Talk:Seljuk Empire/Archive 2

"fanatical aggression"
The article seriously mis-quotes a reference, when saying:

`` According to the Seljuqs, they brought to the Muslims "fighting spirit and fanatical aggression".[27]''

although the quote is accurate (Previte-Orton (1971), vol.1, pg. 278), in the original source, this is simply the opinion of the author (Previte-Orton), rather than a statement attributed to Seljuqs themselves. Moreover, even according to Pervite-Orton, Seljuqs brought the "fighting spirit and fanatical aggression" to the empire (i.e. to a political entity), rather than to the Muslims in general. As a result, I have removed the quote as it was. If anyone feels that it contributes to the article, I think it needs to be quoted more accurately before being re-introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movsjanka (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

IP removing references and referenced information
I would like an explanation as to why the IPs are removing references, referenced information, referenced quotes. This appears to be anti-Persian POV editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's always some Pro-Turkish (not trying to insult all Turkish people) who misunderstand what Persianate means. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Highly Persianate
I strongly recommend deleting the adverbe Highly, i also checked the resources cited but did not detect anything like Highly Persianized, it looks like a fictitious description. Also i would like to express that the validity of encyclopedia iranica is controversial...

Besides this, Dear User:Kansas Bear, i would also like to show you this socks; User:2607:F358:21:10F:68C2:44B4:692D:E3A9,  User:2607:F358:21:BD:695B:A324:9C0B:B29B as examples of the anti-turkish propaganda going on in wikipedia. In addition, please stop blaming me with being socks of some turkish user, ı am not even from turkey just check my ıp.

--130.88.99.230 (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1.I strongly recommend you stop edit warring over numerous articles. Since your edit warring mirrors the edits of a blocked user. 2.Your opinion of Encyclopedia Iranica is meaningless. When the authors of said articles are academics, you really have nothing to back your argument. 3."Highly" indicates the level by which Persian, Persian culture was used by the Seljuk Empire. And yet you have not brought any argument why this word should not be used. 4.As for the blatant sockpuppetry, I would suggest you read DUCK. I never anything about a Turkish user. You did. Freudian slip there IP. I reported what is clearly an IP making the same edit as a blocked user. 5.It is clear you have a personal issue with the word Persia, Persian, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Please look at the edit warring history of this sock user User:2607:F358:21:10F:68C2:44B4:692D:E3A9, before telling me to stop edit warring.

2. If you directly accept every academic article as trusted resources i can put over hundred turkish article here which describes seljuk empire as only turkish. 3. I am telling you again, none of the resources cited under number [13] for the description Highly Persiante doesnt include any word as HIGHLY, so my dear friend, it means that highly of the highly persianate is fictitious... 4. If you would even just open the link of users i gave, my dear lazy friend, you would see that they are blaming me for being a turkish sock, thanks to God, i didnt have any freudian slip. 5. I definetly dont have any issue with the world persian, but yes i have some issues with persian ultranationalistic socks who are trying to convert this place to the Encyclopedia İranica which describes everything in the world as persian. lol. --130.88.99.230 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

lol User:Kansas Bear, just look at that, which is going on just now, with this user 2607:F358:21:BE:44E2:1CAD:84BA:6AB5, another anonymous persian sock attacking to the articles about Turkic peoples history, i dont have time to deal with this well organizad gang everyday, but if you are an honest user which really cares about wikipedias neutrality, maybe you can do something.. Thats all im saying...--130.88.99.230 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

TURCO-PERSIAN
The resources are clearly speaking about a Turco-Persian tradition in this empire, not about a Turco-Persian Empire, there is nothing called Turco-Persian Empire, you can't find 1 resource saying Turco-Persian Empire, this expression is completely wrong and most probably has some nationalistic intentions. The word "Tradition" shouldn't be hidden from the article, when you click on Turco-Persian it even redirects to Turko-Persian_tradition page, so what are discussing about ? Please, dont hesitate to discuss how to include Turco-Persian Tradition expression on page, i said "contributed to Turco-Persian Tradition" but other expressions may be possible too. Let's discuss it here.--Defenderofthruth (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yakbul, just because you see race/ethnicity when you read Turco-Persian, does not mean everyone else sees race/ethnicity. The only nationalist here, is you Yakbul. The sources are quite clear that Turco-Persian is the culture of this empire, get over it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * why this sockpuppet of User:Yakbul allowed to edit again?--58.183.62.187 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I want to know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to yourself now, wow, nice parody.--Defenderofthruth (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OKAY, so why are you reverting when i am writing Turco-Persian Culture/Tradition?--Defenderofthruth (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You have no consensus to change the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How we can get that consensus sir, who is voting ?--Defenderofthruth (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkish originated
Even though the article itself states that the Oghuz Turks founded the empire and academic resources and resources like Britannica state this fact, why do you remove the Turkic-origins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These "sources" you continue to push;


 * 1)are unpublished
 * 2)do not support what you are putting in the article(hence WP:OR, WP:SYN)
 * 3)neither of these "sources" reference Encyclopedia Britannica. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 4) no need to state the same thing twice. The lead already explains that the dynasty was founded by Oghuz Turks. Tajik (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You consider "Iranica"-stuff as a source, and a university web site not a source? This is ridiculous. Why do you insist on removing "Turkish-originated" statement? So, remove "Persianate" then, too.


 * Also, don't you consider the site of University of Calgary a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Grousset reference clearly states, "..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.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The empire became Turko-Persian empire, persianate to some degree, but the origin of the empire is Turkish-Turkic. Why do you remove that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.117.198 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The so-called reference does NOT state the Seljuk Empire was "Turkic originated", which is WP:SYN. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you can't stand that the empire and dynasty was ethnic-Turkish is irrelevant. Why shall we continue to exchange opinions with someone who consider "Iranica" as a realibale source and a neutral university source as "so-called" reference? If you insist on expressing the so-called "persianate" in the first defining sentence, the Turkish-ethinicity and the Turkish-ness of the empire should also be expressed (before persianate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly you suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have nothing and your continued whining about Iranica just shows your animosity towards that ethnicity. This will be reported to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say to you via email that has not been said here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And, from Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, by Canfield, p13, The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs..
 * p13, The Seljuqs, who brought this culture westward into Iran, Iraq, and Syria, were the successors of the Qarakhanids in Transoxiana. Also, pastoralists, although of more humble origin, the Seljuqs won a decisive battle with the Ghaznavids and then swept into Khurasan. Pressing westward they brought Turko-Persian Islamicate culture into western Iran and Iraq. Thereafter western Iran(Persia) and eastern Iran(Khurasan and Transoxiana) become the heartland of Persianate language and culture. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Seljuq", online edition, (LINK): "Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, you either have some logical problems or mixing up apples and oranges. Nobody here is contradciting that the Seljuq Empire has adopted Persian culture to some degree. What we say is: This empire and the dynasty is of Turkish origin. Can you understand that? Even the source you added states: "Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you have the logic problem. This article is about the Great Seljuq Empire, not the Seljuqs. This Empire did not have Turkish originated. Which is clearly explained, in detail, by the numerous references(which you continue to ignore). Also, if you are capable, in the first sentence it states, ...established by the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks. Which is correct. Since establish is the correct term, whereas, there is NOTHING originated in the Seljuq EMPIRE that was Turkish. Which has been explained ad naseum to you, since you possess WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your racist attitude towards Persia, Persians, Turco-Persian is becoming well documented.,,, --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

] Kansas Bear, you are a Liar. you are trying to change and steal turkish history and culture. your racist and jelous claims will not  change turkish empires and their history. cry out more please you are entertaining us.you want to show turkish empires as iranian. hahah you have some mental problems.please  be normal and stop vandalizing  turkish history  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.202.72 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, in my opinion you're making a Persian Propaganda here, below you can find some reputable resources and none of them doesn't   include any statement about Seljuk empire being Persian or Turco-Persian but Turkish (they generally define the Persian relation with this empire as:  The Seljuk Turks rule over Persia [1] ).

