Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey/Archive 1
Dil
Ana sayfada Türkçe'mi kullanalım?
Bu arada hayırlı olsun. Taşın altına elini koyduğun için sağol ;)--Kagan the Barbarian 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bu benimde aklıma geldi, fakat diğer benzer projeleri incelediğimde İngilizce. İngilizce olmasının bir avantajıda İngilizce konuşan Türkler ve hiç Türkçe bilmeyen kullanıcılarında projeye dahil olma ihtimali. Projede yer almak isteyen kullanıcı sayısı 7-8 kişiyi bulduğunda aktifleştirebiliriz. Ugur Basak 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Mantıklı, dışlamayalım Türkçe bilmeyenleri, sonuçta burası İngilizce Wiki. Sayfayı basitleştirerek iyi yapmışsın. Şimdi ihtiyacımız olan şey kalınca bir tarafsız Türkiye tarihi kitabı. Bu arada History of Turkey sayfasının geçmişine baktım, aslında ilk hazırlayan kullanıcı Selçuklulardan başlamış, bir iki cümleden ibaret olsada, sayfayı bu hale getiren Tommiks, amacı neydi bilmiyorum. Neyse oradan başlayalım.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ben başlamadan önce bir belli sayıda kullanıcının gelmesini ve daha sonra bir kaç aday koyarak ilerlemeyi tercih ediyorum. Kişisel fikrim olarakda en kolay olarak Turkey sayfasını FA yapmak güzel olur nede olsa History of Turkey, Turkey sayfasının alt sayfası olarak düşünülebilir. Ana sayfaya en hızlı koyabileceğimiz sayfalardan devam etmek daha mantıklı, tartışmalı maddelerden uzak duralımki yaptığımız işlerdeki verimliliğimiz yüksek olsun. WP:AID sayfasında Osmanlı Devleti ve Atatürk duruyorlar, belki onlar oranın sayesinde FA durumuna gelebilirler. Önemli olan aktif katılımcı sayımızın 5'den fazla olması. Ugur Basak 17:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kullanıcaları beklemek konusunda haklısın, ikimiz varız diye düşündüm bir an. FA konusunda ise, sayfaların FA olması en büyük başarı Wiki'de, ancak bence önce bütün vücut ayağa kaldırılmalı herhangibir Türkiye sayfası FA olmadan önce. Örneğin Ottoman Empire sayfası her ne kadar büyük bir emeğin ürünü olsada şu anki haliyle FA olması yazık bence, büyük bir fırsat kaçıcak. Bütün sayfalar bir bütünlük içinde olsaydı, OE sayfası "distribütör" görevi görürdü diğer Türkiye sayfaları için. Yani su/ilgi kaynağını en verimli şekilde kullanamıycaz, her sayfayı besliyemiycez OE'ye oluşan ilgiden, anlatabiliyor muyum?
Demek istediğimin özeti, FA hedef olmalı ancak şu an daha önemli olan Türkiye'yle ilgili bütün konuları seri yada eş zamanlı olarak bütünleştirmek, düzeltmek, geliştirmek.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bir sayfanın şu an FA olması veya ileride FA olması onun daha çok geliştirilmeyeceği anlamına gelmiyor. OE sayfasına bizim ilgimiz olacak anlamında söylemedim, WP:AID buradan bağımsız bir proje. Neyse uzun lafın kısası, hele aradan 2-3 günlük bir süreç geçsin ve ilgisi olacak kullanıcıları görelim daha sonrası kolay. Ugur Basak 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"Ana sayfaya en hızlı koyabileceğimiz sayfalardan devam etmek daha mantıklı"
Buna cevap olarak söyledim. Dediğin gibi neyse, insanlar toplansın konuşuruz. Polemiğe girmeyelim de, en tehlikeli hastalık o.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben de projeye katıldım. (Bu arada Türkçe ana dilim olmadığını söyleyeyim.) Tarihle çok ilgilenmediğim için o konuda çok şey yapamayacağım galiba (ama düzeltme/düzenleme gibi işler zevkle yaparım—aslında Ottoman Empire makalesinde böyle şeyler çok eksik, mesela dipnotlar falan koymak lazım, vs.). Ancak tarihin yerine kültürle çok ilgim var, özellikle edebiyatla (bildiğiniz gibi herhalde) ve müzikle (mesela Makam makalesini başladım). O yüzden, şimdilik en çok Culture of the Ottoman Empire ile edebiyatla ilgili (Orhan Veli, Fuzuli, vs.) makalelerin üzerinde çalişmaya niyetim var.
Neyse, ben bu mesajı sadece bildirim olarak atıyorum. (Bir de mesajın Türkçesinde hatalar matalar varsa, kusura bakmazsınız inşallah.) Kolay gelsin size. Beraber güzel şeyler yetiştirebilirsek ne güzel olur. —Saposcat 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Saposcat, anadilinin ingilizce olması avantajımıza. Küçük bir öneri olarak proje sayfasını izleme listene alarak takip edebilirsin. Tam çalışır duruma geldiği zaman, seçtiğimiz projeleri toplu olarak hızlı bir şekilde yüksek kalite seviyesine ulaştırabiliriz. --Ugur Basak 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- İzleme listeme aldım zaten; merak etme takip ediyorum. Genel olarak Türkiye'le ilgili makalelerin en büyük eksiklerinden biri dildir (öbürü sürekli POV oldukları). Ben, gerçek hayatta (Wikipedia'nın dışında yani) editörlük yapıyorum iş olarak—o yüzden burada da yaparım, ne olur. —Saposcat 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Benim bu proje ile ilgili temel fikrim az enerji ile çok iş yapabileceğimiz maddelere öncelik vermemiz (en azından bu proje içinde). Türkiye ve Türkiye tarihi ile ilgili en azından temel sayfalarımızı FA durumuna getirebilirsek geriside gelir zaten. --Ugur Basak 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dil. I think we should keep all the debate in English. First of all, this is an open English language site, where all the debate should be available and understandable for all. Secondly, non-Turkish speakers can be able contribute valuably to this article. There is a wide international interest for many aspects related to Turkey, and many people have a good knowledge without necesarily knowing the language. Bertilvidet 12:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
We need a template for History of Turkey. Can someone teach me or better make it for me ;)
In chronological order it should be: Seljuk Turks > Seljuks of Rum > Anatolian beyliks > Ottoman Empire > Modern Turkey
- I don't know much about the making of templates, but I could give it a try (probably using Template:History_of_Turkish_Literature—which I did a bit of work on—as a foundation).
- Also, although your basic outline of what should go in the template is fine, I do have a couple of issues: (a) though I am aware of your objection on Sultanate of Rum's talk page, I still think that "Seljuks of Rum" should stay as "Sultanate of Rum" because not only would it simply look better (two consecutive appearances of the word "Seljuk" would be a bit messy), but also it would adhere more closely (in my opinion and as far as I am aware) to the fact that it was, essentially, a sultanate in the definition of the term; and (b) I think that, rather than phrasing it as "Modern Turkey" (which could potentially be seen to contain a slight hint at a value judgement, "modern" being a quite loaded term), I think that we would do better to phrase it as the fully neutral and factual "Republic of Turkey".
- Anyhow, let me know what you think. By the way, good idea, thinking of a template. —Saposcat 11:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Everything you said I can agree with. It is just that Sultanate of Rum sounded like, I don't know, Kingdom of Scandinavia? Anyway, after all, it will be a subcat of History of Turkey so "Sultanate of Rum" is fine and clear. After the template, we need to revise History of Turkey page itself, it is a disgrace if you ask me. We can use the template as the foundation for the page.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- IMO first we've to think from where we will start. Seljuk Turks or earlier. As we know Seljuks are from Oghuz Turks and in Oghuz Turks page it's written as "Gokturks, Seljuks, and the Ottomans". So we can start from Gokturks. Also, in Gokturks page it's written they are descended from Ashina tribe. If we start from Ashina tribe we can connect all of them and expand all articles with collaboration. Ugur Basak 12:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking, when I first read the template proposal, about the Oghuz Turks, Gokturks, et al. However, that would present a conflict with the template's proposed title, "History of Turkey", insofar as the Gokturks never ventured into what is known as Turkey (i.e., roughly speaking, Anatolia). Thus, were we to go as far back as—or even further than—the Gokturks, we would have to modify the template name accordingly, to something along the lines of "History of the Turks" or, better (so as to avoid the slightly pejorative tone that can unfortunately sometimes be spun into the word "Turk" in the English language), "History of the Turkish People". And if that were done, I would have some worries about fierce arguments and the like arising from certain users, since the history of Turkish people-related articles on Wikipedia has been fairly rife with such events. —Saposcat 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that I think that, overall, it would be better to start with the Seljuk Turks and call the template "History of Turkey", because—apart from the above-mentioned caveats—going back to the Gokturks starts pushing us a bit close to the territory of TurkIC rather than TurkISH. —Saposcat 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then we've two choices; one is about Turkey's history: only geographically, going back to Hitits Sumers etc. and other one is following traces back to Ashina tribe or furhther back.
- I wrote above before your second message. But thinking History of Iran or History of XXX's, most of them go back to BCs. --Ugur Basak 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then we've two choices; one is about Turkey's history: only geographically, going back to Hitits Sumers etc. and other one is following traces back to Ashina tribe or furhther back.
- Ugur, that's the catch of having a history that starts and ends with 10,000 km distance ;). The reason I started with Seljuks is exactly what Saposcat wrote. For before Seljuks, we can just link to history of both Anatolia and Turkic people (or Göktürks and the Ashina tribe). After all, Turkey is the fruit of both civilizations.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think, Uğur, that covering Turkey's history geographically would be a cleaner way to go ahead with the template. But, even more than that—and along the lines of what Kagan seems to be thinking—a more geopolitical/ethnogeographical model would be possibly the best way to go. That is, if we are to call the template "History of Turkey", to start with approximately the time that Anatolia came to be alternatively known as "Turkey"; i.e. with the rise to power in Anatolia of the Seljuk Turks following the Battle of Manzikert.
- The Hittites, et al., certainly are important to the history of Anatolia ... but, there is already the page History of Anatolia to cover pre-Turkish contributions. All this is, of course, a vexing issue in terms of terminology—but then, it always has been. —Saposcat 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually most of History of XXX like articles dealing with geographically. But there isn't a rule saying, you've to deal only geog. But when i think, why we've to start with Seljuks. If you say, there are more than one country descented from Gokturks. History of Azerbaycan can add it too. It is not a problem. Already, Seljuk Turks are in History of Iran as ruling dynasty. But IMO starting with Seljuks look like broken Ugur Basak 13:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Very provisionally, perhaps something like this?—
File:27px-Turkey-Regions.png History of Turkey Series | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seljuk Turks | Sultanate of Rum | Anatolian beyliks | Ottoman Empire | Republic of Turkey |
The picture is just borrowed from another template: very likely a better one could be found. Colors, too, could always be changed (see Web colors for the many, many choices). Also, a vertical, rather than a horizontal, orientation could always be chosen.
And of course, there is still no firm decision on whether the template will be "History of Turkey" or the "History of the Turkish People", etc.; hence, this template is just a provisional idea. Perhaps we should try getting others who have agreed to participate in the project to weigh in on the matter. —Saposcat 13:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- My vote is definitely vertical, definitely without that picture. Also better if we can make the template in white and red font. Frame could be thick and red, inside white and on it the letters again in red.
- Hopefully the others who agreed to participate will log in tonight. I'll send messages to their talk pages so they know we are here.
- Thank you for sparing your time Saposcat.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your opion, but current opinion is more "Near History of Turkey" than "History of Turkey". Also i don't want to argue about this subject much, we must concentrate on improving articles. --Ugur Basak 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Another possibility, verticalized and kırmızized:
History of Turkey |
By category |
Pre-Ottoman Turkey |
Ottoman Empire |
Republic of Turkey |
War of Independence |
If red is used—as you can see—things get painful to read, and (as far as I know, which isn't especially far) the font colors of links cannot be changed, and I think links like these would be good. Moreover, just because the Ottoman (as per Ottoman Flag) and Turkish (as in, "Republic of Turkey") flags were red-based, doesn't necessarily mean that the template has to be red-based as well; there seems little need (to me) to stress any especial color that doesn't have any intrinsic connection with the land of Turkey (just as we wouldn't insist on red, white, and blue if we were discussing the history of the Americas, for example).
History of Turkey |
By category |
Pre-Ottoman Turkey |
Ottoman Empire |
Republic of Turkey |
War of Independence |
With other colors (the second example is just randomly chosen; many others are possible), the strain on the eyes is not quite so bad.
Anyhow, again, I'm just tossing potential ideas for the template's form around. These can all be expanded upon as per the consensus of those involved in the project. —Saposcat 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blue one is much more better. Ugur Basak 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree the second is better although I like red, as you said it is too bright for reading.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the template should start from the pre-Islamic Turks (under a heading like "Eurasian Turkic Empires", with the 2 Selçuk states covered under a heading like "Settlement into Anatolia (or Near East, to put it better)" and then the "Ottoman Empire" and so on). The reason is (I checked the History of Hungarians and Bulgarians who can also trace their roots to the Eurasian geography) that, Turks, to differ from the two peoples mentioned, produced written records in their lands of origin, before the religious and cultural transformations that come with conversion and settlement into new lands, and as such, had a history (of their own telling). --Cretanforever 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think I have the cure for this: Oghuz Turks We can make it start with Oghuz Turks then pass to Seljuks?
- By the way, I went through Stagnation, Decline etc. pages of Ottoman Empire, they require serious work.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Templates
Take a look at the bottom of Oh My Goddess!, those are the navifation template style I prefer to use. I recomend something like that here. Infact Ill be bold and create. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I recall stories that Turks migrated from central asia. Is that not part of this history? --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Turkish history is quite a ride; it starts in Almaty, ends in front of Vienna ;). I think starting with Oghuz Turks then passing to Seljuk Turks is more appropriate. --Kagan the Barbarian 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
To-do list
It's time to make a to-do list. I don't know how will we choose priority, we must determine priorities and start working on article --Ugur Basak 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will keep an eye on the article Battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt) and will try to improve on the "our Emperor's baggage train was lost" version. I have put some remarks in the talk page for that article. I think it is disturbing for some minds that Anatolia was taken over in the 4-5 years by the Selçuk Turks following that Battle (for a primary duration of 20-25 years). --Cretanforever 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am willing to try and handle the articles (and sections of articles) related to literature and literary figures, at the least. Possibly also certain music-related articles/sections of articles (no pop/rock/etc., though: Turkish classical and, to a much lesser extent, Turkish folk music are more my cup of tea). Any sort of help from anyone in these areas, though, would always be much appreciated, of course.
- Also, as a general to-do sort of thing, I think that the maintenance of NPOV should be a top priority, as the lack thereof has habitually plagued Turkey-related articles on Wikipedia (the history of the Kemal Atatürk alone could serve as proof of that, though other examples are numerous indeed). And though I realize that there has been something of a history of POV being introduced (sometimes as heavy as a hammer to the face, sometimes more insidiously) by Wikipedians coming out strongly against Turkey/Turks, it should not be forgotten that POV has been perhaps just as much introduced by those coming out for Turkey/Turks. Both faults should be avoided like the plague; this is an encyclopedia, after all. —Saposcat 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of the POV thing. But what I've realized so far on Wikipedia, Turks aren't really on the offensive in this, they are defensive right now. While Greeks are on every board related to Turks, supposedly fighting Turkish POV, I've seen some Greek pages that definitely require a NPOV hammer to straighten them, they run their horses as they please on Greeks related articles. Anyway bottom line is NPOV is important, if we write the truth with sources, we can always fight back POV pushers more efficiently. But of course we'll definitely have Armenians and Greeks knocking at our door, demanding us to add every single Greek or Armenian dead to the page.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is no ongoing war however there are pov pushers. Pov pushers are to be dealt with properly. Revert waring is often not the ideal way to deal with them. There is a Dispute Resolution process to deal with them. If they are only here to pov push (which most are), they will be sorted out at warp speed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of the POV thing. But what I've realized so far on Wikipedia, Turks aren't really on the offensive in this, they are defensive right now. While Greeks are on every board related to Turks, supposedly fighting Turkish POV, I've seen some Greek pages that definitely require a NPOV hammer to straighten them, they run their horses as they please on Greeks related articles. Anyway bottom line is NPOV is important, if we write the truth with sources, we can always fight back POV pushers more efficiently. But of course we'll definitely have Armenians and Greeks knocking at our door, demanding us to add every single Greek or Armenian dead to the page.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am certain that all of us who signed up for this project are here because we are interested in expanding and improving articles related to Turkey. We all have different approaches, and thus there will inevitabily be differing views on how to weigh and formulate things. So let's concentrate on doing a common effort for a better coverage of Turkey, and deal with POV problems when they appear. Herkese kolay gelsin Bertilvidet 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I'd really like to see Turkey made a featured article. People can start by looking at other featured article countries: Australia, Belgium, Bhutan, India, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China, Nepal. This is the kind of quality we should be aiming for. --A.Garnet 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Turkey article is seriously in an awful condition and requires renovation from head to toe.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Expanding the project
I am not sure about how to fill the project page...I have started several pages related to Turkey (links from my user page), which all are stubs that deserve more attention. Should I list these as New articles?? And where to propose new articles? Maybe we should try to define some sub categories and collaborate within the categories where each of us have knowledge. For instance, I have been thinking of starting as various articles as Semdinli affair, Pera Müzesi, Konya Kebab and Aynur Dogan. I look forward to the collaboration. Bertilvidet 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Turkey -> Turkish issues
Turkey is a referance to a "Land". Turkish, Turks, etc is people. In Turkish; Turkey and Turks may be used for the same meaning but that is not in English. If you use these concepts as same: Turkey -> Turks. or Turks -> Turkey. You will loose the conceptual lik to Turks -> Turkey + Middle East + Central Asia, etc. Also Ottoman Empire is not Turkey. It is at best "Turkish Empire". 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. 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. --Karabekir 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)