This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anatolian beyliks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help! |
I feel that the list is incomplete. For example Ahi cast and Canik don't appear on the list (oddly enough, they are on the map.) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article must be Anatolian beyliks.
The most common name used in English is Anatolian beyliks.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thank you.
Takabeg ( talk) 02:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I cleared out two links:İnançoğlu had been directed to Laodicea Pontica and Erzincan had been directed to modern city of Erzincan. These are not beylik. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 01:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two maps on the page. Both claim to be of ca 1300. But the two are immensely different. Although the second one created by Gabagool claims to be based on an Atlas I think the first one created by Gökçe Yörük is more reliable. I think the second map should be deleted to end any confusion. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What should be done if they both represent the idea(s) of people at the time and therefore although not "correct" according to your understanding of today could be just as relevant at showing just what did those of the time think or know? If you say that one "thing" is better than another then it seems all the more justifiable, especially as WP wants to use "sources", that people present their sources to prove that what is proclaimed as one better than another is substantiated otherwise it is heresay. It is not the job of the reader to substantiate your claims. That is one of the problems with WP articles that rely on "sources" without page citations. You can list all the books in the world and that provides little more than a potential wild goose chase as to what actually exist and can be evaluated for its value. If you cite a publication the statement that it is suppose to support just might as well not exist since no one in all likelihood will ever review the book to find what it is that it is suppose to support. The someone else comes along and uses that book to support their claim all the wile no one has ever completed due diligence. It is always wonderful seeing that someone has cited a web site as their source and the reader after reviewing a few websites and WP articles finding that the website is merely a link to a WP article that automatically updates when the WP article changes. Ain't life a carousel--up and down and all around and gettin' no where--except with used up time. And all the grammatically and spelling correct that any composition teacher would want. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could someone define that fragment of the sentence? Does it mean in the first quarter, first half etc of a century? or something totally different? it seems a rather vague expression that for those of us not alive at the time or of first hand experience would most certainly be at a loss as to the nuance it could convey. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@
MrUnoDosTres: Even if is true that Most of the Beyliks existed at the end of the 13th century/beginning of 14th century
, as you state in the edit summary, your suggested caption is wrong. The map shows several beyliks that were created after 1300, even some created in the mid 14th century, so it can not be called "a map of beyliks during the late 13th century". Since both the Ramazanids and the Karasids are included, the map is actually depicting the beyliks as some time between ca. 1350 (when the first was established) and ca. 1360 (when the second was disestablished). Given the general uncertainty about exact dates, the caption could say "during the late 14th century" or "in the mid 14th century" or simply "during the 14th century". --
T*U (
talk) 10:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ramazanids are not an Anatolian Beylik. They were an autonomous administration of Mamluk Sultanate, who took over Cilicia from Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in late 14th century.( Seyhan668 ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) ) Ramazanids shall be removed from this article.
@ Srnec, Afshar Beylik is not sourced, so listing it here would not be appropriate. I have tried finding reliable sources about it for quite some time, but there are barely any publications mentioning it as far as I can see. Aintabli ( talk) 05:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anatolian beyliks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help! |
I feel that the list is incomplete. For example Ahi cast and Canik don't appear on the list (oddly enough, they are on the map.) Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article must be Anatolian beyliks.
The most common name used in English is Anatolian beyliks.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thank you.
Takabeg ( talk) 02:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I cleared out two links:İnançoğlu had been directed to Laodicea Pontica and Erzincan had been directed to modern city of Erzincan. These are not beylik. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 01:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two maps on the page. Both claim to be of ca 1300. But the two are immensely different. Although the second one created by Gabagool claims to be based on an Atlas I think the first one created by Gökçe Yörük is more reliable. I think the second map should be deleted to end any confusion. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What should be done if they both represent the idea(s) of people at the time and therefore although not "correct" according to your understanding of today could be just as relevant at showing just what did those of the time think or know? If you say that one "thing" is better than another then it seems all the more justifiable, especially as WP wants to use "sources", that people present their sources to prove that what is proclaimed as one better than another is substantiated otherwise it is heresay. It is not the job of the reader to substantiate your claims. That is one of the problems with WP articles that rely on "sources" without page citations. You can list all the books in the world and that provides little more than a potential wild goose chase as to what actually exist and can be evaluated for its value. If you cite a publication the statement that it is suppose to support just might as well not exist since no one in all likelihood will ever review the book to find what it is that it is suppose to support. The someone else comes along and uses that book to support their claim all the wile no one has ever completed due diligence. It is always wonderful seeing that someone has cited a web site as their source and the reader after reviewing a few websites and WP articles finding that the website is merely a link to a WP article that automatically updates when the WP article changes. Ain't life a carousel--up and down and all around and gettin' no where--except with used up time. And all the grammatically and spelling correct that any composition teacher would want. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could someone define that fragment of the sentence? Does it mean in the first quarter, first half etc of a century? or something totally different? it seems a rather vague expression that for those of us not alive at the time or of first hand experience would most certainly be at a loss as to the nuance it could convey. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@
MrUnoDosTres: Even if is true that Most of the Beyliks existed at the end of the 13th century/beginning of 14th century
, as you state in the edit summary, your suggested caption is wrong. The map shows several beyliks that were created after 1300, even some created in the mid 14th century, so it can not be called "a map of beyliks during the late 13th century". Since both the Ramazanids and the Karasids are included, the map is actually depicting the beyliks as some time between ca. 1350 (when the first was established) and ca. 1360 (when the second was disestablished). Given the general uncertainty about exact dates, the caption could say "during the late 14th century" or "in the mid 14th century" or simply "during the 14th century". --
T*U (
talk) 10:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ramazanids are not an Anatolian Beylik. They were an autonomous administration of Mamluk Sultanate, who took over Cilicia from Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in late 14th century.( Seyhan668 ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) ) Ramazanids shall be removed from this article.
@ Srnec, Afshar Beylik is not sourced, so listing it here would not be appropriate. I have tried finding reliable sources about it for quite some time, but there are barely any publications mentioning it as far as I can see. Aintabli ( talk) 05:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)