None of the scholars and their sources define the Empire as Turco-Persian; at the most as a Turkish Empire influenced by Persian Culture.It's quite understandable that you're trying to make your nationalist propaganda here, but wikipedia is not a place for this so i invite you being nonpartisan about historical facts. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

I would also like to announce that you will be reported to the admins. Also shame on you for your highly noticable Persian propaganda and for concealing facts in a independent and neutral common resource as Wikipedia.

Regards.

--Yakbul (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakbul (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "I would also like to announce that you will be reported to the admins. Also shame on you for your highly noticable Persian propaganda and for concealing facts in a independent and neutral common resource as Wikipedia."
 * Go for it! "New users" that arrive here and start issuing demands/insults/grandiose truths are clearly blocked users.
 * "Kansas Bear, in my opinion you're making a Persian Propaganda here..."
 * Right, I am the only one saying Turko-Persian, oh wait, in your pathetic hurry to make this personal you missed a few sources:


 * "Aḥmad of Niǧde's al-Walad al-Shafīq and the Seljuk Past", A. C. S. Peacock, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 54, (2004), 97; "With the growth of Seljuk power in Rum, a more highly developed Muslim cultural life, based on the Persianate culture of the Great Seljuk court, was able to take root in Anatolia."
 * Meisami, Julie Scott, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, (Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 143; "Nizam al-Mulk also attempted to organise the Saljuq administration according to the Persianate Ghaznavid model..."
 * Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Šahrbānu", Online Edition: "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkmen heroes or Muslim saints ..."
 * 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."
 * "None of the scholars and their sources define the Empire as Turco-Persian..". LOL. Keep reading!!!


 * The Arabs, Arnold Hottinger, page90, "For a long time the centre of the Empire of the Seljuks was in the East, in Khwarezm and Khorasan and for these Turko-Persian Seljuks who now ruled the largest Islamic state Palestine and Syria.."
 * A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First Century, by Gérard Chaliand, page 126, "Tughril Beg created the Turco-Persian Seljuk sultanate...."
 * The Age of the Seljuqs: The Idea of Iran, edited by Edmund Sarah Stewart, "..a perspective from the edge on the Seljuq Empire and its Turco-Persian legacy."
 * Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161, 164; "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."
 * Possessors and possessed: museums, archaeology, and the visualization of history in the late Ottoman Empire; By Wendy M. K. Shaw; Published by University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0520233352, ISBN 9780520233355; p. 5.
 * Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, by Canfield, p13, The Turko-Persian Islamicate culture that emerged under the Samanids and the Qarakhanids was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asia - in particular, by the Seljuqs..
 * "Central Asia and the World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, edited by Michael Mandelbaum, page 79, "The Turko-Persian tradition developed in the Seljuk period (1040-1118)...".
 * Guess you missed this. FYI, these sources are in the article, which you just continue to ignore.
 * The saddest part is that anti-Persian editors can not/will not understand that Turko-Persian is a culture not an ethnicity. The only one pushing any propaganda is someone that can not understand what the CULTURE of the Seljuk Empire was. Without Turko-Persian culture, Seljuk architecture does not get transmitted to India(Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4, by Catherine Blanshard Asher, page 10;Central Asia in World History, by Peter B. Golden, page 107). If the Seljuq Empire was not Turko-Persian in culture, how does the Sultanate of Rum have Persian as it's lingua franca?(Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, (Rutgers University Press, 2002), 157) Instead of seeing race and ethnicity in the word Turko-Persian, you should see how Turks(Seljuqs, Ghaznavids) used a language and culture, built empires, spreading their art and architecture ; through that language. The Seljuqs and Ghaznavids contributed just as much into the Turko-Persian culture as they got out, hell even more so!  --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Kansas Bear

If you are honest about that "Turko-Persian is a culture not an ethnicity.", why not indicating it on article; because the current version   of article directly starts with saying "The Seljuk Empire was a medieval Turko-Persian empire" which causes people to think ethnicity more than the culture. If you are honest, we can at least change this with "The Seljuk Empire was a medieval, culturally Turko-Persian empire"

--130.88.99.230 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL. If you were "honest" you wouldn't be avoiding your block. "i can put over hundred turkish article here [THİS WAS AN ANSWER TO YOUR 2TH CLAUSE UNDER THE HİGHLY PERSİNATE HEADİNG, THIS WASNT A DIRECT CLAIM --130.88.99.230 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)]] which describes seljuk empire as only turkish". So "only" Turkish sources are reliable. Sounds like Yakbul to me. FYI, simply because something repeats the nonsense rattling around in your head, does not make it reliable.
 * Your first and most common mistake, among people like you that suffer from racial animosity, is you think everyone thinks like you. They don't. I take what reliable sources state, nothing more, nothing less. You know, those quotes and sources you have chosen to ignore. So much for your "honesty". LMAO.
 * IF you can read, what does the first sentence of the article state for the Seljuk Empire's origin? Here you go:


 * "The Seljuk Empire was a medieval Turko-Persian empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks."
 * What was "Turkish" about this empire? Language? In its extremely limited use? Ethnicity? That's mentioned in the first line of the article! Miss that part?
 * What do you call an empire that spread Persian and Persian culture but was ethnically Turkic? Just because you are ignorant of history and what historians label as "Turko-Persian" is not my problem.
 * I would suggest you start reading and educating yourself with reliable sources regardless if they agree with your self inflated opinion. Because as it stands right now, you come across as a nationalistic driven, racially intolerant POV editor(ie. Encyclopedia Iranica is "'controversial''"). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great Seljuk Empire is Turkish Empire not Persian. What is wrong with you? Do you have a logic problem? Seljuk is a common and well-known Turkish name (Seljuk=Selçuk). Turkish people passed to Anatolia thanks to the Seljuk dynasty from Middle Asia. Seljuk Turks are the bridge from middle Asia to Anatolia. If Seljuks became Persianate, how do Ottomans or other Anatolian beyliks become Turkish? Both of Seljuks and Ottomans are Oghuz Turks. They are the same people. Both of them are Turkish Empire. Turks had used the names of dynasties to identify themselves until the republic. Because of that Turks used name of Ottomans like Seljuks. After the republic, the state is called Republic of Turkey. This situation made confusion. Seljuks (Selçuklular) or Seljuks Turks (Selçuklu Türkleri), Ottomans (Osmanlılar) or Ottoman Turks (Osmanlı Türkleri), Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhurriyeti) all of them are Oghuz Turks! All of them are same people. Just they used their dynastie's name to identify themselves. That was a traditional Turkish rule. After the republic, They used just "Turks" to identify themselves. Anatolian Turks or Turkey Turks did not come to Anatolia from the sky. They passed to Anatolia with battle of manzikert in 1071. Seljuks (Ancestors of the Anatolian Turks) conquered the area from Western Asia to Asia Minor. They established the Anatolian beyliks. After Seljuks period, one of these beyliks captured the others and become a state (Ottomans). We can say Turco-Persian tradition in this empire, not about a Turco-Persian Empire. Because Turks dominated Persians. Persians did not want a part of the empire. Turkey is the proof of that Seljuks had not Persianated. - Antmqr (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize the Persian language was patronized and was the court language of the Ottoman Empire.(Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, page 19). Seljuks could not become Persianate. 1. Persianate is a culture, not an ethnicity. Persianate =/= Persian ethnicity. The Seljuk Turks patronized Persian culture, used the Persian language, and essentially created Turko-Persian culture. "The Ottomans patronized Persian literature for five and a half centuries.[...] Unlike Iran they[Ottomans] gradually shed some of their Persianate qualities: they were the first of the gunpowder empires to give up Persian as the court language, using instead Turkish - that is, the vernacular of the western Turks..." -- Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, page 19. That is quite the racist statement. Wrong. See Canfield quoted above. Nope. I base my information on academic sources. You know those things you clearly ignored while posting your nationalistic rant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "If Seljuks became Persianate..."
 * "how do Ottomans or other Anatolian beyliks become Turkish?"
 * "Because Turks dominated Persians."
 * "Turkey is the proof of that Seljuks had not Persianated."
 * "Do you have a logic problem?"


