Talk:Malik-Shah I

Untitled
How come so little information is provided on Malik Shah I. I don't know anything about this, but quite a significant figure and empire, isn't it?--Xactnoreg (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this figure and empire, too. But, sorry, I don't have source about this topic. I hope other peoples will improve this article.Ti2008 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Princes ?
It reads:Malik Shah expanded Seljuk power into Syria at the expense of the Fatimids of Egypt, setting up client princes in Edessa, Aleppo and Damascus. What were these principalities ? Were they the beyliks ? If so, there were many in Anatolia, like Danishmends, Saltukids, etc. ? But conventionally, they were either called as beylik in Turkish or emirate in Arabic. If these principalities were the Crusader principalities than the information is irrevelant here. Because, Crusades were later than Malik Shah's death. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They aren't the crusader ones (they never ruled Aleppo or Damascus). Are these the territories ruled by Tutush, Duqaq, Ridwan, etc? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Principality" seems like a perfectly reasonable English rendition of "emirate," so long as we're speaking informally rather than using official names. john k (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained disruptive edits... again
Qara xan what are your reasons for changing/messing up the way the sources are and removal of sources and changing the names of several figures? i want a answer in the upcoming days. And if you won't answer in the following days, i will revert the edit. And if you revert my edit once again and still keep ignoring me, i won't make the same mistake again and i will right away report you to an admin. By the way, if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning) once more i will also report you for that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My reasons are following.

1-You removed some information from the template (including Malik-Shah’s kunya, laqab etc.)

2-You removed Arabic form of Malik-Shah’s name. Arabic was language of learning. During the Seljuq Empire, many history books about Seljuqs were written in Arabic so it has to be in the article.

3-You changed first sentence of the article and removed its 3 references.

4-You changed this information (In 1064, Malik-Shah took part Alp Arslan’s campaign in the Caucasus.) and removed its reference. You want to add that Nizam al-Mulk took part in that campaign too, but you can't delete reference. Also in that reference (Encyclopædia Iranica) which you removed, there is not information about the vizier took part in that campaign. By the way, I always try to be polite to wiki editors, but you are always attacking me. Please read these articles WP:Civility and WP:Edit warring carefully because you have been blocked 8 times until now and comply with the rules. --Qara khan 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1-It should not be there, these kind of things are not in a good article. Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly). It should be somewhere else, but i am not done.


 * 2-If you bothered to read what i wrote before, i am not done and i am going to doing it in a different way since i am going to change the intro.


 * 3-No, i only converted them and removed one of them which i will convert later. I will say it once more; I am not done yet.


 * 4-No, i did not. If you actually bothered to read the article you would see it. Here it is; In 1064, Malik-Shah, only 9 years old by then, along with Nizam al-Mulk, the Persian vizier of the Empire, took part Alp Arslan’s campaign in the Caucasus.


 * 5-Great banter, and thank you, but i already know the rules. Don't worry, you turn will come soon if you continue with this behavior. Although i have been blocked a few times, i have also made a giant major contribution to Wikipedia and i am important member in Middle Eastern-related things in Wikipedia. Think about that when you say such things next time ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to correct your this mistake. Nizam al-Mulk was vizier of the Seljuq Empire from 29 November 1064 (after Al-Kunduri's execution). Alp Arslan’s campaign in the Caucasus took place in Rabīʿ I, 456 AH. (In the Hijri calendar) --- February-March 1064 (In the Gregorian calendar) so during the campaign, Nizam al-Mulk was not vizier of the Empire. --Qara khan 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have absolutely no source which proves that and the source which i added said that Nizam al-Mulk took part in the campaign. End of the story. If you want to help me, or better yet, if you want to help the whole Wikipedia community, then keep your hands of the revert button. You're not helping at all. Understood? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have source Encyclopædia Iranica (Here is). You can also read about that in Nizam al-Mulk article. You just don't want to accept that you are wrong. I have clearly explained that why i reverted you. Understood? --Qara khan 12:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read the source you posted, you would see that it said Nizam al-Mulk took part in it: ''' he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.'''

