alternate accounts.

A sock puppet (or sockpuppet) is a username used for purposes of multiple account deception. The actions of the sock puppet account typically are prompted or otherwise coordinate with the actions of a second account. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden. Where misuse of an alternate account may result in the blocking of that one account, abuse of a second username account may result in all access to Wikipedia being blocked.

Please, see Meatpuppetry section, too. E104421 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pan Persian Vandalism

Persian wikipedians continuously do blanking especially on Turkish persons, Turkish states, Turkish cultural objects changing them to "Persian Origin". Many articlas unfortunately is under Pan Persian blanking attack. even references. editors should be cautious. --Polysynaptic (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection Helped Vandalism

please;

{{editprotected}}

I requested protection against IP Vandalism and blanking. But you protected the article after vandal edited the article.

please UNDO LAST ACTION of anonymous IP user 82.83.133.161.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. See meta:Wrong version. Sandstein (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be Seljuk??

To maintain consistency within Wikipedia, shouldn't this article be entitled "Seljuk dynasty"?? I also see that the use of the term "Seljuk" shows 4 times as many hits on Google as "Seljuq". MapMaster (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather see Seljuq: Both Seljuq and Seljuk appear in the literature, though former appears more frequently. The use of "Seljuk" on English Wikipedia seems to be a concession to Turkish users. Aramgar (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? The Turkish for Seljuq/Seljuk is Selçuk, which would correspond to Selchuk, with a voiceless consonant ch (as in church). These articles started out using Seljuk, but the article originally named Seljuk Turks was renamed to Seljuq dynasty on August 2, 2006 (by a now banned user). The article Great Seljuq Empire was created under that name by a Turkish Wikipedian. The 1911 Brittanica used Seljuk while today's online Brittanica uses Seljuq. The spelling with q is obtained by following rules for the Romanization of Persian, but I don't know why that should be a reason to strongly prefer this spelling. It is slightly regrettable that the spellings in article names are not consistent.  --Lambiam 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. Perhaps I should not have made such a sweeping statement. I have received a few complaints from a Turkish user about my spelling the word Seljuq, including a post where this user swapped out all the ks for qs. I am aware of the Turkish spelling Selçuk, the reason for the final q in Seljuq, and even the Encyclopaedia of Islam’s Saldjūq. I too would like to see all the articles use a consistent spelling. My preference is for Seljuq, both because of a the transliteration of Persian script and because this spelling seems to appear more frequently in the literature. Greater than my preference for this spelling is my desire to see some consistency. If the consensus is Seljuk, I will happily busy myself with changing every appearance of the word on English Wikipidia. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "Seljuk" because it seems to be much more common in day-to-day use. Here in Wikipedia, there are 8 article titles with "Seljuk" and 2 with "Seljuq". In Google hits, I get 326,000 for "Seljuk -wikipedia" and only 37,000 for "Seljuq -wikipedia". MapMaster (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After correcting some quotations that used "Seljuq" where the source has "Seljuk", I count, over all 10 articles with "Seljuk"/"Seljuq" in the name, all together 15 references to different sources that have "Seljuk" in the title of the source or in quoted text from the source, against 11 for "Seljuq"/"Saljuq". So this suggests a split that is about even in the literature.  --Lambiam 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted the edits by an anon IP who had been reverted by other users quite a few times. Tajik (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disgrace to Wikipedia

For an empire like the Great Seljuk Empire this webpage is a total disgrace. It looks like a primary school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.5.41 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Turko-Persian

http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica states that the dynasty is of Turkish origin. Do you question Encyclopedia Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.248.2 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear that the dynasty is of Turkish-origin. The Great Seljuk Empire might have adopted Persian language and tradition to some degree, but that doesn't make the dynasty Turco-Persian. From Grousset, page 189: "Seljuk sultans of Turkic race and markedly Iranian culture"

Moreover, Encyclopedia Britannica, Histroy Channel and countless others clearly state that the dynasty is Turkish. Seljuks are also referred as "Seljuk Turks", also in Wikipedia (in every other language of the page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.83.105 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of applying your 20th/21st century nationalism to an Empire that existed during the 11th - 14th centuries. I'd suggest reading more than just the Encyclopedia Brittanica. IF you knew anything about research, you would know that just because you find ONE source that says something doesn't mean it is correct.

A an MBA, I know what research is. It is you who does not know anything about resarch. Encyclopedia Britannica is consiedered one of the most reliable sources througout the world. Hundreds of scholars attribute to the encyclopedia. Let's come to your citations.

• "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace." -- Grousset, p161,164

You mix up the meanings of dynasty and the empire. Here, Grousset states that the empire (not the dynasty) is Turco-Persian. The Seljuks are Turkish, and since this article is about the dynasty, this citations means nothing.

• "The Turko-Persian tradition developed in the Seljuk period and reached its fullest florescence in the 16th to 18th centures..." --Mandelbaum, p79

Again, nothing related to the dynasty, etnic origin.

• "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of the Turo-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia. The literature of Seljuk Anatolia was almost entirely Persian.." -- Lewis, p29

Again, it is about the culture and traditions, not the ethnicity.

• "The architecture of the building reflects the style developed at the Bursa School of Ottoman Architecture, which is a departure from the traditional Ottoman aesthetics in favor of the Seljuk(Turko-Persian) style." -- Clough, p18

• "The Seljuks even exported Iranian culture to Asia Minor. Those of Konya adopted Persian as their official language, and it remained the court language there, as has been noted, until about 1275." -- Grousset, p574

• "...and took refuge under the Seljuks, who had founded a kingdom in Asia Minor and inherited the Turko-Iranian culture from them." -- Shushtery, p 128

• "...the Mongols destroyed the Turko-Iranian Empire of the Seljuks in Turkestan; ravaged Iran..." -- Allen, p27

AND all these references;
Jackson, P. (2002). Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks.Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75–76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.
Bosworth, C. E. (2001). Notes on Some Turkish Names in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299–313.
Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).
Hancock, I. (2006). ON ROMANI ORIGINS AND IDENTITY. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.
Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Josef W. Meri, "Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, 2005, p. 399
Michael Mandelbaum, "Central Asia and the World", Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
Jonathan Dewald, "Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks.
Ram Rahul. "March of Central Asia", Indus Publishing, page 124.
C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish expansion towards the west", in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV.
Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 149.
O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Seljuq", Online Edition,
Ram Rahul. "March of Central Asia", Indus Publishing, pg 124:The Seljuk conquest of Persia marked the triumph of the Sunni over Shii but without a decline in Persian culture. The Seljuks eventually adopted the Persian culture.

