Talk:Anatolian Seljuks family tree

Scope
This article has beeen expanded. Thanks for the efforts. However most of the expansion is out of the scope of the article. The title is about the Anatolian Seljuks. But other Seljuk families (out of Anatolia) as well as the Ottomans have been included in the family tree. Thus I think such irrevelant additions should be moved to another article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * some information added for the purpose of comparison, it will not go beyond the 13th century108.18.143.93 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
Although I am against deleting sourced info, I reluctantly deleted those additions after June. Because these are completely out of the scope of the article and the family tree has begun unreadable. But I still thank unregistrated editor 108.18.143.93 for her/his valuable contributions. The older versions can be found in the history of the article and I strongly suggest her/him to create for a new article (but not this one) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Anatolian Seljuks family tree (simplified)
I'm reinstating the deleted references in the Anatolian Seljuks family tree article. This article explains the kinship of Anatolian Seljuks and the Great Seljuks family. It is chronologically prepared, and also elucidates their relationship with the Il-Khans and the vassal status of the Seljuks of Rum after 1243. For the simplified family tree, a templete of Anatolian Seljuks family tree (simplified) could be created and linked to Anatolian Seljuks family tree (simplified). In addition, the assertion that the tree is confusing cannot be valid since the Sultans of Rum are indicated with strong solid blue border lines.108.18.143.93 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit war. Thus article is about the Seljuks of Anatolia. Their relation to Great Seljuks is already clear. If you want to include everything (inc. Karamaids and the Ottomans) you are free to creat another article. You can copy your contributions to new article. But please stop playing with this article. (Of course you can correct any faulty info) Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please no warring. This family chart belongs to Seljuks of Anatolia. You keep adding other Seljuk families . That’s debatable. (By the way it seems you’ve missed the Seljuks of Syria) If we add all Seljuk families to this chart we should also move the title to match the content  But there is a much bigger problem. You also add unrelated dynasties (such as Karamanids, Ottoman, Perwane, Kharzemshahs) to this chart which is unacceptable (not to mention “too crowded”) . So as a comprimise I keep your changes about the Seljuks and delate other dynasties. Of course you are completely free to create new articles about the other dynasties. (For Ottomans there are already two family charts) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the material should not be deleted:
 * 1.Karamanoğlu Shams ad-Dīn Mehmed Bey was the Grand Vizier of ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn Sīyāvuş
 * 2.Pervâneoğulları Anatolian Beylik gained its independence from Anatolian Seljuks
 * 3.Uç Beylik of Osman gained its independence from Anatolian Seljuks
 * 4.Anatolian Seljuks became a vassal state of Mongol Empire after the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243 hence they became dependent upon Mongol rulers
 * 5. The list of Important events should include the relationship with Khwarazmshahs like "Kayqubad the Great defeated Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu in the Battle of Yassıçimen in 1230", hence some Khwarazmshahs should be indicated for the purpose of comparison
 * 6. Very simple family tree template can be connected to Anatolian Seljuks family tree (simplified) if you like as in the case of simplified ottoman tree,
 * 7. In the end, Anatolian Seljuk Rulers are indicated with SOLID BLUE BOXES in order to distinguish them easily from the other family members like brothers, sisters and grooms
 * regards108.18.143.93 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you’re joking. Mehmet I was the vizier of the Seljuks before being executed. So what? Are we going to add all viziers to the chart? Of course not. Viziers are not included in the family charts. Same goes to Perwane. (How about Sahip Ata whose story is almost the same as Perwane) Ottomans gained their independence. The same is true with all other Anatolian beyliks (Hamidids, Germiyanids Jandarits etc.) Are you planning to add their family charts to the article. ? In Yassı Çimen Seljukids defeated Kharzemshas. They also defeated Byzantines in Mriokephelon . So are you planing to add Byzantines to the list ? In WP there is no dynasty chart which shows the issued principalities or defeated kingdoms. For your proposal about simplified list; a chart shows the members of the dynasty and the simplified chart shows only the sovereigns. (Please compare two charts about the Ottomans) Since we include Seljuk family members who are not sovereigns, this chart is not a simplified chart. I repeat my suggestion; you’re welcome to create new charts about the other dynasties, but in different articles.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

deletions of referenced material
You should not delete the references which explains important evetns, if you like an extremely simplified template version, you can use the one that you preapered in the form of template which is shown below108.18.143.93 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

deleted material includes the following

 * 1.Baiju Noyan defeated Kay Khusraw II in the Battle of Kösedağ in 1243 and Anatolian Seljuks became a vassal state of the Mongol Empire
 * Therefore, Mongols and Il-Khans ruled the Seljuks of Rum thereafter, these rulers should be named explicitly
 * 2.Güyük designated Kilij Arslan IV the Sultan of Rum in 1248
 * 3.Pervâneoğulları Anatolian Beylik gained its independence from Anatolian Seljuks
 * Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman was the absolute ruler of Seljuks of Rum from 1262 to 1277
 * Grand Vizier Parwāna Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman ruled the country on behalf of Ghiyāth ad-Dīn Kay Khusraw III between 1266 and 2 August 1277 (1 Rabi' al-awwal 676)
 * 4.Sāhīp Shams ad-Dīn Īsfahānī (1246–1249), Grand Vizier Sāhīp Shams ad-Dīn Īsfahānī ruled the country on behalf of ʿIzz ad-Dīn Kay Kāwus II between 1246 and 1249
 * 5.Uç Beylik of Osman established in Söğüt, Bilecik and gained its independence from the Seljuks of Rum
 * 6:Karamanoğlu Shams ad-Dīn Mehmed Bey was the Grand Vizier of ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn Sīyāvuş for 5 weeks
 * These events should be clearly explained in the article and cannot be deleted108.18.143.93 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anatolian Seljuks were divided into two by a firman of Möngke Khan in 1258/1259 is the conspicuous indication that Anatolian Seljuks were no longer fully independent at large of the Mongols

therefore, the related mongols rulers and history should be pointed out explicitly108.18.143.93 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) ~::Please don't repeat the contents of the Seljuks history page. This is not a history text; this is a family chart and other families have no part in the chart. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article but not a template, besides Grand Vizier Parwāna Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman married to Gürcü Hatun, the mother of ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn Kay Qubād II. 108.18.143.93 (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The same argument for Sāhīp Shams ad-Dīn Īsfahānī, who was married to Bardūlīya Khātun, widow of Ghiyāth ad-Dīn Kay Khusraw I108.18.143.93 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Anatolian Seljuk rulers (simplified)


Great Seljuq Empire
 * Important events
 * Battle of Malazgirt
 * Establishment
 * First Crusade
 * Second Crusade
 * Battle of Myriokephalon
 * Third Crusade
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Battle of Malazgirt
 * Establishment
 * First Crusade
 * Second Crusade
 * Battle of Myriokephalon
 * Third Crusade
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Battle of Malazgirt
 * Establishment
 * First Crusade
 * Second Crusade
 * Battle of Myriokephalon
 * Third Crusade
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * First Crusade
 * Second Crusade
 * Battle of Myriokephalon
 * Third Crusade
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Battle of Myriokephalon
 * Third Crusade
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Ala ad-Din Tekish ended
 * Zenith
 * Battle of Yassıçimen
 * Babai Revolt
 * Battle of Kösedağ
 * Triple reign
 * Disestablishment
 * Babai Revolt
 * Battle of Kösedağ
 * Triple reign
 * Disestablishment
 * Triple reign
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment
 * Disestablishment


 * This is a nice primitive chart for the Anatolian Seljuk Rulers, and does not include a list of historical events, it'd be better to create a Template for it108.18.143.93 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a history text this is a chart
Something should be clarified. This chart is not about the Seljuks of Rum history. It is about a family. Only the members of the Seljuk house can be shown here. If you want to add a missing member of the Seljuk house OK, please do it. If you want a family chart about Perwane Karamanid or Kharzemshah families create new articles about them. If you want a chart about the Ottomans well it has already be done twice. If you want to expand Seljuks history, very well, please do it the revelant pages. But please don’t continue warring. Nedim Ardoğa (talk)

Warring
An ambigious editor tries to change this chart. She/he is welcome to add any missing box about the dynasty. But instead she/he is adding many unrelated dynasties (Please see the discussion) The chart is too crowded and completely out of the scope. After few reverts I don’t want to engage in an edit war. (The correct copy is the copy 21 December 17:53 copy) See if you can help me.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you mean by "ambigious (sic) editor" but I think you mean IP (or anonymous) editor. IP editors have every right to edit articles the same as any other editor and article creators have no special rights to determine what the content of an article is.  See WP:OWN.  The proper thing to do at this point is to stop participating in an edit war and discuss the changes here. I hope that helps. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is where edit warring can be reported and as for information on dispute resolution, see Dispute resolution. 78.28.44.204 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Nedim Ardoğa, I think at this point the word Anatolian should be removed from the title, because the tree is almost covering all of the Seljuqs, not only the ones who reigned in Anatolia. What do you think? Keivan.f  Talk 06:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the original form (see the history) only the "Seljuks of Anatolia" was covered. Then this editor added some boxes about the other Seljuks. (But they were incomplete). She/he continued with the other dynasties such as the Ottomans, Perwane, Karamanids and the Kharzemshahs. That's something clearly out of the scope. But the editor is happy with the warring. Adding new boxes requires some time and effort and I hate to delete such information. But the irrevelant info has to be deleted. So I asked her/him to create a new chart instead of interfering with this one Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

Seljuk or Seljuq
The name Seljuk in the title has been moved to Seljuq. Possible, but is it really necessary? Both names are used in other articles about Seljuks and there is no agreement on the exact pronounciation. I think there should be an agreement about the name before moving. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrevelant additions
Hi, it seems user 108.18.143.95 refers edit warring. Well I don't like warring. I have other things to do. But the additions are out of the scope of the article and I have to revert the irrevelant boxes in the family tree. Yet warring continues and many irrevelant boxes about other dyneties.(Kharzemsahs, Karamanids, Ottoman, Pervane etc) are added to the original family tree. Frankly I don't want to clear time consuming additions. I gather the user has problems in starting a new article. Thus as a comprimise I suggest the following; let me start an empty article (at the moment I use the title Middle Age Moslem Dynasties in Anatolia which can be moved) and the user can carry her/his contributions by copy and paste method. Ok ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)