User talk:E104421/Archive 2
 | This page 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. |
Edit counters
Tools: edit summary usage & edit counter
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Hello E104421, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as
your comment on my page
I've replied there. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
untranslated phrase
E104421, would you please translate the untranslated phrase in the
Flavius Belisarius and all things Turkish
Hi. I saw your note on the Turkish Navy page. I've deescalated in the past few days after figuring out that Flavius is a sock of a banned user:
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
E104421-Tajik
cross-posted to talk pages, copied to the case's decision talk page
Please note that I'm already under revert parole. In addition, my block log [1] is just reflecting the articles i had factual disagrements with Tajik. (P/s: I posted this message to your talk page cause i'm not sure where to post for the arbitration case) Regards. E104421 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; this was meant more as a codification of said community revert parole into a Committee-enforced parole, to avoid confusion (which has happeend before). However, I was unsure that it's needed, but thought that I should offer it to the Committee; I have accordingly changed my vote on these items to better reflect this.
- James F. (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
The above named arbitration case, in which you were a party, has been decided. The Arbitration Committee endorses the current indefinite ban on Tajik, and also has banned him for one year should his indefinite ban be lifted.
You may view the full decision at the arbitration case page, as usual.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ship ahoy
Good to see you are working on the Turkish battleship articles, and Turkish naval history articles, this will be of great help in making Wikipedia more international. I sent you an e-mail about the recent Arb-com decision. Please reply via e-mail only. Thanks. KP Botany 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
 Issue XVI (June 2007) | ||
|
| |
New featured articles: New A-Class articles: |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here .
| ||
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Sent you an e-mail
Been rather busy, sent you an e-mail just now. KP Botany 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
|
Issue XVIII (August 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists
New A-Class articles:
| |
|
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here .
| ||
Delivered by grafikbot 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
My RFA | |
| Thanks for your support in Addhoc 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
|
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
| ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Turkish Military History
I agree with your suggestion, in particular adding the "Republic of Turkey" to the article on the modern country. Hiberniantears 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Xionites
Hi you should read the talkpage before editing. Three of the sources did not have even the word red huns. Bailey also says the name Xionite was transferred which is very important. Also Gibbon is outdated (from 300 years ago). It is a good source on the methodology of the fall of the Roman empire, but the facts are clearly outdated. Just discuss in the talkpage. Happy Eid. --alidoostzadeh 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hephthalites
Hi. Thanks for editting the article. But your this edit was not really helping. It restored the bold letters in the article which were previously removed and replaced by correct wiki-links. It also contains major mistakes, such as the claim that the Turkish language is attested in ancient writing (the correct term is Turkic; the Turkish language was developed in the 20th century and has its origin in a heavily Islamized Turkic language known as Ottoman). I will partially revert your edits, but I will keep the new informations and sources. Next time, please do not automatically revert and please assume good faith as I am doing with your edit. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.246 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the following paragraph:
- The newly-discoved ancient writings found in Afghanistan reveals that the Middle Iranian Oxus.
- The newly-discoved ancient writings found in Afghanistan reveals that the Middle Iranian
- Although its scientifically totally correct (except for the Turkish language part), it is a double entry and its content has already been mentioned in the article:
- For some time, it was believed that the Hephthalites were speakers of the Bactrian language. However, Bactrian was probably the traditional language of administration, not the native tongue of the Hephthalites themselves.[17] Additionally, the usage of Altaic royal titles (auch as Khaqan) is attested in ancient writings found in Afghanistan which, to some degree, indicates an important influence of Turko-Mongol peoples on the Hephthalites. But this may also be explained by later Altaic infiltration into Hephthalite territory.[17]
- Though the text has not been directly copied from Iranica, it uses the same source and it does not contain factual mistakes. The name Mihirakula may be derived from Mirtas (Pers.) + Qul (Turk). But it may also be derived from Mitras + Gul (Pers. for flower; lit. "Sun flower"; Mitras = sun) (see Sims-Williams, Nicholas: New Light on Ancient Afghanistan. The Decipherment of Bactrian, London 1997).
