Talk:Sultanate of Rum

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. R Prazeres (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Anatolian Seljuks family tree with Sultanate of Rum (or Seljuk dynasty)

The Anatolian Seljuks family tree article seems to run afoul of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. But more to the point, if we have a properly-sourced family tree for this, why are we not simply including it at the relevant main article, Sultanate of Rum, or Seljuk dynasty if not? Why have a separate article for just one chart? The chart itself would also benefit from having the context of the main article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no further comment, I'm going to close this proposal as merge, per WP:MERGECLOSE, and make the transfer. Note that I'm not strictly sure if the family tree is supported by sources: there are two citations in the article, but they're attached to the short general summary before the tree (see this pre-merge version). I'll copy the tree as is, without the citations, but editors here are free to check, revise, or raise verifiability concerns. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vassal

[edit]

The Sultanate of Rum was a vassal of the Great Seljuks between 1077 and 1157 Source:

Kartal1071 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the quote. I can't find. Also it is true that Suleiman Shah was a vassal of the Great Seljuks, but source for the rest? Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish official langugae from 1277

[edit]

its important for the readers to know and understand that turkish was made and official language from 1277 With the ferman by karamanoglu mehmet bey 321bek (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Language Already Appears in this page as a spoken language of anatolian Seljuqs. 31.143.234.193 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Hello @HistoryofIran, I noticed you have reverted my edits at lead section. Sadly I didn't get any notification so I could answer only by now.
Exoym issue: Previous order of the lead section was summary, name/exonym, name/Rum, name/Rum-etymology in order. The continuity was obvious as exonym was followed by other aspects of topic's name. But even if there wasn't a continuity, it shouldn't have been an issue, as lead section is summary of most important contents [1] that doesn't have to be absolutely related with each other.
Turkishness and Turco-Persianness issue: First sentence is meant to introduce the topic to a non-specialist reader and should not be overloaded by everything notable [2]. Due weight is determined by prominence in reliable sources [3]. It is evidently observed that Turkishness of the Sultanate is mentioned predominantly more in reliable sources than all the name variants of "Turco-Persianness" of the Sultanate on reliable academic platforms (e.g. [4][5][6][7]), which reveals that Turkishness is the quality that should be mentioned in first sentence. Another issue is that I couldn't see a reference that directly qualifies the state itself with Turco-Persian tradition, which creates WP:OR problems. It would be better to refer a source by avoiding OR or SYNTH.
I believe that while Turco-Persianness should stay in lead if necessary source is given, Turkishness is obviously predominant featured quality that should be mentioned in the first sentence. Krsnaquli (🙏) 23:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

Hello @Kansas Bear, it appears that I have to open this section due to OR template removal. I will avoid edit warring and won't restore the template as a sign of goodwill, but it appears that the state itself being Turco-Persian is original research. Sources must directly support the material, which means that information must be present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research [8].

What do we have in the article: "The Sultanate of Rum was a culturally Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state".

What do we lack: A reference that explicitly and directly qualifies the state itsef culturally Turco-Persian.

