Talk:Atabeg

message: This article gets a lot of its sources from 1911 Britannica, see , and Amin Maalouf's Crusades Through Arab Eyes. If anyone feels that something needs a source, they can just add a  tag to it. However, claiming that the entire article is unreferenced is false. Secondly, the article is wikifed. If it needs sections, add . If it needs to be copyedited, add . Khoikhoi 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason 

message: 1) 1137–75 Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html
2) "Eldegüzid Dynasty, also spelled Ildigüzid, Ildegüzid, Ildegizid , or Ildenizid, (1137–1225), Iranian atabeg dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled in Azerbaijan (now divided between Iran and Azerbaijan)." "Eldegüzid Dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Jan. 2007 <http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9032246>.
3) The Atabegs Atabeg was a Turkish title used by the Seljuks for members of the court ministers and leaders. Some of the Atabegs managed to take control of the state leading to the emergence of the petty states in the 12th century A.D. in Iran and Syria. They ruled for a long period of time, most remarkable among them were the Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Iran. ‏الأتابكة : أتابك : لقب تركي أطلقه السلاجقة على بعض رجال البلاط والوزراء والقادة، تمكن بعض الأتابكة من السيطرة على الحكم فنشأت في القرن 12 م دويلات متعددة في بلاد فارس وبلاد الشام وطال حكمها. أشهرها أتابكة أذربيجان وفارس.‏ http://dictionary.al-islam.com/Eng/Dicts/SelDict.asp?Lang=Eng&DI=66&Theme=18
4) Peter Stearns, William Leonard Langer (ed.). The Encyclopedia of World History: ancient, medieval, and modern. Sixth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, p. 119
5) "At first, [Jalal al-Din] Hasan allied himself to the Kwarazmshah ruler, but then he allied himself with caliph al-Nasir. Hasan materially helped the atabeg of Azerbaijan in the wars in ‘Iraq ‘Ajami, once in a joint military campaign, and once by sending an assassin." Qamar-ul Huda. "Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis." RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, p. 35.
Do not revert and edit what has already been agreed to previously by several active editors. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional sources to consider on the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan and Atabegs in general

message: Nareklm, there has been a "citation needed" forever now next to this sentence: "Around the year 1554, Nagorno-Karabakh became a state under the rule of an Atabeg, at first part of Persia, Then part of the Ottoman Empire, until the 1606 founding of the Khanate of Qarabagh (Karabakh).[citation needed]" You've just modified simply "Karabakh" into "Nagorno-Karabakh". Are there any reliable references that some (vassal) Atabek state existed there in those times? --AdilBaguirov 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it same thing, because they redirect there. Nareklm 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NK and Karabakh are not exactly the same thing -- there was never a political entity of Nagorno-Karabakh before 20th century, whilst there was Karabakh. Meanwhile, the main question is, where is the required and requested citation about the existence of some atabekdom in Karabakh in Safavid and Ottoman times? --AdilBaguirov 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They probably confused Atabey with Beylerbey. Grandmaster 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karabakh Atabek 

message: The reference has been provided very clearly all along: "1137–75. Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225." As you see, the Encyclopedia of World History does not say "in what is now" Azerbaijan, but instead simply Azerbaijan. This is perfectly warranted by the fact that Azerbaijan was not just a historic, geographic, administrative, cultural and ethnic concept, but also political entity too -- just like it is today (more sources, etc., have been provided a month ago above). Meanwhile, Iran did not exist as a political entity at the time, and hence it would be more correct to ammend the quote to state "...and what is now northwestern Iran..." However, it is best to stick to the quote the way it is. --AdilBaguirov 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we are talking about modern day political boundaries that did not exist then.Azerbaijani 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the text in the article is EXACTLY the way it is in the source, Encyclopedia of World History. Meanwhile, all modern states have different borders from what they were 100 years ago -- or 800 years ago. That doesn't mean we have to constantly specify that, especially when there is a significant overlap of territories between the historic and modern states, when they share the same name, and when it is clear that they were essentially an mini-empire, not a nation-state. That's why the wording is correct, and you should not be changing it to suit your POV. --AdilBaguirov 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan in the Caucasus did not exist then.Azerbaijani 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant reverts by users Azerbaijani and Nareklm (Artaxiad) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atabeg. 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/20070927204101/http://rbedrosian.com/d3a.htm to http://rbedrosian.com/d3a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908024529/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f1/v13f1004.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f1/v13f1004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic environment. The aim is to inform the readers in the simplest and neutral understandable way. Almost all of the reachable sources are in the Turkic origin of this title. Based on just one theory, I do not understand giving two different origins to the title. In the mentioned sources it is stated that the title is Turkic origin. Despite this, it is stated in a very absurd and pointless way that it has two origins.
Bey It is a title have used in all Turkic peoples and societies. There may be different theories about the origin. It's really ridiculous to say that two origins. The showed source points to Turkic origin. This change  is Unsourced POV and WP:OR. The title was used entirely by Turkic origin leaders and societies. Non-Turkic leaders and atabegs adopted the Turkic title of Atabeg. 
To give an example;
*From the names of the earlier members at least, it seems they were ethnically Persian, but, like the Hazaraspids, they adopted the Turkish title of Atabeg. Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Columbia University, 1996. Excerpt 1 pp 209: "The Atabegs of Yazd" (1141-1297)" Excerpt 2:
*  ATABEG Title of the chief tutor and guardian of the georgian heir aapparent; it was derived from the Turkish ata(father) beg(prince). Atabegs were introduced to georgia during th Seljuk conquest of the 11th century.. Alexander Mikaberidze, Historical Dictionary of Georgia. pp 149.
Numerous examples can be given. In spite of the fact that the sources pointed to the Turkic root, Based on a theory, As if it were certain ; The two origins are very misleading And meaningless. Our aim is to inform the readers in the most accurate and understandable way.--Halil Can (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Turkic and Iranian ?