This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTurkey andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcities,towns and various othersettlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of theWikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAssyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Wikify : separate "Overview" section is unnecessary - should be merged with lead para
Other : needs location map and town plan
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Comparing the two, we see this sentence in both pages: "About 50% of the fresh apricot production and 95% of the dried apricot production in Turkey, the world's leading apricot producer, is provided by Malatya and the name of the fruit is synonymous with the city." I took the phrase "world's leading apricot producer" and put it into the revision history search to find it enteredin 2007. Looking at that, I'm instantly thinking we have a backwards copy here. The material as entered was not complete - it ended with the words "provided from Malatya." The rest of the sentence was already in the article, in the overview section: "In Turkey, the apricot is synonymous with Malatya." It also incorporated a sentence ("This region of Malatya is best known for itsapricot orchards.") from the older version that appears modified in the external site. Looking further, it seems that the editor's next action was to blend existing content into his new additionhere. He added some new content in that edit (the "delicious and sophisticated" section) and pulled some more material in from elsewhere in the article ("nourished from the alluvial soil"). Looking back at the oldest edit in June 2007,here, we find that "nourished from the alluvial soil" language. We can also trace how the original content "Malatya apricots are often dried in the sun by traditional family-run orchards, collected and shipped throughout the world" is modified in that later edit to read "Malatya apricots are often sun-dried by family-run orchards following traditional methods, and collected and shipped throughout the world." The source uses the latter text. I know that at some point "This region of Malatya" was tightened to "The Malatya region" and next look to see when that happened. It happenedhere, in a general copy-edit almost two years later by a different user. Other changes that user made - he turned "50% of fresh apricot" into "50% of the fresh apricot" - the external site uses the article. He did the same to dried apricot. The external site reflects that, too. He changed "from Malatya" to "by Malatya." The external site says "by Malatya." He changed "belong to Malatya" to "comes out of Malatya." The external site uses that language. He changed "following traditional methods, and collected and shipped throughout the world" to "using traditional methods, before they are collected and shipped throughout the world." The external site reflects that modification, too.
I cannot explain why this document is dated May 2007, but I do not believe that our editors copied content from that document. They would have had to have done so incrementally over years, first getting it wrong and then gradually bringing it back towards the source. It is far more likely that, date notwithstanding, they copied fromus.
I believe that the source may have been created ca. 2012, as it seems also to incorporate information from[1]. The author of that piece uses a consistent tone throughout, while the tone of this brochure is choppy. Note, for instance, "This is the quality that gives soluble fiber its ability to reduce high LDL and total cholesterol levels. Both dried fruits also provide appreciable amounts of soluble fiber, which promotes healthy bowels by adding bulk to stools and moving material through the digestive tract more quickly." The brochure removes the words "Both dried fruits" and begins instead a sentence fragment with the words "Also provide...." That makes sense, since the brochure is concerned only with Apricots while the news article is also considering plums. They also seem to have copied from[2], at least in the marketing section, with content demonstrably published as early as2003 - four years before the claimed publication date of this brochure.
Given this evidence, I do not believe we can consider the section (in spite of its similarities) a copyright concern on our part without some credible evidence to explain the natural evolution. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added information about Kurdish minority in Malatya: "Malatya is one of the cities in Turkey which have a big Kurdish minority. Kurdistan (areas inhabited by mainly Kurds) maps consists Malatya as north-west corner of Kurdistan." 20.02.2008
Ummm, what isthis? Why is neutrally sourced material about the Armenian population from the past being blatantly removed? Revert yourself and please be fair. -Fedayee06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of Kurdishness for Ozal and Inonu are cntradicted by their entries in wikipedia. Therefore, to maintain consistency, I am removing it.68.19.85.5121:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article,File:Malatya Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion atWikimedia Commons in the following category:Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image isnon-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is nofair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This article says: Following Roman expansion into the east, the city was renamed in Latin as Melitene. / Melitene was the name of the region, NOT the name of this city!Böri (talk)10:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not allow Kurdish irredentsits to edit pages
The Kurdish name for Malatya (a contrived corruption of its Turkish name) was added even though the city has been Demographically, Ethnically, Culturally, Economically, Socially and politically Turkish for the last Millennium. There are some desperate Kurdish users keen on claiming regions with no Kurdish populations and their works should be removed immediately.— Precedingunsigned comment added byOzan192 (talk •contribs)00:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored both the Kurdish and the Armenian. The Kurdish name might be a corruption of the Turkish but the Turkish name is also a corruption of the Greek. I do not see anything wrong with listing Kurdish and Armenian names of cities in Turkey. Wikipedia isn't obliged to adhere to Turkish nationalist discourse.Jackal01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A question: The city names in history are validated by official governings since Malatya is ruled and be part of Cappadocia,Armenian, Byzantium, Roman, Ottoman Empire and official names are recorded accordingly. Could you please provide an official Kurdish govern,a historical paper,any international peace/war agreement or anything naming Malatya in Kurdish officially? I really do not care nations etc, I care about valid, formal and historical information. If you list all the ethnic groups how they are calling Malatya in their language please add another chapter and also add Assyrian,Persian,Arabic,Bulgarian, Zaza etc.Manukpamuk (talk)15:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your gross ignorance of the subject of this article is no excuse for breaking fundamental Wikipedia rules about not deleting properly inserted fact tags and not going around making invalid edit summaries that contain bad faith statements like "vandalism". There was no Roman province ever calledPokr Hayk - the province's Latin name rendered into English is "Lesser Armenia". Cite me a reference that says otherwise if you disagree. It was not a "factual region" (cite me a reference that says otherwise if you disagree), it was a Romanprovince, a province that was split into two new provinces in 292 AD. Neither of those two new provinces had the name "Haik" (cite me a reference that says otherwise if you disagree). "Anatolia" was also the name of a province (you seem to fail to understand that the Byzantine province of "Anatolia" is a completely different concept to the modern Turkish use of the word "Anatolia"). If you claim that the Abbasids invaded specifically the Byzantine province of Anatolia and left everywhere else untouched, cite a source that says this.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)03:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, Anatolia has different meanings, which you ignore. Secondly, "Pokr Hayk" or Փոքր Հայք is a synonym for Lesser Armenia/Armenia Minor in Armenian. Good luck disproving that with any sources, though. --92slim (talk)03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Anatolia has different meanings", correct, and I'm happy you agree with what I wrote above. Now explain why, in an article that is about Roman and Byzantine provinces, one of which was named "Anatolia", you want the word "Anatolia" not to be used in its Byzantine meaning but to be used in its modern meaning?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)04:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking YOU for sources for your assertion that Pokr Hayk was the name of a Roman province. The fact tag that you repeatedly deleted was also asking for sources.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)03:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to prove that the phrase Փոքր Հայք is in Armenian? Not needed, sorry. Maybe there is something we have gotten wrong inside this argument, but the phrase means the same as Armenia Minor. Use Google Translate. --92slim (talk)03:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, now what language would it be in. Armenian? This is not Armenian Wikipedia, so there is no place for Latin names rendered into Armenian. To insist otherwise is to insert irredentist Armenian propaganda suggesting that Lesser Armenia was part of Hayk. But "Armenia" is not called "Armenia" by its native population for a reason. The Roman province of Lesser Armenia was not connected to Hayk, and most of its population was not Armenian.