Talk:Araksi Çetinyan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Araksi Cetinyan)

Armenian script[edit]

As long as I understand, Արաքսի Չէդինեան (formerly used in this article) = Araksi Çedinyan, Արաքսի Չեթինյան = Araksi Çetinyan. Takabeg (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as you understand but you don't, at times. That source is written in Armenian therefore uses Armenian characters. Find a Chinese internet website with the news and you will write her name in Chinese characters... Not acceptable. Please remove it yourself. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:E4024 claimed If we find the news in a Chinese source, will we write the name in Chinese characters?! Removed "sourced nonsense". But this person is an Armenian. In Turkey Armenian citizens use his/her own name also in Armenian script (See: Hrant Dink, Sevan Nişanyan). If she were member of the Chinese community in Turkey, Chinese character can be added. But she was member of the Armenian community, Chinese characters (for example 阿拉斯 切廷扬 = Araksi Chetinyan) is needless. Takabeg (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go do it with the "Kardashian"s if you can. WP is the same for all, but national disruption enters easier on articles considering Turkey and Turkish people, as Turkish Wikipedians clearly are much less in number than the American colleagues and perhaps most of us are already "over-bored" with these stupidites to spare time to correct them. (BTW also look at the etymology of "çetin" as I see you have a lot of time for reading.) I am removing those letters. --E4024 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian's father was a third-generation Armenian American. Araksi Çetinyan was an Armenian. Takabeg (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian "was born to Armenian parents" but we do not use those letters either. I wonder if that it is because you and your good friends do not contribute to that page... --E4024 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Probably File:Araksi cetinyan.jpg is not the photo of Araksi Çetinyan but Günseli Başar. Takabeg (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another honest mistake... --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt my mistake. It was the mistake of certain newspaper sources. I just reflected them. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source falsification or another "honest" mistake?[edit]

The source No 5 (at the moment) refers to the 1929 beauty contest in Turkey and not this one. As we have in this article a user who frequently makes "honest mistakes" I wanted to attract attention to this situation. Someone please remove that edit as I do not like to be taken as I have a personal issue with any user. Thanks.--E4024 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OK ? Takabeg (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more source falsification[edit]

Here: "According to the information given by Mr. Alen Mouradian, the organizer of the competition; the first contest had organized on May 3rd in Istanbul, Turkey which is thousands of miles away from here.

The competition has held at Beyoglu district of Istanbul, in Melek Cinema Hall and the winner was Miss. Araksi Çetinyan, who was working in the cinema as place demonstrator. But when the newspapers claimed that Miss. Araksi Çetinyan was favored, the organizers deemed that the contest doesn’t done and retrieve the title given to Araksi Çetinyan.

If the title of Miss. Araksi Çetinyan was not ignored, Miss Cavagnaro of whom her beauty browsed around tongue to tongue would not receive this title."

This is from one of the sources. The source says Miss Çetinyan was favoured and her title retrieved.

We have a serious problem here. I suggest the user who makes continuous "honest mistakes" be blocked from editing WP. I may show the other "honest mistakes" (I mean the ones that I have been able to detect) in case there is an administrative interested in this situation... --E4024 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. She still won. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certain that Araksi won first place prize. And then it was disseized. See Araksi’nin tacı nasıl elinden alındı (How Araksi's cornet was disseized ?) Takabeg (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to ‘‘Güzellik Kraliçeleri ve Güzellik Müsabakalarının Tarihçesi’’ which was published in 1932,

