Talk:16 Great Turkic Empires

Hold the hell up

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)

This is not a list of DNA make up, this is an article about the stars in the presidential seal. In fact both Timur and Babur were partially Mongol. But their native tongue was Turkic and they considered themselves to be Turk . For example in Baburname (memoirs of Babur) which was written in Turkish, Babur stressed that he was a Turk. Of course Babur dynasty soon lost its initial charecter in India. For further information please see the articles Timur and babur. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Batı Hun

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)

"Batı Hun İmparatorluğu eşittir Northen Xiongnu" değildir. Çünkü öyle yanan hiçbir kaynak bulunmamaktadır. Aksine Batı Hun İmparatorluğu = Güney Hun Devleti diyen kaynaklar bulunmaktadırlar. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Change in the third column

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)

Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal itself has no academic importance :)) Takabeg (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This list isn't based on historical science, but on the state policy of the Republic of Turkey. We must explain it for readers. Takabeg (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Batı Hun İmparatorluğu (Western Hunnic Empire)

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)

What is your point? Does that change the fact that the Western Hunnic Empire is represented on the presidential seal? This is not a forum, nor is the topic "Western Hunnic Empire". Anyways, what is your opinion on this?

The second item (Western Hunnic State) shows that the list is completely unscientific. There were only two Hunnic Empires (Great and European) West Hunnic Empire is only a fabrication. (If the southern part is considered as a different state, than why was not the West Turkic Empire also considered as a different state ?). Besides in the early version of the list Samanids (a Persian speaking state) was also included in the list which is a further proof of the nonsense. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Move proposal

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)

As you know, the name of these nations is "16 Büyük Türk Devleti" in Turkish language. In English sourses (two of them were printed in Turkey and one is printed by the General Directorate of Press and Information of the Prime Ministry), 16 Turkish Empire is used. But maybe there can be more common ussage of this term in English sources. Now I am continueing to research. Please wait a couple days. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know it ?

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)

• Oppose: 16 Great Turkish empires is a highly unacademic title. Who has counted them ? We know that there had been many step empires in the ancient and medieval ages. But their ethnic identities were mostly ambigious. Take Western Hunnic empire. We are not sure if it was Turkic. Besides nobody knows if it can be considered as an independent state. On the other hand, there were medieval empires which were clearly Turkic (like White Sheep Turkmens) but failed to be included in this list. So the article 16 Turkish empires does not reflect a fact and has no value as an encyclopaedic article. But Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal is a fact. As clearly sourced ,Turkic or not, their names are appear in the presidental seal. Therefore the present name should be kept. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes as you know, 16 Great Turkish empires' is not an unacademic issue. This is a kind of political issue. It's related with Turkey's nationalistic educational policy and ethnocentric historiography. Takabeg (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose First they were not "Turkish" states, but "Turkic". Guess you guys are confused with difference between two. Not to mention those states are just claimed by Republic of Turkey, and just represented in the presidential seal. It's also disputed if "Western Hunnic Empire" and "European Hunnic Empire" were the same or not. So please leave it as with it's current title. I don't see anything reasonable with renaming article with "16 Great Turkish Empires". Anatolian1071 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reply to above remark. Atilla's empire and West Hunnic Enmpire are not the same It is claimed that West Hunnic Empire was the part of Great Hunnic Empire (Xiongnu)

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Background

"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)

Ministry of National Education, and TRT. Takabeg (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted phrase

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)

Bad English

"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)

I created this page. But that particular sentence was added later by another editor. Anyway, I presume you're a native speaker of English and you may help. There are 16 stars in Turkish presidential seal. According to presidency, these stars represent 15 historical states (and one present Turkey). The article is about the list of these states. Well since I summarized the article you're welcome to correct the introduction. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewording it for you, although I don't know much about the subject. Can't do it now though, as I'm rather busy (and will be for a week or so). Iapetus (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my English is bad :) Before 1969, it was explained as "16 Turkish beyliks". Takabeg (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

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)

See carefully. The original source is not Hunturk.net but an article that had been published in Ötüken magazine. Takabeg (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the lead looks very strange. It seem as if the only step missing is moving the article title to "Historic states hoax in Turkish presidential seal". The lead section should be reserved for the objective summary of what the article is about. Criticisms can be thoroughly mentioned in the "criticism" section. --Mttll (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The lede was too messy. I simplified the lede. But if the contributer wishes to add the deleted data this can be done by adding a special section in the text. The deleted data was (excluding the references) :"16 Great Turkish Empires (Turkish: 16 Büyük Türk Devleti) is a discourse of Turkic history that was forged in accordance with Turkish-Islamic Synthesis in 1969 to explain the meaning of 16 stars of the presidential seal of Turkey. It was inaugurated in 1985 with the presidential seal of today.

I also deleted the Turkish paragraph in a reference :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.

(A comment added on 14.43 WP time) One can see that my edit on 12.31 was not aimed to delete an information. It was aimed to clear the messy lede. The same information can be added to the text of the article by a newly created section. I also cleared a Turkish paragraph added as a note . It was already sourced; why to use a Turkish text in an English encycloapedia ? But sadly the editor reverted my edit remarking that the said information was sourced . Who said it was not ? I only tried to clean up the article. Thus the lede is still messy and the Turkish paragraph is still added as a note. I don't know why some people love edit wars more than collaboration. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:49, 1 February 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 an example of misunderstanding. I did't object to the content (though I have doubts about whether 16 stars were the result of Turco Islamic sythesis.) I only objected to the style. Acoording to WP "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects".(see Lede). The details should be given in the text sections . My change was only aimed to wikify the article. Style and content are two different things and changing the style has nothing to do with ethnocentric historiography One thing more. A paragraph written in Turkish language has no meaning in an English article.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Government policy not historic science

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)

The concept previously was claimed to carry scientific value. But it was soon proved to be a hoax. That's why the note about the uncertainities was added. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. I mean, read this sentence: "It needs further linguistic evidence to list the first four and the sixth (Avar) as Turkic states". How is this relevant for an encyclopaedia on a presidential seal? It is already on the seal and these are the states represented on the seal. The matter of discussion in this article should not be whether the Avar Khanate is a Turkic Empire or not, but whether the Avar Khanate is represented on the presidential seal or not. Whether the Avar Khanate is actually Turkic or not, is relevant in the Avar Khanate article.

Let's say the Avars were in fact not Turkic but related to the Mayans of Central-America, does that change anything about the fact that one star on the presidential seal represents the Avar Khanate according to formal Turkish government policy? It's as if you would write criticism on the bible "it needs further scientific evidence that Maria was a virgin and Moses split the sea in two", well duh :), but that does not take away that in the bible it states that Maria was a virgin and Moses split the sea in two doesn't it? But everybody with common sense knows the bible does not carry scientific value just as a presidential seal doesn't carry scientific value.

Furthermore, where was it previously claimed to carry scientific value, and why is that claim not simply removed, rather than adding these strange sentences?

I just checked the article on the Avar Khanate, and even stranger is that on Wikipedia itself the Avar Khanate is actually listed as a Turkic Empire and there are no discussions mentioned on it possibly not being a Turkic Empire. It seems to me this article is written by somebody with a negative perception towards Turkic history, as seems to happen more often on Wikipedia. --82.75.32.124 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

When there is a disagrement on an issue, the WP article includes pros and cons.(see for example Hephthalite Empire which is linked in this article.) That's what I've done in the section Criticism. If you think something is incorrect please improve it. Otherwise please don't delete any information. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing the criticism is an improvement. Criticism should be on whether these states are represented on the seal or not; not on whether the Avar Khanate is Turkic or not when the Avar Khanate article even clearly states it is a Turkic empire. Cinderella might be criticized because it has a bad influence on children due to feminism, but nobody criticizes the Cinderella fairytale neither that it might be not true.

From who is this criticism anyways? It is unsourced.--82.75.32.124 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Before deleting you should check the sources. (among others for example source no 4) You'll see that the issue had been criticized before. As for your example of Cinderella (hard to see any relationship to the issue at hand, but anyway) you can see that in the section Plot variations and alternative tellings many versions of the tale are presented together. I think presenting the list without citing to the discussions would be incomplete. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see the relationship I have to doubt your academic level. Criticism on Cinderalla would be that it provides a wrong perception of the position of women in society. A discussion on whether pumpkins can actually turn into golden carriages is not criticism, but bigotry.

"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."

That is not criticism, that is plain bigotry. As a matter of fact, it doesn't get much more bigotry than that.--82.75.32.124 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Who was the ridiculous "merge" proposer, huh?

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)

Comment: This article is not about the states. It is about what the 16 stars in the seal stand for. One can disagree on defining a certain state "Turk" (Well I disagree for some myself) But the point is that the stars are there and the article lists them. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So it should not merge with any other article. Agreed. Karak1lc1k (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So, you are saying Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız was an "Anti-Turkist"? How novel. I suppose tr-wiki is also infested with "Anti-Turkists", seeing that they have, in fact, covered this "topic" in a section under Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanlığı Forsu. But I would argue that this is indeed a standalone topic, already because the seal dates to the 1920s, the "16 empires" idea was proposed in 1969, and the association with the seal was made only in 1985. There's enough material, and also enough references, for a short article about this as a separate topic.

Note that while the states may indeed be historical (although nobody is sure what the "White Hunnic Empire" is, the flags are fictitious, and the article should display the flags used in Turkish national symbolism and not flags that may happen to be associated with the historical states or empires. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkish / Turkic

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)

The modifier Turkish can be changed to Turkic. But the editor also changed the name of the file without using a pipe. That's equivalent to delete the image. That's why I reverted his edit. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The entire point of "Pan-Turkism" is that the distinction between the (English words) "Turkish" and "Turkic" is not made. The "Great Empires" are clearly intended to represent the Turkic peoples as a single whole. As noted above, there has been scathing criticism from within Turkish nationalism on the concept, such criticism is within the scope of the article, but it is not to be made in Wikipedia's voice, because this is not a topic about Turkic history over the last two millennia, it is a topic of Turkish nationalism since the 1960s. --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Statues / monuments

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)

There is a group in Erzincan that has been there since at least the late 1990s. In a park in the middle of the town. Heads-on-a-plinth type. I had a laugh at them at the time, but did not bother to photograph them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are many. A few months ago, I've seen one in a small town in Adana Province. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of Uyghur Khaghanate.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)