Talk:estelik

RFV discussion: November 2016–August 2017
Turkish challenged in. This process is governed by WT:ATTEST. For orientation only, absent from Turkish dictionaries at Türk Dil Kurumu.--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already valid citations. 123snake45 who wants to add his own made-up words to wikis is so mad because theş were deleted in the past. So he wants to be deleted some words because he read these words on some forum posts from the people argued with him even these words have valid citations and are listed on many dictionaries. --88.251.251.254 13:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The citations you mean would be those at Citations:estelik. Looks cited to me; what would be the objections to these quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP, as usual, is lying. 123snake45 started out by creating a couple of made-up entries, but stopped when informed of our attestation rules, and has been working since then to stop others from creating similar bogus entries. That's the only truth in the IP's statement. This IP has an agenda to replace ordinary Turkish words of non-Turkish origin with words either constructed from existing Turkish pieces or borrowed from related Turkic languages. They routinely do things like add citations in languages similar to Turkish, and citations of people mentioning the terms as hypotheticals, in hopes that no one will be able to tell the difference. So far their creations have almost invariably ended up deleted, but the IP is hoping that everyone has forgotten about this and they can succeed this time. Even in the few cases where they squeak by on the strength of the bare minimum number of cites, they need to be tagged as extremely rare, and they should be removed from translation tables as completely unknown to the vast majority of Turkish-speakers.
 * The citations should not be taken at face value, and should only be accepted after someone who speaks Turkish confirms that they're actually in Turkish and are actual uses that meet the requirements of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just judging from Google Translate, the 1999 and 2001 cites are in archeological reports and refer to some massive object or feature found in excavations, not a memento. The 2003 cite mentions the title of a work, and includes a parenthetical gloss of the word in question, which may be an indication that the word isn't Turkish. The dictionary mention seems to refer to Ottoman Turkish, not modern Turkish. Google Translate is obviously not reliable enough to prove anything, but this does suggest that these may not be what they're claimed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Özbekçe "esdalik" sözünü Türkçeymiş gibi göstermeye çalışıyorlar (At the Uzbek language "esdalik"'s word, They are trying to prove like Turkish). --123snake45 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * " I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Is this a quote from somewhere (it's not from anywhere on Wiktionary, as far as I can tell), or are you including the Turkish because you're not sure you're saying it right in English? I will mention, by the way, that this entry seems to be different from their usual pattern, because there's a perfectly good Turkish word they're replacing that can be traced back to Proto-Turkic, but their rhetoric and tactics are definitely consistent enough to show it's the same person or group. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Chucky I am from Turkey and I speak Turkish. You are talking about Turkish citations by trusting in Google translate? At last you could check them by looking up some online dictionaries such as SesliSozluk, etc. --88.251.251.254 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After his made-up words were deleted from wikis, 123snake45 added many fake translations to Tatoeba and then he was banned there. Some Turkish speakers say his Turkish is very bad. See an example: "Last" yazacaktım iken dalgınlıkla "latest" yazmışım. Ask any Turkish speaker, this sentence is not a correct Turkish sentence. He also claims that the word Buzulkuşusu is correct. His Turkish sucks, why do you trust in this person? --88.251.251.254 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "estelik" is not Turkish in short, certainly. --123snake45 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you the ÖSYM or my teacher 88..? You are liar and vandal. Your "alısün, çınka, estelik, birdem, sögen, karamazdan, bağdarlama, köpyak..." words are fake, aren't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Yes, I'm sure he also started World War III and wears his clothes upside down. Those aren't the droids you're looking for, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. I'm sorry, but you're not going to make me forget your previous lies by telling more of them. It doesn't work that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 123snake45 said same things for the words such as çimerlik, haydamak, etc. If you think this word is fake then you may remove it from here. If you remove it from here, this doesn't mean this word doesn't exist. There are already valid citations and many dictionaries contain this word. --88.251.251.254 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we should delete this based on his word, or on my guesses obtained via Google Translate. What I am suggesting is that we shouldn't keep it based on your word or without examination of your cites by someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish whom I can trust not to have an agenda, say . Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have had a similar discussion at, the word supposedly had an extra sense meaning electricity. It is obvious there is a group of people trying to make up words and put them in online dictionaries recently. In fact if we had taken the online dictionaries as a source, there were a lot of coined words based on this fake word definitely which is not accepted by any scientific community nor used in literature in the proposed sense, and they should have been here too. Please take a look at here, see also the awkward copy-paste relation between Korean. Are "fake, coined" words bad? Not at all considering we have had many of them during the language reforms like this failed guy, but this truly needs to have recent attestations from various fields to stay here. There are attestations but all belong to nationalist topics. One attestion is from 1934, probably first time as a propasal for an ottoman word, second actually refers to a book called "Türkistan'dan estelikler" so it is not even an attestation, the one belonging to 2001 is from a symposium about excavations appararently done for the Turkic researches.


 * If it passes the attestation process, we may also consider it a loanword from Uzbek since many words were also borrowed from Chaghatai dictionaries and other Kipchak languages too. Coined or borrowed word's ultimate etymology goes back to here. Unfortunately I have never heard of it, when I google it the only things i get are this wiktionary and nationalist forum entries. --Anylai (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yaşar Çağbayır who is the author of the Ötüken Sözlük (a 5-volume Turkish dictionary) mentions the word cıngılı means electronic in Anatolian Yörük city dialect (Sprachmund). Turkish Language Association's Derleme Sözlüğü lacks of many words in Anatolian city dialects. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "çimerlik" is not Turkish too. It is Azeri. Also, I don't believe in every dictionaries because of your forgery, false pretenses, fraudulence, dishonesty. I believe in rightful/truthful dictionaries. All of you add to dictionaries and says "there are many citations and dictionaries". This is your cheating. I know your cheating. --123snake45 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If some authors used this word in Turkish, then it is a Turkish word. You can only say it is borrowed from Azerbaijani. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are three groups concerning language in Turkey: one are normal people, the other are the pro-Ottoman ones, the third the Kemalists. As you perhaps know, the Turkish language was significantly modified by the Turkish Language Association (TDK); they changed 80% of the words by introducing some local words, Turkish words of Old Turkish, or mostly created new words. The reason was the turn to the West by Kemal Atatürk, so 'do not use any words from the East or the South'. Other words were replaced with words from French, but later replaced by newly created ones. The result of this explains partly this discussion here. Concerning the words cited about, estelik is unknown to TDK, the official state organisation in Turkey for language issues. The same is true for çimerlik, but I think that this word comes from Azeri Turkish. The third cited word above, haydamak, exist in TDK. I had a lot of problems with entries in the Turkish Wiktionary with words like dilbilim (instead of dil bilimi, the now-accepted orthography). Another need for confusion is the mixed-up minds at TDK. I never forget my teacher for literature that until that year (1979), 17 orthograhy dictionaries had been published with 14 (!) different orthographies. I never checked it, but it shows the precarious way TDK is/was proceeding. My solution to this problem are stricter rules, like it is the case in the German Wiktionary, where you either need a refernce to an accepted dictionary, or at least five citations. By the way: Sesli Sözlük is often imprecise, and Google Translator is worse.--Sae1962 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice this citation: Estelik, Yadigâr.
 * 1934, Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association), Tarama dergisi: Osmanlıcadan Türkçeden söz karşılıkları, 2. cilt

The word 'yadigâr' is the Ottoman one, and the word 'estelik' is the Turkish one. Notice the date: 1934 If someone says this is a group's lie then this means Turkish Language Association is a liar in this situation. And 123snake45 doesn't check the citations or he tries to falsify them. He said these words were not in Turkish: haydamak çimerlik kol çekmek telefonlamak but there were citations for these words. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to TDK, the synonym of yadigâr is andaç and not estelik. --Sae1962 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * cıngılı
 * Küçücük.
 * Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü
 * Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü


 * So "cıngılı" is "very small" in TDK.


 * "telefonlamak" isn't valid. Turkish people don't use it.
 * Also "kol çekmek" isn't truth. All of they "telefonlamak, çimerlik, kol çekmek.." have to re-examine. --123snake45 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Telefonlamak is generally being used in its reciprocal form telefonlaşmak (compare with: karşılamak-karşılaşmak, söylemek-söyleşmek). Some forms may be rare or may even be lost but it doesn't mean they don't exist in Turkish because of you don't know them. --88.251.251.254 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is "telefonlaşmak" but there is no "telefonlamak". Both isn't same. "telefon almak" is different, "telefonlaşmak" is different, "telefonlamak" is different too. So there is no "telefonlamak". --123snake45 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can not compare "telefonlamak" with "telefon almak" which is totally irrelevant. If you look up any etymological dictionary you may see this explanation: telefonlaşmak < telefon-la-ş-mak. Because it is reciprocal form of the verb telefonlamak. --88.251.251.254 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't like to argue about Turkish with educated native speakers of Turkish, but there are many things that can happen to a word. Some words are old and not used much anymore, so a lot of people do not know them (such words are desirable for a dictionary); some words are slang; some words are regional; some words are borrowed from other languages; and many other possibilities. Words that fall into almost any of these categories are good to keep, with proper labels (such as obsolete, rare, regional, slang, colloquial, etc.). In the case of estelik, I see that it appears in the Seslisozluk online dictionary here and here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about what we need to know. This is rfv, so the task at hand is to verify if this word is 1) in use 2) conveying meaning 3) in Turkish' 4) as Turkish as documented 5) in durably-archived sources. Also, the cites only count if they are independent' of other cites

There's more to it then that, but that's all I have time for this morning. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An obscure regional or obsolete term, as long as it's in some form of modern Turkish, is okay, but must be labeled as such, and should not be given as a translation.
 * If I have a quote that says "let's all call this estelik from now on", that's a mention, which doesn't count, because it's not in actual use.
 * Using it in an example sentence doesn't count, because it's not conveying meaning.
 * Any text that's not in modern Turkish according to Wiktionary's interpretation, i.e., Azeri, Ottoman Turkish, etc., doesn't count.
 * A quote that says estelik is the word for this in [some other language]" doesn't count.
 * Online dictionaries don't count, especially if they allow addition of words by the public.
 * Even an official publication that says "this is the correct word to use from now on" doesn't count, since it's a mention, not a use.
 * If a term is used with some other definition, it won't count for the current definition: a cite that refers to estelik as something 12 meters across that's found in an excavation will not keep the entry from being deleted, unless there's a definition in the entry that's consistent with that cite (and 2 others like it). If there is the sense that isn't supported by cites will be removed, but the other one will stay.
 * Thanks for pinging me but I don't know enough Turkish to make a judgement. Like in Turkish, there is a fine line in Russian between Old Russian (Old East Slavic) or words borrowed from other languages (including Slavic), sometimes it's not a real borrowing but a quoted sentence may make readers believe that a term is actually used (this can be said of any language). We have to rely on honesty of contributors and their understanding of our rules. Disproving them may be difficult without a thorough knowledge of the language and citations.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to look at Citations:estelik and determine whether the citations for the "monument" sense fulfill what Chuck Entz summarized above? It seems clear that the "memento" sense is unfounded.__Gamren (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since noone has objected to the three cites for the "monument" sense, I RFV pass that sense, whereas the "memento" sense is RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)