Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Montag (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 18 May 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hey, thanks a lot for all the work you've been doing on Khazars. It's an interesting subject, and I'm glad to see someone knowledgeable tackle it.

I hope you like Misplaced Pages and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Misplaced Pages:New user log to introduce yourself. You might also want to check out the Tutorial. It gives all kinds of basic info for new contributors.

If you have any questions about the project then check out Misplaced Pages:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Khazars in fiction

Hi Brian, I have restored Khazars in fiction to its previous content. Thank you for confirming that its use has been granted by the copyright owner. Please make sure that the message from the owner remains on the article's talk page so that future editors are aware of the copyright situation. Cheers! Carrp | Talk 12:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suar-related articles

Hi! Articles about Suars need improvements? There are the information from Tatar Encyclopaedia, which was published in Russian and Tatar in 2001 in Kazan.

--Untifler 20:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You want to by it by post? (it is hard to by it even in Kazan). It could be useful if you understand Russian. But in is only in one-volume edition, so all information is limited. --Untifler 21:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tatarstan Republic Academy of Sciences' Institution of Tatar Encyclopaedia, 2002 This is a publishing information for Tatar Encyclopaedia. M.b. different articles, which are about different objects (people, city and duchy) should not be merged, but I think, that Suars could be merged with Sabirs, because in some Tatar sources is said that Suars was only branch of Sabirs and their name changed due to pronoinciation of surrounding peoples. Another variant is Suvars. As for mistakes, I hope that you will correct it as it needs! --Untifler 21:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Threats

(This thread relates to disputes over the categorization of Bulgars in the Category "Turkic peoples".)

Using threats to further a point of view is scarcely the best way to approach any of the editors here. Behaving as if your own version is the best and ond only possible is a bit childish. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it., this stays below any page in Misplaced Pages and contrary to what you might think, it regards you, as well. Please, stop reverting the category, you are misleading readers to accept one of the explanations about the origin of the Bulgars. VMORO 15:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, to suggest that I was "threatening" is a total mischaracterization. What I said was that rather than engage in a pointless revert war I would ask that the site administrators arbitrate the issue (as per Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Requesting_an_advocate). This is quite different from threatening, which I note that you have been known to do in the past (e.g. "If you don't leave this article alone now, there will be 'sudden' outburst of vandalism against Romanian articles, this is final warning") You yourself concede that Turkic origin is one theory about the Bulgars. Linguistically it is the only theory accepted by most scholars. I refer you to the works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, David Christian, and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few. However, even if there are other theories worthy of consideration, Bulgars deserve a mention among the Turkic peoples category. Your accusation that I am trying to foist my views is totally ludicrous. I did not edit the article itself. The various theories are all in there. You are free to add the Bulgars to whatever other category (Slavic peoples, Iranian peoples, etc.) you wish. By repeatedly deleting Bulgars from the category you are attempting to force your ethnopolitical views on the article in the same manner you accuse me of. The notice "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" cuts both ways, my friend.

To avoid more pointless fighting and reversions, I propose the following:

• • 1. On the "Turkic peoples" category page, I will add the following note:

Many of these peoples' origins are still being debated. For example, while most linguists classify Proto-Bulgarian as a Turkic language, others have disputed this classification and point to Iranic and other linguistic features. Likewise, the Avars and Hephthalites are sometimes classified as Mongolic, Iranic or even Tocharian in origin. Finally, some people listed, such as the Golden Horde, were in part or in whole Mongolian in origin, yet are included in this category because they adopted Turkic languages.

• • 2. Bulgars goes back in the "Turkic peoples" category.

As a gesture of good will I have implemented #1 already. You are welcome to suggest modifications to the language. I ask that you return the Bulgars article to the Turkic peoples category within 48 hours, and I will consider the matter closed. If you do not, I will begin proceedings outlined under Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution.

--Briangotts 14:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, I am not trying to impose any "ethnopolitical views" on anything. What's more, I don't have any such "views", I am not supporting any of the theories regarding the origin of the Bulgars. However, since there is a controversy about it, the article should either be placed in none of the two, conflicting categories, or in both of them. Sounds logical, doesn't it? And since you insist so much on their inclusion in the Turkic category, they should also be included in the Iranian one. Thank you. VMORO 15:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)~

• • • You know, I really don't care to argue with you. You clearly have chosen your side in the debate, it is the side not supported by the majority of linguists, and you promote your views through intimidation and threats. Be that as it may. I have added Bulgars to Turkic peoples. Feel free to add them to the Category:Iranian peoples if you wish. I will not stop you or remove them from that category. If others wish to rais the issue with you, that is their concern. I consider the matter resolved. --Briangotts 00:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one has made you argue with me, please don't act like an angry child. Yes, and I have added the category Iranian peoples. It is true that the older theory is that of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars but until as late as 60-70 years ago, all nomadic peoples were considered Turkic and both Bulgars and Magyars were associated with the Huns. To say nothing of the fact that at least until the end of WWII linguists did not have an especially clear idea of what the Bulgar language looked like. For the last 20 years, there has been a reversal and all newer books and textbooks, at least in Bulgaria, address them as Pamirian, this view has also started to gain recognition abroad. However, this is not the point: the point is that there is a controvery about their origin. The rest has already been said. VMORO 21:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)~

I am not responding to this individual any longer but I could not let his comments go on this page without a final note. I have read a lot of materials on the subject and I have seen no scholarly work that associates the proto-Bulgar language with the Pamir group, except radical, Bulgarian nationalist propaganda that seeks to minimize associations with Turkey. Be that as it may, I never had any objection to this individual putting up his Pamir theory, or with linking the Bulgar article to the Iranian peoples category. What I objected to were his repeated attempts to remove the Bulgars from the Turkic category, on the grounds that there was "dispute" about their linguistic origin. He has a history of bullying other Misplaced Pages authors, including administrators of this site, and of making various threatening comments, which history is readily viewable here. I encourage serious linguists to evaluate his claims and, where applicable, correct them. --Briangotts 00:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Samaritan Aramaic

Hello! An article stating that Samaritan Aramaic is a variety of Aramaic spoken by Samaritans isn't really an article but a circular statement. I've redirected it to the main Aramaic article for the time being, but if you can add any info regarding the differences between the two languages and other facts, by all means feel free to do so. Since ancient languages seems to be your forte, I'm confident that you'll do just that. Best, Lucky 6.9 18:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The only reason I created a separate "Samaritan Aramaic" article is because the article on the Samaritans, which I did not write, referenced it. I noticed this while putting together the Samartian category. At some point I may try and learn enough about Samaritan Aramaic to write an article; in the meantime, I think the redirect is sufficient. Thanks!--Briangotts 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool beans. Thanks for getting back to me. Signing off for now... - Lucky 6.9 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kimek Khanate

I think it will be also interesting for you.

Another question. do you know some about concret adaptation of Hebrew script to Turkic languages? (It is interesting for me)

Why Karaims were merged with Karaite Judaism? Under the Soviet rule Karaims was viewed as independend ethnos, but Krymchak was viewed as part of Jews. The survival of Karaims during WW2 in Crimea also was interesting... Could you resque an information about it in English and place to wiki (I want to translate in to Tatar) --Untifler 16:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Good job! Can you look into the Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria to improve it? As for source, all of tyhem is undoubtefull, but I think you have much more information about it :). If ou have anoth free time, could you improve Bashkir article, espetially about history of Bashkiria (before 12000s)?

Arthur Koestler' The Thirteenth Tribe

Misplaced Pages would probably strongly benefit from an article written about Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe; it's claims, plagiarism, etc. Do you think you'd be up to writing it? Jayjg 15:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I don't have time at the moment but in the next couple of weeks hopefully I can start one. --Briangotts 16:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your vote

I'd like to urge you to reconsider your vote on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, as it is based on a misconception. Censorship is not the issue. The article is a POV fork, and needs to be re-merged into the Anti-globalization article.  :) — Helpful Dave 18:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My vote stands. I found the arguments for deletion unconvincing. My review of the article found it to be quite fair. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by this message, or how many others you have contacted. I don't think this sort of politicking is appropriate. You are entitled to your opinion, and if the majority agree the article will be deleted. Please do not attempt to foist your views on me. --Briangotts 15:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Briangotts 15:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Please read the instructions at the bottom of WP:VFD for how to list an article on VFD. Thanks! —msh210 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Thanks for notifying me that the article is on featured article candidates. If it succeeds, it'll only be the second article I've worked on to get that distinction. In it's current state I can't vote in favor of it. It's a great resource for scholars, but it's not yet a great Misplaced Pages article. Don't take it personally. If I've got time this weekend, I'll take a try at smoothing out some of the rough edges. You might also want to try listing on peer review. Those folks always have good suggestions, and they have a good history of helping get articles up to featured status. Happy editing, Isomorphic 19:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Maximum info" has limits. An article like United Nations can't possibly contain all the relevant information available on its subject. The main article on any subject is intended to stand alone and serve as a fairly consise general introduction. "See main article:X" is used to direct a reader to more information, but only if the reader is interested in that particular subtopic. We don't expect that most readers will actually read all the spin-off articles, and that's fine.

Don't forget that Misplaced Pages is intended for everyone. As much as possible, physicists and auto mechanics should be able to read articles on history and art, while artists and historians should be able to read articles on cars and physics. We often fail to reach that lofty goal (many of our mathematics articles are opaque even to math students) but we do try. Featured articles in particular are expected to reach a general audience, since we'd like to put them on the Main Page for all to see.

Like I said, I'll try to do some smoothing myself, and definitely do try the Peer Review people. Isomorphic 20:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I Left some comments on the FAC nom. Nice work so far... +sj + 22:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimean Goths

Hi Briangotts, I think you have written a very good article on the Crimean Goths. Although, I understood what you meant, I preferred to change the phrasing ancestral homelands, since I am working on articles concerning earlier ancestral homelands.--Wiglaf 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. However, "temporary homeland" didn't sound right either. Is it temporary if the Goths lived there for a few centuries before moving on? And it certainly wasn't temporary for the ones who stayed in the Crimea. I've changed the wording to a more neutral "those that remained in the lands around the Black Sea, especially in the Crimea." OK with you? --Briangotts 14:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine by me.--Wiglaf 14:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Proposal to Merge Hanilgabat with Mitanni

you attached a merge tag to this article; however, the Hanilgalbat, Mitanni/Maitani and Hurri section of this article argues that the 2 articles are different topics, & should be kept separate. Until this the points in this article are at least discussed, wouldn't it be wiser to delay this merge? -- llywrch 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I still feel like there is too much duplicative information between the two articles (kings' names etc.) There are also some inaccurate assertions (e.g., that Hurrian is an Indo-Euro language. I don't have time (and probably lack the expertise) to do the merge myself in any case. I felt though that the issue should be raised. --Briangotts 17:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is needlessly duplicate material between the two articles. However, before they are merged, the subject should be discussed; that was my point. (And I was trying to express it in a manner that was not accusatory; I'm sorry if you felt my tone was otherwise.) -- llywrch 18:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. You have valid points. I agree with you that there should be discussion. --Briangotts 20:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 19:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image on VfD

Howdy. You appear to be trying to list Image:100 7065.JPG on VfD; however, it hasn't worked. WP:IFD is the proper place to nominate images and other media for deletion. If you don't mind, I'll fix the VfD page. android↔talk 03:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza collaboration

I would be happy to help you on this article.

Guy Montag 22:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)