- Sorry, but the information given there is directly paraphrased from the cited references. I do not understand why you deleted these paragraphs. You ignored all other users contributions. In Wikipedia, the talk page just for comparison. The information is taken from the sources without any synthesis. If you compare, you'll see the last copy-edited version is verifiable. Regards. E10442118:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Turkish people
Thank you for adding the neutrality tag. But you should have tagged the entire section, not just one part of it. The first part which is not tagged right now has also mistakes. For example: it contains a wrong interpretation of the presented source and it only quotes a small part of the research while leaving out other important elements. I suggest you tag the whole Turkish phenotypes and diversity section. Hopefully, that will inspire more knowledgeable people to contribute to it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.148.62 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Turkish Army
Hi, can I ask you why you deleted the links I inserted on structure on the Army in '96 and structure of divisions in WW1? There's very little info as it is, so to delete what links there are seems odd. Thanks Buckshot06 20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, could you please provide the diffs from the edit history? since i could not find in which of my edits i did these changes. Of course, the links would be useful. If i deleted these links, this could only be and accidental one. Please add them again. Apologizing in advance, if i'm responsible for this. Thank you. E104421 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Army&diff=next&oldid=159785598. That was the one. I'm readding them. Buckshot06 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, i really missed that link. Thank you. E104421 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Army&diff=next&oldid=159785598. That was the one. I'm readding them. Buckshot06 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Hi
Hi, how are you? Duyduguma gore Tajik Wikipedia'dan temelli atilmis. Take care.. Baristarim 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Seni hala burada gördüğüme çok sevindim E104421 Abi:)) Bir de üstteki haberi okudum daha bir sevindim;) Bu arada fizik Çap yapıyorum, advanced kabul edilmedi.
Kendine iyi bak, iyi çalışmalar Caglarkoca 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Görüşmek üzere ... E104421 15:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Turkish people
Thank you for your reaction. I think that in your quotations you missed the essential part: the contribution of the study itself. Your quotations are only of the authors reporting on earlier work by others. The following are literal quotations from the study by Cinnioğlu et al. reporting on one of the conclusions, and how the authors overcame the difficulties that, in another study, "confound any assessment of the contribution of the 11th century AD Oghuz nomads responsible for the Turkic language replacement", to reach that conclusion. I don't think you need to have a Ph.D. in genetics to interpret them.
From the abstract:
- high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia.
From page 135, section Minor genetic influence of Turkic speakers (note the section title!):
- These new Y-chromosome data [of the present study – Lambiam] provide candidate haplogroups to differentiate lineages specific to the postulated source populations, thus overcoming potential artifacts caused by indistinguishable overlapping gene flows. The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions [of Central Asian Turkic speaking people to the Y-chromosomes of the Anatolian samples – Lambiam] range from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%.
