Talk:Azerbaijanis in Armenia

Reverting this back for now

Recently, User:Parishan has added a large amount of text to this article that supports a clear Azerbaijani point of view. This information needs to be checked over by Armenian and third-party users before being included in this article. I say "Armenian" because we hardly had a chance to do anything with this.

For now, I've reverted this back to User:Artaxiad's version. -- Aivazovsky 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just compared the two versions and my conclusion is that Aivazovsky's Parishan's version is a vast improvement on the original giving many references. How can this version with poor grammar an no references be considered preferable? LittleOldMe 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean Parishan's version? Aivazovsky has no right to remove fully referenced edits of other editors. If he has problems, he should discuss them on talk and not revert blindly. He does not own the article. Grandmaster 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I don't own the article. I just think that it was irresponsible of Parishan to add controvrersial information to the article when we're also trying to resolve differences between Armenian and Azeri editors at RfA. -- Aivazovsky 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can improve it instead of reverting. Grandmaster 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will revert myself and work constructively to neutralize the article. -- Aivazovsky 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky watch what you revert. Artaxiad 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, I've made some corrections to your edits. Quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it - I came up with a relatively concise and informative article based on 21 sources, none of which were Azeri or Armenian. You've deleted at least three of them, and this is already unacceptable.

(1) The Russian administrative unit called губерния / gubernia is normally translated into English as 'governorate'. See: Administrative divisions of Russia in 1744-1764

Wikipedia uses the term guberniya.

(2) Due to conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan during the early 20th century, Armenia's Azerbaijani minority, much like Azerbaijan's Armenian minority diminished greatly - incorrect statement. In 1905 these was neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan. I'm not sure how wise it is to call it a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the previous statement about marginalization and discrimination was more than appropriate since it was a direct quote from a neutral source.

No, we need to reword this to make it balanced. If there was an article on Armenians in Azerbaijan, then I'm sure Azeri editors would demand the same thing.

The comment about Azerbaijan's Armenian community is unnecessary and needs to be taken out - we are not compare-and-contrasting here; the only time I mentioned it was while addressing the question of autonomy (it is significant in light of Soviet Union's policy towards ethnic minorities), which you for some reason deleted and which now goes back into the article.

When discussing ethnic autonomy, you were also making a very clear political statement.

(3) What I found outrageous

No, don't accuse my actions as being "outrageous" when you go off and edit a sensitive topic at a time of mediation. You should have known better. You were being completely irresponsible.

...is you removing a four-sourced statement about Muslim massacres in Armenia

That's because those massacres occured in what is now eastern Turkey during the Turkish-Armenian War - that is a Turkish-Armenian issue, not an Azeri-Armenian issue.

...and replacing it with a statement about the Armenian Genocide - something completely irrelevant in this context.

I wouldn't say so, even de Waal states that Armenian refugees from Eastern Anatolia moved to Armenia. This increased the number of Armenians in that region.

First of all, I don't see a point in bringing up examples of Armenian victimization (genocide, khachkar issue, etc.) in every single Azeri-related article; it's just getting annoying.

What about examples of Azeri victimization? What about "marginalization, discrimination, mass and often forcible migrations"?

Besides you write: massacres of Muslims in Armenia had nothing to do with the Armenian-Azeri conflict. They were a result of the Turkish-Armenian War yet you shove a completely offtopic (if one looks at it from your perspective) sentence about the Armenian Genocide instead. Second of all, it does not matter what those massacres were a result of. The fact is, they did happen, they did affect the Azeris in Armenia, and they were the greatest turning point in the history of that community. So back in goes replacing the Armenian Genocide statement.

I'm not denying that they didn't happen, but rather that they had more of an effect on the Turkish-Armenian war and Turkish-Armenian relations than on Azeri-Armenian relations.

I guess that's it, I'm okay with the rest of your edits. Parishan 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off a little brash, but I wanted to enjoy my evening, not engage in political debate. -- Aivazovsky 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia does use the term guberniya, but all the units are listed as governorates, not guberniyas:

• Arkhangelsk Governorate
• Baku Governorate
• Bessarabia Governorate
• Chernigov Governorate
• Courland Governorate and so on.

(2) The massacres did not only happen in Turkish Armenia. You should have read the sources before deleting them: they mention Erivan (the Russian source) and Zangezur (de Waal).

(3) Like I said, the part about marginalization and discrimination is a direct quote from Thomas de Waal; I didn't make it up or rephrased it in any way. If I were to mention the victimization of Azeris in every article possible, 90% of Armenia-related articles would have been swarming with that info, since you can tie it to pretty much everything. However understanding the touchiness of the subject and the given mediation, I'm not attempting to go beyond the reasonable limit, and that is, beyond mentioning the massacre of Azeris in Armenia at least in the matter-of-course 'Azeris in Armenia' article. And even that you seem to have a problem with. Parishan 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue about mentioning massacres, but what frustrates me is the fact that, during mediation, you would go ahead and add all of this information to this article without consulting anybody first. Especially in regards to the period of brief independence and Sovietization, which are grossly under-researched, we should be extremely careful. It's almost as if you want to provoke an edit war. -- Aivazovsky 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Check this:

Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijanis people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest.

