Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907

Neutrality of the sources

http://artsakhworld.com/ is not a neutral source, this website belongs to the Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the author works for one of Armenian news agencies. Grandmaster 11:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source? - FrancisTyers 12:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It presents the things only from one point of view, ignoring the facts that don’t fit it’s political agenda. Grandmaster 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be removed. - FrancisTyers 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we revert it to the last version by Squiddy [1], it was quite neutral, plus anonymous editor, who added info from http://artsakhworld.com/ removed one of the references, maybe it was not the best one, but still quite worth attention. Controversial topics like this should be covered using neutral sources, which don’t have a political agenda to push. Grandmaster 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, folks, let's trust the Azerbaijani sources that, as we all know, frequently insult Armenians. Great thinking! Grandmaster, if I find one POV thing on these websites, I will remove them. Hakob 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Khojaly massacre article doesn't have neutral sources either, but I don't see you (grandmaster) wanting to change that.--Moosh88 00:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I never included any Azeri sources here, neither any Armenian sources should be. In Khojaly article all the views are properly attributed, Azeri sources were not used, and HRW and Memorial are neutral sources, this article is completely different. I revert this to the last version by Squiddy. Grandmaster 12:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster, the source used in this article is POV Baku87 13:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

This has been removed pending a citation. - FrancisTyers 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

During 1903 and 1904 the authorities began arming Tatars and preparing anti-Armenian pogroms.

POV PICS

The pictures used in the article are both showing 1 side which is Armenian victims. This article would be more correct if it showed 1 armenian and 1 azerbaijani victime picture. Please correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.83.1.6 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Correct it yourself by finding such a picture (if one exists). BTW, the pictures in this entry are from (or are identical to those in) the book "Fire and Sword in the Caucasus" by Luigi Villari. Meowy 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

armenia patriot comment

Some thought that last edit should be discussed on talkpage. It was a quote singled out of the context. If we gonna put more information here, it should be made in proper form with diverse references. As for me, in the current form it is NPOV.--Dacy69 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The name

Folantin, there werent Azeris in 1907, so the name of "Armenian-Tartar massacres" should be returned. All the sources are calling it Armenian-Tartar, not Azeri, so if even they are "old-fashioned and confusing to English readers" (??), pls no OR this is historiography not an article on curent moda or estehics. If you hadnt reliable sources calling the events "Armenian-Azeri massacres" than the name is OR. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Suny and Ternon refer to "Azeris" or "Azerbaidjanis" when talking about this era. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In all the cases these events have their own name and no need to change it. If Suny (called by Grandmaster a partisan unreliable source, anyways) used the term of Armenian-Azeri massacres 1905-1907, then OK, if no, we should change it! PS- By the way, Azeri and Azerbaijani are not the same terms. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"In all the cases these events have their own name and no need to change it". I don't understand this sentence. I don't know who or what Grandmaster is, but Suny is a noted academic specialist in Transcaucasian history whose works certainly pass WP:RS. --Folantin (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any event or object has a name: Yerevan is a commonly recognized name, you cant change it to Erevan or any other name you like. Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Sumgait pogroms are recognized names for that events, you cant change it just cuz you dont like it. Grandmaster is a user (see above) who protests the using of Suny for example here March Days as Suny calls these events not March Days but Baku revolt. So if we re using Suny to give names for Armenian-Tartar (Azeri) clashes then lets also rename March Days. And here are many reliable sources calling these events "Armenian-Tartar":

• "Armenian/Tartar clashes" [2]
• "Armenian-Tartar clashes in Baku and Nagorno-Karabagh in 1905"[3]
• "Armenian-Tartar conflict" [4]
• "Armenian-Tartar butcheries" [5]
• "Armenian-Tartar antagonism" [6], etc etc.

It also called "Armenian-Tartar war" by Thomas de Waal [7]. Is Suny call them Armenian-Azeri clashes or he just uses the term of Azeris? Andranikpasha (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not sure I see the purpose of all this, which seems to be the result of some obscure edit war elsewhere. Hmm, Trotsky, Kautsky, some article about Gurdjieff (of all people)? I'm not overwhelmed. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and should be aimed at the convenience of anglophone readers - the fact is the "Tartars" are better known as Azeris. Rather than arguing over this article's title, I think more effort to should go into fixing the actual content. At the moment, it's hardly a shining gem (and when I first came across it, it used Stalin as a source!). --Folantin (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, pls stop doing OR here! I represented you man reliable sources (also from JSTOR, modern experts, prominent politicians of the time, etc) and never receive any sourced info but your own opinion. If you hadnt any quotes proving your unsourced and undiscussed redierct Im going to change the name according to represented sources. by the way, search at NYT archive for Azeris and Tartars in 1905 to be sure what you're doing is an fully OR!Andranikpasha (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources provided by Andranikpasha is:

The Caucasian Knot: The History and Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh. by Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabedian, Claude Mutafian. Author(s) of Review: Dennis R. Papazian

This is hardly a good source, it represents the Armenian position only. As for the title of this article, in the Russian empire all Turkic people were called Tatars, and usually they were distinguished by regional affiliation, for example, Azerbaijani Tatars. However the term Tatar would be very confusing for the modern reader, who would have difficulties with understanding which Tatar people are being discussed in the article. Therefore the current title makes a lot more sense than what is proposed by Andranikpasha. Grandmaster (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Any sources, or its your opinion? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Andranikpasha, do not redirect the page until consensus is reached. Once there's a consensus, you should file a request so that the admins could redirect the page. You cannot move the page without using move button. If the page does not move, there's a special procedure for that. Grandmaster (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thnx I know the rules well! Its Folantin who moved the article without discussions so I shall revert to its original name and then continue discussions! Also pls do not delete sourced info! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The name change of this article was a mistake. Tatar and Tartar were both used in English, so claiming that it is English Wikipedia to justify a name change is not a valid argument. It is still called Armenian-Tartar (or Tatar) clash, this is the name it was called and is still called by most. Azerbaijani is a modern identity while Tartar was a heterogeneous group of Turkic people including various Turkmen tribes. Changing the common historical name to another is revisionism and is called original research. VartanM (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See Britannica:

bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918. [8]

Grandmaster (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Grandmaster, you see they refer to Azeris in a common case, when they talk about a long period included 1918! But they're not use it as a name for these events, as just there werent Azeri name in 1905, see f.e. NYTimes archives. Noone denies the direct relation of Azeris to Tartars, we even added it to article and thats right. We just need true, reliable historiography with correct terms and namings. We need to use the commonly accepted name. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It says bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905, how come they do not cover the events of 1905? Do not make such arguments, you have already been warned by an admin for stonewalling the discussions. [9] Grandmaster (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking me by the same quote from my talk. Look on your talk and block history to not do it. I marked my view, and I think what you're saying is just a self-interpretation of the text (mark- this source is only one). I prefer a neutral view. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenian-Tatar War

From what I have see, the article is presently incorrect when it says "also known as the Armenian-Tatar War".

The source does not back this up, as it uses a lowercase "w" which changes its meaning from a proper noun to a run of the mill noun, which means the author is being misquoted:

Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, by Thomas De Waal (2003)

“ Yet prosperity depended on Russians' keeping order. In 1905, the town fell victim to the violence of the Amerenian-Tartar war. ”

Changing the w to a W is either intentionally misleading, or is extremely lax editing. I do not believe that the mistake can be made without being aware of the difference in meaning it conveys.

The only other two mentions I can find for that term are:

The Red Reign: The True Story of an Adventurous Year in Russia, by Kellogg Durland (1908)

“ Indeed the authorities themselves frequently circulated reports that an

Armenian-Tartar war would presently break out, ...

”

Men are Like that, by Leonard Ramsden Hartill (1928)

“ In the Armenian-Tartar war of 1905 the Armenians had much the better of the fighting.

Many of our men had served in the Russian

”

Again, both of those are using the word "war" as a way to describe the events, rather than a name of the events. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these events have a certain established name. It is up to the editors to choose the most appropriate one. Grandmaster (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

its interesting who changed Armenian-Tatar massacres to War? lets agree the name moving to Armenian-Azeri massacres and other "corrections" by Folantin were undiscussed (surely not "a 100% consensus") and seems to contain POV what I asked earlier. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I didnt bother to look who attributed "War" to de Waal, but since you suggested that I look, it turns out it was a group effort. I have rolled back your changes because they were not sourced, and I have tried to copyedit the article to simplify it.

Note that the title is NOT a "{{POV title}}". Whether the title is "Tartar" or "Azeri" is either a matter of preference, which is most common, or it could also be a matter of correctness (the two terms overlap yet it isnt clear exactly which set of peoples were involved in the conflict). All of those are valid reasons to discuss changing the title, but I have not yet seen any arguments related to the neutrality of the title, so the average reader does not need to be warned that the are possible falsehoods hidden within the title. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have just realised that one part of my recent edit summary [10] reduce "War" to "war" per talk is incorrect. I had planned on doing that, but ended up removing "Armenian-Tatar war" as well because the introduction was unnecessarily complicated by having it there. I didnt remove "Armenian-Tatar war" because it was wrong (I have mixed feelings about this) - I removed it because the introduction was too complicated. I have no objections to the term "Armenian-Tatar" going back into the introduction, but I cant quickly see where it can go without complicating things. We need to concentrate on exactly who was involved, which is why I cleaned up the introduction a little -- the second paragraph starts to answer that - saying that it was between Christians and Muslims. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to revise the name of events preferred by most academics? VartanM (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tatar or Tartar more official term even in modern works

Here is what Google books has to say about this.

Armenian-Tatar

• Armenian-Tatar War [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

• Armenian-Tatar hostilities [16]

• Armenian-Tatar disorders [17], [18]

• Armenian-Tatar Trife [19]

• Armenian-Tatar Conflict [20]

• Armenian-Tatar clashes [21]

• Armenian-Tatar massacres [22], [23], [24], [25],

Armenian-Tartar

Armenian-Tartar war [26], [27], [28]

Armenian-Tartar fights [29]

Armenian-Tartar butcheries [30]

Armenian-Tartar clashes [31], [32]

Armenian-Tartar massacres [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

Armenian-Tartar riots [40]

Armenian-Tartar battles [41]

Armenian-Tartar slaughter [42]

Conclusion

By far, far far, the terms Tatar and Tartar are used more than Azerbaijani, Azeri etc. in the large majority of modern work, and sole term in pre 1919 works. When merging and giving precedence to the most modern works, the word War is first, massacres is second. Normally this should settle the issue, but I doubt it will. VartanM (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, why do you insist that the term Azerbaijani cannot be used when refering to the events of 1905? It is done in the scholarly literature. I have already quoted you Britannica, here’s more:

Bloody ethnic clashes broke out between Azeris and Armenians, and by the end of 1905, two thirds of all oil wells in Baku were destroyed and the entire oil export business had collapsed.

Lutz Kleveman. The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia

This was eloquently expressed in their creation and direction of a cultural enlightenment movement that shaped the prewar decades. It was also demonstrated in their efforts to end the Armenian-Azerbaijani violence of 1905.

Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule

Even an Armenian source:

Armenian collaboration with Iranian and Caucasian Muslims in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution came less than two years after the violent clashes between the Armenians and Muslims in the Caucasus, sometimes referred to as the Armeno-Tatar wars or the Armeno-Azeri clashes.

Houri Berberian. Armenians and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1905-1911: The Love for Freedom Has No Fatherland

Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I doubt it will be settled when I am obviously right. I have provided 32 sources above which contains all major works on the topic including De Waal and you answer me with Britannica, the same author of the Columbia encyclopedia entry, also the one who cooked the term Northern and Southern Azerbaijan, which we all know is semantically inaccurate and has been discussed many times, particularly with Iranian members. Basically the claims come from the same single author.

Even an Armenian source, Armenians have no reason to not call them Azerbaijani as it won't make their claims on Artsakh any stronger, why don't you stick to providing sources than adding such insinuations? Also before using this Armenian author you should read the work, it says that Azerbaijan and the identity are recent creation. How does it support you?

Azerbaijani and Tartars are not the same thing, and you know it. Turkmen and other Turkic groups have had a major role in the building of the Azerbaijani identity, Tartars were referred to as a heterogeneous Turkic group, while Azerbaijani is referred to as a homogeneous ethnic group. They are different and even during the first years of the Soviet Union there was a confrontation in the Azerbaijani Academia during the homogenization.

The fact is that most sources either use Tatar or Tartar and here we are in no position to leave out the majority expression to call the event.

Also, you are putting words in my mouth again, I have not said Azerbaijani term should be entirely discarded in articles in the also called, because obviously some do use that term, what I said is that it can not be used as the official term when even in modern works use Tatar or Tartar and for a reason. Again, do we call Romans, Italians?

Lutz Kleveman work has been reviewed as a conspiracy work, if you find it very credible would you let me use some of his conspiracy theories in the article about Azerbaijan? VartanM (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Romans are not Italians, people called Azerbaijani Tatars by Russians are modern day Azerbaijanis. And it does not matter if a certain work is a conspiracy theory or whatever, our dispute is about the usage of the term, and you can see that it is widely used, I can quote a lot more sources if needed. I see no reason for not using the modern ethnonym, while other encyclopedias such as Britannica and Iranica use it. I don't really understand your persistence on the term Tatar, while it is very confusing for the modern reader and the term Azerbaijani is used by all major encyclopedias. Grandmaster (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My persistence? Mind you, you are the one wanting to suppress the majority position. I already told you that Britannica article highlights that it was only after 1919 that the people there were identified as such. Azeri and Azerbaijani Tartars are not the same thing, there were several Northern Tartar tribes living there, Turkmen and other Turkic groupes. The homogenous Azerbaijani identity was not yet formed. The Turkmens had as much heritage in the elite, and they are the ones who brought the self identification as Azeri, and suppressed other prominent Turkic tribes.

