Talk:Sultanate of Rum

Discussion

Kayseri is definetely not a coastal city.

Secular?

In moderm day Turkey, you can be anything you like as long as it is Turkish Muslim (See Armenian, Greek and Kurdish gencide). I think the characterisation "Secular" is very optimistic. In comparison the Ottoman empire that would devolve most of the administration to the Millet, was far mor secular.

So you came to this page just to show us your biased ideas or do you "really" have something to say? Deliogul (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be "Seljuks of Rum"?

Sultanate of Rum, ok, but who's sultanate? Rum is the word used for Asia Minor by Turks, the title should be Seljuks of Rum. Can we change it?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In Enc. Islam, I read it as: "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum".Ayasi 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kay Khusrau II

The article states that he ("the sultan") died in 1246, but in the list of sultans is mentioned that he reigned a second time from 1257-59. Now what?

Rûm vs Rüm

Where is "Rûm" used, and why should we use it instead of "Rüm"? Adam Bishop 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: It is defintely either "Rum" or "Rûm" but not "Rüm". The word "Rum" is the turkish version of the word "Roman" and is pronounced with vowel similar to the one in "book". The vowel in "Rüm" would be the same as the german "ü", whereas the vowel in "Rûm" is a slighlty longer and rounder version of the vowel in "Rum". Anyway the letter "û" is used very scarecely in modern Turkish, and I believe it might even have been officially declared obsolete.

Map

The map says 1200's. Wrong, Seljuks were reduced to interior Anatalia, the Byzantines still had land in Asis Minor, the Crusader states still existed. To conclude, it looks alot like a map in 1081, before the first Crusade, some 100 years before what the date says. Tourskin.

Hah, the map itself says 1097. Well I changed the date to that. Its great to talk to myself.Tourskin. Lol

Seljuk Sultanate of Rum

As previously proposed above here, before adding further info, I intend to change the title to Seljuk Sultanate of Rum which will have advantage of precising whose sultanate it was, keeping all at the same time the persisting formulation of Sultanate of Rum. Cretanforever 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you change your mind, or did you forget? Deniz^T_C 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please document this flag

What documentation do we have for the Seljuqs of Rum using such a flag? The image is labeled in Turkish "Great Seljuk State". Please provide a source at Image talk:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif. Aramgar 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

This article should mention the People's Crusade, Siege of Nicaea, Battle of Dorylaeum, and the Crusade of 1101... Lysandros 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps

We need some better maps. Ideally, we should have a larger scale map showing the Sultanate before the First Crusade, and also maps showing the Sultanate in the 12th century, under Mas'ud I or Kilij Arslan II, and one showing it at its height under Kayqubad I in the early 13th century, before the Mongol invasion. john k (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got maps of the Eastern Hemisphere in 1100 and 1200, which include the Seljuks of Rum. I'd be happy to crop them down further to show Europe or Asia, and highlight the area of Rum specifically for this article, if it could be used on this article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The map we have is fairly close to the 1100. 1200 would be useful, although I think what we really need is c.1240 - right before the Mongol invasion, when the sultanate was at its height. john k (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I see that there's a dispute in the article history about some wording. However, since the text changes are complex, and the edit summaries unhelpful, I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what's going on. Could someone please explain, with small words, what exactly the dispute is about? Thanks, Elonka 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about messing up formatting and moving ahistorical terms to the article header although they are included further down in the first paragraph. At least that's my take on it. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to offer an uninvolved third opinion, though I'm still having trouble understanding the exact dispute. --Elonka 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Seljuks of Rum have appeared in print under a variety of names. In September of last year, Cretanforever added a paragraph to the lead explaining these names (diff). Various editors have improved the paragraph and created redirects for all the variants listed within it. The objection of one editor seems to be that Turkish readers may be unsure whether they are reading about the Anatolian Seljuks or the Great Seljuqs. To address this concern multiple Turkish language redirects have been created (Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, Anadolu Selçukluları, Türkiye Selçukluları, Selçuklular, and even Buyuk selcuklu devleti), while the nomenclature preferred in contemporary Turkish still remains in the second paragraph of the lead. My preferred version retains the paragraph discussing the names [1] while an alternate version distributes most the sentences of the second paragraph through the first and thereby, I believe, muddles the text [2]. Aramgar (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies if it seems like I'm asking stupid questions.  :) I do agree that the problem of "alternate name spellings" is a tough one, though I personally feel that it's worth including alternate spellings to assist with Google searches and whatnot. Perhaps a solution such as the one here would be helpful: Ladislaus Hengelmuller#Alternate name spellings. That way the alternate spellings could still be in the article, but wouldn't necessarily be cluttering up the lead? --Elonka 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The only disagreement is whether all alternative names should be listed immediately in the first sentence of the article before we have even seen a verb (like "was"). The editor who insists on this has not discovered yet that this article has an associated talk page.  --Lambiam 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lambiam that Orkh may just be having some trouble navigating Wikipedia. I know that if I were trying to participate in the Turkish-language Wikipedia, I would probably find it a very confusing place! I recommend that in communicating with him, that Simple English be used. --Elonka 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not like he or she does not know talk pages exist: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].  --Lambiam 07:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Some of those edits do appear to be bad faith, I agree. --Elonka 07:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

