User talk:Khoikhoi/Archived

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Khoikhoi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miskin (talk | contribs) at 21:00, 4 June 2006 (→‎LOL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Note: I am currently busy in real life and may not respond to your queries for a few days.
Panoramic view over the Hazards, Freycinet Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia

Kalasha and Islam

Kalasha don't believe in Islam, it is not part of their culture. There are Kalasha forced to become Muslims, but at the time that happens they are no longer part of the community. And isn't it ironic to say Kalasha are Muslims, when they try to keep their independence against all the islamic pressure from outside. (You can answer at my site in the German Wikipedia) --Felix Ufer

Hi there, dude

I will tell you an old parable. The man asks a learned hodja: Kimdir ol velî ki hemşireleri onu kuyuda gark etmiştir? (Who is that saint who was drowned by his sisters in a well?). The hodja says; Not a saint but a prophet, not his brothers his sisters, not drowned but thrown! :-) The section has many inaccuracies. It even claims that sub-Saharan ancestry was brought to Asia Minor with eunuchs. I think it's better to keep it that way. However, I should tell that current population of Turkey was shaped in late 19th and early 20th centuries with three main tenets: 1- Sedentarisation of nomads, 2- Settlement of Muslims from former Ottoman territories in Anatolia, 3- Expulsion and/or extermination of Christian elements. I think a historical perspective should include these three main historical demographic movements. Behemoth 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know about them. A few days ago, I was watching TRT and I saw a government notice saying "Each year ... (number) languages disappear on the world's surface." I was shocked to see this as people know the Ubykh language incident that did never concern Turkish authorities. Then, all was revealed, they were talking about "the invasion of Turkish by foreign words" and keeping Turkish alive and pure. The more significant thing was that notice appeared just after the half an hour Kabardian broadcast on TRT3. Behemoth 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I will write you two anecdotal quotes on that "Turkish identity" thing. The first one is from Suyu Arayan Adam, an autobiography of Şevket Süreyya Aydemir. Şevket Süreyya is a nationalist officer at WWI who speaks of his soldiers as "Turks". The soldiers who are of peasant origins duly oppose this naming. They say: "Sir, we are not Turks because we are not Kizilbash. We are Muslims!" The second is from the novel Yaban by Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu. Ahmet Cemal, an intellectual ex-officer wants the villagers to support Mustafa Kemal at the "National Struggle" and adds "for it is the duty of every Turk". The villagers say "We are not Turks!" Ahmet Cemal asks them "what" they are and they say "We are Muslims. The ones you talk about live in Haymana!" :-) Behemoth 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have exact info about the number of Kurdish civilians killed by Turkish forces. I also don't think that Kurds have the number or a "timeline" because these casualties are very very high! You see, Turkish forces never accept civilian casualties. They state that the killed one was a "terrorist" because security forces "found" machine guns, ammunition, etc. along with them. This was the case in 2004 when twelve-year-old Uğur Kaymaz was killed in Kızıltepe by Özel Tim (Special Forces Squad). When, someone claims that these were civilian deaths, (s)he can be condemned for being a PKK propagandist. I can recommend you to contact some Kurdish information websites for figures. However, to start with: 11 civilians in Diyarbakır (including four children) and 3 civilians in Kızıltepe were killed Turkish government forces at demonstrations in March-April 2006. Of course, some may argue (according to Turkish standards) that these are not civilian casualties because they were demonstrating in support for Öcalan. The article also has some contradicting points. If it is about civilian casualties, one can easily assume that most of the deaths listed with rural raids by PKK were village guard casualties, who are technically not civilians. Ciao! Behemoth 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope you guys will have an open mind about Kurdish civilians killed by PKK as well. --Gokhan 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Do you know that Khan Wali Khan is listed 3 times as a nominee for a good article? Once as Abdul Wali Khan by Zak. Just thought I'd let you know. Tombseye 03:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey what up dude. One thing, I think Haider also listed it, while Zak's nomination is just spelled differently. I was going to delete Haider's but he might take it the wrong way. Yeah, I was just thinking of contacting you regarding images for the article. You read my mind man. I wrote to Steve Mccurry first off and hopefully he'll be cool with how his picture is used. And yeah if you can find some pictures of Pashtuns that would be great. I did an impromptu addition of pictures, but I'd like to replace Euthydemus as he's not a Pashtun and some pictures (like on the Tamil page) would really help the article. Whatever you've got would be great. Also, if you can make a back up collage replacing Sharbat with either Ghulam Ishaq Khan or something that would be cool. I'd rather have her there, but who knows what might happen. If you can find some female pictures that would especially be great. Steve Mccurry has a ton of great pictures on his website of Pashtuns! Too bad we can't use 'em. Anyway, if you think it's cool, feel free to support the article's ascension to the higher plane known as a featured article. ;) Tombseye 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish people