Brushing away history and dismissing the majority position can hardly be considered neutral, nor encyclopedic. Italians are not Romans, the Italians are those who became who they are now after several dynasties and homogenization of the people. What happened in Rome for several centuries happened in Azerbaijan in several decades. VartanM (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Whenever you use TaRtar it could be used in historical context, but Tatar proper today is strongly associated only with Volga Tatars. More, during the time of conflict Volga Tatar diaspora already existed in Baku, but no datas about their participation. So, I think Azerbaijani should be used, or (Trans-)Caucasian Tartars, being written inseparable.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if you think it is confusing name we can mark in the article that Tartars are the present day Azeris (its done). Anyways this ethnonym wasnt in use in 1905-1907 and the name of Tartar was commonly used both in English and Russian. Anyone (even a "confused" user) if he want to know more he/she should search for Tartars/Tatars not Azeris. Look at for example NYT archives for 1905-1907: there are many detailed materials on massacres, noone of them use the term of Azeri, which doesnt exist in that time (can you find even one material with this name)? Why not, Italians and Romans also have the same roots, does it mean we can cite any uncorrect late sources (or make a self-interpretation) and call Romans Italians? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should we go with what the sources of 1905 say? We live in the year 2007, let's follow the modern encyclopedias in selection of titles. And VartanM, your OR perception of the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people has no place in the article. Whatever was the name used to describe the Azerbaijani people, they were the same people then and now. Grandmaster (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source, Encarta encyclopedia:

The influx of Russians and Armenians resulted in a highly segregated city, and violent clashes erupted in 1905 between the city’s Azerbaijani and Armenian communities. [43] Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets not follow them? Lets follow what most scholars say? Modern? How many times should I say that MOST modern scholars call it Armenian-Tatar war, massacre etc. including Brenda Shaffer, De Waal etc. I also told you that the article written by Iranica can not support your thesis for the simple reason because it uses Azerbaijani, Persian scholars who have another theory on their ethnogenesis. And since when did Suny become credible for you? When he supports your arguments? You can not have it both ways, either he is credible or isn't credible at all.

My perception? Grandmaster why are you saying things which you know are not true? The Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Turkmen were originally Oghus Turks who arrived from what is today Turkmenistan. The Turkic people of Azerbaijan were pushed there by the Mongols incursions in Turkmenistan. The Gagauz or Khalaj and several Tartar groups were living there and were distinct ethnogenesis before the self identification and homogenization of the people as Azerbaijani. Ak Koyunlu or any other Turkic federations and movement following there were Turkmen in origin and had their distinct identity. It will be clearly misleading to exclude the Turkmen in the pre-1919 history when probably a significant number of the people there were still identifying themselves as Turkmen. Several other groups who were largely using Turkic as their first language like the Talysh were also qualified as Tartars.

Encarta article, are you kidding me? we know what would have happened to the half Armenian, had he used the correct term Tatar, Adil Baguirov, Javid Huseynov and the team would have bombarded Encarta with letters requesting his head, which was already what happened prior with the entry on the Armenian genocide[44].

Face it, modern or pre-1919, most sources call the people having lived there before 1919 as Tartars. You have not answered why we don't call Romans as Italians, Phrygians as Armenians and so on.VartanM (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I already explained you that Romans are not Italians, while people referred to as Azerbaijani Tatars in the past are the same people as Azerbaijanis. They spoke the same language, had the same traditions and religion, while Italians and Romans are different in many aspects. And we do not live in 1919, we live in 2007 and should use the modern terms. And you provided no evidence about influence of Adil or anyone else on the texts of the articles that I quoted. We should do the same as other encyclopedias do, i.e. use the modern terms. Grandmaster (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We actually use contemporary terms. Caesar went to Gaul, not France. As for so called "Azerbaijanis," identity is much more than religion and language. The ancestors of modern "Azeris" were a conglomerate of various Turkic speaking nomadic tribes with no unifying identity. The idea to label them "Azerbaijanis" was a pan-Turkic and later Soviet attempt for pure political reasons. If the Republic of Azerbaijan splits into several parts, within a few decades the people within each will be identified by their localities instead of the fictional ethnonym "Azerbaijani."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is just your original research, isn't it? We should use the same term as other modern encyclopedias do. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, enough with the OR. Inuits used to be officially referred to as Eskimos before the 1980s. The introduction of the term Inuit doesn't mean Eskimos perished and all of a sudden a whole new ethnic group emerged out of thin air. You know well that your Gaul example is irrelevant. Gaul's relation to France is like the Caucasian Albanians' relation to Azeris. There is no factual substance in any serious scientific research that what you claim about "Tatars not being Azeris" can be true. Germans did not feel like a unified ethnic group and society prior to 1870 identifying rather as Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, etc. Italians too were not considered politically or socially a single ethnic group until the unification of Italy in the late 1800s and tended to identify as the Genoese, Venetians, Sicilians, etc. However those who they were comprised of shared common origins, language, culture, values, religion, and heritage, which led others to perceive them then and today as single ethnic units, whose origins date way longer ago than the end of the 19th century. And we do not see people arguing that Dante wasn't Italian and Bach wasn't German, and they belonged to completely different ethnic groups that chose to mysteriously disappear at some point in the 19th century. Parishan (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats alot of OR Parishan, care to comment on the 32 sources I provided!!! You guys really have to come with the terms that Azerbaijan as a nation didn't exist before 1918. VartanM (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, Parishan. And VartanM, see all the major modern encyclopedias. Grandmaster (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Show 'em to me VartanM (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They are here and on talk of Shusha. Britannica, Encarta, Iranica. Grandmaster (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already addressed those. I'm not gonna repeat myself. VartanM (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, providing 32 sources where the word Tatar is mentioned doesn't mean "Tatars and Azeris are two different, in no way related ethnic groups." Parishan (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read them. VartanM (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got yourself confused. The sources were to prove the usage of the word Ta(r)tar, not to deny that they are the same people as Azeris. A nation is not the same as an ethnic group. It is a whole different notion. We cannot talk in terms of nations in this article, because the two parties were not associated with two different societies or states (see the Nation article for further explanation). An ethnic group, according to the respective Wiki-article, "is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry." You go ahead and prove that whomever Armenians had mutual massacres with in 1905–1907 did not share common geneology or ancestry with Azeris, because I can present sources that prove otherwise in a heartbit. Parishan (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are the confused one here. nation is not the same as an ethnic group Exactly, there were and still are many different ethinic groups in Azerbaijan. And its wrong and to throw them all in a same bag just to create a false sense of nationhood and history. Majority of academician call the event Armenian-Tatar and thats end of it VartanM (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source, the one VartanM quoted on other articles:

In the aftermath of the communal violence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in 1905, this aristocracy became a significant rallying force for Azerbaijani nationalism.

Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications

Grandmaster (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one I presented here

The so called Armenian-Tatar war - a terrible outbreak characterized by massacre, reprisal both in the city and country side, with local authorities apparently unable or unwilling to restore order.

A. Holly Shissler. Between Two Empires: Ahmet Agaoglu and the New Turkey

VartanM (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And another one.

Muslim worksers in the Baku region, for example, were sappareted from the more skilled Armenian workers, not only by wage differentials and class cultures, but also by their memoirs of the "Armenian-Tatar war" of 1915

Rex A. Wade. Revolutionary Russia: New Approaches

Do you need more? VartanM (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tatar was the name give by outsiders. Both Armenians and Azeris at that time called it Armenian-Muslim Clashes (Ermeni-Muselman Davasi). With Vartan's logic, we have to rename it to Armenian-Muslim Massacres... Both Muslim and Tatar are not clarifying who were these Moslems or Tatars. They were not all the Moslems around the world and they definately were not Kazan or Crimean Tatars. Who were they? Azeri or Azerbaijani are the two best terms to clarify this part of the history.--Aynabend (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No Vartan's logic is to call it what majority of academics call it. VartanM (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a different quote from Shissler:

In Baku and in other cities and villages of the Caucasus the Azerbaijani-Armenian violence escalated throughout the summer and fall of 1905.

And more:

The Russians then proceeded to instigate the Armeno-Azerbaijani* conflict, which lasted for two years (1905-1907).

James Stuart Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas Charles. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires

An Azerbaijani political organization that had sonic influence among the people was the group Difai (Defense), founded in Ganje in 1905 in the aftermath of the Azerbaijani-Armenian War.

Firouzeh Mostashari. On the Religious Frontier: Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus

I can provide tons of sources on Armenian – Azerbaijani. So as you can see this is what modern academics call it, including all major encyclopedias. Grandmaster (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can do the same. VartanM (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why should we use Tatar, if none of the modern encyclopedias uses that term? Grandmaster (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should we use the Azeri term when majority of academicians use Tatar? 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VartanM (talk • contribs)

We don't know that. That's your assumption. The claims of consensus need to be sourced, and you provided no source claiming that this is what majority call it. Why are you edit warring, moving the page without consensus? Grandmaster (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, the people called Tatars (or Azerbaijani Tatars actually with references back to late 19th century), are generally identified as Azeris, while Tatars are a different nation residing in central part of Russia, Republic of Tatarstan. So to avoid confusion in encyclopedic article, it's important to highlight that those massacres were part of Armenian-Azeri conflict. I doubt anyone would call this into question, and given the mutual nature of the atrocities, I don't understand why there is an argument about the title at all? Atabek (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please do not switch to personal attacks by calling me a "meatpuppet" and disclosing personal information, such as old user's name. You probably know what consequence it can lead to. Please assume a good faith and concentrate on the subject, not on personalities. The former can take us to the consensus and therefore, do nor revert without it. --Aynabend (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

When you act like a meatpuppet, you can't hide behind the good faith rule. We have to have a way to identify puppets if they disrupt articles. We are not saying you have bad intentions, so we are not assuming bad faith, just commenting on your behavior. And everyone knows you are user Ulvi I, it's no longer a personal information.

By the way, the Volga Tatar line of argument is irrelevant. The term "Tatar," just like the term "Indian," was applied to the nomadic remnants of Turkic-Mongol invasions that were related but had no unified identity. This included the Tatars of Caucasus. When we talk about the Indian wars in the US, noone confuses them with natives of South America. So, no confusion is possible here either.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May be yes, but many sources tend to use Native American instead of Indian. So, that time Caucasian Tatars werent the same with that time Azerbaijanis, but they are the same with modern Azerbaijanis and not the same with modern Tatars. Modern meaning of Tatar now is generally used for the Volga Tatars, for other groups any indications of their localisation should be used, like for the Crimean Tatars. But Armenian-Caucasian Tartar massacres sounds wrong.... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "comparisons" with Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups that had gone through centuries of identity consolidation. The break-up of Germany did not threaten German identity. The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity. This has been noted even by western analysts.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment, it is ridiculous that Grandmaster would claim that we don't know that the term Tatar is more used than Azeri for years prior to 1919. I am sure that he himself knows that the majority of academicians use Tatar. Why don't we call Phyrigians, Armenians? And the claim that Tatar was the term used by foreigners is ridiculous, Armenians is a term used by foreigners too, why don't we call Armenians as Hye's? I challenge Grandmaster to provide as much source as he can and I will be providing at least 5 sources for each he provides. I reiterate that Turkmens have as much rôle in the ethnogenis, in fact what the modern Azeris claim as their Azerbaijani literature prior to 1919 was as much Turkmen or other Turkic groupes. VartanM (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vartan has provided 32 different sources from Google books using the word Tatar/Tartar, all of which have yet to be addressed. This by itself shows consensus on what term academics have agreed to use while referring to these bloody events. It is what is most commonly used prior to 1918, before what is now referred as Azerbaijan popped up. Who knows how many different tribes of nomads had settled in today's Azerbaijan! If these third party academics used the term Tartar when writing about this event, then it is for a reason. Calling this article the "Armenian-Azeri [insert term]" or by any other name is OR or trying to push a minority POV. However, if sourced, this minority view can be left in the manner of "also known as the Armenian-Azerbaijani massacres". - Fedayee (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, you need to prove that there's a consensus on using the term Tatar when referring to these events. I refer you to the rules:

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Claims_of_consensus

So please show us a reliable source about the consensus, or stop making such a claim. The fact that all major encyclopedias use the term Azerbaijani shows that there's no consensus on using the term Tatar. And I provided a multitude of reliable sources (in addition to encyclopedias), using the terms Azeri/Azerbaijani, which also need to be addressed. Grandmaster (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the "Armenian-Azeri" is an obvious POV and minority-view (sometimes used to mark both 1905 and also the late events when the term of Azeri already existed): "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." (see WP:WEIGHT) Andranikpasha (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it is a minority view? Cite your sources that it is a minority view, please. I don't think all major encyclopedias can be considered a minority view. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, scholars explicitly say that before 1919 the Turkic population there were identified as Tartars, it is an explicit admission. Even the article you quoted from Britannica say that. And the principle that we use Wikipedia-wide is that when you refer to a place or a people you use the terms which they were called in the period covered. The event is called Armenian-Tatar... by all primary and the large majority of secondary sources. Encyclopedia's are thirtiary sources and they are supposed to use secondary sources, or else they will be conducting original research. No matter how some intellectuals who don't want to stir any conflict against the Azerbaijani intellectual bourgeoisie who tract articles in Encyclopedias (check the boog boon the entry in the famous Russian Encyclopedia about NK, it even involved the president of the republic). I don't see why this should influence the course here.

Suny was already overwhelmed with the stupid mass campaign by Turks and Azerbaijani intellectuals and even government representatives for his article in Encarta about the Armenians. Britannica is far from being a neutral and credible reference on the matter, as it is highly politicized in issues concerning the region. They give in to vocal campaign very easily, unlike National Georgaphic representatives. For instance while previously they had an Armenologist writing about the Armenian massacres after intense yapping and pressuring by Turkish authorities they hired Yapp known to hold the minority view about the issue to write the article.

So secondary and primary sources have much more impact here, and I don't see your problem, don't you admit that the Turkic tribes living there were called Tatars? And that the event is called Armenian-Tatar...? Don't you agree with that? VartanM (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Every source on this planet has some bias, but I don't think that modern western encyclopedias are controlled by the Azerbaijani government, so they have no reason to be prejudiced. Tatar is the term used by Russian and some western sources since the 19th century, but we live in the 21st century, and use of archaic term would be confusing for the modern reader. If you think that Armenians had a conflict with some unknown Tatars that have nothing to do with modern Azerbaijanis, we might as well remove any links to Azerbaijani people from the article and not link it to the history of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Otherwise we should use proper modern terms for clarity. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has an article about Tatars, so I think it is a legitimate term to use in academics to refer to Turkich nations that were bordering with Russia, especially if it was the form of reference to those people at that time. It will be historically correct. Steelmate (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you're turning this into sarcasm, you see, I never said that they were, but that some Encyclopedia's don't want to use polemical words and they have been known to back off against the same pressure groups in the past. Encarta is the best exemple, not to say also Britannica by even going as far as hiring Yapp, who had the aim to always criticize works written by Dadrian and those supporting his view, while always in a positive light the minority which support his views. Encyclopedia's are not supposed to be vehicle for scholars who support minority views to present their position as if it was hold by the majority, this is OR.

