Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 27 November 2006

e104421 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives
Archive

Altaic

No, as I explained, no one disputes that Turkish is part of Altaic, but many linguists dispute that it's a valid language family in itself. I think just having the "(disputed)" is a fair compromise to those who would like to remove "Altaic" completely (not me, as I'm not a linguist) and those who want to keep it. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Altaic languages (which says proposed language family) article discusses it throughly. A lot of people just aren't convinced that Japanese, for example, and Turkish are related. —Khoikhoi 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your other additions to the article, you should probably discuss it with AtilimGunesBaydin. —Khoikhoi 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a source, the Encarta article on Languages:

A number of linguists believe that many of the languages of central, northern, and eastern Asia form a single Altaic language family, although others consider Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolic to be separate, unrelated language families.

—Khoikhoi 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this by Khoikhoi. The Altaic language family is listed as "disputed", because it has not been proved to the general satisfaction of specialists in Altaic linguistics. Some scholars support the idea of an Altaic language family, while others argue that the common features of Altaic languages are due to borrowing and language contact instead of a genetic relationship. This dispute has a long history, and it is known by everyone acquainted with Altaic studies; there is even a custom of speaking of the "Pro-Altaic" and "Anti-Altaic" schools in the field. If you're still in doubt, you could check e.g. the publications by Juha Janhunen (e.g. Manchuria: an Ethnic History, 1996 and the references cited there) or some recent publications by Alexander Vovin (see his bibliography: http://www.hawaii.edu/eall/ppl/indiv/Jap/VovinAlexander-biblio.htm), who formerly supported the Altaic hypothesis but later became a vocal critic of it. --AAikio 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Altaic dispute

Re. your question about the disputedness of Altaic: Yes, as a professional historical linguist (though not an expert on the topic) I can confirm that there is such a dispute. It's not quite easy to come up with quick references without a good library at hand right now, but this article would seem like a good place to start for further bibliography. (Don't know if it's actually the one I read a few years ago myself, can't quite remember where that one was.) From what one can gather from this abstract, and from what I remember of that article I read, the picture emerges that there are basically two camps that are roughly equal, one affirming a family relationship and one denying or at least seriously questioning it. I could look up the article in the library some time if necessary. For the moment, I think the "disputed" tag in the infoboxes is quite okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply (). I can see your points, both of them. Of course, if we are to mark the "Altaic" in the infoboxes as disputed, it should be done in all branches, not just the Turkic ones. Probably the people who introduced it just didn't get around doing it everywhere. And to follow up on your argument, I personally could live with omitting the note from the infoboxes altogether, and leaving the discussion of the dispute to the main Altaic languages and Altaic hypothesis pages. I mean, linguists aren't really disputing that "Altaic" is a salient grouping of languages that can be used as a handy label in classification; and they certainly aren't disputing that Turkic or Mongolic belong to that group. It's just a dispute over the technicalities of the exact nature of the group (Areal convergence or common genetic descent). Our classificatory hierarchies shown in the infoboxes needn't be overly scrupulous on such matters, they aren't supposed to represent linguistic "Truth", but are just rough-and-ready pointers to relevant pages (and there's no doubt that the article on "Altaic" is relevant to readers of the Turkic languages articles). Unless other editors have strong objections, count me among those who would agree with omitting the "disputed" notes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As for my part, I still disagree. In my opinion the "disputed" tag should be added to all Altaic language articles. I think this is not really a "dispute over the technicalities of the exact nature of the group (Areal convergence or common genetic descent)". The infonbox section is titled "Language family", and if "Altaic" is a group based on areal convergence instead of common genetic descend, then it's by definition not a language family. Because the dispute exists, we shouldn't give the readers the impression that Altaic is an unanimously acknowledged family like Uralic or Indo-European. --AAikio 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agop Dilaçar and the Turkish alphabet

Hi, I noticed your conversation with the user Khoikhoi about Agop Dilaçar and his mention in the Turkish language article. Please let me explain the situation:

Today, after your edits in the "writing system" section of the article, that section striked me as being inadequate (not because of your edits, obviously). Having recently contributed to the Turkish alphabet article (I wrote almost the entire "History" section of that article), I spent some considerable time doing research on the Turkish alphabet reform (about which I already knew a lot) and I corrected several wrong references to the issue all over Misplaced Pages (like the claim that the new Turkish alphabet was "invented" by Atatürk alone). My current knowledge about the creation of the alphabet is that, in June 1928, the Language Commission (Dil Encümeni) started, as requested by Atatürk, to work on the new alphabet, meeting many times on different occasions and it was guided by Atatürk regarding many issues including the planned transition phase to the new alphabet. The list of this commission's members are given in the Turkish alphabet article (it may be incomplete, of course). A fairly good source about the work of the alphabet commission is accessible via this link: (if you happen to know Turkish). Another good source for the subject is .

I was also curious about Agop Dilaçar and his relation to the language reform. I appreciated his work and his contributions to the Turkish language to such a degree that I felt the necessity to start a new article for him and I did: Agop Dilaçar. I also created the Turkish Language Association article today, again with Dilaçar's mention as its first specialist. And for about several hours now, I have been reading a part of Dilaçar's wonderful work "Atatürk ve Türkçe" on this page: . But in none of these sources is there a mention of his name as being present at the commission responsible for the creation of the Turkish alphabet, that I was referring to in the previous paragraph. He was present at the First Turkish Language Congress in 1932, but it seems that he was not present at the alphabet commission of 1928. If you have any sources on his involvement with the alphabet commission, I would certainly want to learn about it. Actually, I included his name in the commission list in the Turkish alphabet article, thinking he obviously should be present, but then since this was not mentioned anywhere, I removed his name from that list and the "writing system" section of the Turkish language article.

