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 |
The dynasty was clearly of Turkish origin. I added reference from Encyclopedia BRitannica. The empire they founded might have adopted Persian culture and traditions to some degree, but the dynasty was definitely Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.55.115 ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the second letter of "Oðuz" supposed to be? As encoded, it appears as the Icelandic/Old English letter "eth", but I wasn't aware that this letter was used in Turkish. Perhaps your computer uses a non-ISO character set?
Nevermind, I found a good resource here. I'll add a paragraph about Turkish to the Wiki special characters page. -- LDC
Good idea. This letter is named as soft G in Turkish. It is not possible to describe its pronunciation, because there is no sound like it in English. On the other hand it can not be pronounced alone without a concomitant vowel. It is half a vowel and half a consonent. You can imitate this sound, if you imagine how you gargle water in your throat. It also resembles R in the way French people pronounce it. -- ErdemTuzun
Is there a standard way to anglicize the six problematic letters mentioned in Wiki special characters/Turkish? If so, please add that there--I know character sets well, but I don't know enough about the language to make appropriate recommendations.
I am not aware of a standard way. I'll look for it. But shortly, there are no easy ways for anglicizing the uppercase or lowercase letters g with breve accent and lowercase dotless i. Uppercase and lowercase s with cedilla are pronounced in the same way and it can be written as "sh" (like the last sound of English). Uppercase dotted i is simply pronounced like English letter "e".-- ErdemTuzun
What does "all middle east" refer to - I would consider the Arabian Penninsula as part of the middle east but also iran, iraq, etc. How widespread did they get?
As I mentioned in Middle East article, this term is quite arbitrary and it may correspond to different countries. Seljuks had invaded Iran, all territories between present Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria etc.), and most of the Arabian peninsula (obviously they had not invaded the desert located in the middle of the peninsula, but had captured the cities around). Surely, the borders of the countries were not as strictly drawn as they are today and it is difficult to guess the exact territories of ancient civilizations. Therefore, there is an inconsistency about the southernmost cities of Arabian peninsula and some historical maps show these cities within the borders, while some does not. But, probably, ancient gigantic feudal empires were controlling territories located far beyond their official borders. Present Egypt was not under Seljuk control ErdemTuzun.
Something seems to be wrong with the Persia link in the first paragraph. Clicking on it produces the Mesopotamia page. Clicking on the Mesopotamia link that immediate follows it also (and correctly) produces the Mesopotamia page. Typing Persia into the Wikipedia search box correctly produces the Persia page, so it doesn't appear to be a redirection issue. Furthermore, editing the Seljuk Turk page shows clearly that the Persia link is:
[[Persia]]
which is the correct Wikipedia markup that should produce the Persia page. (Also, the Persia link and other links in this comment, upon preview, work just fine.) Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally odd with the Seljuk Turk page? -- Jeff Q 03:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where do the Seljuk Turks live now? Are the Azeris descended from them? 67.183.81.48 20:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It is Seljuk Turks, not "Seljukids", which I believe is a term made up by someone who confused them with the Seleucids. Naturally, a Google search gives an overwhelming support for Seljuk Turks. / The Phoenix 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with saying the dynasty declined during the 13th century, I'm writing a paper on Alaaddin Kayqubad, who made his territory properous with a long term building campaign.
The Angeloi or "the Angels of Death" as a contemporary Greek historian called them, were officially the worst rulers in Byzantine history. The empire practically falls under their rule. Miskin 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Tajik suggests that this article should be titled "Seljuqs", which is a more current spelling. Of course there are various ways to transliterate their name...Sel-, Sal-, -uq, -uk, -j-, -dj-, -ch-, -u-, -ü-, Seljuqid (and all variants!)...did I miss any?
To match our other medieval Arab and Turkic dynasties, perhaps the best solution is "Seljuq dynasty". Adam Bishop 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
== History Of Iran ??? ==--
Tigeroo
19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the History-Of-Iran-Chart do on this page ??? It is totally irrelevant. Iran was part of Seljuk Empire, Seldjuk Empire was not a part of Iran. If we look for the history of the Moors , do we see a list of the History of Spain just because they once occuptied the Iberian Peninsula ??? 62.143.76.166 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, alright, this is pointless...stop editing the page and accusing each other of vandalism. I don't know or care who is what side here, I just want to ask: what does it mean to say the Seljuks adopted the Persian language and culture? What language did the sultan speak? What language did his subjects speak? What language did his ancestors speak? What language did the caliph speak? What language did they speak to each other? Adam Bishop 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik, please try to stay cool. I've tried a compromise version—what do people think? — Khoi khoi 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not attacking Zaparojdik, I am criticizing his views, which are not based on fact but on fiction. Khosrow II 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Tajik, the "this is English Wikipedia" argument only applies to titles. I don't see anything wrong with giving his Turkish name here as an alternate. — Khoi khoi 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have protected the page, because you are all annoying me and I no longer want to see it appear on my watchlist. Find a better way to solve your problems, and I'll unprotect it. Adam Bishop 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sadly yet another topid is being hi-jacked by the Wikipedia pan-Iranist extremist.
The Seljuks always spoke Turkish among themselves, initially Persian was the langauge of state affairs.
This all changed when the Seljuk Empire moved its capitol to Konya and Alanya Turkey. In the 13th century after the landmark move of Karamanoglu's who made Turkish the official language of the state, law, science and all other departments.
The Seljuks adopted this change aswell, it was a period were the Turkish arts and culture flourished. Philosophers like Yunus emre, Haci bektashi great poets, writers and historians like Asik Pasa, Sait Emre and Nasreddin hoca. Turkish dictionaries were written, Turkish was promoted and became the official language of all Turkic states in the region.
This environment gave way to the Ottoman Turks whose official state language always was Turkish.
Unfortunately this obivous part of history, I mean its the basics of history of the Seljuks is AVOIDED, MISSED AND HIDDED.
I mean what is this? Wiki is meant to be objective yet all that ever happens is Iranians trying to make everything Iranain.
I had to work for AGES! to get Babur Khan recognised as a Turk, I literally had to go and proove this basic fact as some Pan-Iranist had actually fooled one of the Admins into thinking Babur was actually not a Turk. When all anybody has to do is read the "Baburname" where he EXPLICITLY says,"I'm a Turk, everyone in Andijan is a Turk and speaks Turki good looks is common among us"
Now will I have to proove another BLATENT fact that Seljuks were Turks and after moving the capitol to Konya-Alanya Turkey triggered a Turkish renaissance, or will Wiki Admin put a stop to this Pan-Iranic fest and add this very important material into the article.
[-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me categorise this into some key areas.
The Seljuks initially were warriors, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanogulu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
Nasredin Hoca, Haci Bayram-i Veli, Haci Bektasi, Ahmed Fahih, Derhani etc etc etc.
Then there was the influence of Turkic designs and motives in Seljuk architecture, promoting Turkic culture, literature, arts, carpets and so on.
To claim the Seljuks did not bring a Turkish renaissance in the arts and literature is very naive indeed!
-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this article, from the discussion I read so far, there seems to be some claims that Seljuks were not Turkish or something like that (or maybe I am wrong).. Seljuks are considered to be part of Turkic peoples by all academicians in the world and they were the standard bearers of Turkish culture back then, all other claims are false.. The fact that they were the vassals of the Persians doesn't mean anything.. The Hungarian king was the vassal of the Ottoman Sultan for centuries, but he was never a Turk.. They might have blended with others, but that doesn't mean that they became less turkish.. One of the citations above says a race from the kingdom of the persians.., well that exactly proves my point - that they were a different race that lived in the persian kingdom, much like the Hungarians and Greeks that lived in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.. I can use the term a race from the empire of the ottomans to define approximately 50 distinct ethnicities - Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, Arabs, Azeris etc... As for the weird comment about Turks using only Arabic alphabet because they didn't have one of their own, please take a look at these [2], [3] and [4] (if you need more sources, pls leave me a message) Gokturks were the Turkish tribes that lived hundreds of years before the Seljuks. I am going to keep an eye on this article and notify some other users if neccessary if such lame POV pushing continues.. Baristarim 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is one thing to say that they got influenced by the Persian culture, and it is a different thing to say that they became assimilated and forgot their language.. Greeks lived under the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were never considered to be half-Turkish, half-Greek.. If Seljuks were not Turkish and didn't speak Turkish there was absolutely no way that Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey would exist and Turkish spoken in Turkey, Azerbaidjan etc.. Malik Shah's father's name was Alp Arslan, a typical Turkic name since 400AD.. As for him using the title Shah to prove that he was persian, i got one thing to say: German emperors used the title kaiser derived from ceasar and Russian emperors used the title tsar derived from the same word, that doesn't make them Roman.. The claim that he was persian of some sort is illogical as much as claiming that Alexander the Great was Roman.. Baristarim 02:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ... | ” |
The fact that the court was persianized is normal coz they conquered and ruled Persia, so it is kinda normal. As for these Turkish numbers that keep on appearing here and there, well I got one thing to say: what is important is how they considered themselves, there were many peoples of the Turkish lands that started to consider themselves as Turks even they were ethnically not (analogy - America of today). As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev.
I clearly understand the underlying pan-Iranist argument under this, you are trying to prove that the underlying culture for the Islamic culture, Turkish culture, Ottoman culture were all Persian, so don't worry about that - I perfectly see the underlying arguments here.. Seljuqs were Turkish, then Muslim and they ruled Persia - the fact that they adopted to Persian ways doesn't mean anything.. Do I have to prove so common sense that Seljuq dynasty was Turkish??? It is accepted as such by the whole global academic community.. And that's where I have to say stop.. The fact that there is no proof that they didn't speak turkish between themselves doesn't prove that they lost their language, we are talking about events that happened a thousand years ago, there were no TV cameras at every corner back then.. Considering that they were originally Turkish (and as such spoke Turkish), it is up to you to prove that they lost their language, not for others to prove that they didn't. Alp Arslan was the commander of Turkish forces at Malazkiert, so u r trying to tell me that he didn't speak Turkish with his generals?? Of course he had to speak Persian in the court coz there were so many more Persians (anology, I am living in France, I have to speak French every day coz there are so many French people, but I am still Turkish, got it??) I mean isn't this getting through or what?? They adopted to the Persian ways but it is up to you to prove that they were no longer Turkish, they adopted Islam, right, that makes them less Turkish?? I gave u an example above, I am an atheist, so that must also mean that I am not Turkish?? Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk?? Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are..
His name was not some jacked up Iranian or Persian name, his name was pure and simply Sultan Alp Arslan of the Seljuq Turks.. He was not the first Muslim Seljuq Turkish Sultan of Persia, that's not what I meant..
