The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> History of Turkey = History of the Turks, Deletion of Western Civilization
Emperor
post Fri 6th April 2012, 2:06am
Post #1


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



Articles:

Turkey

History of Turkey

Once again we see the "NPOV" content controllers at work. In the Turkey article, this is all they have to say about 1500 or so years of Roman/Byzantine history:

QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Anatolia was subsequently divided into a number of small Hellenistic kingdoms (including Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamum, and Pontus), all of which had succumbed to the Roman Republic by the mid-1st century BC.[29]

In 324, the Roman emperor Constantine I chose Byzantium to be the new capital of the Roman Empire, renaming it New Rome (later Constantinople and Istanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).[30]


and then they go on to mention Manzikert and the fall of Constantinople very briefly.

They don't say anything about the Greek Orthodox church, which is headquartered in Turkey.

Well ok, maybe the "History of Turkey" article will have a little more detail? NOPE nope.gif it is literally the "The history of the Turks" according to Wikipedia.

In contrast check out the Spain article, which gives a relatively fair summary under the "Muslim Iberia" heading; or the Greece article, which at least acknowledges that part of their history.

It's kind of stupid... if I were Turkish I'd be pimping Byzantine history for all it is worth.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 8:59am
Post #2


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 6th April 2012, 3:06am) *

Articles:

Turkey

History of Turkey

Once again we see the "NPOV" content controllers at work. In the Turkey article, this is all they have to say about 1500 or so years of Roman/Byzantine history:

QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Anatolia was subsequently divided into a number of small Hellenistic kingdoms (including Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamum, and Pontus), all of which had succumbed to the Roman Republic by the mid-1st century BC.[29]

In 324, the Roman emperor Constantine I chose Byzantium to be the new capital of the Roman Empire, renaming it New Rome (later Constantinople and Istanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).[30]


and then they go on to mention Manzikert and the fall of Constantinople very briefly.

They don't say anything about the Greek Orthodox church, which is headquartered in Turkey.

Well ok, maybe the "History of Turkey" article will have a little more detail? NOPE nope.gif it is literally the "The history of the Turks" according to Wikipedia.

In contrast check out the Spain article, which gives a relatively fair summary under the "Muslim Iberia" heading; or the Greece article, which at least acknowledges that part of their history.

It's kind of stupid... if I were Turkish I'd be pimping Byzantine history for all it is worth.


Come, come. Do you really have to pick out the obvious targets for the POV-pushers?

What's next Israeli and Palastine articles? Yugoslavian ones? Eurasian ones?

At least give us examples of subtle ones. They're the ones that are really harmful.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Fri 6th April 2012, 10:21am
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



It would just be necessary to add a few cross-references. Surely there are articles on the Byzantine Empire and the Greek Orthodox Church. Anyway, it is the Orthodox Church as it is found in many countries other than Greece. Please do not push a POV while complaining of other POV!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Fri 6th April 2012, 11:42am
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I suppose the issue here is of a Turkish entity rather than the land itself.

E.g. Great Soviet Encyclopedia begins the history of Turkey in the 14th century:
QUOTE
The Turkish state was formed in the 14th century on territory in Asia Minor that had belonged, either wholly or in part, to several ancient and medieval states. These states included the Hittite Empire, Lydia, Media, the Achaemenid Empire, the empire of Alexander the Great, the Se-leucid state, Pontus, Pergamum, Rome, Byzantium, and the Sultanate of Konya. By the 1320’s, a feudal principality had been formed in northwestern Asia Minor; it was called the Ottoman (Osman) Empire after Osman I, the founder of the ruling dynasty. The Turkish nationality that developed in this state from various Turkic tribes and elements of the indigenous population came to be called Ottoman Turks.

In the 1320’s and 1330’s the Turks conquered the remaining Anatolian possessions of Byzantium: Bursa (1326), which became the first capital of Turkey, Nicaea (iznik), and Nicomedia (izmit). From its inception the Ottoman Empire was a military-feudal state. The feudal warriors (spahsis) who made up the ruling class concentrated on the conquest and pillaging of new territories. The military-Le/w system of landholding (seeLEHN) that developed in the Ottoman Empire led to further Turkish conquests. Eastern Thrace, including Adrianople (Edirne), and several Bulgarian cities were conquered in the second half of the 14th century. In 1389 the victory of the Turks on Kosovo Polje transformed Serbia into a tributary. Turkish troops subjugated the Bulgarian Kingdom, Thessaly, and Macedonia. At the battle of Nicopolis in 1396, the Turks routed the united forces of the Crusaders and advanced to Constantinople. By the end of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire had annexed, by peaceful means or military conquest, all the Anatolian principalities (bey-lics) as far as Canik (Samsun Vilayet) to the northeast, Silvas to the east, and Karaman to the southeast.

In the early 15th century a large army headed by Tamerlane invaded Anatolia. At the battle of Ankara in 1402, the sultan Baya-zid I (ruled 1389–1402) was defeated and taken prisoner, and most of Anatolia broke up into its former beylics.

In 1415 popular revolts against the feudal government broke out in western Anatolia and the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire was gradually restored after the revolts had been crushed and the internecine struggle of the sons of Bayazid I had ended. By the 1440’s the Ottoman Turks had resumed their expansion into the Balkans. The sultan Murad II (ruled 1421–51) routed in 1444 and 1448 the armies of the Crusaders who attempted to halt the Turkish advance; his son, Mehmed II (ruled 1451–81), took Constantinople on May 29,1453, after a siege lasting nearly two months. The Byzantine Empire ceased to exist, and Constantinople (Istanbul) became the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
Whereas they have a large article on the Byzantine Empire.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sat 7th April 2012, 12:06am
Post #5


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(Mister Die @ Fri 6th April 2012, 7:42am) *

I suppose the issue here is of a Turkish entity rather than the land itself.


well yes, but most every other country article in Wikipedia gives the history of the land, not the predominant nation-state ethnicity that happens to be in charge at the moment. Almost 1 in 5 Turkish citizens is a Kurd, but "History of Turkey" doesn't mention the word "Kurd" even once.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 7th April 2012, 1:16am
Post #6


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 5th April 2012, 9:06pm) *
It's kind of stupid... if I were Turkish I'd be pimping Byzantine history for all it is worth.

No, you wouldn't, and it's for the same reason there's a separate article on the History of the Republic of Turkey (T-H-L-K-D) - the current government desperately wants to distance itself from the Armenian Genocide, which it regards (or wants to be regarded) as having been committed by a completely different regime. The Armenian diaspora all over the world has always wanted reparations, or even just an admission of guilt, from "Turkey" - but the current Turkish government insists it wasn't them, it was the Ottoman Sultanate who killed 1.5 million Armenians.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the current arrangement of articles on this topic, as well as the concentration of info on ethnic Turks in the one article, is due primarily to edit-warring between Turks and Armenians that's been going on for years, with a series of "compromises" imposed by US/UK-based admins who probably know almost nothing about the situation beyond what pops up on Google.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th 10 17, 9:47pm