Talk:Turkic people in Armenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Azeris in Armenia)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Armenia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Turkic people in Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Azerbaijan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

OR[edit]

Interpreting and adding words to scholars work is called OR. VartanM (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Move[edit]

I couldn't help but notice the discussion on Azerbaijani people article. So, being wp:bold with the move, hopefully it wont create any unnecessary drama. VartanM (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, please do explain! I am very interested in hearing your logic. The Scythian 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority of articles in wikipedia are named Azerbaijani. See Category:Azerbaijani people by occupation for example. Now lets hear your argument for Azeri. VartanM (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The "overwhelming" number of articles relating to the nation-state of Azerbaijan use the nationality term, "Azerbaijani". A citizen in of Azerbaijan living in Armenia, would be an Azerbaijani in Armenia. An Azerbaijani can therefore be of theoretically any ethnic background, including Armenian. An Azeri, though, is a clearly defined ethnic group, with the majority actually living outside the nation of Azerbaijan. Mostly in Iran, to be precise. If one is an ethnic Azeri living in Armenia, it does not automatically qualify that they are of Azerbaijani nationality. Do you follow my logic here? The Scythian 16:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the ethnic Azeris of Iran and the Azerbaijani-Turks from the republic of Azerbaijan. Thats exactly why I moved the article, since it covers the Azerbaijani-Turks and other Turkic people and not the ethnic Azeris from Iran. VartanM (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My friend, I think we are on the same channel here, but are coming to entirely the opposite conclusion. If an ethnic Azeri from Iran, for whatever reason, moved to Armenia, they would therefore be an Azeri in Armenia, yes? The article seemingly refers to the ethnic group "Azeris" in Armenia, as opposed to the nationlaity of Azerbijianis. Or am I reading it wrong, which is very possible? Give me a hand, here. :) - As an Azerbijani, at least to me, can conjure up a somewhat different meaning than an Azeri. The Scythian 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Azerbaijani is the same as Azeri. It is a reference to an ethnicity. But it is a reference to the nationality too. Nothing strange here, Russian can also be both ethnicity and nationality. See for example article in Britannica:
Azerbaijani people - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijani in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran. They are mainly sedentary farmers and herders, although some of those in the republic have found employment in various industries. Most Azerbaijani are Shīʿite Muslims. They speak Azeri, a language belonging to the southwestern branch of Turkic languages. [1]
But I'm very curious to know, who are those other Turkic people in Armenia. So far no info has been provided. Russian and Soviet censuses only registered Azerbaijanis and Kurds, but no other Muslim people in any large numbers. Grandmaster (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. You can be both Azerbaijani as a nationality, and anything else ethnically. An Azeri from Iran is certainly not "Azerbaijani". Azeri is the name of an ethnic group, and their resultant language. The Scythian 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Azerbaijani is the name of ethnicity. In Azerbaijani language we call ourselves "Azərbaycanlı", the word Azeri does not exist in our language. Most countries of the world are named after a certain ethnicity, Azerbaijan is not a exception. Azeri is a shortened form of Azerbaijani, used in English language, but it is the same as Azerbaijani. Britannica says the same. See also Ethnologue: [2] --Grandmaster (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong in that regard, as Azeris outside of Azerbaijan, in Iran for instance, refer to themselves as ethnically Azeri. In fact, referring to an Iranian Azeri as "Azerbaijani" would be a confusing misnomer that could be seen as even insulting. It does not matter anyways, as your theory constitutes original research. The Scythian 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what is original research? That Azerbaijani is ethnonym? I just quoted Britannica and Ethnologue. Why do you think it is an OR? Grandmaster (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Your "quote" from Ethnologue does not say what you claim it to say. It is only speaking of people from Azerbaijan. If anything, your need to try and tie an entire ethnic group and people into a single nation state is OR. The Scythian 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ethnologue says that language is called Azerbaijani, not Azeri. And there's also Britannica, which says that Azerbaijani is the name of the ethnicity. What is OR here? It is sourced info. Grandmaster (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It only is referring to people in Azerbaijan. The majority of Azeris live in Iran, where the language is referred to as Azeri. By trying to connect people who are ethnically Azeri, with the nation of Azerbaijan by name, reflects a large degree of nationalism, which can be easily seen on your user page. The Scythian 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Does Britannica also reflect "a large degree of nationalism, which can be easily seen on my user page"? Please mind WP:AGF. Azerbaijani is ethnonym. This info is sourced. Grandmaster (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but even "Britannica" refers to the language as Azeri. The Scythian 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, as I said, Azerbaijani and Azeri have the same meaning. Azerbaijani is more official though, while Azeri is a colloquial form. Grandmaster (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, call it what you want. I have always seen them referred to as "Azeri" or "Azari", but never as being "Azerbaijani". To me it is akin to being ethnically Irish, and being called "Irelandi". That is, of course, technically OR, but I had to say it anyways. The Scythian 08:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Azeri is not used as an ethnonym, it just a more colloquial and shortened form of Azerbaijani. Azerbaijani is more official, and is used by encyclopedias. Grandmaster (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read in a source I now can't find or recall, information stating that during the Soviet period all people of Turkish ethnicity in Georgia and Armenia were classified in Soviet population census data as being "Azeri" (or maybe "Azerbaijani") even if they were not acutally ethnic Azeris. This was because during the Cold War-era the Soviet Union did not want to encourage those people to have an ethnic identification with Turkey, a NATO ally. Unfortunately I have been unable to relocate that source. Anyone else heard of it? Meowy 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true, and Grandmaster is pretending to ignore it when it was discussed before. You can find the 1926 census results here, no Turks were identifying themselves as Azeris then. Most of the claims are unsourced, on the other hand Parishan removed everything which he did not like from the article including sourced material. There were no Azeris in Armenia two century ago, neither were there any in Nakhijevan. You can have the census translated with an online translator. You will find Ottoman Turks, those who identified themselves as simply Turks and then also the Karapapaks etc., but no 'Azeri' or 'Azerbaijani.' This changed in the 1939, when every people who identified themselves as Turks were classified as 'Azerbaijani'. See the census here. Since more Turkic people identified themselves as Turks all of them were put in one group. This left about under 10 Turkmens being reported, only few Tatars and other Turkic people who at the time did still not consider themselves as Turks. The 'Turks' in Nakhijevan had the same faith. VartanM (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that VartanM. The source I read was in English, and was a book. Meowy 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What other Turkic people? Other than Meskhetian Turks, there were no other Turkic people in the South Caucasus. Grandmaster (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, the fact that the 1926 census showed Azeris under "тюрки" does not mean that was how they identified themselves. The USSR had very sophisticated ethnic policies and established nomenclature guidelines which tended to associate an identity with a specific ethnic group. Even if someone did refer to themselves as Azeri (and that did occur way before the 1930s, e.g. Mammad agha Shahtakhtinski and Jalil Mammadguluzadeh), they would not be shown in statistics as such. Also keep in mind that this article is not about the history of Azeri identity in Armenia. This is about Azeris in Armenia, meaning a certain ethnic unit that might have been referred to using various names by the academia but remained the same ethnic unit all along, speaking the same language, sharing the same culture and practising the same religion. This is undenyable especially in light of so many academic sources provided in the article where Azeris in the pre-Soviet Caucasus are called precisely Azeris or Azerbaijanis. Parishan (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Found a source with some material relating to the Soviet-period "Azerification" of Turks in the Caucasus: it's "The Nation Killers", 1970, by Robert Conquest, page 48. The text is talking about ethnic Turks in Soviet Georgia living in the border regions with Turkey. "The Turks concerned are referred to as 'Turks' in the 1926 census, but as 'Azerbaidzhanis' in the 1939 one. This change seems to have been put through in 1935-36 when the local schools switched from ordinary Turkish to Azerbaidzani". Meowy 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was in Georgia. Not Armenia. The 1897 census only 'detected' 245 Turks in all of the Erivan Governorate (cf. 24,722 in the Tiflis Governorate). Even if some Turks in Armenia were registered as Azeri in 1939, their numbers were so insignificant compared to the large Azeri body that it could barely affect the big picture. Surely not enough to keep the article under this name. Parishan (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not "some Turks in Armenia were registered as Azeri in 1939", it is all Turks in Armenia were registered as Azeri in 1939 - exactly the same as what happened in Georgia and for the same reasons. The current title is accurate for the article - it places the largest Turkic group first, but does not deny the existence of the others. Meowy 16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
