User talk:Grandmaster/Archive 2

Your latest edit summary
"00:12, April 4, 2006 (hist) (diff) Nakhichevan (Restored Turkish name, and I’m going to add Azeri names for Armenian territories. Don’t even try to revert.) (top) [rollback]"

I really suggest you don't use that tone here. Clearly, there is a larger disagreement, and before you start making ultimatums like that, perhaps you'd like to do a WP:RFC? --Golbez 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it was directed to a certain person, who reverts without any valid reason or agreement on principles. I normally try to reach a compromise whenever possible, but in certain cases it is better to explain by giving an example of the absurdity of situation. I mean, why is it OK to add the names in other languages for Nakhichevan, and why we can’t do the same for Armenia? And why Turkish name for Nakhichevan should be removed, but Armenian should remain? So far I have not received a reasonable answer to that. I don’t mind RFC, because it looks like we have a dispute in the wider context outside of Nakhichevan, at the same time I think that we should take a reasonable approach to such issues, and this case it is not worth another conflict, but some people are pushing for it by mindless reverting. Grandmaster 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply
When there are too many names they should be in a separate section of the article, probably called “Name” or “Alternate names”. This is just based on my experience and what I’ve seen. For the Armenian cities that you’re talking about – you have to ask yourself the following questions: Was the city ever a part of Azerbaijan? Does the city or did it ever have a significant Azeri population? Is the name that this city also commonly known by the Azeri one? If one or more of these questions apply, then I think it would be acceptable. The rule certainly does not only apply to Turkish and Azeri cities. I think I previously told you about many of the articles about Greek islands that have the Turkish name at the top – they are Crete, Kos, Rhodes, Komotini, and some others. You’re right, I think the RfC would be a good idea. Cheers, Khoikhoi 19:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Khoikhoi. The thing is that there was no Armenian state in the Caucasus until 1918 for about 1000 years. This territory was ruled by Turkic (Azeri) rulers, and the territory of modern republic of Armenia became part of Russia in 19th century as Erivan or Irevan khanate. The Azeri rulers in turn for the most of the history were subordinate to Ottoman or Persian Empires. Armenian population in significant numbers appeared in the region in 19th century, before that they were a minority. The population of Erivan consisted mostly of Azeris until break-up of the Russian empire. These facts are easily verifiable, and I provided some sources on the talk page for Nakhichevan. In the view of the above the Azeri names for the Armenian territories are more than appropriate. Grandmaster 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on Grandmaster, I think we resolved this issue. I have provided the statistics of Yerevan town. Besides, Khoikhoi you are wrong about the names, this is not how we apply to know which names goes there. Names should follow name conventions, Armenian names for those cities and towns were used in every Western maps, including various regions in the Ottoman Empire. Places, when treating a period, are called after what they were called in the period treated according to English language publications. Fad (ix) 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Fadix, it is not so much about Turkey, as much as it is about Azerbaijan and Armenia. In Nakhichevan article one of the Armenian editors tried to remove the Turkish name of the region, claiming that it was not applicable, which was ridiculous, because the region changed hands between Turkey and Persia for many centuries. And also, if we have an Armenian name for Nakhichevan, why can’t we have an Azeri name for Yerevan, which was the capital of Irevan khanate before it was conquered by Russia and had prevailing Azeri population until Russian revolution? Also, do we really need to include the name of the region in all applicable languages, and do we need to do that in the first sentence or it can be done elsewhere in the article? In case of Nakhichevan and Yerevan we are talking about at least 5 names. These are the questions I want to get an answer to, I’ve been busy at work and also I’m not really familiar with the procedure of starting an RFC, that’s why I have not started it yet, but I was recommended by admins to ask those question there, because these issues are not so clear. Grandmaster 06:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, the Azeris alphabet was introduced in a period which Yerevan was a part of Armenia, so I don't understand what you really mean by Azeri name. The name you are reffering to is not Azeris but the Persian name which is spelled 'Irwan.' The Muslim population in that land was divided by Persians and Tartars, not all were Tartars; there was a considerable portion of the Town which was inhabitated by Persians, which did not represent the rest of the Khneat Muslim population. The Tartars/Turks started populating the place really only after 1582, while the Persians only after it was taken control of by the Shah Abas in 1604, but the more massive Turkish immigration was after 1615. The Azeris don't have a particular name for that land other than what was derived from the Persian term, there are two versions of that term, one is Armenian the other Persian and both derived from the Urartian name Erepuni. The reason why the town was not much populated was because it was the Armenian episcopal center, like Rome, and more when The Shah tried emigrating the Armenian center in the hope that the Armenians will follow. So, I don't see, that we take it from one way or another, there could be any justification to add an Azeris name, which the transliteration is recent and that for that reason should be seen as such, while Yerevan was already part of Armenia.


 * I agree though about something, this thing of naming places with the alphabets of many languages in the lead is beyond my understanding, this is English Wikipedia, and we should stick to what it is called in English language and the language of the country it is now part, unless the term is etymologically derived from another language, or that the region is now part of a conflict which has to do with its bordering. Fad (ix) 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What alphabet has to do with the names? Current Russian Cyrillic alphabet was introduced after the October Revolution in 1917, does it mean that we should write the older Russian names by using the old Russian alphabet? As for population of Erivan, it was predominantly Turkic, and the town was a capital of a Turkic khanate (khanates were Turkic states), which was formally subordinated to the Shah of Persia, but enjoyed wide autonomy in its internal affairs. By the way, rulers of both Persia and Erivan were Azeri Turks of Kajar clan, they also ruled Ganja and Shemakh khanates. Azeri name is more than applicable, considering that Azeris were prevailing in number until the Russian revolution.


 * But I also agree with your position about naming. Only English and official language names should be included in the first line. I think we should take a reasonable approach to this issue, otherwise the first line of the article would be totally unreadable. Applicable names could be mentioned in the History section, but in this case I also want Azeri names to be mentioned for Armenian towns and cities. The rule should be the same for all. If we can achieve a general between the parties, there will be no conflicts in this regard in the future. Grandmaster 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are getting what I mean. We've been there, about the population of the town and besides, there is no way to know if the majority of the Muslim were either Tartars or Persian, Britannica for instance place Persian first, and then Tartars between the two groups. Second, the place was never called in any Turkic name, because what the Turks were calling it was from the Persian term which like the Armenian one was derived from what was called under the Urartian Empire. And like it or not, old maps of that region never placed Turkic names for those places, Turkish names are pratically all recent ones which mostly are derivatives from Persian. Many other terms, it was just a Turkified version(forming the word by the union of a Persian word and a Turkic one, or giving a Turkic intonation to a Persian term). You can not use terms which are not notable.