 * "The Great Seljuk Empire was the Turkish state which dominated the Middle East and Central Asia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This book surveys that period, which was one of exceptional importance, witnessing profound demographic, religious, political and social changes in the Islamic Middle East. The Turkish invasions played a role in provoking the Crusades, led to the collapse of Byzantine power in Anatolia and brought about the beginnings of Turkish settlement in what is now Turkey and Iran, permanently altering their ethnic and linguistic composition." - (The Great Seljuk Empire (The Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires EUP) )/ A. C. S. Peacock

First read this book. That is an academic sources just about The Great Seljuk Empire not Seljuk Empire like Great Britain not Britian. You find claims which try to explain the connections of Turks and other ethnic people and you are making propaganda on wikipedia by choosing the sentences. By choosing the sentences you are making perception policy. If you read Canfield book completely, you will understand the main issue. Canfield book not about The Great Seljuk Empire. It is about the connections of Turks and other ethnic people. I dont know the aim of you and why you are trying to make a Turkish state an Iranian state. But if you read the article on wikipedia, someone can understand The Great Seljuk Empire is not Turkish Empire. You are changing the truths. But everybody knows that The Great Seljuk Empire was the Turkish state not a Turko-Persian state. Everybody can angry about you because you're playing with people's history. You are shame of wikipedia and because of the people like you everybody hate wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmqr (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read and own that book which actually says;


 * "The Great Seljuks dominated the Middle East and Islamic Central Asia between 1040 and 1157." -- page 6
 * Your copy of an introduction written by an unknown person does not indicate what the academics state in that book. Clearly you have not read the book you have used as a source. By the way, page 10 from that book does not state what you placed in the article, that is source falsification.


 * "That is an academic sources just about The Great Seljuk Empire not Seljuk Empire like Great Britain not Britian."
 * That change was not my decision. I prefer Great Seljuk Empire.


 * "Canfield book not about The Great Seljuk Empire. It is about the connections of Turks and other ethnic people."
 * Wrong, again. Canfield's book, which he edited and is written by 6 other academics, is about Turko-Persian culture, its creation and spread.


 * "I dont know the aim of you and why you are trying to make a Turkish state an Iranian state."
 * I doubt someone like you could even begin to understand the difference between culture and ethnicity. Oh wait, you can't! And since you were so ignorant to bring it up, how was this a "Turkish" state?


 * "You are shame of wikipedia and because of the people like you everybody hate wikipedia."
 * "You are changing the truths."
 * And you sir, are a liar. Misrepresenting source(s), falsifying information not stated within a book, fake page numbers, etc, etc.


 * "But if you read the article on wikipedia, someone can understand The Great Seljuk Empire is not Turkish Empire."
 * An empire founded by Turks(quite sure it says that in the lead sentence), does not make it a "Turkish Empire". When these same Turks patronized, spread, and essentially created Turko-Persian culture, just how is this a "Turkish Empire"?
 * "The Seljuqs, who brought this culture westward into Iran, Iraq, and Syria, were the successors of the Qarakhanids in Transoxiana..[..]. Pressing westward they brought Turko-Persian Islamicate culture into western Iran and Iraq." --Canfield, page 13.


 * "But everybody knows that The Great Seljuk Empire was the Turkish state not a Turko-Persian state."
 * Everybody that is ignorant of history.
 * As usual, same sorry tripe. Falsify information, ignore what the source(s) really say, issuing of personal attacks(shame of Wikipedia).
 * AND, since you have ignored my response to your historically ignorant statements, we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The identity of The Great Seljuk Empire
The article has been taken over by an user Kansas Bear. He is not one open discussion. It is not an actual article. It is a fiction article of Kansas Bear. He is trying to impose wrong information about The Great Seljuk Empire. According to Andrew Charles Spencer The Great Seljuk Empire was the Turkish state. Kansas Bear rewrites history as he wants. He tries to make the state Turko-Persian State. My english is not enough. Please somebody helps about the subject!
 * You can read the introduction of the book:
 * " The Great Seljuk Empire was the Turkish state which dominated the Middle East and Central Asia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This book surveys that period, which was one of exceptional importance, witnessing profound demographic, religious, political and social changes in the Islamic Middle East. The Turkish invasions played a role in provoking the Crusades, led to the collapse of Byzantine power in Anatolia and brought about the beginnings of Turkish settlement in what is now Turkey and Iran, permanently altering their ethnic and linguistic composition." - (The Great Seljuk Empire (The Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires EUP) )/ A. C. S. Peacock Antmqr (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An introduction, by an unknown author, not supported by the very book it claims to represent. More false claims, more ignoring what sources and sourced quotes state(Peacock, Canfield, Frye, et. al.), more attempts to make this a personal issue than an historical one. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:FORUM, using multiple accounts and IPs, and personal attacks don't help you. Read WP:NOT. Our rules and policies are clear. This is an encyclopedia not a cheap forum. You can't attack and insult other editors just because they don't accept your edits/POV. --Zyma (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Zyma I have one account, one IP, my signiture is same for years. He is changing the truth and he deletes the sentences with references because of the fact that he doesn't like the truth. Evreything is clear. This is not an encyclopedic article, this is his review. He is attacking the users and keeping his review format. So I will never read this article again. I am aware of the site. This site has to be out of person independent. But this article is yes. So this is not my problem. This is universal problem. My english is not enough to write many things. Have a good day. Antmqr (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * According to you:


 * "You are shame of wikipedia and because of the people like you everybody hate wikipedia."(This is a personal attack)
 * "He is attacking the users and keeping his review format."
 * No. You attacked me. As the first sentence clearly indicates.


 * "He is changing the truth and he deletes the sentences with references because of the fact that he doesn't like the truth."
 * Your version of the "truth"? Let's look at the facts. There are currently, at least, 14 sources in the article explaining in detail the Turko-Persian culture of the Seljuks. These are the sources, to paraphrase the way you put it, "that you don't like.["the truth"]".
 * You have one source, 1)an author-less review(ie. no author), 2)is not supported by the book by which it reviews(ie. falsified information), and 3) have chosen to misrepresent this information as being in said book(ie. source misrepresentation). As such, according to Wikipedia's policies concerning reliable sources, your "source" is not reliable or verifiable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear is right. A book cover blurb or an advertisement, written by an anonymous individual, is not an acceptable source for content, even if the blurb or advertisement is promoting an acceptable source. The acceptable source for content will be the actual source the blurb or advertisement is promoting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkification, not Turkicization
I tried to correct this but my edit seems to have been undone. Turkification is the correct term for the process of a people adopting the language, culture, customs etc of Turks, not Turkicization (there is no such word in the English language).

