Talk:Sultanate of Rum

Wasn't the Sultanate of Rum a Turkic state?
It's certainly accurate to say that the Sultanate of Rum was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed Sunni Islam, I don't deny that, but isn't it also accurate to clarify that it was a Turkic state? Why deny this most basic fact? Some references: पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]
 * [Added on 22-02]


 * “Turco-Persian” already cover their Turkic background… please also read the culture section. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @पाटलिपुत्र I am not denying that the ruling family was ethnically Turkic, that much is undoubtedly true. However, your edit replaced Turco-Persian and Sunni Muslim with Turkic, which I do not find acceptable; to the ruling class of the Sultanate of Rûm, their connection to Islam and Persianate culture was far more important than any sense of ethnic belonging. I do think that a wording that includes both (like the one on the Seljuk Empire page) is acceptable, but not this. Uness232 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not "replace Turco-Persian and Sunni Muslim with Turkic", please read again : I just added that they were a Turkic state, which is a pretty standard and fundamental way to describe them (sources above). Indeed, my proposal is to say that they were a Turkic state, which was culturally Turco-Persian, and which followed Sunni Islam. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @पाटलिपुत्र My mistake. I acted hastily, thought you deleted “Turco-Persian”. I am okay with your proposal. Uness232 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @पाटलिपुत्र Again, please read what Turco-Persian means - you've been editing these type of articles for years, you should at the very least know what it means.. Moreover, mentioning that they were Turkic before Turco-Persian not only sounds off (per the meaning of "Turco-Persian"), but it's not neutral, as Uness32 perfectly put it; "their connection to Islam and Persianate culture was far more important than any sense of ethnic belonging." This is well demonstrated in the Culture and society section. When you're not turning articles into galleries (eg ), you're doing this.. please do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @HistoryofIran I don't necessarily see the problem with mentioning both; while their ethnic belonging was secondary to their Persianate affinities, modern historiography has (for better or for worse) become more perceptive of the former, and a clarification of origin and cultural affiliation might work just as well as what we have right now. Perhaps better wording can be used, similar to the one used on the Seljuk Empire page:
 * The Seljuk Empire, or the Great Seljuk Empire, was a high medieval empire, established and ruled by the Qïnïq branch of Oghuz Turks. It was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed the Sunni Muslim faith.
 * This does not use the term "Turkic state/empire" which implies a sense of ethnic belonging similar to a modern nation-state, while communicating both origin and cultural affiliation. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the new lede by Pataliputra without any WP:CONSENSUS, and is essentially a swap of the words of the previous and long standing lede of the Seljuk Empire and would be the same here too. Their ethnic origins are already mentioned in this lede, but the way that Pataliputra did it here was off and frankly nearing the realm of disruption when looking at their previous activities. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @HistoryofIran I see. I defer to your judgment here, and I think I went about this very hastily and without forming my complete set of thoughts, as I misread the edit at first. Uness232 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources tend to define them as a Turkic/ Turkish state first and foremost (above), so we should follow that. And, honestly, it seems to be the most obvious and fundamental way to define them. "Culturally Turco-Persian" only qualifies their culture and is not sufficient as a definition of who they were: they could very well be Georgians "with a Turco-Persian culture", or Persians "with a Turco-Persian culture" for that matter. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources tend to define them as a Turkic/ Turkish state first and foremost (above), so we should follow that. And, honestly, it seems to be the most obvious and fundamental way to define them.
 * Sources cherrypicked by you, we still put the most important part first, it goes without saying - read the Culture section. You already made a similar attempt at Timurid Empire and it failed.
 * "Culturally Turco-Persian" only qualifies their culture and is not sufficient as a definition of who they were: they could very well be Georgians "with a Turco-Persian culture", or Persians "with a Turco-Persian culture" for that matter.
