Talk:Danishmendids

confused list of rulers

Definitely some confusion on this list, as compared with the linked rulers' pages [] and [] and [] and what Britannica says. It isn't clear whether one person ruled from 1084-1134 or two: Gazi Gümüshtigin and Emir Gazi. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Danishmend-dynasty. Hopefully someone can clear this up! Further info added: A good source is here: https://archive.org/details/danishmendids-ei/page/n1/mode/1up . The confusion on the list appears to be that the first two rulers are in fact the same person (as stated on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danishmend_Gazi Danishmend Gazi was also known as Gümüshtigin), and Danishmend Gazi's death date is incorrect. The list should be: Danishmend Gazi: 1075-1104 Emir Gazi: 1104-1134 Melik Mehmed Gazi: 1134-1142

The Gazi Gümüshtigin page is confused, perhaps based on the Turkish TV series the editor cited, Diriliş:_Ertuğrul. It should probably just be deleted. (I will try to do some of these edits but I'm not handy with editing Wikipedia, as you can probably tell!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.134.46 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Danishmend

What is beginning date of Danishmend Gazi's reign? 1071 (as written in the infobox) or 1097 (as written in the dynasty timeline ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danishmends. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405014921/http://archnet.org:80/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11582 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11582
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721002502/http://mehmeteti.150m.com/danishmendids/index.htm to http://mehmeteti.150m.com/danishmendids/index.htm

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) 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danishmends. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930021027/http://www.ottomanstore.com/switch.php?file=ProductInfo&cat_id=82&product_id=1146 to http://www.ottomanstore.com/switch.php?file=ProductInfo&cat_id=82&product_id=1146
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11582%20%28fact%20sheet%29
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.itudergi.itu.edu.tr/tammetin/itu-a_2006_5_2_M_Guler.pdf%20%28full%20text%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Georgian?

@Georgiano: The source you usedfor the Georgian claim is outdated. Furthermore, you didn't add a page number. The vast majority of WP:RS sources consider the Danishmends to be Turkomans/Oghuz Turks.

• "Amir Ḡāzī Taylu Gümüš-tigin Aḥmad (or Moḥammad) Dānešmand (d. 498/1104), founder of a Turkman dynasty in northern Cappadocia toward the end of the 11th century." -- Tahsin Yazici (1993). "DĀNEŠMAND". Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, pp. 654-655
• "His death in 1092 marked the end of Seljuk unity. The Seljuks of Anatolia now ruled autonomously and faced on their territory the rivalry of another Turkish family, the Danishmends. In Iraq and Iran, Malikhāh's sons contended for power, while in Syria-Palestine power was divided among Malikshāh's nephews and several Turkish emirs." -- Anne-Marie Eddé (2002). Seljuks in André Vauchez. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press
• "Emperor Alexios maintained his claim to Antioch and felt that Bohemond had cheated him. Bohemond himself was captured in 1100 in battle against the Danishmend Turks" -- Nicholas Morton (2010). Crusades, in Clifford J. Rogers The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology . Oxford University Press p. 466
• "Danishmend, a Turkoman emir of impenetrably obscure origins, controlled key towns and roads in the northern and eastern Anatolia. If one was to judge from the evidence of the Danishmendname, one would have to regard the Danishmend (...)" -- Jace Stuckey. (2016). The Eastern Mediterranean Frontier of Latin Christendom Routledge. p. 304

Do you have any RS sources that prove a Georgian origin? Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Suren Yeremian, Danishmand was the Armeno-Georgian Hrahat/Rat Orbelean/Liparitean. Danishmand's contemporary, Matthew of Edessa followed by the 13th century Vardan Areveltsi mentions about Danishmand's Armenian origin too.Georgiano (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Origins of Liparitids are disputed. In fact during Seljuk invasions they were prominent noble family from Iberian/Georgian lands.Georgiano (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Georgiano: Thank you for your reply. I was able to pinpoint the corresponding page in Bedrosian's The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13th-14th Centuries (p. 85). Bedrosian cites Eremyan and a certain Halil Yinanc for the claim. I will rewrite the section per WP:DUE and WP:VER. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 7 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. The only evidence presented over the two weeks supported the move. Dekimasuよ! 19:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Danishmends → Danishmendids – Jstor search: "Danishmends" gets 17 hits, "Danishmendids" gets 50. The suffix "-ids" is more appropriate, as it more clearly implies an actual dynasty (cf. other Anatolian Beyliks/Turkmen Beyliks: Artuqids, Saltukids, etc.). Especially as the word "Danishmend/Daneshmand" is a noun with a different meaning, and can easily be confused with "Danishmends". "Danishmendids" is used by numerous high-quality sources, including the Encyclopedia of Islam and Islamic Desk Reference. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm pretty sure the WP:COMMONNAME is still Danishmends. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Can you prove it? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversial move

Looks like the article was moved from Danishmendids to Danishmendid dynasty by Auteuil-Passy without any discussion, even though we have a RM from 2019 above. I'll be moving the article back. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for further information. Bogazicili (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes by Auteuil-Passy is problematic.

For the lead, please use overview sources such as a book about Danishmendids, not random sources such as crusades.

I was going to add a source about history of Turkey.

Howard, Douglas A. (2016). The History of Turkey, p. 36:

Eastern Anatolia was divided between the Danishmends and several other Turkish kingdoms.

Bogazicili (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I added sources about the names, that you didn’t have to delete. I also corrected the very poor English syntax of your original lead. Most dynasty articles contain the word “dynasty” on Wikipedia, to distinguish from the inhabitants. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The scope of this article is not about the dynasty. See the requested move above. As I said, please use overview sources about Danishmendids.

Your sources were:

• Jaspert, Nikolas (2006). The Crusades. p. 185
• A History of the Crusades. 1987. p. 507

These are problematic for the first sentence in this article. Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Also defining “Danishmendids” as a beylik makes very little sense. The Danishmendids are first and foremost a dynasty. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves if you disagree with the scope of this article, and follow the steps there. Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with “scope”. Many (if not most) articles about dynasties on Wikipedia also deal with the entities ruled by them. But saying “the Danishmendids is [sic] a beylik” is neither correct English nor makes much sense. TDV Ansiklopedi defines Danişmendliler from the very beginning as a dynasty (hanedan):

“DÂNİŞMENDLİLER – 1071-1178 yılları arasında Sivas, Tokat, Amasya, Kayseri, Malatya ve civarlarında hüküm süren Türkmen hânedanı.”

Why don’t you ask others what they think? @Srnec, LouisAragon, and Necrothesp:. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Several issues with you giving TDV Ansiklopedisi, which is a tertiary source.

• Articles should be primarily based on WP:Secondary
• English-language sources are preferred in English-language Wikipedia, see WP:NONENG
• You can check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see how reliable that source is
• Your own source also refers to Danishmendids as a beylik: Anadolu’da kurulan beyliklerin en büyüklerinden biri olan Dânişmendliler, ...

Additional source, The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 1:

• p. 16:

  Judging that the Sultanate of Rum was at the time going through internal dissensions, the emperor moved his forces against the emirate of the Danişmends of Malatya (Melitene), which he defeated in 1135.

• p. 358:

  The establishment of the Seljuk state was not a particularly easy process. While the Turks struggled with Byzantium on the one hand, they also fought the Danişmends, another Turkish state which had control of part of central and eastern Anatolia, on the other.

So reliable sources do refer to Danishmendids as a state, beylik, emirate etc. Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

“Emirate of the Danishmends” means “emirate of the Danishmendid rulers”. The vast majority of sources in English define “Danishmend(id)s” as the Danishmend(id) dynasty, Britannica for example. If you want to rename the article as “state, beylik, emirate”, you should ask for it with valid sources. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I had actually added a reference for “Danishmendid Beylik” before you deleted it for no reason… Also note that the corresponding article in Turkish is called “Danişmendliler Beyliği”. If the Turkish Wikipedia doesn’t confuse the dynasty and the beylik ruled by it, why do you want to impose such confusion in the English Wikipedia? Auteuil-Passy (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please provide backing for your claim: The vast majority of sources in English ...

The article title is already Danishmendids, I do not want to rename it. Its scope is already more than the dynasty, see: Danishmendids#Culture_and_legend.

Beylik also means something like a country, see Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It is very obvious. Even a simple search on Google Books could show you that:

• “The Danishmends was a …”: 0 result.
• “The Danishmends were a …”: “The Danishmends were a Turkoman dynasty that ruled north-central and eastern Anatolia […]”

Same with “Danishmendids”:

• “The Danishmendids was a …”: 0 result.
• “The Danishmendids were a …”: “The Danishmendids were a Turkish family who dominated central Anatolia […]”, “The Danishmendids were a rival Turcoman dynasty ruling considerable territories […]”

Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a very crude way to do a search, the sources word it differently, see above sources: The History of Turkey by Howard, Douglas A and The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 1 Bogazicili (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is highly indicative of how we should define “Danishmendids” on Wikipedia. Please stop doing WP:OriginalResearch to try and push the conception of “Danishmendids” as a state before being the name of a dynasty. We’ve lost enough time. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Danishmendid could refer to both dynasty and beylik (petty kingdom).

I gave you quotes from a high quality source, so there is no WP:OR.

I think we should proceed to WP:DR. Bogazicili (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The title of the article is “Danishmendids”, and in English “Danishmendids” refers first and foremost to the Danishmendid dynasty, per the majority of sources, including those I’ve cited.

If you want to add that “the Danishmendids” may also refer to the Danishmendid Beylik, you can do so after the definition as a dynasty, with sources. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You can proceed to WP:DR if you want. It won’t change the fact that “Danishmendids” refers first and foremost to the Danishmendid dynasty in English. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Auteuil-Passy, once again, this change is problematic. The scope of this article is not solely about the dynasty. Bogazicili (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Not problematic per my response above. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The Danishmendids were a dynasty that ruled a state. This article covers both. "Danishmendids" is plural. You cannot say "Danishmendids was". The title does not need changing, but Auteuil-Passy's most recent edits to the lead seem fine. Whether we need the terms "Danishmendid dynasty" and "Danishmendid beylik" in bold is a separate question on which I don't have a strong opinion. Seems like bloat, but may help readers understand what is going on. Srnec (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Danishmendids may refer to both dynasty or the state. So I think the current first sentence is against WP:NPOV.

Beylik in general also refers to the country or state Beylik entry in Encyclopaedia of Islam

I will be editing it, and if there is any disagreement we can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Auteuil-Passy, I'm also concerned about WP:Canvass here. Can you tell me the rationale why you randomly pinged 3 editors in a low-visibility article such as this ? Why those 3 editors? Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The entry “Beylik” doesn’t say that a beylik is a dynasty. Stop diverting sources. “Danishmendids” means the members of the Danishmendid dynasty before anything else.

The three editors I pinged were involved in the above discussion which you mentioned. Please read Wikipedia’s rules before accusing people of canvassing. Your edits since yesterday fall under the definition of WP:VANDALISM. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you see any content issues, we can proceed to WP:Dispute resolution. Any editor conduct issues can be discussed in user talk page or reported in WP:ANI Bogazicili (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

And I see, you pinged 3 editors in Talk:Danishmendids#Requested_move_7_February_2019. You didn't say when you were pinging. Bogazicili (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Beshogur, Danishmendids may refer to both the dynasty (ruling family) or the state named after them. Why did you make the recent changes into the lead? It doesn't seem in line with WP:NPOV Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought that dynasty/state had the same context here. Added "beylik", better? Danishmendid Beylik sounds kinda redundant tho. What's the difference? Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Most readers won't even know what a Beylik is. And which Beylik?

I preferred this version: Bogazicili (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, readers probably knows what a beylik is if they found this page (means they're interested), and they can click the link to beyliks. I used a similar format to Khazars. "Danishmendid Beylik" seems just WP:OR, but it's alright on the infobox. We don't even know if many of those beylik had a proper name. The previous version is so confusing. What's wrong with dynasty? Anatolian beyliks has an avg of 300 visitors per day btw. Beshogur (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Technically, you made a WP:OR. The sources I added talks about a Turkish state. You changed the wording and added the sources after "dynasty".

It's better to have confusing wording rather than WP:OR. Someone else can come and improve the wording at least. Bogazicili (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no wp:or, also fixed that. I used those references just to point out Turkish (imo it's anachronistic too). Also Artuqids. Beylik or dynasty? Since it's similar, and wasn't a single state. Beshogur (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Most Turkey-related articles are low quality (not GA or FA) so Artuqids and Khazars may be low quality too. For Artuqids, you will have to look at what sources say. Bogazicili (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean we can add Khazar Khaganate too, but that's just redundant. It's just a made up name. Similarly Danishmendid Beylik. Okay Danishmendids were a beylik, but the name? Artuqids more like a dynasty that ruled several beyliks. Beshogur (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Ottomans may refer to both the dynasty (ruling family) or the state. We have two articles in Wikipedia for this: Ottoman dynasty and Ottoman Empire.

Similarly, Danishmendids may refer to both the dynasty or the state. But we do not need to have two separate articles on this, given the limited article content. If someone created separate Danishmendid dynasty and Danishmendi Beylik articles, they'd be probably merged into the same article.

The scope of this article includes both the dynasty and the state. They may have a variety of names, such as Danishmendids, Danishmends, Danishmend Beylik, Danishmend principality etc. But the scope of this article includes both.

If you don't mind, I'm just going to revert to the older version. It's more NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What's POV here? Also the date 1075 is out of nowhere. Ottoman Empire is a well attested name, Danishmendid Beylik isn't. We don't need two articles. Beshogur (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You can remove the 1075 and make other changes etc. I just prefer this part: "... were a Turkish dynasty. These terms also refer to the Turkish state in Anatolia. ... is also known as the Danishmendid Beylik (Turkish: Dânişmendliler Beyliği)" These make it clear that the article scope includes both the dynasty and the state. Bogazicili (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)