One last point is that I think the Turkish language article obviously lacks a "History" section, which also should certainly include a comprehensive telling of the language reform and that would be the correct place for referring to Agop Dilaçar with many other important names. FYI, this was my longest remark on any user's talk page so far. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary of the year

"(how one thing becomes both definite and probable (editing these sentences))"

I love it! You hit the nail right on the head with wikipedia! (Good change too btw) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

reply: - not at all, I was complimenting you - I had no idea English was not your first language. What you said is a great truth, I took it to mean "(This is) how one thing becomes both definite and probable" ie., only on wikipedia! That is, one person says something is "probable" then another comes along and adds somehwere in the same paragraph that it is "definite", or vice versa...! Anyway, keep up the good work! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages: Physics Project

E104421, welcome to the WP: Physics Project. I am a fellow Physics Wikipedian (and a fellow physicist as well) and I'll be glad to assist you if I can. You'll find many resources that allow you to edit or support articles related to your interests at the project. As a physicist yourself, you already have an aptitude and interest in this field so articles like Gravity, Big Bang, Entropy, Dark Matter, and Quantum Field Theory, etc. would suit you well.Here is the important list of the most important articles on physics in Misplaced Pages. And don't be afraid to make bold edits, as long as they are in the spirit of the Misplaced Pages Five Pillars, especially if you have verifiable sources cited. Here is a style guide for you as well. Enjoy! Cheers, Astrobayes 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:E104421/archive

Altaic again

Hi E104421. I now finally have the chance to get back to the Altaic issue. Regrettably I found our university library somewhat lacking in Altaic references, but I recently read the paper Turko-Mongolic relations by Claus Schönig, in the volume The Mongolic Languages (2003), ed. by J. Janhunen (published in Routledge Language Family Series). Schönig argues against the Altaic hypothesis, providing a rather detailed summary (as well as many references) of how the Turko-Mongolic lexical correspondences can mostly be explained through various levels of borrowing. He also maintains that there are no coherent correspondences in morphology or basic vocabulary, a situation that would abnormal in a case of genetic relationship. The paper also gave me the impression that the support for the "anti-Altaic" interpretation of the corpus has increased as research on lexical correspondences has progressed.

Then the other thing we discussed, namely the "disputed" tags. As I alrady mentioned on some talk page (can't remember which), I now agree that the tags could perhaps be removed in the infoboxes. I can't say though that I'm completely happy with this solution either, but I guess the tags in themselves do not give much information to the general reader. Even if Altaic is not a valid classification, it is a valid areal/Sprachbund classification; even Schönig concludes his paper by saying that "Although apparently genetically separate from each other, Turkic and Mongolic are entities so intimately interconnected that it will never be possible to understand the one without the other." However, a slight problem here is that the infobox says "Language family", and if Altaic is not a family then removing the tags could eventually turn out to be misleading. What do you think? Of course, another issue is that the dispute should be thoroughly explained and documented in Altaic languages, and this article would need considerable improvement in this respect. --AAikio 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buyukanit

Even though I might agree with u, if you are going to remove content, please do so properly as not to remove wikifications present in the remaining text.. Therefore I had to revert to the previous version - please be careful next time. cheers! Baristarim 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood :)).. If you look at the talk page, it was me who proposed the removal of newspaper content this morning - what I was referring to was how u did your edit, U edited som that all wikifications in the remaining text were gone.. O wikificationlari yapmak onbes dakika aliyor :)) Yoksa niye yaptin babinda soylemedim.. Ben de sana katiliyorum.. Sadece edit yaparken copy-paste ile degil, direkt text silerek edit yap demek istemistim.. Kolay gelsin :)) Baristarim 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was only because it took me ten minutes to correctly wikify the article (especially with links to medals, and military terms) :))) So I was a bit worried :).. try to delete the text directly instead of copying and pasting it from the article's history.. Another note, nearly all the time, only links that have not been given in the main body of the article are listed under 'see also'.. On the other hand, I agree with the removal of all that material, so no worries for that.. :) Baristarim 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems.. Most of the biography is from the TAF web-site, however it seems to be shorter.. I will update it fully, in the Ilker Basbug article I used directly the official bio from TAF.. However, Buyukanit article was written by someone else so I don't know why they cut short the bio.. I will look into it tonight, you have my support for removing the newspaper content though.. Baristarim 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Tekleni 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

I have looked into their contributions and saw they pushing the same version of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that somehow suspicious. On the other hand they are both established user with more than 1 thousand edits each. It is unusual to have sock puppets with so many edits, thus, I need stronger evidence (e.g. both pushing an unusual POV or wrong data or similar spelling errors, etc.) to start the check user request. Alternatively you can go to WP:RFCU and file a checkuser request on your own. If the accounts are indeed multiple accounts of the same person, then it is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. abakharev 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Atatürk images