They were not considered 'Turks' in the sense that you are trying to present it in. The Soviet census of 1926 differentiated between Turks ("турки") and Azeris ("тюрки"). And so did the 1897 Russian census. It was simply a nomenclature issue, i.e. regardless of the choice of ethnonym, Turks and Azeris were counted separately. Even if once in a blue moon, in 1939, they were groupped together for whatever reason, Armenia's Turkish (and when I say 'Turkish', I mean the people that correspond to the largest ethnic group of Turkey) population was so small in terms of its numbers that it is plain ridiculous to claim equal historical and cultural significance for it as for the Azeri population and reflect that in the title. Parishan (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It was not "once in a blue moon" - because of Soviet policy, in 1939 and in every census after that, all ethnic Turks and many Muslims without an officially recognised ethnicity were labeled as being "Azeri" regardless of their actual ethnicity. Meowy 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not true. All subsequent census (1959, 1970, 1979, 1989) mentioned Turks, as well as Kurds, Persians, Turkmen, and Arabs separate from Azeris in Armenia. Parishan (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
meowy, the thing is that the Turkic speaking people in Armenia were all ancestors of the current day Azeris. But the thing is1- the name Azeri is somehow problematic, because the area to noth of Araxes was not called Azerbaijan. The Turkic speking Shiite MUslims of Armenia were culturally closer to the Azeris, in Iran, than the Turkified Caucasian people in the Northern part of the republic of Azerbaijan were. 2- The second problem is that too many Kurds were registered as Azerbaijani, as years long Tats and Talysh were counted as Azeris. So the people about which the article is written were not all Azeris and secondly this name is problematic. That is the main issue here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposal[edit]

I think it is better to change the name to Muslim Peoples in Armenia. It might be debatable to say that the Shia Muslim Turkic speaking people in Armenia were called Azerbaijani or not, but they did exist. Next to the Shia MUslim Turkic speaking people, there were also large number of Kurds in Armenia. Much more than there are today. Before the Russian conquest there lived also a number of Persians there. Still in the communist times there lived a large minority of Azeris (or how you call them) and Kurds there. Changing the name might solve the issue. What are your thoughts?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reactions?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Each of those minorities could be covered in separate articles. I don't see a compelling reason why they should be combined into one article.Meowy 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I. Parishan (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
honestly Muslim people in Armenia tells a lot more than Azeris and OTHER Turkic people in Armenia. Which Other? I know that this decision was taken because some said that the Turkic speaking people were not called Azeris. But they spoke the Turkic which is now called Azeri and were Shiite Moslems. On the other hand Kurds are not mentioned. Just remember that the population in Qars area in Turkey, are not Sunni Anatolian Turks, but are speaking in fact Azeri Turkic and are Shiite Muslim,. Though Turkish policy targets this as well as other minorities to get assimilated, these differences are stil visible.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Kurds are not mentioned because they have their own article. See Kurds in Armenia VartanM (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"they spoke the Turkic which is now called Azeri and were Shiite Moslems" - Yes, that is precisely the reason why this '...Other Turkic Peoples' deal is plain ridiculous. The Dalmatian Italians is not called 'Italians and Other Romance Peoples in Dalmatia', and no one seems to be bothered by that. Parishan (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Language is not ethnicity. I've already given a source in the previous discussion which told of how in the 1930s all Turkic peoples in the Transcaucasus were required to be taught in the Azeri Turkic used in Azerbaijan. Meowy 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It was never "in the Transcaucasus" but only in one republic, Georgia, and it was never "all Turkic peoples" but just the Meskhetian Turks, who have nothing to do with this article whatsoever. Not to mention that this policy only lasted for 8 years, as all Meskhetian Turks were deported from the Caucasus in 1944. Parishan (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So what is your suggestion? Drop the "other Turkic" part?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are few options we can take. 1) Leave it as it is, it took many hours to reach the current compromise version. 2) Expend the article and rename it to [Muslims Peoples in Armenia]. 