Talk:Rum (endonym)

Changing the claim that the word is 'is a derivative of the Middle Persian term hrōm', to 'is derived from a Greek, Syriac or Middle Persian form', or something similar

The user below points out one of many sources that claim a Syriac origin. I would like to reiterate Arthur Jeffery's 'The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an' as a major source. Outside of Wikipedia, a Persian origin of the word doesn't seem to be considered likely, let alone a given. Please discuss whether a change to 'is derived from a Greek, Syriac or Middle Persian form' is more appropriate. Having read many sources, scholars of Arabic and Semitic linguistics seem to consider a Greek or Syriac origin as more likely. I haven't found a single scholar of languages that claims the word entered Arabic through Persian.

WP:REHASH, WP:JDL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Do you want me to report again you so you get a range-block once more? [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep threatening with blocking users over disagreements? I came here to offer two references of authoritative scholars of the Arabic language of the Quran: Arthur Jeffery and Alphonso Mingana. Both of them point to a Syriac or Greek origin of the word. Neither of them even considers the possibility of a Persian origin. The claim that the word is of Persian origin is now being supported on this page by sourcing from random historians, not linguists and not scholars of Arabic and Semitic. Jeffery is as authoritative as it gets when it comes to studies of Quranic Arabic. The other user presented the following quote from Arthur Jeffery, discussing the word Rum:

'The word may have come directly from the Greek into Arabic through contacts with the Byzantine Empire such as we see among the Ghassanids, or it may be as Mingana, Syriac Influence, 98, thinks, that it came through the Syriac. It is at any rate significant that Rum occurs not infrequently in the Safaite inscriptions, cf. Littiimnu, Semitic Inscriptions, 112 ff. ; Hyckmans, Now propres, i, 315, 309, and also in the old poetry, cf. the Mu'allaqa of Tarafa, 1. 23 (Horovitz, KU, 113), and is found in the Nemara inscription (RES, i, No. 483).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:E14D:6906:DF02:9327 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

And here's a quote from Mingana:

'In xxx., 10 the word Rum is used to express the Byzantines, the Greeks of Constantinople, the "New Rome" . Whatever our views may be as to the linguistic peculiarities of the word we are not at liberty to deny that it is derived from the Syriac Rumaya. Indeed the Syrians went so far in their application of the word to Byzantines that they often called simple "soldiers" Rumaye44 as if the only soldiers they knew were Byzantine soldiers.'

https://archive.org/details/mingana-a-syriac-influence-on-the-style-of-the-kuran/page/98/mode/2up (page 98) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:E14D:6906:DF02:9327 (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

So instead of reading what other editors have said, you continue with your cherry-picked WP:OR.

• "Arthur Jeffery's 'The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an' as a major source."

Which says, "(Ar-Rūm)."
"xxx, 2."
"The Byzantine Empire."

"It is the common name for the Byzantine Greeks, though also used in a wider sense for all the peoples connected or thought to be connected with the Eastern Roman Empire (cf. TA, viii, 320). A considerable number of the early authorities took it as an Arabic word derived from to desire eagerly, the people being so called beause of their eagerness to capture Constantinople (Yāqūt, Mu'jam, ii, 862). Some even gave them a Semitic genealogy—LA, xv, 150, and Yāqūt ii, 861. Others, however, recognized the word as foreign, as e.g. al-Jawālīqī, Mu'arrab, 73, who is the authority followed by as-Suyūtī, Itq, 321. 5 The ultimate origin, of course, is Lat. Roma, which in Gk. is Ῥώμη..."

"The word may have come directly from the Greek into Arabic through contacts with the Byzantine Empire such as we see among the Ghassanids, or it may be as Mingana, Syriac Influence, 98, thinks, that it came through the Syriac."

So Jeffery, which you keep crowing about, states, the Arabic term is of foreign origin, ultimately originating from Latin. Also, even Jeffrey uses the term may, so such terminology should not presented as factual on Wikipedia.

Jeffery does not state that Rūm originates from Arabic nor that it was passed to other languages from Arabic.

Also which you did not find was on page 1, " So also the place-names—Bābil, Rūm, Madyan, Sabā', and many of the commonest religious terms—Shaitān, Tawrah, Injīl, Sakīna, Firdaus, Jahannam, are equally familiar to all who know the Jewish and Christian Scriptures."

And the Christian and Jewish scriptures were written when?

Compared to;

• "Let me first illustrate the peculiarity and even oddness of Anatolian local mental patterns. Muslim Anatolia under the Seljuqs was known to its neighbours by many names. I will focus on the two most prevalent designations for Anatolia: ‘Rome’ and ‘Persia’. The immediate neighbours to the East normally designated Byzantium as ‘Rome’, ‘Roman lands’ (and its inhabitants as ‘Romans’): Armenians called the land Հռոմ/Հոռոմ hor ̇om/hr ̇om, Georgians ჰრომ hrom, Syrians ܪܗܘܡܐ rhπmÈ, and Persians and Arabs روم rËm. Apparently, all these terms went back to the interconnected Aramaic, rhπmÈ and Parthian from which designated ‘Rome’ and the ‘Roman Empire’ and derived from the Greek Ῥώμη. The Parthian designation for ‘Rome’ differs from the Aramaic and Syriac phonetic shapes of the term in its spelling of the Ancient Greek aspirated rho. It was the Parthian form which subsequently was borrowed by the Pahlawi (hrπm, also the Sogdian βr’wm), Armenian and Georgian. The Arabic and New Persian languages inherited the Pahlawi hrπm with the omission of the aspirated component in the Ancient Greek rho. It was the Parthian and Aramaic form that subsequently was borrowed by the Pahlawi, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic and finally Neo-Persian and Turkish languages. The term came into common usage during the Roman conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean – that is, in the first century bc. Subsequently, Byzantium regarded itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire and was also regarded as such by its Eastern neighbours, who continued to designate the Byzantines as ‘Romans’ and their state as the ‘Roman’ state." --Rustam Shukurov, "Grasping the Magnitude: Seljuq Rum between Byzantium and Persia", in The Seljuqs and their Successors: Art, Culture and History, ed. Sheila Canby, Deniz Beyazit, Martina Rugiadi.

FYI, Pahlawi = Middle Persian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear.

It's not 'cherry-picked'. This is as targeted as criticism can be. You folk claim that the term Rum is derived from Middle Persian, and you claim that's a settled fact. You don't present that as a 'possibility', the page doesn't say 'the term might be derived from a Middle Persian form', you open the page by stating, as if proven fact, that the term is derived from Middle Perian. In response, I presented you two of the most eminent scholars of Classical Arabic, 'ever', that say otherwise. That's not cherry-picking.

Arthur Jeffery and Alphonso Mingala are leading scholars of Quranic Arabic. Rustam Shukurov, who you for some reason privilige, is not. No one, as far as I am aware of, denies that the word Rum is derived from the Classical Arabic. Obviously, related terms existed long before its use in Classical Arabic (Greek: Roma, Syriac: Rumaya, Turfan: Hrom, etc), the point is that in an Arabo-Islamic context of the Middle Ages, the term Rum sprang up in the context of the Quran. No one denies that. The question is what the origin is of the Classical Arabic ar-Rum/Rum. Jeffery and Mingala consider a Greek or Syriac origin, not a Persian one.

Again, no one is denying that the word is of non-Arabic origin. The claim that this page makes is that the word is of Middle Persian origin.

And my point, of presenting Jeffery (again, possibly the leading expert in Quranic Arabic ever) is that even he, this eminent scholar of Classical Arabic, claimed a Greek or Syriac origin, and never once mentions a possible Persian origin. Jeffery is a serious, respected linguist, he's not in it to make blanket statements. When he says that the term 'might' be derived from Greek or Syriac, that says everything about how little evidence there is for a Persian origin (which he never even entertains as a possibility). This in itself at least should convince you to change the first sentence into something other than what it is now: where it claims, as if it's a certain, proven fact, that the term is derived from Persian.

I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you good folk that the claim of a certain Middle Persian origin is unfounded, and doesn't belong on this page. If this isn't enough, then what's the use of Wikipedia?

And one final point: the page was altered months ago by another user to have it say that the term is of a Middle Persian origin. He didn't add a single linguist as a source, yet you folk didn't object when he made those edits. 2A02:A458:447B:1:E14D:6906:DF02:9327 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• "And one final point: the page was altered months ago by another user to have it say that the term is of a Middle Persian origin. He didn't add a single linguist as a source, yet you folk didn't object when he made those edits."

So? Should I mention the multitude of times referenced information has been removed from other articles when it hurts certain editors' little feelings? Should I mention how an IP seems to have an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia, yet presents themselves as a "new user"? Or, should I mention the continued ethnic comments directed at other editors by an IP? Seems a certain IP falls even shorter than the grandiose expectations they have assigned to other editors.

• "In response, I presented you two of the most eminent scholars of Classical Arabic.."

And neither gave anything definite, in fact Jeffrey sank himself by contrasting Greek and Syriac with the word may.

• "When he says that the term 'might' be derived from Greek or Syriac, that says everything about how little evidence there is for a Persian origin (which he never even entertains as a possibility)."

No, that is your WP:OR, again. You should really let go of your anti-Persian narrative.

• "The claim that this page makes is that the word is of Middle Persian origin."

Does it now? Another comment on Persian. Which does not address what I have posted on this talk page, hmmm(WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)?

• "..presenting Jeffery (again, possibly the leading expert in Quranic Arabic ever) is that even he, this eminent scholar of Classical Arabic, claimed a Greek or Syriac origin, and never once mentions a possible Persian origin."

This is not about Quranic Arabic. This concerns the origins of a particular word. What Jeffrey fails to mention is simply your own interpretation. Also, Jeffrey does not CLAIM anything, Jeffrey says "may".

• "This in itself at least should convince you to change the first sentence into something other than what it is now: where it claims, as if it's a certain, proven fact, that the term is derived from Persian."

Nope. I will do my own research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop assuming that I'm anti-Persian. My problem is with nationalism and cultural imperialism, not with Iranians. I have attacked Arab, Turk, white, black, Spaniard and Moroccan for their nationalism. It's not about Persians and it's not about me. Forget me and forget what you think I am. Please read my comments and please try and process it without assuming anything about me.

Very simple: this page makes a hard claim, right in the first sentence, that the word Rum is of Middle Persian origin. I presented you two authoritative linguists of Classical Arabic who point to Syrian and Greek. Neither of these two eminent scholars mention a possible Persian origin. This ought to be enough to at least add the possibility of a Greek and Syriac transmission.

I don't know what more I can do to have this content changed.

'And neither gave anything definite, in fact Jeffrey sank himself by contrasting Greek and Syriac with the word may.'

Sank? So you know better than Arthur Jeffery? What makes you more of an authority than Jeffery and Mingala? Can you present a single linguist that claims that Rum is derived from a Middle Persian form?

Linguists rarely deal in definites. Linnguistics is not a hard science. If Jeffery isn't evern sure about whether the term comes from Greek or Syriac, how does Wikipedia know for certain that it comes from Middle Persian? What insight does Wikipedia have that the leading scholar of Classical Arabic in the West, ever, didn't have?

You're allowing for faulty info to exist purely out of some sort of stubbornness. 2A02:A458:447B:1:E14D:6906:DF02:9327 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

IP, your above comment is borderlining with WP:FORUM and WP:NPA, i strongly advise you to calm down and focus on content, not editors.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed that comment, but I was being accused of bigoted motives. 2A02:A458:447B:1:2562:B53A:4DD2:A1BC (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• "I removed that comment, but I was being accused of bigoted motives."

Here is where you removed a reference that states Rum enters Arabic via Middle Persian(Pahlavi).[2] While changing the Lead to "is the Arabic name for Rome and Romans...".

And again.[3]

Then you state your own personal opinion over a university source, "The term has roots in its usage in the Quran."

And again, stating The term has nothing to do with Persian term. The Arabs called the Romans 'Rum' because that's what the Greeks called themselves. Nothing to do with the Iranians. See my source

And again, stating This Persian claim has been inserted this past year or so by overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors. Typical battleground comment. Drag up perceived ethnicity of editors while ignoring what a university source states.

And again.[4]

And again.[5]

And again.[6]

And again.[7]

• "but I was being accused of bigoted motives"

So, in response to that, you made 1 battleground comment about the ethnicity of other editors, you ignored what a university source states, (ie. That the word "Rum" entered Arabic and New Persian from Middle Persian), and 8 reverts which should have resulted in you being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the guidelines are here, but my intent wasn't to be bigoted by calling a particular user an 'overly enthusiastic Iranian contributer'. I'm a MENA individual myself, I'm constantly criticizing Middle Eastern nationalism and tribalism, and not just among Iranian folk.

All of those sources are overridden by specialist linguists who actually studied this particular field. A dozen non-specialized sources are overridden by a single Arthur Jeffery or Mingala. Because Jeffery and Mingala are actual specialists of Quranic Arabic. Jeffery wrote an entire book in which he attempts to identify the non-Arabic words in the Quran. He identified about 300 of them (30 of which he pinpoints as having Persian origins). Jeffery was also a scholar of Persian and Syriac, and he held a Chair at the Department of Near and Middle East Languages at Columbia University. These are people who spent their entire careers studying Classical Arabic and related languages of the ancient Near East. Historians like Rustam Shukurov are 'not' linguists, or scholars of the languages of the ancient Near East. We 'have' to assume that these historians are off here, and we have to give special relevance to the linguists. Otherwise, it's very easy to pick and choose. If I don't like a certain content, I can just dig in an look for convenient quotes by historians, who have no clue about a specific subject, and use their works to help sell my point of view. It's why it's important to turn to the specialists.

And I've asked you before. Present us a single linguist who claims a Persian origin for the Turko-Arabic 'Rum'. 2A02:A458:447B:1:75CA:B926:616:7385 (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the word comes from Persian is problematic

Arthur Jeffery is considered the leading authority on the loanwords that occur in the Qur'an. His 1936 'The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an' is still authoritative in the field. When discussing the term Rum, as another example of a non-Arabic word in the Qur'an, he writes:

The word may have come directly from the Greek into Arabic through contacts with the Byzantine Empire such as we see among the Ghassanids, or it may be as Mingana, Syriac Influence, 98, thinks, that it came through the Syriac. It is at any rate significant that Rum occurs not infrequently in the Safaite inscriptions, cf. Littiimnu, Semitic Inscriptions, 112 ff. ; Hyckmans, Now propres, i, 315, 309, and also in the old poetry, cf. the Mu'allaqa of Tarafa, 1. 23 (Horovitz, KU, 113), and is found in the Nemara inscription (RES, i, No. 483).

He mentions Greek and Syriac as the likely transmitters of the word. He also mentions another scholar who made the case for a Syriac transmission.

The book can be found here, see page 146:

https://archive.org/details/foreignvocabular030753mbp/page/n163/mode/2up?q=byzantine

If ever there was an authoritative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A469:A4F1:1:D88A:D8A9:9F87:1E3F (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to have the claim of a Persian origin removed from the first sentence, and then have a chapter added with speculations about a possible Greek, Persian or Syriac origin of the term

The page was edited more than a month ago by an Iranian contributor to have the first sentence claim that the term is Middle Persian in origin. This is 1) by no means a fact set in stone, 2) it isn't espoused by a majority of historians, 3) it entirely ignores the only certain fact: that the Islamic and Turkish term originates in its usage in the Quran (see chapter Al-Rum of the Quran). That one certainty is skipped over and instead the first sentence flat-out states that the term is Persian in origin, as if fact.

What is the value of all of these sources, easily found by a Google Books search, that make mention of the term Rum and its historical use in the Islamic sphere, but doesn't mention a Persian link whatsoever? Are all of those sources overrided by the incidental source that suggests a Persian origin? More importantly, what evidence do those rare sources have for a Persian link?

I appeal to you to have that claim removed from the first sentence and speculate about a Persian origin further down the article.

- The claim is too controversial to have it dominate the article right in the first sentence.

- The one certain claim is that the use of the term in Islamic societies, including the Turkish, is derived from the Quranic Al-Rum.

- There is no clear evidence that Arabic took the name from Persian in particular. The form was used in Arabic as early as the Namara inscription in 328 AD. The Arabic term isn't particularly similar to the Persian form, not any more similar than it is to forms in other languages of the region.

- There are more logical sources for Arabic to loan the name from then Persian. Syriac being the dominant literary language in the classical Semitic Middle East and the Persian Empire, as well as a widely used language in northern Arabia, is the obvious one. Another more obvious trajectory is Greek, with the Arabians always having direct and intense contacts with the Greek-speaking Middle East. No need for a Persian bridge there.