I totally agree with your comments. I was trying to tell this to User_talk:Shuppiluliuma (the uploader of all those new images), with not much success. I would be happy if you could check our conversation on her userpage and help me with persuading this user not to reduce the quality of the article through this image addition madness. I worked really hard to get that article somewhere close to an encyclopedic standard and it makes me quite sad that it now looks like a personal hobby page with unproperly cited / captioned images randomly collected over the internet. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think that was a bit like an overkill. I think I will put some of the images you removed back, of course being careful not to compromise the readability. Perhaps we could make a gallery at the bottom and this could also make the Hittite named user happy and prevent further tamperings like this in the future. Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I reintroduced some of the images and I hope these do not disturb you much. I think having an image for each large section is a good thing and contributes to the readability. I certainly think that the image of the first TBMM and an image of Kurtuluş Savaşı are definitely needed. I also think the fact that Venizelos came to Ankara for the celebration of October 29 is a wonderful thing and this image should also stay around to demonstrate the efforts for peace. Greetings to beautiful METU (if you are still there, of course), I surely miss the campus. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the sections are still shorter than they need to be, I hope this would change soon. Other than that the layout doesn't look too bad when compared to other articles of this type, George Washington as an example. And I don't think the article size should be a problem for this article for the near future. Greetings to METU again! Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Altaic controversy

I think that is a very good way to put it, well done! And I agree that it was not clear what was disputed with the previous "disputed" notice. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

TRNC

Thanks for your efforts (and sorry my poor English in that article). May I ask for your help in future edits (editing my edits)? Regards. -- Mustafa Akalp 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

wikimail

It is not that difficult, although sometimes confusing.

Open a userpage or a user talk page. Locate a menu named "toolbox" (in my skin it is just below the "search" entrybox. In this menu locate the item "E-mail this user" (in my skin it is above "Upload file"). Click on it. You will get on a page with the address like http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Emailuser/E104421 (of course you could manually enter this magical address). Fill the form. Press send. If the user has not enabled his email the system should warn you.

I believe you already sent me E-mails, have you forgotten how you did it? Happy editing abakharev 08:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Antalya

Hi. There is always another way:). I know i may use aggressive and cynical language in talk pages sometimes, but i am not editting articles without being sure of what i should right or without sources (sometimes this is questionable, but i am always willing to talk and explain). I know i have been edit-warring, but not only with turkish users (just check the histories of the Aegean Islands and the W.Thrace cities to see how many times i've reverted anti-turkish edits). I have said it many times that i am not a nationalist... Yes, i do not like Kemal... Yes, i do not like the turkish politicians and generals... But i have nothing, i repeat nothing, against the Turkish people! About Antalya, i dunno... maybe cause i am Greek, i found it "ridiculous" to ask for an etymology citation (sorry 'bout that, but as a greek-speaker i can easily understand it... i should be more understanding for those who don't speak the language...). There are no hard feelings... it just seemed extreme to me that u contacted these wikipedians with that messange... Regards Hectorian 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had not understoond that u asked for a citation concerning the whole paragraph. anyway, the myth is wellknown. About the politicians: LOL:) i am not attacking them on articles, i just prefer not to edit where they are mentioned... My comments on politicians are mostly in talk pages... Cheers Hectorian 09:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Small nuance

A small nuance: I said that "the same users that have been editwarring at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are now engaging in an editmoverevertwar at other articles relating to Turkey and Greece" (Italics by me), with "one example" being Turkish Republic of Western Thrace and Republic of Gumuljina. I did not mean to say that the exact same group of users that were editwarring at TRNC are now collectively editwarring at TRWT, although I acknowledge that my notice at WP:AN/I could be perceived as such. Aecis 11:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit Wars

Merhaba e104421,

I don't like edit wars either. In fact, my favorite thing to do on Misplaced Pages is to fix-up articles, not get into conflicts with users. :-) The first thing to do when you get into disputes is follow the dispute resolution process. If that's not working (it appears it hasn't been attempted yet), the next step is to file a request for mediation. When you get into an edit war, the first thing you should do is leave a comment on the relevant talk page. Also see WP:1RR (it's a good rule to follow!)

Anyways, I hope that helped, please let me know if you need anymore advice. Regards. —Khoikhoi 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW

Have you noticed that you're mentioned on some other website here? Someone called "Warrior Soul" doesn't seem to like you. :p —Khoikhoi 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the links because they are not reliable sources. Please (if you have the time) replace w/ government data. It is most likely Inanna who is behind this, so by all means, undo her edits. I would not reply to "Warrior Soul", that would be troll-feedin'. :-) Regards, —Khoikhoi 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Paper sent

Hi,

I just e-mailed the paper. Sorry for the delay. Heja Helweda 04:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Warrior Soul

I would recommend just to ignore this idiot. He is already permabanned and everybody know that his (or her) accusations are incorrect. All the history of the articles is kept and it is easy to see who added what. Alex Bakharev 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re

OK. have in mind that the pages u confront me (or any other Greek user) are articles interesting to (almost) every Greek, so, it is not much of a surprise... I do believe that we'll meet each other a lot, in a variety of articles, but also hope that we will assume good faith in each other's edits. Sincere regards Hectorian 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa

Hi e104421,

I know how you feel. I wanted to move Nisibis to Nusaybin (its modern name), but there was no consensus to do so. I noticed your conversation with Hectorian on my talk page—are things pretty much resolved? —Khoikhoi 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

merge tag

If your going to put up a merge tag, you need to create a section on the linked talk page with a justification for the merge, otherwise the tag will just get removed. Also, the merge of the Byzantium article and Constantinople article has already been discussed, recently, in previous talk page discussions. It really is very obvious these articles should not be merged unless you have a really good reason and can change peoples minds. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

Please do not start and edit/revert war. All you have to do is go to the respective articles for information. I merely conformed it to those.Khosrow II 15:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re

As a Greek Orthodox, i have searched the issue the most i could. i also keep pace with what is going on in our times concerning the title and its recognision. all sources and even media suggest that only Turkey does not recognise the 'Ecumenical' title and that is for well known reasons. I have also checked the different (id est turkish in this case) POV. i am not sure what documents and sources u wanna send me... aren't there any links? or are they had written? if u do believe that they are neutral and relevant enough, i will send an email, so that u can attach files in your reply. Regards Hectorian 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good then. According to the neutral (e.g. Britannica), scientific (e.g. historic accounts), self-used name (e.g. the official site), name used by others (all apart from Turkey), the article justifies perfectly its title. Let me know if and when u find sources that need to be attached in email. I would be interested to see them. Regards Hectorian 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think i have not said anything much different... Historically he has been Ecumenical, the Lausanne Treaty does not adress the issue, any supposed talks the Turks did in Lausanne are not part of any treaty (diplomatic talks usually remain unknown, that's why the outcome is presented to the people providing "food" to conspiracy theories). Why was that only till 1923 then? because kemal wanted to reduce its significance? in any case, such an attempt has failed, and it is not something that people outside Turkey think about. The issue is indeed controversial according to the turkish laws, but this applies only to turkey, since these are turkish and recently created laws. There is no conflict between this title and international treaties... That's why all the rest recognise it. Regards (for now) Hectorian 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the issue arose in 1923, then Kemal has to do with it (he was in charge that time, wasn't he?). If there are no international treaties or laws about his status in modern Turkey, then his status which has been active for millenia, has not changed (there are/were no treaties or laws for the titles of "Pope", or "Caliph", or "Pope of Africa" or "Dalai Lama" either. Lack on consensus is something that does not apply to the rest of the world (only in Turkey it does). Regards Hectorian 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should be proud of his origins and his country. and i am happy for u too. i have no doubt that u express, in good will, what u know and what u observe. but, i guess u will agree with me that it is also important to understand what has been done so far, for u to observe what u do, and also that u are not in the position to know everything that is going on in a large and diverse (as yourself said) and populous country like Turkey. u see, i am Greek and live in Greece... within half a day i can visit any place, any remote village here, and there are no "unaccessable" or military areas. i am not afraid to visit any single place (apart of course of the "dangerous" suburbs here or in Athens during night alone...). I bet u must live in Istanbul, meaning that u are by far more liberal than central and eastern parts. also have in mind that nowhere have i said anything against the Turks, for whom i have good feelings. what i do not like is the turkish militaric system of governing, whose first victims i consider to be the Turks themselves (i could give examples, but i guess u have got my point anyway). oh, and btw, pls do not present Turkey as "multi-USA" or "multi-Australia"... we both know that this is not the case. Sincere regards Hectorian 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course time is needed! I have to admit that Turkey did some progress to keep in pace with the rest of Europe, but honestly, i think it was not the best it can do... in 9 days will be the official EU report. we'll see what they have to say. but i am optimistic: i do not believe that time cures everything, but i do believe that the river does not go back;-). so, sooner or later Turkey will be more democratic (not implying that the EU countries are the "democratic heavens", of course). Ciao Hectorian 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tools

I, personally, use Firefox 1.5. It allows to have multiple pages open in different tabs, that is convenient when editing Misplaced Pages. It also has a nice extension named SessionSaver, so you never loose your edits. I heard that IE7.0 has a similar functionality. I do not remember having the logout problem you described, but if you could check "Remember me" check box (no other wikipedian sharing your computer) it might fix the problem. Good luck Alex Bakharev 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I happened to see this discussion. I had logout problem as well (though using Firefox only). Without checking the 'remember me' box, i noticed that i logout after several minutes without activity in Firefox, meaning if i come in front of my PC after some time, i suddenly see that i have logged out. the 'remember me' box solves the problem as Alex Bakharev said above. Ciao Hectorian 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The box is on the login screen, just below the Password. Alex Bakharev 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of trolling on Talk:Huns

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. CRCulver 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: congratulations

Thanks! I appreciate your kinds words. Please let me know if you need help with anything that requires admin tools. Ciao. Khoikhoi 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sun language theory

Well, the source I read, a part from a 1936 New York Times article, said that, thats why I inserted it. Note that the article is from 1936, from the same time as the Sun language theory was introduced, so the chances of it being wrong is probably pretty small.Khosrow II 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I formatted the origins section of the Heph. article to match the source. There should be no more dispute.Khosrow II 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information from the Hephthalite page again. I have asked an Admin to take a look at it, and so far, you have removed sourced information without justification, and you have added unsourced POV in its place while keeping the same source up. That is called distortion.Khosrow II 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

