just remembered that "Good Ol’factory" is the user behind this train wreck. no use even commenting in this case. |
|||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
=="Category:Eponymous categories"== |
=="Category:Eponymous categories"== |
||
Had I thought of it before, I would have given you a notification of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Eponymous_categories|this discussion]] while it was still open, since it's an area you've expressed concern about. But I didn't—but thought you still might want to read the discussion. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Had I thought of it before, I would have given you a notification of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Eponymous_categories|this discussion]] while it was still open, since it's an area you've expressed concern about. But I didn't—but thought you still might want to read the discussion. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
It seems to be closed now. But the entire thing is altogether too stupid to waste more time on. |
|||
I can honestly say that I do not believe I have ever seen anything quite as stupid that was apparently presented in good faith. |
|||
Well, at least not in terms of Wikipedia structure, the stupidity in the department of content is of course bottomless, but it is very difficult to tell apart stupidity and bad faith there. Well, I cannot quite conceive of any reason why this "eponymous" thing would be thrown upon us in bad faith, unless of course it is in the spirit of general disruption or parody. Perhaps some record of it should be kept around as a sort of memorial of just how misguided people can be and still maintain good faith. Of course this also teaches that "assuming good faith" is not enough. Assuming good faith means that you should deal with this stuff as kindly as possible, but obviously it will still need to be dealt with. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:50, 15 February 2012
An invite to join WikiProject Russia
Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2011; 15:10 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dbachmann! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Ghost
I responded, very late, to your comment on the tentative Ghosts in English-speaking cultures article that I started a while ago but have hesitated to expand. Maybe you could reply at Talk:Ghost#Ghosts in English-speaking cultures. I am genuinely undecided. On the one hand, giving the English-speakers their own article would be unbiased and symmetrical, and there are plenty of sources ... on the other hand, it could be impossible to prevent forking... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is difficult no matter how you look at it. But I do feel strongly that treating "English speakers" as a group is about as spectacularly misguided as you can go. Of course, in a first approximation, "English speakers" are the British and their immediate cousins overseas, say, North Americans and Australians. That may still make a certain amount of sense up to 1930 or so. From that time, US pop culture completely upsets this division. For any topic that has a scope extending on either side of the 1930s, you should not assume that "English speakers" even in this limited sense is in any way a meaningful division.
As soon as you include in "English speakers" those parts of the Anglosphere which are not dominated by British-derived culture, viz. South Asian, Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African cultures, any vestigial cultural unity of the term breaks down completely. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- The section on "terminology" is both language-specific and culture-specific since it only mentions English-language terms for Northern European concepts. Other cultures have different concepts, which may have no English-language word. This section does not belong in the general article in its present very biased state. But if expanded to remove cultural bias it would become huge. Don't what the best treatment is. "English language ghost terminology" does not work at all.
- For most of the rest, maybe "Ghosts in British culture" would work as a title. I would imagine that the old Anglo-Saxon and Celtic traditions have blended enough by now to be seen as a whole, and that Americans, Australians etc. would not have a problem with the narrow term, describing one part of their cultural tradition. That would leave topics like The Legend of Sleepy Hollow without an obvious home. Possibly there should also be a "Ghosts in American culture"...
- But I still see this huge risk of forking... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not agree entirely. After all, this is English language Wikipedia. All our articles have some inherent "Anglo" bias, because all are written in the English language. This is so by design, it is not something that needs to be fixed. Discussing the etymology of the word "ghost" will necessarily involve English-specific history. This is not a problem. "Ghost" as a word in current use still has a generic sense, never mind its specific origin. Therefore I do not agree that the "terminology" section is in a "biased state". For a terminology section in an English language article, it is exactly as it should be. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The terminology section is out of balance with the section on "By culture", which introduces fragments of various other terminologies. Looking again at the article, I see that history begins in Egypt and the Near East, then moves via Greece and Rome to Europe, culminating in Britain and the United States - a very conventional Anglo view of history. Religion is mostly Judeo-Christian, with a short paragraph on Islam, ditto. In the Arts is almost entirely the English-language arts. The spread of Aryan culture east, evolving into Hindu and Buddhist ideas, and the huge complexity of Asian concepts is not mentioned. Africa does not exist.
