This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beshogur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Tüm hayallerin ve dileklerin bu sene gerçek olsun, tüm güzellikler 2023'te seni bulsun! Mutlu, dolu dolu ve hiç unutamayacağın güzelliklerle dolu yeni bir yıl diliyorum! VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire
Hi, Beshogur. How are you doing? I stand in need of your opinion here: I have just reverted a number of certain edits in the "Yūsuf Balasaguni" (1) and "Kutadgu Bilig" (2) pages seeing them as edits which push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV. Being more precise, I believe these edits give undue weight to marginal nationalist viewpoints. IMO, adding Uyghur-language translation of Balasaguni's poetry to these pages is just that. I also believe that relating him to modern Uyghurs solely because of Kashgar is misleading just as it would be erroneous to refer to Avicenna as an Uzbek polymath owing to his birthplace being in Bukhara. Besides, Balasaguni is often regarded as either Karakhanid or Central Asian (Eastern Turkic) poet and statesman in modern (decent) sources (though there was one source which went as far as portraying him as a Chinese Muslim...). Let me know your view on this, please! VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to ruffle your feathers again, Beshogur, but I know you are pretty good in designing navboxes, so I dare to ask you for yet another favor, to give me a hand with the newly constructed Turkoman navbox. I have recently created it as per suggestion of the GA reviewer of the "Turkomans" page, who came out with an idea that it would be better to have Turkoman dynasties compiled in a navbox. Thank you, pal. VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire
@Visioncurve: you're overestimating me :p, anyways, I would remove bold text. Also need a comment on Terekeme people, I suggested to merge this with Karapapakhs, but nobody replied. If they're both the same ethnic group, we should redirect this to Karapapakhs, also maybe you can put Terakime instead of Karapapakh on the template. Beshogur (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Responding to your message of gratitude, where you thanked me for bringing it to light that Persia was not part of Central Asia - you are more than welcome! Please feel free to hit me up anytime if you need help. Bye, Nashville whiz (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Savaşın sonuçsuz olduğu konusunda ısrarcısınız anlaşılan peki kaynağınız nedir?Tüm kaynaklar gösteriyor ki Vlad'ın yegane amacı Sultan'ı öldürmekti ve başaramadı yanlış mıyım?O halde nasıl sonuçsuz olabilir?Hem taktiksel hem stratejik Osmanlı zaferi.Eflaklıların hiçbir kârı yok.Osmanlılar başkent Targovişte'ye girdi ve Eflak vassal oldu,bunu reddedebilecek tek bir kaynak var mı elinizde?Yok.Lütfen batılıların dogmatik varsayımlarını gerçeklerden üstün tutmayın.
I responded to your request and when I added more information, it removed the entire thread! So I restored the thread. I have no idea what caused that! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Otlukbeli
Gedik Ahmed paşa'nın otlukbelinde olduğun, Otlukbeli savaşını okuyan herkes bilir zaten kendi sayfasında Wiki bile eklemiş (Gedik Ahmed Paşa savaş ve catismalar kısmına). ve diğer kaynak verdiğim şeyleri neden sildin? Keremmaarda (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, my fellow grammarian. I would like to ask you, since you give the impression of being a first-rate grammar specialist, to explain me, if possible in detail, which one of my edits is grammatically incorrect? Nashville whiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trolling by any means. This goes without saying that it's rude as hell. I've never had a slightest thought of doing that! I asked you seriously: Why on earth would you deem this edit of mine as grammatically incorrect? I earnestly hope you will not leave my question without attention. Nashville whiz (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright. "epynomous". However problem is, Minorsky might be an old source, however your reasoning isn't valid. Doesn't provide new thing + makes it more vague. Which Turkic dialect exactly? I hope it helps. Beshogur (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
"Epynomous" was employed in the latter part of the sentence in question in conjunction with "tribes", in order to prevent repeating the word "Turkic" twice, which had already been used earlier. The problem with Minorsky is that modern academic literature do not explicitly state now that Nader's mother tongue was Tabrizi Turkish (aka Turkish of Azarbaijan) preferring to use "a dialect of Oghuz Turkish or just Turkish" for his native language, in a move to avoid discrepancies regarding the matter. It is indeed doubtful that a Turk born in the village of Deregez, northern Iran, during the Early modern period would speak the language native to western Iran, notwithstanding the fact that the tribe he belonged to was moved to Khorasan by Safavids a century earlier. In fact, it's now believed that Nader probably spoke Khorasani language. I hope it helps. Nashville whiz (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Today some dialects of Khorasani Turkish is closer to West Oghuz than East Oghuz. What you say is pure speculation. Can you comment this on the talk page as well, want to hear other users as well. Beshogur (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It is provide information about another Turkic tamga symbols. You cannot revert it. How can table be spam? It is only suitable form of providing this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidos.taibekuly (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Tatar language
Hi,
I did not made it up. There are some sources in the text written Tatar language. I did only put the template and edit the page, you can see it in the history of the page. Zolgoyo (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You can find it in the references; Robert Stănciugel and Liliana Monica Bălaşa, Dobrogea în Secolele VII-XIX. Evoluţie istorică, Bucharest, 2005. Zolgoyo (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a book about Dobruja, where you can find informations about Tatars of Romania. But I don't know, if this is possible to find in Internet. And also I speak the Dobrujan Tatar, it is not dialect of Volga Tatar, but has connection with the language, many of us can understand and speak Kazan Tatar (not fluent). Our elders tells histories about Kazan and saying that we do also came from there. Zolgoyo (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
And also I speak the Dobrujan Tatar, it is not dialect of Volga Tatar you say yourself. What's the problem then? This doesn't make its speaker. Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Wasn’t Kingdom of Serbia also some sort of tributary state to it? Since Serbian king gave that Mongol emperor gifts, and hostages, and there was occupation of both Serbia and Bulgaria? And it says in most of the lists that Serbia was aswell a vassal or a tributary state.. WikiVeterans (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
1292 during Milutin’s rule over Kingdom of Serbia.. it says that Serbia accepted Mongol lordship and that’s why they didn’t occupy Serbia any further.. so I guess it was a tributary WikiVeterans (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I forgot what the link was but it was said you had access or either you made it and it was called something like “list of vassals of golden horde” WikiVeterans (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
TBMM website shows like this, and also during their oath ceremony, they were mentioned as AKP MP. Unsure about empty 3 seats. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Orhan Gazi
Why did you reverted my edits? i added correct info only those actos really portrayed Orhan in Kurulus Osman you can watch the series and Malhun hatun was real mother of Orhan it is in real turkish records Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In the first Ottoman sources, she is referred to as Mal Hatun / Malhun Hatun, and she is often referred to as Osman Bey's wife, Sheikh Edebali's daughter and Orhan's mother. Although there is a possibility that she was Orhan Bey's mother, it is certain that she had nothing to do with Sheikh Edebali. ... Based on this record and the rumors echoing from the Ottoman historical tradition, it is generally accepted that she is Orhan Bey's mother. However, this information is not certain. quick google translate.
As a history lover i respect every historical muslim good person. Bala and Malhun both inspired me in different ways .I am a fan of too .i just wantes truth to prevail . as kurulus osman is not daily soap opera it is a historical fiction and was aired for a good cause. Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
. I"ll be happy to tell you that it is very childish but it is truth that these people are die hard fan of Bala hatun portrayed by Actress Ozge Torer and only beacuse she is so much beautifull. and as Yildiz Cagri Atiksoy portrayed Malhun , Bala's co wife so Malhun Character and actress faced unnecssary hate for a long period of time !!! This is the sick mentality that they cannot even respect a historical person. You know for a long period of time i wasn't able to even update the story plot of Malhun specially beacause of this 49.205.83.129 user.this person has a sick mind he even used to revert all edits on fandom and wikidata regarding Malhun. Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Osman Gazi
I think you dont know Bala And Malhun were totally different persons Malhun was also called as Mal hatun and Rabia bala was called as Bala Hatun. and Fatma hatun was Malhun hatun's daughter you can study turkish history
i always add true information.some IP addresses like 49.205.83.129 always add bala hatun related false info but nobody stops them Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Bro /sis whatever you are i also didn't learn history from fan fiction but definitely seem to have learn from this like you look like a Bala Hatun fan just like this Ip address user 49.205.83.129 who always add bala related fan biased info or may be is that you from the other account???? Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Bala hatun was never called as Rabia Bala Malhun Hatun ok? if you had read turkic history you could have know that Malhun Hatun was Osman's First wife whom he married in 1280 and Orhan his oldest born in 1281 .Osman married Bala in 1289 when orhan was already 8 years old . now look who is talking about history? and about fan fiction series. Bluesapphire1999 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello, can you please explain why you decided to remove links to Mehmed II father Murad II and vice versa, for me it was a bit confusing when I read it firstly from mobile phone and didn't find link to Murad II from Mehmed II page. Also I checked a lot of pages have these links to father/son etc.. So, I just confused why to not make it better. AleshaOleg (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a rule that one link is preffered. It's not preferable to habe multiple links in the same infobox / article. Beshogur (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Need your assistance
Would you be interested in checking these source(s) to verify the figures are correct? It appears user:Raziel1975S is arbitrarily changing referenced figures to suit their opinion(s).
Just revert. The source also says 6,000 Chinese casualties. I'm not even sure if that number is reliable as well. I didn't research this battle to be honest. Beshogur (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Why on earth did you remove all the related Crimean Tatar ethnic groups and replace them with just the Romainian Tatars and Nogays (ok, they are related, but not at much as the Krymchaks, Urum, Karaites, and Chigene)? It is an objective and undeniable fact that the Urum (Tatarized Greeks) are incredibly related to Crimean Tatars, so much so that their language is often considered a dialect of Crimean Tatar itself. The Krymchaks and Karaites are very close to Crimean Tatars too, their Jewish faith is the only thing that sets them apart culturally and even then they share a lot of religious customs (like the curled lock of hair outside the scarf). The Chigene are very assimilated into Crimean Tatars and can even be considered honorary Crimean Tatars, you can't get more related than that. The relation of Lipka Tatars is distant, but there are some connections there, and the Turkish and Azerbaijani languages are very close to Crimean Tatar language of today. A few days ago I almost had a heart attack when I read the Kazakhs article which labeled Crimean Tatars as especially related to Kazakhs in the box even though the most related to Kazakhs by far are Karakalpaks and Kyrgyz (with Crimean Tatars being very distant to Kazakhs in every manner - culturally, genetically, linguistically). I would like you to show me one source that says that the Urum, Krymchaks, Karaites, and Çingene are "definitely not related" to Crimean Tatars before making such bold and wrong claims KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You want me to show a source that they're not related? Maybe you should bring up sources yourself that they are related. WP:BURDEN. I didn't restore Lipka Tatars, etc. Only Dobrujan Tatars and Nogais, which are being considered part of Crimean Tatars often, as the article itself supports. Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Some minority Crimean Tatars are Nogays, but most Nogays are not Crimean Tatars nor a part of Crimean Tatars. Keep in mind that many peoples (Kazakhs for example) who are not close in any manner to Crimean Tatars have very good reason to not want to be labeled as close to such a controversial ethnic group.KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Otlukbeli
Mr. Besogur, I am asking very seriously, do you have a tail pain against Fatih? Why are you pointlessly deleting the resources I gave you? Are you high-headed? Keremmaarda (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The Aq Qoyunlu state is in the alliance and this war is a part of the Ottoman-Venetian war. With this war, the power of the Alliance in the east was broken. But it's still up to you how you shape it. Good day, Mr. Beshogur. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Please stop using the rationale that if you can't find something in a country's constitution, it isn't official. As I wrote yesterday at Talk:France, This resembles the argument that has been voiced in other discussions that certain countries don't have a capital because one isn't designated in their constitutions. Countries had emblems and capitals long before countries had constitutions or thought to declare their capitals or emblems in them. In addition, there's more to a country's official designations than what can be found in their constitutions. If the constitution were the sole determining factor, then the United States would have neither an official flag nor an official currency. But, certainly, it does. This doesn't mean a source can't be required, but the absence of a mention in a constitution is 100% irrelevant. Imagine the reaction you'd get if you removed the flag from the infobox at United States, citing that rationale as justification. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: You're comparing two different things. United States clearly uses US dollar, clearly use the American flag, clearly uses the Dollar, and clearly uses English. Where can we see the same for the supposed French emblem? Just because it is on passport doesn't mean it is the country's emblem. As for the French presidency example, that particular emblem is completely different rendered. then the United States would have neither an official flag nor an official currency. I'm pretty sure US flag was adopted by their congress, which makes them official, while this isn't the case for the supposed French emblem. Also I don't think currencies have place in constitution. These are regulated by the countries' central banks. Which makes them official. Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Your answer to me is all over the place, being mostly unrelated to the point I was making. I am discussing one specific thing: It does not follow from the lack of mention of something in a country's constitution that it isn't official. Many things are official without being mentioned in a constitution. There may be other factors that demonstrate that something isn't official, but the lack of mention in a constitution doesn't stand on its own as a demonstration of that. So your explanations that something isn't official because it isn't in the constitution are irrelevant and you should stop making them. For example, the comment you added to the article Lebanon that "The Constitution of Lebanon doesn't specify an official coat of arms" is a non-sequitur. If it's declared elsewhere, then it doesn't matter that it isn't in the constitution. Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: Regarding Lebanon, it's even dubious that this supposed coat of arms of Lebanon is used anywhere. I don't even see where he took that supposed coat of arms.
About France; It does not follow from the lack of mention of something in a country's constitution that it isn't official. Many things are official without being mentioned in a constitution. There may be other factors that demonstrate that something isn't official, but the lack of mention in a constitution doesn't stand on its own as a demonstration of that. You're right, like the American case, however that description says it is used both by presidency and MFA, which is misleading since that golden emblem is not even remotely similar to this one. If you can create a svg version without the text, of this emblem, I can agree on putting this with the description they provide: The lictor’s fasces is an emblem which is very often used to represent the French Republic, although today it holds no official status. This can be justified imo. Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
In your first sentence you once again evaded my point, as you began straight off with "it's even dubious that this ... is even used anywhere". I'm not arguing about whether it's a real coat of arms. Even if your overall doubt that it's real is valid, that doesn't alter the invalidity of your comment that it isn't official merely by virtue of not being provided for in the constitition. I'm only suggesting that, in presenting arguments, you include only valid ones and not invalid ones. When you include invalid ones, you undermine yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: well the constitution is a good pretext since all constitutions mentions how their coat of arms look, while Lebanon's, France's or Turkey's doesn't, unless they adopted a coat of arms later, while they don't. What are your thoughts for my proposal? [1]Beshogur (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
That's both poor reasoning and false. Poor reasoning: From "most X specify their Y in their Z", even if it's true, "No X specify their Y somewhere other than Z" doesn't follow. False: The coat of arms of the United States is not mentioned in its constitution, but it's real and official. Largoplazo (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
You are not trying to understand my comment. I say US flag and coat of arms were adopted by their congress while French one isn't. Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been ignoring that argument because it responds to a point that I hadn't made. In fact, it reinforces my point. You state your understanding that the US flag and coat of arms are official because they were adopted by Congress. But you've been telling other people that this coat of arms or that coat of arms isn't official because it isn't declared in the constitution. Well, either things do have to be mentioned in a constitution to be official, or they don't have to be declared in a constitution to be official. It's one or the other. It isn't a valid argument in the case Lebanon and France and then, magically, not a valid argument in the case of the US. It is uniformly invalid for every country in the world: things do not have to be mention in a constitution to be official. Therefore, every time you argue that something isn't valid because it isn't in a constitution, you're contradicting what you've said here about the United States. You're using inconsistent logic. Largoplazo (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah people can make mistake, but let me make it clear: It doesn't appear in a constitution but is adopted by a parliament -> official, and should be added. Eg. US flag/coat of arms. It doesn't appear anywhere, eg. Lebanese, Turkish supposed emblem -> should be removed.
French one can be justified, but it is still the wrong emblem if we're going to take French presidency one, which was adopted in 2018.
let me make it clear: In this discussion you've put a lot more energy and words into making clear for me things that I hadn't brought up in the first place and never expressed any disagreement with than you have into addressing the thing you'd been doing that I told you was wrong. If making things clear is of interest to you, that's a bad way to go about it. Sticking to the point is a good way. Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
What don't you understand? The concept of addressing what someone said to you instead of addressing a bunch of things that the person didn't say to you? Or the fact that most of what you've written here wasn't responsive to what I'd originally said? You keep giving the impression that you're trying to express disagreement with me, but everything you wrote after "Let me make it clear" has no bearing on what I came here to tell you. It's a bunch of tangents, except that it partly reinforces my point rather than disagreeing with it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The title aside, what is your explanation for removing verified source material, which has taken time to compile? Max45789 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur, please note I am not here to pick arguments with anyone. If you have valid reasons, I am naturally willing to listen.
I have presented all arguments in my edit descriptions. To clarify, the term "Isfendiyarid" only covers a portion of the dynasty's/beylik's history, disregarding several generations beforehand, which are clearly mentioned in the article.
Moreover, "Isfendiyarid" covers a specific period which is the Beylik of Sinop, and is therefore not applicable as a title for the entire dynasty.
These points have been made in my edit descriptions. If you are in agreement, I would be very happy. If not, I am very happy to listen to your reasons and discuss further, and reach a compromise either way. Candar dynasty may not even be the best option and I am very willing to hear your thoughts.
Therefore, after reading the above, kindly advise whether you are in agreement, and if not, please advise the reasons, which is the very essence of cooperation that Wikipedia has been established upon.
Notice that the user, despite having been explained to him that he needs consent and to respect it togheter guideline and policy to move the pages and that his judgment is not enough, continues with his behavior and refuses to listen to anyone, and insist to rename page as the name he want.Sira Aspera (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: hello, I saw this, and totally forgot about. I don't have access to that book. I don't think I'm much convinced about that "field battle" thing. No doubt the siege was unsuccessful. Have to see the exact quote. Also you're always welcome, no problem. Beshogur (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lebanon. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@LaundryPizza03: Get blocked for what? Removing a non existent coat of arms with a reference of a website from 2007, which is hardly a reference? And there are two reverts of mine in almost two weeks. Beshogur (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Your edits were contested at the article, and other editors contested your removal of this coat of arms earlier on this user talk page. If you are convinced that there is no coat of arms of Lebanon, it will be more productive to raise the issue at the article's talk page or nominate the article Coat of arms of Lebanon for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03:and other editors contested your removal of this coat of arms earlier on this user talk page that was about France generally, and I guess we came to an agreement if not fully. Largoplazo (talk·contribs) did not even add the coat of arms back, his argument was that my reasoning was wrong (ie. doesn't appear in constitution). Nor Coat of arms of Lebanon, neither [4] will be deleted per wikipedia policies. And this source like thing which from 1994 (not even 2007), which is created by Society for Creative Anachronism, which the whole website is full of fictional stuff. Beshogur (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, i saw your edit on the Barlas page where you removed the cadet branches of Barlas in infobox, and I would like to know why and what's the reason behind it? Shaykh217 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh okay. However the Tanoli Tribe of Pakistan is known to be descended from the Barlas Tribe. They formed the Princely state of Amb which was known to be descended from Karluk Turks Barlas Tribe. Genetic research has been done to back this, you can find the sources in the wikipedia page of Amb (princely state) , source 6,7,8,9. And the Katooris of Chitral are known to be descendants of Timur, there are sources listed, most of the sources are written in Urdu language however they are true, same can be said about the Sheikhs who were landlords in Hyderabad under Nizam , the Kaulas fort was under their supervision from 1915 when the Nizams took over this land from the Hindu king and controlled it directly and appointed the Sheikhs as landlord, up until 1947 Partition of India, they trace their ancestry to Muhammad Shaikh son of Umar shaikh the great grandson of Timur, source listed in wikipedia page of Kaulas Fort . However asides from Tanolis and Princely State of Amb who are cadet branches of Barlas. Like the Mughals, the Katoor and Sheikh should be mentioned as Timurids cadet branches, correct me if I'm wrong. Shaykh217 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Not my area, sorry. However, I would caution against foreign language sources and sources written by British civil servants living in colonial India. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand, however the foreign language sources are written and approved by royal historians and can be translated, the sources are not written by British civil servants , as the Katoor Dynasty was established from 1570 AD at that time there was no British Indian rule. And Sheikhs in Kaulas Fort were part of Nizam Hyderabad princely state which was independent from British rule
Well I'm not really convinced since those sources are not very reliable + one links familytreedna, which is not even a source. Timur's haplogroup is not even known, not to mention it is original research. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Chechens and Timur
Hello Beshogur,
I noticed that you reverted my edit on Timur (aka Tamerlane) noting his defeat at Ghonat-Ghala with the simple summary “Timur lost to Chechens story again?”. I would like to note that:
A: the fact that Timur lost to the Simsir forces at Ghonat-Ghala is documented, as seen in the source I provided
B: the story has also been passed down in the Chechen cultural tradition
C: Though Timur eventually won the war against Simsir, he definitely was not an “undefeated” commander.
Also, when you revert a claim with a source provided, please provide a valid reasoning.
Hi Beshogur! Could you check the long term activities of this or these (possible socks) users? Especially the edit war activity of Keremmaarda on many Ottoman battle articles.
Are you serious? What's your problem with me? I have told you many times that this is my only account and I do not know the person called Göktuğ. Really, don't bother me any more about this issue. Do you see the people who edit every Ottoman page as the same? Keremmaarda (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Beshogur! Could you check the provided Islamic encyclopedia is reliable or not? (written by users like Wiki?) Talk:Battle of Tahtalu
Because an article written by an user which claim the 14 years old King Matthias of Hungary attacked an Ottoman area deep in Serbia with 50,000 solders against Mehmed II and lost. But I do not find anything about this in Hungarian sources, I suppose it should be any mention of this high scale royal campaign if it was real. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@OrionNimrod: It is reliable, and it is written by historians. However it's mostly using Ottoman primary sources. Also I don't have access to 50,000 number source, so I don't know. Don't forget that old chronicles always exaggerate numbers of their enemies. Beshogur (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Dolgan language: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Opal|zukor(discuss)11:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I kindly ask you not to nominate pages for deletion just because they go against your views or feelings. I understand that the article SDF insurgency in northern Syria goes against your views because your Turkish. However, it's one of the chapters of the Syrian civil war and we are trying to document everything that goes in the war for history. Thank you for understanding. CatmanBw (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
"Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic" CatmanBw (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
What would your opinion of this source be, concerning the battle of Ming Sha?
I translated the 4 paragraphs before the paragraph mentioning 450,000 Chinese(450 bin) and the previous paragraph only mentions the year 698!?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: Belleten is an official publication of the Turkish Historical Society. Taşağıl personally knows Chinese and can read primary sources. The 450,000 number is indeed inflated, but that's most probably how it were in the sources. Like medieval chronicles exaggerating every battle (eg. Manzikert, Didgori, Bolchu, etc.) If you look at the bibliography, it's mostly Chinese sources. Beshogur (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Can we verify that this was the battle of Ming Sha? We should probably add a non-translated note with a translation in the same note(and a link) to the article. Yeah, I checked on Ahmet Taşağıl who is an historian, I just could not find the information. My sincerest thanks, Beshogur! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok. So did the link I post mention a battle in 707 or at Ming Sha? I could not find any evidence of either, unfortunately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Your probably not registered because its a paywall website. But this is exactly what it says.
Alternate naames: Quchani, West Khorasani Turkic, West Xorasan Turkic, Xorasan, Xorasan Turkic
Autonym: خراسانتركچىسى (Xorasan Türkçesi)
Users: 936,000 (2019).
Northeast, North Khorasan Province, northwest of Mashhad; Bojnurd area (West Quchani, Quchan area (North or Northeast Quchani, probably largest), Soltanabad area near Sabzevar (South Quchani).Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The articles on the tv-series can (mostly) go hang for all I care, they're mostly ghaztly fan-ish plot recitals, but when there is containment breach into articles on history I get annoyed. Not that I don't admire a fictional character who got actual statues! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lebanon.svg){kind=link}