User talk:Kutsuit

Western world

Hi,

I just want to clarify what I said. Only current EU members cover all the requirements that are needed to be within this group. For example, most of these issues like human rights (minority rights), rule of law, etc. are the hot topics with most of these prospective countries. Therefore, only when they cover and close all the negotiation chapters for EU accession then we can add them as part of this section.

On Huntington, in his work he saw Latin America as a third part of Western world or akin to it.

I think I am clear now. Mootsticksi (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Huntington's views, that's precisely why your reverts were baffling. The wording in your reverted version made Latin America sound like another group altogether, which isn't what Huntington said in his book, as he clearly considered Latin America (especially some of the South American nations) as either part of the West or in the process of becoming part of the West, and he held similar views regarding Turkey. That's why, if you check the wording in your reverted version, you'd realize that it was less accurate than in the current version.
Regarding the EU map, I can move it to the bottom of the page and put it with the other images in the gallery section, if you want. And I can move the other EU/EUFTA map and put it in its place. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with this idea: The EU/EUFTA map within the section "Modern political" and the EU enlargement map within section "Maps".

Huntington saw Turkey as an example of "torn country" (together with Mexico) but the rest of Latin American countries were seen under different label (as a third part of Western world or akin to it), which is different from "torn country". Mootsticksi (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He also considered Australia to be a torn country. Anyway, I'll adjust the wording there, but please undo your revert as you violated the 3RR policy of Wikipedia and it could lead to your account getting blocked. I don't want it to get to that stage so please undo your recent changes and let me adjust the article according to what I proposed. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I already made the changes based on our consensus. What I need to revert? Go ahead and make the changes. btw I am new here and do not know all the rules and requirements. Mootsticksi (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkish speakers in Europe

Regarding your recent edit to Languages of Europe, could you please tell me where on Ethnologue it claims that there are 70 million Turkish speakers in Europe? I couldn't find any reference to this myself, though even if I did I'd find it extremely hard to believe. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know what's causing the confusion. If you consider the political boundaries of Europe, then there are over 70 million Turkish-speakers, most of whom live in Turkey. That's how the table is set up, judging by the other figures (e.g. the speakers of Russian and other languages). --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Europe is a geographical entity, and as such has no political boundary. Ethnologue's 70 million figure for Turkish is for the global Turkish-speaking population, and thus includes both the European and Asian part of bicontinental countries such as Turkey, not to mention a significant number of indigenous speakers elsewhere in Asia and Turkish diaspora on other continents. It therefore makes no sense to record this figure in a table whose stated purpose is to show "the number of speakers of a given European language in Europe only". The same goes for many other languages in the table, including Russian and Kazakh. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Europe has many definitions, including political definitions, and Turkish is just as European a language as any other language spoken indigenously in Europe. Anyway, if you have the exact figure of the Turkish speakers in geographic Europe, by all means add the figure. Same goes for the other languages. Otherwise there's no harm having the figures of the speakers within the political boundaries. Do you have an exact figure of Turkish-speakers within the geographic boundaries of Europe? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that Armenian would probably have to be removed as well, but I think consensus has already been established regarding languages of countries that are considered to be European for political or socio-cultural reasons. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there are numerous sources that define Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia and similar countries as "European", and removing such content from the article might start an edit war in the future, so we might as well stick to what we have if every side is happy. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that Turkish or any other language should be removed from the list. I am saying that that certain numbers reported in the table, such as those for Turkish, should be removed because they include a significant number speakers that are not in Europe by any definition of the word. I do not have any figure for the number of Turkish speakers in the geographic area of Europe, nor for Turkish speakers in all countries considered to be "European" (including those whose geographic boundaries are partly or entirely outside the European continent). Pending provision of such information, it's better to remove the claim of 70 million, as providing no information is preferable to providing false information. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want, you can put 10-15 million, since that's an estimate of how many Turkish-speakers there are in geographic Europe. What about Russia, Armenia, Greek Cypriots, etc? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I made the changes. Please let me know what you think. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but where are you getting these estimates from? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