My appeal is to please remove that bold claim from the first sentence. Then I would like us to have a chapter dedicated to the Middle Persian 'Rhomayig', the Syriac 'Rumi' and the Greek 'Rhomaioi' and how those relate to the Quranic 'Rumi'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:6CE0:5E0A:1D27:2EF9 (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating your personal opinion for the tenth time is not gonna make any difference (WP:REHASH). Readers might want to see the previous ANI report [8] and current ANI report [9], which clearly shows that this IP is blatantly anti-Iranian and WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You are the person who edited this page in the first place. You don't have pure motives. Why did you edit this page to say that the Quranic term is of Middle Persian origin? You wanted to achieve something right? You have your source or two, and you come in and just own and claim that term for your nationality, but you don't care about what the mainstream of historians say about the term. You are well aware that the vast majority of historians make no mention of a Middle Persian origin of the Quranic term. But you don't care, you've claimed the page for your own.

And I'm not anti-Iranian, I just don't like when nationalist tendencies are pushed here. I just edited the page of the Samanids to call them 'Arab-Persian', just to make a point, including references, and you immediately came in and removed that. You like to insert all these claims because it suits your sense of nationalism, but when I go an call the Samanids 'Arab-Persian' you immediately object and have that content removed.

I'm appealing to other users to please consider my objections. 2A02:A458:447B:1:6CE0:5E0A:1D27:2EF9 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you at the Samanid article because you removed sourced information and replaced it with information that wasn't even properly supported by the added (cherry-picked) sources. Also, thanks for admitting that you violated WP:POINT too. The more you comment the more stuff I have for ANI, please keep at it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Rum as a Persian term

It's ridiculous, and the onus is on the people making that claim to show it to be true. If the Quranic Rum (in which the Arabo-Turkish term is rooted) comes from Persian, show us the evidence.

The Arabic Rum (RWM) has been attested since the 330s AD in the Namara inscription. That's hard fact. Is there a Persian text where Rome is mentioned that is older than 330? I'm not sure, I can't find it. But that would be one way to get closer to proving the Persian theory. And are we suggesting that the writers of the Namara inscription, who were client kings of the Roman Empire, and closely tied to Roman culture and the Roman people, had to learn how to call Rome in Arabic, from the Persians out East? Wouldn't it make more sense from the Arabs to have taken the name from the names by which the Greeks and Latins called themselves? And is there linguistic evidence? Arabic RWM from the Greek/Latin 'Rom(a)'. Why is the Persian link (or the interference of any other language) needed? I don't get it.

And random Iranian historians shouldn't be enough. Those quotes don't address the core of the issue: that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a Persian influence. And for every Iranian historian, I can offer up two dozen historians who make no reference at all of a Persian involvement in the forming of the name. You have a situation here where overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors bite down on quotes in the works of random historians, and use that to legitimize the content they like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:2055:8FF6:E836:1031 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am not an Iranian contributor(battleground comment), but the reference and the note you removed state;

• "It was the Parthian and Aramaic form that subsequently was borrowed by the Pahlawi, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic and finally Neo-Persian and Turkish languages."

Hmmmm. Parthian? When did that empire exist? (247 BC – 224 AD). Wonder what language they used? Weird. Odd how you removed all of this while stating this information does not exist.

~Followed by continued rants of "Iranian nationalists", while removing referenced information.~

"Why is it that foolishness repeats itself with such monotonous precision?" --Leto II, God Emperor of Dune. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Shukurov, Rustam (2020). "Grasping the Magnitude: Saljuq Rum between Byzantium and Persia". In Canby, Sheila; Beyazit, Deniz; Rugiadi, Martina (eds.). The Seljuqs and their Successors: Art, Culture and History. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 144–162. ISBN 978-1474450348.

References

• • • 'It was the Parthian and Aramaic form' - My point is: what makes the Arabic Rum a Parthian/Persian form? How is the Arabic 'RWM' a Persian form? The Middle Persian word for Romans was something like 'Hromayig'. How is the Arabic 'Rwmi' relate to that and not directly to the Greek 'Rhomaioi'? That's the question. The Arabs interacted with the Romans much more intensely than did the Persians. The northern Arabs shared the same political and religious space with the Romans. Why would the Arabs need Persian, all the way East in Iran, to offer them a name to call the Romans by? That makes no sense. But again, Iranian historians flat out stating that the Quranic term comes from the Middle Persian isn't evidence. Historians make stupid statements all the time. And how do you weigh the mountain of historians who never mention a Persian link, but don't take the effort to address the claim of a Persian link? Is the absence of the mention of a Persian link evidence that the Persian link doesn't exist?

