Talk:Yusuf Akbulut

Assyrian vs. Syriac

I understand that people tend to prefer the usage of either Assyrian or Syriac Orthodox, and it is a sensitive matter. However, Assyrian seems to be the standard usage for Wikipedia, and I believe the term should be used for this article as well. -- Augustgrahl 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Assyrian refers to those people who explicitly call themselves such. We're talking about a Syriac Orthodox priest here, from the West Syriac tradition, that is. Syriac can be the only neutral term here. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Benne do you have any idea how outragious you sound? Why dont you prove your side? The fact that congress calls him that is not evidencial enough for you? Chaldean 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Congress statements are not convincing. They're politicians, with political interests. Give me scholarly works, not political statements. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Take your views and create your own website. This is a encyclopedia. Chaldean 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note, do you have sources that say Akbulut wasn't Assyrian? As we all know, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Since the current article is backed-up by sources, what we needs are sources that contradict the ones that we currently have... Khoikhoi 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Still no evidence has been put forward. Letters by US Congress members cannot be regarded as a reliable source for determining someone's identity. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, I believe only statements by the pries himself can be acceptable. Merely mentioning the fact that Father Akbulut is a Syriac Orthodox priest should suffice, leaving the question of ethnicity open. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Their are 4 sources now saying he is Assyrian and you have not put up one source claiming being anything but Assyrian. The question of ethnicity should not be open since it has been stated by numerious different newsmedia of him being Assyrian. Their is probably a reason for that, and that reason is most likely he said Assyrian genocide which lead to his arrest. Chaldean 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The news articles you came up with are probably all based on the same source, and I don't think they can be considered reliable.

I don't think I have to provide such sources. According to the surveys I have seen so far, and my own experience, most likely a majority of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics in Turkey refer to themselves as Süryani (Syriac), with a minority calling themselves Arami (Aramaean) or Asuri (Assyrian). Therefore, it cannot be concluded from a couple of websites that Father Akbulut is an Assyrian. And because the matter is so sensitive, I believe it's better to leave it out altogether, until the question is answered.

By the way, I'd have to check it out, but I really don't think it was Akbulut's mentioning of the Assyrian genocide for what he was indicted. Probably he said something like Süryani soykırımı. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

' I believe only statements by the pries himself can be acceptable - and if this was a policy in wikipedia, then that would mean every since biography on wikipedia should not state ones ethnicity unless their is a direct quote of the person of what ethnicity he is? Chaldean 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the sensitivity of the question of ethnicity among Syriacs, I believe that that should be the approach. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Father Yusuf is a Syriac Orthodox parish priest, but I am believe that he describes himself as Assyrian, as do many Syriac Orthodox from the Turo. This was certainly the impression I got when I met him in Diyarbekır in 2005. We might want to mention that he's priest at Meryemana Kilisesi there. — Gareth Hughes 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he could be asked explicitly. With all due respect, I don't think we can base such a statement on an impression.

By the way, according to Hürriyet newspaper, he mentioned a Süryani soykırımı: [1] --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In Turkish langauge, their is no Assyrian, its Syriani. What is your point? Chaldean 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is a word for Assyrian in Turkish: Asuri. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difficulty when words are translated, and Turkish does tend to use Süryani in a general sense. Essentially, unless someone asks Father Yusuf or turns up something he wrote himself, we can't solve it by turning either to Turkish newspapers or Assyrian websites becuase they say slightly different things at face value (both having equal reason to be biased). — Gareth Hughes 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But the four sources I've provided are not "Assyrian websites". One is from Armenian National Committee of America, another from a letter by the US Congress, another by the Jerusalem summit, and one by Catholic Education Org. Chaldean 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they can be considered reliable sources (neither can a Turkish newspaper, for that matter), though, and apparently all go back to a single source. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to create your own Wikipedia:Guidelines. He is a self described Assyrian and thats final. Any edits of yours will be reverted. Chaldean 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to behave like an admin. You still haven't provided any reliable sources proving that he is a self-described Assyrian, as you put it. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to create your own rules. It your opinion that these are not reliable sources, show me one other user that agrees with you. Please take your properganda to Wikipedia's dutch version. Chaldean 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop propoganda. Sources clearly state what should be put in wiki article. The previous discussion already states this.--Trippss (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tripps, before changing this article, let's discuss this fully. I personally have no sides in this debate (ie Assyrian vs Syrian/Syriac). My concern is when people take a secondary report about something to be more valuable than the original statement. Yusuf Akbulut made a statement in Hürriyet (source is in the article). Other media outfits reported on the ensuing controversy. The issue is whether Yusuf Akbulut's own words should be valued over someone else's report of those very words. Wikipedia obviously prefers the original source over other people's reports of those sources. We have cited the original source in the article. You will notice that the English-language citations all refer to "The Traitor Among us (İçimizdeki hain)" the Hürriyet article, which is the best source of what Yusuf Akbulut said. Please understand that we are trying to report exactly what he was quoted as saying and why he was tried for those statements. No source can be better than Hürriyet for this. Ordtoy (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean already explained this well. --Am6212 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read below (and check the dates), Chaldean accepted these same arguments. In any case, calling my edits "vandalism" is disingenuous and, to be honest, not a civil way of resolving a dispute. Ordtoy (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an agreement anywhere. Your interpretation of an article that is not a very good basis to change the article.--Am6212 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

my last edit summary

I was going to write: I don't know why we should indicate his village, but if we should do that it should be like this. deniz^T_C 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Süryani

