User talk:Kansas Bear

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fire Star 火星 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hi Kansas Bear,

You have changed the name İstanbul to Constantinople in the article Koca Ragıp Pasha, citing the later is the accurate name. Well here is the on line-article about the coinage of Mustafa III reign (1757-1774) . The page says that the location of minting has been given as İslambol, a corrupted form of İstanbul (also means many Islams). (I don't know Arabic alphabet; but if you are familiar with Arabic alphabet you can click on the little camera.) So the birth and death places of Koca Ragıp Pasha (who was Mustafa’s grand vizier) can be given as İstanbul (or Istanbul if dotted İ is not permissible). That's why I insist on using the name İstanbul. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The "change" that you are so concerned about(seeing how it still links to Istanbul), is the indication that the English speaking world called the city Constantinople until the Republic of Turkey passed a law in 1930 changing their own(postal) recognition of the city from "Constantinople" to "Istanbul" for the city. Since this is an encyclopedia, should it not represents factual information? And since Encyclopedia Britannica indicates how the English speaking world viewed and called that city, the facts for English wikipedia are quite clear. I do not, however, have a problem with linking the city to the Istanbul article or having "(modern day Istanbul)" after Constantinople. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already heard this change in 1930 -theory from another user. I guess there is a misunderstanding. Up to 1930s, Turkey used Arabic alphabet. Foreign letters addressed to Istanbul had been written in Latin alphabet and a number of different names of Istanbul had been used on the envelopes. Nobody tried to standardize the names written in a foreign alphabet. But on Nov 1, 1928 Turkey switched to Latin alphabet and all institutions were required to make the necessary adoptations for the new alphabet. Turkish PTT then standardized the use of place names on the envelopes. You see, the name of the city was not changed, only the name was standardized within the rules of the new alpahabet. As for Istanbul (or İstanbul according to the rules of Turkish alphabet), it was the popular name of the city since 15th century. On official matters during Ottoman era, it was used along with Kostantaniyye, Derssaadet and Asitane. Kostantaniyye was the corrupted form of Constantinople. (But the name Constantinople had never been used after 15th century.) Have a nice day Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reply does not address what the English speaking world called the city nor the fact that due to the change in recognition(by the Turkish government) of the name Constantinople did the English speaking world change. This is backed up by facts.

... it was used along with Kostantaniyye..., odd, which translated is what in English? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Vandal in our midst

Kanças Bear:

Please go there[1] and there[2] and have a good laugh!

Frania the "V..."--Frania W. (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL...........wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Kanças!

It got fixed.

Now, talking about archiving, how do I archive my own talk page... or should I wait for my computer to crash again & do the job?

Merci d'avance,--Frania W. (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to try and set up an Archive bot on your talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oui, avec plaisir. --Frania W. (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on it. Hopefully it will work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Merci!, Now, how do I put stuff in it??? --Frania W. (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be automatic. So we will be keeping an eye on it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Mille fois merci! --Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It worked!! I dated the first archive and changed future archiving to "Archive 2". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't recognise my page: it's like getting a hair cut! I feel lighter...

Merci beaucoup! --Frania W. (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bumin Kağan and Göktürks

Hi Kansas Bear. What do you think about these behaviors ? He/She wrote an excuse but sources are not only related with personal view of Rouran khan. Nobody can remove imformation with Identifying reliable sources. I'm glad you're interested in this issue. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

In reply to your query, I don't count "edits" and wouldn't know whether 1500 is many or few. But my edits are, alas, notoriously, laboriously lengthy compared to most Wikipedians -- essays where others dash off phrases. While I'd like to believe the gravitas of my content compensates for the paucity of my output, the truth is simply that I don't edit daily, and one edit often takes all I've got for days. I'm the proverbial tortoise in a race with hares. FactStraight (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well, considering the regularity in which I see your name appear, I just assumed that your edit count would be considerably higher. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

À votre santé!

To Royalist Redneck [3] from Kir Royal [4]

À votre santé et bon weekend!

--Frania W. (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my quote on page 238

I hope we have a misunderstanding, as [edit] is a little troublesome. You have DELETED my quotation saying the following- Quote on page 238 "Turks who were unable to escape the oncoming army were subject to similar Bulgarian retribution. Mosques, razed to the ground by dynamite or fire, became a familiar sight in the wake of the Bulgarian advance." in Glenny's book, and replaced it with a quotation needed again. I will assume that this is an accident, because I have no other way to explain it except bad faith otherwise. Why did you delete the quote? --Yalens (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ALSO: Stop requesting quotation for the Trotsky. It is quoted in Glenny on page 234, and that exact quote is right there on the page ("the horrors..... killed in battle") in a text block. It is very difficult for me to imagine that you cannot see that. I do hope you just reverted and didn't realizing you were reverting that as well. --Yalens (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Any requests for quotes should be placed on the talk page and discussed.

Here are the sentences that are in question:

• contributing vastly to the 1 million killed from 1912-1918 <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Page 238-9ref>
• Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158ref>)
• It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state). <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158-9ref>
• Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Pages 233 and 234ref>

Also, this sentence, "...it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", is also contentious, unsubstantiated and needs a reference.

Since, none of your quotes support anything they are referencing, I will be placing a Wikipedia:Original Research tag on that section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. You are sidestepping the topic at hand. I am interested in knowing why you deleted the quote that I already gave at your request.

But since you also want to discuss this, we shall. (however, I am still very perturbed at why you DELETED my QUOTE; I do sincerely hope it was a mistake).

And in the case of the contributing vastly, that was incorrect synthesis actually. I thought it meant Balkan Wars and World War I, but it only meant World War I, so I have now changed it.

I have given the quote for 1 million already on the page, and I have now bolded it since you seem to miss it.--Yalens (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you have problems understanding English, I will walk you through this.

1. "Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I." Which you have provided this source...Throughout the empire and its borderlands Muslims, too, suffered at the hands of both the Ottomon State and its wartime enemies. Kurds, formerly employed by the Ottomon authorities as irregular troops, were also deported from sensitive borderlands or simply slaugthered. Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus. In round figures, the regions were emptied of more than a million Muslims during the First World War alone, not to mention the previous century of removals and atrocities by the Balkan states and the Russian empire."

Nowhere within your "source" does it say "Turks claim.....", "genocide", or "well over 1 million Turks were killed". Therefore, this is original research. "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."[5]

2."It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state)", has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, undoubtedly more rationalization.

3."Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs", more irrelevant nonsense in an attempt to mitigate the genocide of a people under the direct control of the Ottoman Empire.

4. "it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", unsourced merde, used as some pathetic attempt to rationalize genocide.

5. "Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus.", in another attempt at mitigating, killed has to be mentioned twice in one sentence. What impudence! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are so emotional about it. It is a heavy topic, I understand, but still- you are not even Armenian and have absolutely nothing to do with it. The only thing I'm irked about is that you deleted my quote, which you will not discuss. I gave you a link to the edit in which you deleted the quote. Did you even look at it? You are still sidestepping the discussion, and changing the topic. Other edits are off topic. I want to know why you deleted the quote- this edit [[6]] (I give you the edit changes link again). If its just an accident we are fine. If it is just a misunderstanding, I would be happy to forgive you.

This is not my opinion- and I am certainly not trying to "rationalize" the genocide as you claim. I am not Turkish, nor am I overwhelmingly sympathetic towards the Turks. Personally I think that no matter what the Turks pull, nothing can deny their country's guilt in the killing of a large number of Armenians and the near-extinction of Armenians in a considerable chunk of their former homeland.

It is funny how you say this because just the other day I was accused of being too pro-Armenian on some forum, and that I was some sort of Armenian propagandist just for voicing an opinion that the genocide occurred. But alas, everyone on either side is so incredibly emotional about the issue that it blocks out any attempt at a reasonable debate- therefore, apparently I am a Turk propagandist and Armenian propagandist at the same time.

The truth, however, is that, yes, the regions were "emptied of over a million Turks". I, personally, have heard Turks use this to say that the designation of what is and what isn't a genocide is not balanced (they will never concede that their government had a plan to wipe out the Armenians in the Ottomon Empire, so to them its pretty much the same thing). That is why it belongs in Turkish denial. I am pretty sure the opinion is in print somewhere, however I have not gone to great lengths to find it, so if you want to request a quote there that would be good.

The thing is that a lot of the reason the Turks find it difficult to admit is that they have a strong feeling of being persecuted themselves, not in the least because of these events, and it would be good for the article to include that. That's why I put it up there, not because I have some agenda to draw attention away from the killings of Armenians. Nor am I trying to rationalize genocide

The presence of the Albanian reference is because this behavior by Serbia, Greece and the rest is well-known in Turkey, and it goes under a long list of other things (including the Circassian Genocide as well) that I have heard Turks, and many other people have, say that could be recognized as genocide if you call the Armenian genocide... a genocide. Yes, I suppose you are right that that is OR- though I'm sure we could probably find at least some quote by a Turkish politician or something like that somewhere. And the reference to Kurds is that the Kurds may also use their victimization by the Russian/Armenian forces (you know, what happened to them before the Turks themselves started having issues with them) as a claim to say it was two way as well. The Kurds and Armenians, although they seem to have coinciding interests today, also have a lot of disputes- as you can see just by paying a short visit to any Kurdish forum and looking up Armenian claims to the Van region. Armenians meanwhile (including Armenians on wikipedia) often will blame Kurds for the genocide (which is not really incorrect, as they were the Ottomons' irregular troops). So that's why the Kurdish reference is there. It is not to rationalize the genocide or anything. --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes, if you care, the reason I deleted the or was because the reason of your edit summary said that it was the 1 million figure, which of course, was given. Though frankly, I don't really care that much about an OR tag as it is, in a sense, OR.--Yalens (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So instead of dealing with the issues, which have been clearly explained, you continue this rant of emotional. Apparently, you are too emotional to understand how original research is a direct violation of wikipedia. As such original research should be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."[7] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I have requested a quotation. In any case, I somehow, mysteriously, still lack an explanation for why you deleted the quote.

I am not the one who is emotional. I am not the one who called the other impudent, and accused them of ranting, and of trying to rationalize genocide (completely contrary to the truth). I would be perfectly happy to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner, one that does not involve such accusations. --Yalens (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your quote did not support what was in the sentence(as explained here earlier...[8]), is that clear enough? Technically, since what you have written is OR, I should have just deleted all of that(which I am sure you would have called "emotional"). This now has been explained, again. As for confrontational, 1)I asked for page numbers, you then stated; " I would appreciate to not be yelled at.",[9] thus trying to imply(ie. ranting) from the beginning this fantasy of yours that I am emotional. Pity you have not wasted as much time finding sources to support your Original Research. I would suggest in your case that you focus your attention to finding sources that support your "opinion" or it will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said initially that I would appreciate not to be yelled at, I was not responding to you, but to David Roman, because of this edit, where he did- [[10]]. And yes, I believe that the assumption that I am a Turkish propagandist or at least otherwise trying somehow to rationalize the genocide is emotional, not to mention that I am apparently "impudent". I have had editing conflicts with people that are actually from the Caucasus on other historical issues (Ossetians, one Armenian, etc.), but we have at least managed to keep from randomly throwing insults like "impudent" at each other, nor did they overtly assume I had some ulterior motive in editing other than to put stuff up on wikipedia. What is funny is that people like you and User:David Roman, who don't even seem to be from the Caucasus (your profile says you are a German-Scottish-English-French-somethingelse American; his name certainly sounds Western to me as well), get far more emotional, and that's odd.

I have not protested against you calling the opinions OR (they are not necessarily mine, mind you), and you can delete them (I assume the reader would be able to infer them anyways). You cannot, however, delete the sourced material. I am quite sure a reader can infer the importance of the effect of the Balkan Wars on the Armenian Genocide, so it is wrong to delete it. --Yalens (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)