Jump to content

Talk:Atabeg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason

[edit]

This article gets a lot of its sources from 1911 Britannica, see [1], and Amin Maalouf's Crusades Through Arab Eyes. If anyone feels that something needs a source, they can just add a {{fact}} tag to it. However, claiming that the entire article is unreferenced is false. Secondly, the article is wikifed. If it needs sections, add {{sections}}. If it needs to be copyedited, add {{copyedit}}. Khoikhoi 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources to consider on the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan and Atabegs in general

[edit]

1) 1137–75 Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html

2) "Eldegüzid Dynasty, also spelled Ildigüzid, Ildegüzid, Ildegizid , or Ildenizid, (1137–1225), Iranian atabeg dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled in Azerbaijan (now divided between Iran and Azerbaijan)." "Eldegüzid Dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Jan. 2007 <http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9032246>.

3) The Atabegs Atabeg was a Turkish title used by the Seljuks for members of the court ministers and leaders. Some of the Atabegs managed to take control of the state leading to the emergence of the petty states in the 12th century A.D. in Iran and Syria. They ruled for a long period of time, most remarkable among them were the Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Iran. ‏الأتابكة : أتابك : لقب تركي أطلقه السلاجقة على بعض رجال البلاط والوزراء والقادة، تمكن بعض الأتابكة من السيطرة على الحكم فنشأت في القرن 12 م دويلات متعددة في بلاد فارس وبلاد الشام وطال حكمها. أشهرها أتابكة أذربيجان وفارس.‏ http://dictionary.al-islam.com/Eng/Dicts/SelDict.asp?Lang=Eng&DI=66&Theme=18

4) Peter Stearns, William Leonard Langer (ed.). The Encyclopedia of World History: ancient, medieval, and modern. Sixth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, p. 119

5) "At first, [Jalal al-Din] Hasan allied himself to the Kwarazmshah ruler, but then he allied himself with caliph al-Nasir. Hasan materially helped the atabeg of Azerbaijan in the wars in ‘Iraq ‘Ajami, once in a joint military campaign, and once by sending an assassin." Qamar-ul Huda. "Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis." RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, p. 35.

Do not revert and edit what has already been agreed to previously by several active editors. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that opinion. I had the same experience with some other pages - the edit which was agreed upon previously should be first discussed before making changes--Dacy69 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


From: Aram Vardanian. "Coinage of Armenia in the Twelfth - Early Thirteenth Centuries". State History Museum of Armenia & The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/features/numisarticles.php?id=155

The Ildegizid State was a feudal principality situated on what is now the territory of Azerbaijan. It included a certain part of Transcaucasia. The capital of the State was Ganja. At first the Ildegizid State was the vassal of the Iraqi sultanate, however, soon the dynasty's founder Shams al-din Ildegiz (531-571AH/1136-1175AD) was assigned by the sultan Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD) as an atabeg of the future sultan of Iraqi and Western Iran Arslan bin Tughril (556-571AH/1161-1176AD). Then, the Ildegizid State had begun to get stronger, and since the beginning of the sultan Arslan (556AH/1161AD) ruling the State has been quite independent, which spent its own internal and external policy. During the power of Ildegiz and Muhammad Jahan Pahlavan (571-582AH/1175-1186AD) the vassalitet conception became nominal. At the time of the next atabeg Muzaffar al-din Qizil Arslan (582-587AH/1187-1191AD), the Ildegizid State achieved the highest power and prosperity. The Iraqi sultans turned into the puppet sovereigns allotted by the small power. In 587AH/1191AD the last Iraqi sultan Tughril III (571-590AH/1176-1194AD) was overthrowed. Qizil Arslan became the sultan. At his successor Nusrat al-din Abu Bakr (587-607AH/1191-1210AD), the Iraqi sultanate has completely lost its independence and finally dissappeared from the historical arena. The last powerful ruler was Uzbek bin Muhammad (607-622AH/1210-1225AD). According to the J.Kolbas's paper, the Ildegizid State disappeared at all in the 70s of the thirteenth century.

