User talk:E104421/archive

Altaic - Anti-Altaic?

Hi Ante, there's a dispute regarding Altaic at the Turkish language article. Could you please join-in on the discussion here and here? e104421 is not convinced that the Altaic languages are disputed, perhaps you could provide sources for him? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Ante,

I searched Alexander Vovins page, there are tons of references there, and most of them are seem to be conference papers (procedings). Maybe better to refer some articles form the citation index, i could reach them from the library. Can you advice some of them (please give me just a few from the citation index that's enough). I'm not an expert on this field. After reading these, i can turn you back.

My main objections are related with the statements as "someone believe something" which do not scientifically make sense, cause they are related with a guess or a belief. These cannot be accepted to be relevent from academical point of view. Maybe there are some minor uncertainities about Altaic Family definition or classification, but this does not mean Altaic language family is totally disputed.

Altaic subgroup classifications (Mongolian, Tungus, Turkic) are quite consistent, cause each member of these subgroups have certain relations with each other. There are also tons of articles and books about them, you know. For this reason, in my opinion, it is safer to consider these three subgroups (Mongolian, Tungus, and Turkic) under Altaic Family. In the Wikipedia page of the Turkish language, there is no valid reason to state as "disputed" for Altaic family classification for Turkish. One may change the name Altaic, but these three subgroubs themselves constitute a family whatever the name given to it. e104421 1 August 2006, 19:07 (UCT).

Dear e104421,

I'm afraid I can't help you with the citation index, as I don't use such. But I do recommend checking Janhunen's 1996 monograph Manchuria - an ethnic history (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 222). From Alexander Vovin you could check his extensive review article The End of the Altaic Controversy of Starostin, Dybo, and Mudrak's "Etymological dictionary of the Altaic Languages" (Central Asiatic Journal 49.1: 71-132, 2005). If you like, I could provide more extensive references after a week or two when I'm back at the university (it's difficult for me now as I'm travelling). Then on your claim that "Maybe there are some minor uncertainities about Altaic Family definition or classification, but this does not mean Altaic language family is totally disputed". To me this shows that you are not very well acquainted with the field. Everyone doing Altaic linguistics - or even just occasionally following the field, like me - knows that the question of the Altaic debate is not a matter of "minor uncertainities about ... definition or classification", but a controversy at the heart of Altaic linguistics. The "Anti-Altaic" scholars such as Janhunen and Vovin argue that the Altaic langauges are only related through areal influence, and consequently there is no Altaic language family, just a Sprachbund.

From your comment above ("Altaic subgroup classifications (Mongolian, Tungus, Turkic) are quite consistent, cause each member of these subgroups have certain relations with each other"), I'm not sure what the "certain relationships" are you refer to? In order to form a language family, languages must be shown to derive from a single ancestral language, by demonstrating regular correspondences in phonology, grammar and basic vocabulary. The reason for the Altaic controversy is that such correspondences have not been demonstrated to the general satisfaction of Altaic. --AAikio 06:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ante. As i told you, i'm not an expert on this field. These certain relationships i mentioned above are simply, morphological, syntactical, and semantical ones, also for each subgroup the organization of words in to sentences are quite similar. In addition, there exists wovel harmony. Furthermore, Altaic family shows productive-predictive correspondences. All languages are influenced by languages they are in contact with. By stating there is no Altaic language family, do you mean the altaic languages are hybrid ones? What kind of method is applied to reach this conclusion? What about the correlations between the languages?According to the standards set by linguists, languages that make up a family must show productive-predictive correspondences. The shape of a given word in one language should be predictable from the shape of the corresponding word, or cognate, in another language. Altaic family satisfies all these. I still do not understand the dispute about the existance of Altaic language family. We can continue after your holiday, by the time i'll have time to read the articles if i reach them. As a note, i prefer sources from the science citation index, cause our library has a membemship to them, so i can get them easily. Anyway, i shall try to find the ones you cited above. Have a nice holiday, e104421 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi e104421, and thanks for your reply. Yes, I'll get back to the references once I have the chance to use our library again. As for the methodology and the data behind the Altaic controversy, I'm not really an Altaicist, so I can only give you my outsider's impression of the issue. But in general methodological terms, syntax is not considered very reliable evidence for genetic relationship by many comparativists, because on the other hand syntax is too iconic and on the other it is very susceptible to contact influence. The research done on comparative syntax in general seems to support the idea that syntax can be more reliably used to determine contact than relationship. Moreover, the reconstruction of syntax is also a methodologically more controversial field than the reconstruction of phonology, morphoplogy and lexicon (this is described in detail e.g. in Anthony Fox's monograph: Linguistic reconstruction - theory and method). The same is pretty much the case with phonological typology - including, for instance, vowel harmony. Basically only shared material between languages can serve as indisputable evidence of genetic relationship, but not shared rules - whether syntactic or phonological.

