Talk:Tarkhan/Archive 1

Archive 1

unilateral move

Articles should not be moved without discussion and consensus. Tarkhan(Turkistan) is both incorrect in form and inaccurate in scope, as the rank of Tarkhan was used by people far outside the geographic bounds of Turkistan. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

tarkhan=tarquin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.174.243 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

origin

I have once again reverted the falsification by an IP. The word "Tarkhan" is - almost certainly - of Indo-European Sogdian origin. It was borrowed by Mongols and later by Turks. That's the reason why the plural form of it, in Turkish, is Tarkhat and NOT "Tarkhanlar", as one would expect. Along with "tigin" ("prince" --> plural "tigit"), it is one of many Sogdian titles adopted by Turks and Mongols. The plural "tarkhat" is derived from Mongolian "darqat", itself derived from Sogdian "tarxant". See Central Asiatic Journal, O. Harrassowitz, 1993, v. 37, University of Michigan. Tajik (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the references once again and removed those that do not have much to do with the article. And IP simple copied some sources he very obviously does not know and did not read. If there are any specific sources, please cite them on the talk-page so they can be added in the article. Tajik (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you remove references that present information in regards to the article? I have read all of those articles and they all claim that Tarkhan is a Turkic title, all of those eight sources, wheras you provide only two references and disregard those references that I have placed there. All those references that I have placed are peer reviewed references whereas you provide only two references where one of them is a dictionary and the other one is peer reviewed. So do not remove references just because they contradict what you believe, with one of the sources even mentioning that the word Tarkhan is foreign to the Sogdian language. Even though there is much more references that support the Turkic origin of the Tarkhan title, I think we should be able to try and see if there is a compromise that can allow all the references to be included, otherwise it is unscholarly for you to just claim the title is Sogdian when there is evidence that supports otherwise. I am going to edit it to allow both opinions to be included, and prevent specifying the origin of the title when there is clearly two sides to the story.58.111.233.29 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I Don't know what this Iranian-Soghdian origin claim comes from. That Khan is a Turkic word is almost a common knowledge and Tarkhan is a complex word second part of which is Khan. If Soghdians had this word they should have borrowed it from their Turkic neighbors. I see an organized and obstinate group of Persian nationalists manipulating Wikipedia. (70.29.108.49 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

Word

The word "targan" literally means "fat," "darkhan" means "blacksmith," "darkhad" are "people associate with darkhan" in the Mongolian language if it has any relevance. 184.96.104.50 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, I will have an eye on it. --Greczia (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Etruscan Tarchon/Tarquin/Tarquna

Tarcon, or Tarconte (gr.Τάρκων - Tárkōn, Tarchon in english notation, from lat.Tarchon) was a king of the Etruscan, who brought the kingdom to the maximum extension. For this and other reasons, once dead he become a legend, then a myth, then again a god. In the Etruscan mythology he is the god of rain, in both the distructive (storm) and creative (water to the harvest) form. The Indo-European Hittites had a same god called [Tarhunna]. --Greczia (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

None of this proves your POV. You just do some irrelevant search in google, attach unrelated and irrelevant sources to the your edits and make them look scholarly. There is not a single serious scholarly source proving your fringe theories.

Could you please post the exact quotes from the following sources in the talk-page and show us how they are supposed to underline your POV?!

• E.J. Rapson: The Scythian., p.512
• V. A. Smith, Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Mohammadan Conquest incl. the Invasion of Alexander the Great, Oxford 1967, p.242
• Hasan Celâl Güzel, Ali Birinci: Main Turkic History, vol. 1, Yeni Türkiye, 2002, p.415, University of Michigan

A similarity of certain words and names does not prove that they all have the same origin. Such claims need to be reviewed and examined by real experts of comperative linguistics. So far, there is not a single serious scholar - be it in linguistics, history or archaelogy - who supports the well-known Pan-Turkist pseudo-scientific claim that Sumerians and Etriscans were Turks.

--Lysozym (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking Tirgil34 sock.--Cold Season (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of big parts

Before its going to escalate again, Lysozym, please explain your point why you have deleted such big portion of sourced and non-copyvio material? I will not take any big edit on this article untill this question is solved. --Greczia (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Because

a) you have violated copy rights by directly quoting large parts of a paper without quoting/referencing it properly

b) you falsified the content, for exaple by adding the word "Sogdian" and hence changing the actual quote

c) you quoted selectively and only the parts that were supporting your POV; for example, in the secion about supposed Etrsucan connections, the author clearly states in the German original that there is no consensus among scholar. He even explicitly points out the ice-breaking efforts of Abaev (who has also been quoted in this article). A possible connection of Tarquinius and Tarqan does not prove a Turkic origin at all; as the author points out in his last sentence, it may well be that the Etrsucans Tarquins were of Caucasian Alanian (hence Scythian) origins - a possibility that seems much more realistic than the Turkic claim.

That's the reason why I have reverted you. Please use the talkpage FIRST, before making large and controversial edits! --Lysozym (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a): please show.

Regarding b): please show.

Regarding c): This edit made by you is controversial. You have accused me for POV. Now I will show you that you are completely wrong...