Additionally, the Persian spelling سلجوقيان is Saljuqiyan (Se, lam, jim, vav, qaf, ye, alef, nun), not Salcuqiyan (The letter c does not exist in Farsi at all, and as a native Persian speaker I have never seen it used in transliterations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvoHljott (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, what you changed were quotes from books, which is something we do not do on Wikipedia.
 * As for the word "Turkicization", oddly appears in numerous books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Turkicization redirects to Turkification. So if the cited sources uses "Turkicization", there is no need to replace it with Turkification. Both terms are correct, but many users may want to search cited sources and compare them with related wiki article. So it's better to not change such terms. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the IP user is correct in his second statement, the word C doesn't exist in Persian language, in fact it is the word J, the word C here seems to be the Turkish word C that gives of the J sound or the voiced palato-alveolar affricate, so writing C will give the Wikipedia reader the wrong pronunciation. It should be Saljūqiyān not Salcūqiyān, makes sure the reader doesn't pronounce it as Sal-suu-qi-yaan. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Turko-Persian (!)
Put the Turkish name First in Turko-Persian dynasties Blahhhas (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas --Wario-Man (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
You don't want to discuss about the new name you brought, you want to report other people because only your way has to go through, I will be the bigger man and let you have your candy in the meantime, you are welcomed here to discuss the problem with the references you accuse. First issue I have with the name is that it is the name of the Empire, it simply translates to Kings of Seljuks or Rulers of Seljuks, the previous name was more correct and it lacked properer reference. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, no need to be rude. Your comment violates WP:CIVILITY, so, be careful. Second, that's not an issue. The name "Saljuqian" is attested in Khaqani's Diwan. I will cite his Diwan. But this one is also a valid name. -- Kouhi (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was never rude towards you, secondly there is no violation of WP:CIVLITY, instead you have violated the 3RR, rule by keeping your edit wars which can cause you a ban, instead of coming here in my first plead towards you, tell me how is your action in line with civility, thirdly you showed your ignorance by saying there is no source for them speaking Oghuz Turkic language, a clean manifestation of your Iranian bias right here, common sense dictated they spoke that language, the family is from the Central Asian city Jand, and secondly there is a reliable source and I'm getting it now so to speak, I would like to see your face when you realize your mistake. Finally It doesn't matter about Khaqani's Diwan, but you are still stuck in that book for how many days? You need to move on. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are again violating WP:NPA, even though I already gave you my warning (you should really be more careful). This is you who tried to remove a well-cited name. For your information, removing sourced materials is not constructive (read Vandalism). Second, in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what reality is and what common sense dictates, the only thing that matter is that the content should be WP:VERIFIABLE. Claims without reliable sources have no place in Wikipedia. I should find my copy of Khaqani's Diwan in order to be able to cite the book, but for now, here is an online copy. -- Kouhi (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And you have violated 3RR ruling, and I recommend you to revert your words and bring them back once the discussion has been concluded and since you are not doing that it seems you are the only one who has violated the ruling here, no personal attacks were directed against you, just warning to revert your work until discussion is over, . I also recommend you don't edit in this article anymore, since you don't know much about the Seljuk Empire based on your earlier statement in another user talk page. Since I have added my reference, and proved you wrong, I would like to see you admit your wrong statements, also Khaqani is a poet, maybe bring his word in a literature sense and not as a historical data for example the name of the Seljuq Empire. I'm interested in adding both Persian and Arabic spelling and would them later Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (الدولة السلجوقية) based on Bosworth translation of Sadr al-Din al Husayni's work "History of the Seljuq State" and based on Secondary historical books Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You proved nothing:
 * The Seljuks spoke Oghuz Turkic, one of many Turkic dialects. However, the Seljuk leadership and military had already begun using the Persian language while living among the Ghaznavids in Khurasan. Throughout the period of Seljuk imperial expansion the rulers of the Seljuks used Persian in government and sponsored the writing of Persian literature.
 * So when Saljuqs gained power, they were already Persianized.


 * I wasn't aware you have a long history of violating WP:NPA, you just gave administrators too much reason to block your account. Khaqani is a primary source and I can use that. And until you won't add Persian or Japanese names to Ottoman Empire and Abbasid Caliphate, I won't let you add Arabic or Turkish spelling here.-- Kouhi (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You like digging up past people, excellent behavior, you are entitled to do that, but that case is going nowhere as far as I'm aware, you can check the violation of the people involved to be more precise in your investigation which I doubt you will do. Khaqani is a poet not a historian, I will add the Persian and Arabic name later when I find time. They spoke Oghuz Turkic, that is all that reference was used for. I never said they never spoke Persian. Why do you keep mentioning Japanese, you love them or something, every-time Japanese this and Japanese that. But don't worry there will be no Japanese so you don't have to keep mentioning them every-time because you lack some vocabulary here and there, it doesn't make you look good. You also quoted out of context you want to complete instead of making another wrong statement "But the great numbers of Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands whose migration westward coincided with the rise of the Seljuks spoke Oghuz Turkic or other Turkic dialects and continued to do so. " Please don't embarrass yourself again.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also "Using Persian Language" doesn't make it their native language, Oghuz Turkic is their native language, and the language they spoke between them. You might want to re-read again Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you a question based on your understanding of the Seljuq State where did you learn it from ? I want to understand who fed you false information Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source says:
 * But the great numbers of Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands whose migration westward coincided with the rise of the Seljuks spoke Oghuz Turkic or other Turkic dialects and continued to do so. A century later, when the Mongols, another Turkic people, overran much of the Middle East and Central Asia, they brought still more Turkic-speaking soldiers and migrants into the region.
 * The source never said Seljuqs while at power used or spoke Oghuz Turkic. Those great number of Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands have nothing to to with Seljuqs. The source is only describing the migration of Turkic people, nothing more. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * They spoke Oghuz Turkic with power and without power, it was their native language. The Turkic nomads has everything to do with the Saljuqs since they are living in the empire and are part of the Saljuq society and military forces. The migration of the Oghuz Turkic tribe is along with the Saljuq family, how else do you think there are modern Turkish people. The source explained everything perfectly. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What does "A century later, when the Mongols" have to do with this, we are talking about the Saljuqs the Turkic people that came with them and here you are playing games and wasting times with this mongol thing. Are you serious, the source clearly says a century later, the Mongol Invasions and the Ilkhanate Empire in Iran, focus on the subject please. So what is the problem with the word Coincided, so you think Toghril and Chaghri the two brothers came by themselves without any Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands, how do you expain the Oghuz Turkic army, the provinces ruled by the members of the family with the Turkic nomads, in Kirman, Khurasan, Iraq and Sham Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are all just your own interpretation. None of this have been mentioned in the source. These are all WP:OR. The source never said Seljuqs "spoke Oghuz Turkic with power and without power". If the only relation between Oghuz Turkic and Seljuqs is that it was spoken by the people (based on the source), then you can't add Oghuz Turkic as "dynastic and military language". -- Kouhi (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources never said they spoke Oghuz Turkic in the bathroom our outside of the bathroom, doesn't mean they didn't speak Oghuz Turkic, you are the one who wrote 2 wrong information and now you are looking for the third. What you are saying is that I'm bringing WP:OR just because you are not willing to understand what the author said, just looking to blame others for your own misgivings, I get it. You can add it as "dynastic and military language" and the common languages of the Turkic nomads that have entered the Saljuq realm and migrated with the family. And what do you mean the relation between Oghuz Turkic and Saljuq, you need to stop playing man, Saljuq are Oghuz Turkic people of the Qiniq tribe, you are intention is to mislead and misguide, the relationship is already established. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You say "None of this have been mentioned in the source. " Tell me which Mongols are they are talking about, Space Mongols, Modern Mongolians or Thirteen century Mongols who have entered the Islamic lands, it is clear, and even if you use the word interpretation as a dirty word, so you don't know anything about the Mongol Invasion and the establishment of the Ilkhanate Empire at the site of the Saljuq realm, the author was clear even if he or she didn't mention which Mongols and the exact time. For me it was clear the Mongol came less than a century after the demise of the Great Saljuqs so the information clear and there was no WP:OR, your only evidence is "Interpretation" which is not based on facts just your own opinion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care what is your interpretation of the source. Keep all of these for yourself. I'm going to remove "dynastic and military language" from the article, unless you provide a source for that. And for the sake of your account, stop talking about other users. I will report you for all of these personal attacks. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't recommend edit warring when we didn't reach an agreement, this is your problem, once someone doesn't agree you have to go ahead and throw a tantrum, that is now how discussion work, I would advice you not to do that, take it or leave it, these are not my interpretation this is what the source says, if you are ignorant that is not my problem, that is your own fault, and I can't help it. You don't know what type of Mongols, you don't know what year they came, you don't know about the Oghuz migration, you don't know about the Language they spoke. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very very strange claims of Kouhi which I forced myself to understand. First "Seljuk leadership and military had already begun using the Persian language while living among the Ghaznavids". Seljuks never lived among Ghaznavids. They lived in Oghuz Yabgu State area and later in Karakhanid area both of which were Turkic speaking. Second " when the Mongols, another Turkic people, overran much of the Middle East and Central Asia ..." . Mongols were not Turkic people . Although Turks were a major element in their army, Mongols were not Turkic speaking. Please try to be more careful when making assumptions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What "very very strange claims" by me? First carefully read the discussion, then accuse others. What you have quoted are from the book that was cited to support the claim Seljuqs spoke Oghuz Turkic. If you support adding Oghuz Turkic spelling and you believe those claims are very very strange, then find a better, more reliable source. If those claims are very very strange, then it is your own problem, not mine. -- Kouhi (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Seljuk empire-Seljuk Turks military and army language not persian.yes persian language official language but they were not persian speaking. In everyday speech-army-military language Oghuz Turkic.they where persian culture and language adopted.they are not assimilate and persianate.

persianized=assimilate  Turkified=assimilate   Arabized=assimilate

they culture warrior culture. so the army and the Oghuz Turkic military has always been the language.The military say that language is really funny persian.

seljuk empire dynastic-military-army-In everyday language=Oghuz Turkic religion-law-theology and science language=Arabic language official-court language-lingua franca = Persian language persian language not military and dynastic language.it official language.

Seljuk dynasty has used its own language in everyday speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Yabgu_State http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Seljuk_Turks http://www.themiddleages.net/people/seljuks.html http://erenow.com/books/Warinworldhistory/39.html http://www.insightturkey.com/the-seljuks-of-anatolia-court-and-society-in-the-medieval-middle-east/book-reviews/1498 turko-persian=culture They persian culture adopted.this dynasty not Turko-Persian.Seljuk dynasty not assimilated.

There are many books written about the Seljuks.You can research. The military said that the Persian language of the Seljuk really ridiculous.--Osman bey (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What are we debating anyway. I think everybody agrees that Seljuks (at least in the 11th century) spoke Turkic. But the lingua franca was Persian and the scientific (ie, regious) language was Arabic. Towards the end of the Great Seljuks, gradually the ruling class was assimilated. But the common folk continued speaking Turkic languages. Even today a part of Iran population speak Turkic. (I don't know the percentage of Turkic speakers in Iran, but it probably around 25%-30%.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Debating adding three languages in the introduction paragraph. I think not everybody agrees that the Seluks spoke Turkic, Kouhi says they spoke Persian and abandoned their mother tongue once they entered Khurasan. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can learn a new language. But changing mother tongue is another thing. More over Turkic is a agglutinative language and adopting Persian with a very different language mentality is a difficult task (especially without modern language-teaching facilities). It seems Kouhi confuses lingua franca with mother tongue. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to clarify that I myself never said Seljuqs abandoned their mother tongue, the source says this. I agree they spoke Turkic, at least initially. We are all in agreement in that. My point was and is, based on that source, we can't claim Seljuqs spoke Turkic (the source is Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, seems not to be a historical work). I think we just need a better source, which I'm sure we can find. -- Kouhi (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What does the source say, it is clear to me they spoke Oghuz Turkic language, and the Turkic nomads who lived in the Seljuq realm spoke Oghuz Turkic language. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave the source along with former Turkey Turkish alphabet recitation and  I added the Turkish text(along with source).Turkish people on this issue as it concerns directly to so I added the Turkish text. issue must be included in the language if it concerns a direct reading of a community.

for example:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Khaganate
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khanid_Khanate
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

There are many examples in this regard.the grandchildren of the empire. alphabet and the language they use today. then the language has nothing to do. which is relevant here is that concern society. so it must be added Turkish reading--Osman bey (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Y'all stop fighting over this. Osman bey is blocked as a sock, which invalidates, to some extent, their contribution. So striking it through is acceptable. Move on. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't his contribution still be respected. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's up to you. But he's not allowed to play here anymore, and typically administrators or mediators disregard their commentary. My problem was with the stupid edit warring over the strike-through, which was disruptive and distracting. Please continue and hash this content dispute out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish spelling
You just restored the Turkish spelling in the infobox, may I ask you why? This parameter is "native name", and Modern Turkish with Latin alphabet wasn't their "native" language and, beside that, this language has nothing to do with Saljuqs (their language was Saljuq Turkish and there is no surviving evidence of that language as far as I know). It is like adding Modern Persian spelling with Perso-Arabic script to Parthian Empire. I think those who support adding Turkish spelling should cite a reliable source and show that the Turkish spelling is somehow relevant to this article. Oghuz Turkish may be relevant and it could be added to the article if we can find a source for the spelling (to be sure that it is not a made-up and fantasy spelling), but Modern Turkish is really irrelevant. -- Kouhi (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I just restored last stable revision before edit warring. Better to discuss those issues on talk page (reach a consensus). --Wario-Man (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Last accepted revision is this, no objection to my edit in 17 days, so according to WP:SILENCE, this is the last stable revision. But, since I already started this discussion on the talk page, I will wait a week more to see those who support adding the Turkish spelling are able to provide a reliable source or not. -- Kouhi (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

They Spoke old Anatolian Turkish. 88.240.9.226 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It was sultanate of Rum. Pertys (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We should add it as "Modern Turkish" but I don't know how to do it. Even2311 (talk)
 * Both Pertys and Even2311 are sockpuppets of blocked disruptive user Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * They didn't speak Old Anatolian, you do realize they were in Jibal/Iraq-i 'Ajam, they were speaking Oghuz Turkic, Persian and Arabic, all with the Arabic script. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The "last stable version" would be before people started adding fictional "eagles" without reference. Please hold everyone to high standards regarding WP:RS. If there is a recorded Turkish/Turkic name for the state recorded contemporarily, let's see a reference for it. Then add it. If you have no decent reference, you have no business editing anything whatsoever. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * that said, we have no reference for the Persian name سلجوقيان Saljūqiyān. I am not saying it is incorrect. I am saying we don't know because no reference was cited. So I've removed it, fair is fair. Google books comes up empty on the transliteration. Cite a decent reference stating this is the historical Persian form of the name and then add it back. --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Khaqani was a Seljuq era poet and he used this Persian name Saljūqiyān several times. So it is historically valid. -- Kouhi (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also the Arabic name was used by the legendary historian Ibn Athir. (الدولة السلجوقية) so this is also historically valid. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Arabic was "language of learning and religion". How that is related to "native language"? -- Kouhi (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their native language is Oghuz Turkic, not Arabic or Farsi, the official name of their empire is known as الدولة السلجوقية, especially coming from a historian who lived during their time Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Although they were originally Turk, but they adopted Persian language and became Persianized (see the sources in article). Persian was "official & court language; lingua franca". It makes Persian their native language. And one important thing, those two sources for Oghuz Turkish are for Sultanate of Rum, not this article:


 * C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish Expansion towards the west" in UNESCO History of Humanity, Volume IV, titled "From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century", UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, p. 391: "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuk rulers (Qubād, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time)."
 * Qubad and Kay Khusraw are sultans of Sultanate of Rum. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Great Saljuq Rulers from Tughril to Sanjar who ruled the whole Empire never had Persianized name as far as I'm aware and in fact invoked Quranic title and Islamic title and names, Persian names were used by the Rum faction more prominently. I never said they were never Persiante, but I don't think Tughril and Chaghri, who came from beyond the Syr Darya river spoke Persian as a native language. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to put the Farsi and Arabic name next to each other. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is WP:OR. Names doesn't matter, sources are important. Most of Ottoman rulers had Arabic names, but they were not Arabs. If you are claiming that Seljuqs didn't speak Persian, then you need to provide a source for that, you can't argue based on their names. And "native language = the language of the king" is a false identity.


 * This is also true for Arabic. Ibn Athir is a good primary source, and primary sources are important for spellings, but in this case, Arabic is irrelevant. Persian was an important language in the Ottoman empire and the Ottoman empire itself has been described as a "Persianate" empire by several reliable sources, Selim I even had a Diwan in Persian, but Persian should not be added to those articles, because it is unrelated. In the case of Seljuqs, Arabic was used only for special purposes, it wasn't the language of the empire, it wasn't official language. Beside that, we even don't have a good reliable source for Arabic, so one can remove Arabic from the infobox. -- Kouhi (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I never said having Arabic name is the only example, and your Ottoman example is futile, I only said they invoked it, and the founders of the dynasty were not speaking Persian as a native language since they were migrating from beyond the Syr Darya, I also never said the Seljuk were never Persianaiet or the Ottomans were not Persianate. There is no such thing as official language in Seljuk Court, each language had their own importance. Both languages should be in the template for that reason. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There are many reliable sources for Persian language in the article. But what you have produced for Arabic or Oghuz Turkic or your other weird claims? Nothing. So you can't add those spellings. First cite reliable sources, then claim that Arabic, Oghuz Turkish or Japanese spellings should be included. And FYI, native name doesn't mean the name that the rulers called themselves. It's the name that was used in official documents (the Diwan of Seljuqs was in Persian) or the name that was used by inhabitants. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about native names, they have multiple names, the references are already included in the article. What does Japanese spelling have to do with Oghuz Turkish and Arabic spelling, you are trying to be funny? The article doesn't have to be following Diwan guidelines if that was true, the Mongol Empire article wouldn't have Cyrillic and modern latin spelling of the empire's name. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Turkish Expansion towards the west is about Sultanate of Rum, not this article. Your other source, Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World says "Oghuz Turkic is first represented by Old Anatolian Turkish which was a subordinate written medium until the end of the Seljuk rule", first this is not a reliable source, because it is about Languages, not about Seljuks. Second, "Seljuk" is a vague term here and most likely it refers to Sultanate of Rum. So there is NO reliable source for Oghuz Turkish. In the case of Arabic, the only source that have been cited is this:

You should quote the relevant part of the book in the article. ‌We don't know what it says about Arabic. Modern Cyrillic alphabet for Mongol Empire is also false, but I don't care about that article. Unless you don't cite a reliable source for Turkish, it has the same degree of relevance as Japanese. -- Kouhi (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Savory, R. M., ed. (1976). Introduction to Islamic Civilisation. Cambridge University Press. p. 82. ISBN 0-521-20777-0.


 * Kouhi: "Khaqani was a Seljuq era poet and he used this Persian name Saljūqiyān several times. So it is historically valid": you will note that none of this was adequately cited. If it was, I would never have removed the spelling. The burden is on you to give proper attribution to a published edition of Khaqani, complete with editor, year and page, and then re-insert the spelling in question. If you do that, it would never occur to me to contest your edit. The problem is that you complain about the removal of unreferenced material based on the claim that it could, in theory, be referenced instead of simply doing the work of providing the reference. I am just tired of researching claims that may or may not be factual or verifiable on the behalf of editors simply too lazy to do their work on their own. I find it telling that the name of primary authors like Khaqani or  Ibn Athir are only ever brought up in "editing disputes" and never simply by people working on their own on improving the article based on published academic sources. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, but you should not that it wasn't challenged before. And please note that, I must be sure about the reliability of that source. Khaqani is only a poet and it may not be a suitable source, I have to discuss these stuff before using a primary source in the article. Anyway, beside Khaqani, there's also Siyasatnama by Nizam_al-Mulk, the vizier of Seljuq empire. -- Kouhi (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

, Great Seljuk Empire is from Kınıks of Oguz tribes. Their Sultans were always Turk. If your history is strong already, you can see that war, trade and other events leads cultural interaction. It's clearly in sources that there were interaction with persians but it does not change that Seljuks were Turk. On the other hand shortly after fall of Great Seljuk Empire, Anatolian Seljuk State was founded and after that Ottoman Empire was founded. Everything is chained. Great Seljuki Empire and previous states are foundnation of the Republik of Turkey and they are Turk. Their language is also Turkish. Removing Turkish from drop box and leaving only Persian there, is clearly ignorance and hostlility. You urgently need to return from your vandal attitude.--Urungu97 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the discussions please. They were Turkic. They have nothing to do with Turkey and Turkish language. Turkic and Turkish are different. This rule is well-established in all pages including Sasanian Empire and Parthian Empire and you don't see Modern Persian spellings with Perso-Arabic script there. It has been discussed many many times. Discussing it again without a new argument makes no sense. And, please watch your words, words like "ignorance" and "hostility" are serious personal attacks, so don't use them again, particularly when you are not aware. -- Kouhi (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seljuk Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122005207/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_pers_mss_ott_20050106.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_pers_mss_ott_20050106.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Āl-e Saljuq
Instead of a questionable primary source: All which use Āl-e Saljuq. I would strongly suggest to Franrasyan to refrain from logging out to edit war their POV into this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seljuqs, by Christian Lange
 * The Rum Seljuqs: Evolution of a Dynasty, by Songul Mecit, page 183.
 * Earthquakes and Coseismic Surface Faulting on the Iranian Plateau, by Manuel Berberian, page 680.
 * Persian Historiography: History of Persian Literature, Volume 10, edited by Ehsan Yarshater, Charles Melville, page 696.
 * The Byzantine Turks, 1204-1461, by Rustam Shukurov, page 97.
 * The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 5, C.1198-c.1300, edited by David Abulafia, Rosamond McKitterick, page 939.
 * In classical Persian, the originally-name of Seljuks is written as Āl-ī Saljuq. This is enough to consider all your sources as doubtful
 * And why did you delete the source, and by what criteria do you determine the doubtful source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franrasyan (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you log out to continue edit warring? Guess we both have questions that will go unanswered!


