Khodabandeh14
| Merhaba Khodabandeh14, Vikipedi'ye hoş geldiniz. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
Lütfen Vikipedi'nin "kişisel saldırı yasaktır" politikasına bir göz atın. Bireyler, kurum-kuruluş ya da oluşumlar üzerine değil, içerik üzerine yorum yapın. Hakaret ve kişisel saldırılar sadece topluluğa zarar vermekle kalmaz katılımcıları da caydırır. Unutmayınız ki, kişisel saldırılar, toplulukta yaratabileceği rahatsızlık sebebiyle engellenmeye yol açabilir. Lütfen soğukkanlı olunuz ve değişiklik yaparken bunu aklınızdan çıkarmayınız. - N KOzimesaj 12:07, 2 Haziran 2011 (UTC) |
Selam değiştir
Please have a look Medler and Tartışma:Medler. Is there any historian or knowledgable person in Turkish Wikipedia that can take a look at the article? makalesine göz atabilirsiniz Türkçe Vikipedi herhangi bir tarihçi ya da bilgili bir kişi var mı?
(I don't speak Turkish well, but there is a dispute about the article: Medler. One side is using nationalist sources from Baku and the other side is using university sources from modern and distinguished historians. Also Encyclopaedia Britannica. The dispute arose due to an artilce in Persian Wikipedia. I am not going to bother more with the Turkish article on the Medes. No one would call the Medes as Azerbaijani (Turkish) today, as you can see in English, Russian or German Wikipedia. I just do not want the Turkish wikipedia to degrade due to nationalism. Again this is not the Encylopedia I edit, but I think it was correct or me to make sure that ultra-nationalist users do not distort history.)
Ben, ancak iyi Türkçe bilmeyen makale ile ilgili bir anlaşmazlık var: Medler. Bir tarafta Bakü milliyetçi kaynaklarını kullanarak, diğer tarafta modern ve seçkin tarihçiler üniversite kaynaklarını kullanıyor. Ayrıca Encyclopaedia Britannica. anlaşmazlık Farsça Vikipedi bir artilce nedeniyle ortaya çıktı. Ben Medler üzerinde Türk yazı ile daha fazla rahatsız edecek değilim. İngilizce, Rusça veya Almanca Wikipedia gördüğünüz gibi kimse, (Türkçe) bugün Azerbaycan gibi Medler çağırırdı. Ben sadece Türk wikipedia milliyetçiliğine bağlı aşağılamak istemiyorum. Yine bu ben düzenlemek Encylopedia değil, ama doğru olduğunu ya da bana aşırı milliyetçi kullanıcılar geçmişi saptırmak değil emin olmak için düşünüyorum.)
Thank you/Tashakkur--Khodabandeh14 12:07, 2 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
Medler değiştir
Hi, Thank you for your kind message. There seems to be an edit war going on in the article still.. Two of the users (Ebrahimi_Amir) and Vugar, had been banned once in English wikipedia. I was just concerned for the accuracy of Turkish wikipedia, and so I ask you to kindly keep an eye on the article Medler. Thank yo--Khodabandeh14 13:37, 4 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
- Eldarion is a sysop user on tr.wikipedia. I saw his edit on the page. That's why i think the problem was already resolved. However, this issue is still going on. I'm so sorry for this situation. On the other hand, "editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." in addition, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So, "all significant views" must be representing this page. This does not mean to scientific point of view not important for tr.wikipedia. "Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view (NPOV). According to Jimbo, this is non-negotiable. NPOV works best when applied to the social sciences such as articles on history, and to controversial subjects. NPOV works less well when applied to the natural sciences, when a scientific point of view (SPOV) is sometimes more appropriate." All views that have been punlished but the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. I think scientific views are very very very important for all side. So, i agree with you. I'm edit on Medler's talk page here. I'm explain for all this issue. Regards --Merube 89msj 14:30, 4 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
Medler değiştir
Hi, I am not sure what happened with the article but I looked it after somedays and reworded it. Please note WP:FRINGE in English [[1]]. The two guys Ebrahimi Amir and Vugar were banned temporarily in English wikipedia for pushing psuedo-scientific viewpoints. I tried to rewrite it by saying: "The Medes are consider an Iranian people by Western scientists and sources, including Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, some Azeri writers believe they are Turkish.". However according to English Wikipedia, psuedo-scientific viewpoint should not be mentioned, but I do not know Turkish and thus cannot really make corret edits. However, if these two guys were in English Wikipedia and pushed such a psuedo-scientific viewpoint, they would eventually be banned.. --Khodabandeh14 20:51, 6 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
I wrote something here, and that will be my last message: [2]. I just do not think it is right to lie to Turkish people.. I tried to modify the statement: "Western scientists and sources including Encyclopaedia Britannica consider the Medes as an Iranian people. However, some Azeri scientists believe that the Medes were Azeri-Turks". I am not sure if the Turkish I put is correct or not, you may double check. In English Wikipedia, they would not mention the view of the Azeri scientists as it is fringe. But perhaps Turkish wikipedia might have different policy. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 21:24, 6 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
- After the warning, edit wars still going on. That's why, i had to this. I think, this version have not any contrariness and also scientifically without doubt. What's your opinion? Regards, and again, thanks a lot for all your efforts.--Merube 89msj 10:38, 7 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I think following Encyclopaedia Britannica is good idea and it is an easily available online source. You have much more experience on Turkish wikipedia, I just wanted to make sure that Turkish wikipedia is accurate. Here are the two Britannica Articles on the Medes [3] and [4]. Best Wishes. --Khodabandeh14 14:56, 7 Haziran 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Khodabandeh, firstly, i'm sorry for my late reply. Actually, i'm not think following "just" Britannica. So do you, i think. We can't use only Britannica. Because this is a very controversial subject. So we should use more than one source. Only that way, we have more reliable article. We should very various reliable source, and also we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy. It is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy, that's why, we can't dependent on just one source (like Britannica).
Additionally, Britannica occurs from opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. That's why, we must consider critical and popular assessments for Britannica. Opinions on Britannica, if the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
We share the same objective for wikipedia. More verifiable, more accurate ... Regards --Merube 89msj 19:26, 24 Haziran 2011 (UTC)