| Revision as of 22:06, 7 August 2010 editCplakidas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers221,351 edits →Cumans: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:31, 7 August 2010 edit undo41.132.178.5 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Hello, and ]. First, some ground rules: try to be ], and not to ], even if they commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you... Yes, I know that the Turkic tribes are of Central Asian origin and that their characteristics originally were Mongoloid rather than Caucasian, but you are missing the point: "ethnic" does not mean "genetic". If modern scholars classify them as a Turkic tribe based on linguistic and cultural criteria, than that is what they are, just as for example the modern-day Turks or Azeris. What blood flows in a people's veins is utterly irrelevant after a couple of centuries in a conquered new land... Generally, it is bad form to include large rants and blocks of argumentative text of the "it follows", "everyone knows that A, therefore B..." kind. It smacks too much of ], ] opinions, and these tend to be quickly removed. If you have ] to back up your argument, please do so, and it will stay there. Otherwise, ranting that "blond-haired and blue-eyed people" can not possibly be Turkic just because their DNA is patently wrong will get you nowhere. Regards, ] ] 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | Hello, and ]. First, some ground rules: try to be ], and not to ], even if they commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you... Yes, I know that the Turkic tribes are of Central Asian origin and that their characteristics originally were Mongoloid rather than Caucasian, but you are missing the point: "ethnic" does not mean "genetic". If modern scholars classify them as a Turkic tribe based on linguistic and cultural criteria, than that is what they are, just as for example the modern-day Turks or Azeris. What blood flows in a people's veins is utterly irrelevant after a couple of centuries in a conquered new land... Generally, it is bad form to include large rants and blocks of argumentative text of the "it follows", "everyone knows that A, therefore B..." kind. It smacks too much of ], ] opinions, and these tend to be quickly removed. If you have ] to back up your argument, please do so, and it will stay there. Otherwise, ranting that "blond-haired and blue-eyed people" can not possibly be Turkic just because their DNA is patently wrong will get you nowhere. Regards, ] ] 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| I do polagise for not being civil. I don't think that it is bad to include 'large rants of argumentative text' in this case, as it clearly gets my point through, my opinion is not personal, it is a fact(if you don't see my logic by now then review your basal way of thinking), and dont tell me that it is irrelevent what blood flows through people veins after centuries, as in many cases, these genes actually stay there for the greater part. Also don't tell me that becuase they have blond hair and that the DNA is patently wrong thing wont get me anywhere - these are the fundemental reasons why the Cumans can't be Turkic, there is nothing wong about 'ranting' like that in this case, as it proves my point. I personally am descendent from them,(has to do with my name), so in other words I have spent countless hours reading and researching about them, if anything, I know alot about them. In this case I don't need sources as my reasoning makes complete sense and is logically sound. I don't know how you do your thinking, but in most cases, ethnic does mean genetic. I don't care if you are againts this, but this will stay int he article. And I say it again, people should know both sides of the story, to keep just one is sick and wrong in the spirit of good science. If you remove my edit, I will add it back. What you said about my edit is shallow and you made few, if any important points concerning this specific article(your points can be for wikipedia in general, but not for this article). I will and I mean it, will keep undoing your ridiculous edits ] (]) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:31, 7 August 2010
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Cumans
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. First, some ground rules: try to be civil and calm, and not to call other people names, even if they commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you... Yes, I know that the Turkic tribes are of Central Asian origin and that their characteristics originally were Mongoloid rather than Caucasian, but you are missing the point: "ethnic" does not mean "genetic". If modern scholars classify them as a Turkic tribe based on linguistic and cultural criteria, than that is what they are, just as for example the modern-day Turks or Azeris. What blood flows in a people's veins is utterly irrelevant after a couple of centuries in a conquered new land... Generally, it is bad form to include large rants and blocks of argumentative text of the "it follows", "everyone knows that A, therefore B..." kind. It smacks too much of biased, personal opinions, and these tend to be quickly removed. If you have reliable sources to back up your argument, please do so, and it will stay there. Otherwise, ranting that "blond-haired and blue-eyed people" can not possibly be Turkic just because their DNA is patently wrong will get you nowhere. Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I do polagise for not being civil. I don't think that it is bad to include 'large rants of argumentative text' in this case, as it clearly gets my point through, my opinion is not personal, it is a fact(if you don't see my logic by now then review your basal way of thinking), and dont tell me that it is irrelevent what blood flows through people veins after centuries, as in many cases, these genes actually stay there for the greater part. Also don't tell me that becuase they have blond hair and that the DNA is patently wrong thing wont get me anywhere - these are the fundemental reasons why the Cumans can't be Turkic, there is nothing wong about 'ranting' like that in this case, as it proves my point. I personally am descendent from them,(has to do with my name), so in other words I have spent countless hours reading and researching about them, if anything, I know alot about them. In this case I don't need sources as my reasoning makes complete sense and is logically sound. I don't know how you do your thinking, but in most cases, ethnic does mean genetic. I don't care if you are againts this, but this will stay int he article. And I say it again, people should know both sides of the story, to keep just one is sick and wrong in the spirit of good science. If you remove my edit, I will add it back. What you said about my edit is shallow and you made few, if any important points concerning this specific article(your points can be for wikipedia in general, but not for this article). I will and I mean it, will keep undoing your ridiculous edits 41.132.178.5 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)