Talk:Kars/Archive 1

Archive 1

(no section)

If you haven't noticed yet,--MarshallBagramyan 06:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC) there's a bit of a gap (about 800 years!) in the History section...mu5ti ☪ 08:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

...and thanks to KNewman it has shrunk! Спасибо! mu5ti ☪ 05:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'd like to introduce a sketch of Kars circa 1917 that my grandfather drew when he was a child living there. --MarshallBagramyan 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it's accurate! --Khoikhoi 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool.....

Ok I posted it so tell me what you guys think of it. Feel free to ask any questions about it. --MarshallBagramyan 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you. I was wondering, what were the demographics of Kars before the genocide? I think someone should add a demogrpahics section - past and present - to this article. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well my grandfather, Onik, was born on April 14, 1913. I extracted that image from his memoirs where he speaks about the Russian led Armenian forces moving towards Erzerum. He saw the famous Armenian partisan fighter Serob Pasha on a horse along with his guards where his forces were rallying and perhaps most interesting of all, his wife chose to over stay at their house. They left for Russia in 1918 as the Armenian forces began to draw out.

If you look at the picture, on the top, you see a row of houses -- my grandfather's house was the third one from the right -- seperated by a bright orange section. That section, written in Armenian writes, Malakneree Tagh, meaning the "location of where the Malakner lived". Apparently they were of Russian descent, perhaps even Kurdish. On the left in the middle, you can see a large wheel spoke on the river which was a water wheel or a mill or something. Just below are a set of houses which, according to my grandfather, belonged to the more wealthy affluent residents of Armenia. I'll read more into it and find out more about the town's demographics. --MarshallBagramyan 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, do you have any idea why his wife chose your great-grandparents' house? It would be interesting if we could find another map of Kars made at that time, to compare to the sketch.

I wonder there this picture is on the map. --Khoikhoi 06:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she said that she wanted to remain at the house which had the most impoverished person in town. And that person happend to live with my grandfather's family and my grandfather was awed as how such a revered figure would choose to come and become a guest for them. His father was a trader, he would buy products from abroad and sell or exchange them there. He succumbed to pneumonia in Russia several years after they left Kars.

One incident in his memoirs that he describes is of a young Armenian man who decides to join Serob's forces. His mother begrudgingly insists that he stay at home as he sits on a horse. When his mother's wails do not cease, he gets angry and finally pushes her away. She falls dowan as an artillery cannon is being moved forward and its spoke wheel runs over the woman's foot and putting her in agonizing pain (thankfully not seriously injuring her).

I only began reading his memoirs just recently and when I saw that picture of that photo you mentioned, it was amazing as how acutely and accurately he drew the illustration is (he died 7 years ago, suffering the similar fate as his father; I wasn't interested about his life or Armenian history back then and its something I deeply regret not dwelling further upon before his passing).

On the right side of the illustration it writes in Armenian "Qarsee Berdt" which means Kars' Fortress and he has enumerated about ten or eleven locations on the picture (try saving it on your computer and zooming in to find them) in which he describes them. I'll try to find out what it writes exactly. --MarshallBagramyan 06:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace

This article is 99% about Kars history, %1 modern day city of Turkey. And of course we all know why. Illustration by the way, apperantly it was drawn by a kid, I don't know what kind of value it has posted on this article.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, it was drawn by a child -- my grandfather when he was only a few years old living in Russia and recanting from memory. That picture is an accurate illustration of what Kars looked like in 1917. I'm sorry if you're unable to distinguish the immense merit and significance it holds, the Turkish government does a fine job in erasing any traces of Armenian history doesn't it?--MarshallBagramyan 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah evil Turks. Nobody is erasing anything, Turkey's approach to historical artifacts, including their own heritage such as Seljukid, Ottoman, is a disgrace; only in the last few years there have been serious concerns of a need for a large scale renovation. Anyway, important thing is Kars is a still existing city in modern Turkey and this article contains zero information about it. Wikipedia is not the place to push your Armenian agenda. I am putting a POV tag unless current day informations meet the history section. As for the illustration, I don't know what kind of accuracy it has drawn by an unknown kid, I respect your grandfather's effort but it looks like Disneyland from a kid's perspective.--Kagan the Barbarian 06:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I am removing the POV tag. But I still think there should be some info about current day city, the article looks like History of Kars.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means, add as much information about it of present day Kars. No one is stopping you.--MarshallBagramyan 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering your passion for the city, why don't you? Or after adding all the Armenian information, your job here is done?--Kagan the Barbarian 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have information on Kars of present. You can visit the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and take its sources since I'm only working on Armenian-related and military issues. --MarshallBagramyan 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bagramyan, I want you know that I have respect for the picture your grandfather drew, but that is my respect to your family heritage. I don't consider it an appropriate addition to a general article about Kars. Therefore I removed it, please understand.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is so inappropriate about it? That picture is a relic from an era that has lost nearly every historical artifact since the Genocide. Your reasons for removing it are wholly insufficent as I cannot understand nor see why in the world you would delete a historical picture. The illustration gives readers a chance to visually see how Kars looked in 1917. Other articles on historical cities include drawings of how they looked like centuries before; I honestly cannot understand your motives for removing it. I will add that image back, your reasons fail to convince me. --MarshallBagramyan 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Relic? Maybe for your family but not for the rest of the world. For the rest of the world, it is an old picture drawn by a kid. Here are my reasons for removing it:

1- It is too big. Too big for such a -excuse me but- crappy drawing. I like the hand writing though, Armenian alphabet is beatiful.

2- Its authenticity and accuracy are unknown. 3- Lastly and most importantly it was drawn by a kid, it holds no scientific value.

Try to be logical instead of acting emotional about it.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my...I have shown this picture to other Turks and even they agree that it is authentic. What is so inaccurate about it? The fortress and the river all align to present day Kars and so do the diagrams of the churches.

1)The size can be adjusted to make it smaller, even then, the current size does not hamper the reader's efforts or the article's form. 2)Here's a map of present day Kars a Turkish friend of mine showed to me, as he was marveled as how accurate my grandfather's illustration was:[1]. Obviously the majority of the buildings have changed by now but geographical location and the position of landmark buildings, the Kars fortress, the houses on the side of the fortress, the river next to those houses, etc. are in the correct places when you compare it to the photographs we have on this article. 3)So just because it was drawn by my grandfather when he was a child, it loses its value and authenticity? I'm not certain when exactly in his youth he drew this but my grandfather was a pharmacist, not an artist. If there are any real discrepancies, point them out. Otherwise your claims are invalid.

Hardly any demagoguery involved in this on my part, I think you should reevaluate your claims and see where the logic falls. --MarshallBagramyan 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion about the child drawing

With all due respect, I really think this picture doesn't qualify for a professional and historical imagery (especially in an encyclopedia). I suggest it's deleted.

For example, I've lived in the Netherlands for some time. By Wikipedia standards, should Dutch people allow my own handdrawing of the city I lived in as a picture within the related article???

--Gokhan 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I found that drawing to be the most interesting thing in the whole Wikipedia entry for Kars! (But then I am speaking a someone who knows more about Kars than any other person who is likely to read the Kars entry.) It certainly qualifies as an example of historical imagery of Kars. The only quastion is whether such specialised historical imagery should be part of a general article about Kars. --Meowy 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate names

They are acceptable usually if the people of this language had a lot to do with the city’s history, population, or both. See the Gdansk article for example – it has the German name, but the city has hardly any Germans living it, and hasn’t been part of Germany since WWII. There are many articles about Greek islands with the Turkish name – see Kos for example. --19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any policy on that? I have not seen the names of American states in Spanish, for example. Grandmaster 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, see LukasPietsch's comment here. --Khoikhoi 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we’ve got a lot do in Armenia and Azerbaijan geography. I had a look at American states, and did not notice a strict policy in naming. I’m not any good in Spanish, so I don’t know whether those names are spelled differently in Spanish, but California, Florida and Texas have only English spelling, while New Mexico has Spanish as well. I’m just curious how the decision on such issues is made, because we have a similar dispute on another page. Grandmaster 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, California, Florida, and Texas are all spelled the same in English as they are in Spanish. New Mexico, I believe, is the only state that has Spanish and English as it's offical language, so that's another reason the Spanish name is up there.

I can tell you on the Gdansk page there was a lot of debate over the German name being up there - and it looks like the final decision is how you see it today.

I'm not sure how these disputes are resolved however. For the Nakhichevan page I suggest you have a separate section called "Name", just like at the Nagorno-Karabakh page. If we list the alternate names in all those languages it would be too hard to read. --Khoikhoi 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For Nakhichevan we need at least 5 names. If we are going to include them all, we should do the same for the Armenian cities and towns by adding Azeri, Turkish and Persian names, starting from Yerevan. I don’t know if the Armenian editors are happy with that or not. Looks like they only want to include Armenian names for Azeri territories and remove Turkish name of Nakhichevan without any valid reason. I’m going to add Azeri names for the cities in Armenia, I think it should be acceptable in accordance with Wiki rules. Grandmaster 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

GM, stop making a WP:POINT. Just because something is done in one article does not require you to go on a crusade to do it in other articles. --Golbez 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a common principle to be applied to all similar cases, otherwise how can anyone justify a different approach to similar issues? Grandmaster 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then ask the community, rather than making a point. --Golbez 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So far I’ve done nothing to illustrate my point, I just stated that if we agree that inclusion of all applicable names is justified, then we should apply that principle in practice. Do you think it is worth starting an RFC, or we can reach an agreement on naming principles for our region on this talk page? Grandmaster 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Turkish: Kars, Armenian: Ղարս or Կարս, Kurdish: Qers, Greek: Καρς, Russian: Карс, Azeri: Qars). It is getting silly! All of them, except the hard "G" Armenian version, are pronounced exactly the same. They are not alternative names used by different languages or races - they are exactly the same name written in different alphabets! Meowy 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kars history

For a settlement that is at least 2000 years old the Kars entry so far is a bit basic and with many ommissions! I will try to add more material over the coming few days, but meanwhile, I have added some links to several pages on VirtualAni.org that address some of those gaps.

PS: for some reason Khoikhoi has objected to me adding these links, saying that they are "commercial links"??? I have just joined here, and so may be a bit hazy on procedures, but I see nothing objectionable in those links.

Like I said, you should be adding content to the article instead of links to your website. It is considered spamming. —Khoikhoi 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, why are you erasing links that have been on the page for months?

VirtualANI - A history and description of the city of Kars was there before I added anything.

And what is it you find so objectionable in these?

The medieval Armenian cathedral in Kars known as the Holy Apostles church An album of old postcards and photographs of Kars The architecture of the traditional houses of Kars Buildings in Kars that date from the Russian period of rule

Very well I will reinsert the link you erased (I will assume you erased it by mistake). And wait for some support here before I re-insert the other erased links.

I don't object to the links, it but you are encouraged to add to the actual article, not add multiple external links to the same website. —Khoikhoi 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. However it will not be possible to add all the content of those webpages to the actual article, which is why I felt that the links were valid. How can another section be added to the contents, such as one for "Church of the Apostles"? --Meowy 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here's how - just add one more equal sign on to the section, so it looks like this:

== History ==

=== Church of the Apostles===

You could also create a History of Kars article. :) Cheers, —Khoikhoi 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kars is a Turkish city

Throughout history, Kars has been home to many civilisations and nations, from Scythians to Armenians, from Kipchaks to Romans. The region was included in Transcaucasia, and later on it was inhabited by Hayasa. The city of Ani nearby the region was the capitol of an Armenian kingdom in 10th century, until it was captured by Seljuk Turks in 1064. Georgians captured the city for a while, and then the Ilkhanids captured it. Finally after the short term invasion of Timur, the city was captured by the Ottoman Empire in 1534.

The city had a long term Turkish rule, until it was captured by the Russian Empire in 1877. After a period of a Southern Caucasian Republic, the city was recaptured by Turks under leadership of Kazim Karabekir Pasha. It is a modern province of Republic of Turkey.

So as it's understood by its population's composition in history, the region was occupied by Armenians until 11th century, and then by local Armenians and Turks together, until the Russian invasion when the Turkish population had to immigrate to west. Later on, the Armenians of the city were deported during WWI.

But some misinformed writers or nationalist spammers enjoy editing the true information about the city. The city have never been a Kurdish city throughout its history, if it was, I am ready to see your sources and the official records about any Kurdish existance in the city except the Islamic encyclopedia's non sense map. I am also ready to show any official documents the spammer needs to see to understand his wrong knowledge.

Thank you...

Armenians were never deported out of Kars. It remained strictly under Russian military control. My grandfather remained there until 1917 when Russian forces finally retreated and the Armenian population alongside with them.--MarshallBagramyan 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Karapapakhs"

Grandmaster, is this refering to the Karapapak? (not to be confused with the Karakalpaks of Central Asia). I noticed "Karapapakhs" and "Karapapak" sounded similar. —Khoikhoi 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the Karapapakhs are a distinct group of Azeris. -- Clevelander 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you just linked to the same article...am I missing something here? —Khoikhoi 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision

Hey Cleve, I was not trying to revise anything, if you noticed, my fact tags were also about stuff not concerning Armenia and Turkey proper: like Soviets wanting to attack Turkey after WWII etc. Don't get me wrong, it could be true, but to be honest it is the first time I heard that. That's all.. Baristarim 21:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just a bit stressed out. I will add references later. -- Clevelander 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the following is true: Since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia has refused to recognize the Kars treaty as legitimate. From the Armenian perspective, the borders as defined by the treaty are far from fair as they did not take into account the national interests of the Armenian people. Many still consider the Kars treaty as the basis for the resolution of Armenian-Turkish animosity. Unless someone can cite an example of someone at governmental level in Armenia saying it, I think it should be removed.Meowy 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read about this before, but I've never seen a credible source that states that this is the RA's position. I'll delete it for now. -- Clevelander 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From Noyan Tapan / Armenians Today / Dec 13 2006

In an interview for the the Turkish newspaper Cumhurriet, and in response to the question, "does Armenia recognize the Treaty of Kars?" RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said: "Armenia has never made a problem of validity of the Treaty of Kars, as Armenia remains loyal to all agreements inherited from the Soviet Union."Meowy 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ethnic figures

Good to see these ethnic population figures. It illustrates how no one nationality may reasonably claim Kars as theirs. I missed two things in these figures: 1) where are the Jews, and 2) religions. From the ethnic percentages you may calculate 58% Islam and 41% Christian, but how about Alevites, Yezidis, atheists/communists, Jews (again) and unchurchliness? Could not read the Russian source, but had the impression it gave some more figures? [I am wrtiting a short history of Turkey in Dutch] Marco www.ecocam.com

Actually, it merely indicates that with each exchange of the "ownership" of Kars between Turkey, Russia, and Persia there was a diminution of the ethnic population of those seen by the winning Power to have supported the previous owners. The process speeded up as the 19th century progressed, and it culminated in 1921, when its new Turkish "owners" removed the entire Christian populaton of Kars. Why do you think there would be any Jews? You might as well ask "where are the Hawaiians?". Meowy 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone definetly went overboard with the naming and Karapak tag contradicted the main article.Hetoum I 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Population statistics

The ones in the article are not credible. Kars has grown steadily in size since the 1980s - it must have trebled in area over 25 years. Yet we are given statistics that claim the population was 142,000 in 1990 and only 76,000 in 2009 (this in a country whose population growth is almost out of control)! And the 129,000 figure for 1922 is just laughable (is it perhaps actually for the entire Kars province?). Similarly laughable is the 20,000 for 1897 going down to only 12,000 for 1913 (at a time when Kars actually enjoyed a big period of growth). Meowy 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Armenian name

Why do we include the Armenian name of the city in the first sentence article? I understand why it is there, for there have been Armenian inhabitants in the city in history, but there aren't any more, and if we did the same thing to all articles, we would put the Turkish name in the articles of Alexandroupoli, Plovdiv, Batumi and so on, and many such examples, not necessarily in this region. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's vital that readers understand that Kars was one of the most important cities in Armenian history. The same cannot be said about the above-mentioned cities because they only came under temporary military Ottoman occupation and their settlement, if it even took place, was next to negligible. Kars was part of the ancient Armenian kingdoms and during the Middle Ages it became the capital of an Armenian kingdom. The foundations of the fortress were laid during this time. The city was an important Armenian cultural center, as the Church of the Holy Apostles, which has now been converted into mosque, and the manuscripts of King Gagik-Abas attest. The Armenian presence of Kars never withered away even as the landscape of the city changed and it was only in 1920 when its Armenian population was slaughtered and sent fleeing because of the Kemalist invasion. Trivializing this entire history by reducing Kars' importance to being simply another place where Armenians inhabited is a disingenuous and erroneous argument to make. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, so Ottoman "occupation" is about 300-400 years? What about Thessaloniki, there were many Turkish inhabitants in the city and it was an important centre for Turks, it was even the birthplace of Atatürk? And Pylos, which was inhabited by the Turks and its inhabitants were slaughtered? There might have been inhabited by Armenian population (oh, I almost forgot the Turkish "settlers") and the capital of the Armenian kingdom, but certainly we are not living in the history, and for whatever reason (a "massacre", an "invasion", or "an imperialist settlement") there is no more Armenian population in the city. History does not interest the very first sentence. So shall we say, "Kars is a city in Turkey which was part of Armenia before ..."? The Armenian name in the very first sentence without the existence of any Armenian population in the city means, "this city is a part of Armenia, but invaded by Turks". It is not like Komotini, where there are a number of Turkish inhabitants. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Marshall Bagramyan, if we should take into account the historical population of the city and include the different versions of the city, then you better know that the capital of Armenia - Yerevan was historically inhabited mostly by the Azerbaijani Turk. Then we should include İrəvan into Yerevan article as well as Azerbaijanis spell it.--KHE'O (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Border crossing- which article?

I think the information about the border crossing in the history section should be added to the article of Kars Province, since the border crossing is not in the city of Kars, but in the borders of Kars districts. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Kars, Turkey → Kars – per WP:CRITERIA & WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

This Kars is most well-known Kars.

Kars, a village in the Khizi Rayon of Azerbaijan, is normally spelled as Qars.

Kars, a small village in the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, is much less-known than Kars in Turkey.

-- Takabeg (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —  AjaxSmack  21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The city is obviously more well-known than the villages. --Seksen (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposals for ending the naming disputes of Kars through an arbritation by neutral third opinions of administrators.

Proposals for ending the naming disputes of Kars through an arbritation by neutral third opinions of administrators. As the ongoing disputes are not going to be solved by each side anytime soon, the best option is to refer this to neutral third opinions of administrators. Please add further ideas and recommendations.

Noraton (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Verman, I politely ask that you undo your removal of the Armenian name. Foreign names in the lede are included not on the basis of whether a certain population currently lives there or not, but if there is a special connection between them and that city. That special connection to Armenians is amply demonstrated. But it is more difficult to justify the inclusion of another names. I would say the Russian deserves to be there considering the architectural heritage it left during the 19th-20th centuries. But even then, as Meowy pointed above, it's better that we leave most of the peripheral languages. That includes Azerbaijani, whose presence is justified solely on the fact that Azeris have moved there following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But if we were to use the same logic, we might as well add the Armenian spelling to the Glendale, California or the Italian to New York pages. But that's not part of the criteria, which actually reads:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken; Estonian: Soome laht). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. [2]

Relevance has to be demonstrated and current residence is not enough. A consensus was reached a long time ago (again, see above). You can choose to start a new, meaningful discussion, but pushing your POV into all these pages (Artik, Gyumri, etc.) by using the same flimsy, self-manufactured criteria is not the way to go about it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain why Armenian naming should come first and only, as you did such edits like in here ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Seems like you clearly want to ignore naming rule of Wikipedia, not only in this article, but also in articles Yerevan, Gyumri and Artik. Case of Russian and Armenian namings are clearly irrelevant, if so, then we should apply Turkish names to all former Ottomans cities and regions. --Verman1 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was decided by way of consensus (see above) that it would be best not to clutter the lede with a long list of names, many of which could not be argued convincingly to include mention. Previously, there was the Armenian, Russian, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Greek alphabets and editors believe that only the Armenian should be kept. That was a consensus that had been in place for many months and your decision to not remove the Armenian but to begin to edit war without even revisiting the discussion is unfortunate. As I have shown above, it is you who is ignoring Wikipedia guidelines. I wrote it above but I will say it again: the onetime (to say nothing about brief) presence of an ethnic population is not grounds to add their alphabets. As is clear from your past editing behavior, you are simply trying to import your POV into this and other articles without even providing any clear rebuttals. I'm still hoping that you reverse your edit yourself rather than have me do it.

Also, read carefully the opinion of a neutral editor who commented on this matter just last week here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

After little attempt to initiate a discussion or to re-visit the arguments made in the lengthy talks above, I have restored the consensus version of the foreign names in the lede. If the question is raised again, I hope that editors will discuss it here instead of making unilateral additions or removals. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In other articles about cities in Turkey (and about any settlement in general), versions in different languages of the city name are put in the city article, reflecting the demographics of particular ethnic groups living there (or who lived there) and have names for the city in their languages. Former names of a city used during different epochs by different civilizations, are also as relevant, as the current official name and names in different etymological versions of a city.

There must be no whitewash of any section of a city's history regarding the different nations who settled and ruled there and the different versions of a city name in different languages, as is done in the city of Kars article or indeed any article. The issue is not which nation ruled the longest or had the most impact (and each side is attempting to ignore and erase each nations historical presence) as it is unfortunately the case about this dispute. There can be no selective process and everything associated with the city has to be included, including its history, demographics, monuments etc..

Noraton (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I still see nothing that gives a reason for additional names. Despite third party opinion[8], Noraton ignores it and since he/she doesn't like that opinion continues to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a false attempt at equivalency here. Policy has been quoted above, and yet you nor anyone has addressed the language it contains. I have put the question to many editors, all of whom have given unsatisfactory or no replies at all, and now I ask you again: what is the relevance of the other foreign alphabets and how well do they specifically meet the criteria outlined by Wikipedia rules?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added. Why don't we add at the first sentence at the New York City its name in dutch or even better Nuova York (new york in italian)? There is even an italian community and little italy, and also a china town. Is this becoming a way in Wikipedia to communicate that that city was armenian, russian or a turkish city? You don't need to do that. It's already in the history of the city... --Tacci2023 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say first that I take exception to the notion of requesting administrator input. According to what an administrator is not:

"Adminship is not meant to be anything special beyond access to extra editing tools which, pragmatically, cannot be given to every user. It does not give any extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use those extra tools."

That out of the way, it is common practice to use important names of the city in other languages, for example Kaliningrad or Mosul and that Turkish cities seem not to follow this practice, using only the English and Turkish names Istanbul, Izmir, and Trabzon. I think that this has more to do with Turkish nationalism than common practice. Speaking as an admitted Turcophile, Turks tend to be a bit sensitive about using other names for Turkish cities, lest they imply a claim on them. Given European and Armenian efforts to partition the Ottoman Empire, it's understandable, but I personally disagree with the attitude.

I don't think the Russian name belongs here, because it was only Russian for a bit over a century and the Russian legacy isn't especially strong (see the New Amsterdam mention above) but I approve of the status quo. As I understand it there are large Azeri and Kurdish-speaking populations in the city, which predate the founding of the modern Turkish nation-state. If that's the case, we ought to include this in the article, and they probably do belong in the lead.

Likewise given the historically Armenian population, I think including the Armenian name might be acceptable, as with Kaliningrad and Gdańsk. However unlike those two examples, the Armenians were already a small minority by the start of the 20th century, so if there aren't many Armenians living there today, and as such their claim for inclusion in the article is probably the weakest. We don't, for example include the Aramaic name for Jerusalem, even though it was for a long time the majority language, because it hasn't been a major language in the city during the modern era. Unlike the Azeri and Kurdish names I'm not certain that the Armenian name is necessary, and its inclusion is more a matter of Armenian nationalism (which has played a major role at least in US consciousness). I have no objection to including the Armenian name, however I very much don't think it is more important than the Azeri or Kurdish names. --Quintucket (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There was little to no significant Azerbaijani population living in Kars prior to 1991, and that claim is even more difficult to sustain considering that no Muslim identified himself as Azerbaijani prior to the 20th century (nationalism took a longer time to take root in the Caucasus among Muslims). Furthermore, there is no significant Kurdish population residing in the city, as Kars is now a Turkish-populated town. Using that logic, would you accept adding the Armenian spelling for an article like Fresno, California, where a settled Armenian community has existed since the late 1800s?

People who comment here and use excuses like nationalism to explain away why Armenian shouldn't even be included are apparently choosing to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines which have been quoted ad nauseum above to explain the historical significance of the native name of the town, one that goes back to the period of late antiquity. A consensus was achieved a long time and yet the edit-warring continues and all these points are conveniently forgotten.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Azerbaijani population in fact dates to only 1991, then I agree, the Azeri name does not belong. There is a historically Azeri-speaking population in Northeast Turkey, but I don't know about Kars specifically. The article doesn't provide enough to go on, and I don't know enough about Kars to make a claim regarding that.

I also don't know enough about Kars to dismiss the Armenian claim, but my point is that if there's no Armenian population there now, and I honestly don't know, I've discovered that Turkey is a far more diverse country than the government line would like you to believe, it's not sufficient to justify inclusion of the Armenian name.

There's two places in the lead to put a city's name. Current names, as used by inhabitants of the city go in parentheses after the English name, historical names used in English go in the first paragraph. I believe that according to guidelines, the Armenian name in the Armenian script only belongs in parentheses if a substantial Armenian population remains in Kars, or if the Armenian name was the only name until fairly recently. My point about nationalism, I should remind you, supports including the Armenian name. It seems to me like (again, unless there remains a substantial Armenian population still in Kars) the strongest reason for including the Armenian name is that a lot of editors of the English WP care very strongly about the issue, and since including the Armenian name would seem to do no harm, there's no problem including it if it prevents an edit war, regardless of what the guidelines may say.

And please remember that consensus can change. I suspect that the only people who care really strongly about this issue (enough to edit war over it) are the parties involved in the historical ethnic conflict: the Armenians and Turks/Azeris. I would however insist that the Kurdish name absolutely does belong in the article, as the Kurdish population has a long history in the area, and is currently extant. The fact that your prior consensus included exclusion of the Kurds and inclusion of the Armenians would seem to me to reflect the fact that there's a lot of English speakers of Armenian ancestry, and not nearly so many Anglophone Kurds.

But honestly, the real reason I responded to this in the first place is that I objected to the call for administrator opinions. If you and whoever else is involved in the edit war can't reach a consensus, I'd suggest asking on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. Like I said, I don't care enough to edit war over the issue, or to continue to argue over it. If you want to put the names of Kars solely in Javanese and Tiwi, I won't object. --Quintucket (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick point here. You(Quintucket) stated that, "I suspect that the only people who care really strongly about this issue (enough to edit war over it) are the parties involved in the historical ethnic conflict: the Armenians and Turks/Azeris.", actually I have exposed that user:Noraton appears to be using IPs to edit-war and canvass. Since, for your information, I am neither Armenian, Azerbaijani, Iranian nor Kurdish. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We have been following Wikipedia guidelines, but more important, the Armenian and Greek names have been added to many Turkish city articles because there once used to be vibrant Armenian and Greek communities until the early 20th century, when members of both groups were brutally wiped out or expelled from their historic homelands by a government(s) and which has since spared little energy in trying to deny that such a link with the people and the land even existed. Churches have been destroyed or converted, cities and towns have been renamed, and so on. The reader is entitled to know these facts and why Armenians are no longer living here or in Van or elsewhere. And while there isn't a uniform policy when it comes to this topic, we at least have a precdent to go on, to say nothing about Wikipedia's own guidelines.

The consensus, as is shown above, was reached after long deliberations and after the other side was unable to produce counter-arguments or proper explanations. I have consistently asked new editors who wished to change the status quo to present their views but most have neglected to do so or have made comments which do not relate directly to the topic. The reason Kurdish was removed, for example, was not because there are anglophone Armenians editing on Wikipedia, but because 1) the Kurdish pronounciation is no different from the Armenian and 2) the Kurdish presence in Kars has always been virtually non-existent. A town like Van can be correctly be called today a Kurdish city and that is why the Kurdish spelling is included on that article. But please refrain from using such specious reasoning ("X is an X, therefore he naturally must be opposed to including mention of Y") and be more specific in your arguments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you want to include the Armenian name to get people asking "Wait, there were Armenians there? What happened to them?" And actually, that's not a bad idea. You've got me thinking actually that we might ought to include the Ladino name for Salonika for the same reason. (As well as possibly the Turkish name for the same, and the Greek names for Trabzon, Izmir, etc. But the Greek-Turkish issue is a kettle of worms I don't want to get into.)

Do you mind if I ask how you know so much about Kars? I met a Kurd from Kars, some time back, and I so assumed there's a significant Kurdish population there, which I'll admit is faulty logic. (I once met an Argentine from Wyoming, which doesn't mean there's a large South American population out there.) if you've spent time there or know someone who has, I'll take your word on it.

Regarding consensus, I'll say it again: consensus can change clearly, looking at the discussion before I came in, consensus has changed, and at least two of the editors you've been edit-warring with are willing to talk things out with you (Verman1, Noratron). If they continue to press the issue, I'd say that you don't have a consensus, and if you're not willing to reach a new consensus with them, then you should probably employ RfC. As things stand though, they don't seem interested in either discussing or reverting for the time being. I personally feel more strongly about the call for administrator intervention on one side (and less strongly about the appeal to consensus on the other) than I do to any edits to the article. --Quintucket (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well why else do people visit Wikipedia? Have you yourself not used this website to glean more information about something you've heard or seen on Wikipedia?

My knowledge of Kars is born from personal experience; I've visited there several times and I've read a book or two about it.

The discussion above cannot really be called consensus. The points brought forth by Verman (who was just recently permabanned) and Noratron were not new and were not really convincing anyone. In fact, their arguments mirrored those of a previous editor from the 2008 discussion, who was at pains to bring forth actual examples to support his edits. Consenus can change, but a little effort does, after all, have to be put in to it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at this page: Urmia. Names aren't problem for article. -- Esc2003 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the Urmia article. Instead of reverting me, why don't you make an effort to justify your edits here on the talk page? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Urmia is a very good example for this. Armenian name will remain for historical reasons. Kurdish and Azerbaijani names will remain for the residents of the city. This is very important for culture of city. I think should be added Georgian name. Russian and Greek names not need add to title. Esc2003 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate and, if possible, please refer to my and others' objections above for the further inclusion of names.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Courland (Latvian: Kurzeme; Livonian: Kurāmō; German and Swedish: Kurland; Latin: Curonia / [Couronia] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help); Lithuanian: Kuršas; Estonian: Kuramaa; Polish: Kurlandia; Russian: Курляндия; Belarusian: Курляндыя; Finnish: Kuurinmaa) is one of the historical and cultural regions of Latvia. The regions of Semigallia and Selonia are sometimes considered as part of Courland.

What is this?? Esc2003 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about other articles, we're talking about Kars; putting aside the Wikipedia policy of OTHER STUFF, bring forth specific examples. Like we've stated above, the presence of a single people, even currently, is not enough grounds for inclusion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is fortunately not an official policy, since other stuff often does imply a precedent. I've noticed that generally, most articles of multi-ethnic European cities tend to have multiple name. The exceptions tend to be places with historical or ongoing ethnic conflicts which have been thoroughly resolved in favor of one party. Most Turkish cities don't have their historic Greek names, Greek cities don't have their historic Turkish and Albanian names. Likewise Ganja, Azerbaijan, does not have its historical Armenian name, even though it really ought to.

In Sukhumi and Mosul, where one side of the conflict has the diplomatic advantage and one the military, multiple names are used. As they are in cities which draw more general interest, as in northern Europe, and ethnic nationalisms are thus overwhelmed by indifferent, culturefree Anglophones. (And by the way, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of nationalism; as you're a prolific editor, I've previously observed some of your contributions to Turkey related articles and know that you are generally both objective and very constructive. I have unfortunately observed plenty of users who are however not, and often tend to get banned pretty quickly...)

And again, while I support inclusion of a name if it has a historically large minority, I don't support exclusion on nationalistic grounds. If there isn't a historic Kurdish or Azeri population though, then I can see not including them, unless they're a substantial linguistic minority today. And by the way, I'm looking over some of my ethnic maps, and it looks like historically there is a large Kurdish population around the south and east of Kars. So even if the city itself didn't have a large population (and I believe you, particularly given that the Armenians tended to live in cities and the Kurds in the countryside), if they lived around the area, and it was thus an important center for them (which seems likely), then the Kurdish name should probably be included, especially if they live there now.

You're absolutely right about the Azeris not being present in that area until recently, though I would say that if they make up a substantial minority now (say arbitrarily 25%) they should be counted. Of course Miami does not include the Spanish pronunciation, though I think it really ought to, so here, the other stuff works in your favor. --Quintucket (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Armenian name in the Ganja, Azerbaijan actually is located below in the article in the section titled "Historic Armenian Community," which is fine. But again, I'm not opposed to adding a name if someone can just demonstrate a close affinity with an ethnic group and the city in question. The article on Silvan, Turkey is one good example on how multiple names can be seamlessly integrated into the lead section of an article. In the case of the Kurds, since they lived in the countryside, perhaps a case can be made to include them in the Kars Province article, but something more tangible has to be demonstrated than mere residence. The Armenians until recently formed a majority in Tbilisi (Tiflis) and were dominant in its political and economic spheres (to say nothing about all the mansions and cultural institutions they established) but no one is scrambling to that article to include its Armenian name, nor should they be. The same applies to Baku. Each article is treated differently and I think Kars should as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish language

I don't get why a Kurdish language should be added if their is no information about Kurdish people in the article at all. It doesn't show a significance for it being up there. --Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree --Tacci2023 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the city itself, but here is a significant population of Kurds in the countryside surrounding Kars, according to every map of the Middle East I've got on my hard drive. (I've got a bunch of them; I don't know where I got them, though I'll try to find them online, though I assume they're not freely licensed.) Azeri, on the other hand definitely does not belong, for reasons discussed on the section above, namely that it's not part of Azerbaijan and the Azeris have no historical connection to the city. We don't include the Spanish name for New York just because the Dominicans are the plurality in Manhattan. --Quintucket (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I know currently the half of the population is Kurdish and the other half is Azeri. I propose to keep both the Kurdish and Azeri names of the city. --KHE'O (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. "Azeri" Turks are the largest ethnic group in Kars (at about 30%, I've been told)- but they are not "Azerbaijanis": "Azeri" in this context does not mean nationality. Meowy 03:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cities include names that are of importance for example Kars, it is located in Turkey so the Turkish language is included of course, and it has historical importance to Armenians, so the Armenian version is added. Cities that have population of certain ethnic groups doesn't really mean you add the name in their languages or we would have a mess on articles with so many names. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, the Kurds do seem to have a historical connection to the city, based on old language maps, which the Azeris do not. —Quintucket (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the Azerbaijan language it doesn't belong here. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Kars has a historical connection with Azeris and a significant part of the population of Kars is of Azeri descent (Turkish citizens). That the Azeris and Kurds never ruled the city or established states there, does not change this fact. Both ethnic groups constitute significant minorities with a historical presence and this cannot be brushed aside, as is the intention of some users. And both of these ethnic groups are not recent arrivals as some users falsely claim, but have settled there after the Turks conquered Anatolia after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century in that part and the demographic makeup began to change. The intention of some users is due to ethnocentrism. Every era, civilization and detail of its history and the past and current ethnic makeup of Kars has to be included without exceptions. There can be no objections to that. Saguamundi (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not enough information supporting what you say, especially since there is no information in the Kars article about what you say. Until there is reliable sources confirming that, it shouldn't be up there. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely the only reason for there to be different names in an article is if the names are actually different. The "Ghars" Armenian name is different from "Kars" in sound. No "Azeri" or "Kurdish" names exist - they are just Kars spelt in the Azeri or Kurdish alphabets (both of which are actually illegal in Turkey if used in public documents). I can see a case for having the name in the Russian alphabet, given there are many Russian items which have the town's name (everything from postmarks to warships to paintings). You will not find anything in the Kars of today or in the Kars of the past that has the name "Kars" rendered in an Azeri or Kurdish alphabet. An article is there to be useful to readers, not to pander to, and be blindly inclusive of, every minority that thinks it has some vested interest. Meowy 03:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Ahmet Bican Ercilâsun, Kars ili ağızları: Ses Bilgisi, 1983,

Aynca Kars merkezinde ve merkeze bağlı bazı köylerde çok sayıda Azeri oturmaktadır (Furthermore, very large number of Azeris are living in the center of Kars (city), and some villages which belong to the central district (of Kars). Takabeg (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As to Kurdish population in Kars, you can read

Rohat Alkom, Çokkültürlülük ışığında Kars Kürtleri (Kurds in Kars in the light of multiculturalism), Avesta, 2009.

Takabeg (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The above by Takabeg seems completely off-topic. The text quoted refers to ethnic Azeri Turks - they have nothing to do with modern Azeris from Azerbaijan and the modern Azerbaijani alphabet, so it has nothing to do with inserting the name of Kars written in the modern Azeri alphabet. 194.83.69.142 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Kars < Chorzene Böri (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Azeri presence in Kars

Initially the decision not to include the Azeri name was the same as the reason not to include the Kurdish name: that the alphabets were not in official use in Turkey, though a quick look at later discussions shows that third-party users rightfully questioned the priority of the Armenian spelling over the others (by the same logic). Now that the Kurdish name has made it back into the article, it remains unclear why the Azeri one has not. I was quite surprised to see that the decision not to include it was based solely on the fact that User:MarshallBagramyan decided to go out on a limb and assert repeatedly that the Azeri population appeared in Kars after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and that no one bothered to inquire from him where this amazingly inaccurate conclusion stems from.

Canadian historian Alireza Asgharzadeh writes in his 2007 article "Azerbaijan and the Challenge of Multiple Identities": The history of the Azeri population in today’s Turkey can be traced back to the earlier periods of the Safavid era in Iran (1501-1722), when their rule extended over the current Turkish regions of Kars and neighboring areas..

A 1897 ethnic map of Europe labels Kars as Azeri-speaking:

For those who are interested I can provide more sources on the historical Azeri presence in Kars. I think these will do for now. Parishan (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not particularly germane, but those you claim that the Azeri spelling is not official: I have news for you. The spelling Qars is mentioned by Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary as alternative for this city's name: [9]. Parishan (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to reiterate my points again. Myself and as others voiced our objections and we based them not merely on the fact that an Azerbaijani identity did not come into being until the end of the first quarter of the 20th century. You can't just wait a couple years and come back and try sneakily to insert this information on this article and the Lingua Franca article. That kind of behavior is enough to tempt one to finally refer this matter to the administrators enforcing the Arm-Az. ArbCom 2's sanctions.

You were challenged to provide the sources and the only ones you were able to furnish hardly support the conclusions you have spent several years agitating to include. Even Asgharzadeh is only referring to the Safavids' brief conquests of Kars; nothing in that sentence attests to an actual community. Azerbaijanis did not form a sizable community in Kars until after the break up of the Soviet Union and adding their alphabet is as absurd as adding Armenian to the cities of Glendale and Fresno for their much older communities of Armenians. The connection to the city has to be a little more tangential.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been "furnishing sources" for which that you have not been able to furnish counter-arguments, and even those "couple of years", as it turns out, have not led you to come up with anything even remotely plausible to contest them. I do not consider your comment on Asgharzadeh's work an argument (I find it bizarre coming from an experienced editor, in fact). Your reference to the use of the term 'Azeri' is just as bad; the use of alternative terminology does not undo the fact of the bearer's existence (otherwise we would have to remove all pre-1870 references to Germans and pre-1882 references to Italians). Asgharzadeh never made links between a "brief conquest" and historical presence, at least because historical ethnic presence in no way presupposes administrative governance. As an active editor of articles related to Armenians you should have probably realised that by now. Au contraire, Asgharzadeh's insistence on the fact that the Azeri population of Eastern Turkey can trace its roots back to the Middle Ages is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

I am yet to hear a comment with regard to the map I have posted from any of the users who "have voiced their objections", including yourself, which reveals the POV nature of those objections. Unless you want to prove to me that the authors of a nineteenth-century map that mentions Azeris had had a premonition with regard to something that came into being "at the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century".

Finally, if Azeris appeared in Kars in 1991 and had not formed "a sizable community" there, how come Turkish-based journalist Alan Cowell of The New York Times mentioned in his January 26, 1990 article that "about 400,000 Azeri Turks live in a belt of land on the Turkish side of the Soviet border"? Oh, and while we are at it, I would like you to provide some sources on the post-1991 Azeri immigration in Kars, because personally this is the first time I hear this. To my knowledge, Kars has never been a popular destination for Azeris migrating to Turkey, but you look like you have some serious reasons to believe so. I am all ears. Parishan (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To User:EtienneDolet: a consensus is an agreement of all parties to the discussion on a certain point. There was no consensus here, I simply backed away from the discussion dominated by a hardline POV-pusher and disruptive editor with a history of topic bans, sockpuppetry and AE violation, who soon afterwards ended up getting himself permanently banned for being a disservice to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I do not remember you participating in any of the above discussions, nor leaving a comment here following your only edit (which happens to be a revert) in this article, so a reference to the talk page coming from yourself is, at the very least, unusual. Parishan (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and? Since when do we use a map as the sole reference to support a tenuous claim? And in this Kars isn't even clearly labeled on the map. The same applies to quoting a journalist who is not an expert on the region. Where did that fantastic number come from when the total Muslim (Turk, Kurd, and Azeri) population in the Kars province was, according to the last Imperial Russian survey, was about 150,000? I have visited Kars before and at teahouses spoken regularly the people in the town. The majority whom I've spoken to have been Turks and Kurds and some Azerbaijanis I've met who were from Ganja and Baku. I'm still not satisfied with the sources. The least you could do is ask for mediation instead of strong-arming your way into this article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Details of your personal trip to Kars cannot qualify as counter arguments at least because I find it quite strange that you managed to miss the 139 Azeri villages that Turkish linguist Sevan Nişanyan has identified and mapped in Eastern Anatolia in his 2007 work, and for some of them even provided dates of founding going to as early as 1813. Still not convinced?

I am not using the 1897 map as a sole reference (it simply goes to show that the existence of Azeris and their presence in Kars was known to Europeans way before the date you have been insisting on here, based on a very dubious personal conviction), it is one of at least three references I have provided, that you have difficulties commenting on. The journalist is unlikely wrong: as of 2010, the population of the border regions Kars, Igdir, Agri and Ardahan was well over one million people (the Kars Oblast included only 2/3 of the Kars il as it looked in 1990, and certainly did not include the other border regions mentioned by Cowell), and about half of them being of Azeri origin does not seem inaccurate. In any event, I suggest you refer back to Nişanyan (and I assure you that there is more where that came from; listing sources one by one makes it easier to elicit reaction from you, because you have a bad history of ignoring sources when they are presented to you en masse, just like you did now with Asgharzadeh).

I am ready to request mediation, but in order to see the need for that, I would like to at least hear some arguments, especially with regard to Asgharzadeh and Nişanyan (for now). So far I have not heard anything but POV that has dashed against the very few sources mentioned here. Comments such as "no Azeris until 1991", "no Azeri identity", "brief conquest", "teahouses", and zero academic references to back them up – given such an impressive background, do you really consider yourself to be in the position to say you are not satisfied with the sources? Parishan (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said it did. In any case, none of the sources you have adduced thus far do much in the way of bolstering your arguments. Sevan Nişanyan, as you said, is a linguist and not a historian and we're going to need someone immensely more authoritative that him. Please refer to 1#Proposals_for_ending_the_naming_disputes_of_Kars_through_an_arbritation_by_neutral_third_opinions_of_administrators. Section 10 of this talk page and especially read Wikipedia's guidelines to foreign names and especially the line "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name." "Qars" is just a different iteration of the Armenian name and the fact that a community exists there does not justify its inclusion in the lead.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sevan Nişanyan does not need to be a historian; he studies speech communities and is perfectly qualified to assess their age in the given area. I have already provided you with historical data on the matter. Besides, Section 10 says nothing about the priority to be given to the historical component, and since even the Merriam-Webster Dictionary mentions 'Qars' as an alternative spelling for 'Kars', what more do you require as proof?

I have every reason to believe in POV-pushing on your part; the Kurdish name, for example, was added without anyone having to prove the fact of historical Kurdish presence in the area; it has been two days, and yet you have remained strangely silent. However, it took you less than an hour to appear and revert my addition of the Azeri name, only to proceed to making obscure excuses on the talk page just so not to add it back. In fact, speaking of consensus, most of the users uninvolved in the AA2 topics who had left comments here supported the inclusion of the Azeri name: among them Kheo77, Takabeg and at some point even Quintucket before you misled him into believing that there were no Azeris in Kars prior to 1991 and which he did not take time to double-check.

Meanwhile: an analysis of the dialect of Göle and its surroundings by Turkish folklorist Bekir Karadeniz, where he affirms that the Azeri form Qars is a typical realisation of the toponym Kars in the given region. Parishan (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can accuse me of anything you like but I'm simply going to reiterate what I said six years ago - when you first brought up this issue you up - the sources are adducing are shoddy and not convincing. Even if a certain community has lived in this city for a certain amount of time, it doesn't mean we now have to add their alphabet to the lead. We have sources referring to the historical presence of Armenian communities all across the globe and yet you don't see me or others flocking to the Moscow, Glendale, Venice or Amsterdam articles to add the Armenian spelling of those cities, do you? At the very least, I asked you to demonstrate references by some peer-reviewed scholars to show some tangible contribution to the city and you took umbrage and balked at the matter and left it at that.

The fact that "Qars" is given as an alternate spelling in the dictionary is not indicative of anything; prior to the 20th century, the spelling of many towns and cities in the Middle East was not standardized, which is why we've stopped writing Koords for Kurds and Sassoon for Sasun. I wouldn't be surprised if "Qars" propped up in some books from the 19th century since the letters "Q" and "K" can sometimes be confused as phonetic substitutes. "Qars" is not a different name than "Kars," just a different but near-identical way of spelling and pronouncing a name.

And I most certainly did not mislead anyone; everyone here is a responsible editor and are capable of making their own decisions. Takabeg did not quite take a position in the matter (his was a little ambiguous). Quintucket wrote: "We don't include the Spanish name for New York just because the Dominicans are the plurality in Manhattan"; and Nocturnal wrote: "Cities that have population of certain ethnic groups doesn't really mean you add the name in their languages or we would have a mess on articles with so many names"; Meowy expressed his opposition as did I and so has Etienne D. now. It is disturbing that you want to discount the objections made by other editors and persist in foisting your point of view on the article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan, you know very well that both Asgharzadeh and Nişanyan are peer-reviewed and frequently cited scholars. Your WP:IDONTHEARYOU approach is too obvious in this case.

The Azeri role in the history of Kars has been much more significant than that of Armenians in Moscow or Amsterdam: from the onset of Azeri migration there in the Middle Ages to the fact that Azerbaijan laid claims on Kars at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and that Kars and Nakhchivan constituted a common political unit around the same time. I am sorry but your constant references to "what you said years ago" do not address the issues that I am raising here right now, and this becomes evident with you flipping your position with every response. First you insisted that there were no Azeris in the region before 1991, then you claimed you did not see any when you travelled there, and now you agree that the community is as sizeable as the Hispanic community of New York, but are clinging to a ridiculous claim that a community ought to make some undefined amount of contribution to be considered worthy of having its exonym included here. The Azeri identity in Turkey is closely associated and goes hand in hand with Kars regional identity, and even the official web-site of the Kars regional administration mentions that the local dialect is essentially a form of Azeri.

Quintucket said: "Unlike the Azeri and Kurdish names I'm not certain that the Armenian name is necessary (...) I have no objection to including the Armenian name, however I very much don't think it is more important than the Azeri or Kurdish names", and only after your misleading comment he agreed with you in saying "If the Azerbaijani population in fact dates to only 1991, then I agree, the Azeri name does not belong". Before accusing my position of "being disturbing", may I remind you that I specifically mentioned users not actively involved in AA2, which excludes yourself, Atabəy, Meowy, Nocturnal781. As for Etienne D, his most valuable contribution to this discussion and to the whole article have been two isolated reverts, so I do not consider his opinion particularly pertinent, but his sudden appearance with a revert rather suspicious and potentially of interest to AE.

Voilà, two more sources on my part and none on yours. You do not seem to be building up strong argumentation in case we indeed agree to apply for mediation. Parishan (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been busy throughout the weekend, my apologies for the delay. In terms of some of the sources mentioned, as far as I can tell, Nişanyan's map doesn't mention Kars as an Azeri village. He does not refer to anything related to an Azeri presence when it comes to Kars. The Kars government website is not a reliable source since it makes no reference to the presence of Armenians in the locality. In fact, it merely places Armenians under the context of pillagers, mass murderers, and genocidaires. Limiting the presence of an ancient Armenian capital while boosting the Turkic, Persian, and Azeri presence doesn't make help make it reliable in any way. I don't see Merriam-Webster specifying that the name Qars is an Azerbaijani rendition. Perhaps Asgharzadeh may be the closest source to be considered reliable but it seems to emphasize Azeri "rule" over "presence" making it unclear as to where this presence has reached. I believe we need a secondary source to help validate and also clarify this which I have yet to have found. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you were busy over the weekend, perhaps it would have been a better idea for you to suspend your urge to revert my edit until you actually had time to comment on it, as opposed to waiting for me to grow suspicious of your unproductive contribution to this article and then all of a sudden feeling the necessity to appear with a hastily written comment.

Nişanyan does not refer to Turkish, Kurdish, or Armenian presence either; but the fact of Azeris heavily populating the vicinities of Kars indicated by him does earn their language the right to be mentioned in this article along with the others, and certainly does not call for such vehement opposition on the part of Marshal Bagramyan and yourself, as if I am proposing to include a Serbo-Croatian name here.

Asgharzadeh does not focus on the rule; he clearly mentions the phrase "Azeri population in Turkey", and in fact that the whole article is dedicated to the Azeri ethnic group. He is a peer-reviewed scholar, and even if you need a second opinion, well, there are plenty: "Other Turkic languages are represented in Turkey as well, including (as of 1982) Azeri (530,000 in the Kars province)". Philipp Strazny. Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2004; p. 1131.

As biased as the Kars regional government website may be towards Armenians, it goes to show that the fact of the Azeris' presence in the region is not made up by me and is a widely known and cited fact. Parishan (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Asgharzadeh speaks of Azeri presence in Turkey but makes no note of Azeri presence spreading to Kars specifically. The Persian conquests of Kars were nothing more than brief acts of conquest aimed at securing the fortress of the city. There has been brief spells of rule, but nothing near an omnipotent Safavid governance. In this regard, I don't see the Strazny source as a valid secondary source either, since it does not chronicle a historical Azeri presence in the city. Its figures are rather modern; with the stats being as recent as 1982.

As for the criticisms you've brought forth in the first paragraph, I believe my edit was firmly in-line with WP:BRD.

At any rate, I do welcome the RfC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to believe that your edit is in-line with WP:BRD, but you are not entitled to show up on this article just to revert because Marshal Bagramyan is on the brink of getting himself into an edit war.

The fact that the history of the Azeri population is linked to the Safavid control of Kars means exactly that this history directly has to do with Kars. And it does not matter how brief the control was, because ethnic presence is not tied to the length of the state's control over a territory. Please do not resort to punctiliousness, that is quite counter-productive on your part, especially given the fact that in the next few sentences Asgharzadeh does talk about continuous Azeri migration to Eastern Turkey.

And who said that it the presence needs to be historical, anyway? Where in the rules does it say that? Parishan (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan laid claims to the entire south Caucasus and northern Turkish Armenia (all the way to the Black Sea) during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Its territorial pretensions swallowed up the entire region and envisioned Armenia as a rump stated centered around Yerevan. However, this was based on fantastical territorial aggrandizement, with little to underpin its historical claims. They could have claimed an entire continent and it would have not made a least bit of difference.

I think you need to read more carefully. I never said I never met any when I visited there - I saw and spoke to many. And the Kars official website is not a reliable source. Nearly everything published by official Turkish government sources go to extreme lengths to marginalize the footprint of minority peoples who were never brought within the Turkish nationalist mold (Greeks and Armenians). That was certainly true when I visited Ani and the signs and placards there failed to make mention the words Armenia or Armenian for even a single time. And Quintucket's remark on the inappropriateness of including Armenian - the native name of the city itself - is, in my opinion, mistaken but duly noted. I believe most other editors would agree that the Armenian spelling is important. Kars was one of the most important cities of the Vanand province of Armenia and it was at one time the capital of a medieval Armenian kingdom and the site of a unique and splendid tenth-century Armenian church. It had a steady Armenian population until just about 100 years ago, when they were all driven out by the leaders of the same Turkish government which until today fails to acknowledge that any monument or city within its borders might be of non-Turkish origin. I've clearly delineated my objections and the same hodgepodge of sources you continue to quote ad nauseum fail to support your conclusions.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan, Azerbaijan's claims on Kars were not unsubstantiated, and in his work The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919 Richard Hovannisian describes in detail the cooperation between Baku and the Southwest Caucasus Regional Administration in 1918-1919 and the existence of a united council of Nakhchivan and Kars.

The rest of your response is irrelevant to the discussion, as I never contested the need to keep the Armenian name in the article. The fact that you assume that I propose to include the Azeri name at the expense of the Armenian one (which, unlike the Azeri one, is identical to the Turkish pronunciation) shows you may find it useful to read WP:GOODFAITH. This is not surprising, as you have not yet explained your extremely suspicious indifference to the inclusion of the Kurdish name in comparison with your strong opposition to the inclusion of the Azeri one, despite every given source mentioning its primary relevance to the area (your strategy of "delineated your objections" while deliberately ignoring the obvious failure of your entirely POV-based argumentation is an outdated trick, which I simply refuse to buy). Parishan (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, Azerbaijan and the SCRA were working toward similar ends, namely to hinder and stifle the Yerevan's government's attempts to assert its jurisdiction over Kars. And that is why in 1919 a joint Armeno-British task force surrounded the self-styled SCRA and disbanded it and the British arrested its leaders for causing all sorts of disturbances and shipped them off to Batum (also in Hovannisian).

Based on Wikipedia's naming conventions, I, along with some other editors, at one time supported the retention of only the Armenian name in the lead and leave out even more relevant names such as Russian or Greek. I never felt that we had to include the others, since they all fail to meet the 10% rule, and the same goes for Azerbaijani. But I'll reserve my comments for an RfC if one is a comment is, in fact, left.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter very much what happened to the SCRA in the end; what matters is that the link with Azerbaijan and the Azeris of Nakhchivan was quite obvious.

I remember you opposing the inclusion of non-Armenian names into the lead, though this does not explain your current crusade against the Azeri name and tolerance of the Kurdish name which you have not bothered to remove in the same manner or even comment on. If you indeed opposed them equally, what has made Azeri stand out for you all of a sudden? Parishan (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that had little to do with ethnic solidarity with Azerbaijan. The SCRA was an artificial creation of the Ottoman state and army at the end of the 1918 war, when under the Treaty of Mudros they were compelled to withdraw from all the territories they had occupied. Rather than withdraw and give up their gains to either the Georgians or Armenians, the Ottomans opted for stalling tactics and installed a national council headed by Ottoman army commanders and Committee of Union and Progress members (See Hovannisian, Republic of Armenia, vol. 1, 201-02). That they acted in concert together so they could fend off the Armenians or Georgians is understandable but a completely irrelevant point you brought up and has nothing to with adding an alphabet. If this is the best justification you can offer for an alphabet, I suggest you continue searching for better sources.

I wasn't entirely happy to see those accretions without consensus on the talk page but I decided against rocking the boat. I can see the basis of adding Russian, Greek, and perhaps Ottoman Turkish (certainly more than Azeri) but are we going to add the alphabet of every ethnic people who at one time took up residence in this city? In that regard, I defer to Wikipedia's naming convention and you should start paying closer attention to the rules delineated therein.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to get into the history of the SCRA, because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules, which you keep referring to, stipulate that a foreign name to be added is "one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". I think I have provided sufficient proof that Azeris have not only historically populated this place, but constitute a great percentage of its current population. Parishan (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You brought it up - I'm merely highlighting the inappropriateness of the example you cited as it pertains to the conversation. As regards the rules delineated in the naming convention, certainly the names given by certain people who once or currently might be inhabiting a town or region can be added in the lead; many articles of the towns and villages in Turkey contain their original Armenian or Greek names up in the lead. But that leads back to my original question and that was are we going add the alphabet of every ethnic people who at one time took up residence in this city? Someone just added the Russian alphabet and I'm not sure if I think it's necessary. Should we add Russian and Mandarin to the San Francisco article? Spanish for Brooklyn? Armenian for Fresno? Armenian for Alfortville? Armenian for Bucharest and Lvov (the history of those communities in particularl go back nearly 800 years) Turkish for Berlin? I mean, where do we draw the line?

Nationalism, as we understand it in its modern meaning, came relatively late to the Muslims of the Caucasus and I think it is inappropriate to retroactively re-brand every Muslim (or Turco-Tatar) who lived at that time as an Azeri and say they spoke the Azerbaijani dialect of the Turkic language. Perhaps some of them did but perhaps some of them may resent that and dispute that that modern label in the same sense Kurds resented being called by the Turkish government Mountain Turks after the Republic of Turkey was established. In any case, some of the above examples have a much stronger case for adding those names, but to do so I think would strike some as a bad joke of irredentism or nationalist chest-beating. In order to add a name, something more tangible would have to be proffered to demonstrate that ethno-cultural link. I regret to say that you have done a visibly poor job in proving that link, the above links and sources notwithstanding.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Only because you say so. What makes my point different is that I have sources that put the word "Azeri" into the "Kars" context at all times since the Safavid era. So far you do not have anything in favour of your argument, except speculations. You cannot prove that Azeris who lived there did not speak Azeri (when the linguistic map of 1897 above clearly shows that they did and even mentions it under the same name). You cannot prove that the identity of the Azeris living there is anything but Azeri. You cannot even cite clear criteria that should prevent one from adding the Azeri name into the article (you can try adding the Mandarin name in San Francisco, for all I care; since when is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid argument?). You really have nothing to operate with, Marshal. Parishan (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's almost like walking in a circle when engaging in this form of a conversation. The burden of proof lies with you, not me, and so far the paltry evidence you've introduced (and had the opportunity to introduce for six years) is pretty embarrassing. My objections stand. That is all.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, Marshal, you have no objections. You never outlined clearly the criticism of what exactly you disagree with (except practicing your synonyms for the words like "paltry" and "embarrassing" each time). References to historical presence do not convince you because "Russians and Greeks have also lived there historically". References to current large numbers do convince you because "Hispanics in New York are just as numerous". As a matter of fact, both your statements are cases of WP:OTHER, yet you continue to insist on them. May I ask then what exactly you require? I am not even getting into your ridiculously OR statements about Azeri identity and language classification. Consumed by your goal not to let Azeri being mentioned here at any cost, you have never even clarified what sort of information a source needs to contain in order to seem convincing to you. This (coupled with your lack of objects against Kurdish) leads me to believe in your counter-productivity and POV, as such comfortably vague feedback enables you to endlessly discard whatever is being cited here as a source and make the discussion drag forever. Parishan (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please scroll up to the top of the page and begin reading from there. Thank you! :) --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not expect a more detailed answer. Parishan (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

To end this argument, we could just place all names under the "Etymology" section. There is a large Azeri population indeed (like my grandma) but my grandpa is Georgian so i can widen this argument to every single minority (like Tats, Karapapaks, Terekemes, Chveneburis etc.) in Kars should be represented by their provision of "Kars" in their language which is unneeded at the moment. KazekageTR (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

An etymology section would have been more appropriate if there was something unique about each name. Erzurum is once such article where a place name has a varied and complex history that requires much clarification and explaining, having undergone numerous changes over the centuries. To the best of my understanding, each new inhabitant and conqueror of Kars simply took to adopting its existing name. Like you said, we can expand the lead to accommodate the spelling of each and every former and current inhabitant of Kars but that would be stretching Wikipedia's own naming policy (found here).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Azeri name for Kars be included in the lead?

In light of the discussion above, should the Azeri name for Kars be included in the lead? Parishan (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• As WP:PLACE says;

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons.

Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. KazekageTR (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The lead should summarise the article even when it comes to alternative names. I am not seeing much indication a Azer in the body, so not much justification to include it in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a whole section in the article discussing the attitudes of the local Azerbaijani minority towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Parishan (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there evidence that can be presented to indicate that part of the population in Kars uses, or once used, this name? Is it an actual different name at all - or has it exactly the same pronounciation as the regular official spelling but is just rendered in a different alphabet? Does that make a difference? Does the phrase "foreign language names" in the WP:place guidelines refer only to differently sounding names, or to the same name rendered into every alphabet used by the various populations of a place? And I ask the same for the Kurdish name, whose insertion seems to have started this problem. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Qars" is indeed pronounced differently from the official name, since voiceless velar stop is alien to Azeri. Above I have posted a link to an article by Bekir Karadeniz (in Turkish), who mentions the Azeri pronunciation "Qars" as the typical rendition of this toponym by the locals. Parishan (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at that source as suggested - but it is not talking about inhabitants of Kars, or what the inhabitants of Kars call the city. It is talking about people living in Gole, which isn't even in Kars region, and how the dialect of some of the inhabitants there varies from regular Turkish pronounciation and grammar. It's author is just using the different pronounciation of the placename "Kars" as an example to show that variance - he is not writing about how Kars is pronounced in Kars. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion here is centered around the inclusion of a language, since some users doubted Azeri was spoken in the area at all. Göle was part of the Kars Province until 1993. Parishan (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

However that article is not about how ALL ethnic Azeris pronounce Kars, but about how part of the population of a specific place (Oltu) who are identified as being Azeri, pronounce words starting with a "K". But if you are successful in getting sources and an Azeri spelling of Kars is added to this article are you aware that it could open a very large can of worms? I came here because I saw this RfC on the geography RfC page, and I was visiting that page becasuse I had been reverting an editor who had been adding Kurdish versions of the names of administrative and geographical regions in Turkey. I felt that was not justified because these names are modern and given by a central authority, and they are not traditional place names. The same editor had been adding Kurdish versions / Kurdish spellings to articles about places in Turkey. I was less certain about removing them and your arguments made here could be reused by Kurdish flag-wavers to add Kurdish "versions" of place names to thousands of articles about Turkey, and initiate thousands more arguments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "opening a large can of worms"? In light of you saying "if you are successful in getting sources and an Azeri spelling of Kars, are you aware that it could open a very large can of worms", do I understand it correctly that regardless of how academically substantiated the proof is, you will never consider it acceptable to add the Azeri or Kurdish name in the article? Parishan (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My two cents. Russian census at the turn of the 20th century provided the most reliable historical population statistics. According to Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, the ethnic composition of the population of Kars region was as follows:

Русские составляют 7% населения, греки 13½%, курды 15%, армяне 21½%, турки 24%, карапапахи (адербейд. тат.) 14%, туркмены 5%. Православных 14%, сектантов 5%, армяно-грегориан 21%, остальных христианских исповеданий ¾%, магометан 53% (суннитов 46% и шиитов 7%), последователей секты али-аллахи — 5%, езидов — 1¼%.

Russians 7%, Greeks 13½%, Kurds 15%, Armenians 21½%, Turks 24%, Karapapakhs (Azerbaijani Tatars (i.e. Azerbaijanis) 14%, Turkmens 5%. Orthodox 14%, sectarians 5%, Armeno-Gregorian 21%, other Christians ¾%, Muslims 53% (Sunni 46% and Shia 7%), Ali-Allahi sectarians — 5%, Yezidi — 1¼%. [10]

Karapapaks are a sub-ethnic group of Azerbaijanis. So if we include the name in Armenian, which was spoken by 21% of population, and Kurdish, which was spoken by 15% of the population, then why Azerbaijanis, who were 14% are excluded? They also had a historical presence in Kars, and live there now, even though no reliable statistics of the present Azerbaijani population are available. The inclusion of Azerbaijani is justified by the criterion of being a language "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Grandmaster 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We include the Armenian because Armenian is the native name of the city, not because Armenians formed little over a fifth of the population a century ago. There is greater justification to add Russian, Greek (a number of medieval Greek sources mention Kars, including Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio), (not entirely sure about the validity of Kurdish), but I think we risk clogging the lead with over half a dozen names of a city whose pronunciation and meaning are virtually indistinguishable. That was a decision editors came upon a few years ago. The only other alphabet I can envision adding (retaining) is the Ottoman (قارص), since it greatly influenced and altered the original pronunciation to such a degree so that even Armenians began pronouncing "Կ" as "Ղ" (as in "Ghars"). The rest of the alphabets seem to me just slightly different (and then Russian and Greek would lay the stress on the "r"). The merits this is being argued is no different than arguing for the inclusion of a a city name in Europe or the United States by an immigrant community whose spelling and pronunciation might not really be much different than the original.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A mention by some mediaeval sources does not justify inclusion more than historical and current ethnic presence. In fact, of all the communities you have mentioned, the Azeris and the Kurds are the only ones who have been continuously represented in the city for centuries and to this day. There has not been any Russian, Armenian or Greek population there for almost a century. So if anything, the names in Azeri and Kurdish should be the first ones to be included. Parishan (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that's not a very gracious way of interpreting history, now is it? After the Kemalist invasion and annexation of Kars, I think the Christians were well aware that their rights were not going to be respected in the new Turkey - hence the exodus and hence the reason why no Christians currently reside in Kars. Massacres and genocide typically have that kind of effect on people. Of course, many peoples confiscated, were given, and settled into the abandoned homes and property of the former residents after they were cleansed but to use as the basis of your argument - I don't think I've ever heard a more amusing argument. And for the record we have a few references to Greeks and Assyrians settling in this town and its neighboring villages in the Byzantine period and who's to say their descendants weren't living there when the Russian Empire dissolved, but that's besides the point.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not very gracious, but why they no longer live in the city is not pertinent to the discussion. The fact of the matter is that Azeris did live there centuries ago and still do nowadays, which makes the community at least as notable as the Greek or Kurdish ones for its name to be displayed in the lead. Parishan (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The 14% figure is for the Kars Oblast and not the city of Kars. I've already added the results of the 1897 Russian census to Kars#Demographics section. At that time, Tatars (Azeris) made up only 2.3% of the city's population. If two percent is significant, then so are the 5% Polish and 26% Russians populations. And unlike Azeri, Kurdish and other languages, Armenian has been spoken in Kars for at least a millennium and not decades. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the source presented by Grandmaster and the recently added demographic information to this article by Yerevantsi, it may be a suitable compromise to add the Azeri name to the Kars Oblast article rather than the Kars article since none of the sources refer to significant Azeri presence in the city of Kars itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasianet.org: "Aktas, an ethnic Azeri like roughly 20 percent of Kars' population, insists the monument is "an Armenian statue" representing Armenia reaching out to embrace eastern Turkish lands that had a large Armenian minority until 1915." To forestall any arising questions, I suggest reading the article first: it talks only about the city of Kars. Parishan (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing as to who lives in the city of Kars today. I am disputing as to whether Azerbaijanis used to the live in the city itself. This is only because we need to have the article in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. All sources that have been presented thus far show that Azerbaijanis may have lived throughout the province but not necessarily the city. Given that the Kars Oblast page displays the same demographic stats that Grandmaster aforementioned, I still believe that adding an Azeri name to that article can create a suitable compromise for us all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster's source shows exactly that Azeris did live in the city as of 1897, albeit in smaller numbers, but at least this presence has been historical (unlike that of Poles), continuous (unlike that of Greeks) and is still the case today (unlike that of Armenians). Parishan (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly wishing you came up with sources for these statements Parishan - you keep saying that their presence goes back centuries but I really wish you introduced a primary source that attests to that. The logic above is circuitous and stretches the imagination. The Greek presence in Kars predates the settlement of the Turkic peoples in the Caucasus in the eleventh century. The Greeks and Armenians were expelled (the presence of both was indeed uninterrupted until 1920); the Molokans and Poles arrived there in the nineteenth century and most left after 1920. Do we even have any sources which state when they moved there and what they considered themselves? surely not Azerbaijani, since the modern definition of nationalism for Muslims did not arrive and was not fleshed out until the late 19th/early 20th centuries; people at that time were wont to identify themselves by their tribes and families before considering themselves to be a part of an entire, trans-border "nation". Even most Muslims in the Ottoman Empire didn't consider themselves to be "Turks" until the time around World War I (rather Osmanli). AIRcorn made a good point above in saying that their presence should be apparent in the history section (provided the reliable sources) and one would come to expect references to or the presence of a historical mosque or fountain or some literary connection to an ethnic people. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did come up with a peer-reviewed secondary source (Asgharzadeh) which is in fact more desirable than a primary source in such cases, according to Wikipedia rules. The only reason why you are requesting a completely unnecessary primary source, Marshal, is because it works well into your long-standing template argumentation which you have been pushing in almost every AA-related discussion for the past six years. It lets you speculate with the unpopularity of the term 'Azeri' prior to the twentieth century and use this to 'prove' that nothing Azeri in fact existed before the early Soviet era and therefore shall not be mentioned in any pre-1920 context. This argument is not valid: the assumption of a new ethnonym by the academia does not necessarily mark the birth of a new ethnic group. By that logic, we need to abandon any mentions of Germans in Bavaria before 1870, any mentions of Italians in Naples or Sicily before 1882, any mentions of Russians before Peter the Great, etc., since none of these peoples had a common ethnic identity coinciding with the said ethnonyms prior to those dates. The existence of a distinct language and ethnic group known as Azeri, whatever the term used by the contemporary academia (Azerbaijani Tatar, Karapapak, etc.), long before the establishment of the state of Azerbaijan was an attested fact, and I am not eager to let this discussion flow into that direction. This identity debate is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here, and I see no point for you in insisting on this argument any further. In any event, a nineteenth-century map I posted at the very beginning of this discussion indicating Azeri being spoken in Kars is well in line with your request. Parishan (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable request and I don't understand why you chafe at the thought of such a simple query as a primary source. Asgharzadeh really doesn't go into detail (at least not enough to support your assertions) and the map doesn't even label Kars (city or province) explicitly. You may think it unnecessary, but I think given the usual hullabaloo that flies around on Wikipedia, some of us can be forgiven for having such a lack of imagination and feel concerned for reliable sources that explicitly support the assertions being made. There is a limit to the examples you cite because they are true only to a certain degree: we don't call the people of the Roman Empire in Italy Italians or the people on the medieval British Isles Englishmen. They were at one time called Etruscans or Romans or Franks or Anglo-Saxons or Picts and their identities were developed during different periods. In some places, like Greece (Hellas) or Germany, the name persisted for over millennia and would be eventually adopted as the name of a nation-state. And this is Europe we are speaking about. We have to be more circumspect when applying such foreign concepts as the binding power of territory and language which were exported to regions that were alien to them. And this is nothing to feel so indignant about and to react so fiercely against.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not very reasonable, exactly because historical and modern definitions of 'ethnicity' vary quite noticeably in many regions (the relation between Azeris of the nineteenth and twentieth century are not parallel to your ridiculous comparison of ancient Romans and modern Italians; it is more like the difference between Monica Bellucci, an Italian, and Dante who did not consider himself or his language Italian, but is universally recognised so). A user long involved in such discussions such as yourself should perhaps understand by now that concepts of ethnic identity were a lot more fluid in the pre-twentieth century Muslim world than in Europe, but this is not at all contrary to the fact that well-formed traditionally Muslim ethnic groups existed in the region. In the case of Azeris vs. other primarily Muslim groups the distinction is made immediately with the appearance of Christian Europeans and European-style ethno-social division in the area, which is why there are primary sources (cited by myself and Grandmaster) that mention Azeris in the area in the nineteenth century. It is precisely to avoid confusion between mediaeval and modern understanding of 'ethnicity' that we must rely exclusively on secondary sources in this case, the task of which Asgharzadeh fulfils perfectly. Your claim of not being able to identify Kars on the map I do not buy: someone who proudly describes his travels to Kars and demonstrates near-expert knowledge of its history should be perfectly capable of accomplishing this task. Parishan (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

But what is the secondary source using as their base of support? Primary sources. If that is so for Asgharzadeh then we should not have any difficulty in identifying them. We editors can also do our due diligence and there's nothing in Wikipedia's rule that bar us from citing primary sources. Asgharzadeh, however, does not seem support to support what you are saying, which is why I asked. Anyways, let's see how the rest of this discussion proceeds and see if any other contributors would like to chime in.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How does the statement "The history of the Azeri population in today’s Turkey can be traced back to the earlier periods of the Safavid era in Iran, when their rule extended over the current Turkish regions of Kars" not support what I have said? For the primary sources, I am afraid I have to refer you back to WP:PS. This rule is especially relevant in cases like ethnic, linguistic and racial classification, which has been constantly changing for the past centuries. Parishan (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

EtienneDolet addressed that above. Unfortunately, Asgharzadeh's article does not go into greater detail on that statement.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should it? We are merely discussing the addition of a foreign name into the lead. We do not need a doctoral dissertation for that, as long as long-standing presence of an ethnic community is attested. Overall there have been enough sources cited here in order to demonstrate that Azeris and their language are no strangers to Kars, to put it softly. Parishan (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the OR claim that Ghars is Ottoman Turkish pronunciation. I find it funny how sourced information on Azeri and Kurdish (I guess you realized that your tolerance of Kurdish at the expense of Azeri was rendering your POV too obvious and rushed to remove it) gets removed instantly and without any serious reasons for that, while self-derived theories are added without even the need to discuss them. In Ottoman Turkish, the letter ق was pronounced as /k/. If there was ever any influence on the Armenian pronunciation of the town's name, its Azeri nature seems a lot more believable than Ottoman Turkish (Azeri loanwords starting with 'q' would be normally realized in Armenian through 'ղ': Ղարաբաղ, Ղազանչի, etc.). Do you have sources to back up your claim? Parishan (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia says Ghars is the Old Turkish (հին թուրքերեն) pronunciation of Kars and that it was adopted, unwittingly or wittingly, into the Armenian by Armenians. I hope you'll excuse me when I say I think I'll trust the opinion of three experts on history, archaeology, and art history over that of a Wikipedia editor's. You either ignored the source tacked on to the end or ignored it and are erroneously accusing me of original research. Also, please read my edit explanation, where I say let's hold off the other alphabets until things are settled here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it should be specified that Armenians borrowed it from Old Anatolian Turkish, which is not the same as Ottoman Turkish, as you claim. Parishan (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're arguing transliteration. ق is indeed very similar to the guttural "gh" and someone reading this would not be mistaken if they pronounced it Ghars. I don't know if I would call this Old Anatolian Turkish since the "Gh" sound was retained in its unrefined form until at least the early 20th century (my own Ottoman grandparents, no mean peasants mind you, would pronounce words as "khanum" rather than "hanum" and "Oghlu" instead of "O'lu"). I stand to be corrected if someone else has other information to share on this evolution, but I'll edit the lead to write "Old Turkish" before claiming lineage from Ottoman Turkish.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My guess is because the variety spoken in Turkish Armenia was rather a form of Azeri than Turkish, as believed by Trubetzkoy, and Armenian had a specific convention with regard to Azeri loanwords in 'q'. But this is not relevant to the discussion Parishan (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster's source relates to the Oblast, not the city. As for MarshallBagramyan's request of a source, I found this:

The large majority of Azeris living in the Kars province were transferred there following the 1918-1925 population exchanges with former Soviet Armenia.

[11] Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I cited a different source above (Eurasianet) which mentioned 20% of Azeris living in the city of Kars, not the province. "The large majority" does not mean everyone. Most Armenians living in Kars in 1897 also settled there by virtue of Russia's Christian-friendly immigration policies, in lieu of thousands of Muslims (with Azeris likely to be among them) fleeing to Turkey. Hovannisian writes:

In 1878 three-fourth of the inhabitants of the Kars oblast were Moslem, but in the following two years approximately seventy-five thousand of them sought refuge within the Ottoman Empire. Their abandoned lands were repopulated by Russian religious dissenters and Turkish Armenians who continued to filter across the border. An Armenian plurality was gradually established in the two southern okrugs ("counties") of the oblast.

In addition, the article on the town of Kars from the same Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron cites the following information:

Карс, областной город Карсской области: Население, плотность которого немногим превышает 15 ч. на 1 кв. в., состоит из русских (12½%), греков (14%), курдов (6½%), осетин (½%), армян (29%), айсоров (½%), турок (9½%), карапапахов (22½%), туркмен (3½%) и других народностей (1½%).
Kars, provincial centre of the Kars Oblast: The population of which the density is barely higher than 15 people per 1 sq. km. consists of Russians (12.5%), Greeks (14%), Kurds (6.5%), Ossetians (0.5%), Armenians (29%), Assyrians (0.5%), Turks (9.5%), Karapapaks (22.5%), Turkmen (3.5%) and others (1.5%).

Parishan (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, take a look at the results of the 1897 Russian census. It is the most accurate data we can possibly have. According to that census, Azeris made up 2% of the city's population. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia doesn't not say that those numbers are for the city of Kars. You've taken it out of context. Those numbers are for the oblast. It clearly states that the density was 15 people per 1 sq. verst. Now look at the Population section of the Kars Oblast infobox. According to the 1897 census, it was 17.6 inhab. / verst², which is pretty close. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers are not for the oblast, but for the county (okrug, that is, the town of Kars and its suburbs). You cannot state that the census is "the most accurate data" given the ever-changing ethnic image of the region due to continuous outflow of Muslims from and inflow of Armenians into the region (see Hovannisian above). Since we are talking about historical presence, all these sources need to be taken into consideration. Parishan (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So what they lived in the okrug? How does it relate to the city? Azeris still made up 2% of the city's population according to the 1897 census. The source says nothing about the city of Kars. What you're trying to do is called WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It does relate given that the county is listed in the same article as the city. In any event, even with 480 Azeris, the point of continuous historical presence is maintained. Obviously there were political factors that had led to Kars turning into a majority non-Muslim town (again, see Hovannisian above). In 1897, even the town's Turkish population constituted 3.8% of its population, which does not mean that the Turkish name should be considered irrelevant. Parishan (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two options. According to the data above, Armenians and Azerbaijanis were roughly equal in number at the time of the census. Logically, if we are to put the name used by one ethnic group in the article, we must also include the other, since their numbers and significance as a portion of the population were roughly equal.Rwenonah (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Armenians and Azerbaijanis were roughly equal in number at the time of the census" The data is for the okrug (equal to a county in the US) and not the city. Azeris made up only 2% of the city's population in 1897. See the Demographics section. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, there is no need to include the name. Rwenonah (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since then, for almost 100 years Azeris have formed at least 20% of the city's population, while Armenians have formed 0%. Furthermore, modern Kars did not receive much of the Armenian population (that had replaced the fleeing Muslim, among them Azeri, population) recorded by that census until the 1880s (see above). Parishan (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What is this "Old Turkish"? Does such a term actually exist? This rather dubuious phrase has been added, I think, as a result of some offhand comments made earlier in this thread. I would like to see an exact quote of the text being cited, and after that some sort of proof that the phrase exists as a proper linguistic term. Otherwise, the suspicion is that all the source is claiming is that the "gh" pronounciation arose during the time Kars was part of the Ottoman Empire or when it was one of the petty Turkish-ruled states that preceeded the Ottoman capture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the vol. in question with me, but it is from the Kars entry for vol. 5 of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia gives the Old Turkish (հին թուրքերեն) of Kars as "Ghars" (Ղարս). And indeed, I've heard many Armenians whose ancestors hail from there pronounce it as such. The full citation is Arakelyan, Babken; Vardanyan, Vrezh; Khalpakhchyan, Hovhannes (1979). "Կարս [Kars]". Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (in Armenian) 5. Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia. p. 342.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening comments

It will probably take me a few days to complete this review, but I intend to finish in a week's time. Just a few items that need to be taken care of in the meantime:

• Bare URLs are not acceptable sources as they are prone to link rot; please use full citations
• A section that consists of only 1-2 sentences is not generally an acceptable section. Either more information should be added to complete the subtopic, or it may not be noteworthy enough to include. Please address the following sections:
  • Government -- a topic worth having a section about; should be expanded; if no other info can be found, it might be placed under "Recent history"
  • Sports -- worth having if it can be expanded; it could be shaped into a section on "Culture"; if no other information can be added, the sentence is trivial enough to delete.
  • Education -- either expand or combine with "Government" or "Places of interest"

Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tea with toast, mate i am busy with tose college stuff at the moment so can we put this on hold for some time? kazekagetr 08:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm busy with school stuff myself. We can take this slow, no rush, no worries. --Tea with toast (話) 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the status here? I understand both sides are busy but no updates in over a month is nonetheless concerning. Wizardman 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tea with toast, KazekageTR, the issues originally raised have still not been addressed in the article after over a month and a half, the full review has not been completed, and there's been no response to Wizardman's query. Under the circumstances, it is probably best if the nomination is closed, and perhaps resubmitted after the article has been expanded per the above. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the writer has made a good number of edits since the notes above, so it looks like this is abandoned; as such I'm closing it. Wizardman 05:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Spelling

Armenian spelling is in the etymology section. Despite this, the editors are trying to bring it to the forefront. Armenian is not a language used in Turkey. There is no Armenian population living in kars. I did not remove the armenian spelling. Armenian spelling is be situated in etymology section. To do this is to use wikipedia for propaganda purposes.--ArslanYabgu (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't the necessary criteria for a name to be included. For example, the article on Gdansk includes the German spelling (Danzig) in the article's first line, although no Germans live there any longer. When a city is historically significant for a given ethnic group, even if it has since been ethnically cleansed from the city, it seems reasonable to keep that ethnic group's spelling in the first line, reflecting the city's historical nature and its cultural place in ethnicities that don't dominate it demographically. Also, there are probably some Armenians still living in Kars, and Armenian is absolutely a language spoken in Turkey today. Rwenonah (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. In fact, the Gdansk/Danzig example is covered in WP:OTHERNAMES. Dr. K. 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it is not really an "Armenian Spelling" - it is the alternative name Ghars rendered in the alphabet of the language of those who call it Ghars. I can see that the prominent position of the Armenian lettering in the lede might be argued as over-egging the point for effect, but this is an issue that needs careful and neutral discussion and should ideally be discussed in relation to ALL articles where place names are rendered in foreign alphabets. However, what I think is completely unjustified here is the deletion of the alternative name "Ghars". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)