![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
Ahhh the good old days of circular discussion where they don't even read what you post, changes the subject, misquote sources... Grandmaster you didn't really think that your quote was going to fly did you? Are your serious? Or do you think that we don't know the difference between Tabriz Azaris and the 1918 Azeris of Northern Araks? VartanM ( talk) 04:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the major issues here is that there is an attempt by one side to deny the historical existence of the other. So if there are Azerbaijani people, who speak Turkic dialect and have a certain identity, and those people inhabited Irevan and other parts of Armenia up until their complete deportation in 1988 amidst Karabakh conflict, their identity is well defined. I don't see why Turkmens would suddenly cease to exist in Armenia in 1988 or were there any Armenian-Turkmen conflict ever? So why no Turkic speakers reside in modern Armenia despite centuries of existence and even domination over the territory known today as Republic of Armenia?
Denial of identity is as much unacceptable and disruptive as denial of genocide, because first of all, it's indicative of intolerance of the other side and bring up the issue of racism. So I hope Fedayee, VartanM and others, well known for violating AGF over and over, finally come to terms with historical reality. Atabek ( talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would Turkic-speaking community in Armenia cease to exist in 1988, as a result of deportation and ethnic cleansing, if they were Turkmens? Atabek ( talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an Armenian reference which calls them Azeri Turks (Azerbaijanis):
Another interesting point is that already in 1979, when Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians lived in peace, author was claiming that Armenians dislike Azeris and Georgians, which was a prelude to Karabakh war and occasional Armenian claims on Georgia's territorial integrity. Atabek ( talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Fedayee, this are word-to-word quotes from your two messages posted on April 11: "I hope Ulvi is here and reading this, you have reverted in order to make obviously wrong claims. Grandmaster, Transcaucasia never had any Turkmen population? Are you kidding me? Grandmaster, most Turkic population in the Transcaucasia were originally Turkmens who moved in the region from the 10th to the 13th century. A very significant part (the majority actually) of North Arax Azeri were originally Turkmens who converted to Shia in the 16th century and who had joined the Safavid Empire." and this one "Where are they? They were assimilated as Azerbaijan’s, here is where they are. Take any work written by Turkish scholars and you will see that those were Turkmen, not Azerbaijani. I find it laughable that you ask me how I came up with this idea, when it is common knowledge even acknowledged by Ulvi." Now do you see any difference between my "Turcoman" and your "Turkmen"? Why do you present as if I used "Turkmen", which is completely different from my "Turcoman"? Why do you misquote me to justify your POV? About the religion, Swietachovsky is missing important period of wars of 1806-1813 and 1826-1828, when significant portion of Shia Azeris moved to Persian Gajar territories in order to be close to their culture and religion. Almost entire Gandja moslem quarters did the same when Ottomans occupied these areas in 1724, a century before 1800's. All the Armenians remained in Gandja, but Moslems left their quarters and the city was left without a single Shia Azeri (see Ottoman Tax Registrars of Ganja-Karabakh Province for 1727). They rather preferred to leave their homes than to read khutbas for the Sunni khalifs Abu Bakr, Osman and Omar in their mosques. Why do you think they would do different when the Russia invaded the Caucasus, especially given the fact that significant and major population of both Gandja, Karabakh and Irevan Khanates were composed of the Gajar people, which could be considered as a ethnographic group within Azerbaijani people had they not assimilated today. Regarding the conversion of so called "Turkmens" or Turcomans in proper words to Shiism in 16th century - you are so wrong. To understand the region and its religion better, please read this academic work before you make your conclusions:
(quoted from - TRIMINGHAM, J. Spencer : THE SUFI ORDERS IN ISLAM, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 80-83. )
"...Whilst the Khalwatiyya was characterized by fissiparous tendencies, the headship of each ta'ifa becoming hereditary, the
Bektashiyya maintained a strong central organization, with affiliated village groups, and was limited to Anatolia and its European provinces. The Bektashiyya claimed to be a Sunni order, though in fact very unorthodox and having so strong a reverence for the House of `Ali that it might well be called a Shi'i order. Tha practical
recognition of the order as Sunni seems to be due to the fact that when, after the early association of Turkish Sufis with the ghazi and akhi movements which assisted the Ottoman surge to conquest, when the Ottoman authority came more and more under the influence of orthodox Hanafis, the early ghazi association was not repudiated but found
new vigour and a powerful organization in the Bektashiyya.
This organization was associated with the name of a semi-legendary Turkish Sufi called Hajji Bektash of Khurasan, who emigrated to Anatolia (1) after the Mongols had destroyed the Seljuq state and the remains of the Caliphate. He probably died about 738/1337, for Taqi ad-din al-Wasitî (1275-1343) mentions the Khirqa Bektash (deriving from Ahmad al-Yasavi, al-Ghujdawani, etc.) without adding radi Allah `anhu after his name, so he was still alive about 1320 and known in Iraq. (2) However, the organization of the Bektashiyya did not develop until the fifteenth century and the Janissary corps, instituted by Murad I, was associated with it from the end of the sixteenth century. One consequence of this association with the Janissaries and so with Ottoman authority was that the Bektashis were rarely attacked on grounds of doctrine or innovations. Ottoman authorities sometimes took severe measures against leaders, but that was through their involvement in the numerous Janissary revolts, not on account of their beliefs and practices. But immediately the Janissary corps was abolished in 1826 the Bektashis fell with them. The orthodox `ulama' then castigated them as heretics, (3) Some were killed, their tekkes destroyed, and their properties handed over to Naqshabandis. However, because they were not a military order but had deep roots in the life of the people, they survived underground, some groups within other orders, and when circumstances became more propitious they began once more to expand.
The heretical and Shi'i doctrines and ritual of the Bektashiyya do not derive from Hajji Bektash, though there is no need to assume that he was any more orthodox than other babas. His name is simply a term to provide a point of identity. The order grew out of saint-veneration and the system of convents into a syncretistic unity, combining elements from many sources, vulgar, heterodox, and esoteric; ranging from the popular cults of central Asia and Anatolia, both Turkish and Christian Rumi, to the doctrines of the Hurufis. When the inspirer of the Hurufi movement, Fadl Allah ibn `Ali Astarabad, was executed by Miran Shah in 796/1394 (or 804/1401) his khalifas dispersed widely. One of these, the great Turkish poet Nesimi, went from Tabriz to Aleppo, where he made numerous converts, but the `ulama' denounced him to the Mamluk sultan, Mu'ayyad, who had him executed in 820/1417. (4) It has been suggested that another khalifa, al-`Ali al-A'la (executed in Anatolia 822/1419), went on Anatolia and there fostered certain Hurufi doctrines upon a a local saint buried in central Anatolia called Hajji Bektash. (5) But he was only one among many, for the propaganda of the Hurufis spread widely, even though they were persecuted, especially under Bayezid II. Bektashis themselves do not refer Hurufi ideas back to Bektash, but this organization, tolerated by the authorities, became their depository and assured their perpetuation. The actual role of the Ahl-i Haqq during the Bektashi formative period is unknown. At any rate, during this fifteenth century when the Bektashiyya was developing into a comprehensive organization, it incorporated other beliefs besides Hurufi from the new environment and beyond some were Christian in origin and others came from such sources as the qizilbash (red heads) (6) of eastern Asia Minor and Kurdistan. Many of these were the later affiliated nomadic and village groups (alevis, takhtajis, etc.) initiated into allegiance to Hajji Bektash as the spiritual factor in communal life. (7) The Bektashis proper are those who were fully initiated into a lodge.
Probably the first leader of any true Bektashi organization was Balim Sultan (d. 922/1516), whose title of Pir Sani, the Second Patron Saint, implies that he is the founder. (8) According to tradition he was appointed to the headship of the Pir Evi, the mother tekke at Hajji Bektash Koy (near Qirshehir) in 907/1501. A rival head was the chelebi, whose authority was recognized by many of the village groups. Claiming descent from Hajji Bektash, he is first heard of in connection with a rising of Kalenderoglu, supported by various dervishes and Turkmans, which began in A.D. 1526. (9) This office became hereditary (at least from 1750), whereas the Dede, the head deriving from Balim Sultan, was an apostolic head chosen by a special council.
