There must be something about the Qiang (K'iang) people here...I don't know their history so I didn't write anything about them, but The History of Tibet begins with them. Böri (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Any relationship between the Tibetans and the Qiang is speculative at best. Christopher I. Beckwith treats this question in detail in his PhD dissertation, a reference can be found on his Wikipedia page. Tibetologist (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as you say they are not in UEFA or FIFA. I do not understand why they MUST play is a statement that needs adding to multiple talk pages. I am not of an opinion either way about Kosovo or its football team, but Wikipedia is not a place to express political opinions. Bevo74 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a political opinion...Estonia can play in these games but Kosovo can't play! Is it justice? They are not a member of FIFA or UEFA because of Russia. Böri (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Northern Cyprus. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The editor correctly removed the bold type you placed and which you have put back in again Chaosdruid (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I realise that you tried to make the name more easily seen, but it was enough that the words were in "" marks. I think the editor that reverted your edit did not perhaps take enough time to explain why that was done.

If you look at the article, the only time we use bold is at the start, or in section headers. I suppose it may be ok to italicise that name to make it stand out. Making it bold would be incorrect though.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Böri (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, the comparison of dingir with tengri can be duly mentioned. The problem is that even though you were right, you didn't cite quotable references, and WP:CITE is so central to Wikipedia that it really doesn't mean anything if somebody is "right" as long as they do not present good references. In fact, all that Wikipedia aspires to do is arranging good references coherently. I have now cited evidence that the suggestion was made in the 1920s (in fact it was made even earlier, but not necessarily by reputable scholars), and was taken as speculation worth mentioning in serious literature at least until the 1950s. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Böri. 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.

Hello! Sırpsındığı is in Edirne province. Chernomen is not in Turkey! "Sırp Sındığı Muharebesi" /Battle of Sırpsındığı (in 1364) Stephen Uroš V of Serbia, Louis I of Hungary (Lajos) and Tvrtko I of Bosnia wanted to attack Edirne... Murad I was in Bursa at that time... Hacı İlbeyi attacked the Serbs at night and beat them... Böri (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tam olarak Edirnenin neresinde ? Takabeg (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karayolları haritasında görülebilir... Bu haritada (göstermiyor!) ilin kuzeybatı taraflarında http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Edirne_districts.png Böri (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Böri. 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.

The Battle of Sırpsındığı in Ottoman Turkish: ...nâgâh haber geldi, Sırf leşkeri hücûm itdi didiler. Kasdı Edrene’ye gelmekdür. Kırk Elli Bin mikdârı leşkeri vardur... Sırf leşkeri Edrene’ye yakın gelmiş idi... şimdi ana Sırf Sınduğu dirler...gâziler bir gece tabl-bâz kakup dün basgunı itdi. Sırf leşkeri mağrur olup sarhoş yaturken nâgâh tabl âvâzın ve gâziler ünin işitdiler. “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine dokındılar. Atları ürkdi ve boşandı, bunları çiğnedi. Kâfirler dahı kılıç çeküp birbirin kırmağa başladı. Âhir sınup münhezim olup kaçdılar. Ba’zı râvîler rivâyet ederler kim Sırf leşkerin Hacı İlbeği sıdı dirler... Hacı İlbeğü aydur: “Yoldaşlar nice idelüm” dedi, Yoldaşlar aydur: “Tedbîr sizindir. Siz nice idersenüz eyle idelüm dediler. Andan Hacı İlbeği her yoldaşını bir depeye kodı. Andan bulara ısmarladı. Her kaçan ben tabl-bâz urup haykıram, herbirinüz dahı eyle idün didi. Kendüsi kâfirlerün bir yanına geçüp heman tabl-bâz urup tekbir getürüp bire gaziler koman diyü çağırdı. Çün kâfir leşkeri ol âvâzları işitdi, gördiler kim dört yanların Türk almış, kendüler ara yirde kalmışlar. Hemendem “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine tokuşup, ol orman arasına tağılup birbirine kılıç urdılar. Karanu gice içinde birbirin fark itmeyüp, eyle kırdılar kim vasf olunmaz. Hemandem münhezim olup kaçdılar gitdiler... Lala Şâhin dahı, İlbeği’nün dilâverliğini görüp, ol zaman beğlerine hoş gelmeyüp adâvet bağladılar. Âkıbet hîle ile Hacı İlbeği’yi helâk ettiler.

= my translation: Suddenly a news came (to Bursa*) that the Serbs were coming ... They wanted to capture Edirne. They had 40-50 000 men. The Serbs were near Edirne. Today, this place is called Sırp Sındığı. A small group of Turks (10 000 men*) attacked at night (with mehter!) The Serbian soldiers were high & mighty and drunk! The Serbs shouted: “The Turk came!” (they thought that Murad I was there!*) The horses of the Serbs ran away and killed the Serbian soldiers... At night, the Serbs didn’t see anything and they began to kill their own soldiers! (thinking that they were the Turks!) At the end the Serbs lost the battle... Hacı İlbeği beat the Serbs. Hacı İlbeği said “What will we do, my soldiers!” His soldiers said: “We will do whatever you want” They attacked the Serbs from four directions... The Serbs lost the battle... Most of them ran away to the forest and killed each other there! Lala Şahin Paşa (Beylerbeyi) saw that Hacı İlbeği was a mad man! [Because Hacı İlbeği fought against the Serbs... Lala Şahin Paşa didn’t fight against the Serbs, he was waiting the army of Murad I. Lala Şahin Paşa became the enemy of Hacı İlbeği (The hero of this battle)...]* Hacı İlbeği was killed! (by poison*) Böri (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Önemli olan kaynak göstermektir. Takabeg (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. There was nothing offensive about the other editor's comments. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The other editor is quoting from a source, and in English at least, the word "donkey" is not considered particularly offensive. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's offensive! Do you know Turkish? Vandalism is what they wrote! Böri (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Donkey. Thank you. — Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment has now been reinstated. Further attempts to delete it will likely cause you to be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Censorship, Wikipedia is not censored Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sansürcülük değil! Eşek ile Atatürk'ün adı-soyadının ne ilgisi var? Böri (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba. Konuyla ilgili olmadigim icin pek bir sey soyleyemiyorum. Biraz kaynaklara baktim.

• History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, 1. cilt Yazar: Stanford J. Shaw: Burada Sirpsindigi dedgimiz savasin Maritsa vadisinde 1364'te Haclilara karsi yapildigini anlatiyor. 1371'de ise Evrenos Bey'in akinlari var sadece.
• An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire Burda ise, ilk anti-Osmanli hacli seferinin pek cok kaynakta ve Turk tarihinde 1364 olarak kabul edildigini, Haci-Ilbey'in bozguna ugrattigini yazmis. Ancak bunun bir yanlislik olabilecegini, 1371'te yine Maritsa'ya saldiran hacli ordusuyla karistirilmis olabilecegini soyluyor.

Simdilik bu kadar bakabildim. Kolay gelsin.--CenkX (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teşekkürler, Atatürk yazısına da bir bakın... Böri (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him on his user page.[1] If it happens again, let me know or contact WP:AIV. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Böri (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many modern Irish historians seem to go with the status quo - i.e. the consensus reflected on the 'Gaul' page. Some older sources seem to prefer the ancestor theory, but that was a direct part of the Milesian migration from Spain theory, which was long considered nonsense in academic circles, until recent research indicated that an Iberian origin for the Gaels was possible after all.

Interestingly, the direct cognate of the Welsh forest-person 'Guoidel' in Gaelic would be something like 'coilltach', pl. 'coilltigh', which would have been pronounced in such a way that a link to the Greek rendering 'keltoi' would not be completely improbable.

