User talk:Bulgu/Archive JulyAugust07

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman culture
User:Hajji Piruz is claiming here : "because the culture of the ruling dynasty, the House of Osman, was largely derived from the Persian culture, the Ottomans may also be regarded as Turkic Persianate". I believe apart from Persian language being used at Ottoman court, claiming entire Ottoman culture, or even farther Osman's dynasty, as Persian is ridiculous. The indicated user is pushing the same POV/OR on several discussion pages as well. Please, take a look at List of Iranian states and empires. Thanks. Atabek 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Way to take the time to discuss...You may also want to take the Ottomans, Timurids, Ghaznavids, and Khwarezmians off of this list as well: List of Turkic states and empires.Hajji Piruz 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove Uzbekistan, then do so and discuss it, but stop removing other entities from that list. This is borderline vandalism.Hajji Piruz 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not your removal of Uzbekistan, your removal of others on the list. No, I'm not that anon.Hajji Piruz 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Hey bro, regarding our recent convergence, I think you may be mistaking the word "prosecuted" for "persecuted". Prosecuted just means they faced trial. If I said "persecuted", that would indeed be OR and POV.

I really welcome your attention to the Armenian-Turkish Relations article. Your expertise could certainly be helpful there! For instance, do you believe we could cite something that indicates the Republic of Turkey has security concerns about opening the border with Armenia? I failed to find a citation for that point, and the text has been removed. Are there reasons the Turkish government keeps the border closed, beyond those already described?

Any major omissions come to mind, when you read the article? Does Metsamor really need to be included? Peace, DBaba 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
I hope you had an enjoyable time in military service. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkish names
Please see WP:UE it says only English or Latin characters because if it is in another language it may mess up the titles with question marks that is the reason for this rule. There is a Turkish language wikipedia with the native names. If I'm wrong I will fix it. --Karent82 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some. --Karent82 01:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Megali Idea
Hi Denizz, Can you please tell me why you keep reverting the changes made in the Megali Idea article? The creation of a Hellenic (Greek) State in Pontos was in no way opposition to the Megali Idea, because it would be difficult for Greece to control such distant territories that wouldn't be connected by land. Also i fixed up the Greco-Turkish war paragraph to show how it effected the Megali idea and put an end to it (with the exception of Cyprus and Northern Epirus). So please give a reason or explanation for the reverting, or talk about it on the talk page.--Waterfall999 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Flavius
Did you see what he added? I added a neutral source. I hope you know better that those who claim a Turkish massacre are nationalists. The source is POV, comes from one view I removed it added a third party but he does not like it what should I do? --Vonones 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is obvious the Turkish goverment does not like Armenians nor the Armenian goverment likes Turkish people; and there sources are absurd and not used anywhere else so it cannot be neutral, third party or whatever you want to call it. --Vonones 03:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Turkey article, the Turkish goverment/military one. --Vonones 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is not NPOV, and it lacks credibility. --Vonones 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Khwarezmian Empire
Hey can you please fix your edits? its very controversial the origins are disputed, and it was decided to leave it out from the introduction--Vonones 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its over here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vonones/Archive --Vonones 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks
Hello Denizz, thanks for inviting me to the wikiproject Turkey. Unfortunately I am going to have to decline your invitation as I am already a member of several wikiprojects and things are quite busy for me at the moment. But feel free to contact me if you would like some advice, help or my input in anything. Lo Nd Iu M    Speak to me |undefinedContributions  —The preceding  signed but undated.

Ghaznavids
I have reverted your changes in Ghaznavids. First of all, I am not DerDoc. Secondly, the first sentence of the article is a direct copy from the Ghaznavid article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, written by Clifford Edmund Bosworth - it says: "Khorasanian dynasty of Turkic slave origin". While your reference to the Turkic origin is correct (by the way, it's Turkic and not Turkish - see Webster's Dictionary for the difference: ), Bosworth writes in his book "Ghaznavids" (1963) that the dynasty was a Sunni muslim dynasty of Persianized mamluk (slave) origin. He assumes that the Ghaznavids were of Qipchaq origin. I have no idea why you removed the reference to Ehsan Yarshater, who is one of the most important scholars of Iranian studies. He states in the Encyclopaedia Iranica that " Although the Ghaznavids were of Turkic origin and their military leaders were generally of the same stock, as a result of the original involvement of Sebüktegin and Mahmud in Samanid affairs and in the Samanid cultural environment, the dynasty became thoroughly Persianized (see Omidsalar, 1999), so that in practice one cannot consider their rule one of foreign domination. In terms of cultural championship and the support of Persian poets, they were far more Persian than the ethnically Iranian Buyids, whose support of Arabic letters in preference to Persian is well known." (see here: ) Important is the word thoroughly, which means that linguistically and culturally, the dynasty was Persian and not Turkish. The Persianization of the Ghaznavids is also explained in full detail by Bosworth who writes: "The Persianization of the Ghaznavids is also attested by archaeological discoveries, for example by discoveries in Afghanistan. Bosworth writes: "Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ud (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahmud), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. hhe poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim ghazis and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past  (see Bombaci)."''The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. [...] The sources do make it clear, however, that the sultans' exercise of political power and the administrative apparatus which gave it shape came very speedily to be within the Perso-Islamic tradition of statecraft and monarchical rule, with the ruler as a distant figure, buttressed by divine favor, ruling over a mass of traders, artisans, peasants, etc., whose prime duty was obedience in all respects but above all in the payment of taxes. The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. [...] Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. [..] 'Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin [...]"