While "could be as low as 5%" (82.83.155.101's text) is true, since that value is in the confidence interval 4.6% – 8.5%, it is more reasonable to stick to the authors' "<9%" in reporting the conclusion. --Lambiam 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
user: Tajik's case
Hi. Thank you for reading my comments on Tajik's case. I've talked to several admins but usually I was ignored so I really appreciate that. There is lots of evidence to prove that user: Tajik was not user: Tajik-Professor. This piece of evidence should enough to prove it: user: Tajik-Professor (who I invited to Wikipedia) was asking me for help such as here. He asked me to upload an image for him. As a veteran and award winning editor, user: Tajik already knows how to add images and so he would never ask me how to do that. I presented this evidence to a few admins but they ignored me. Can you please consider this? It really should be enough to prove that he was not user: Tajik-Professor and thus he shouldn't have been banned. Thanks. -- Behnam 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also please take a look at [2] since other admins are ignoring. Thanks. -- WP:CEM, but instead edit-warred under anonymous ips in pages such as Safavid dynasty. He could have join the CEM or he could have comment on the talk pages of the arbitration case, but he did not. This, in turn, gives an impression that he's avoiding the CEM and the arbitration cases. That's why the blocking admins did not find it useful to unblock Tajik, since he's already editing under anonymous ips. On the other hand, User:Tajik-Professor was not User:Tajik but User:German-Orientalist most likely was. The issue is not restricted with Tajik-Professor. That's why he is still blocked. Thanks for your information. Regards. E104421 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The reason Tajik could not defend himself was that Thatcher131 blocked him did not allow him to. So if Tajik is not Tajik-Professor, then is he banned? And he cannot be German-Orientalist, that hasn't even been proven. German-Orientalist doesn't even have a similar IP. German-Orientlist has IP starting with 193, Tajik's is 82. Please, try to understand, Tajik was a very valuable editor and if he was banned for using sockpuppet Tajik-Professor, and now all admins are saying that is false, then is he still banned? -- Behnam 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- As i already stated above, the issue is not restricted with User:Tajik-Professor. It's also agreed that the anonymous ips, User:DerDoc and User:German-Orientalist are most likely Tajik or at least meatpuppets of Tajik. The case is not restricted with User:Tajik-Professor. That's why he's still blocked. In addition, the user de:Benutzer:Postmann Michael in German Wikipedia who is banned infinitely for POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia seems to be Tajik-related along with de:Benutzer:Phoenix2 and de:Benutzer:Tajik. All these give an impression that Tajik causes same kind of problematic issues in both German and English Wikipedias. Tajik could defend himself by editing the arbitration pages by anonymous ips as he's editing the articles but he never tend to do that way, instead he continued edit/revert warring. He's still doing that. Everybody here in English Wikipedia are againt misplaced results but Tajik should also assume good-faith. There are many users who suffered from his intolerance and impoliteness. I recommend you to consider the case from their point of view, too. Admins are also human, they can make mistakes, but they cannot tolerate constant incivility. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Turko-Persian tradition, ... etc
Please do not remove exact statements by sources and attempt at summarizing it. That is OR if others disagree with your summary.. The exact statements of those quotes have been brought and they used words such as Persian Language, Persianization, Persianate, Persian culture and etc. I don't want to cquote those statements and rather let it be in the reference. There are even sources that says Seljuqs themselves lacked ethnic-consciousness and etc. So basically trying to minimize this fact and referencing a poorly written article (mostly exact copy of a book) is not the right way to proceed. --alidoostzadeh (talk
- I did not removed anything but you removed the citation need tags in Iranian Azerism, deleted sourced edits, and continued pushing Tajik's version (this is nothing but meatpuppetry). You, two, edited sequentially, which points that you're working together. You made almost no edits in the pages Great Seljuq Empire articles. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)) 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I had seljuqs on my watch way before this. I noticed some statements being removed and so I decided to add it. Meatpupetery means to r.v. back and forth. I did not do that. I added sources in Seljuq dynasty and reworked the first statement. Seljuqs and Turkic dynastimes were important in spreading Persian culture and language and their court and culture was Persianized. So I brought statements with this regard (which was not in the article before). Note that I provide sources (for example Azari Iranian language) and etc. I am not here to do r.v. warring. But I think statements should be discussed in the talkpage. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, alright, but what about the timing? You, two, came at the same time. Anyways, i'm always ready for discussion. Now, i have to go, but i'll turn back to here tomorrow. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- What made me into this was mainly the OR tag you put on Azari language. I added some sources to that article and I will expand it soon. Anyways I think as long as people source their stuff it is all good in the neighborhood. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you always try to push a version without reading others. You removed the direct quotations from Britannica. You're just a blind reverter. I put a OR tag on Azari language after i commented on the talk page and already explained there. E104421 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe you are right, but it seems sort of odd to just put OR tag without any discussions on the talkpage. But I think you are trying to minimize the Persian cultural influence of Timurids. I mean reintrepretation of Iranica. I think we can edit constructively in the talkpage there. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I put the tag since i could not find any reliable sources on it. I'm not trying to minimize anything but mentioning them equally. The culture section is written according to the chronological order, starting from early Timurids to Babur. I already cited the iranica 2 reference there, but you probably did not noticed it. Just spend some time (1-2 minutes) to compare the edits. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay see what I wrote in the talkpage of that article. You changed a sentence nothing to do with your addition of sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I revised the Seljuk dynasty and Great Seljuk Empire articles. I think these two is alright, since all the references are cited. Btw, i'm in favor of carrying the citations into to talk page, since they are cluttering the article. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
your ridiculous hatefull actions regarding Iranians
Your statement that Iranian Azeris do not speak Persian is simply ridiculous. It is like to say that Kurds, Laz, Armenians, Greeks, Cherkess, Assyrian etc... in Turkey do not speak Turkish. --Babakexorramdin (talk
- I just put citation needed tag. Please do not remove citation needed tags and be civil. Regards. civility. E104421 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- we came here at the same time? huh? Yes we were keping a watch on you. What do you expect about someone who supports creeds such as " what the fuck is Iran" and whom supports such a person as Brenda Shaffer? Is it too harsh for you to get answers with sound arguments from two Iranians? Be honest and civil. We only react to your hateful anti-Iranianism. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:
- Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
- Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
- Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan Postlethwait has added VartanM to the list at the ArbCom page, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 |
About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
Single-Page View
|
WP:POST
|
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
TimuridsAll the primary sources says that Timurids were originally Mongolian, Britinica is only a secondary source. The Mongolian origin seems to have a consensus among academics and at the article, but feel free to open a new discussion about it on the talk page.--07fan (talk
- That's not correct. See, for example, Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée", Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2000" or Gérard Chaliand's book "Les Empires nomades de la Mongolie au Danube, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1995". Encyclopedias reflect the consice compilations of the published works of mainstream scholars. See the references of the Britannica article for "Timur", "Central Asia, history of Timur", "Islamic world", "Babur", avoid weasel words, since this is not the academical way. I'll provide quotations from the sources i listed above related with Turko-Mongol identity of Timurids. Now, i'll make the quotations:, Online Edition, 2007. Qotation: "Timurid dynasty (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia."
1."Timurids", in Encyclopædia Britannica
2."Babur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Babur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe had become Turks in language and manners through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence Babur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character."
3."Central Asia, history of Timur", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007., Quotation: "... Timur first united under his leadership the Turko-Mongol tribes located in the basins of the two rivers...."
4."Islamic world", in Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition, 2007. Quotation: "Timur (Tamerlane) was a Turk, not a Mongol; but he aimed to restore Mongol power. He was born a Muslim in the Syrdarya valley and served local pagan Mongol warriors and finally the Chagatai heir-apparent; but he rebelled and made himself ruler in Khwarezm in 1380. He planned to restore Mongol supremacy under a thoroughly Islamic program."
5."Timur", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Quotation:"Timur or Tamerlane, c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. He is also called Timur Leng [Timur the lame]. He was the son of a tribal leader, and he claimed (apparently for the first time in 1370) to be a descendant of Jenghiz Khan. With an army composed of Turks and Turkic-speaking Mongols, remnants of the empire of the Mongols, Timur spent his early military career in subduing his rivals in what is now Turkistan; by 1369 he firmly controlled the entire area from his capital at Samarkand...."
6. Gérard Chaliand, Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A. M. Berrett, Transaction Publishers,2004. (see p.75)
I think these are enough to confirm that Timurids were Turko-Mongols, aren't they? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- What weasel words? Please don't make the discussion personal. The vast majority of academic sources on the topic refer to Timur and Timurids as Mongols, none of the sources you've listed are primary sources (they're not even secondary sources, they're all tertiary sources or other Encyclopedias) and for every source you've listed, I can list ten PRIMARY sources by known academics that take the mainstream position that Timur was a Mongol (many are already listed in the article, and as you know primary sources are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources ). Now Timur did have a majority-Turkic army, but that does not make him or his dynasty Turkic. We can mention that he relied on Turkic tribes for support and military, but calling him a Turk goes against the academic consensus on this topic.--07fan 09:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)