Your point is irrelevant. We base our information on sources, not your personal opinion/feelings - take this to a forum. Btw - "The Arabic and New Persian languages inherited the Pahlawi hrōm with the omission of the aspirated component in the Ancient Greek rho." - From the same page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You are an Iranian nationalist who is concerned with inserting a Persian claim all over the space. Everything under the sun becomes Persian. I've seen it all. It's not healthy, HistoryofIran. One (Iranian) historian does not set aside the multitude of sources that make no reference to a Persian link. It's one of those subjects. Iranians will make a big deal of it, trying to lay claim on anything they can. But the average historian doesn't even take the effort to address that claim. Is that silence evidence of the one side or the other. You can make both claims.

The term Rum comes from the Quranic usage of the term to mean the Byzantine Empire and its people. How the term came to be we can speculate. We can speculate about a Syriac influence, which makes much more sense than a Persian influence. For one thing, Syriac was the dominant language in the Persian West, and it was the dominant literary language of Persia. The Syriac name (Rwma) is also very similar to the Arabic name (the two languages are closely related and follow similar rules), unlike the Persian. You can even speculate about a Persian origin. But don't make such bold, unfounded claim right in the first sentence. 2A02:A458:447B:1:95CA:A546:8549:B60A (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Showing your true colors I see. Enjoy the upcoming block. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The man has an Iranian name, I assumed he was Iranian.. Sorry for that. My point remains: what is the evidence for the idea that Arabic took the name from Persian specifically? Why would Arabs turn to Iran to get a name by which to call the Romans? And not take it from the Arameans or the Greeks? 2A02:A458:447B:1:B0C0:DD73:8871:1CA1 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And fyi, Rustam Shukorov is Russian, not Iranian. Not that there is anything wrong with having an Iranian historian. HistoryofIran (talk)

Regarding this edit summary, the source is discussing the origin of the Chinese word "Fu-lin", which, according to the source, has its meaning based on what we know as Rum. Thus the source starts discussing the origin of the word "Rum". The source mentions the Old-Armenian form "Hrom" (alongside Pahlavi form), which, according to the source, has been derived from the Parthian form "From". Then it states that the Parthian form has been passed by Sogdians, who were Iranian people based in eastern Persia near china, as the prototype for the Chinese word "Fu-lin".Premitive (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The source is forced to discuss the Arabic RWM because it is the used form in New Persian. It eventually discusses the Arabic form and states that it traces back to its usage in the Quran, without making any claims about the origin of the term. The point remains: what is the evidence that the Arabic is derived from a Persian usage? And not from the Aramaic form, for example? Or directly borrowed from the Greek? Show me the evidence for that. Why would the Arabs have to turn to the Persians to get a name to call the Romans by? It's an absurd notion. 2A02:A458:447B:1:B0C0:DD73:8871:1CA1 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And I repeat: the vast majority of sources make no mention of a Persian origin. A minority of sources making that claim shouldn't override the majority of sources. The page was edited a month ago to have it claim that the word is derived from Middle Persian. Why didn't you stop that from happening? Why are you now suddenly so interested in protecting the integrity of this page?

What is the evidence for the idea that Arabic took the form from Persian? These types of claims are made often on Wiki. On the Farang page, it is claimed that Arabic borrowed that term from Persian as well. Why would the Arabs borrow a term for the French from Iranians? Iranians didn't border Europe and had barely any understanding of Europe, while Arabs did border Europe and had a much better understanding of what was happening there. Turns out that Arabic used its form, al-Farang, long before the Persian Farang was first used. After being banned, I couldn't dare delete the claim. So instead I just added a sentence pointing out that a Persian-to-Arabic loan is impossible and illogical. 2A02:A458:447B:1:B0C0:DD73:8871:1CA1 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Take this to a forum. Next time you will reported (again). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