 * Recent terms which followed after a land became part of anpther independent country has no place in an article, unless the land is disputed. Fad (ix) 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Brockhauz, 49% of the population were Azerbaijani Tatars. The town was the center of Irevan khanate, which was ruled by Azeris (Kajars). And it absolutely does not matter, whether the name is derivative from Persian or not, as long as there’s a spelling in Azeri language, it should be included. Grandmaster 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been there already, during that period nomads were dumped as Tartars and it was the end of the story, punching card system was basing on recorded languages choices as well as religion to draw ethnicity, while this might work for a sedentary system, it won't work for nomades. According to those data there was nearly no Persian neither Kurds, while Britannica place Persian and then Tartars after the Armenian population there. Comming to having an Azeris term, I think you still don't get it. What you are suggesting is POV pushing. There was no such thing as 'Azeri language' anything called an 'Azeri language,' what was called 'Azeri' at that time wasn't even Turkic. You can not take the 'Azeri identity' of now and project it in a period to decide to use any Azeri term. This is not how things are done, neither it is encyclopedic to do that, you won't find any serious encyclopedia that does this. There were at that time various, various European maps published, at that time, there wasn't any 'Azeri term' used at all, the modification of a Persian term later on to form the Azeri name after that national identity was formed is totally irrelevent there. On the other hand, I can show you many European maps of the period, in which places were called after their Armenian term and in this way EVEN in some Ottoman military maps this was the cases. Fad (ix) 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Fadix, what does it matter if the language was called Azeri or not? It is called so now. Call it Turkic if you wish, but you will have to include the name in that language, because most of the population at the time were Azerbaijani Turks or Azerbaijani Tatars as Russians called them. This is easily verifiable thru Brokhauz encyclopedia. This is the way the system works here, you may argue that this information is not accurate, but as long as it’s verifiable it should be included in the article. Second, the khanate was a Turkic state, ruled by Azeris. The rulers of Erivan were Kajars, this fact is also easily verifiable. Plus, the region was also part of Ottoman empire, so the Turkish name should be included as well. As for Persian people, Russian census did not reveal any significant Persian population anywhere in the Caucasus. The only Persians mentioned there are those who migrated to Baku to work in oil fields in late 19th century. To end the discussion, I suggest we mention only the name in the state language in the first line and names in other languages in the history section. Grandmaster 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, did you read what I wrote? Even during Ottoman times, there was NO TURKISH TERM, the Ottoman even during some period have used Armenian alphabets before finally adopting Arabic alphabets. Check Ottoman military maps. And, have you not enought? We've been there already, the figures are from the Census, I have presented the official census, you will even find a Wikipedia article about the punching card census and it contains the way people were recorded. THERE WAS NO direct ethnicity counting of population, people were classified by religion and language, when language they could not, they relied on religion and the structure of the society... nomads were mostly dumped as Tartars, Britannica itself uses the same census, but yet, it classify Persians before Tartars. For the Armenians, it was simple, they had a specific religion, which was classified as the Armenian apostolic church, there could have been no mistake in their cases. Provide me any example of reputable, notable Encyclopedia, or rather any non-Azeris encyclopedia that does a projection from present to past to name a place? THERE IS NONE! Term conventions are not hard to apply, it is either yes or no. The fact is that at that time, there was NO Turkish alphabet, there was NO Turkish term specific to that language to call that region, when the latin alphabet was introduced, that land was already part of Armenia. Also, Yerevan has been in a way longer lapse of time part of Armenia, or part of an Armenian autonomous regions than Ottoman and Turkic/Tartars combined. Since the fall of the Urartian Empire it was one of the center of the Armenian nation, which in cumulative years would be over a millenium in comparaison of centuries for Ottoman and combined Tartars. In any historic publication places are named based on what thyey were called on the period covered, and I have repeated this countless numbers of time, you can check this yourself. What were they called during that period? And now? What they are called? Neither in one cases or the other your request can be granted. Fad (ix) 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don’t want any Turkic names for Armenian cities, but at the same time want to include Armenian names for Azeri cities. Sorry, it’s not gonna work one way. And your arguments are absolutely baseless. You say that there’s no specific Turkish term, is there any specific Russian term? Still Russian spelling of the name is included, and for a good reason. it was part of Russian empire and Soviet Union. The territory of modern Armenian was part of Turkic states for hundreds of years, so Azeri and Turkish names are applicable. Your interpretation of census figures is nothing more than your interpretation. We have a reputable source providing certain figures, we don’t need to do a fact check, you know that. And alphabet issue is absolutely irrelevant, Russian alphabet also changed since then, but nobody uses old alphabet to write the old names in modern publications. As for your last question, what was the current capital of Armenia called, when it was capital of Irevan khanate? I’m going to start an RFC to put an end to this issue, either we apply this principle to all location, or don’t apply it at all. Let’s see what community thinks. Grandmaster 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's it Grandmaster, you are simply pulling my legs. I DO NOT MAKE THE RULES. Such rules are respected since what we know as encyclopedia in modern times. A name convention for a land is justified under two simple principles, 'etymology' of the term OR the notability of the term used for the period covered. The alphabet is OBVIOUSLY primordial for the first cases, somehow important but not primordial for the second. Your request doesn't respect either. Again, I repeat, there was no such thing as any Azeri term, you claim you understand but yet repeat the same thing. Also, I am NOT interpreting the census, the punching card system had PUBLISHED set of rules and had questions that people had to answer, the 1897 Russian census is on Wikipedia go find it and check yourself, you are both wasting my and your time on the senseless and baseless conversation. You are acting like a kid saying: "Mom, mom, he has candy, I want it too." Names are not added for the pleasure of adding them. Besides, the Russians had formed names for those places which are still used, you will find those terms in works published during that period with the Cyrillic alphabet, while there has been some minor ajustment since then, you can not compare..., for example the Ottoman Turks had introduced the Arabic alphabet, and the intonation of the words and spacing had to respect those rules, the Arabs and Turks were calling those place the same thing and the alphabet was Arabic, the influence was Persian. where do you find Turkic there? I told you, provide any examples from other encyclopedias. By saying this I rest my cases, this has become a ball game, and I won't take part of it. Regards. Fad (ix) 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * None of your arguments can be taken any seriously. Alphabet has nothing to do with the name, Russian alphabet changed too, but no one is claiming that the old names should be written by using old Russian alphabet only. As for Russian names, they are not any different, can you tell the difference between English and Russian name of Nakhichevan? It is absolutely identical, just written with a different alphabet. Why then Turkish name can’t be included for Yerevan, the city that was part of Ottoman Empire for centuries? As for Azeris, you are using the same linguistic trick that was described by Thomas de Waal in his book called Black Garden. It is very popular in Armenia to play with names to deny the role of Azeri people in history of that country. See an excerpt from the chapter 5 - Yerevan: Mysteries of the East. De Waal describes how Armenians destroyed an Azeri mosque in Yerevan using a bulldozer, and then says:


 * That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.


 * Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijanis people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest. Grandmaster 09:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, how many articles are you planning to add the Azeri names to? --Khoikhoi 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the moment only one. The Azerbaijani name of the Armenian capital is İrəvan, I’m not sure about Turkish and Persian spelling, and Russian is Ереван, and before the revolution they called it Эривань. Grandmaster 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine by me. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. I asked the opinion of the people who introduced Armenian names and removed Turkish one from Nakhichevan article on the talk pages for Nakhichevan and Kars, but received no reaction. And if you have a look at the above posting, Golbez warned me against making any edits to make a point, but rather try an RFC. So I’m kind of not sure what to do. What would you suggest? Grandmaster 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I think an RfC would be the way to go - I think it would just save us from possible edit wars and more disputes. With the RfC we can get the opinion from other editors not involved in these disputes. --Khoikhoi 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, is Golbez Azeri? --Khoikhoi 06:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He’s an American and he’s an admin. His name is from a computer game, I also first thought that he was from Middle East or adjacent area. Very nice person (not because he’s an admin :)). Let’s try an RFC, I’ll state my case, and you make any improvements you deem necessary. Btw, do you have any experience in starting an RFC? Grandmaster 06:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe, he's good at making those maps of Azeri provinces, that's for sure. No, I've never started an RfC, I've made comments in one before. What you should do is follow the template, and just fill in the details. --Khoikhoi 07:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I’ll do that now. Grandmaster 07:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, let me know when you want me to make comments, I have to go to sleep soon. --Khoikhoi 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I’ll talk to you later. Good night. Grandmaster 07:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijan
Please take a look at this edit. What should I do? --Khoikhoi 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t find it to be relevant to that article, since the issue is covered in the History of Azerbaijan. It could be rephrased though to a more NPOV version, if Iranian folks insist on its inclusion. Grandmaster 04:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the anon is trying to remove "also called Southern/South Azerbaijan" in the article. It's fine to state the other names, isn't it? --Khoikhoi 04:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. We should list all the applicable names in accordance with the rules. See how many hits you get for South Azerbaijan in Google. This cannot be ignored. Grandmaster 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you too. I’ll keep an eye on that page. Grandmaster 04:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, South Azerbaijan gets 162,000,000 hits in Google, while Iranian Azerbaijan only 142,000,000. According to the naming conventions, the article should be titled South Azerbaijan. We can bring that to the attention of the guy who keeps removing the name of South Azerbaijan from the article. Grandmaster 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Iranian Azerbaijan" is more NPOV because it is more geographic, "South Azerbaijan" is too political, and the name reflects the Azerbaijani wish of reunification. --Khoikhoi 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I’m not insisting on the name of South Azerbaijan to be given to the article, my point is that the name of South Azerbaijan cannot be removed from the article for a simple reason that it gets more hits than Iranian Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Grandmaster 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Email
Hey, Grandmaster. This is Clevelander again. I sent you another email recently. Be sure to check it out and write me back later. Thanks! -- Clevelander 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser
Yeah, there appears to be a backlog. Don't worry, Essjay or someone else will get to them soon. What we need is more bureaucrats! There's actually one being voted for right now. &mdash;Khoikhoi 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe. But I’ve got no idea who that guy is. Grandmaster 05:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you don't have to vote if you don't want to, I was just pointing it out. &mdash;Khoikhoi 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, I just don’t know many people here, but this guy appears to be a very reasonable choice for a bureaucrat. I may vote for him. Grandmaster 06:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. Let me know when there are updates. &mdash;Khoikhoi 18:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you know that Azerbaijanis are pure Iranians
Why are you playing these propganda cames? Azaris are Iranian. Azerbaijan is Iranian. 72.57.230.179 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Educate yourself, man. Read encyclopedias, even Wikipedia articles might be helpful. Azeris are Turkic people. I don’t understand why some people from Iran come up with such absurd ideas. Most Azeris are Iranian citizens, but not Iranian people, these are different things. Grandmaster 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "PURE Iranians"?? What is that supposed to mean? Read the Azerbaijani people article, it says "Much has been debated about the ethnic, cultural and linguistic origin of the Azerbaijani (or Azeri) people." &mdash;Khoikhoi 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know all Azeris speak the same language, so they are all Turkic. Most Azeris in Iran are pro-Iranian rather than pro-Azerbaijan though.--Eupator 11:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can comment on the Iranian peoples page as well
We've got a debate as to whether the Azeris should included on the page or not. I've been arguing against their inclusion as they are better suited for the Turkic people page. Some comments from Azeris such as yourself would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tombseye 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Grandmaster, thanks for your kind message regarding the Azerbaijani group. I would be delighted to work for imrovement of Azerbaijani related Articles and looking forward for future works together. I would also like to incourage group members to assist in improvement of Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Our Turkish friends have done a tremndus help in setting it up, but we need more native Azerbaijani speakers to increase the quality and number of articles. Sağolun Mehrdad 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Khachkars
GM, at last we have a neutral confirmation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18889210-2703,00.html

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060421-011159-4325r

What do you say? Will you modify the articles rmeoving the "alleged"?

--Eupator 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can cite IWP as a source of accusation. Azerbaijani government still does not confirm the allegations, even though this time they come from a different source. Grandmaster 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares. This is a fact now with independent confrimation and no longer an accusation.--Eupator 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm too late anyway. Raffi spotted it two days ago.--Eupator 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Still an accusation, but by a neutral source this time. You can add the line about this new accusation and government’s response in NPOV manner. And yes, it’s already there anyway. Grandmaster 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijan
Hi Grandmaster,

What do you think of this edit? To me it just looks like an attempt to surpress the other name. &mdash;Khoikhoi 20:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI

 * Requests for comment/Fadix -- Cool CatTalk 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you are not familiar with the TFC process. I have moved your comments to the talk page as the main page is not for general discussion.
 * You may also want to endorse one of the summaries or provide an outside view. If so, it is imperative you provide diffs.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 01:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just passing through and saw the above RFC (I've no involvement with any of the editors, btw) but did notice that the RFC was approved, which requires two people to certify the disagreement, whereas currently there is only one certification (Cool Cat) and one endorsement (you). Did you mean to certify instead of endorse, by any chance? (I believe RFCs with less then two certifications in 48 hours are removed, btw) Regards, MartinRe 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding problems with History of Azerbaijan et. al.
Hello GM. I checked out what was going on and Fad raised some valid points on the genetic study and interpretation. I was influenced by Audrey Alstadt's book in which she talks about hte connection between Azeris and Albanians and hastily skimmed the genetic study and interpreted it to mean that the Azeris are definitely Albanians, although I didn't word it with such certainty. Properly speaking it would be more advisable to say that the Azeris cluster moreso with other peopels of the Caucasus including in particular the Armenians as controversial as that will be to some. On the matter of Iranian Azerbaijan, I thought SouthernComfort's edit was okay in terms of rectifying the controversy, but there is no easy answer as there is a lot of nationalism on that page and people arguing etc. over semantics and claims and counter claims. Hope I was helpful and when the History of Azerbaijan is unlocked I'll make the proper adjustments and perhaps add some of findings of the study and other studies that show similar results. Also, the article might need to be shortened a bit as me and Abdulnr probably put in a little too much info. Thanks and take care. Tombseye 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. You were really helpful. Grandmaster 17:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Literature
Look at the great job by saposcat on Nasimi. We still have Khatai and many others, to work. Also look at Turkish literature and compare it with our section. Azerbaijani Literature. A difference! abdulnr 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right, Saposcat did an excellent job on those articles, that’s something for us to learn. Maybe we can ask him join our Wikiproject to help improve coverage of Azeri literature, but I know he’s very busy on Turkish Wikiproject, so I’m not sure if he could work on both. But if we collect the info, maybe he could help with copyedit. Grandmaster 04:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Grandmaster, thanks very much for the barnstar (and the compliments); I really appreciate it. As for Azeri stuff, I honestly don't know too much, apart from poets like Nesîmî and Fuzûlî who are also considered directly within the Ottoman Divan tradition, but I would certainly be more than happy to help with copyediting and the like. Just keep me informed, and I'll do whatever I can. Thanks again. —Saposcat 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my pleasure. Grandmaster 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Shams Tabrizi
Hey. I asked some editors what they think. Görüşərik, &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, when you have the time, could you take a look at the Nezami page? He's revered in the Rep. of Azerbaijan too, right? &mdash;Khoikhoi 06:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that’s true, but I’m not that good in poetry, maybe abdulnr would be more knowledgeable. Grandmaster 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. It is an absolute fact that he was Persian? Some anon keeps on changing it to Azerbaijani. &mdash;Khoikhoi 06:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The ethnicity of Nizami is not known for sure, but it is a fact that he wrote in Persian language. Grandmaster 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We will look it up - how can you have something as an absolute fact in 12 century, Sounds strange. The sure thing that he wrote in Persian. Options are several 1) he was of local Albanian stock 2) he was Iranian stock, most likely Kurdish 3) Seljuk Turkish or all above combined. . It is unlikely that he was ethnically Persian as Persians live in SW of Iran. abdulnr 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you merge Shamakha and Shamakhi? abdulnr 22:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Iranian peoples page regarding Azeris
Hey GM, just a heads up. There's a vote going on the Iranian peoples page as to whether to include the Azeris. I'd suggest you put in your vote or the Azeris will be added as an Iranian people. And that page needs the input of Azeris as this concerns them. Thanks. Tombseye 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've personally looked at some cases of bias myself, which is prevalent in many articles even aside from Iran. In this case, the thing is that the article isn't just about the Persians, but this issue has now become a problem for no good reason. When I wrote the article, I didn't do it to exclude any group that didn't have a connection, but the article isn't about connections, it's about the Iranic peoples who have to speak an Iranian language. The Azeris, though they may have many links simply can't qualify under the basic and proveable conditions. I don't think I try to create a bias, as with the History of Azerbaijan, which I helped write with sources listed. Except for my interpretation of the genetic data, which Fadix pointed out, that was subjective, the rest was straight from academic references. Similarly, I rendered the Iranian peoples by discussing the peoples who speak the languages only in compliance with how Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, and other articles are written. At any rate, perhaps we should all look for some alternative solutions as I don't know what else I can do. I already added a section basically to explain the Azeris (Turko-Iranian) connection and that still isn't enough it seems. Tombseye 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian people
Could you take a look at the first sentence in this section? It claims that Persians are descendants of some "Aryan tribes" migrating from Central Asia. Sounds like outdated racial theories to me. The same source (Britannica) says Persians are of mixed ancentry, but when I try to add this in people remove it. I don't think this is consistent with WP:NPOV. Could you take a look at this and leave some feedback on the talk page? Thanks, AucamanTalk 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What, he send this to everyone? abdulnr 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject, so I will refrain from getting involved into that discussion, even though I understand what he means. Looks like these messages were a subject to some controversy, see his talk. Grandmaster 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You certainly don't have to get involved if you don't feel like you're knowledgable. I was just going around asking people to comment on this and what they think should be done about it. This thing has been going on for some time and the best way to resolve it is to bring some fresh minds into the discussion. AucamanTalk 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really understand what you mean and I think you did the right thing by alerting people, if you thought there was a problem. I know that RfC is not really efficient, as it attracts very little attention. Unfortunately I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore I won’t get involved, but I understand that you have to deal with the same kind of POV push one can see at Iranian peoples or Safavid dynasty. Grandmaster 20:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aucaman, 'Aryan' has nothing to do with NAZI uses of the word 'Aryan' both are different, not only Persian is Irano-Aryan but most of Kurdish dialects are still considered as such. This is unrelated to racial theories. Fad (ix) 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash
Any change to look at this. Ethnic make-up of kizilbash, Tajik thinks that there was a large Persian segment of them, I have not read it, except in the sources he is citing (Minorsky)can you point me to anything. I am myself sort of kizilbash :) (Arent we all) from bayat (I KNOW that they were speaking Azeri in derbent where they lived). abdulnr 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not read any of his sources, as they are not available online, but I know that his version contradicts Britannica and Iranica, who only talk about 7 Turkic tribes. Grandmaster 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article POV and the Witness Testimonies
I'm going to be straightforward with you Grandmaster. I recently checked out a book that have transcripts of testimonies by Armenians from Sumgait and the accounts they describe - and this is corrborated by Armenian, Soviet army soldiers, Russians, Georgians - and where the Red Army soldiers describe - in trial transcripts - that Sumgait was "worse than Afghanistan" and likened the Azeris' behavior to animals. I'm reading accounts of outright insulting of Armenians, gang-rape, mutiliation, multiple stabbings, widespread looting, demolishment of automobiles, participation by men as young as 13; the sheer scale of this is so damning that I feel the article is going to generate an extreme amount anger directed at Azeris, no matter how neutral I can keep it. Accounts that say that the two Azeri youths in Askeran, one was killed by an Azeri police officer and the other in unknown circumstances. I need to write this article with your help but you have to understand, I'm not going to leave any graphic accounts out. The witness testimonies clearly overule the understated Soviet government's numbers that only 32 people died. I hope you understand this.

I also want to add that I will include the genocidal aspects of Sumgait. It meets all of the criteria as established by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.--MarshallBagramyan 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Same as Khojaly. Armenian users rejected the use of the word genocide for killing of over 600 people, how come it is applicable there? Also I left out the graphic details out of Khojaly entry, despite having numerous accounts of foreign mass media, of course it is up to you to decide the way you want to write an article, but as you understand the same principle will be applied to other articles. Grandmaster 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the numbers, see de Waal’s book, he does not think the official figure is understated. He also refers to Bobkov, deputy chief of Soviet KGB, who said in his own book “КГБ и Власть” that one of Azeris killed near Askeran (16 year boy) was shot by Armenians from a hunting rifle. According to him, this apparently was the first victim of the conflict. Grandmaster 06:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. In fact, I was going to raise the issue as to why there are no quotes of the survivors on the Khojaly page and why the details have been left out; I described many of those details on the Nagorno-Karabakh war page if you have not checked it these past few days. Its just that the era of the situation was also different, 1988 Soviet Union to 1992: Armenia and Azerbaijan, Republics of. However, usually genocide denotes implicit government approval. The massacre of several Jews in the British governed Palestinian mandate by Palestinians in the late 1940s are considered "massacres" not a "genocide" even though the attackers had the express desire to kill and maim the Jews in the settlements. I know about De Waal's sentiments but like I previously told you, I'm exploring testimonies and news articles who felt the numbers were too deflated. According to the US Department of State, the death toll was a hundred while another reporter deduced by the interviews he had taken with survivors, the figure was much more closer to 400.


 * Whereas such an order by the Armenian goverment is unbeknownst to me exists, complicity by the Azeri government is self-evident to such a great degree. Soldiers committing crimes in wars is nothing new. If an entire city in Iraq is intentionally leveled and destroyed tomorrow by US soldiers and kills hundreds of Iraqis (somewhat like Fallujah attack November 2004]]), their crimes would still constitute as normal war crimes, not Genocide. Usually a government is accused of war crimes, the Serbians, the Hutu government, the Janjaweed rebels backed by the government of Sudan, etc. I want to write the article in a manner that does not inadvertently displace anger towards Azeris. Although it may seem understandable by simply reading the deeds being done, this isn't my website and I must oblige to work in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV format. --MarshallBagramyan 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Azeri government never gave any orders to kill Armenian people in Sumgait. If you can prove otherwise, then you can call this a genocide, but this is not true. In Khojaly Armenian officials were directly involved in the attack and hinted that the mass killing was aimed to intimidate Azerbaijanis, but still the classification of the massacre as genocide was rejected by certain people. Grandmaster 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As for Khojaly, it is really hard to put any line in without having a bitter argument, so the article contains only the facts that cannot be disputed, and everything is presented in NPOV manner with proper attribution of each quote. Of course, it needs further work, but I take a cautious approach to provide the best sources so that the information could not be challenged. Grandmaster 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With regard to the figures, it should be noted that there may be various speculations, but you need to refer to authoritative sources. For example, HRW claims that 32 Armenians were killed in Sumgait, but I think that it is still inaccurate because apparently they included 6 Azeris into this number as well. Grandmaster 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't believe there is anything wrong in placing quotations of survivors. I intend to place a few in the Sumgait article and I honestly have no objections if you place them on the Khojaly page. When I compare the Khojaly content on the Karabakh war page to the massacre article, I find it more descriptive and more detailed. The Azeri government didn't give out any orders to do so, but it zero effort to help them either and allowed it to happen, "state-sanctioned" implicit or otherwise.


 * What commanders says is that the attack by those soldiers, not the capture of Khojaly, was the form of intimidation. The attack can be considered strategic in a sense, but the actions done by soldiers is not synonymous to the goals of military assault.


 * HRW, like almost all the media sources, quoted the government's figures. Hardly any "authority" organizations were allowed to come, especially the International Red Cross. Taking into account the numbers, one man who claimed he lost 7 family members alone, its quite obvious the government decided to deflate the casualties and blame them on run of the mill "hooligans". Given the Soviet government's secretness and constant under-reporting, this wouldn't be a surprise after Chernobyl, the nuclear submarine accidents in the 60s, the Cuban Missile Crisis, even the Kursk incident in 2000, etc. The best is to take these numbers with a grain of salt. --MarshallBagramyan 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero effort can be explained by inability of the authorities to act in situations like this. There were no specially trained forces to break the groups of people, and the leaders of the city completely lost control of the situation. By the way, the Soviet government also preferred not to act during 3 days, so any accusations should be directed to them, as they controlled internal troops and other special forces.


 * As for the casualty numbers in Sumgait, I think there was no way during era of glasnost to hide the real number of victims, but still it’s never been proved that the real number was higher. The fact that neutral observers like de Waal and HRW provide figures close to official speaks for itself, even if HRW were not able to visit the city immediately after pogrom took place, they found the official figure reliable, and HRW are not the ones who takes sides or hide the casualties. In my opinion, the Armenian side inflates the figure for propaganda purposes. Also, if you going to include any witness accounts, it’s better if they are collected by neutral people, and not those who are interested in misrepresenting the facts. I for one will be using only evidence collected by HRW and Memorial. Grandmaster 05:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did the police remain so dormant and actually assist the rioters? Why did they constantly release individuals who were arrested by Soviet soldiers? One Russian major reported that he had confiscated the weapon and arrested one young Azeri 3 times and each time the police gave it back to him and released him. Another testimony by a Georgian who was a military warrant officer in Hungary stated that Soviet government troops confiscated several state-of-the-art military handguns. Reading the accounts by Gorbachev and witnesses, apparently MVD troops had arrived  three hours (the evening of 28 Feburary) into the rioting, not three days. George Soros, a popular outspoken American political philosopher, noted in Znamya that "The presumption that the first pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan were inspired by the local mafia, directed by former Azerbaijani KGB chief G. A. Aliyev, in order to create a no-win situation for Gorbachev, is not that farfetched." To say that the Sumgait and Azeri governments simply "lost" control of the situation is unconvincing.


 * The situation was embaressing for Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. Again, in the testimonies, witnesses were sent to the KGB and some of the attackers would plead with them not to report their names. Many Soviet journalists went on to condemn themselves for underreporting the issue. This kind of reporting was evident even after Glasnost. How often did you hear about the casualties coming back from Afghanistan or see negative scenes of it? About Chernobyl? The entire trials that year only charged 94 people when testimony in the trials reported seeing 400 people taking part in the riots on Feburary 29 alone. They utterly trivialized and marginalized the scale of the issue.


 * And Azerbaijan is innocent and always speaks the truth? You honestly think we're just a group of liars and propagandists who always want to forward an agenda? And what about Azeri "historians" like Ziya Buniyatov? Who is claiming that Armenians only existed for a few centuries and that our churches and alphabet were part of a people called the Caucasian Albanians? That  leaders like Heydar Aliev say "Armenia is a fictitious state created on Azerbaijani land ..."? I wouldn't be so quick to generalize Azeris and I advise that you refrain from stereotyping us. Otherwise refer to this Incivility. I won't stand for comments like that.


 * I cannot include any neutrals because no one, except several media reporters several months later (who quoted the same stories in either case), such as HRW the Red Cross, Memorial, etc. were allowed to speak to the survivors and were unable to make a thorough and conclusive report free from Soviet government interference. Most media sources never speculated that the number might be deflated, they like HRW and de Waal (who shouldn't be considered the all-definitive, all-correct source, there were many mistakes I found his book) simply took the numbers at face value and wrote it down. These are trial transcripts and voice recordings, unless you can prove that there is a justifiable reason to object to their testimonies, they're as authentic as they can get.--MarshallBagramyan 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I never made any generalization about Armenian people, I don’t know why you came to such a conclusion. I just noted that if you want to make the article more credible it is better to use neutral sources. Also I think that the Armenian side inflates the casualty figures for propaganda purposes, like it or not, you’ll have to accept that both sides of the conflict are engaged in a propaganda war, and Armenians are as guilty as Azeris. Neither de Waal nor HRW are all-definitive, all-correct sources, but the same is true with regard to any other sources, it is just when it comes to these 2 at least you know that they have no bias and no interest in distorting the facts. As for the role of Azerbaijani authorities in organizing the pogroms, there’s not a single evidence to support such a claim, and the actions or failure to act of the policemen are not indication that they had relevant orders. Grandmaster 06:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit that I misconstrued your comments initially but reject the statements that Armenians are as guilty as the Azeris in the propaganda war. Its not the Armenians who are claiming The numbers for Sumgait, for example, were inflated to astronomical figures by some Armenians living outside the USSR, claiming that almost 1400 Armenians died in the pogroms. The more plausible figure rests on estimates of at or around 100-300 deaths. Taking the witnesses accounts who claimed that they had lost their whole families, four witnesses would be enough to dispell the Soviet government's figures. De Waal doesn't claim that he doesn't believe the figures are inflated; he says that there were certain Armenians who didn't believe it and he gave the names of those who list numbers close to 400.


 * Either someone told the police to step down or turn a blind eye during these pogroms or they simply were to sympathetic to the rioters. Either way, that spells some questions that i will speculate in the article--MarshallBagramyan 20:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, the figures should come from an authoritative source. So far I have not seen a single authoritative source, claiming higher numbers and explaining how they counted them. In addition to official statement, there are neutral sources, which provide the same or close numbers. But relying on evidence from propagandist cites such as sumgait.info is not gonna make the article credible. You know that such articles instantly turn into arena of edit wars, so I think it’s in your interest to back it up with good sources. As for the propaganda war, you may disagree with my statement, but check how Armenian sources present the massacre in Khojaly and check it against the assessment of neutral sources. Grandmaster 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources should come from reputable sources, authoritative ones are helpful, but an article by the Washington Times or the New York Times shouldn't be ruled out either; they're just if not completely as neutral on the issue. I don't think you understand the contemporary time difference between Khojaly and Sumgait in terms of investigations that were done. Khojaly was part of the Republic of Azerbaijan and not the USSR; hence investigations made by neutral organizations and committees were welcomed by the Azeri government whereas Sumgait remained an internal Soviet problem caused by "ordinary hooligans acting on their own behalf" as far as the Soviet government was concerned. Buildings were quickly repaired, torched vehicles were towed away, witnesses were told to not report certain individuals, etc.; the crime scene completely altered in Sumgait while the Azeri government officials allowed HRW and Memorial to work unhindered in the aftermath of the Khojaly attack. Even after the 1988 earthquake, the Soviet government begrudgingly allowed outside help to arrive and help; the first time the Intl. Red Cross arrived was at Leninakan in 1989. Propaganda is a form of information released, usually through the media, that has a specific viewpoint and makes a certain point. Armenian officials telling one story (and having it rejected) isn't called "propaganda". Its simply called lying. When the Azeri government said it wasn't removing or destroying khatckars in Nachkichevan, it wasn't spreading "propaganda" either.


 * And I'm not using arbitrary websites such as sumgait.info. The report I keep mentioning comes from a reporter who worked for a Western news agency; the name eludes me but it is a major media source and my citations are found using ProQwest, which has vast archives of thousands of articles. Up until now, asides from the anthology of witness testimonies, my sources have been coming from news sources like TIME, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Moscow Times, etc. The citation I listed about Khojaly on the Nagorno-Karabakh war page is, for example, cited by the Chicago Tribune. --MarshallBagramyan 21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, as long as you cite reliable sources, there will be no problem with it. Western media can also be used, of course. And of course, sources like HRW are preferable, because they can provide an accurate account of all aspects of the event, but if such sources are not available, you’ll have to use something else, but you need to properly attribute each quote. As for the number of casualties, I see no reason why HRW would be interested in understating it. The numbers like 100 or more are highly doubtful. If you have any other reliable assessment, you can include it as well. Grandmaster 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on May 5 2006 (UTC) to Kizilbash
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never broke the 3RR rule, I made only 3 reverts. Please check the history of the page. Grandmaster 05:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. I disagree William M. Connolley 08:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for getting you banned. Let's see what Tombseye have to say. We agree, on most stuff except on the intro, this is beyond argument so I will agree to independent judgement. abdulnr 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain which part of the article you consider "totally disputed"?! It's mentioned 3 times in the article that the Turcomans were the majority and that the name Kizilbash is thus sometimes only applied to them. What else is your problem?! Almost every single sentence in that article has a credible reference! Tajik 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I already explained on the talk page. I actually think the reasonable resolution to the dispute would be removal of any mention of ethnicity in the lead, as it causes most of the problem. Grandmaster 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. No ethnicity but only a few words about their religious beliefs (i.e. that they were a militant Shia sect in Eastern Anatolia and Western Iran). What doy ou think? Tajik 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'll remove the tag. Grandmaster 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, then let's not mention ethnicity- I am surprised that ethnicity is the cause of the major controversy where it should not be. abdulnr 18:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hi
Hello, greetings to you as well from Istanbul. Nasisan eyi misen? :) --Gokhan 17:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Təşəkkürlər, iyiyim, sen nasılsan? Grandmaster 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sağolasın. Bakü'de havalar nasıl?  Yahşi mi?  --Gokhan 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pis deyil. Belke yağış yağdı bu gün. Grandmaster 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Images used for Sumgait
I'm curious, would you object the use of this image that purportedly shows the rioting and burning of cars in Sumgait (it conforms to the events that were occurring, so I doubt it would be from another place or event) ? The link is obviously from an Armenian website so if you have objections to it, I'll abstain from using it.

Thanks.--MarshallBagramyan 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t object, as long as it is properly referenced as coming from an Armenian website. I don’t know how it was possible to take pictures, if no mass media were in the city at that time. Grandmaster 06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I forget who exactly said it, but I think even Bunyatov said there were videos of the rioting that were supposedly brought in (video camera crews) intentionally to show the Azeri riots, something to that effect. I think that was said in De Waal's book where he goes over the numerous stories that emerged after the event. I'll source the page when I find it but the video doesn't really appear to have any dubious circumstances behind it.


 * Regards--MarshallBagramyan 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Bunyatov was right then. The video really existed. Grandmaster 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're good with cars but does that top frame look a Dzhiguli or a Moskovitch?--MarshallBagramyan 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Zhiguli to me, but it’s hard to tell. I still wonder, if there was a video shot in Sumgait, how operators knew that something was going to happen there? Grandmaster 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the rioting went on for three days and was not quite like a murder occuring in an isolated alley.I believe it was shown in Armenia several days thereafter. Someone with a video camera could have recorded it anywhere from 28 Feburary to March 1. --MarshallBagramyan 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Please keep an eye on the Iranian peoples page and make sure people don't add the Azeris. There's no consensus to add them. Thanks. &mdash;Khoikhoi 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I wanted to know your opnion on this, thanks for contacting me. Grandmaster 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, btw, it's time to unprotect your user page, I think the vandal is gone by now... &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is semiprotected, so I don’t mind if it remains like that. I’m not really keen on anons editing my user page. Grandmaster 18:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

С Праздником!
--Kuban Cossack 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Behbud Cevanşir
Grandmaster, bu kişiyi bilir miydin? Türkçe vikipedi (p.s. I wrote the article on the Turkish wikipedia). Selam. --Cretanforever 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Evet, Behbud bəy Cavanshir Azərbaycan Halq Cumhuriyyətinin Daxili İşlər Naziri (İç İşləri Bakanı) olmuşdur və İstanbulda erməni terrorçuları tərəfindən öldürülmüşdür. Sizin məqalənizdə təsvir olunmuş onun oğlu haqqında bilmirdim, çox gözəl ki siz onun haqqında yazmisiniz. Siz həmin məqaləni Azərbayacan wikipediasında da dərc edə bilərsiniz, bu Azərbaycan oxucuları üçün maraqlı olardı. Hörmətlə, Grandmaster 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tamam, Azerbaycan wikipediasına derc ederim. Sonra bir okuyucu Azerbaycan Türkçesine göre herhalde tashih eder. Bir zaman Behbud beyin idare ettiği spor cemiyetinde kayıtlı dağcı idim (alpinist), 2-3 kere görmüşlüğüm vardır, çok iyi bir insandı. Hürmetler. :) --Cretanforever 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Çok qözəl. Bu insan haqqında bilgi verdiyiniz üçün təşəkkür edirəm. Grandmaster 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan
I have unprotected the article. abakharev 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Grandmaster 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Get well
No, nothing serious; just a case of the flu (as long as it doesn't turn out to be bird flu, I should be fine). Thanks a lot for wishing me well; I appreciate it. —Saposcat 07:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not pass your Propaganda
That is not POV that is fact. So do not try and push your party line. 72.57.230.179 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that was a little to frank, but it does seem like prop[ganda after you yourself in the past have stated that the majority of Azaris refer to themselves as Iranian. That is why it I temred it such, but anyways we hae to discuss on the board. You can not revert with out talking to me on the issue. I even took the liberty to write and verify my edits. 72.57.230.179 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said anything like that. And I know that Azeris in Iran refer to themselves as Turks, and so do Persians, they also call Azeris Turks. I’ve been to Iran back in 1991. Grandmaster 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding this edit and others: Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia policy requires that we be respectful towords other users, even in the midst of heated debates. Please try to keep this in mind in the future. --InShaneee 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that. Grandmaster 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on user:Grandmaster I want diolgue not an edit war so please do not try and start one. That wa snot nice, that is only sparking mistrust in the community. I am being civil with you and asking for proposals and verifications. Besides that how is Colova? 72.57.230.179 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Grandmaster, many thanks for your voting and support to the Portal:Georgia. Keep on rockin’! :) Kober 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you too. Grandmaster 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenian terrorism and ASALA
See ASALA talk page, I listed both articles concerning "Armenian terrorism" to be deleted. Tazmaniacs 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Azarbaijan (Iran)
Hi, i think the dispute is similar to that of the Persian Gulf, so i was following its layout. There is no Southern Azarbaijan region in Iran and it's not recognized or called that by the Gov't of Iran, so i think that needs to be respected. Personally, as an Azari myself, i am completely offended by the term because i have only heard it used by people from the Repiblic of Azerbaijan. But, i understand that it is a term used by some, and regardless if they might be pan-turkists pushing their pov, it still should be mentioned in the article, though not as it's official title. You do agree that Southern Azarbaijan is not the official name right? Rugsnotbombs 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The term South Azerbaijan is used not only in the Republic of Azerbaijan, but also by academic sources, such as encyclopedia Iranica. This is from encyclopedia Iranica, which often uses the terms North and South Azerbaijan:


 * In North (Soviet) Azerbaijan the Latin alphabet was introduced in 1925…. In South (Iranian) Azerbaijan the Arabic alphabet is still used … See page 246


 * Therefore the term is notable, and it’s not mentioned as an official title, the official title goes in the first line. It just said that this term is also sometimes used, which is true, and there’s no conflict over it on international level, so I suggest we restore it the way it was. Grandmaster 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but it still isn't internationally recognized by anyone, not the UN or anyone else. I mean, sure that source mentions it, but is it really reliable? if it was such a common name then why hasn't anyone else used it? That would be like me wanting to add the word "vagabond" under other usages of the word arab because an edition of Webster's dictionary defined it as such (see). Also, the name dispute in the Persian Gulf article has a much stronger case because the other term was used in National Geographic, a much more reliable source. I still don't believe that it should be mentioned up top or anywhere in the article, however i can understand leaving it where it is. if we can't agree maybe we should ask someone else for some suggestions. Rugsnotbombs 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, international recognition is not relevant here, since the region is part of Iran, and not an independent state. UNO does not recognize the names of the regions within countries, it only deals with independent states or disputed areas. As for Iranica, other Iranian users told me that it was the most reliable source about Iran, I can show you their postings where they claimed that. So simple mentioning that the term is also sometimes used should be enough. I also don’t mind a third party neutral opinion, I suggest we ask Tombseye for his opinion about this issue. if you can suggest anyone else, I won’t mind either, as long as he’s impartial in this issue. Grandmaster 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * that fine with me, i also added it to the talk page. i figure we can just work something out, seeing all these rv's over and over is getting boring and old. so hopefully we can come to some agreement. i have a question though, you do agree that southern azarbaijan is not the official name of the region right? and only Iran has the right to name it? thanks Rugsnotbombs 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree with that. The name of South Azerbaijan is not presented as an official name, the article just says that this name is also sometimes used, which is correct. The name that sometimes used cannot be official. Grandmaster 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)



user:Grandmaster you might want to look at this. It wil shatter you fiction history that you are trying to force on Iranians. http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/October/Azari/index.html It is Azarbaijan and it it totally correct 72.57.230.179

Verify for me that Ethnicty is defined by language
YOur statment is dead wrong72.57.230.179


 * I disagree - it's a) language (e.g. Bulgarians vs Romanians) - b) culture (e.g. Serbs vs Croats) - c) self-identification (e.g. Germans vs Austrians). --Telex 10:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True. The main criterion is language, so since Azeris speak a Turkic language, they are not Iranian people. Other criteria applied if the frst one matches. I quoted encyclopedia Britannica :


 * The people


 * Azerbaijan has a growing and youthful population. The Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis (Azeris), who make up more than four-fifths of the country's population, are predominantly Shi'ite Muslims. They combine in themselves the dominant Turkic strain, which flooded Azerbaijan especially during the Oguz Seljuq migrations of the 11th century, with mixtures of older inhabitants—Iranians and others—who had lived in Transcaucasia since ancient times. About 13 million Azerbaijanis live abroad, most of them in Iran.


 * The Azerbaijani language belongs to the southwestern (Oguz or Turkmen) group of the Turkic languages. There are four main dialect divisions. The literary tradition dates to the 14th century. The Arabic script was used until the 20th century; the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced in 1939. In 1992 the Azerbaijani government switched from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet as its official orthography. Grandmaster 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya, hahaha; Turkic-speaking. Exactly just that and noting more. Azaris are Turcophone Iranians and I have given unbiased scientific data. Humans can have opinions, but science is absolute. 72.57.230.179


 * I think the Nazis based ethnicity on race - nice ;-) --Telex 11:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly. Grandmaster 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, our anon friend has just violated the 3RR. --Telex 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's not his first time. Check the history of his talk page. It's time to report it. Grandmaster 11:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it now. --Telex 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Grandmaster 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I interpitate that as an attack and I can see that you are ganging up om me. Ethnicity is not defined by language alone it is not the soul definig force. Otherwise African-Americans would be Anglo-Saxons and most Africa would be European. Hungarians are a speakers of an Altaic language related to Turkic, but are considered being ethnicly of the European peoples. Please read my citations. And if I am not mistaken you are being incivil and fighting 72.57.230.179

If you or User:Telex could do it that would be better. I'd prefer not to undo the contributions of someone I have just blocked. Bit of a faux pas. :) - FrancisTyers 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but please don't block me for 3RR violation. Grandmaster 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done already by Telex. Grandmaster 12:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW if you speak Azeri, you really should write an Azeri section for List of common phrases in various languages. --Telex 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I will do that when I have time. And thanks for your contribution to Azerbaijani people discussion. Grandmaster 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)