 * Sigh... you still haven't read what Turco-Persian means. I am gonna ask you for the third time to read it. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The expression "Culturally Turco-Persian" certainly does not replace the definition of what the Seljuk Sultanate was from a political standpoint, even if the Turco-Persian culture historically usually reflected a situation where Turks ruled ("masters of the sword") while Persians were the "masters of the pen". To be precise and encyclopedic: the Sultanate of Rum was a Turkic state, ruled by a Turkic dynasty, which had a developped Turco-Persian culture, and followed Sunny Islam. This is not all and the same: political, cultural and religious characteristics all deserve to be defined and explicited. I added a few more academic sources to my initial statement above, which matter-of-factly define the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum as a Turkic state. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what you're saying or are you making up new things as you go? What does "politically" precisely mean here? This is the medieval times. Even the cherrypicked sources don't mention that word. Please stop trying to make up your own rules/meanings and constantly going against our rules and historians, it's tiring. Obviously, when those cherrypicked sources of yours say "Turkic state", they are referring to their origins. You already attempted this at Timurid Empire and it failed; WP:DROPTHESTICK or I will take this to WP:ANI for your years and years of disruption. A moment ago you didn't even know what "Turco-Persian" meant, basing your whole argument on your wrong interpretation of that, now it's something new and random. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, from a quick glance, at least 5 of those sources aren't even by experts on this topic nor books focused on the topic, more proof that you're cherry picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks. I'm not interested in resorting to the same tactics, it's disingenuous and the Culture section already has more than enough citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Political" refers to the form and nature of government (see "Politics"), which in our case is characterized as "Turkic" by academic sources, as in the expression "Turkish state" above. It is distinct from "culture", which refers to the arts, literature etc..., here properly referred to as "culturally Turco-Persian", which I don't dispute. As shown by my references, the expression "Turkic/ish state" is almost exclusively used in academia to describe the Sultanate of Rum as a political entity. Like it or not, you have been unable to provide a single refutal based on WP:Reliable sources. You should drop the constant threats, misrepresentations and personal attacks: please WP:AGF, we are all here to build the best possible encyclopedia. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was asking for the opinion of a expert scholar, not yours. You did not address the part about the cherrypicked non-expert sources as well as that they don't even mention the word "politically" either, instead resorting to WP:SYNTH. I've given you WP:GF for years, the long WP:ROPE has finally run out. How about you start trying to do better? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which "non-expert" authors would you like to see removed from my list of references in the initial statement? I will gladly remove them. And I don't see why the word "politically" would necessarily have to be mentioned in these references: it is sufficient enough that these academics use this "Turkic/ish state" expression as their primary descriptor for the Sultanate of Rum, and everybody knows that a state is a political entity... At the very least, per Wikipedia editorial rules, we should be able to mention in the introduction that the Sultanate is also described as a "Turkic state", with the above references. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which "non-expert" authors would you like to see removed from my list of references in the initial statement? I will gladly remove them.
 * Please first explain why you're picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks and not paying attention to what it even is.
 * And I don't see why the word "politically" would necessarily have to be mentioned in these references: it is sufficient enough that these academics use this "Turkic/ish state" expression as their primary descriptor for the Sultanate of Rum, and everybody knows that a state is a political entity.
 * Textbook WP:SYNTH; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research". I highly advise you to read this a few times seeing as you been called for WP:OR many times, including Talk:Maurya Empire.
 * There is already sourced information in the Culture section that talks about how the Sultanate of Rum was politically, and to no surprise, your WP:SYNTH claims are not supported by it;
 * "The Seljuk dynasty of Rum, as successors to the Great Seljuks, based its political, religious and cultural heritage on the Perso-Islamic tradition and Greco-Roman tradition,"
 * "The Seljuks of Rum had inherited the administrative method of Persian statecraft from the Seljuk Empire, which they would later pass on to the Ottomans."
 * "Anatolia in the early 13th century was deeply influenced by Iranian cultural, political, and literary traditions."
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not making sense. How can it possibly be WP:SYNTH to simply re-use the expression ("Turkic state") which is primarily used by dozens of the most relevant historians of the period to describe the Sultanate of Rum? (and again, I am not denying all the various influences you keep harping about, which is not the point). As you should well know, it is our job to follow the sources in the terminology they use to describe various historical entities. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not making sense. How can it possibly be WP:SYNTH to simply re-use the expression ("Turkic state")
 * Let's go a few comments back to what you claimed; "The expression "Culturally Turco-Persian" certainly does not replace the definition of what the Seljuk Sultanate was from a political standpoint... This is not all and the same: political, cultural and religious characteristics all deserve to be defined and explicited"
 * This is sheer WP:SYNTH. As seen in the article, its political aspects were Persianate/Greco-Roman, not "Turkic", whatever it means here. "Turkic state" obviously refers to their origin being Turkic. If you are so sure that their "political characteristics" are Turkic, then why does the Culture section contradict that, and why can't you cite a single source that talks about that?
 * which is primarily used by dozens of the most relevant historians of the period to describe the Sultanate of Rum?
