User talk:Johnstevens5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Johnstevens5

Contents

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Dsc005821_1-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dsc005821_1-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propoganda

Why are you adding propoganda under General Dro's page, and in incorrect format? take it to the talk page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.161.194 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Back-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Back-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Yenidukkan-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yenidukkan-1-.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Johnstevens5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Legion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Armenian Legion article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! —Khoikhoi 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Navoi1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navoi1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babur

Thanks for the addition to Babur - it's daft, isn't it, that we've been arguing for so long (though to be fair to User:Tajik he hasn't been altering the page much). I'd already put that quotation on the Andijan page as it happens, but I suspect you're right and it needs to be here as well. It looks like compelling evidence, but just to point out that Babur also writes that the inhabitants of Margelan, a nearby town are "Sarts", and that by this (at that date) he means Persian-speakers, so the Fergana Valley was not a homogenously Turkic-speaking area then. I daresay Tajik may have a point or two to make about the differences betweeen elite language and that of the population at large in this period, but for me the really compelling evidence is simply the language he wrote his memoirs in. Take that fact on board and the rest becomes obvious. Unfortunately Tajik is so paranoid about pan-Turkic conspiracies that he is rather dismissive of Babur's use of Chagatai. What annoys me is the manner in which so many of these debates turn into nationalist point-scoring, with people trying to claim as their 'own' significant historical figures for whom the application of modern national and/or ethnic identities is completely anachronistic. Thus, I wouldn't go so far to say that, put simply, "Babur was a Turk": he was clearly proud of his Mongol descent as well (though for reasons of family lineage and prestige, not nationalism) and no doubt spoke Persian and inhabited a courtly world dominated by Persian culture, as elites throughout the Ajam did. But then he heeds Ali-Sher Nawa'i's call to write in Chagatai, and that is in many ways so unexpected, it takes on great significance. Sikandarji 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I totally agree.

The only problem I have is the obsessive extremist nature of this Tajik character. This little group of Persians have a severe inferiority complex, they troll around trying to prove the inferiority of all non-Persians to themselves and fabricate this idea the Persian Empire which was crushed 2500 years ago still exists.

Timurlane was a Turk from a poor family, he married into the Barlas tribe which had pollitical importance and helped him rise to the astronomical power he achieved.

Now, Babur was a 14th generation on the mothers side of his father from this tribe.

Fourteen generations of living in a predominantly Turk area having Turk relations and family not to mention the similarities between Mongolian and Turkish due to them both being Altaic languages etc etc etc would certainly make you a Turk.

For example, if an Irishman with mixed English-Irish blood moved to England fourteen generations ago and mixed with the local English population you can be pretty sure that the guy would be English to day.

Quite frankly I don't even understand how there can be an argument about such an obvious topic, the Persians at the time were Shia, they were not known for war-fare and the region Babur was from had for centuries been ruled by Turkic Sunni Muslim rulers and that is what he was.

I like your work, keep up the good stuff!!!

Regards

User:Tajik really doesn't deserve the rather intemperate language you've been using on the Talk:Babur page - I disagree with him on several points, but I'm not prepared to see this argument degenerate into an exchange of insults once again. He has provided several citations from original sources to support his opinion: engage with them rather than ignoring them and maybe we can make some progress. I agree that Ibn Khaldun is an important source - but it is going much to far to describe Timur as a "Turkic nationalist" - that is completely anachronistic. Irwin's review of Marozzi's (rather poor) book proves nothing. I've been to Shahrisabz and Samarkand as well, and it didn't give me any sudden insights into whether Timur considered himself to be a 'Turk' or not. The usual term is Turco-Mongol, which seems fine to me. Can we keep things civil please? All the best Sikandarji 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi,

Tajik has no regards for history, these type of people have an inferiority complex and their lives revolve arouond fantasies of Persian supreme power.

All they try to do is make out that TUrks don't exist, its either no he's not a Turks he's a Persian or no he's not a Turk he's a Mongol they find it infuriating to accept that Turks exist.

Timur was a Nationalist Turk, the Ottomans were not Nationalist but Timur was he is responsible for a huge Turkic immigration into Iran and Turkey and those who actually knew him like the famous "Ibn Khaldun" stated this.

Now, you wasn't alive in the time of Timur neither was Tajik neither was I so we have to go on primary sources.

One clear and reliable fact is of Ibn Khaldun I don't think anybody is in a position to call him a lier and he wrote clearly Timur was a Turk, in addition the Spanish envoy wrote the same, in Timur's book he wrote the same.

This isn't even worthy of an Argument you goto be in pretty severe denial to have a problem, I mean what exactly is the problem? I don't get it, everytime "Turk" is mentioned that guy starts freaking out.

People like this deserve no place on an objective encyclopedia, they have no regard for evidence, sources and facts, they only care about their Nationalist agenda.

Regards

Hello there. I don't mean to butt in, but—regardless of what you think of User:Tajik or anyone else—it's always best to keep cool, assume good faith, and make no accusations.
Also—although I haven't been watching the debate too closely—I think it might be worth considering, before throwing around the term "nationalist" in regards to Timur or anyone else of that era, that nationalism was far more likely than not a creation of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I sympathise, but you haven't helped your cause by being rude on the Babur talkpage. The reference to Ibn Khaldun is important, although probably belongs in the Timur article. I would stress though, that arguments about what 'nationality' important historical figures before the 18th-19th centuries (at least outside Europe) belonged to are framing the debate in anachronistic terms. There's an interesting essay by B.F. Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, in which she examines precisely these issues of Identity amongst the Chingissid and, later, Timurid elites of Central Asia. What is really important here is that it is an elite identity, taking pride in various elements, most obviously Chingissid descent (Mongol); the nomadic warrior heritage (shared by Turks and Mongols); the Turkic literary language, Chagatai, and elements of Persian courtly and literary culture amongst the Chaghatayids of the Southern oasis regions of Turkestan, who by Babur's time considered themselves separate from, and superior to, their fellow-Chaghatayid 'Mughals' of Moghulistan (Djungaria) to the north. Tajik is wrong to deny the importance of Turkic elements in this identity, which are quite clear from the literary heritage. He is also wrong to allege that to take pride in Chingissid descent (a prerequisite for anyone who wanted to hold sovereignty in Central Asia) is the same thing as being Mongol by nationality: 'ethnicity' is irrelevant here, what matters is family descent, and by Timur's time the Barlas tribe were thoroughly Turkicised and Mongol had not been spoken for several generations, whilst they had also intermarried with the Qarluq Turkic peoples of the settled regions of Central Asia. You, however, are wrong in asserting the Timur was a Turkic 'nationalist', and that Persian culture was unimportant in Central Asia. Once protection is lifted from the page I will add a brief summary of Manz's arguments and a reference, and then hopefully this pointless dispute can be laid to rest once and for all. Sikandarji 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to this comment

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your addition to Nedîm

Hi. Thanks for adding a useful poetic extract from Nedîm's dîvân; however, please try and be careful about how and what you cite, and how you put it into an article, in the future.

For instance, here is your addition to the article:

His love of Istanbul is highlighted below;
"O City of Istanbul, priceless and peerless!
I would sacrifice all Persia for one of your stones!
The Viennese might think that their city was the only true Kaiserstadt,
And deserved to be the capital of Europe
The people of Isfahan might claim that their city was 'half of the world'
Citizens of Istanbul however, know that theirs is the centre of the universe!"

Reference is given to Mansel's book, Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453–1924, page 80. If you look at that page, however, you see this:

In the early eighteenth century the Ottoman poet Nedim wrote in praise of [Istanbul]:
O city of Istanbul, priceless and peerless!
I would sacrifice all Persia for one of your stones!
Even in the nineteenth century, after the Ottoman Empire had suffered repeated defeats, since China had not 'come to Constantinople' – that is, had sent no embassy – Ottomans could not believe that China was truly an empire. The Viennese might think that their city was the only true kaiserstadt, and deserved to be the capital of Europe. The people of Isfahan – capital of Persia – might claim that their city was 'half the world'. Citizens of Constantinople knew that theirs was the centre of the universe.

Now, what you did—in addition to dropping some words and changing others—was to conflate Nedîm's and Mansel's words to make them seem as if they were all part of Nedîm's poem. This is pure dishonesty, and disrespectful to both Nedîm (who wrote no more than the first two lines of what you said he did), and to Mansel.

I have corrected the error and properly cited Nedîm's couplet from Mansel's book, and I'm willing to accept that this mistake may have come out of not exactly knowing precisely how to cite; however, please try to be more careful about such things in future, and if you have any questions about how to properly cite, or similar questions, please don't hesitate to ask. And again, let me emphasize that I appreciate the addition, as it is a worthwhile one. Cheers. —Saposcat 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dude

Move your comments that aren't about the article itself to Talk:Azerbaijani people/Arguments. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Ulugh Beg

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Naconkantari 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been extended for 24 hours for evading your original block. [1]. Naconkantari 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babur

Man, there *must* have been persians in baburs army. Shah Ismail I granted him an army.. considering there is no written record that the persian Shah excluded persians from the army, it can only mean that persians were present. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Shah Ismail's army was Turcoman Kizilbash they were not Persian.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

In regards to edits such as this: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azeri people

Hello. Can we hold off on any more unreferenced additions regarding Turkic origins please? You only need a few to make the point and the article needs to cover other topics. I'm going to fix your reference from the Muawiya period from karabakh.org as it reads badly and is a direct copy. There is an English language reference from a book by Blankenship that talks about the same thing so I'll insert that. Thanks. Tombseye 01:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about that, I;m new to Wiki and still learning how its operated, when do you think you will include that addition?

--Johnstevens5 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My comments on Talk:Nesîmî

Talk:Nesîmî'de küfür ettiğim için özür dilerim; tamamen gereksizdi. Galiba o anda şu etnik metnik meseleden bıkmıştım, ama gene de küfür falan etmemeliydim. Özür dilerim. —Saposcat 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:making the comment without a user name

You: I'm sorry about that, I thought I was signed in, my user name is Johnstevens5 Regards

Me: I could not follow? --Bhadani 14:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello I noticed your contributions to some Azeri related articles, very good edits by the way. Perhaps you would be interessed in join the WikiProject Azeri which can be found here. We have loads of other ethnicies and cultures in our project in fact only a small ammount is actually Azeri. So if your interessed please leave a message behind in our talk page. Take care. Baku87 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Dsc90879ae.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dsc90879ae.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Alisher_Navoiy_Mahmud_Muzahhid_miniatyurasi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alisher_Navoiy_Mahmud_Muzahhid_miniatyurasi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Number of Persian Speakers

Hi.

I have provided some recent data for total number of native speakers of Persian, here [2]. Total number is around 46 million based on 2006 estimates.Heja Helweda 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I just ran into the article of Seljuq dynasty and saw some really weird comments.. Is it true that there are people claiming that they were not Turks??!! gees.. I left a post on the talk page as well.. If you need any help with this article or sources to prove that they were Turkish (u know, just in case:)) feel free to contact me..cheers! Baristarim 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yeah it was unbelievable, apparently the Seljuqs in this new revised never before heard version of history have become "Persians". The fact that the Seljuq of the Rum revitilised the Turkish language making it the official language of all governmental and state institutions is ignored. The fact that the Seljuq's are the very reason today's Turkey is made up of Turks is ignored. If it wasn't for the Seljuq's there wouldn't be a Turkey or Ottoman Empire so I find the whole idea of "hiding" away the fact that they were Turks very strange indeed.

I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so if you can have a look and see if its been changed and if any sources need to be added or anything else has been missed out, I've already made a complaint to the Admin lets see what they do.