‘‘Türkiye'de ilk güzellik müsabakası, altı yedi sene evvel bir film şirketinin tertibi ile Melek Sineması'nda yapılmıştır. Bu müsabaka, ciddi ve muntazam bir şekilde tertip edilmediği için iyi olmamıştır. Sahneye çıkan kızların bazıları alkışlar, bazıları ıslıklarla karşılanmış, bir takım delikanlı grupları kendi tanıdıkları ve beğendikleri kızlar lehinde gürültülü nümayişler yapmışlar, nihayet birinciliği, aynı sinemada halka yer gösteren Madmazel Araksi Çetinyan isminde bir Ermeni kızı kazanmıştır. Bu müsabakanın mükafatı, birincinin sinema artisti olarak Amerika'ya gönderilmesi olduğu halde Madmazel Araksi Çetinyan'ın hâlâ İstanbul'da olması maksadın, müsabakayı tertip eden film şirketinin üste para da kazanarak kendisine reklâm yapmak isteyen bir açıkgözlüğünden ibaret olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu ilk güzellik müsabakası halk ve gazeteler tarafından istihza ile karşılanmıştır.’’

Hürriyet took this from the book of Gökhan Akçura. Abdullah Muradoğlu also quoted same sentence.

And according to ‘‘Güzellik Kraliçeleri ve Güzellik Müsabakalarının Tarihçesi’’, Araksi was working for the sinema.

Takabeg (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


@User:E4024: I will control them. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility etc.. again. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not Turkish...you're not taken seriously. Is this a justifiable reason for disregarding the first beauty pageant in Turkey and seizing the crown of an Armenian woman? It's not like Araksi Cetinyan lost her beauty qualifications right after the competition was over. Therefore, there is no other assumption left for us to consider other than the fact that there are large sociopolitical factors that forced her to give up her crown. These factors have nothing to do with her beauty, which debases the entire nature of a beauty contest. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not taken seriously, that should be because of your past and present attitude in WP (copyvio, misuse of sources, "honest mistakes" etc); although that is not my case. I take you seriously and observe this pattern of contributions because they all yield one to think that you are not editing WP with an NPOV (objective) approach but your contributions are all aimed at pushing a personal agenda product of a national(ist) POV. You know that better than anyone, this is why you make the above "projection" which also constitutes an attack on Turkish Wikipedians. --E4024 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "If you're not Turkish...you're not taken seriously." it was in reference to the Mustafa Özgür's "Ahlaksızlık 80 yaşında" source because it said it was not taken seriously because Turkish girls were not accredited. This has nothing to do with you or Turkish Wikipedians. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I insist you stop calling me a "nationalist", "racist", trying to get me banned with "SPI"'s, and constantly trying to poke fun at my mentioning of "honest mistake". Please respect the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Civility. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That blog? No "normal editor" would use something like that as a source in WP. Neither an expert on usurping sources who is very active around here dared do that. You look at the mirror and decide if you are nationalist or not; I only look at your pattern of contributions and see that they are all dedicated to pushing a certain nationalist POV. I do not remember having called you racist (show me where, if it is not another of your "honest" mistakes) but if I did that it should have been out of despair/frustration for those biassed edits of yours. --E4024 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a blogger published it in his/her own blog, Mustafa Özgür's article is not a blog. His article was published in Vakit, which is an Islamist newspaper. Takabeg (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than "misuse" of sources[edit]