 * This is essentially WP:REHASH. Please explain how these are the most "relevant historians" (four crying out load, you are citing books named "Religion and World Civilizations [3 volumes]: How Faith Shaped Societies from Antiquity to the Present [3 volumes]", do I even need to elaborate?) and why you're picking whatever you can find at Google ebooks and not paying attention to what it even is - in other words, cherrypicking. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another source which actually talks about the political aspects of the Sultanate of Rum;
 * "It is generally assumed that the Rum Seljuq sultans adopted the government system and institutions established by their Great Seljuq cousins and consequently the Perso-Islamic concept of legitimate kingship.6 This concept was the result of the synthesis of the ancient Iranian concept of kingship and Islamic notions and norms which resulted in the ideology usually called ‘Perso-Islamic autocracy’.7 While it is true that Islamic notions and norms were especially static and resistant to change, it cannot be said that they remained the same. Different ideological options, though not entirely novel, were developed as the result of historical, political and economical changes. The Rum Seljuqs adopted the Perso-Islamic concept of the ideology of kingship as it was formulated under their Great Seljuq cousins, but they had to adapt it taking into account the political realities of their time. A compact formulation of the Perso-Islamic ideology as promoted by the Great Seljuqs is given in an inscription of the third Great Seljuq sultan Malikshāh on the Friday Mosque in Isfahan" pp. 64–65, The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture, Edinburgh University Press HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that most historians acknowledge the fact that the ruling dynasty was Turkic (which you can find on any book on the subject), and that this is probably the reason why they call it a "Turkic state", without having even to justify themselves further. It is fairly obvious actually, and they are historians, so they are the final authority on the subject, it is not our role to challenge their terminology.
 * I am not "cherry-picking", just looking at how the Sultanate as a state is defined in the literature ("Seljuk state" also appears regularly). On the contrary, if you look for "Turco-Persian state" in relation to the Sultanate of Rum (an expression which was present many years in this article), you will find that it is virtually inexistant in the literature.
 * We do not have to argue more than that, the fact that multiple and major sources use "Turkic state" as the primary way to define the Sultanate, is sufficient to incorporate it in the article, with references. On Wikipedia, we do nothing more than reflect what reliable sources say.
 * In order to remedy this lenghty and unfortunately rather fruitless ping-pong between the two of us, it might be a good idea to open a WP:RfC, so that we can have more opinions on the subject. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is denying that the dynasty is Turkic... and you're yet to address my points, but I'm used to it. We indeed follow reliable sources, but we also make sure an article is WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRAL, saying that they are a "Turkic state" when the vast majority of their aspects are Persianate/Greco-Roman is none of those. You always do this - engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/Make your own rules : -> it gets rejected -> abuse the WP:RFC system, like you recently did at Talk:Maurya Empire. No more, enough is enough, I know what my next step is. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Request for comment about the description of the Sultanate of Rum"
Can the Sultanate of Rum be described as a "Turkic state"? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)  (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes (per nomination) I am asking for comments, because I am stuck in a fruitless ping-pong with one user above. As is well-known, the Sultanate of Rum was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed Sunni Islam. Still, as a political entity, it was governed by a Turkic dynasty, and is therefore regularly described as a "Turkic state" or a "Turkish state" in the literature. I suggest we should incorporate that fact in the introduction so that political entity ("Turkic state"), culture ("Turco-Persian culture") and religion ("Sunni Islam") all be represented. I think the introductory sentence should be something like: "The Sultanate of Rum was a Turkic state, founded in Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert (1071). It was culturally Turco-Persian, and followed Sunni-Islam." Here are some references for "Turkic/sh state" being used as the primary descriptive for the Sultanate of Rum: पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)  (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No: What does "Turkic state" imply here other than that the dynasty was of Turkic ancestry (which goes without saying and already appears in the lede)? OP claims that it has to do with their "political" aspect, which is not mentioned and thus sheer WP:SYNTH and contradicts the fact that the vast majority of WP:RS agrees that about every aspect, politically, culturally, etc (excluding their origins) of the Sultanate of Rum was Persian(ate)/Perso-Islamic/Greco-Roman (cited down below here, list will increase gradually, otherwise extensively shown in the Culture section of this article), thus meaning that OPs suggestion goes against WP:NPOV. Moreover, 5 of those cited sources are completely unrelated to this topic (Source 3, 4, 5, 6, 9. 6 is not even WP:RS), clearly demonstrating that OP is cherrypicking whatever passing mentions they can find from Google ebooks, not even taking a moment to actually read about this entity. A moment ago they didn't even know what "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning, despite getting the opportunity to read it up thrice. It's also worth noting that OP is notorious for engaging in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/making up their own rules, as well as abusing the WP:RFC system, as they recently did in Talk:Maurya Empire, creating multiple RFCs, which they were called out for.