- You must have seen one of those maps where they make the size of each country proportional to the population. China gets a lot bigger and Australia shrinks right down. I shudder at the thought of visualizing en.WP bias in this and other articles that discuss a global concept. One way to address the lack of balance would be to introduce more content, expanding the article. The other would be to move out some of the content to culture-specific sub-articles, leaving summaries behind. Maybe the first is more practical? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that your mileage may vary, these are matters of opinion. As long as our bias reflect the bias in English-language scholarly literature, this is just as it should be. Wikipedia doesn't fix biases, it reflects biases. We are happy just as long as we don't introduce any new biases. If a bias is already out there, we just duplicate it. You are basically saying you want more material on obscure cultures. To this, I shrug and say, well, write it. As long as it isn't written, there is no reason for any splits. Once you have written it, we can reassess the situation. --dab (𒁳) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Chinese, Japanese and Indian cultures are not really obscure. An encyclopedia entry that gives an overview of a global topic such as music, poetry, history, religion or even ghost beliefs should discuss these and other cultures. An English-language encyclopedia may be weighted towards the English-speaking countries, but should not simply ignore the rest of the world. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Broken links to Encyclopædia Iranica Online
I've noticed several broken links because the online version of Encyclopædia Iranica has moved from iranica.com (which flatly states "this domain has expired") to iranicaonline.org some time ago. I fixed some of those I noticed, but there have to be hundreds of links to iranica.com on Wikipedia still. Is there a way to find and update them (semi-)automatically? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- sigh, there also seems to be increasing "cross-pollination" with Wikipedia. I find it difficult to respect iranicaonline.org as independent reliable source when I am greeted with a map I have drawn myself for Wikipedia on the site's front page — without any attribution, I might add, not to Wikipedia, let alone to me, the official copyright owner. Not cool, Iranica.
- Anyway, I am sure you can automate this, just ask one of the bot owners. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- That sucks, is it really necessary to watermark everything now? Thanks for the tip, I had no idea about that possibility. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Your input is needed regarding a user who insists on inserting a table which includes many very dubious etymologies, ringing all Turkish nationalism bells. Problem: The entries are cited, and I can't prove that his sources are BS. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- However, some authors affirm that the explanation of the Scythian words by the Iranian would be often full of contradictions and would be greatly exaggerated.[1]
Word Scythian Word Source Interpretation Derived from Source/Comment
anira anira Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to repair Turkish tamir, to repair A. Chay 2002, 155[2] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 earth godess Iranian ab, water Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78[3] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 earth godess Turkish Yer-Sub, earth godess (Yer–>earth; Sub–>water) Ocak 2002[4]; Haussig 1999, 213[5] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 Pra-Mother Turkish Api/Apai, mother G.Dremin, 2006[6] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 earth godess Turkish Ebi, livebearing mother/ancestor (fertility) Zakiev, 1986, 27[7] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 earth godess Turkish Abiasch, rain spirit (spiritual character) Ármin Vámbéry 1885, 119[8] Api Api Herodot, Hist. 4.59 earth godess Turkish Abis, rain evocator/to summon rain (shaman) Ármin Vámbéry 1885, 119[9] Arar Arar Herodot, Hist. 4.48 river Turkish aryk, flowing waters (stream) G.Dremin, 2006[10] Arimaspoi arima Herodot, Hist. 4.27 one - Arimaspoi arima Herodot, Hist. 4.27 – Turkish yarım, half Latyshev 1947, 307[11] Arimaspoi aspoi? Herodot, Hist. 4.27 – Turkish sepi, eye Latyshev 1947, 307[12] Arimaspoi spu Herodot, Hist. 4.27 – Turkish spu, eye G.Dremin, 2006[13] Arimaspoi – Herodot, Hist. 4.27 one-eyed Mongolian äräm däk, one-eyed Laufer 1908, 452; Vermeer 1996, 114[14] Arimaspoi Arimaspoi Herodot, Hist. 4.27 mountaineer Mongolian mountaineer Neumann 1856, 177[15]; New