As for "productive-predictive [sound] correspondences", I guess this is just what the whole controversy is about: the Anti-Altaicists maintain that such correspondences do not exist and that there is little or no shared basic vocabulary. While Pro-Altaicists claim to have shown such correpondences, Anti-Altaicists argue that these can be explained as both loanwords (mainly non-basic vocabulary) and chance resemblances or wrong etymologies produced by too lax an application of the comparative method. In my impression, the issue resembles rather much the controversy over Indo-Uralic or Nostratic whose proponents also claim to have demonstrated productive-predictive correspondences, but they have failed to convince the majority of scholars because the presented etymological material turns out to involve a large number of problems under closer examination. In the Altaic debate it is also often pointed out that there are many Turkish-Mongolian and Mongolian-Tungusic lexical correspondences but only few Turkish-Tungusic ones, a situation that is consistent with the hypothesis of language contact but abnormal in the case of genetic relationship.

I don't think anyone suggests the Altaic languages are some sort of hybrid languages - the Anti-Altaic school maintains that they are a set of several independent language families that originate from roughly the same geographic region and due to this prehistoric contact have a shared typological profile and many layers of mutual borrowing and influence, but as yet no demontrated genetic connection underlying the layers of borrowing (which wouldn't exclude the possibility of demonstrating such in the future, of course). --AAikio 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Altaic discusion

As i mentioned above, my objection about your action is not the way you understood. I said better to discuss the issue at the Altaic Languages section not in the Turkish Language section. There is still an accepted Altaic theory. The place of this discussion is not the Turkish Language article page. The discussion is about "productive-predictive [sound]correspondences", not with the Turkish Language itself. Both Ante and Future Perfect Sunrise are declared that they are not the experts of Altaic languages, but i appreciate their contributions and good will. I shall continue to discuss the issue with them. However, there are many academicians who still support the Altaic theory. Better to remove the word "dispute", cause there is already a link to Altaic languages sections, the one who interested in can read there what the so-called "dispute" is about. In addition, in the Altaic languages page, there is nothing about the "dispute", but the only in Turkic languages pages. I'm wondering the reason of it. This is the POV fork, not the claims about the Altaic languages. You are misunderstanding my words. I'm not trying to fight anybody, my main point of view is based on objectiveness, especially on the scientific issues. Lets put this discussion into the correct place. After then may some other people involve in discussion, even reach a conclusion.e104421 3 September 2006, 9:13 (UTC)

Let me also briefly comment on this once again. I still don't quite understand your arguments for removing the word "disputed". If it were removed, this would give the readers misleading information, as if Altaic were an unanimously accepted genetic classification on par with such established families as Uralic, Indo-European or Austronesian. This is not the case. The Altaic family is accepted by some experts but on the other hand rejected by others. One of the problems here is that there are two separate but overlapping articles, Altaic languages and Altaic hypothesis, the latter of which documents the controversy (although not from a very balanced point of view and with too few references - more should be added). I think these two should be merged, as has been suggested. But in the meantime, the word "disputed" could be made to link to the Altaic hypothesis article. --AAikio 09:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is to put the discussion on the right place. If we continue the discussion under Turkic Languages pages, this would lead to conclusion that there is a dispute of Turkic languages being Altaic cause only in the Turkic language pages there exist "disputed" tag. This is my main objection for removal. Ante, if you seach the pages of all Altaic languages, you'll see the "disputed" tag only in the articles about Turkic languages not for the others in the Altaic group. e104421 3 September 2006, 9:45 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi, it's me again. I've taken the freedom to join your discussion, please see my response to e104421 here: [3]. I'd say he actually has a point in some way, although he maybe wasn't putting it very well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's going on now - some misunderstanding? ([4]) "an article full of POV and bullshit" seems a bit strong as a comparison of what it would be to use "Altaic" without a local disclaimer. I mean, major reference works (Ethnologue etc.) and the majority of the linguistic literature use "Altaic" as a matter of course, without any such hedging, if only as a convenient cover term for the group of languages, irrespective of the specialist debate about its genetic or non-genetic nature. (The matter for Japanese and Korean is different: There, it's a matter of whether J/K belong to Altaic at all; but Turkic belongs to Altaic no matter what the exact status of Altaic is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dispute of Dispute