From here:
1. Ethnic groups in Europe
2. European Russia
--Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any linguistic data in those articles. I suspect whatever numbers you have produced ought to be excluded under the no original research policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, we can simply restore the original figures, which were backed by Ethnologue. Make up your mind. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove maintenance templates as you did with this edit to Languages of Europe without first fixing the problems described by the templates. There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Languages of Europe regarding the problems with the table. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

POV war

Calling Azeri an Eastern European language is like calling Yupik an East Asian language. Technically true, but rather ridiculous to give as a primary definition. Deleting tags that your refs have failed verification is vandalism, and can get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, please don't be childish. The lede paragraph says that Azeri is spoken across parts of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, and the sources I provided verify that it is spoken in what is known as Eastern Europe, much to your dismay by the looks of it. Discuss the issue in the talk page of the article rather than causing disruptive editing all the time. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Brunette

Absolutely. :-) And of course I was there! Alex2006 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been once to Saudi Arabia, for work. But the place where we were was not very inviting...It was July, we had 50 C. in shadow. Alex2006 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:You're supposed to assume good faith, Alex

Hallo Kutsuit,
sorry, I don`t agree: first of all, I think that you are doing your edits in perfect good faith: you are just trying to let pass your POV that some countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey) are a little bit more European than they are in reality, and you really believe it: there are several edits of you that points all in this direction. Now, at the moment there are three editors who all have the same problem with you, in three different article, about the same issue. This means that we have here a general problem, and I find just normal to discuss this problem all together. Canvassing, means to invite friendly, uninvolved users to support your views, but this is not the case: moreover, in that case I would have invited him to join this discussion with a mail, instead of writing a message just below a message of you, where you were waiting for an answer: this shows full transparency. Good morning :-) Alex2006 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

it is me again

Hi again Nadya, Centre-right politics and Centrism quite different in this case dont you think. AKP is frequently using religious and conservatist things to do things as you know (i assume you live in Turkey). elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it. You're right, center-right is a more accurate term than centrism. But I don't think we should add Islamism or neo-Ottomanism to the infobox since these ideologies have been officially denied/rejected by the party. Other political party pages avoid having disputed ideological classifications in the infobox. Actually, I don't live in Turkey. I'm from Kuwait. :-D --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:I spotted another form of canvassing on your part, Alex

Dear Kutsuit, you are continuing to misunderstand how thing works in Wikipedia: inviting openly (on their talk page) other users to join a discussion of mutual interest is not WP:Canvassing. The two users which I invited were already involved in similar discussions with you, and I find a place where to discuss all together the best that one can do. Moreover, the fact that three users with some experience like me, User:Kwamikagami and User:Psychonaut have in different articles the same opinion about what you want to do shows only that you are going against Consensus. But you act as the driver who drives along an highway on the wrong side and call the police telling that there are thousands of cars coming from the wrong direction... :-) About the menace of reporting me to the admins if I do it again, I invite you to take a cold shower, count until 1000, calm down, and then read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and disruption on Azerbaijani language. Nadia, this block has been rather long coming; I've been on the verge of blocking you for battleground editing several times. (My choice of 48 hours is after some hesitation; I wrote "72 hours" at first.) I'm afraid I remember rather vividly how you resisted explanations from experienced users when we spoke on Talk:Largest cities in Europe,[1] (compare my edit summary to the linked edit), and your resistance to advice altogether, and I feel that this time I have to act.

I seem to keep saying this to you, to little effect, Nadia, but please edit more collaboratively when you return after the block. Don't edit war. Don't throw around accusations of "vandalism"[2][3] and "disruptive editing"[4] at the drop of a hat. Don't threaten people.[5] Don't attack others just-in-passing, as you did re Kwamikagami on Alex's page recently. This is not a good road you're going down.

I can't see the consensus for your edits that you refer to on Talk:Azerbaijani language. Considering how many people have been reverting your edits, and have in turn been reverted by you alone, it seems a strange claim. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 09:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC).