Talk:Kasimov

Hi, Gene s! If you have some questions, you may ask it to me, please don't send any correction without discussion! Yours, --Untifler 23:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Same goes for you. Unless you discuss first before changing, I will not honor your request. --Gene s 09:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all I'd upload this article, than you first changed it :^)

--Untifler 18:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

p.s. as for tatar alphabet, it is not less friendly for English speaking reader, than Polish, Latvian of Magyar. But You are strongly opposite tatar alphabet only.


 * I correct only those articles which I see. I don't correct Spanish articles because I don't get across them. Your accusations of racial bias are unwelcome. I can just as easily point at your racial bias.


 * Please, don't take offence. Could you not to get accross them? :) Sorry for my beeng unwelcome :)--Untifler 18:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

p.p.s. x is kh in Spanish too, not only in Tatar. So< for pronouncing all pages'll have transcriptions of tatar naming.
 * The name Muhammad is the name of Islamic prophet. There is an accepted English spelling of the name. There is an accepted English spelling of Afghan. There are NO articles where, for example, Russian names are spelled in Cyrillic and used as link titles. Why should be unreadable (in my opinion) Tatar names used as article titles when there is perfectly valid English equivalent?
 * As for Russian, Russian names are transliterated, also all of them are Christian and has Enhlish equivalents: see: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. anglicisation is Peter.

Tatar use alphabet, same with English. This is Latin alphabet with some extra sighns. And for Tatars Möxämmäd or Möxämmät is Tatar name first of all (no Arabic of Islamic), also like Pyotr (not Peter) is name for Russian. As for speeling, Tatar is not better, than another language uses Latin. Those languages also use their name in their oun form in English texts. Examples:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Cemal Gürsel. Interested in pronounsion will click link with strange name, where transliteration will be speled. --Untifler 18:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That would be true, if the latinized Tatar (Möxämmät) was used in 17th century. But it was not. The names of those khans were written in arabic. --Gene s 05:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But his name was pronounced in Tatar language which is not changes for 500 years. "Muhamed" as it is pronounced in Arabic is a differ of Tatar Möxämmäd, becose Arabic is not language of vowel harmony. Traditional Tatar speeling could not be transliterated using another methods. May be Moekhaemmaed is more friendly to English speaker?
 * No, it would not be. But Mohammad would be fine, Moqammad or even Moxammad are fine. As for "Tatar language which is not changes for 500 years" no one cannot prove that and it's likely to be incorrect. No language is frozen for 500 years, all languages evolve, including Tatar language.
 * Tatar as Turkic language is agglunative language (the most unchangeble). I mean, that grammar and pronouncing haven't changed in the last 500 years. New words appeared and some dissapeared, of course.
 * Do you have any references in support of this statement? And suppose this is true, but 500 years ago Tatar language used Arabic for writing. Besides, phonetic authenticity in titles is not as important as clarity and ability to search and to relate to other sources. I am insisting on English only in article titles. You can write whatever alternative spelling you want on the first line of the article.
 * I'm glad that Moxammad is fine. So I'll do an articles in such tradition. as for Kuchum, It was in another window when I upoaled that file and answered you. So, I named it mistakely Küçüm after the Kuchum, but I planned to name him Küçüm firstly, and move page to Kuchum (becose I'm lasy for doing redirects). Okay. So, all classical Tatar letters is normal for English speaker, but extra letters only are uncomfortable. --Untifler 20:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, stuff with umlauts, and like ç are uncomfortable. I can't even type them on my keyboard.
 * As for another languages converted their alphabets to Latin - their pre-convertational names are used in English texts in their own Latin form, such as Romanian Vlad Tepe&#351; (Romanian used Cyrillic before the 19th cent.). --Untifler 14:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. Vlad Tepes article has no non-English characters in the title, it redirects to Vlad III Dracula, also with no specifically Romanian characters in the title.

p.p.p.s Pleas not correct this article before it became a translation article of the week!
 * Same goes for you. You did remove my edits before starting this discussing. --Gene s 09:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my radicalism. Let be the partneres!

