From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The First Crusade 2 Certain members of Wikiproject Azeri are Raping the Iranian articles 3 Congratulations! 3.1 Standard naming scheme 3.2 Azerbaijani People

The First Crusade

Many people only know about the crusades dealing with islam. Almost no one knows that the first crusade was infact against Zoroastrianism. Should i create a new article for this or add it in some way to the crusades page?Iranian Patriot 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way is to add it to the crusades page. I am not sure how much info you have on the subject, but if it isn't that long the best way would be the main article. You are right, not many people have heard of this. Including me. Where did you learn about this? --(Aytakin) | Talk 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

will durant's books. he was a very educated historian.Iranian Patriot 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--(Aytakin) | Talk 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See, the reason i asked was because the Crusades page is about the muslim christian wars. putting in zoroastrianism there just doesnt make sense. i will look and see how much information i can get and then decide were to place the information.Iranian Patriot 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get a copy of another book that also talks about this first crusade. then hopefully i will have enough information to create a full article dedicated to this subject.Iranian Patriot 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too, but if we don't have much info it won't make sence to create a stub. Also I am looking into getting his book "Age of Reason". NONE of the book stores around me have it and the only one that has it is online and its out of stock. I'll try looking for it on amazon. --(Aytakin) | Talk 04:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gotten a hold of a 364 page book dedicated to that crusade. i dont think we will have a problem with information. once i finish reading it i will start the page.Iranian Patriot 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: which war exactly are you referring to? That between the Byzantines and the Persians in the 7th century? I'm sure that's already dealt with under some other page. And be aware that this war, or whichever else it is you're thinking of, is not commonly referred to as a crusade, let alone "The First Crusade" as a name, in English. The most it might warrant is a sentence that some author has described it as a kind of crusade or likened it to the Crusades. You need to distinguish between usage of proper names and descriptive common nouns here. "The Crusades", as a name, refers to the wars between the westerners and the Muslims, period. Just my 2c as an outsider. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, the wars between christianity and zoroastrianism have been called by some historians as holy wars, and they contend that heraclius actually did implement a crusade. what is certain is that khosrow II, shah of Persia, did call for a holy war against christianity, in which thousands of jews and non-christians also participated in, on the side of the zoroastrians. there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that the there was actually a crusade.

if there is already a section on it, can you show me the link so that i may expand on it? i dont think there is anything about it on wikipedia yet.Khosrow II 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See Sassanid Empire#Conflicts, Roman-Persian Wars, Heraclius, and Khosrau II. I think 'Roman-Persian Wars' is the best place (and there should be a redirect from Byzantine-Persian Wars or something similar. I strongly warn against using "Crusade" in an article title here, - it may be a characterisation employed by some author or other, but it's certainly not the name these wars are known under commonly in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To Iranian Patriot, you said you have a 364 page book. What's the name of the book? Thanks--(Aytakin) | Talk 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry, its actually 280 pages (i was estimating at that time). its The First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars by Geoffrey Regan. the book starts of talking about christianity and how it expanded and eventually became the main religion of rome. then it goes on to talk about the holy wars against zoroastrianism, and then goes on to talk about the byzantine wars against the islamic armies. but from the looks of it, it seems to have a good chapter or two dedicated to the zoroaster vs. christianity conflict.

Also, I would against like to stress that heraclius's war against persia from 622-628 was infact a crusade; the persians had captured jerusalem, and had taken the true cross and many other christian relics back to persia, and the byzantines did everything they could to take them back, including using religion to help fill their ranks, just as the other crusades against the muslims. Also, Fert.Perf, i want to thank you for the links. But there is nothing dedicated specifically to this subject, and i believe it deserves its own page. I will finish the book soon and then decide whether i have enough information to create a page, if not, then i will just add on to those links. also, i didnt realise that there was very few information on the "battles of the sassanid empire" page, i will definetly also be adding some battles to that too.Khosrow II 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make sure to read that book. thanks--(Aytakin) | Talk 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid the statement "...was in fact a crusade" doesn't make much sense - "The Crusades" is, first of all, a proper name that refers to just a fixed set of events; over and above that, it's a very loose concept that can mean everything and nothing and has no fixed meaning in historical scholarship, for all I know. If anything, it would denote a war that was sanctioned by the Pope through a certain formal indulgence. That, not the target Jerusalem, would have been the defining criterion. Which doesn't apply here. So I'd strongly recommend, yes, by all means, expand the articles that we already have about the Byzantine-Persian wars, and do mention that "these wars have been likened to the later Crusades by some authors" or something to that effect, but please don't use that term in the title or as the principal point of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the eastern orthodox church has as much ability to call for a crusade as does the pope. just because the term "crusades" refers to a fixed set of events does not mean that the word crusade cannot apply to other holy wars. infact, recovering jerusalem, which was the holiest place on earth at the time for christians, recovering the true cross, and defending the "christian empire" (the byzantines believed their empire to be a christian one ordained by God, and therefore, they had to do everything in their power to defeat the non-believers) all support the context that it was a crusade. also, the byzantine emperors used their religion and God to swell their ranks and boost morale. all of this fits with the events of the later crusades, and was infact the first crusade. infact, the byzantines even sacked the holiest zoroastrian city in their holy war, and destroyed all the temples where ever they went. thse wars have been over shadowed by the later crusades, but nevertheless, this was a crusade and needs to be recognised. the byzantines were about to be wiped out, their empire was crumbling, almost nothing was left of it, however, their crusade gave them the morale and will to rescue the dying empire for another 1000 years.Khosrow II 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You still need to distinguish between proper names and common nouns. Not every war that happens to have lasted 30 years is The Thirty-Years' War. Not every revolution that happened in France is The French Revolution. Not everything that could be or has been described as a "crusade" is The Crusades. You may think that the term "crusades" can be "apply to other holy wars". Fine. Some authors may think so. Fine. But fact is, the term isn't commonly applied this way. So, it doesn't make for more than a sentence or two in an overall article, which will deal with that war under whatever normal term it is commonly referred to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

your disputing the title? I thought you were trying to say that it wasnt a crusade. Im not saying that these wars should be called "The Crusades", im saying that these wars were crusades. we can call them what ever you want, that doesnt matter to me. infact, i was planning to call the article Perso-Byzantine Holy Wars or something. There is obviously some confusion here as to what each of us is talking about.

I thought that you were implying that the byzantine holy war was not a crusade but in reality you were tyring to say that we cannot have the title be called "the crusades". am i correct?Khosrow II 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was indeed implying that the statement these wars were crusades is not one that we can simply state as an NPOV statement. We can state that they have been called crusades, or better still: they have been likened to the Crusades (by such-and-such an author). As for the title, the best title is simply Byzantine-Persian Wars, which is exactly where it's now. Why not expand that? Creating a separate article, under whatever title, would constitute a POV fork anyway, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok well, i will finish reading the book, and then we can see what happens next. Khosrow II 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me know when you start, I might be interested in making some contributions too. Maybe I can dig out some material from the Byzantine perspective of things. Take care - Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

oh trust me, everything in western books will be of the byzantine perspective, just like the book i am reading now. its the typical western bias against anything not european, but oh well, i'll deal with it.Khosrow II 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Certain members of Wikiproject Azeri are Raping the Iranian articles

Here is an example; on the Safavid talk page that was made by Iranian Editors, the label of this group is missing, but the Wikiproject Azeri label has been placed instead as shown here [[1]]. In other articles they try and erase any trace of Azarbaijani links with Iran and try and push an agenda where Azaris are disciminated against in Iran. They will attack other editors if they say that Shah Ismail I is an Iranian. They say that Azarbaijanis want to seperate from Iran and so on. I have tried to take this in good faith, but they are now disrupting numerous Iranian articles. 69.196.164.190

Congratulations!

To ALL of you for creating the 1000th featured article for the English Wikipedia! The article Iranian peoples is written by many members of this notice board. Congratulations to all of you. And keep on the good job! Tajik 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Press releases: English Wikipedia Announces Thousandth Featured Article ---> Iranian peoples -Wikimedia

Yes congrats. I see users tombseye and khoikhoi have helped making the article into a FA but its still sad to see that only those two have gotten all the credit in the wikimedia news article. Once again congrats. --Spahbod 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani People

The article contains facts that are not fully explained, nor are they fully neutral. Before I start, I would just like to inform you that I am the only one ever using hte talk page, as Grandmaster and Tajik ignore the discussions, yet refuse to allow any changes.

Let me begin:

• The article makes a very general statement saying: there is no specific ethnic criteria as to what constitutes a Turk

Is that not general? How can insert such a broad and general claim into an encyclopaedia? If there isn't anything that constitutes a Turk than couldn't someone, by this statement, claim that everyone is a Turk or no one is a Turk? Now let me point out to you the section I created on the Talk page regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Problem_with_his_sentence

Notice how neither Grandmaster nor Tajik even bothered to comment on it. That section has been open for days, and both those users are watching the page. They have asserted complete control over the article by not participating in the discussions, yet reverting any changes that they don't like, even when they have had the ability to object. How is this fair? Its not. Now I would not make any edits before discussing the issues, but the problem is that they do not discuss any of the issues, they simply ignore them and use their influence to keep control.

• Now to the second point. The Turkic theory is a theory first brought up by pan-Turk historians not long ago. Almost no one outside the Turkish world acknowledges this theory, and historical facts, as well as DNA testing, have proven it wrong. Now a week ago, I started a section on the talk page discussing this issue. For days I waited and I got no response from them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Turkish_Theory

And if you notice, I said that if no one objected to my claims, then I would add into the article that the Turkic theory has been proven mostly to be wrong. After that, I waited one more day, and still got no reply so I assumed that no one objected and made the change. Then all of a sudden, Grandmaster reverts it and tells me that I should not make such edits. So then I put a message on his talk page: Hello Grandmaster. I would like to inform you that i started a discussion about the theory, which everyone ignored (For reasons i dont know), so after waiting a day or two, i wrote down that if no one objected, i would assume that people agreed with me, and again i waited one more day just to make sure. then after that, i took action. if you would like to discuss the issue with me, we can here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Turkish_Theory

Thanks.Khosrow II 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally after that he responded: You know the rules. Any edits to the article should be based on authoritative sources, and not personal interpretations. Grandmaster 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The irony is that later on in the very same article, it says that DNA testing has shown that Azari's are closer to Persians and other Iranic peoples than they are to Turks anywhere. Now please, tell, does this alone not prove the Turkic theory wrong? And he claims that I have POV issues, yet the article itself is contradictory, and that is what I was attempting to fix!

• Now I will get to the recent edits I made which resulted in me getting blocked for breaking the 3rr rule (which GM and Tajik requested of the admins). Again, as usual, before I made any changes, I created a section on the Talk page where we could discuss these issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people#The_Edits

Now let me tell you the changes I made, and you can tell me whether they are reasonable or not:

1. The article mentions that the Turks invaded the region from Turkmenistan. Turmenistan did not exist then, so I merely changed it to "from modern day Turkmenistan" (meaning the region of what is today Turkmenistan).
2. The article also states that the Turkic theory is based on the Azerbaijani language. Now, the Azerbaijani language was not always a Turkic dialect, so I again put "modern Azerbaijani language", because previous to that the Azerbaijani language was a Persian dialect.
3. The last change I made was inserting facts that disprove the Turkic theory into the article. For a theory, one must include evidence that both proves and disproves it am I correct? I also invited Grandmaster to insert anything that disproves the Caucasian theory or Iranian theory if he liked, since this is an academic source and the reader mush get as much information as we can give them.

Now please, tell me if I am a reasonable person or not. I created discussion sections, I waited for days, and then and only then, when no one objected, did I make any changes. I think it is unfair that people like Grandmaster and Tajik can have so much control over an article. Please talk to them, and tell them that they cannot do things like this, if you support what I'm saying here. I am looking forward to your response's.

I would again like to stress the fact that Grandmaster and Tajik did not participate in any of those discussions, never objected to anything when I waited for days for a response, and yet revert any changes immediatly, even after I waited for so long to discuss the issues before making any changes. I believe they are purposely not engaging, so that they can simply revert articles and use their influence, without ever having to face these issues, and keep the article the way they like it, not necessarily the way it should be.Khosrow II 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)