The bottom line here, is that the Welsh origin is consensus, while anything else is currently considered 'fringe' at best - so as per wp:verify, the consensus is valid for the article and the alternatives are not (at least until, as Cagwinn so rightly pointed out, someone publishes them in peer-reviewed publications). This is not the same thing as saying that the alternatives are wrong, and my main aim in posting a response to your question was to raise the issue that at a lot of levels, the jury is still out on the actual relationships between the various terms for/around 'Celts'. Gabhala (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uyariniz icin tesekkurler. Bu tur saldirilar her zaman olucak, onemli olan Wikipedia'nin kurallari dahilinde bunlarla mucadele etmek. Itirazinizi uygun dille yapinca adminler yardimci oluyor. Iyi calismalar.--CenkX (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'll be interested in the discussion on page Talk:Tenedos Happy editting Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "They" are attacking against the Turkish History, Turkish Culture via Internet. Some "so-called Turks" also support them. Böri (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. For this message. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben kimsenin şahsına saldırmıyorum. "I'm neither Turkish nor Greek." diyen sizsiniz. Türkler sizin sandığınız kadar kötü insanlar değil. Böri (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niye Türk Tarihi üzerine atıp tutuyor? Wiki'de Türk Tarihine yönelik sayısız saldırı var. is considered as personal attack. Takabeg (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrıca Türkler sizin sandığınız kadar kötü insanlar değil. de nereden çıktı ??? Takabeg (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saldırı dğil, siz kendi yazdıklarınıza bakın Istanbul Pogrom diyorsunuz, kim öldürüldü? İsimlerini yazın. Wikipedia ve Vikipedi'de yazdıklarınızın büyük bölümü Türk Düşmanlığı içeriyor. Saldırı yapan sizsiniz. Böri (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sent same message that involving personal attack to this user, This is serious problem. Takabeg (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terörizm propagandası yapmak da suç. Wikipedia üzerinden terörizm propagandası yapılıyor. (Yapanlar isim isim belli.) Bu da suç. Hiçbir suç cezasız kalmaz! Böri (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where ? And google translate is very helpful. It also translates your message involving personal attack into English. Takabeg (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia saldırı amaçlı kullanılıyor ama silahlar geri de teper! (Bir kere sizin güvenilirliğiniz yok! Kasıtlı yazdığınızı herkes biliyor!) Böri (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. For this comment Takabeg (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Başka biri hakkında birşey demedim ki! Sizin hakkında yazdıklarımı saldırı görüyorsanız, Türk Tarihi hakkında sizin sayısız saldırınız var. Yazılarınız ortada. Onların hepsi Türklere yönelik bir saldırı! Böri (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For this message. Takabeg (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Böri: Thank you for leaving the note on my page about the Qiang. Questions about the relationship between some of the Qiang tribes and modern Tibetans keep being raised. There is certainly an ethnic relationship between the Qiang and the Tibetans, but modern Tibetans are descended from a mixture of many tribes, so it is not accurate to say that Tibetans were originally Qiang. One can only say that many Tibetans are probably partly descended from various Qiang tribes and there were about 150 different Qiang tribes known during the Han dynasty who may well have varied considerably in their ethnic makeup from each other. I referred to this very briefly in my 2009 book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome on page 141:

"The Qiang are often referred to as ‘Tibetans,’ which is misleading. Qiang appear in the literature many centuries before a ‘Tibetan’ state had emerged and, while many Tibetans are indeed descended from Qiang tribes, they were only one of many peoples who contributed to the genetic and cultural inheritance of modern Tibetans".

I hope this is of some help to you.

Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Christopher Beckwith's dissertation, which discusses all extant sources for the history of Tibet before 650. He also disproves the identification with Qiang, with the possible exception of the Fa Qiang. Here is the citation

Beckwith, Christopher I. (1977). A Study of the Early Medieval Chinese, Latin, and Tibetan Historical Sources on Pre-Imperial Tibet. Indiana University PhD Dissertation.

I would be happy to help you receive it.

Tibetologist (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Böri: Thank you for your comments. Sorry I have taken a while to reply but I have not been well.

Now, about the Qiang - yes, of course, there should be something about them in the history of Tibet article but I cannot agree with calling them "Proto-Tibetans'. Using this term would imply that they were the main ancestors of modern Tibetans. Tibet first came together as a state when Songtsen Gampo united a number of tribes around the Yarlung Valley and the region of modern Lhasa - and there is no evidence that I know of to show that they were at all related to the numerous Qiang tribes who stretched across the Changthang plains to the far north and the region around Koko Nur in the east and stretching well into what we may call (for want of a better term) "Greater China." Some of these tribes became absorbed into the Tibetan world, some into the Chinese, but there are (according to the Wiki article) still about 200,000 people mainly in Sichuan Province who identify themselves as Qiang and speak Qiang languages. The Quanrong were, apparently, a branch of the Qiang.

Calling the Qiang people "proto-Tibetans" would be a bit like calling Maltese people "proto-Australians." There are, according to things I have read, more people of Maltese descent in Australia than in Malta. In a sense, any group that adds to the gene pool of a people might be considered "proto-" members of that group, but the term is usually reserved for the main group involved. One doesn't think of the French or the Vikings or the Italians as "proto-English" although they all contributed to the modern gene-pool in England (which modern DNA studies seem to reveal is mostly Celtic). In this sense one might be able to legitimately refer to the Celtic/Gaulish tribes as proto-English, prot.-Irish, proto-Scots, proto-Welsh, proto-Bretons, and so on.

The situation regarding the Di people is somewhat similar to that of the Qiang, although fewer people have survived as a separate entity into modern times than with the Qiang. They seem, with the possible exception of the Boma ('White Horse') Di, to have been assimilated into the Tibetan and Chinese populations.

About the name of Tibet - most scholars I know think it is derived from "Böd" which is, apparently, what the first Tibetans called themselves - and that name may well be closely related to Bön - the early Tibetan religion. I doubt very much that it was originally from a Turkic language. If, indeed, the western name 'Tibet' came through Turkic languages via Arabic - one might ask whether the Turkic name was not an attempt to transcribe whatever name the Tibetans used for themselves (i.e. probably Böd - of some variant of it).

The "history" of a place or people is usually taken to mean the story of the people or place since written records began. And this definition would place the beginning of Tibetan history in the 7th century. However, you are quite right if what you mean is that to say the "Tibetans" did not just appear out of nowhere in 7th century - we all have lineages going back at least 100,000 years as "modern" humans, and just recently through DNA studies and careful archaeological work we are beginning to unravel some of the outlines of this unwritten "history." For example, one can say that the Aboriginal people of Australia technically have a history which only stretches backk a couple of hundred years to settlement of the continent by Europeans, who brought writing. However, their "oral histories" have been shown to contain information stretching back thousands of years and their artwork and other archaeological remain, plus information gleaned from DNA, etc., has taken this "history" back to 70 to 100,000 years ago - if not longer.

Again, about the Qiang - I don't read the Chinese sources to say that the Qiang were the Tibetans - they are mostly dealt with separately. And it should not be claimed that the Qiang were not the allies of the Xiongnu - some tribes were at certain times - some tribes were also allies of the Chinese at certain times - and some tribes supported neither. Hope this is of some help. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could other users check User:MarshallBagramyan expropriation of the entire Kars article. This user constantly erases the other versions of the name of the city Kars in other languages (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars, Azerbaijani: Qars, Georgian: ყარსი Kars, Kurdish: Qers, Russian: Карс Kars) , and only lets the Armenian version of the name to stay (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars). Unfortunately this user's ethnocentric POV pushing by ignoring the history of the city, after the Armenian era, is still allowed to stay. He even defends it in the city article talk page.

Kars is Turkish FULL STOP Böri (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you mention on Talk:Anti-Turkism that there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which reflect an anti-Turkish POV. You're welcome to address it yourself, of course, but if you're finding resistance to your position, or you don't have time to address it, could you mention some of these (the more egregious examples) on the talk page? (Don't respond here or on my talk page, I have anti-Turkism on my watchlist, and if you respond there other users are more likely to see your concerns as well.) Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Joris. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cloudz679 15:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]