Talk:Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 To the writer of the text below 2 Proposal 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion

To the writer of the text below

"But the names, begining from their father Yacub (English Jacob), Ishak (English Isaac), Illias (English Eliajah), Aruj ( English Aaron), Khidr (from Hebrew word Kheider which has a meaning Hebrew religious school) makes them forcefully converted to Islam Jews. To this conclusion we can arrive based on the following evidence: (a) they became privateers only after members of their family of tradesman was robbed, put in slavery, killed by Christian "Knights of Rhodes" as a some sort of a revanche; (b) so called Barbarian coast insluded modern Greece, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon with very large presence of Jewish tradesman and sailors; (c) Their nickname Barbarossa has a translation "barba" (red) + "rossa" (bird) because as high rank Jews in the Bible they got red hair birds which they, usually, colored with henna from India. Their heir on the head was light brown and the noses were distinct to a classic type of a Jew. Neither ordinary Turkes, nor Arabs or Greecs didn't have normally such look; (d) as we well know today, Islam always practised cultural genocide and everything what was good and admirable in converted to Islam people they tried to falsify as their own achievement. The same practice was very common in medieval Europe. Nobody ever bothered to analyze contradictions of their mythology because of Anti-Semitism shared by both religions."

This text is full of grammatical and semantic errors. And additionally, there is no reference to be associated with it. All the names of Barbarossa brothers were Islamic names. Of course, they have affinity with Hebrew names since both religions are semitic and have similar names and content to some extent. Moreover translation of "barbarossa" is wrong, barba means "beard" and rosso(a) means "red" in Italian. Furthermore, color of the beard or shape of the nose cannot determine one's ethnicity. I've got lots of Jewish acquaintances with different hair colors and various types of nose.

So, I invite the writer of this text to a discussion here. Otherwise, by a couple of days from now, I will have deleted this content.

Kizzuwatna 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I deleted the the text in question and wanted to make a note of the change here. The whole passage, apparently driven solely by the author's distress over what he sees as the "culturally genocidal" aspect of conversion, reads very unacademic, to put it mildly. If there is a credible hypothesis that Barbarossa is of Jewish origin, it may be noted in passing, as in: '... while others make him a Janissary from Vardar, near Thessaloniki, possibly of Sephardic Jewish origin.'

Gdeleuze 09:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear of his allegedly Jewish origin. There is even no proof that his father was of devshirmeh background, let alone Jew. And we shouldn't forget that Sephardic Jews were majorly settled in the area after 1492.

Kizzuwatna 09:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm proposing to move this page to Barbarossa, per Britannica and Columbia. However, since it's already a dab page perhaps something like Barbarossa (Ottoman), Barbarossa (Ottoman corsair), Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral), or Barbarossa (Ottoman privateer) would do. If there are no objections I will move this page in a weeks time. —Khoikhoi 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with moving this page to Barbarossa, but i support renaming it as Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha. E104421 12:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But your suggestion gets a low amount of hits both on Google and Google Books. "Barbarossa" is what Britannica and Columbia use. —Khoikhoi 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that there is no need to move anything, since the disamb page already takes care of it.Cosal 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going for a title that doesn't have "Khair ad Din" in it, that's all. —Khoikhoi 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I'm proposing to move this page to Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral). Why? Because that's what Britannica and Columbia use, and this would solve the "Khair ad Din"/"Hayreddin" debate. —Khoikhoi 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal.. See William Jefferson Clinton, the article is titled Bill Clinton.. He has always been known all around europe for centuries as Barbarossa.. Full name will be given in the beginning of the intro, no need to mention hayreddin or khair id din (?!), simplicity people! Baristarim 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have other proposals, what about Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha, Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha (Ottoman Admiral), or Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral Hayreddin Pasha)? E104421 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's too long. —Khoikhoi 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's go with Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral)Cosal 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! —Khoikhoi 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) is better cause it not only has the nickname Barbarossa but also has the real name Hayreddin Pasha. E104421 07:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It's Wikipedia policy to use the name someone or something is most known by in English, not the name he personally called himself. This is the same reason why we have the city the Germans call München at Munich. —Khoikhoi 07:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), it's written in paranthesis, then no problem. E104421 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I can only point you to Google. Your suggestion only gets 15 Google hits, and only 2 on Google books. —Khoikhoi 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you increase the number of names, you get less results in google search. I still support naming as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), by doing so we'll also correct the naming mistake. Sometimes we should put things right, although the majority believes otherwise because of lack of information. E104421 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. The criteria for titles on Wikipedia is not what's "right", but what is most common. I need to get some sleep now. —Khoikhoi 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(crossed-out my own rudeness) —Khoikhoi 09:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, to get back on topic, I'd like to quote from WP:UE:

“

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

”

The most common name in English for this man is "Barbarossa". Although ife we wanted to be correct about things, the page should be at "Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" or "Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha)". The thing is, we must remind ourselves that the policy is about frequency, not accuracy. I know how you feel, E104421. I would like to move Istanbul to it's proper Turkish spelling, İstanbul. However, the policy goes against me, in the same way it goes against you here. Just how the correct name for Christopher Columbus is Cristoforo Colombo, the former is his common name in English, and that's why we have the page there. —Khoikhoi 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then, should we choose the version of Britannica? I still do not understand why we do not write the correct version in paranthesis. Since this is not the case of spelling as in Istanbul. Writing the common version first, then the correct version in paranthesis in order to prevent disambiguation. (Note for the google search, if you search: barbarossa ottoman admiral, you'll get more but if you search: "barbarossa ottoman admiral" in quatation marks you'll get less results. That's what i mean.) E104421 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer I can give you is because it's against Wikipedia policy, namely WP:MOS. It's like moving John Calvin to John Calvin (Jean Calvin), the latter of which is his correct name. You are more than welcome, however, to add the correct spelling of Barbarossa's name in the intro, but the title should reflect what someone or something is most commonly known as in English.