extremely dubious flag

this is the only source provided

• a Flags of the World page that refers to the flag as "alleged" and says "To the best of our knowledge, the historical existence of most of these flags is not proven and we are not aware of their origin and designer."
  

The issue is whether the sources are sufficient to include the flag.

it says "alleged for every single turkish flag.162.84.135.252 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have argued in the past that this flag lacks a reliable source (example), but it keeps reappearing. The present version of the flag is described as that of the Great Seljuq Empire not the Sultanate of Rûm. Moreover the flag-based succession box is impossible for this "former country" both because the successor states are so many (see Anatolian Turkish Beyliks) and none possess reliably sourced flags. It is time we leave both of these features out of the article. Aramgar (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

non-turks talk about seljuk empire ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkhan ankara (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. No one country has a scholarly monopoly on the Seljuk empire; historians all around the world have published on the subject. Regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the dubious flag and the anachronistic flag-based succession box be left off this article in the future. Aramgar (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anatolian Turkish Beys also used that flag. it was used at the end of the main kurultai that shape the Ottoman Empire. Ottomans also used the flag in the first siege of Constantinople.--Huckelbarry (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A flag-based succession box is inappropriate for this former state: the blue flag that is constantly affixed to articles on the Seljuqs is unsourced. The notion that the beyliks used the Ottoman flag is doubtful and therefore needs a citation. The Ottoman Empire is not the immediate successor of the Seljuq state, as a glance at the text of the article will indicate. I am removing the flags (again). Aramgar (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ertuğrul Gazi was the father of ottoman empire's first Sultan Osman Bey, he was one of the last commanders of Anatolian Seljuks. so he may carried that flag, and sources say so.--Huckelbarry (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

False. Read the article. Ertuğrul was not a commander of the Seljuks of Rum. Ottoman historians of a later period sought to magnify the prestige of their patrons through fabricated connections to the illustrious Seljuk line, particularly Kayqubad the Great. Many princes of the Anatolian Turkish Beyliks did the same (see Cahen, Claude, The Formation of Turkey. The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century). That Etuğrul or Osman I may have carried that flag is at any rate irrelevant, as these rulers do not figure among the immediate successors of the Sultanate. The alleged blue flag of the Seljuks, reposted so many times at the top of this article, appears to be no older than the 20th century, created as a pretty piece ornament for the office of Turkish President [13]. Until someone finds a reliable source for this flag, it should not be included in the infobox. Aramgar (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The flag is not only unsourced but also a copyright violation. As long as we don't know it is actually a pure, faithful copy from an existing medieval design, we must assume it is the creation of the person who reconstructed it in the 20th century (e.g. the person who is named as the author of the image on the Flags of the World webpage); as such it is copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate or Sultanate of Rum

Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate (together with Seljuk Sultanate of Anatolia) gives 60.000 Google English language search results combined with 60 in Google Books. Sultanate of Rum gives 60.000 Google English language search results 39.500 with 680 among books, mostly older sources. The term preferred in Turkey, somewhat directly concerned, is the former; "tr:Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti" or "Anadolu Selçuklu Sultanlığı" or simply "Anadolu Selçukluları". "Rum" in this context has all the looks of a term nearing obsolescence. I suggest, while Turkey's Ministry of National Education (Turkey), unconcerned, is still counting jumping sheep, a move request for Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate. Cretanforever (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article should remain at Sultanate of Rûm. The interest in prefixing "Anatolian" and rejecting the use of the term Rûm is, for whatever reason, a Turkish nationalistic obsession. It does not reflect academic usage outside of Turkey. Aramgar (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)