The Ildegizids left rich copper emission, which during 70 years played a significant role in the coinage of Pre-Mongol Transcaucasia. Their coins appear in a great number within region as by finds and hoards.40 In view of the "Silver Crisis" the Ildegizid coins were made of copper.41 In 1957 ?.?.Pakhomov noted, that the Ildegizids issued two types of coins: of regular and irregular striking.42 In both cases the weight and size of issued coins were not permanent.43 Coins were struck at different mints, predominantly concentrated on the territory of Azerbaijan and Iran. Though the mint place was seldom meant on the coins, it is known, that they were issued in Ganja, Shamkhor, Tabriz, Ardabil, Nakhichevan, Berda, Urmiya, Baylakan etc.44 In the numismatic literature there is a judgement, that the atabegs had a mint in Dvin too.45 Despite of huge quantity of Ildegizid coins revealed in Dvin, the issue still remains questionable and requires separate consideration.

The coin emission was started by the first Ildegizid Shams al-din Ildegiz about 547AH/ 1152AD.46 Huge quantity of his coins is fixed in Armenia. Those are the hoards from Aygestan, Yeghvard, Pteghni, Dvin, Garni, Ashtarak etc, as well as the coins from the excavations of Dvin, ?nberd and Garni. More than ten types of Ildegiz's coins are known.47 Though the issue of his coins began during the governance of the sultan Ghiyath al-din Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD), they become intensively to come in to Armenia not earlier than 1160AD.48 Dvin material shows, that only two types of Ildegiz coins had got widespread occurrence in the north-eastern Armenia. --AdilBaguirov 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh Atabek

[edit]

Nareklm, there has been a "citation needed" forever now next to this sentence: "Around the year 1554, Nagorno-Karabakh became a state under the rule of an Atabeg, at first part of Persia, Then part of the Ottoman Empire, until the 1606 founding of the Khanate of Qarabagh (Karabakh).[citation needed]" You've just modified simply "Karabakh" into "Nagorno-Karabakh". Are there any reliable references that some (vassal) Atabek state existed there in those times? --AdilBaguirov 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it same thing, because they redirect there. Nareklm 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NK and Karabakh are not exactly the same thing -- there was never a political entity of Nagorno-Karabakh before 20th century, whilst there was Karabakh. Meanwhile, the main question is, where is the required and requested citation about the existence of some atabekdom in Karabakh in Safavid and Ottoman times? --AdilBaguirov 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably confused Atabey with Beylerbey. Grandmaster 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant reverts by users Azerbaijani and Nareklm (Artaxiad)

[edit]

The reference has been provided very clearly all along: "1137–75. Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225." As you see, the Encyclopedia of World History does not say "in what is now" Azerbaijan, but instead simply Azerbaijan. This is perfectly warranted by the fact that Azerbaijan was not just a historic, geographic, administrative, cultural and ethnic concept, but also political entity too -- just like it is today (more sources, etc., have been provided a month ago above). Meanwhile, Iran did not exist as a political entity at the time, and hence it would be more correct to ammend the quote to state "...and what is now northwestern Iran..." However, it is best to stick to the quote the way it is. --AdilBaguirov 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we are talking about modern day political boundaries that did not exist then.Azerbaijani 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the text in the article is EXACTLY the way it is in the source, Encyclopedia of World History. Meanwhile, all modern states have different borders from what they were 100 years ago -- or 800 years ago. That doesn't mean we have to constantly specify that, especially when there is a significant overlap of territories between the historic and modern states, when they share the same name, and when it is clear that they were essentially an mini-empire, not a nation-state. That's why the wording is correct, and you should not be changing it to suit your POV. --AdilBaguirov 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan in the Caucasus did not exist then.Azerbaijani 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bey

[edit]

Ok, with regard to the origins of the word bey. I rolled the change for now, as we need to check what other sources say. Plus it was an edit made by the banned user. Britannica says nothing about the origin of the word:

Turkish Bey, Old Turkish Beg, Arabic Bay, or Bey, title among Turkish peoples traditionally given to rulers of small tribal groups, to members of ruling families, and to important officials. [2]

I'll check to see if there are other sources. Grandmaster (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Iranica says:

BEG (Pers. also beyg) and BEGOM. Beg is a Turkish title meaning “lord” or “chief,” later “prince,” equivalent to the Arabic-Persian amir. The feminine form of beg is begom (in Mughal India begam) from Turkish begim “lady, princess.”

The origin of beg is still disputed, though it is mostly agreed that it is a loan-word. Two principal etymologies have been proposed: 1. from a Middle-Iranian form of OIr. baga (q.v.); though the meaning would fit since the Middle Persian forms of the word often mean “lord,” used of the king or others, the main objection to this derivation is a phonological one: in Middle Iranian the word was bay or £ay, which one would expect to be borrowed as bay/bey (Doerfer, pp. 403-04); 2. from Chinese po “eldest (brother), (feudal) lord” (no. 4977 in Mathews' dictionary), the earlier form of which had a final k (Karlgren pak, Pulleyblank p --> e[Author:avp] rjk). See Doerfer, pp. 402-06 for a critical review of the evidence; Doerfer himself seriously considers the possibility that the word is genuinely Turkish. Whatever the truth may be, there is no connection with Turkish berk, Mongolian berke “strong” or Turkish bögü, Mongolian böge “wizard, shaman.” [3]

This seems to be a better source. Grandmaster (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there are 3 versions of the origin of the word - Iranian, Chinese and Turkic. I think all should be mentioned. Grandmaster (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, do not simply revert but add other sources to it. As for the sources: in controversial topics, the EI and EIr are considered authoritative (i.e. when there is no equally scholastic source available). In addition, Carter Vaughn Findley is a notable specialist of Turkic studies and the author of the book "Turks in World History", published by the Oxford University Press in 2005. And his source clearly says:
Tajik, stop edit warring. You are banned from this site. And do not pick just the sources that you like and ignore all others. Iranica is also authoritative source and it says what it says. Grandmaster (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing, Grandmaster. You are on a 1RR for extreme POV-pushing and edit-warring on all Iran-, Azerbaijan-, and Armenia-related articles, and a third ArbCom may get you banned from Wikipedia! If you are so in support of Iranica (which actually supports the Sogdian origin), stop reverting to a version which ignores ALL of these sources and only mentioned the wrong claim that the word is Turkish (Iranica says: "... it is mostly agreed that it is a loan-word ...").
As a comparison, the Encyclopaedia of Islam says about the Turko-Mongol female title Khatun:
  • "... Khātūn, a title of Soghdian origin borne by the wives and female relations of the T'u-chüeh and subsequent Turkish rulers. It was employed by the Saldjuks and Khwārazm-Shāhs and even by the various Chingizid dynasties. It was displaced in Central Asia in the Tīmūrid period by begüm, which passed into India and is still used in Pakistan as the title of a lady of rank. ..." - J.A. Boyle, „Khātūn“, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition; Brill, 2006
Everybody editing AA area is on 1RR, but not everyone is banned. I only suggest to include all existing versions, not just one. I rvd the article so that a compromise version could be agreed, and I hope eligible editors will come to agreement on this. Grandmaster (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake! Beg is an ancient Turkic title. User without username (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atabeg is a Turkic title.

[edit]

The reliable references (such as Encyclopædia Iranica) write Atabeg is a Turkic title. I have not a problem if Atabeg title really was Iranic origin then I would agree with you. I watched your contributions so I can see you have a problem with Turkic term, people, culture everything. Also it will end badly for you. ---Qara Khan 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if i had a problem with the Turks as you said, why would i create/expand articles about them (Böritigin, Ali-Tegin, Mas'ud I of Ghazni.. etc). But hey, at least you tried.
Congratulations, you actually used a reliable source for the first time in all your years in Wikipedia! but that does not mean that you can remove sourced information. Anything more to say? by the way, if you're thinking about ignoring me, then you should take a look here [4]. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always use a reliable source (especially Encyclopædia Britannica and Encyclopædia Iranica). You can see this article, Ottoman palaces in Istanbul which I expanded and used many reliable sources. --Qara Khan 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is not reliable.. oh well, at least you tried. But i am still waiting for a answer and ignoring me will only make matter worse. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already typed my answer above. If you delete the referenced (Encyclopædia Iranica) information again from the article, I will report you. --Qara Khan 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you can't speak English properly then please leave this site, since you clearly did not write a clear answer. I will say it again: You removed reliable sources including its information, which is again the rules.
Then report me, go ahead - it will only end badly for you since you have already broken two rules :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atabeg