This confusion of origins and complexity of groupings supports the supposition that various groups which would have been regarded as schismatic and liable to be persecuted in the type of Sunni state towards which that of the Ottopmans was moving, (10) gained the right of asylum under the all-embracing and tolerant umbrella of the Bektashi organization. From Balim Sultan derives the organized Bektashi inititory system, with initiates living in tekkes situated near, but not within, towns, and to be distinguished from the village groups. Yet the whole organization composed of such diverse elements blended in time to express loyalty to a common ideal and purpose. Similarly, the unification of the basic ritual and symbolism, together with the custom of celibacy practised by a class of their dervishes, are ascribed to Balim Sultan...
Notes:
(In his book Trimingham, notes given in every pages starting from number 1, but we give numbers continiously for all pages. And also we give this part in the "The Formation of Tâ'ifas" of his book, "Bektasiyya" Dr. Ali Yaman)
(1) For legens of his investiture by one Luqman, disciple of Ahman Yasavi, and his migration see Evliya Chelebi (A.D. 1611-79), Narrative, ii. 19-21. He appeared in Anatolia after Jalal-ad-din Rumi was well established (d. A.D. 1273) and was recognized by a group there who called him the khalifa of one Baba Rasul Allah. This it seems was the Ishaq Baba who led his dervishes against the Seljuq sultan, Ghiyath ad-din Kay-Khusrau II in 1240 (see J. K. Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, 1937, pp. 32, 43-4). He does not need to be a direct khalifa. Aflaki says of Bektashi that he was `un mystique au coeur eclaire, mais il ne s'astreignait pas a suivre la loi apportee par le prophete' (tr. C. Huart, Les Saints des dervishes tourneurs, i. 296).
(2)Al-Wasitî (d. 1343), Tiryaq al-muhibbin, p. 47.
(3) See Assad-Efendi Mohammed, Precis historique de la destruction du corps des Janissaires par le Sultan Mahmoud, en 1826, tr. A. P. Caussin Perceval, Paris, 1833, pp. 298-329.
(4) On Nesimi, whose full name is Nesim ad-din Tabrizî, see E. J. W. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, i. 343 ff.
(5) An important, though hostile, account is Ishaq Efendi's Kashif al- Asrar, published in 1291/1874-5. This relates how, after the execution of Fadl Allah, `his Khalifas (vicars or lieutenants) agreed to disperse themselves through the lands of the Muslims, and devoted themselves to corrupting and misleading the people of Islam. He of those Khalifas who bore the title of al-Ali al-A'la (`the High, the Supreme') came to the monastery of Hajji Bektash in Anatolia and there lived in seclusion, secretly teaching the Jawidan to the inmates of the monastery, with the assurance that it represented the doctrine of Hajji Bektash the saint (wali). The inmates of the monastery, being ignorant and foolish, accepted the Jawidan, ... named it "the secret"; and enjoined the utmost reticence concerning it, to such a degree that if anyone enters their order and afterwards reveals "the secret", they consider his life as forfeit (tr. E. G. Browne, Literary History of Persia, iii. 371-2; cf. 449-52). The Jawidan-name mentioned was written by Fadl Allah after his revelation of 788/1386.
(6) The Turks applied the term qizilbash to fuqara, chiefly Turkish at first, who wore red turbans. Later, after Shaikh Haidar of the Safawiyya was divinely instructed in a dream to adopt a scarlet cap distinguished by twelve gores, the term especially designated his followers.
(7) The tekke of Hajji Bektash was at one time supported by the revenues of 362 villages whose inhabitants were inhabitants were affiliated to the order; see F. W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, 1929, ii. 503.
(8) See J. K. Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, 1937, pp. 56-58.
(9) J. von Hammer, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, ed. J. J. Hellert, 1844, i. 489.
(10) The decisive date after which these organizations in the Ottoman dominions had to profess a surface Sunni allegiance was Sultan Salim's victory at Caldiran over Shah Ismail in A. D. 1514."