At least you tried. Anything more to say? if not, then i will continue expanding this article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't want to understand me. I say that during Alp Arslan’s campaign in the Caucasus, Nizam al-Mulk was not vizier of the Seljuq Empire. Continue expanding this article but don't remove referenced information. --Qara khan 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English.. Alright, i will remove the vizier word, happy? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Because the reference (Encyclopædia Iranica) about Malik-Shah don't say that information. Probably that information is not important for Malik-Shah article. Malik-Shah article is not about Nizam al-Mulk. You can add that information to either Nizam al-Mulk article or Alp Arslan article which source Iranica says. --Qara khan 13:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's quite wrong, i don't have to write exactly like the source. You can't decide how i write my articles. I have created over 300 articles and greatly expanded many others, so i think i know this more than you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I imagine that how much mistake information you added to Wikipedia. Sorry but you don't know wikipedia rules well. Therefore you have been blocked 8 times. By the way, 8 times is not a few. --Qara khan 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

" Facepalm".... that has nothing to do with how i edit my articles. I don't know the Wikipedia rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh. Anything more to say? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have clearly explained that why i reverted you and i see you don't agree with me again. My suggestion is that we have to ask another users' thought. Are you agree? --Qara khan 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No you have not. You are clearly out of words and since you have nothing to say and keep only on saying the same thing every time; "I have clearly explained" (no you have not). If you have nothing to say, then i have the rights to edit it back to what it was and continue my expanding. Just because you don't like to accept facts such as these (JDL) does not mean that you have rights to revert everyone (POV). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry but, i see you like that talking too much. I will not repeat my words because have already answered. I suggest you that asking Kansas Bear's thought about this discussion. Agree?
 * P.S. Nobody says that don't expand this article but you are removing referenced information. --Qara khan 23:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you just have nothing to say. Accept this simple fact and leave poor Kansas Bear out of this, I'm sure that he has already enough to do. How am i removing referenced information? did you not read all that i posted up above or i do i have to repeat myself? You can't avoid me - either you accept this fact or try to prove that what you did was right. How can i expand a article when you ruin what i am doing? i a much more experienced than you when it comes to editing, which is a fact since i have created over 300 articles and expanded many more, while you most in your time here in Wikipedia have only created a few and have only reverted the hard work of other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Creating more articles don't give you the right to remove referenced information that you don't like. Expand and add new information to the article but don't remove referenced information. If you do it again, then i will have to report you. --Qara khan 11:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What referenced information did i remove then? didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Wikipedia, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say.

Report me? don't make me laugh, after all the reverts you have made in several articles you should be the last person to talk about that. Threaten me one more time for reporting me and i will report you for all your massive reverts (like in the Al-Mu'tasim article). --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are getting on my nerves. Stop attacking me, stop slandering me. There is not consensus so we need third user's opinion. I am going to ask User:Nedim Ardoğa's opinion. I think he is interested in Seljuks. You can also ask another user's opinion. By the way, don't worry, discussion in the Al-Mu'tasim article has already closed. Please read this article WP:Civility. Maybe you will learn a bit civility with it. --Qara khan 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How am i attacking/slandering you? it is clear that you are running out words. Let me guess, that was an attack too? I am being civil, it's not my fault that you have a hard time seeing the different between civil and uncivil (that was a attack too i guess?). So what? you still broke a rule by reverting so many times in the Al-Mu'tasim article. This is clearly a waste of time, so therefor i will report this issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. By the way, you still didn't answer my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New section
Sources (such as Iranica, Cambridge History of Iran) state that Nizam al-Mulk was vizier of the Seljuq Empire from 29 November 1064 after execution of vizier Al-Kunduri. Use your logic, Nizam al-Mulk could not have been vizier in February-March 1064 during Alp Arslan campaign in the Caucausus. Also take a look sources about it. Sources do not mention Nizam al-Mulk as vizier in that campaign. They just state that he took place, along with Malik-Shah, in Alp Arslan campaign In February-March 1064.

