Talk:Turkic alphabets

message: Another confused creation by Barefact. Apparently based on fringe sources entirely. Needs to be checked, cleaned up, and merged into Orkhon script. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well how many times do we have to read unsubstantiated claims by this particular user? Those Chorasmian quotes are Chorasmian and not Turkish!  Chorasmian is an eastern Iranian language. .   The first Chorasmian coins were struck about the turn of the 1st century b.c.e., in imitation of the tetradrachms of Eucratides, the last Graeco-Bactrian king (ca. 175-55 b.c.e.; Va¥nberg, 1977, pp. 13, 50, 64)  .  But somehow the author is claiming these Aramaic inscriptions as Turkic writing.    Note there is unanimous agreement the oldest Turkic writing is Okrhon.  I actually blame some admins for allowing this sort of abuse of scholarship to keep going for more than 6 months.  And no I am not going to expend that much energy fighting it since I have already brought down two/three articles from this guy , but I guess that was no sufficient.  There should be a law against breaking OR 100+x times and citing non-academic sources.   Some of the other images are also copy right violation for sure.    --alidoostzadeh 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I particularly liked "suggesting an Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician" -- that's pure surrealism, why on earth does "Indo-European alphabet" link to Ruis? Enough said. As Ali says, Barefact has been pushing surreal nonsense for months, and I daresay we are somewhat justified in being a little bit peeved at his newest creations. dab (𒁳) 08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove the Aramaic Chorasmian inscription and all the invalid information.  This is unacceptable unscholarly behavior.  --alidoostzadeh 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also felt that it could be better to fix any problems with the text rather than a quick merge into Orkhon script. I totally understand the concerns regarding reliability of used sources and the like, but it also makes sense to have a main article for all Turkic alphabets (if this is a valid and recognized grouping in linguistics) and have links to the articles of particular scripts comprising the group. But if it is that these alphabets are all descended from the Orkhon script, then it makes more sense to have the Orkhon script article as the main article and list these as a variants on that article, as it is now. The current solution (having this as a disambiguation list) is also close to what I thought and seems also fine to me until perhaps the need for a larger main article for an overall treatment of all these alphabets arises. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it isn't (a recognized grouping): there just the Old Turkic script, named after the Orkhon valley, with its Yenisei and Talas variants, and the descendant Hungarian (i.e. non-Turkic) script. That's it, and that's what has been  in the article all along. Other "Turkic alphabets" are just modern alphabets as employed for Turkic languages, viz., Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic, as Turkic alphabet now states. dab (𒁳) 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I was trying to say that, just with a quick look before merging, I got the impression that these alphabets (now under the variants section of the Orkhon script article) were distinct alphabets of their own, on the same hierarchical level with Orkhon alphabet, and this page (Turkic alphabets) could serve as a super-node for all of these. I can still interpret the text in that variants section this way (please see the text there): Turkic alphabets divided into four groups (Asiatic, Eurasiatic, Turanian, Southern Europe), and Orkhon alphabet is just one specific alphabet somewhere down in this tree (Turkic alphabets->Asiatic->Orkhon). And there are other alphabets on the same level of hierarchy with Orkhon (like Turkic alphabets->Eurasiatic->Don alphabet). I think the fact that Orkhon alphabet itself is listed as a node in that list forces me to do so. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: I am very doubtful about the "Asiatic, Eurasiatic, Turanian, Southern Europe" groupings. This is a geographical classification of inscriptions, with a certain variation in glyphs no doubt. There can well be a "Talas" or "Yenisei" sub-article to the Orkhon one, if people bring up enough material. There can be a detailed discussion of the inscription corpus, anything. Once this is established, we will still be able to branch out geographically or script-variant oriented sub-articles (much as we do it on Runes). As it is, the material we have so far fits comfortably into a single article, and Barefact is most welcome to improve that, it would be great to have a full discussion of, say, the "Talas" inscription corpus. This isn't about censorship at all, it's about keeping work on the article focussed and under control. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Orkhon script]]

message: I also particularly liked "Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician". These prominent people in the 19th c. must have been blinded with their Indo-European centrism if they offered Phoenician as a model of Indo-European writing. On the other hand, Phoenician and Greek and Latin were located in good old Europe, so why not "Indo-European alphabet"? Anybody wants to re-write the history? These ideas were offered by European scholars even after V.Thomsen's reading, it is on the record :-). Barefact 08:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will parse it for you, if you did not catch it. The Indo-European centrism of the the 19th c. had a particular tendency that today is universally rejected as racistic. It elevated the achievements of the IE peoples and dismissed the other peoples. Most ridiculous ideas, most of them presently thoroughly discarded, were presumptively advanced to postulate the supremacy of the IE peoples. The statement "Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician" is a part of the historical description of the subject by the scholar. Note that it was you who brought the subject to the discussion plate, "fringecruft" or not. Barefact 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European alphabet resembling Semitic Phoenician 

message: I agree that the  Ruis link is faulty, and I think you are in best position to correct it, linking to a right example of the IE alphabet. A faulty link should not be used as an excuse to delete the whole subject of a family of alphabets from the perusal of the readers. Barefact 07:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did correct it. There is no "Indo-European alphabet", and the article on Old Turkic ones is at Orkhon script. If you're unhappy with its content, do use the talkpage there. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't believe you reverted even to the Ruis. 

message: moved to Talk:Orkhon_script#import_from_Turkic_alphabets, continue discussion there please. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting and merging to delete contents