"Turkey for the Turks"->kemalist ideology. "Split of Cyprus and creation of a wholy TC state for the TCs"->Taksim (if not union with Turkey, a country that has the kemalistic ideology as a doctrine+that country-which has kemalism as official doctrine-help the "taksim"). btw, the ideology of "Megali Idea" had been abandoned in 1923, and has never come on force since then in Greece. Enosis would be the best link in the 'see also' section of this article, don't u think? Ciao Hectorian 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that Erbacan was also in the Turkish government in 1974... In any case, every turkish politician is within the kemalistic ideology... since noone criticising or rejecting or judging this ideology, but they all accept it. Taksim can as well have this link. The Megali Idea was not that simple as establishing a Greek state that covers all the Greeks, as u said... The Greeks of Pontus, Southern Italy, former southern Serbia (modern FYROM), Eastern Rumelia, Alexandria, Cyprus, where excluded. Yes, Megali Idea shares similarities with Enosis, that's why the link is present in that article. but adding Megali Idea and excluding Kemalistic Ideology from Taksim, seems, at least weird, cause Kemalism is much more relevant with Taksim than Megali Idea could ever be. Regards Hectorian 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, i do not know much on how kemalistic ideology was in the past and if now, what we all see is not this ideology at all... I certainly would not consider it 'leftist', but it may had such elements, if u say so (i trust u on this). however, when we say 'kemalistic ideology' we do not only refer to the period kemal was in charge... IMHO, i do not see much differences among modern turkish politics and kemalistic ideology. For me, it is a continuation of that theory to the present day. anyway, i would propose either to have both Megali Idea and Kemalistic Ideology, or none... I think it is the most NPOV way to deal with this. What do u say? (going out, perhaps reply tomorrow;-)...). Have a nice evening. Hectorian 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not search all the article, but used the "diff" link. so, i removed the multiple wikifications that were create last (which happen to be those u mentioned). now that u mentioned it, i searched and removed others as well. Regards Hectorian 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Altaic (again)

It looks like there's a consensus to redirect Altaic hypothesis to Altaic languages, but I don't see any consensus to remove "disputed" from all these articles. Just like you have a source that these languages are from the Altaic family, I have a source that says the family is disputed by some linguists. Until a source can be provided that says no one disputes it, it should stay. Khoikhoi 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with writing both. The link you showed me doesn't prove that there's a consensus to remove the disputed tag from all these articles. It's not misleading at all, really. As I said before, I provided a source that proves this. Besides, we have the link to the controversy section, so readers can see for themselves. Khoikhoi 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a better wording choice, while you prefer "controversial". So the reason why we can't have both is...? Khoikhoi 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They mean the same thing, see this:

a debate, controversy, or difference of opinion.

And for "controversy":

a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

Khoikhoi 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about we have it like this:

"X language" (controversial)

What do you think? Khoikhoi 18:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and just saying "controversial" doesn't clogg-up the infobox. Khoikhoi 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that we don't have to say "disputed", but the compromise I was offering was this:

"X language" controversial

That way we don't have to say "see also..." which takes up too much space. While at the same time, we still link to the poper section. Khoikhoi 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'm glad to say that our conflict is (hopefully) finially over! :-) BTW, get well soon. Khoikhoi 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias as sources

WP:RS##Some_definitions says: A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Misplaced Pages, are tertiary sources. Misplaced Pages articles may not cite Misplaced Pages... Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources. Thus, encyclopedias are fully appropriate as our sources. In academic publications encyclopedias are usually consider as to poor a source but for Wiki they are OK. A classical monograph or University textbook or an article in a first class referred journal may tramp Britannica but most other sources we use: Internet/newspapers/popular magazines/ second-rate scientific journals are less reliable. Alex Bakharev 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Hephthalites

OK - I'm sorry I described you as a "nationalist", but Tajik does have a point when he says that the Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam are more reliable than the Britannica on Oriental topics, particularly if you're using an old version of the latter. I suggest you have a look here and make up your own mind about the Iranica - it has its faults, but it is not a vehicle for pan-Iranianism and some of its articles are of exceptionally high quality. Have a look at these in particular:

• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in pre-Islamic Times (R. Frye)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia from the Islamic Period to the Mongol Conquest (C. Bosworth)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid Periods (B. Spuler)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia from the 16th to the 18th centuries (R.D. McChesney)
• Encyclopaedia Iranica: Central Asia in the 18th-19th centuries (Yuri Bregel)

I work on the history of Central Asia, and I can assure you that a roll-call of Richard Frye, C.E. Bosworth, Berthold Spuler, Robert McChesney and Yuri Bregel read like a "Who's who in Central Asian History" - it's really very impressive. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, is not available online but should need no introduction - there is a Turkish translation of the first edition (Islam Ansiklopedisi, I think), the second, which was completed 2005, is even better. It is the single most authoritative source on the entire Islamic world, and deserves to be taken seriously. Finally, I agree with you that there is no consensus over the origins of the Hephthalites, although as we see above scholarship is moving towards a theory of their Iranian origin, based on the scant available sources. As this is published (and in this case available online as a reference) this does not count as "original research" and can therefore be referred to in the article. Sikandarji 10:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iranica site works perfectly well on my computer - try again here. Otherwise have a look at my comments on the Talk:Hephthalite page. You admit yourself you're speaking from a position of ignorance, so I will explain this once again. Richard Nelson Frye, C.B. Bosworth, Berthold Spuler and Yuri Bregel are not in hock to anyone - they are amongst the most distinguished scholars of Central Asian history in the world. The idea that they would compromise their academic reputation by pushing a pan-Iranian POV because some Iranian businessman is on the board of the Iranica is simply ludicrous. As an Encyclopaedia covering largely Iranian topics you would expect that there might be some Iranians involved - this does not seem unreasonable. It does not indicate a conspiracy. You really don't seem to understand the nature of this source, or that of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. When I start lecturing you about particle acceleration you can tell me my business as a historian. Sikandarji 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Request of assistance for vandal user behaviour by Khoikhoi

