This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beshogur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The demographic picture is wrong and fake uzbeks are only 9% in Afghanista!!!!!!!
Most people of balkh are tajiks stop putting wrong images آفریغ (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
You're pretending like this is some ANI issue. You're falsely changing the date. Original image file source clearly says after 1844. Beshogur (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You reverted my edit to Turkey, as you are entitled to do. Can you state why? I do not intend to argue for reinstatement, but if there has been consensus to use the semi-English long name of Republic of Türkiye in the infobox as opposed to the standard long English name preferred by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates it would be helpful to know. Regards, Bazza (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I've looked. See what you mean. I'll add a comment to the infobox entry to dissuade others like me from doing the same again. Feel free to move this conversation to Talk:Turkey, or not, as you wish. Bazza (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that you have moved East Turkistani Government-in-Exile to East Turkistan Government in Exile without stating a reason or proper discussion. The correct wording should be "government-in-exile", not "government in exile".
Furthermore, when describing a government, the adjective should be used (i.e. the British government, the French government, not Britain government, France government). Hence, it should be East Turkistani Government-in-Exile, not East Turkistan Government in Exile. Vic Park (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It is, bro. The word "East" is English, the word "Turkistan/Turkestan" is a loanword, but it is still English, and its adjective is "Turkistani/Turkestani". Vic Park (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but would you please take a look at the articles on the Kutrigurs and the Dulo clan. Various IPs have been reactivated with their destructive, biased edits there. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Hi, you recently reverted an edit of mine relating to the coup, can you please explain why, the coup was executed by elements of Cypriot National Guard,not the Hellenic military, do you have any sources that claim otherwise, if so, may you please present them otherwise that title has to change as it is misleading, maybe "Greek Cypriot coup", "Cypriot coup" or "Cypriot National Guard coup" but keeping it as "Greek military coup" is factually incorrect. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It is Greek Cypriot yes sir, but it is not tied to the Hellenic government, which is what is usually meant by "Greek" in these cases, remember, most wikipedians arent too familiar with the history or genetics of Cyprus and its people so someone seeing "Greek" wouldnt immediately assume Cypriot Naitonal Guard, they would assume Hellenic Armed Forces, would you be ok with it being changed to "Greek Cypriot coup" so it is clearer? ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that your edit summaries are generally inadequate, especially when you are reverting or undoing an edit. Edit summaries that accurately describe changes help explain Wikipedia standards to new editors, help avoid content disputes and edit warring, and they are also helpful to anyone browsing an article's history. Vague accusations of bad faith and indiscriminately throwing around the term "vandalism" don't remove the need for you to explain your edits and be welcoming to newcomers. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of edited content at the Sulaiman Bek article
Hi Beshogur,
I just wanted to notify you that there's an user repeatedly trying to delete sourced content about the presence of Iraqi Turkmens in Sulaiman Bek. As you are interested in topics involving Turkic cultures, I hoped you might be interested to help solving that dispute. Respectfully, --Ermanarich (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You did a very good job in Arslan page protecting from vandals but it seems you didn't continue to protect it. The word Aslan or its alternative, Arslan, is a Turkic male given name, not Iranic. You're a Turkish user I believe you can easily reconstruct its earliest form of the word.
Your recent editing history at Czechia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qertis (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you reverted my edit on the article since it was properly sourced and an important piece of information. The title Gâvur Padişah for him is well known and I can give more references than just the Independent article if required. AlNiani (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's the goal of wikipedia to decide if something is worth including or not. It's just meant to be an archive which includes any and all information of any relevance on the topic. AlNiani (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Are we going to include every supposed nickname? That's not a real nickname and sources claim it was used against Mahmud I not II. Independent is not a reliable source for historical topics either. Beshogur (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, you are a Turkish far-righter based in the Netherlands or Belgium. And you think you are impartial? Again - who do you think you are? Gypsybores (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits on Bulgars page or I shall be forced to report you to admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.95.18.196 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.95.18.196 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you should explain your edit placing weirdly drawn Russian miniature instead of contemporary Ottoman miniature. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think that weird picture from ottoman-pov Suleimanname is better that a picture from Russian source? Besides, do you have source supporting your claim that it was Devlet Giray drawn there? Devlet Geray (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Besides, do you have source supporting your claim that it was Devlet Giray drawn there? Don't mock peoples' minds. There is no "claim". 30/38 is the source. Or this? (TDV: Devlet Giray’ı Kanûnî Sultan Süleyman’ın huzurunda gösteren bir minyatür (Süleymannâme, TSMK, Hazine, nr. 1517, vr. 519a)) It takes few minutes to find. Beshogur (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
"The main purpose of this manuscript was to paint an ideal public image for Sultan Suleiman and his court. It focuses on portraying Suleiman as a military figure, but also serving justice as a ruler. For example, the image of Suleiman's enthronement in the Süleymannâme serves as a way to show Suleiman's military role and having order of the court. The idea of a just leader is exemplified by the numerous paintings of his court receptions with other ambassadors, but also through his compassion for his enemies and showing his power and Ottoman superiority." Very good source to use, keep up great work! Devlet Geray (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed a great source. Didn't know Devlet Giray was his enemy. It is a standard procedure for Ottoman sultans being drawn larger than other people. Also the text you copied is simply unsourced. Means nothing. Beshogur (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
then according to your logic, we should use this picture to illustrate the article on Ibrahim Pasha (he has clear Balkan features I suppose?) Devlet Geray (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Kissing sultan's kaftan was an Ottoman tradition. And if there is no better drawing, it should be used. Your Russian chronicle is no better drawing than the Ottoman one. Beshogur (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Besides, from different Russian pictures of Devlet Giray we know that he had beard. Did those Ottoman artists saw Devlet Giray in their lives at all? --Devlet Geray (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
So you tell me western style Devlet Giray is "better" than contemporary Ottoman miniature which includes Devlet Giray with Tatar dress and Tatar features? What the hell is weird picture from ottoman-pov Suleimanname Devlet Giray was an Ottoman vassal and he visited Suleiman, and the drawing is contemporary. Did those Ottoman artists saw Devlet Giray in their lives at all Yes. Any other question? There is nothing "weird picture" here. Your name being "Devlet Geray" doesn't give the authority to make changes like whatever you want. Beshogur (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
It is a contemporary Russian miniature. Devlet Giray "visited" Muscovy, and the drawing is contemporary. Being a turkish doesn't give you autority to make racist claims such as "Tatar features" that seem Tatar to you Devlet Geray (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah stop accusing me of racism before getting reported. He has curly hair, European type crown, European type dress. It is indeed non-Tatar. Another Golden Horde Khan according to Russian chroniclesBeshogur (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
So this proves what? This drawing looks nothing like Russian chronicles. It has clear Ottoman influences. Also these are mostly imaginary. Beshogur (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Another example
Russian drawing of Mehmed Giray with European style crown and European features (left) Ottoman drawing of Mehmed Giray with kalpak and kaftan (right)
And? You like Turkish miniature, I prefer Russian. Drawing such a crawn was just to emphasize that the person was a czar=khan Devlet Geray (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
So you tell me that Russian version being copy paste of Russian tsars is better than contemporary Ottoman miniature that shows Crimean khan with Tatar facial features, Tatar dress (kaftan/kalpak). I can't believe I'm arguing this with you. This ain't Russian wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Another Khan
Just stop this claims on "Tatar" features, again you are not an antropologist. And I haven't seen any other pictures of Crimean Khans besides this Ottoman Persian-style miniatures showing them with Mongolic features. Devlet Geray (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand what are you trying to prove with an imaginary European drawing from 1688? And I haven't seen any other pictures of Crimean Khans besides this Ottoman Persian-style miniatures showing them with Mongolic features. Oh my ... So the problem being them having slight Mongolic features? :D Beshogur (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Funny because that's how Bertrandon de la Broquière describes Murad II for example: In the first place, as I have seen him frequently, I shall say that he is a little, short, thick man, with the physiognomy of a Tartar. He has a broad and brown face, high cheek bones, a round beard, a great and crooked nose, with little eyes. so weird you claim this stuff is racism. Beshogur (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Another. All Europeans were mistaken on their appearance?
It's not the main problem. The main problem is low-quality picture showing Girays small and crooked. Showing them smaller than sultans is a bias, since Girays a dynasty of more noble origin than the Ottomans. And we have pictures where they are not small and crooked, but just normal size and normal posture. Devlet Geray (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
First, this is not the first time non-Ottoman people having Ottoman miniatures as their main image on wikipedia. As I told, it is always Ottoman procedure that other people being small compared to the sultan. Another thing is, Russian chronicles just copy pasted Russian tsars (or whatever they are) for every Golden Horde related khans, while Ottomans have separate face/dress. I don't understand how you got racism from those images. There is no bias in 500 years old miniature. And yes I know how Crimean Tatars look. Not all of them have Mongolic features but is there a surprise Crimean khans now having Mongolic features while they're literal descendant of Genghis khan? I didn't even know the "problem" was their look here. For the description above, this stuff is on wikipedia, historic report of appearance of an Ottoman sultan saying he has small eyes, etc. and looks like Tatar. This is not racist. Beshogur (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as i know, according to historical report, Cengiz Han had green cat's eyes, was tall and strong with a powerful stature. He wasn't a crooked small man. Ottoman culture of drawing people is nothing to do with historical accuracy Devlet Geray (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Nikolay Veselovsky: Turkish historians, presenting the Tatars as a rude people, treat them with contempt; the desire to humiliate the Tatars in front of the Turks, to show what a great advantage the sultan has over the Crimean Khan, is constantly overlooked by these historians. Therefore, the events described by the Turks acquire a special color...Devlet Geray (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the miniature. We can't remove it because you find something offensive, while there is 0 offensive stuff in the picture. Beshogur (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Russian drawing of Mehmed Giray with European style crown and European features (left) Ottoman drawing of Mehmed Giray with kalpak and kaftan (right)
