Talk:Baghatur

message: The etymology of the word is unclear but it seems to derive from Bagh - the Old-Persian word for God, Lord (see Baghdad). Therefore it could have been a word originally minted by the Aryans and consequently borrowed by the Turkic peoples from Central Asia.
This "unreferenced speculation" is moved here in order not to be lost as it might be much closer to the thruth than the rest of the "article". Internedko 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have created a false cognate without citing to any source. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Catholic Encyclopedia cited for the principle that "Baghatur" derives from "Bog" or "God" is inapposite. The work actually refers to the Russian word "Bogatyr". In any event, the work is over 100 years old and dates from a time when understanding of linguistics was largely in its infancy. Miller was not a linguist but rather a folkorist. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Internedko, it is not the first time that I see you engage in original research. Please stop. The Russian word is first used in the Hypatian Codex. Vasmer says: "a loan from Old Turkic *baɣatur (whence Hung. bátor "bold"), cf. Old Bulgar βαγάτουρ, Turkish batur "commander", Mong. bagatur, Kalmyk bātr̥, etc. Derivation of the Turkic words from Iranian languages is dubitable". Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: found it. Can't post a link but you can find it easily in google. From Sir Gerard Clauson An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish:  Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: BöriShad, could you please state why you removed sourced information  from this page? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's ridiculous to claim Turko-Mongol titles as iranian. Show me one sources that iranians/sassanids others used Baghatur before the arrival of Turks.BöriShad (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BöriShad: That's not really a proper reason to remove sourced information now is it? if you don't have anything special to say, then I see no reason why the information should stay removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many sources that clearly say IT IS TURKO-MONGOL TITLE yet none says iranian title. Add a ref for iranian origin of the word Baghatur, until then page stays same as beforeBöriShad (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Turko-Mongol title doesn't mean it's etymologically Turko-Monoglic. For example the title "bey" is generally explained as a borrowing from Iranian "bag/bay", which derives from Sanskrit "bhaga" ie. Avestan-Old Iranian "baga" (which yet from bhagavan), from which most possibly derives title bhagatur. Most importantly, the alleged meaning  "hero" or "valiant warrior", as well "the concept of the Baghatur has its roots in Turco-Mongolian folklore" are unsourced. Is the exclusive relation to the Turkic name Bahadır justified, or maybe OR? Want it or not, its meaning still relates to "bhaga/baga" (lord, patron, wealth, destiny, fortune), and that the Turkic nomad confederations like Bulgars also enveloped Iranian influences and ethnic groups.--Crovata (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Baghatur is very Turko-Mongol. Just google it for academical books and if there is any iranian used the title Baghatur before arrival of the Turks I wouldn't change it. Also we already discussed the word beg/bey/bek it's a Turkic word. Even encyclopedia iranica says "Turkich title". so your argument is invalid. Again, a ref which clearly says BAGHATUR is an iranian title or stop changing it. BöriShad (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You and me didn't, and it does not matter if beg/bey/bek are a Old Turkic word if it original derives from Iranian. Your knowledge about the topic is too prejudiced. That's not how we discuss and edit on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you guys know history far better than me. What a place, sounds like a joke. Everyone claims something like history major and when someone doesn't agree with them, accusing them with ignorance and sockpuppetry. BöriShad (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained removal of sourced information. 

message: I applied correction on word etymology. Because the etymology of the statement is incorrectly stated. It was returned without justification. 
If the editor has knowledge about this, please state in the discussion for reasons.--88.251.216.130 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) You deleted current cited content just because you don't like it. You can't delete it just because it does not match your pov. 2) Copy-pasting from Bey, misrepresenting sources and removing current info is not a correction. Just provide reliable etymology sources for "Baghatur" itself. Even that "bey" and other similar articles needs review. Because it seems there are misrepresented sources on those articles. 3) You did same falsification on here too. 4) Don't spam and misuse warning templates/messages on my talk page 5) Your edits, comments and edit summaries are as same as blocked User:BöriShad. I call other editors for a NPOV revision. Because your non-stop disruption on Modu Chanyu proves that your goal is just removing/falsifying Beckwith's work, just like BöriShad who targeted several similar articles (this article, Atabeg, Bogatyr and etc). . --Wario-Man (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   
 1- The given wikilink and The information outlined there is totally contradictory. Administrators: You can check and see with your own eyes
 2- When you examine Bechwith's source, He stated that the origin of the word is unclear. Original beckwith source. The etymology of the word is unknown, though the first syllable is very likely the Iranian word baγ ‘god, lord’, an element in many later Central Eurasian titles And You have reflected here in a misleading and distorting way. And you say I destroyed the source. Administrators: You can control it at the source.
 3- You canvassed the discussion. It is against the rules to ask for help from other editors in this way. And instead of arguing with me, You have provocative and disrespectful statements to prevent me. When the contributions you have made are examined, It's obvious who is the pov-pushing.  Please see WP:TPG and WP:CIV.
 4- When we do research on the word of Bey or Beg. Nearly all sources, we see this as a word of Turkic origin. When I did my review, I saw that you violated a rule. This  arrangement violates Wikipedia:No original research rule. I give an example here because it is a similar topic. You ignoring to this erroneous arrangement. And You have given warning messages to other users who corrected this incorrectly. Example -. Instead of fixing the mistake, You defend this pov editing. In this example: --. This makes everything clear. You cannot threaten users. Be respectful to other users. You are the ones who made these erroneous edits. You did the same here. You are trying to justify yourself with misleading statements. Administrators: Please review the changes made and See errors.--88.251.8.4 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bey]]