for these reasions, the phrase "culturally Turco-Persian state" appears to be original research. I would be delighted to see if a reliable source is introduced to the "culturally Turco-Persian state" phrase, but unless that's the case, it appears that this is not compatible with OR policy. Krsnaquli (🙏) 12:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • "as a sign of goodwill.."
As opposed to your blatant removal of said information while replacing it with information not found in the article on 20 August?[9]
  • "the phrase "culturally Turco-Persian state" appears to be original research."
Does it now?
Wow, typical I don't like it. The source(quoted below) mentions COURTS, that the Seljuqs dominated Anatolia, and that they carried Turko-Persian culture with them. So you're wrong on all accounts.
  • "As the Seljuqs came to dominate Iraq, Syria, and Anatolia, they carried this Turko-Persian Islamicate culture beyond this heartland and made it the culture of their courts to as far west as the Mediterranean Sea." -- Turko-Persian in Historical Perspective, Canfield, page 13-14.
  • "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of Turco-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia " -- Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire, Bernard Lewis, page 29. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Turko-Persian tradition developed in the Seljuk period (1040-1118) and reached it fullest florescence in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, when it prevailed in an area stretching from Anatolia to southern India...." -- Central Asia and the World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, ed. Michael Mandelbaum, page 79. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rum-Seljuq Turko-Persian Culture in Anatolia"
  • "The Seljuq Turks, who converted to Islam in the mid-10th century, spread the Turko-Persian culture to the west, where is form the basis for a highly dynamic and inspiring era of scholarly and artistic production in the 12th century. After the collapse of the Great Seljuq Empire (1040-1157), parts of Anatolia were ruled by a branch of the Seljuq family, known as the Selju Sultanate or Rum-Seljus (c.1081-1307), since the late 11th century..[..]..The Turko-Persian culture flourished among the Rum-Seljuqs who created a culture of distinctive hybridity by blending Persianate artistic traditions with local styles rooted in Byzantium..." --The Ottoman Tanbûr: The Long-Necked Lute of Ottoman Art Music, Hans de Zeeuw, page 3. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Kansas Bear says, it's not hard to find various scholarly sources directly stating or discussing this aspect, including also for subsequent Ottoman culture. Examples:
    • Encyclopedia of Islam 2, vol. 8 (1995), "Sald̲j̲ūḳids" entry, p.937: "Coming as they did through a Transoxania which was still substantially Iranian and into Persia proper, the Sald̲j̲ūḳs—with no high-level Turkish cultural or literary heritage of their own—took over that of Persia, so that the Persian language became that of administration and culture in their lands of Persia and Anatolia. The Persian culture of the Rūm Sald̲j̲ūḳs was particularly splendid, and it was only gradually that Turkish emerged there as a parallel language in the fields of government and adab [q.v.]; the Persian imprint on Ottoman civilisation was to remain strong until the 19th century."
    • Worringer (2021), A Short History of the Ottoman Empire, p.31 (read last paragraph)
    • Cahen (2001), The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, see p.163 or indeed much of that chapter (cited already in the article)
    That said, for the sake of style rather than content, qualifications like "culturally Turco-Persian" and maybe even "Sunni" don't really need to be in the first sentence specifically, but could be moved further below in the lead. The lead sentence is usually reserved for the most basic definition of what the topic is, so it would be reasonable to simplify it. E.g., mentioning the time period, location, and ruling dynasty (basically the second part of the current sentence) seems sufficient to me, then moving the rest slightly lower, with little reduction in prominence and possibly also room for a bit more detail if desired. Whether that will also distract some of the POV-motivated objections or not... meh.
    PS: In the future, please avoid making two separate discussion sections on what is essentially the same topic, even if responding to two editors. It's messy and can impede effective discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well unfortunately, all Krsnaquli wants is the removal of the word "Persian" as seen here. I've been here nearly 19 years and seen this mindset day in and day out.
Wouldn't a basic definition include a culture the Seljuks heavily patronized and brought to fruition?? Shouldn't we tell the reader they were Sunni Muslim? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a suggestion, but I think for the purpose of unfamiliar readers, knowing this was a Muslim state, in Antolia/present-day Turkey, in c.11th-14th centuries, and ruled by a Seljuk branch, is basically the dictionary-level definition many of them need. The fact they were specifically Sunni and had Turco-Persian culture at court is, in my writing intuition, the very next level of information and relevant for readers slightly more familiar with the context, hence still basic lead material but not strictly first-sentence.
For that matter, looking at it again, I think much of the second part of the first paragraph, which focuses solely on the name "Rum", could be a footnote or moved to a "Name" section preceding the History section (e.g. the lead can mention in passing what "Rum" means, but the rest of the linguistic explanation doesn't need to be be right there). That would free up some space to discuss more fundamental things like the above. (But to be clear, I of course disagree with removing information altogether and/or with replacing the current "Turco-Persian" with "Turkish", which merely changes one emphasis for another, less precise emphasis.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, please stop your personal attacks. the revision you mentioned literally contains introduction of specific sentence to emphasize the Turco-Persian tradition. Keeping the focus on the content is the way to be constructive.