Hi, Perfect at Sunrise :) Thank you for your contribution, i have to read the article. I can also give you references supporting the Altaic theory. About the "dispute" tag, the problem is to put the discussion on the right place. If we continue the discussion under Turkic Languages pages, this would lead to conclusion that there is a dispute of Turkic languages being Altaic cause only in the Turkic language pages there exist "disputed" tag. This is my main objection for removal. If you seach the pages of all Altaic languages, you'll see the "disputed" tag only in the articles about Turkic languages not for the others in the Altaic group. For the Altaic discussion, this should be done either under the Altaic Languages page or Altaic Hypothesis page, as Ante Aikio also stated. Putting the "dispute" only under Turkic language related pages causes another dispute. e104421 3 September 2006, 9:55 (UTC)

Hi, Perfect at Sunrise :) Thanx for your contribution. Maybe cause of the language barrier, i could not express myself clearly. I can safely say that i'm not against any discussion, i'm just supporting that this should be done under "Altaic Languages" or maybe better "Altaic hypothesis" section. We can continue the discussion there. For the "(disputed)" tag, my opion is that this may lead a misundestanding on the issue and should be removed. I've just started reading the article "Telling the general linguists about Altaic", maybe turn you back in time. e104421 3 September 2006, 17:39 (UTC)

(to Fut. Perf.) Sorry, I still strongly disagree with omitting "disputed", it's like having an article full of POV and bullshit without having {{totallydisputed} at the top. —Khoikhoi 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I do not think so. What shall we do then? Khoikhoi's way of discussion requires NPOV. He's getting more agressive if some make an objection against his POV. Upto now he didn't made any constructive contribution but always tried to joke with the issue. One of the fundamental principles of wikipedia is to assume good faith 5. We are trying to help the project, discussing the way to improve it. e104421 3 September 2006, 19:55 (UTC) No misunderstanding, the issue here is what serves the reader. Not having the disclaimer will make them think that there isn't a dispute, when in fact there is. Simply denying the controversy isn't going to help anybody. —Khoikhoi 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) The "(disputed)" tag leads misunderstanding. Please, check here. 6 the discussion page of Khazar language. e104421 3 September 2006, 20:29 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) —Khoikhoi 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) What is the personal attack? or who made it? Please, explain, i cannot see anything here, also from the history here 7 e104421 3 September 2006, 20:39 (UTC)

Take a cup of tea, Altaic styleSomething's getting weird here. Take a cup of tea everybody... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |:))) Hahaha, really Altaic, no need to any dispute! e104421 3 September 2006, 20:45 (UTC)

Okay, now that everybody has had their tea, let me sum up again. I personally don't feel strongly either way, but I understand that e104421 wants the local disclaimers removed and Ante and Khoikhoi want them preserved. As I see it, both sides have valid arguments:

Pro disclaimers The genetic validity of Altaic undoubtedly is disputed. Readers should be made aware of the dispute at the earliest occasion. The hierarchies in the info boxes should represent genetic families in the strict sense, in keeping with the definition of "language family" linked to from the infobox Against disclaimers The dispute is a minor issue among a small circle of specialists; in general linguistic usage, the label "Altaic languages" is widely used and treated as uncontroversial irrespective of whether it's a genetic family sensu strictu or "only" an areal grouping; In fact, even authors participating in the specialist debate employ the label in this loose sense in informal exposition. It is sufficient if readers find information about the dispute when clicking on the link to Altaic languages; they don't need to be burdened with it on every single language page. The disclaimers obliterate an important distinction between two different types of "disputedness": (a) Does language X really belong to Altaic? (b) X belongs to Altaic, but what is Altaic? - Disputedness of type (b) should be treated only centrally and not at the individual language pages. Okay, having come this far, let's have a dispute about how our dispute about the dispute is going to be solved. Can the four of us simply agree on something, or do we need a tiebreaker fifth opinion, an RfC or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"

---

01/09/2006

---

Ok

Check the history of the page, can you can see that AtilimGunesBaydin edited the section, discuss it with him.