 * "It is generally assumed that the Rum Seljuq sultans adopted the government system and institutions established by their Great Seljuq cousins and consequently the Perso-Islamic concept of legitimate kingship. This concept was the result of the synthesis of the ancient Iranian concept of kingship and Islamic notions and norms which resulted in the ideology usually called ‘Perso-Islamic autocracy’. While it is true that Islamic notions and norms were especially static and resistant to change, it cannot be said that they remained the same. Different ideological options, though not entirely novel, were developed as the result of historical, political and economical changes. The Rum Seljuqs adopted the Perso-Islamic concept of the ideology of kingship as it was formulated under their Great Seljuq cousins, but they had to adapt it taking into account the political realities of their time. A compact formulation of the Perso-Islamic ideology as promoted by the Great Seljuqs is given in an inscription of the third Great Seljuq sultan Malikshāh on the Friday Mosque in Isfahan" / "The honorific titles used here are stereotypical for the description of a Perso-Islamic ruler and were used by the Great Seljuqs and their successor states to express their ideology of kingship." / Thus this rebellious branch of the Turkish Seljuqs was transformed into a ‘Perso-Islamic state’ with a developed court and capital. pp. 64–65 and 74, The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture, Edinburgh University Press
 * "It has been the basic administrative technique of Persian statecraft that had been given its Islamic character under the Great Seljuks in Persian in the mid-eleventh century. The system was passed on to the Ottomans through the Seljuks of Rum...." --Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition, Norman Itzkowitz, University of Chicago Press, page 48.
 * "...it is perhaps not surprising that Iranian cultural, political, and literary traditions permeate the mirrors of early thirteenth-century Anatolia." --Turkish Language, Literature, and History, ed. Bill Hickman, Gary Leiser, Routledge, page 278
 * "Meanwhile, the intensive Islamicization of Anatolia resulted in the spread and conslidation of two fundamental elements of Persianate Islam: the spread of Sufism from below and the imposition of Persianate monarchy, statecraft, and political ethics from above." - Revolutions of the End of Time: Apocalypse, Revolution and Reaction in the Persianate World, Saïd Amir Arjomand, Brill Publishers
 * "Moreover, their administrators and the religious elite in their cities were Persian. And with the terrifying thirteenth-century Mongol invasions of the eastern Islamic world, a mighty torrent of Persian refugees poured into Anatolia, particularly Konya. The Rum Seljuq state – with a diverse population of Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Turcomans and Persians – was especially successful in the period from 1220 to 1250 and laid the foundations for the subsequent Islamisation of Anatolia." / "Quite paradoxically, the Byzantine practice of qualifying Muslim Anatolia as Persia closely matches contemporary scholarly inter pretations of the Anatolian Muslim space as ‘Persianate’. Muslim Anatolian culture is sometimes defined as Persianate due to the outstanding role of the Persian language, textual culture and art. Persian was the language of belles-lettres and of the royal courts throughout Muslim Anatolia; the Seljuq sultans not only spoke Persian and issued orders and commands in it, but also compiled verses in that language. The Seljuq administrative structure imitated that of the Iranian Seljuqs." - page 15 and 150, The Seljuqs and their Successors: Art, Culture and History, Edinburgh University Press
 * "As with other twelfth- and thirteenth- century Middle Eastern states ruled by a Turkish military elite, then, the Seljuqs of Anatolia modelled themselves closely on Persian–Islamic government traditions. These in turn drew on ancient pre-Islamic Iranian models, whose touchstone of excellence was the Sasanian machinery of rule and the religious norms and forms of Islam. Together these created an enduring symbol of good government.", page 203, The Medieval Turks: Collected Essays, Robert Hillenbrand, Edinburgh University Press
 * "There also seems to be evidence for emulation by the Ottomans of the Persian system of government, as applied by the Seljuqs and Ilkhans." - page 210, Khanbaghi, Aptin (2016). "Champions of the Persian Language: The Mongols or the Turks?". In De Nicola, Bruno; Melville, Charles (eds.). The Mongols' Middle East: Continuity and Transformation in Ilkhanid Iran. Brill Publishers
 * "We cannot yet follow in detail the indirect and tortuous path through which the Perso-Islamic tradition of state as interpreted by the Seljuks and Ilkhanids became part of the developing Ottoman government described in the few remaining documents and hints in the chronicles." - p. 19, Living in the Ottoman Ecumenical Community, The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, Volume: 39, Linda Darling, Brill Publishers --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)