Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:36, 11 February 2010

Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding ethnic, national, and cultural editing conflicts. Consider including some background information, not only relating to the specific dispute, but also the relevant ethnic or religious conflict. If you do this you are far more likely to get an effective response. Situations requiring immediate administrative action should go to the incidents noticeboard. Situations requiring immediate enforcement of the arbitration committee remedies should go to the enforcement noticeboard. Volunteers: To mark an issue resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of its section. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:CCN WP:ECCN If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:CCN-notice}} to do so.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Name "Marianna" in Russian culture

In article Anna (name) user Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) said that name Marianna is in use in Russia. But it is not true. I'm Russian. I've read many books about Russian history and Russian classics literature and i've never heard about any Russian named Marianna. I heard about Americans, Mexicans, even Britons but never Russians. To prove my poont of view i've found few links. On these pages listed all the most popular and even rare names of Russian culture. These links are posted on discussion page Talk:Anna (name). But user Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) cant prove his point of view. He told about Marianne Pistohlkors who lived in Russia but she wasnt Russian - she was Latvian. --RussianSpy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Asian fetish

"Asian fetish"/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia is a neologism that appears to be used to refer to liking Asians and/or Asian things and also applied to primarily white men with a sexual interest in Asian women that appears to be characterized as a form of racist love or sexual objectification or sexual fetish. It has been a controversial article with thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions, several related AfDs, several 3RR reports and an appearance of unreported further edit warring in the article history, Wikietiquette reports, RfCs, etc. The talk page, 3rr reports, etc. discuss how (I am not sure I can adequately or correctly summarize, but I shall try): (1) the (perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women might or might not be racist on the part of those white men (2) the characterization of the (perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women may be a racist aspersion cast by some Asian men (3) that the concern about a perceived/actual) interest of some/all white men in Asian women may be a racist suspicion by Asian women, etc. This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I've posted to several places seeking community help. (Other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There are, last that I checked, 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Concerns touch on many points, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:WAR, WP:DISRUPT, and probably some others. Posting here because chauvinist and nationalist sentiment may (or may not) be one of the factors preventing consensus, for the reasons identified above. I defer to your judgment as to whether it is appropriate for this noticeboard. Thank you! Шизомби (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ethnic Macedonians

At this template there is a conflict about which (if any) symbol should be used on the template. Some users are suggesting using a lion banner which has no official status and never did, and is not supported by any reliable sources (beyond a handful of nationalist websites). Others including myself are suggesting using the nation-state's national flag or no symbol at all.

The lion banner appears to have been pushed into the article some time ago and the only real argument for keeping it is "it has been there a long time". Any attempt to remove the lion banner from the template is met by a prompt fly-by revert and a general reluctance to discuss the issue on the talkpage. At best we'll get one stand-alone comment, and at worst trolling comments which demonstrate no understanding of the concept of reliable sources.

This dispute goes way back (check the talkpage archive) and some assistance would be appreciated. Dispute resolution (discussion) doesn't seem to be working, and I doubt anything else will, as there appears to be a general unwillingness on the part of the pro-lion users to discuss as long as the template is in their version.--Ptolion (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following: 1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D 2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about demonology in our world be messed with (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles has nothing to do with ethnic or religious conflict. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Massacres of Albanians in the Kosovo War

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Because only few of us are involved, and because I have a reason to be skeptical regarding their good intentions, I decided to ask the help of third party. I just want the opinion of others on this highly controversial article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to do this, but this user came in front of me. I will ask you please to see the history of edits of the previous user and mine to see what is really happening here. He talks about "good intentions", but he oposes to the opening of any discussions against his highly politicized and non-NPOV edits. He has political agenda, that consists in editing in favour for Kosovo independence, wich is not illegal, but when comes to rewritting lies about historic facts, the case changes. Mine intervention just came after watching the maps and words changing in some Serbian historic articles. About the Massacres in Kosovo article, I have nothing against it, just dont want to see the proposition of another editor (to merge the article) to be completely ignored, and the editor called "nobody". This user (Mladifilozof) needs to learn about respecting other points of view, and wears like sheep but is really a wolf. FkpCascais (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This situation is escalating. User:Mladifilozof is a heavy Albanian Kosovar extremist that after making edits and articles about Serbian atrocities in the recent wars (perfectly legal, even thou, someone neutral should review those texts) he edits now Serbian historical articles. Please, I urge you to intervene. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether he is or isn't - he is right to say that an editor who adds a POV tag needs to explain on the talk page the issues behind the tag's insertion, pointing to specific issues or problems. The only people who can get away with not doing this are administrators. Meowy 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin language

"I was suggested by Wiki Admins to post this problem here, so I will just copy from the discussion:

" I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. Here are e.g. of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ulcinj
http://en.wikipedia.org/Podgorica Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it."

So can you please answer and help me here? So for 2 years it was ok, but suddenly the ISO is the problem, which by the way will be done in couple months. Can Admins please help us with this?"

Here are some of answers concerning the topic only:

":::ISO? That would be more or less meaningless. This sounds like but another edit war over an eastern European topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"

"I know, but Serbs use it a lot as the argument. Language is offical of the state, government files are written in Montenegrin, All the web sites in Montenegro put in Language selection Montenegrin as language of choose beside Eglish (if there is multiple choice), in school, books and all is written in Montenegrin... only here, there is "Serbian". None one says that those languages are much different but we must respect the most important set of rule in the country, and that is Constitution of Montenegro. It's not the Eastern Europe though :-). Rave92 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"

Sorry for copying but when we already started discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Language and just wanted to continue here the discussion.