De Waal, Thomas. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. New York: New York University Press, 2003. ISBN 0814719457 Grandmaster 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Minus de Waal, I wonder what else could be digged there. Where are the records from the League of Nations about those refugees, a dozen exist regarding the Armenian refugees. Fad (ix) 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, if there's mediation in process, it doesn't mean you can take sourced facts out of articles and replace them with irrelevant statements that benefit "crucial" Armenian issues. If it was the case of me rephrasing or rewording the information provided in the sources, I would agree with you on all of your points. However all the facts are strictly taken from the neutral sources, some being direct quotes, and some summaries. From what I understand, your reference to the arbitration page is the only argument you have left, which is why I strongly recommend that we go back to the blended version of our edits (the one prior to your reverting). Parishan 08:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is mediation, you will probably be able to explain what Russian Armenia has to do with it? Ardahan with its 75,000 Muslim was lost to Turkey, Kagisman with its 34,000 Muslim population was lost to Turkey, Kars with its 64,000 Muslim population was lost to Turkey, Nakhichevan with its 81,000 was lost to Azerbaijan, much like Qazakh with 30,000 Muslims. Oh I forgot Olti, with its 27,000 Muslim population and Surmalu with its 71,000 Muslim population both to Turkey. As for Yerevan, those were the relative values of the population, when the total population of Yerevan was insignificantly low since Shah Abbas depopulation it never returned in its previous state. In 1913 the entire population was of 30,000 people. Again, I am pleased (not) to see Grandmaster silence there too. Fad (ix) 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, there is reference to George Bournoutian presented. And Erivan khanate and later governorate had well defined borders. This has most to do with Russian Armenia, because "Azeris in Armenia" means the populus in modern Republic of Armenia (there is no other Armenia acknowledged), which is the territory of Erivan governorate minus Nakhchivan, plus Zangezur and part of Kazakh Uyezd of the former Elisavetpol governorate. Atabek 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Azeris in Armenia. Most Tartar population decline have to do with territorial loss which has nothing to do with emmigration. And your answer doesn't answer my point at all, you are actually confirming it. Since those statistics have to do with lands which are now outside of the bounderies of the republic of Armenia, it is irrelevent filling of the article. Fad (ix) 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Qazakh was not part of Erivan guberniya, and we have statistics for each uyezd from Brokhauz. Azeris were a majority in Erivan uyezd and the town of Erivan, which indeed had population of 30 000 at the time. Muslim population desappeared completely from that area. Grandmaster 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not accurate, part of Kazakh was actually included, it was later lost. As for the population, this is again not accurate. First, the Azeri were not a plurality there, the punching card census system to falicitate things have dumped Kurds and Tartars according to religion and dumped them as Tartars, as religion and listed language were the two predictators used. There were basically 48% Armenians, 49% Muslim and 3% other groups, which included Russians, Assyrians etc. The Muslim population was actually less than 15,000. The city population records still did provide data for various Muslim population years later. Your claims are simply original research. Fad (ix) 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, Kazakh uyezd was part of Elisavetpol governorate, it was never part of Erivan governorate. The territories, as you call "lost to" (and I call "liberated by") Turkey were actually Kars governorate (Karsskaya guberniya) not Erivan governorate. And as you know, Bournoutian mentioned specifically Erivan, not Kars and not Elisavetpol, and said specifically, it's 80% Muslims and 20% Christians (Armenians). The situation is 99% Armenians and 0% Muslims Azeris and Muslim Kurds, says that there was some heavy ethnic cleansing going on in Erivan governorate territory over the past century or so. Atabek 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reread above one more time, and this time more carefully. Fad (ix) 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, the source states that "in 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur." You mean you don't consider Zangezur part of Armenia? Besides, the Russian source that I've provided (the one deleted by Aivazovsky) said "...pogroms in Kars Province and Erivan Governorate." You also claim that Azeris didn't form the majority in Erivan without even familiarizing yourself with the source (The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopaedia), which clearly indicates: The population of Erivan district ("uyezd") grouped in 16 rural communities and 205 villages consists of 53.5% Aderbeijani Tatars, 37% Armenians, 8% Kurds, 1% Assyrians and about 0.5% Russians. As you see, the source makes a clear distinction between Azeris and Kurds and doesn't "dump" one into another. Azeris were the majority in the city of Erivan. Please read the sources more carefully and don't be making inadequate assumptions. Parishan 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, the relative figures are according to the punching census figure drawn, it was somewhere 29 thousand etc. according to this punching system. While Kurds were incorporated, it was not always true, since Kurds have various dialects, and household language and mainly religion sometimes, in the few % range in many regions, to simplify things population were included simply by region. Including Kazakh and the other places I have included, it amount to about slightly over 400,000 Muslims. The figure you provide is not supported by the official census, and most Muslim loss is due to territorial amputation. Indeed there were refugees from Zankezur, Zankezur was the exception to the rule. The homogenity in Armenia is not due to Muslim refugees, but rather to territorial emputation and the Armenian refugee crises, mostly those from the Ottoman Empire. This is covered with a dozen of League of nations publications. There is not a single such publication about any Tartar refugee crises. Kars province is mentioned yes! Doesn't change the fact that those are totally irrelevent here. Dumping various statistics has little revency with the subject here. Zankezur does have a place, that is about all. Fad (ix) 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how you state things without having a single source to back them up, merely based on your inapt assumptions. (1) According to the official census of 1897, there were 362,565 Muslims in Erivan Governorate alone.[1] Of those, 313,176 were Azeris and 49,389 were Kurds. That is, without counting parts of Azeri-dominated Zangezur, Gazakh and Borchali which were later incorporated into Armenia; and most imporantly - without Kars, which had another 147,183 Muslims (63,547 Turks, 42,968 Kurds, 29,879 Karapapaks, 8,442 Turkmen and 2,347 Azeris).[2] Erivan Governorate was 43.6% Muslim, of which 37.7% were Azeris. Kars Province was 50,6% Muslim. Erivan had three times as many Muslims, as Kars; so your argument about low figures on Muslims due to territorial losses is completely incorrect and made up. (2) Altogether there were 509,748 Muslims in these two provinces, not counting Zangezur, Gazakh and Borchali ("slightly over 400,000" my foot). And of course, by 1918 this figure was way higher due to population growth. (3) The massacres in Erivan are covered by another neutral source, which Aivazovsky also deleted, apparently because it didn't go well with his POV: [3] Having said that, I strongly urge you to stop coming up with "facts" off the top of your head. Parishan 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You have neutral sources? Well I have Turkish sources for it. Yusuf Kemel Tengirsenk, the foreign minister of Ankara government at the time said: “…the two sides are murdering one another.”(And I have various, various sources on the massacre and expulsion of the Armenians during this period, in Nakhichevan, NK etc.) I will not cover all the inaccuracies above, but, just to mention, for example that East Kars was sliced between Erivan governate and the government of Tiflis, the province was the general term. In round numbers about half of Kars Muslim population were living there and the figures of those in the Erivan governate were clearly including those Muslim. The punching card system allowed for records of 1. Religion, 2. of household language. There is even an article on Wikipedia about that. Before accusing me of making up things, (and I won’t lower myself to the level of some by reporting you for that) you should probably read what I wrote above another time. I did not say that Kurds were not counted, I said that in some regions where a group of Muslim were a slight minority, according to the two prerequisite, they were included with the majority Muslims. In Erivan town, there was a disproportion between Tartar population and Kurds. The Kurds were in their every day life speaking Tartar Turkic, and practicing the same religion. In that town Muslim had acquired great prosperity, and commerce language for the Kurds was Turkish. So, according to the punching card system questionnaire, those Kurds were classified as Tartars. The town of Yerevan, with its 29 thousand or something, with its Muslim population of less than 15,000, those Muslim was not much affected, in fact, there was an increase of population. It was the absolute number of Armenians which increased at that time, not the Muslim decline.

The territorial lost, as I have enumerated above, would explain alone most of the recorded loss of population. Reread one more time my list, and the governate did include those. Either peripherial zone. Either slice, Zankezur was indeed the exception and indeed recorded. But Nakhichevan Armenians had the same exact fate.

Now, this article is about the Azeri in the republic of Armenia, not some lands which are not included. Shusha had a statistic attached to it, NK, Adil had attached a statistic, and this has a statistic. According to Ottoman records, up to the 1860s, Armenians were constituting a majority in Anatolia, do you find a large junk of statistics in the article about Armenians in Turkey? And no, it was not about few hundred thousands, as the records of the time were of 2 million. Dumping various such statistics under the alleged claim that the article is about Azeri in Armenia is called POV pushing, as various such articles have had the same fate. What do you say that from the same token, I cover history a little deeper since the Khans oppressions and evacuations of the Armenian population from the region? Oh and, your foot is veryy well where it is, keep it down, don't put it in your mouth. Fad (ix) 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Parishan provided reliable statistic info from Russian Brokhauz encyclopedia, while you quoted no sources. Now please tell me how many of 362,565 Muslims of Erivan gubernia lived in the areas that became part of Turkey and Azerbaijan and how many lived in Zangezur and other areas that became part of Armenia? I think we can find that statistic and make a calculation. Kars oblast was not part of Erivan gubernia, while Nakhichevan was. So if we deduct the Muslim population of Nakhichevan and add the Muslim population of Zangezur, we will get an accurate picture. We know that there were only 78,228 Azerbaijanis left in Armenia by 1926. Also, what happened to 15 000 Muslim population of Erivan? Soviet Yerevan had no significant Muslim population, and 5 out of 6 mosques were pulled down, the last one in 1990, according to de Waal. Grandmaster 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, you guys have only questioned two of the area's I have cited, make the count, go ahead, do the count and compare it yourself. Zankezur is the only area, and indeed documented in records including British, the rest is not even notable. Parishan has done nothing such as you claim. Erivan Gubernia is not the republic of Armenia, the peripherial zones were still not even clearly defined, and it was in those same zone that the propertion of Muslim was the highest. You ask what happened of the 15,000 Muslims. Well, check the population of Muslim in Yerevan city from the first Armenia SSR census. The relative figure of Muslim did decrease very significantly indeed, but Armenia did recieve more refugees than the entire Muslim population living there. Many Muslim left the place very soon when the Ottoman Empire cut the supplies and left the place into total starvation, this is recorded in German archives.

And I am really amazed here too, Grandmaster you have absolutly nothing to say AT ALL. The guy come dump various statistics without first discussing them and than rv., and you have again not the slightest critic to do. This article is about the Azeri population in Armenia, while now it has a large section on statistical recycling which have nothing to do with that. Find any similar articles, go ahead, which do just that? Fad (ix) 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've provided more than one neutral source for both the population figures and the expulsion of Azeris from Armenia via violent methods. That's all that counts. No one cares how many Armenians there were in the Ottoman Empire or what the khans did in Shusha in the 18th century. If you have neutral sources which state that Muslims weren't massacred and just walked away from Armenia; or sources that prove the results of the 1897 Russian population census wrong, bring them on. If not, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to restore the information that Aivazovsky took out. Parishan 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let repeat this again. From the US archives, Record Group 256, Inquiry no. 11, from the public domain, not some obscure source. Surmalu 71,000 Muslims, Ardahan, 75,000 Muslims, Olti 27,000 Muslims, Kaghistan 34,000, Kars 65,000, (again those with in Governate control, and if you still doubt E. was indeed within, check Britannica 1911). In fact, only Qazakh was not clearly defined (peripherial) so the figure comes from the Republic of Armenian archives. I haven’t also included some not much more defined regions like part of Sarur-Tarallagiaz. Oh and to finish, Nakhichevan. Clearly over 400,000 Muslim losses were due to land loss. Those are indeed sourced. If you think I am forging this out, US archive record does exist; it will be my pleasure to help you out by showing you how you could use the interloaning system to make such a request, it is as easy as a request from Bonn Centralarchiv. Even if you could slice the figure (400,000) by half, your assertion doesn’t make much sense.

-1 Armenia lost most of the lands where there was a substantial number of Muslim, rendering this throwing of statistics clearly misleading.

-2 The history section is a throwing of various statistics and has little to do with Azeri history in the republic of Armenia.

-3 The Yerevan town is only containing relative figure, which is totally misleading as even if assuming all those 49% were Azeri (impossible as there is no way that all the Muslims in Erivan were Tartars), it would represent about 14 thousand people. Statistics don’t show a decrease of Azeri population, but rather an increase of Armenian population. And as I repeated, the number of refugees the republic of Armenia received was amounting more than the total number of Muslims. While it was losing territories, it also in the same process received the influx of Armenians from those lost lands.

