User talk:Tabib: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:08, 26 February 2005

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold when servicing the Ibne Tabib, as he loves that.

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian

Please see Talk:Azerbaijani language. I suspect that the rough consensus is to keep this page at "Azerbaijani" - if the group of people who maintain this page agree to move it, we will be happy to do so, of course. Noel (talk) 15:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia style is that people generally reply on the User_Talk: page of the person who wrote a message to them (that way, someone doesn't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person whom they are having a "conversation" with), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. Not everyone on Wikipedia uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), I but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

World War I

I'm curious why you removed the links to Armenian Genocide from the World War I article. -- Planders 16:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Planders, Thanks for the question. The earlier version read as follows:

"April 24: The events commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide begin in the Ottoman Empire".

My edition was as follows:

"April 24: Ottoman government starts deportation of Armenians accusing them in collaboration with the Allies."

The reason why I made this edition is first because, the earlier version was categorical, leaving no space for alternative opinions, especially given the fact that the "Armenian genocide" is a highly controversial issue, that involves more politics than real history. Second reason is because, I believe, WWI page should be more accurate and authoritative, and links to such controversial and disputed politicized articles should be avoided in order to refrain from nationalist propaganda. I think, the current version is more even-handed and leaves space for both points of view.

Turkmen VS Turkomen/Turkomans etc

I'm prepared to believe that the different "koyunlular" aren't "Turkmen", but just so you know, the word Turkoman when used as a search currently redirects Turkmen to the "Turkmen" disambiguation page. So it'd probably be handy if you know any more on the topic to create an article on the ethnic group. There's a bit of a start near the end of the Oghuz Turks article, but I don't know enough anthropology etc to make a serious attempt at it. BigHaz 02:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BigHaz for this interesting comment.

First, I want to explain why I changed "Turkmen" to "Turkoman". It's noteworthy that in Turkic (by this I mean primarily Azeri, Turkish and Turkmen languages, which belong to Oghuz branch) there is no distinction between these two terms. Both are referred to as "Türkmen(ce)". And this reflects the fact, that historically these names, as well as the word "türk" (Turkish, Turkic) were historically used interchangeably, referring to wider Turkic tribes ancestors of present-day Turks in Turkey, Azeris and Turkmen. By compoarison, in ancient times, there was no distinction between Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians, which were all Slavs.

My goal in changing "Turkmen" to "Turkoman" was to make a technical distinction between these two terms in order to be able to portray the history of Turkomans not merely as history of present-day Turkmen in Turkmenistan, but as part of a wider historical context involving present-day Turks in Turkey, Azeris in Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq (btw, the latter are more widely referred to as Iraqi Turkomans).

After creation of Turkey and Turkmenistan, the names "Turk(ish)" and "Turkmen" were sort of "privatized" by these respective countries. While this development is natural, it has also created lots of confusion in history. Thus, for example, the White Sheep and Black Sheep Turkomans came from Central Asia in XI-XII cc. and certainly, they are kin to present-day Turkmen in Turkmenistan. But, by calling them "Turkmen" we confuse ourselves and do not understand that since the time these tribes left their homeland in Central Asia, they had a different historical route, apart from their Turkoman kins which stayed and became present day Turkmen. They established states in the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia and Iran, their culture and language, even racial features was impacted by the local conditions. They played a decisive role in the formation of ethnic groups which today are called Azeris and Turks.

In short, I want to reiterate that by differentiating between "Turkoman" and "Turkmen" (as I previously noted, in Turkic there's no such distinction, only "türkmen, türkmenler in plural") by the term "Turkoman", I meant to portray a wider historical ethnic group of Turkic tribes, as opposed to "Turkmen", the term I prefer to use only for the present-day ethnic Turkmen living in Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, parts of northeastern Iran.

Sorry, if the reply seems too complicated, but so is the history as well. As to your suggestionm to create an article, I would be glad to do that, in fact I was planning to create a different article under name "Turkomans". Can you please help me to cancel redirect of "Turkoman" to "Turkmen" so that I could start working on the Turkoman page? Thanks, in advance and please, feel free to contact me on this or other questions should you have them. --Tabib 12:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hi. An anon was messily editing the article today (replacing linked wiki-code with plain text), and i reverted him twice during RC patrol. After the anons last edits you fixed some of his changes. I just rolled back everything to the last good edit before the anon edit, and hence also rolled over your edits. I think most of your edits were only fixes of the anon edits anyway, but could you check if I have removed a contribution of yours? Thanks, and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 15:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the Flag man!

Spread the gosple, teach them! Good to see our cause being defended!--Deli-Eshek 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you guys leave your "Turkish cause" where it belongs?!!!

This is Wikipedia, an international platform, which is neither concerned with petty ethnical causes, nor adolescent POV. We want knowledge here and not a heap of unreflected quotations and personal interpretations. Who cares about your personal problems on this platform? If you have something to bolster your contributions with, in a pertinent fashion, quote your bibliographical sources with precision and hold the quotations against a contester's, saving the Wikipedia reader from your own sentimentalism. This is going too far.--LIGerasimova 00:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your apparent aggression against anything non-Turkish. Rigging postings.

? One would reckon it is some of your postings, dominated by your apparent (personal) TURKISH problems, that constitute vandalism, in this context. It is also apparent that you try to pull a fast one on Wikipedia community, by rigging postings, even asking people to contact you by email (your buddy Parviz?) This is very very bad taste and a shame . This ought to be actually put before Arbitration.---LIGerasimova 08:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have no right to wage such kind of personal attacks on me, without even knowing the problem. Please, refer to the relevant talk page and third party opinions. You simply reformulate Pantherarosa's earlier groundless accusations. I do not think you have Persian background, and therefore unlike Pantherarosa I cannot accuse you in promoting pan-Persian propaganda here, but from your recent "contributions" I am confident, you are not the person who seek an objectivity and truth. As to "my buddy Parviz", at first I thought I know that guy (user Deli-Eshek), but then I contacted actual "Parviz" whom I know and clarified that user Deli-Eshek is not the one I supposed. Is there a crime here? If for you and your "buddies" consider Cambridge History of Iran, many other respected and authoritative academic sources are "Turkish propaganda" then there is no point of further discussions with you.--Tabib 09:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:In order to bring clarity to these accusations and prevent future misunderstandings, the user LIGerasimova referred to the ongoing discussion on Safavids talkpage, which she tried to vandalize and whose arguments were recognized as groundless --Tabib 10:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE also:A quote of my (--LIGerasimova 10:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) )posting about user TABIB's highly questionable methods:

Could it be that we are dealing with a sort of "Turkish Editor Mafia" on this page?

I discovered that Tabib seems to try to pull a fast one on us all: He apparently attempts to rigg this discusson with the help of some "buddies", one of them a certain "Parviz". Everybody, please check Tabib's "contributions" list. He tried to corrupt the editor Deli-Eshek (another "Turkish Cause" poster, above) and asked him to get in touch by email! He may also be using the editor aka "Ulvi I." as a sock-puppet, as could be suspected from his message to Deli-Eshek on the latter's Personal Page. Foul game should not be tolerated here. I have a big big questionmark as to possible "Turkish" motives on the SAFAVIDS article in general. A real shame! --LIGerasimova 09:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Not exactly an honourable fashion to post POV, let allone a pertinent one!

Tabib, not exactly an honourable fashion to post POV, let allone a pertinent one!

I do not involve myself in the content of the SAFAVIDS article, as I am no historian. I simply got alerted by your request for mediation. I was apalled to find you trying to pull a fast one on all of us!! You even try to hide your tracks by deleting part of previous posts: The "buddy" Parviz bit, for example (on Deli-Eshek Personal Page) Do not attempt to outsmart the public, please. You insult our intelligence! --LIGerasimova 10:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, stop spamming my talkpage. It is not a trash for you. As to your "motives", interesting explanation, especially considering that according to [your contribution log] it is your second day as a registered Wikipedia user and in this short period of time your only "contribution" was vandalizing the Safavids page, personal attacks and spamming. So you say, you "got alerted by [my request for mediation"? Hmm, interesting start place for a newbie to start his contribution to Wikipedia...--Tabib 11:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I post on this forum as I see fit and in accordance with Wikipedia rules and regulations

I am an avid Wikepedia reader for 2 Years and my husband has been a VERY active and acclaimed editor since last summer. Unethical conduct shall not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Govern yourself accordingly. I shall alert everybody to your attempts at sneering at other people's righteously posted opinions. Take it ore leave Wikipedia! --LIGerasimova 11:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refer to my reply above. And calm down... --Tabib 11:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi Tabib,

I retracted a bit because I feel a bit uncertain of myself. The Cambridge History of Iran is a good source, and it seems fairly clear that the Safavids were culturally and linguistically Turkish by the 15th century at the latest. However, the exact position of Safi al-Din seems to be extraordinarily unclear. I would certainly be open to a phrasing which asserted more strongly the Turkic heritage of the dynasty. I'm still ambivalent about "of Turkic origins" as a phrase. I think it is substantially correct, but may not be precisely correct if we are working from a notion that we have to determine the ethnicity of Safi al-Din. Since this seems to be unanswerable, I'd prefer we avoid that, and simply focus on the fact that the earliest clear records of the family show them as essentially Turkish. john k 16:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi John,

