Revision as of 05:08, 18 December 2007

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

TigranTheGreat

User:TigranTheGreat, a party to two ArbCom cases , , has been placed under supervised editing per most recent ArbCom. He has recently violated the remedy by editing the talk page of Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 in an offensive manner directed:

• a) against a nationality - with remarks like: "...Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups..." and "The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity"
• b) against another contributor - .

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure that saying Azeris weren't a well-developed ethnic group at a certain time is a violation. El_C 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

El C, ethnic groups cannot be well or underdeveloped, saying so maybe considered a racist generalization remark. This is especially emphasized by the subsequent reported sentence calling "so called Azerbaijanis". The nations and countries can be well or underdeveloped but not ethnic groups. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But how about referring to modern day Azerbaijanis as "so called Azerbaijanis"? Is it Ok to make such comments about other ethnic groups in Misplaced Pages? Grandmaster (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay. By which I mean, that would be a problem. El_C 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit impatient about (seemingly) rhetorical questions. I should not have been the one to respond to this. I'll go do something else now. El_C 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

At any case, I dropped the user a note. El_C 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this will resolve the problem. Grandmaster (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "Azerbaijanis" have underdeveloped national identity is well supported in literature and is quite relevant to the topic. It's an artificial term of purely political origin applied to a non-existent nationality. Now, again, if Grandmaster can refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as "separatists," "non-existent state," or "illegal entity," we need to be able to state the relevant opinions on "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope the admins will pay attention to the above inflammatory and nationalistic comment (and the one below on the thread about Atabek) by TigranTheGreat. This is not the first instance of him making such comments, but so far he received nothing but a warning. Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And any parallels with my statements about NK are out of place, they are not directed against the Armenian people, and are merely the repetition of the position of the international community, which cannot be anti-Armenian, see these: This is just an attempt to distract attention from his unacceptable remarks about other ethnic groups. Grandmaster (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And I merely repeat what other scholars, including well-respected ones in the West, have said about the "Azerbaijanis." Here is, for example, Patricia Carley of the United States Institute of Peace:

The knowledge that they essentially lost that war has led the Azeris to be fearful of the possibility that their nation could disintegrate, beginning with the loss of Karabakh. They thus believe the future of their integrity as a people lies in the favorable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. This feeling is intensified by the Azeris’ relatively underdeveloped sense of nationhood. Armenians very likely do not appreciate the extent to which Azeris believe their very existence to be threatened by the notion of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks25/keypts25.html

The fact that what we refer to as "Azeris" is a group with underdeveloped identity is well known. In fact, it's been suggested that the only thing holding them together as a coherent group is their defeat in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. These statements are quite relevant to the discussion on the "Armenian-Tatar Massacres" article. The discussion is on whether we should call the culprits of massacres "Azeris" or Tatars." Just because Grandmaster disagrees with this opinion and agrees with his own views on Nagorno-Karabakh is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute.

If on the other hand, we are to exclude opinions (whether we agree or disagree with them) that some may find offensive, then Grandmaster has to stop making his comments about Nagorno-Karabakh. Some Armenians find such comments offensive, and have requested Grandmaster to stop making them (recently, on the Shusha Talk page ), which he has ignored. If, on the other hand, he wants to continue expressing such opinions, then he cannot complain about others stating the truth that he finds unpleasant.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You said that Azerbaijanis are "non-existent nationality". Is this a scholarly accepted fact or your personal belief? Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as you believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state, I believe that "Azerbaijanis" are a non-existent nationality. It's based on scholarly literature. As I have explained before, "Azerbaijani" is a fictional identity concocted by pan-Turkic and later Soviet ideologists for political reasons. The fact that this particular group has a weak sense of identity, as stated by Western analysts, is a further evidence of this. The real Azerbaijanis are those living in Iran--in fact, they are part of the Iranian cultural environment quite unconnected with the so-called "Azerbaijanis" north of Arax (for example, they are quite friendly with the Armenians, helping NKR overcome the effects of the blockade). My belief is that nationalists and ideologists should leave these people alone and let them determine their own identity.