As for the Google search, the only reason why I'm having "ottoman admiral" next his name in the title, is because Barbarossa is already a disambig. page, so the title is to distinguish him from Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, Aruj, Barbarossa (board game), and Barbarossa (album). The page would be at "Barbarossa" if these other things didn't exist. —Khoikhoi 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Correcting my version above cause of edit conflict: Ok, then, should we choose the version of Britannica? I still do not understand why we do not write the correct version (actually, this is his name Hayreddin) in paranthesis. Since this is not the case of spelling as in Istanbul cause his actual name is missing in the case of Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral). Labeling with the nickname is not a good way, causes misleading. Writing the common one (nickname) first, then the correct version (real name) in paranthesis is better (also prevents disambiguation). {P/s: Note for the google search, if you search: barbarossa ottoman admiral, you'll get more but if you search: "barbarossa ottoman admiral" in quatation marks you'll get less results. That's what i mean.} E104421 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By writing the name as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) {first nickname, then real name} or better Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) {first real name, then nickname} prevents all the disambiguation. I checked the wikipolicy page WP:MOS, there is no reason for us to remove his real name. Even the current version is better than naming it as Barbarossa (Ottoman General) cause the current version labels him with his real name not with the nickname. Furthermore, if you google by writing his name as Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha here [[1]], you'll get 588 results the highest score and this satisfies the common labeling condition. E104421 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why it would make such a difference to have his full name up there.. I mean, the article would have more coverage if it was only barbarossa.. His full name will always be mentioned directly in the beginning of the intro.. In any case, barbaros is out and will never be used, no matter what.. His name in English is Barbarossa, very good analogy being Christopher Colombus.. We should remember that this is English Wikipedia, this is the same exact logic that stops Turkey article being titled Turkiye.. Even for humans, the common sense and logical rule is that his most commonly known name should be used.. I have never heard anyone anywhere outside Turkey refer to him as barbaros hayreddin pasa.. E104421, what's all the fuss? :)) Baristarim 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbarossa is his nickname not only in Turkey, but everywhere, sometimes these nicknames become more popular but in an encyclopedia real names should be mentioned also in the entries, for this reason, there would be no problem if we rename the article as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) or Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa). E104421 07:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem, as I've already outlined above. —Khoikhoi 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, there is no problem with naming the article as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) or Hayreddin Pasha(Barbarossa) according to the wikipedia naming policy. See the nicknames part. E104421 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See the 1st sentence in the policy page: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". —Khoikhoi 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but see also the nicknames policy. Barbarossa is not his common name, it's his nickname. Nicknames can only be redirect, not the title of the article. For example, King Billy can be a redirect, but not the article name for William III of England: there's no reason to use the short name or nickname. For this reason, the best choice is Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa). Cheers! E104421 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Barbarossa was the "name" by which he was commonly known, then and now. Maybe we should recall that Genghis Khan's name in fact was Temujin and redirect everything about him to "Temujin"? I don't believe rigidity in applying some "rule" is needed here, but the kind of common sense that makes it easy for an English-language user to find what he/she is looking for. Cosal 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbarossa is his "nickname". For this reason, Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) is better. In this way, we not only label the article with his name "Hayreddin Pasha" but also mention the nickname (Barbarossa). For the Genghis Khan case, "Temujin" is not a nickname. It's one of his names. Another example from wikipedia is "Yavuz" Sultan Selim I. Selim is his real name (used as the title). Maybe cause of the language barrier the "redirect" is misunderstood. The title cannot be a nickname, see wikipolicy here [[2]] E104421 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing with you about this. This is getting nowhere. Instead, I'm going to go to WP:RM and create a poll here, that way we can see what other Wikipedians have to say. —Khoikhoi 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if titles can't be nicknames or pen names, why don't we have T.S. Eliot at Thomas Stearns Eliot, or Mark Twain at Samuel Langhorne Clemens? —Khoikhoi 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it is written above "the title cannot be a nickname" the title refers to our case, read King Billy example. E104421 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer is simple. Nickname is the name given by others to a person (maybe different from place to place as in our case) but pen name is the name chosen by the person himself/herself (it's unique). This is also quite clear here[[3]].

What about the Sinan article? Should we move the page to Koca Mimar Sinan Agha? —Khoikhoi 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Sinan is his real name, Koca is the nickname, Mimar is his title, Agha is a kind of title (like Mr). To prevent disambiguity, it might be labeled as Mimar Sinan (in english Sinan, the Architect). If we adapt this case to ours, we should write only Hayreddin Pasha (Hayreddin is his real name, Pasha is his title), but i'm proposing here to write also the english nickname in parathesis as Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) in order to prevent the disambiguity. E104421 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for the "nickname" dogmatists: Have you looked up "Blackbird" or "Buffalo Bill" lately, in WIKI or elsewhere? And no, dear E104421, "Temujin" was not a nicknsame, but his real name, and he only later became known as Genghis Khan. As to the person being discussed here, "Barbarossa" was hardly a "nickname, but instead a honorific by which he became known (and certainly much better known than by his birth name Hizir. Remember, too, that even Khair ad Din was not his name, but a honorific bestowed upon him by Sultan Suleiman. Cosal 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, be careful. Read my comments above. Temujin is one his real names as i said before. In our case, Barbarossa is obviously a "nickname" meaning "redbeard". Please read my comments again but carefully. E104421 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right. My apologies. My point remains, though: we show him NOT under Temujin, but under Genghis Khan. Cosal 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, real names should be used to label people. Both Genghis Khan and Temujin are his real names but Genghis Khan is more commonly used. My point is related with nicknames. E104421 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move