-- Aynabend ( talk) 12:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Atabek in his recent edit again (he was warned on various occasions to not do that) has introduced significant amount of another author’s words (word by word) in the text as if it was part of the article infringing intellectual property. Also had Atabek read all that section up until page 18 he will see that the author like the rest is basically saying what I have been saying. See here for example. - Fedayee ( talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fedayee, I think you're still misunderstanding what is that you're debating. Are you debating the reference, which I added? Obviously not, since you requote it, well then why do you complain about my edit or even trying to further your attack on other contributors? As you have been explained, it does not matter WHEN the term came into scholarly use - the fact is that Caucasian Turk, Tatar, Turkmen, or whatever they were called in history, is known today as Azerbaijani identity :). The identity was unique in history, hence cannot be denied simply based on argument that you try to make. Again, the reference brought saying "These are the people today known as Azeris" is the main point - that people eradicated from what's today known as Republic of Armenia (prior to that Erivan khanate and governorate) during entire 20th century, finalizing the ethnic cleansing process in 1988-1989 were Azerbaijani Turks (Azeris). Atabek ( talk) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that all of this is going round in a neverending circle. Wouldn't it be more sensible just to rename the article to something neutral. Perhaps call it "Turkic communities in Armenia". What those communities were can then be explored in the article. Or maybe take ethnicity out of the title and call it Moslem communities in Armenia, since until the end of the 19th century, it was religion rather than ethnicity that people identified with. Meowy 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This will probably remain a very circular argument it seems. A simple qualifier here is this though, language. Now Turkmen, Azerbaijani/Alevi Turkish/Anatolian Turkish etc. are all mutually intelligible as in these groups are related in some fashion, but in particular their languages are. With the Shi'i-Sunni split the groups to the west in Turkey and to the east in Central Asia are Sunni, leaving the Shi'i group which eventually comes under the Turkicized name of Azeri Turks. Thus, if they are Shi'i (or even Sunni for a time) and live in the Caucusus, then they are indeed ancestors of the Azeris. The language connection is a dead giveaway. Can we start then with these two premises: language continuity and geography and later religion as to what constitutes Azeri Turkish identity and history in the region? Tombseye ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I see it there are some conflicting views SO in such a matter I think we can do a few things. First, Meowy's suggestion that we re-title the article is a good one so I figured we could start some kind of voting to figure out which title everyone can live with. Second, since there are conflicting views, why not simply present the differing views so long as the sources are academic and neutral? I'm in favor of a title that reads "Turkic and Azerbaijani-Turkish Communities in Armenia". Next, I believe that the Azeri identity stems from the local Turkmen, both Sunni and Shi'i which evolves into a largely Shi'i group that speaks a dialect of the Turkmen language. The ethnic issue here is hazy as it is based upon religion since the Sunni Turkmen are clearly related in this regard. Also, obviously we're talking language replacement as the Turkmen were relatively few in number as they crossed through northern Iran into the Caucasus and, no doubt, Turkicized the earlier Iranian and Caucasian groups (Albanians and Armenians among many others). This is generally true of many invasion scenarios as a small force of males invades and conquers and gets assimilated, but may also impart and spread their language and religion/culture to the locals. Thus, the pre-Indo-European groups in Greece are conquered and assimilated by Proto-Greeks and form a new identity. This applies to the Armenians as well etc. as their Indo-European language comes through conquest from most likely the Ukraine millenia ago. At any rate, I believe we should simply go with a neutral title that everyone can live with AND state that the conflicting views rather than argue about who's right as that will simply continue the impasse. Tombseye ( talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
But who says that we should use the contemporary terms only? That’s not what other encyclopedias do. Whatever those people were called in the Russian empire, they were the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. And the term Azerbaijani as an ethnonym was used in the Russian empire and in the west by the scholars like Ernest Chantre. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality, I don’t know how Meowy came to a conclusion that Azerbaijani is not an ethnonym. See what Britannica says: After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran. Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century. [19] See that the article uses both Azerbaijani and Azerbaijani Turk to describe the events of 1813. If they do it, why cannot we? About Azerbaijani being an ethnicity:
Azerbaijani - 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. [20]
In my opinion, this article should cover Azerbaijani people and their ancestors, who lived in Armenia and constituted a majority before the Russian conquest of the region. I mean, how can you cover Azerbaijanis and say nothing about the history of their presence in the region? It is not gonna work like that. Grandmaster ( talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Who were the people referred to by Russians as Azerbaijani Tatars, the Azerbaijanis or some other ethnicity? Britannica makes it clear:
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.
