User talk:Bakunla

About German "Bergtürken" (mountain turks). The term was not used only once and what is exactly to verfy? I posted two sources (in German and transl. it) where it clearly says when and what Bismarck used (it) and that he denied the existence of an Albanian nation before and during the congress. The term 'Bergtürken' existed before the turkish term was translated into german; Bergtürken was associated with Albanians first in germanophone regions, later on mainly associated with Kurds. Since "Bergtürken" is an offensive term (directed at Albanians but also at the same time for Kurds) it should be mentioned that Bismarck used it before Turks (wrongly)declared Kurds as "just mountain turks" and denied the existence of a kurdish ethnnicity and language (which was forbidden, along with the word Kurd). Also, using "Turk" instead of Albanian/Bosnian/etc. (Non-turkish muslims) has a long history in Europe; hence the reason why alb. "Turkollarë", germ. "Turkalbaner", greek "Turkalvanós", engl. "Turco-Albanian" and many other terms exist.SKA-KSI (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SKA-KSI: WT:CFI (+ WT:WDL) requires 3 usages for German. Sources stating that Bismarck called the Albanians "Bergtürken" would at best give one usage (by Bismarck), and 2 more would be needed. --Bakunla (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

For what needed exactly? I'm curious how you wanna know that the term was used 'only one time'? If you read my text - then you'll see that I wrote Bismarck used it. I never mentioned how many times and I never claimed that that was the only time someone said it. Even if that would be the case; the word would have been a word invented by Bismarck himself (highly doubt it). Terms like "Bergtürken", "Turkalbaner", "Turcocypriots", Turk-whatsoever, etc. were constantly used in Europe during Ottoman era (in all kind of languages, Germans were clearly not the only ones to write about Ottomans and for sure not the only ones to actually collaborate with them for own political interests). After all, Bismarck used the term "Bergtürken" long time before the Turkish state was even created and before Turks renamed Kurds as "Dağ Türkleri". Verfy? What exactly...? Honestly asking bc I don't get. I'm not struggling with the fact that a german renamed Albanians as "Turks". I mean, Bismarck even denied the existence of an albanian Ethnicity in front of all european great powers. In how many languages do you want to find references to "mountain turks" associated with Albanians?

• Here's something from 1833 in Italian:
  • "TZIMNITZA, borgo della Turchia europea. V. SIMNITzA. TZINATZIGOS, montagna della Turchia europea, in Albania, nel centro del sangiaccato di Monastir"
  • Translation: ZIMNITZA, a village in European Turkey. V. ZIMNITzA. TZINATZIGOS, mountain of European Turkey, in Albania, in the center of the Sanxhak(alb.)/Sandžak(slav.) Monastir.
• >>> REMINDER: A state like Turkey did not exist in 1833 - that was still Ottoman Empire. Turkey became officially a state in 1923. Still, authors saw european parts that were under Ottoman rule as part of (european)"Turkey" - as you can see. Hence, the inhabitants of this regions were also labled as Turks (which is an umbrella term). Now, guess what some germ./ital./etc. called ppl that inhabited mountains in (european)"Turkey" in 1833? Don't you think that it is quite naive to think the term "Bergtürken" was used only once and by only one man?
• 1869, in Greek:
  • Οι ορεινοί Τούρκοι της Σκόδρας εορτάζουσι κατ' τος την μνήμην του Αγίου Γεωργίου.
  • Translation: The mountain turks of Shkodra celebrate in memory of St. George.
• So "mountain turks" were doing some random christian stuff and celebrate random christian stuff? How come? These so called "mountain turks" weren't Turks - but roman catholic Albanians, Albanians from Shkodra (northern Albania). Many of them are till to this day roman catholic and not muslims. But still, to Greeks they were "mountain turks" (it is a fact that alb. catholic highlander tribes collaborted with Ottomans. Before that these tribes were called "Vaşi" (wild) by Ottomans). Refering to non-turks as Turks isn't a "Bismarck" or "german thing". Germans adopted not only the term "Turkalbaner" from Greek, even "Bergtürken" is nothing but a translation and german version of a greek term. Greeks (and their politics) were clearly not unknown folks to Bismarck, not unknown to Germans in general.SKA-KSI (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It says "use in permanently recorded media" - I cannot add every book that includes the word "Bergtürken" as a reference. The term "Bergtürken" is a very widespread term in german literature and if you actually watch german TV, read german newspapers - you'll hear it.SKA-KSI (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• "In how many languages do you want to find references to "mountain turks" associated with Albanians?"
  - in one: German, and the specific term in question is Bergtürke(n).
• "I cannot add every book"
  - there's no need for every book. Three citations (of usages, independent of each other, etc.) are fine.
• "Germans adopted not only the term "Turkalbaner""
  - judging by Google and Google Books that term is uncommon, barely gets around three usages on GB (all post 1945), but that's sufficient as for WT:CFI. For Albanerhasser and Anti-Albanismus it's different: WT:Requests for verification/Non-English#Albanerhasser, Anti-Albanismus.