User Proudbolsahye is destroying WP. Now that their article has been demonstrated not to depend on the NPOV and good-faith use of reliable sources but the misuse of dubious sources, they began lying. I just removed a lie "that the said contest was invalidated due to "lack of ethnic Turkish women participating" (because there is nothing like that in the given sources) and they reverted my removal with this edit summary: "Please read hurriyet source number 7 " “Namuslu her Türk kızı” müsabakaya iştirak edebilirken bar kadınları yarışmadan men edilmiştir.” That source is about the first beauty contest in Turkey realised in the year 1929. It says that every modest (decent) Turkish girl may attend and "women of bars" are prohibited from participation. Miss Araksi Çetinyan has attended the contest as one of the participating modest (decent) Turkish girl and finished as third. I have no clue what this has to do with the so-called contest in 1925 (or 26 ?). (The "bar women" is a qualification of those times referring to certain professions and has nothing to do with the participating ladies; it is about those other ladies who would not be accepted to the contest. And I repeat this is about the contest of 1929 and has nothing to do with this article. --E4024 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some bad sources. Im just trying to find the reason for the public disapproval for the event thats all. The 1929 event implied that every Turkish woman should participate suggesting that Turkish women weren't part of the 1925 competition. Also, please dont call me a destroyer of WP. Remember: Wikipedia: Civility. Proudbolsahye (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This contradiction (1925 or 1926) was caused by the sentence: Türkiye'de ilk güzellik müsabakası, altı yedi sene evvel bir film şirketinin tertibi ile Melek Sineması'nda yapılmıştır. in "Güzellik Kraliçeleri ve Güzellik Müsabakalarının Tarihçesi"). According to 21st century-writers (e.g. Yüksel Göğebakan, Hakan Yurdakul etc..), 1926. Takabeg (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • E4024's claim And I repeat this is about the contest of 1929 and has nothing to do with this article. is pointless. Araksi participated in both pageants. Takabeg (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Proudbolsahye admits above tacitly "an effort to synthesize and editorialise what is not in the sources", and I add to that (according to their preconceived POV, IMO). Their claim is: "The 1925 or 26 contest was not taken seriously because Turkish girls did not participate." Where is the reliable source confirming this? (And the invalidation of the title? To what did it owe? Academic sources say "favouring". No effort to synthesize that fact?) The other user's opinion or sources have nothing to do with the essence of the specific discussion, although the reliable sources provided only add more weight to my general explanations. The Blogspot entry titled "Immorality in its 80th year" added to that blog in 2009 must be an academic criticism of the Turkish Revolution; I especially appreciate the words "they made girls walk around in swimsuits" in reference to the first Turkish Beauty Contest organised by the newspaper Cumhuriyet in 1929. (Note that the previous contest "not taken seriously and invalidated" did not even carry any reference to Turkey; see the Miss Globe Organisation article.) BTW I would also like to see those photos in swimsuit of 1929; I wonder if they used tangas back then... --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we leave the article as is because it satisfies the viewpoint of "contest wasn't taken seriously" and at the same time it mentions Araksi Cetinyan winning the pageant. Hopefully, when more sources and publications are done regarding this subject, we will understand fully as to why the pageant "wasn't taken seriously". Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More on sources[edit]

The source no 6 -as of this moment- is not titled "Women and Culture" (that is the title of an antology of articles) and in that antology Dr Yüksel Göğebakan (see "References" of our article) appears with an academic article titled "WOMEN AS THE MOTHER GODDESS CULT IN ANATOLIA" (whose abstract in English is also provided). This article deals with the paganic concept of "Mother Goddess" in Anatolia and does not mention anywhere the first, second, or any other beauty pageant realised in the Republic of Turkey. No need to say, it does not make any mention of Ms Çetinyan or any other beauty queen, with a recognised or "retrieved" title. That article could be helpful as a source in the articles considering Anatolia and Kybele and similars (in case it has not been already used, but I doubt that without even checking because of my prior observation of how Turkish sources are generally neglected in WP considering Turkey's ancient past) but has no place in this one. I think some users add sources without reading them. --E4024 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ozgur[edit]

EtienneDolet, please show me exactly where it says that the winner's Armenian ethnicity was the reason for the annulment of the contest. Parishan (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "1926 yılında İpek Film Şirketi tarafından düzenlenmek istenen güzellik yarışmasında Madmazel Araksi Çetinyan isimli bir Ermeni kızı birinci seçilmiş; fakat Türk kızlarının itibar etmediği bu yarışma dikkate alınmamıştı." Clearly, with an Armenian winner and a lack of Turkish participants, which is what the source exactly says, the contest was ultimately disregarded. It was actually annulled but the Ozgur chose the word disregarded. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not say that at all. The exact translation is: "In 1926, at a beauty contest attempted by İpek Film Şirketi, an Armenian girl named Miss Araksi Çetinyan was chosen as the winner; however, the contest, which had not drawn the attention of Turkish girls, was disregarded." How in the world does this translate into "was annulled because the winner was Armenian"? Parishan (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Türk kızlarının itibar etmediği bu yarışma dikkate alınmamıştı means that the contest did not take into consideration Turkish women in the contest. "...dikkate alınmamıştı" refers to the contest as a whole not being taken into notice or regard. Also, the word fakat is important because it is conjunction between the first clause of the and the second (B was a result of A). I don't see why this should be debatable because it was true. I don't believe any Turkish girls participated in that contest. Why would a beauty pageant contest be expected to draw in the attention of Turkish girls anyways? I have also stumbled upon this article by Taraf which brushes up on her Armenian identity and that the disorganization of the contest was merely an excuse conjured up by the Turkish press. Ataturk took it a step further and made it a national event couple years later. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"that the contest did not take into consideration Turkish women in the contest" - No, because in that case, the sentence would have been structured as "Türk kızlarına itibar etmemiş bu yarışma dikkate alınmamıştı". In Turkish, the intransitive verb itibar etmek takes the dative case (-(n)a), while the genitive case (-(n)ın) marks the possessor and not the possessed, meaning that the act of not paying attention belong to the Turkish girls and not to the contest (and this makes total sense because it is up to the women to sign up for the contest and not up to the contest to go around looking for candidates). The conjunction fakat follows a semicolon, which means that the two clauses are independent and that there is no subordination involved, meaning the act of choosing an Armenian winner has nothing to do with the act of the contest being disregarded.
I have also stumbled upon this article by Taraf which brushes up on her Armenian identity and that the disorganization of the contest was merely an excuse conjured up by the Turkish press - the article says that the contest was annulled under the pretext of bad organisation, but again, it says nothing about the winner's Armenian origin being the reason for the annulment. You are resorting to WP:OR. Parishan (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Itibar etmediği" and "Itibar etmemiş" signify the same thing. Both are past tenses, but carry different suffixes only because they are "seen" and "unseen" past verbal actions respectively. -diği, however, is the past tense more commonly used by journalists. Semicolons conjoin two related clauses. Any grammar book would say so [1]. If indeed they were entirely independent, it would've required a period instead. And I see the word fakat bridging that gap even further. And in regards to Taraf, I didn't say that I would use that source in the article nor did I say that the Taraf article says the contest was annulled. The article is clear in saying that disorganization was an 'excuse' (key word: bahane) for the contest to be widely rendered invalid. That means that there's other reasons to its annulment or invalidation or whatever you want to call it which the article actually brushed up on.
But I do agree in changing the sentence a bit. I'd like it to reflect the source as much as it can. So I think this can be a good compromise:
"Itibar etmediği" can be translated into many things. So I also thought "...the contest did not draw in Turkish girls..." may also be a good option. If you insist on something else, I think it be best to bring in a third-party Turkish speaker at that point. At any rate, as you can see, I removed the word annulled. Again, I initially chose that word because I had read from many sources up to that point that said the contest was annulled or "geçersiz sayılmiş". Some sources stated that her crown was taken away from her. I hope you understand that we're dealing with very few sources here so it's kind of like solving a puzzle. Therefore, every source we get a hand on is vital. I wish I could access the archives of the newspapers of those days. With that, I'm sure we can be provided with a better picture of what happened. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are inventing grammar as you go along, which makes me seriously doubt the level of your command of Turkish. "Etmediği" and "etmemiş" are participles, and they are not synonymous at all, in fact they are completely polar, because the participle in -dik refers to the object of the sentence (Kız elma yedi > Kızın yediği elma / "The apple that the girl ate") and the participle in -miş refers to the subject (Kız elma yedi > Elma yemiş kız / "The girl that ate the apple"). It is like the difference between կերած and կերեր in Western Armenian. How could one even view them as synonymous? In addition, the first one always suggests there is a possessor (in this case, the noun phrase "Turkish girls" in the genitive) and it is itself marked in the third-person possessive (etmediğ-im, etmediğ-in, etmediğ-i, etmediğ-imiz, etmediğ-iniz, etmedik-leri). I am quoting you a passage from Göksel and Kerslake's book Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge, 2005, p.66), the most recent and up-to-date reference grammar of this language:

Apart from indicating the possessor in a noun phrase (14.3.2, 14.4), possessive suffixes are also added to the subordinating suffixes -DIK, -(y)AcAK, -mA and -(y)Iş (8.5.1) to mark the subject of the subordinate clause: ilgilendiğimiz (konular) ‘(the topics) that we are interested in’,

In the same manner, "itibar etmediği (yarışma)" means "(the contest) that they did not deem important" and not the opposite. Otherwise, by your logic, the phrase "Çocukların gittiği okul" should be translated as "The school that goes to the children". Therefore may I insist on the wording "was annulled, because Turkish women showed no interest in it." Parishan (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked about your personal opinions towards my understanding of Turkish so please don't get personal with me. All I said was that -miş is used as a suffix to indicate unseen past verbs. As for your insistance with the showed no interest proposal, I think it's a suitable compromise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting personal with you, but if you voluntarily take on the task of providing an explanation for a source written in a language other than English (after all, it was you who provided the source in Turkish, not me) and if your continuous misinterpretation of that source due to a language barrier affects the quality of the article, it is quite legitimate on my part to express concern with regard to your understanding of that language.
Just a side note: yes, I do agree with you that with the limited sources at hand, there is only so much we can work with. At the same time, it astounds me as to how at ease you were with quickly reverting my original edit back to that extremely dubious version of the article, leaving it linger there in the duration of this discussion, yet knowing perfectly well that there were serious "puzzles to solve" in that regard.
In any event, I am content that we have reached a consensus. I have modified the text. Parishan (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think your personal doubts over my knowledge of the Turkish language helps this discussion. You've had your share of mistakes too when it comes to Turkish vocabulary, but I keep the good faith when it comes to my personal opinions over your understanding of the language.
For your side note, my revert was in good faith considering that itibar does not mean reliable. Referring to a talk page to help sort out a proper translation is never discouraged. The "puzzles to be solved" was not in direct reference to that specific issue, but to the contest as a whole and the reasons why the contest was annulled.
And yes, I am glad we have come to an agreement as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reinserted the reference to the winner's Armenian origin in an attempt to tie it to the annulment of the contest. May I remind you that I never agreed to this wording. There is nothing in the sources that suggests that the Armenian origin and the annulment have anything in common. Parishan (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clause preceing the semicolon highlights why Turkish women weren't interested in the competition. Semicolons are used to conjoin two relevant clauses together. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A semicolon simply separates two independent clauses and it in no way suggests an "explanatory" relation of the latter sentence to the former. Where did you get that impression? If the source said "Ermeni kızının birinci seçildiğinden Türk kızlarının itibar etmediği bu yarışma dikkate alınmamıştı", I would agree that the second part explains the first, but in the structure that we have, this is not apparent at all. It is like saying that the lack of interest on the part of Turkish girls is explained by the fact that the contest was organised by İpek Film Şirketi, because the company was "mentioned in the clause preceding the semicolon". Parishan (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independent clauses shouldn't mean that those clauses are unrelated. Any grammar book would says that the job of the semicolon is to combine related clauses [2]. To further separate the relation between two clauses found in a sentence, we use the period. So there's no need to add a -den suffix because the semicolon already does that job. But I believe that a good compromise would be to translate it directly.
Or what might be an even better idea is just to quote the whole sentence in the article. So we can have something like this:
We can paraphrase the second option even further if need be. What I like about the second option is that the semicolon will remain intact in the same location. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to simply quoting the sentence, except "which showed no interest by Turkish girls" does not sound well in English. I suggest: "(first part); however, the contest, which Turkish girls took no interest in, was ultimately disregarded". The latter word is more appropriate, given that we decided to copy the quote as it is. Parishan (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Araksi Çetinyan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Araksi Çetinyan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Araksi_Çetinyan&oldid=1206602210"