3) Split the article in half, [Azeris in Armenia] and [Turkic Peoples in Armenia]. I prefer the first two, but if the third option is chosen you have to get the Azeri lot to promise not to add irrelevant information to the article. And by irrelevant I mean claiming that other Turkic tribes were Azeris. VartanM (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a problem in calling Saljuqs as Azeris. But they were in Any case Muslims. Kurds were also Muslims. I think by changing the name of the title problem will be solved. Only some lines should be add about the Kurds and (Persians prior to the Russian conquest). --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In reality, it is just the first paragraph of the main body of the article that talks about the 'other Turkic' peoples, namely Seljuqs. It is neither sufficient enough to be allocated a separate article, nor informative enough to serve as anything except background information for the history of Azeris in Armenia. Just like in the article Dalmatian Italians, there is background information dating back to the 900s and to Venetians who did not identify themselves as Italians. If it is that crucial to show that period as distinct, we might as well divide the 'History' section into sub-sections, of which one would be called 'Background.' Parishan (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can guess the objections of the Armenian side why they do not want to rename it as Muslim people in Armenia and do not want to add Kurds and Persians to the list, but I do not know why editors from the rep. Azerbaijan oppose this renaming. May I know why you object to include Kurds (and Persians)to the article? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I generally disfavor such titles because they endorse a ghostly sense that the conflict is rooted in religion. Additionally, the proposal if fulfilled is akin to 'germanization of Nicolaus Copernicus', acting like muleta. --Brandспойт 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well this article is not about the conflict but about the people. But if you mean this: of course religion played a role in the national identity of Armenians and their distinction with other people, Azeris, Kurds and Persians who were collectively called Muslims. In fact Muslim here is not a religious name but an ethnic rest-category which means non-Armenian. The Armenian vs. Muslim people's behavior in the region, at least for a long time, was based on their religious affiliations. This was why Russians favored Christian Armenians, but Iranians favored the Shia Azeris. Russia adopted many Armenians and Greeks from the Ottoman empire but deported Circassians to that empire. Also adopted Armenians from Iran and deported Azeris) or as they were called then Shia Turkicspeakers to Iran (were called Tatars, Iranian Turks, or even Persians, but were largely Turkic speaking Shia Muslims who were loyal to Iran and disloyal to Russia--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about Kurds or Persians, it is about Azeris. There's an article about Kurds in Armenia, and you can create one about Persians in Armenia too. Muslim vs Christian division existed back at the times when the region was conquered by Russia, but it did not play an important role in the Soviet and post-Soviet times, when the conflicts became purely nationalistically motivated. Grandmaster 07:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Come on Grandmaster, this article is for great deal about the pre-Soviet times, and goes as far as the Saljuq time! --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, so? Write another one about Persians, if you wish. There's one on Kurds already. All such articles discuss the history of certain people on a certain territory. They do not lump them all together, there's an article about population of Armenia for that. Grandmaster 14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It was very simple to think that my propsal was aimed at to include Persians at very low costs. No. The logic of this article was about the emigrations/ deportations of Moslem people from Armenia. The article Kurds in Armenia is very positively written and Ok with the Armenian POV. In fact my proposal was not that bad for the offical POV of the republic of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani nationalists regarding the issue, but again seemingly racial issues had the upperhand. BTW I am not persian, Kurd or Armenian. As both editors from republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia are stubborn in their POV's, it seems that mediation efforts are fruitless and will be fruitless in the future. And lease do not suggest that I am pusruing Persian POV. I am as Azeri as you are, but not a Panturkist one.