-4 There was indeed massacres and crimes, they were mostly recorded in Zankezur.

As for the result of the 1897 being wrong, stop putting words in my mouth, I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying that the punching card system was the punching card system, much like we have modern census here in Canada, there is an entry about the last census here in Canada. Check those who identify as Quebecer, as French Canadians etc., and compare them with the actual number of French Quebecers. Language affiliation and religion was the predicator in the Russian census, them being Tartar is an interpretation of that census. The Kurds have very ancient roots in Yerevan older than Tartars, and they were still living there during the Soviet times, yet the 1897 recorded Muslims as Turkic speaking Shiites, them being classified as Tartars is a position. Fad (ix) 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What you do is called original research, which is not allowed. And we quote Brokhaus, a reliable source. We cannot discard it based on your assumptions. If it says that population of Erivan was 49% Azeri, we quote it, but we do not make our own judgement. And also, do you know how many Azeris lived in Yerevan according to first Soviet census? Grandmaster 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a very hollow idea of what is called original research, much like you have a very hollow idea of wat is the NPOV policy here, the article does not quote is makes a statment of fact. But you know what? I am tired right now, you can toy with this article too for all I care. Fad (ix) 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Each quote is properly attributed to its source. And some new user reverts the article back to stub, I think it is one of the banned users. He should stop doing that and discuss problems on talk. Grandmaster 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading carefully what I am saying. Sources support the position exist, it does not give the right to mix them to build another position which does either not exist or is a fringe. We both know that claiming that Azeri were constiting 49% of the population in Yerevan is totally misleading. First because its total population was under 30,000, second because they were not classified as Azeri but Tartars, according to the household religion and language. And I told you check Wikipedia entry about 1897 census, it does say how it was processed. Furthermore, you totally ignored my point. Finding a source does not justify a statment of fact. It is contradicted by US official records, so obviously you can not present a statment of fact. Also, another mention, is that something could be very well sourced, it could just be irrelevent to include it in a given article since it could just not fit in that article. I also have sources about Armenians having all been killed or expelled, like those in Shushi [4] it doesn't mean I can add them in irrevent articles. This too, I tried explaining to you on various occasions. You just don't want to listen. Fad (ix) 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, all you are expected to prove is that Azeris did not constitute 49% of Yerevan's population and that they weren't massacred in the regions other than Zangezur. So far, I have three sources backing up my point of you, and you have none (the U.S. archive one has nothing to do with what me and your other opponents are saying). Like I said, if you do not provide them and keep presenting your assumptions as a fact, the page will have to be restored back to this version. Parishan 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Where in the Russian records the term Azeri was used? Shiit Muslims who speak Tartars was how they were recorded. Not Azeris, all Muslims in Yerevan were NOT Azeris, you can not assume that. As for all being sourced, those are fringe positions. And no, I haven't said that Azeris were not massacred, what I said was that the loss of Tartar population was mostly due to land loss. Even Justin McCarthy in hiw work claims that the situation under which Armenia was, it lost 25% of its population, who died of war conditions. When the Turks cut the lines, the Armenian population was starving by tens of thousands and they had nowhere to go unlike the Tartars. There is a dozen of League of Nations publications and a book from its cofounder and Nobel Price, about the situation of Armenia. It was flauded by tens of thousands of Orphans comming from the Ottoman Empire. You have no notable source for massacres having happened besides Zankezur. Every other pieces where there was any significant Muslim population were actually lost with its Armenian population either killed or kicked out. And there actually are more notable work about this, the reports from German archives are abound.

Nakhichevan Armenians were brutally murdered when the Turkish army backed the Tartars, in Shushi, most of its Armenian population was mudered, the rest being kicked out, Nagorno Karabakh Armenian population faced a very brutal reaction from the Turkish army, in that army, there was many commanders who were responsable of the destruction of the Eastern Anatolian. Those are notable, published positions published in University presses around the US. Yet, do you see me or any Armenians injecting statistics and such events reglardless of how well it is sourced in irrelevent articles. Also, it is amazing that you do not see what is wrong in placing a relative figure of Muslim population, when in this case the relative figure is totally misleading as it represent less than 15 thousand people. If you want to expend this article, good, I do believe it needs expention, but do so by adding materials which have relevency. Fad (ix) 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't call them "Shiit Muslims who speak Tartars"; it calls them "Azerbaijani Tatars" (татары азербайджанские) and it clearly distinguishes them from the Kurds by mentioning the latter separately. What other proof do you require? I agree with you that with the loss of Kars, Armenia's Muslim population descresed, BUT: we are not talking about Kars, and Kars was never part of Erivan Governorate, and I have no idea why you keep bringing up Kars. Let's leave Kars alone and focus on Erivan: how do you account for the decrease of Erivan Governorate's (not Kars'!) / Armenia's Azeri population from 313,176 in 1897 to whatever tens of thousands there were left by 1926? Well, I have a neutral source that proves they were massacred: [5] and honestly I'm getting tired of restating this to you with each reply. So unless you manage to prove that they weren't massacred but woke up one day and decided to wave sweet goodbyes to Armenians and leave for Azerbaijan, your argument simply cannot be accepted. Parishan 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Kars was under Erivan Governorate, for the last time, check the online edition of Britannica 1911 for "Kars" [6] Not only Kars, in which there was a very significant number of Muslims, check all the lands I have cited. It amount to hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And no, I have never said there was no massacres, what I have said is that beside Zankezur, all the territory now being part of Armenia there was no significant Muslim massacres recorded, all the other territories where a significant massacres was reported are all outside of the frontiers of the republic of Armenia, its Armenian populations have found to have a harsher fate and this is recorded. And many Muslims did leave Armenia by choice, much like many Armenians did leave Azerbaijan by choice. You can not assume they did not do this, national affiliation is something that one can hardly control. To assume that most Tartar losses was due to massacres and eviction is original research. Substract the land loss and do compare the Muslim population and you'll see that much of the deficit is indeed du to land loss. Throwing numbers like this with a hidden meaning is actually original research. Lastly about Azerbaijani Tartars, I was talking about the way they were included in a group, check the Wikipedia entry about the census and you will see that nothing I have said was original research. Fad (ix) 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So you claim that when the sources say "massacres in Erivan Governorate" they only mean that little part of Eastern Kars (Surmali) that happened to be part of Erivan? You have no proof of that and besides, that can't be correct as in 1897 Surmali's Azeri population constituted only 11.8% of Erivan Governorate's entire Azeri population. [7] So what happened to 270,500 Azeris (that's what's remained after I "substact" and "compare the Muslim population") that lived outside of Zangezur and the Erivan part of Kars in 1897 (and that probably doubled in population by 1918)? How is that close to 78,000 that were left there in 1926? Do the math. And keep in mind that the latter includes Zangezur and that population growth among Azeris was pretty high back then. P.S. The Wikipedia article on the 1897 census doesn't say anything about Kurds being included into Azeris, so that argument is out. Azeris were the majority in Yerevan. Parishan 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is original research. Evidences are not created by “what happened to them.” Neither could this justify dumping statistics. Again, you are not being accurate, read one more time the figures I have provided and subtract 78,000. And no, the Azeris were not constituting a majority in Yerevan during World War I, in fact not even according to the 1897. Census do not record ethnicity, with the punching card system they recorded language and religion. And this was what I told you to check in the 1897 census entry. There is no way that you will claim that all Muslims in Yerevan were Tartars ethnically. Beside even if that was true, fewer than 50% can hardly be classified as majority. Neither do we know if Catholic Armenians were included with Apostolic and not plainly foreigners like it was often the case, more particularly in the Ottoman Empire. The census represented the 1896/1897 population, during the same year many Armenians during the Hamidian massacres settled in Yerevan, also during the Adana massacre under threats that it would spread in the East. Less than 15 thousand Muslims in Yerevan was what was recorded added recorded as Azeri Tartars with the absolute figure I will not have any problem with it, the relative figure is totally misleading without absolute numbers. And that was easily reversed and only the Tartaro-Armenian conflict of 1905/1906 alone would have changed the demography of Yerevan like nothing when Armenians moved “inner.” Fad (ix) 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence from the provided neutral sources (which I'm tired of including in my every message to you - and I think this is the last time I'm doing so) that the Azeri community suffered greatly from the massacres by the Armenians outside of Kars and outside of Zangezur, which led to the decline in population of Armenia's Azeri population. I'm not talking in terms of percentage, I'm talking in terms of numbers. No fast-growing community would diminish from almost 300,000 to some 78,000 within 30 years by natural causes, especially if a source clearly states that community experienced pogroms and massacres, i.e. that people from that community were killed en masse. So here's the deal: this is the source [8]; go ahead and prove it wrong with another source, not with your assumptions.

Your claim that the population of Russia in 1897 was divided in the census in accordance with their religion is ridiculous: how could then they tell Russians from Ossetians, or Mordvins from the Chuvash? The source says "Aderbaijani Tatars - 49%" [9]. It does says 'Muslims', it doesn't say 'Kurds', it says 'Aderbaijani Tatars.' So yes, that does give me the right to claim that Azeris were the largest ethnic group in Yerevan at the time. And yes, judging from the source I can state that they were the only significant ethnic group that adhered to Islam in that city. Parishan 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We're turning in circle. What neutral source? You are taking census statistics and then taking the 1926 and making a connection. Again, this connection is yours, it is called original research. I have never denied that Tartars were massacred, what I said was the there was no significant massacres recorded in the lands which now constitute the republic of Armenia. I have read the British dispaches, even the Turkish commanders report. They allude to Erzerum, Kars, Nakhichevan, Zankezur, Qazakh, later the conflict in Baku etc. But not anything significant in what now constitute the republic of Armenia. You post me some chronology table from a Russian site, first translate it, second post the source. Armenia was starving to death, there was more deaths in Armenia than there was Muslims living there. If you allude that most population deficit was due to massacres or eviction this is your original research. Before making such original research read the conditions of Alxendripole, and the blockage of supplies, following that many Muslims left. Armenians stayed, they had nowhere to go, they were stuck there. About census, look, I am not inventing anything. Ethnic qualifications have always been a problem including with current census. Armenians spoke a language that mostly only they spoke, and the Armenian Apostolic church was the Armenian Apostolic church. Kurds did speak Turkish and were Shiit Muslims. Check how many qualify themselves as French in Quebec. [10] Fad (ix) 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The source says: 1920.09 ARMENIA. Massive pogroms of Muslims by Armenians in Kars Province and Erivan Governorate. Another source: Andrew Andersen [11]: "some of Armenian regiments reportedly started performing ethnic cleansing in Kars and Yerevan districts that still remained under Armenian control." I hope this is enough evidence.

As for your claims about the 1897 census - sorry, you've presented no proof, so the info about Azeris forming the largest community in Yerevan will go back. Parishan 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kars, as I told, control in 1920, Governate. Reread what I have said, entirly my point, you have to document what was left after that as the republic, those were the dates that the 1918 republic still did not fell. As for 1897, read the entry last lines on language. If you don't find that too, well, the last thing that remains for me is to quote. Fad (ix) 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for the link by Andrew Andersen, the site has various relevent text about Karabakh. Fad (ix) 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the first two sentences. Could you please rephrase that?

And yes, do quote that sentence, please. Parishan 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In census summary tables, nationality was based on the declared mother language of respondents. Just for you to understand what it means, is that in Cilicia for example, the mother thong of many Armenian community was "Turkish", they would have been classified as Turkish using the same standard. Add that, and the absolute numbers, and I will not have any problem with that part for neutrality, but for relevence, I still have. Anyway, what exactly you do not understand for the rest, in my sentence? Fad (ix) 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in indicating that, since there's no evidence that there were non-Azeris in Yerevan who spoke Azeri as a native language. We don't know that. In fact, I can challenge your statement by saying that the number of Azeris may have been higher than 49% but some of them may have been listed as Armenians cause they declared Armenian as their mothertongue. See what I mean? You keep assuming things and claiming them as facts.

And just to catch up on the massacres point: both sources indicate that there were massive pogroms and massacres of Muslims in Erivan Governorate in 1920, so I'm adding that back to the article. Parishan 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as religion was recorded. So, what I understand is that you don't want to change that part as it was represented. That is, "Those who were registered as having as moth thong Azerbaijani Tartar" ? Also, that you don't want the absolute number being added? Your chalange makes no sense, as I base myself on the official census, while you make speculations. The source you provide has no relevency, we are at square one. I already told there was recorded massacres in Kars, the question here is about the Governate, you can not include territories which were later lost, it would have nothing to do with "Azeris" in "Armenia." Also, if you want me to assume good faith with you, you must stop adding "Armenian terrorism" cathegory in articles, when it will be deleted regardless because of a guideline. Would you assume good faith, had I added such a cathegory in articles? Fad (ix) 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not stated one thing that wasn't covered by a source. And I would urge you to stop labelling sources you disagree with as "unrealiable" (you were saying that about Brockhaus and Efron too, if I'm not mistaken). Now all of a sudden Andrew Anderson, whom you were complimenting, is no longer a reliable source? And why exactly isn't the other source reliable? You're accusing me of things when in fact you are the one who's been making speculations all along; such as "Azeris were not the only Muslims in Yerevan", "Kurds were listed as Azeris", etc. with no source to back those up whatsoever. The fact that I am not throwing this at you every time I prove you wrong, doesn't mean i don't notice it. I'll run this by you one last time: the two sources state that the massacres took place in Yerevan and were launched by the Armenian troops. As far as I know, Yerevan was and still is Armenia, which is why that point goes back in the article. Parishan 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, could you please consider me as another editor and not an "Armenian" editor. Where have I claimed he was not reliable, I actually am agreeing with what he is saying. But what he is saying does not support what you claim, it actually say exactly what I have been saying. In 1920, Armenians were controling sections which are NOT currently part of the republic of Armenia, I don't see how more clear I can be? Read all the pages he has written about the topic, you will see the entire situation, you are selectivally piking and alluding significantions to that quote. As for Yerevan, look, Yerevan had published Kurdish works, the first of their kinds. They had a Kurdish community, yet, the census recorded the Muslims as those speaking Tartars, it isen't surprising. The census were based on mother thong(as stated by the census itself), this was how they were recorded. You don't want to present the census as the way they were recorded and yet make accusations when what when what I am requesting is to present things as they were presented. As for "prove" what prove? Fad (ix) 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No more OR, please. We have a source, Brokhauz encyclopedia, and it says what it says. We quote it as it is, it is verifiable info. I don't think there's much to discuss here. Grandmaster 15:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are requesting no more OR? You Grandmaster? I am actually requesting to present the sources the way they are represented in published records. 1897 is based on language spoken, I guess it is to much asking requesting the article to represent what the figures really represent. I give up. Fad (ix) 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you present a source that says something like "in Yerevan, there were Muslims who spoke Azeri/Tartar as a mothertongue and weren't Azeri/Azerbaijani Tartar and were listed as Azeris/Azerbaijani Tartars nevertheless," you cannot and will not prove your point. As for the massacre issue, I'll requote it for you from the Anderson source: "some of Armenian regiments reportedly started performing ethnic cleansing in Kars and Yerevan districts that still remained under Armenian control". I truly hope this is the end of our discussion. Parishan 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a logical falacy, it is like asking someone, prove that a god does not exist. It is to the person making the claim of existance to support it. You claim that all those household recorded as speaking Tartar, were ethnically Tartars. You have to provide that evidence, I don't have to prove non existance, you have to prove existance. The Russian census was based on language. And confirms this, the entry about it, which was neither worked by Azeri or Armenians, what I request is to present the info the way it is represented. The same goes with the second point, it does not support your claim as those territories controled by Armenians in 1920 does not represent the current Armenian republic. They have lost many territories in the process. You have to confirm that most of those happened in lands which formed Armenia. I am still waiting. Fad (ix) 21:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've presented just enough evidence. The source says "Azerbaijani Tartars." The burden of proof is on you, since you're challenging that statement. If you have an evidence that says there were non-Azeris in Yerevan who considered Azeri their mothertongue, bring it forward. If not, please don't waste our time. Same goes with the massacres in Erivan Governorate. I've spent two weeks on this discussion that keeps going in circles, and all I've heard from you are vague ideas and iffy assumptions. Parishan 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That it's, I stopped assuming good faith. Look, the Russian census says according to what process people were classified under a nationality. There is no way that all Muslims in Yerevan were Tartars(language does not equal ethnicity, as most Irish would be Englishmen), there is still right now after the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflicts Kurds living in Yerevan, and they do also speak Azeri. You are refusing to clarify the census, there is no way in the world you would refuse clarification if it is not to push a position. I request clarification, I am the person here that request that the informations and records be presented what they represent really. The census of 1897 was based on language spoken by the household. This is what the figures represent. Yerevan was Muslims Market center and their language was Turkish, it was used as import export for marchandises comming from the Ottoman Empire, there are countless numbers of works on that. So, if you really care about the accuracy of this article, you will add that clarification on what those figures represent, the entry about the census was neither prepared neither worked by Armenians neither Azeri, so sorry to say, it is much more neutral than this one. As you see, I am not editing the article, I am waiting you to admit the need of clarification and that you take the dispositions yourself. But you are not doing that, you are justifying a lack of clarification of the article itself. As for Yerevan Governorate, I have presented a record from the US archive, it is a public record accessible threw an interloaning program. Armenians have lost various territories in the process, beside Zankezur all places with significant Muslim population were lost. So for you to add such a statment, you have to document, provide sources which support that what now constitute the republic of Armenia it happened. I admit, crimes happened in Kars, Erzerum, Nakhichevan, Zankezur, Qazakh etc., but beside Zankezur, not one of all those territories became part of the current republic of Armenia. If you want to dump all those fine, but for accuracy, you have also to clarify that in all those lands 0 Armenians remained as Armenians have found a worster faith. Also, one of the sources which is provided from a work from Armenian House, document actually that in Yerevan Governorate, it was the Armenians when a minority who were mistreated by the Tartars. If you want to provide a source at least provide one which support your assertions and don't pick selectivally what support what you claim. And please, don't accuse me of turning in circle, I have respected you again and over again, but you kept assuming bad faith. And this is how things degenarate and I stop assuming good faith. For now, you stole the good faith which was left on you. Fad (ix) 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"There is no way that all Muslims in Yerevan were Tartars" - first of all, this is an assumption made by you. Second of all, the source doesn't say anything about Muslims. It says "49% Azerbaijani Tartars, 48% Armenians, 2% Russians and the rest are Georgians, Jews, and others." 'Others' is most likely where Kurds are included. And even if they aren't you cannot claim anything like "no way that all Muslims in Yerevan were Tartars", unless you provide a valid source. And you cannot claim that there were Kurds who stated that Azeri was their mothertongue. You simply have no proof. How hard is it to realize that? It's like you're enjoying going in circles not being able to admit that you lack evidence to prove your argument. On the contrary, you're trying to act as if it's me who's lacking sources.

As for the massacre, I have my source. It clearly says "massacres in the Erivan Governorate". When a source says "Erivan Governorate" it means by default the governorate as a whole, unless specified otherwise (which is entirely your task). "Kars, Erzerum, Zankezur, Qazakh" were never part of the Erivan Governorate. Parishan 07:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Either you are doing this on purpouse or you are refusing to understand what I am writing. For the last time, I need not to bring evidences for a non existance, it is a logical falacy. You claim that all those who spoke Tartar were Azeri, don't you even remember what had happened and still happens in the Safavit article? You are making the claim, what I am doing is questioning it, questioning an imprecision does not require an evidence, making a statment of fact does. You are assuming that "others" included Kurds. Do the math, 49+48+2 = 99%. So 1% others. There were Circassians in Yerevan, Kurds, Persians, there was Awali communities, Zaza's, you are claiming that all other Muslims represented less than 1% of the population. Good, now bring evidences for that. You claim those who spoke Tartars were ethnically Tartars, while the Russian census does clarify that the nationality classification is based on the language of the household(one of the work you even quote claims Tartars had Kurds supports). Most Irishmen are not Englishmen, are they? Muslim communities for centuries were either in Turkish rules, Tartar rules, Safavid imposed Turkic rules in particular in Yerevan area etc. The same way the Irish had an imposed British rules. If you refuse to clarify as to what the census really represent, explain me why you are doing it. As for the enumerated recorded massacres, don't you see that you don't even listen to me? Above, I have cited records from the US archives, with pieces which were part of it, as stated those represented the area's with a significant Muslim population in 1920. Since you refuse to adhere to NPOV, and ater my various attemps you show no inclination to even listen, there is absolutly no point to discuss. Check for example, the distortion on "majority" do you even know what majority means? Fad (ix) 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Safavid article has nothing to do with this article. I've cited the same source (Brockhaus and Efron) where it distinguished between Azeris and Kurds - an evidence serious enough to claim that Kurds were not included into the figures for Azeris. And if you believe there were "Circassians in Yerevan, Kurds, Persians, there was Awali communities, Zaza's" and that there were Kurds in Yerevan who spoke Azeri natively, I'd like to see a valid source.

Your source on the population figures only covers Kars Oblast and Surmali district of Yerevan. It doesn't have any numbers for the rest of Erivan Governorate, hence is not applicable to our discussion. Parishan 06:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up. POV push for all I care, I rest my case. Fad (ix) 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New name

I have renamed the article, because if we are going to cover the history modern Azeris in Armnia we have to cover Turkic presence more generally so that it is understood where these Azeris appeared from, I intent to expand the article more about Turkic institutions, Khans etc. in Armenia and I will gladly accept help. Then we could have a section on Azerbaijani's covering the 20th century. I'm also placing info regarding that, so that readers won't wonder how come Armenians were a minority in Eastern Armenia during some times post the 17th century. Comments?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, please, be respectful in your future comments, as your wording "where these Azeris appeared from" does not seem to be quite polite of people of different ethnicity. Now, I don't see why you were renaming the article, when the last group of Azeris were forcefully deported from Armenia in 1988, the prior deportations happened in 1960, 1940s and 1920s, when these people were called Azeris, so there is no ground for renaming of the article. Atabek (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, judging by your presumption that i'm not being respectful I must ask you to assume good faith per WP:AGF, i've seen you cite this policy on numerous occasions so please practice what you preach. I don't understand why these alleged "deportations" have anything to do with the article name? I have to ask you to leave such controversial opinions in their respective articles. The article covers a much larger period. We are not limited with a start date of 1920. We cannot call all Turkics who have lived on Armenian soil as Azerbaijani. I was clear in my explaination. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article was about Azeri community in Armenia, which was deported/ethnically cleansed. If you want to create a separate article on ethnic cleansing and intolerance against people of Turkic ethnicity in general in Armenia, that's a separate topic and you're welcome to create an article in this regard, this one was dealing only with Azeris in particular, so please, return to the original title of the article. Atabek (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article back, Eupator, please, discuss and provide your reasons for moving an article and achieve consensus. I can provide references that the community discussed in this article and the one deported/ethnically cleansed from Armenia, finalizing in 1989, were Azeris not just any Turks. Please, discuss. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your references to fictional ethnic cleansings and deportations is helpful to this article. I provided my reasons which where not even addressed by you. Why are you edit warring so quickly? You know it took me a long time to compile those references and work on this article. You could have waited at least until someone commented before reverting. You would think two Arbcom cases would have helped you understand that. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator is right; the article is leading towards coverage of Turkic culture in Armenia and not specifically to Azeris. Since it has a significant section which takes up close to half of the article on events prior to 1920, it is logical to think that it is just more than the Azeri population of Armenia. Besides, the Turkic population of Armenia took much more time than in Azerbaijan to feel Azerbaijani, most still had ethnic feelings with the Turks of Turkey, particularly those in the region of Kars. It wasn't until Nakhichevan’s Turkic population’s self-identification that the Turkic people in Armenian followed.

Armenia has a history of Turkmen, Seljuk, Tartar and various other Turkic people who have lived there... I have difficulty understanding what point you are trying to make with this move. Are the Turkic population other than modern Azerbaijani not human? Why suppress their share of their ethnic history on that soil? - Fedayee (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, I don't think I changed the text of article, so I don't see the point of your complaints about gathering references which are there. I explained the reasons to you, the bulk of population of "Turkics" (such term does not even exist in plural in English vocabulary), which no longer exists in Armenia (do you need more proof of ethnic cleansing than that fact?), were Azeris. Most of your references refer to Azerbaijanis. And frankly, I don't see how this idea that Azeris are imaginary people and do not exist in reality is going to help you at all in further editing or contributions to Wikipedia. As for mentioning 2 ArbComs, please assume good faith, and recall your own participation in both of them. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be Turkic peoples in Armenia. How can I need proof for somethign that didn't happen? That's a logical fallacy. Wether Azeris exist now or not is beyond the scope of my interest but there is a state under the name of Azerbaijan and its citizens are Azeris regardless of their ethnic background. No such thing as Azeris prior to that state. The article mostly covers modern times, when it's expanded more it wont cover chiefly Azeris. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact it should be Azerbaijanis in Armenia, that is the correct spelling of the name of this ethnicity. Other than Azerbaijanis, I don't know of existence of any other Turkic people in Armenia, so calling it Turkic instead of Azerbaijani does not make much sense. I heard a lot of this Turkmen talk, but where are those Turkmen in Armenia? Did they actually exist and how come that they vanished without any trace? Grandmaster (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, if someone wants to create an article about Turkic people in Armenia, he is free to create a new one, renaming this one is not acceptable. It covers Azerbaijanis only and is one in the series about Azerbaijanis in various countries. Grandmaster (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine. Still think it wasn't worth edit warring by you two. We will only deal with the 20th century Turkics called Azerbaijanis today in this article. I'll remove my earlier changes.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it should deal with the whole history of Azerbaijani people in Armenia. Grandmaster (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? It already does. I don't think the ethnogenesis of Azeris or proto-Azeris from the 19th century and whatnot are within the scope of this article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If it talks about the period prior to the 19th century, it does not mean it has nothing to do with Azeris. The ethnic group existed regardless of the names that were used to refer to it. Parishan (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Grandmaster (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not only original research but factually incorrect. Like I said they were proto-Azeris at best not to mention that many of them were not even Turkic but Kurdish and a lot of them were Turkics more like Turks of the Ottoman Empire. Parishan assume good faith and stop being uncivil, like calling my hard work vandalism as you did today.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, first of all, the article says Azerbaijani's in Armenia, secondly, all that section consists of statistics and almost nothing about Azerbaijanis. Thirdly, those people were as much Turkmen, Turkish then Azerbaijani's, we can include them in another article. Since you guys don't want this article to be about all the Turkic speaking people in Armenia, it is relevant to create an article about them. You can't have it both ways, keep information which are not exclusive to the Azerbaijani's and sexclude specific Eupator additions which explains and put into context the situation. Also, Parishan, the next time you unjustfully accuse a member of vandalizing an article, I will report you. VartanM (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you make any substantial edits, you need to provide proof that they are "Turkmen", "Turkish", "proto-Azeri", etc. otherwise you are the ones engaged in original research. Like I said, no matter what names scholars used to refer to Azeris in the past, there is no proof that the people populating the Erivan khanate were a different ethnic group; so much different, that this article does not even deserve to contain information on them. In light of this, the article is being rolled back to its original form. Also, what I qualified as vandalism was the removal of the template [12] that even with regards to "Turkics in Armenia" was fully appropriate. Please make an effort of actually examining an edit before making threats in the future. Parishan (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the move summary is self explanatory. You need to make up your mind, either this article covers Azerbaijanis or Turkics. The material you're pushing is about Turkic tribes not Azerbaijanis, so I renamed the article to reflect what it actually covers. If you disagree with the name, which I am sure that you do, then revert it, but the material covering Turkics must also be removed. VartanM (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why must it be removed? Provide me one good source where it states that the Turkic-speakers in the 18th century and those in the 20th century are not the same people. Parishan (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your request is illogical, it is you who has to provide a source which says they are the same. They are not, if you check Eupator's version, you will see it includes a reference which says that nearly all Muslims were classified as Tatars, and not only Turkic speaking people. The Turkic people there included those who could be classified as Turkish, Tatars, Turkmen etc., it's like claiming that Phrygians are Armenians, it does not make sense. And why would all those Turkic people would be classified as an identity which did not exist? VartanM (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator's statement "a significant population of Tatars (related to modern Azerbaijani)" is preposterous. It is a known fact that Azeris were referred to as Azerbaijani/Transcaucasian Tatars or Turks (тюрки) by earlier sources:

1. Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. Brockhaus and Efron
2. В 19 - начале 20 века в официальных российских документах Азербайджанцы назывались тюрками, татарами. [13]
3. русские, придя в Сибирь, воспользовались традиционным для них названием (тоже, видимо, имевшим «евразийские корни») всех говорящих по-тюркски народов России: закавказские татары (азербайджанцы). Lyudmila Sherstova

The emergence of a new name does not mean the emergence of a new ethnic group. I gave an example of Inuits who were referred to as the Eskimo until mid-20th century, which does not mean the ethnic group only came about in the 1950s. Lezgis prior to the 1920s were almost exclusively referred to as Kurins (кюринцы) but it does not mean this group only formed by the 20th century. Ukrainians were widely described as Little Russians (малороссы), which again does not mean the pre-Soviet population of Ukraine was merely "related to Ukrainians." Parishan (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading us carefully, it was explained to you why the comparisons is not valid. The Eskimo's were a defined group, the Lezgies were a defined group, the Turkic population living there were not identified by one group, but by various tribes. The Eskimos can not be classified as Inuits and Binuits, Cinuits and various other groups. The Turkic population there could have been identified as Turkmen, Turkish, Tatars etc..., and the Tatar population also included other Muslim groups who were not Turkic. What you propose is original research, not to say inaccurate. VartanM (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, your source does not support your claim, it simply means the Turks of Azerbaijan..., it was used as a geographic region. On the other hand the Turkic people more westward, (like those of Armenia), were not referred as Turks of Azerbaijan.VartanM (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is funny how you are trying to link my arguments to original research, when in fact you and Eupator are the only ones engaged in it. I am saying this once more: I had asked you, prompty and politely, in a standard and coherent variety of the English language, which both of you seem to be conversant in, to present sources according to which your statements such as "Turkic population living there were not identified by one group", "Turkic population there could have been identified as Turkmen, Turkish, Tatars" and "Tatar population also included other Muslim groups who were not Turkic" can be proven historically accurate. I think my message was clear enough for you to have finally presented us with some proof, and not just what your personal thoughts on this issue are.

Another odd claim, not only bursting with OR but resulting from your inability to pay attention to the information you are being presented with: "it simply means the Turks of Azerbaijan..., it was used as a geographic region. On the other hand the Turkic people more westward, (like those of Armenia)..." Your inattentiveness is wasting both of our time. The source says: Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over. The other two sources were presented to demonstrate how Tatar and Turk in the Transcaucasian context were just alternative ways to refer to Azeris. That is all there is to it. Parishan (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a game. I spent hours and created an article that covered the ancestors of Azeris and modern Azeris. Both Parishan, Atabek and Grandmaster were unhappy with that and began edit warring almost right away, I compromised and didn't engage in their edit war by agreeing with an article that would only over Azeris but now they are singing a different tune. Parishan even used inflammatory and uncivil language in his rv summary[14]. This requires the attention of third party users. I'm offering an RFC or a straw poll.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, you started the edit warring by moving the article twice without any consensus, and then deleted almost all edits made by Parishan. If you want to create another article about Turkic in general, go ahead and do it, but removing content from this article or moving it to another title is not an option. It is nothing but edit warring. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's use proper English. There is "Turkic" as adjective and there is "Turkic people" as noun in modern English. There is no "Turkics" in English as a noun. Azerbaijanis by far is the rightest terminology. If you want to emphesize the ancient periods, Azerbaijani still should be fine, because "Azerbaijani" is a new term for Turks who used to live in old days. Only Azeris have lived in or near modern Armenia. Kars, Igdir which are in Armenian border of Turkey are all populated and used to be populated by ethnic Azeris (and then some Kurds). There is no known fact of Anatolian Turks living in or near modern Armenia. --Aynabend (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Find any other equivalent. You guys have changed the entire subject. The fact of the matter is that you can not call ethnic groups prior to 1919 as Azerbaijani; there was no such defined identity. Why are there articles on the Dutchy? The Dutchy were more defined as a group than were the Turkic peoples living in those lands… why not plain German? And again, Parishan is using Russian and Soviet propaganda material, which maintained such a position, including for the Turks living in Armenia, to stop Turkey's expansionism… they had Turks in Nakhichevan and those in Armenia rather to adhere to an Azerbaijani identity than Turkish. But prior to the Soviet rules, those people were not identifying themselves, neither were they identified as such. I am wondering how much more can Parishan provide other than Soviet-Russian historiography which was known to be tainted when covering ethnic groups and ethno genesis, turning ethnic groups into groups that all originated from the identities forming the Union, some sort of Self-Sufficient system. This process already started during the end of the Russian Empire, Roy writes: In Azerbaijan for a brief period (the governorate of Vorontsov in the 1850s, and that of Goltsyn from 1896 to 1905), the Russians encouraged the development of an Azeri identity in order to weaken links with Iran and Turkey (The New Central Asia The Creation of Nations by Olivier Roy I.B.Tauris, (2000) p.56)

During the process, many different groups were pushed into being identified as ethnically Azerbaijani, including Kurds, who haven't --until recently when groups wanted their independence-- requested their identity to be changed: In 1988 some 10,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan returned their Azeri identity papers to Moscow with the explicit request that their identity be changed from Azeri to Kurd. (A Modern History of the Kurds by David McDowall, I.B.Tauris (2004), p.493)

And to use Parishan’s opening, it is funny how Parishan is requesting sources for those quotes, Ulvi were you not a participant on the arbitration enforcement? How many sources were used? Parishan has probably missed references like this: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19)

Here, another quote missed by Parishan: In Contrast with the Armenians, the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. In fact, the very name "Azerbaijani" was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars or something else. (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 56.)

Do I need to provide what was provided and include also newer ones? I like Eupator’s request RFC about this article, and a it’s a good idea of requesting the same for several other articles. Ulvi, your English language justification makes no sense; you could have changed for Turkic people instead of making an inaccurate move. - Fedayee (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources I presented is propaganda. They are either pre-Soviet or post-Soviet. You cannot label a source propaganda just because you do not agree with it. None of your own sources disagrees with the fact that Azeris (Transcaucasian Tatars, etc.) were a formed ethnic group in the pre-Soviet era. The question solely is in the choice of an ethnonym, and like I showed in my examples with Ukrainians vs. Little Russians and Lezgis vs. Kyurins, that does not prove the ethnic group as a social and cultural unit did not exist. The sources based on which this article was originally compiled all distinguished between Azerbaijani Tatars, and Kurds, and Turks, and Turkmen (see Brockhauz and Efron, Кавказский край), so the claim about the term Tatar encompassing all Muslim groups is not applicable here. The source about Kurds in Azerbaijan in 1988 is not even relevant. The point is, new terminology does not create a new ethnic group. In a nutshell, what you are arguing is that the same Azeri person, who lived in the 20th century, belonged to two barely related ethnic groups in 1910 and 1940; which is simply ridiculous. Parishan (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous if that's exactly how it was? There were no people who identified themselves as Azerbaijanis or Azeris. If you asked the Turkic speakers of the Caucasus what were they, they would reply we're Muslims or at best Tatars or Turks. The Azerbaijani identity was created in the late 1910's and wasn't well defined until Soviet times.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are addressing none of the points provided and you are dismissing the source provided which says Tatars refers to most Muslim living there. Dutchy are not German, the Lezgis comparison does not make sense, we have already covered this. An ethnic group is defined as such, the link between the Turkic people living there and the Azerbaijani is of ancestry for the Turkic people and Azerbaijani as the product. Both are not the same, they can not be the same, and no article about other peoples which would be neutral will use such a connection. An identity which did not exist at the time can not become existent because you can connect it with an ancestry. This does not make sense; we can then even claim the British and Germans to be the same.

