Jump to content

Talk:Tzachas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chaka Bey)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Chaka BeyTzachas – per WP:COMMONNAME

  • There is no historical source in Turkish language about "Tzachas", and the name «Çaka» («Çaka Bey») prevailed especially in Turkey, because Akdes Nimet Kurat used the name "Çaka" in his work "Çaka: Orta Zamanda İzmir ve Yakınındaki Adaların Türk Hakimi", İstanbul, 1936.[1]
  • If "Chaka Bey" were common name of this person, we could (maybe must) chose "Chaka Bey". But it is clear that the common name of this person is not "Chaka"/"Chaka Bey"/"Chaka Beg" but "Tzachas" in English historiography.

-- Takabeg (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  1. ^ ... yüksek siyasî ve askerî görüş sahibi olarak büyük önem taşıyan bu bey'in adının gerçek söylenişi henüz tamamen kesinliğe kavuşmuş değildir. Bu hususta şimdiye kadar üç ihtimal ileri sürülmüştür: Çaka, Çağa, Çakan. AN Kurat'ın bunu «Çaka» kabûl ederek eserini de «Çaka Bey» diye adlandırması, özellikle memleketimizde Çaka şeklinin yaygınlaşmasına yol açmıştır denebilir., Tarih Dergisi, Cilt 20, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, p. 56.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not a good decision. First, "Tzachas" is the Greek form of the name, and this is about a Turkish ruler, where the native form would be preferable. Second, the above results are questionable, because they included "bey/beg" as an integral part of the name, when it is merely a title: Chaka Turkish brings 410 results, and "caka" turkish, i.e. the Turkish spelling, brings a few dozen results as well (if some irrelevant results are discounted). Constantine 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm sorry you only arrived after I'd moved the page. Before moving it any more, I'd like to get input from more editors, and be sure that we're getting the right title. I've left notes at 1234 WikiProjects just now requesting input, so let's see what others have to say. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tzachas" was recorded only in historical documents written in Greek language. The Turkish forms of the name (Çaka, Çağa, Çakan ) were nothing but assumption, hypothesis etc. And at present, these "assumed" names (Chaka, Chagha, Chakan, Çaka, Çağa, Çakan ) are not common names of this person. Takabeg (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is a good point. I've checked my own sources, and indeed, Tzachas was recorded only in Greek histories. So I agree with the present state of affairs. Constantine 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe too late for the comment, but anyway. The problem is with the pronunciation. There is no standard pronunciation rule for foreign names in English. How do you pronounce "Tzachas" ? I don't know any Turkic or Islamic name beginning with Tz. (Ç in Çaka is pronunced like ch in the word chalk.) So I don't agree with the above move. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tzachas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little time to go over the article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • First paragraph in the body should be a note.
  • What does 1090/1091 mean. 1090 or 1091, 1090 and 1091 or maybe something else?
  • It is unecessary to put the same citations over and over again right next themselves in the article.
  • Should the infobox be Infobox military person?
  • One dead link in the article, using the Checklinks tool.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Only one section, which needsmaybe to be split.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Is there a reference for the fact that he was an Oghuz Turk?
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Only three sources listed. I found a couple other sources.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
Hi User:Tomandjerry211, sorry for the delay, I only just now saw your review. On the points you raised:
  • "First paragraph in the body should be a note." I disagree, it discusses the sources on his life, and is directly pertinent to the "Life" section.
  • "1090/91" means in 1090 or 1091, it is a common shorthand e.g. in the case of the sources using the Islamic calendar, where years do not coincide with the Western calendar. 1090 and 1091 would be 1090–91, which is how I've denoted the regnal dates.
  • "It is unecessary to put the same citations over and over again right next themselves in the article" I am not sure what you mean
  • Not really, I mean it could, but there is no firm rule. I prefer to keep it simple with this one.
  • Fixed dead link, Brill keeps moving its articles around.
  • On splitting the article, there is really not that much info for it to be necessary. Having one-paragraph sections merely to have sections is rather beside the point.
  • All Anatolian Turks were Oghuz Turks.

Thanks for taking the time to review this, I am awaiting further feedback. Cheers, Constantine 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Zaloga, Steven M3 Infantry Half-track, pp. 36–37