So if Azerbaijani Tatars = Azerbaijanis, why should we remove the period of history when Azerbaijanis were referred to by other well documented names? Grandmaster ( talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So in my opinion the article should cover the history of Azerbaijani people from the time when Turkic people moved in the area to the modern times. Since the Turcomans that settled in the area were the ancestors of modern day Azerbaijanis and it is very well documented and verifiable info, the history of Azerbaijani people in Armenia should cover the entire history of presence of these people in the territory of modern day Armenia. In any case, this article only coves the history of Azerbaijani people in Armenia, as currently no Azerbaijani people are left in Armenia as result of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Grandmaster ( talk) 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have a solution that may appeal to some, but not everyone. I suggest retitling the article Turkic and Azeri- Turkish Communities in Armenia. In addition, I suggest we present the 2 views here: that the Azeris are descendents of the Oghuz Turks (and assimilated other Turks/Tatars) in the Caucasus and the opposing view that there were many different Turkic communities and it is not clear as to which groups are directly related to the modern Azeris. Surely that is agreeable? Just presenting the differing views tends to be the more viable way to overcome an impasse like this. Tombseye ( talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim that community in Armenia was Turkic and not specifically Azerbaijani does not withstand criticism, given the following basic historical facts:
So I believe the title "Azerbaijanis and other Turkic people in Armenia" would be more appropriate. Atabek ( talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreement seems pretty difficult here. I'm wondering, can we agree that the Oghuz invaders in the Caucasus can be considered the ancestors (more in a linguistic and cultural sense obviously) of the Azeris, especially since linguistic data seems to support such a view? Also, I'm getting the sense that the dissension is based upon the view that the term Azerbaijani can be applied to any people living in the area (Turkic and non-Turkic), BUT one point though, isn't Azerbaijani itself a turkicized version of the area's previous name denoting its change (and Albania has long sense gone out of usage) and eventual appropriation if you will of the Turkic/Turkicized population? This reminds me of the impasse over the use of the name Macedonia and the Greek objection to it a bit (obviously there are differences). People change, but the geography often remains static and then nationalism comes into play as neighboring groups object to a 'new' people using an old name as exclusively their own etc. However, are the Azeris entirely a new people? Their language came in later that much is clear. However, I would contend that both the Azeris and Armenians are, to varying degrees, both of indigenous and external origin so is the transferred name of a region being used by one group of great importance? Lastly, and this may have already been suggested, can the term Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia be used instead then? Seems like a compromise as it puts in Azerbaijani AND also explains that these are the Turks (as opposed to Armenians, Talysh, Lezgi etc.). Tombseye ( talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we are all OK with the title Azeri and Other Turkic Peoples in Armenia then I hope! Whew. I think it should be OK simply because Azeri for most people (in the English speaking world) equals Azerbaijani anyway. This title effectively eliminates the issue but also includes the key term as well only in its short form. Plus, I would suggest, when discussing history, differing views so as to avoid future conflict. Great job everyone. I'm glad we could resolve this! Tombseye ( talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Done! Tombseye ( talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
Ahhh the good old days of circular discussion where they don't even read what you post, changes the subject, misquote sources... Grandmaster you didn't really think that your quote was going to fly did you? Are your serious? Or do you think that we don't know the difference between Tabriz Azaris and the 1918 Azeris of Northern Araks? VartanM ( talk) 04:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the major issues here is that there is an attempt by one side to deny the historical existence of the other. So if there are Azerbaijani people, who speak Turkic dialect and have a certain identity, and those people inhabited Irevan and other parts of Armenia up until their complete deportation in 1988 amidst Karabakh conflict, their identity is well defined. I don't see why Turkmens would suddenly cease to exist in Armenia in 1988 or were there any Armenian-Turkmen conflict ever? So why no Turkic speakers reside in modern Armenia despite centuries of existence and even domination over the territory known today as Republic of Armenia?
Denial of identity is as much unacceptable and disruptive as denial of genocide, because first of all, it's indicative of intolerance of the other side and bring up the issue of racism. So I hope Fedayee, VartanM and others, well known for violating AGF over and over, finally come to terms with historical reality. Atabek ( talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would Turkic-speaking community in Armenia cease to exist in 1988, as a result of deportation and ethnic cleansing, if they were Turkmens? Atabek ( talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is an Armenian reference which calls them Azeri Turks (Azerbaijanis):
Another interesting point is that already in 1979, when Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians lived in peace, author was claiming that Armenians dislike Azeris and Georgians, which was a prelude to Karabakh war and occasional Armenian claims on Georgia's territorial integrity. Atabek ( talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Fedayee, this are word-to-word quotes from your two messages posted on April 11: "I hope Ulvi is here and reading this, you have reverted in order to make obviously wrong claims. Grandmaster, Transcaucasia never had any Turkmen population? Are you kidding me? Grandmaster, most Turkic population in the Transcaucasia were originally Turkmens who moved in the region from the 10th to the 13th century. A very significant part (the majority actually) of North Arax Azeri were originally Turkmens who converted to Shia in the 16th century and who had joined the Safavid Empire." and this one "Where are they? They were assimilated as Azerbaijan’s, here is where they are. Take any work written by Turkish scholars and you will see that those were Turkmen, not Azerbaijani. I find it laughable that you ask me how I came up with this idea, when it is common knowledge even acknowledged by Ulvi." Now do you see any difference between my "Turcoman" and your "Turkmen"? Why do you present as if I used "Turkmen", which is completely different from my "Turcoman"? Why do you misquote me to justify your POV? About the religion, Swietachovsky is missing important period of wars of 1806-1813 and 1826-1828, when significant portion of Shia Azeris moved to Persian Gajar territories in order to be close to their culture and religion. Almost entire Gandja moslem quarters did the same when Ottomans occupied these areas in 1724, a century before 1800's. All the Armenians remained in Gandja, but Moslems left their quarters and the city was left without a single Shia Azeri (see Ottoman Tax Registrars of Ganja-Karabakh Province for 1727). They rather preferred to leave their homes than to read khutbas for the Sunni khalifs Abu Bakr, Osman and Omar in their mosques. Why do you think they would do different when the Russia invaded the Caucasus, especially given the fact that significant and major population of both Gandja, Karabakh and Irevan Khanates were composed of the Gajar people, which could be considered as a ethnographic group within Azerbaijani people had they not assimilated today. Regarding the conversion of so called "Turkmens" or Turcomans in proper words to Shiism in 16th century - you are so wrong. To understand the region and its religion better, please read this academic work before you make your conclusions:
(quoted from - TRIMINGHAM, J. Spencer : THE SUFI ORDERS IN ISLAM, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 80-83. )
"...Whilst the Khalwatiyya was characterized by fissiparous tendencies, the headship of each ta'ifa becoming hereditary, the
Bektashiyya maintained a strong central organization, with affiliated village groups, and was limited to Anatolia and its European provinces. The Bektashiyya claimed to be a Sunni order, though in fact very unorthodox and having so strong a reverence for the House of `Ali that it might well be called a Shi'i order. Tha practical
recognition of the order as Sunni seems to be due to the fact that when, after the early association of Turkish Sufis with the ghazi and akhi movements which assisted the Ottoman surge to conquest, when the Ottoman authority came more and more under the influence of orthodox Hanafis, the early ghazi association was not repudiated but found
new vigour and a powerful organization in the Bektashiyya.
This organization was associated with the name of a semi-legendary Turkish Sufi called Hajji Bektash of Khurasan, who emigrated to Anatolia (1) after the Mongols had destroyed the Seljuq state and the remains of the Caliphate. He probably died about 738/1337, for Taqi ad-din al-Wasitî (1275-1343) mentions the Khirqa Bektash (deriving from Ahmad al-Yasavi, al-Ghujdawani, etc.) without adding radi Allah `anhu after his name, so he was still alive about 1320 and known in Iraq. (2) However, the organization of the Bektashiyya did not develop until the fifteenth century and the Janissary corps, instituted by Murad I, was associated with it from the end of the sixteenth century. One consequence of this association with the Janissaries and so with Ottoman authority was that the Bektashis were rarely attacked on grounds of doctrine or innovations. Ottoman authorities sometimes took severe measures against leaders, but that was through their involvement in the numerous Janissary revolts, not on account of their beliefs and practices. But immediately the Janissary corps was abolished in 1826 the Bektashis fell with them. The orthodox `ulama' then castigated them as heretics, (3) Some were killed, their tekkes destroyed, and their properties handed over to Naqshabandis. However, because they were not a military order but had deep roots in the life of the people, they survived underground, some groups within other orders, and when circumstances became more propitious they began once more to expand.
The heretical and Shi'i doctrines and ritual of the Bektashiyya do not derive from Hajji Bektash, though there is no need to assume that he was any more orthodox than other babas. His name is simply a term to provide a point of identity. The order grew out of saint-veneration and the system of convents into a syncretistic unity, combining elements from many sources, vulgar, heterodox, and esoteric; ranging from the popular cults of central Asia and Anatolia, both Turkish and Christian Rumi, to the doctrines of the Hurufis. When the inspirer of the Hurufi movement, Fadl Allah ibn `Ali Astarabad, was executed by Miran Shah in 796/1394 (or 804/1401) his khalifas dispersed widely. One of these, the great Turkish poet Nesimi, went from Tabriz to Aleppo, where he made numerous converts, but the `ulama' denounced him to the Mamluk sultan, Mu'ayyad, who had him executed in 820/1417. (4) It has been suggested that another khalifa, al-`Ali al-A'la (executed in Anatolia 822/1419), went on Anatolia and there fostered certain Hurufi doctrines upon a a local saint buried in central Anatolia called Hajji Bektash. (5) But he was only one among many, for the propaganda of the Hurufis spread widely, even though they were persecuted, especially under Bayezid II. Bektashis themselves do not refer Hurufi ideas back to Bektash, but this organization, tolerated by the authorities, became their depository and assured their perpetuation. The actual role of the Ahl-i Haqq during the Bektashi formative period is unknown. At any rate, during this fifteenth century when the Bektashiyya was developing into a comprehensive organization, it incorporated other beliefs besides Hurufi from the new environment and beyond some were Christian in origin and others came from such sources as the qizilbash (red heads) (6) of eastern Asia Minor and Kurdistan. Many of these were the later affiliated nomadic and village groups (alevis, takhtajis, etc.) initiated into allegiance to Hajji Bektash as the spiritual factor in communal life. (7) The Bektashis proper are those who were fully initiated into a lodge.
Probably the first leader of any true Bektashi organization was Balim Sultan (d. 922/1516), whose title of Pir Sani, the Second Patron Saint, implies that he is the founder. (8) According to tradition he was appointed to the headship of the Pir Evi, the mother tekke at Hajji Bektash Koy (near Qirshehir) in 907/1501. A rival head was the chelebi, whose authority was recognized by many of the village groups. Claiming descent from Hajji Bektash, he is first heard of in connection with a rising of Kalenderoglu, supported by various dervishes and Turkmans, which began in A.D. 1526. (9) This office became hereditary (at least from 1750), whereas the Dede, the head deriving from Balim Sultan, was an apostolic head chosen by a special council.
This confusion of origins and complexity of groupings supports the supposition that various groups which would have been regarded as schismatic and liable to be persecuted in the type of Sunni state towards which that of the Ottopmans was moving, (10) gained the right of asylum under the all-embracing and tolerant umbrella of the Bektashi organization. From Balim Sultan derives the organized Bektashi inititory system, with initiates living in tekkes situated near, but not within, towns, and to be distinguished from the village groups. Yet the whole organization composed of such diverse elements blended in time to express loyalty to a common ideal and purpose. Similarly, the unification of the basic ritual and symbolism, together with the custom of celibacy practised by a class of their dervishes, are ascribed to Balim Sultan...
Notes:
(In his book Trimingham, notes given in every pages starting from number 1, but we give numbers continiously for all pages. And also we give this part in the "The Formation of Tâ'ifas" of his book, "Bektasiyya" Dr. Ali Yaman)
(1) For legens of his investiture by one Luqman, disciple of Ahman Yasavi, and his migration see Evliya Chelebi (A.D. 1611-79), Narrative, ii. 19-21. He appeared in Anatolia after Jalal-ad-din Rumi was well established (d. A.D. 1273) and was recognized by a group there who called him the khalifa of one Baba Rasul Allah. This it seems was the Ishaq Baba who led his dervishes against the Seljuq sultan, Ghiyath ad-din Kay-Khusrau II in 1240 (see J. K. Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, 1937, pp. 32, 43-4). He does not need to be a direct khalifa. Aflaki says of Bektashi that he was `un mystique au coeur eclaire, mais il ne s'astreignait pas a suivre la loi apportee par le prophete' (tr. C. Huart, Les Saints des dervishes tourneurs, i. 296).