Thank you for your contribution in the article and for assuming good faith, but your latest edits do not reflect the scholarly sources that are attached to the article. I think that the previous intro should stay, because it mentions the religious identity of the dynasty, their Khorasanian national identity, and the fact that they were Persianized Turks and former slaves of the Samanids. 82.83.149.154 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not remove it, please check my edits carefully next time. Also check http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html for 'Turkish'. DenizTC 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You had removed the word mamluk from the article, and you had inserted the word Turkish instead of the correct Turkic (see reference to Webster's Dictionary). I also do not understand why you force the mentioning of the word Turkish in the first sentence, while you removed the reference to the Persianization of the dynasty and simply inserted a quote at the end of the article. Also wrong is the reference to the Turkish name Gazneliler, because the Ghaznavids did not speak Turkish (see reference to Bosworth), and they did not speak the language of modern Turkey. Inserting the modern Turkish name into the article is like putting the Persian or Hindi name of Charlemagne into the respective article, because the Franks, Persians, and Indians speak related languages. I've added another source to the article, from Encyclopaedia of Islam. 82.83.149.154 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We can have mamluk if sourced, no problem with that, but please do not remove other sourced things. DenizTC 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mamluk is sourced. In fact, it is a better word than "slave", because "mamluks" were only military slaves and, in certain situation, they were powerful subjects to the Islamic sultans. The source is the same Iranioca article. Meanwhile, I have proposed a compromise version. Please write what you think of it. 82.83.149.154 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Asking for a block or checkuser files does not help you in this case. I have shown in the discussion page of the Khwarezmian Empire that you are adding fake sources to the intro and that you add these sources blindly to the intro, without even reading them. Now suddenly asking for checkuser files or blocks gives the impression that you want a user to get banned, only because you have no arguments left. The intro you have suggested was wrong and not in accordance witrh scholarly sources. See the talk page. However, I am still going to assume good faith in your case since you seem to have good intentions. -82.83.149.154 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, I would not be asking for checkuser to help me in this case. I just googled somethings from your edits, and found that checkuser site. Then I saw that all those IP's (thought to be sockpuppets of another user) were from your city, probably you (Your IP might be changing, that's why it might be better to get a username). Strange that you immediately found out about it, not that I mind. If you are a sockpuppet, it is my mission as a wiki editor to report you. Anyways, I did not add any source that wasn't there. DenizTC 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)
Hi denizz, you may want to present your opinions in this article for recent edits, another POV pusher has recently discovered wikipedia or simply alexius found himself another IP adress, in either case POV pushing is being pursued now in this article..Regards..--laertes d 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hı denizz, macfie'nin kitabına yapılan referansları kaldırdım Mustafa Kemal bölümündeki, kitap cok küçük, bazı yerlerde bariz Türk karşıtlığı yapıyor ve genelinde hiçte iyi yazılmıs değil. Gerçi ben koymustum o referansları ama kitabın tamamına bakmamıstım zamanında..--laertes d 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kalsa daha iyi olabilir bence. Ama sen bilirsin, adami tanimiyorum, kitabi okumadim. DenizTC 09:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kitap iyi değil inan bana, hiç kullanmasak daha iyi..And can you please check this Greco Turkish War article if you have some time to deal with these debates, now Vonones started in POV pushing..regards..--laertes d 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help in finding a Turkish term
Merhaba, Denizz. I have a question for a Turkish speaker &mdash; I was going to ask Baristarim, but he (she?) is no longer active (I'm sorry to notice that). Hope you don't mind, but I then picked you at random.

I'm Romanian, and I recently edited an article on a Jewish Romanian - Cilibi Moise. I went through the sources, and found out that Cilibi the name he picked for himself, is of Turkish origin. The source specified that it means "friendly" (well, the Romanian word it used in could also be translated as "outgoing"). Can you confirm this?

As far as I can tell, the name would be spelled something like çilibi (in Romanian, "ci" stands for the English "ch"). Does/did a word resembling this exist, and how should it actually be spelled? Teşekkür ederim! Dahn 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I double-checked the source, and it reads "the friendly one". Could it be perhaps that the area where Çelebi and the source meet is "courteous" or something like that? Dahn 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll add it in the article. Dahn 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of cimri
Both of my sources state that Cimri means “the Leper.” While not denying that cimri in contemporary Turkish means “miser,” it is possible that the word has undergone considerable semantic change since the 13th century. One unpleasant quality, over time, has come to signify another. I would like to keep the translation "leper." Aramgar 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) No why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu1lee (talk • contribs) 23:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I know we have our differences, and surely will have some more, but I would like to show appreciation for you assuming good faith and helping on the article even after I may have been too aggressive. Hetoum I 01:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was really starting to get a bit rabid there, which is not how I usually am.Hetoum I 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)