[edit]
Quote from EI
BEG
(Pers. also beyg) a Turkish title meaning “lord” or “chief,” later “prince,” equivalent to the Arabic-Persian amīr, fem. BEGOM.BöriShad (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That made no sense. Anyway, the information you deleted is supported by reliable sources, so deleting it will only get you in trouble, since you are breaking the rules. Furthermore, WP:BRD means that you discuss first, before reverting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in a glass house don't throw stones. You guys removing all refs from Avar pages (both Khanate and People) and rest of Turkic pages and dare to say you breaking rules? "Most trusted source ever" 'Encyclopedia Iranica' says it's a Turkish title so it must be Turkish. Btw, call your friends to rechange this page because that's what you guys do all the time. I'm changing page to back to it's original version and I'm asking any mod/admin to be referee on this and rest of Turkic ralted pages which changed by iranians. Thank you. BöriShad (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BöriShad: It's funny, you only read the part where it mentions the word "Turk" and not rest. What I restored was a neutral version, which suggested both the Iranian and Turkic theory, which is of course supported by Iranica and other sources, so that argument won't get you far. Also you aren't making your claims any better by acting like a keyboard warrior - reverting without discussion won't get you far. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, anything is iranian. Ah also for Krakkos or should I say you Sockpuppet? So, I'm not expecting anything rational from you. Better to get a referee BöriShad (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BöriShad: The sources talk for themselves, and instead of attacking/accusing me you should rather come up with a proper argument which is actually related to this section. I'm still waiting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like clear enough but since it's not favors what you want to see on the page, you keep changing it.
(from Encyclopedia iranica)
BEG
(Pers. also beyg) a Turkish title meaning “lord” or “chief,” later “prince,” equivalent to the Arabic-Persian amīr, fem. BEGOM.BöriShad (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BöriShad: Why don't you write what it says afterwards? Maybe because it doesn't support your opinion? (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) also, you seem to forget that Iranica was not the only source there that stated that. You can't just ignore information/sources that don't agree with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I never understand is, how you can be ok with something that doesn't belong to you but you claim it's yours? I never ever met a Turk who claims iranian things as Turkic. Even Iran ruled by Turks until 1925 yet Turks never say anything about them because they were part of iranian history yet iranians ridiculously claim anything but anything iranian. Zengids were Turkic. Turks used their own titles for ages, yet, a random iranian comes and says it's ancient iranian actually central asian IE people were not even iranian but according to you they are, no? Anyway, like I said I suggest to get a referee for pages we have trouble and we both be fine. Funny thing is we have problem only in Turkish/Turkic pages because iranians love to destroy them.BöriShad (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BöriShad: You still haven't answered my question, and tell me why I shouldn't report you right now for making several offensive comments against me instead of sticking to the subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please report me.BöriShad (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atabeg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Turkic and Iranian ?

[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic environment. The aim is to inform the readers in the simplest and neutral understandable way. Almost all of the reachable sources are in the Turkic origin of this title. Based on just one theory, I do not understand giving two different origins to the title. In the mentioned sources it is stated that the title is Turkic origin. Despite this, it is stated in a very absurd and pointless way that it has two origins.

Bey It is a title have used in all Turkic peoples and societies. There may be different theories about the origin. It's really ridiculous to say that two origins. The showed source points to Turkic origin. This change [5] is Unsourced POV and WP:OR. The title was used entirely by Turkic origin leaders and societies. Non-Turkic leaders and atabegs adopted the Turkic title of Atabeg.

To give an example;

  • From the names of the earlier members at least, it seems they were ethnically Persian, but, like the Hazaraspids, they adopted the Turkish title of Atabeg. Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Columbia University, 1996. Excerpt 1 pp 209: "The Atabegs of Yazd" (1141-1297)" Excerpt 2:
  • ATABEG Title of the chief tutor and guardian of the georgian heir aapparent; it was derived from the Turkish ata(father) beg(prince). Atabegs were introduced to georgia during th Seljuk conquest of the 11th century.. Alexander Mikaberidze, Historical Dictionary of Georgia. pp 149.

Numerous examples can be given. In spite of the fact that the sources pointed to the Turkic root, Based on a theory, As if it were certain ; The two origins are very misleading And meaningless. Our aim is to inform the readers in the most accurate and understandable way.--Halil Can (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atabeg&oldid=1205443042"