Ok, I see. It's not surprising that people get confused amidst all this messy and complicated debate. However, as I said, Cambridge History of Iran is not the only authoritative source which talks about Turkic origins of the Safavids, there are other credible Western and even Iranian sources, including medieval chronicles in which, as I stressed, in the Safavids talkpage Sheikh Safi was called a "Turkish/Turkic saint". I also underlined during the discussion that whereas there are serious complications as to the origins of the Safavids, mostly due to the dynasty's deliberate attempts to link their ancestry to that of Imam Ali and Prophet Muhammad, the fact that they were Turkic speaking is an undeniable fact. Therefore, my suggestion to you would be restoration of the initial most correct introductory sentence: "Safavids, a long-lasting Turkic-speaking Iranian dynasty that first established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official religion." I think this description is the most appropriate, correct and truthful. Hope to hear from you on that. --Tabib 05:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tabib - I definitely don't like that one. The later Safavids were not primarily Turkic speaking, but Persian speaking, weren't they? I prefer "of Turkic origins" to "Turkic-speaking". john k 05:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, in fact we are talking about the same thing. Throughout the whole history of the Safavids their native language was Turkic (Azeri) and they were of Turkic origins. Certainly, there is truth in saying that late Safavid period is characterized with more Persianization of the dynasty and the state. The reasons for this transformation are clearly indicated in the Wikipedia Safavids article. But, I want to drag your attention to the fact that in later stages of the Safavid state, although Persian was used much more than Turkic in state affairs, nevertheless the native language of the Safavids remained Turkic and they continued to use Turkic in the court. Please, consider the following excerpt from Adam Olearius, a German tarveller to the Safavid State in mid XVII c.:

"Most of the Persians*, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars (which is the ancient Persia) and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language."' [1]

* In medieval times, term "Persian" was (mistakenly) used to refer to the whole population of the Safavid state (or Persia or Iran) not considering their ethnic background.

Here is another quote from another German traveller Engelbert Kaempfer who travelled to the Safavids state in late XVII c.

A Turkish dialect, which is a native language of the Safavid dynasty, is widely spread in the Iranian palace. This language differs from the usual speaking language of the country population. The Turkish language is spread in the palace and in the houses of high officials and respectable persons and as a result, it came out, that everyone, who wishes to gain the shah's respect speaks in this language." (Onullahi S.M., Hassanov A. G. «About two more unknown letters of the Safavid rulers» (Safavi hokmdarlarinin daha iki na'melum mektubu haqqinda) Baku 1974 p. 85 (in Azeri))

I can bring other sources proving that even in the later stages of the Safavids, when the role of the Persian language and Persian ethnic element in the state increased, the dynasty and the ruling elite itself has preserved its Turkic character and language. Hope this bring more clarity to the issue. --Tabib 07:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinved me. "Turkic speaking" makes more sense, if this is right. I'd like to see some modern accounts discussing this question, but consider me largely convinced. john k 14:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I’m glad to hear that my arguments seemingly convinced you. Initially, the discussion was focused on the origins, and not in later Safavid period. In addition to Olearius and Kaempfer, I can add French traveler Jean Baptiste Tavernier who also traveled to the Safavid court in mid XVII c. and who said that “the language of the court is Turkish” (“Sources on the history of Azerbaijan” (Azerbaycan tarixi uzre qaynaqlar, Baku 1989, p. 185 in Azeri) (unfortunately didn’t find an online reference to this quote to show you directly). I don’t think anyone would seriously claim that Safavids as a dynasty lost their Turkic identity and language in later periods.

I believe I substantially showed in this brief discussion and throughout the whole discussion in the Safavids talkpage that Safavids were Turkish speaking both before and after Shah Ismail I and any attempts to limit Turkic character of the Safavids to only Shah Ismail and Safavids’ earlier years is nothing more than a product of Persian propaganda. Persians and Azeri Turks share a lot of common history and this history is quite complex. If interested in this issue I can recommend reading Brenda Shaffer’s Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity (for review look here).

In sum, I request you John to clearly indicate in the introductory sentence that Safavids were “Turkic-speaking”. You’ve heard all the arguments and counterarguments. It is your decision now. --Tabib 17:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added it back. However, it is certainly not my decision. I have no authority here. The question of what the page should say is to be determined by consensus, and (for better or worse) everyone gets to at least have a say of some sort. Hopefully there won't be any more problems, though. john k 19:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I understand and appreciate your prudence and caution in your approach and your judgment. As you saw from the earlier discussions, there was no way for us achieving a consensus with Pantherarosa aggressively advancing his propaganda and refusing to accept the authoritative sources at hand. As to your role, I wouldn’t be so modest. Your intervention was very timely, it stopped edit and revert war and most importantly, both Pantherarosa and myself accepted you as a neutral third party. Therefore, even if not formal arbiter, I consider your judgment to be more than a simple opinion of a neutral third party. In any case, if Pantherarosa and the like will attempt in the future to alter the major parts of the article pointing to the Safavids Turkic speaking character, I will resort to formal arbitration once again. Thanks. --Tabib 08:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before requesting arbitration, you might want to request formal mediation from the mediation committee. This would be non-binding, and both sides would have to accept. If Pantherarosa, et al, refused to accept mediation, then you'd have a much better case for going to the arbitration committee. john k 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lack of intellectual capacity not concealed by immature perspective and spiteful patriotism

Do some fervently patriotic, youthful spirits really believe they can rewrite history amongst themselves? Who are John and Tabib? It is poor judgment to presume the question posed can be settled among two kids and some Pantherarosa or Deli-Eshek (Nomen est Omen?) characters, by bickering and cackling over them. This is Nursery school style! So far no proof has been established to the contrary of the perception that the Safavid ancestors, prior to Sultan Jonayd, were Persian.Bold text

My reply.--Tabib 13:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Population Census in Nagorno-Karabakh

Dear Tabib:

I am trying to restore facts in the article about Karabahk. If you disagree with my arguments, you have to explain why...

According to the Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabahk was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). That's why it is correct to say that this autonomous region was predominantly Armenian populated even before the conflict. However, you have deleted this statement from the article without negotiating this subject and without discussion. There are also some other well known facts, which you keep removing from the article without any explanation or discussion...

I strongly believe, this is a violation of the very basic principles of Wekipedia.

I hope, we can resolve the conflict in our opinion, not asking for help from the Arbitration Committee . I believe, we can come to a mutual agreement. Let's discuss the subject!

Rovoam 17:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My reply--Tabib 10:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very base views behind repeated violation of the very basic principles of Wekipedia ?

This user has proved UNWORTHY of contribution to Wikipedia. He apperantly suffers from pathogenic INFERIORITY COMPLEXES, obviously on account of his Turkic background (why is that so difficult for him??), that he invariably goes about spamming pertinent editorials with relevant comments or deletions. This must Stop!!!!!!!! --LIGerasimova 19:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism

If you see vandalism in progress, you may list the vandal at WP:VIP. This helps administrators who are on alert to fight the vandalism. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

safavids

Hi tabib; you didnt accept my revision by safavids??????????? this dynasty was iranian, they were only of turkic origin. After "shah abbas" (he moved the Capital into Isfahan) the turkic language at the safavid-court was forgotten also they were not always turkic-speaking. again: the turkic-azeri was never the official language of Persia (or its royal court) this language could be used only to speaking. Persia or rather iran had already a official language with a rich literature. when my argument doesnt convince you, please write me whats, otherwise I would vary the article again. :-] P.S. you know that the azeri's are to iranian. and they are rather Persian than the Turks.

Hi, thanks for message, but frankly I dont know what you are talking about. Who are you? Why you say that I "didnt accept your version"? (?!) The last version was primarily edited by user Slava, who added lots of new info.

Now, Safavids discussion is over, for details you may want to refer to Safavids discussion page. The discussion proved that Safavids were of Turkic origin and were Turkic speaking Iranian dynasty. Some users and anons pushed for their Persian nationalistic POV and did not even stop from vandalizing the page (btw, one of them still vexes me vandalizing my personal page). I believe the page as it is now, has greatly improved and is rather accurate and objective. It doesn't underplay neither Turkic identity of Safavids nor the Persian cultural factor within the Safavids state. As to your claim that Turkic was not used by Safavids in later periods, please, refer to the message above which includes testimonies of XVII c. European travellers confirming that Turkic (Azeri) was used by Safavids in later periods as well. Best regards. --Tabib 14:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Safavids were indeed not Turkic dancers, as user Tabib, our Turkey protagonist, tries to "prove". In fact they were no dancers at all! God only knows where he gets that nonsense from.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. [[Wikipedia:About]], [[Wikipedia:Help desk]], and [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.
+[[Be Bold]] when servicing the '''Ibne''' '''[[User:Tabib|Tabib]]''', as he loves that.
-[[Be Bold]]!
 {{Vip|user=Sam Spade}} 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)