Both AP and the US Congress refer to an article in the Hürriyet [2], where Father Akbulut is cited referring to his people as Süryaniler. Apparently, this is wrongly translated as Assyrians, and hence this misnomer should not be used in this article. The only thing we are sure of is the fact that he is a Syriac Orthodox priest. Let's leave the Assyrianist propaganda out of this article. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your translation is not considered the ends of all. There is no need to make this into a techniqeal issue. He is a Syriac Orthodox who considers himself Assyrian - otherwise reliable sources which Wikipedia trusts under its policy, would not have refered to him as a Assyrian. You bring this issue every year and fial to get support from Garzo. Go create enyclopedic articles for the love of God. Chaldean (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the AP article does it say it is refering to Hurriyet? Or are you just assuming this? Chaldean (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And even if he said Syriani in the Turkish Hurriyet - this is not any of relevence to English Wikipedia. If anything good comes out of this, this whole misunderstanding shows how Assyrian is the widely used name from our people in the English language, and thus in the English Wikipedia, this is all that matters. English Wikipedia is not concirned with what a Turkish paper writes. Chaldean (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say he considers himself an Assyrian? And where does Wikipedia state that AP and the US Congress are considered reliable sources? And since when are WP editors to be used as sources?

It refers to an October 2000 article where local reporters published his remarks. The Hürriyet article was written by someone from Diyarbakır, which was -- according to US Congress -- the reason for indictment. It's quite obvious.

And no, as I tried to explain, Süryani is not the same as Assyrian. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say he considers himself an Assyrian? - We went through this last year. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policy does it require one to specifically say what is his ethnicity. Instead, we use common sense and rely on reliable sources such as the AP. If you don't like Wikipedia' policy, I suggest you motion to change them.

And where does Wikipedia state that AP and the US Congress are considered reliable sources? - you are a minority if you believe they are not reliable, but if you believe they are not considered reliable, then go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask for a ban on using AP articles as a source.

It refers to an October 2000 article where local reporters published his remarks. - Wikipedia says do not make assumptions. No where in the AP does it refer to the Turkish paper specifically. And even if it did, see my reply to your explanation of Syriani used in Turkish and Assyrian in English.

And no, as I tried to explain, Süryani is not the same as Assyrian. - And since when are users considered a source? (like you said in your edit towards User Garzo.) Write a paper, have it printed on a major journal, then we can take your explanation seriously. Chaldean (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming in late here, but let me put in my opinion. The Hürriyet newspaper article is where Akbulut makes this claim which gets him into trouble. This event is noted in the Wikipedia article and ultimately derives from the Hürriyet article. Clearly, the word he uses is "Süryani", which translates into English as "Syriac". Throughout the article it is clear he is talking about Syriacs and not all Assyrians: "Süryaniler'in toprakları olan Mezopotamya'da şimdilerde Süryaniler oldukça azaldı. Avrupa ülkelerinde Süryani nüfusu oldukça fazla. Göç etmek zorunda kaldılar. Ancak şimdi bize yönelik herhangi bir baskı yok. Oldukça rahatız. Üzerimizde hiçbir baskı yok. Yaşamımızdan memnunuz ancak tarihi gerçekleri de inkar edemeyiz." Perhaps there is a source in which his considering himself an Assyrian can be found. But his words here only refer to the Süryani. Best Ordtoy (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Syriac over Assyrian or Aramaean

Once again I'm bringing up the same subject in light of the recent reverts. The rationale for removing the original Hürriyet article is that some citations can be found that call him an Assyrian. The problem is that finding ideologically-biases articles are very easy. We can find several which call him Aramaean as well: The impact of the Treaty of Lausanne (July 1923) on the Aramean people or The falsification of Aramaean history. These are just as biased and unenlightening as ones calling him Assyrian. What is indisputable is that he is a Syriac Orthodox priest (there is no such thing as Orthodox Assyrian) and that he said that "Syriacs" suffered a genocide. If you need sources: Turkish Court Acquits Fr. Akbulut or The Syriac Priest Yusuf Akbulut .... Note the origins of these two are: cua.edu (ie university) and atour.com (ie an Assyrian organization). Also see the comments on User_talk:Garzo by an admin confirming this reading. Finally, the recent reverts have been blindly removing legitimate information (such as the fact that the problem originated in a newspaper article and several references) in the efforts to replace "Syriac" by "Assyrian" everywhere. This is removing laziness driven by ideology. Ordtoy (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Wow. I handed out a 3RR warning to the IP based from a bot generated report, then went to the history to see if I needed to hand out warnings to anyone else. I'll be real... my jaw dropped. I'll be issuing some additional warnings here in a moment, but seriously... utilize warnings, request administrative attention, discuss on the talk page. Discussion and consensus and all that. Everyone read up on 3RR and edit warring. Unacceptable. Page is protected for three days. Talk it out, reach an agreement. If edit warring resumes, blocks will be issued. لennavecia 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been planning to ask for a protection of this page for a long time, or at least a semi-protection, but I haven't done it. So, can you please at least semi-protect the page indef? Check the history and the discussion above, the person behind the ip numbers and (the now banned) Am6212 (talk · contribs) and his sock-puppets have been ignoring this for a very long time. The TriZ (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over the history shortly. لennavecia 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the sock edits seemed to have stopped at the end of October. I'm going to leave protection as is for now. If there is a problem once the full protection has expired, file a request at WP:RFPP. لennavecia 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it stopped when the sock puppets got blocked, but then some anonymous guy(s) behind ip-numbers started to keep going with the revert-war. It's possible that it is the same user who was behind the sock puppets...The TriZ (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It has started again. I'm leavig it to the admins to deal with though. Ordtoy (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)