Talk:Issyk inscription

Gilaki translation is from janos harmattas finding

You even ignore janos harmattas finding then you say to me that im making original research that is not true i just translated what janos harmatta finded to Gilaki language Morteza115 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reading a 2400-year-old inscription as Gilaki makes about as much sense as reading it as Russian, French or English. None of these languages existed in the 4th century BC, and their ancestors at the time were radically different (closest to Proto-Balto-Slavic, Old Latin and Proto-Germanic). Same for Gilaki. Back then, its ancestor must have been an Old West Iranian dialect similar to Median, Parthian and Old Persian, but not to any modern Iranian language. For the same reason, reading it as modern Turkic makes no sense: Turkic was also very different 2400 years ago; you'd basically have to use Proto-Turkic reconstructions, not modern Turkic like Hasanov essentially does. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And "translating" Harmatta's transliteration to a completely different language is literally original research. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Breach of scientific ethics by removing legitimate studies

An IE theory enthusiast Florian B. removed at least two legitimate academic citations that disagree with his view that IE language theory's historical claims must be true and cannot be contested dogmatically not realizing he is breaching scientific ethics. He abuses WP terminology calling these serious academic studies FRINGE and pan-Turkist (these are published studies) only because he happened to disagree with them. It is noted that Mr. Florian is not an academician and is in no position to pass judgment on historians far more knowledgeable than himself. He has been abusing edits removing relevant and significant academic studies with no hesitation effectively censoring material. In reality the 93 study he preferred to keep is rather weak and the citations he erased show that it is most likely not a realistic translation possibly throwing the whole Indo/Iranian speculation into doubt. Users have the right to know the newer and more advanced studies. At least because it is not a settled subject and censorship does not clarify the issue.

A WP admin asks if these are peer reviewed. Yes, if you follow the links these are peer reviewed published studies and there are even newer works linked on academia.edu. Both citations are peer reviewed solid studies. No reason to censor them.

176.234.132.43 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

JFTR, linguistics is a real science, one that I have studied, interpreting an ancient inscription using nothing but a modern standard language is nutty pseudoscience. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So are history, archeology, linguistics (general not the IE obsessed camp), genetics, and Turcology. You can't just declare papers or fields or scholars invalid because you don't like their hypotheses. That's not how science works. I'm a scientist (with PhD) and a philosopher of science (focusing on empiricism and scientific revolutions) and this is clearly a scientific misconduct which I an planning to write about and I will be quoting your views on WP which I found to be influenced by propaganda that is trying to prevent a scientific revolution. I see you are as web search reveals not a scientist (excuse me if that is untrue please reveal your credentials and Institute on your profile if you would like to if that is not the case, as you are using your real identity) and I remind again you are probably not in a good position to speak in place of the IE linguistics scholars cited that you think you are advocating for. You can call one of them that published on this and let us speak to them directly and perhaps we will arrive at a better comprehension of proper scientific conduct. I don't think they can legitimately ask you to censor conpeting studies. Science is not authoritarian like that. A peer reviewed published *more recent* study cannot be censored because you, as a Wikipedia inexpert editor, believe Turcology or Turkish linguistics, history is just bad and wrong fields and some random scholar from Azerbaijan must be a liar because that's just what Turkish people do: lie about their history all the time. That might as well be a racial bias, does such an assumption sound rational to you? Maybe you didn't correctly understand that study. Maybe you didn't even read it. Did you read it I wonder? Can you review Turkish linguistics studies? Are you qualified? I am not qualified to do that either, but I see it's published in Russian Academy and that's good enough for me. And when it's here Turcology experts can add additional references. This is what makes WP such a great resource. Not racial bias and such petty insults. PS: I am Turkish and I found your approach quite offensive in that racial bias sense, you seem to be assuming we are intellectually inferior and are writing garbage in general. Can you please assure me that this is not your assumption and then support your view "Turcologist? That's nutty pseudoscience" with actual scientific references? I don't think IE linguistics is pseudoscience but some claims of IE history like this one might not hold. The two ideas are not the same. 176.89.101.91 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, "academician" isn't the intended word, and "enthusiast" is a silly misrepresentation. Someone with a degree in linguistics is certainly an academic in a sense, especially compared to someone who knows nothing about linguistics (however much they may believe they do). Even an amateur can be competent and can be an authority to an extent, but incompetent amateurs have zero authority, so this accusation is a boomerang, one that only proves the incompetence of the pseudoscience pusher. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about a few of the things going on here. First, Эпиграфика Востока is a peer-reviewed journal; the fact that the author uses Academia.edu as a repository never should serve as the only reason to disqualify a source as unreliable, especially when the actual publisher is plain sight. The text based on Hasanov's paper was added by an IP, maybe related to the blocked WCF sock Wikiuser1314, maybe not. @Wikiuser1314 actually added text with three further citations here[1]. The first is problematic, as I can find no mention of Hasanov's paper there. The second one is published Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, a respectable journal, and its author teaches Turkology at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. His list of publications doesn't exude the stench of pan-Turkic fringe at all as claimed. What bugs me most: why are two pieces from that edit removed, while the third one doesn't get axed as well?