Enough?? Or do you want more?? Maybe you have the impression that I am some sort of light-weight in these history matters, but you are mistaken - I know much more than you think about political sciences and history, about how Ottoman history unfolded, how Turks came to where they are and etc.. I can bring the sources whenever you want, but I am not going to waste my time digging up sources to prove something so common sense.. This is a back-door attempt to persianize the Seljuqs.. I was asked to check into this via e-mail, I have also notified some other users about this, and this pan-iranism will stop, period... Baristarim 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Happy Tajiq and Knosrov?? See WP:NAME
There is no room for pan-iranism here.. Period.. Baristarim 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You totally miss the point, Baristarim. The discussion is not about the Turkic origin of the Seljuqs which has NEVER been disputed (see the very first sentense of the article: The Seljuqs ... Muslim dynasty of Oghuz Turkic descent that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries.) The discussion is about whether the Seljuqs were still Turkic-speaking after decades of rule in Persia, or linguistically assimilated by the Persian majority, the same way the British and Dutch royals were assimilated by their subjects. THIS IS THE POINT. Your quotes from Britannica do NOT ANSWER this question. You cann call them "Seljuk Turks", "Seljuk Turkomans", or whatever you want ... this still does NOT answer the question. You purposely ignore FACTS that there is not A SINGLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT left from the Seljuq era that was written in Turkish. Comparing the Seljuqs to other Iranian royals of Turkic origin, it seems clear that the Seljuqs, too, were assimilated by the Persians just as did the Ghaznavids, Ilkhans, Timurids, Mughals, Qajars, and Pahlavis. This was nothing uncommon in that region, because almost ALL ruling houses sooner or later adopted the Persian language as their "house languages". Even the Pashtun kings of Afghanistan, the Muhammadzai, had become Persian-speaking, to en extent that the last king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah - though nominally a Muhammadzai Pashtun - does not even know Pashto. What you are doing is very clearly a push for a Pan-Turkist POV. You may call yourself "communist", but your writing prove that in real you are a Turkish nationalist, ignoring facts! Instead of quoting useless sentenses from Britannica (which have nothing to do with this discussion), try to find authoritative and historical documents proving that the Seljuqs remained Turkic-speaking! You own opinion and words are nothing but hot-air! And btw: while we are at "googeling" the proper name for this article (which is your silly idea), you should have also googled the term "Seljuks" which receives 124000 hits: [12]. So I guess that "Seljuks" is the only acceptable name for this article, do you agree?! Tājik 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
1) Every one agrees that the Seljuqs were Oghuz Turks, therefore Turks. 2) The name Seljuq dynasty has more to do with the fact that they were one family, and in a sense ran the Abassid Caliphate. 3) It is agreed that they were Persianized, the contention is over how much or wether they lost touch with their Turkishness.
I contend Persianized means no such thing, look at Turkey, it is the most Westernized Muslim country, it means little beyond which civilization they lean towards as role model to emulate in contrast to the options. User:Baristarim, I think you may have gotten carried away in the heat arguments. Let quite down and reformulate our specific problem vis-a-vis the article as it stands and then work with that. I don't think anyone is saying being Turkish is inferior to being persian or vice versa. User:Tajik and User:Khosrow II I would also like to remind that we can only hypothesize at this point to the extent of Seljuk persianization. True they professed to be identified with sassanids and inter-married with and were heavily influnced by Persians, but I think the impression being inadvertently cast is that they lost touch with their base of Turks or that sense of identity. This is unlikely since as you pointed out nationality did not play as great a part back them, but tribal affiliations certainly did, and so it is unreasonable to beleive they lost contact with that affiliation as well as their base of political support and power, just as it is unreasonable to assume that they did not persianize to consolidate their base power or that growing up surrounded by persian culture they managed to remain absolutely untouched. Remember Anatolia became the seat of the Sultnante of Rum and the region existed under a different social and political context than did the regions in the Iranian plateau and mesopotamia, the seat of the Seljuks. That region made concious efforts to reassert its turkish identity which lends some credence to what was becoming seen as wide-spread persianization. Remember the Persians themselves underwent a similar situation with Arabs and Arabic. Both parties have valid points, lets not get carried away in wide sweeping heated arguments and focus on specifics. The Seljuks were a Turkish dynasty that grew persianized. Cool heads please, focus. I think we have even lost sight of the point being debated.I don't even think there is something in particular in the article that is being argued over.-- Tigeroo 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me categorise this into some key areas.
The Seljuks initially were warriors and a very powerfull well organised millitary group, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks primary aim was protecting the caliphate. Mahmud Kashgari's Turkic encyclopedia and manual on Turkic culture, history etc was written and a copy handed to the Caliph.
The Seljuks created a millitary oligarchy, they controlled the Caliphate from within yet kept the pollitical power of the Caliph intact as a figure-head.
The Seljuk millitary was most definately Turkic and spoke Turkic and carried on their culture and ways.
They entrusted local polliticians to govern the people again as "figure-heads". This was a very smart move by the Seljuks. They would install local rulers from the population of a specific region and tell them what to do. The locals didn't feel as distressed having their own people giving the orders.
Later, after successive waves of Turks and large migrations the Seljuks brought back the Turkish elements in strength as there was now many Turks to govern aswell.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanoglu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
If it wasn't for the Seljuks, there would be no Ottoman state. If the Seljuks had forgotten their language and ways the Ottomans would also have been Persian and spoke Persian. However, they were Turks, spoke Turkish and spread the language. So your theory is ridiculous.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
Nasreddin Hoca, Haci Bayram-i Veli, Haci Bektasi, Ahmed Fahih, Derhani etc etc etc.
Then there was the influence of Turkic designs and motives in Seljuk architecture, promoting Turkic culture, literature, arts, carpets and so on.
To claim the Seljuks did not bring a Turkish renaissance in the arts and literature is very naive indeed!
-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"History of Iran" is irrelevant section. Seljuk Empire is a Turkic empire, a part of the history of Turks. So the "History of Turks" is more relevant to this topic.-- Karcha 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am really sicked and tired of this pan-Iranism show. Why do you put History of Iran? To prove that Selcuks were actually Persians? I agree to my friend Karcha. History of Turks is much much more relevant to this topic. I am going to change this after I prepared such a column. ( I prepared "History of Turks" according to [13] but couldn't change the page. )
I am sorry but showing just a few sources doesn't make Turkish society greek or persian. Today Turkey has a population of 70 million. Let's assume that, Turkish population was 60.000 in 1100 A.D. as you say. The average growth for Turks is about %0.18. If you have a population of 60.000 in year 1100 and have a growth rate of %0.18; you would have 563,834,246,858 people of Turks. Even much much more than world population. I am trying to show you 60.000 people is not a small number to underestimate, 900 years ago. In another article you said there's no such a thing as Turkish culture. Now you say, there's no such as Turks. You're saying, Turks are mostly Greek. What's next; a cultural genocide against Turks? Be reasonable. In the beginning you even didn't accept Selcuks as Turks. After a while, you accepted that they are Turks but under Persian culture. And we return to the beginning and again you say, that they are not Turks. If you are objective and not so obsessed about pan-Iranism; then you would support History of Turks column. It's okay to stay History of Iran. But it's not okay not to put History of Turks into this article.
Of you are going to argue and give silly responses. It's something we expect from pan-Iranist.
The ancestors of Turks are actually Non-Turks (mostly Greeks and related peoples), the remaining 10% seem to be somehow related to Central Asian Turkic and Mongol hords.:)
Ok, after this funny story, we shoul look some history, a real history and learn whose ancestors greek ? or,is there an ancestors of persians? We will learn now with documentaries;
Berkeley University Lectures about the Origin of Persians
Becoming "Greek"
The range of civic (e.g., Athenian) and regional (e.g., Macedonian) affiliations used to identify foreign settlers in third-century BCE papyri from Tebtunis demonstrates the lack of homogeneity for what we term "Greek." Tax records identify as "Greeks" not only individuals from locales previously considered "Greek" (including Athenians, Samians, Thebans, Cyrenaeans, Boeotians, Cretans), but also persons from unexpected cities or regions (including Alexandrians, Thracians, Macedonians, PERSIANS, Jews, Idumaeans, Arabs), some considered the antithesis of "Greeks" by former generations. A number of texts from Tebtunis demonstrate the impermanence of these ethnics, which allowed people to move from one category to another. Given the diversity of identities encompassed by "Greek," it may have only become a meaningful category when it was opposed to "Egyptian," although these boundaries were themselves permeable.
Other ethnics: Syrians, Arabs, Jews and PERSIANS
The papyri from Tebtunis record several sites in the Fayum, which appear to have been founded as ethnic communities in the third century BCE. These include the "Village of the Syrians" (Syrôn kômê), "Village of the Arabs" (Arabôn kômê) and Samareia, which contained a sizable Jewish population and was probably named after the city in Palestine.
Although ethnic designations like Boeotian, Macedonian, Syrian, Arab and Jew probably refer to geographic origin, "PERSIAN" proves problematic. Its precise origin or significance is disputed. In the early Ptolemaic period it seems to describe people with Greek names functioning in a Greek context; although they enjoy a privileged status, they are counted separately from Greeks in tax lists. In late Ptolemaic and Roman contracts, "Persian of the epigonê" refers to the legal status of a debtor who had waived certain personal rights in order to secure the collection of a debt.
Persians 6 June 12 BCE (A Papyrus doocument, a real history document)
In this Demotic contract, summarized in Greek at the bottom, Pakemis son of Pakemis, acknowledges the loan of the dowry of his wife Tameische (Greek, Tameischis), daughter of Sokonopis, and promises to repay it. Here "Persian" does not seem to indicate descent, but describes a man with the status of a debtor. In this example, the subject has an Egyptian personal name, but "Persian of the epigonê" is just as frequently used to describe people with Greek names. (P.Tebt. II 386)
( http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/lecture/clar_ex2.html)
This is becoming so funny. Tajik, who always says what the hell are you talking about, who never don't understand, please firstly learn your ancestors, if there are, after you maybe learn ancestors of Turks...-- Karcha 10:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(What a statement:)))
Please read this: [14]. I don't understand why you removed this. If you put "History of Iran", we have right to put it as much as you do. Everybody knows they're Turks even Persanized or not. They are part of Turkish history; nothing can explain this vandalism. Yes, this is a vandalism! By removing history of Turks, you proved that you can vandalise everything for pan-Iranism. If you want other sources please look: [15], [16], [17], [18]
When someone says "Seljuks are more a part of history of Iran than of Turkey" he is missing the facts that present Turkish people, language, culture, state tradition are directly descended from Seljuks. But yes, maybe we could say Seljuks are more related to history of Turks rather than history of Turkey. Filanca 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but are some people still sane? You put History of Iran there but NOT THE MAIN THEME: History of Turkey?? I am sorry but this shows the great disadvantage of wikipedia: Some irresponsible and obsessed poeple obviously really CAN WRITE WHATEVER THEY WANT. Please change this IMMEDIATELY, I personnaly do not trust any history or politics related article on wikipedia anymore. --Some visitor (sorry I am no member) 18:55, 12 August 2007 (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 |
The dynasty was clearly of Turkish origin. I added reference from Encyclopedia BRitannica. The empire they founded might have adopted Persian culture and traditions to some degree, but the dynasty was definitely Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.55.115 ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the second letter of "Oðuz" supposed to be? As encoded, it appears as the Icelandic/Old English letter "eth", but I wasn't aware that this letter was used in Turkish. Perhaps your computer uses a non-ISO character set?
Nevermind, I found a good resource here. I'll add a paragraph about Turkish to the Wiki special characters page. -- LDC
Good idea. This letter is named as soft G in Turkish. It is not possible to describe its pronunciation, because there is no sound like it in English. On the other hand it can not be pronounced alone without a concomitant vowel. It is half a vowel and half a consonent. You can imitate this sound, if you imagine how you gargle water in your throat. It also resembles R in the way French people pronounce it. -- ErdemTuzun
Is there a standard way to anglicize the six problematic letters mentioned in Wiki special characters/Turkish? If so, please add that there--I know character sets well, but I don't know enough about the language to make appropriate recommendations.