Rave92 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen is right - this is "but another edit war over an eastern European topic" but we need to find a solution as there have been a large number of reverts on a large number of articles around this issue, leading to a fair number of blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article "Montenegrin language" needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV to include all current interpretations and classifications of Montenegrin (dialect, variety, language) with their respective pros and cons, something along the lines of the corresponding article at the German wikipedia. If then "Montenegrin" is linked, everyone can conclude for himself which scholars he trusts to best judge the subject. There is a similar issue with Slovincian, the status of which as a language on its own is disputed, though in case of Montenegrin the "language" status might be given more weight by scholars as is the case with Slovincian. As long as the scholary POVs are not properly worked out in the Montenegrin language article, admins will have no way to put an end to the edit war of which POV should be promoted more than others. In my view, "Montenegrin" should continue to serve as the default, with a note added that it is a Serbo-(Croatian) dialekt only if that would be backed by the prevalent scholary oppinion. Which needs to be figured out by some linguists in the article first to enable admins to judge whether a POV is given to much weight or to less so. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't dialect, as it is the same like Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. They are all accepted as languages even though they have the same root like Montenegrin (like you said, Serbo/Croatian). Rave92 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Watching this discussion, I do have a question about this issue. As I make footballers biographies, I tend to writte in the text the original way of name writting for nationalities that use different alphabet. Exemple: Serbian, Macedonian, Montenegrin or Bulgarian names are written in Cyrillic alphabet. For the Montenegrins case, I used to writte Serbian Cyrillic since the montenegrins use the Cyrillic alphabet that was originally inveneted by Vuk Karadžić and is worldwide regarded as Serbian Cyrillic. In many cases the word Serbian Cyrillic was replaced by Montenegrin Cyrillic or Montenegrin Language used as Montenegrin. I didn´t reverted those edits, what shall I do, since I have the autoreview right for some of the articles? FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Both are Montenegrin alphabet and in official use. My suggestion is to add like in case of Pedja Mijatovic, where it is written Montenegrin and written in both, Latin and Cyrillic script.

The latin is not a problem since the title of the article (players name) is already writen in "Montenegrin" latin. Thanx. My question goes more about the existence, or not, of so called, "Montenegrin Cyrillic" ? FkpCascais (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we never called it Serbian or Montenegrin Cyrillic, but Cyrillic only, like Latin :-). Rave92 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent solution. People used to writte it that way, I supose, because there are differences between the Serbian, Greek, Russian or other Cyrillics, but for Montenegrin cases that is the best solution. Thanx again. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I got tangled up in this, I figured that I should say something. I first saw the large scale edit war when one page on my watchlist was changed. The argument seems to be that there is no ISO code for Montenegrin, which makes no sense, how can you cite that something isn't there? On the other hand, the CIA factbook and other sources state that it is the official language (of a sovereign nation), which is pretty strong reasoning for allowing it. See my talkpage for longer discussions.--Terrillja _talk 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing to do with edit wars, but as an editor, and I did some amount of Montenegrin biographies, I am quite interested in the subject with the purpose of making them in right way to avoid any polemics or edit warring in the future. However, as a Serb of Montenegrin herence (my grandparents from my mom side are Montenegrin) I do feel confortable dicussing the mather. The issue with Serbian is very much similar to English in this way: it is a language wich is spoken by a number of different countries, beside the language home-countries (U.K. for English and Serbia for Serbian). The main difference is that in English case, all countries accepted the naming as "English" for the main language spoken in those countries (Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, etc.), while for Serbian, as historical events made the nationalistic tendency in the region, is begining to be named by the name of the region (country, republic, province, any geographical unit). The difference between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin is the same as the difference between English spoken in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. It´s the same language with slight regional variations and dialects. Speaking Serbian I can perfectly speak and understand any person from any of this countries. The problem is that the recent political independencies of those countries are being followed by the tendency of separating everything else, the language as well. But, honestly, those languages, sorry, not languages, but their names, are completely "fabricated". The political independence of those countries shouldn´t interfere with the language. The fact that the language spoken in Montenegro is called "Montenegrin" or "Serbian" doesn´t mean that they are more or less independent, but there seems to be some missunderstanding about that (same is happening with the church, and in other areas). People in Montenegro has allways spoken Serbian, and still speaks the same language, only that now they want to make it called "Montenegrin". So if I, as Serb, speak the language, it´s called Serbian, but if a Montenegrin speak it, it´s called Montenegrin! Ridiculous! The language is the same, and during the Socialist Yugoslavia, Tito finded the solution to calm the Croatian nationalists back then, and it was accepted by the rest (Bosnians and Montenegrins), wich was to call the language "Serbo-Croatian". Exemple: What if tomorow the rest of Serbian splits by municipalities, being all sudently independent? Shall we have Belgradenian, Novisadian, Subotian, Nislian... basically all the same. Or what if all latin-american countries that speak Spanish start demanding that their Spanish should be named after the name of the country? Venezuelan, Mexican, Costarican, Argentinian... Or in English case: Canadian, Australian? We know what a language is, and the different countries that speak the same language shouldn´t have the right to call the same language with different names, not at least officially. The English spoken in United States is English, whatever you call it, but for Serbian that is sudently allowed. Hmmmm... FkpCascais (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that they are all similar. I lived in the region this fall for 3 months. I know the differences between the federation and republica srpska in BiH and the strong regional feelings. I'm not just some random editor who stumbled across the article with no clue to the history and national ties. Having said that, if Canada declares that their national language is Canadian and ratifies a constitution which states it is the official language, then it's their official language, regardless. If Kosovo declares that they have their own language as a sovereign nation, I would support that. And there is a difference between a city and a recognized sovereign nation, so avoid what if arguments. We are talking about past precedence and current law. Either way, there is already precedence here as Croatian is recognized as its own language and is the same spoken language.--Terrillja _talk 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never said you have no clue, just the oposite. And my argument wasn´t directed to you, but to everyone participating here (don´t get personal, I wasn´t). The question here is not if the parliament declares it, or if you agree or not, the question is if it is internationally recognised. By the way, the language is not similar, but the same. FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few words here and there that are different. Not a lot different from regional variation though, if you learned northern US english and went to the deep south you would probably have similar differences and Zagreb Croatian is different from Dubrovnik Croatian.--Terrillja _talk 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and that doesn´t give the right to name it another language. You gave a good exemple of Kosovo. They are not willing to engage in that sort of "fabrication", and they simply named Albanian and Serbian the official languages, without trying to rename any of them to "Kosovar" or some other name. Speaking of Croatia, I saw there too a recent movement among linguists to stop this further breaking of the same language, by advocating that there are only two languages in the area: Serbian and Croatian, being the others just dialects of any of this two. FkpCascais (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, they did it, they made it official, the rest of the world seems to recognize that they did it, so it makes sense that wikipedia would as well. --Terrillja _talk 07:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It´s status is far from being as clear as you say. It lacks standardization board, and in the ISO codes, all that says is that is an alternative name to Serbian (and that does mather, it is the official languages body, way much important that some CIA factbook, mentioning him was quite funny). We really need somebody expert in linguistics to see if there has been some updates in the issue, because by the already known facts, in my view Montenegrin is quite far from being considered a language. Not even a finished debate within themselfs, in Montenegro. FkpCascais (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But, if it does get recognised, I´ll receve it gladly, as would be able to say that I learned a new language overnight (quite a record!)! FkpCascais (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where the humor is, The World Factbook aka the CIA Factbook is the go-to guide for the US government and is prepared for the government as a world resource with a classified and public version. It's a pretty serious resource, not just some slapped together PDF.--Terrillja _talk 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry, did I heard US Government? Why I´m missing the word "X World Organisation" here? What they got to do with the subject here? Are they some kind of linguistical authority? FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source, explained why I felt that it was valid and you decided to mock me. Very mature. I can see that any further discussion with you will be useless, anyone else who wishes to contact me about this issue, please do so on my talkpage as I will no longer be monitoring this page.--Terrillja _talk 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not your personal issue, you really think so? Your point is clear, lets move on. We need some INTERNATIONAL organisation to decide those issues, and the CIA factbook can´t really provide that by just mentioning Montenegrin as language in Montenegro. Sorry, but far from enough. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: @FkpCascais

Your arguments are no valid. First, you can't compare Balkan nations and language question with colonial nations like Canada, New Zeleand, Australia, they were all the colonies and the fact that they were settled by British (English) and language that is spoken is indeed English. Now you say like you Serbs colonized us and gave us the language, then it would be valid, but they didn't (I think it is more vice versa since there are over 2 million people which came from Montenegro to Serbia :-)). That language was always here, and you should know from where Vuk is, from where he got his standardization and for who was that language. We have rights to call it Montenegrin than others to call their nation name. Montenegrins spoke the language which was offical, and that was Serbo-Croatian, not Serbian. In census 1991 in Serbia most of people spoke Serbo-Croatian, not the Serbian, and not to mention it was offical untill 1997! Montenegrins and Bosnian agreed like they had some right to say NO. If you would know more about Montenegrin language, in 60's and 70' there were a chances to call it Montenegrin since in Croatia there were a movements to call it Croatian only. There are archives in Montenegrins State Archive for that. Also it was supossed to have Montenegrin in language name as I will quote Novosadski Agreement : "Narodni jezik Srba, Hrvata i Crnogoraca jedan je jezik". Also, none one from Montenegro signed the Vienna Literary Agreement. Now let's get to other stuff:
1) Montenegrin is stated as only offical language in the Constitution of Montenegro.
2) All web sites in Montenegro are written in Montenegrin.
3) Montenegrin has 2 extra letters than other languages even I don't think this should be more imprtoing then the first point I just wrote.
4) Montenegrin gots a standard and ISO code will be done soon, as you all know it is a big birocracy and that's why we have to wait this long.
5) All articles that mention Montenegro should have Montenegrin, like every article that mentions Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia haves their language.

Soultion:

1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.
Rave92 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As response to the Rave92 comment, I must say that I never stated that Serbs colonised, Montenegro, or that anyone forced somebody else to speak the language. Right the oposite, as the language (call it Serbo-Croatian or Serbian or Montenegrin, in this case) is common to both people. Serbs and Montenegrins had BOTH contributed to the SAME language, that is what I´m standing for. Montenegrin literature had enormous influence in it´s evolution, and, by my point of view, if you find "unpleasant" to speak a language today called "Serbian", should stand to rename the language to "Serbo-Montenegrin" or "Montenergin-Serbian". But anyway, I have nothing against Montenegrin, I´m just being the "lawyer" of Serbian point of view, since I understand it, and since nobody here is doing it. Personally, I do beleve in everything I´m saying, and I can´t really understand the point of naming the same language in many different names. As I am also a Spanish native speaker, I do compare the situation of Serbian (within Yugoslavia) to the Spanish , Castillian, in Spain. What we call Spanish is in fact Castillian language, and is common to many other Spanish regions beside Castille itself. The Castillian spoken in Andaluzia isn´t called "Andaluzian" just because they have a different dialect or some words. The case is very much the same.

Anyway, in all this discussion, I still don´t have nobody giving any INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION recognising "Montenegrin". I´m just asking, is there any? And for the 3 different letters (you say 2, but in article I see 3, that would be an only "usable" argument among the points Rave92 made) I only see that they are PROPOSED, unless the article is not updated. And that move does sound as a way to make it different from Serbian, nothing else. About the Montenegrin Parliament recognising it, that doesn´t necessarily mean it must be that way. Even within Montenegro there is still a debate going on. About the number of websites, that just isn´t an argument. FkpCascais (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Are embassies for you international organizations?:

Crnogorski means Montenegrin

Poland: http://www.podgorica.polemb.net/
USA: http://podgorica.usembassy.gov/

Germany: http://www.podgorica.diplo.de/Vertretung/podgorica/de/Startseite.html

CEFTA 2006: http://www.cefta2006.com/en-index.php

etc...

