Talk:History of Turkey

History of Turkey
History of Turkey refers to the history of the country before the Turkic migration and after the Turkic migration. History of the Republic of Turkey refers to the history of the country only after 1923. Not to be confused. See History of Iran, History of the Islamic Republic of Iran and History of India, History of the Republic of India. Kavas (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is "not to be confused". That's why there was a disambiguation page. I don't see the point of your drive-by article creation. Please either invest time and effort in writing an actual article, or else leave the structure as it was. History of Anatolia needs a lot of work. What you did is just copy-paste some material so there is now yet another article that would need lots of work, which nobody is prepared to do. Not helpful.

The difference between "history of Iran" vs. "history of the Islamic Republic of Iran" or "history of India" vs. "history of the Republic of India" is that Iran and India are historical terms for the regions in question. The historical term for what is now Turkey is not "Turkey", it is Anatolia. So, History of Iran vs. History of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not like "History of Turkey" vs. "History of the Republic of Turkey", it is like History of Anatolia vs. History of the Republic of Turkey. Please appreciate that we are not stupid and that some deliberation went into how these articles are called. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Anatolia was named Turkey as early as the 12th century. Besides, major Turkish cities like Edirne, Thessaloniki, and Istanbul were not in Anatolia, and history of Anatolia does not include the history of European Turkey between 1350 and 1922. On the other hand, History of the Republic of Turkey does not include history of the country between 1071 and 1922. There are books which cover history of Turkey like,,. Today, Anatolia refers to Asian part of Turkey. But, historically Anatolia refers to Western part of today's Anatolia.

The ancient term for Romania was Dacia, the country's name was changed to Romania. We have this pages: History of Romania, Kingdom of Romania, Romania since 1989 Kavas (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with dab that the article needs some work. But I don't agree with dab that the historical name of the country is Anatolia. The name Anatolia (Anadolu) is still in use, but it refers only a part of Turkey in Asia. In fact a part of Turkey is in Europe and the population in the European part of Turkey is 8 156 421 which is higher than 34 independent European countries ( see List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe by population) So I don't think the History of Anatolia represents the history of whole Turkey. This article must continue. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The name 'Turkey' predates the creation of the Republic of Turkey; we can see this from the etymology of the name for Turkey (bird). As a concept, the country of the Turks predates the Republic, and according to the straightdope.com "the country was already called "Turki" or "Turkeye" in English by 1275". Hence, this topic is distinct from the history of the Republic of Turkey and should be kept separate. LK (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Commercial use
This article appears to be offered for sale by Kindle, as History of Turkey by A. G. Armstrong --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplication
This page needs to be reconciled with History of Anatolia. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. See below. Cavann (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Haran
Does the article page for Haran (biblical place) meet the requirements to become part of the "History of Turkey" portal? Twillisjr (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The article History of Anatolia should be merged with this article. Unlike the claim at the start of this article, the history of Turkey does not begin with the migration of Oghuz Turks. In schools in Turkey, pre-migration history is also taught as part of history of Turkey. The history of Republic of Turkey begins in 1923, not 11th century. Many published books are also more comprehensive, starting with prehistorical period. 

I should also note that etymology of the word Turkey does not necessarily suggest a starting point for this article. For example, "the first known use of "England" to refer to the southern part of the island of Great Britain occurs in 897;" however, History of England article is much more comprehensive. More such examples can be found.

The size is not an issue either. For example, history of Germany is 200 kb and history of England is 104 kb. History of Anatolia is 48 kb and this article is 20 kb. A merger can be done easily and would avoid the duplication. Cavann (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  Strong Oppose  Simply because this article has a valid scope, it's part 4 in our Turkish history seres (Prehistory of Anatolia, Classical Anatolia, Byzantine Anatolia, History of Turkey). The complaint seems to be about the title of this article rather then the content, so I suggest finding a new title for this article and redirecting "History of Turkey" to "History of Anatolia" instead, or as an alternative to redirecting rename "History of Anatolia" "History of Turkey". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is an invalid part. History of Turkey does include Prehistory of Anatolia, Classical Anatolia, Byzantine Anatolia. After those 3, the parts should be Turkic migrations, Seljuks, Ottomans, and Turkish Republic. All parts should be under History of Turkey. History of Turkey is not synonymous with History of Republic of Turkey. Cavann (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides the history book I provided above, here's another source that confirms my position, from the US Library of Congress:

The history of Turkey encompasses, first, the history of Anatolia before the coming of the Turks and of the civilizations--Hittite, Thracian, Hellenistic, and Byzantine--of which the Turkish nation is the heir by assimilation or example. Second, it includes the history of the Turkish peoples, including the Seljuks, who brought Islam and the Turkish language to Anatolia. Third, it is the history of the Ottoman Empire, a vast, cosmopolitan, pan-Islamic state that developed from a small Turkish amirate in Anatolia and that for centuries was a world power.

Finally, Turkey's history is that of the republic established in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), called Atatürk--the "Father Turk."


 * Your opposition is irrational and uninformed. Cavann (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral So basically you want to replace our poorly named "History of Turkey" article within our main Turkish history seres with (something along the lines of) Seljuq dynasty, History of the Ottoman Empire, and History of the Republic of Turkey, with the merged History of Anatolia/History of Turkey being the main article? That's a little different, and if I understand you correctly I have no opinion. If you're merge proposal fails, we should probably give this article a name other then "History of Turkey" scene that title doesn't reflect it's scope. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Anotolea vs Turkey
Regarding this revert, Turkey and Anatolia are of course not quite the same thing, but I don't think we need a whole paragraph devoted to explaining that, and to explaining that the history of Turkey includes prehistory-present. History of Iraq doesn't devote a whole paragraph to the term "Mesopotamia" and to explaining that it covers prehistory-present. As far as I know no history other article devotes a paragraph to explaining that it includes prehistory-present. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Well, it should. You cannot expect every reader to know that Anatolia and Turkey are not synonymous. And, on the contrary, your edit makes it sound like they are, misinforming the reader. Cavann (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I still think that a few words will do, and that we don't need a whole paragraph. How about something along the lines of "Turkey, roughly consisting of the historic region of Anatolia (Asia Minor)...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

History of Thrace
History of Eastern Thrace falls under the scope of history of Turkey. I will add some information about Thracians. Cavann (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, but it's just a tiny part of Turkey, so don't give it undue weight. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at reliable sources:

The history of Turkey encompasses, first, the history of Anatolia before the coming of the Turks and of the civilizations--Hittite, Thracian...

Also: "Divided into separate tribes, the Thracians did not manage to form a lasting political organization until the Odrysian state was founded in the 4th century BC." Odrysians' very capital was in Their kingdom was centered around Edirne, Turkey.

Also note that many of these Thracian tribes extend into Anatolia (eg in the pic) Cavann (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, East Thrace is almost as populous as Eastern Anatolia Region and Southeastern Anatolia Region combined, and includes most of Istanbul. Its history, as part of history of Turkey, is also mentioned in various sources. Hence, the space I've given is hardly undue. Cavann (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

the aim of the article
History of Turkey article was created for giving information on history of Turkey (history of the land during Turkish states, Sultanate of Rum (Turkey), Turkish (Ottoman) Empire, etc). It was not aimed for giving information only about history of Republic (of Turkey). Kavas (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

historically not correct
the Turkish were nomads who came on the Balkan peninsula and invaded it by killing a huge part of the local population. Terms as thracians ,romans etc. doesn't have nothing in common with the history neither of Turkey, neither of Anatolia ,because before to came the territory was Greek ,and before to be Greek it was Thracian teritory. If i go tomorrow and invade Rome ,does that means that Rome doesn't have history and i am Roman, no ..the same with Bulgaria for example - 500 years invaded by the turcs but has independent history and mentions the yoke. My point is delete everything as history before the turkish invasion. It is not a turkish history, it is part of the history of the people before the Turcs.There can be a history of the turkish empire and today history ,but no before that. The same with culture. There can't be a turkish culture before 500000 years on the balkan peninsula ,because the turcs come centuries after that - they don't really contribute with culture before the empire. Monkeyxman (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)monkeyxman
 * First of all the Turks did not replace the existing peoples in 1300-1500, though I agree they killed some of them and caused a sharp change of culture, language and religion -- like waves of invasions in England, Hungary, France, Spain, Egypt, and so forth.


 * But there is a desire for an article about the region that corresponds to the modern country, and its inhabitants over the years, even as they changed in various ways. Perhaps the article should be "History of Anatolia"? But that would be obscure for many people. Plus, it is not quite the same region as some people pointed out. So better call it "History of Turkey" and explain the intention briefly at the start. Where it done expertly, in my view. 89.217.14.177 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One-sentence genocide
During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.

Yes, this section article does need to be expanded. One sentence without numbers is too short. Compare History of Germany, History of Cambodia, History of Russia, History of China, History of the United States. 178.38.127.141 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

urgent split
I have no idea how it could possibly have seemed like a good idea to merge the already gigantic and impossible-to-maintain History of Anatolia page (it was tagged for splitting for heaven's sake) into an even more broken "history of Turkey" page. Please let us fix it. This page simply cannot be maintained by editors, nor can it meaningfully be consulted by readers. If you look up "history of Turkey", you are not looking for a wall of text about Neolithic cultures and the Hittite Empire. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Eastern Roman Empire (Romania) was not a new Eastern Kingdom established in 4th century
The Eastern Roman Empire (Romania) was the result of the Roman Empire splitting into, not the formation of "a new kingdom." Thus I deleted the statement (which had no supporting citation) and replaced it with an appropriate statement with citation. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Turkey. 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/20091220225254/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sogd_trade_20041201.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_sogd_trade_20041201.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)