User talk:Rateslines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Rateslines! It may be important to update your beautiful election outcome maps (Image:Turkish general election, 2007.gif), as well as the other one, for in light of the new results for Hakkari. I see that you are Turkish, so I put the link for the related article in Hürriyet that you probably seen anyway. [1]. I was going to do some editing on this but it will look awkward without an updated map. Regards. Cretanforever 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I see you reverted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership of the independence war articles when I said there was no evidence that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. I thought there wasn't but I'll take your word for it there is in Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. However, I would like to know what you meant by pp.4,217, I thought pp. meant a page but obviously not. Could you tell me what you meant by that, what part of the book provides the evidence should I acquire the book and the exact words in that book that you think are proof Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. Also, please do not assume I don't know that there are Muslims that don't pursue political Islam. --Supertask 04:41, 10 April 2008 (GMT) I did read it and it shows what I think - that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's religious beliefs are not known with certainty. --Supertask 01:20, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

"There is a whole section regarding his religious beliefs under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. There is a picture showing him preying in that section."

I have looked for a picture of him praying and cannot see one.

"The question of ones religious beliefs is somewhat funny! Do we ask how much "Christian" one should be to be a Christian man."

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Someones religion is what they belive and what religion they state they are part of. A Christian man accepts the tenets of the version of Christianity he follows and states he is a Christian.

"If one does not accept the Pope's authority, (like Caliphate) do he become non Christian? I guess in the eyes of Pope that person will be deemed for the Hell."

He is not part of the mainstream Catholic Church.

"Besides if these people who question is religious beliefs were Muslims, they would know that if one accepts God's existance, become Muslim for life."

If this is in relation to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk then there is no evidence that he ever accepted Islam or that he never accepted Islam. Wikipedia's religion section on individuals is about the individuals belief, not about how a particular religion sees that individual because the article is on the individual.

"If one deny the God later, that person do not become Non-Muslim, but Fajir."

Interesting, the Wikipedia article on Fajir descibes it as meaning "wicked evil doer" in an Islamic context. What you have described as Fajir fits the Wikipedia definition of Kafir much better, which it descibes as meaning "sinner by disbelif in Allah". This comes back to my last point. This comes back to my last point - if this is in relation to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk then there is no evidence that he ever accepted Islam or that he never accepted Islam. Wikipedia's religion section on individuals is about the individuals belief, not about how a particular religion sees that individual because the article is on the individual.

The cite you gave from the book Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation also seems flawed. Even though as I said earlier I don't have the book I know from John Z what the parts of the book you use to support that without doubt Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim (remember I am not arguing that he wasn't a Muslim just that nobody knows one way or the other) because John Z used them to support the same cite (and added another part of the same book later) on the main entry for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and told me what they were specifically.

Page 4

"He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock."

A newborn can't accept the metaphysical tenets of islam or any religion, so this just refers to the religion of the family he was born into.

Page 216-217

"After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [ an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of defernce he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations."

This shows nothing of his personal beliefs, just that he used Islam politically because it was useful/needed.

I'm not stating he wasn't a Muslim, just that it is not known with certainty what his religious beliefs were. --Supertask 02:21, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

"Why the information of his religious belief is important? It is important because he abolished the Caliphate. (removed the Political Islam from political arena) Was he a Muslim? Yes he was. Did he liked green apples? He was not an apple farmer or a genetic scientist who works on apples. That question is irrelevant. Hovever if he had an allergy to green apples, in that case this question would be significant. We ask questions, because they give us important clues of historically significant events. He never claimed he was a "Hoja" or compete for the position of Calip. He did not develop a theological theory. His position regarding angles or devil is irrelevant. His political theories are relevant, but you are not interested in them. It is not clear what your are trying to say or what is the significance of your position. Do not take it too personal, when people question your motives. Because they are not clear."