Year booking for Philology and Pedagogy 1858, 336[16] Arimaspoi Arimaspoi Herodot, Hist. 4.27 – Iranian aspa, horse Tomaschek 1888, 761[17] Arimaspoi Arimaspoi Herodot, Hist. 4.27 one-eyed horseman Turkish spu/sepi „eye“ und iranian aspa „horse“ Phillips 1955, 173-174. Arimaspoi spu Herodot, Hist. 4.27 eye – Arpoxai, Kolaxai, Lipoxai – – – Iranian xšāy, to reign ? Arpoksai, Kolaksai, Lipoksai – – – Turkish soy, clan/ancestry Gasanov 2002, 210[18] Arpoksai Arpok – – Turkish Arpağ, priest; or Arpalyk, landowner Gasanov 2002, 210[19] arta arta Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to sit Turkish otur, to sit A. Chay 2002, 155[20] Aschy Aschy Herodot, Hist. 4.23 juice of a tree fruit Bashkir akhsha/aschi, juice of a tree fruit Karl Friedrich Merleker 1841, 14 (-> the way of handling the fruit is identical)[21] daldu daldu Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to fill Turkish doldur, to fill A. Chay 2002, 155[22] enarei enarei Ibis, 4, 67 womanlike man Iranian a, without Abaev 1949[23] enarei enarei Ibis, 4, 67 womanlike man Iranian nar, man Abaev 1949[24] enarei enarei Ibis, 4, 67 womanlike man Turkish anair, virago Latyshev 1893, 63[25] enarei enarei Ibis, 4, 67 castrated Turkish enar, to castrate/to lose his manhood G.Dremin, 2006[26] gik gik Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) sky Turkish gök, sky A. Chay 2002, 155[27] irchigi irchigi Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to increase Turkish choğal, to increase A. Chay 2002, 155[28] Kolaksai Kolak – – Turkish Kola, Bronze; or kylych, sword Gasanov 2002, 216[29] kutta kutta Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to add Turkish kat, to add A. Chay 2002, 155[30] kyrbasia kyrbasia Herodot, Hist. 7.64 acuate headdress Turkish kur/koy, to straighten up/to put; and baş/başa, head/to the head Mlasowsky 2006, 33[31] Lipoksai Lipok – – Turkish Alp, miraculous patron Gasanov 2002, 204[32] (Lipoksai is also known as Afrasiab and as the son of Tur in the iranian mythology) Oiorpata Oiorpata Herodot, Hist. 4.110 man killer Oiorpata oior Herodot, Hist. 4.110 man Turkish er, man G.Dremin, 2006[33] Oiorpata pata Herodot, Hist. 4.110 to kill/beat Turkish patak, to kill/beat Karl Steuerwald 1974, 268[34] Oiorpata pata Herodot, Hist. 4.110 to kill/beat Turkish bat, to kill/beat G.Dremin, 2006[35] Oiorpata oior Herodot, Hist. 4.110 to beat general Romance battre, to beat G.Dremin, 2006[36] Oiorpata oior Herodot, Hist. 4.110 man Iranian vira, man ? sagaris sagar Herodot, Hist. 7.64 battle axe Mordwinian sügä, axe Albrecht Wirth 1905, 184[37] Targitai – Herodot, Hist. 4.5 – Targit, Turkish-Mongolian name Karatay 2003, 161[38] Targitai – Herodot, Hist. 4.5 – Tarkutay, Mongolian chieftain Karatay 2003, 161[39] Targitai – Herodot, Hist. 4.5 – Iranian darga , long Abaev 1949, 163[40] Targitai – Herodot, Hist. 4.5 – Iranian tava , strength Abaev 1949, 163[41] Traspier – Herodot, Hist. 4.6 – Iranian aspa , horse Hermann Parzinger 2004, 78[42] val val Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) way Turkish yol, way A. Chay 2002, 155[43] vita vita Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) opposite English opposite , opposite A. Chay 2002, 155[44] vurun vurun Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) to chop Turkish vuruş, to chop A. Chay 2002, 155[45]
why was the above posted to my talkpage? If you keep the decent references and get rid of the "Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks" garbage, we can talk about it, but don't post this stuff to talkpages, just give me the diff if you want to point to deleted material. --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ancient Dravidian Culture
The article Ancient Dravidian culture article looks like a piece of garbage written by some tamil nationalist.there is nothing ancient about it everything is contemporary.there also lot of peacock terms and pov.the first line of article itself is un wikipedia like.i saw your comments on the article talk page.what can be done about the article.Pernoctator (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Tell me about it. What can be done? The thing should be merged, e.g. into Sangam period. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
agree.merge.and how do we do that?.considering the article is mostly garbage.i am cleaning a lot of indian ethnic group articles at the moment. Pernoctator (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have commented on this at great length on the artilce talkpage. The article is trash, and it is trash with an agenda, basically the worst kind of content that can be submitted to Wikipedia. People refuse to fix it. The burden is on them to fix it. As long as they refuse, the page can just be redirected.