I am not aware of a standard way. I'll look for it. But shortly, there are no easy ways for anglicizing the uppercase or lowercase letters g with breve accent and lowercase dotless i. Uppercase and lowercase s with cedilla are pronounced in the same way and it can be written as "sh" (like the last sound of English). Uppercase dotted i is simply pronounced like English letter "e".-- ErdemTuzun
What does "all middle east" refer to - I would consider the Arabian Penninsula as part of the middle east but also iran, iraq, etc. How widespread did they get?
As I mentioned in Middle East article, this term is quite arbitrary and it may correspond to different countries. Seljuks had invaded Iran, all territories between present Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria etc.), and most of the Arabian peninsula (obviously they had not invaded the desert located in the middle of the peninsula, but had captured the cities around). Surely, the borders of the countries were not as strictly drawn as they are today and it is difficult to guess the exact territories of ancient civilizations. Therefore, there is an inconsistency about the southernmost cities of Arabian peninsula and some historical maps show these cities within the borders, while some does not. But, probably, ancient gigantic feudal empires were controlling territories located far beyond their official borders. Present Egypt was not under Seljuk control ErdemTuzun.
Something seems to be wrong with the Persia link in the first paragraph. Clicking on it produces the Mesopotamia page. Clicking on the Mesopotamia link that immediate follows it also (and correctly) produces the Mesopotamia page. Typing Persia into the Wikipedia search box correctly produces the Persia page, so it doesn't appear to be a redirection issue. Furthermore, editing the Seljuk Turk page shows clearly that the Persia link is:
[[Persia]]
which is the correct Wikipedia markup that should produce the Persia page. (Also, the Persia link and other links in this comment, upon preview, work just fine.) Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally odd with the Seljuk Turk page? -- Jeff Q 03:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where do the Seljuk Turks live now? Are the Azeris descended from them? 67.183.81.48 20:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It is Seljuk Turks, not "Seljukids", which I believe is a term made up by someone who confused them with the Seleucids. Naturally, a Google search gives an overwhelming support for Seljuk Turks. / The Phoenix 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with saying the dynasty declined during the 13th century, I'm writing a paper on Alaaddin Kayqubad, who made his territory properous with a long term building campaign.
The Angeloi or "the Angels of Death" as a contemporary Greek historian called them, were officially the worst rulers in Byzantine history. The empire practically falls under their rule. Miskin 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Tajik suggests that this article should be titled "Seljuqs", which is a more current spelling. Of course there are various ways to transliterate their name...Sel-, Sal-, -uq, -uk, -j-, -dj-, -ch-, -u-, -ü-, Seljuqid (and all variants!)...did I miss any?
To match our other medieval Arab and Turkic dynasties, perhaps the best solution is "Seljuq dynasty". Adam Bishop 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
== History Of Iran ??? ==--
Tigeroo
19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the History-Of-Iran-Chart do on this page ??? It is totally irrelevant. Iran was part of Seljuk Empire, Seldjuk Empire was not a part of Iran. If we look for the history of the Moors , do we see a list of the History of Spain just because they once occuptied the Iberian Peninsula ??? 62.143.76.166 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, alright, this is pointless...stop editing the page and accusing each other of vandalism. I don't know or care who is what side here, I just want to ask: what does it mean to say the Seljuks adopted the Persian language and culture? What language did the sultan speak? What language did his subjects speak? What language did his ancestors speak? What language did the caliph speak? What language did they speak to each other? Adam Bishop 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Zaparojdik, please try to stay cool. I've tried a compromise version—what do people think? — Khoi khoi 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not attacking Zaparojdik, I am criticizing his views, which are not based on fact but on fiction. Khosrow II 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Tajik, the "this is English Wikipedia" argument only applies to titles. I don't see anything wrong with giving his Turkish name here as an alternate. — Khoi khoi 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have protected the page, because you are all annoying me and I no longer want to see it appear on my watchlist. Find a better way to solve your problems, and I'll unprotect it. Adam Bishop 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sadly yet another topid is being hi-jacked by the Wikipedia pan-Iranist extremist.
The Seljuks always spoke Turkish among themselves, initially Persian was the langauge of state affairs.
This all changed when the Seljuk Empire moved its capitol to Konya and Alanya Turkey. In the 13th century after the landmark move of Karamanoglu's who made Turkish the official language of the state, law, science and all other departments.
The Seljuks adopted this change aswell, it was a period were the Turkish arts and culture flourished. Philosophers like Yunus emre, Haci bektashi great poets, writers and historians like Asik Pasa, Sait Emre and Nasreddin hoca. Turkish dictionaries were written, Turkish was promoted and became the official language of all Turkic states in the region.
This environment gave way to the Ottoman Turks whose official state language always was Turkish.
Unfortunately this obivous part of history, I mean its the basics of history of the Seljuks is AVOIDED, MISSED AND HIDDED.
I mean what is this? Wiki is meant to be objective yet all that ever happens is Iranians trying to make everything Iranain.
I had to work for AGES! to get Babur Khan recognised as a Turk, I literally had to go and proove this basic fact as some Pan-Iranist had actually fooled one of the Admins into thinking Babur was actually not a Turk. When all anybody has to do is read the "Baburname" where he EXPLICITLY says,"I'm a Turk, everyone in Andijan is a Turk and speaks Turki good looks is common among us"
Now will I have to proove another BLATENT fact that Seljuks were Turks and after moving the capitol to Konya-Alanya Turkey triggered a Turkish renaissance, or will Wiki Admin put a stop to this Pan-Iranic fest and add this very important material into the article.
[-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me categorise this into some key areas.
The Seljuks initially were warriors, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanogulu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
Nasredin Hoca, Haci Bayram-i Veli, Haci Bektasi, Ahmed Fahih, Derhani etc etc etc.
Then there was the influence of Turkic designs and motives in Seljuk architecture, promoting Turkic culture, literature, arts, carpets and so on.
To claim the Seljuks did not bring a Turkish renaissance in the arts and literature is very naive indeed!
-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this article, from the discussion I read so far, there seems to be some claims that Seljuks were not Turkish or something like that (or maybe I am wrong).. Seljuks are considered to be part of Turkic peoples by all academicians in the world and they were the standard bearers of Turkish culture back then, all other claims are false.. The fact that they were the vassals of the Persians doesn't mean anything.. The Hungarian king was the vassal of the Ottoman Sultan for centuries, but he was never a Turk.. They might have blended with others, but that doesn't mean that they became less turkish.. One of the citations above says a race from the kingdom of the persians.., well that exactly proves my point - that they were a different race that lived in the persian kingdom, much like the Hungarians and Greeks that lived in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.. I can use the term a race from the empire of the ottomans to define approximately 50 distinct ethnicities - Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, Arabs, Azeris etc... As for the weird comment about Turks using only Arabic alphabet because they didn't have one of their own, please take a look at these [2], [3] and [4] (if you need more sources, pls leave me a message) Gokturks were the Turkish tribes that lived hundreds of years before the Seljuks. I am going to keep an eye on this article and notify some other users if neccessary if such lame POV pushing continues.. Baristarim 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is one thing to say that they got influenced by the Persian culture, and it is a different thing to say that they became assimilated and forgot their language.. Greeks lived under the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were never considered to be half-Turkish, half-Greek.. If Seljuks were not Turkish and didn't speak Turkish there was absolutely no way that Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey would exist and Turkish spoken in Turkey, Azerbaidjan etc.. Malik Shah's father's name was Alp Arslan, a typical Turkic name since 400AD.. As for him using the title Shah to prove that he was persian, i got one thing to say: German emperors used the title kaiser derived from ceasar and Russian emperors used the title tsar derived from the same word, that doesn't make them Roman.. The claim that he was persian of some sort is illogical as much as claiming that Alexander the Great was Roman.. Baristarim 02:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | ... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ... | ” |
The fact that the court was persianized is normal coz they conquered and ruled Persia, so it is kinda normal. As for these Turkish numbers that keep on appearing here and there, well I got one thing to say: what is important is how they considered themselves, there were many peoples of the Turkish lands that started to consider themselves as Turks even they were ethnically not (analogy - America of today). As for this claim that is floating around kinda like some sort of Domocles' sword about who spoke Turkish where and when in Anatolia: That argument is not being able to consider things in context and give them appropriate meanings, until last century many people in France didn't speak French, they spoke Norman, Breton, Provençal etc.. They speak French today because of a process called nation-state, there can be many claims as to how this happened in Turkey and late Ottoman Empire, but to say that they are not Turkish (in the modern sense) just because they were not Turkic (ethnically from Central Asia) is also adding new meanings and twisting the old ones of certain political and ideological movements that happened in Europe after the French Rev.
I clearly understand the underlying pan-Iranist argument under this, you are trying to prove that the underlying culture for the Islamic culture, Turkish culture, Ottoman culture were all Persian, so don't worry about that - I perfectly see the underlying arguments here.. Seljuqs were Turkish, then Muslim and they ruled Persia - the fact that they adopted to Persian ways doesn't mean anything.. Do I have to prove so common sense that Seljuq dynasty was Turkish??? It is accepted as such by the whole global academic community.. And that's where I have to say stop.. The fact that there is no proof that they didn't speak turkish between themselves doesn't prove that they lost their language, we are talking about events that happened a thousand years ago, there were no TV cameras at every corner back then.. Considering that they were originally Turkish (and as such spoke Turkish), it is up to you to prove that they lost their language, not for others to prove that they didn't. Alp Arslan was the commander of Turkish forces at Malazkiert, so u r trying to tell me that he didn't speak Turkish with his generals?? Of course he had to speak Persian in the court coz there were so many more Persians (anology, I am living in France, I have to speak French every day coz there are so many French people, but I am still Turkish, got it??) I mean isn't this getting through or what?? They adopted to the Persian ways but it is up to you to prove that they were no longer Turkish, they adopted Islam, right, that makes them less Turkish?? I gave u an example above, I am an atheist, so that must also mean that I am not Turkish?? Your basic argument is that they became so civilized and mannered that they can no longer be considered Turkish, well that's a bit fascist thing to say: r u trying to say that when Turks became civilized they lost their Turkishness coz being civilized was against the nature of being a Turk?? Cultures change and people can improve, they can stay still who they are..
His name was not some jacked up Iranian or Persian name, his name was pure and simply Sultan Alp Arslan of the Seljuq Turks.. He was not the first Muslim Seljuq Turkish Sultan of Persia, that's not what I meant..
