User:TrangaBellam/VC

Misrepresentation of English and Russian sources

 * 1) At Turkoman (ethnonym), VC wrote: The source was cited that goes: Removed by me alongside the next line (see this thread).
 * 2) At Tuqaq, Visioncurve added a citation for the following statement (this was the only citation):  I quote the entirety of the cited page (p. 94/95) using the default OCR of Google-Books with own corrections:  The source notes Tugshirmysh (not Tuqaq) to be the son of Kerequchi; it does not mention Tuqaq even once. Some medieval historians have traced Seljuqid descent from Tugshirmysh/Tuqshurmish but nobody has ever held Kerequchi to be the father of Tuqaq!In the ANI complaint, VC claims that I "humiliated" and "embarassed" myself after disputing this source at the t/p :-)  Visioncurve has replied to this particular accusation at the talk-page.
 * 3) At Turkoman (ethnonym), a source was cited that goes:VC had used it to write:An Ottoman-Safavid conflict with sectarian dimensions gets extrapolated to entire Turkmen history!
 * 4) At Turkoman (ethnonym), VC wrote (made past the fourth GAN):  When a list of citations follow a paragraph, it is assumed that those citations can verify everything in the paragraph. So, I proceeded to consult the citations: Gross (1995; p. 214) offers nothing relevant. Neither does Tsutsiev (2014; p. 48-50). Nor does the encyclopedic entry (which is a very poor source) on Turks.A fly-by editor noted (helpfully) that it might be the case that the line was uncited; since then, the line has been removed by another editor for being unsourced. Fwiw, my belief is that the line is historically inaccurate.
 * 5) At Tuqaq, VC wrote:Two sources were appended at the end of the paragraph. The first one is a romantic fiction novel (consult the sub-section, below - ). The second one is a very reliable source (Peacock 2010; p. 92-93) except that the cited pages did not support the content. As I noted at the t/p, Peacock actually presents contradictory evidence about the Turkmens being quite willing to raid fellow tribes but VC did not engage with me. This is, what I call, a 180° misrepresentation of sources.
 * 6) At Turkoman (ethnonym), VC wrote:The paragraph went in unsourced but at some point of time (atleast, as of the second GAN), a source from UNO was provided. All it said was that the book was chosen to be included in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists which includes a variety of art-forms, fesivities, and even cuisines among other things. There exists no evidence that UNESCO confers any honor titled "Literary Work of the Year" or equivalents thereof.
 * 7) At Tuqaq, VC wrote (diff is of the version that passed GAN; nobody other than him had committed any major edit to the article till then):If you see the current article (I rewrote it), "Temur Yalig", a sobriquet given to Tuqaq, means "Iron Bow"; the meaning of the word Tuqaq is unknown. For anybody acquainted in Seljuq historiography, the line is bound to catch attention; I checked the cited source (in Turkish) for such an exceptional claim, and tagged the line with a failed-verification tag.In response, VC did not neither change the content of the line nor remove the source but cited another English source which, ofcourse, did not claim any such thing and removed the tag. I do not like edit-warring and requested of VC to quote the particular line from the new source but to no avail.
 * 8) At Tuqaq, VC wrote: For anybody acquainted with relevant historiography, this is a stunning claim because we know almost nothing about the Oghuz polity, much less the precise year of its foundation. The source was:"Zuev Yu. A., Horse Tamgas from Vassal Princedoms (Translation of Chinese composition "Tanghuyao" of 8th–10th centuries), Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata, I960, p. 133 (In Russian)"A dated Soviet-era publication, and something was off. I consulted both the Soviet original and an online translation but failed to verify the factoid. VC had no response at the t/p and I discarded the factoid as well as the source.
 * 9) At Tuqaq, VC wrote:If you consult the current version, written by me, things are far nuanced.Being acquainted that such was the case, I went to consult the source (in Russian) and there's nothing relevant at the URL provided. I also wish to emphasize that the source is a translation of a chronicle from the twelfth century (!); it is a primary source and ought have been never used at the first place.
 * 10) At Tuqaq, VC wrote: Misrepresentation of the source. As shown in the current version and noted by me at t/p (without any engagement from VC), Peacock and Bosworth believes that the Islamic rendition of the story — where Tuqaq refuses to fight Muslims (rather than Turk tribes) — is a "back projection of a later role [..]". They do not claim the whole conflict to be some kind of later-day-fabrication!
 * 11) At Timur, VC wrote (emphases mine):  I consulted the source and it did use the quote; however, Nicolle did not provide any any information the anonymity or the contemporaneous nature about the author of the quote! (Inaccurate) OR on VC"s part. In reality multiple contemporary chroniclers — from Ahmad ibn Arabshah to Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi — had compared Timurid army to a horde of ants and locusts; this was the reason why Nicolle did not bother to provide any attribution whatsoever :)
 * 12) At Bayandur (tribe), VC added to the first line of the lead:This figure is unsourced, unworthy of being a lead factoid, and inaccurate. As Peacock (2010; p. 20-21) notes, chroniclers vary on the number of subtribes of the Oghuz: Kashgari claims 22, Marvazī claims 12, and others other. Even if one relies on Kashgari, the value ought be 22 since, as Peacock notes, two (of the twenty-four) sub-tribes are explicitly discarded. This shows the necessity of reliance on high-quality sources.

Choice of Sources / NPOV violations / FRINGE

 * 1) At Tuqaq, VC wrote:What was the source? A romantic fiction novel: "Herth, William (2007). The Secret Alchemy of Mary Magdalene. Ormus Publications and Booksellers LLC.".  Anyway, the claim is historically inaccurate and grossly un-nuanced. I raised the issue at t/p but to no avail.Why would VC find a romantic fiction (!) to be an appropriate source for Seljuqid History is unknown. Such being the case, am I wrong to request/demand that VC stops editing relevant articles?
 * 2) At Tuqaq, VC wrote (diff is of the version that passed GAN; nobody other than him had committed any major edit to the article till then):The cited source is a translation of about a century-old Soviet work. However, as the current version of the article shows, the subject's admiration for Islam was interpolated in texts, centuries since his death. Peacock (2010), a source that VC is acquainted with and has cited for other purposes, is emphatic on these "later additions". So, why did VC choose to portray the above as a statement-of-fact in wiki-voice ? What explains VC's use of dated Soviet texts for pushing fringe POVs and his reticence to NPOV the content even after being pointed to Peacock and other scholars at the t/p?
 * 3) At Tuqaq, VC wrote (diff is of the version that passed GAN; nobody other than him had committed any major edit to the article till then):The line (and the paragraph) is unsourced. Peacock (2010), a source that VC is acquainted with and has cited for other purposes, writes: So, once again, we have NPOV content written in wiki-voice as a matter-of-fact. I had raised the issue at t/p but VC did not engage.