Wikipedia:Requests for comment/hakozen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

hakozen – keeps changing the article on the Huns to claim they were Turkic, even though we've worked hard to make this page show all sides of the issue; the exact ethnic identity of the Huns is disputed, and we want the page to reflect that. Nonetheless, Hakozen keeps changing all NPOV mentions of "uncertain" etc. to "Turkic" and no longer participates on the Talk page. After I contacted him on his user page, he claimed I and the other level-headed editors were an anti-Turk racists. This has met the threshold, see his talk page (my comment) and the Ethnic Identification in Header section of Talk:Huns (other people's comments).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Huns

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. CRCulver 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Stbalbach 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ghirla -трёп- 07:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

There are so many prooves that Huns were Turkic origin in many sites, books.. etc.. of course in every tribe and country there were minorities but if we call a main people of the tribe we should specifie the main peoples race isnt it?(but!! as we see on Huns page in wiki there s NOT any word "Turk" or something like that)

Huns is written as 95% Turkic in old-Turkic books, and if we saerch something clearly we should take the source from the main place isnt it?

but in wikipedia's Huns page, there a source from an Armenian historian who were far from Turkic culture, Turkic territories, and Turkic peoples... i suggest that the source of Huns page should be change to Turkic and Europian sources, not Armenian and Greek ones, i want it becouse there are so many wrong sources in Armenian.. like Blue Book which is full of story about so-called Armenian genocide... --hakozen 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


in the Huns page of wiki, there are words like Central Asian, but all we know, central asian people are mainly Turkic, (except Tocharians in Tarim Basin, but Tocharians were assimilated by Turk in a short period, many sources also approved that Tocharians were fully destroyed...) so theres not any reason left for call "Central Asian" as a "Turks".

i suggest that the word "Turkic" must be in the main page, specially in the "origins part of the Huns page in wiki...--hakozen 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Most authorities on Eurasian nomadic cultures (e.g. David Christian, Peter Golden, Zeki Validi Togan, et al) assert that the Huns had a largely Turkic-epeaking ruling strata and this should be reflected in the article, as should minority views that point to other possible ethnic origins. Any effort to utterly expunge, rather than contextualize, any reference to the Turkic origin of the Huns is against the basic principles of Wikipedia. That said, Hakozen's refusal to present sources and engage in dialogue on the talk page is inexcusable. The parties should agree to work together to present all sides of the dispute, while being careful not to give equal weight to theories with vastly fewer supporters. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Robert McClenon 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.