You seriously need to do some reading. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You seriously consider practicing to understand what you reading and stop Persian proganda. All of the sources you added state that the empire is of Turkic origin.

There is a mass of Persian propaganda on Turkic dynasties and states via Wikipedia. Without a consensus, you shouldn't revert "Turkic dynasty" as "Turko-persian dynasty". The resources mention Seljuks as Turkic dynasty. And everyone knows that the founders and the governers of the Seljuqs were purely Turkic. In general view, you shouldn't revert the article without a consensus. In the earliest versions of this article, it mentions "Turkic dynasty", but I see that Persian editors change it with time, which is a part of Persian propaganda. The Seljuqs conquered Iran, lived there massively, but they didn't forget their own Turkic language (today there are still 38 million Turkic descandants -mainly Azeri Turks and Turkmens- of Seljuq Turks, who live in Iran, and they can all speak Turkic language, but Iran government opppress them and prohibit their rights.), so they still speak Turkic. Anyway the Seljuqs might have improved Persian culture by their contribution, but it doesn't mean they were Persian or persianized. Surely, Seljuks were a pure Turkic dynasty of Oghuz branch. Anyway, you (Persian editors) might have contributed to Wikipedia so much, but it doesn't give you any right to change several facts in your favour. You should give up making Persian propaganda on Turkic and Mongolic people, history and language. To give an example, in the version of 2006, the following sentence "The Seljuk Turks are regarded as the ancestors of the Western Turks, the present-day inhabitants of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan." is later changed to "Today, they are remembered as great patrons of Persian culture, art, literature, and language[9][10][18] and are regarded as the cultural ancestors of the Western Turks – the present-day inhabitants of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan." The expression is persianized by a few Persian editors. Today, Western Turks have their own Turkish culture, and it's more developed, higher, secular and very different than Persian culture. In the meantime, the ancestors of Turkey's Turks are mainly Oghuz branch of Turks. In the first versions of this article, 29 August 2009, everything is ok, but since 2006, it's been persianized. Check the history, and view the earliest changes from 2002 to 2012. It should be reviewed by objective researchers and historians. Regards. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As usual your battleground mentality can not comprehend that "Turko-Persian" is not ethnicity, but cultural. I've noticed you removing referenced information that you don't like throughout wikipedia. Continue to remove referenced information and you'll end up blocked again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)~

Stop insulting and be kind to others; you're threatening me, which also might cause you to be blocked. Its cultural aspect has already been mentioned in the article. In the same way, would you change "Kurdish dynasty" to "Kurdo-Arabic dynasty" in article of Ayyubids? First of all, the ethnicity of the dynasty should be mentioned, and then mention the influence of other cultures. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop ignoring the multitude of sources which you have not cared to read. As for Ayyubids, are there numerous published sources that state they are a "Kurdo-Arabic" dynasty? Your 20th - 21st century nationalism is anachronistic for a group of individuals living in the 11th century! Your opinion here means nothing. Re-read, if you've even read them the first time, the multitude of published sources stating "Turko-Persian" and take your anti-Persian POV elsewhere. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As you said, Turko-Persian is a cultural expression, and the authors of those resources used the expression of Turko-Persian for a cultural mean. Anyway it also requires us to add the origin of the dynasty. So I added it to the article without removing Turko-Persian. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Turko-Persian a cultural expression? The only thing required is that we write this encyclopedia using published sources, without adding any bias.

So where are these sources that state the Ayyubids were a "Kurdo-Arabic" dynasty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely, Turko-Persian is a cultural expression for the admixture of Turkic and Persian cultures, but it was overshading the ethnicity of the Seljuqs without mentioning the origin of the dynasty. By emphasizing the origin of the dynasty, it's a bit fixed now. However, it's unnecessary to mention Turko-Persian for the dynasty; a few resource mention it. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and no encylopedia mentions such an expression. For example, Britannica notes that Seljuq, also spelled Seljuk, ruling military family of the Oğuz (Ghuzz) Turkmen tribes that invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and most of Iran. Read online. Do you understand what I mean? BozokluAdam (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So where are these sources that state the Ayyubids were a "Kurdo-Arabic" dynasty? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So, which encyclopedia mentions Turco-Persian for Seljuqs? Read Britannica online. Does it mention Seljuks "Turco-Persian"? BozokluAdam (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So you were talking out of your ass. Typical. I don't need an encyclopedia to mention Turko-Persian, all I need is secondary sources, which you, clearly, do not understand. So take your hatred of Persian, Persia, etc. and continue to vandalize Wikipedia. I am done dealing with your racist rhetoric.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussing a topic on Talk page by freedom of thought and speech isn't to vandalise Wikipedia. Only want to make a few articles more objective. We're having a debate here, but you're accusing me of untrue allegation, and you're also showing a total lack of comprehension. I'm not hatred of Persia or Persians; that's your bad suspicion. The same way should I have thought that you utterly bear and show a grudge against Turkic people by sponging out cultural elements? Far from an academic atmosphere and a mutual cooperation, you're just attacking me by uttering rudely (talking out of my ass? and being a racist?). That's your vulgarity to overshadow a disputation, which also indicates your cultural level. I have already explained my ideas. Due to your undue style of speaking, I'll not answer you and not continue this disputation with you anymore. BozokluAdam (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "freedom" of speech, "I noticed that there is a mass of Persian propaganda of Iran against Turkic and Mongolic languages, history and culture through several articles in Wikipedia."[2]

You made the statement concerning the Ayyubids and couldn't back it up(therefore:"talking out of your ass"). Still waiting for a published source stating Kurdo-Arabic dynasty......

You have made racist remarks as indicated above, "....mass of Persian propaganda...".

Your battleground mentality, "...propaganda of Iran against Turkic and Mongolic languages, history and culture through several articles in Wikipedia.", is endemic of nationalists of all ethnicities and is not tolerated here on Wikipedia.

Your latest "edit" to weasel word Turco-Persian into heritage is incorrect and violates the spirit of wikipedia and I have reverted it. Your continued POV edits will result in you being blocked yet again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In Turkish, there is a saying; I utter it for you now. "Hasiktir piç!" as you strayed from the point.

