Talk:Anatolian beyliks

Missing

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)

Title

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)

An extremely strange move, as you fail to show how the latter is more common with that method. And the former is indisputably more descriptive. I'm reverting this. --Mttll (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Two irrevelant links

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)

Two maps

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)

What does "in a first period" mean"

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)

Map caption

@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)

@TU-nor: Hi TU-nor, thanks for your response. I just looked the image name up: File:Beylicats d%u2019Anatolie vers 1330-en.svg. It claims that this is 1330, but that isn't exactly correct. Also naming it the "late 14th century" would be wrong because the Ottomans captured the following beyliks in the mid and late 14th century: the Karasids which ended in 1357, the Sarukhanids lasted a little longer till 1410, but also fell under Ottoman control in 1390 and became an Ottoman province after that (see the Sarukhanids article). And the Aydinids which lasted till 1425, but also fell under Ottoman control in 1390 and also became an Ottoman province after that (see the Aydinids article). That's why I think that the last two you proposed, "in the mid 14th century" or "during the 14th century" would be the most correct ones. I personally would go for the latter one because the words "early", "mid", and "late" have rather blurry borders, but I leave it up to you. Whichever one you think makes more sense.

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.

The map is simply incorrect. See c:File talk:Beylicats d’Anatolie vers 1330-tr.svg. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Afshar Beylik

@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)

Then you may remove it. You should have said this in your edit summary—because if it doesn't exist it shouldn't redirect here either. You should probably PROD Afshar Beylik. —Srnec (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I could have been clearer. I've proposed the deletion of that page. Thank you, Aintabli (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli: I see what has happened. I didn't realize the article had been to AFD. You could renominate it or else ask the closer to reopen and relist the old AFD which had no participation before you withdrew it. Or explain the situation (AFD withdrawn without participation in order to complete a more thorough WP:BEFORE) to Aspects and ask for the PROD tag to be restored. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I have reached out to Aspects and clarified the situation. I'm waiting for their response. To be honest, if they turn out positive about restoring the tag, I can say that I should have been clearer about the past AfD within the PROD tag. I had only mentioned that I withdrew the nomination and not that no one participated in the discussion, which would more logically cancel out the nomination. Aintabli (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)