You removed sourced information which i had added and added source for Nizam al-Mulk's vizierate in the Empire. No one says he was not vizier. But at that time he was not vizier, but Al-Kunduri was. This looks like someone call Malik-Shah sultan before 1072.

I restored information on the infobox which you had deleted. I think you should read more about Infobox's functions.

If you answer me with personal attacks like you did before, i will report you for that. You banned indefinitely from editing certain articles one month ago so be careful when you choose words. --Qara Khan 14:31, 05 May 2015 (UTC)

- You're right about the vizier part, but that does not mean that you should remove Nizam al-Mulk, since he is mentioned in participating in the campaign in the source. Furthermore, why did you remove the Alp-Arslan source I added in the Source section? Also why did you remove that information about Malik-Shah death?

- I will say it again, the names should not be on the infobox per the RULES (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Also, WP:BRD means that you discuss first, before reverting. I never attacked you, but if you are thinking about threatening me already for a report for no reason, then it is you who is going to get reported for acting uncivil and trying to turn this into hostile discussion, not me. Act civil and and act like you are here to help building an Encyclopedia instead of acting like that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not remove Nizam al-Mulk. I have restored the source section which i deleted accidentally. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF does not say that the names should not be on the infobox. It is just your opinion. --Qara Khan 13:57, 05 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes you did, there is no denying that. Also, why did you remove the part about Malik-Shah's death? The rule doesn't say it directly, but it still says it - I am not the first person to tell you that , so drop your false accusations about me making something up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was an accident. I just wanted to delete the vizier word. I removed unreferenced information about death of Malik-Shah. If you have any source about it, you are welcome. You wrote: so drop your false accusations, it is not a good thing to speak a lie. By the way, you asked your friend take a look on this discussion, why? to support you? :) --Qara Khan 14:48, 05 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not unreferenced, it is written down below where it mentions his death - you don't see the lede being full of sources since it is mentioned in the other part of the article. Speak a lie? it's part of the rules, and you are breaking them. As I said, I am not the first person to tell you, and I am sure I am not the last, that's why I called for help ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

From the sideline as an uninvolved editor in ths precise article, it seems user Qarakhan tries indeed again to push the same thing for which he already received a big no some time ago. I'm not using it against you or something, I'm just merely showing it as well as to show that this is not the first time happening. Adding the full name of such Medieval Muslim rulers to the infobox is nothing more than unnecessary and useless fluff which should be at all cost avoided in an encyclopedia (this is an encyclopedia, right?) On top of that, most referential works stop the ibn-ibn'story after a few lines. I have no comments about Qarakhan's tactics of first reverting and then discussing because that would be basically repeating the same thing as users Cplakidas and HistoryofIran have been saying to him. I suggest he tries to find a consensus first the next time something like this happens, before he reverts/adds such things. Especially since other users have already politely asked him to do so before. (which means there are enough people against it to form a debate) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you think about this discussion or my edits. It seems you and User:HistoryofIran work together against users who do not agree with you. Discussion on Al-Mu'tasim article, It is none of your business. --Qara Khan 19:45, 05 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's very much of my "business", compadre. You think you own this place or what? It's an online encyclopedia build, made and kept alive by thousands of volunteers, of which we are only two of them. I suggest you keep your WP:BATTLEGROUND arguments for yourself, which in first place is what got you here and previously in that other article's talk page. I comment on what I see, and I see that you're editing and talking conform a manner that is not allowed here. Writing stuff like "I don't care what you think about this discussion" will only work against you sooner or later, so keep on building your destroying your own case.
 * His full name doesn't belong in the info box, as it is redundant and unnecessary fluff. I suggest adding it to a note or something would be something, as a last resort, be the best option if genuinely many users think that it should be added. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran, to understand importance of full name read Siyasatnama's the section about titles, a work of Nizam al-Mulk. I hope you will understand importance of titles of Medievel Muslim rulers. --Qara Khan 22:03, 05 May 2015 (UTC)