Go on talking out of your own ass now. Here's yours with your own shit. Fuck off! BozokluAdam (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fanciful "Seljuk Empire" map

It [[3]] is brim-full of errors, inventions, and distortions. When was Cyprus part of the Seljuk empire? When was most of Eastern Armenia? When was the Aegean coast (complete with its islands)? Answer - never! Either this map gets a major reworking or it has to go. Meowy 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Meowy! I have two of the three references listed[4]. Both Grousset[5] p156, and Hourani p467, show the Seljuk Empire extending into the Anatolia peninsula, but no where does the Empire touch/reach the Mediterranean. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I showed this to Aramgar, and he agrees. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked its creator if he/she could correct its errors. The errors are so substantial that if they are not corrected I think the map should probably be removed from the Wikipedia articles that are linked to it. Meowy 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not the original creator of the map but I have just removed Cyprus and Aegean islands from it. The rest of the problems you are talking about (Great Armenia and Anatolian western coast) need more digging into reliable secondary sources--Dipa1965 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Smyrna was certainly under Seljuq control for a while. I'm not sure about the rest of the western coast of Anatolia. ETA - actually, our article on Chios states that that island was briefly under Seljuq control in the 1090s. My sense is that in the decades after Manzikert the Byzantines lost nearly all of Anatolia, only to regain much of it during and after the First Crusade. john k (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that Smyrna was occupied by a Turkish emir and notorious pirate (Chaka of Smyrna, see Alexiad by Anna Comnena) and there was some bitter fighting between him and the Byzantines for the control of Chios and, maybe, other islands. However, I am worrying whether those beyliks could be attributed to the Seljuk Empire. I think they were at least semi-independent. Same (or, perhaps, even more) for the Danishmends. So it depends on the criterions that define a medieval empire. What do you think?--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly semi-independent, but I think attributing all of them to Malik Shah's empire seems reasonable - what would be ideal would be to have separate colors for areas under direct Seljuq control and for semi-independent vassal regions. john k (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of this locator map, I must say that stating this map is "brim-full of errors, inventions, and distortions" is rather rude. Meowy, please raise your concerns in a WP:CIVIL manner. I see from your talk page, however, that I am not the 1st one to raise objections to your tone and you are presently blocked until November 1.

Regarding the map itself, first and foremost this map is a snapshot in time, specifically of the Seljuk Empire at its height in 1092.

Description and support for the map

I have checked my references and the map truly matches Hall and Haywood, except that I mistook the colour for Cyprus and perhaps other islands (they are pretty tiny). My apologies, and thanks for fixing it, Dipa1965. As far as I can see, however, Hall and Haywood do show that the Seljuks overran all of Anatolia just before the death of Malil Shah. As noted by John K, the article Chios also states that that Aegean island was overrun by the Turks from 1090-1097.

"This came to an end when the island was briefly held (1090–97) by Çaka Bey, a Turkish emir in the region is Smyrna during the first expansion of the Turks to the Aegean coast. However, the Turks were driven back from the Aegean coast by the First Crusade, and the island reverted to Byzantine rule."

Similarly, the Seljuk campaigns in the Aegean says:

"A fierce opponent, Çaka Bey succeeded in inflicting the first Turkish naval victory against Byzantium and captured a few Aegean Islands, supplemented by the conquest of Smyrna and Abydos. However, Alexios I launched a counter-attack in the aftermath of the First Crusade. "

Note that Nicaea, barely across the Bosphorus, was held by the Turks from 1077 to 1097.

Now, there is a question of what type of control the capital exerted over the various parts of the Empire, but my referenced maps all include these various pieces within the "empire", that is except for the Danishmends.

So apart from my mis-coloring Cyprus, I don't see anything demonstrably wrong. I would be happy to discuss further. MapMaster (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... it seems MapMaster has both ownership issues and a lack of ownership skills. MapMaster's reasoning for the mistakes he admits to - "mistaking the colour", the islands "are pretty tiny" - is really limp. Making personal attacks on the editor who pointed out those errors just shows a childish nature. Mapmaster seems to be not masterful at all. Showing islands as part of the empire is not a "tiny" mistake to make - it is a very serious error because it implies the Seljuks had a navy at this time, which they patently did not. Nor did the Seljuks "overun all of Anatolia" - mounted raiding parties (not all of them acknowledging Seljuq supremacy) spread throughout much of the Byzantine empire after the defeat at Manzikert, but over a large area of territory they raided they did not establish permanent control to anything like the degree that is needed for that territory to be called part of a "Seljuk Empire". It has already been pointed out that two of the sources cited for Mapmaster's map, Grousset and Hourani, do not show the territory of the empire reaching the mediterranean sea. Neither does the map on pXVI in Claude Cahen's "The formation of Turkey", or the various maps in The Times Atlas of World History. The manner of MapMaster's response indicates that he really has little actual knowledge of this region's history. Some expert editors are needed. Meowy 17:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the map in "The Times Complete History of the World", 2007, (the successor to "The Times Atlas of World History") and for their Great Seljuk Empire map, showing the 1090 period, nowhere does their territory touch the coastline - neither on the Black Sea, the Aegean, or the Mediterranean. The same for map 6, titled "Map showing the territories of the Great Seljuks, on page 26 of "The Turks, A Journey of 1000 Years", 2005; none of their territory is shown touching the Black Sea, Aegean Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Because I have been unable to located a published map that bears any comparison to the map drawn by Mapmaster, and all the maps I have been able to locate show very different borders to the territory of the Grea Seljug Empire, I have fact tagged all examples of this map on Wikipedia. Meowy 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In the The Atlas of World History by Jeremy Black (2005), the territory does indeed touch the coastline, and is a very, very close match to the one on page 228. I would scan the image, but that would cause copyright problems. I added this reference to replace your fact tags as it verifies the map produced. Jeremy Black is well respected, and not just any editor as you can see. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 sources which disagree with your "Atlas of World History" map - three of them are specialist books about Turkey and are not just general atlases. If you scan the map and post it without attribution, in a few days it will be automatically erased - nobody is going to hang you for breaking copyright laws! Also, maps, like all illustrations, are there to illustrate content in the article - where is the content with sources that says the empire stretched to the Mediterranean? BTW, there is no "Atlas of World History" listed on his webpage [6], so the author is probably just some other Jeremy Black. Meowy 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the webpage is missing his contribution. In the Atlas, he is listed clearly: Professor Jeremy Black, Department of History, University of Exeter, UK. The consultants on the Atlas are very impressive as well, and so it is very hard for me to believe that Professor Black would allow such a large amount of errors to go by.