It looks like US, Polish and other embassies didn't know that experts from Internet say that Montenegrin doesn't exist and that they should replace it with Serbian :-). You compared Montenegrins and Montenegro with colonial countries and nations, don't deny it. You said that Canadians, Americans etc.. speak English and not named their language after country, but they are colonized nation. Also you mention municipalities would get independent and proclaim their own language? This is even more offensive the the first comparing. I don't have anything against you defending Serbian but if you want to enter discussion you should know these things before even getting into discussion. 2 letters (not 3) are adopted, and Montenegrin language has the standard, here is the proclamation of standard:
http://www.gov.me/files/1248442673.pdf

So it has all, but I guess you should maybe search a bit before denying Montenegrin language on Wiki :(. You are right at one point, we have contributed to that language and that's why we have right to call it as we like, and no offense but don't tell us how to call language. We will call ti Montenegrin-Serbian when Serbs proclaim their language Serbian-Montenegrin :-). If it's the same, then I don't see why we would have Serbian instead Montenegrin, when Montenegrin is official.

So once again, I will repeat the solution:

1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Rave92 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And since you claim that Serbian and Montenegrin are the same, how come you have userboxe's:

Овом кориснику српски језик је матерњи. and Ovaj saradnik ne razumije ni riječi crnogorskog jezika'. Овај сарадник не разумије ни ријечи црногорског језика

To translate to someone who doesn't understand it says "Serbian language is this user mother tongue" and next one "This user doesn't understand a word of Montenegrin". Interesting...

Rave92 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting from the end, I do have that userbox as an irony, of course. You may not know, but if you digg into the history of the page, I did had a userbox that said "Montenegrin native speaker", but after finding this userbox in another Serbian user page, I did find it funny, and because I do beleve in the cause, decided to adopt it. It is somehow humourous, you must recognise it. Other reason was, as I already have many language userboxes, with Serbian, Spanish and Portuguese (as native) and English and some others, plus all ex-Yugoslav languages, it makes me a candidate for one of the most poliglote editors here (when I really speak only 4 languages).

About ambassies, sorry, but Ambassies can´t be cosidered international since they represent the relation between only 2 countries... Come on, you know what I´m talking about, United Nations, (or FIFA if we were talking football). At least some European organisation...

I´m not an Montenegrin oponent in any other issue. I made exclusivelly, and edited mostly, football related articles, trying by any means to avoid any political or other controversies. But, I did break my role by participating here. But, take in acount that I (as footy editor) did contributed gladly to Montenegrin football related articles as well by making some Montenegrin footballers biographies, ex-Montenegrin clubs foreign players, also creating some club categories (before my, there were only categorised Budućnost players, as if other clubs were "small" doesn´t deserving a category, and I breaked that) and expanding some Montenegrin club articles. I even insist in Serbian club articles to consider all Montenegrin footballers Montenegrin, and not some Serbian, just because they may have "double nationallity", making some edit wars with Serbian editors taking the Montenegrin side! Plese, have in mind that by any means I am not "blind" nationalist. I just find this particular subject interesting as, in my teenage past, I did worked as a translator, by that having a close contact with languages. Could you translate Montenegrin to Serbian? How many book pages should we treanslate to find even 1 word or expression different? I´m sure we could translate entire books without finding any single difference. Just paste/copy and change language name. That is my point. And applies to Bosnian too.

We do need some other opinions here, preferably neutral ones, meaning, from people with no interess in the region,and with linguistical knolledges if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I found myself here, in the discussion about if Montenegrin Language is recognised or not, by the evidence (or lack of it) I came to a conclusion that the Montenegrin Language is NOT internationally regognised. Maybe (and only MAYBE) I could add a "yet" to the final of the sentence I just wrote. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, some add vice versa as joke too (to speak Montenegrin, and not Serbian), but still. Ok, Embassy is not considered international? Sorry, but if embassy respects that, I don't see why Misplaced Pages wouldn't. You can't have on some international web site (I guess you mean UN) as there are couple official languages and that's it, and I don't see why requesting that when all web sites in Montenegro, school, government, embassies etc... accept it as normal thing, but some members on Wiki don't. Well I can only say thanks for expand articles about Montenegrin football, but don't see why you would go against Montenegrin language, especially as it is not considering you, and even having user box of native speaker. Like I said, Serbian wouldn't be total deleted from Montenegrin articles in my "suggestion/solution". Rave92 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Embassies is that it represents the policy of one country. Exemple: Nazy Germany Embassies issued documents in witch the Jewish or Gypsy people were not considered humans! Does that, because an "Embassy" said it, make it throut? See? Embassies represent the Governament of one nation, and an encyclopedia must have in consideration way more than just one side view. Serbian Embassies certainly don´t recognise Montenegrin Language, and that also doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. When Montenegrin Language is going finally to be recognised (if...), it will certainly be a news that you and me (as relative followers of the actuality news) will know. Anyway, if something new comes up make it known to everybody. And I, as a compromise, will follow your proposition, and write only "Cyrillic" when in need. About the articles where Montenegrin Language or Montenegrin Cyrillic is written, I think it should be substituted until this issue is solved. (I also can´t understand what are you loosing in having "Serbian Language" written, but anyway...) FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mate, you can't compare those things. Embassies don't need to have language of countries host, for e.g. French embassy doesn't have it on their web site (at least I didn't find it) so beside French, that's it. They all add Montenegrin because it's official language. Serbian embassies have nothing to do with it, as I am giving you the links of embassies IN Montenegro, I couldn't really care more what Serbia thinks about anything Montenegrin, especially this thing as we didn't get independent after 100 years to have someone else to think for us. This question is complex, emotional and you go in defend of deleting Montenegrin language, even though you don't have anything against it :-/. Montenegrin language recognized everyone, and that proof is embassies, as if USA doesn't recognize it, why would they write in Montenegrin on their web site? I am giving examples of embassies as they are representatives of country. About your question on what I am loosing, I am loosing my dignity, my language, and most of all, breaking the highest rank of law, and that's constitution of one country. Rave92 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is hot, and needs to cool down!! I made this passive edit earlier today as I realise there is a need to reflect two languages for Montenegro, even if they are currently identical. The Montenegrin language is in its infancy as regards coming to light and people noticing it. There is no Montenegrin Misplaced Pages yet and the preference is clearly for Ekavian which does disenfranchise westerners (western Balkan that is). Is it all right to use two forms for the time being?? Evlekis (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the suggestion of using language. I will copy/paste it again here: 1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Rave92 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, Rave92, that just about every settlement in MNE which qualifies as a town has a skeleton Serb population; I doubt there is one in which no citizen declares Serb. On the articles pertaining to Serbian towns and subjects, there is a generous attitude towards outsiders with entire paragraphs devoted to the naming of the subject in all relevant languages, even those which are loosely connected. I fully support a Montenegrin mention for every subject remotely connected with Montenegro and Montenegrin culture but it might be a little insensitive to reject Serbian from Montenegrin subjects at this early stage of development. I think it needs some more consideration. We need to remember that however we treat this issue, it will set a precedent for identical scenarios. Evlekis (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? If the language is the same like everyone here says, then we can divided it that majority has their language. Majority cities of Montenegrins to have Montenegrin language, Serb majority to have Serbian Cyrillic (it's not the problem just to have that). All mentioning Montenegro or Montenegrins, to have Montenegrin like till now (until some recently changed that) and to have only Montenegrin. There is no point of having both languages, and official language is Montenegrin. I don't see what's the problem. It wasn't till now when someone changed it to Serbian (I say it wasn't problem as Admins in the end agreed with us). Rave92 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx Evlekis for trying to help us solving this issue here. I´m not sure if you know exactly what my point has been here. I´m not trying to include "Serbian" in Montenegro pages, right the oposite. What I´m saying is that until now, I have been asking if there was a official recognition of Montenegrin as a official language, or is it still regarded as a dialect of Serbian. If it is recognised, I defend that Montenegrin language should be used, and I´ll see the changes in the language, and see if I qualify for having the Montenegrin language speaker userbox. I don´t defended the inclusion of Serbian in Montenegro related pages. That´s absurd! If the Montenegrin language is NOT officially recognised, than the use of Montenegrin should be replaced by Serbian, not using both. I even defend that both should never be used, since are quite the same, so there is no reason for having both.