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)03:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia - made by theSoviet Union for Armenians, not in Armenian at all. As for the rest of your post, that's another claim not backed up by any source. Please, prove it here. Give it time; I'd be delighted to read your reliable sources claimingArmenia is not Armenia or that thepopulation of Lesser Armenia were not Armenians. --92slim (talk)04:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia is not written in Armenian? Are you saying that Hayastan is not called Hayastan. You do not seem to understand that contentious statements in an article should have a citation. Deleting citation required tags is not a substitute for providing sources, nor is claiming that it is "obviously" true. I am still asking you for sources for your assertion that Pokr Hayk was the name of a Roman province.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)04:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Hayastan is not Armenia? Because that's a laughable statement. Itis. And the Soviet Armenian encyclopedia is first and foremost a translation of the Great Soviet encyclopedia so no, the original is not in Armenian. And yes, sources can substitute citation tags. Stop being disruptive, and using circular fallacies. --92slim (talk)10:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me about a week to respond to some of these claims. But suffice it to say there are plenty of sources we have on Armenia Minor (which is indeed Pokr Hayk).Nicholas Adontz'sArmenia in the Period of Justinian treats the subject and more precisely the entity of Armenia Minor in extensive detail. The book should be available to view online.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)00:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia Minor may well translate to "Pokr Hayk" in Armenian, but so what - this is not the Armenian-language Wikipedia. Irredentist extremist propaganda that claims the Roman and Byzantine provinces of First, Second, Third, and Fourth Armenia as parts of historical Hayastan and full of ethnic Hayer just because they have the words "Armenia" in them is not supportable by legitimate sources.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What word do you think the Armenians of those times used to refer to those lands? You think that "Pokr Hayk" was something conjured up by nineteenth-century Armenian nationalists to lay claim to lands? We have medieval Armenian chroniclers referring to a "Mets Hayk" (Greater Armenia) in order to differentiate it with Armenia Minor. I don't have the time to devote to it now, but why don't you in the meantime start off by cracking open Nicholas Adontz'sArmenia in the Period of Justinian (seehere for the available Russian, or turn to page 66 to begin the section on Armenia Minor). We'll give discuss this in a day or two, and I'll be back with ample sources that will be sufficient to dismiss all citation tags.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)15:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"What word do you think the Armenians of those times used to refer to those lands"? Answer your own question please (with sources of course) since it is obviously sarcastically posed. And we are not talking about "lands", we are talking about the names of Roman provinces.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the source he provided? Read it, there is a reason for which users post sources on talk pages, given that you have already asked and he has answered correctly with a source. No, it's not sarcasm this time, sorry. --92slim (talk)20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you fail to deliver ANY sources. Are you incapable of reading that supposed source yourself and actually provide some quotes to back your claims? Or is it that your attitude is always "if 92slim thinks its true then it MUST be true, so sources are not needed"?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my problem if you don't want to read it yourself. Back up your pseudofringe claims first (as if everyone doesn't know that Armenia and Hayastan are the same), since you are digressing with about every single user around. Also, it's the other user who provided the source, so you do your own work :) --92slim (talk)00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A simplistic claim that "Armenia and Hayastan are the same" only reveals your core ignorance on the subject. Roman and Byzantine-era provinces with the word "Armenia" in their names are not "Hayastan" simply because they have that word "Armenia" in their names. It is YOU who are required to provide supporting sources for content that YOU want added to an article. Is this basic Wikipedia requirement really that difficult for you to understand?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three words:READ the source. Here, I will do this hard work for you: "Nicholas Adontz,Armenia in the Period of Justinian". Just to make it even easier:link here, p. 311. Memorize these words:I will read this. After that step, I can't help you anymore; sorry. --92slim (talk)17:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed most of your recent edits. They are ill-thought, they contain off-topic content, they contain unclear material, they deleted sourced content, and they fake a source. Your edit deleted the sourced content that stated that the Malatya plain formed part of the Kingdom of Cappadocia, thus removing from the article the explanation to readers about why that kingdom is being mentioned in an article about Malatya! And after such an ill-thought deletion you go on to add off-topic superfluous detail about that kingdom (such as who ruled it). You then alter "It was a major center in the Roman province of Armenia Minor into "It was a major center in the province of Armenia Minor ([Փոքր ՀայքPokr Hayk]Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)" You have deleted the factually correct word "Roman" because it does not agree with your pov warring - you want to disguise the fact that the province was a creation of Rome because that disagrees with your propaganda aim to claim it as historical Armenian territory. You then give this revised content a fake source. There is no p311 in the source you cite. I'll make a guess and assume you actually mean the table on page 147 of Garsoian's supplement to the translation of the 1908 Adontz text. The table has the name Pokr Hayk as an "equivalent", however there is no indication of where this "equivalent" comes from or who has used it, or even what is meant by "equivalent". And of course there is no content in that table containing anything like "It was a major center in the province of Armenia Minor".Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's get some basic facts straight. I have here a copy ofArmenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, edited by Richard Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, 2004), and I am quoting directly from Robert Hewsen's chapter, "Armenia on the Halys River: Lesser Armenia and Sebastia":