That was really irrelevant. I'm sorry to say buddy, but rules are rules and that's it. And I have read some of the Siyastanama before it and haven't anything to do with this. If you have nothing more to say then I will have to edit it back in the coming days. Reverting it back would put you in big trouble. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statements are just wrong opinion. In Wikipedia, there is no rule about that the names should not be on the infobox. Take a look on Template:Infobox royalty page. The infoboxes could contain full name, regnal name etc. Removing those information from the infobox would put you in real big trouble. It is unusual your saying: rules are rules and that's it. Sorry i repeat it again but don't forget that you were very close to indefinite blocking from editing in WP a month ago and you have been blocked 8 times until now because of breaking WP rules. Therefore you have no right to talk to me or other user about WP rules. --Qara Khan 13:15, 06 May 2015 (UTC)

Qaea Xan you are absolutely right. This guys thinks he knows everything, we need more people to join us in this quest and restore the full name. Why is he acting as if he owns the place. RussianDewey (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So because I have been blocked I have no rights to speak about that rules? lol.. what's that kind of logic? people learn from their mistakes. Talking about the amount of times I have been blocked and saying I have no rights is just a uncivil and bad excuse because you have nothing else to say. You talk so much about the rules, yet you don't obey them, isn't that hypocritical? Stick to the subject and don't talk about my "rights", now that is called being uncivil, not the ridiculous accusations you use against me just because I prove that I am right. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Man you are funny, you are the best comedian from Iran, you say things like "I have created over 300 articles and greatly expanded many others, so i think i know this more than you." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, Qara Xan don't ever disrespect Shahanshah here RussianDewey (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey, if you don't stop your rude and attacking comments, I will have to report you for ad hominem attacks, is that understood? --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But saying "I have created over 300 articles and greatly expanded many others, so I think i know this more than you" to Qara Xan is not disrespectful? Creating 300 articles doesn't make you ore knowledgeable than Qara Xan is just means you had a time to create 300 articles. Don't give me petty threats, if you want to report me, report me. We are not in fifth grade.RussianDewey (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I said that that several months ago, don't change the subject, since it is completely unrelated to this section (but I am not regretting what I said either). Act like you here to build an Encyclopedia instead of acting so tough. What has reporting anything to do with fifth grade? ever about the word "rules"?, you should consider reading them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

>I said that that several months ago

I wasn't here several months ago

>don't change the subject, since it is completely unrelated to this section (but I am not regretting what I said either).

Typical attitude of yours, no surprise here.

>Act like you here to build an Encyclopedia instead of acting so tough.

You conisder this tough??? This ain't tough baby.

>What has reporting anything to do with fifth grade?

You know that kid that tells you he will report you to the office, well that is you, if you are gonna report, REPORT!! Don't tell me and threaten me with petty threats, just do it by yourself.

> ever about the word "rules"?, you should consider reading them.

You should consider showing respect to Qara Xan and other users.RussianDewey (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

- I wasn't here several months ago. So what? it was you who found that old comment in the other section, ever thought about looking at the date?

- Typical attitude of yours, no surprise here. What typical attitude? you don't even know me, you just randomly act uncivil towards me. Learn some manners and most important of all learn the rules here...

- '''You conisder this tough??? This ain't tough baby.''' Maturely said.

- '''You know that kid that tells you he will report you to the office, well that is you, if you are gonna report, REPORT!! Don't tell me and threaten me with petty threats, just do it by yourself.''' What? this is completely different, but have it your way then lol.

- You should consider showing respect to Qara Xan and other users. Show respect? coming from you? first off, I showed respect and right now the only who isn't doing that is you. I almost jumped off my chair when you wrote the word "respect".

- Look I'm not here to discuss with you since it as a waste of time, go take your random anger somewhere else instead of using it against me. This is not a fighting place, this section was created for discussion about the article, not some random and unrelated things. If you don't have any proper to say, then don't write it, simple as that, and you're not going to get answered by anyone either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

>So what? it was you who found that old comment in the other section, ever thought about looking at the date?

