Talk:Palace of the Shirvanshahs

message: We need to expand this article by adding more information and pictures to this article. Baku87 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those new pictures are awesome, great job! Baku87 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: Numerous debates apparently regarding whether Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. Shirvan has been shown to be speaking Turkic following Timurids and Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu. All three spoke Turkic. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. People can debate whether Shirvanshah's were Persians but historians have spoken. Can you (debate and close this issue please). 
HistoryofIran, you're disputing that this palace represents Azerbaijan's architecture and insist on callings it Shirvan's architecture in line 2. But when I prove that unesco recognizes it as Aserbaijan architecture, you suddenly move this comment down the page. I think this betrays pro-Persian motivation that doesn't belong here. Same insistence on Persian transliteration. Can you substantiate the claim that these are examples of Persian architecture? Amamedli (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is 0.0% evidence that the Shirvanshahs had been Turkified by the time this palace was built, before it, or after it. There are still Persian-speakers in what is historical Shirvan some 800 years after the initial Turkifications, e.g. the Tats. Also, nice try; of course its regarded as "Azerbaijans" architecture by UNESCO, as it is simply located within the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan. The same way tons of Greco-Roman material is considered "architecture of Turkey". If you want to prove something, then please back it up with sourcing. Otherwise it has absolutely no value here. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Congrats, those 'sources' are not reliable - you probably desperately found them in order to support your historically wrong opinion. Heck, one of them almost made my computer crash. If you look up above, you will see that there has been a discussion about this before, where I have listed several sources . These sources are actually from known/prominent academic scholars and encyclopedias. Don't revert again, no consensus has been made - it's against the rules. You should read them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read my sources :)? your opinion doesn't constitute consensus. not does your opinion establish realiability. I say again, list your sources to people can compare the two opinions. Until then Persian is a gonner. Amamedli (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did indeed read your sources, you should do it too - and while you're at it, go read a English dictionary so you learn what 'banter' means. I will lose this debate how exactly? Because a nationalistic user who supports historical revionism don't know the rules? He don't know what consensus means? He don't know what a reliable source is? Aha, I see - I will lose this debate indeed. Edit warring won't take you far at all, you'll see; unlike you I am actually patient. P.S saying that Bosworth is not reliable really says much about you ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: HistoryofIran. I am tempted to give you an English lecture but will refrain. You will lose because you are not understanding the argument I am making (this requires some thought), patient you may be but patience without thinking amounts to idleness (or worse). Look I get it, you're proud of your Iranian heritage, but you lost to the Russians fair and square, wikipedia is not a place for revanchism. These territories were Turkish speaking from centuries before 15th century. I don't understand why you resent this so much, why hate us so much...If it wasn't for Turkish(Azeri) dynasties and Azeri Qizilbash, Iran would have been much worse off today. why so much hatred?  Amamedli (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoken like a true Pan-nationalist; What has this to do with my origins? Why are you bringing the country of my parents up? Why are you suddenly bringing your own biased interpretation of history? English lectures? Oh, so you can teach me how to spell 'realiability' :)? Or it is reliability? hmm. Apparently I do not understand anything, yet who is the person that will get blocked in a few hours? You're all alone on this, which there is a pretty good reason for. And for gods sake stop acting like a child - accusing me of 'hatred' won't get you anywhere. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian language transliteration / Azerbaijan's architecture 

message: HistoryofIran
User:LouisAragon
User:Interfase
User:Grandmaster
User:MorbidEntree
User:TimBits
User:Hajji Piruz 
Point #1: Consistent Wikipedia convention to transliterate monument names into language presently spoken first, and originally spoken second (examples below). Etymological connection either to Azerbaijani or Persian has not been claimed/demonstrated on this talk page. Therefore considering that the cite is located in Azerbaijan and official language in the country is Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani transliteration should be listed first.
:::- Samarkand (Etymology, Present, Past)  
:::- Po-i-Kalyan (Present, Past, Etymology)
:::- Chichen Itza (present, past, etymology)
Point #2: Persian transliteration can be listed as a second language if it can be demonstrated as dominant language spoken in Shirvan at the time of construction in the 15th century. According to sources below, dominant language in Shirvan in 15th century was Turkish, not Persian. First two sources below demonstrate this broadly for entire territory of present-day Azerbaijan.  Third source demonstrates that Oghuz (Turkish Azeri) poems were recited at the court of Shirvanshahs.
:::Shirin Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union Kegan Paul International 1983.  “The territory of present day Azerbaijan… was predominantly Iranian speaking at this period (mid-seventh century) and the Arabs who settled here were gradually assimilated by the indigenous population. The next wave of immigrants, however, imposed themselves on the area to such an extent that they radically changed its character. There were Turkic tribes from Mongolia. They began to appear in the eastern regions of Azerbaidzhan as early as the seventh century but the main influx took place during the eleventh century with the Slejuk-Oghuz invasion. Under their influence the whole region became Turkish-speaking.
:::U.S. Library of Congress  “The Romans annexed the region of present-day Azerbaijan and called the area Albania. As Roman control weakened, the Sasanid Dynasty reestablished Persian control. Between the seventh and eleventh centuries, Arabs controlled Azerbaijan, bringing with them the precepts of Islam. In the mid-eleventh century, Turkic-speaking groups, including the Oghuz tribes and their Seljuk Turkish dynasty, ended Arab control by invading Azerbaijan from Central Asia and asserting political domination. The Seljuks brought with them the Turkish language and Turkish customs. By the thirteenth century, the basic characteristics of the Azerbaijani nation had been established.”
:::Turkish language literature and History, Bill Hickman and Gary Leiser "...ozan was the name given to the popular poet-musicians of the Oghuz." “…Eastern Oghuz, in other words ... area of the Azeri-speaking Turks... the word ozan was used in this area in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries...”. “The poet Hamidi (b1439-40), who was first attached to the court of Shirvan Shahs ... records at the beginning of a terci in his Turkish-Persian Divan that Hilali-I Semerkandi was bested by an ozanci in the council of the Shirvan Shah” p. 212, 213.
HistoryofIran has provided sources that confirm "Shirvanshahs were Persianized" as evidenced by their names changing from Arabic to Persian. However, this is not evidence of Persian language being spoken, which is yet to be demonstrated. As an example, Safavids in late 15th century, while Persianized were Oghuz Turkic-speaking. So were the Timurids 
Point #3: Persian transliteration can be listed if the name of the monument is etymologically linked to Persian, which would put it at par with Hagia Sophia (means "Holly Wisdom" in Greek). This has not been claimed or sourced--Amamedli (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: it has been about 3 weeks since this post. Considering there are no responses, I will go ahead and make the change. Any concerns, please react. thank you, Amamedli (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Opinions (transliteration)