Now, if you want us to be sensitive to your feelings, then you need to stop making comments about Nagorno-Karabakh that some find offensive. You can't have it both ways.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that the opinion of Carley is merely a repetition of the opinion of the Armenian scholar Ronald Suny, which she openly admits: A factor involved in this fierce determination to preserve their territorial integrity, suggested Suny, is the weak or underdeveloped sense of nationhood among Azeris. De-jure non-existence of NK as an independent state is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the international community, while your personal perception of Azerbaijani people as non-existent or whatever is purely a racist remark. Grandmaster (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The international community does not say NK is non-existent or illegal, just that it's unrecognized. Your statements on its "non-existence" and "illegality" are your own POV conclusions. Now, whether opinions are supported by international community or individual scholars is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute. If you can state your POV in a discussion, then so can others, even if you find the truth uncomfortable.

I am not saying the people of Azerbijan are individually underdeveloped or genetically inferior. I am just saying they, as a whole, are underdeveloped as a national group--a statement which is supported by Patricia Carley. So, it's not racist, it's just the truth. And I wouldn't bring it up unless you didn't claim that "Azerbaijanis and Tatars are the same people." When you make a false claim, I have to be able to challenge it.

By the way, Patricia Carley does not quote Suny (an American scholar, who merely happens to be ethnically Armenian) when stating her opinions on the "Azerbaijani" identity. She makes perfectly clear when she quotes Suny.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The international community does say that NK authorities are illegitimate and refers to them as separatists, see these statements by EU and PACE. In particular, PACE says: “Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. Whether you like that or not, that’s not my personal opinion, and it is not offensive to the Armenian people in general, and I never heard of either organization being ever accused of anti-Armenian sentiment. Your references to Azerbaijani people in general as “so called” and “non-existent”, etc cannot be compared with the references to separatist movements. They are inflammatory and repeated in defiance of the request by the admin. Grandmaster (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"does not recognize the legitimacy of elections" doesn't mean "NK is an illegal and non-existent entity." As for "separatists," when you use the term outside quoted texts, then you adopt it. Armenian users have pointed to you that they find your use of the term offensive. You are free to refer to NKR simply as "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "unrecognized state." You chose to use the terms mentioned earlier, which is in defiance of requests made to you.

