![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wait, why is Mughal and Timurid and Golden Horde empires on this BUT NOT the mongol empire? You turks do know that all those empires were founded by Mongols right? I mean if Genghis Khan wasn't a turk, then it stands to reason that Babur, Golden horde guy (ogadei?) and Timur weren't turkish either. 71.241.250.239 ( talk) 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Batı Hun diye bir devlet yoktu. 1969'de icat edildi. Ondan önceki kayıtlarda hiç rastlanmıyor. Bazen Hunnic Empire (Avrupa Hun) için Batı Hun terimi kullanılmıştır. Bu uydurulken yapilan bariz ve ciddi bir hatadır. "Classification as a separate state is subject to severe criticism" ifadesine sığınmayacak bir meseledir. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg ( talk) 03:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The former heading of the third column was founder according to PTT and Turk Telecom. The names given in the column are the names of founders of states specified in commertial smart cards. But these names are totally unsourced and have no academic importance. I feel it is better to show the founders (or at least the names of the earliest deciphered rulers) as shown in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Situation of "Western Hunnic Empire" is uncertain. In Turkey "Western Hunnic Empire" is sometimes used for Hunnic Empire (Avrupa Hun İmparatorluğu, European Hunnic Empire). And when this list was invented in 1969, nobody knew what was "Western Hunnic Empire". Because they show only the name of first ruler of "Western Hunnic Empire" and duration. The ruler belongs to Northern Xiongnu ( 北匈奴) but the duration belongs to Southern Xiongnu ( 南匈奴). Takabeg ( talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the name of this article be moved to 16 Great Turkish Empires. But the proposer hasn't started the discussion. Without knowing the rationale it is impossible to discuss. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yukarıdaki tanımlamada sözü edilen halk bu alan içinde oturmakta olan halktır. Bu nedenle Yeni Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'ni kuran Türk Ulusu'nun kökeni 16 Türk Beyliğine dayanır diyoruz. Bu halk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin simgesi olan Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsunda 16 yıldız biçiminde Türk Ulusu adıyla somutlaşmıştır. Bir takım çarpık düşüncelerle, Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsundaki yıldızları eski Türk devletlerine bağlamak yanlıştır. Ne denli sıkıştırılsa, ne denli ince hesap yapılsa da tarihte kurulmuş en az 10 larla Türk devleti açıkta kalır. (X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1994, p. 2947.)
Takabeg ( talk) 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 05:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"a historical discourse that was created in 1969 to explain"
Created by whom? Any particular individuals or publications credited with popularizing this idea? Dimadick ( talk) 06:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted an introductory phrase which stated that the 16 states are based on Turkish Islamic synthesis. Turkish Islamic synthesis was postulated in 1983 [1] and the notion of 16 states is much older than that. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"16 Great Turkish Empires is a historical discourse that was created in 1969 to explain the meaning of 16 stars of the presidential seal of Turkey." That is bad grammer. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say. Is "16 Great Turkish Empires" the name of a conference / publication? Did the stars on the seal not have an official meaning before 1969? How can a discourse be created in 1969 and inaugurated in 1985? Can a "discourse" even be "created"? Iapetus ( talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The lead begins with a negative approach to the concept, sourced by "Hunturk.net"! Against what? The website of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey. (Sources on the "Presidential seal" of Turkey.) This "awkward" situation in WP (with many similar negative reporting on Turkey seems to be the privilege of WP as an objective encyclopedia. I wonder if there is any other encyclopedia that treats its article subjects withsuch a negative approach? Are there any other "this free" encyclopedias? I know I am expressing my feelings, but over an "observation". Examples to this awkward situation are regrettably too many... We need more impartial, objective editors on Turkey-related articles. -- E4024 ( talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It's neither negative nor positive approach. Probably person who were educated with Turkish ethnocentric historiography can feel strange. But it's nothing but historical fact of the official historiography of the Republic of Turkey. Takabeg ( talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a formal government policy, and not historic science. Therefore I believe the sentences "It needs further linguistic evidence to list the first four and the sixth (Avar) as Turkic states. It is also questionable to list Ghaznavids and the Mughal Empire as Turkic states. Because, although founded by Turks, they were quickly assimilated in the local population." need to be removed. They discuss criticism on the historic value, not on the presidential seal itself. -- 82.75.32.124 ( talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are kidding, right? Yes you Anti-Turkists, I'm talking to you. It is, "Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal" cretins. This explains what countries in presidential seal. If you merge it with this target subject, you must add this article to target subject, too. It's not "Turkish presidential seal". It's that clear. Case is closed, that's it. Karak1lc1k ( talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Depending on the context the Turkish word Türk can be translated in Turkic or Turkish. Turkish refers to Turkey only. I have adjusted the article to a more proper use of Turkic and Turkish. E.g. not '16 great Turkish states', but '16 great Turkic states'. -- 80.114.182.240 ( talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how common these are. I found five so far via google. I also wonder when they became popular -- the "16 Empires" were officially endorsed after 1980, so these monuments could have been built any time after 1980, but the one I could find a date for (the one in Pinarbasi) apparently dates to 2000, so perhaps this was a trend of the late 1990s? I would also be interested in the story of this after 2000. Apparently, people were not too familiar with it when Erdogan tried to "revive" it in 2015 (at least that's how I read the social media "bathrobe" thing, people appear to have found it weird and funny) -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wait, why is Mughal and Timurid and Golden Horde empires on this BUT NOT the mongol empire? You turks do know that all those empires were founded by Mongols right? I mean if Genghis Khan wasn't a turk, then it stands to reason that Babur, Golden horde guy (ogadei?) and Timur weren't turkish either. 71.241.250.239 ( talk) 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Batı Hun diye bir devlet yoktu. 1969'de icat edildi. Ondan önceki kayıtlarda hiç rastlanmıyor. Bazen Hunnic Empire (Avrupa Hun) için Batı Hun terimi kullanılmıştır. Bu uydurulken yapilan bariz ve ciddi bir hatadır. "Classification as a separate state is subject to severe criticism" ifadesine sığınmayacak bir meseledir. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg ( talk) 03:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The former heading of the third column was founder according to PTT and Turk Telecom. The names given in the column are the names of founders of states specified in commertial smart cards. But these names are totally unsourced and have no academic importance. I feel it is better to show the founders (or at least the names of the earliest deciphered rulers) as shown in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Situation of "Western Hunnic Empire" is uncertain. In Turkey "Western Hunnic Empire" is sometimes used for Hunnic Empire (Avrupa Hun İmparatorluğu, European Hunnic Empire). And when this list was invented in 1969, nobody knew what was "Western Hunnic Empire". Because they show only the name of first ruler of "Western Hunnic Empire" and duration. The ruler belongs to Northern Xiongnu ( 北匈奴) but the duration belongs to Southern Xiongnu ( 南匈奴). Takabeg ( talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the name of this article be moved to 16 Great Turkish Empires. But the proposer hasn't started the discussion. Without knowing the rationale it is impossible to discuss. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yukarıdaki tanımlamada sözü edilen halk bu alan içinde oturmakta olan halktır. Bu nedenle Yeni Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'ni kuran Türk Ulusu'nun kökeni 16 Türk Beyliğine dayanır diyoruz. Bu halk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin simgesi olan Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsunda 16 yıldız biçiminde Türk Ulusu adıyla somutlaşmıştır. Bir takım çarpık düşüncelerle, Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsundaki yıldızları eski Türk devletlerine bağlamak yanlıştır. Ne denli sıkıştırılsa, ne denli ince hesap yapılsa da tarihte kurulmuş en az 10 larla Türk devleti açıkta kalır. (X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1994, p. 2947.)
Takabeg ( talk) 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 05:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"a historical discourse that was created in 1969 to explain"
Created by whom? Any particular individuals or publications credited with popularizing this idea? Dimadick ( talk) 06:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted an introductory phrase which stated that the 16 states are based on Turkish Islamic synthesis. Turkish Islamic synthesis was postulated in 1983 [1] and the notion of 16 states is much older than that. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"16 Great Turkish Empires is a historical discourse that was created in 1969 to explain the meaning of 16 stars of the presidential seal of Turkey." That is bad grammer. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say. Is "16 Great Turkish Empires" the name of a conference / publication? Did the stars on the seal not have an official meaning before 1969? How can a discourse be created in 1969 and inaugurated in 1985? Can a "discourse" even be "created"? Iapetus ( talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The lead begins with a negative approach to the concept, sourced by "Hunturk.net"! Against what? The website of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey. (Sources on the "Presidential seal" of Turkey.) This "awkward" situation in WP (with many similar negative reporting on Turkey seems to be the privilege of WP as an objective encyclopedia. I wonder if there is any other encyclopedia that treats its article subjects withsuch a negative approach? Are there any other "this free" encyclopedias? I know I am expressing my feelings, but over an "observation". Examples to this awkward situation are regrettably too many... We need more impartial, objective editors on Turkey-related articles. -- E4024 ( talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It's neither negative nor positive approach. Probably person who were educated with Turkish ethnocentric historiography can feel strange. But it's nothing but historical fact of the official historiography of the Republic of Turkey. Takabeg ( talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a formal government policy, and not historic science. Therefore I believe the sentences "It needs further linguistic evidence to list the first four and the sixth (Avar) as Turkic states. It is also questionable to list Ghaznavids and the Mughal Empire as Turkic states. Because, although founded by Turks, they were quickly assimilated in the local population." need to be removed. They discuss criticism on the historic value, not on the presidential seal itself. -- 82.75.32.124 ( talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are kidding, right? Yes you Anti-Turkists, I'm talking to you. It is, "Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal" cretins. This explains what countries in presidential seal. If you merge it with this target subject, you must add this article to target subject, too. It's not "Turkish presidential seal". It's that clear. Case is closed, that's it. Karak1lc1k ( talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Depending on the context the Turkish word Türk can be translated in Turkic or Turkish. Turkish refers to Turkey only. I have adjusted the article to a more proper use of Turkic and Turkish. E.g. not '16 great Turkish states', but '16 great Turkic states'. -- 80.114.182.240 ( talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how common these are. I found five so far via google. I also wonder when they became popular -- the "16 Empires" were officially endorsed after 1980, so these monuments could have been built any time after 1980, but the one I could find a date for (the one in Pinarbasi) apparently dates to 2000, so perhaps this was a trend of the late 1990s? I would also be interested in the story of this after 2000. Apparently, people were not too familiar with it when Erdogan tried to "revive" it in 2015 (at least that's how I read the social media "bathrobe" thing, people appear to have found it weird and funny) -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)