IP: And not from the Aramaic form, for example? This is a valid point. I think "or from Aramaic" should be added as a possible source for the Arabic term per Shukurov 2020, p. 145 (as quoted above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We certainly should not add original research to the page. There is no such mention of Arabic word being possibly derived from Aramaic in the source. Premitive (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Shukurov states that the Arabic term was borrowed from a "Parthian and Aramaic form" (emphasis mine). The lead ignores Aramaic as a possible shared origin. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. Quote from Shukurov-2020: "The Arabic and New Persian languages inherited the Pahlawi hrom with the omission of the aspirated component in the Ancient Greek rho". Premitive (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that quote. I added it to the article as it's more relevant. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome.Premitive (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the source, Arabic and Modern Persian have borrowed it from Middle Persian. Middle Persian itself has borrowed it from older languages. That is Parthian/Aramaic=>Pahlavi(Middle Persian)=>Modern Persian/Arabic.Premitive (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea that Arabians, who have had contact with the Mediterranean world and the Greeks since before Persians even existed in the Middle East had to turn to Iran in the East to learn how to call the Romans, is absurd. Persian wasn't even widely spoken anywhere near Arabia and it wasn't a literary language, so it isn't as if a written Persian form could have reached Arabia and spread there. That's why I can understand a Syriac origin much better. Syriac was a powerful literary language, a language that was read and written in parts of Arabia as well. Syriac makes sense, a Greek origin makes a lot of sense. A Persian origin makes least sense, yet overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors have edited the page a month ago to suit their nationalist feelings. Now it's set in stone and readers are told that the Quranic 'Rum' is from a Middle Persian term (Rhomayig?). And not from the Syrian Rawmi or the Greek Rhomaioi.

And you people being outraged at me. Where were you when the Iranian contributor changed the page a month ago to have it claim a Middle Persian origin? You weren't outraged when he just flat-out inserted this nationalist claim. 2A02:A458:447B:1:6CE0:5E0A:1D27:2EF9 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As you've already been told a zillion times, this is written by an academic scholar, we're not gonna put your personal feelings above what he says. And you are still at it with the accusations. I've reported you again, enjoy another upcoming block. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The page should never claim a Persian origin for the term. The term became widespread among Arabs and Turks because of its use in the Quran. That is fact, and we try to deal in fact here at Wiki.

In another chapter, we can speculate about a Persian or Syriac or Martian origin. But this speculation shouldn't be presented as evidence. Based on a minority opinion of a few historians. 2A02:A458:447B:1:6087:C68A:BDD7:9CFD (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

'Shouldn't be presented as fact' I meant to say. I really hope someone with authority can edit this page to have the claimed Persian origin removed from the first sentence, and instead create a chapter further on with specualtions about its origins. 2A02:A458:447B:1:6087:C68A:BDD7:9CFD (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What forum are you talking about? We can't talk in the talk corner? 2A02:A458:447B:1:6087:C68A:BDD7:9CFD (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For your first comment, there's Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht which was written a full century before the Namara inscription, with the term "hrōm" written out; so that word does in fact predate Arabic "Rum". As for "talking in the talk corner", I'll point you to the top of the page which states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rûm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Most of what you've written here is just endless complaints about "Persian nationalists" and multiple paragraphs of WP:OR trying to explain why you think the Persian language had no presence near the area. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Why were the Greek and Persian terms removed from the lead?

Edit warring to remove mention of certain languages under the guise of "adding sourced information" is disruptive editing.[10]
"Nevertheless, Rûm corresponds to the Greek term Ρωμιοί (Roman) used in older times to define the subjects of the Byzantine emperor..." -- Nationalisms vs Millets:Building Collective Identities in Ottoman Thrace, Paraskevas Konortas, Spatial Conceptions of the Nation: Modernizing Geographies in Greece and Turkey, ed. Nikiforos Diamandouros, Caglar Keyder, Thalia Dragonas, page 164. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The etymology of this term should be for sure given in the article. Anyway, according to the source given in the article, Rûm does not correspond to Ρωμιοί, as it was implied in the former version. Its usage in the muslim world is quite different. (pg. 21-24) . So, one could write "Rûm from Greek Ρωμιοί", but not "Rûm (Greek: Ρωμιοί)".Alex2006 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the word, Rûm, was used in the Namara inscription(per Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VIII, page 601, C.E. Bosworth, "Rûm occurs in Arabic literature with reference to the Romans, the Byzantines and the Christian Melkites interchangeably. This issue of nomenclature is the first problem that confronts the reader of Arabic literature. Most often, however, the reference is to the Byzantines, which is the meaning followed in this entry. The sources for the pre-Islamic times include the important Namara inscription. All the literary sources were written in later Islamic times, deriving from the historian Ibn al-Kalbl. In the Islamic period, the first reference to Rum occurs in the Kur'an (Surat al-Rum, XXX, 1-5", the opening sentence clearly needs to be changed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are Arabic pre-islamic sources using Rum, then what you write is correct. Alex2006 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Illustrations