 * "This is enough to consider all your sources as doubtful"
 * Hang on. LMAO. You mean the same sources you have been copying over to Russian Wikipedia?
 * In that case you should stop copying sources that I have provided on English Wikipedia. Oh, and while you are "giving lessons" on reliable sources, why don't you look up Robert Byron. Since you used him as a source for the Tajik Kurt dynasty.
 * Moving on, Cambridge University is a doubtful source? Appears you think your own opinion outweighs reliable secondary sources. Oh, which by the way, Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources, or did you not read that while logged out?
 * Rather typical of POV pushing; revert,revert,revert, arrive on talk page and disparage University sources while bringing nothing to the discussion.


 * "And why did you delete the source."
 * The source was written in 1385, thus a primary source. We, as Wikipedians, should find what secondary sources state to write Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Seljuq Armenia
The AFD closed as merge asking for any sourced content to be merged into this one. This article is quite well developed so I am wary of adding this will make it WP:Undue. Therefor I am copying the only sourced section here so regular editors of this article can decide how to incorporate it. Remember that if you do use this you need to put Merged from Seljuq Armenia in the edit summary to maintain attribution (the link is also required). Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Seljuq dynasty under Alp Arslan took the city of Ani in 1064. In 1071, after the defeat of the Byzantine forces by the Seljuq Turks at the Battle of Manzikert, the Turks captured the rest of Greater Armenia and much of Anatolia. So ended Christian leadership of Armenia for the next millennium with the exception of a period of the late 12th-early 13th centuries, when the Muslim power in Greater Armenia was seriously troubled by the resurgent Georgian monarchy. Many local nobles (nakharars) joined their efforts with the Georgians, leading to liberation of several areas in northern Armenia, which was ruled, under the authority of the Georgian crown, by the Zacharids/Mkhargrdzeli, a prominent Armeno-Georgian noble family.

Names in lede
Hi. I've restored the English transliteration of آل سلجوق‎ (i.e., Āl-e Saljuq) per WP:TRANSLITERATE which states "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet...must be transliterated." However, I hope that we can restore the Turkish and Turkmen names of the subject per WP:ALTNAME which states:

The Seljuk Empire was a Oghuz Turkic empire, with capitals based in modern Turkey and Turkmenistan. Which, not coincidentally, are also Oghuz speaking countries. Their renditions of the name, I do believe, are "significant". See the article on Vikings which includes the local renditions of Viking in "(Old English: wicing—"pirate", Danish and vikinger; Swedish and vikingar; víkingar, from Old Norse)". The same should apply here. The Sultanate of Rum, and in turn the Ottomans, descended from the Seljuk Empire. So there is a lineage with modern Turkey. The infobox already includes, with citation, Oghuz Turkish as a language of the Empire alongside Persian.

In general, the synonym Great Seljuq Empire, should be included as a "significant alternative name". Inclusion of alt names is usually common on article ledes. Any thoughts? DA1 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Their renditions of the name, I do believe, are "significant"."
 * I believe we've been through this on numerous occassions. Transliterations in modern Turkish/Turkmen are anachronistic, and thus not suited. There was no Turkish/Turkmen written in the Latin script at the time. As for the Vikings, a C-class article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any case, those transliterations are irrelant to the lede as well, and only serve as ethnic tag. They should be deleted as well. As far as I can see, all empire-related article on Wiki that are of a proper quality (GA/FA-class), only contain transliterations that are sourceable and not anachronistic. Such as Byzantine Empire, Parthian Empire, and Roman Empire.
 * "(...) the synonym Great Seljuq Empire, should be included (...)"
 * Yeah, a number of proper RS sources use that term. I will add it and assign references to it as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the Latin script replaced the Arabic script which was in use among Turks only in 1928/1929 under Mustapha Kemal Atatürk.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed to which point? This was about adding "significant alternative names" and I got that for the most part. The Vikings didn't use Latin letter either but the article on Vikings include Latin transliterations of their names in Scandinavian languages, and ALTNAME does mention "significant names in other languages." DA1 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can respond now?
@HistoryofIran apparently thinks a turkic empire should only have a persian version of its name and not a turkish nor any other oghuz name. I wonder what you're going to say this time as a reason? I hope you don't say the word "revisionism" again in wrong context as usual CuriousGolden (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Since when did the Seljuq Empire speak modern Turkish with the Latin alphabet? I don't think you get what revisionism means, here you go . Insult me again or try to pov push again and I'll have you reported. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran What are you trying to get from costing Seljuk Empire for your chauvinistic ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttilaAkay (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suggest removing the Persian words as well, since they apparently mean "House of Saljuq", i.e. Seljuq dynasty (incidentally, the words are used in that article too), not the Seljuk Empire. Two different things. -- Endleofan  20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ..which I'm guessing is what they're called in contemporary Persian records. If not, then we could always add the Persian term for "empire" instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And why are we adding the Persian translation for the "Seljuk Empire" if it was not used historically? After all, people have been removing the Turkish translation on the account that it is not contemporary. -- Endleofan  06:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There some archive discussion about the name on Talk:Seljuk Empire/Archive 2. Better because he was involved in this specific Talk:Seljuk Empire/Archive 2 discussion. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're saying, I'm only suggesting that we could add the Persian translation for the "Seljuk Empire" if that's more correct. However, as I said I'm guessing "House of Saljuq" was used in contemporary Persian records (used to refer to the Seljuqs as well by a contemporary historian ). The English version of a name doesn't always reflect the original name of a dynasty/kingdom. The Seljuqs did not use (nor speak) modern Anatolian Turkish as its official language nor used the Latin alphabet, it's a different story for Persian and its script however. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I am calling for consistency. Wikipedia makes a distinction between the Seljuq dynasty and the Seljuk Empire. The contemporary Persian term, Al-e Saljuq, is apparently a literal translation of House of Seljuk, i.e. Seljuk dynasty. So why have it in this article? And if we were to add the non-contemporary Persian translation for the Seljuk Empire, we should be able to add the non-contemporary Turkish translation as well considering the fact it was the Seljuk Turks who created Turkey. -- Endleofan  15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh.. sorry, but this seems to be a bit of a repeat of your previous comment. I think my comment above answers that pretty well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with HistoryofIran; besides, Seljuk Turks did not "create Turkey", moreover, they are not even considered direct ancestors of modern Anatolian Turks. Seljuks were from the Qiniq tribe of Oghuz Turks, while Ottomans are widely believed to have come from the Kayi tribe. If we follow your logic, then "Seljuk" should be written in Azerbaijani and Turkmen languages as well, as they consider them as their forefathers as well. Returning to the topic of the talk, Persian name should stand because its script and language (almost unchanged since the Samanids era) was there when Seljuks burst into scene and after that (they were highly Persianate society). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterego Wayne (talk • contribs) 07:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Turkey" predates the Ottomans, and has been called as such since the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. But I agree that the Azerbaijani translation can be added as well, since Azerbaijani and Turkish are sometimes considered "Seljuk" among the Oghuz languages. -- Endleofan  12:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevence of mentioning religion in Opening Sentence in lead paragraph
I don't think its really relevant to mention the (alleged) religion of the Seljuks in the opening paragraph as Persia was officially secular during the Seljuk period and adjacent time periods. Also, the Seljuks, as with other adjacent dynasties, were not religious fundamentalists as is evident in their contemporary literature and art, which makes religion less worthy of emphasis in the opening line. Furthermore, the state religion is mentioned in the info box, so anyone that clicks on the article can see this either way. I'm in favor of removing religion from opening paragraph as it appears to be standard in these types of articles. Please comment below for or against.Xoltron (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First off your personal opinion means nothing here.