I didn't notice the court mentioning which cancels OR for the most part. I'm delighted to see this just as I said earlier.
but this doesn't change the issue regarding first sentence as it was mentioned above [10]. Turkishness is obviously the most prominent quality of the state compared to Sunnism or Turco-Persian tradition in reliable academic sources and platforms. Krsnaquli (🙏) 18:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything so far to demonstrate that "Turkishness" is more prominent than "Turco-Persian" or "Sunni" (a search of paper titles on jstor isn't a useful measure of that). Like I said, it makes little sense to replace one precise characterization with a less precise one. It also doesn't improve the lead's role in summarizing the current article. If the Oghuz Turkic origin of the ruling dynasty more specifically needs to be mentioned, for example, then it too would be second-level information that doesn't need to be in the first sentence but could be mentioned later. As far as I'm concerned, there is no content issue here, only a possible style issue at most. R Prazeres (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Turkishness of Sultanate of Rum is important for three reasons:
1- Turkification of Anatolia played a prominent role in both regional and global history.
2- The same Turkishness of the Sultanate caused obvious prominent impacts by establishment of Ottoman Empire.
3 (especially this one)- The word "Rum" literally means "Greek" or "Roman" in most of the Middle East. non-specialist Middle Eastern users might confuse this state as a Greek Muslim state subsequent to the Byzantine Empire.
Also, similar practice is used on different historical states when it should be (e.g. Guptans, Seleucids). In general, I agree that nationality should not be mentioned on first sentence, especially on medieval or pre-medieval states, but I believe it should be when it plays an important role. Krsnaquli (🙏) 18:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turkishness is obviously the most prominent quality of the state compared to Sunnism or Turco-Persian tradition in reliable academic sources and platforms."
And yet the article doesn't say that.
Report me. I'm tired of your false comments. I'd love to tell admins at WP:ANI all about this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, my aim is not reporting you. I wish for a civil and contructive discussion. Avoiding attacking language and keeping the focus on the content would let us resolve the issue. Krsnaquli (🙏) 18:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Krsnaquli, please stop this WP:CIVILPOV, WP:GAMING and cherrypicking. You are very well aware that "Turkishness" did not play the biggest role here. Far from in fact, you have obviously read the Culture section. Accusing other users of violating x and disregarding sources that are not in your faovur is not going to help you here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that an absolute focus on content will not be possible on this discussion, so I have to advocate myself against intense accusations.
Essay/Policies:
CIVILPOV: It's not "POV", Turkishness did indeed historically play the central role during Rum period. Prominent impact (both regional and global) of the Rum state was the Anatolian expansion and Turkification, Turkoman settlement, warfare against Byzantine and ofcourse the three crusades (with the Turkoman military tradition), which were all centered around Turkish/Turkoman structure. On the other hand, ofcourse Turco-Iranian culture played an important role. I didn't refuse this ever.
GAMING: I literally did only mention policies to you on my comment and still didn't get an answer. Please, instead of merely accusing me with Gaming, reply my comment and discuss.
General accusations including Kansas Bear's:
cherrypicking: I don't even know why I am accused with this. It would've been better if you specified which source or policy I've "cherrypicked".
Some sort of "sinister plan" to remove the word Persian from the article: This one is the most ironic accusation, as the revision of mine which was presented as an evidence to this ([11]) literally introduces a specific sentence at the end of the lead page that emphasizes Turko-Persianness to avoid lack of emphasis by the change at the first sentence. Since the very beginning of my first edit in this article when there wasn't any discussion, I never had the intend to remove or reduce contents related to Turco-Persian culture, and the mentioned revision itself (which was my first edit here) proves it. Literally, everything here was about the first sentence and the exonym.
About first sentence and OR: I believed that the first sentence had two issues: 1- WP:OR, 2- Turkishness' role compared to Turco-Iranian culture. I said that WP:OR have to be corrected, NOT that "Turco-Persianness to be deleted because of OR", And I reccomended to refer a source for this. [12] and after seeing that the source introduced by Kansas Bear actually mentioned the court, I have convinced that OR is no longer a problem and expressed this [13]. I believe my good intentions are quite visible at least to the third parties.
This was only a response to accusations. I don't want to get into mutual accusation blackhole because we should stay on the issue of content. I've already expressed that OR is no longer a problem, which I hope is enough sign of good intention for you. We should talk about compared prominence of Turkishness and Turco-Iranian culture instead. We should also talk about why exonym has to be introduced/not introduced. Hope we reach mutual agreement at least on being focused at the content. Krsnaquli (🙏) 16:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]