Those issues don't pretain to me, I was just looking at your childish attitude, and it gave me a better picture of the hostile envirlment you breed.

>What typical attitude? you don't even know me, you just randomly act uncivil towards me. Learn some manners and most important of all learn the rules here...

Actually I showed you respect from the beginging, you are the one that showed disrespect from the get-go. You don't even know me?? Who are you, you serious, I don't want to know you!!!

>Maturely said.

Thank you, you see you are learning now, thank you for resptoinng me.

>What? this is completely different, but have it your way then lol.

It is eaxctly the same, don't tell me what you are gonna do, just do it yourself.

>Show respect? coming from you?

Yeah coming from me.

> first off, I showed respect and right now the only who isn't doing that is you.

You never showed respect to any user right now in thise talk page, even in your talk page, you showed belittling attiutude and in fact DISRESPECT.

>I almost jumped off my chair when you wrote the word "respect".

That is good, you need the exercise, make sure to jump 100 times, it is one of the best exercise for the human body, it works your hear rate up.

> Look I'm not here to discuss with you since it as a waste of time

No it's not, if it was you would never reply to me.

> go take your random anger somewhere else instead of using it against me.

This ain't anger, this is happiness.

> This is not a fighting place

Are you hurt? I see no close-combat movements.

>this section was created for discussion about the article, not some random and unrelated things

This is pertaining to one of the editors of this article.

>If you don't have any proper to say, then don't write it, simple as that, and you're not going to get answered by anyone either.

I'm writing because I have something proper to say to you RussianDewey (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

True name of Sultan Malik-Shah and restoring info-box
Why does this guy HistoryofIran thinks he owns this page or something, acting all high and mighty. I gave you sources for you to look at and you throw them at garbage, I take this as an insult on my dignity.

Do you even care to share information for this great man, all I wanted was to put his REAL NAME, which included work, yes work, I finally founded his real name after week. RussianDewey (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Turkish spelling
I'm keen to understand why you've removed the Turkish spelling of this name ( Melikşah ) yet allowed the Persian to remain. Considering this person was from the Seljuk Empire (a Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire), I believe the inclusion of both spellings is quite acceptable -- samtar talk or stalk 12:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , could you provide reliable sources that back up the claim that they (the Seljuks) spoke the modern-day Turkish language, and wrote it in the Latin script, specifically the language/script that the Republic of Turkey officially uses since 1923? Because thats literally what the sock IP added to the lede; the transliteration of the name in the post-1923 language of the Republic of Turkey, in the Latin script. If yes, we'd be more than happy to include it. Btw, people have been over this matter many times, please see some of the previous discussions here on this very same talk page. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest looking at the further revision history of this page, as well as on the main page of the Seljuk Empire, just to see how many sockmasters/socks have been doing this for a while now. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply - I've had a look over some related discussions. I asked as someone had popped onto IRC and queried it - I couldn't see any immediate reason why it should be removed so I thought I'd leave you a message. It now seems likely this was one of the socks you mentioned and I was taken in by them - apologies Out of interest, I assume Seljuks did not use Latin script Turkish? --  samtar talk or stalk 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does this rule only apply to this page, or other pages involving the Seljuks? Other pages include foreign spellings for entities that are central to an established central historiography for the main speakers of that language, regardless of whether that entity would write its name using the modern script that the speakers of the language *now* use. This is a prominent figure in Turkish history as well. 128.84.124.188 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a well-established rule in entire wiki, see Avicenna as an example. -- Mazandar (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alp Arslan we Mälik Şa.jpg

Abbasid Caliphate, death place
We sure that Abbasid Caliphate was a state, not like a governmental body inside Seljuks. Did they ever conquer Baghdad? Asking because I don't know it. Beshogur (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Tughril Beg occupied Baghdad in 1055. Unless the Seljuks lost it before Malik-Shah's death then I would make his place of death, Seljuk Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kansas Bear ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)