User talk:Burgaz

Welcome!

Hello Burgaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so, add it back, although I'm sure it's been discussed before. The remaining material, regarding Armenian revolts, is likely to be removed by the next editor to come along. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"However, when Turkish press asked Pamuk about his speech, he declined that he said "Turks killed Armenians". That should probably be "However, when Turkish press asked Pamuk about his speech, he denied that he said "Turks killed Armenians". Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "I did not say we killed that amount of Armeninas, I did not use the word genocide" is fine, but "that number" would be better than "that amount". It might even be better to replace "that amount" by "[the number he was asked about]", so "I did not say that we killed [a million] Armenians, I did not use the word genocide." Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it now. burgaz 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wrong Name

I used to edit South Africa-related articles, but I don't much anymore. See the edit histories of Khoikhoi and Bushmen. :-) Khoi khoi 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote. I've added it to the article. I know you say the first quote is wrong, but unfortunately, it's not our job as Wikipedians to say which one is right, as both sources are verifiable. What our job is to just report what reliable sources say. Hope you understand. Khoi khoi 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks attributed to the PKK

Just a few notes. Firstly, there is no way that you can compare this article and the one on the subject of the attacks attributed to the other terrorist group. Your article contained less than a line, and was unsourced. The other one was far, far longer, and was sourced. There was no way that information could be in the article on the organisation, and when a section within the PKK article expands to such a level, then it will warrant its own article. Also please note that 'that article exists, and therefore this one should.' Is not at all a valid argument, as explained here. As it happens, I have changed the article to a redirect to the PKK article, until it can be properly expanded. J Milburn 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are COMPLETELY talking to the wrong person. I am not here for a debate on the nature of this terrorist group, I just don't want a useless, unsourced one line stub that is better explained elsewhere. J Milburn 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to back up my point, I had nothing to do with the moving of the article about the group. All I did was make the Terrorist attacks attributed to the PKK article redirect to the article that a search for 'PKK' pointed to. J Milburn 23:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Re: Many traces and roots of Zoroastrianism can still be seen in the current beliefs of Iranians. Don't you think this is not considered as a good thing by Islam religion? Burgaz 13:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Burgaz why should it be bad as long as they don’t contradict each other? The Iranian culture is a blend of Zoroastrian, Islamic, Sufism and some other schools of philosophy. It is a unique blend that has brewed over centuries and encourages people to be good. That is what all religions say, isn’t it? Kiumars

My only reason to get interested in this sentence is that there are people in Turkey who think like that: "We were great nation before Arabic religion."

I don't think so. The teachings of Islam is that "all religions" are wrong, but only Islam is correct. This can be viewed as religous fanaticism, but I'm sorry in Qu'ran, there are verses which condemns people who follow ancestor relgions.(Only Christianity and Judaism is better than others because they are people of book.)Burgaz 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burgaz 14:35, 11 February 2007; I am not an expert in that field and I suggest you search Wiki and find people with better knowledge than me but there is a big difference between recognizing the “Ahlle Ketab”; which means Islam believe these 3 religions believe in the same god and their holly books are the words of the same god; and disrespecting other religions and beliefs! Zoroastrian is a respected religion today in Iran and people are free to practice it if they wish. There are also over 2 billion Buddhists and Hindus in the world who are equally respected by Muslims. As a matter of fact Islam is more flexible than Christianity in this respect, did you know that Islam is not even recognized as a religion by Vatican (or any other Christian church as far as I know)? Kiumars 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

In Islam, there is not compulsion first of all. I am not an authority in religion issues, and my knowledge about Islam is not wide. I cannot judge people's beliefs. But, my knowledge is about Islam is that Islam finds others religions as "mushirk" (denying the unity of God). - In Islam, there is not compulsion first of all. - As a secular country, every religion is free in Turkey. But, I remember that in Ottoman Empire, only 3 religions were free: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. There were people in Mardin -at the period of Murad IV-, who worship Star, but they were forced to execution. Finally, they became Christian, and saved their lifes.Burgaz 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your view can be true. I searched the Avesta. burgaz 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stanford J. Shaw

You wondered "Can I copy from his home page?" The answer is no. I've tagged the article with {{db-copyvio}}. Please let it be deleted before starting a new one. You can use his home page as a source, but please don't copy it word for word! Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PKK and LTTE

Hey Burgaz. As you can see from Archive 1, the title of the page has been discussed before. I wish I could go in to detail with you about this, but I simply don't have the time right now. Basically, most international observers note that both the PKK and the Turkish state commit infractions against human rights. In my opinion, both these infractions should be documented upon. According to Human Rights Watch:

"Consequently, all economic, political, military, social and cultural organizations, institutions, formations -- and those who serve in them -- have become targets. The entire country has become a battlefield."

"The PKK also promised to "liquidate" or "eliminate" political parties, "imperialist" cultural and educational institutions, legislative and representative bodies, and "all local collaborators and agents working for the Republic of Turkey in Kurdistan."

However, it also states that:

"Turkish government forces have, in the course of the conflict with the PKK, also committed serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and indiscriminate fire (...) Many who died were unarmed civilians, caught in the middle between the PKK and security forces, targeted for attacks by both sides."

So, I don't think the article should only be about the PKK, it also mention people killed by the Turkish Army. Do you remember in 2004 when twelve-year-old Uğur Kaymaz was killed in Kızıltepe by Özel Tim (Special Forces Squad)? 11 civilians in Diyarbakır (including four children) and 3 civilians in Kızıltepe were killed by Turkish government forces at demonstrations in March-April 2006. Of course, some may argue that these are not civilian casualties because they were demonstrating in support for Öcalan. Anyways, that's all I have the time to write for now. Kolay gelsin. Khoi khoi 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not relevant to the naming discussion. burgaz 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia!! I hope that you will enjoy your time here. I was thinking that maybe you would like to get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey - we need all the help that we can get. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. Just add your name to the participants list. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Happy editing! Baristarim 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post here [2] - new comments always go to the bottom of the page, that's why most people must have missed it. All editors look to the bottom of the talk page for new posts and don't look further up. I put your question back to the bottom of the talk page, I hope that it is ok with you. Cheers! Baristarim 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message2:-)

You have a message on my talk page.Kiumars 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1:"Education is not that expensive these days!" I did not like that sentence. Though I am not sure that I chose the right profession, surely My B.S degree is not on any of above interesting subjects. And consuming time on Wikipedia is not good for my education career, since I have to study a lot, but I cannot resist it!

2:

This genetic distance map made in 2002 is an estimate of 18 world human groups by a neighbour-joining method based on 23 kinds of genetic information.^[1]

Do you mean these 5 races? I always find languages an interesting subject. Although Japanese and Korean fall into the same category in languages, Chinese do not. This is very interesting, because we think they are Mongoloid as in the figure. I read once that Tibetians come from "Mongoloid race". I said "Wow!, then Tibet language is similar to Japan or Turkish." But, it is not. It is similar to Chinese. I was disappointed, and I classify people according to language families rather than race concept which is more appropriate, I think.

I am not expert of genetics science, and I can not understand some things, really for example apperance can be misleading. If I see a page on human races, I directly look to the faces, now I see it is not correct. If ancestry can be found by genetics, OK, WOW! I read that an Irish woman was found as a grandchild of Viking through genetics science. I do not know genetics researches finds the same things with history. Turkic people in Iran was granchildren of Central Asian people migrated to Iran, and children of Anatolian people who migrated into Iran-Anatolia-back to Iran, as in historical researches. I think that there is an "unforced" (Turkic speaking people accepted Iranization with their own will) Iranization of Turkic speaking people in Iran. But, if genetics science does not agree with it, OK, then you can claim this migrations were very small in history. I am not an expert!

As I am interested in these subjects, I really do not know the correct answer to the question: What makes a nation? We know that if Turkish language does not exist, then Turkish people would vanish. (Like French people who speak French which is related to Latin, but their grandfathers was speaking Celtic.) In culture, religion is an important issue, for sure. Sharing the same pride in defeating the enemies is also very important. So, if culture is important, why do you need "scentific theories" regarding Azeris. What makes a nation?. Religion? "Millet" in Turkish is an Islamic concept and makes all Muslims a nation. In Turkish Independence March, "Millet" is used. But, "Ulus" in Turkish is a secular word created by Republic, and makes all citizens of Turkey a nation without any reference to religion, this is one of the reasons of Kurdish seperatism. But, then all Iranians, Turkish, and Arabians are the same nation?. These questions are difficult questions, but a combination of all these factors makes a nation, though I am not sure how. Burgaz 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Reference in original RACES page:[reply]

^ Saitou. Kyushu Museum. 2002. February 2, 2007. [1]

My degree and two master’s degrees are in Science and Engineering so I do not know what you wasted your time on! Was it Arts and pottery? Maybe it is time you get into real education! Please do not waste my time till you can make an educated conversation. You have lots to learn, start from A B C of science. Kiumars 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a personal attack. Why did you do it? "Consuming time" is my consuming time. I have to study my lessons so my idea is to stop editing on Wiki, so I thought that I should not make new contributions. But, if messages comes, I reply to them. My lessons is not about genetics, so I do not need education in these subjects, but I am interested in history and read books. Burgaz 01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuimars, Please concentrate only on content from now on, not on the contributors. I liked this message by SlimVirgin very much because what that guy did me last night was wrong. We were talking about Azeris in Iran, but he made a personal attack against me by saying "You have lots to learn, start from A B C of science." I am happy that he has been has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.Burgaz 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to move an article which was discussed before?

See Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict/Archive 1.

List of attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party took 5 Yes, the winner. If it is not neutral, the neutral one, namely "List of events in the conflict between the Turkish Government and the Kurdistan Workers Party" took 3 Yes, 3 No's.

What is the result of this voting?

Still article has the name "Turkish-Kurdish conflict", which is not neutral since it uses the term Kurdish instead of PKK, and the problem is certainly not an ethnic conflict. If PKK was used instead of Kurdish, it would be better. I changed the name, but a user said that I had to do a survey before renaming. But, there was a survey finished in summer but no result was obtained. What can I do to change the name?Burgaz 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what exactly is it that you need help with? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes, if I were you, I would conduct another proposal to see if the page should be moved to a new name. If it passes, move it using the "move" button at the top of the window :). Hope that answered your question. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:RM. Khoi khoi 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selam

Yes, well check out these BBC headlines: "Turkey warns children off clashes", "Kurd unrest escalates in Turkey", "Turkish Kurds riot after bombing", "Plight of Turkish Kurds continues". Also, it doesn't make sense to call it the "Turkey-PKK conflict" because the conflict is not only with the PKK. There are other groups such as the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons as well. And aside from militant groups, civilians are involved as well. The Turkish Army is still made up of Turkish men, right? Khoi khoi 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well here's some links I found from Google Scholar and Google Books:

"Nation–states and ethnic boundaries: modern Turkish identity and Turkish–Kurdish conflict". By Mustafa Saatci. Ethnic and religious conflicts are two of the most pressing issues facing Turkey today. This article offers the argument that the development of the Turkish state and identity, and Turkey's peripheral position in the interstate system, have collectively determined the parameters and dynamics of the conflicts.
"Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology". By Ingrid I. Koop. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict goes back at least to the time when the Ottoman Empire dissolved and Kurds were promised a nation-state of their own in the Treaty of ...
"Commitment or Pure Politics? The Effect of Domestic Factors on Third Party Involvement in Civil Wars." By Nil Seda Şatana. Why has the international community refrained from active involvement in the Turkish- Kurdish conflict that lasted for two decades? The conflict resolution literature has not found an adequate answer to this question, mostly, I argue, due to the lack of domestic variables in intra-state conflict datasets.
"Novel Regional Policy of Turkey in Line with EU Standards". By Gulhan Bilen. On the contrary, the East regions have, for centuries, been suffering from extremely social and economic structure drawbacks. The situation finally led to a fierce socio-political problem manifested in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in the East and Southeast Regions, notably in the last two decades. (Aydın and Keyman, 2004)
"Integration i multikulturelle folkeskoler : Belyst gennem feltarbejde i de tidlige klasser på to multikulturelle folkeskoler". By Thomas Gitz-Johansen. I also encounter several instances where international conflicts (such as the Turkish – Kurdish conflict or the Palestinian – Israeli conflict) enter the classroom and are negotiated among the children.
"Turkey: Facing a New Millennium: Coping with Intertwined Conflicts". By Amikam Nachmani. Escalation of the Turkish—Kurdish conflict sidelined moderates on both sides.
"Transnational Politics: : Turks and Kurds in Germany". By Eva Østergaard-Nielsen. In the late 1980s, as the clashes between extremist groups of right- and left- wing were gradually replaced by the Turkish–Kurdish conflict, the use of Gastrech was increasingly used in debates in the Bundestag.
"Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Sea Region". By Michael P. Croissant, Bülent Aras. Despite the arrest and detention in Italy of Abdullah Ocalan—leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)—the violent Turkish-Kurdish conflict is far from over, and the potential for sociopolitical and military conflict in southeastern Turkey will remain high so long as the so-called Kurdish problem is not resolved.
"New Approaches to Migration?: transnational communities and the transformation of home". By Khalid Koser, Nadje Sadig Al-Ali. The resurgence of the Turkish–Kurdish conflict since 1984 has led to a militarization of the region, with the army enforcing martial law.

Please let me know what you think. As for Ruşen Çakır, I don't think using the term means that there's a civil war—it just means that there'a conflict. A title like "Causalities of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey" makes it seem like it's entirely the fault of the Kurds, which I disagree with. I'll try to think of more suggestions. There used to be an article called "conflict in southeastern Turkey", but that wouldn't work because events have happened in İstanbul as well. Khoi khoi 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict

I think it is better to discuss general comments, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Casualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict discussion page, not on my talk page if not directly to related my ideas. If you are not interested in this issue, you do not have to make comments. I randomly send messages some of people who are WikiTurkey project members about the survey and the background of the issue. Ignore my message sent, if you are not interested in it.Burgaz 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PKK/Turkey

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I think you may have contacted the wrong editor. Happy editing! J Milburn 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al queda and PKK

I tried that name but Khoikhoi did not accept it. Khoi said that Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian Kurdish, he was killed, so it is not only PKK-Turkey conflict. But, current name Turkish-Kurdish conflict is wrong because that there is no ethnic conflict. There is a problem related to ethnic Kurdish problem but it is not directly an ethnic war. I asked the naming dispute to R.Cakır, and he said that "I think that "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is not a good idea because it refers to some kind of civil war that does not exist yet. I would prefer 'Kurdish question (or problem, or maybe conflict) in Turkey' or Turkey's Kurdish question'. But, Khoi did not like the name because according to him not only Kurds are responsible for the conflict. He said that he would think about the name, but no suggestions came form him! I searched on the Internet, and found an article by Koç University academician Somer: "People seem to instinctively understand and fear that this time such a path may lead to a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, i.e. not only a conflict between the state and Kurdish separatists as the conflict previously was, but which involves ordinary people". from http://www.turkishpolicy.com/default.asp?show=fall_2006_somer That would be another nominee for the name: "Turkish state- Kurdish separatists conflict". If there is a vote, we should make a consensus. Any name other than this name is suitable. But, at the last vote, people who are against the current name gave votes to different names so article's name did not change. We should refrain from this. Is "Turkish state - Kurdish separatists conflict" good?Burgaz 11:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "war on terror" (so "war on PKK") includes many many many non-Al-Qaeda (in this case non-PKK) related incidents which their commonality is that they were Muslims (in this case Kurd or there are other ethnicities in Turkey that had their share). Yes Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian (even if he is not, there may be others), which was a collateral damage on this plight to fight against seperationist group (war on PKK). Thanks for PKK and its fight to eliminate all the Kurdish groups in Turkey during 1980s (which began 1970 right-left classes) there is no other Kurdish seperationist organization left which can be claimed that Turkey's fight is against not one but many other Kurdish organizations. However, if there is a monopoly of PKK among Kurds (no-pluralism), it can only be claimed that PKK is a anti-democratic organization (daaa... welcome the world of terrorism). If there is no democracy, PKK can not be claimed representative of Kurds. 1) PKK is not representative of Kurdish people (the title can not be generalized to Kurds, Kurds in Turkey, etc). 2) there is no other Kurdish seperationist group left and government's activities are directly related to PKK (title can not be generalized to Kurdish groups). 3) Terrosim aims civilians and specifically aims to blur the differences between them so that activities are seem to against the public not organization (check the "war on terror" and how things are getting blurred). What you brought as a question is part of the reality of fight against a terrorist organization (government's mishap can not be used to claim fight is bigger than PKK. These mishaps are illegalities but nothing more). War on PKK is a messy thing, but at the end it is a fight against "PKK". Wat is next in this naming scheme? Like seperationist activities of Armenians during WWI, are we going to name this as "Kurdish Genocide" in the coming years? It is what it is, fight against PKK --OttomanReference 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fortunate (for them) that they are in the intelligence business and not in commerce Burgaz. Pazarda sünger satmaya göndereceksin ki fakülteleri gelişsin. :) Cretanforever 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming user's talk pages

See WP:CANVASS. Requested moves are an attempt to create a consensus of Wikipedia editors, not editors who you think may share a view similar to yours. --Iamunknown 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all editors had the same view with me. For example, J Milburn was not interested in this issue. burgaz 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for deleting the Category:Anti-Armenianism

Will you support my arguement for the deletion of the Category:Anti-Armenianism that I put forward on May 1, 2009?

It is very subjective and even racist as it puts every person who questions the Armenian genocide, such as prominent academicians, who are not racist or personally against Armenian people or Armenia as an entity, along with assasins and militants.

Thank you

81.214.147.154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.154 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{adminhelpme}} I changed my user name to Burgaz two years ago. I want my old user page to be deleted 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All done. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks burgaz 16:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Saitou. Kyushu Museum. 2002. February 2, 2007. [1]

[1]