 * "I don't think its really relevant to mention the (alleged) religion of the Seljuks.."
 * "SALDJUKIDS, a Turkish dynasty of mediaeval Islam which, at the peak of its power during the llth-12th centuries....", C.E. Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VIII, page 936.
 * "The orthodox Sunnism which al-Ghazali represented was thus the religious force behind the Saldjuk ideal of government. Now that the Shia Buyids had been overthrown, Sunnism had behind it the full support of the Saldjuk ruling authority in the Iraki and Persian lands, and it was at this time a vital, intellectually far-ranging force, uniting within itself many stimulating currents of thought." -- C.E. Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VIII, page 950.
 * So much for "alleged" religion. I see no reason to remove their religion from the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █  12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seljuk Empire → Seljuq Empire – Per WP:TITLECON (Seljuq dynasty, Mahmud I of Great Seljuq, Anatolian Seljuqs family tree, etc). Appears to be the common name and the spelling that is most frequently used. Keivan.f Talk 06:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * queried mvce request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As the subject of a previous RM, this does not qualify as an uncontroversial technical request. Station1 (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Well you did move the third article to the spelling 'Seljuq' without any form of discussion, and is 'Seljuq' even WP:COMMON NAME? Could you look it up and show it here? If not, then I will do it later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment My argument was based on WP:TITLECON. Now that it has been turned into an RM, then we should get a consensus for all the articles that use this spelling:
 * Seljuq dynasty
 * List of sultans of the Seljuq Empire
 * Seljuq (warlord)
 * Mahmud I of Great Seljuq
 * Mahmud II (Seljuq sultan)
 * Byzantine–Seljuq wars
 * Seljuq pottery
 * Abu'l-Qasim (Seljuq governor of Nicaea)
 * Seljuq campaigns in the Aegean - Keivan.f  Talk 17:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misread then. Anyhow now that the topic has been brought up Imo we should look up whats actually it's WP:COMMON NAME, that's surely more important no? HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Just did some searching. Seljuk gives 2.687 results on JSTOR, Seljuq 1.083, and Saljuq 814. From De Gruyter: Seljuk 1,677, Seljuq 491 and Saljuq 426. Seljuk is easily a winner in both cases. It seems my oppose will stay, in fact I suggest that we move all articles with Seljuq to -> Seljuk per WP:COMMON NAME given the statistics. Looks like back in 2014 people were already made aware that Seljuk was by far WP:COMMON NAME and thus had the article moved, the same should have been done to the other variants. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the Mahmud I, Mahmud II, Byzantine-Seljuq wars, Abu'l-Qasim and Aegean articles were all moved from the k to q spellings in 2009-2012 without apparent discussion. Station1 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this seems like a correct but lesser used spelling. So stick on comonname. Beshogur (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose:What is the difference between Seljuk and Seljuq. A slight difference in pronounciation, right? But we have no way to check the original prononciation. Today in most texts it is Seljuk. (There are 1260000 Seljuks and 372000 Seljuks in google) So it is best to keep Seljuk.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Great Seljuk Empire
Why is this removed from the lead? It's a lot used academically. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seljuk flag
Getting tired of IPs/new users constantly trying to force that most likely fictional flag and coat of arms into the article without adding any source whatsoever. Here's what the The later Ghaznavids (page 56) by C. E. Bosworth states:

"Another practice of Ibrahim's which may have been influenced by that of the Seljuqs, and by Ibrahim's connections with Malik Shah, is the Ghaznavid sultan's having a lion device on his banner (rayat), if a line of Abu'l-Faraj Runi is to be believed: Like the lion device on a banner, the bold braggart has no heart; like a gazelle's horn, the branch of his tree is without fruit. The Persian poets of the Seljuqs certainly make frequent reference to the lion device on their masters' flags, for example in the odes of Anwari addressed to Sanjar and his military commander epigoni in Khurasan."

No mention of any kind of bird.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * seljuk turks are not known to use lion figure att all Bekir321 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source above disagrees. HistoryofIran (talk)


 * Art ond walls and buildings and specially paintings was commen during seljuk period paintings of animals such as gazalles birds and lions was commen yes but these figures was likely never used in the official seljuk flag at that time but one thing i sure that specially the seljuk turks of minor asia (turkey) used the two headed eagel as a state symbol and flag. It is possible to find lion figures on seljuk buildings in turkey today and on seljuk coins Bekir321 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your word simply isn't enough, you have to bring reliable sources to the table. So far it seems like a lion was used on the Seljuk flag. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dynastic Template
The details look very thorough but the numbering is extremely confusing. Do the numbers indicate branches of empire ruled by contemporaries? If they indicate succession, why does #1 appear several times? It would help a lot if there was a key or explanation at the bottom. Martindo (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Seljuk Art
I am going to add an entire section on Seljuk art in the coming days. There is currently nothing written in that section, so I will be editing to primarily add information about both non-secular and secular Seljuk manuscripts. Other information that I plan to include (though less of) entails Seljuk ceramics and architecture.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to start a discussion with me about the edits that I plan to make!

Millsnaps (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Millsnaps

1200-1400
In class [we] had to make a map of some empires from 1200-1400, including the seljuks

But here, the "History of the Turkic Peoples" template says that the seljuks existed from 1037 to 1194!?

Eventually something was provided to finish the map (https://www.freeman-pedia.com/dar-al-islam-global-tapestry).  AltoStev Talk 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alternate names/spellings in lead
There's been a bit of edit-warring on alternate names in the lead regarding whether or not to mention "Saljuq" as a second spelling. There are quite a lot of different spellings/variations of the name and of course "Seljuk" is certainly the most common. The alternatives, in no particular order, include: Seljuq, Saljuq, Saljuk, Saljuqid, Seljuqid, Seljukid, and maybe more. Some of these must be pretty marginal, but suffice to say there are multiple ones that are used in reliable sources and that therefore could be mentioned. Can I suggest that these names be mentioned in a footnote instead (e.g. right after "or the Seljuk Empire")? That way the lead doesn't get bogged down in mentioning all the different spellings and there's plenty of room to add many names in a footnote without arguing too much about which ones should be prioritized. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC) PS: If a consensus is reached here, we may also want to consider whether it can be applied to the lead of the Seljuk dynasty article as well. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 April 2021 and 26 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Millsnaps. Peer reviewers: Figapartmenttoast, Autonomous owl ch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)