As for the Mediterranean, it does note that "1095: Recaptured by Fatimids" in Palestine just under Jerusalem. The Great Seljuk Empire does stretch along the Mediterranean from south of Antioch level with the southern coast of Cyprus all the way down to Jerusalem. Wow, what a controversy, eh? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - by Mediterranean, I meant the part of the Mediterranean sea along the present-day southern coast of Turkey. Meowy 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the first step would be for the creator of that map to remove Grousset and Hourani as references, since both Grousset(p156) and Hourani(p467) only show the Seljuk Empire extending into the Anatolia peninsula, and give viable references that support this "map". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Grousset and Hourani belong in the references because their maps provided information to build the map in question. No two historical maps are exactly the same unless one is derived from the other. Just like a Wikipedia article, a good historical map will use multiple sources although these sources may present different data or data differently.

Now, regarding Grousset, his map does indeed show that the Turks had conquered all of Anatolia except for the Black Sea coast line. It also shows that the western lands were reconquered by Byzantine at the end of the century, but Grousset certainly supports this map in question.

Regarding Hourani, it is unfortunate that he does not precisely date his map, but merely states that it represents the territory " . . . toward the end of the eleventh century". From my research, I would date the map at 1098 or 1099. Certainly Hourani does not conflict with the Wikipedia map. MapMaster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone- read this explanation by Professor Black on page 92 in another one of his books- it may get to the heart of the problem we are facing with this map. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The heart of this problem is that maps and atlases don't often give sources or indicate why a line is drawn where it is. Genarally a good map is good because it stands at the evolutionary top of a tall pile of earlier maps. But, all other things being equal, if we have a ratio of 5 to 1 for maps that do not show the territory extending to the Aegean, then the majority wins. And things are probably not equal - three of those 5 are maps are from specialist books, not general atlases. MapMaster should have used the majority position when making his map, not the minority one. Meowy 23:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of just including a different map so there is no question as to its accuracy. That would be the most viable solution instead of waiting on a new edited one. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

According to various sources, at the time of Malik Shah's death in 1092 -- at the time of this map -- the Turks had effectively driven the Byzantine armies and governors/government out of Anatolia. That's what this maps shows. Earlier in the thread (see Talk:Seljuq_dynasty#Description and support for the map), I listed quite a bit of evidence that the Turks had reached the coast, including evidence that they had taken a couple of Aegean islands. Isn't this enough?? Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough. I'm sorry, but you don't really know much about the history of the Byzantine Empire at this period if you can write "Turks had effectively driven the Byzantine armies and governors/government out of Anatolia". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that two of the three sources you cited as a source for your map show a different border from what your map shows. And three more sources, the ones I cited, also show a different border that the one shown on your map. Why have you decided to take the minority position for your map, rather than the majority one? Meowy 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Which sources? The whole entire problem is that we cannot guarantee an accurate map from this period because of conflicting sources. I have tried to lend my assistance, but this will take some more work. I have suggested the use of another map until this one can be resolved so that adequate time is given. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, I don't think that personal attacks are helping the matter much. Please stop. Thank you.

There is significant evidence that the Byzantines were driven out of Anatolia by 1092, the date of this map.

• There are now five map references listed here, four of which (including Grousset) agree with the outlines of this map. The fifth, Hourani, is showing outlines of control in Anatolia after the re-conquests of the First Crusade.
• There is also significant textual support for the loss of Anatolia by the Byzantines. The major cities of Anatolia, including Nicaea, Smyrna, and Ephesus, were all under Turk control by 1092. Several islands were also captured by the Turks, as shown earlier in this thread.

So, again, I don't see anything wrong with this map. Let me ask Meowy whether he or she believes that Smyrna, Ephesus, and Nicaea were under Turkish control in 1092.

Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mapmaster - please stop behaving in this insulting manner. You claim I am making "personal attacks", yet there is nothing in my above post that could be construed as a personal attack. I'm left with the conclusion that you think anyone who questions the accuracy of your maps is making a personal attack on you. I do not have access to the Grousset and the Hourani sources - but Kansas Bear has stated that their maps do not show the same borders as shown on your map. The maps in the four sources that I have cited - "The Times Complete History of the World", 2007 edition; "The Times Atlas of World History", 1986 edition; "The Turks, A Journey of 1000 Years", Royal Academy of Arts, 2005; "The Formation of Turkey", Claude Cahen, 2001 - do not agree with the borders shown in your map. "The Byzantines" were not "driven out of Anatolia by 1092" and there is no textual support for such a bizarre view. Meowy 15:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, you did take a jab at MapMaster when you said "I'm sorry, but you don't really know much about the history of the Byzantine Empire ...", no matter what comes after. Even something such as this can easily divert the crux of the problem. Our problem is the accuracy of the map, and providing proper sources for the entire map, not just cities. I'm going to create a separate section for the listing of individual sources that prove your map is accurate, and then we can evaluate it and add to it. I think this is a fair way to approach it. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Seljuk Empire in 1092 map

All sources for the map created by MapMaster can go under this section for analysis. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1. History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 1 by Ezel Kural Shaw (1976), p. 7: "The establishment of the Seljuks of Rum posed a threat to Malikşah, who responded by establishing his dominion in northern Syria and reaching the Mediterranean."
  2. Black, Jeremy. The Atlas of World History. Covent Garden Books, American Edition, New York. p. p. 228. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help), ISBN 9780756618612
  3. Grousset, René (1970) The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press, 8th paperback edition, 2002, p. 156.
  4. Hall, Simon and John Haywood (1997) The Complete Atlas of World History: The Medieval & Early Modern World, A.D. 600 - 1783, Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference.
  5. Holt, Peter Malcolm; Ann K. S. Lambton; Bernard Lewis (1977) The Cambridge history of Islam, Volume 1, p, 260, ISBN 978-0521291354. Map is on page 260. Also, on page 267: "Apart from the territories of Philaretos and Gabriel, . . . the only part of Anatolia which was not in Turkish hands was the eastern Black Sea region. In Trebizond, which was taken back from the Turks in 1075, a Greek dukedom had been founded."
  6. Shepherd, William (1911) "Europe and the Mediterranean Lands about 1097", Historical Atlas, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  7. Hourani, Albert (1991) A History of the Arab Peoples, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 467. Unfortunately, this map is not dated any more precisely than " . . . toward the end of the eleventh century".
  8. Brownworth, Lars (2009) Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization, Crown Publishers, ISBN 978-0307407955: ". . . the Muslims captured Ephesus in 1090 and spread out to the Greek islands. Chios, Rhodes, and Lesbos fell in quick succession." p. 233.
  9. Further information can be gleaned from the fact that by 1092, the major cities of western Anatolia -- Nicaea, Smyrna, and Ephesus -- and even several Aegean islands were all in Turkish hands. I can find no source that lists any locations within Anatolia that were under Byzantine control in 1092.
  10. Luscombe, David The new Cambridge medieval history, Volume 2; Volume 4, p. 248: "By 1095 Alexios . . . was in a position to contemplate recovering Anatolia from the Turks. He moved troops across the Bosphorus and, using Nicomedia as a base, created a defensible zone, but it soon became clear he did not have the resources to effect a reconquest of Anatolia. . . Alexios had made the situation still worse at the very beginning of his reign [he took the throne in 1081] by withdrawing the remaining Byzantine garrisons from Anatolia."