Lesser Armenia or Pokr Hayk, that part of Armenia discussed in this volume, consists of the northwestern reaches of the Armenian Plateau, a region different in character from the rest of the Armenian highlands. As far as is known, it was never politically one with the rest of Armenia and seems always to have been a distinct entity until annexed by the Roman (later Byzantine) Empire....To the Romans, Lesser Armenia was known asArmenia Minor, a direct translation of the ArmenianPokr Hayk....Lesser Armenia remained a division of Cappadocia until about 300 A.D. when the Emperor Diocletian (284-305), aware of the tendency of Roman governors to use the provincial forces at their disposal in attempts to seize the imperial throne, broke the existing large provinces into smaller, less powerful units. Accordingly, Lesser Armenia was separated from Cappadocia to become a province in its own right, and Sebastia was added to serve as its capital....Less than a century later, this enlarged province was divided in two by the emperor Theodsius I (379-95), who in this way created the new jurisdictions of Armenia Prima (First Armenia) with its capital Sebastia, and Armenia Secunda (Second Armenia) with its capital at Melitene.....The two small units of First and Second Armenia remained unchanged for about a century and a half until in the 530s the emperor Justinian (527-65), having been victorious against the Sasanian Persian, completely reorganized the Roman holdings in Armenia, taking First and Second Armenia and territories from Greater Armenia of about equal size and re-dividing the amalgam into four small provinces: First, Second, Third, and Fourth Armenia..." (pp. 45, 48, 50, 52-53
Yet in his own map on p51, Sivas is shown outside the territory of this "Pokr Hayk". And his claims somewhat differ from Adontz who says that the population was, over time, "Armenized" rather than starting out being Armenian and that it was during the Justinian period that Armenians began moving westward into these Lesser Armenia territories from Armenia proper. Hewsen's statement that the Roman name for and concept of Lesser Armenia isdirectly derived from the Armenian name for these territories is outrageously unsourced. No written Armenian sources exist for this period! This Armenian claim that the entire area of "Lesser Armenia" is part of historical Armenia is as stupid as the Turkish confiscation of maps showing Roman Lesser Armenia because they consider them irredentist Armenian propaganda. Not for the first time Armenian and Turkish nonsense walks hand in hand. It is just a reminder to me why nobody should believe at face value Armenian sources because so many of their authors find it impossible to rise above nationalistic myths. This is why Turkish and Azeri propaganda producers can get such an easy ride - they can dismiss the sources that disprove the propaganda by just saying they are written by Armenians. They owe you some thanks. Go ahead and add your referenced propaganda, and let the Azeri's add theirs, and the Turks add theirs.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)21:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This above user doesn't understand that whathe believes orsuspects is not importantat all. Sources are what's important here. Learn to use Wikipedia. Find sources to back your claims, or stop vandalizing. --92slim (talk)22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GGT Malatya, formerly Melitene, receives its current name due to the Greeks. It was also a critical town during the Byzantine period. So I don't know if removing it is appropriate. But I do accept your edit as one made in good faith and would like to hear your reasons before coming to any conclusions myself.Étienne Dolet (talk)04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EtienneDolet, thanks for your point. This was an edit of mine not done with due attention. Firstly, the origin of the name is Ancient Greek, already cited in the lead (I do not intend to remove it); this one is the name in Modern Greek, and is not directly relevant in that sense (WP:LEAD states that we're not supposed to add names there on the basis of etymological importance anyway). Per WP:LEAD once again, I would say that we need to minimise the number of names there; which is where my carelessness comes in. The Ottoman Turkish name certainly should go; we already have the modern Turkish name and the former spelling isn't of much relevance. Per WP:LEAD, Malatya needs to be "closely associated" with these languages. Kurdish is fine as the city has a sizeable Kurdish population, Armenian is understandable as the city used to have a sizeable Armenian population until the 20th century. The city does not appear to have had a significant Greek or Syriac population in the last centuries and there is nothing in the article that suggests a close association with these languages (the importance for the Byzantine Empire many centuries ago isn't enough for me; that many cities in the Balkans and the Middle East were important for Ottomans doesn't justify adding Ottoman or modern Turkish names to the lead; furthermore, that name is in Modern Greek whilst the Byzantines wrote inMedieval Greek). I would, however, appreciate a "name" section in the article where we could link to. --GGT (talk)13:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onMalatya. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.svg)