Enough?? Or do you want more?? Maybe you have the impression that I am some sort of light-weight in these history matters, but you are mistaken - I know much more than you think about political sciences and history, about how Ottoman history unfolded, how Turks came to where they are and etc.. I can bring the sources whenever you want, but I am not going to waste my time digging up sources to prove something so common sense.. This is a back-door attempt to persianize the Seljuqs.. I was asked to check into this via e-mail, I have also notified some other users about this, and this pan-iranism will stop, period... Baristarim 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Happy Tajiq and Knosrov?? See WP:NAME
There is no room for pan-iranism here.. Period.. Baristarim 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You totally miss the point, Baristarim. The discussion is not about the Turkic origin of the Seljuqs which has NEVER been disputed (see the very first sentense of the article: The Seljuqs ... Muslim dynasty of Oghuz Turkic descent that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries.) The discussion is about whether the Seljuqs were still Turkic-speaking after decades of rule in Persia, or linguistically assimilated by the Persian majority, the same way the British and Dutch royals were assimilated by their subjects. THIS IS THE POINT. Your quotes from Britannica do NOT ANSWER this question. You cann call them "Seljuk Turks", "Seljuk Turkomans", or whatever you want ... this still does NOT answer the question. You purposely ignore FACTS that there is not A SINGLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT left from the Seljuq era that was written in Turkish. Comparing the Seljuqs to other Iranian royals of Turkic origin, it seems clear that the Seljuqs, too, were assimilated by the Persians just as did the Ghaznavids, Ilkhans, Timurids, Mughals, Qajars, and Pahlavis. This was nothing uncommon in that region, because almost ALL ruling houses sooner or later adopted the Persian language as their "house languages". Even the Pashtun kings of Afghanistan, the Muhammadzai, had become Persian-speaking, to en extent that the last king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah - though nominally a Muhammadzai Pashtun - does not even know Pashto. What you are doing is very clearly a push for a Pan-Turkist POV. You may call yourself "communist", but your writing prove that in real you are a Turkish nationalist, ignoring facts! Instead of quoting useless sentenses from Britannica (which have nothing to do with this discussion), try to find authoritative and historical documents proving that the Seljuqs remained Turkic-speaking! You own opinion and words are nothing but hot-air! And btw: while we are at "googeling" the proper name for this article (which is your silly idea), you should have also googled the term "Seljuks" which receives 124000 hits: [12]. So I guess that "Seljuks" is the only acceptable name for this article, do you agree?! Tājik 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
1) Every one agrees that the Seljuqs were Oghuz Turks, therefore Turks. 2) The name Seljuq dynasty has more to do with the fact that they were one family, and in a sense ran the Abassid Caliphate. 3) It is agreed that they were Persianized, the contention is over how much or wether they lost touch with their Turkishness.
I contend Persianized means no such thing, look at Turkey, it is the most Westernized Muslim country, it means little beyond which civilization they lean towards as role model to emulate in contrast to the options. User:Baristarim, I think you may have gotten carried away in the heat arguments. Let quite down and reformulate our specific problem vis-a-vis the article as it stands and then work with that. I don't think anyone is saying being Turkish is inferior to being persian or vice versa. User:Tajik and User:Khosrow II I would also like to remind that we can only hypothesize at this point to the extent of Seljuk persianization. True they professed to be identified with sassanids and inter-married with and were heavily influnced by Persians, but I think the impression being inadvertently cast is that they lost touch with their base of Turks or that sense of identity. This is unlikely since as you pointed out nationality did not play as great a part back them, but tribal affiliations certainly did, and so it is unreasonable to beleive they lost contact with that affiliation as well as their base of political support and power, just as it is unreasonable to assume that they did not persianize to consolidate their base power or that growing up surrounded by persian culture they managed to remain absolutely untouched. Remember Anatolia became the seat of the Sultnante of Rum and the region existed under a different social and political context than did the regions in the Iranian plateau and mesopotamia, the seat of the Seljuks. That region made concious efforts to reassert its turkish identity which lends some credence to what was becoming seen as wide-spread persianization. Remember the Persians themselves underwent a similar situation with Arabs and Arabic. Both parties have valid points, lets not get carried away in wide sweeping heated arguments and focus on specifics. The Seljuks were a Turkish dynasty that grew persianized. Cool heads please, focus. I think we have even lost sight of the point being debated.I don't even think there is something in particular in the article that is being argued over.-- Tigeroo 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me categorise this into some key areas.
The Seljuks initially were warriors and a very powerfull well organised millitary group, the language of the Army and Rulers was Turkish, the language of the polliticians and runners of state affairs was Persian. The area the Seljuks initially overtook did not have a Turkic majority, the majority of people were Persian and Arabic speakers.
The Seljuks primary aim was protecting the caliphate. Mahmud Kashgari's Turkic encyclopedia and manual on Turkic culture, history etc was written and a copy handed to the Caliph.
The Seljuks created a millitary oligarchy, they controlled the Caliphate from within yet kept the pollitical power of the Caliph intact as a figure-head.
The Seljuk millitary was most definately Turkic and spoke Turkic and carried on their culture and ways.
They entrusted local polliticians to govern the people again as "figure-heads". This was a very smart move by the Seljuks. They would install local rulers from the population of a specific region and tell them what to do. The locals didn't feel as distressed having their own people giving the orders.
Later, after successive waves of Turks and large migrations the Seljuks brought back the Turkish elements in strength as there was now many Turks to govern aswell.
The Seljuks adopted and influenced culture from the Persians it wasn't simply one-way traffic.
Later on, after successive waves of Turkic peoples, after their population grew to a substantial number becomming majorities in some areas and after the Key victory of AlpArslan Sultan, Turks entered Anatolia in large numbers.
Here in the 13th Century the Karamanoglu dynasty declared Turkish to be the official state of all state affairs and no other langauge was to be used.
Seljuks adopted this same resolution.
This continuity followed through to the Ottomans and is why Turkish was the official lanuage of the state.
If it wasn't for the Seljuks, there would be no Ottoman state. If the Seljuks had forgotten their language and ways the Ottomans would also have been Persian and spoke Persian. However, they were Turks, spoke Turkish and spread the language. So your theory is ridiculous.
And the claim made by somebody above that Seljuks didn't promote Turkish and lead a renaissance, that instead the only Turkish writer was Yunus Emre really has no knowledge about the matter.
Asik Pasa 13th C, promoted Turkish and was patroned by the Seljuks, he wrote a twelve thousand couplet work the "Garip", he wrote many famous poems and became a popular literary figure.
Baba Ilyas 12 C, Turkish spiritual leader, keeping the Old Turkic ways and new Islamic influences, merging them and spreading this thinking among Turks.
