![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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 “ 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)
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. BerkBerk68 talk 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Dimadick: According to every scholar and historian excluding goverment of Iran.
Wickelodeon ( talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
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:
( Isfahan) has served as the political and cultural center of the Persianate world: during the reign of the Seljuks (1038-1194) and that of the Safavids (1501-1722).
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
In the tenth century, these and other nomadic tribes, often collectively referred to as Turkomans, migrated out of Central Asia and into Iran. Turkish tribes initially served as mercenary soldiers for local rulers but soon set up their own kingdoms in Iran, some of which grew into Empires - most notably the Great Seljuk Empire. In the meantime, many Turkic rulers and tribespeople eventually converted to Islam.
पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
User HistoryofIran ( talk · contribs) is seemingly on a crusade to erase all image galleries as in [2] [3] [4]. 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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 “ 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)
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. BerkBerk68 talk 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ Dimadick: According to every scholar and historian excluding goverment of Iran.
Wickelodeon ( talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
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:
( Isfahan) has served as the political and cultural center of the Persianate world: during the reign of the Seljuks (1038-1194) and that of the Safavids (1501-1722).
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
In the tenth century, these and other nomadic tribes, often collectively referred to as Turkomans, migrated out of Central Asia and into Iran. Turkish tribes initially served as mercenary soldiers for local rulers but soon set up their own kingdoms in Iran, some of which grew into Empires - most notably the Great Seljuk Empire. In the meantime, many Turkic rulers and tribespeople eventually converted to Islam.
पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
User HistoryofIran ( talk · contribs) is seemingly on a crusade to erase all image galleries as in [2] [3] [4]. 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)