Talk:Malazgirt

Not NPOV

"The Seljuks pillaged Manzikert itself, killed much of its population, and burned the city to the ground."

The above statement referenced from the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia due to the historical mutual emnity of the two groups can be considered POV. Please provide a Turkish or internationally distributed encyclopedic reference as the area is politically under the control of modern day Turkey and internationally distributed encyclopedia's are known to adhere to a strict bias free policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieSkeptic82 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But I am not going to let the denial of the Armenian genocide remain. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2010 (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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Malazgirt → Manzikert –. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME provisions of WP:AT. This is a case where English language useage differs from the official name in another language. While the official modern name (in Turkish) for this local is Malazgirt, the local is primarily known for its historical importance, and it is primarily referred to in English language sources by its historic name: "Manzikert". Even modern English language sources (discussing the modern town) tend to refer to it as "Manzikert". A move is indicated by applying the core principles laid out at WP:AT, "Manzikert" is more Recognizable to English speaking readers than Malazgirt. It is also more Natural and more Consistent between articles on the topic (Related history articles use Manzikert and link to the article by that name, so a name change will result in fewer redirected links). Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME (why WP:OFFICIALNAME?) provisions of WP:AT.. I say should, whether it does depends on who is editing WP:AT today :( ... in any case, be that as it may, the frequency of the Armenian spelling "Manzikert" is due to the frequency of past events, such as the Armenian genocide. That doesn't change that the name today is Turkish, Malazgirt:

- Demetrius Kiminas The Ecumenical Patriarchate 2009 - Page 16 "The catastrophic defeat of the Roman army by a new enemy, the Seljuk Turks, in a battle near the city of Manzikert (today Malazgirt in eastern Asia Minor, north of lake Van) on August 26, 1071 heralded the unobstructed influx of the Muslim ...

- Stavros Boinodirs, Andros Odyssey - The Return: 1940-1990 - Page xxii "4 Manzikert is today's Malazgirt, Turkey, north of Lake Van in Asia Minor.

- Barbara H. Rosenwein A short history of the Middle Ages 2009 - Page 179 "Then in 1071 a huge Byzantine force met an equally large Seljuk army at Manzikert (today Malazgirt, in Turkey)."

- Antonius C. G. M. Robben, Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco Cultures Under Siege: Collective Violence and Trauma 2000- Page 227 "... groups emerge as a silent, but important factor in international relationships. Background In 1071, at Manzigert (today known as Malazgirt), in eastern Anatolia (Asia Minor), a battle took place between Byzantine forces and the Seljuk Turks."

If we followed frequency with no regard to WP:MODERNPLACENAME we'd perhaps have Livorno at Leghorn still, I haven't checked that. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea that WP:MODERNPLACENAME (a Guideline provision) should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME (a Policy provision). Instead, I would say that MODERNPLACENAME is an extension of COMMONNAME (spelling out what to do when the COMMONNAME is unclear... I don't think that is the case here).

That said... Please read WP:MODERNPLACENAME again... it says: Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use. (bolding mine for emphases). I based this move request on the fact that an overwhelming number of English language sources use Manzikert when discussing the local... it is true that most of these sources mention the location in a historic context... but that is because the local is not all that notable without its historical context. The simple fact is, there are a huge number of English language sources that discuss the local in a historical context, and very few English language sources that discuss the local in a modern non-historical context (and most that do, also use the historic name). This is why I think this is an exception to the usual practice of giving more weight to "modern-context" sources than to "historic-context" sources. In this case, the shear number of "historic-context" sources is overwhelming. That overwhelming majority affects the overall Recognizability of the two names... "Manzikert" will be vastly more recognizable to the average English speaker. Few English language readers will recognize the name "Malazgirt"... but a great many will recognize "Manzikert". Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'd have to ask what is the difference between a well-edited "Guideline" and a badly edited "Policy"? Both of these are just pages where a small self-selecting group of editors have expressed their opinions.

But that's by the by, the more important issue here is that the lede says "is", i.e. this is a present-tense statement about a present tense situation. We are not writing 1911.wikipedia.org

The lede says:

-- Malazgirt... is a town in Muş Province in eastern Turkey, with a population of 23,697 (year 2000).

With that as the lede how can we justify using an old English rendering of the Armenian name which is not in the majority in modern sources about the modern city? As for Battle of Manzikert (1071 AD) that's another issue, which is why we have another article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to change... just rewrite and expand the lede as "Manzikert (modern name Malazgirt) is a town in Muş Province in eastern Turkey. It is primarily known as the site of a battle that took place in 1071, between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Turks. Today the town has a population of 23,697..." etc. Blueboar (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ever stronger oppose ...Blueboar. But why change it? Why on earth would we have a geo article on a 10th Century town on a 2012 wikipedia? for Battle of Manzikert 1071AD see Battle of Manzikert for Malazgirt 2012AD see Malazgirt. 14:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment but probably Oppose. The evidence above - although it's fairly thin from my own, separate research - appears to suggest that Malazgirt is the usual English language name today. I disagree though that we have any conflict between the preference for "common name" in WP:TITLE and "modern name" in WP:NCGN, or that we need to override the former in favour of the latter to get to the right name: the guideline is merely more specific in pointing out the implicitly obvious that in a modern encyclopedia - as opposed to a encyclopedia of ancient history - when we talk about "common name", we are talking about the up-to-date common name for the place today. The guidelines simply clarify how to apply the policy in cases such as this one - they complement and expand on the policy rather than contradict it. As noted, we have the article on the battle itself to reflect the importance of that event and numerous references to it. Adding a more specific statement to the first sentence that the place was historically known as Manzikert (rather than simply relying on the mention in brackets) would also clarify the issue. N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 21 September 2012 (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.

Wproject Armenia?

Why? What is the relationship between Malazgirt and Armenia? --E4024 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just temporary while this RM is on. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. The city was founded by Armenians, was part of several Armenian kingdoms, had Armenian churches and an Armenian population until 1915 until they were all deported - indeed what does this all have to do with Armenia! I'm actually surprised it wasn't added earlier.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's also see when the Yerevan article will be introduced the Turkish name of "Revan" in WP: "For the capital city of Armenia, see Yerevan." Hmmmm... --E4024 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Turkish association with the Armenian capital is far more tangential than a town founded, built, and inhabited by Armenians for about two millennia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

... and according to Moses of Chorene the town was named after Manavaz, one of the two brothers of the epic founder of the Armenian people, Hayk. Sprutt (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks In ictu oculi. For some reason the move request was rejected in ictu oculi... --E4024 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed ? Possible ?

Disputed Armenian Genocide ? Possible massacres and deportations ? Has Wikipedia become a billboard for Turkish negationnism ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FortressNikopoli (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• Milazgir bihar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)