Discussions on talk pages are meant to contain opinions of the parties. Whether an opinion is supported by the "international community" does not make it any less inflammatory. Nor is such support relevant here--this is not a forum to discuss content disputes. The only issue is whether members find some opinions offensive. If you don't want to read opinions offensive to you, then you either agree to refrain from opinions offensive to others, or you avoid bringing the subject matter into discussion.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, referring to separatist authorities as such is not a racial slur, whether someone likes it or not, unlike your comments, which are directed against all people of certain ethnicity. Grandmaster (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, in which you're under supervision not to edit in a manner offensive to other contributors (in this case of Azeri nationality) and in good faith. And it does not matter if you cite Armenian Ronald Grigor Suny to justify your offensive claims, because such citations of yours would be similar to citing Vasili Velichko to judge the genetic makeup and claim the underdevelopment of Armenians, or Adolph Hitler in justifying anti-Semitic views in abstract case. Please, assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You and Grandmaster are under the same supervision as well. If you express inflammatory opinions about Nagorno-Karabakh, then others are free to express their opinions on the underdeveloped nature of so-called "Azerbaijanis" in a discussion. The discussion is on whether the Tatars can be called Azerbaijanis, and the artificial nature of the Azerbaijani identity is crucial to the debate. It is by no means racist--I am not saying each individual "Azerbaijani" is inferiour--only that the group as a whole is lacking a well-developed identity. This is a well known and quoted fact. The modern descendants of Tatars cannot even decide whether they are Iranian or Turkic, obviously they cannot be assumed to possess a clear national identity. If you find this offensive, then you need to agree not to express opinions offensive to others. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I highly doubt that Patricia Carley, a modern Western analyst working for the United States Institute of Peace, can be compared to Adolf Hitler. Please refrain from making misleading comments, and assume good faith.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, lets to not compare Armenian-American prominent historian with... Hitler. Pls assume good fight and more tolerance to Armenian side! I just want to remind how many times you deleted quotes by foreign scolars and added an Armenian-American historian (Hovhannisian) as a source for Armenian-Azerbaijani topics at Shusha, just cuz it seems to be biased pro-Azeri. Was it ok? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point it is better to wait for an admin assessment of Tigran's comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We could also wait for assessment of your continued inflammatory comments. And your defiance of requests made to you to stop them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any admin asking me about that. Grandmaster (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You were asked by Armenian users. You showed disregard for fellow Wikipedians. And you continue to do so.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Separatists" was not the right term from the beginning. "Irredentists" should have been the one. Anyway, but saying that "there is no Nagorno-Karabakh nation" is not the same as saying "there is no such a nation as Azerbaijanis". Current population of Nagorno-Karabakh are ethnically the same Armenians as those in Glendale or Marselle, Yerevan or Beyrut. "Azerbaijanis" often referred by Armenians as "Turks", are not exactly same as those in Turkey. There is a formed nation from 16th century onwards, which had many names throughout the centuries and got the name "Azerbaijanis" or "Azeris" in 20th century. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe in that or not, this is the reality and you have to accept it. They may be divided, half living in the Caucasus, half in Iran, but ethnically they are the same people. I may understand pro-Kasravis and pro-Pahlavis saying "there is no Azerbaijanis", but I really do not understand the logic of Armenians who say "there is no Azerbaijanis" or refer to them as "so called Azerbaijanis" If you deny the existence of force that fought with your people over Nagorno-Karabakh, then whom did you fight with? I am not asking you to write here what you think about them, but you have to accept how they name themselves. It is your business how you call them among yourselves, in your own language, but this is the name how we're "registered" at the U.N., CoE, libraries and univesities, encyclopedias and textbooks, known in English language. You have to use this name to approach us or call us. If I am asked to identify a nation living next to my borders in the English language, I have to say "Armenian", not "ermeni" as I do in my own language. There are Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. There are no "Nagorno-Karabakhis" in Nagorno-Karabakh. May be in 100 years from now, there will be a new ethnicity formed which will be different from the Armenians living in Yerevan, but until it is accepted by the academic world, I cannot claim or do so - I have to refer to recognised literature for that. --Aynabend (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we have no obligation to follow the opinion of the UN, at least not in the discussion pages. We don't require you to use the term Armenian Genocide, as we realize it can be uncomfortable for you. As for the "Azerbaijanis," I hope you know that the so called "Azerbaijani literature," at least prior to 1919, was purely Turkmen in origin. I therefore don't see how we can talk about a "formed nation of Azerbaijanis," especially in the 16th century. The modern remnants of Tatars living in the Republic of Azerbaijan are a conglomerate of Turkic speaking groups with little national identity, and have been so for centuries. Imposing the fictional label "Azerbaijani" doesn't change this fact. And I am not sure what you mean by Nagorno-Karabakh fighting a "force"--NKR merely crushed the Republic of Azerbaijan, so any mention of a "force" here is meaningless and irrelevant. Plus, just because the Baku regime made these unfortunate people go into a disastous war doesn't mean they actually share a single clear national identity.