Also, I have now cited a source. —Khoikhoi 01:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish language is scientific? —Khoikhoi 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. —Khoikhoi 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I provided evidence from a verifiable source, since you don't seem to believe that a controversy exists, I'll go ahead and contact a linguist to talk to you. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did answer your question, see above (right after below the "Ok" header). —Khoikhoi 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then discuss it with Atılım! I'm not the one who deleted it. —Khoikhoi 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a small world after all, I guess. :) —Khoikhoi 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, when you said "CP-violation" I thought you originally meant "copyright violation". :p —Khoikhoi 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

So...you want to remove the word "disputed", because you deny that there's a dispute? I thought I already exlpained this to you, it belongs in all Alatic language articles, which obviously includes Turkish. Where's the POV fork? —Khoikhoi 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, actually: I see "disputed" at the Manchu, Mongolian, Kalmyk, Buryat, and Tu articles, and they're not Turkic languages... —Khoikhoi 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What pages don't include it? Japanese language doesn't show Altaic in the infobox at all, because of this note:

Please do not add disputed classifications such as Altaic here; they are discussed in the article body, but the infobox is intended to be a concise overview of accepted facts.

Where do you want me to discuss this? Altaic languages is an article, do you mean the talk page? —Khoikhoi 18:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You right, because I didn't even understand what you said to me right then! —Khoikhoi 19:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Selam. :) As you probably know by now, Kachik is the sockpuppet of -Inanna-, this I am 100% sure of, and this is why Kachik was banned.

Inanna is a Turkish ultranationalist, whose prime motive on Wikipedia was to change statistics to favor Turkey. Now don't get me wrong—Turkey's a really cool country, but it's not so cool when the numbers she changes are just plain wrong. To top that off, she was racist, anti-Semitic, and pretty much anti-"anything-but-Turkish". Her aggressive attitude got her blocked so many times, that eventually she was permanently banned (see discussion). After that she's tried to come back a few times, but all her sockpuppets have been stopped and some pages have been semi-protected as a result. "Kachik" seems to have been her lastest one. What you should not do is talk to her, see this. When she comes back just notify me or Alex, and eventually the articles she continues to disrupt will be semi-protected (established editors can edit, but anons & new users can't). Kolay gelsin. —Khoikhoi 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BTW, keep in mind that we're dealing with a woman here, so we should say "she" instead of "he". :p —Khoikhoi 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally don't like it when countries use war as a means of "conflict solution", while what actually happens is they expand their influence. Heh, I know a few words of Turkish, I've actually learned them all here on Wikipedia. Ironically, it was Inanna who got me started on editing Turkish-related articles, because I had to follow her around correcting her bullshit. I have to say that I've learned a lot. —Khoikhoi 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What controversial statements? Are you talking about the Armenian Genocide? It might interest you to know that Wikipedia is not censored. What else did I do? I don't really feel like explaining things right now, but as for my failed request for adminship, about half the people that opposed me didn't even know me, they just voted because their friends asked them to. It seems that if I get into a conflict with a Turkish user, then that automatically makes me a "Türk karşıtı kullanıcı". IMO, I don't really care what you think about me. —Khoikhoi 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't frustrated because someone had a different POV, I was frustrated because you kept saying stuff that I couldn't really understand. You also kept repeating yourself, and it was pissing me off. I'm not your enemy either, but I don't appreciate it when you make generalizations about my contributions when most of the time there are no controversies. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The same reason anyone edits Wikipedia, I guess. There isn't a specific reason why I edit Turkey-related articles, I suppose I just follow my interests. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Teşekkürler for your kindness. This may surprise you, but I have no connection to Turkey, and that's the truth, and I promise you that I'm being honest. If you'd like to talk with me further, it can also be by email. —Khoikhoi 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. BTW, sorry for the times I was rude to you, I've also been stressed out because of real life as well. İyi geceler. :) —Khoikhoi 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sayılar

Bu ordunun kullandığı savaş ekipmanları sayısını minimuma indirmede gösterdiğin çabayı biraz da Türklerin nüfusu sayfasında göstersen nasıl olur? Yoksa başka amaçların mı var??? KreshnikD 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yanıt

Dayanışma çağrısına tabi ki katılıyorum. Ancak kişisel olarak orduya karşı olduğu için Türk ordusunu olabildiğince zayıf göstermen çok saçma. KreshnikD 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

İş birliğine kesinlikle katılıyorum. Wikipedia Türklerle ilgili bir sürü saçmalıkla dolu ve ne yazık ki bunların kişisel çabalarla engellenmesi mümkün değil. KreshnikD 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Exaggerated Figures

I'm sorry, I'm too busy at the moment to help with individual articles. You may like to try WP:3O if you find yourself up against misleading figures. Cheers, Tangotango 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to F-4 Phantom II

Insistent, are we? Please stop making the same edit to F-4 Phantom II over and over again please. My references state Turkish Phantoms are unable to fire the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Unless you have credible references that say otherwise, you are damaging the article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, to summarise such edits with the edit summary "spell-check" is disingenuous at best. Please ensure that your edit summaries are an accurate reflection of the changes you make to the article.--chris.lawson 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "spell-check" to the last editor to check his writing. Maybe cause of the language barrier, it's misunderstood, i should have written it as "wou should check your spelling". I usually wrote "sp-ch" for spell-check. I only changed unable to able. Also, please read what i wrote as a responce to User_talk:Emt147: Hi, first of all i should warn you that one of the basic principles of wikipedia is to assume good will Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We are trying to help to project, not to harm. Your information is not correct, cause just check the site of Turkish Air Forces. You can see the technical details of the inventory. Furthermore, Turkish Army bought AIM-120 AMRAAM just for F-4's. I think there exits a spelling mistake in your source, "able" maybe falsely written as "unable". If you are insistent, tell me your references or sources. I'd like to check them, too. Thanx e104421 15:25. 4 September 2006 (UCT)

The first time you made the edit, I assumed good faith, reverted it, and summarized in the edit comments the reason for the reversion. When you came back and made the same edit again, with the same false "spell check" edit summary, my good faith went out the window. My source is clearly cited at the end of the paragraph. Show me yours (and make it verifiable, not some fanboy website) and I will be happy to amend the article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tuaf.mil.tr/HavaUzay/ProjelerAnaSayfa.asp?Sayfa=ProjelerF4E.htm There is no word there about AMRAAM. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tags on Kurdish articles

Please make sure to explain your concerns clearly on the Talk page before adding dispue tags to all these articles.Heja Helweda 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you put two different tags everywhere. Obviously NPOV is quite different than Factual Accuracy. I have tried hard to provide sources for almost all of the assertions in those articles, therefore I am not aware of any factual accuracy dispute at the moment. There may be neutrality issues involved, but please if you see a claim without source let me know and if there is no accuracy dispute at the moment, I will remove that tag. Also please notice that not all the comments on the Talk page are really serious issues. For instance although Britannica explicitly says that Kurds have fought Sumerians and Persians, some users simply do not like the sentence and try to dispute it.Heja Helweda 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll send you the paper. It is from an academic Journal and internationally recognized, don't worry. I need ur e-mail address. Wikimail does not appear to have options for file attachment :)Heja Helweda 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PKK first go

Hi, please do not remove other peoples comments from the talk page. - FrancisTyers · 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back your edits again, as you removed Khoikhoi's comments too. See what he wrote below :) - FrancisTyers · 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PKK

Selam. :) The PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by a lot of governments, but there are reasons why we have a guideline on this:

Encyclopedic:

• X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
• X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
• Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

• X is a terrorist group.
• Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
• After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Also see the arguments for and against describing an entity as terrorist. Just because we say "militant" does not mean that we're "promoting" them. Wikipedia is all about preseting a neutral point of view on things. The Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and ETA articles, for example, do not start out by calling them terrorist. Do you understand now? —Khoikhoi 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good to hear! BTW, you can start new comments on a talk page by clicking on the "+" sign next to "edit this page". Also you can sign your name like this: ~~~~ or --~~~~ —Khoikhoi 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to delete your own comments! The polcy about the word terrorist only applies to articles, not talk pages. :p —Khoikhoi 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---