--Johnstevens5 15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your message

Hello again. Thanks for your compliments about the Turkish literature article; I appreciate it. Let me address your points, though:

  1. You say that "the 'arzu' poetic metre is mentioned (“fâ’ilâtün fâ’ilâtün”) for 'Divan' style but there was also the hesab-ı benân (hece ölçüsü) for 'Halk' style in the Ottoman era". In fact, both kinds of meter are clearly mentioned (though admittedly only aruz is mentioned by name): the article says "the poetic meters employed in the folk poetic tradition were different, being quantitative (i.e., syllabic) verse, as opposed to the qualitative verse employed in the written poetic tradition", as well as making the structural point "the basic structural unit of folk poetry became the quatrain (Turkish: dörtlük) rather than the couplets (Turkish: beyit) more commonly employed in written poetry".
  2. You say that "on the article it says there are no examples of 'fiction' writting"; however, the article does not say that at all—it says this: "until the 19th century, Ottoman prose did not contain any examples of fiction; that is, there were no counterparts to, for instance, the European romance, short story, or novel (though analogous genres did, to some extent, exist in both the Turkish folk tradition and in Divan poetry)".
  3. You give an example from Eflâtun Cem Güney which is written in poetic form (thus not contradicting the stated fact from the article that there was no prose fiction in the Ottoman Empire), and is from a writer who—born in 1896 and dying in 1981—lived out essentially his entire writing life under the Turkish Republic (thus not contradicting the stated fact from the article that it was not until the 19th century that prose fiction developed in the Ottoman Empire).

Also, thank you for sharing the website with information about folk writers—I am already very familiar with the site, but appreciate it nonetheless—but please note that a number of writers from the folk tradition are mentioned in the "Turkish literature" article; to wit: Yunus Emre, Köroğlu, Karacaoğlan, Dadaloğlu, Aşık Veysel Satıroğlu, Aşık Mahzuni Şerif, Neşet Ertaş, Süleyman Çelebi, Kaygusuz Abdal, and Pir Sultan Abdal. Cheers. —Saposcat 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for looking into it,

Regards

[edit] Bagatur

Thanks for the Bagatur ethymology but I feel that something is not right there. First of all, it might have been 'bege' in early Iranian but is hasn't been Berge. Why ? Because the current Slavonic word for God is 'Bog'. Slavic languages are very conservative and have preserved much of the original Indo-european vocabulary. Secondly, in modern Bulgarian the word 'bogat' means rich. These two words are much closer to the original meaning of Bagatur - hero, lord, noble, than is your ethymology of 'baga-er' (hero+conqueror). Did you notice that the 't' is missing there? Also I have never heard that '-er' meant 'conqueror'. It rather means 'a man', from 'ar', 'aryan', therefore baga-tur , bagat-ar means either Lordly-man or Rich-man. At same time the Turkic word for people, nation is '-ut', i.e. Turk-ut, Yak-ut, etc.

Also you apparanly, being English or Turkish speaking, you can not comprehend why Bhag-dad means God-given. To me, being Bulgarian speaking it makes perfect sense - in Bulgarian God-given or God-gave would sound as Bhog-dade, from Bhog/Bog - Lord and dade (gave) from the Indo-european root 'Dar' - to give. Dar in Bulgarian means 'a present' by the way. So that's all about it. You make your conclusions and early Germanic languages which you are familiar with but are too far from original Indo-european and I make mine on Slavonic languages which are still close to it. And you didn't tell me WHEN the word entered Persian? It was attested in inscriptions in Bulgar language as early as 9th century. Cheers, Internedko 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Bagatur started being attributed to rulers after the Turkic expansion into Iran prior to that no leaders were called "Bahadur's" no reference to warriors being called "Bahadur" is given either.

No, Er does not derive from "Ar" from Aryan, the two are not related.

"Er" in Turkic languages means, Conquerer/Warrior/Soldier, usually these are men so sometimes its colloquially used as being a word for "man".

Bagatur doesn't mean, lord or noble.

Its attributed to Heroic, brave warriors. This is continuos in all the languages its found in.

The "t" is a morphological matter, the sound after baga when adding er creates a light T sound.

The "Bulgars" would have used the term alot as in that era their language was a "Turkic" one.

Out of interest, are there still Old Bulgar words in modern Bulgarian?

Regards

--Johnstevens5 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Baburn4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baburn4.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Babur. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohnstevens5_4e95.html"