Could the administation and users take an independent look for the following reversal of useful and pertinent contributions at the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk site please? It is very difficult for me not to interpret the revision by Khoikhoi as disrespectful vandalism and disruptive behaviour. More I studied his log history at various article related to the Turkish subjects and prior bans for the same disruptive behaviour, more concerned I became. Could someone help revert the edits he damaged and request him to be more respectful to others' work? Thank you.

(cur) (last) 16:06, 10 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (rv to last version by me) (what last revision? this is a whole sale deletion and vandalism, is it not?) (cur) (last) 14:59, 10 November 2006 Incir (Talk | contribs) (→External links) (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 November 2006 88.242.84.98 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 06:19, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→An Overview in A Nutshell) (cur) (last) 05:59, 10 November 2006 71.162.66.250 (Talk) (→International relations)

Do not remove sourced information

Do not remove sourced information with no reason.Khosrow II 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed an entire sourced section without reason. The Turkic theory behind the name Azerbaijan is historical revisionism. It has no basis in fact nor history. As I said, it cannot even explain why the region was called Azerbaijan before Turks even got there.Khosrow II 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted all of this: and your going to honestly claim that you did not take out any information? Maybe you made a mistake, I'll give you time to correct, if not, I'll have to show that to an admin, as well as show them your denial.Khosrow II 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I Appreciate it.Khosrow II 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Altaiiiiiic

Hey, nice work so far, but you missed two: Cypriot Turkish & Mongolian language. Cheers, Khoikhoi 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...and Gagauz language. Khoikhoi 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Don't forget about all the Tungusic languages as well. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Babur

Please stop messing up the article Babur which was written over a long period of time by User:Sikandarji who is an expert in this field. And also please stop direct copy and paste from external links (you have many times directly copied the text from Britannica) - this is violating certain copy rights.

As for Babur, the information about his tribal background, his language, etc is already given in the text, and that information is supported by information sources, including Britannica and Iranica. The "Origins" section states:

"... Although Babur hailed from the Barlas tribe which was of Mongol origin, his tribe had embraced Turkic and Persian culture (see Turco-Mongol, Turco-Persian), converted to Islam and resided in Turkestan and Khorasan. His mother tongue was the Chaghatai language (known to Babur as Tōrkī, "Turkish") and he was equally at home in Persian, the lingua franca of the Timurid elite; ..."

Please do not insert this information directly in the intro, as the intro is a compromise version by User:Sikandarji.

Besides that, the Britannica also describes Babur as a "Mongol warlord" and a descendant of his "Mongol ancestor Timur":

Tājik 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is not "good will", but the purpose of messing up the article. The information you are trying to push into the intros of the articles are already mentioned in those articles - INCLUDING the link to Britannica.

You are not only messing up the article, you also delete authoritative scholarly sources which are SUPERIOR to Britannica, and you only insert those informations that support your views, while you purposely ignore and reject others. Britannica, for examples, describes Babur as "Turkic" AND "Mongol", you - however - only chose the "Turkic" version. this is clearly nationalistic POV.

And you also do not understand that direct copy and paste from Britannica is NOT allowed. This is violating copy rights and will be deleted by admins.

Stop messing up those articlesa and first READ them. Babur's Turkic mother-tongue and his Turkicized culture are already mentioned in the text. So what are actually your problems?

As for the template: it is a nationalistic motivated POV-template with wrong information. Besides the fact that neither the Huns, nor the Hephthalites, or Xiong Nu were "Turks", it is already nationalistic POV to create a template about an entire ethno-linguistic family. This is like creating a template about "Aryan history" and then include all kinds of dynasties and kingdoms in it - from Vedic India to modern United States of America. These nations were most deffinitly Indo-European in language and culture ... but it would be totally POV to put ancient India and modern Europe and Amertica into one box and call that box "Aryan nation" or "Aryan history". This is exatly what YOU are doing with that "Turkish history" template ... The "History of Iran" template is not about a single ethnic- or linguistic family, but about a geographical region called "Iran". The Khwarizmian Empire, however, was neither part of "Turkey" nor has anything to do with the history of modern Anatolian Turks.

Please stop messing up those articles, otherwise you will be reported to admins. Keeping in mind that you were already cought vandalizing the article Hephthalites and that you are being opposed by an Oxford academic ... I do not think that you will help yourself by continuing what you are doing right now.

Tājik 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is totally useless to talk to stubborn people like you. You are pushing for a nationalistic POV, you have no respect for compromise versions, and you even vandalize articles by putting totally wrong and clearly nationalistic-motivated POV into the text (like your clkaim that "Berlas Mongols had become Turkish in language", while you link the word "Turkish" to Turkish language, although it is a well-known fact that Babur's mother-tongue was the Chagatay language and that Babur had absolutely NOTHING to do with modern Anatolian Turks or their language).

You had previouslöy vandalized the article Hephthalites, and now you are vandalizing these articles. And what's even worse: you are not even ready to listen to User:Sikandarji who is an EXPERT on these issues in REAL LIFE. You are not a scholar on Oriental history, and - basically - you have NO idea what you are talking about.

Tājik 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(to Tajik) Jeez, calm down dude. Khoikhoi 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Notice

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Babur. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i know. Have you ever compared my version with the others? It's obvious that the users edit warring with me are trying to delete the sourced information which is a direct compilation from britannica. You can check this easily cause i already had given the link. The reverters are deleting every entry related with turkic people and replacing them with persian (not even iranian) and accusing the all the others as nationalist or pan-turkist vandals. What they are writing is story not history. I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to make a comparison and check the sources, then we can discuss the issue better. Regards. E104421 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica sources are okay, but sources with authors attached normally are better. I don't see the accusation of vandalism you are referring to, but you shouldn't fight fire with fire; that will only make the fire bigger. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations on the talk page

I think an attributed quote of a few sentences long is not a copyright violation but a fair use so it is OK. "Google books" provides a page at a time and it is still a fair use. Obviously don't copypaste multi-page documents on the talk pages: it is not only can be seen as copyvio but also clutters the talk pagesAlex Bakharev 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Turkish History Brief

Template:Turkish History Brief has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khosrow II 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hi,

I never wrote North Azerbaijan. If you look closely you see that another user has used that term.

As I have writen before, north and south azerbaijan is an invention by soviets to ratify their expantionist agenda. This was taken on by Pan-turkist circles in Iran and Turkey after break up of USSR to advocate for separation of Azerbiajan from Iran.

I have written all of this to draw your attention to the fact that the term South Azerbaijan is politically motivated and an invention of the 19th and 20th century. Prior to that what you call south azerbaijan was called simply Azerbaijan and the republic of Azerbaijan was called Aran or Caucasian Albania. Today it is necessary to distinguish Azerbaijan from the territories to the north and the neutral way to do that is to simply state that it is a part of Iran.

Please refer to the page Azerbajan(Iran) for further reading.

best wishes Arash the Bowman 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring on Ak Koyunlu

You made four reverts in just barely above 24 hours (24h08', to be exact) - This may or may not have been a conscious attempt at gaming the system, but it's revert-warring for sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You block has been extended to 6 days for repeated edit warring and sockpuppetry with Karcha (talk · contribs). -- Steel 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a great lie. I do not know who made this accusation but this person has a bad faith. Purely bad faith. E104421 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good news that you now cleared of the sockpuppeting allegations! Congratulations Alex Bakharev 21:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

INFOBOX

• Oldu, oyumu verdim. Armanalp 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

After examining the evidence I have judged that there are valid reasons to believe that the block was the result of a terrible coincidence see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_want_to_unblock_User:E104421_and_User:Karcha. Thus, I am unblocking you. Sorry for all the pains but such incidents sometimes happen. Do not blame User:Khoikhoi or User:Dmcdevit: they acted in the good faith and with the best interest of Misplaced Pages in mind. Alex Bakharev 03:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

I am happy that accusations failed. Welcome. Must 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Regards. Must 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Something for you

Could you have a look at SNTG: Süperiletkenlik ve Nano Teknoloji Grubu and see if you can make anything useful out of it? I can't judge if the subject fits our notability criteria, and if yes, we'll need a Turkish speaker with some knowledge of physics, it seems. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, it was a copyvio. Their website is here, just in case you're interested anyway: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation board launched

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Turkey

Bir-iki gun içinde WP Turkey'e de el atacagim. O biraz daha zaman alacagi için ilk once buradan baslayayim dedim. Ama birkaç gun içinde WP Turkey'in hem daha kaliteli hem de daha aktif hale gelecek umarim. Cheers! Baristarim 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to have a look.. :) Baristarim 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

your recent edits

Stop pretending. The correct spelling of his name is Alā ud-Dīn Kay-Kubād - the first part of the name is Arabic (Alā ud-Dīn, "of noble faith"), the second part is Persian (Kay-Kubād, "King Kubād", a legendary Persian hero of the epic). The spelling Qubādh is an Arabic corruption. the same goes to the Turkish spelling. As for "1001 Nights", some anon user had added the "Arabic folktale" POV to the article. The Sassanian collection "Hazār Afsānah" did not have any Arabic influence. It was a Persian collection of mostly Indian stories, with some Iranian folktales added to them. The modern "1001 Nights" is a later corruption, although certain Iranian core-stories are preserved (Shahryār & Shahzād, Sindbād, etc ...) What you are doing is deffinitly not "good faith" anymore. And I have also reverted your POV in the White Huns article. I'd also like to know why you have added a Turkish spelling to the Ghaznavids article?! The Ghaznavids were not Turks, they were not Oghuz, they did not consider themselvs Turkic, and they did not speak a word Oghuz Turkic! What you are doing is nationalistic motivated POV and you know that!

Tājik 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi E, I've been discussing the name a bit further with Tajik. Apparently, the most authentic version of the name turns out to be one with the simple "d" at the end, but "q" before. The "-dh" version seems to be Arabic. The "k/q" issue is the same as with those Sheep guys; ironic your versions were now exactly opposed to what you two were advocating in that article. I've also pointed Tajik to a guideline page about Misplaced Pages transcription standards I just found. Based on that, I propose "`Ala' ad-Din Kay-Qubad" as the best article title, and "‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Kay-Qubād" as the most exact transliteration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've found that page, I'd strongly recommend you make yourself thoroughly acquainted with the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Arabic). Before you plunge into yet more revert wars over such issues (which are really not a very good idea). Really a good read. Applies to all articles about things from the Arabic, Persian and Ottoman worlds, provides a pretty good and easy solution for all such cases, and the best thing: the solution is entirely independent of whether the subject is assigned to the Persian or Turkish or Arab or whichever cultural sphere. So, all those silly staking-off-turf wars of the kind "we'll have it in my name version!" - "No, in mine!" - "But he belongs to us!" - "No, to us!" become moot. The name as given above is not a "Persian" version of the name, it is simply the one that is adequate to Misplaced Pages's variety of a standard scholarly transliteration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, remains the question of why you prefer the "-dh" version over the "-d" version. Tell me, I really don't understand why. That one happens to be not just a question of transliteration convention, but is a real difference between two versions in Perso-Arabic. I think we've plausibly established that "-d" (i.e. Arabic د) is the version closer to the origin of the name. It also happens to be the one closer to the Turkish. The "-dh" version (i.e. Arabic ذ ) would correspond to Turkish "-z", not "-d" or "-t". I don't know enough about these languages why Arabic would borrow > . Okay, the "-dh" transliteration occurs in the literature and should be mentioned, but there's really no reason to declare it the "better" one, let alone the sole correct one. Britannica is by no means a priviledged source in that respect; if anything, Enc.Isl. is better.

Here's a nice collection of historic coins showing his name. Have fun figuring out if those are "d"s or "dh"s! :-) Note that the author of the site uses "dh" in his editorial text, but "d" in his transcriptions of the coin texts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The dh is more suitable cause the t is pronounced as d, just as in the case of mehmet and memed. Regards. 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really understand your logic here. Arabic "dh" stands for a th sound like in English "the" (IPA ). That's quite dissimilar to the d sound apparently used both in Turkish and Persian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

Euthymios and E104421 what you are doing is very much looks like stalking. You appear to jump into a revert war on the articles that you did not have previous interest of just to annoy or harass your opponents. Please do not do it again or I will block you (both of you if needed). Alex Bakharev 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disrespect for fellow editors

Frankly, E104421, I am feeling rather insulted by you as you insinuated multiple times that I have not read the articles that are linked inappropriately to the Huns article. Do you really believe me to be that daft? It is rather disrespectful of you. I do not revert edits out of hand. I take some time to consider them. The List of Turks article says right at the top it is an article about Turkish Turks. Attila is not a Turkish Turk nor were the Huns. If they were Turks they were Hunnish Turks, which you should know better than anyone. Therefore the link is inappropriate. I wish you better communication prowess for the future. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For the list you're right, i'm not the one including Attila to the list, but what about Xiongnu? I'm sorry for the direct expression, this is due to language barrier. E104421 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

compromise failed

There are no "compromises". You post nothing but nationalistic motivated POV. I can't even believe that you claim all kinds of historical personalities as citizens of Turkey, although many of these people were neither from Anatolia, not spoke or understood any Turkish.

What you totally fail to understand is that the article List of Turks is ONLY about the modern citizens of Turkey.

But you insert all kinds of people - Turkic and non-Turkic - into that list, without providing ANY proof. Hajji Bektash Wali, Mahmud of Ghazni, Ismail I, and Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi are just a few examples. You even added Akbar Gurkani to that list - the EMPEROR OF INDIA 450 years ago!

There can't be ANY compromise. Your claims are simply wrong and need to be removed!

Tājik 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ufff, you're just a waste of time, since it's impossible to communicate with you. E104421 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not me who has to provide any reliable sources for YOUR POV. It's you who has to provide reliable sources BEFORE editing an article. I just can't believe that you claim that Mahmud of Ghazni, and even Aliyev - the PERSIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN - are citizens of Turkey. And now you are even denying this. But all of your edits are saved on Misplaced Pages - and here is the proof: You even claim that Attila the Hun whose origin is totally disputed was a citizen of Turkey. This is pure nationalistic motivated POV.

It is you who is a totally hopeless case. It's not the first time that you are desperately trying to mess up Misplaced Pages. I do not expect any good faith from you.

Tājik 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ufff. Please, do not waste my time. E104421 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it is so important we can produce List of Turkic-speaking people in parallel to the List of Turks? Alex Bakharev 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't change anything, because the people claimed here as "Turks" were neither Turks not Turkic-speaking. Tājik 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone claims the list is totally correct, but this does not necessitates the deletion without any reason. Please, stop stalking! E104421 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason?! I do have a very good reason: the list is WRONG. And besides that, it is YOU who is stalking You always appear out of nothing whenever I edit an article ... Tājik 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong, prove this in the talk page first, before deleting. You jumped into the discussion with the invitation of Mardavich for the Mughal issue. On the other hand, I was already discussing the list with Stacey Doljack Borsody. Don't you remember! E104421 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You want me to prove to you that the Emperor of India "was not a citizen of Turkey"?!?!?! You really are a waste of time ... Tājik 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)