Talk:Kars

(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)

Personal Artifacts

I was a little shocked to see a child's drawing on these pages. How is that allowed? With all due respect, it deos not belong to a general purpose article in a public space. How about a real map of the city, a real nice picture of the famed Kars Fort, and other real and useful information first?--Murat (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so shocking. A hand drawn picture from almost a century ago is quite interesting actually. The caption of the image doesn't claim to be anything that the image is not. You can add other images without removing this one. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As a newbie here I have already seen many bizzare stuff, but this is on top. Hard to believe this is even being discussed. Personal memorablia does not belong on these pages. How about the picture I drew when I was 5? My folks thought it was good. Can we get real?--Murat (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself again but you're not saying why it's bizzare or shocking. I told you why it's interesting and notable. It's drawn by someone from a community in Kars that doesn't exist anymore almost a hundred years ago.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this child's drawing has some historical and artistic importance and significance? There is absolutely nothing notable about it. There is not even a real map of Kars here, not even a decent picture of the "Kale". Here is a compromise: Place the drawing in the talk pages where granpa can be immortalized.--Murat (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a compromise - Murat quits his trawling through Wikipedia entries related to Turkey to remove any content connected to Armenians. Meowy 19:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does that make you? Do not worry, the wall of self-deception and fabrication is very thick, there is a whole industry behind it and an army of trolls behind it.--Murat (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above. Maybe you can add a real map of the city if really interested in improving it. There is more to Kars than its Armenian history. These pages are not personal depository.--Murat (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Names in other languages

Eupator

• Russian is relevant due to the city's being an important military venue during Russo-Turkish Wars. And let's not forget that it has not even been 100 years since Kars ceased to be part of Russia.
• Azeri is relevant due to the large historical presence of Azeris in Kars, even to this day. I don't see how this is irrelevant while the Kurdish spelling is relevant. Parishan (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Both languages have absolutely no value. With your rationale, every single city in the old world can have several lnaguages added in the lead. Karos was not the only city that was a venue of the war, hundreds of other cities were as well? Are you going to add a Russian name to all those articles as well? Or all the other cities that were briefly part of the Russian Empire? The Azeri community was not large or of any historical significance, are there even any non-migrant Azeris there today? For all intents and purposes it's a Kurdish city today inhabited mostly by Kurds within Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The period of Russian domination influenced the city politically and culturally (see Russian architecture in present-day Kars: [2] [3]), it was fairly recent, it was marked by heavy colonisation by the Russian settlers, and there are even several families of the Molokans who remain in Kars nowadays ([4], [5], [6]). As for Azeri, I think we've been over this, the Azeri community there largely consists of Turkish-born individuals tracing their roots to the Safavid or Russian Imperial period, and not of recent migrants, hence me referring to it as historical. Their history is very well covered in this source. I am not sure how well you know Turkish, but in case you do, here are some Turkish sources as well: [7], [8], [9]. Parishan (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but once again irrelevant. Russian influence is a billion times more apparent and strong on Baku for example, particularly when it comes to architecture. Why isn't there a Russian name? The English source doesn't really do much, Kars is mentioned once in the context that it was briefly under Safavid rule. So what? I'm afraid I can only count in Turkish.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Baku's being part of a Russian-speaking realm is more obvious than that of Kars. Just like there is no German name in the introduction for Ljubljana, but there is one in Maribor, despite both of them being located in Slovenia and both of them at some point being part of the Austrian Empire.

When you are checking sources for relevance, you don't just press Ctrl+F and see how many times you come across your query. You read the excerpt and assess the relevance in the context:

"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." Parishan (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so there is no place for the name "Kars" in any other language except were they have a direct and recent historical connection to the place and having the alternative name has some use within the article. And of course they are actually not "languages", it is all just "Kars" spelt using different alphabets. It is useful to have the Russian and Armenian versions just for their visual identification value, and also because of the historical Russian and Armenian connections to Kars. There is no useful purpose or validity in having it in the Kurdish (whatever that is), Greek, or Azeri alphabets and they should go. Meowy 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I were to use the existing Arabic-based alphabets for both Kurdish and Azeri, the names would, in your opinion, have the "visual identification value"? And how apt is it for someone who has no knowledge of what Kurdish is to participate in such a discussion? Parishan (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've spent years in Kars, so I know how the name is pronounced, and how it has been pronounced, (and whether it is a "Kurdish city" or not (it most certainly is not)). The pronounciation is a definite reason for retaining the Armenian alphabet spelling - historically it was pronounced like "Ghars", and still is amongst the older members of the town's population. Meowy 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're keeping them. Because neither the Kurdish pronunciation, nor the Azeri is "Kars". Parishan (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Kurdish and the Azeri are just "Kars", and have no relevance here anyway. If it will make things simpler, then maybe the Russian one should go as well. But the Armenian should stay because it reflects the "Ghars" pronounciation as well as the recent past history of Kars. Meowy 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, Parishan, Azeri? Do you want to perhaps add Russian to the San Fransisco and Alaska articles now? Just because the Iranian Safavids temporarily held the region doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to now add an irrelevant script that was invented only twenty years ago; the logic is so mindboggling that I'm surprised you're going to such extremes to justify this silly inclusion. The Russian spelling seems more relevant, the Greek is debatable, so we can discuss whether their inclusion is truly warranted.

On a different note, Murad's disruptive edit of removing the illustration of Kars, by justifying it as "memorabilia", is just another example of his vandalism so I duly re-added the image. A topic ban on all things related to Armenians seems to be in order here for him.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MarshallBagramyan. You wanna dispute it - you gotta do better than that. And it doesn't kill to read discussions before joining them. Parishan (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please go on and elaborate on the great contributions of the Azeri culture to Kars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. I have already mentioned and sourced the fact that Azeris form a substantial historical community in Kars. If Kurdish deserves to be there for the same reason, so does Azeri. On the contrary, if you want to dispute that, go ahead. Otherwise it just seems to me like another case of Azeri-phobia on Wikipedia. For the time being, the Azeri spelling is going back. Parishan (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

He, Murat, did give a legitimate reason for removing the image, and though I thought its presence added to the article I decided it wasn't worth arguing about. I think it would be better to leave Murat's less controversial edits alone (and not characterise them as vandalism) and concentrate instead on correcting his obviously POV ones. Meowy 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the caption for the drawing seems a bit wrong. North seems to be on the right of the page, the black hill is the citadel, so the Church of the Apostles will be the pointed building at the base of that hill, beside the stream. So the Kars river is actually at the top of the page, above and parallel to the street with writing on it. The "three red domed structures" are not "outdoor lavatories", they are bath houses. Of the three domed buildings within the rectagular section of the city, they are, going top to bottom, probably the Greek, Russian, and Armenian cathedrals. Would someone like to try and decipher and translate all the writing on the drawing. Meowy 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the material accompanied with the Armenian text and my notes. Beginning from the first line:

Panoramic view of Kars [written Ղարս], 1917, my sacred memories of the [the city]. [One line below, numbers corresponding to those on map] 1. Red bathhouses (կարմիր բաղնիքներ) 2. Our home 3. Angliski saud, Russian for English garden (Անգլիսկի սադ) 4. the Armenian church 5. Homes belonging to the wealthy (մեծահարուստների տուներ) 6. Pohyi Mahlen (մահլէն, Turkish for district), or Pohi District [the first word remains unclear for me] 7. Tezkharab [possibly Turkish? tez, quick; kharab, ruined] District 8. [unnamed] river 9. [unnamed] river 10. Aleksander Avenue [to the far right], etc. [On the map itself, orange colored road stretching from left to right below the main text] District of the Malakans. [To the far left] The road to Erzerum. [To the far right] Kars Fortress. [Bottom left] Railway station (կաեարան երկաթուղա) [Bottom left of page, with stretching arrow] Toward Alexandropol.

Hope this clarified things.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Meowy 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed all the so-called alternative names except for the two written in Armenian. As I had pointed out way back in May of last year, all of them, except the "Gh" Armenian version, are pronounced the same. They are not alternative names for Kars used by different languages or races - they are exactly the same name written using different alphabets! If someone wants to start an edit war over this removal, I will not oblige. I will take the issue to arbitration. Anyone who does think all those "alternative" names should return would do well to look at how such issues are covered in other entries. Meowy 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They are not pronounced the same. I do not know how many times I have to make this clear. If you are familiar with IPA, compare the Turkish /kars/ to the Kurdish /qærs/ and to the Azeri /ɡɑrs/ - the pronunciation differs in at least two segments. Your linguistic incompetence has been a disturbing factor in the alternative name-related discussions on Wiki (or rather, those that involved references to Azeri), and I really suggest that you look into the phonetics of each language, over which you get yourself involved into a discussion. You have not even been able to keep up with your argumentation. You have flipped your position from keeping only the 'fancy-script' names to keeping the ones that 'differ in pronunciation', when both of those arguments are false and based (at least superficially) on the limited amount of research you have done with regard to them. Parishan (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Londres" is not pronounced the same as "London" but that doesn't mean that the entry for London should have "Londres" as an alternative name. I had felt that the Russian version had a place for historical reasons, but since then it was pointed out that entries like Baku don't have it, so Kars also shouldn't have it (and of course the name is the same, but just spelt in Cyrillic"). Meowy 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So, if the script doesn't matter, and the population factor doesn't matter, what does? Explain how in light of this, the Armenian spelling is superior to others. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is history and diference in pronounciation that matters. Most of the history of Kars is fundamentally Armenian. Armenian "Ghars" is pronounced differently from "Kars". There is no place for the name spelt in Greek - the last Greek left Kars almost 90 years ago, there is no substantial Greek historical or cultural connection to Kars, and the community was only some 800 strong. What Kars is spelt like in modern Azeri is of no importance to this article - Kars is not and never has been part of Azerbaijan. And the "Kurdish" one is probably made up - quote me a single publication that uses it, a single map on which it appears. Meowy 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So now it is 'history' and 'difference in pronunciation'? I wonder what you will think of next. You do realise that by resorting to statements like "is probably made up" you just discredit yourself more and more? You are making it obvious that you are trying to narrow it down to the Armenian version only by whatever means possible. Well, you are on the wrong track. It does not take a wise man to use a search engine and come across that name: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I can go on. And once again, if the Kurdish name deserves to be their due to ethnic Kurdish presence in Kars, so does the Azeri name. And I really suggest that you stop looking for loop holes. There are none. Parishan (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, because there is a big French ethnic presence in London, and the name "Londres" appears in lots of French-language newspapers, the London Wikipedia article should have "Londres" as an alternative name? Would that happen? Of course not! I suggest you stop looking to make Kars into an exception amongst Wikipedia articles, because the exception won't happen. Meowy 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The French presence in London has never been significant in those terms. Historical records indicate that even the Norman French noblemen were assimilated into English culture, identity and language beyond second or third generation. The strong and consistent Azeri presence in Kars has been a phenomenon of several centures. The many Azeris living there today are aware of their roots and speak the Azeri language, and use the historically-relevant and different-in-pronunciation name Qars when they speak it. And I am yet to see you comment on the Kurdish name. Parishan (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The above statements can only be taken with a grain of salt. The Azerbaijani identity was only formed during the mid-late 20th century (the article you cited above mentions the confusion in choosing between Turkic or Iranic cultures) and it is highly unlikely that remnants of the Iranian Safavids, who only held the area very tenuously during the 17th century, would have been able to have maintained some sort of distinguishable identity for centuries on in. If they did, please point to some concrete examples instead of shamelessly skirting the issue. Once again, the evidence to support your statements have not been forthcoming because the entire notion is nonsense. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What can be taken with a grain of salt is a statement like "Azerbaijani identity was only formed during the mid-late 20th century." To be honest, I am truly surprised you didn't say "the 21st century." Luckily, it is 2008 now, so you have got more than enough room for such claims.

On a serious note, we are talking about a language here, not political concepts. Parishan (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Parishan, had you read the article, it would have become obvious to you, as to why the Armenian spelling belongs there. Your behavior over the years on adding modern Azeri letters to articles which subject covers a period prior to when the Azeri identity was formed has become gradually a stereotype of yours. Azeri have as much connection to Kars than the Turkmen, Karapapakhs etc., in fact even less as the formation of the Azeri identity is more modern than those later groups. VartanM (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I never contested or disagreed with the inclusion of the Armenian name into the article. Your years-long study of my 'tit-for-tat' mentality has failed you in that I do not go around removing references to languages that are associated with nations and states I do not appreciate. Unlike... well, you know. Parishan (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations and continuous incivilities are on the verge of being reported. In fact in this worthless discussion you have continuously engaged in incivility and baseless accusations. Your allegation to Marshal are simply not backed. The fact of the matter is that what you claim as justifying inclusion can hardly convince anyone beside you. There must be a reason beyond that, which is quite different than your assumption of bad faith. Your claim that you have not contested the inclusion of the Armenian name is laughable, a short read of the article justify by itself its inclusion. There was an Armenian presence in Baku much before the Azeri identity was formed, in fact much before there was Turko-Mongol migration there. Why should we not add the Armenian word for the place, after all it is much more justifiable than the modern Azeri term for Kars. Kars is a historically Armenian land, which fell to the Ottomans, then taken back as part of Russian Armenia, then incorporated into Turkey. Your repetitive, circular discussions, accusations and incivilities won't make me move an inch for something which is obviously an inappropriate edit of yours and can in no way be seen as anything else than POV pushing. We have asked you to stop this unacceptable behavior several time and we have documented this in AA2, and it seem you haven't changed at all. That's a shame, because you are the oldest member who is involved in this articles and should have learned this by now. VartanM (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Laugh it off if it makes you feel any better Parishan. Politics notwithstanding, the truth of the matter is that you can't substantiate its inclusion. By providing no concrete examples, you have just proved to us that this is a non-issue and it's about time we start concentrating on far more important things.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already proven to you that the historical ethnic Kurdish and Azeri presence in Kars is substantial enough for the inclusion of the respective names. I have not heard any counter-arguments from you. Tying the Azeri linguistic factor in Kars to nation-building in Azerbaijan is not an argument, and is not even worth commenting on. Meowy is another story; he has been ridiculously generating new criteria for language inclusion all thoroughout the discussion. (And removing Kurdish for the sake of getting rid of Azeri says a lot.) The point is, regardless of the names the academia used to refer to those languages, their historical verbal presence in Kars is non-debatable. Those names are as frequently used to refer to Kars by their speakers, as is the Armenian name. Parishan (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk all you want, but you can't hide the fact that "Azeri" and "Kurdish" names for Kars do not exist, and no inhabitant of Kars would write the name of their city using Azeri or Kurdish alphabets. There is only one name for Kars, and it is pronounced in two distinct ways: "Ghars" (probably the original Armenian way of pronouncing it) and the current official pronounciation "Kars". The "Kars" pronounciation in written form dates back at least two centuries - maybe it arose because of difficulty in rendering the "Gh" into either Turkish or Russian, I don't know for sure. Both "Kars" and "Ghars" appears in 19th century Armenian sources written in Armenian script. In Russian it seems to be only "Kars", and it is only "Kars" in modern Turkish script. However, until relatively recently a large part of the local population still pronounced it "Ghars". In the last decade or so that old way of pronouncing it has rapidly diminished thanks to education and mass media influences and it is now not often heard. Meowy 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Parishan adding Azeri names to articles where it doesn't belong? This seems oddly familiar. How many times I have seen this before? VartanM (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not as often as VartanM removing references to Azerbaijan, where no others belong. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your tit-for-tat mentality is highlighted in the above answer. It's really sad you look at it that way. I won't bother exposing why the removal of the Azeri term on the several articles, which you have added without justifiable reason, was more than justifiable. VartanM (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Meowy, before removing the reference to Georgian origin of the Kars name, please, find another non-Armenian source citing Armenian spelling (or Armenian meaning) of the word "Kars", to justify what appears to be original research without sources. Atabəy (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoever inserted the claim that Kars is Armenian name, please, provide a verifiable source with meaning in translation. Otherwise, please, remove the false claim, as the name originated from Georgian kari (gate) per reference. Atabəy (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the following source: Placenames of the world By Adrian Room The name is subject to etymological speculation and "kari" is but one of them, the other being the Armenian word for bride.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The source was verifiable. Or should it be "verifiable" by Atabəy? Sardur (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Atabəy, I did NOT "remove the reference to Georgian origin of the Kars name"! Someone needs to hammer out once and for all what the "alternative names" section of Wikipedia articles should be. I do not think they are there to give supposed or speculative explanations of the origin of the place-name - they are there to list place-names that are alternatives or historical names of the current or official place-name. If I am right, the text currently within the article is not valid. The current solution also leaves the article wide open to propaganda "explanations" of the name origin, such as the laughable Turkish propaganda that the name is derived from a Turkish tribe. Meowy 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no original meaning is provided in Armenian, I kept the Armenian spelling and Georgian spelling with addition that the word originates from Georgian "Kari" (the Gate) per reference. Atabəy (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the source that was provided. In it you will find the Armenian meaning of the word. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't you provide the Armenian meaning here, in discussion. Moreover, the reference which Marshall moved down says that the name originates from Georgian and provides the meaning. So why move it down? What's the basis for claiming that reference to Armenian transliteration without meaning is more important than reference to Georgian name with meaning? Perhaps, we could move the debate to Wikipedia fringe theories to investigate why Armenian transliteration, which indeed means nothing and is not original, is pushed so much against the original? Atabəy (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1) The source clearly states that the name Kars originates form the Armenian word for bride. 2) We can leave the other source that suggests an alternative etymology elsewhere but not in the lead since the city was Armenian, not Georgian. Any other questions?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're claiming that one unverified source says the word originated from Armenian "bride", while removing the other, verifiable and linked source, which claims that it comes from Georgian "kari" - "gate". Now are we to believe you OR the source? Atabəy (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, and why are you removing the source altogether? Atabəy (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of this. What do you mean "unverified source", the Google Books link is right above! Here: Placenames of the world By Adrian Room. Do you see it now? Would you like it served with some caviar perhaps?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, please, follow WP:NPA and WP:AGF and be polite in your discussions. Also, the fact that you're getting sick and tired of WP:POV pushing is not the issue of other editors, in this regards, please, follow WP:OWN as well. Furthermore, the fact that you presented an Armenian name for the origin (lacking support) is not a sufficient justification for inserting an Armenian spelling of the city that is not in Armenia, and is located on the border of Turkey with both Georgia and Armenia. I do not understand your deliberate attempt to disassociate the city with Georgia and why did you remove the reference? Atabəy (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle one aspect of this discussion. Based on the guidelines contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), theories about the etymological origin of a placename should not be placed in the listing of alternative names in an article's lead section. Meowy 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. Partly because it is wrongly inserted - an entire article cannot be POV-tagged when all that is being argued about is a single point. Also, given that my opinion in the above post has not been countered, it seems there is no justification for having the POV tag in the article. The article already contains details about both theories on the origin of the name "Kars", and the arguments were about where in the article those theories should be stated. However, those arguments are settled if the advice in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is accepted (i.e. they they cannot be inserted in the listing of alternative names). Meowy 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, since references say the name originates from Georgian "kari", there is no reason to keep only Armenian spelling in front - Georgian must be there also. If you want to remove it, fine remove Armenian as well. Atabəy (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is disruption no matter how you slice it Atabek. The Georgian name is mentioned in the Etymology section of the article and constantly adding it in the lead reeks of POV pushing. Continue with these disruptive edits and I will report you to the Incidents/AA2 page and they will know how best to deal with it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshall, there is no need to threaten people but rather to discuss and come to consensus. There is no logical reason for listing Georgian in etymology section while showing Armenian in transliteration. Why is one upheld over the other, when references to both origins are provided. Atabəy (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You already have been overruled by three other editors and this is now becoming another familiar case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. We have all come to agree with Meowy's compromise version; the rules he cites above are ones you apparently enjoy to ignor or prefer not to read. It preserves the Georgian text in the etymology section, since it's impossible to verify whether it comes from Armenian or Georgian. Even still, Kars has prominence for being a historically Armenian, not Georgian, city. This is the last warning.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (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. [15]

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 ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). 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[21], 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: [22]. 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 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. You 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 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)

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)

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)