Nasreddin Hoca, Haci Bayram-i Veli, Haci Bektasi, Ahmed Fahih, Derhani etc etc etc.
Then there was the influence of Turkic designs and motives in Seljuk architecture, promoting Turkic culture, literature, arts, carpets and so on.
To claim the Seljuks did not bring a Turkish renaissance in the arts and literature is very naive indeed!
-- Johnstevens5 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"History of Iran" is irrelevant section. Seljuk Empire is a Turkic empire, a part of the history of Turks. So the "History of Turks" is more relevant to this topic.-- Karcha 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am really sicked and tired of this pan-Iranism show. Why do you put History of Iran? To prove that Selcuks were actually Persians? I agree to my friend Karcha. History of Turks is much much more relevant to this topic. I am going to change this after I prepared such a column. ( I prepared "History of Turks" according to [13] but couldn't change the page. )
I am sorry but showing just a few sources doesn't make Turkish society greek or persian. Today Turkey has a population of 70 million. Let's assume that, Turkish population was 60.000 in 1100 A.D. as you say. The average growth for Turks is about %0.18. If you have a population of 60.000 in year 1100 and have a growth rate of %0.18; you would have 563,834,246,858 people of Turks. Even much much more than world population. I am trying to show you 60.000 people is not a small number to underestimate, 900 years ago. In another article you said there's no such a thing as Turkish culture. Now you say, there's no such as Turks. You're saying, Turks are mostly Greek. What's next; a cultural genocide against Turks? Be reasonable. In the beginning you even didn't accept Selcuks as Turks. After a while, you accepted that they are Turks but under Persian culture. And we return to the beginning and again you say, that they are not Turks. If you are objective and not so obsessed about pan-Iranism; then you would support History of Turks column. It's okay to stay History of Iran. But it's not okay not to put History of Turks into this article.
Of you are going to argue and give silly responses. It's something we expect from pan-Iranist.
The ancestors of Turks are actually Non-Turks (mostly Greeks and related peoples), the remaining 10% seem to be somehow related to Central Asian Turkic and Mongol hords.:)
Ok, after this funny story, we shoul look some history, a real history and learn whose ancestors greek ? or,is there an ancestors of persians? We will learn now with documentaries;
Berkeley University Lectures about the Origin of Persians
Becoming "Greek"
The range of civic (e.g., Athenian) and regional (e.g., Macedonian) affiliations used to identify foreign settlers in third-century BCE papyri from Tebtunis demonstrates the lack of homogeneity for what we term "Greek." Tax records identify as "Greeks" not only individuals from locales previously considered "Greek" (including Athenians, Samians, Thebans, Cyrenaeans, Boeotians, Cretans), but also persons from unexpected cities or regions (including Alexandrians, Thracians, Macedonians, PERSIANS, Jews, Idumaeans, Arabs), some considered the antithesis of "Greeks" by former generations. A number of texts from Tebtunis demonstrate the impermanence of these ethnics, which allowed people to move from one category to another. Given the diversity of identities encompassed by "Greek," it may have only become a meaningful category when it was opposed to "Egyptian," although these boundaries were themselves permeable.
Other ethnics: Syrians, Arabs, Jews and PERSIANS
The papyri from Tebtunis record several sites in the Fayum, which appear to have been founded as ethnic communities in the third century BCE. These include the "Village of the Syrians" (Syrôn kômê), "Village of the Arabs" (Arabôn kômê) and Samareia, which contained a sizable Jewish population and was probably named after the city in Palestine.
Although ethnic designations like Boeotian, Macedonian, Syrian, Arab and Jew probably refer to geographic origin, "PERSIAN" proves problematic. Its precise origin or significance is disputed. In the early Ptolemaic period it seems to describe people with Greek names functioning in a Greek context; although they enjoy a privileged status, they are counted separately from Greeks in tax lists. In late Ptolemaic and Roman contracts, "Persian of the epigonê" refers to the legal status of a debtor who had waived certain personal rights in order to secure the collection of a debt.
Persians 6 June 12 BCE (A Papyrus doocument, a real history document)
In this Demotic contract, summarized in Greek at the bottom, Pakemis son of Pakemis, acknowledges the loan of the dowry of his wife Tameische (Greek, Tameischis), daughter of Sokonopis, and promises to repay it. Here "Persian" does not seem to indicate descent, but describes a man with the status of a debtor. In this example, the subject has an Egyptian personal name, but "Persian of the epigonê" is just as frequently used to describe people with Greek names. (P.Tebt. II 386)
( http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/lecture/clar_ex2.html)
This is becoming so funny. Tajik, who always says what the hell are you talking about, who never don't understand, please firstly learn your ancestors, if there are, after you maybe learn ancestors of Turks...-- Karcha 10:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(What a statement:)))
Please read this: [14]. I don't understand why you removed this. If you put "History of Iran", we have right to put it as much as you do. Everybody knows they're Turks even Persanized or not. They are part of Turkish history; nothing can explain this vandalism. Yes, this is a vandalism! By removing history of Turks, you proved that you can vandalise everything for pan-Iranism. If you want other sources please look: [15], [16], [17], [18]
When someone says "Seljuks are more a part of history of Iran than of Turkey" he is missing the facts that present Turkish people, language, culture, state tradition are directly descended from Seljuks. But yes, maybe we could say Seljuks are more related to history of Turks rather than history of Turkey. Filanca 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but are some people still sane? You put History of Iran there but NOT THE MAIN THEME: History of Turkey?? I am sorry but this shows the great disadvantage of wikipedia: Some irresponsible and obsessed poeple obviously really CAN WRITE WHATEVER THEY WANT. Please change this IMMEDIATELY, I personnaly do not trust any history or politics related article on wikipedia anymore. --Some visitor (sorry I am no member) 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)