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not see a reason in uniting all potential articles about Muslims in Armenia into one. As Grandmaster mentioned, the article Kurds in Armenia already exists and is sufficient by itself, and there is much more information that can be added to it. Besides, ethnic identity in Armenia is neater and more clearcut than religious. If you were to focus on the religious identity of Armenia's minority (previously majority) Muslim population, then you would have to split the Kurds in Armenia article into two, because not all Kurds in Armenia are/were Muslim. Otherwise this will create unnecessary forks and overlaps. Finally, the proposed merge would become a mirror of the Islam in Armenia article. It seems more appropriate, if your intention is to discuss the history of Islam in this country. The other Muslim minorities of Armenia do not seem to be as numerous or historically notable as Azeris and Kurds, but if you do find sufficient information on, say, Persians in Armenia, you may as well start a separate article. Parishan (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, this proposal was not meant to discuss religion in Armenia., It was meant to discuss the process of outmigration (or you would say deportation) of non-Armenians from Armenia. As you see these people were MUslims, while Yezidi Kurds are still there. As I said it was in your own favor, and Armenian editors gently and largely cooperated, but for one or other reason it is chosen to represent "Turks" as the ulitimate victims of history. That was not what the process really was.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There was no 'choice' of 'Turks' over anybody else. This article was initially dedicated to Azeris in Armenia, and it just happens so that emigration occupies large part of their history. If you would like to discuss the outmigration of Muslim Kurds, you are more than welcome to do so in the respective article about Kurds in Armenia. Otherwise it can be argued that ethnic Russians should be also mentioned, because their migration processes of Armenia also qualify for your proposal (ca. 50,000 Russians in the 1970s versus ca. 10,000 Russians today), even if they are not Muslim. Parishan (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I will leave this article the way it is. But do you really think that the nature of Russian emigration from Armenia was the same as that of (what were to be called) Azeris or Kurds?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. To a certain degree, both were results of growing Armenian nationalism. Parishan (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No. Russian emigration from Armenia after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a result of economic hardship coupled with the relative ease of entry into Russia. Russian emigration from Azerbaijan was mostly due to Azeri nationalisim, Islamism, and (above all) a state-level policy of anti-Russianism. Meowy 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Another baseless claim. There was never Islamism in Azerbaijan. As for nationalism, it seems more nationalist to ban education in the Russian language and then allow it only to those who affirm their Russian ancestry, as they did in Armenia; rather than to preserve each and every of the 300+ schools with Russian as the language of instruction even in the years of full-fledged nationalist movements, even in the areas with no ethnic Russian presence, as they did in Azerbaijan. Little research on the matter never hurts, especially when it beats your wishful thinking. Parishan (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to say something as an unpartizan person. Russians were in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia etc... only as recent settlers. They came to work and then go. They were no permanent settlers. They left both republics when the situation deteriorated. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan were and are nationalist. Armenia expelled large numbers of Azeris and Kurds and Azerbaijan did the same to Armenians. Nowadays in Armenia the only significant minorities are the Yezidi Kurds. In Azerbaijan also live a large number of minorities, but they are registered as Azeri and these people are under severe regime of discrimination. People from the North (Sunni Daghetsani origin) are under tight supervision of the government as they are accused of islamism and separtism. tats, Talysh and Kurds are undergoing Turkification efforts from the governmental and non-governmental forces. Both Armenia and the republic of Azerbaijan are strongly mono-ethnic nationalist countries.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Being non-partisan does not mean being well-informed. The lines about Russians not being permanent settlers and Kurds undergoing government-sponsored assimilation are a murderer. In any case though, I would like to ask you to stick to the subject of this discussion, if possible. Parishan (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It is funny that yopu tell me I am non-informed. Be it so, then see all reports and books about the republic of Azerbaijan. Even authors wrote this who are benevolent to your government and Musavat and Elchibey alike. No offense though.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New section[edit]

Please do not make further blanket reverts, Parishan. The changes that you have undone twice now include grammatical and sentence fixes, as well the proper quoting and attribution of information to their proper authors. Furthermore, the information that is being presented in this section relies too heavily on a single author (De Waal), whose own sympathies for the Azerbaijanis makes him a less than neutral source for the presentation of such contentious material. The argument on the name change from the "Blue Mosque" to the "Persian Mosque" not only sounds unconvincing but is largely irrelevant in context when there is not the slightest notion that this change was done for the purpose of eliminating the identity of an ethnic group, especially when it was built by an indivdual who nominally lived under the tutelage of the Safavid shahs.

Further, there is no sense in denying that many, if not most, toponyms in this region had originally Armenian names. Leaving aside the most significant name distortions, which have taken place in the Republic of Turkey after 1923, there are numerous names which have since been altered after the unprecedented, large-scale settlement of Muslims in Armenia following the eleventh century. The name Dvin was slightly distorted by the Arabs after the seventh century and was called "Dabil" for several centuries. The names of former Armenian villages and towns like Karvachar, Yernjak and Dastak have remained altered and it is only in the past few decades that many of the names in Armenia have reverted to their original names. Lake Sevan (Gegharkunik) is no longer referred to by the name that was used during Turkic and Persian domination. And so on and so on. This is all common sense.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever a discussion or a third-party assessment that ended in characterising De Waal as a source "sympathetic to Azeris"? I do not recall one, so I fail to see how De Waal, who has travelled to Yerevan, would be dismissed as a neutral source on this issue. On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, you were the one advocating for openly pro-Armenian sources to be let describe a rather controversial matter, without even agreeing to indicate their exceedingly one-sided approach. Compared to Cox, De Waal is neutrality personified. Yet you are bashing him just because he implies the ridiculousness of what official Armenian propaganda postulates: that for nine centuries there has not been one originally Azeri settlement founded in Armenia and that there has been only one Islamic landmark left, and guess what, it is Persian.
I call it ridiculous because mosques technically cannot be Azeri, or Turkish, or Persian, and anyone who knows anything about Islam would be aware of that. Islamic temples are different from Christian ones in that given the lack of multiple subdivisions in Islam, mosques are not typically affiliated with national or territorial religious institutions, like you have in Christianity, where churches can be Russian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic or Seventh-Day Adventist. If anything, mosques can be Sunni or Shi'a. An Azeri, a Persian, a Kurd, and an Arab would therefore attend the same mosque regardless of where they come from. Yet in a situation where ethnic Azeris continuously and almost exclusively formed the parish of this mosque (built on the orders of an Azeri khan and bearing his name) for 250 years, calling it "Persian" all of a sudden would seem politically motivated even to a neutral scholar. Keep in mind that De Waal does not talk about the name change from the "Blue Mosque" to the "Persian Mosque", but about the fact that the term "Persian" was deliberately introduced in the 1990s to assign this mosque a new ethnic association and to rid it of its Azeri "ambiance" formed in the minds of Yerevanis throughout centuries precisely for the reasons stated above. The fact that it was built under a nominal Safavid suzeiranty does not constitute an argument; that is a whole different issue. The notion of ethnicity in mediaeval Islamic societies substantially differed from the modern notion introduced by European Christians. A mosque built in the Safavid era does not automatically become "Persian", just like the Jameh Mosque of Qazvin built in Iran under the Caliphate does not automatically become "Arab."
As for the toponyms, yes, I agree that some of them might have had Armenian names originally, it is only natural given the history of Armenian presence on these lands. But you are forgetting two things:
  1. The fact that the name changes occured is undisputable and must be mentioned. If you want to mention that these changes were in fact reverts to original toponyms, feel free to add that information, so long as you provide a third-party source confirming your claim. But you cannot just remove a whole paragraph about such an important issue.
  2. The name change information is not there to show that it actually occured, but to show that there was in fact a state-enforced policy in Armenia that specifically targeted toponyms of Azeri origin and precisely because of their origin. That policy did not affect places like Charentsavan, or Fioletovo, or Lermontov, which were renamed in the Soviet times, which does not lead me to believe that "taking the toponyms back to their roots" was really the government's concern. At least, my belief is backed up by third-party sources. Parishan (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
De Waal is a nicely convenient source, accessible to the most general reader (online and at libraries), which is why I have used him as a "go-to" source in many articles; most of the information he presents, however, is not particularly new and is found in Armenian sources and elsewhere. For the sake of not provoking "source reliability" arguments, I have preferred to use him. But I have always attributed to him remarks he has recorded or specific arguments he has made, since other sources do not necessarily corroborate what he says. Regarding Caroline Cox and the massacre at Maraghar: it was not necessarily she who made the grisly discoveries there but her organization as a whole. Inserting the words "the supporter of Karabakh Armenians" is not only pedantic, but a cheap method of undermining her credibility.
De Waal, however, is a journalist, and not a historian; despite what he says, enough ink has been spilled to established that an Azerbaijani nationalism did not exist until the first two decades of the 20th century. I don't have to tell you this. But because of such an absence, it's odd to characterize a mosque built during the heyday of the Safavid Empire as specifically Azerbaijani, since such a definition did not exist in the first place. Most people in Yerevan do not even make such a distinction. Whatever my misgivings to De Waal's argument, keep in mind that I have not removed it, but have merely qualified an opinion that is being speculated by an individual, not a fact which all observers can agree to. I don't think we have any fundamental reason for disagreement here.
