Hi. Your comments on the Turkish people talk page regarding User:Khoikhoi have been moved to his personal talk page here. In the future use personal talk pages for personal questions and comments. Thanks. AucamanTalk16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I edit articles about all the peoples of the world, from the Sentinelese to the Mari. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to edit articles about 1 specific people just because I'm not Turkish. I find their culture to be interesting and try to improve the articles in every way possible. And why shouldn't I be cooperating with Armenian editors? We're all human beings, you know. --Khoikhoi18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know we are all human beings, that's why I don't trust you. You are flirting with anti-Turkish, nationalist Armenians. I've known one of them for about a year.--Kagan the Barbarian20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should've asked that question last week, not after I pointed it out. So the question is if I prove to you they are anti-Turks, would you stop your cooperation with them.--Kagan the Barbarian18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard your statement on Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. However, could you back it up with some sources? (Turkish historians' claim that he is of Serbian origin)? --HolyRomanEmperor15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All Turkish literature or historians I came across, state Sokollu Mehmed Pasha had Serbian Orthodox origin. He is considered the most successful devshirme in Ottoman Turkish history, he was a true Ottoman patriot, you really need not emphasize his Serbian roots that much in the article, there is not much material for your Serbian nationalism in him. His only other loyalty other than the Ottomans, was to his family.--Kagan the Barbarian15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit anything that has to do with EOKA.i just included facts from the previous edit(which was not made by me) that u deliberately ommitted.As u said the article has two sides and it is important for an encyclopedia to mention all possible views.Population tranfer from mainland turkey did happen and u know it(and although u state the number of the settlers,u removed the fact that they outnumber the turkish cypriots-why?).it is a violation of the Geneva treaty and it is very easy for u to see it if u read the treaty's articles.U talked about 'EOKA terrorists',but i did not talk about 'illegal invasion and occupation'...Simply because it is not a place for POVs.so,what is your problem to state the facts?and do not tell me that to edit or not to edit.and furthermore,do not 'threaten' me that u will re-edit this or make edits in the greek-cypriots article!if u have reliable and neutral sources,do so.
I wouldn't edit the article without a discussion if I felt it was reasonable or had good faith. I know propaganda when I see one, and when I click your username and see you are Greek, my logic assures my senses. It is an article about Turkish Cypriots with no mention of events that led to Turkish interventions -both of which had legal ground-, it does not require Greek perspective. If we are going to mention Turkish misconduct then why not the EOKA atrocities against Turkish Cypriots before that? Why you find it necessary to write there are more Turkish troops on the island than Turkish Cypriots? Why do you find it necessary to call mainland Turks colonists on a Turkish Cypriot article? Why not mention the decades of international embargo on the Turkish Cypriots which is the main reason for the emigrations? Whether it was you or some other Greek, someone inserted EOKA militans as freedom fighters in the article, that's insolent.
Ironic how you support Kurdistan and yet not an independent Turkish state in Cyprus. At least we share the same religion with Kurds, what do you share with Turkish Cypriots? Let's be honest, Greeks never respected or would respect Turkish presence in Cyprus. Like they did in Crete, they wanted to rid the whole island of Turks. Now their best bet under EU is getting rid of the mainland Turks and then assimilating the ones left and securing their political influence on the whole island. Greeks can not coexist, it is a scientific fact. And what kind of a country puts its map on its flag anyway? Afraid they won't get it back?--Kagan the Barbarian16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because i am a greek,u felt that there is no need for discussion...this is not good faith ,u know.do not accuse me of propaganda,while u say that cause i am greek,i am for sure a propagandist!this leads me to believe that u are a victim of propaganda.It is an article about turkish cypriots and u have to know that the articles of wikipedia are noone's property...so,everyone can edit and all views must be shown and every perspective shall be required.according to your POV,it had legal ground,according to mine it had not.but what has to do with a treaty that has to do with the subject,must be mentioned,cause it is a treaty that Turkey has also signed.I did not say to mention EOKA because we see things different (according to u they were terrorists,according to me they were not).Why i find it necessary to mention the turkish colonists and troops?simply because,as u said,it is an article about the turkish cypriots and it must be mentioned that they do not form at the moment the majority in their own land.do they?no.only someone who wants to hide informations would not mention that.i am not saying not to mention the embargo,cause it has to do with the turkish cypriots and their emigrations.in fact both the things that i said above are vital for an article about the turkish cypriots and deserve to be mentioned,regardless mine or your POVs.(if u look in history page u will see that it was not me who editted things about EOKA).
And i guess that in the 2nd paragraph u are asking for my personal beliefs.so,i do not really support the independence of Kurdistan,but i want the kurds to decide what they want for their future:if it is independence,or autonomy,or been part of turkey,or anything,it is fine by me!but they should make the decission,not the turks or anyone else.and about cyprus,i do not share anything with turkish cypriots,but i am not a greek cypriot.cypriots have many things in common.i hope that u will agree with me that religion is not something that should be used in disciminating people.according to my POV,mainland turks should return to turkey and turkish cypriots should be respected as much as the greek cypriots.do not mention crete and how much we respected the turks there,cause i can mention pontus,constantinoupolis,smyrna,cause neither the turks respected the greeks there and they also wanted to get rid of all the greeks...didn't they?do not see things only from the one side.so,maybe neither the turks can coexist,and this is as much a 'scientific' fact as the one u said about the greeks.lastly,to your own information,the Flag of Cyprus was designed by a turkish-cypriot teacher,Ismet Guney,when cyprus became independent(note that even though the island is split,the greek cypriots have kept a flag designed by a turksih-cypriot)--Hectorian20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I won't discuss with you because you are Greek; I said there is no need for a Greek perspective on the Turkish Cypriot article. If you aren't capable of comprehending my words then there is no point in further discussion. When I first read the TC article, I felt it was edited by a Greek and when I clicked your username, I was proven right. That must say something, right?
Of course Turkish intervention had legal ground. Turkey was the guarantor, what would you expect them to do when EOKA took power in Cyprus with a military coup and with the support of the Greek junta? The occupation wasn't legal but the intervention was. As for number of Turksish soldiers and colonists. Emigrants should be used instead of colonists, they were granted citizenship by the TRNC government and I won't mind mentioning of number of Turkish soldiers and the violation of Geneva convention if also EOKA atrocities, military coup and the on-going embargo on TC's are mentioned as well. Then I will accept the article as NPoV.
As for the independence of TCs, I am asking why the international community insists so much on unification of South and North while both populations have different religious beliefs, culture, language and a history of violence. Some of these same people support an apartheid Kurdistan state on the other hand. This is hypocrisy, this is politics. Mainland Turks should return to Turkey, what about TCs who left the island because of economic and social problems? They should be granted Cypriot citizenship.
You can't compare Izmir (Smyrni) to Crete. Greeks of Izmir cooperated with the invading Greek army after WWI and 1 in every 2 Greek still believes Istanbul belongs to Greeks.
The Cyprus flag no longer represents whole Cypriots, it is the insolence of GCs to still use that flag; if a reunification is achieved, that flag is definitely a goner.--Kagan the Barbarian07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite fluent in english and i understood what u had said.how many times have i got to say that it is not me who wrote the article?i just added some things from the previous version(made by someone who may not be greek) that u had deliberately ommitted.and u are turkish...so this must say something,right?the articles needs every perspective.it is the english wikipedia.if u want an only turkish perspective,go to the turkish wikipedia.
it is only according to your POV that the invasion was justifiable...it is not widely accepted.also,the colonists are granded citizenship by an internationally unrecognized government,this should be also mentioned.no problem in mentioning the embargo...it is a fact and has to be mentioned.and the military coup should also be mentioned(with the addition that the coup failed,isn't that right?).
The international community insists in the reunification of the island maybe cause GC and TC have more things that unite them than the things that separate them...They have differences and also a history of violence,but so did all the european countries in the past.we should focus in the future instead of looking in the past.noone supports an apartheid state of kurdistan.i never said that and i have heard noone supporting that.i am just saying that the kurds have to decide for their own future,and this is what is called democracy.my POV is mainland turks should return to turkey and TC immigrants should be granted citizenship and all the the rights that they lost.and the same applies to the GC.u think of this as a bad idea?and if yes,why?i think it is the most fair for the both of them.
The flag was made by a turksih cypriot and is used by the greek cypriot state.it represented the whole island and it is still used by the internationally recognised state.if reunification is achived it may be gone...It is none of my problem...i just told u that cyprus is not to be blamed for designing or still keeping it.
Of course i cannot compare Izmir with Crete...the cretan turks were just gathered and expelled.i am not saying that this was a humanistic act,but at least they were not killed nor their cities were burnt down by the greek army,as Smyrni was by the turkish army.according to u,the greek army invaded anatolia but the turkish army did not invade(but intervened) cyprus.shall i have to say my POV,that the greek army was justified by the Entente Powers and the Treaty of Sèvres to land in Smyrni?do not look at events only from the one side.u are saying that the greeks of Smyrni cooperated with the greek army.according to the ottoman census the greeks in the region were the majority.u think that they should not cooperate?so,why the TC cooperated with the invading turkish army in 1974?if the TC were suffering persecution and that's why they cooperated,so did the greeks of smyrni during the WWI.u cannot justify the one and blame the other,if u want to be objective.i also wanna know about that circassian leader,for whom u have taught in school,who also cooperated with the greek army and whose whole village was burnt down by Kemal-i cannot remember his name,but i am sure u can.u mention Constantinoupolis again and what the greeks believe...is there and source for this number?and shall i mention that turkey has violated the Lauzanne Treaty by forcing the greek minority to leave?u know well that the turkish minority is still in Western Thraki.both states had signed to mutually respect the minorities,am i wrong?
You said "your Serbian nationalism" and all I wanted to put is that his parents were Orthodox Serbs instead of Orthodox Bosniak. Why do you see it as nationalism - it's what you yourself claim. Also, I need you to cite sources for me if you can, please. --HolyRomanEmperor22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha article and your other articles, I felt you are promoting a pro-Serbian agenda. In order to make a citation I have to make a search and I really don't care that much about the subject to make any search. This is as much as I can help you.--Kagan the Barbarian22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you have cought that opinion. Note that Mehmed's article isn't mine. Also, tell me; which articles are those that you find pro-...? I would be glad to change them in NPOV manner if you point out the issues.
You don't have to search. The Turkish edition of Encyclopedia LaRousse writes Bosniak, so we're most probably going to put ... Serbian (sources cited) or Bosniak (sources cited)... to satisfy all parties. Cheers! --HolyRomanEmperor21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning to stop making personal attacks. I do not like Bush, so stop making accusations. If you do it again, I'm going to report you. --Khoikhoi21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Jkelly17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burada yenisin sanırım.Gördüğün gibi bu diğer birkaç kullanıcının tüm amaçları bizleri kötü ve azınlık gibi göstermek.Bu konuda çok uğraş veriyorum ama birlik oldukları için onlar öne geçiyor.En iyisi bizde birlik olalım ve onları bu amaçlarından vazgeçirelim.Ne dersin? Inanna22:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kıbrıs'ta amaç zaten Türkleri azınlık haline getirmek. Önce AB'ye alırlar, ondan sonra genç Türk nüfus Kıbrıstan göç eder, 10 yıl sonra birkaç bin Türk kalır, Rumlarda "Türk mü? Ne Türkü?" derler.
Sadece Kıbrıs sayfası değil Türklerle ilgili bütün sayfalar Yunan, Ermeni ve Khoikhoi ablukası altında. Hepsine dikkat etmek lazım, kimi yerde kaynak isteyin yada eksik birşey varsa eklerken kaynak gösterip ekletin. Kaynak yoksa silmek, varsa eklemek zorundalar. Birde tabi oyunu kurallarına göre oynamak, tartışmak lazım bunlarla sinirlenmeden, ki bazen çok sıkıcı olabiliyor, özellikle Yunanlılarla uğraşmak, bıraksan bütün gün konuşurlar, o yüzden fazla polemiğe girme, uzmanlık alanları.--Kagan the Barbarian09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evet, bu arada yeri gelmişken söyleyim bu seni uyaran kullanıcı aslen bir ABD'li bir Tevratçı(anlamasınlar diye böyle söylüyorum, herhalde anlamışsındır).En büyük problem "Türk İnsanları" ve "Katliamlar Listesi" sayfalarında.Kaynak gösterdiğim halde yunanlıların, ermenilerin ve pkk'nın öldürdüğü insanların sayılarını silmek istiyorlar ve bizi yalan yanlış rakamlarla kötü göstermeye çalışıyorlar.Adı "H" ile başlayan yunanlı ve yahudi sürekli yardımlaşıyorlar.Ne kaynak gösteriyorlar, ne de gösterdiğimizi kabul ediyorlar.Medya aracılığı ile propaganda...Inanna18:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anlasınlar boşver. Tahminim Khoikhoi, Ermeni, Yunan ve Kürt kullanıcılarla iyi geçinerek etkisini arttırmaya çalışıyor Wikipedia'da. İlerde admin'liğe adayda olabilir, bilemiyorum, ama kesinlikle menfaat peşinde olduğunu düşünüyorum. Bir gerçek var, sadece Türklerin yaptığı editleri "revert" ediyor. Neyse ben zamanım olduğu ve elimden geldiği sürece bizi ilgilendiren sayfaları kontrol edicem konuları kendi taraflarına çekmemeleri için. Eğer birlikte çalışabileceğimiz yada yardım gerektiren birşey olursa söyle yada e-posta at. Burdaki Türk kullanıcıları organize edebilsek iyi olurdu.--Kagan the Barbarian09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aynen öyle! Nerede bir Türk düşmanı var, hemen gidip yardım dileniyor sinsi yahudi.Ben birkaç kez organize etmek istedim ama pek oralı olmadılar.Bu arada bir ricam var.Bu Kuzey Kıbrıs sayfasında, kamusal alanların adlarına zorla yunanca isimler sokmaya çalışıyorlar.Ancak resmi dilin yunanca olduğu güney kıbrıs'da ise böyle bir şeye gerek duymuyorlar.Bunu söylediğim zaman da cevap vermiyorlar(veremiyorlar).Ben elimden geldiğince bunu düzeltmeye çalışıyorum ancak Khoikhoi ve onun uşağı Hectorian sürekli iğrenç propagandaları doğrultusunda bunu değiştiriyorlar.Bizde bu sayfayla ilgili işbirliği yaparsak çok iyi olur...Inanna23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob!that user was apparently not satisfied with the article's info,which,according to what i believe and i hope u do too,is accurate and neutral enough.we discussed it a lot and i think that we have reached a satisfactory degree of NPOV.about the number of TCs in turkey,i have to say that i do not believe it is accurate.i have analysed my thoughts in the discussion page and i received no reply for them by Inanna,who was the one that introduced and supported the number 500,000.i did not change the number,nor will i,but i do not support the removal of the tag yet.i have no other prob so far with the article,but only the numbers,cause they come from (as u probably saw) only one source,which is TC and is talking about 'greek propaganda',so that source cannot be considered neutral or not biased.if i see a neutral source by another (non-greek,non-turkish) page,i will say that the article has reached the most NPOV level it can reach.i would really like to know what u think about that too.btw,i think that we did a good job on talk-page,cause apart from this anon,noone has touched the article so far!
PS:i find your msg on your user page a little bit insulting...I do not think that there is need to point on specific users or nations...Just do what u think u have to do...--Hectorian19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job!i removed the tag.i guess it is neutral enough and clear about the numbers and the comments that follow them.if u ever come across another figure from a neutral source,it would be good to add it.finally we did the best we could so far for this article!:)cheers--Hectorian13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that i think it is better that it was u who made the necessary changes.cause if i made any edit,i am sure that there would be editors who would not even bother to read the article...they would just revert it as soon as they saw that the edits were made by a greek...!now,since a turk did it,at least they will read it and understand the NPOV level that has been reached!and if they don't,they will read the talk page to see the detailed discussion:)--Hectorian15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a Greek i am also concerned about greek-related articles.and i also want to make NPOV the articles that are disputed.be sure that i will act the same in these articles,always by citing neutral and reliable sources and historical records,where necessary.My POV bothers only me,and maybe the talk pages,but in no case the articles!if u need my help in any case,u may ask me.salut--Hectorian16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you were talking to me, but have you seen the Turkish people article? It discusses all the things that you mentioned about how different peoples were assimilated in Anatolia over time.
BTW, what type of Tatars are you referring to? The Tatars article differentiates between Volga Tatars and Tatars from places like Siberia. In this image of Volga Tatars, I have to say that the people don't really appear to have Asian features. I mean, when you compare them to images Kazakhs or Yakuts they look at lot more like Europeans. --Khoikhoi01:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that you would be aware, I just wasn't sure if you've seen that article before. BTW, is it true that there are still some people that practice a nomadic lifestye in Turkey? I have no intention to insult you, but I just heard this somewhere. --Khoikhoi07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just thought you'd somehow get the idea that I was trying to say that your culture isn't "advanced". This way of looking at things ia a 19th century idea, however. --Khoikhoi08:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that u are dealing with the Izmir article and the fire.I would really like to know what is the idea there about who started it.the greek POV is that it was set up by the turks and started from the armenian neighbourhood.i do not know if there are any records from that period concerning who is to be blamed for that,but i am interested in listening to the turkish POV as well.--Hectorian13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thoughts.my i add mine too?1.the great powers did nothing to prevent the destruction of the city.note that their ships denied to gather the greeks from the sea.the only person who abandoned the city in a british ship was the greek governor,who is considered one of the 'darkest' figures in modern greek history,for the role he played in asia minor and for the fact that he never returned in greece.so,to make turks look brutal would seem right if the great powers were helping the greeks.2.there was no scheduled withdrawl of the greek population or army.that's why they were trapped between the turkish army and the sea.so,there was no need to cover anything.maybe to keep the turks busy with that and not attack the population,seems a bit more possible.3.hehe,the last is what seems ridiculous to me.the greeks believed for decades after the population transfer that they would go back...they had not understood that it was over.of course,all these is my POV.maybe the turkish army wanted to burn and rebuild a city that was predominantly greek in population...Maybe this explains why there are still unharmed churches,cause,of course,mosques would be burnt too,since after some time the fire could not be controlled...
I had read somewhere(or watched,i can't remember)that the official explanation of turkey is that the fire was an accident...
Really,the thing u said that there are still operating churches there,made me curious...I mean,there are no greeks there anymore,right?--Hectorian22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the article!as i said before,POV is not need there.hmmm...maybe in the talk pages only:p 'ashamed,e?':).about Smyrni's churches that u told me,i know that there are Leventines there,but i guessed u meant that they are still operating as orthodox churches,not as catholic.anyway...cheers!--Hectorian15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uğur, bir şuna bak History of Greece, bir şuna History of Armenia, birde buna History of Turkey. Rezalet. Osmanlının en büyük mirasçısı Türkiye Cumhuriyeti değilde kim? Anadolu Selçuklularının mirasçısı kim? Türkiye Cumhuriyeti mantar gibimi bitti yani Anadoluda? Ottoman Empire sayfasını okuyorum, Osmanlıyla Türkiye Cumhuriyeti arasında sanki bağ yokmuş gibi imalar yapan yazılar mevcut, Türkiye Cumhuriyetini kuran Osmanlı paşaları, aydınları ve politikacıları değil mi? TC nin kuruluşu monarşiye karşı yapılmış devrimdir, Osmanlının mirasının inkarı değil.
Adam akıllı bir History of Turkey sayfası ve series hazırlamak, Ottoman Empire, Seljuk Turks (yada Seljuks of Rum) sayfalarıyla birbirine bağlamak lazım. Nasıl yapılacağını bilmiyorum, öğrenmek için de vaktim yok. Lütfen bu konuyla ilgilen, şu anda Türk sayfalarıyla ilgili yapılması gereken en önemli şey bu ve yaparsan en büyük katkıyı yapmış olucaksın. Sana elimden geldiği kadar yardımcı olurum. Lütfen ilgilen, bir yerden başlayalım.--Kagan the Barbarian11:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Söylemek istediğini sadece Türkiye tarihi sayfasına bakınca anlamadım, fakat diğer ikisine baktığım zaman anladım. Sanırım Türk tarihinden başlayarak şu tarihe kadar olan kısımla bir bağlantı halinde olmasını düşünüyorsun, bu bencede mantıklı. Fakat şöyle bir sorun var ben ne burda ne türkçe wikide fazla ekleme yapmıyorum daha çok düzenleme vs. bu işlerle uğraşıyorum. Fakat yinede söylediğin şey aklıma yattı, en yakın zamanda ilgilenmeye çalışacam. Önemli olan POV denilebilecek şeylerden uzak durmamız veya bunları kaynak göstererek yazmamız. Kolay gelsin --Ugur Basak11:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evet, var olan bilgileri değiştirmekten çok Türkiye tarihini oluşturan parçalar bütünleştirilmeli. Sen yapmaya başla, ben her türlü arkandayım. Seljuk Turks şu anda İran tarihinin parçası olarak gözüküyor, ancak zaten bizi daha çok ilgilendiren Seljuks of Rum. Şimdilik kronolojik olarak Seljuks of Rum > Anatolian beyliks > Ottoman Empire > Modern Turkey şeklinde dizmek lazım. Diğer History sayfalarını örnek olarak kullanabilirsin. Ayrıca Cool Cat ten yardım isteyebilirsin, hiç muhabbetim olmadı ama Türklerle ilgili sayfalarda baya katkısı var, yardımcı olur sanırım. İrtibatı koparma, yapalım bu işi. Kolay gelsin.--Kagan the Barbarian11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Belkide yapılacak en uygun şey, bir Türkiye projesi başlatarak, her hafta veya 2 haftada 1 madde belirterek onu düzenlemek olabilir. Ugur Basak11:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adana ili ilgili sayfada bir sorunum var. birkaç editor tabi kim olduklarını biliyorsunuz, ermenilerle iligi olayları uzun uzadıya anlatıryorlarken, bende adana da turklere karşı girişilen olayları belgeleriyle birlikte ekledim ancak durmadan siliyorlar. tek başıma bir etkisi olmuyor, yardımcı olursanız cok memnun olurum.
Kağan bu isme benzer bir isimle çok öncelerden birisi seslenirdi bana:) Ben aslında ordan aldım biraz bişeyler ama hepsini alamadım. Proje şimdilik 2 günlük olmasına rağmen hareketli sayılır. Yarın akşama kadar bir yapılacaklar listesi ayarlayalım. Şu an için Türkiye'nin tarihini 2. sıraya koyalım diyorum, uğraşması biraz zor ve tarih olarak nereden başlayacağımız kesin değil. En güzel ve kolay olarak Turkey sayfası geliyor bana. FA durumuna gelirse projenin başarısı olarak duyurur ve bu sayede aktifliğimiz daha çok artar diye düşünüyorum. Ben yatıyorum, yarın görüşürüz --Ugur Basak01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Senden bir ricam olacak. Turkish Kurdistan isimli sayfayı silip Kurds in Turkey adlı bir sayfaya yönlendirme yapılması için oy toplanıyor. Syrian Kurdistan sayfası silindi ancak Turkish Kurdistan sayfası için cok fazla kullanıcı bir araya geldi. Sende oy vermek istermisin ?
Go easy on this article. It's not as political as you might think. The fact that I named it Turkish Kurdistan makes it clear that it's a part of Turkey! What are you worried about? AucamanTalk15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Düzenlenmesini istediğimiz ve ortak hareket etmemiz gereken konuları burada tartışalım -->Talk:Türk Kullanıcılar.Böylece zaman kaybetmemiş ve tüm konulardan haberdar olmuş oluruz.Senden ricam bildiğin tüm kullanıcıları bunlardan haberdar etmen.Okuduktan sonra da lütfen sil ki gizli kalsın...Inanna21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey is a referance to a "Land", Turkish, Turks, etc is people
Please do not revert my changes. Ottoman Empire is not "Empire of Turkey". It is a Turkish Empire, at best Empire of Turks. This may not fit (or use in Turkish) to Turkish Language, but this is English, and this is how the concept is formed.--Karabekir22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Histories of the people extends periods (such as Ottoman Empire, selcuks, etc). The history of the states do not extend. This is simple conceptual mistake. --Karabekir22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just violated the 3RR on Ottoman Empire - well done! Because I'm not a nationalist and support Greco-Turkish good relations (and I don't like that addition either), I won't report you. Just stop edit warring. --Latinus00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Greco-Turkish relations are not my concern; the 3RR is the 3RR, indifferently from the rightness or wrongness of your reasons. Rules are rules, and wikipedia is not a playground. --Aldux01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't understand. Rules must be respected, ALWAYS. And, like it or not, what Latinus and Miskin; they stated a POV, which may be reverted if unsourced or misleadingly sourced, but never more than 3 times by the same user in 24 hours. It's not up to you only to decide what is the Truth; for this wikipedia is a collaborative project. And no, I did not take in consideration if you were write or wrong; probably your write (Turkish Empire may be inaccurate, but it's sanctioned by a secular tradition, especially in the west), but this doesn't count anything, because rules are rules. So if I find one who violates the 3RR, I report him.--Aldux19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version of the sentence is the best form. Why? Because if you want me to add the section "commonly known in its days as" is repeating the same fact that everything related to this article is in the past. If you want me to add the "Turkish Empire", it is already in my version, with other forms. When it comes to the differnce between usage and the google hits; most commanly used term at that time was "Sublim Porte", not even the "Turkish Empire". "Sublim Porte" was used in the official documents, there is no use of developing arguments against it. If you want me to tell it is imperial power, There is a subsection (Economics) that you have to add your arguments to prove that Ottoman Empire was an imperial power given the current meaning of the imperial power. It is really not easy to understand why you disagree with my version. --tommiks10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure - normally it's 24 hours, but as this is your first violation, it could be 12 hours or less. In fact, William M. Connoley (the admin) said that he would block you for 3 hours - he must have forgtten, because you have not been blocked. Don't worry, blocks aren't a big deal - look how many Khoikhoi's had [1] ;-) --Latinus12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? That the Greeks were forced to leave their houses doesn't say anything. It's a terrible consensus, I don't know who agreed to it. It is far too convenient for the Turks to say nothing about the atrocities. Telling half of the truth is most certainly a POV.--Avmatso16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What u have asked for in the article about the Greeks,to prove what is widely considered,it's like proving that ottoman empire was multiethnic,right?if the Greeks are not widely considered the inheritors of their empire,so neither the turks can be considered inheritors of the ottomans,don't u think?--Hectorian18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted you to know I trust in your good faith. I know you had honest intentions calling other users to the deletion page but what angered me was, you didn't call 2 or 3, you called about 15 people. This to me is abuse of democracy. I am making a very legitimate case there and now it is being shadowed by 20 people who are already fixated on the subject. It is like discussing with Imams, why Allah doesn't exist.
Thank you for the message. I really do appreciate your tone and style despite our disagreements. The debate on the AfD became quite unpleasant, so I dont find it fruitful to advance my case there. Retrospectively, I can see that my spread of the word about the AfD could seem abusive. However, I want to underline that on purpose I sent it to people who I believe are open for arguments, and I didnt expect a common outcome. Furthermore I avoided to send it to people personally involved in the issue (didn't sent it to people I know as Kurdish or Turkish users). So I find the parallels to Imams and Mujahedeens inappropriate, and indeed it is not appropriate to my consumption of Rakı!
In a short time, there have been several proposals for deletion of categories, stubs and articles related to Kurds - which has become rather trite, and probably created an atmosphere of irritation with lots of inappropriate comments (including personal attacks, semi racist and anti-Turkish comments). I will suggest that we for a time, after the result of this AfD, try to focus our energy on articles that we can expand, rather than stirring new heated debates.
We have a lot of work ahead on the WikiProject Turkey, so lets unite our forces and go on. And in this respect I am convinced that our different approaches is a strenght, that will ensure NPOV and a balanced coverage. Kolay gelsin Bertilvidet20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both POV are mentioned.there is no need to revert it again(u will violate the 3RR,btw).it is not a pro-greek version,it is balanced enough and the only objections that i may have on this is the usage of the language,but we can work on this,i hope.--Hectorian 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
--Hectorian09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What i want in this article is to make it as NPOV as possible by mentioning both POV.if we leave it as it was it is like the fire came from the sky!i will try to keep it as it is for the moment(i still have 2 reverts to do) and when time passes and u will be able to edit on it again,i expect u to mention the turkish POV more clearly.--Hectorian08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying that he says things in a far religious obsessed way.his anti-muslim feelings are obvious,and it is not something that i like or agree with.but his book is not presented in the article as fact.as matter of fact,it is not presented in the article at all!and trust me,i will not make any reference to him in this article(as far as other sources of the same kind are not presented as well from your side).all i am saying is to mention in a couple of sentences the two POV.that's all.reword it when u can,or tell me to reword it,but i won't leave it as if the fire was a punishment of a divine power!readers must read 2 ideas equally and decently provided.do u object on that?--Hectorian09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we do not know for sure who burnt it,it doesn't mean that we should not mention the theories.what kind of honestly and neutrality is to just say 'was burnt'?the first question in the mind of the average reader is 'by whom?',we are not trying to promote tourism,Yahoo Travel can say whatever it wants.
PS if u decide to rv,and not to reword as i propose,make sure not to delete Cretanforever's additions.they are interesting. --Hectorian09:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles include different theories about specific events.do not expect every reader to figure out the theories on his/her own.anyway,i have to go now.i will wait to see your edit about the city burnt in the process of Greco-Turkish war, and the content that it will be in,and i will make my own thoughts about it and its neutrality.Regards --Hectorian09:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i made some rewording in your changes without harming the meaning of your edits.your version is NPOV, although i still think that we should refear a bit more to the incident,including POV,of course. --Hectorian18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!Thanks for your nice words in 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan':)i just noticed it,several days later...Anyway,feelings are mutual.we all have our POVs but at least some of us know where the article ends and where the talk page begins.See u around!Cheers --Hectorian11:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that my english need some refining. I am not a serious scholar as you may be. Your comments on me however are too cheap.--Avmatso08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you appear to have overwrote two existing categories in the process of adding your new one. It has been fixed now, but in future please try to be more careful - thanks.
203.214.2.14414:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are like Yıldırım Beyazıt (Bayezid I the Thunderbolt), Kagan! :) Running from one front to the other:) I follow you:) I see a lot of insidious, sneaky, biased or downright intentional stuff on anything related to Turks/Turkey. Most of the time, I say to myself, whoever wrote this was an idiot, and how can an idiot write anything else than idiocies? (for the latest today, see the turco-mongoloid delirium on TRNC page). But it's necessary sometimes to hold a mirror even for idiots to have a chance to see what they look like. On another note, I will make the Battle of Manzikert additions. There's so much to do. --Cretanforever13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merhaba, Kürtler sayfasında gerçekte 6 milyon olan Türkiye'de ki kürt azınlık nüfusu hiçbir kaynak göstermeden 15 milyon gibi şişirme bir rakamda tutulmak isteniyor.Yardım edebilirmisin lütfen? Inanna19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result is unbelievable. Wikipedia is under the invasion of mobs. These people, with common objectives and agenda, form nameless groups and abuse the democracy here as much as they can. Insidious people, schemes, devious methods... I won't spare as much time for this crap as I did before, still I'll try to keep an eye whenever I can. I'd like to thank you for your efforts to counter these shameless POV pushers for so long just by yourself, you are the Lone Cat.
You know, I am a little tired of what is going on during the last days. I am all new to Wikipedia and I have to admit that I made some stupid mistakes in my first edits for which I honestly apologize to you and to everyone involved. I don't mind your bitter comments about Greeks or myself (man you have been very very mean, and your english is not that good!) it's
clear that you have the wrong idea. Anyway, maybe you don't give a s*** about my apologies. I don't believe, though, that you are what your nickname denotes.
My grandmother was born in Sevdikoy, near Izmir. My grandfather was born in Aydin. As most of the Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor, they were not in favor of the Greek offensive. In fact, there were only a few Greeks in Asia Minor that participated in it. My grandparents told me stories about some atrocities that Greek soldiers commited against the Turks. However, in 1922, almost 1,500,000 refugees came to Greece from Asia Minor. They had many stories to tell about the way they were treated (as the Turks that left Crete or any other place in what is now Greek territory might have, I won't doubt that). They didn't give a s*** about propaganda and nobody can claim that they were all suffering from some kind of delusion. So that the Turkish atrocities, including the lynching of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, are nowadays common knowledge in Greece.
Please don't let yourself be carried away by stereotypes, nobody said that the Turkish troops that entered Izmir pulled out their machettes to cut the throat of every christian that was unlucky enough to get in their way. Just the "normal" things that happen in time of war when soldiers, tired of fighting and marching for miles and miles, enter the last stronghold of the
enemy, to find people whose guts they hate, lying at their mercy.
My grandmother used to tell me that Greeks and Turks in Smyrni (allow me to spell the word just once) were getting along with each other. Her words never showed any hatred against the Turks. Moreover, you, as I, are not to blame for things that belong to the past.
I understand that in a page that was built by some Turks out of love of their city, words like "atrocity" and "lynching" do not fit, even if some crazy and stubborn Greek insists that truth (his own truth, if you will) and facts should prevail. I won't revert it anymore.
Thank you for speaking from the heart. As I said before, Greeks being forced to leave their homes in Asia Minor is of course tragic. The Greek-Turkish population exchange in 1920s is actually a tragedy as a whole and the problem is an issue of trust. After the Greek Army occupied Western Anatolia through Izmir (Smyrni), that was the beginning of the end for the Greek population of Asia Minor. I don't expect you to sympathize with the Turkish side but you should at least be able to understand and reason their actions. We can mention the Greek Metropolitan being lynched, we can also mention the Turkish villages burnt down by the occupying Greek forces, should we? As long as it is NPOV I don't mind, I am only afraid it will only make the section unnecessarily longer if we mention every single atrocity, after all it is an article about the city, not any particular event or events.
As for Greeks. I don't have any problem with Greeks who don't have any problem with Turks but you have to admit that most of them have enormous bias towards Turks and Turkish history. To be honest, when I see these people editing Turkey related articles on Wikipedia, it really boils my blood. We have to write history, not his-story, that's how we ensure the mistakes of the past won't be repeated. There is no good in winning back battles on Wikipedia which Greeks lost on the field. There is no point in exaggerating facts or ignoring them wholly. There is no point in always trying to portray your side as the just and the righteous. There is no point in making your losses look like nothing like Miskin did in Battle of Manzikert, write the truth even if it is a humiliating battle for your country, trust me, there is no good coming from distorting history.
In response to this edit - the whole article is about the "Turkic citizens of Turkey". It says it in the 1st sentence "The Turkish people (Turkish: Türkler) are a Turkic ethnic group sharing a common culture and language." Therefore, if you're going to change the number, you're going to have to change the entire article as well. --Khoikhoi22:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selam, Adana ilgili sayfayı düzenlemek ve genişletmek için birgünümü harcadım ama Khoi adındaki kullanıcı durmadan eski haline getiriyor sayfayı. Hiçbir kaynagı olmayan bilgiler. Yardımcı olursan sevinirim. --TuzsuzDeliBekir22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bu olay iyice sıkıcı olamaya başladı ama. Gözümü bilgisayardan başka yere çeviremeyecek miyim ?
Yeah, I kind of absent-mindedly reverted you, then I thought "hey, that guy preferred my version." Oh well, I have no idea what to do with that page anymore. I almost want to ban all Turks and Greeks from the English Wikipedia. Adam Bishop16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