You are just babbling on about nothing and have not presented any evidence to show he was a Muslim. I showed the flaws in the evidence you posted and now you are just talking nonsence (liking green apples? not an apple farmer or a gentic scientist who works on apples?!). How can you say it is not relevent what his religion was/if he was religious? Religions fudamentally change peoples whole thinking. How can you question my motives? I want the truth which is that nobody knows his religion. Lastly, if you think his religion is so unimportant as you claim to (I certainly don't) then why don't you let it go? I must again state that I am not saying he wasn't a Muslim - just that nobody knows. --Supertask 02:21, 14 April 2008 (GMT)

Tell me the precise location of this picture because I have looked an cannot find it. --Supertask 03:19, 15 April 2008 (GMT)

"You need tho brought a better fact showing him he was not muslim"

Do you know how ridiculous this statement of yours is? Nobody just assumes that somebody is a Muslim or follows any other religion without proof and demands it be disproven. --Supertask 03:23, 15 April 2008 (GMT)

I see you have reverted my edit too Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership of the independence war and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life but you have reinstated the citatation I argue is false without responding to my arguments - please don't be dishonest like this. --Supertask 03:26, 15 April 2008 (GMT)

As for your picture, the political climate of the time would of course have encouraged him to pray even if he wasn't a Muslim. Your false citation shows that he did use Islam politically because it was useful/needed. He never said anything about his devotion and belief in the metaphysical claims of Islam. Again, I am not saying he wasn't a Muslim, just that we don't know either way. Stop being so arrogant and posting false citations and inconclusive images to try and show what you want to be true as known fact. --Supertask 03:38, 15 April 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Turkopedia

Merhaba Rateslines!

I want to create an encyclopedia on the Wikia website called Turkopedia. It will be in English, and will be all about everything to do with Turkey and Turkish people.

Unfortunately I need at least 20 people (including me, so there's 19 people left) to assist me in this project. Would you like to take part?

Onur 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

VikiProje Türkiye'ye davet / Invitation to join WikiProject Turkey

Turkey Portal
Merhaba, sizin VikiProje Türkiye'ye katılabileceğinizi düşündük. Ayrıca yalnız başınıza ya da diğer kullanıcılarla birlikte Türkiye ile ilgili maddeleri düzenleyip geliştirebilirsiniz. Eğer projemize katılmak istiyorsanız lütfen katılımcılar sayfasını ziyaret edin ve adınızı yazın ya da projenin tartışma sayfasına tıklayın. Eğer herhangi bir sorunuz varsa benimle ya da bir başka VikiProje Türkiye üyesi ile bağlantı kurabilirsiniz.
Current events/Turkey Portal

Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Turkey. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Turkey.

--Absar 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Eti Mine Works

A tag has been placed on Eti Mine Works, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. MasterXC 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date & Name

Thanks 4 the extensive summary. It is a lot of work. What would be your position in creating a sub-page and moving the birth date and name related information (including the images from commons) to this article and give a short summary and a link to that article. In-favor of this move is the current size of the article and there will be separate "talk" page for this very controversial issue. There are couple threads in the main article, and it seems this repeats every couple months. --Rateslines 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did not add the name section. Thanks for the kind words. I merely dissected a source I found on his birth date. I don't think a seperate article is necesary as I feel all that can be said has been said extensively. Of course I may be wrong but I want to wait until more information is available. The breakaway of the Kurdish uprisings related section was merged back later on. We do however need an article on this "Rumi calender" as I do not have the slightest idea what it is. It would be a fine addition though. -- Cat chi? 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
"Rumi calender:" There is an article related calenders, I will look into it and see what is it's extension. I have been for a long time thinking a sub-page related with ""Personal life."" I was thinking moving controversial issues, wife, name, birth date, (even the claims of ethnic nationality and even the claims of his sexual orientation) could be covered under this page. This will create a substantial coverage and may be an answer to your "until more information is available." Also, it will bring stability to the main article. Instead of constantly removing these controversial edits, it give a medium to these arguments with a warning message at the top. I think this is needed for FA status (stability of the article). --Rateslines 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Not every claim is worthy of this article. They need to be from reliable sources. This article should be about the personal life of Atatürk. You may want to break away anything else (such as reforms) instead. What do you think of this? -- Cat chi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Check the Islamic calendar (Hijri). --Rateslines 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You pointed to a good position regarding the Rumi. It is more complicated than I thought. It will be a good and valuable addition. It can be linked to "The Memoirs of Naim Bey."--Rateslines 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ottoman empire used two calenders Hijri (Islamic calendar) and Rumi. Rumi may be this "Turkish calender linked as a red link. -- Cat chi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you intentionally ignoring my comments? I strongly discouraged an article like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. At the very least you should discuss such major changes. -- Cat chi? 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Are you intentionally ignoring my comments?" Of course not!!! I'm not 24 hrs online. I have been thinking of creating a sub-article for extending the personal life 4 a while. The original article reached 110K and did not have enough space to grow before people begin to cry. There were threads about the size I did not initiate those threads so I'm not making it. You were right, there was not enough text collected under the main page to initiate, such a section, before your additions.

Your extensive addition gave the perfect beginning. It had citations, normal text development... So and so.. Hope we can do the same type of analysis for other controversial, but important, "Personal" issues. I was even thinking putting a family tree (graphical) under this new sub-article, but they will all take time. This is not my full my time job. :-)) His family background has been controversial for many years. I sincerely believe the value of this page. I'm not rejecting the point of reliable sources. I think it is time. --Rateslines 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

110K isn't really a gigantic size for an article. Most featured articles are around this size. The 32k limit was for browsers in 2001, it is now a symbolic limit these days. Articles are now broken apart typically when they exceed 100k significantly. So there is no urgent reason to break the page apart.
I really think an inverse logic should be applied to this. Generally stuff broken outside of bio articles are specific incidents like his involvement with the independence war, ww1, or his presidency. Anything else should stay on the page.
Would that work with you?
-- Cat chi? 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"Anything else ..." what is anything else if not his personal life. Besides If we are not going to create an article which looks like "Senin kanin akarmi? Sen ataturk degilmisin?" There is going to be personal issues of this person. I prefer his global achievements should stay in the artile, not the reasons of his failed marriage or how did we f.. up his will (selling AOC or killing the independence of TTK or TDK). WWI, independence, presidency are his major achivements. I'm also favor of having sub-articles for these too, DO not get me wrong. I have not guts to engage these issues. Specific response: (1) There are featured Bios that has personal sub-articles. (2) Having "sub-article" does not us prevent us giving conclusion (summaries) of these in the main article. It is not a break away article, you know. (3) "Symbolic limit" technologically you have a point. However, I tried to print the page it is 39 pages. That limit has also includes an readability side. By having sub articles we cam create a balance between dept-ease of understanding (dept in sub, ease in the main). The size limit is a good idea, because gives us chance to organize ourself.

I'm ready to listen and accept all the other positions you brought. But I sincerely believe it is time to have this sub page. Rateslines 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything else can be any other section I did not mention like the cultural referances one I just created. On wikipedia stuff expanded off of bio articles are typically more important stuff like global achievements. Popping out the personal info is typically the last resort. As for the commercial it is a work of fiction and is not related to Atatürk's life, hence why it is a seperate article. -- Cat chi? 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"As for the commercial it is a work of fiction" I'm not denying it's significance. I'll be happy if it sticks in wikipedia. I was not trying to change the topic. As I said before; if someone engages to write Independence War or WWi from soley Ataturks perspective I can be a minor co-editor. I do agree extending personal life can be left to some other time. Look! we work what we are interested in. Such as what you have been working on. But I did not find a cooperative work on Ataturk which takes my interest. I do not want to engage a big project as a major editor. This brings us to my question: What is wrong in your perspective (besides the subject is controversial) if I want to develop his personal information. You have to understand that this sub-page is not a spin of. It requires monitoring, but so if we keep it under the main page. One last time: I got all your positions, except if I'm willing to engage this task, WHY not? Why can't you help monitoring it? It seems it is perfect time for this page, given current conditions. That is all I guess, we exchanged everything related to this issue. Rateslines 03:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh I guess i haven't expressed myself clearly. What I am saying is you can expand Atatürk's personal life on the main Mustafa Kemal Atatürk page. You can do this by creating sub articles on Atatürk's involvement with world war 1 and/or the independence war. I'd be happy to add Atatürk to my watchlist. Infact I just have. -- Cat chi? 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Look. You told me your position. I have clearly explained why your position is not developed with enough consideration. I also pointed that you are not a major editor to this specific article, but I have seen you given good efforts to other articles. With Humanly possible way, within the limits of politeness, asked you "If there is (you will) a major edit, I will be a co-editor" But you have not shown such an interest. I also offered to you "Come and help me." Ataturk's personal life is what I'm interested in and you can't dictate what I like or dislike (any kind of wars including WWI and Independence). ALL your response is "NO NO NO." Do it the way Cat likes. But your constant "you can " or "you can can't" statements are clearly an violation of "WP:OWN" the article. This is so unneeded activity on your behalf. Instead of reaching a compromise on the topic level (I left your edits on the main page, a compromise move on my side) you have choose me as your a ""personal target"". I'm sincerely improving the content. I'm faced with your personal "persecution". Just give me a space. ONE more time. I'm extending my hand. "Help me! for the development of the personal life of Ataturk. Give a little bit space to me." Rateslines 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am quite baffled. I was merely making comments based on the general manual of style used in wikipedia which your article examples for Lincoln demonstrates. I have spent a great deal of time on wikipedia working on different topics and this is merely the general way of doing things. One can write an entire book simply on Atatürk's involvement on a single skirmish let alone war - it has a great amount of potential for growth than Atatürk's personal life.
Bio articles aim to cover a persons general life while sub articles cover specific events or time frames in greater detail like George Washington: George Washington's early life (1732-1754) -> George Washington in the French and Indian War (1754–1758) -> George Washington between the wars (1758-1775) -> George Washington in the American Revolution (1775-1783) -> Presidency of George Washington (1783-1797) -> Post presidency George Washington#Retirement and death (1797-1799). Mind you that this is in the chronological order of the sections. Content of the articles do not overlap each other. The sub article you want to create for Atatürk covers his entire life.
I do not see what is there to compromise from all that. You are welcome to explain why you want a mirror bio article for Atatürk's entire life and I can reconsider my position.
-- Cat chi? 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doing something new. Background and personal life of Preity Zinta, Tchaikovsky's personal life. These are not a mirror bio-articles (nor Ataturk's is a mirror). Clearly I'm not in violation of any manual style. Just your personal style. The way you want to shape the sub-articles is your own personal taste. Simply I'm not interested in your personal taste. Only your positive (improvements) to what I want to work on. And for your question part. Your compromise is this: "If you are not willing to engage in rewriting whole any section you TOLD ME to engage (I would compromise and be a minor editor), just "give me a space."" Rateslines 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not my style at all. I'll be sorting out those specific examples right away. You seem to be under the impression that you have some sort of higher ground and are not interested at all in seeking a consensus. If you are not willing to see me as an equal, there is no point in continuing this. I won't be constantly defending myself to you or anybody as that is no way to engage in a civil discussion.
I apologize for my attempts to help better shape your privately owned article. You are more than free to do your thing as you see fit. As it turns out, my efforts to improve Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article was a waste of my time.
-- Cat chi? 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teşekkürler!

İngilizce yazdığınız yazınızı okudum. Atatürk'le ilgilenen bir yabancının bulunduğunu düşündüm ve tam da yazacaklarımı İngilizce düşünürken, Türk olduğunuzu gördüm :) Atatürk maddesine yakışan resimler koymaya çalıştım. Ama tarihsel açıdan değelendirilmesi gerekiyor tüm Atatürk resimlerinin bence. Tekrar teşekkürler...--Dsmurat (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ottoman Empire. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)