Talk:Turukkaeans
Latest comment: 1 month ago by HiddenRealHistory19 in topic About my Edits
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Double Standards
editThe user "Wario-Man" reverted my edit: According to Fritz Hommel and some Azerbaijanian historians Turukkeans were the ancestor of Turks. [1][2][3][4][5]
But there are many phrases in Wikipedia like this. For example: According to Arshak Safrastian, the Medes and Scythians mentioned in classical Greek literature existed only as preconceived notions. (see Corduene)
The reason that I used the phrase according to is there is a notion, if you accept or you don't accept. If this is a "free encyclopedia", why do you delete some sourced information? --2001:A98:C060:80:2DE7:63A4:7B2C:BE1F (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Read WP:FRINGE. Plus, the source is unreliable. And you should talk about this article and your edit not the other articles. Because If article X (e.g. Corduene) has some issues and unreliable stuff, you should go there and edit it. How Corduene and its content is related to this article and your edit or my revert? You have added a fringe claim and unreliable sources, and I reverted your edit. Fritz Hommel's works are outdated just like his claims about the Sumerian language. And none of those Azerbaijani sources are WP:RS. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fritz Hommel – Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, 2016 (first edition: 1885)
- ^ F. Cəlilov – Azər xalqı, II. nəşri Bakı, 2006
- ^ Q. Qeybullayev – Azərbaycan türklərinin təşəkkül tarixindən, Bakı, 1994
- ^ Z. Bünyadov, Y. Yusifov – Azərbaycan tarixi, Bakı, 2006
- ^ Azərbaycan tarixi, Bakı, 1994, s.80.
About my Edits
editİ just want to put allegations about the race of Turukkaeans but my edits are getting deleted.I am not even saying "The Turukkaeans are definely xxxx".At least let me do it guys,let me do it.It looks like i will not be able to do it with doing an edit war.I just demand to the moderators that do a part about allegations about their race.@Kansas Bear 78.174.205.204 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It appear that these "sources" have been rejected by other editor(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- the only one of it was fritz hommel and i didnt use for the last one. 78.174.205.204 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- İ can share other sources if you want (non turkish) 78.174.205.204 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess this is also your IP [1] and this is your account [2], who are both making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, some which I just reverted. Wikipedia does not endorse pseudo-history - please read WP:SYNTH, WP:VER and WP:RS. Claiming that Turks were around in Mesopotamia in the 2nd millennium BC is equal to saying the earth is flat. Please spend some time to read actual scholars in Turkic history such as Peter B. Golden (and without engaging in WP:SYNTH please) [3]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Peter B golden is the same guy who says Gokturks exist?🤣🤦♂️ Kansas bear. YOU ARE BIASED! Same for all of wikipedia!! You see western history thesis and historians as "untouchable, unchangable, not debateable absolute truth" While it were always the west claiming father of european civilisations were Turks. See works of EVERY great historian/archaeologists from the period RIGHT BEFORE WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE, after Khiva was conquered and the ottomans were helpless the british realised how miserable and unworthy the ottomans were. And since Ottoman sultan Abdulaziz turned bis back the the british they gave up all hope and they themselves sides with the Russians. TOGETHER with this all previous Turanian European history thesis was completely abonded and the "Indo-Aryan' history thesis was introduced to replace the previous Turanian one. All you see today is a result of Western political emotions :). However you must know history is based on scientific proof. Not democratic principles where "the majority decides whats true whats not" like you KANSAS BEAR have been doing my dearest friend! HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not Kansas Bear. I am also not reading your pseudo-historical nationalistic rant. I assume this is your other account, BaharatlıCheetos2.0? HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- no I am not spiced cheetos. Also this is not my pseudo Science, its pseudo Science from James Fergusson who got a MEDAL from British government for making the book "rude stone monuments"💀 Turks at this time were too busy with ar*p religion HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gokturks dont exist. Peter B golden cannot even read old Turkish how on earth can you trust him? Lets debate. Heres my instagram: elturcos27 HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hell no. I don't care about your conspiracy theories. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- First of all these arent mine, second theyre not "theories" since theyre written on inscriptions. + the "Göktürk" name is a theory because it has no source😀 also same for "Köktürk" HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you proof to me with direct proof litteral proof that a state called the Gokturks was ever established in 552 AC? (Name direct inscriptions and read them to me. [I doubt yall can even read old Turkish💀]) HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hell no. I don't care about your conspiracy theories. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not Kansas Bear. I am also not reading your pseudo-historical nationalistic rant. I assume this is your other account, BaharatlıCheetos2.0? HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Peter B golden is the same guy who says Gokturks exist?🤣🤦♂️ Kansas bear. YOU ARE BIASED! Same for all of wikipedia!! You see western history thesis and historians as "untouchable, unchangable, not debateable absolute truth" While it were always the west claiming father of european civilisations were Turks. See works of EVERY great historian/archaeologists from the period RIGHT BEFORE WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE, after Khiva was conquered and the ottomans were helpless the british realised how miserable and unworthy the ottomans were. And since Ottoman sultan Abdulaziz turned bis back the the british they gave up all hope and they themselves sides with the Russians. TOGETHER with this all previous Turanian European history thesis was completely abonded and the "Indo-Aryan' history thesis was introduced to replace the previous Turanian one. All you see today is a result of Western political emotions :). However you must know history is based on scientific proof. Not democratic principles where "the majority decides whats true whats not" like you KANSAS BEAR have been doing my dearest friend! HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I guess this is also your IP [1] and this is your account [2], who are both making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, some which I just reverted. Wikipedia does not endorse pseudo-history - please read WP:SYNTH, WP:VER and WP:RS. Claiming that Turks were around in Mesopotamia in the 2nd millennium BC is equal to saying the earth is flat. Please spend some time to read actual scholars in Turkic history such as Peter B. Golden (and without engaging in WP:SYNTH please) [3]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)