Look at that sentence again. Why are Mongols, Persians, and Turks given there links to there ethnic group instead to there ancient empire? And by the way, when did the Kurds fight the Persians and Turks? Certinaly not before BC! Kurds and Assyrians have fought in the past 3000 years. By the way, so now your going to give the upmost respect to the Kurds and respect there claim of being so ancient, that they are linked to Hurrians, but your going to deny Assyrian's claim? Chaldean 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. Its just that I feel everyone in wiki is against me all of the sudden, even thou I back himself up with source after source. Chaldean 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the temper, its just build in many of us Middle Eastern people for some strange reason :D Chaldean 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg Hello Khoikhoi. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any admin assistance, feel free to ask me, and naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, and keep moooooooing. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Armenian Republic...

  • Battle of Van - at the moment, this seems fairly accurate based on my sources.
  • Armenian Revolution - I don't like this whole idea that somehow the revolt in Van can be thought of as a large-scale Armenian revolution. One revolt in one city does not a revolution make IMHO.
  • First Armenian Republic (1915-16) - I think this article is really beyond history. This area of the world was a war zone and was under the direct control of Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich. To say that this war zone was really the location of a functioning republic, a government which really existed... I have read nothing in any book that suggests such a thing was true. A real republic has an elected leadership, a functioning set of government services, an army, and authority. I believe that on all these counts the "government" of Russian-controlled Ottoman Armenia had none of these things.

If I had control here, I would remove both the Armenian Revolution and First Armenian Republic 1915-1916 articles. This article: Democratic Republic of Armenia, though not very coherent, does at least describe a real entity. Suggestions? Cglassey 08:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding First Armenian Republic (1915-16); Confederation of Armenian parties, which had a representation in Ottoman parliament, come together and formed a local governing structure in this region. Ottoman documents define it as a revolt coordinated by Armenian confederation. I'm aware the fact that this area was a war zone, as we know from historical perspective and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich was a fact. However, I could easily see an issue regarding the fact that it was really not different than the origination of TBMM. OR if was not crushed, it could have easily replace the democratic republic of Armenia, as the distinction between them was very diffuse (same people, same party, same military power). I do understand your point, and if you could help, there may be a better way to define it. As far as I can say; it may be in very early stages of becoming a state (from ARF perspective), but it has a political and military structure. Thanks.--OttomanReference 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ps: there was an article about how the negotation between ottoman (a german commander) and confederation of Armenian parties was performed, Ottoman units let them have their local control under the pretense that they would not help Russians... Hope I can reach that document again.--OttomanReference 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CGlassey writes: While I think the revolt in Van is reasonably worth its own article, I have yet to see any evidence in any research I've done over the last week which suggests this revolt is worthy of the title "Armenian Revolution". One city does not a revolt make. The revolt in Van seems to have been an isolated, and, if I may say, heroic, action by the people in this one town (not quite true, the Armenians in Şanlıurfa revolted in early 1916). Nor do I see any reason to think the Armenian's "gave up" when Van was re-taken by the Ottoman army in late July 1915 (currently the article says "The Battle of Van effectively ended the Armenian Revolution". I don't see any "giving up" by the Armenians. They still had units in the Russian army and they continued to exist even when the Russian army melted away. So, for me, a better solution would be

Cglassey 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CGlassey writes: you ask how strong is the evidence that the Ottoman government acknowledged the Armenian genocide after WWI?

This is a fact. No question about it. The problem is twofold. (1) The Ottoman government was in its last days. The actions it took were soon, within two years, utterly repudated by the new Turkish government of Kemal (later Attaturk) (2) The Ottoman government was both defeated and quite clearly under the thumb of the victorious British (and French). Later Turkish appologists simply say "can't trust anything which was said by the Ottoman governent from November 1918 till its fall in 1920. Period." Personally I don't dismiss the trials conducted in 1919-1920 out-of-hand. But I'm hardly an expert on the trials.

Re: Eyüp Sabri Kartal

I know that it's User:3210 (though he was going under the guise of User:Eculum at the time he created the article, because in real life his name was "Eyüp Culum" and he changed the "Culum" to "Kartal" or "Eagle"—a name likely chosen because, according to his Turkish Wikipedia page, he is a supporter of the Beşiktaş football club, whose mascot and nickname is the "Eagles"—because he was tired of misspellings of the last name; a long and complicated story found, in Turkish, here), and I've posted a note on the proposed deletion on his page, too.

I've done searches on the man (as my previous very long sentence probably shows), and he's notable only for the name change—which, let's be honest, is not very notable—and for starting somewhat successful campaigns to get more Turkish Wikipedia articles written, as this article, again in Turkish, attests. This second fact may indeed be somewhat notable, but I (personally) don't think it's really enough for an encyclopedia article about the man (though there are, of course, no firm policies on notability). —Saposcat 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the Turkish article on Eyüp Sabri Kartal was also started by ... drumroll, please ... guess who. —Saposcat 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What?

Hey, Khoikhoi, since you the man, let me ask you this: regarding this recent edit, I'm about 99.9% sure that User:85.98.233.99 is none other than User:3210 (a.k.a. User:Eculum), trying to get around the fact that Eyüp Sabri Kartal is really just a vanity page (in fact, he has made it even more so now); is there anything that can be done about this, I wonder? —Saposcat 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the technical assistance in getting the page up on AfD. I appreciate it. —Saposcat 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Yes, go ahead. Dahn 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

need help

Could you please have an eye on Alisher Navoi and Babur ... a Pakistani user (with very obvious anti-Persian and anti-Shia mentalities) is really messing up these articles!

Thanks!

Tajik 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

paragraphs order

Hi Khoikhoi, I respect your idea regard to genetic and I am not going to revert it to the previous edition. But, do you agree with order of titles? I see that this article “Azerbaijan people” become a battle field between people with nationalistic affiliations. Some people insist to bring the material related to their affiliation at first. For example look at “Turkic background examined”. None of the paragraphs has any citation. Is that the policy of Wikipedia? Should not parts based on scientific tests become first or at least paragraphs with more reliable references? Are genetic tests are more reliable or paragraphs without any citation.

Regarding image of the Afghan Girl

Hey what up dude. Guess what? Steve McCurry straight up denied the request to use ANY of his images, including the low resolution image of the Afghan girl, on wikipedia. I would have thought it would be free publicity for him, but he simply said no. So, can you come up with some new collage and if you can find any images without copyright problems, then please let me know. What a bummer. She's probably one of the most notable Pashtuns around since everybody recognizes her. Oh well. Tombseye 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, funny thing is I don't know if it's Steve or his manager calling the shots. She actually wanted me to call her to talk about it and then she tells me that Steve would not allow the use of his pictures in the collage straight off. She assumed that the picture of the Afghan girl had been cropped even on the article about Steve, but if we just use the image without altering it, then they can't say anything about it. Hmm, ya know what, that's a great idea! We could just have a bunch of images, only have them separate rather than a part of a collage. I mean they can't fault us for that. Yeah I know it's hard to find images. No pressure man, but you always come through which is probably why I keep asking the next to impossible! ;) Yeah, that damn article has to make it as a feature article now. I mean, I put everything in it, except the kitchen sink. So shall we go with the collection of images sized to look like a collage even though they are actually 4 different pictures (something I did as I didn't have a good picture manipulation program)? I mean I'm down. Thing is too that Steve probably has the best pictures of Pashtuns (and other peoples) on his page too. I wonder if they would qualify as fair use too? Anyway, let me know what you think and we'll go from there. Oh and what is it with people and the Turkish people page? Everybody seems to think up something new to criticize about it. Either it shouldn't exist or it should include the Kurds or it should talk about some mythological origin. Man, the Turkish govt. really did a number on their people. It's like with the East Germans, they were brainwashed into thinking that the bad Germans (connected to the Nazis) were the West Germans (that is succeeding generations). Similarly, the whole nationalism thing has warped some Turks into being unable to criticize themselves. Weird stuff. Well, just let me know if you come up with something, which I have a feeling you will. Heh heh. Tombseye 06:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey what about this site: [1]? They're using some images from Insight Guides: Pakistan, a book I bought before I went there. It's a govt. run website though. also this looks interesting: [www.helene-eriksen.de/ AfghaniEng.html]. Tombseye 07:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish people, Turkic people, People of Turkey

Hmm.. I thought we discussed this. Turkish people include kurds. Perhaps it might be wise to merge People of Turkey with Turkish people. 'Turk' is an ethnicity, 'Turkish' is a nationality. --Cat out 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's true why is that the CIA differentiates between "Turkish" and "Kurdish" in the ethnic groups section? —Khoikhoi 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps CIA made a typo. While I do not know why, CIA screwed up big time. However see: under "Nationality", "adjective: Turkish" on the same CIA page you have posted to me. Every citizen of Turkey is Turkish, including Ethnic Kurds, Turks, Greeks and everone else. This is like calling someone a Canadian if they are from Canada.
It is often easy to confuse Ethnicity and Nationality, but I'd expect better from the CIA.
--Cat out 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well here, check out the U.S. Library of Congress study on Turkey, particularly the Linguistic and Ethnic Groups section. It also refers to "ethnic Turks" as separate group from the Kurds. —Khoikhoi 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You are precisely right. "Ethnic Turks" U.S. Library of Congress talks about are Turkic people living in Turkey, and the aproporate wikipedia article would be Turkic people. Turkic people are indeed distinct from the Kurds to a degree. However, Turkish people (nationality) include Turkic people (ethnicity) and Kurdish people (ethnicity).
I understand the terminology can be a bit confusing as Turkish and Turkic sound similar.
--Cat out 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I know the difference between Turkish and Turkic. However, the Turkish people article is not about the Turkish nationality and it has never been. That's why is uses {{Infobox ethnic group}}. I'm not sure what else to say. —Khoikhoi 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no Turkish ethnicity so the article can't talk about it. The infobox and/or the article is probably inaproporate and should redirect just like American people. --Cat out 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the case further and discovered something quite disturbing. People of Turkey, Turkish people, and Demographics of Turkey practicaly talk about the same thing (all 3 exists as a pov fork to a level of degree). I feel all should be refined and merged to Demographics of Turkey. See: Demographics of the United States as an example. --Cat out 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No I disagree. Let me explain: Demographics of Turkey is not only about the ethnic groups, it's also about sex ratio, birth rate, literacy, etc. People of Turkey is a sub-article of the former that I mentioned, it goes more into depth on the ethnic groups. Lastly, Turkish people talks about the main ethnic group in Turkey (which does not include Kurds). Whether it exists or not is a matter of debate. —Khoikhoi 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Demographics include sex ratios, ethicity ratios etc. I do not see why we need an article that has to focus on ethnicity. Why is there a reason for us to cover Kurds any diferently than how "blacks" are covered in United States? There is an African American article and a Kurdish people article... and no People of the United States (its a redirect to guess what?)
The main ethnic group in Turkey is Turkic people which can be explained in the Turkic people article. A good example would be American people (its a redirect)
--Cat out 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think people would approve of deleting the Turkish people page, but we'll see what others have to say. —Khoikhoi 01:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we "delete" the page, instead just merge. All 3 articles "rant on" random opinions from time to time. Remove those, and you have a decent demographics article. --Cat out 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I just happened to see this on Turkish people and then saw this conversation here. Khoikhoi is correct as Turkish people is considered a distinct ethnic group apart from Kurdish people within Turkey. Regardless of how the official Turkish govt. feels about it, the Turkish people are a distinct group in that they speak Turkish, a Turkic language, whereas the Kurds speak Iranian language. There are other factors as well, but that's the jist of it. I absolutely am against merging any of these articles as they discuss distinct things and I can also verify that it's all accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana both describe these people as distinct ethnic groups etc. Tombseye 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Selcuk

I don't agree with your edit in the article, but I'm not going to start a revert war. This is clearly out of context. Ethnicity of no other person is mentioned in the article. Especially given a list of the history of Iran included in this article on the right (how come a Turkish state be a part of history of Iran but not Turkey), this does not sound like anything innocent. Deepblue06 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was just this article, I would not mind this small edit. But after reading some other articles, I've noticed strong Iranian nationalistic POV attempts in Turkic related articles (languages, other turkic states, scholars, religion, etc). Selcuks was a Turkish state, but in the article (on the right) there is a history of Iran box. That does not make sense at all. How come they are part of history of Iran but not Turkey. If a list should be included, it should be the list of Turkish (or Turkic, whatever you want to call) states. Deepblue06 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I was not referring to you. As far as I see there is a group of users who're aggressively pushing Iranian nationalistic POV.

If I haven't had some good Iranian friends before, my feeling for Iranian people would be very negative after reading some of the discussions on Wiki. I think that this place is a magnet for nationalist fanatics. Deepblue06 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad reversals

I believe your reversals of my culture edits were clearly incorrect - articles linked were in each case most comprehensive and neutral point-of-view sources of information on the web. They should also be useful in improving Wikipedia articles about these subjects, especially since they had significantly more content and bibliographies than Wikipedia articles. Explain your reasons or I will proceed with reversals.

Oldovan-may

Hi,

I'm wondering if maybe it isn't time to try again to implement NPOV policy on the Moldova-related pages, first and foremost Moldovan language, but also Moldova, Moldovenism, Moldovans, and the like. Your thoughts? --Node 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)`

Armenians in Turkey

Hi. I added a section to Armenians in Turkey, could you check? --Gokhan 07:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alisher Navoi

Hi Khoikhoi. Please have a look at Alisher Navoi. An IP is messing up the article by - purposely - replacing Chaghatai language with (Anatolian) Turkish, which totally falsefies the article. He also replaces the word Azeri into Ottoman Turkish, totally denying Fuzuli's Azeri heritage and his Azeri and Persian poetry. Your help is needed!

Tajik 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it (for the nonce, but only time will tell when IP monsters and their ilk arise again). —Saposcat 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mail

You got mail! :) :P --K a s h Talk | email 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support
In my RfA, which passed!
Wise I'll try to be.

-- Natalya 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference??

Hi Khoikhoi. I noticed you took of the Photo by Raffi Kojian in the Adana article because it is a self-reference, but in this case I don't understand how that can be enforced since I gave the photo a free use with attribution tag. Technically, now the use of the photo on that page is in violation of my terms of use. Can you please let me know what the deal is in such a situation? --RaffiKojian 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I just read the self-references page you linked to, and it means something completely different than using your name... I think you're off on this one. --RaffiKojian 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mount Ararat

Hey. I beefed up the older history section and made a bunch of copy edits. Let me know what you think if you have a chance. --Ssilvers 04:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hristo botev

hi. could you have a look at the hristo botev article?-i tried to fix sthgs up and put a neutrality tag- this is one of the comments i got "from a Turk I can accept to question the neutrality of the article (I would rather question its quality), but, sorry, not from a Greek"

  • the paragraph under question is "The struggle for Bulgarian independence"
  • it constantly calls turks "the enemy" and theres a luck of citations
  • i put the "citation needed" not because what they say is not "true" but because it is exaggerated "The tragedy ignited the public opinion all over the world"

best greece666

bonny

User:GDP is messing with the Romanian Wiki Notice board. It is Bonny. Pls ban him or something. --Candide, or Optimism 15:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... GDP/Anittas. I've just blocked these two for 3RR. Anittas claims GDP to be a Bonaparte sock; if so, he was probably justified in reverting; but I have no way to know if its true or not. Maybe you do - as I just said to Mikkalai. Maybe *you* know... William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions for Pontian Greek genocide

Isn't devoting an article to one viewpoint called POV pushing? If i created an article entitled Armenian relocation, and stated "Armenian relocation is a term used mainly by Turks to describe the events of 1915", would this be ok with you? --A.Garnet 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do? Is there an admin you know who can look at it? I've asked El_C but he has some problems at the moment.
Also perhaps you can help me with something. User:Miskin gave me a source from a book called the Killing trap, i've tracked down the passage in amazon.com online reader and want to read the full quotation, but because i have never brought from amazon.com(I am based in Britain)it wont let me read it. Do you have an active account with them to be able to check? The link is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8190395-9477467?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0521815452# - it is p342 i am interested in. If you dont have an account, no problem. --A.Garnet 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Google books was perfect thanks. I'd like you to read p342 and 343 if you can, puts things into perspective. --A.Garnet 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well to start with he states "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks simply was not a viable option.". Referring to Refet Bey's quote, (the one miskin used to prove genocide) he states "a strong disjunction between intention and action is found". In his final paragraph on the issue, the one that immediately follows miskins quotation, he states "Massacres most likely did take place at Amisos and other villages in the Pontus. Yet given the large numbers of surviving Greeks, especially relative to the small number of Armenian survivors, the massacres were apparently restricted to the Pontus, Smyrna, and selected other "sensitive regions""
Note that he also refers to Smyrna casualties, which are in a completely different setting (war of independence) to any casualties suffered in Pontus. The author makes clear they did not suffer a genocide, and when talking about massacres, he talks of all Greeks, including those in the wake of the Greek invasion, not just Pontians. I've left a message with Francis, we'll see what happens. Thanks, --A.Garnet 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Diyako

Can we have a little respect here..You know when you say Diyako..you mean "Leader of Pan-Kurd Nationalist party", right ;)? Hehe I knew it was him from long ago, sadly check user didnt show that its him..but it showed that those IPs are all used by Unknownable (talk · contribs · count).. --K a s h Talk | email 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ubykhs?