You did the same mistake on the Azeris in Turkey, which is basically full of original research… how on Earth could Turkic people having moved in what is now Turkey before the identity be considered as Azerbaijanis? From the same token, over half the Turks could be called Azerbaijani. Like you said yourself, we are not going to waste our time, I request a RFC on this article, and do you accept? - Fedayee (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea that Azerbaijani people did not exist before the ethnonym "Azerbaijani" was accepted is wrong. People do not appear out of nowhere. These same people existed for many centuries, and were the majority of population in the territory of modern-day Armenia until the collapse of the Russian empire. I already quoted many encyclopedias using the term "Azerbaijani" to describe these people in the context of pre-1918 events. So please mind WP:NOR. Grandmaster (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, all I can do is repeat my previous responce:

1. New terminology does not create a new ethnic group;
2. The sources based on which this article was originally compiled all distinguished between Azerbaijani Tatars, and Kurds, and Turks, and Turkmen (see Brockhauz and Efron, Кавказский край), so the claim about the term Tatar encompassing all Muslim groups is not applicable here. Parishan (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes the name name didn't create an ethnic group overnight, it just created an identity for a bunch of people who had no unifying umbrella. As such the Shia Turkic peoples of the region can be called proto-Azerbaijanis at best using a start date of an ethnogenesis sometime in the 16th century. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Same as the word German, which created a new national identity after the unification of Germany in 1870. Which does not mean Germans as an ethnic group only came about 137 years ago, and that Goethe and Beethoven were 'Protestant/Catholic Germanics' or 'proto-Germans', and not just Germans. Same with Dante with regards to Italians. Parishan (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, the Azeris in Turkey article is not the issue here, please do not go offtopic. Parishan (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So Phrygians are Armenians, the Dutchy = the Germans, etc. There is no single neutral contributor who would agree with this obviously illogical and plain wrong claim. Now, both of you, do you accept the RFC, yes or no? - Fedayee (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Grandmaster (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. Parishan (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, I really do not get where you get this idea that Azerbaijanis/Azeris have only existed since 1930's. I do not know any ethnicity who could be formed in such a short period, do you? If you can show any ethnicity/people who have been formed in such a short time, then I would agree to use some other terminology than Azerbaijanis in this article. You mentioned the British vs. the German (or it should rather be the English vs. the German). You contradict yourself, on one side, you show centuries of transformation that separated one ethnicity into many new nations/ethnicities, on the other side, you are claiming a different nation was formed in the matter of 70 years - from Tartar/Turkmans/Muslims to Azerbaijanis? --Aynabend (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Aynabend, we're not here for OR and our opinions what nation where was formed. Its a fact that no any mention to Azeris or Azerbaijanis can be found even from 19th century, so no own research is needed. We 're not historians here, there're a lot of reliable historian which works we (you) are able to use here. And the Turkic=Azerbaijani has a great (not only chronological) difference. A Turkish, a Turkmen, a Kazakh etc can have Turkic roots not only Azeris. maybe you can open a separate article called "Turkic tribes in Armenia"? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Either you want this article to cover Turkic people and be titled as such, or you want it to be about Azerbaijanis and stay at the current title. VartanM (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This one should be about Azerbaijanis and cover their presence in the territory of modern day Armenia for at least the last millennium. Grandmaster (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that "Turkic" in the article can only be mentioned once. It should rather talk more about Azerbaijanis and use Hun, Khazar, Turkoman (Azeri) when talking about general population, and then Seljuk, Atabeys, Beglerbek, Kizilbash, Gajar history in Armenia when talking about the dynasties. Modern period should only mention Azerbaijani/Azeri. Parishan, what's your call on this? --Aynabend (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If the deleted bits are restored, I agree to a consensus version that will use Turkic-speakers and Turkic-speaking Muslims with regards to Azeris prior to 1920. Otherwise we seem to be wasting time here, as there is an absolute lack of proof on the part of Eupator, VartanM and Fedayee, that those people were any different from Azeris in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, religion, and other elements that define an ethnic group. Parishan (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

POV article

This article is kinda POV, there is no mentioning of the entire history of Azerbaijani people. So I reverted back to the version of Aynabend on 28 December 2007. Unaware people will get misleaded by such a POV article. Baku87 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire historical presence of Azeris is actually covered here. What do you mean exactly? If you want to cover their ancestors as well from the late middle ages then we need to change the article to an appropriate title.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the history of Azerbaijani people was deleted from the article without any consensus on talk. This is absolutely not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying makes no sense, consensus or no consensus. No such thing was ever done. The body of the article contains information regarding the topic. Nothing about this topic was removed.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It contained a lot more information regarding the topic before you deleted it just because you personally disagreed with it. You failed to prove that the Turkic-speaking population had nothing to do with Azeris to an extent that it is not be mentioned in the article at all. Moreover you were proved wrong in alleging so with the use of neutral academic sources that do equate the Turkic-speaking population of Russian Armenia to Azeris. Appealing to the question of identity is an irrelevant argument: this article talks about an ethnic element, not an identity. Parishan (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, restating my point on the Turkic-speakers of Erivan being the same ethnic unit as Azeris:

1. Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. Brockhaus and Efron
2. В 19 - начале 20 века в официальных российских документах Азербайджанцы назывались тюрками, татарами. [15]
3. русские, придя в Сибирь, воспользовались традиционным для них названием (тоже, видимо, имевшим «евразийские корни») всех говорящих по-тюркски народов России: закавказские татары (азербайджанцы). Lyudmila Sherstova Parishan (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More from de Waal (p. 80): 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 20th 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 the Safavid Dynasty of the Iranian Empire. Parishan (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the Caucasian Albanians are also the same ethnic unit as Armenians, or will you find some obscure Soviet scholar who disputes it? Hakob (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. And I would appreciate if you refrained from desultory comments. Parishan (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag disputing the neutrality and the factual accuracy of this article. Not only did you revert once again to a version that you know is disputed by many, you went ahead and added more one sided material that even though at first glance seems referenced is out of context, often out dated and compiled in a biased manner. Until I have the time to analyze and make the appropriate changes this article will remain tagged.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to Eupator

Upon further reading the article after my first revert, I have reverted back to Eupator's version. If prior to 1918 has to be covered so the Turkic people history should be covered as well, since there was no distinct Azerbaijani identity. And we are not allowed to engage in OR. If you want to engage in original research, this is not the place to do so. VartanM (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case move the article, either to Turkic peoples in Armenia (and, correspondingly, expand the scope), or to Azeris in Armenia. Either title probably makes more sense than the current one. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Even if term "Azerbaijani" did not exist at the time, these were the same people, referred to by Russians as "Azerbaijani Tatars". If you believe that people referred to as Azerbaijani Tatars are not the same people as Azerbaijanis, then you'll need to explain what happened to all those people and how they miraculously disappeared and became replaced by Azerbaijanis. Please stop edit warring and try to reach a consensus first. Grandmaster (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they were not, we've been through this, and even Ulvi basically said the same thing as I did at the end, but still maintained to revert for you. We have been repeating that the term Azerbaijani was used as the geographic region in Russian sources... it was meant to mean The Tatars of Azerbaijan, we’ve been there already and please stop engaging in original research. Even Ulvi accepted that Turkmens have as much to place that history as theirs as modern Azeri. When you claim removal of materials, so did I and Eupator agreed to remove this much. If you want to cover prior to 1918, the Turkic population has to be covered as a whole. The Turkic population of Armenia didn't associate itself with the Azeris until the Soviet Union rounded them all as Azeris. VartanM (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ALmost none of the above has any point unless it is hammered out once and for all what an "Azerbaijani" is. To me, it is quite clear. An Azerbaijani is a citizen of Azerbaijan. There could be no "Azerbaijanis" without there first being a state called "Azerbaijan" - so the term cannot be used prior to 1918. Whether "Azerbaijani" can be concocted from translating Russian pre-1918 sources is of no importance. This is not the Russian wikipedia, it is the English wikipedia, and the norms of English-language useage should be paramount. In English, "Azeri" is an ethnic term, "Azerbaijani" would an indication of citizenship of a person or the state from which a person originated from. I think it's time to take this to arbitration. Meowy 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the prior discussion, the January 1 comment by Parishan, and the partial acceptance of Ulvi, I am reinstating Eupator's prior modification (along with the list of prominent Azerbaijanians). More discussion is needed before changing Eupator's version, which is actually very factual and most parties accepted it. Before contemplating a revert, please address the essential points raised by Vartan and Meowy, especially the need to clear up what an Azerbaijani or Azeri is or was. Thanks - Fedayee (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They both miss the point. Russian Brokhauz encyclopedia uses the term "Azerbaijani Tatars" and "Azerbaijans" to refer to these people. Western scholars such as Chantre also used the term Azerbaijani back then. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality. Playing with the name of Azerbajanis to deny the history of these people in the territory of modern day Armenia is a well known trick of some Armenian nationalist scholars. It is described in literature. See de Waal:

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 20th 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 the Safavid Dynasty of the Iranian Empire.

This is not a place where you can use the same linguistic sleight of hand. People do not appear out of nowhere when a new ethnonym is adopted. Grandmaster (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been answered hundreds of times. What you claim is wrong. Azerbaijani Tatars means in Russian The Tatars of Azerbaijan, the Russians brought it for two reasons: first to differentiate those Tatars from the others, second to associate the region with northern Iran because during that period, they had expansionist policies. The Turkic population of Armenia were indistinguishable from the Shiite Turkish population of Kars or surroundings, and to some extent from the Alevi branch of Shiite Islam. And you are making stuff up about ‘’Azerbaijani’’, grammatically it doesn’t even make sense, the ‘i’ ending in English grammatically can not be used for the ethnicity, the modern ‘i’ ending actually is taken from the Turkic ending ‘i’, this is why what you say can not be true. They have to say Azerbaijani Turk, Azerbaijani Tartar etc. But those works can not say Azerbaijani, not for the period you claim they come from as it is not proper English.

As for De Waal, De Waal is not a historian, he is a political source financed by the US state department. De Waal who is a biased scholar (he co-authored with Tabib, the biased situation of refugees to the EU, in which the comment established inaccuracies such as 20% are recycled). Various historical works have been already provided, by actual historians, and your single De Waal won’t turn historical consensus. His claim is so ridiculous that it self-destructs by itself. Playing with the name of Azerbajanis to deny the history of these people in the territory of modern day Armenia is a well known trick of some Armenian nationalist scholars. That is funny, all Armenian monuments have been destroyed from Nakhichevan, Kish Church was transformed and you being engaged in this rewriting of history (don’t forget that the pictures you loaded were allegedly taken by you) and you dare say this? Your above argument is yet another attempt to accuse, rendering the need to address the arguments needless according to the level and quality of the discussions here. The fact of the matter is that the Turkmens are not "Azerbaijani", and the several Turkic people having lived in Armenia who didn’t associate themselves with the Azerbaijani until during the Soviet Union. That’s that, and I don’t see any German accusing others because the accurate term Duchy is used

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense; by the same token we can change the Duchy for the Dutch, the Phrygians for Armenians, Britons for "English"or British. If you cared for historical accuracy this sort of circular discussion you push other editors in would not exist every time someone criticises your extremely unencyclopedic positions. - Fedayee (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

De Waal is cited so often and in so many different entries, that that author is in danger of appearing, at best, a bit of an idiot, at worst, an unashamed propagandist and bare-faced liar. I wonder, if he were to be contected, would De Waal recant some of the statements that (in fairness) he wrote some time ago and which concerned an obscure part of the world and little-known events, such as his Yerevan mosque comment and equally silly death figures for the Shushi pogrom? I have his email somewhere - maybe I should try. Meowy 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding grandmaster's last comment. Terms used to describe people do appear out of nowhere when a new ethnonym is adopted. We can't talk about "Pakistanis" before the formation of Pakistan, nor can we seriously talk about the Roman empire invading France - it invaded Gaul, and Julius Caeser wasn't waging war on the French even though the modern French might feel an ethnic connection with those Gauls. Azerbaijan, a new nation with a confused ethnicity surrounded by nations and nation-states which have older histories and better defined ethnicities and cultures, is engaged in a process of inventing itself and building national myths for itself - and this process is made more extreme by it being in a state of war with Armenia. However, there is no need for Wikipedia to accept these inventions. Meowy 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Azerbaijanis are exactly the same people who were referred to by Russians as Azerbaijani Tatars. These are not 2 different people, they are the same people speaking the same language. Your attempt at claiming that Azerbaijani people only came to existence when the new ethnonym was adopted are the same old trick described by de Waal, and de Waal is a critically acclaimed international author, like it or not, his opinion counts. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If I get this right, you claim that people referred to as Tatars by Russians were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis, right? However even Armenian scholar Suny in his article for Britannica says that they were the same people, just referred to by a different name: "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. Only in the Soviet period did it become the official and widely accepted name for this people". Note that the term "Azerbaijani" is used throughout the article to refer to this people before 1918. So any attempts to deny historical presence of Azerbaijani people on the territory of modern day Armenia are POV push, and I will have to ask the community opinion on this. This has been going on far too long. Grandmaster (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And Azerbaijani Tatar is an ethnonym used at that time. And even if it is Tatar of Azerbaijan (I don't see what difference it makes if it is Azerbaijani Tatar or Tatar of Azerbaijan, it is still the same), it is also shows that these were distinct people, not the same as any other Turkic people. Also note that Brokhauz used another term, "Aderbaijans" (i.e. without Tatar). It is an ethnonym used in scholarly sources before 1905. Grandmaster (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are basically repeating the same thing, while others are basically answering by repeating themselves. What you say makes no sense; ethnicity takes just more than being labelled by such a relativistic concept as same people which could be applied in every way possible. You won’t mark points by putting words (again) in the mouth of other editors.

Azerbaijani Tatar was not an ethnonym used at that time; Azerbaijan was accepted to be under Arax River by most sources. The term Azerbaijani Tatar (AKA the Tatars of Azerbaijan) was cooked by the expansionist Russian royalty for referring to the Turkic population north of Arax. It was also not only solely used in Russia because they were speaking of an Azerbaijan North of Arax, but also because they were claiming that they were originally from Azerbaijan (South of Arax). [16] As you can see Britannica 1911 says basically the same thing, it also says that the Tatars of the Caucasus were Azerbaijan Turks: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. [17] Also: The Turkish nomads scattered over Persian territory are often known by the name of Azerbaijanis or Adharbaijanis, though this name is strictly applicable only to the inhabitants of the province of Azerbaijan (q.v.), of which Tabriz is the capital.

As you can see, the Tatar qualifier is not used only when speaking of the Turkic population of the province of Persia, to qualify those living in the province of Persia, for the others, it was used to mean: The Tatars who are originally from Azerbaijan (Persian province South of Arax)

This does not mean they were not the same people, neither that they were the same, because from your logic the Turks, the Turkmens and the Azeri would be the same people, which of course is not entirely wrong. See for exemple what Britannica says: Turkoman or Turkman is the name usually given to the nomadic tribes who inhabit the country between the Caspian and the Oxus. They appear to be a branch of the Western Turks and not essentially different from the Osmanlis or Azerbaijanis,...

I will be repeating again what has been already said here. I am not saying they were not the same people, what I am saying is that the Turkic people living there were associated with the Turks, Turkmen and several other Turkic speaking people, they were also associated with the Persian Turkic people living in the Province of Azerbaijan (South of Arax). So you can for sure not call the Turkic population of Armenia prior to the Soviet revolution Azerbaijani, because they could also be associated with the Turkmens, the Turks and several other Turkic people. I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. - Fedayee (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Transcaucasus never had any Turkmen population. As for Ottoman Turks, they only lived in Meskheti and Kars, but not on the territory of present day Armenia. The majority of Turkic population in this area were Shia, which neither Turks or Turkmens are. So those Turks or Tatars of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis, and they were referred to as such by contemporaneous sources, some of which you quoted. I don't understand your persistence, who were in your opinion Tatars of Azerbaijan, who lived in Tabriz? Same Shia Azerbaijani people who lived in Caucasus. This quote clearly uses Azerbaijanis as ethnonym, and that was back in 1911:

The Turkish nomads scattered over Persian territory are often known by the name of Azerbaijanis or Adharbaijanis, though this name is strictly applicable only to the inhabitants of the province of Azerbaijan (q.v.), of which Tabriz is the capital.

These are the same Azerbaijani people who lived in Transcaucasia. And Russian statistics give precise numbers of Azerbaijani Tatars, whom they differentiate from any other Turkic or Muslim people. So again, who were these Azerbaijani Tatars from Russian statistics? Grandmaster (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)