Also, the redirect "Ancient Dravidian culture" should be put up for discussion, as is is unclear whether the term has any kind of generally agreed-upon, idetifiable meaning or definition. The burden of proving that this term exists and has an identifiable meaning lies entirely with those who wish to keep such a page. Nobody disputes that an ancient Dravidian culture exists. The words "ancient" and "Dravidian" are here used compositionally as adjectives modifiying "culture". We do not create pages on random combinations of adjectives and nouns. The article on this culture also exists, it is found at Sangam period. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ok redirecting the page right now to Sangam period.i am also going through some of the other trash oops articles these people have created.thanks for you thoughts.Pernoctator (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
just saw you have already redirected.great.cheers.Pernoctator (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I expect the pov pushers will come back and prefer a page full of garbage and content warning tags over a redirect. But if you want to help, you can spend some time on the chore of letting them know in no uncertain terms that the burden lies on them to produce decent material. Nobody has any business to restore content that is garbage, or indeed even brillant content that is unreferenced. You restore it, you take the responsibility to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
yes sir on guard gainst pov pushers.Pernoctator (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Aram (biblical region)
Have you seen the recent comments at Talk:Aram (biblical region)? Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Dbachmann,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"Category:Eponymous categories"
Had I thought of it before, I would have given you a notification of this discussion while it was still open, since it's an area you've expressed concern about. But I didn't—but thought you still might want to read the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Karl Bouda, Contributions to the Caucasian and Siberian Linguistics, Volume 24, Kraus Reprint, 1966, p.66
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ Hermann Parzinger, Die Skythen, C.H.Beck, 2004, p.78
- ^ Murat Ocak, The Turks: Early ages, Yeni Türkiye, 2002
- ^ Katalin U. Kő̈halmi, Hans Wilhelm Haussig, Gods and Myths of Central Asia and northern Eurasia, Vol.1, Klett-Cotta, 1999, p.213
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ M.J. Zhăkiev, Tatars: the problems of history and language, 1995, p.24 [Zakiev MZ, 1986, 27]
- ^ Ármin Vámbéry, The Turkish people in it's ethnological and ethnographic relationships, F. A. Brockhaus, 1885, p.119
- ^ Ármin Vámbéry, The Turkish people in it's ethnological and ethnographic relationships, F. A. Brockhaus, 1885, p.119
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ Latyshev, “Proceedings of ...“, VDI, 1947, No. 1, p. 307
- ^ Latyshev, “Proceedings of ...“, VDI, 1947, No. 1, p. 307
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ Translating in the Middle Ages. 2. German as a target language, TEXTconTEXT, 1996, p.114
- ^ Karl Neumann, Hellenen im Skythenland, Vol.1, Berlin, 1855, p.177
- ^ New Year booking for Philology and Pedagogy, Volume 77, Springer, 1858, p.336
- ^ Austrian Academy of Sciences, Displays, Volumes 141-142, H. Böhlaus, 2006, p.124[ref. Tomaschek 1888, 761]
- ^ Zaur Gasanov, Royal Scythians, p. 210
- ^ Zaur Gasanov, Royal Scythians, p. 210
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ Karl Friedrich Merleker, textbook of historical-comparative geography, Vol. 3, Leske, 1841, p. 14
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, Vol. 1, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949
- ^ Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, Vol. 1, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949
- ^ Latyshev V.V., 1893, p.63
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ Zaur Gasanov, Royal Scythians, p. 216
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ Alexander Mlasowsky, Imagines imperii: Greek and Roman portraits of a North German collection, Philipp von Zabern Publishing, 2006, p.33
- ^ Zaur Gasanov, Royal Scythians, p. 204
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ Karl Steuerwald, German-Turkish Dictionary, Otto Harrassowitz Publishing, 1974, p.268
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ Dremin George Ivanovitch, Scythian Vocabulary, 2006
- ^ Albrecht Wirth, Asian and Eastern European History, Volumes 1-2, Gebauer-Schwetschke office and print publishers, 1905, p.184
- ^ Osman Karatay, Iran and Turan: Eurasia and Middle East at the time of imaginary nations, Ayse Demiral, 2003, p.161
- ^ Osman Karatay, Iran and Turan: Eurasia and Middle East at the time of imaginary nations, Ayse Demiral, 2003, p.161
- ^ Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, Vol. 1, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949, p.163
- ^ Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, Vol. 1, Moscow-Leningrad, 1949, p.163
- ^ Hermann Parzinger, Die Skythen, C.H.Beck, 2004, p.78
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0
- ^ A. Chay, Assyrian Cuneiform Documents: Scythians/The Turks, Ankara, 2002, p. 155, ISBN 975-6782-55-2, 975-6782-56-0