Why do you care about them so much? Are you an Ubykh also? Behemoth 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL The real reason is: Look at the assertion Circassians (including the Abkhaz and Abazins). It is because of the ambiguity of the name "Circassian". I had to mention the Abkhaz/Abaza because they often have a distinct identity from the Circassian one usually represented by Adyghe. Ubykh, on the other hand, had become assimilated to general Circassian identity, culturally and often linguistically (through Hakuchi Adyghe). BTW, I'm outta cigarettes, d'you smoke? Behemoth 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That Library Congress thing contained so many errors. I hope the Yanks are not trying to rule the world according to these. :-) I could have provided more detailed info but I have to find where my issues of the review Kafkasya Yazıları I had collected back in 1998 are. Behemoth 02:21, 4 June 2006

User:GDP

Is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparate, and of User:Vlachul, and of User:Greier... Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish Areas 2002

File:Kurdish areas 2002 CIA.jpeg
2002 CIA
1992 CIA

re: [2] It is a map with a more recent date (2002 vs. 1992) and I thought it a good addition. --Moby 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but could try to find one that is less ugly? (no offense) Also, I don't see a huge difference between the two maps. —Khoikhoi 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
True, the basic data seems just about the same and, yes, the map uses a less appealing style. I actually think that the more to-the-point style is better at showing the Kurdish region. Maybe the infobox in Kurdistan is not the best place for this particular image, but I believe the fact that the CIA continues to show basically the same region as "Kurdish" bolsters the claim that this is the region that is Kurdistan. Note also the inset caption characterising it as the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area. --Moby 03:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but as I said before, it's kinda ugly. Could you find a nicer-looking one? —Khoikhoi 04:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It does kind of look like drippings from a green candle. However, it is a valid and more recent reference. I'm going to drop this whole conversation on to Talk:Kurdistan and see where it goes. --Moby 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your pet projects

Need editorial help with anything? I'm happy to take a look. --Ssilvers 05:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans

Look Khoikhoi me and you don't always see eye to eye when it comes down to the moldovan issue but usually we always find a way to compromise. Now if you would please look carefully at what I have written - you will see that I have tried to incorporate in that article Moldovans not only from the USSR but Moldovans as a whole - that is why I placed in brakets: "(sometimes reffered to as Romanians)". Before saying that I am pushing a certain POV, please look at the fact that insdie Moldova itself, many people call themselves Romanians, while some call themselves Moldovans without discerning a certain difference between the two. At the same time inside Romania, where 43% of the old Moldavian territory exists, everyone calls themseves Romanians as well. I think that the point of an encyclopedia is to offer information, impartial information. What this article should do is tackle the meaning of the notion of "Moldovans" and if that is what your interest is (and not some pro-Russian, pro-Stalinist interest), then you will certainly notice that what I have done is not deny that the notion of Moldovan can mean something different then Romanian to some people, but I simply stated that the same notion of Moldovan can mean "Romanian" to others. [

I also propose that further discussions should be done at the talk page in order to avoid revert wars. [User:Constantzeanu|Constantzeanu]] 07:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the territory of Moldavia in Romania are not usually included in the Moldovan nationality grouping. They are related, yes, and they share common cultural characteristics not exhibited by non-Moldavian Romanians, but the history of Bessarabia is quite different from that of Romanian Moldavia. For example, many Moldovans have Russian-style patronymics. Romanian Moldavians do not.
This is always an issue -- in Romania, they tend to call Moldova "Republica Moldova" or "Basarabia", and refer to the Romanian region as "Moldova", while in Moldova, they tend to call Moldova "Moldova", and refer to the Romanian region as "Moldova romaneasca" ("Romanian Moldova"). --Node 08:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

maldvoan lngauge

Hey again,

It's true that "most sources" consider it "identical to Romanian". However, most of these sources aren't about languages or linguistics, it's mentioned as part of a related topic, for example if an article is about the Soviet era in Moldova (which is often characterised on Wikipedia in a POV manner as "occupation", which it wasn't, considering Moldovans had representation in Soviet gov't and full citizenship rights), it might note a short sentence about Moldovan being "identical" or "viritually identical" (the latter seeems to be the more common of the two).

Most of these references, in turn, refer back to a handful of sources, chief of which is the Encyclopædia Britannica.

If you read actual linguistic literature on the topic, excluding that published in Romania, the general consensus is rather complex but is as follows:

  1. If you have two different names to refer to the "same language" used in different places, they cannot be identical because languages are not monolithic entities. If both "languages" have the same body of speakers, no more and no less, and are extremely closely related, that's different. But Moldovan is not the language of Bucharest by any account except that of a madman, although there are many who will tell you it is the language of Rybnitsa, and at least a few who will tell you it is the language of Iashi.
  2. There is also the question of whether the vernacular or the standard is being discussed. With the vernacular, there is no question that there are differences, chiefly because in Kishineu, nearly everyone is fluent in Russian and uses it for interethnic communication (a lot, given the Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Bulgarian, etc. populations present in the city), while in Bucharest, very few people claim any knowledge of Russian, and the language of interethnic communication is invariably Romanian.
  3. If we are discussing the standard, again, languages are not monolithic entities. People can state all they want that Moldovan and Romanian are "the same language", but this does not change the fact that "odecolonul ista" is acceptable in standard Moldovan (to mean "this cologne"), but in Romanian that would be considered dialectal and maybe even incomprehensible ("odecolon" is not in contemporary use in Romania except due to Moldovan influence). Other various syntactical differences have been noted by linguists in the standard languages, mostly due to the influence of Russian. In most cases, the Romanian form would be accepted in Moldova, but the Moldovan form would be considered ungrammatical, foreign, or unnatural in Romania.

To sum it up, there are differences between Moldovan and Romanian, yes, they have differing histories since the 1800s when French words were adopted for "technical" vocabulary in Romania, but in Moldova, mostly inhabited by peasants, people continued to use Russian loans (although today most Russian loans have been replaced with the Gallicisms).

Regarding undue weight, I have presented many, many sources that agree that Moldovan and Romanian are not "identical". However, whatever evidence I present, people generally attack me ad hominem or say things along the lines of "It doesn't matter if you have sources, what you're saying is ridiculous, so I won't allow it in the article".

For example, right now the article says that "one moldovan linguist" considers Moldovan to be a separate language from Romanian. That's off -- first of all, Vasile Stati, the "linguist" in question, is not a linguist (although he is the author of the "Romanian-Moldovan dictionary" which unfortunately used mostly synonyms, archaicisms, and unknown neologisms as "translations"). Second of all, I provided examples of other linguists who have studied on the subject and do not consider "Moldovan and Romanian to be identical".

In addition, the Romanians did something totally unacceptable: in many cases, they replaced a statement with something significantly different, but kept the same source, for example they changed "nearly identical" to "identical", but kept the same sources I added (which said specifically "nearly identical"), and reverted all of my attempts to rectify the situation.

There is a great deal of study, especially in Moldova (but also by areal linguists around the world), related to the relationship between Moldovan and Romanian.

Most of it doesn't explicitly address whether or not Moldovan is a "separate language", because there are no solid scientific criteria by which this can be determined, and it is of little interest to specialists. Specialists care mostly what is unique about Moldovan speech, the differences between speech in different Moldovan regions, the influence of Russian, Ukrainian, and other languages on Moldovan language, the history of Moldovan language policy, etc. You will be hard-pressed to find a document *about* the languages of Moldova, written by any non-ROmanian specialist in the area, that says "Moldovan is the same language as Romanian", in any way, shape, or form.

Why is it necessary to say that? Specialists never seem to have believed it necessary. Rather than saying whether they are the same language, nearly the same language, different languages, or whatever, specialists have instead elaborated on the differences in history, grammar, syntax, phonology, vocabulary, sociolinguistics, etc.. And after you read this stuff, there is no need for such a blanket statement.

Basically, it's like saying "The Euchi are nearly identical culturally to the Beuchi". If there are differences, they are best elaborated, rather than written off as insignificant. --Node 08:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well just the same Node ue, saying that "the Romanian ethnic identity is not like the Moldovan ethnic identity" is like saying that "the Texan ethnic identity is compleetely different then the American ethnic identity". About your sources, I am sorry but you have not presented any sources, except Stati that recongnizes that Moldovan and Romanian are the same identical language. The only thing he disputes is the right of Moldovans to call the Romanian language, Moldovan and that is a whole different thing.Constantzeanu 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That analogy is perhaps backwards. Saying "The Romanians are nearly culturally identical to the Moldovans" is more like saying "the Texans are nearly culturally identical to the Americans". Why would you say that? You wouldn't. Instead, you would describe differences between "Texan culture" and "American culture", and let the reader judge for themselves. I'm not convinced that's a good example though because of the fluidity and non-concreteness of much of American culture (for example, there is no such thing as "traditional American music", "traditional American dances", or "traditional American folktales", at least not the way the exist with the Romanian and Moldovan ethnos). I presented other sources, look in Talk:Moldovan language's archives to find them. I will give you a hint, they included a Moldovan linguist of Bulgarian descent, and a Moldovan woman who has written in both pre- and post-Soviet periods about language and identity in Moldova. --Node 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, you seemed to be a reasonable guy. Two weeks ago you agreed to a format that would please all sides. You seemed back then more understanding of the fact that the OSCE observers advised that Moldovan census data should be used with care. I pointed out to you back then a great deal of organizations that have done just that and you understood that wikipedia should do the same. Don't you think that backtracking all the way, you are putting yourself in the pro-Soviet camp, which does not do very well to your credibility as a serious and mature partner in this dicussions? Nor does it help with your image as a wikipedian that tries to solve the issue from an objective point of view?
I do not know what your relation is to Irpen, Mikka or Ghirlando but I think it is clear as day that just like Bonaparte has his own POV, so do they, the only difference being that Boni is more vocal and obvious in his POV-pushing. Constantzeanu 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice how Constantine follows Bonaparte and Anittas in describing his opposers as "the pro-Soviet camp". I have never said one thing good about the USSR. The USSR did many bad things in Moldova. He has called me a Stalinist, a Communist, and an anti-Romanian, when I am none of the above. Yes, communism is certainly an attractive idea, but it certainly didn't work well for Moldova during the USSR era. The modern communist party in Moldova seems to be helping the economy, but their policy isn't really communism. Stalinism, I definitely do not support. You are told by the Romanian media that communist leaders such as Voronin are stalinists and are dictators, however Voronin was democratically elected. Why would sane people vote for a communist?!?! Because they felt that the other parties had their chance to help Moldova and they didn't work well. Stalinists do not support democratic election of leaders, they support communo-fascism in the style of Kim Jong-Il, which I most certainly do not. I will celebrate the day Stalinism falls in North Korea. And I am not anti-Romanian. Yes, Romania has some problems, but so does everyone else, Moldovans, Americans, Russians. Just because I am a Moldovenist, does not mean I "hate Romania", although some Moldovenists do. You also seem to think that Moldovenism means Russophilia, which it doesn't, because about half of the Moldovenists have an equally passionate hatred of Romania and Russia. --Node 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Node is a liar. He claims to speak Moldovan at Level 2, but doesn't even speak it at Level 1. He's learned a few phrases, like the parrot that he is, but cannot converse in Moldovan. He tried to be clever with Oleg, another Moldovan, but he told him off. It's really sad that he doesn't have an identify of his own and most steal the identity and history of some obscure nation in Eastern Europe. Node is a Jew, not Moldovan. --Candide, or Optimism 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion (from the Reform point of view), so it is possible to be a Moldovan, Frenchman, German, American, Turk etc of Mosaic persuasion. It would make more sense to say "Node is an American, not a Moldovan". --Telex 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Jew is also an ethnicity. --Candide, or Optimism 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Azerbaijani people

Should this page be archived? --K a s h Talk | email 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Change The picture Of the Chess player with Shiren E

Change the picture of the chess player, you can add Shiren E in his place. Frankly I find it very hypocritical the lame excuses they are making

LOL

[3] :-D --Telex 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we've been through this khoikhoi. I'm not aware of any Turkish article which mentions the Armenian or Greek name for historical purposes in the head of the article as you demand to do in the case of the Aegean islands. I'm only aware of Turkish toponyms of Greek or Armenian origin such as Izmir or Manzikert, which mention the name in the body if the article because they're obliged to do so (as the Turkish name is a corruption of the original). To mention the Turkish names explicitely of islands close to Turkey is in my opinion not done for historical purposes. So unless we add the Greek name in all toponyms of Greek origin (Istanbul, Adrianople, Izmir, Trabzon etc etc) I'm going to revert back. Miskin 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll only leave the Turkish names in the head of Greek islands, only if the Greek names appear in the head of Turkish cities that were inhabited by Greeks. The majority of the Greek names of Turkish cities doesn't even appear in the body. In the case of the Greek islands, even it's a 5-line article, the name will appear in the head. It appears to me that a certain editor went through all the Greek islands off the Anatolian coast and expressed freely his personal land-claims. I won't let it pass. Miskin 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Despite what Turkish editors would claim, the Turkish language is an invention of the 20th century, and it's unintelligible to the Ottoman language which would have a real historical connection to those territories (yet irrelevent today). Furthermore the Turkish name of Crete or Lesbos is not anymore important than the Turkish name of Thessaloniki or Athens. I honestly don't know how can you support this. This doesn't happen in any other similar case, nor it will ever. Pointless to mention that the Turkish editors will never accept Greek names on the heads of Turkish articles. So I don't even know why we're discussing this. Miskin 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok but those are new edits, I couldn't know. You'll see it won't last, they'll be removed eventually and the Turkish names will stay. How come Constantinople is not mentioned in the head of Istanbul? And how come has wikipedia decided to call use the name "Istanbul" since 1453, whereas in reality the name was changed from Constantinople only in 1930...? Miskin
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khoikhoi/Archived&oldid=56884157"