My points may sound radical but they are:

• If Montenegrin is recognised, finish this debate and start using Montenegrin INSTEAD of Serbian in Montenegro related pages.
• If Montenegrin isn´t recognised, stop using Montenegrin at all, and replace it by the last official standard of the language, that is Serbian.

The point that I´m also trying to proove to Rave92 is that the documents that come from the National Asembly are "law" only in that country. Many National Assemblies may have many issues discussed and some documents are officialised, but this doesn´t mean all the world must accept it. There are usually some international organisations that must have a say on the issues (I´m just not sure in linguistics, althou Montenegrin lacks the IFO code). FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It lacks the code for the time being, that is all. The point you made about Montenegrin either being official or still a dialect of Serbian is complex. It can be both, either one, or neither. A good external example to investigate is Portuguese/Galician. Galician has official status and is recognised as a national language in Spain, but is linguistically closer to Portuguese than standard Spanish (I believe you know very well about this FkpCascais). It is often considered to be a dialect of Portuguese but Galicians can consider this an offence in quite the way that proponents of the Montenegrin language can also. If one is to be scientific and not political, then we address the issue as stating that the two forms are common dialects of a single language (not one owning the other). In any case, Montenegrin does not have to change anything about itself to be recognised as a separate language. You can have a realistic scenrario in which the register used in Montenegro is identical to Standard Serbian and still be allowed to call itself Montenegrin. I know it sounds absurd but that is the way of the world. Personally, I even think that Croatian is a form of the same language - no longing for Serbo-Croat but purely in the linguistic sense. If Montenegrin gains currency, then it will follow that elements of the language are gradually modified rather like American and British English. It does not have to be a radical shift from this pure Serbian to the local Centinje dialect. But if it helps you Cascais, yes I believe that Montenegrin is the official name for the national language, just like Bosnian in BiH. As Montenegrin will also outrank Serbian, it will need to be used everywhere; as Serbian is identical, it will only be used alongside Montenegrin by name: eg. Pljevlja (Montenegrin and Serbian Cyrillic: Пљевља. If the subject is different from its Latinic form name, then we remove mention of Cyrillic and give the two varieties. I say, use Montenegrin everywhere, and Serbian where applicable (as an addition in name only). Evlekis (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...yes I know very well the Galician issue... Iberic issues in general, and they have many precedents to Balkans issues as well. But, there is a difference, it is officialy recognised language, and nobody oposes that. Here are some things that are wrong in what you said: I allways defended that both are dialects of same language, thus, of course, not considering one to be the "owner" of another one. Montenegrin language was regarded as Serbian Language dialect, I´m not making this up, neither nobody forced others to be this way, come on Evlekis, don´t change my words. And the fact that lacks the code "for time being" is somehow speculation, wich is not used here in WP. When receves the code, it will be fact, until then, is speculation that will "certainly" receve. I know that Montenegrin doesn´t need to change anything to be language, that was more often donne in recent past by politicians, and not linguists, because they didn´t know that, and they touth it does need to be changed :). But, where I mostly disagree is that if a group of people calles the language in another way, that doesn´t mean the language is what they call, and has to be adopted by an encyclopedia. People calling things in another way, is one thing, an encyclopedia adopting it, is another. It can, or not addopt it. Anyway, Evlekis and Rave92, all we are doing is talking, and I get into answering to you both, wich I didn´t wanted. I´m just asking if the language is or isn´t officially recognised. Give me some international organisation, at least European. Your arguments (Rave92:National Parliament and Ambassies ; Evlekis: "...people have the right to call it whatever they want...") is just not enough. If this is all you have (sorry :) , I can conclude that the language shouldn´t be used "encyclopedically". And I could only add an "still" (shouldn´t be used still) in my last sentence. FkpCascais (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ISO code is irrelevant, it doesn't say if language exists or no, it's just bureaucracy. A lot of people will say you that, and already did. Standard of language exists and I gave you a link. How it can be considered as dialect of Serbian? Serbian doesn't have the dialect called Montenegrin, notice the "language" thing in the name. It's Montenegrin language, not dialect. Beside ISO, I am not sure from whom you asks recognition. None one can "recognize" your language, it isn't the country. Others just need to respect it (like embassy web sites). Anyway, it looks like a lot of people from Serbia "recognized" it:

http://www.bestjobs.rs/poslovi-prevodilac-sa-engleskog-na-crnogorski-jezik/51414/3

:-)

Rave92 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Rave92, many thanx. I really could use some extra cash. Just don´t tell those people from "bestjobs" I have that Montenegrin Language userbox ("ne govori ni riječi Crnogorskoga jezika."). It would be better time spent doing that, than discussing this here. All we were talking here, we could have gathered and had a drink meanwhile discussing this, or something else...

I am disapointed with all this. I think that has been a very honorable attitude that we (Evlekis, you, me,... not including the sensitive CIA Croat one) defended and stood to what we beleve. And discussed it all the way. Where I am very disapointed is that I touth that here, in this "Geo&ethnic&religious conflicts" wiki page, the debate goes on, and after all sides exposed their cases (like we did), someone from wikipedia intervenes and makes a "solution" having in mind the world rules and the precedent cases. Nothing of this happend, we lost time here, so we could have better have gone for a drink. Wanna go? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:I agree you talk Montenegrin and I´ll respond you in Serbian. Can Evlekis join us? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Drink goes after the solution :-). We just need to wait Admins to read all this and give their conclusion on this. After the decision is made, we will use it on Montenegrin related articles. So far, there is just one who is against adding Montenegrin language. Rave92 12:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It´s not really about numbers (I could pay a bunch of guys and say to them to participate here on my side...), or, there could be nobody here oposing, that also wouldn´t give you the right, just because of it. Beside, people doesn´t know this discussion is taking place here. And, as you said "it´s just bureaucracy", but that "bureaucracy" is many times exactly what is needed to be considered equal by others and officially accepted. The embassies using "Montenegrin" it could just have been the programer that put it that way (some Montenegrin PC maniak), or, more probable and less speculative, they use it so no unnecessary polemics would appear between that country and Montenegro (that´s called diplomacy). And I was talking about Serbian Embassy in Montenegro, and you said you don´t even wanna know (as if it was inferior to the others you mentioned...). And I was not refering only to cities breaking from Serbia (so you get offended, dahhh), you know very well there are more separatist groups in Serbia, some in Vojvodina or Sandzak regions, so it does have some logic mentioning it, so we stop further criation of possible Vojvodinian or Sandzaklinian, or something... You even said that Montenegrins are colonising Serbia. Colonization, currently, has more to do with power and capital, not populational flow. Spanish and English took control over land, quite different from going somewhere in search for more education, or better life. I even gave you a better exemple of Castillian inside Spain. And, it does affect me, as same as all other Serbs. My native language will get poorer, we will lose half milion speakers, and it´s cultural heritage will get divided. If you consider that culture is not part of a person, and a personal issue, well, I could in same way add that you are also not loosing anything, because the word "Serbian" doesn´t take you anything, just add.

Misplaced Pages not allowing Montenegrin wikipedia, is also interesting. And we should know the reasons.

Anyway, while waiting for the "arbitrary comision" I am applying all we agreed before, so don´t warry. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin PC maniac? Mate, it's official GOVERNMENTS web site of that country. What is added on web sites doesn't control MONTENEGRIN government, but the government/embassy of the country. There is no polemic, they just add official language, that is called recognizing and respect. They don't have to add Montenegrin, but they did, and did it with purpose. I don't wanna know as SERBIAN embassy doesn't have to do anything with this, gee.. they are not less importing but don't see what embassy and what it has to do with this discussion? Give me the web site of that embassy since you mention it so much. It looks like you are just posting here so you can just write, not like you have some arguments. Colonizing was the joke, as you compared Montenegro with colonized nations, and a lot of Montenegrins moved to Serbia in 19th century. That's not the topic now, the more offending is that you compare Montenegro with Sandzak and Vojvodina. This just proves you know nothing about Montenegro. Montenegro was independent country before (and not just once if we have in mind Duklja), and Montenegro didn't separate FROM Serbia, but separate from STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, and it renewed it's independency. Of course you don't know this, but you want to take in discussion if Montenegrin language should be on Wiki or not. This is just silly.

You loose cultural heritage if we remove Serbian, but we loose nothing if we keep Serbian. Interesting theory... /sarcasm

Montenegrin wiki was requested even when Montenegrin wasn't official, or just got official. It didn't have new standard and full use like it has today. Don't see how that be a point argument as Serbo-Croatian has a Wiki, considering that language isn't mention anywhere in the countries where it used to be official, and practically doesn't have ISO code either now. Rave92 11:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, you just want to explore each other complexes. And don´t talk about what other people know or don´t about history. (Speculation). I never attacked you personally. Are you sure I don´t know Montenegrin history? Or you just want to hurt me? I told you, I´m a Serb with Montenegrin herence, so don´t give me some Montenegrin blind nationalistic pseudo-lessons. You say "Colonising was a joke", well I´m not joking, and I´m giving a very real exemple of Castillian (Spanish) within Spain. Or English or Spanish in other countries where its spoken (not colonisation, but linguistics "mate", linguistics...don´t get complexed with everything). And forget ambassies, they are not linguistics experts, nor international organisations... (even if it meant recognition, they are what? 5? 10? of more then 200 world countries!, but it doesnt clearly mean that). You say I don´t have arguments, but your arguments (and you insisted, when I was calling for a peace-deal while waiting) about numbers, like how many are oposing (just me...) or how many websites use it, are you serious? Those are arguments?

I was just here asking if there was a "official" recognition of the Montenegrin language, and gave some arguments why I find that it shouldn´t. We have not reached a consensus and we shouldn´t continue in the direction this was taking. We don´t decide anything, so it´s better to wait. And you should be pleased that nobody is engaging in edit wars, because it´s after all your POV that is all around WP. Montenegrin here, Montenegrin there, and we don´t know if it is valid, yet. So please, stay calm and don´t attack me in the meantime. And, we don´t need historical questions to be brouth here, this issue is about a yes or no answer, simple. FkpCascais (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:Linguistically, you are separating from Serbia (Serbian Language) and not from some "Union language" or SCG language or something... You are the ones mixing up political with linguistical independence. Those are two separate things. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the complex, believe me, just the tired of reading none sense. You are not showing knowledge, so what if you are Serb from Montenegro? By default you know everything about Montenegro or what? I don't claime I know everything, but comparing language like this is just weird. I judge by your writing here, and I didn't doubt you are a Serb, especially after the phrase that you will loose cultural heritage, but we won't if we remove Montenegrin. Yes, colonizing was the joke (as Montenegrins didn't colonize Serbia) but when you compared MNE with colonized nations, I told you that Serbs didn't colonize MNE and leave their language, like British/French did. Language was always here and we keep the right to call it as we want. They are not linguistic experts, and you ask someone to recognize your language. Please tell me, who need to recognize it if you don't think embassies represent countries opinion on that question? CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is? You say 20 embassies? Well sorry to disappoint you, countries can't recognize your language, they can just respect it, and that's what I am talking about, if they tough Montenegrin is Serbian, they would put Serbian, right? It's not like Montenegro will declare war to USA ;-). Even Serbia doesn't oppose it, because none can't oppose it, so you need to be more specific on what recognition you mean. And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin.

P.S. We are not separating it from Serbian, there is no such thing as separating language from other, you are comparing countries with language, and that is politics. At least I never heard someone separated language from other and asks countries of UN to recognize it. I mean, how silly this sounds...

Anyway I notified Toddst1, so he will say what he thinks about this during the weekend, I guess we both presented our arguments. Rave92 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"...reading none sense...", "...You are not showing knowledge..." please, again, I didn´t attacked you ever. Who are you to tell me this? I asked you specificaly not to do so.

Stop insisting in colonization, I gave you a perfectly valid exemple, Spanish within Spain, but you seem to be trying to escape each time with your "colonozation" talk.

"...and you ask someone to recognize your language...", it´s not my fault that I don´t have to. (???)

"...CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is?...", you´re joking, right? It can maximaly mean that the USA recognise it, so what? Its only one country. CIA=International, you really think so?

"...And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin...", OK, so why you didn´t?

"...how silly this sounds...", why don´t you let others decide, will you?

You avoid answering directly to any of my points, you are not being serious, and you are taking this too personal and in an uncientific approach. I´m not discussing this with you no more. Please, lets wait in peace, can you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe to tell me WHICH organization? There is no such thing as international organization which will "recognize your language". Language doesn't equal country. Do you think Montenegro needs to recognize some language? No, because that's not of Montenegrin business. I didn't insist on colonization, I said I was joking (and you would probably understand if you were from Balkans), and you started mention Spain and some other things, not sure why, because there was never a colonization on Balkans (at least not between each others). When you tell me WHO NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE IT, I will tell you. I think Admins will see who here talks sense, because asking for some organization to recognize your language is funny. You can't recognize language. Who recognized Portuguese? UNESCO xD? Please...

P.S. Not a problem, it's you who started again when I said I notified Toddst that he will give his opinion about this. Rave92 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the word Tatars

Recently the article Shusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has suffered from editwarring over proper usage of the word 'Tatar'. The relevant background could be found at Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres 1905-1907, Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/Archive 12#Proposed addition and Talk:Shusha#Photo attribution. Since associated RfC turned ineffective, an ultimate solution is highly appreciated now. Brand 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Brandmeister. I took a look at the RfC you mentioned above, and I'm willing to provide an outside opinion in lieu of a formal third opinion, which I don't think you can get because more than two editors are already deeply involved in this dispute.

So, my question is whether both sides in the RfC can agree to the following:

1. "Tatar" is a broad term for Turkic peoples.
2. Azerbaijani people are a Turkic people, and thus fall under the term "Tatar."
3. The term "Azerbaijani" did not originate until the 19th century, when Azerbaijan was governed by Russia. It is used commonly in modern times to refer to that ethnic people, however.
4. The term "Azeri" predates the term "Azerbaijani," but it is still in use today. Those terms refer to the same ethnic group, however, and can reasonably be used interchangeably.
5. The girl in the image in question (taken 1898) is certainly a Tatar and most likely an Azeri/Azerbaijani.

If the editors at the article talk page can register their agreement (or disagreement) here, I'd appreciate it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, nowadays Tatars is not an umbrella term, but a separate ethnic group, as the article says. A literate editor would confirm, that the girl in question is not a Tatar, but from some other ethnic group. WP:CAPTION requires unambiguity in identifying the subject. The secondary sources at Shusha's talkpage, provided for WP:PRIMARY purposes, indicate that the girl is obviously an Azeri. However my most recent edit was reverted once more. Brand 10:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "Azerbaijani people" is not correct the way you are using it. An "Azerbaijani person" (i.e. an Azerbaijani) surely is just a citizen of the modern country called Azerbaijan. Membership of an ethnic group has, theoretically anyway, nothing to do with having that citizenship - though these days it is impossible to be an ethnic Armenian Azerbaijani, difficult to be an ethnic Russian Azerbaijani, and best to be (or live like you were) an ethnic Azeri Azerbaijani. If you mean "ethnic Azeri", then they are mostly not "Turkic people" - they are, genetically it seems, mostly Islamicised and Turkified descendants of the populations that were there before the arrival of the Turks. But that doesn't help us much in deciding what word should be used. What source do you have that says the word "Azeri" predates "Azerbaijani"? Meowy 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I expected you to comment like that, so a bit of parroting from me: does a featured article on Azerbaijani people refer to the citizens only? :) Brand 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The label most readily used by the Russians to refer to the Caucasian and Central Asian Muslims was Tatar, driving from the Turkic Tatar tribes whom the Russians had encountered centuries earlier.

Britannica 1911 edition: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe.

In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... Source: Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, by Stephen F. Jones, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19

So the problem is also in the fact that Tatar did not necessarly mean a Turkic speaking person, but was applied to most Muslims in the region by Russians. Claiming Azeri is retrieving more information from the source than it contains, it amounts to original research. While it's true that probably it was a Turkic speaking person due to the demography, more than raising this fact would be original research.

Nothing like the original research is here. Misplaced Pages is not a 19-th century encyclopedia, we should apply secondary sources to interpret what primary ones say per WP:SECONDARY. The existing policies deal with that pretty clearly. Brand 06:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Farabi ethnicity

The ethnicity issue is a heated subject and a cause of edit wars in this article and similar articles (I watch Geber and occasionally revert users who remove the Persian ethnicity claim , or the Arabic ethnicity claim ). In Al-Farabi article the dispute is about Persian and Turkish ethnicity claims. The current version of the article semi-endorse with original research and in a bias way the Persian ethnicity claim over the Turkish claim and give undue weight to Encyclopedia Iranica.

I tried to be non-selective by searching Google Books for "al-Farabi + origin" and "al-Farabi + ethnicity" to get a sense of how this subject is covered.

The sources that talk about his ethnicity in this search were few and mention it briefly, usually in one line. More sources mention the Turkish ethnicity than the Persian ethnicity .

I suggest that we mention briefly that his ethnicity is disputed with refs for each claim, without endorsing any claim. Britannica takes this approach "born c. 878, Turkistan...his ethnic origin is a matter of dispute". I made this proposal in the talk page but received no response, but I suspect that once I change the article that it will be reverted so I came here preemptively.

My suggested version:

There is no consensus on the ethnic background of Farabi. All sources on his ethnic background have been written at least 300 years after Farabi and these few classical primary sources have described his ethnicity differently and modern sources differed accordingly. Some sources described him as Turkish(sources) and other as Persian(sources).

Some of the sources that mention that he was Turkish are listed here. Sole Soul (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A template language issue

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County. Pcap ping 03:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles related to Palestinian statehood

In the past few months, there is a trend of initiating articles or modifying existing articles in a way suggesting the existence of a Palestinian state. This is done mainly by the use of the name Palestine when referring to the Palestinian territories or to the Palestinian National Authority and by deliberately creating confusion between the term Palestine as a geographical region, as a name of a former British mandate and as a name of a proclaimed state and as the name of the non-state United Nations General Assembly observers.

1. State of Palestine - this article basically repeat the information available on Proposals for a Palestinian state. There was indeed a community decision to merge it with the latter, but it was recently re-initiated. The current version is highly POVized. It is indeed sourced, but many sources are either very biased in nature, or misinterpreted. There were several warnings about this problem, most recently here and here, but in vain. Any attempt to modify the article was reverted mainly due to an effective cooperation between three users User:Tiamut, User:Nableezy and User:Harlan wilkerson this is one evidence of their cooperation (in which I am mentioned).
2. Occupied Palestinian Territory - this is a classical example of POV forking of the article Palestinian territories. Despite detailed and convincing explanations here and here, nothing has been done.
3. Outline of Palestine - this article is actually about the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian territories, and yet its title suggests it should be matched with Palestine which is an article about the geographical region known in English by this name.
4. Telecommunications in Palestine - this article actually talks about the Palestinian territories (cf. Telephone numbers in Palestinian Territories). The use of the name Palestine here is confusing and I suspect the title was chosen for political reasons. DrorK (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User Drork has spent most of his time abusing BRD to remove sourced material and conduct WP:FILIBUSTERS on the talk page to discuss his unpublished opinions. harlan (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You took a much better approach, simply reverting anything that was not in line with your political opinions. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Said the pot to the kettle. Really Drork! You have been pursuing this issue with the singlemindedness of a single purpose account. You were blocked for reverting against consensus at State of Palestine, reverting four different editors, no less than six times in 24 hours, and claiming you had the right to do so, because of the WP:TRUTH inherent in your position.

Whether you like it or not, most countries in the world recognize the existence of a State of Palestine. It is a notable subject, worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Whether you like it or not, the phrase Occupied Palestinian Territory is commonly used to refer to the territories occupied by Israel in the course of the 1967 war. And whether you like it or not, "Palestine" has multiple definitions, and can refer to the procaimed state of the Palestinians, Mandate Palestine or the geographical region. Having an outline cover all three definitions is rather logical, since they all exist(ed) in roughly the same geographical space.

Furthermore, while you attribute the existence of these articles at Misplaced Pages to 3 editors (harlan, Nableezy and I), the fact of the matter is that none of us created or restored these articles. State of Palestine was restored by User:John Z after he noticed that the discussion to redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state involved faulty rationales, not in line with our policies. Occupied Palestinian Territory was restored by User:Ian Pitchford, who noted in his edit summary that the term deserved coverage. And Outline of Palestine was created by User:The Transhumanist as part of the Outline project. Are these editors all in on the conspiracy to delude Misplaced Pages readers? Or is it more likely that you are failing to assume good faith and are loathe to acknowledge that the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources indicate that there is a necessity for these articles? Tiamut 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put one thing clear, a group of three "Palestinian freedom fighters" is not consensus. I am glad to see that in two or three of the above mentioned article the name was changed from "Palestine" to "Palestinian territories" per consensus decision, but this also means that what you perceive as consensus is not a consensus whatsoever. John Z indeed took too much liberty to break a community decision, and yet he introduced a rather balanced version of the article. It was Harlan, Nableezy and Tiamut who made this article almost a political propaganda. Now I spent too many hours explaining why your work has nothing to do neither with truth nor with verifiability. Harlan is a knowledgeable guy, but he is also politically motivated, and therefore he keeps bringing biased sources. He brought as sources the opinions of two legal counsels to the PLO and PA. Had I based an article upon legal opinions written by Allan Dershowitz, would you approve that? Harlan even reverted the well-established and sourced fact that the British Mandate was based upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration claiming it was a POVized unsourced edit. DrorK (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire

A debate over the lead of that article is ongoing here Talk:First_Bulgarian_Empire#New_proposal_for_the_lead. After a promising start, the debate has now stalled. I don't think the question will resolve itself unless outside editors weigh in. Athenean (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards