Talk:Seljuk Empire/Archive 3

Turko-Persian Empire? Inaccurate label
Hello, Why is the Seljuk Empire called a Turko-Persian Empire? It has no basis in any aspect due to the fact that the Seljuks were not Persians. They were Turkic people. I have seen the previous discussion in which it seems pan-Iranians are trying to find a viable reason for why this is the case, although it cannot be. It is understood that Seljuks integrated Persian culture into their empire to a good degree. Although, still, this does not justify the label “Turko-Persian”. Because it indicates that they were ethnically Persian people. That is innacurate. By the same token, Many of the Persian dynasties should be considered Perso-Arab dynasties due to the fact that the Persians widely adopted Arab culture, but also religion, the Arabic script, Took on Arab style spellings and forms to their names, recieved loan words from Arabic that could be found in practically every other Persian word. So, if those Persian dynasties are not considered Perso-Arab, then why isnt Seljuks held to the same fairness? Again, Persians adopted more Arab culture than the Seljuks adopted Persian culture, and mind as well that the Persian they adopted, was an extension of Arab culture as well.

I propose to remove the Turko-Persian label and do the Seljuks its due earnings by identifying them as who they really, and only are, Turkic. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Turko-Persian" has nothing to do with an Iranian origin. Also, WP:RS contradicts you;


 * Mandelbaum, Michael (1994). Central Asia and the World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan. Council on Foreign Relations. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-87609-167-8. Persianate zone (...) The rise of Persianized Turks to administrative control (...) The Turko-Persian tradition developed during the Seljuk period (1040-1118) (...) In the Persianate zone, Turkophones ruled and Iranians administered


 * 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."


 * Gencer, A. Yunus (2017). Thomas, David; Chesworth, John A. (eds.). Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 10 Ottoman and Safavid Empires (1600-1700). Brill. ISBN 978-9004345652. Turkish music completed its transformation into completely makam-based music in the early 11th-century, in the period of the Turko-Persian Seljuk Empire.


 * Partridge, Christopher (July 3, 2018). High Culture: Drugs, Mysticism, and the Pursuit of Transcendence in the Modern World. Oxford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0190459116. Under his leadership, the Nezāris mounted a decentralized revolutionary effort against the militarily superior Turko-Persian Saljuq empire.


 * Neumann, Iver B.; Wigen, Einar (June 2018). The Steppe Tradition in International Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 9781108355308. The Seljuq Empire is nevertheless the foremost example of a Turko-Persian Islamic empire.


 * Cupane, Carolina; Krönung, Bettina (27 Sep 2016). Fictional Storytelling in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond. BRILL. p. 532. ISBN 978-90-04-30772-8. Seljuk(s) medieval Turko-Persian dynasty


 * As for your claims about Persian culture (Iran in the Early Islamic Period: Politics, Culture, Administration and Public Life between the Arab and the Seljuk Conquests, 633-1055);


 * "Consequently, the Persian nation contributed to the broadening of Islam beyond the confines of a merely Arab national religion and helped to give it the character of a world religion in a way that few others can claim."


 * "However, Persia did not wholly lose itself by adopting Islam. To a great extent it moulded Islam into a religion suitable for its own needs. The Persian national spirit asserted itself independently and successfully in the Khārijite and Shiʿite communities of this country, and later in its brand of mysticism, even though these religious movements were not genuinely Persian."


 * "Thus the Islamization of Persia started mainly in the upper echelons of society, in those circles which were the true proprietors of Iranian culture and which also maintained the old Persian heroic traditions with their chivalric idea of life.40 They had no reason to abandon their cultural heritage, since the social milieu in which they lived remained unchanged. This is a considerable part of the answer to the question as to why Persian culture and the Persian language survived into the Islamic era."


 * "Unlike the lands of the Aramaean and Aramaized populations of the Middle East, and ultimately also the Coptic population of Egypt, the Persian people remained an independent language community. This may have been due to the vastness of the space they inhabited and the inaccessibility of many areas, and maybe also to the smaller number of Arab invaders compared to Egypt for example. Mostly, however, it was a consequence of its rich culture, which had blossomed magnificently immediately before the fall of the Sasanid Empire, imparting to its people selfconfidence, cultural tradition and the living memory of literary creation."


 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

“ "Turko-Persian" has nothing to do with an Iranian origin “ is what you have mentioned. This is exactly the point. Seljuks have nothing to do with Iranian origin. In WP articles, when mentioning their identities, it refers to their origins. Therefore, ‘Turko-Persian’ wrongly insinuates that they are of Persian origin as well.

These few sources seem to be cherry picked to push a narrative, unfortunately. By a simple google search, the drop down results immediately show that the Seljuks were Turkic, only. These sources that you have brought seemed to have been ‘hunted down’ in order to then label the Seljuks as such.

Therefore, I again propose that the Seljuks be presented of their accurate origins. They were not Persians. And I am sure that Turkic origin people have listed their complaints against this, as in the prior discussion. Although, it seems the Pan Iranians may have control over this and do not want to budge on the matter.

In regards to the Arabization of Iranians and Iran, It is well known that many things Persian have been Arabized. Again, from the loan words, to the writing script, to the religion, to the names of Persian individuals. The only thing that seems that may have survived, most prominently, would be the Persian language. Although, this Persian language is also Arabized to a great extent as well.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in Wikipedia we what follow what WP:RS says, not what users think/feel. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Origins
Seljuk empire was not established as a nation with Turko-Persian traditions, dynasty later adopted Persian traditions. I believe that the empire should be called as "High medieval Turkic, later Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim empire" at the article lead. BerkBerk68talk 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More WP:NPOV, the WP:RS in this article says otherwise. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Seljuk empire was not established as a nation with Turko-Persian traditions.."
 * Actually it was. Without the bureaucracy there was no "empire".


 * "I believe that the empire should be called as "High medieval Turkic, later Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim empire" at the article lead."
 * Why? The empire was not "Turkic", was not wholly inhabited by Turkic peoples, nor was Turkic a culture the empire patronized. From the beginning Tughril had a vizier translating Persian to him and arranging marriages. And yet, for some weird reason the Turko portion of the culture just does not sink in. Even the last part of the sentence says it all, "...originating from the Qiniq branch of Oghuz Turks.". Yet this just does not sink in.
 * Hell, even Turkish Wikipedia states the virtually same thing as this article;


 * "Büyük Selçuklu İmparatorluğu (Farsça: آل سلجوق), Orta Çağ'da Oğuz Türklerinin Kınık boyu tarafından kurulan, Türk-İran kültürüne dayalı, Sünni Müslüman bir imparatorluk."
 * Translation:"The Great Seljuk Empire (Persian: آل سلجوق) was a Sunni Muslim empire based on Turkish-Iranian culture, founded by the Kınık tribe of Oghuz Turks in the Middle Ages."
 * Strange how English Wikipedia is constantly attacked yet Turks ignore the exact same version in their own language!
 * Besides, the Lead of the article reflects a summarization of the article itself. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Issue with Turko Persian label
The term Turko-Persian itself is flawed as it is very narrow. Japan was influenced by Chinese culture probably a lot more than the Seljuk Empire was influenced by Persian culture but we don't call the Japanese Empire and Japanese-Chinese Empire. It is a misleading term. It should not be in the lede. The Seljuks also had influences from various other cultures. Not to mention that Persian culture itself has been highly influenced by Arab culture. Let's avoid such narrow terms. Historynerdboy (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Göktürk Gmc (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:JDLI and WP:OR. Sources say otherwise. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have checked the sources and no where do they generalize the entire Seljuk Empire as Turko-Persian, rather they reference administration and linguistic influences from Persia. It can be said Japan Empire's administration was influenced by China, does that make it Japanese-Chinese Empire? It can be said Eastern Roman Empire was using Latin language until 620. Does that make modern Greeks as Italians? Historynerdboy (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Persian language has over 2 million Arabic origin words. Should all Islamic Persian empires and dynasties be labelled as Perso-Arabic? Administration within these empires have been molded by Islamic ideals and practices and even administration. Islamic Persian Empires and Dynasties employed the Shura system of limited government which comes from Prophet Muhammad (S) and was originally done by Arabs. Historynerdboy (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The sources disagree with you, and you've no (reliable) sources to backup your statements, please stop this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am speaking of the sources. None of them say "Turko Persian" rather they reference administration and language which are mentioned above. Historynerdboy (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, the fact that the Grousset citation alone says "Turko Persian" really says much about the validity of your statement. That and this comment of yours . Please read WP:JDLI, WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that at the end, but I do not think it is as reliable as the other sources and is much more outdated. Not to mention it seems quite Orientalist. Regardless, my points on the sources are still valid and I believe labeling it as a Turko-Persian empire violates Wikipedia's WP:POV policy. I think such Iranian chauvinism is not right. We need some real experts without such bias here. Historynerdboy (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think HistoryofIran has already summed this up. This point has already received plenty of supporting sources, and indeed this is a commonly-mentioned point by historians, reflecting the cultural and political context of the region at the time when the Seljuks moved into it. There are entire books on this topic alone (here's one easily-found example). Nothing has been presented here to seriously challenge this. R Prazeres (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't think it's reliable (presumably because it shatters your biased worldview) does not counter its validity. Unless you think Western historians are "Iranian chauvinists" in some bizarre conspiracy theory there's no reason to believe they have any bias towards or against you. The reason why Seljuks are considered Turko-Persian is pretty obvious; their rulers spoke Persian at court and wrote Persian in most documents and the entire administrative division of the state was Persian (with Nizam al-Mulk being the most famous example). You've yet to provide any sourcing or counter-argument to this besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As a state system, the Seljuks are a steppe type state.

they only adapted some bureaucratic systems from Iran to this state model (Şihne, vizier, divan etc.)

but the dynasty never told him that he was descended from Persian or any other Iranian people.

At that time, it was used as a Persian lingua franca with Southeast Asian dynasties, Central Asian khanates and Georgians and Armenian kingdoms.

With this logic, shall we call the Persian-Georgian kingdom also for the Georgian kingdoms?

Shall we call Southeast Asian kingdoms are Indo-Persian?

which western researchers consider a Persian origin to be among the founders of the Seljuks?

this phrase clearly has a pan-Iranist perspective then write the same "Turko-Persian" for the Safavids, whose founders were Azerbaijani and Turkmen in origin. Burtigin (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Persian influence in the empire doesn't change the national identity of the country. Just like British Empire had an Indian population, Turkic Seljuks had a Persian population. Seljuks are Turkic.Hsynylmztr (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Seljuks are Turkic" According to whom? Dimadick (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

According to anyone that has common sense. Western Göktürks --> Oghuz Yabgu --> Seljuks --> Ottomans --> Turkey. It would be absurd to think that a shariah law country(Iran) can have a decent, neutral history education. Iran was ruled by Turks for 1000 years. Wikipedia is not a neutral place, at least for now, so all these information are the result of edit warring and vandalism. Persian people don't want to admit that they were ruled by Turks for 1000 years and their 'heroes' were Turks. Safavids, Afsharids, Seljuks and many more were Turkic Empires. Tuğrul and Çağrı beys founded Seljuks, Alp Arslan and Kılıç Arslan were most famous rulers, just by their name, one can say the were completely Turkic. But of course, shariah says otherwise doesn't it?Hsynylmztr (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not Reddit, thus something like this doesn't belong here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

All except one of the sources given actually describe a "Persianate" or "Persianized" Turkic empire, so we ought to follow that. The expression "Turko-Persian Empire" is only mentioned by Grousset as "an attempt", and what he describes is actually a process of cultural Persianization of "Turkomans".

Wickelodeon (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

According to every scholar and historian excluding goverment of Iran.

Wickelodeon (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of the sources....
Dear all. I just made a review of the referenced material given in the introduction as a support for the "Turko-Persian" label, and added direct online links and quotes from the referenced pages. The expression "Turko-Persian" is actually only used by two sources: the "Turko-Persian Empire" is only mentioned by Grousset as "an attempt", and what he describes is a process of cultural Persianization of "Turkomans". And Mandelbaum only speaks about a "Turko-Persian tradition" (a hybrid culture) that developed under the Persianized Turkoman/Turkic Seljuks. All the other sources actually describe a "Persianate" or "Persianized" Turkic empire, i.e. a non-Persian Turkic polity which adopted Islam and Persian culture. Overall, it seems "Turko-Persian" is rather seldom used, and, when used, describes the hybrid culture under the Seljuks, rather than the Seljuks themselves. I think we should therefore prefer the expression "Persianate Turkic Empire" as more reflective of the sources and the reality of the Seljuks, as proposed in this version. Here are the sources and their quotes:

पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "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 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 k..."
 * 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 Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..."
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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."


 * I agree with the above statement given the number of sources supporting it, to describe it in the lede as a "Persianate Turkic empire" and mention it resulted in the development of the Turko-Persian tradition. --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there seems to be a general consensus on this subject, I will change the lead to "Persianate Turkic Empire", feel free to reverse my edit if it appears to be unconstructive. Praxeria (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Variant spellings/transliterations
Just a general note: during recent edits I found many inconsistent uses of variant spellings (such as, of course, "Seljuk" vs "Seljuq"), and I expect there may be more. This is an issue in other articles too and it's almost as much an issue in reliable sources themselves. (Even more so in the context of Islamic Turkic dynasties, where varying English transliterations of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian versions of the same names/terms are all in the mix.) For the sake of minimizing reader confusion, we should do our best to stick to a consistent spelling throughout the article. Important alternate spellings can still be mentioned in parentheses or footnotes.

Rather than add a maintenance template for what will likely be an ongoing minor issue, I'm just leaving this comment here to encourage regular editors of this article to keep an eye out for other inconsistencies. If there is disagreement or uncertainty about which spelling should be preferred by default, perhaps we could also discuss here. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Image galleries
User is seemingly on a crusade to erase all image galleries as in. But image galleries are clearly allowed when used adequately and when they bring something to the article: WP:GALLERY: ""A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." They are especially useful (and widely used) when describing visual arts. What is frowned upon is "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images", which is not the case here. Comments welcome पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please keep the poor assumptions to yourself, I've got nothing against galleries if they are properly made and relevant enough . Perhaps you want to cite the rest of the text; "Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Adding every image you can find of a cup is not exactly that. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been doing this for years, it's getting old (these are not even all the diffs).
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Using galleries to document an article, as long as it is made in a relevant manner, is extremely current pratice on Wikipedia (random pick:, etc...). You are the only one taking such as radical stance against galleries (... and with such animosity I might say). If your point is that galleries are OK if they are "well-crafted", well please help craft them better and enlighten us. Just blanking them is not the solution, and is certainly not the mainstream approach on Wikipedia.  पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't really compare articles literally about visual stuff to this (WP:OTHER also applies).. but I don't disagree with you. As I said, I have nothing against galleries (but they are not a must either, obviously depends), but yours are typically not well-crafted. Sure, I'll see what can I do, but it won't be right now - I'm planning to expand this article in the near future, will be more practical to do it then. Also, Art of the Seljuks of Iran (name obviously needs to be changed to "Seljuk art" or "Art in the Seljuk Empire", something like that, depends on how WP:RS views their art and that of the Sultanate of Rum I guess) might be of interest to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's good news that you are planning to expand this article. I am looking forward to it, and I know that your contributions will be highly valuable. In the meantime, may I suggest that you let other contributors do what they can? I might not be a gallery genius, but I am fairly confident that my galleries are not crap either. The gallery about metalworks you deleted here was made by other contributors than me, I merely improved with refs, and supplemented with more relevant examples. This work deserves to be kept and be improved upon. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:GF comment, I've returned the favour and reverted myself. There's still some time left when I'll expand the article (a long list of to do stuff) and fiddle with the images, in the meantime I'm sure you and other contributors can continue improving the article and its choice/placement of images. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this was resolved. As a general note, if the article does get overburdened with images, we should prioritize keeping images that are directly relevant to the text and focus on trimming ones that are more tangential; e.g. the images in the arts section are clearly complimentary to the text (and a few of us have also worked on them recently), whereas most images in the history section don't contribute directly relevant information otherwise (i.e. unless it's a depiction of an event or person mentioned in text), so I'm more inclined to move or remove those if needed. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)