Talk:Zengid dynasty

The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes ,Seljuk noble families ,Zengid Dynasty and Beys

see link

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia. At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

• the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek.
• The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht.
• The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. --Trwiki 10:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

title

I know Zengi himself began as Atabeg of Mosul, but is it correct to use "Atabeg" as the title for all Zengid rulers? john k 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They might have used the title atabeg even if they weren't anyone's atabeg in particular (Zengi, at least, used all sorts of flashy titles). However, ibn al-Qalanisi always refers to Nur ad-Din as "amir" and "son of the atabeg". It's probably better to call them emirs (and it's likely that I listed them all here as atabegs before I really knew what an atabeg was...) Adam Bishop 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we go with "Emir," then? john k (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably better. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

name

The word "Zangi" is Persian and means "black" or, in this case, "African". The dynasty took this name after gaining power in northern Africa. Rendering the term "Zengi" is due to the Turkish vocalic harmony. The founder of the dynasty, Aq Sunqur al-Hajib, did not carry that name. His son was the first to call himself "Zangi", meaning "the African".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.211 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

When did they take power in Africa? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Zengi means "stirrup" in Ancient Turkish. In modern Turkish it's Üzengi. You can see the word "Zengi" in Codex Cumanicus. a riddle from Codex Cumanicus "Oturğanım oba yer basqanım baqır canaq. Ol zengi." "Where I sit is a hilly place. Where I tread is a copper bowl. The stirrup." BöriShad (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Coinage

Coin of Nasir ad-Din Mahmud, mint of Mossul, depicting a female with two winged victories, 1223. British Museum.

Coin of Nur ad-Din Arslan Shah I, mint of Mossul, depicting a classical portrait, 1197. British Museum.

Coin of Mu'izz ad-Din Mahmud, with representation of the moon, mint of Jazira, 1219. British Museum.

Coin of Qutb ad-Din Muhammad, with representation of Roman Emperor Caracalla, mint of Sinjar, 1199. British Museum.

Please find hereafter some coins of the Zengids. Feel free to insert them in the article. PHG (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable source

After politely asking for quote from the two source supplied by user:Carinae986, I was told to simply "assume good faith". Since subsequent searches on google and amazon indicate that the words Zengid/Zangid, Turkish and Persian do not show up on page 152 of Volume 1, I see no reason to assume anything. Therefore, I will tag both "sources" as unreliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kansas - the following was posted to my talk page a couple hours ago. Since you made the initial post there I had just assumed you would keep up on it.

"Kansas Bear, I understand your concerns, given the apparent sensitivity of the subject (I know, I spent all day reverting similar things on the Saladin article), but this isn't really a big deal, of course the Zengids were Turkic. The source Carinae gave is one of any dozens of sources that could be given to support the same thing. And Carinae, I guess you're relatively new here, so please excuse us if we seem hyper-vigilant. Wikipedia can be frustratingly arcane sometimes, and with these subjects we get a lot of vandalism, and lots of people trying to make some sort of nationalistic point, so it helps to be as transparent as possible with sources. We're all on the same side here!" Adam Bishop (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So like Adam said, I'm new here so I'm making an extra effort to not take offense. But the plain fact is that you're asking me to cite something that is common knowledge among people with the relavant background. When you demand to see a citation to prove that arabs spoke arabic, or turks spoke turkic, in the medi eval period, you're like a guy who reads a ww2 article and demands to see a citation to prove that the french spoke french, or the germans spoke german. It's something that most people would understand without having a citation spell it out. Notwithstanding, I provided two citations. For whatever reason, this doesn't seem to have resolved the issue. I'm also overlooking your complaint that the entire text of a 3 volume history of Islam isn't freely and instantly available online. It seems pretty unreasonable to me that you would expect that it would be. Based on your criteria of instant and free access for every single citation, we'd have to dump 90% of the citations on this site. Obviously this isn't a workable proposal. And no I'm not going to type out the whole text either. I know it won't placate you, and in any case I'm not your personal typist. If you want to see the relavant text, what I suggest you do is make a trip to your local library and look it up yourself. Like Adam said, you can find confirmation that Arabs spoke arabic or that Turks spoke turkic in even the most general history of medi eval Islam. Thousands of possible citations are available. I just happened to locate one from my own library.

So look, what this boils down to is that I know something about this subject that you don't, I own and have read a book that you haven't, and you need to just go ahead and give me the benefit of the doubt unless you're willing to go through the extra effort of finding this book yourself. That's what the WP:AGF guidelines tell you to do. I've reverted the page one last time, and if you're still not satisfied, for whatever reason, we'll start the mediation process. If we do, I promise you that my position will be vindicated. I'm familiar with this period, I live right next to a university library, and I don't mind visiting it in order to show - in excruciating, exacting, meticulous, mind-numbing detail - why I'm right on this subject. Carinae986 (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You apparently want to make this a personal issue, which it is not. What I know personally is not relevant here. What you can prove is. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the "burden of proof" is on you, not me. Since you have already admitted having the book(s) in your possession, therefore simple quote(s) to verify should be no problem. So look, as much as you have tried to make this a personal issue(with comments of, "..I know something about this subject that you don't, I own and have read a book that you haven't.."), that is not the this issue here. As I have stated earlier, Volume 1, which is searchable, does not appear to have the words Zengid, Turkish or Persian on page 152. Volume 2, which is searchable on amazon: "Zengids" are listed on pages 266,269,309, Turkish/Turkic does not appear on page 93, Persian does not appear on page 93. This issue can be ended with quotes that state the Zengids used these languages, else you are using original research.

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question..", "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.", "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception.". I eagerly await your "mind-numbing" quotes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not much of a researcher. Try looking for the words Arabic and Syria. Carinae986 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) When this is over you'll understand how completely ridiculous you're being.Carinae986 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not even sure what the argument is. Volume 2 of the Venture of Islam does say that the Turks lived in Persian territories and the languages and cultures intermixed (if not pg. 93 specifically, certainly page 90 and following). Volume 1 talks about the same idea with Arabic and Persian during the initial conquest, which is less relevant to the Zengids. I would suggest that we just copy footnote number 3 from the Great Seljuk Empire article, the quote from Bosworth, which is more explicitly relevant. If the problem is that we don't have a citation that specifically says the Zengids used Persian and Turkish, then I'm sure we could find one, but as Carinae says, it's already pretty obvious, and I don't know whether any author would have gone out of their way to specifically say so. All the Turkic tribes mixed Turkic, Arabic, and Persian titles ("malik-shah" for example), or just used plain Persian titles (the Danishmends for example are a Turkic tribe with a Persian name; Zengi's own name might be Persian; in the list of his titles given by Ibn Qalanisi probably half the words are Persian, like "sipahsalar" which often shows up in Turkic and Arabic titles, etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's do that. I'm all for it. Like you said this is information that can be found in any one of dozens of general histories on this topic. The specific cite doesn't matter at all. This is the argument: I removed the CN tags next to the info box (languages spoken) because common knowledge shouldn't require specific citations. Kansas reverted for whatever reason, so I went ahead and provided inline citations. He reverted again because I wouldn't type out the entire text for his personal benefit, and he couldn't find a free copy online. Maybe he can (gasp) go to a library? Or read a book? Something like that, maybe? I'm not his personal typist, in any case. Now I'm trying to get this resolved. As you can see, without success. Carinae986 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the volume of text written by user:Carinae attempting to make this issue personal(You're not much of a researcher[1], how completely ridiculous you're being[2], what this boils down to is that I know something about this subject that you don't, I own and have read a book that you haven't[3], and how I do not know anything[4]) one would think two quotes from his "sources" would have taken up less space and time! You and user:Carinae can have this article since my "ignorance" is getting in the way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it would have been a total waste of time. I know someone who can't be persuaded by the evidence when I see one. That you were even asking for a citation on this demonstrates that you don't actually know anything about it. You're like a guy who reads a ww2 article and demands to see citations that the nazis spoke german, then sits in the corner and fusses because nobody will take his request seriously. You need to stop editing topics that you don't know anything about. Fair? Carinae986 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Carinae, remember that these articles aren't for specialists. They're intended to be read by anyone, specialists or not. We can't oppose something just because "everyone knows" it. Clearly, not everyone does. If someone is reading this article and they see that a Turkic group used Persian, without knowing anything else about the subject, would that not seem unusual? If they wanted to know more about the subject, then shouldn't we help them out? Currently this article wouldn't help them at all. It doesn't matter if you already know why. So, if you really want to help, stop being a dick, and stop making ridiculous comparisons (if the Nazis spoke Hungarian, maybe the comparison would make sense). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I do want to help any longer. Think of all the time and effort I've already spent trying to convince this one lone ignoramus... it's unconscionable. If I were going to live a thousand years, I don't think I could justify it to myself. I'm out. Carinae986 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• In response to the third opinion request made for this discussion, I am declining it for several reasons. Firstly, there are already 3 editors involved, so this would be a fourth opinion. And secondly, the situation seems to have been resolved to some degree. The content now has a good cite, and Carinae seems to have stormed off in a huff. For what it's worth, I'll echo the sentiment by Adam Bishop that it doesn't matter what we know, we can't assume that everyone knows such things (not only editors, but readers as well). Just because you happen to be an expert on a particular subject doesn't mean that we should write the article assuming that the reader is already familiar with the basics. For the same reason, this is why we don't assume that you already know that in the (ε, δ)-definition of limit, δ can be understood as the radius of a circle or sphere or higher-dimensional analogy for functions with more than one input value. This would be like saying "French people speak French" to a mathematician, but Wikipedia articles are not written to an audience of experts. —SW— ^soliloquize 23:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)