My edits:

• 1. Korean POV, Turkic POV, Mongolian POV

• 2. Korean POV

• 3. Korean POV

• 4. Mongolian POV

• 5. Indo-European (i.e. Iranian and Tokharian) POV, Hunnish POV, Xiongnu POV

• 6. Indo-Iranian POV

• 7. Etruscan POV

And now I ask you of which POV you have accused me of? Korean POV, Turkic POV, Mongolian POV, Iranian POV, Tokharian POV, Hunnish POV, Xiongnu POV, Indo-Iranian POV or Etruscan POV?! You see you are completely wrong by accusing me of POV. Btw, by accusing me wrongly of POV you just admit your own POV (-> the Iranian POV), because in your belief, Abaev is the best and the others are nothing, isn't it? And last but not least, there was NOBODY CLAIMING that "a possible connection of Tarquinius and Tarqan would prove a Turkic origin"! Do not invent things which do not exist. Furthermore by saying:...

• "...it may well be that the Etrsucans Tarquins were of Caucasian Alanian (hence Scythian) origins - a possibility that seems much more realistic than the Turkic claim."

... you just admit A 2nd TIME your Iranian POV! It seems that you are searching for an alibi to delete an Etruscan etymology, although there is a reference (2005) for it.

Please use the talkpage FIRST, before deleting large edits! --Greczia (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about all of your POVs, but mostly abou the copyright violation and the multiple falsification of content and sources (meaning that you copy-post large portions of a protected text and then alter the content with your own POV by adding words to it that mislead the reader). --Lysozym (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Read it up. I impoved the point regarding copyvio. What do you mean exactly with "falsification of content and sources"? I just wrote what I've found in all those reliable sources. Do not defend your POV-position with those sources I have given forward. --Greczia (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Source falsification means that you are copying entire passages of someone elses work without explicitly mentioning that all of it is a quote. You make it look like it's your own writing. You also falsify the content by adding additional words to that quote. For example, you added the word "Sogdian" to that passage, making it look like the author had compared Sogdian with Mongolian. But that is an abvious falsification of content, because the word "Sogdian" does not appear in the original text. The author makes clear that both "free of taxes" and "blacksmith" are meanings of the word "darxan" in Mongolian, while assuming that the second one my be more original (which is perfectly in line with the work of Abaev who proved that the meaning "free of taxes" was originally East Iranian and has survived in modern Ossetian. Please use the talkpage FIRST, and please do NOT copy entire passages claiming that it is your own wording. That is a violation of one of the major rules of Wikipedia. --Lysozym (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Make it better:

1.:*"Han-Woo Choi indicates that the Mongolian meaning 'a blacksmith' preserved the more original meaning than the Sogdian "free of taxes"."

2.:*"Regarding the etymology of the Korean form *tarkW, Choi suggests that the Sogdian trґwn form of the word tarqan may give further answers."

3.:*"Furthermore he proposes the same origin for Turkic tarqan, Mongolian darxan, and Korean tarho-, interpreting this as a proof for early contacts between Central Asia and the Korean peninsula rooted in an ancient period of Turkic or Proto-Altaic smith-shamanism."

4.:*"According to D. Theodoridis it should also be noted that since the beginning of the 1920's British scientists have developed the assertion that the word tarqan and the Etruscan personal name Tarquin (Tarquinius) could be attributed to one and the same etymon."

5.:*"The Mongolian word darxan also is used as an adjective meaning 'sacred or celebrated' in Lessing's dictionary (1960)."

These point have to been mentioned. Otherwise, with this edit you are falsifying sources and content and it would seem that you are interested in clear POV. In my mind I regarded the rules of WP:OR.--Greczia (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of that Chinese source. It's written in very bad English for a start. As far as I can see, it makes no mention of a "Proto-Altaic Urheimat" (or whatever), merely suggesting there was cultural contact between Turkic peoples and Koreans. The Etruscan stuff is definitely fringe. What's even fringier is one of the claims is sourced to William Beveridge, one of the chief architects of Britain's National Health Service. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your the observation on this, I certainly now agree with it. What do you think about the 1st and 5th sentences, are they worth to be mentioned? Beside this I think we have to add at least the connection to the Turkic smith shamanism (see Tarkhan Tengri in the source), since it is a very important point regarding the etymology of Tarkhan. --Greczia (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greczia, please respect the chronology of the talk page and do not put your comments in between of older ones. That is also a form of falsification! My "thank you" was not for you but for Folantin. As for "Turkish smith shamanism", what is that supposed to be?! Any good and reliable sources for that!? --Lysozym (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking Tirgil34 sock.--Cold Season (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• One of the books cited wrongly here as published by University of Michigan (which is false and the book was just scanned or held by University of Michigan for google books and the publisher is somewhere in Turkey) claims Turkish hero "Oguz" is older than Sumerians and Sumerians are related to Turks.
• Such false book cannot be cited.[1]
• The Amanjolov source in ANI and have shown it is fringe source: [2]
• I agree with Folantin on the Chinese source.
• Frye is an excellent scholar but not a linguist. Anyhow at least the two/three false sources above should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)