Jump to content

Talk:Suleiman ibn Qutalmish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Süleyman I of Rûm)

al-Athir's account

[edit]
Suleyman was made governor of the north-western provinces. The explanation proffered for this choice can be inferred from Ibn al-Athir’s account of the battle between Alp Arslan and Kutalmish: upon the death of Kutalmish, Alp Arslan wept the death and greatly mourned the loss of his kinsman.

I have removed the passage above from the article. What is the source for this speculative statement? Aramgar (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. DrKay (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suleyman I of Rûm → Suleyman bin Kutalmish — If we look at Category:Seljuk Sultans of Rûm, there is one of the articles - this one - which has a title which is not consistent with the others. From the article, we can see that there is a name for the subject which would be more consistent. Now we could quibble over how to spell Suleiman/Sulaiman/Suleyman/Sulayman and Kutalmis/Kutalmish and even whether ibn or bin was more appropriate, but there us no getting away from the fact that Suleyman bin Kutalmish and the obvious variants appear in print while the current title does not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Angus puts it quite nicely, the name is not consistent with the other Anatolian Seljuk sultans and does not appear in print. As for the possible new name, Elonka's proposal seems to fit well as it is used in a classic.--Aldux (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reconsider moving

[edit]

It seems there was a discussion on the name of the article and with a very few support it has been moved. Too bad the discussion is closed. But move reverting should be considered.

  • Suleiman ibn Qutulmish means Suleiman who is the son of Qutulmish. That's an Arabic way of naming people and it has never been used in other sultans of Seljuks. (By the way they were not Arabic speakers. Their mother tongue was Turkish and the lingua franca was Persian.)
  • In this Wikipedia the name of the father is Kutalmish and not Qutulmish.
  • The proposer thinks that there were no other Suleimans in Seljuks history. But the proposer is mistaken. There was another Suleiman (1196-1204) in Seljuks history just one century later. So it is inevitable to use the numeral I for Suleiman. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they made mistakes. I think his fathers name must be written Qutalmish or Kutalmish (Qutalmish is common name in English)

Takabeg (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Suleiman ibn Qutulmish → Suleiman I of Rûm – This article needs to be reverted back to its original title per WP:TITLECON, and WP:NCROY. The original argument that was made on the grounds of consistency is not valid anymore as many of the pages were moved to more concise and appropriate titles in the following years. In fact, at this point, all of the subsequent Rum sultans are named by their first name and regnal number (Suleiman II of Rûm, Kilij Arslan I, Mesud I, Kilij Arslan II, Kaykhusraw I, etc.) The instructions for naming monarchs are also pretty clear, and Suleiman I of Rûm would be the best choice according to the criteria. Keivan.fTalk 21:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The naming convention says 'If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it'. 0 hits for 'Suleiman I of Rûm'. 2000 hits for 'Suleiman ibn Qutulmish'. Wikipedia should not invent terms for subjects when there is already a standard unambiguous precise concise recognizable and natural term for that subject. DrKay (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Suleiman ibn Qutulmish → Suleiman ibn Qutalmish – The consensus from an earlier discussion showed that compared to "Suleiman I of Rum", the current name "Suleiman ibn Qutulmish" (lit. Suleiman son of Qutulmish) is actually more common. However, it seems that the spelling of his father's name is incorrect. The modern Turkish spelling of the name is Kutalmış. Currently, his father's article is at Qutalmish. So an argument based on WP:TITLECON can be made for moving this page. User:Takabeg also had left a comment on the talk page a long time ago, which demonstrated that "Suleiman ibn Qutalmish" is the common name when compared to other variant spellings. The page, thus, needs to be moved based on WP:COMMONNAME as well. Keivan.fTalk 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suleiman's death/suicide

[edit]
  • Komnena states, "When the suicide of Ameer Soliman became known throughout the whole of Asia, each satrap who was governor over a town or fortress, took that respective place and made it his own." No specifics, no mention of a battle.
  • Basan states, "it is thought Suleiman committed suicide". This was mentioned on PontiffSulivahn's talk page about presenting thoughts/beliefs as fact.
  • Ibn al-Athir gives two differing accounts of Suleiman's death(suicide or struck in the face by an arrow)


  • Grousset states, "The two fought a great battle near Aleppo for possession of that city. Suleiman was killed and Tutush added Aleppo to Damascus."
  • "The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture", ed. Christian Lange & Songul Mecit, page 66;"However, despite the proximity to the 'Chrstian enemy' Sulayman did not aim to expand towards the west but towards the east into Syria where he came into conflict with Tutus,...[..]..and was killed in 1086."
  • "The Great Seljuk Empire", A.C.S. Peacock, page 66;"The gravity of the crisis forced Malikshah to march in person to Syria, although in the event Tutush killed Sulayman in battle before the sultan arrived."
Clearly Suleiman committing suicide is not supported well enough by sources. Therefore I will restore the information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas bear, I do not understand why you pay more attention to secondary sources than to the primary sources. It seems you did not read the link I put in the article properly so let me post for you here the part on the battle:
"The Grand Sultan [*i.e. Malek Shah] had a brother, Tutuses, who ruled over Jerusalem, the whole of Mesopotamia, and Aleppo and as far as Baghdad, and was hoping to secure Antioch; when he noticed that the Ameer Soliman was on the point of rebelling, and had already won the province of Antioch for himself, he encamped with his whole army midway between Aleppo and Antioch. On the Ameer Soliman's coming out to meet him, a tremendous battle broke out at once, and when it came to hand to hand fighting, Soliman's troops turned their backs and fled in disorder. In spite of all his protestations Soliman could not restrain them from flight, so seeing his imminent danger he turned aside from the battle and when he thought he had reached a safe spot, he placed his shield on the ground, and throwing himself to the ground, sat down on it. However he had not escaped the notice of his fellow [154] tribesmen; and some of the satraps followed him and said his uncle Tutuses had sent for him. He refused to go as he scented danger. But the satraps insisted and being unable to restrain them by force, as he was alone, he drew his sword from its sheath and plunged it deep into his bowels; and thus the wretched man died wretchedly. And the survivors of Ameer Soliman's forces at once joined Tutuses"
On the other hand, Ibn al-Athir writes first the commonly accepted account and then mentions one report that mentions something else. He does not write that one account says one thing and the other one says the other thing. Together with Anna Komnena's quote that you correctly cited it seems that it was widely known that he had killed himself but there was one report that he killed himself.
What later scholars such as those that you quote write about the topic does not trump what these two primary sources say. Does that mean that Cato the younger was also killed? I am sure there are also other secondary sources that will refer to his death as killed or that he died. Are we to put this type of secondary, sometimes general sources over what the primary sources say? E.g. Groussed does not provide a detailed history on the Seljuks but provides rather a general overview about steppe empires. Why would those later scholars know more - apart from biases that the primary sources arguably have - than the primary sources? PontiffSulivahn (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest reading WP:PRIMARY. Ibn al-Athir gives conflicting accounts and negates itself. Instead of posting childish comments on my talk page, you should learn how Wikipedia is written. Your information concerning his possible suicide is in the article but in note form and properly referenced. Also, changing it to say al-Athir states there is only one source for Suleiman being killed is clearly false as shown by the 3 university sources. As it stands right now, you have Komnena stating suicide at the battle, al-Athir with conflicting accounts and Basan and his "thoughts". Why should that be written over 3 university sources?
Also, this comment from my talk page;
  • "On the other hand, Ibn al-Athir first states that he was killed and then says that there is also one report that suggests he was killed in battle. al-Athir does not simply write "one report says this, another says the other" but it is clear from how he phrases it that this is one report from many."
This is your interpretation and WP:PRIMARY says:
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
  • "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
AND, another personalized comment like this;
  • "I am sorry if this is hurting your feelings.."
Will get you banned from my talk page and the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suleiman_ibn_Qutalmish&oldid=1207846331"