In this case, there is no doubt that most secondary and all primary sources call it Armenian-Tatar..., and I haven't seen you deny that, you are just disagreeing by claiming that it was an outdated word and that we need to clarify, but it is not up to us to decide if a word is outdated we only report what secondary sources report. In this case we could add a clarification in parenthesis so your only concern could easily be a non issue instead of rewriting history. VartanM (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't proven so far that there's a consensus among scholars on using the term "Tatar". Remember, you need to cite a source about that. And your haven't proven that encyclopedias use the term "Azerbaijani" yielding to political pressure. That's your assumption, which we cannot accept as fact. Grandmaster (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, do you really discussing the term of Tatar as preferable? The journalist de Waal, qualified by you as "Thomas de Waal is a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book about the history of NK conflict."[45] and again "a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book on the history of NK conflict."[46] prefers this word for these events. Pls do not use double standards to the same source. lets mind WP:SOAP. Thank you. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are misinterpreting the rules, I am still amazed how you always do it to favior yourself. I am not including in the article a claim of consensus which will require sources explicitally saying that it is a consensus, I am saying that the vast majority of sources call the event one way, rather than another, by providing links to the various sources to show the disproportion between those who calls it one way, rather than your way. You see, it does not require a source saying that the majority calls it this way rather than another in the talkpage to justify that the article should be called this way. VartanM (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You can say whatever you wish, but you need a source to prove that you are right. I can find plenty more sources supporting Azerbaijani, but I see no need for that since that's what all the modern encyclopedias use. Grandmaster (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being too cheeky by adding a little opinion at the end. There are so many books and articles published about this region and its history that I have found I need a quick way of distinguishing quality works from trash. One easy way is to skim through the work and note if the author uses "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" to describe ethnic groups prior to the 1920s - if he or she does, the work is trash-can worthy. Now, I guess none of the editors here will have written any books on this region, trash-can worthy or otherwise, and so their arguments are not being made to support their book's position over another. So, some thought should be given as to why one party wishes to use the word "Azerbaijani", and another wishes to use the word "Tartar". One party is correct, the other is not. The reason the incorrect party wishes its position to be succesful is to do with current politics. Examine the politics to discover the incorrect party. Meowy 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a very good observation, and I agree with that. According to de Waal, this name issue is used by some in Armenia to wipe out the history of Azerbaijani presence in the region. He describes how an Azerbaijani mosque was pulled down with a bulldozer in Yerevan in 1990 and then writes:

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.

Thomas De Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. New York: New York University Press, 2003. ISBN 0814719457

Grandmaster (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another claim by the so credible almighty De Waal, the journalist. Intriguing, but weren't those actually Persian and recognized as such by non Armenians too? Will he be accusing Armenians because the Turkic people living there did not have any homogeneous identity? Also, did De Waal even bother with this piece to make some sense. If Armenians are claiming them to be Persian (which they will not be making any mistake at all, Persian architecture has influenced the entire Ottoman Empire miles away from the current republic of Armenia), why would they erase a Persian Mosque? Also, De Waal is making an obvious mistake, those people were not referred to as Tartars, Turks, the Azerbaijani identity did not exist prior, those were referred as implies that they are the same people, which we know that they are not. The Turkic people living in Armenia were referred as Azerbaijani by the Soviet government to dump every Turkic people living there in the same bag to identity them. Those people speak a dialect still spoken in the vicinities of Kars, and they are Shiite. I thought they were identified beyond religion. Were they not? Are Armenians denying that Turkic people build Mosques? No they are not, what Armenians are saying is that Azerbaijani is a modern identity, and that its literary history is Turkmen in origin, and that the identity started in the 19th century in Persia, which is supported by Atabaki. Is he anti-Azerbaijani too? Past some political journalists, lobbyist works, those claims are substantiated by decades of scholarship. VartanM (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkic people living there did not have any homogeneous identity, etc. They did have it, and the population of Erivan at the time when the only surviving mosque was built was Turkic, not Persian. But de Waal correctly noted that the real purpose of this name issue is wiping out the history of Azerbaijani Turks. If those people did not exist before 1920, they cannot have any historical claims to anything, and therefore some circles in Armenia try to take an advantage of the fact that the ethnonym "Azerbaijani" is relatively new and the Turkic people who use it now previously preferred religious identification as Muslims, rather than any ethnic identification. But people don’t appear out of nowhere with the new ethnonym, it is very simple. And rejecting all the encyclopedias just because you don’t like what they say is not the way to go. Btw, the article about Azerbaijan in Britannica is written by Suny, some people had no problem quoting this scholar when he claimed that Azerbaijani identity was underdeveloped or whatever, what is your problem with this source now, when he uses the term Azerbaijani? Does he do that because Adil tells him so? And Atabaki also represents a certain political POV, we discussed him extensively in some other articles. Grandmaster (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are making the same mistake as De Waal, when someone says Persian Mosque he means a Persian Mosque, by its architecture and faith. The Mosque is Persian, any architect who specializes on Muslim Mosques will call the Mosque Persian, much like the two past Mosques in Erivan if one bases himself on the drawing of the Mosques.

Also, the Turkic people living in current Armenia were mostly Turkic people who were previously identified themselves with the Turks of Kars, it wasn't until the Soviet government decided to purge the Pan-Turanist dreams by creating a new sense of identity, the same actually applies to Nakhichevan.

You claim I reject encyclopedia's because I don't agree with them, its not the case, those encyclopedia's do not respect history, at least not when they cover this subject. We can not call the ancestor of a language with a modern term, this isn't done with any languages in Europe, even for Armenian, they make the differences between Grabar and Modern Armenian, I wasn't also aware that Sunny wrote that piece on Britannica, can you provide an evidence? Even if he did, I don't see how it will support your claim. You say Atabaki represents a political POV, I don't get it, you claimed I can not reject sources I don't like and you conclude with this? Atabeki supports what most in the academia in decades of research support. VartanM (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you refer to the most of academia without any proof, it is about the time you stop making such claims, unless you can support them with reliable sources. See my above post about claims of consensus. As for Suny, see this: [47] G. Melvyn Howe wrote the geography section, and Suny the history section. We know that Suny has a strong bias in this issue, still he uses the term Azerbaijani. As for the mosque, how could it be Persian, if it was built by Turkic khans of Erivan? You refer to the architecture, but the mosque is the same style as the mosques in Nakhichevan, Ganja and Karabakh. How come that those mosques are Persian, while they are built by Turks and not different in style from any other Azerbaijani mosques? And why those other mosques are not called Persian by anyone? Clearly, it is an attempt at rewriting the history with the obvious purposes. Grandmaster (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgment is to observe what the sources claim. The observation here is that for every one source you have provided I have provided at least 5. We don't know Sunny has strong bias, this is your unsubstantiated claim again based on the fact that he is Armenian nothing more. That it is Sunny, who wrote it, does not support my point but yours, with the number of threats Encarta received because of his article, Sunny is very cautious with his articles. Also, you still have difficulty comprehending what Persian Mosque means, a Persian Mosque relates to their faith and architecture, you did the same mistake on Kish. It does not relate to those who build the Church. There are no Azerbaijani Mosques in Armenia, there never was one, they were Persian Mosques, Persian architecture and Persian Faith. What you call Azerbaijani Mosques are not Azerbaijani Mosque. VartanM (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the source that I added:

Until the 1905-6 Armeno-Tatar (the Azeris were called Tatars by Russia) war, localism was the main tenet of cultural identity among Azeri intellectuals.

Willem van Schendel, Erik Jan Zürcher. Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B.Tauris, 2001. ISBN 1860642616, 9781860642616, p. 43

So this info is sourced. Tatar was what the Russians called Azerbaijanis at that time. Grandmaster (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To Parishan

Parishan, a source was provided that says that most Muslims were called Tatars at the time, and it is unencyclopedic to add a modern name then clarify what they were called at a time. No self respecting encyclopedia prints Armenains(called Urartians at a time). This was explained to you on several occasion, you need to start paying a little more attention on what other editors write to you. VartanM (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenians were not Urartians. Those 2 were completely distinct peoples. So no parallels can be made. --Grandmaster (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And this is from the article about Azerbaijan from Britannica, written by Ronald Suny:

As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918.

They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. [48]

Grandmaster (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Urartians? did they evolve into butterflys? Forget the Urartians. Let me give you more recent example, No self respecting encyclopedia writes about Italians (known as Romans at that time) fighting with Iranians (known as Parthians at that time). How about Germans (known as Prussians at that time) fighting with French (known as Franks at that time)... even more recent? Anglo-Saxons (known as Americans at that time) fighting with Assyrians (known as Iraqis at that time). Should I continue? VartanM (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just quoted you a self respecting encyclopedia Britannica, which says: bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905. Question solved. Now please roll the article back and restore the sources that you deleted. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See the 32 sources here that refer to the population as Tatar. VartanM (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So? I quoted the sources that say Tatar is what Russians called Azerbaijanis at that time. Which I explained in my edit in the article. There's no source saying that those Tatars were anyone other than Azerbaijanis. Grandmaster (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Back at WP:ICANTHEARYOU, are we? I previously demonstrated that general consensus in academic world calls the population of what is now Azerbaijan Tatars. Thats why this article is called Armenian-Tatar massacres, not Armenian-Azerbaijani massacres. VartanM (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't proved anything. According to the rules, the claims of consensus require a source: The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. [49] So unless you can cite a source saying that there's a consensus the claims of consensus are OR. The name of the article reflects what it was called back then, but clarification is needed that people called Tatars back then are the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. Plus, Caucasian Tatar was a reference to completely different people. The Azerbaijanis were called Azerbaijani Tatars or Azerbaijans, see Brokhaus: 3) Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. [50]. In another article it says: Западную, в которую входят: туркоманы или туркмены (см.); кавказские татары (см. Т. татары); Т. иранского типа — адербейджаны персидские и кавказские; [51] i.e. Western group, which includes Turkmens, Caucasian Tatars (see Turco-Tatars), Tatars of Iranian type - Persian and Caucasian Aderbeijans. So Caucasian Tatars were different people, those Turkic people who inhabited Northern Caucasus. And I cited Britannica to show that the clashes were between Azerbaijanis (not some unknown Tatars) and Armenians. --Grandmaster (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Russians making claims that Iranian Azeris are related to Azerbaijani Turks what a surprise. VartanM (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, Armenians are as related to Urartians, as Azeris are to Caucasian Albanians. Calling Azeris 'Tatar' was a nomenclature issue, not an ethnogenetic one. Parishan (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone sometime is going to have to confront this Azeri/Azerbaijani issue. There is racism implicit in Grandmaster's (and others) long running campaign to turn every Turk who has ever lived in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into an "Azerbaijani". Worse still, it carries with it the clear impresion that nobody in the country called Azerbaijan has the right to citizenship there unless they are (or are willing to pretend they are) an Azeri Turk. Meowy 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sari_Galin Some editor is claiming that everyone in Erzurum is Azeri - "language of Erzurum can be called Azeri"- and that Eastern Turkey is, in fact, Azerbaijan - "some of the eastern provinces is called Turkey's Azerbaijan". Meowy 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to 'turn every <...> into an "Azerbaijani"' (or, put in non-biased terms, to assign them an proper accepted academic name, just like Petrarch is called not Tuscan but Italian despite there being no Italy) than to make ridiculous statements such as claiming that 'Caucasian Tatars' were a whole different ethnic group that vaporised one day and got replaced by brand new, started-from-scratch and completely unrelated Azeris, so there should never ever be made any confusion between them. Also, it does not kill to read quotes you are presented with. Parishan (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It also makes much sense to turn Dutch for Germans etc., on the several articles. And your comparaison of Petrarch is bogus, since those people can not be called else with another people of common heritage. While Turkmens, Turks and the several other Turkic people all share the same linguistic heritage. I have yet to see one valid analogy you came up with. VartanM (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The claims of Azeri possibly being in fact Turkish or Turkmen are original research on your part, my friend. There is no evidence of diverse Turkic-speaking presence in the region. That is why just like in the case with Petrarch, "those people can not be called else with another people of common heritage." I have not seen you prove one instance of 'Turkmen linguistic heritage' manifesting itself in the Azeri-populated areas after the fifteenth century. Parishan (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research? Another case of ICANTHERAYOU, the full extent of the inapplicability of your request not only was documented in full complete with several references, but a large part of it was even done in the arbitration enforcement. Was it not you who accused me of not reading what you could provide? I don't know if I should laugh at this, but you have ignored about five thousand words of typed arguments and references. Perhaps, have you forgotten under which basis your attempt to change the name of the article failed? VartanM (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you trying to say that the Turkic people living in Transcaucasia and called Tatars by Russians were not Azerbaijanis, but some other ethnicity? What is the point in you argument? Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Continue with the ICANTHEARYOU, you know what I mean, and you know you are mispresenting it. I will refresh your memory: [52] VartanM (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani" should not be used as an ethnic term, it describes a nationality: a citizen of the country called Azerbaycan. Meowy 23:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Russian called Azerbaijanis "Tatars". But it does not change the ethnicity of the group. What is known as Tatars previously in Russian Empire called now "Azerbaijanis"--Dacy69 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a article about "now", its about "then" and then they were called Tatars. VartanM (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, we appreciate you sharing your opinion on what Azerbaijani should be used for. But it matters little and changes nothing. Azerbaijan a.k.a Azeri was, is and will be a way of referring to an ethnic group, like it or not. Parishan (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word "Azerbaijani", while fitting in with current dogma from Azerbaijan, is racist by the standards of most civilised countries. An Azerbaijani is a citizen of Azerbaijan, regardless of his ethnicity. Of course I realise that Azerbaijan considers only an ethnic Azeri has the right to call himself an Azerbaijani, with death, assimilation, or migration being the alternatives for those not fitting into that fantasy of racial purity. However, we are not writing for the Azeri-language wikipedia. Meowy 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very racist claim, Meowy. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality, same as French or Russian. Stop making generalizations about the entire people. Azerbaijani people call themselves Azərbaycanlı, the word Azeri does not exist in our language. Britannica and Ethnologue also use the word Azerbaijani to refer to the ethnic group. And the people who were called Tatars by Russians back then were the same Azerbaijanis, as today. That's why the correct term should be used. Grandmaster (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think have mentioned the following recollection before, but it is worth mentioning again. In 1989 at almost the start of the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, and as reports of massacres of Armenians in Baku and elsewhere began to emerge, there was a BBC radio news interview with a representative of the Azeri population there. He was obviously expecting some hard grilling over those reported atrocities because there was a tone of surprise in his voice when the first question the interviewer asked him was "did he object to being called an Azeri". That interviewer would have come from a tradition of BBC political correctness, where to call a Pakistani a "Paki" would have led to his immediate dismissal and justify him burning in Hell for all eternity. So, understandably, he wanted that very troubling (for him) issue out of the way as early as possible. The interviewee, with surprise and puzzlement in his voice, replied saying I am an Azeri - so why would I object to being called an Azeri?

Awww, a straw puppet to make me look bad. Too bad that he's on the wrong side of the continent. VartanM (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eagerly waiting for Brandmeister to tell us why he thinks its ok to distort sources. VartanM (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did I write that? :) --Brand спойт 12:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actions speak louder then words. You seem like an intelligent fellow, so tell us why should we call Romans Italians, Anglo-Saxons Americans and Tatars Azerbeijanis. VartanM (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you eagerly waiting for me, but don't put your words into my mouth. --Brand спойт 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. 40+ sources refer to the massacres as Armenian-Tatar and any use of Azerbaijani is OR. VartanM (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Azerbaijani people were called Tatars back at the time. No one says that it was not called Armenian - Tatar War back then, we just say that Caucasian or Azerbaijani Tatar = Azerbaijani. I cited tons of sources about that. Rolling back.--Grandmaster 07:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the edit war that you are waging here. Are you trying to say that Armenians fought with some unknown Tatar people, who had nothing to do with Azerbaijanis? Then what happened to those Tatars? Where are they now? What exactly is your point? Please explain. Citing old memoirs and rolling back the article is not acceptable, you should refer to secondary modern sources for explanation of who those Tatars were. Grandmaster 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm citing more secondary sources:

In early February 1905, riots broke out in Baku following the death of an Azeri at the hands of an Armenian policeman.

Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. ISBN 0275962415, 9780275962418

In the Tatar-Armenian War, however, Azerbaijanis were faced with a well-organized opponent in the Armenian nationalist party Dashnaktsutiun, or "Dashnaks," giving them the impetus to form their own organization, aptly named "Difai" ("Defense").

Stuart J. Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Cornell University Press, 2001. ISBN 0801487366, 9780801487361

In 1905, Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around Baku fought and killed each other.

Rex A. Wade. Revolutionary Russia: New Approaches. Routledge, 2004.ISBN 0415307481, 9780415307482

This is an Armenian source, extremely biased, but even Malkasian talks about Azerbaijanis:

Armenian-Azerbaijani violence broke out in Baku in February 1905 and soon spread throughout eastern and central Transcaucasia,

Mark Malkasian. Gha-ra-bagh!: The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia. Wayne State University Press, 1996. ISBN 0814326048, 9780814326046

Does any modern secondary source call the people who Armenians fought with in 1905 Tatars? Stop it already. Grandmaster 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Only some Armenian scholars such as Hovanissian use the word Tatar to refer to Azerbaijanis, but they get criticized by other scholars. For instance, Firuz Kazemzadeh wrote in his review of Hovanissian's book:

it is unfortunate that Hovannisian chooses to call Azerbaijanis Tatars. No one but the Russians ever mistook the former for the latter and even they mended their ways more than fifty years ago.

Firuz Kazemzadeh. Reviewed work(s): The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I, The First Year, 1918-1919 by Richard G. Hovannisian. Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 308-309

Grandmaster 08:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See the 40 sources I already provided. I consider your revert vandalism. VartanM (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your 40 sources do not say that Azerbaijanis were not called Tatars in the Russian empire. My sources do. The sources that you cite just say that the ethnic conflict was called Armenian - Tatar massacre back in 1905, which I do not dispute. I think the admins will establish what is and what is not vandalism here. --Grandmaster 11:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And your constant referring to "40 sources" that support your position is baseless. In fact, most of the modern ones say that Tatars were Azerbaijanis. Quoting some of your sources, that use the name of Armenian-Tatar war, but say that Tatars were Azerbaijanis:

Azerbaijani political attitudes were influenced by the confrontations with the Armenians during the Armenian-Tatar War (1903-05) that waged in the Caucasus.

Brenda Shaffer. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press, 2002. ISBN 0262692775, 9780262692779

Among other features of his discussion of the national development of the Azerbaijanis, Tadeusz Swietochowski examines the background of the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict since the "Tatar-Armenian War" of 1905 and the clashes involving Nagorno-Karabagh during and after the Revolution of 1917.

Andreas Kappeler, Edward Allworth, Gerhard Simon, Georg Brunner. Muslim Communities Reemerge: Historical Perspectives on Nationality, Politics, and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Duke University Press, 1994. ISBN 0822314908, 9780822314905

Protest and defiance forced the government to reconsider its decision in two years, but there followed the "Tatar [Azeri]-Armenian" clashes (1905-06)

Kevork B. Bardakjian. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500-1920: With an Introductory History. Wayne State University Press, 2000. ISBN 0814327478, 9780814327470

In 1905, Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around Baku fought and killed each other.

Rex A. Wade. Revolutionary Russia: New Approaches. Routledge, 2004.ISBN 0415307481, 9780415307482

The worst outbreaks of bloodletting occurred when the Russian Empire was at its weakest and the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities each identified the other as a threat. If Armenians feared Azerbaijanis as the vanguard of the Turkish army, then Azerbaijanis suspected the Armenians were a potential Russian "fifth column". In February 1905, the so-called Tatar-Armenian War claimed hundreds of lives.

Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004. ISBN 0814719457, 9780814719459

So much for the "40 sources". 99% of modern ones say that Tatars who were involved in Armenian-Tatar War of 1905 were Azerbaijanis. And this time I was quoting only those sources that you were referring to as the ones that support your position. Enough already with distortion of sources. Grandmaster 12:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version doesn't dispute that Tatars are modern Azerbaijanis. Like I said Romans are not Italians and Gauls are not French. Can we start working on the article or do you want to continue POV pushing? VartanM (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Any parallels with Italians are baseless. Romans are not Italians, but Tatars of the Russian empire were Azerbaijanis. And I don't see what's stopping you from working on the article. If you want to work on it, go ahead and do it. You don't need my permission for that. --Grandmaster 05:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Solution

Well, I think that's it: Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Other considerations, 'Example' subsection (Maputan-Cabindan). Assuming WP:PRECISION and the article Tatars, Cabindan, or Azerbaijani, seems to be more relevant. Even if majority of scholars use 'Tatar', that does not make much sense here - it's just academics who are aware that Azerbaijanis were called Tatars by that time. Ordinary reader or researcher would rather type 'Azerbaijani'. Brandспойт 22:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Um no. This example would apply if we were speaking of todays Azerbaijan and if Armenians were the only ones objecting in calling them Azerbaijanis. This is a historical article and those people at the time of the incident were called Tatars, what happened later is different story and is pointed out in the article that Tatars are the modern Azerbaijanis. And what was ignoring majority of scholars and engaging in OR about? VartanM (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The subjective description is the use of the word "Azerbaijani". The people in question would not have used that word to self-identify themselves. Meowy 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And who else objects? Iranians? :) Here we just suggest the title 'Azerbaijani', not prescribe, saying that Azeris weren't called Tatars by the time. Brandспойт 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, 35+ sources use the word Azerbaijani or Azeri when they describe the conflict, while they use the old name of the conflict, Armenian - Tatar War. But most of them say that Armenian - Tatar War was between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. See the quotes above. The issue of the name of the conflict is not identical with the issue of the use of the ethnonym. And "Tatars" of Caucasus did call themselves Azerbaijani, the ethnonym of Azerbaijani first appeared in the Azerbaijani literature in the 1880s. The problem is that the use of the word Tatar throughout the article is misleading for the modern reader, who can confuse Azerbaijanis with the Tatars of Russia. Grandmaster 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Brandспойт 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And millions of sources use the word German when they describe WW2. Does that mean we rename it the "Germans Against the World Conflict"? "Misleading for the modern reader" claims Grandmaster. Simnply inserting more content into the article would stop such a possibility. Altering the title from the best-known name for the conflict into something nobody uses is not an appropriate solution. Meowy 17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would using "Azeri Tatars" or "Azeri Tartars" (or maybe "Azeri Turks") be a suitable compromise between the two extremes of either "Caucasian Tatars" or Azerbaijanis"? Meowy 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The title can remain, but I believe we should just explain in the text that the people called by Russians Transcaucasian or Azerbaijani Tatars are the same people as modern Azerbaijanis. I tried to do that in my version of the article, and I cited numerous sources about that. Btw, Caucasian Tatar is not correct, Russians called all Turkic people Tatars, and Caucasian Tatars for them were people of North Caucasus, such as Kumyk and others. See Brokhaus encyclopedia. --Grandmaster 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The ethonym Azerbaijanis existed prior to 1905, see for example Величко В.П. Русское дело и междуплеменные вопросы. - Полное собрание публицистических сочинений. СПб., 1904 (Velichko, V.P. Russian Matter and Inter-Tribal Issues, Saint Petersburg, 1904), where they are referred to as Aderbeijans (адербейджанцы). --Brandспойт 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in 1890-1906, also refers to Azerbaijanis as Aderbeijans, see the article on Turks. Grandmaster 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from my own experience, on the Kars and Igdir side of the border there are Turks who define themselves as "Tatar" or "Tatar Turk" (they use the word Tatar, not Tartar), and the word "Azerbaijani" is only used to refer to recent (post-Soviet) migrants from Azerbaijan. My chair is actually standing on a carpet made near Sarikamish with a modern design that uses a lot of "T" symbols, designed by a local man to express his Tatar identity. Meowy 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably they are Azerbaijanis, who call themselves Tatar by the Russian tradition to refer to all Turkic people as Tatars. But towards the end of the Russian empire Russians tried to distinguish between various Turkic people, and in the Soviet Union the word Tatar was applied only to Tatars of Volga. In any case, it is quite obvious that the ethnonym Azerbaijani in various forms was used in scientific and popular literature of the Russian empire, including Azerbaijani literature. Grandmaster 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that those in Turkey have just retained their original self-identification, and it is those in Nakhchivan who have changed theirs, adopting their current "Azerbaijani" identity. But short of getting some of those Kars "Tatars" to tell us, there is no way of knowing. Meowy 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem

For an article that has a talk page 3 times longer than the article itself, what is the problem? I read it, what little there was, and don't see a problem. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now solved, hope for good. Brandспойт 10:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am astonished on the degree of disruption you are involved in Brand. Apparently, ruining the Nagorno-Karabakh War article with your edits without even achieving consensus was not enough for you. Your notion that the matter was "solved" by clearly vandalizing the article by adding an anachronistic term is grounded in the realm of the absurd. It's unfortunate that Moreschi is not here because your actions would have been met with some form of punishment or another and have done anything but resolve the question on hand.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption? Vandalizing? Marshal, the only anachronistic term here is 'Tatar'. NKW's lead is consensus, which has not been marred since January 20 so far. Naming convention on common names deals with Tatars issue pretty well. I don't think it would be necessary to take it to WP:VPP, making relevant addition to WP:NAME, prohibiting the use of obsolete ethnonyms. Brandспойт 09:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered reading the talk page (or even GM's comments), you would have known that the title of the article was never in question. The naming convention state that editors should "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo". Ignorance can no longer be used as an excuse.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, check that the term is not used anachronistically. I think you misinterpret that. And it was already pointed above that the ethnonym Azerbaijanis existed before 1905. So still no problem. Brandспойт 08:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And Shahin Giray starting a new edit war here is not helpful at all. It would be good if he explained himself at talk first. Grandmaster 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my comments were explained in edit summaries.Shahin Giray (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Brand if you took the time and read this talkpage you would find out that the outcome of a very long discussion is to name the article Armenian-Tatar. VartanM (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But I think you should stop calling him "Grandmaster's puppet" in the edit summary - Grandmaster seems to agree with the "Armenian-Tartar Massacres" title (or, at least, he is not opposing it). Meowy 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vartan, while I agree with Meowy here, you should really desist from bad faith and read, otherwise it is an impasse. First, the word 'Tatars' as applied to Azerbaijanis, is obsolete and the content of Tatars article is known. Secondly, the ethnonym Azerbaijans did not appear after 'Tatars'. Third, as Untifler wrote, by the time of conflict there was a Volga Tatar diaspora in Azerbaijan. So in this case editorial judgment and aforementioned WP hints suggest not to follow the majority of your sources. Brandспойт 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You should read this talkpage, from the very beginning to this last sentance, before making any more page moves. Only then I'll stop calling you a puppet. VartanM (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Brandmeister, please stop renaming this article. You cannot rename an article without consensus if the change is going to be controversial. You change obviously is. Read WP:RM. It talks about moving an article from one title to another: "if there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". In the Requesting potentially controversial moves section of the same article, it says, "Please follow all three steps listed below when requesting a move", the first two steps being to "add move template to talk page" and then "Create a place for discussion on the article’s talk page". Meowy 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one do not object to the present name, and I think we should remove from the article any mention of the Azerbaijani people, even if a source such as Kazemzadeh uses the word Azerbaijani. If Armenian users want to present this as a fight between Armenians and Tatars, who had nothing to do with Azerbaijanis, that's fine with me. It is very interesting that while the Armenian authors always emphasize that people who were called Tatars by the Russians are the same people as Azerbaijanis (see sources above), the Armenian users here do the opposite, deny any link between the two. Participation in the intercommunal violence is not something to be proud of, so it is Ok if Azerbaijanis are not linked with the particular incident. Grandmaster 12:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. Brandспойт 13:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's silly GM, but I like the reverse psychology thingy :) I never had any problem with the parenthesis clarification, neither did Vartan. As for you Brand, you call that 'taken to', changing editorial policy which is used on several encyclopedia's and historic books, to allow what you want in the article. I will be delighted to read the uproar it will create once users get what that will mean. - Fedayee (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I have deleted this section. It contained three items. The first, a link to an online copy of Villari's book, was not needed becaue the link is already in the references section. The other two were duplicate links to a clipping from the NY times, off-topic given that it is not mentioned anywhere in the content of the article. If it were to be mentioned, then the proper place for it would also be in the references section. Meowy 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest addition

@WimpyDood First, let's start with the basics. I think you are quite unaware of wikipedia guilines judging by your edit comment here. Couple of points:

1) There is such thing called stable version, see WP:STABLE

2) If a recently added edit gets reverted, the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content

3) Lastly, I'm following standard wikipedia guideline and restoring the stable edit before the content dispute, until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved

Now please, revert yourself until consensus is achieved on talk, and proceed with your explanation as to why the disputed content should be included (would be nice if address my points in my edit descriptions). Also, when one isn't familiar with relevant to this situation guidelines, it isn't right to accuse others of it.

p.s. actually you are the one that can be santioned in ANI, as you're edit-warring and restoring disputed content without a consensus [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)