Hi Beshogur what are your thoughts about the illustrations that have been this article? Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Two illustrations show historic Rum culture (underground churches) that are now popular with tourists. The third shows a mosque in the capital of the Sultanate of Rum (a medieval state discussed in the article and named for the Rum subjects/region), which was built by an architect from the community, showing the coexistence and interactions of the community. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What's Rum community? Hearing for the first time. Checked the pictures, nothing tells about "Rum" there. What does Greek underground cities has to do with that article? Beshogur (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rum community are/were the remaining christians in the Arab and Ottoman world dating to before Arab and Ottoman rule, when those regions were ruled by the eastern roman empire, at which time all groups living in those regions were still christian (eg. before Muhammad, see the references in this article's intro for much more detail, as discussed in the article, the name Rum comes from this Roman identity and is used in the Quran). Some of the Rum community spoke Greek dialects like Rumca (the name comes from Rum), since Greek had been the official language of the eastern roman (byzantine) empire, although most did not speak the Greek dialects used today in Greece. Others spoke only languages that became official and widespread during later empires, like Arabic (Antioch, Palestine, Syria), or Turkish (Karamanlides), and some spoke Armenian (Hayhurum) or Laz (around Trabzon), but all were members of the former eastern roman church, dating to when it was the official religion of the whole area (in ancient and medieval times), so all used Greek at times as a ritual language in their churches, just as the Western Roman (Catholic) churches once used Latin throughout all of Europe as a ritual language, regardless of what local language was being spoken in each country (Ireland, France, etc). In the Middle East, and in Turkey away from the immediate Mediterranean coast, few of the Rum community had any relationship to what is now called ancient Greece (and none called themselves Greek until the late 1800s, they would call themselves Romios, that is Rum/Roman as discussed in the references, or Rum in Turkish and Arabic). Nowadays, however, especially for those who were resettled in Greece, many descendants (even those coming from communities that originally spoke only Laz, Turkish, or Armenian) identify as Greek and speak only Greek. Others have resettled in Russia, or the US, and have become integrated into those cultures. However, since the article is about the Rum community as it exists (and existed) in the Middle East and Turkey, the illustrations focus on that original culture. Speaking specifically about the underground cities, they are referred to in the contemporary Arab sources as Rum cities, and the inhabitants of those towns continued to be referred to as Rum when later conquered by the Sultanate of Rum, which took its name from them when it began to rule over them. Rumi, who lived in the Sultanate of Rum near to some of these underground cities, gets his name from this word (Rum) also, and he mentions the local Rum in his poems, including a local Rum girl he had taken as a servant. The word/identity (Rum) continued to be used by the local christians of these underground towns through Ottoman times (early 20th century). Since they are related to so many applications of the word Rum discussed in the article (Rumi, Sultanate of Rum, Rum Ortodoks church), these underground cities in central Turkey seem a worthwhile illustration. Piledhighandeep (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rumeli ve Anadolu

Türk dilinde "Rum" veya Rûm kelimesi coğrafi anlamda Balkanlar ve Batı Avrupa'yı anlatmak için kullanılır. Mesela; İstanbul'un Asya yakası Anadolu'dur. Avrupa yakası Rumeli veya oriinal şivesiyleUrumelidir. Bunun karşıtı Anadolu veya Anatolia'dır. --3210 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide an English translation of the above, as this is the English language Wikipedia.Blue Riband► 20:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What type of transliteration was used?

"...also romanized as Roum, is a derivative of the Aramaic (rhπmÈ)..." What type of transliteration was used for this form of Aramaic? I tried to find some informations on the use of Pi in Aramaic transliteration and transliteration in general for all language but no information. Same thing for the uppercase è. دانيالوه (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)