--Untifler 18:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's try. Face it - Tatars are unknown in the West compare to Spaniards or even Turks. When you write your articles, try to make them easier for Westerners to read and to learn about Tatar culture. When you fill the articles with foreign-looking characters, you basically shock the readers. They see the text filled with obviously foreign symbols and would be less likely to read the stuff because it's difficult and alien. Also keep in mind that your English is not perfect. I and maybe others would help and copyedit it, but I don't want to touch it because of all foreign characters - I would remove it, but you would probably object.
 * When you use alien names for people or places (like Jalal ad Din vs whatever you used for his name) it's hard for readers to relate to what they already know. For example, I read about Jalal ad Din, but I never heard of Calaladen (or whatever his name in Tatar, sorry for spelling; besides his name was never written in latinized Tatar, it was written in Arabic). Thus, instead of promoting Tatar culture, you marginalize it.
 * Think about it - your goal is not to use as many Tatar charactes as possible, but to promote culture. Right now you are sacrificing clarity for authenticity. I believe it's wrong.
 * You are right. I think that Cäläletdin realy was my mistake. Becose he was steppe Tatar, khane of Golden Horde and modern Tatar language wasn't still in use. so, we pronounce his name by Arabic ways of prononcing in 1920s, when Arabic still was in usage. but we really don't know how this name was pronounced by extinct steppe Tatars.
 * We should mean Engish-speakers. This is English wiki. You agree, but at the same time you create article Küçüm. That makes me doubt your sincerity. Google gives 421 English pages for Kuchum and only 3 English results for Küçüm  This is wrong. You should not do it like this - you say one thing but do completely different.
 * Some languages, such as Turkish has pronounsing, related to Tatar. But after translating of English text all names traditionally are used in English form as untranslateble foreign name, so English speeling became one absolute speeling. As for Tatar form - I think it needs. Coming to Tatarstan any language speaker will see Tatar form only. I think, that main name (also like head ot the article) ought to bee Tatar name with "funny letters". As for promotion of culture, I think, that it is able (for me and you) to write English speeling in brakets after the Tatar name always. (but fo speeling only, becose in different lnguages traditions are different: Estonians prefer to use Tatar Latin, not transliteration, another languages may prefer use own form).
 * The article title should be in English. If there is a generally-accepted name, it should be used for article title. Alternative spellings should be in the article on the first line. Read this: Naming_conventions
 * --Gene s 15:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Äf&#287;än Möxämmäd has any generally-accepted name, becose mausoleum is only rest of his life. as for Dracula, his real name is'n speeled "Vlad Tsepesh (Vlad T,epe&#351;)" as you assume, but "Vlad T,epe&#351; /vlad tsepesh/" as I assume for Tatar names. So national speeling is has priority.--Untifler 20:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Afghan has generally accepted spelling, we agreed on Muxammad. Seems like Afghan Muxammad would fit the bill. As for Vlad Tsepesh, look at his article: Vlad III Dracula or other Romanian name Nicolae Ceausescu, not Nicolae Ceau&#351;escu. Please do read the Naming conventions (use English) and related links I gave below.
 * It is important, becose by all Latin languages's tradition all foreign names are used in their own form, but Tatar language names was never.
 * This is not true. In particular, look at Italy. Almost every Italian town is named by its English equivalent - Venice, Florence, Padua. Unicode entities in the titles should be avoided too.
 * As for my English, you are absolutely right. But I hope, that "funny letters" is not a reason not to correct mistakes. --Untifler 14:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if I copyedit it, I would convert names and titles to English. Would you accept that? --Gene s 12:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --Gene s 05:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use English
Also please read Naming conventions (use English) --Gene s 15:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can also take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization) --Gene s 15:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comfortable using of Tatar names.
or naming convention for Tatar.


 * If name of concret person has English equivalent, usage of English name has priority. Needs experiment with Google.
 * Sounds good.

for titles
 * If name uses in Tatar texts only and first used in English text, name will be used in Tatar form, but converting extra signs:


 * ä - a
 * ö - o
 * ü - u
 * &#305; - e
 * í - i
 * ç - ch
 * &#351; - sh
 * &#287; - gh
 * ñ - ng


 * Looks fine.

for text
 * Tatar words are wroten as in Tatar, but always with transliteration for English speakers /in brackets/ after the word
 * If indeed there is a need for Tatar word in the text at all. Tatar words should be used when there is no English equivalent, when the word cannot or should not be translated like for naming people and places. In the same way it's currently done in the articles about China or Russia.

It's okay? --Untifler 15:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good. --Gene s 11:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needs to discuss some constructions!
If Tatar word, which haven't gon English equivalent, uses in English text as link (of course this ling is without any extra letters). We can use such construction: Äf&#287;an Möxämmäd /af-GHAN mer-kham-MAT/ instead of Afghan Moxammad (Äf&#287;an Möxämmäd). I think, it's more correctly and comfortable. --Untifler 13:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How about this example: &#20013;&#22269; or this &#1056;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;. Essentially you are proposing to make Tatar language special compare to any other language. I think this is not right. --Gene s
 * And by the way, China in pinyin is Zh&#333;ngguó, but no one writes even like "China (Zh&#333;ngguó)", evryone writes just "China". --Gene s 13:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But China is English word, China is a name of country ect. Äf&#287;an Möxämmäd is a first used in English Tatar name. It's used in own form, but with full transcription of pronouncing. Mean, that Tatar and English use the same alphabet, exclude some extra sighns. construction was invented for such cases too. So, I thin that form I suggest is more friendly than use you, becose you form is not clear for pronoucing. Looking at this form reader will understand Tatar signs /it is for language's promotion/. All pages about Latvia or Turkey uses such construction, but without transcription, so I'm more friendly to english speaker.
 * Sorry, I'm wrong. Something had changes since I last loo throw ttese articles.


 * And yet another thing for you to ponder. I understand you are the primary editor of Tatar wiki. You have an article there titled tt:Qazan Däwlät Universitäte. You have a link to Lobachevsky on that page. He is a Russian, not Tatar, right? So, his original spelling is not Lobaçevski. But you don't give his Russian name anywhere on the page. And at the same time you insist on having links in Tatar in English wiki. Why such double standards? --Gene s 15:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nikolay Lobaçevski was made long ago. I'd fogotten about this article. In time which I did this article was some problems with my Russian keyboard. Thanks for reminding.

History
... forced to give this town to prince of Kazan Khanate Qasim khan after the battle of Suzdal ... - seems to be not true. According to all russian sources, the city was presented to Qasim khan for his service aafter this prince fled out of Kazan Khanate. Qasim Khanate was rather formal, it was actually ruled from Moscow. Maximaximax 14:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday I read a much more sources about Qasim Khanate and as I see there is no consensus between different authors about the reason why it was founded (as a present or because of force). So it seems to me that both POV must be observed, but in Qasim Khanate article. Here we should leave a note that there are different opinions about it. So I set POV check label to not confuse readers and leave the possibility to original distributors to change the articler according to POV. Maximaximax 07:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In ru:& I tried to express the NPOV. Anyway there are links to articles (rus.) with controversial opinions, so anybody can check them and improve. Maximaximax 07:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I incorporated text from PD Brokgaus-Efron encyclopedia (B-E claims Gorodets was willingly granted to Qasim Khan, who was a supporter of Vasili). If the "forced" part was indeed true, then the proponent of this point of view should provide references. --Gene s 07:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As for my datas, in Battle of Suzdal Vassili was defeated by Mahmud bek, prisoned, he gave back Meschiora lands, what he had bought in 1342 at Toqtamesh. But it is not contradict to Qasim's serve to Russians. He came to Russians before becoming the khan and then khanate, settled by Tatars, was given to him. Note that Tatars appeared in Kasimov after the battle of Suzdal. As for Qasim Khanate, it was vassal land, but formally independent (or more correctly. it was not Muscovy's own territory) --Untifler 01:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * p.s. Datas are contraditious... Please, don't ask me how Grand Duke could give one land twice...

Clarification
Hi - I have just completed the Sicilian translation, but I came across some constructions which were a little bit puzzling for me - as follows: Otherwise, I found this an interesting article to translate. Thanks and salutamu - --pippudoz 00:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The first population of this area was Finnic tribe Meschiora - the Finnic tribe, the Meschiora?
 * Meschiora is name of concrete tribe of Finnic people. --.:Ajvol:. 08:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Are Vassili II and Vasili II two different people or is one a typo?
 * Typo. See Vasili II of Russia. --.:Ajvol:. 08:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * when khanate was reabsorbed into Russia - when the khanate?
 * ??? the word khanate stands for kingdom, principality. --.:Ajvol:. 08:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the para starting with the "In 17th century," could probably be made a little bit clearer, perhaps with an "and" after the final semi-colon.

On which bank of the river Oka
On maps it looks like it lies on the left bank. And so is also stated in Russian language.--194.165.127.158 22:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixed in English version. The town is situated on the left bank of Oka river. See http://www.kasimov.ru/shema.php --.:Ajvol:. 12:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)