Oh, and finally: @176.234.132.43 stop being foul-mouthed (it was your nasty comment on Florian Blaschke's talk page that has brought me here). And stop whining and fantasizing about other editor's motives and start to explain why we should include the Hasanov interpretation complete with a visually dominant table here. Please consider WP:due weight first before you answer and just say that it exists and that it is reputable scholarship. That's not enough. See WP:ONUS. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If you knew why I thought of that about Florian maybe you would agree with my irritation but the reason for why the table should be prominently displayed was also removed by Florian. Obviously it shouldbe kept merely by the content of the newly proposed translation which is vastly more superior which is why I suspect Florian flung around a completely wrong allegation about the study. Let me explain again but it was also in the removed texts. The old translation is grammatically incorrect, at least broken, inelegant, and sounds like a food recipe. To bs generous it sounds like nonsense. OTOH, Old Turkic translation is completely reasonable and has a poetic expression, grammatically sensible, and it is deeply meaningful if you know the Old Turkic religion where they thought of ancestors as sacred. There are religious ceremonies concerning ancestors and dedication to ancestors is part of the Tengrism religion (there is a cult of ancestors). From a historical point of view the new translation is much better because it's a fitting for a grave writing written in a witty but meaningful manner, which is also customary for Turkish culture, and also matches the Old Turkic religion underlining that the whole site is culturally (Proto) Turkic. 176.234.131.196 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(No, I won't ever agree with your irritation to the point to sinking such a behavioral low. Just a sidenote.) This is not a useful answer, especially after I have explicitly pointed to our relevant policies WP:DUE and WP:ONUS. The question is not how much you are personally convinced by Hasanov's conclusions, but how often these conclusions get a mention in independent academic secondary sources. The answer is simple: Google Scholar only lists four citations for that paper, one of them by Hasanov himself. The other three are by Alexander N. Garkavets who only cites Hasanov's paper for background information about earlier decipherment attempts, but NB not for Hasanov's decipherment proposal. (FWIW, Garkavets goes with the Turkic hypothesis, but arrives at a totally different reading.) So there is not a single secondary source that presents Hasanov's decipherment proposal; why should we present it then, when nobody else does? (⇐ This is WP:DUE in a nutshell). I consider the case about the inclusion of Гасанов З.Г. (2015), "Иссыкская посвятительная надпись" closed and won't engage further in this discussion unless you are able to present multiple citations to that paper from independent secondary sources that a) mention his proposed reading and b) reproduce it in full (if you want to include it in full here). –Austronesier (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a cognitive scientist and I hold a PhD in a relevant field and I have great command of theoretical linguistics. I perfectly understand the subject we are arguing however again I should remind you, your comprehension of the subject is not at an academic research level and I noticed you do not understand how peer review or scientific disputes and resolutions work. You can't just assert your opinion. If you don't believe me, call a professor of yours abd ask them if you have the right to censor competing peer reviewed studies to protect a paper you really really liked. Not only you are not an authority in this field, you are insulting active scientists who are doing obviously ambitious and invaluable research. Your attitude therefore seems to be an attempt to block scientific progress and I regard your argument as an invalid argument from ignorance. 176.89.101.91 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Orkhon Runic Script

The script was obviously similar to Orkhon runic script the admins might not be familiar with it but it is the most famous artifact in all Turkic history. Have a look. It's on Wikipedia then come back and see why it is absurd to censor the Turkic translation based on the ideas of an amateur. 176.234.132.43 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone who has actually a degree in linguistics is not an amateur compared to someone who doesn't even know the basics of linguistics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On the history of (unsuccessful) decipherments

As for the script itself, a superficial similarity to the Kharoṣṭhī script was already observed by Fussman (1974: 23), who later also considered Aramaic or mixed Aramaic-Kharoṣṭhī origin, before settling on the claim that it is “clearly derived from Kharoṣṭhī”. However, as Livšic notes, decipherment on the basis of Kharoṣṭhī has not succeeded. A direct derivation from the Aramaic script was considered most likely by D’jakonov, Livšic & Kljaštornyj apud Akišev, Bernard, and Xuršudjan. Ünal also sought a connection between Aramaic and the unknown script of Issyk and Ai Khanum, but only after implausibly turning the inscriptions upside down. A far-fetched attempt to relate the unknown script to the later-attested Turkic runes via Phoenician and Messapic letters was made by Amanžolov, who also read the Issyk inscription upside down.
— Bonmann, et al. (2023) p. 297-298

This needs to be summarized in our article. Obviously, it also needs to be mentioned that Ünal and Amanžolov's efforts are absolutely ahistorical. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahistorical? Based on your opinion as an expert in which field? Those are peer reviewed publications and there are proposed translations which are very interesting. Yenisey Siberia is a region that according to new studies published in Nature goes back several thousands of years as home to Proto Turkic settlements so it's extremely historical. Close enough to the homeland of Proto Turks much closer than Iranians, Indians, Europeans obviously. You are probably not aware of the many other Turkic artifacts found in the general region. At any rate, these additional historical references should be added in a section to counter these unfair and pseudoscientific claims of "ahistorical" and panturkist. These are merely your opinions on scholarly work, and probably reflects your biases. Now, on the other hand, if you have peer reviewed references that argue the Nature papers are wrong and thousands of artifacts were misunderstood that is most curious and you should provide the references. Where are these papers that prove that Proto Turks didn't live in NorthEast Asia? 176.89.101.91 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of one paper that was a preprint that assaulted the recent Nature papers that introduced the TransEurasian (TEA) language 9000 years ago... with a rather strong and aggressive language just like yours. That seemed to be a rather desperate attempt by authors whose work has been invalidated by recent discoveries. Do you see the point here? The script is obviously very similar to Orkhun inscription that is in the historical Turkic homeland, which is close enough. Of course that's real history and not made up but also the TEA paper has a map of Proto Turkic settlements and that's again a match. How come you claim to be an expert on history and don't know these? Is it possible you've only read "historical linguistics" papers and don't follow archeology? Do you know wheh Orkhun was discovered and what they thought it was? (German... but not so it is Turkish) 176.234.131.196 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Ünal (2019) and Bonmann et al. (2023) are primary research papers. Both are useful as secondary sources since they each give an overview of previous decipherment attempts, but we should not give preference to one source that naturally rejects earlier research which does align with their own hypothesis. Bonmann's arguments appear superfically compelling but another statement of theirs (on p. 297) more sounds like a dogma to me: Plausible hypotheses with regard to the language recorded by the unknown script and the origin of the script itself should proceed from the attested cultural and linguistic history of the region at this time. Recent anthropological research has uncovered high bi-directional mobility in Central Asia since the Bronze Age, so there are multiple possibilities for hitherto unattested linguistic affiliations. With that narrow kind of thinking, Tocharian wouldn't be deciphered until now. But this is not ours to decide. The question remains unsettled, no authoritative secondary source exists that would enable us to extract the current consensus per WP:RS/AC that we could present in Wikivoice here. Let's just list the proposals that exists and which have left some mark in the academic discussion (see the previous discussion about a paper that does NOT fulfil the latter criterion). –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)