User talk:Салоом алейкум

Replaceable fair use File:Yelena Nikolaeva.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yelena Nikolaeva.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January ( talk ) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

December 2016
--Salam aleikum (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Zhanna Nemtsova for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Personally, I'm a pure Negro albeit turned white. And Chingachgook was an Afro-American person. For, according to Charles Darwin, we are all descended from monkeys in Africa. Hence it follows that Obama and Putin are relatives, albeit distant. Although this consistently scientific conclusion is fairly obvious, I don't think that Wikipedians are obliged to accompany their biographical articles with fundamental propositions of the theory of evolution according to which every notable person described in Wikipedia is of African origin. The same can seemingly be said as well about 's striving to supplement the article by an inquiry into Zhanna's genealogy. This endeavour which is due in the final count to an attempt to have a good gossip evokes a necessity again and again to remind that gossip finds its rightful place on Internet forums (WP:Forum).
 * It was merely a Tatar yoke joke. has no sense of humour. Yeah, we need a soapbox (WP:SOAP) to provide ethnogenetic investigations of such a kind (LOL) Salam aleikum (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could see the context, and I understand the temptation to stick it to bigots. The problem is that humour is often lost in the cyber retelling, just leaving behind the fowl foul taste of idiocy on the talk page. I prefer to stick with the WP:DNFTT tenet. If not, you know that, at some point, another troll is going to pick up the thread and turn it into a banshee-fest. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He who doesn't like idiocy contributes to Encyclopaedia Britannica, peer-reviewed journals etc. And it is who has begun trolling. I'm inclined to suppose that we have to ban shee him (I haven't ever heard of the spectre mentioned by you). It seems obvious that he picks on minor points in the journalist's biography (genealogy). At first I assumed I had encountered nationalistic prejudices, but then he began to cavil at my words. As for me, I adhere to the indicated psychological principle which I believe to be the sole means of overcoming the trolls. I'm merely surprised at the fact that he attaches paramount importance to a side question and aspires to prove that Zhanna's ancestry deserves more than the attention just of professional genealogists. Does he mean that we are to employ the biographical approach in which the content of a journalist's publications is deduced from his/her personal features and life? What is the relationship between our article about Zhanna Nemtsova and the ethnicity of her mother? Ethnicity plays a significant role in the career of a politician (e.g. Islom Karimov's father is supposed to be a Jew, and there were profound political reasons for concealing the President's Jewish origin), but it's a typical pseudoproblem in the case of a journalist. To my mind, the user attributes significance to questions that does not belong to them. One must remember the indisputable but far from always realised truth that the Tatars have had considerable influence on the gene pool of Russians. My trolling joke points to there being Tatars even among those who think themselves (or are usually believed to be) Russian people. Historians long ago concluded that, for example, the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible was an offspring of Genghis Khan. A point of view is often expressed in literature that many famous Russian writers and scientists are descended from Tatars (an author's comment to his own article in the «Asia Russian Daily»). Not surprisingly, Zhanna's mother is of Tatar origin, too. So what? Is it an unexpected discovery? Has it anything to do with the article? In summing up the above I must note that I don't think it is incumbent on us to discuss whether Zhanna's mother has Tatar parents or whether she's a pure Russian woman. Or is  engaged in picking up information about his future mother-in-law? --Salam aleikum (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, the administrators have already become unanimous in the opinion that the user is prone to WP:Vandalism: block in en-wp; block in de-wp. Salam aleikum (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I alerted them to the fact that, not only does he think that his bigotry is vital for the world to see, but that he decided that there's not enough of him to go around and thought he'd spread the joy by running a sock farm. You could be right about his testing the waters for his future mother-in-law... but, the way I see it, people who were brought up in a house on chicken legs shouldn't throw eggs. What's a 'pure' Russian woman? I'm genuinely descended from the Zaporozhian Cossacks on both sides of the family. What that means is that I'm probably a mish-mash of Mongols, Jews, Tartars, black runaways from the Ottoman Empire, plus whoever else joined their ranks over the centuries, but I identify as being Ukrainian (whatever that means in terms of DNA). It doesn't mean that I take any pride in the many atrocities they were responsible for, but that I recognise that it was a different epoch in human history, and that none of our forebears would recognise us as being part of the same 'ethnicity' as they were. Haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA is only interesting and relevant in as far as it's fascinating to track humans spreading throughout the entire planet. Only those «без тонкости» could possibly believe that it is of any consequence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

In contrast to 's mere assertions and sweeping generalisations, your considerations anent the Ottoman Empire merit close attention. One must agree with you that it was a different epoch in human history. It is impossible not to acknowledge that the epoch you are talking about has sunk into oblivion along with the Tatar yoke. As you justly remark, the scientific philosophical summing-up and comprehension of the achievements of natural science presuppose adequate methods of investigation and are therefore irreconcilably hostile to unsubstantiated speculations about the spreading of mankind throughout the planet. You are also right in recognising that only those research workers whose primitive, not intellectually refined (без тонкости) frame of mind prevents them from applying the method of materialist dialectics are incapable of avoiding untenable conclusions (sometimes even ridiculous) and inevitably lapse into the mistakes of vulgar materialism treating scientific discoveries (e.g. the mechanisms of functioning peculiar to mitochondrial DNA) in an oversimplified way. And yet some of your arguments seem vulnerable. Such, for example, is your sentence «It doesn't mean that I take any pride etc.» This requires explanation if only because such a claim discloses a position that adversely affects our knowledge of the past and, worse still, diminishes the importance of the ethnos you pertain to. For a proper understanding of your civic stance, it is necessary to elucidate the sense and meaning of the word «pride» employed in the given context. I entirely understand your reluctance to take credit for Tatar atrocities, but I can't conceive why the history of Tatar people makes you think of your own pride. Your feeling of pride which permeates your attitude to other nations can find a certain historical justification, but it is a profound error to assume that ethical emotions do not undergo historical changes. Being subject to the principle of development, socio-moral values and feelings exercise gradual transformation along with the progress of society which eventually moulds the mores of a concrete historical epoch. And that fully applies to the feeling of pride. It remains for me to add that you haven't updated your notions about Pride and Prejudice yet. In the present-day cultural environment the pride of a new type evolved. It does not call for great penetration to discover that tame modern men of all nations take pride in Ukrainian women. That is obvious, in particular, from the example of Muammar Gaddafi: Каддафи… развил бурную представительскую деятельность, разъезжая по европейским столицам... с отрядом телохранительниц-амазонок и украинских медсестер.

The drawing of a parallel between Ukrainian women and personal luxury cars is thus characteristic of contemporary social consciousness. This gives new meaning to the concept of pride. --Salam aleikum (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been entangled in all sorts of Wikipedia brawls, so I'm not ignoring your comment/s. I suspect that my levity has been misinterpreted as being some form of absolutist position on my behalf rather than a half-cocked response. As you're raising some complex and interesting questions, I need to read through carefully and mull over the points you've made. I'll get back to you when I have some time to consider them. Cheers for the moment! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

“A half-cocked response” – Aha, you went off at half-cock because you had not mulled over the Marxist theory of nations before you tackled a very important scientific question, viz., that of Zhanna Nemtsova’s nationality. Your approach to this controversial and complicated issue borders on levity volatile disposition the naturalistic sociological conception of Ludwig Gumplowicz who exaggerated the significance of the mixing of races and clearly underestimates the corresponding works of Lenin whose doctrine of the two tendencies in the national question is an efficacious antidote against the absolutist position of ethnocentrism and provides the key to the decisive problems of the development of nations in the contemporary period. In order to prevent half-cocked responses in future, I refer you to his works on the topic: ‘The National Question in Our Programme‘, ‘The Working Class and the National Question‘, ‘Critical Remarks on the National Question‘, etc. These works must be read because philosophical weapons have to be sharpened in preparation for the fight against the ideological enemies (like ) of our encyclopaedia. As you're raising some complex and interesting questions, I need to read through carefully…

Aha, plethora of words has nothing in common with dim-witted babble or fruitless, scholastic word-spinning, provided that profuse talk takes the form of caricatured Marxism. That is why the above abounds in important new theoretical ideas, exceptional precise observations and brilliant solutions of profound problems that have tormented thinking mankind for ages. This looks promising and the only disappointment is that you are in an ill humour.

In short, I regret to say that you're deliberatly misunderstanding me. Personally, I've already had enough of this idle talk. Besides, your grasp of English excites envy in me. I’m filled with admiration for the fact that an Ukrainian woman whose native language is Russian has learnt English so brilliantly. --Salam aleikum (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)