User talk:Kizzuwatna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Ortakioy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ortakioy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoş geldiniz!
|
- No problem. :) Let me know if you need help with anything. —Khoikhoi 01:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Halic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halic.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. 09:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Fuzûlî
Look, Kizzuwatna, by insisting on putting the "Turkish" bit in the opening sentence, you not only uglify the opening sentence with the footnote refs, but you also make the article contradictory insofar as he was Turkic (Azerbaijani), not Turkish—the Britannica article doesn't make that existent distinction and is not entirely accurate on some points anyhow. I'm changing the opening back, and request that we continue the discussion on the talk page. Cheers. —Saposcat 07:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- At first, when you address the other people, you can try to be more decent. Secondly, even though his language was close to that of Azerbaijanis, he was not an Azeri. At those times, there was no distinct separation of Azeri or Turkish or Iraqi Turkmen etc. They were all Turcomans who made these people. So, Britannica is right in his classification and if Britannica gave his nationality in the beginning I have the right to give it too.
- Kizzuwatna 08:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, the article in Britannica is used as a reference in the following sentence. So, noone should object when I practice the same Britannica did.
- Kizzuwatna 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't been indecent at all, actually. I calmly pointed out the problems which your edits were creating within the article, and then invited you to Fuzûlî's talk page to discuss the matter and attempt to reach a consensus before editing again. You effectively refused that offer by continuing to revert.
-
- I'm going to wipe my hands and let you have it your way. The link to Turkish people can stay in the first sentence with its refs. Now, I might ask also that, if you're knowledgable about Fuzûlî, you lend a hand on the "original research" problem with the "Works" section, rather than concentrate your energies on ethnic dispute. Cheers. —Saposcat 08:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Even though I do not share your idea, I will give the link to Turkic peoples. But be sure that he is Turkish and Britannica's classification is right. If you still insist that Britannica does not make any distinction between Turkish and Turkic, you can have a look at the article on Timur in Britannica. This is not the only example. For the moment only Timur came to my mind.
- Kizzuwatna 08:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Just a note, I never said that "Britannica does not make any distinction between Turkish and Turkic", as I am well aware that it often (perhaps even usually) does; I said that "the Britannica article [meaning its "Fuzûlî" article specifically] doesn't make that existent distinction", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
-
-
-
-
-
- But you should note that, by giving a link to Turkic peoples, the reference to Britannica has been made inaccurate insofar as Britannica says "Turkish". Nevertheless, it may as well stay. Anyhow, I'm getting tired of all the ethnic disputes that crop up all over the place with peoples of Turkic origin. Cheers. —Saposcat 08:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In fact, we should give the link to Turkish people instead of Turkic people, this is what is right. But, knowing that Turkish people is also in the Turkic group, and to finish this argument, I decided to give the link to Turkic peoples. Even though not right, it won't make so much difference. As for the ethnic disputes of Turkish or Turkic origined people, yes there are lots of disputes and arguments, but do not forget, there are lots of prejudices and conditioned minds too, on both sides. I try to be impartial on these topics. If you wanna see an example, you can have a look at the history of the article on Sinan in Wikipedia. As you can know, although he was Ottoman and considered to be the greatest master of Turkish architecture, he was of Greek or Armenian descent. Yesterday one of our nationalists tried to change his descent to Turk or Turkish. I was the one to revert it. Likewise, when I see an article in which the related person's Turkish, or another, ethnicity was not mentioned, I just make the addition to the article. And I try to be scientific based as much as I can.
- Kizzuwatna 09:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Meanwhile, you can be sure that Britannica would make that distinction if it determined that his ethnicity was Turkic instead of Turkish. Without doubt!
- Kizzuwatna 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As you have figured out, I disagree with you concerning the details of Fuzûlî's origins. Ultimately, however, the argument is a semantic one: "Turkish" in Fuzûlî's time had a broader meaning than it does now (roughly akin to today's "Turkic"), as a result of the rising power of nation-states, the inevitable influence of time on language, et cetera ad nauseum. What displeased me about Britannica's article was its flippancy in just saying "Turkish" point-blank seemingly without consideration for the modern complexities of that term (incidentally, Britannica's statement that "Fuzuli is the author of two divans (collections of poems), one in Azerbaijani Turkish and one in Persian" is also not entirely correct insofar as he also has an Arabic dîvân; thus, I questioned its accuracy).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyway, hopefully you and I didn't get off too much on the wrong foot. I respect your honesty, point of view, and sincere efforts against the prejudices of "our nationalists" (they're not mine, exactly, since I'm Irish-Scots-German, but so it goes). Let's just agree to respectfully disagree, shall we? Cheers. —Saposcat 09:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I did not state that Britannica always gives all the information about the related topic. The article may not be a thorough, complete article. What I stated was if Britannica points out one thing, it means that it is determined on that thing. It does not mislead people through inattention or wrong information. And about Fuzuli's origins, although his native tongue was a bit similar to Azerbaijani Turkish, he was not an Azeri. At those times, there was not so much distinction between the Turks in Turkey, Iraq or Azerbaijan. Even now, Turkish spoken in East Anatolia somewhat resembles to that of Azerbaijan or Northern Iraq. That doesn't make those people in East Anatolia Azerbaijani or another. So, Britannica's classification here seems quite right.
- Additionally, if you can have a look at the Wikipedia article on Turkish people, you can clearly see that this term comprises Turkish speaking people of Ottoman era as well. So, even now, the term Turkish meeets our need to be able to call him Turkish.
- And of course we're free to agree on disagreement. We can't always share the same ideas.
- Kizzuwatna 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I noticed that too, I'm not sure why it does that. -- Clevelander 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul
Hi. I wish all turkish users were thinking the way u do... I added the greek name in Istanbul, and so i have no reason to remove the turkish from Komotini. unfortunately, i think Istanbul's article will be reverted within an hour... we'll see what happens then. Regards --Hectorian 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with u, and in fact i had spend much time in reverting greek articles when the turkish name was removed. but for Komotini i made an exception, making relevancy with Istanbul. Thanks for the support and hope things will work out well in that article. Ciao --Hectorian 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ali Rıza Efendi
Thanks for adding the references to that page, I appreciate your work here. BTW, aren't there some theories out there that Atatürk had Jewish ancestors? Do you know anything about that? —Khoikhoi
- I know that song! :) That's very interesting, thank you. As for Turkish ethnic identity, I know a bit about that. The problem is that until recently everyone was legally declared "Turks", although I'm sure that there are many that don't want to consider themselves as such. That's just like in Greece how all the Turks of Western Thrace are just called "the Muslim minority". As for the references, yes you are correct, there does appear to be a database error. It should be fixed soon. —Khoikhoi 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree, well said. Speaking of Turks with African origins, there's actually an article about that: Afro-Turks. Anyways, see you around. —Khoikhoi 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WARNING
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Khosrow II 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
