Jump to content

Talk:Ali Qushji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sources missing

[edit]

please provide reliable sources for the claims. for example, since he is from samarkand, he is most likely non-turkish. --Xashaiar (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Samarkand a place where speakers of Turkic languages live? Besides, since his name is Turkish, and since he lived his professional life in the Ottoman Empire, we can at least be sure he assumed an Ottoman-Turkish identity. 88.240.230.67 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. samarkand, at that time and even today, was mainly persian. 2. language in not ethnicity 3. name plays no role, otherwise most muslims would then be arab. 4. ottman identity is not defined in my 24-volume dictionary.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up: i found some sources that claim he was persian. but we should find better sources. that's why i did not put it on the introduction the source is <<G. A. Russell, The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-century England, BRILL, 1994, ISBN 9004098887, p. 162>>. .--Xashaiar (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This looks like a POV, you disregard Turkic presence in Samarkand. 2. Language is an evidence of ethnicity. 3. Name is an evidence of ethnicity. While Turks assumed Arab names, it was not the other way around. 4. See articles like Ottoman Turks or Culture of the Ottoman Empire. Filanca (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you recognise of being involved in editing an encyclopædia?--Xashaiar (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I am answering to your statements. 193.202.18.2 (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in opening section

[edit]

I think User Filanca's changes , [1] ,are not correct due to some Wikipedian guidelines :
1- Using non-English (Turkish ) name in the Opening is against conventions.
2-Although there is controversy about his ethnicity , but anyway , he was not sure an ethnic Turk of Turkey , and the presented source says : "a Turk from central Asia" . The page Turk does not redirect to a known page , but to a disambiguation page that may have many many meanings : it can not guide the reader and is of no help.
3- Using question mark mark in the Information box is meaningless : does it means the citation needed tag {{cn}} ?
4- He was not always in Ottoman empire : He was in Tabriz , Kerman , Samarghand , Herat and so many other places out of Ottoman empire , and in a short period of time , also in Ottoman empire , then why persisting in adding "an Ottoman" ?
5- Kuşçu/Qushji does not means bird specialist but Royal falcon trainer. By using bird specialist , the reader may think he was a bird biologist!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my opinons about what is said above.
1-"Kuscu" is English and seems more popular than other variants (including "qushji), therefore perfectly in line with Wikipedia guidelines, so let us switch to that one.
2-I changed "Central Asian Turk" to "Turkic" which is technically a better term.
3-Agreed.
4-He was Ottoman in the sense that he became a subject of the Sultan, moved his house and job to Istanbul, lived the rest of his life there and his family stayed there after his death. Therefore, no matter his ethnic origin, his Ottoman identity will remain. Compare, for example, with Yves Tanguy, who was French in ethnic origin and nationality, but listed among American painters.
5-Agreed and since the meaning of his name is of imporatance, I indicated that in the article.
Filanca (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think due to the English orthography, Qushji is more correct(English) . The word Qoph after language reform in modern Turkish has no equivalent . As an example , the word Q in Qur'an is written in Turkey as Kur'an , but it is not English . The word Shin is transliterated as "Sh" in English . The word Che can be transliterated as ji or chi ( as in chin = /tʃ/in).
Why do you think "Turkic" is more technically accepted than "Central Asian Turk"? The source that you mentioned uses Central Asian Turk word by word , and using the word Turkic is using an ambiguous word .
About calling him as Ottoman , the problem is in that his career as a scientist was completely evolved outside the Ottoman empire and thus calling him an Ottoman scientist seems to be controversial. Anyway , in comparison with Yves Tanguy, I think that is reasonable to add the other countries that are also the places that he was resident at (e.g : Iran ,Uzbekistan and etc ) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more important if we consider the number of reliable sources using alternative spellings. When I made a books search, Kusci spelling appeared to be more popular. Turkic might be technically more correct since it has a clearly defined article but "Central Asian Turk" is also OK: since that makes him Turkic, and the article indicates clearly that he was from Central Asia, there is no difference actually. As you said, we might add other countries where he was born or spent an significant part of his career. Filanca (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proving the claim of prevalency of a name in English Wikipedia has a known process of Search engine test and I doubt you may have falsely count the pages in Turkish in your search among the English pages .Anyway , due to use English,and also due to the fact that a name should be used that can be read by the English-language user , and many may don't know the pronunciation of Turkish signs , I do advice again to change it to English orthography .
I don't get what you said about "since it has a clearly defined article" . The reference "Amir Hasan Siddiqi, Cultural centres of Islam, p. 90" clearly says he has been a "Central Asian Turk" : then why we may change that clear statement to an ambiguous one(Turkic)?As an example ,take the Saladin that has been a Kurd , and the fact Kurds are Iranic , then why should we ignore the plain text of the reference and use the Iranic instead of Kurdish in the article ?
And in determining the significance, I think it is reasonable to count his first 67 years of life (outside Ottoman)as more significant than his last 3 years of life (in Ottoman).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sites like this do not seem to be quite a WP:RS to the origin of Ali Qushji. I suggest that additional references are provided to the claims about allegedly Persian heritage. Atabəy (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopédique Larousse

[edit]

As it can be seen here,Encyclopédique Larousse doesn't have any article about Ali Qushji, and the given citation about him from that encyclopedia is wrong.Aliwiki (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

Are we sure the term "Persian" in the source refers to a specific ethnicity (i.e., the West Iranian language/culture)? I'm asking this because I've seen sources that describe someone as "Persian" then a sentence later would refer to them as having an [insert another ethnicity] origin. For example, see the Encyclopedia of Islam article "Ahmad-i Djam". (2nd ed., vol.1, p.283) In this case, I'm not sure if the source is making a specific claim about a person's ethnicity/origin, or is it just using the word "Persian" in its broader geographical sense? Besides, these ethnic or-statements are not encyclopedic in the lede. It is best to move such statements to the "Biography" section. Wiqi(55) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even better for a supposed "new user" IP(s) to stop removing referenced information. Also, I really do not appreciate your veiled support for battleground behavior of certain editors,[2],[3] since this isn't the first time I have seen you supporting disruptive, insulting editors[4] and receiving thanks from one of them.[5] Also, your personal interpretation of what a source states is not allowed here, check out original research. Perhaps you should voice your concern over ethnicity at Erasmus, Frederic Chopin, and Galileo Galilei. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought the edit war has ended (my comment was posted only one minute after the IP has returned, which I haven't noticed). I'm also a content editor and hardly ever comment on editor behavior. So let's stick to the content please. I'm not sure what does Erasmus et al have to do with this, as none of them are described using an ethnic or-statement in the lede, or using a problematic term such as "Persian". Also, just assuming that the source is using "Persian" to make an ethnicity claim would not be inline with WP:SYNTH. Because in this case you're combining two sources to make an "or"-statment (your interpretation), even though it is possible for someone to be "Persian and [insert ethnicity]" (like in the EI2 article). So my question is why the "or" and not the "and"? Both are valid interpretations given what is currently in the article. Wiqi(55) 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not making/combining/interpreting anything. In your desperate attempt to assign the addition of the "or" and references to me, since you never comment on editor behavior, you should have checked the article history. Neither of those sources are mine, nor the addition of the "or".[6] Why don't you contact the numerous editors that have worked on this article and invite them to discuss this "issue"? It would be more productive than promoting the deletion of reference(s) and referenced information by disruptive editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV wording

[edit]

Continued POV wording by user:Akocsg, is giving undue weight to Turkic ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali Qushji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Qushji&oldid=1209178204"