Talk:Turkic alphabets

Comments

Merging with Orkhon script

Another confused creation by Barefact. Apparently based on fringe sources entirely. Needs to be checked, cleaned up, and merged into Orkhon script. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well how many times do we have to read unsubstantiated claims by this particular user? Those Chorasmian quotes are Chorasmian and not Turkish! Chorasmian is an eastern Iranian language. [1]. The first Chorasmian coins were struck about the turn of the 1st century b.c.e., in imitation of the tetradrachms of Eucratides, the last Graeco-Bactrian king (ca. 175-55 b.c.e.; Va¥nberg, 1977, pp. 13, 50, 64) [2]. But somehow the author is claiming these Aramaic inscriptions as Turkic writing. Note there is unanimous agreement the oldest Turkic writing is Okrhon. I actually blame some admins for allowing this sort of abuse of scholarship to keep going for more than 6 months. And no I am not going to expend that much energy fighting it since I have already brought down two/three articles from this guy , but I guess that was no sufficient. There should be a law against breaking OR 100+x times and citing non-academic sources. Some of the other images are also copy right violation for sure. [3] --alidoostzadeh 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I particularly liked "suggesting an Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician" -- that's pure surrealism, why on earth does "Indo-European alphabet" link to Ruis? Enough said. As Ali says, Barefact has been pushing surreal nonsense for months, and I daresay we are somewhat justified in being a little bit peeved at his newest creations. dab (𒁳) 08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, dear friends. We're again discussing another controversial issue. If we just focus on the title "Turkic alphabets", in my opinion, this page is deemed appropriate, apart from the discussion of the origin of Turkic languages. For this reason, i find the page useful. You may object its content, that's another issue. The article will probably be improved in the future. For this reason, i find this quick merging (which is done without any discussion) inappropriate. I want to apologize at the very beginning for my revert to the initial version. Let's discuss the issue before quick deletion like merging. With warmest regards. E104421 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Aramaic Chorasmian inscription and all the invalid information. This is unacceptable unscholarly behavior. --alidoostzadeh 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also felt that it could be better to fix any problems with the text rather than a quick merge into Orkhon script. I totally understand the concerns regarding reliability of used sources and the like, but it also makes sense to have a main article for all Turkic alphabets (if this is a valid and recognized grouping in linguistics) and have links to the articles of particular scripts comprising the group. But if it is that these alphabets are all descended from the Orkhon script, then it makes more sense to have the Orkhon script article as the main article and list these as a variants on that article, as it is now. The current solution (having this as a disambiguation list) is also close to what I thought and seems also fine to me until perhaps the need for a larger main article for an overall treatment of all these alphabets arises. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it isn't (a recognized grouping): there just the Old Turkic script, named after the Orkhon valley, with its Yenisei and Talas variants, and the descendant Hungarian (i.e. non-Turkic) script. That's it, and that's what has been in the article all along. Other "Turkic alphabets" are just modern alphabets as employed for Turkic languages, viz., Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic, as Turkic alphabet now states. dab (𒁳) 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. I was trying to say that, just with a quick look before merging, I got the impression that these alphabets (now under the variants section of the Orkhon script article) were distinct alphabets of their own, on the same hierarchical level with Orkhon alphabet, and this page (Turkic alphabets) could serve as a super-node for all of these. I can still interpret the text in that variants section this way (please see the text there): Turkic alphabets divided into four groups (Asiatic, Eurasiatic, Turanian, Southern Europe), and Orkhon alphabet is just one specific alphabet somewhere down in this tree (Turkic alphabets->Asiatic->Orkhon). And there are other alphabets on the same level of hierarchy with Orkhon (like Turkic alphabets->Eurasiatic->Don alphabet). I think the fact that Orkhon alphabet itself is listed as a node in that list forces me to do so. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I am very doubtful about the "Asiatic, Eurasiatic, Turanian, Southern Europe" groupings. This is a geographical classification of inscriptions, with a certain variation in glyphs no doubt. There can well be a "Talas" or "Yenisei" sub-article to the Orkhon one, if people bring up enough material. There can be a detailed discussion of the inscription corpus, anything. Once this is established, we will still be able to branch out geographically or script-variant oriented sub-articles (much as we do it on Runes). As it is, the material we have so far fits comfortably into a single article, and Barefact is most welcome to improve that, it would be great to have a full discussion of, say, the "Talas" inscription corpus. This isn't about censorship at all, it's about keeping work on the article focussed and under control. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• the attempt to merge brought about removal, without any debate or presentation of any evidence, of the substantial material pertaining to the Turkic alphabets article and belonging outside of the limited scope of the Orkhon alphabet. These are the definition of the "Turkic alphabets", and depictions of the Hunnic material contained in the UN publication, illustration of the alphabet's surviving monuments, and (yet incomplete) charachterization of the various alphabets and the related corpuses of inscriptions associated with each alphabet. The material "we have so far" fits comfortably into a single article only if the essence of the material is censored out, it is clear that without censoring essential material and its spotty replacement with unsubstantiated POVs, even the "material we have so far" does not fit in the containment of the Orkhon Script. Barefact 07:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chorasmian coins