-Bakunla (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would add that referring to Bismarck's use of the word is a mention, not a use. @SKA-KSI: As for your behavior: Wiktionary is a resource for people to find out about words and phrases that are in actual use as part of the language, which we describe using a neutral point of view. Wiktionary has no opinion. This is not a platform to complain about how other Europeans are slandering Albanians, whether they really are or not. Nor is it a tribunal to give evidence about anyone's misbehavior. Your body of work lately gives the impression that you're trying to use Wiktionary to further an agenda. Under such circumstances, it's a perfectly natural response to ask for verification. I can assure you that if Bakunla hadn't done this, someone else would have.

What's more, this has been posted on Requests for verification/Non-English, so you should address this there- if sufficient evidence isn't presented there or in the entries or on the entries' citation pages, all the entries nominated will be deleted. Simply put, arguing here is a waste of your time and effort that you could have spent working to save your entries.

You obviously feel very strongly about this, but harassing someone here for any reason is simply unacceptable, and doing so because they exercised their rights as a responsible member of this community is a blockable offense. The rant that I just deleted from Bakunla's user page would be inexcusable on any page on Wiktionary, but it was especially bad because you should never edit anyone's user page without their permission.

You need to step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you're doing. I have no idea what circumstances in your life may have prompted you to start on this crusade, and I'm not here to judge you. I do, however, have a responsibility to uphold the rules and basic principles of this wiki, including civility and neutrality. Consider this a warning. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bakunla, friewen is attestibly the primary form used in Westphalian, arguably the largest Low German dialect group after Plautdietsch. wriewen, based on you own sources, is only attested in Holsteinisch, while wriwen is the primary East Low German form. You're welcome to create alternative entries for those forms, but edit-warring to make wriewen the primary entry is unfounded. --{{victar|talk}} 03:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

As a compromise, I've moved the primary entry to riewen. --{{victar|talk}} 04:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bakunla, your edits are at odds with standard formatting and are disruptive.

1. Dutch Low German is currently treated as a separate language, so Dutch Low German belongs as a related term to German Low German ones, not an alternative form
2. On en.Wikt we try and normalise spelling, for instance, how verbs in Plautdietsch are spelled with -e, but both -n and -'n are also commonly used in dictionaries. Separating identical terms just because of spelling conventions of one author to another is ill-advised
3. The template {{alter}} is designed to have multiple lect labels on single row, ex. {{alter|lang|word||lect 1|lect 2}}. Just because you think it looks "bad and ugly" is no reason to break with convention, certainly not without a discussion
4. Why are you insisting on including sources for different forms of the word on the main entry. They belong and are already housed on friewen and wriwen, respectively. Then, further, you're removing the inline sources in the Alternative forms section and throwing them all in Further reading?
5. You're also misusing templates like {{cite-book}} and {{lb}} but then insisting on reverting me when I fix them.

--{{victar|talk}} 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply