User talk:Sarah/KII-GM2

List of Azerbaijanis Rules of the game:

Don't post in each other's section.
Don't make personal commentary about each other or editorialise.
Be as concise as possible, use point form if it helps.
Stick to the facts.

Khosrow

Ok, the article is currently unprotected, but I will wait until Sarah's decision before making any changes. I suggest that Sarah allows GM and I a few comments a piece, each making our points, as concisely as possible, and then hopefully Sarah can make a quick decision. I have other issues with the article, but as of now, I will only deal with those three figures.

Khosrow II's argument

The three figures in question are: Mahsati, Khaqani, and Nezami Ganjavi.

Now, the name of the article is list of Azerbaijani's, keep this in mind.

These three figures were Born at a time when the R. of Azerbaijan did not even exist (territorially or by name), therefore, how can they be "Azerbaijani"?
The term Azerbaijani was first used by the Russians, as a linguistic description, not an ethnic one, in the late 19th century (Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in 1890). These figures, who lived roughly 1000 years before that event, cannot be classed as Azerbaijani. Doing so would mean classifying the very first homo sapiens inhabiting the that region as "Azerbaijani" also, which would not make any sense. And again, the term Azerbaijani was never meant to be used as an ethnic term, and especially in the case of these three, classifying them as "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" is pure POV.
Classifying these three figures as "Azerbaijani" would be like classifying Avicenna as an Uzbek, classifying Sitting Bull as an American (USA), classifying Alexander the Great as being from Republic of Macedonia), and Classifying the Arabs of Muslim Spain as Spaniards (I think you get what I'm trying to say). It just makes no sense at all to classify these three figures as "Azerbaijani". Whats next? People claiming that Ptolemy I Soter was Egyptians (he was Greek)?

I think the above is sufficient, but I will write a little bit more if anything else comes to my mind. Based on the three simple points I listed above, I think its very clear that keeping those three within that article is just simply POV, which goes against Wikipedia's rules of NPOV.Khosrow II 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GM

I said that million times before, and will repeat it again. This is not a list of ethnic Azerbaijanis, and the intro clearly says so. This is a list of prominent people from the region regardless of their ethnicity. I don’t know why there should be any argument about this list. It existed almost as long as wikipedia itself, and no one had any problems with it so far.

Exactly, thanks for confirming what I have said above (If you even bothered to read what other people write, which you dont). The region was not called Azerbaijan until 1918, therefore, these figures cannot be called Azerbaijani. Simple as that, thanks for making things a lot easier.Khosrow II 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, this is not a hard case to make a decision on. Its pretty simple, thanks to GM's above comment. There cant be a compromise because no compromise would make sense. The Iranians belong on the List of Iranians page, not the List of Azerbaijani's page, which is based on ethnicity, contrary to what GM claims (because if it wasnt based on ethnicity, then what are Iranians doing on there?). Also, if those three figures stay on the page, then I must proceed to add the Elamite kings (which ruled souther Iran before Iranians or the nation Iran got there), I must proceed to add famous Native Americans into the list of Americans page, etc... GM is a POV pusher, as made evident on the other talk page, his credibility is extremely low, and he has a history of disruptive behaviour. This really shouldnt be that hard of a case, as GM's POV is evident.Khosrow II 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sarah

Wikipedia is not a place to compromise with every person who has an opinion about something. Its a place where articles have to conform to each other (articles and their formats must match) and information has to be accurate. There is a point where a compromise is possible on some issues, and then there are other issues where a compromise is neither necessary nor warranted. Like I said, this is the only article I have seen named after an ethnic group/nationality that considers people 1000 years prior as part of the group. Maybe Heraclius should also be put under list of Turks? If we "compromise" on this issue, then all "List of..." articles on Wiki will become insane. As I said above, Heraclius and other Byzantine Emperors would be put into the List of Turks (according to GM, List of ... articles are not based on nationality nor ethnicity, but on a region where people were born...), Elamite kings would be placed into List of Iranians, and so on... so are you really willing to force yourself into a compromise on such a thing? Not all subjects can be solved as easily with a compromise as it may appear.Khosrow II 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, as I pointed out above, this is not a situation where a compromise would be a reasonable thing, because then all the List of... articles would be filled with similar figures that dont belong. There would be fights on every Wiki page. I guarantee you that if someone were to put figures like Heraclius and Constatine into the List of Turks article, everyone would complain and those figures would immediatly be taken out. Why dont you try it Sarah, go put Heraclius into the list of Turks and see what happens. There is no reason at all why those three figures should be included, it does not make sense at all.Khosrow II 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GM

If you are going to put in Iranians in your List of Azerbaijani's, then it will say Iranians next to their names. You dont go to List of Israeli's to find the names of all the famous Jews in the world do you? Iranians belong in the list of Iranians, simple as that, that is why the list of Iranians is in there. The list of Azerbaijani's should only include those from the R. of Azerbaijan. I see no more point in discussing this issue any further either, those three figures should be removed, as well as the Iranians.Khosrow II 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Sarah

This discussion is ridiculous. We have a List of Iranians for a reason, to have famous people of Iranian origin/citizenship listed. It is ridiculous that Iranians should be listed in the List of Azerbaijani's article, as Azerbaijan is a small nation to the North of Iran (in the Caucasus). Why is it that Iranians are listed? Also, Sarah, have you edited the list of Turks to include Heraclius and other famous Byzantine, Roman, Greek, Hittite, etc... famous figures? If so what was the reaction, did people accept that edit simply because these people were from the region now known as Turkey, and therefore can be classified as Turks? Sarah, this is ridiculous, and a compromise is ridiculous. We have a list of Iranians, so the Iranians will be removed, and those three figures will be removed. This is getting ludicrous. Something this trivial shouldnt even require such a long discussion.Khosrow II 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster

I said that million times before, and will repeat it again. This is not a list of ethnic Azerbaijanis, and the intro clearly says so. This is a list of prominent people from the region regardless of their ethnicity. I don’t know why there should be any argument about this list. It existed almost as long as wikipedia itself, and no one had any problems with it so far. Grandmaster 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t think there’s a serious issue here. I don’t mind reasonable rewording of the intro and I suggest we discuss a new version here or on the talk of the article to get input from other users. I personally think that Sarah’s proposal could be a solution to the problem and I would appreciate if she could help us to put the intro in better words. Grandmaster 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Khosrow: First, the territory was called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, and second, this is a list of prominent people from the territory, which constitutes the Republic of Azerbaijan, regardless of their ethnicity. For the countless time, this is not a list of ethnic Azeris. And also, this is not the first time you make a personal attack on me. The comments like “GM is a POV pusher, as made evident on the other talk page, his credibility is extremely low, and he has a history of disruptive behaviour” are a clear personal attack, which is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is your last warning, next time you make a personal comment about me I will have to report your inappropriate behavior. Please comment on content, not on the contributor, as the rules require. Grandmaster 11:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really see no point in wasting any more time on this. I think the reasonable compromise would be as Sarah suggested rewriting the intro to say that the list includes people of various ethnicities, who lived in the region before and after the Azerbaijan republic was established in 1918. This should be enough to meet Khosrow’s concerns, because the current version of the list still says that it includes people of various ethnicities who lived in the region. But I don’t think we should add anything next to the names of individual persons, as such lists normally include only the names and professions of persons included. People can refer to the full articles for more details. Grandmaster 07:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they will remain, same as people like Garry Kasparov, Lev Nussimbaum, Lev Landau, Gavril Ilizarov, Max Black, Mstislav Rostropovich, etc. All those people are ethnic Jews, and they are in the list, because they are famous people from Azerbaijan or from what is now Azerbaijan. The list says that it is not based on ethnicity, Azerbaijani just means that they are from this region. Your unwillingness to compromise and insistence on having everything your way makes impossible any dispute resolution. Grandmaster 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah

Khosrow: will you accept a compromise? For example, a rewording of the introduction or noting after each of the people you contest that they lived in the region before it was known as Azerbaijan? I think this is something that should be easily negotiated if you are both willing to reach a compromise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khosrow: I have to agree with GM regarding personal comments. I don't want either of you to make any comments about each other. I just want you to stick with the issues because when you start making comments about each other, the whole thing disintegrates and becomes impossible to follow and doesn't achieve anything. I said to each of you at the start and it says at the top of the page, "Don't make personal commentary about each other". Please try to follow this.

Khosrow: With regard to your statement that you won't compromise, you seem to want me to "pick sides". I want you both to have a meeting of minds and agree to something that may not be perfect to either of you, but which is acceptable. To be honest, if you are going to press me to take sides, I don't think you will be happy with the outcome. My personal view is unless you can find a guideline or policy that supports your POV, a good compromise is to list these three people and put in backets that they lived in the region that became Azerbiajan before it was known by this name, plus a rewording of the introduction and/or footnotes, that clearly explains the classification of these people. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. I encourage you two to discuss your positions, and try to come up with something that is acceptable to you both, but if you are going to refuse to do that, then we're probably wasting our time and I may as well do it for you. Please reconsider. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a place to compromise with every person who has an opinion about something." I agree, however, I am not asking you to compromise with every person who has an opinion. I'm saying it is my view that including these three people along with appropriate notations etc seems reasonable. You seem to see everything as your way or the highway and that isn't how Wiki works. We need to reach a consensus and the only way I can see that happening in this case is negotiating. GM has indicated that he is willing to do this, but you still refuse to accept anything except your way. If you don't like my suggestions, then please come up with some alternatives. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]