Regarding the toponyms: such a common sense argument doesn't need any referencing. It's like citing a source saying grass is green or the earth is round. Then again, the Azerbaijani government's habit of denying Armenian heritage, destroying it or co-opting it seems to explain why all this incredulity is expressed in the first place. That Turkic-sounding names were changed is not in dispute; but to think that all of these names were originally Muslim in origin is simply a distortion of the very sources you purport to support your argument. Karvachar is but one example of this. I have already listed other examples above and I'm very upset to see that you partially reverted me and made such a contentious assertion without even allowing a discussion to commence.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The "common sense argument" you are referring to may not need referencing for you for subjective reasons, but it nevertheless does need to be backed up by a source. The compulsory existence of an Armenian name for a town in Armenia is not as axiomatic as the Earth's round shape. Besides we need to be careful when saying things like "reverted back to their names." If a place happens to have an alternative Armenian name it does not yet mean that that name is the original one, as the process of "name alteration" went both ways. In some cases, where basic linguistics allows us to, we can tell the original and altered versions apart (e.g. Azeri /ɡˠæmærˈli/ → Armenian /ʁɑmɑrˈlu/ for Qamarli, or Azeri /ɡɑˈrɑbɑɣ/ → Armenian /ʁɑrɑˈbɑʁ/ for Karabakh). Your example of Alinja speaks for itself: this fortress was built when Nakhchivan was ruled either by the Seljuqs or the Atabegs, so the chance of it being originally Armenian bearing an Armenian name is very low. Other examples are the current towns of Armavir (originally Sardarabad), Ararat (originally Davaloo), Masis (originally Ulookhanloo), and Artashat (originally Ghamarloo) which had Azeri names from the moment of their establishment in the mediaeval or modern era, but because they happen to be located on the site of famous landforms or ancient Armenian cities, the government assigned those names to them by association, despite the fact that there is a huge time gap between the decline of Artashat and the establishment of Ghamarloo; it is almost as odd as renaming Kandahar "Alexandria Arachosia." Parishan (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is pure nonesense. This article quality is well under average for you to come there and add more controversial material. Azeri name is your claim..., just as much as Fizuli is called an Azeri, when neither the ethnical nor the national identification as Azerbaijani existed. Ionidasz (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The fortifications of Yernak existed long before the Turkic tribs ser foot there. They existed prior to the Arab invasion including it's castle. Your insinuations and OR won't make your arguments any stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talkcontribs) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ionidasz, first and foremost, I suggest that you lower your tone a bit. I do not appreciate at all the unmannerly way you address your concerns to me every time we confront each other on Wikipedia. Second of all, before reverting, it would not hurt you to see that you are reverting a compromise version that MarshallBagramyan and I have worked on together. Thirdly, I do not have to present anything to you, because your request is offtopic. We have discussed the question of Azeri ethnic identity with you dozens of times throughout God knows how many talkpages. I will say this one more time: this article is not about an ethnic identity. It is enough to provide sources mentioning the formation of the Azeri ethnicity and language in the mediaeval times, all of which are found in abundance in the featured article Azerbaijani people. Shifts and changes in terms for self-identification are common to many ethnic groups, for instance Germans and Italians before the 19th century, majority of whom did not identify themselves as Deutsche or Italiano respectively but rather identified as subjects of the tiny principalities and republics they lived in, but are seen as ethnically German and Italian (e.g. Bach and Dante) from today's academic perspective. I would like to remind your for the last time that this article is about an ethnic group which at certain points in history may have been referred to using various names but for which the accepted modern academic term is Azeri or Azerbaijani. The name might have changed, but the people did not. It is the same ethnic and cultural group. Therefore regardless of what these people referred to themselves in 1760, the names of these places were and remain Azeri, because they were generated using the language these people spoke. This is the last time I am discussing the question of historical ethnic identification of Azeris, and I expect that not to be an issue any longer. Parishan (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No Parishan, this article is about Azeri and other Turkic people of Armenia. Your comparaison with the German's is innacurate, only Germans assume the history of the ancestory..., the Turkic speaking people are those who assume the ancestory of the Azeri, Azeri assumed their ancestory only from late 19th century and beginning of the 20th. Prior to that, the Turkic speaking people were no different by language or identity than those from Iraq, extrem Eastern Ottoman, Persia or those in historic Eastern Armenia. Claiming that they are Azeri in 1760 is lumping all Turkic speaking people in a category which neither themselves assumed, nor others. Also, you claim that this version is a concession between you and MarshallBagramyan..., that he stoped editing does not mean he accept this version. Your comment about my tone is unjustifiable, because were accounters were always done prior when you were doing actions against the wiki rules (like maintaining a FORK). Ionidasz (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny, are you actually trying to think of an excuse to be rude? Right... Anyhow... Your statement about Germans assuming something Azeris are not assuming is OR; I am not even going to bother to comment on that. It is only natural that "the Turkic-speaking people were no different by language or identity" because the Turkic-speaking people of the Caucasus, Persia and parts of Eastern Anatolia constituted then and still constitute a single ethnic group they now call Azeris. Here is an excerpt from Lev Gumilyov: "Modern science considers the fifteenth century to mark the end of the formation process of the Turkish ethnicity. Apparently this is also the date for the formation of the Azeri ethnicity." Восток в древности: Chapter 5. My version of the article is based on MarshallBagramyan's with slight changes that left his additions mostly unaffected. Pay attention to what you are reverting. Parishan (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No, what you consider as being rude, is when I told you to stop maintaining a FORK article, which was a warning, it was not meant to be rude. I will have to revert again, because you are not addressing the issue and just using a Soviet linguist to support something and present it as the only truth when I see above other references used by other editors (the ones on April 11 I see above for instance) which says the opposit. Also, I think you misunderstood me, when I said assumed, I did not mean assumption, search on google the word and take the other definitions than the first one. It is your belief that Turkish spoken in Eastern Anatolia and Iraq should be considered as Azeri. Ionidasz (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
When I said "every time we confront each other on Wikipedia", I did not just mean confronting your current account, but all user accounts that you have used on Wikipedia. Moving on.
Gumilyov was not "a Soviet linguist", but a prominent historian and ethnographer who defined the modern approach to the study of Turkology in Russia and of history in general. Your personal assessment of his works (whose importance to Russian histriography, I am almost certain, you are completely unaware of, which however does not prevent you from making ridiculous evaluations of him just to make this pointless discussion go on) does not matter in this case. Fedayee's reference in no way denies what Gumilyov is stating. You still don't get it, do you? It is not about the terminology that historians and contemporary writers used to name this ethnic group. It is the very fact of this ethnic group's existence that is covered by the article. The existence of this ethnicity cannot be questioned simply on the basis of ethnonym change. There is a major, major difference between saying "There were no Azeris in 1760" and "The term 'Azeris' was not in use for Azeris in 1760."
You are so full of POV that you do not find it necessary to perform the most basic research on the Azeri language. See Ethnologue report for Azerbaijani:
"Also spoken in: 600,000 in Iraq (1982) - Kirkuk City, Arbil, Rowanduz, other areas southeast from Kirkuk as far as Al Miqdadiyah, Khanaqin, and Mandali; some in Mosul region; 530,000 in Turkey - Kars Province". Parishan (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summary is contradictory, since you specifically refered to Fedayee reference while you claimed in it to show the source. All what has been said was said, you just seem to refuse to accept what someone can easily understand. In 1760 there was no distinction between Iraqi Turks, Anatolian Turks and those in Armenia. That those were Azeri and not Turks is your position, and sherry picking is not gonna be accepted. You can not rejet scholarship on the basis of the presention of a few sources and present the content as a truth. Ionidasz (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Your excessive use of the term 'cherry picking' is growing old. Face it, you have been shown sources that clearly indicate the distinction between Azeris and non-Azeri Turkic-speakers of the region. At least, I have 'a few sources' like Gumilyov and Ethnologue to support my viewpoint. You have nothing except your POV. Get back to me when you find neutral sources that disprove what mine are stating. Until then, please refrain from reverting this article. Parishan (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such distinction, it is your belief that a large chunk of Turkic people in the whole region are Azeri. This is wrong and therefor I revert. Ionidasz (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are either have to agree with Gumilyov and Ethnologue or provide additional sources. I am not quite interested in your personal take on the matter. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)