Talk:Issyk kurgan

Untitled section 2007

The Russian wikipedia article dates the burial to the 6th-5th cent. BC. Unfotunately, they cite no sources. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All references now end up with "page not found" error. Please include the reference for the comment that this insciption is in "Kharoshti" script. If there is no reference then this is POV.

This inscription is very important because it is the only artifact as of now about what languate the Scytians spoke. If it is Kharoshti script then this would support Scytians speaking an Iranian language, if it is Gokturk script this would mean that they spoke a Turkic language. (This is true regardless of what Pan-Turkists think. And the comment about the Pan-Turkists in this article is irrelavant and also a POV.) AverageTurkishJoe 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Articles like this show why Wikipedia isnt taken as seriously as it could be. OK its 4.30 am and im tired but How can this article claim to adhere to wiki NPOV standards if on the one hand concedes that the Inscriptions cant be deciphered yet and on the other claim it is Scythian as if it is a fact? The article gives unfair weight towards a Scythian POV when theres nothing to back it up. Seriously such articles should only be edited by professionals, not persian nationalist pseudo-scholars.

I would do a google search for Professor. Janos Harmatta. He is a famous hungarian scholar. Also the article says: tentatively translating. So any 3rd party source (academic source) (non-Turk , non-Iranian writers) is fine. Amanjolov also claims Sumerian is Turkish and he is a Turkic nationalist psuedo-scholar. Janos Harmatta is not what you call a persian nationalist psuedo-scholar and is a professional. Please read Wikipedia policy on OR and find a neutral western scholar to support any opposing view. Opposing view of 3rd party neutral scholars can of course be included , but Professor. Harmatta's view also conforms to wiki guidelines.

Your not getting the point. The Inscriptions cannot be translated. They have not been deciphered. Janos Harmatta's translation is superficial. Look if the script was Kharoshti like its claimed in the article surely it wouldnt be difficult to read the inscription? Yet in the article it comes across that the script IS Kharoshti and probably Scythian. So its giving undue weight to a Scythic language which is impossible unless it can be translated. Till then we DO NOT KNOW. Can you see where im coming from now?

OH and btw i wass referring to persian nationalist pseudo-scholars here on wiki, who attemtp to slant articles towards a pro iranic POV.

I am not here to discuss the script, but just to say that wikipedia allows verifiable academic sources. It is not for you to determine Professor Janos Harmatta's translation is superficial! That is your nationalistic POV. I would read the article of Harmatta first. There are about 8-10 different examples of this script (with slight variation) and he has extensively discussed it in his article. It is not up for you to decide if the inscription can not be translated! It is up to scholars. You are welcome to put opposing point of view's from 3rd party sources as well. Then I can say according to Professor J. Harmatta..it is variant of X. And then you can say according to Professor Y.. it is not yet deciphered (it needs to be a later date than Harmatta's). But it needs 3rd party academic sources. And Professor Janos Harmatta carries a lot of weight, if you did a search. As per psuedo-scholars, I believe they can come from all nationalities, and it is better not to use ethnic labels. In fact if I were to count various articles, there was a guy claiming ossetic and medes ..It is better to comment on the discussion and add 3rd party neutral academic sources. And note the article was mainly written by a German admin. I just provided the Harmatta part. The inscription is related to Scythian people is confirmed by different scholars (even those that had not deciphered it in the past) and Dbachmann(the admin) put that part in from 3rd party neutral sources.

"That is your nationalistic POV" You do not know one single thing about me so dont go making such foolish claims ok. I am Scottish and this is no way related to my nationality. When you make such ignorant claims it only makes you look foolish. You blatant biases come across clearly in your words no matter how much you try to cover it up and any intelligent person would know straight away that you cannot claim the language to be Iranic if it has not been deciphered. And also, if it is in Kharoshti script then it would have been deciphered already. Instead it is still being debated.

As for POV's. Your point of view is to press forward an Iranic origin view. This is not neutral. I'm putting forward a view that it is unknown and certainly heavily debatable as to the origin. This is not taking a biased view. Its a NEUTRAL viewpoint. Whilst its unfortunate to see Wikipedia being exploited by nationalists, i can only hope that any reader who comes across this article reads the discussion and with intelligence will know that the article isnt as factual as it makes out to be.

80.195.53.140 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your views or my views are. If you can quote a book from a scholar, then quote them directly. That is the essense of Wikipedia.. We quote facts from reliable scholars not our own research.

Weed

Didn't they find cannabis in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.140.229 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

is it Old Turkic script?

looks like Old Turkic script —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.149.165 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure they do, but keep in mind the first old Turkic script was found on a 7th AD monument, the article here talks a tomb dating back to the 3rd century BCE. the old Turkic script have already be translated because it has a Chinese translation with it, while this script is not yet translated or highly debated. This actually proves that the tomb was not Turkic, because then the script should be easily read with modern Turkic knowledge.

besides the armor found within the tomb is not of Turkic style, quite unique. and modern scholars believe the old Turkic script is derived from Scythians or Sugdians or even old Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.148.59 (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that the first old turkic script was found on a 7th AD monument?

• 
  2nd century BC – 2nd century AD, characters of Hun- Syanbi script (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia), N. Ishjatms, "Nomads In Eastern Central Asia", in the "History of civilizations of Central Asia", Volume 2, Fig 5, p. 166, UNESCO Publishing, 1996, ISBN 92-3-102846-4
• 
  2nd century BC – 2nd century AD, characters of Hun–Syanbi script (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia), N. Ishjatms, "Nomads In Eastern Central Asia", in the "History of civilizations of Central Asia", Volume 2, Fig 5, p. 166, UNESCO Publishing, 1996, ISBN 92-3-102846-4
• 
  Oldest known Türkic alphabet listings, Rjukoku and Toyok manuscripts. Toyok manuscript transliterates Türkic alphabet into Uygur alphabet. Per I.L.Kyzlasov, "Runic Scripts of Eurasian Steppes", Moscow, Eastern Literature, 1994.

--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

''armor found within the tomb is not of Turkic style, quite unique. and modern scholars(?) believe the old Turkic script is derived from Scythians or Sugdians or even old Indians". Such a genius! Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Indo-European theft

Damn, you Indo-Europeans can't get enough of stealing the history of the Turkish nation. The name "Issyk" says enough. One day you will see the isik. Chonanh (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read both the Iranian and Turkic translations. I have no idea how we can assess any of these claims but beyond that: Why would a king inscribe his summoning command or the accounts of his family life on a jar in such careless style? In this sense the translation by Harmatta is much more credible not because I am an Iranian, but because writing about food on a jar is what any sane mind expects here. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that not a single claim by Turks is free from Nationalistic aspirations.حضرت محمود (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hazratemahmood, your comments are racist. --98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when are Turks a race? Also, see the definitions at Racism; screaming "OMG you racist!!!" in a discussion only makes you look like a fool.

If anything, Hazratemahmood is unduly generalising (obviously there are sensible Turks who aren't crazy nationalists, but they're drowned out by the Turkomaniac idiots) and slightly bigoted. Prejudice without power is not racism.

Amanjolov is a typical fringe nutcase. He admits being ignored in academia, which he tries to spin into a victory, as cranks are wont to do. His interpretation has no merit. Academically isolated non-notable views are unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Amanjolov is the equivalent of a random perpetual motion machine designer, circle-squarer or Flat-Earther. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User Chonanh is not less than you. And now you talking about "crazy nationalist?" funny. Your eurocentrist ideas worse than that "turcomaniac idiots." According to you Indo-Iranians created all world and life. And please stop this "science" ,"academy" bullcrap. That is makes you look like fool. You have nothing to do with "sciense!" You just an ordinary POV pusher. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. So sorry for you and your Turkic national pride, but the fact is that prior to about 2000 years ago, there is no clear evidence of Turkic peoples outside of East Asia (China/Mongolia), west of the Altai, while there is plenty of evidence for an Indo-European presence in Central Asia and Western Southern Siberia. That's the academic consensus. All your kicking and screaming denial can't change the facts. Not academia, but reality has an anti-Turkic bias. Not really Eurocentric, as the possibility of Uralic and (to a lesser extent) Yeniseian presence at the margins is more accepted. Racist bias of researchers can't magically cause mummies and skeletons to acquire European rather than Asian looks and genes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Dear god! you shockingly ignorant. You said your talk page "caucasus word triggered me" and now this "cause mummies and skeletons to acquire European rather than Asian looks and genes." Still you can talking about science. Genius. If you don't have reliable and quite source for IE speakers stuff, I'll removed that. There is no way to discuss with you. You just keep attack and harassment.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Still arguing with your mirror image? Have fun, I'm out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.197.11.243, 20 September 2011

There is no link to Russian article in the English one, and vice versa.

91.197.11.243 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you put a link here or my talk page to the Russian one so that this can be corrected? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article is not written from a Neutral point of view.

There are numerous sources stating that the inscription is Turkish. None of them are represented. Efforts to put them in the article is constantly being stopped even though they are sourced. But only Persian view is represented. This is not Neutral point of view but Aryan nationalism.

Anti-Turkist Wikipedia writers and administrators can not change the history.

This article is a shame. --98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? then please go translate that inscriptions pls, im sure there is no one forbids you to do that~you turks became the ruler of the central asia steppe at around 6th century AD, this tomb is about 800 years before that. so save your energy at something else okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.190.162 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

turks became the ruler of the central asia steppe at around 6th century" You need to go to mental institute my friend.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know WP:NPA? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can be reported for that. You attacked to me or another users several times. "Pan-turkist", "Pan turanist", "Pan bla bla" or direct insult like "idiot". Careful yourself.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I never called you specifically an idiot (but if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it), and "Pan-Turkist" or "Turkocentrist" is not exactly an insult. Speaking of mental instutions, if you don't stop painting yourself constantly as the victim of other users' bullying, people could come to the conclusion that you might have some sort of persecution complex. In any case, dishing out insults like "You need to go to mental institute" and then complaining about other people attacking you doesn't exactly help your credibility. Just a friendly advice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Blaming to people as a "nationalist" or "idiot" (directly or indirectly) for their edits, it's an insult. You can't deceive anybody. And thank you. next time I'll be careful my friend.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not an insult, at worst it's being snarky. Also, "nationalist" is not an insult, even if nationalists are generally idiots. Sorry, mate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "Turkomaniac idiot" a tautology or at least redundant as any kind of maniac is sort of an idiot? And I'm afraid we have a lot of nationalist editors on Wikipedia. It's a major problem as the IP and Florian have both said, although from different perspectives. Of course an editor can be reported for using such terms, but whether anything happens, or anyone gets blocked (which could be the person doing the reporting or the reported), will depend upon the exact case. However, I might support a block for editors telling other editors they are crazy unless their edits show clear signs of mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also "Aq-kurgan"?

Is this site also called "Aq-kurgan"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Incongruous with Turkish page

The Turkish page explains the research on the script. Harmatta's finding seems dubious in light of later work. It's presented as a shut case here, which seems like a disinformation edit. 176.33.66.239 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)