As for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, you cannot say that your offenses are better and therefore allowed. NK is an Armenian state, it's part of the Armenian homeland, and Armenians hold it dear to heart. Any derogatory comments about that state can be deemed offensive by Armenian users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not "Turkmen", but "Turkman" or "Turkoman" is what you mean. There were other names, such Kizilbash, Qaraqoyunlu, Akkoyunlu. These were the names that this people used to name themselves throughout these centuries. The last name used by this people prior to 19th century was "Moslem". "Tatar" or "Tartar" was the name used by outsiders. It was used simultaneously along with "Azerbaijani Tatars" or just "Azerbaijanis" already in 19th century by the Russian ethnographers, such as M.N. Makarov. There are many nations in the world who have been named differently throughout the centuries and today if you tell a German that the Prussians were not Germans, they will laugh at you. "Armenian Genocide" unlike "Azerbaijanis" is not used or recognized by the U.N. or CoE, OSCE. If it was ever used in their official documents, then we would probably refer to it in this list and recognize it. What I meanby "force" is that the war is not over and there is still a danger that it would start again, according to ICG. NK Army, or Armenian forces, unlike us who had a more promising support from the Russians, was not the winner in the battles. There were times in winter of 1993 and spring of 1994, when NK Army was retreating and leaving behind significant territories. There was a time in 1992, when Azerbaijani Army was standing only 5 kms of Khankendi or Stepanakert. You never know how this situation can change. Therefore, it is always a good tactic in wars to know and respect the enemy, and not use a denial. You perfectly know that in 1905 both sides gave victims and it was a senseless clash, according to the same Armenian sources invoked by the Czarist Russia (See James Henry book from 1905). By saying that the people who fought with Armenians in Baku in 1905 were the descendants of Tatars you are only deceiving yourself. You perfectly know who they were. --Aynabend (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The abundance of names used for the nomadic Turkic tribes in Caucasus is a further indication that these tribes and their modern Tatar descendants in Azerbaijan have lacked a national identity. I understand that this may be difficult to admit by the "Azerbaijanis," given the fictional theories fed to them by the Baku regime, but we need to call things by their names. As for your account of Azerbaijan's defeat, it's a well known fairy tale invented by the Azerbaijani propaganda machine to cover the country's humiliation. It still does not change the fact that Azerbaijan suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia equally helped both Armenians and the Azeris. In fact, it's a well known fact that the only reason Armenians retreated in 1992 is that they were faced with an overwhelming number of Russian merceneries. Western sources describe the Armenian advances as "armed tourism"--they followed the usual pattern of Armenians advancing and the Azeri army escaping the battlefield. The only reason the Azeris lost is that they were forced to fight for a land that was not their own, coupled with their underdeveloped national identity and unity. So, your attempt to prove the existence of a fictional "Azerbaijani" identity by their "fight" against Armenians is incorrect.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aynabend, there's no need to turn this into ethnographic dispute. The problem here is with Tigran's comments, and those comments being a problem was acknowledged by the admin above. They are clearly based on ethnic prejudice and are offensive to the entire Azerbaijani people. Misplaced Pages is not a place where such behavior is appreciated. I'm still waiting for the admin take on the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that you, Atabek, and now Aynaberd continue making comments that you have been told to be problemating, and that you continue to disregard the concerns of your fellow Wikipedians. Certainly that's not a behavior appreciated in Misplaced Pages. I generally wouldn't bring up the delicate issues surrouding the "Azerbaijani" identity and the NK War, but when you make false claims on talk pages and here regarding Tatars and the war, then I have to point out why they are inaccurate. If you and your fellow Azeri members do not like the subject matter, then you need to stop pursuing them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, calling another user "ethnically prejudiced," as Grandmaster did above, is a blatant personal attack against another user, which is a grave violation of Misplaced Pages policies. It seems Grandmaster's behavior has progressed from making comments offensive to Armenians, to downright attacks against the person of another Misplaced Pages user.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't distort my words. I did not call you ethnically prejudiced. I said that your comments are based on ethnic prejudice. That's a different thing. Grandmaster (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But then again, Tigran, you just said that the Azerbaijani ethnic identity is "fictional". Do you think that it is OK to make such comments about the entire people? Grandmaster (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I say nothing that academic sources haven't already said about Azerbaijan's population. Even western sources consider "Azeris" to have an "underdeveloped national identity," which is in a very real danger of disintegration due to loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.. As much as you may find the truth uncomfortable, we can't deny it. And the only reason I have brought it up is to refute your claims about the identity and naming of Tatars in the "Armenian-Tatar conflict" article.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Azerbaijanis being a "fictional identity" supported by academic sources? Even Suny does not say that. Grandmaster (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as identities go, it's a weak and unclear one. Scholars agree. Here are a few more, in addition to Patricia Carley:

"Azerbaijani fear of Armenians was further inflated, ironically, by the relative weakness of Azerbaijani identity as compared to Armenian One" (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 58.)

"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijani’s many varied Russian conquerers"(B. Fowkes, "Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World," Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. See page 68)

"Despite these myths, the historical and cultural elements of which the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis are most proud, such as being the land of Zoroaster and the poet Nizami, have distinctly Iranian origins and character. Ironically the realization of this fact, rather than bringing the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis closer to Iran, has had the opposite effect. This is because Azerbaijanis feel that the Iranian connection would hamper the development of an independent Azerbaijani identity – and , as far as some are concerned, a purely Turkic identity."(David Menashri, "Central Asia Meets the Middle East," Routledge, 1998. See page 107)

"In Contrast with the Armenians, the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. In fact, the very name "Azerbaijani" was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars or something else." (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 56.)

--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last quote and the subject we discuss (who were these Tatars who clashed Armenians in 1905?), there is no direct correlation between the changing names of an ethnicity throughout the centuries and existence or non-existence of national identity. National identity in the same time does not have a unique and standard formula. Modern Azerbaijanis' identity started to shape in 13 century with Heterodox Shia Islam, was strengthened in 16th century by a state religion and unified state and started to disappear with the wars of 19th century wars and annexation by Russian Empire. In the Soviet era it changed its form or died for 70 years. Current status I agree is unclear. But this does not change the fact that the Turkoman in 13-15 centuries, Tatars in 1905, Caucasian Turks in 20's, or Azerbaijanis in the 20th century were/are the same people, same ethnicity. I think there is no need for further discussions. I am ready to give my consent to link this article to the articles related to modern Tatars of Kazan and Crimea. Let them solve their “old problems”. --Aynabend (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, there is a poem of the greatest and perhaps the most renowned Russian poet of XIXth century, Alexander Pushkin, associating in his words the Armenians with thieves and cowards ("Поди ты прочь - ты мне не сын. Ты не чеченец - ты старуха. Ты трус, ты раб, ты армянин."), in fact, here is the link to Roland Grigor Suny's book reciting that same quote . While this is a referenced source, it's still an insult against an ethnicity, and it does not establish basis for any Misplaced Pages contributor to use these words as evidence in articles about Armenians or even further, like yourself, argue for their justification. So, as you have been explained above, assume good faith and stop insulting people's ethnic identity by spending time to look for such sources. Atabek (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, tell that to Parishan who used a sole source to claim that Azerbaijani is a Langua franca, by an Armenophobe author who calls Armenians parasites in the same article. Don't use double standards and delete the Parishan addition yourself. Beside, are you comparing some deluded poet with a position which holds consensus in the academia? VartanM (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, given your active Wiki involvement recently, have you been removing/editing/disputing the ethnicity insulting edits of TigranTheGreat? Provided not so, I would recommend that you also assume good faith. And I think calling a literary giant like A. S. Pushkin a deluded poet may sound a bit insulting to the history of Russian literature, moreover, comparing him to a far less known R. G. Suny, who was actually citing Pushkin, is also a bit too much. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, don't make claims of consensus without having proper source to support such a claim. The opinion of some is not equal to the opinion of majority. And I did not see a single source calling Azerbaijani ethnic identity fictional, like Tigran did. Grandmaster (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Ulvi/Aynabend, what you're claiming is for sure wrong; I’d be surprised if you'd believe all that as a professional historian. We don't even need to find any direct correlation when both in this case mean about the same thing. Stephen F. Jones writes: Azerbaijani identity, as distinct from Muslim identity, was weak even among the intelligentsia, which was predominantly secular.' (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19) When they cover national identity they incorporate ethnicity in this particular case (and I will develop furthermore on why this is obvious.)

You are asking who were these Tatars… this is one of the disagreements and the same author writes: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... While Persians, Chechens and Kurds (to a lesser extent though) were separately included, Tatars included various Muslim groups. Azerbaijani the modern identity represents the product of homogenisation and assimilation, while Tatars included various tribes, nomads etc.

Do you really believe that the modern Azerbaijani identity started to shape in the 13th century? The origin of the Azerbaijani ethnic identity started in Persia during the 19th century, mostly with the help of the Ottoman Empire which had a certain policy in the region. And my source on the birth of the identity is none other than Touraj Atabaki (Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in Twentieth-Century Iran, British Academia Press, 1993). Prior to that, it was just a region of Persia (South of Arax).

I'm intrigued on something; you do admit that what is called "Azerbaijani literature" was in fact Turkman in origin… what I fail to understand is your persistence in continuing to claim Turkman history as Azerbaijani when it is the other way around even from your indirect admission. Your comparison with the Prussians doesn't make sense either because Prussians are not Germans I don't know where you got all that. Past NAZI propaganda claimed such stuff... even Germans don’t claim such a thing. They were Baltic people speaking a Baltic language prior to the establishment of a German government in Prussia. If you claim they were German then no wonder you think the Azerbaijani identity started forming in the 13th century.

I said that I will cover why national identity and ethnic identity is the same in this case and that it is used alternatively by scholars; so here we go. Since the Turkic tribes living there didn't have any clear and defined identity besides Islam, they formed their ethnicity and their identity with the geographic area they were living in. This was Tigran’s point when he said that if Azerbaijan was to be cut to pieces, they will form various different identities because this modern identity has been built recently and is built on the geographic region that they are living in. Basically this is why Artsakh’s independence is a threat to the Azerbaijani identity; without their defined borders they have no history under that identity. This is why all the myths about everything Armenian is Albanian and that Azerbaijanis are the decedents of the Albanians pop up. The intellectuals needed those myths to fabricate a history on their identity and compete with the clearly defined Armenian identity that has been around for centuries before the current era.

So in brief, nothing Tigran said is wrong. If you find something offending there, it does not make a difference because most academics support his position. - Fedayee (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See my above post. Grandmaster (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong here. I can easily prove you wrong by citing plenty of reliable sources, but this is not a place for that. What is discussed here is how appropriate is by a member of certain ethnic group to call an ethnic identity of another one "so called", "fictional", etc? Even if we assume that this other ethnic group came into being just a few years ago (which is impossible, but let's assume that), is it appropriate to make such comments here and isn't it a violation of WP:Civil and the supervised editing restrictions, imposed on Tigran by the arbcom? I would really be interested in an admin take on this. Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Aynabend admitted above that the Azeri identity, if there was one prior to 1919 (there wasn't, but let's assume), "died in the Soviet era." So, even he admits that the "Azeri identity" has been nonesixtent. I merely repeat what academic sources, and Aynabend, have been saying about the state of the "Azerbaijani identity." The reason this discussion belongs here is that Grandmaster brought in a context dispute in here, which is inappropriate and against the Wiki rules. It is also relevant here that Grandmaster, Atabek, and Aynabend have continued making ethnicicty insulting comments against Armenians in talk pages (about NKR being "a non-existent, illegal state") despite being warned by Armenian users. Such defiance of other Misplaced Pages members, as well as calling them "ethnically prejudiced," is a clear violation of WP:Civil, and the supervised editing restrictions of these users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Instead of wasting your time here, you better start editing Prussia and Otto von Bismarck articles at wiki and let the entire world know that they were "Baltic speaking" people and nation, had nothing to do with the modern Germans... Tigran, please read my posting more carefully, I said the that during Soviet times the identity of Azerbaijanis either "changed its form or died for 70 years". This is in itself a disputable question. Some Armenian ethnographers would try to prove the opposite that, during last 30 years of the Soviets, especially under H. Aliyev Azerbaijanis have united as a nation... If you need names, I can give you in private.

Anyway, coming to the subject. Here is what the witness of those days in 1905, James D. Henry says about the Tatars:

"The census returns of Baku town, Bailov Promontory, White Town, the villages of Kishli and Akhmedli, the oil field region of Bibi-Eibat, the Balakhani-Saboonchi-Ramani fields and Balakhani, Saboonchi Ramani and Zabrat villages put the population at 206,757*. Forty-four nationalities are registered. These include representatives of nearly all European nations, Central Asia, Asia Minor, Persia, Arabia, and even Abyssinia. The chief nationalities number thirteen, and each of these has more than 500 representatives. The first place is occupied by Russians, who number 74,254; then follow 53,827 local Tartars, 34,259 Armenians, 18,572 Persians, 5,859 Jews, 5,025 Germans, 4,157 Tartars from south-eastern Russia (known as Kazan Tartars), 3,857 Lezghins, 2,614 Georgians, 1,548 Poles, 617 Greeks, and 679 Mordovtzis. The other inhabitants - to the number of 1,646 - represent thirty-one nationalities. Eight of these Swedes, Ossetins, Letts, Bohemians, Slovaks, Frenchmen, Lithuanians, Englishmen, and Turks - have each over one hundred representatives. The remaining twenty-three nationalities account for less than 100 each, while seventeen are represented by less than 25 persons"

• Twenty years ago the population of Baku was between 70,000 and 80,000. Source: Henry, J.D. Baku An Eventful History. With Many Illustrations And a Map. London 1905. pages 11-12

Now as you see, even a British engineer who wrote the world-known book about Baku in those days put a distinction between the local Tartars (or Tatars) and the ones who came from south-eastern Russia and identified them as Kazan Tartars. If in you opinion the Tatars who fought with the Armenians in 1905 were of the mixed ethnic origin of various Turkic people, then why there was a distinction emphasized in the book, two chapters of which refers to 1905 Armenian-Azeri clashes? Please don't tell me that you do not like all the Britts in the world. --Aynabend (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ulvi/Aynabend, the Prussians were NOT German. Before it was taken by the Teuronic Knights and the German assimilation of the group, the real Prussians were speaking a distinct language. You see you referred to the Prussians and now are referring to the assimilated German Prussia.

The comparison is actually more similar to the Armenian Patriarchate of Artsakh with the Albanians, the same way that the Germans declared lordship of Prussia. The Germans already had a distinct identity, just like if you compare the Patriarchate with when he was referring to himself as Albanian. The Armenians had a distinct identity. The German identity was prevailing and clearly defined much before the Ottonian dynasty. The Prussians were not the ancestors of the Germans, neither were they of old Prussia and its inhabitants, Germans. They have been assimilated by a group which already had a clearly defined identity, the Duchy. So again, you failed to explain any similarities between Tatars-Azerbaijanis and Prussian-Germans; both are unrelated in terms of ancestries. While Old Prussian might have had some influence on the Germans living in the area, the Germans were identified already centuries before the Teuronic Knights took over Prussia.

You see the NAZI abolished Prussia, even though it was symbolic at the time, of the Germanic Prussia, and dismissed its old history and claimed it exclusively as German including the original inhabitants of Prussia, Baltic speaking people. You are using double standards… aren't you also basically overemphasising on the Caucasian Albanians on every Eastern region, including a large area recognized as being in the older Armenian lands? Why don't you use the same standard and consider the Caucasian Albanians as Armenians? Your comparison is not inaccurate, but even if it had been accurate, it does not support your thesis… at worst it contradicts it.

As for your quote, they were called Tartars, most of the Muslims living there were called Tartars, and I don't see how this supports your argument in any way. - Fedayee (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. After reverting Shusha article, he leaves the following comment in the talkpage:

"Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus. On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate?"

The above comment is a clear violation of his parole, instead of discussing the content of his revert, he is commenting on another user. Also, his call for Andranikpasha to reach consensus makes no sense. Andranikpasha has and is actively discussing all of his edits, while the last time Atabek participated in any discussion was on November 16th and before that September 7th. VartanM 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, actually the same ArbCom requested you and all others involved in editing Turkey-Iran-Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages to do so in a constructive manner and in good faith. So please, assume one. I merely indicated a fact that lifting of Andranikpasha's parole only raised the number of his reverts per day per page. And he does continue to remove sourced material from pages without completely discussing them or achieving consensus. Thanks. Atabek 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On Shusha we had a whole bunch of socks reverting the article in favor of a certain POV, i.e. Bassenius, Verjakette and Hnarakert, which was established by a checkuser here: And Andranikpasha clearly took an advantage of being relieved of his parole, he made at least 3 rvs on Shusha within the last week: The latest arbcom ruling specifically mentioned among its principles that edit warring was harmful. Now that the article is protected and the socks are blocked the involved editors can discuss the problems and reach a consensus. Grandmaster 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant to this page and doesn't require discussion here. This is to point that Atabek violated the Arbcom restrictions.-- Ευπάτωρ 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)