These Chorasmian coins were published by B.Vainberg, and studied by numismatist A.Mukhamadiev, who has a long list of achievements in numismatics [[4]]. A.Mukhamadiev published his work on Chorasmian coins in 1995, it is widely known in the field. Blaming a fellow editor for filling in an inglorious gap on the pages of WP seems to be an objectionable personal attack. Blame the mint that put Chorasmian tamga on the coin(s), or an engraver who made a linguistic mistake. If needed, I will gladly provide a faximile copy of the page with the picture and text. Barefact 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Iranica article was written by VAINBERG. [5]. It is in English and the language in use is Iranian Chorasmian and not Turkish. It is published by a well known academic source.[6].

And note wikipedia English requires reliable English sources foremost and only when there is dearth of sources then one should seek other languages. In this case there is no dearth of sources. Every time you bring some scholar like Amanjolov or Mukhamadiev you claim they are well known where google shows otherwise and the only page that comes up is your own page! So for the millionth time, once again you are caught since vainberg has clearly specified the language of those coins. Note from the article: these coins are important primary evidence for the Old Chorasmian language and the region's post-Achaemenid history because of the paucity of preserved sources for this period.. You have to stop this method of quoting some unknown Kazakh scholar and then attributing it to some well known scholar. The scholar in Chorasmanian langauge is Professor Mackenzie. He gets close to a 1 million hits in google [7]. Chorasmian coinage is well studied and note it is in Iranian Chorasmian [8]. The fact that you call it Turanian language or script shows that your source is not correct as there is no language called Turanian that has been found. The script is Aramaic and the language is Chorasmian. There was a group called Turanian language about 110 years ago where every non-IE and non-semitic language including chinese and dravidian were inlucded in it, but such classification is no more. --alidoostzadeh 14:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated links to Iranica articles: Chorasmian coinage, Chorasmia Zsigri (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your statements is that they are global and not specific. Not a single word in article or illustration addresses Old Chorasmian language or Chorasmian language at all, and does not contradict anything that Bela I. Vainberg stated in her article. You need to bring a reference showing that A.Mukhamadiev reading is incorrect, and we can discuss it. You also need to bring yourself to a more civic level of discussion, without personal attacks that you seems are objecting to when they are directed toward yourselves. If you can bring the reading of Professor Mackenzie, we all will benefit, wheather it agrees with the reading of Professor A.Mukhamadiev or contradicts it. You've done OK with Harmatta's reading of Issyk inscription, so you know the value of subject discussion. Barefact 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this a little bit. There is just one Turkic alphabet, in use ca. 7th to 13th centuries, but there are a handful of scattered inscriptions outside the Orkhon valley, and "Orkhon script" in the narrow sense may be taken to refer to the Orkhon inscriptions exclusively. We can debate moving the article to a title like Old Turkic alphabet, but there can be no way we split off a fork based on fringe sources alleging 4th century BC "Turkic alphabets". dab (𒁳) 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You would need to bring references of what you reviewed a little to substantiate your statements. Any debate will help, including the Old Turkic alphabet. I guess there would be a need to define the subject first, and see what the difference is. If you already have a clear concept, please share it with the others. Your dismissal of scholars as "fringe sources" needs to be supported by references to be taken seriously. And anybody literate can read that the current draft of this article or its illustrations do not give reasons for the "4th century BC "Turkic alphabets"" allegations, you may want to recall this crack. Barefact 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Barefact. You have misquoted Vainberg or Mukhmadiev did. And note Mukhmadiev calls it Turanian language! (No such language exists today). Perhaps you need to read the link again.  :These coins are important primary evidence for the Old Chorasmian language and the region's post-Achaemenid history because of the paucity of preserved sources for this period.. That is the opinion of Vainberg. All the coins are illustrated here: [[9]] and they are all in Aramaic alphabet writtenin Chorasmian language. Read the article again, the language in question is CHORASMIAN! And also all coins are illustrated! And note Tamga just means tribal ownership (a Turkic word like say Yogurt), but it is not a word on the coin! And furthermore if you need information on Chorasmian language it is here: [10]. --alidoostzadeh 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician

I also particularly liked "Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician". These prominent people in the 19th c. must have been blinded with their Indo-European centrism if they offered Phoenician as a model of Indo-European writing. On the other hand, Phoenician and Greek and Latin were located in good old Europe, so why not "Indo-European alphabet"? Anybody wants to re-write the history? These ideas were offered by European scholars even after V.Thomsen's reading, it is on the record :-). Barefact 08:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

wth, that doesn't even parse. Cut the fringecruft, barefact. If you have a serious point to make, come to Talk:Orkhon script. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I will parse it for you, if you did not catch it. The Indo-European centrism of the the 19th c. had a particular tendency that today is universally rejected as racistic. It elevated the achievements of the IE peoples and dismissed the other peoples. Most ridiculous ideas, most of them presently thoroughly discarded, were presumptively advanced to postulate the supremacy of the IE peoples. The statement "Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician" is a part of the historical description of the subject by the scholar. Note that it was you who brought the subject to the discussion plate, "fringecruft" or not. Barefact 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you reverted even to the Ruis.

I agree that the Ruis link is faulty, and I think you are in best position to correct it, linking to a right example of the IE alphabet. A faulty link should not be used as an excuse to delete the whole subject of a family of alphabets from the perusal of the readers. Barefact 07:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did correct it. There is no "Indo-European alphabet", and the article on Old Turkic ones is at Orkhon script. If you're unhappy with its content, do use the talkpage there. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting and merging to delete contents

moved to Talk:Orkhon_script#import_from_Turkic_alphabets, continue discussion there please. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

really

Barefact, your material belongs on Orkhon script. Please discuss and edit there. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the other way around, the Orkhon script is a branch of Turkic alphabets, the experts cited in the article have determined that Enisey script had developed independently of Orkhon script. So are Eastern European scripts, and their kindered South Enisey script, they developed independently of Orkhon script. Redirect to disambiguation page effectively wipes out the historical contents and ethnopolitical past that is a background of the alphabetical development. If you have sources that dispute the analysis of Thomsen, Malov, Kyzlasov and others, you should present them and include them in the article to enrich it, instead of removing the contents from public scrutiny by brute force and no discussion. I would not mind discussing alternate title, for example, if the title and not the contents are the object of kill by redirect attempts.

As you saw, I attempted to add the contents about non-Orkhon scripts to the Orkhon script article, and the result was undisputably clumsy. In addition, you have deleted these materials from the Orkhon script too, thus indirectly recognizing a need for a more general view on the subject of Turkic scripts.

I suggest that not only this article is needed, but the discussion about this article should take place in the discussion page of this article. Barefact 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

then place a {{move}} request at Talk:Orkhon script: regardless of titling questions, you are creating a WP:CFORK of Orkhon script here. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)