Talk:Kayqubad I

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

Greek ethnicity[edit]

I mean it's true, but this should then be included on every Turkic sultan of Seljuk/Ottoman empire, since all of them 99% of the time had non-turkic mothers. Just weird it's specifically talked about on this page, but not on all the other hundreds of sultans/rulers which proved by fact wasn't always Turkic ehtnically speaking. Oturner91 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

The Turkish name (or an English one derived from it if one exists) should be the one used as the article's title, as it is likely also the one in common use in academia (and therefore considered the English spelling). The Arabic and/or Farsi transliteration and script should also be included, despite Zaparojdik's screaming to the contrary.

Interestingly, the Turkish spelling according to the Turkish article on the man is "Alaeddin" not "Alaaddin". If someone could pick up an English-language scholarly book on the Sultanate of Rûm to get uniform set of names of the Sultans, that would be great. Here's a book I found during a search, but which is not at my university library: Cahen, Claude, The Formation of Turkey. The Seljukid Sultanate of Rum: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, Harlow, 2001.

Also, the article title should probably just be the last or regnal name, not the whole name as it now stands. Other Sultans have just the regnal name like Kay Khusrau I and Kilij Arslan II. I think this is generally the convention for royalty. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current proposal by Mardavich and myself, using the Arabic transliteration, was based on discussion on User talk:Tajik and User talk:E104421 and on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). Basically, what we found out was that there was no single English name form dominant in the relevant literature - most literature uses some form of Arabic-style scholarly transliteration, but with differences in detail. In that case, according to the MoS, a consistent Wikipedia house-style version of a standard Arabic transliteration should be used, which is what we now have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Fut.Perf. This is a silly edit war, the Arabic-style scholarly transliteration is the most relevant as the Seljuqs used Perso-Arabic script. --Mardavich 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For friends of historical spellings, there's this great numismatical website, mehmeteti.150m.com/seljuqsofrum/index.htm, with lots of beautiful original coins bearing those Seljuk names. Perhaps someone could contact the guy and ask if he would license us one or two for illustration? It's time we actually start expanding the content of that article, don't you guys think? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there really isn't a form that's common (I'm not entirely sure that's correct), then I agree something has to just be chosen. However, I reiterate that I do not think the `Ala' ad-Din part should be included, as per the above examples of other Sultans and per the prevailing usage (do a search for "Sultanate of Rum" and look at the results). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have no problem about that. By the way, we ought to start thinking about disambiguation pages too. There's the mythical Shahname character Kay-Qubad, who hasn't got an article yet, there's three or four Seljuq sultans of the same name, and then there's also some modern Bangladeshi guy who's taken the Kaykobad version. - With all the required alternative spellings, that's going to be a big web of dablinks and redirects. And all for this tiny bit of content... Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding! You could probably end up with a hundred redirects for a single name with all these different transliterations of all these different languages, if you wanted to be truly comprehensive. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put my two cents in, most encyclopaedias, and here on Wiki, allow for Turkish renderings of the names of Turks in history - please check Mehmed II, Mehmed is the Turkish rendering of Muhammad, and he has always been known as Mehmed. Such renderings are widely accepted, in Wikipedia and many other academic works. "Purism" of name doesn't have any importance. So is the current name the concensus?? You gotta be joking. Are the people who are moving this article going to change the title of the Mehmed II article to Muhammad II? No, I don't think so. Besides, we should also run a google check to see the most common name in English. Baristarim 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They might have used the Persian-Arabic script, however: Most people didn't read and write back then, and Seljuq people spoke Turkic languages, therefore what is important is not the script, but the language. It is as simple as that. Transliteration has nothing to do with this: Nobody back then knew how to read and write, so I wonder how someone can claim that "Seljuqs used this or that script".. Baristarim 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I didn't very closely check the section on "Ottoman Turkish" in the Arabic MoS guideline. If you want, check it out and propose a different spelling on its basis if it's more "Turkish". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Seljuqs, the dynasty, didn't use "Ottoman Turkish" or "Turkish", they used Persian, the script and the language. As a matter of fact, the Seljuqs are renowned as the great propagators and patrons of Persian culture, art, literature, and language. Their official title was "The Great Seljuqs of Iran". Mehmed was an Ottoman Turk who used Ottoman Turkish in his court, he was called Mehmed in his own time, the naming of his article can not be a precedent for the naming of an article on a Seljuq emperor who used Persian in his court. They lived in different eras, under different cultures, and used different languages in their courts. --Mardavich 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The laqab, or honorific, Alâeddin or 'Alā al-Din, "Excellence of Religion," is helpful to know, but not strictly important for identifying this ruler. Such laqabs are used throughout the period and the title 'Alā al-Din is assigned to several notable figures in the Seljuq line and other contemporaries outside the dynasty. The “Alâeddin” in the title of this article ought to be dropped.

The sultan’s name is transliterated two ways in contemporary English language scholarship: numismatic works by Stephen Album print “Kayqubad,” while the standard history of the period by Claude Cahen prints “Kayqubadh.” Both of these transliterate the qaaf of the sultan’s name as q. Several of the other transliterations which have stood at the top of this article for some time now seem to be unsystematic versions of the name of the king in the Shahnameh. In English language academic literature the Anatolian sultan’s name is spelled either “Kayqubad” or “Kayqubadh.”

The top of the article ought to read as follows:

Kayqubad I (Arabic: علا الدين كيقباد بن كيكاوس, 'Alā al-Dīn Kayqubād bin Kaykā'ūs; Turkish: I. Alâeddin Keykubad) Aramgar 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa. Cahen everywhere prints "Kay-kubādh." I am sorry about the error. Aramgar 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have book but the snippets in Google Books show that it appears without the dash as well as "Kaykubādh", e.g. in the book's index in two places. The Anglicization without the final "h" is far more common though in the books indexed by Goog, so that was a good choice. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

There is a statue of Kay-Qubad at the intersection of Keykubat Caddesi and Atatürk Caddesi in Alanya which I have seen before. Here's one shot. A large free-use version would be nice.--Patrickneil 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page from Kayqubad I to Alaeddin Keykubad I, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see the disambiguation page Alaeddin Keykubad for the three homonymous Seljuk Sultan of Rûm of the 13th century. Explained in detail in the body of that page the various forms of the name used in different sources with direct links in the footnotes. There has been some discussion over this (see talk page) but it remains that Alâeddin Keykubad I is the correct form. There are further explanations along with the table comprising the names of all sultans. I would like to see that this is uncontested and then I will make move requests for other sultans as well, also providing indication of the use in sources.— Cretanforever 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alâeddin Keykubad actually redirects to Alaeddin Keykubad (no circumflex), so you might either add a move request there as well, or maybe go for "Alaeddin Keykubad I" instead. I've generally tried to say out of the naming controversy, but it doesn't make much sense to not include both names to me.--Patrick Ѻ 14:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Copied from Talk:Kayqubad III] I don't agree. Cahen's The Formation of Turkey uses "Kay Qubādh [numeral], [epithet]" in the index. The Cambridge History of Iran seems to use Kai-Qubād. The Origins of the Ottoman Empire indexes him as 'Alā' al-Dīn Kai-Qubād and generally as [epithet] [name]. If you wanted short, unambiguous, and no diacritics, Kayqubad would be a reasonable choice. So, no, I'm not in favour of moving to the names proposed, and if they were to be moved to long names I'd want different ones. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remarks for this great ruler, great builder, great warrior, and above all, great Turk. I will incorporate the variants you mentioned into Alaeddin Keykubad disambiguation page. C'est toujours mieux de tout verifier pour ne pas se laisser berner a chaque fois. Honest regards. Cretanforever 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sources mentioned by Angusmclellan, I would add that the numismatic literature identifies him as either “Kayqubad” or “Kayqubadh.” The names of the important monuments that derive from Kayqubad’s laqab are explicated by the Persian/Arabic transcription ('Alā al-Dīn Kayqubād) and the Turkish language version (Turkish: I. Alâeddin Keykubad) already present in the introductory paragraph. This name, as well as those of the other sultans, should be left as is. Aramgar 03:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Move request 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move Duja► 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to the “disambiguation page” entitled Alaeddin Keykubad have changed nothing. All the information presented there is known to me and to other interested parties. The form ‘Kayqubad’ has the virtue of brevity and is well represented in English language academic literature. In addition it more closely mirrors the spelling of the name in primary source materials (Persian histories and Arabic inscriptions). The form “Alaeddin Keykubad” sits well on Turkish lips but is a nationalized version of an Arabic and Persian name. It finds occasional usage in historical literature in western languages but is far less well-known outside of Turkey. Let us take a more international view and leave the spelling as is. Aramgar 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we are having the same discussion again after only a week. My view hasn't changed since last time: Kayqubad is fine for a short name, and if we were to use the long names I'd prefer the variants which are more common in English, which means Perso-Arabic ones. There is nothing ridiculous about this: my opinion is founded on the evidence I have found. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. “Alaeddin Keykubad” is not the form most current in English scholarship and hence not the best term for an English Wikipedia article. To promote an esoteric Turkish spelling over the form most common in English smacks of nationalism. Shall we change the spelling of a certain country to Türkiye as well? Kafka Liz 10:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Kayqubad I is perfectly fine for a title. His fuller name and titles can go in the first line of the article. (I actually would have expected to see this as "Kay Kubad".) Adam Bishop 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, about the first line, I agree that some Anglicization of his full name should be bolded in the first line. Even if this is the final resting spot of the page, shouldn't there be a complete name with all titles per WP:LEAD? The example they give is the article on the UK having the full name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." In terms of which spelling it should be, I've used "Alaeddin" on the Alanya page when I need to.--Patrick Ѻ 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that the Arabic transliteration in the first line was sufficient. Would you prefer that ‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad appear in bold per WP:LEAD? Aramgar 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I understand about the honorific. If we don't include "‘Ala al-Din" (or equivalent) in the bold, then we should explain the name elsewhere. What about a short "Name" section above the biography? It could also addresses the language controversy. My connection to this article comes from living in Alanya, a town whose name comes from this laqab, so clearly it was an important part of his name to him and people of the time.--Patrick Ѻ 15:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to put the laqab in bold on the first line in its transliterated form ‘Ala al-Din. I am not in favor of including a section on his name: this would clutter the text and likely lead to further controversy. The article title ought to stand as is. I understand the need to mention his laqab in connection with Alanya and the various monuments called “Alaeddin.” Please see the elegant solution offered by the editor Kafka Liz at Gevher Nesibe, where understanding the name “Gıyasiye Medrese” requires knowledge of Kaykhusraw’s laqab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramgar (talkAramgar 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Draft move request 3[edit]

Alaeddin Keykubad I is the correct form (see the article on Alanya, 6 September 2008 featured article). If consensus, the titles for the two other homonymous Seljuk Sultan of Rûm of the 13th century can be adapted. Various forms of the name used in different sources is explained in the body of Alaeddin Keykubad with direct links in the footnotes. Cretanforever 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with the above stamp. The move request was actually posted on 26 October 2008. See diff [2]. Aramgar (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again? We have been through this before, and the arguments above are still valid. Alaeddin Keykubad may be the correct form in Turkish but is not in widespread use outside of Turkey. Consider the most recent reference in the bibliography: Peacock, A. C. S. (2006). "The Saljūq Campaign against the Crimea and the Expansionist Policy of the Early Reign of 'Alā' al-Dīn Kayqubād". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: pp. 133-149. doi:10.1017/S1356186306005979. ISSN 0035-869X 1356-1863 0035-869X. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check |issn= value (help). Let us focus on content rather than rehashing this again. Aramgar (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keykubat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Keykubat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Keykubat.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kayqubad I's Selected[edit]

@Beshogur ! Here is an issue in the content:Biography. I added, "Kayqubad wanted Rukn al-Din as his successor". (source:Tamta's World, Page no.197). While in the article Kaykhusraw II, content:Succession says "the sultan (Kayqubad I) had chosen as heir the younger ‘Izz al-Din'". I have not searched for more books about this issue because I am busy. Please look into some other books for this issue. Thank You. IAmAtHome (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The book is unavaiable for me. Plus have really no idea about Rum Seljuks. Although, TDV states: "He was probably born in 586 (1190). His father, I. Gıyâseddin Keykhusrev, had to leave the throne to his brother Rükneddin Süleyman in 592 (1196), and when he went abroad, Alâeddin Keykubad was with his father with his brother Keykâvus." (google translation)[1] Can you elaborate what really the problem is? Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about Kayqubad I's sons. Which was selected by him as the successor, Rukn al-Din or Izz al-Din? I have changed the source url. Check it now.

IAmAtHome (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozan33Ankara: Here is a confusion. Please see this issue if you have sometime. Thank You.

IAmAtHome (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging, I will look into it. Cheers -Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kayqubad_I&oldid=1207932281"