I really think the Shepherd map is ideal, albeit from 1911- it shows what my Black map shows. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shepherd's maps are all over Wikipedia and although I didn't use Shepherd to build this map under discussion, Shepherd provides support for it. And thank you for mediating this, Monsieurdi -- it is much appreciated. MapMaster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all... getting it right is worth the effort. I just wish I had more sources in my library to help, but they seem to be weak on maps and strong on text in this instance. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That Shepherd map is a childish simplification, full of mistakes and generalisations. How could you consider it as a legitimate source for creating a map? Do you consider that a map which claims 50% of central Anatolia is Muslim in 1097 is a legitimate source? (Probably 10% is about right). Do you consider that a map which shows 100% of Armenia and Georgia as Muslim in 1097 is a legitimate source? (A correct figure would be about 1%). From what fantasy-history textbook did Shepherd, 100 years ago, get the information that Caeserae and Melitene were "petty Armenian states"? Melitene, for example, was an Arab emirate until its 930s century capture by the Byzantines. After the collapse of central control from Constantinople after Manzikert, the local Byzantine administration continued to hold it until its capture by the Danishmendid Turks in about 1101. The population throughout those changes was almost entirely Syrian. I guess that Shepherd thought that it was a "petty Armenian state" because the Byzantine-appointed governor was an ethnic Armenian. A bit like MapMaster thinking that all of Anatolia was part of the Seljuk Empire because some individuals who happened to be ethnic Turks briefly ruled settlements like Smyrna. Also a bit like MapMaster assuming that because direct rule from Constantinople was disrupted, every bit of the empire should suddenly be considered as part of some other empire! The Greek-Orthodox Armenian governors of Melitene, Edessa, and Marash had all received and accepted the title of curopalates from the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus - the territories they controlled were all still within that empire. And why does the territory of those "petty Armenian states" not include places actually held and ruled independently by Armenians, such as Lampron and its district, west of Tarsus and within what the map falsely claims to be Seljuk territory. From what fantasy history textbook did Shepherd get the information that Kars or Ani was part of the "Dominions of the Seljuk Turks"? Ani was under Shaddadid control from about 1072, and the Saddadids were not even Turks! From what fantasy history textbook did he get the idea that Abkhazia was part of the "Dominions of the Seljuk Turks"? Meowy 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Turko-Persian v2

I have doubts whether there is actually a published source where this matter is directly addressed, so some sort of interpretation of sourced material seems to be needed here. My position: The Great Seljuq Empire is what's defined as Turko-Persian by the sources, and the Seljuq dynasty itself is basically considered the Turkish part of this Turko-Persian entity. That's why the Seljuq dynasty is casually defined as Turkish dynasty by Encyclopedia Brittanica and that's why they are also synonymously referred to as Seljuq Turks, but never as Seljuq Persians.

Similarly, the term, Persianate, seems to be used exclusively in the context of an entire society (i.e. Persianate society) by the academic community. So I will argue it's technically inaccurate to attach it to a dynasty, which is essentially a family.

My proposition for the first two sentences is as follow:

The House of Seljuq (Persian: سلجوقيان‎ Saljūqīyān; Turkish: Selçuklular) was a Turkish Sunni Muslim dynasty, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks. They were one of the patrons of the Turko-Persian tradition in the medieval West and Central Asia.

Regards. --Mttll (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Several examples from Google Books to illustrate my point:

On the dynasty...

• "... reached Anatolia (Rūm, hence the surname Rūmī), a region that enjoyed peace and prosperity under the rule of the Turkish Seljuq dynasty." (The 100 Most Influential Writers of All Time)

• "... under the rule of the Turkish Seljuq dynasty." (Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions)

• "In the eleventh century, the Turkish Seljuk dynasty conquered Baghdad and won the title of sultan, or ruler, from its caliph (p. 204)." (A Brief History of the Western World)

On the empire...

• "After the Mongols defeated the Seljuk armies in 1243, the Seljuk Turko-Persian Empire slowly crumbled" (Nations That Evolved From The Five Sons of Shem)

• "...dates to the rise of the Seljuk dynasty in the Turco-Persian Empire in 1037." (Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire)

And one from Google Scholar:

• "The Seljuks were the first Turkish dynasty to rule the Muslim World reviving the dying Caliphate." (Muslim Architecture under Seljuk Patronage (1038-1327))

--Mttll (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone, muchless myself, has ever stated that the Seljuq dynasty wasn't Turkish. The usage in the sentence, "....originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks.", I believe says it all. Also, as I have explained time and time again, Persianate, has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, this being in response to, "....synonymously referred to as Seljuq Turks, but never as Seljuq Persians.". My intent, which I am sure will be vilified, was to show the dynasty as more than just a one dimensional ethnic group but as a dynasty that patronized Persian government, literature, art and architecture, while the Rum Seljuqs continued this they also "evolved" this form of architecture(which by the way later influenced Indian architecture!!)[7]

Do we really need to call it a "Turkish(ethnicity) dynasty originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks(ethnicity)."? So we tell the reader this was a "Turkish dynasty orginating from a branch of Turks."? Nothing like redundancy.

Instead how about,

1. "The House of Seljuq was a Turko-Persian(culture) Sunni Muslim(religion) dynasty, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks(ethnicity)."

Or,

2. "The House of Seljuq was an Oghuz Turk(ethnicity) Sunni Muslim(religion) dynasty, that adopted the Turko-Persian culture(culture)."--Defensor Ursa 06:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

IF we go with option #2, we could re-write the lede sentence in Sultanate of Rum to;

"The Sultanate of Rum or Sultanate of Seljuk, was a Turko-Persian(culture) Sunni Muslim(religion) state in Anatolia, of Seljuk Turk(ethnicity) origin that existed from 1077 to 1307, with capitals first at İznik and then at Konya.", thus Seljuk Turks would link to option #2 which mentions ethnicity first! --Defensor Ursa 06:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I don't think anyone questions the association of the Seljuqs with Persian culture. The question here is about the opening sentence. In other words, we need the simplest description of who the Seljuqs were. Let's check some English dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionaries (Link)

Seljuk: a member of any of the Turkish dynasties which ruled Asia Minor in the 11th to 13th centuries, successfully invading the Byzantine Empire and defending the Holy Land against the Crusaders.

Meriam Webster (Link)

Seljuk: of or relating to any of several Turkish dynasties ruling over a great part of western Asia in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries

The Free Dictionary by Farlex (Link)

Seljuk: a member of any of the pre-Ottoman Turkish dynasties ruling over large parts of Asia in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries a.d

Reference.com (Link)

Seljuk: noting or pertaining to any of several Turkish dynasties that ruled over large parts of Asia from the 11th to the 13th centuries.

Another thing is answered within the term, Turko-Persian:

The composite Turko-Persian tradition was a variant of Islamic culture. It was Persianate in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic background

So like I said, the state (the Great Seljuq Empire) is what's called Turko-Persian, the society is what's called Persianate while the dynasty itself is called Turkish. That seems to be the whole point of this terminology. --Mttll (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia:Lead, "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.". I am assuming you have read the article. :-D

Following that, my idea(s) for the lead sentence reflects what is in the article, actually little is said about their religion but I'm nice. --Defensor Ursa 16:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence is just a part of the lead section. The culturally Persian aspect of the Seljuqs can be expressed in the very second sentence. What I'm arguing is that the first sentence should be reserved for the simplest definition of who the Seljuqs were and the answer is, according to any online English dictionary I have seen so far, "a Turkish dynasty". --Mttll (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And I believe the opening sentence should tell the reader exactly what this dynasty was, "The House of Seljuq was an Oghuz Turk(ethnicity) Sunni Muslim(religion) dynasty, that adopted Turko-Persian culture(culture)." --Defensor Ursa 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound?

The House of Seljuq was a Turkish Sunni Muslim dynasty that patronated Turko-Persian cultural tradition in the medieval West and Central Asia. They originated from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks.

I changed "adopt" to "patronate", because the Seljuqs seem to be the biggest contributors to the said tradition. --Mttll (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Change patronate to patronized. Are you sure you don't want "Oghuz Turkish" instead of "Turkish"?

"The House of Seljuq was a/an Turkish(Oghuz Turkish?) Sunni Muslim dynasty that patronized Turko-Persian cultural tradition in the medieval West and Central Asia."?

Thoughts? --Defensor Ursa 05:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Oghuz Turkish is a common expression in English, except in reference to the language Oghuz Turks speak/spoke, so I'd go with Turkish. And thinking twice, the Qynyk branch of Oghuz Turks is immediately mentioned in the Early history/Origins section, so perhaps there is no need to mention them in the lead. In short, it seems we have reached an agreement on the opening sentence. --Mttll (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There is absoltely no doubt that the Seljuqs - meaning the tribe - was Turkic in origin. In fact, Ẓāhir ud-Dīn Nīshāpūrī records in his Saljuqnāma that the very first Seljuqs, including Toghrol and Chaghri, had an exotic appearance in the eyes of the Khorasani Iranians: their Mongolid physical features, the way they dressed, the way they styled their hair, their way of life, etc. Especially Alp Arslan's exotic looks and his very long mustache are pointed out. Unlike the Ghaznavids who - though nominally "Turks" by origin - had become thoroughly Persianized, the Seljuqs remained Turks: they remained nomads, they kept their Turkic way of life and their strong tribal bonds. Yet, that dramatically changed when Alp Arslan appointed Nizām al-Mulk as the Atabeg of the young Malik Shāh: Nizām al-Mulk originated from an aristrocratic Persian family, on his side with strong bonds to Iranian culture and identity. Nizām al-Mulk was an outspoken enemy of the Turkish tribal chiefs and the counter-ballance to Seljuq nomadism. That's why there needs to be a clear distinction not only between the Qynyk Turkish tribe and the non-tribal Iranian majority of the Seljuq empire, but also between the ruling Seljuq elite and the rest of the tribe. Malik Shāh's "persophile" attitude and his "Persianness" were the reason why his uncle attacked him. It was Nizām al-Mulk's political genius that eleminated the powerful Turkish tribal chiefes, inlcuding Qāvord (the eldest of the Seljuq tribal chiefs and Malik Shāh's paternal uncle). The Seljuqs reformed the army, created a powerful army independent of Turkoman tribal chiefs, consisting predominantly of Kurdish and Arab contingents. It was this army that drove the Turks out of Khorasan and forced them to the Western periphery. This deflection of the "uncivilized Oghuz" (in the words of Nizām al-Mulk) is the main reason for the Turkification of Anatolia. It served two purposes: it drove the Turks out of the Persian mainland - the heart of the Seljuq Empire - and, at the same time, it weakened the Christian rivals in the West. The Turks remained an alien group to the ruling elite who had become thoroughly Persianized. Even in Anatolia, Rum Seljuqs - the descendants of Qāvord - had become fully Persianized. To an extent, that they even claimed to be of royal Persian origin (a hillarious claim, since everyone knew that the dynasty was of Turkish origin). For more information and reliable source, please see my draft in the German Wikipedia. --Lysozym (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on "Turko-Persian culture" or "Persianate" culture or both? I think the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica have great points worth mentioning..

• "Encyclopaedia of Islam: “Coming as they did through Transoxiana which was still substantially Iranian and into Persia proper, the Saljuqs -- with no high-level Turkish cultural or literary heritage of their own-- took over that of Persia, so that the Persian language became that of administration and culture in their lands of Persia and Anatolia”"(Bosworth, C.E.; Hillenbrand, R.; Rogers, J.M.; Blois, F.C. de; Darley-Doran, R.E. (1995), "Saldjukids", Encyclopaedia of Islam , New Ed., vol. 8:936-978)
• "Finally, as noted by Yarshater, “By all accounts, weary of the miseries and devastations of never-ending conflicts and wars, Persians seemed to have sighed with relief and to have welcomed the stability of the Saljuqid rule, all the more so since the Saljuqids mitigated the effect of their foreignness, quickly adopting the Persian culture and court customs and procedures and leaving the civil administration in the hand of Persian personnel, headed by such capable and learned viziers as ‘Amid-al-Molk Kondori and Nezam-al-Molk”"(Yarshater, Ehsan (2004), “Iran: Iranian History in the Islamic Period", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition.)
• "Turko-Persian" cultural tradition is in my opinion incorrect as there is not a single Turkish verse/manuscript from the Seljuq era..
• Also the attempted deletion of the word Persianate by Mttll is not correct. I would prefer Persianate culture per the strong sources just quoted above.
• I would request that since there are all sorts of nationalist types in this article and the related Seljuq of Rum, some feedback from RFC or admins should be oobtained.. Lysozym and Kansas Bear actually use sources while not denying what Mttll is stating, but it is not working the other way around. So perhaps a 3rd party intervention can help. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree wil the IP above. As I have previously mentioned, there is no doubt that the Seljuqs were of Central Asian Turkic origin. Yet, the statement that they "patronized Turko-Persian tradition" is not the best wording. They patronized Persian traditions and culture, they adopted the Persian language, and they began to dress and to behave like Persians. Of course, that made them a "Turko-Persian" dynasty, but the "Turko-" in Turko-Persian merely points to their Turkic origins while it was the Persian element that defined their culture. And I want to repeat once more: there needs to be a clear distinction between the ruling house and the Seljuq tribe. The ruling house was not identical with the whole tribe. And they were not universally accepted as the leaders of the tribe. In fact, it was their progressive Persianization that alienated other members of the tribe who remained more or less nomadic Turkic tribesmen. This conflict - between sedentary Persians and nomadic Turks - was the main reason for the Seljuq relovlts against Malik Shah and Sultan Sanjar. It was also the main reason for the deflection of the Turkomans out of Khorasan to Anatolia. --Lysozym (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's avoid making borderline original research statements please. I mean, you wouldn't have to convince me, you would have to convince all those sources which define the Seljuqs a Turkish dynasty. Anyway, if better wording is needed, what do you think about the following:

The House of Seljuq was a Turkish Sunni Muslim dynasty that gradually adopted Persian culture and contributed to the Turko-Persian tradition in the medieval West and Central Asia.

Mttll (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to convince you or any other "sources". It's about presenting and reflecting the most reliable sources. Besides that, I do not understand why all of this information has to be stuck into one sentence. Seljuq history and political importance is much more complex than that.

As for the intro, I suggest a word-to-word translation from my German draft which includes all important aspects of the Seljuq dynasty: the years they came to power, their capitals, their origin, their political and religious importance as well as the aspect of Persianization and the patronage of Persian culture, language and literature.

As for your sentence above: linking the Seljuqs to the modern Turkish people is wrong. They were a branch of the Qynyq Oghuz who - by all scholarly standards - are to be considered Turkmens. There is a difference between the modern Turkish population of Anatolia and the Central Asian Turkmen. --Lysozym (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as it so happens the most reliable sources define the Seljuks as a Turkish dynasty as I showed time and time again.

Dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionaries (Link), Seljuk: a member of any of the Turkish dynasties which ruled Asia Minor in the 11th to 13th centuries, successfully invading the Byzantine Empire and defending the Holy Land against the Crusaders.

Meriam Webster (Link),Seljuk: of or relating to any of several Turkish dynasties ruling over a great part of western Asia in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries

The Free Dictionary by Farlex (Link), Seljuk: a member of any of the pre-Ottoman Turkish dynasties ruling over large parts of Asia in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries a.d

Reference.com (Link), Seljuk: noting or pertaining to any of several Turkish dynasties that ruled over large parts of Asia from the 11th to the 13th centuries.

Encyclopedias:

Encyclopedia Brittanica (Link), "Seljuq (Turkish dynasty)"

Encyclopedia of World Biography (Link), "Alp Arslan (1026-1072) was the second Seljuk sultan of Persia and Iraq and a member of the Turkish dynasty which revitalized Moslem rule in the declining days of the Abbasid caliphate."

A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Link), Seljuk or Saljuk archictecture. Taking its name from a Turkish Islamic dynasty which, with its branches, ruled in Iran, Iraq, and Syria from 1038 to 1194 and in Anatolia from 1077 to 1307

And no, Turkmen in this context doesn't refer to Turkmens of Turkmenistan but to:

Oghuz Turks, a large branch of Turkic peoples

Specially, Muslim Nomadic Oghuz Turks (the most common usage of the word "Turkmen", in 10th-18th centuries)

See Turkmen (disambiguation pages)

Lastly, let's not forget the last surviving Seljuk dynasty was the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia and it was during their reign Turkey became Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A dictionary - especially a dictionary of the English language - is not a reliable source on the Seljuqs. There are plenty more sources, entire books written about this, by real experts. "Turkish" has a different meaning in academic sources than in popular speech. Comparable to "Iranian", "Roman" and "Arab", "Turkish" is historical context is NOT identical with the modern Turkish population of Turkey which was more or less created by Attatürk less than 100 years ago. The Alans that once moved as far as Spain were Iranian in ethnolinguistic context, but they were NOT identical with modern Iranians. The same goes to the Turks and the "Turkish" aspect.

And you once again fail to distinuish between the Oghuz migration and the Seljuq Sultanate. It was NOT the Seljuqs who Turkicized Anatolia, but the following Turkish beyliqs. The Seljuqs were not even identified as Turks even though it was clear to everyone that they were of Turkish (meaning Turkoman) origin. Turkicization was NOT state-sponsored politics of the Seljuqs neither did they have any interest in Turkicizing anyone. The word "Turk" remained pejorative until the late Tanzimat era. Your conclusion is simply wrong and shows that you read the most simplistic descriptions of that era, but you do not know - and do not understand - the complexity of the actual situation. Either we write a simplistic, non-academic, low-class article using your argumentation and your simplistic and low-class sources, or we use real academic sources and write a really good article. Just taking a look at the most reliable sources, i. e. the Encyclopaedia of Islam (or the Türk İslâm Ansiklopedisi), books published by P. Golden, R. Grousset, C.E. Bosworth, etc shows that you actually do not have the qualification to write such a complex article. Sorry. It's not meant to be offensive. If you want to see a good article on the Seljuqs (in this case the Seljuqs of Rum), read this one. --Lysozym (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Let me give you an analogy that actually works: Iranian Alans to modern Persians is like Turkic Avars to modern Turks. While Seljuq Turks to modern Turks is like Sassanid Persians to modern Persians.
• The Seljuqs, or rather Seljuq Turks, were of course identified as Turks by their contemporaries as well as modern scholars.
• Anatolia started to be known as Turkey under the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.
• And thank you for yet another source. So let's just quote how Encyclopedia Iranica sees fit to describe the Seljuqs in its subtitle which would be analogous to an opening sentence in Wikipedia:

dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled much of Anatolia (Rum), ca. 1081-1308.

This shows just how much Wikipedia deviates from any mainstream source on this matter for the sake of a select few Wikipedia editors who self-profess to understand "the complexity of the situation". --Mttll (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Turchia" was a name adopted in European languages. It was not the endonym of the Seljuq realm. And the Seljuqs themselves avoided the expression "Turk" which was - at that time - synonymous with "barbarian".

As for Iranica: nobody has ever questioned that the Seljuqs were of Turkish origin. Your analgoy, however, is wrong. The modern Turkish population formed during the past 500 years in the Ottoman Empire. The ethnogenesis of the modern Anatolian Turks is overwhlemingly Non-Turkish, i. e. Greek, Armenian, Kurdish. The Turkoman tribes that came to Anatolia during the Seljuq and Ottoman conquests Turkified the population linguistically. The same happened a few centuries earlier in Central Asia, when Persian-speaking dynasties changed the language of the region.

You also still fail to understand that "Turkish" is not necessairily identical with the modern Turkish population. In English, "Turkish" means "Citizen of Turkey", "ethnically Turkish" and "member of Turkic ethno-linguistic group". Claiming that the Seljuqs were "Turkish" is like claiming that the Franks were "German" (instead of "Germanic"). Have you actually read the Iranica article?! Or did you just read the first sentence and believe that you now have the qualification to write an academic article?! --Lysozym (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just focus on the matter at hand, shall we?

• Encyclopedia Brittanica

- Seljuq (Turkish dynasty) (Link)

- SELJUQ TURKS (Seljuq Turks from the article Islamic world) (Link)

- The Seljuqs were a family among the Oghuz Turks, a label applied to the migratory pastoralists of the Syr Darya–Oxus basin. (Link)

• Columbia Encyclopedia

- Seljuks → Seljuks: see Turks. (Link)

- Turks → Seljuk Empire: At the beginning of the 11th cent. a great wave of Seljuk Turks, led by Tughril Beg, conquered Khwarazm and Iran. They entered Baghdad in 1055; Tughril Beg was proclaimed sultan. (Link)

• Encyclopedia Iranica

- Saljuqs → SALJUQS iii. SALJUQS OF RUM: dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled much of Anatolia (Rum), ca. 1081-1308. (Link)

The last source is especially very telling, because it says:

The Encyclopædia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Because if Iranian or Persian aspect is first and foremost or central to something, I believe we can trust this source to express that. And yet it does no such thing for the Seljuqs. Wikipedia seems alone in that respect for some reason. --Mttll (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mttll, you still fail to understand what this discussion is about. Nobody in here claims that the Seljuqs were not Turkish. However, your understanding of the term "Turkish" is totally different from what scholars mean. To give you an example: in this interview with CNN, Prof. Richard Frye - perhaps the best known living Iranist in the world - is talking of a "Greater Iran" that reaches "from Hungary to China". It needs understanding of Iranian studies and academic to understand what he is actually talking about. While Iranian nationalists may think of some kind of Iranian super-state, anti-Iranian groups will feel insulted by the words of this great scholar. Yet, both groups fail to understand what he is actually talking about.

Your understanding of the word "Turkish" is totally different from what real scholars mean when speaking of the "Turkish Seljuqs". The word "Turkish" in this context is to be understood as "Central Asian Oghuz" and NOT as "Turkish-speaking sedentary population of Anatolia".

Your "analysis" of Iranica is wrong. For example, it dedicates an entire article to "Saljuqid literature" which, as it is explained, is "literary works in Persian produced between 432/1040 and 617/1220.". It continues: "In a territory that extended from Khorasan to Anatolia, the Saljuqs entrusted their internal politics to viziers and secretaries of Iranian stock and adopted Persian as the official language of the administration and of much of the court correspondence. The most important and immediate effect of these decisions was the very widespread diffusion of Persian as a literary language alongside Arabic. The Saljuqs, who had no comparable cultural and literary heritage of their own in Turkish to counter Persian,accepted and cultivated the prestigious literary tradition provided by Persian language and culture. By so doing, they played a significant role in the diffusion of the Persian literary language and of the culture expressed by it, and this in turn led to a reappraisal and partial rejection of the dominance of Arabic as the lingua franca of educated society in the Middle East." There is also another article named Persian manuscripts in Ottoman and modern Turkish libraries which reflects the great influence of Persian culture and literature in Anatolia. --Lysozym (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you having your elaborate interpretation of the sources, but there is no room for original research in Wikipedia. The simple truth of the matter is that Encyclopedia Iranica, like all the other sources on this subject, defines the Seljuqs as a Turkish dynasty first and foremost. And in Encyclopedia Columbia, the Seljuks are discussed under the title, Turks, along with pre-Seljuq Turkic peoples, the Ottomans as well as modern Turkey. (Link) The situation is crystal clear, really. --Mttll (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give up. It's hard to explain something to someone who does not even understand the point in question. *sigh* --Lysozym (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Iran not Persia

User:Ehsan01 has decided to change Persia to Iran along with linking it to Iran.[8] This is not only POV editing, but anachronistic since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not exist at that time! Did Iran exist in 1037? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The name Iran exists since Sasanian Empire, or even older as an ethnic identity, it's not related to that so-called Islamic Republic, it's the native and old name of Iran/Persia. See Iran (word) and Name of Iran. But we can't use Iran instead of Persia for the Seljuq era. Because all major sources used "Persia" as the official name until 1935 (see two mentioned articles). Using Iran is anachronism (for this article and other similar articles). --Zyma (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

After waiting one week and having no response from user:Ehsan01, I will change it back to Persia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

    No , I think it's the time to use Iran in the article ,because The names Iran and Persia are often used interchangeably to mean the same country. Iran is the legal name. Persia, was an ancient kingdom within Iran. Iran came to be known as Persia in the West thanks to classical Greek authors during whose time Persia was the dominant kingdom in Iran.Persia is a synoumy to Iran. 

as we know Iranians has called their country Iran from at least from 300 A.C so there is no need to call Iran , Persia in this article because it's about a medieval dynasty.--Javaddeniro (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)