Talk:Antakya

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antakya article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lake draining

The comment about economy seems to be quoted from a very very old document. The lake was drained many decades ago. Economically it is still important but this comment is obsolete in it's entirety. --Volkan 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I suggest that this article (Antakya) be merged into the Antioch article, rather than the other way round (as suggested by the merge templates that have just been placed there). The historical name has far more use and importance in English, and the city, under that name, was far more important than the small modern city with the new name. — Gareth Hughes 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should keep the two separate articles. The Antakya article must remain in order to provide a comprehensive gazeteer of modern Turkey, of which Antakya is a provincial capital. And it makes sense to keep the ancient Antioch content in a separate article and link between the two. I will edit Antakya to do that in the next day or so. Istanbuljohnm 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merger. The suggestion is that they are different in every way but geography, and that is insufficient cause to merge. --Oguz1 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that something you can say of most cities if you look at them 2000 years apart? 213.114.83.163 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merger. Antioch is a place which is named as such in any history book. Gun Powder Ma 01:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation with 2 articles is really confusing. The problem is that there is no distinction between "Antioch" and "Antakya", as Antakya is simply the arabic and turkish pronunciation and name of the greek "Antiocheia", known in the western world as "Antioch". We're talking about a same place, with a name that actually hasn't changed at all, just pronounced differently in different parts of the world (which is quite common for many cities in the world). In other articles linking to that city's name, you might have a link to the article "Antioch" while obviously meaning to link to "Antakya". While I understand why some people prefer to keep 2 different articles, the current situation is that there's a lot of material overlapping. This is in fact understandable, as there is no clear transition between what one would historically call "Antioch" and then "Antakya". It is not the same situation as, for example, the name transitions from Byzance to Constantinople to Istanbul. Maybe the current article named "Antioch" should be renamed something like "Antioch (Antiquity)" and "Antioch" should redirect to "Antakya"? That way we could make the distinction between the historical significance of Antakya for Greek and Roman times and early Christianity, and its current state as a province capital of Turkey. 213.114.83.163 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why merge the articles? It makes no sense to me, for we have Constantinople and Istanbul, Smyrna and Izmir, et cetera. These two articles reflect two distinct cultures at their apexes, and to merge them would cause more heartache than help. Monsieurdl 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I join the suggestion to leave two articles, like it is the case with Smyrna - İzmir. I think that it is common practice to subdivide two different issues: one the old Hellenistic city, the other the province capital. You would also not necessarily search for the "Western civilization" under the "Classical civilization", although they have common roots to some extend. SAE1962 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a better separation of the articles if they are not merged--putting all history up to a certain date in Antioch, and covering history from then on in Antioch. And the articles need to cross-reference each other. If the articles are edited as being complementary, then there's no need to merge. Nareek (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggewstion of a merger. The status of Antioch as the cradle of Christianity makes it an important research subject in its own right. The significance of the modern Antakya is both lesser (unless you live there) and of an entirely different nature. Billatporto (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS SIMPLY COMMON SENSE TO COMBINE THE TWO ARTICLES. I AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED AND BORED BY THIS SIMPLE MINDED BIAS ABOUT TURKISH CULTURE AND REALITY IN THIS GEOGRAPHY. EVEN SCHOLARS SEEM TO AVOID THE NAME TURKEY IN THEIR WORKS. THEY USE WORDS LIKE ASIA MINORS OR ANATOLIA INSTEAD. ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN CONTRY/CITY NAMES ARE CHANGED IN OTHER PLACES EVERYONE ADOPTS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN PEKING BECOME BEJING, SEYLON BECOME SRI LANKA OR BURMA BECAME MYNAMAR, NOBODY WAS BOTHERED? THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE TURKS ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF THESE LANDS. WAKE UP..TURKEY IS SIMPLY THE CONTINUATION OF ALL THE PREVIOUS CIVILIZATIONS THAT EXISTED IN THESE LANDS.

NAME ANTAKYA IS SIMPLY THE MODERN TURKISH VERSION OF ANCIENT ANTHIOCH AND THERE IS NO NEED TO CREATE TWO SEPARATE ENTRIES FOR THE SAME CITY. WITH THIS DISTORTED LOGIC EVERY CITY IN THE WORLD SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLE ENTRIES...LIKE ATINA (TURKISH FOR ATHENS) AND ATHENS, SELANIK AND THSELONICA, NICOSIA AND LEFKOSE ETC. LETS STOP LOOKING AT THINGS FROM THEOLOGICAL ANGLES..LETS BE SCIENTIFIC AND RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE... Erilks (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC) ERILKS 31 DECEMBER 2007[reply]

You should look at the page for Trabzon then- there is a fine example why there should be two separate pages! People are trying to improve articles by adding great historical information, and it is chopped up and reverted because somehow what happened when the city was Trebizond really was not as important, which is totally wrong. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who think that their culture is the "right" one and the only one to ever live in a city, which is insane. It is not any bias towards anyone, just a way of limiting the conflict that always seems to happen. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why unify the two pages? I came across a reference to Antioch in a newspaper article, and used Wikipedia as a very useful source of information about the city. I had no interest in the modern Turkish City (even if it had the same name Erilks, it is a different beast), though I could see the link if it did catch my fancy. I would also expect that the two articles will have a different set of editors, with quite a different set of interests (one: historical, the other: administrative, contemporary). Unifying them just seems like some unnecessary imperialism upon the past. The compromises necessary to keep just one page would result in a series of quite unnecessary judgements and priority calls. Tjamesjones (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles on one city? You can never understand how people analyze things around here. HD1986 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man! there is always double entries when it comes to Turkish cities, whats the deal? No wonder all of you guys jumped us after we lost WW1. It seems like the good old "partitioning of the "sick man of europe" dreams" are still persistent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue

The Synagogue of Antakya should be included in the general article of Antakya to give evidence of the cultural diversity of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelknoerrich (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of Seluecus

Does anyone know where these ruins are? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

correction needed

There is only one sarcophagus in the picture, so the word should be in the singular.164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

The 2023 earthquake is mentioned in the lede, but it is absent in the history section. There should be a paragraph on it (and a link to the article on the quake if one exists). 164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deipnosophista

This is also a very poor article: it is badly organised and unbalanced and the use of English is terrible. All that needs to be sorted out before anyone starts seriously considering merger. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]