Talk:Timeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300)

Inline citations
This article has been tagged for lack of inline citations. Being the creator, I partially agree. Although the reference sources are listed, they are not cited. But how can it be ? This is not a text. This is just a list of events. There are more than 100 events and the number may increase. It is practically almost impossible to source each event by a different reference, since the very same reference might be used for a number of events. I checked the other timelines in this Wiki. (e.g. Timeline of French history, Timeline of German history, Timeline of British history etc.) Usually, there are no reference lists (let alone inline citations) in these articles. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1043
I started this timeline on Oct.,1 2009 and I'm happy to see that it is enriched by many contributors. But I heve a question on 1043. According to an edit made on Feb,15 2011, Manuel Comnenus aggred to put an end to the Byzantine plans for reconquest of Anatolia and was obliged to remove armies and fortifications posted at Dorylaeum and Sublaeum in 1043. I couldn't find any source to back this claim. The battles of Pasinler and Malazgirt hadn't been fought yet. Anatolia was mostly under Byzantine rule and Dorylaeum was at least 800 km west of Seljuk border line. Besides Manuel Comnenus I lived much later. It seems there may be a chronological error. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added all references on WP related to various treaties, and 1043 was one of them. I need to re-trace where it came from and verify the date, and would need some time to do that, if it's OK. Or it can be disabled for now. I did not use any external sources, since every entry is sourced in the underlying article. Barefact (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical timelines
This page does not belong in the "Historical timelines" category. That category is for broad historical timelines that cover the entire world. This is too specific. It should go into "National timelines" but no matter where it is placed, it should not be placed here.  Serendi pod ous  11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a Turkish history timeline, but Turkic (Turkic people's) one. Takabeg (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it still belongs in "National timelines".  Serendi pod ous  08:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 moved. After almost four weeks of listing, there's curiously no interest in discussion here besides the two users below. So the question is whether it's more appropriate to close this as no consensus or essentially uphold SlimVirgin's earlier close based on the outcome at the relevant template. The latter course of action is more appropriate, since discussion on the same question has occurred there and found consensus in support. My advice for Cavann in the future is to use multimoves for such issues. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Turks (500–1300) → Timeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300) – "Turks" is not synonymous with Turkic, and the scope of this article covers Turkic history, not History of Turkey or Timeline of Turkish history. Turk primarily refers to "a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent" (Oxford Dictionaries) (i.e., Turkish people). While historical usage of Turk refers to "member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages..." , this is not the primary or only definition. When words have more than one meaning, Wikipedia should be specific to avoid confusion and to be more correct. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Cavann (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Turkic is an adjective invented by the lisguists to differentiate the Turks of the World and the Turks of Turkey. Nevertheless, the original form is Turk as can be seen in the oldest written documents namely Khöshöö Tsaidam inscriptions. There is no reason to replace the original name with the invented one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see the discussion at Template_talk:History_of_the_Turks_pre-14th_century Cavann (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I closed this as move, after a request on WP:AN/RFC, because the template discussion had been closed that way, but there was a concern that I closed it prematurely, so I've undone the move and reopened it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

REQUESTED MOVE(!)
In Turkish language and Turkish logic, Turkic and Turkish are same. Westernist propagandist Britannica writers/supporters/defenders can not understand it. I say it everytime: "DO NOT TRUST BRITANNICA YOU TURK!" I will give 3 different examples that showing Türk (Turk/Turkish/Turkic/Altaic) logic and European logic is soooooooooo different. First example: a Google translate "document" (:O): (Turkic meaning in Turkish): https://translate.google.com/#en/tr/Turkic, ("Turkish" meaning in Turkish(!)): https://translate.google.com/#en/tr/Turkish. I mean, guys, -- it's official in Turkey. Second example: Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Land_Forces look at the official emblem of Turkish Land Forces. And see the number (M.Ö.=B.C.) on the emblem (It's probably a year name's figures am I wrong my Altaic citizens? :O). It's sooooooooo official isn't it? This is an extreme mental different of two extremely different mentality. Example 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_states_represented_in_Turkish_presidential_seal. No comment. I mean, guys -- so many Turks does not try to change when they saw soooo many freaking biased (see:Britannica) subjects on Wikipedia. Because it's normal. For a Turk, it's so normal that misunderstanding of Europeans of little states and little millets(*) about "Altaic" things you know (actually you don't know and seems like you will never understand it like everytime you do). And also I must admit that I laughed a lot that word "All Turks are Turkic, not all Turkic peoples are Turks". It means "Her Türk Türk'tür ama her Türk Türk değildir" (Didn't you laugh, you Turk? :D) in Turkish which means "All Turks are Turks but not all Turks are Turks" (LOL) [it's from this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:History_of_the_Turkic_peoples_pre-14th_century#Requested_move]. I'm pessimistic about all of your understandings about "Altaic" things but still -- try to change it, good luck little country millets! I mean I request a move too! Would you do it for your Turkish (Turkic/Altaic/Turk/Turkish/Türk) enemy too, dear European Brattanica (a boss right?) boys? [Read it before you read whole article you European! (*): it means "nations" but it does not mean "nations" really, like that, so many linguistic differences, the language is the logic of a civilization, a nation etc., I mean -- you can learn the meaning but you can not enter an extremely different mentality from you] Karak1lc1k (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Turkic → kurdic
An anonymous editor keeps changing some nouns repeatedly (Turkic → kurdic). Everytime his/her changes are reverted by other editors. I've counted no less than 8 such chnages in the last 20 days. Can somebody help me to avoid such time-consuming changes ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have asked for pending changes protection. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish-->English Problem
In Turkish Turk means both Turkish(Turkey's Turk) and Turkic(All Turks) and Türkçe means both Turkish(as leanguage) and Turkic(as language family). So its doesn't matter at all. Turkic or Turkish are same means words in actually. The difference made by western people. Difference is not real :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freehuman96 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)