(2)Al-Wasitî (d. 1343), Tiryaq al-muhibbin, p. 47.
(3) See Assad-Efendi Mohammed, Precis historique de la destruction du corps des Janissaires par le Sultan Mahmoud, en 1826, tr. A. P. Caussin Perceval, Paris, 1833, pp. 298-329.
(4) On Nesimi, whose full name is Nesim ad-din Tabrizî, see E. J. W. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, i. 343 ff.
(5) An important, though hostile, account is Ishaq Efendi's Kashif al- Asrar, published in 1291/1874-5. This relates how, after the execution of Fadl Allah, `his Khalifas (vicars or lieutenants) agreed to disperse themselves through the lands of the Muslims, and devoted themselves to corrupting and misleading the people of Islam. He of those Khalifas who bore the title of al-Ali al-A'la (`the High, the Supreme') came to the monastery of Hajji Bektash in Anatolia and there lived in seclusion, secretly teaching the Jawidan to the inmates of the monastery, with the assurance that it represented the doctrine of Hajji Bektash the saint (wali). The inmates of the monastery, being ignorant and foolish, accepted the Jawidan, ... named it "the secret"; and enjoined the utmost reticence concerning it, to such a degree that if anyone enters their order and afterwards reveals "the secret", they consider his life as forfeit (tr. E. G. Browne, Literary History of Persia, iii. 371-2; cf. 449-52). The Jawidan-name mentioned was written by Fadl Allah after his revelation of 788/1386.
(6) The Turks applied the term qizilbash to fuqara, chiefly Turkish at first, who wore red turbans. Later, after Shaikh Haidar of the Safawiyya was divinely instructed in a dream to adopt a scarlet cap distinguished by twelve gores, the term especially designated his followers.
(7) The tekke of Hajji Bektash was at one time supported by the revenues of 362 villages whose inhabitants were inhabitants were affiliated to the order; see F. W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, 1929, ii. 503.
(8) See J. K. Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, 1937, pp. 56-58.
(9) J. von Hammer, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, ed. J. J. Hellert, 1844, i. 489.
(10) The decisive date after which these organizations in the Ottoman dominions had to profess a surface Sunni allegiance was Sultan Salim's victory at Caldiran over Shah Ismail in A. D. 1514."
-- Aynabend ( talk) 12:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Atabek in his recent edit again (he was warned on various occasions to not do that) has introduced significant amount of another author’s words (word by word) in the text as if it was part of the article infringing intellectual property. Also had Atabek read all that section up until page 18 he will see that the author like the rest is basically saying what I have been saying. See here for example. - Fedayee ( talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fedayee, I think you're still misunderstanding what is that you're debating. Are you debating the reference, which I added? Obviously not, since you requote it, well then why do you complain about my edit or even trying to further your attack on other contributors? As you have been explained, it does not matter WHEN the term came into scholarly use - the fact is that Caucasian Turk, Tatar, Turkmen, or whatever they were called in history, is known today as Azerbaijani identity :). The identity was unique in history, hence cannot be denied simply based on argument that you try to make. Again, the reference brought saying "These are the people today known as Azeris" is the main point - that people eradicated from what's today known as Republic of Armenia (prior to that Erivan khanate and governorate) during entire 20th century, finalizing the ethnic cleansing process in 1988-1989 were Azerbaijani Turks (Azeris). Atabek ( talk) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that all of this is going round in a neverending circle. Wouldn't it be more sensible just to rename the article to something neutral. Perhaps call it "Turkic communities in Armenia". What those communities were can then be explored in the article. Or maybe take ethnicity out of the title and call it Moslem communities in Armenia, since until the end of the 19th century, it was religion rather than ethnicity that people identified with. Meowy 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This will probably remain a very circular argument it seems. A simple qualifier here is this though, language. Now Turkmen, Azerbaijani/Alevi Turkish/Anatolian Turkish etc. are all mutually intelligible as in these groups are related in some fashion, but in particular their languages are. With the Shi'i-Sunni split the groups to the west in Turkey and to the east in Central Asia are Sunni, leaving the Shi'i group which eventually comes under the Turkicized name of Azeri Turks. Thus, if they are Shi'i (or even Sunni for a time) and live in the Caucusus, then they are indeed ancestors of the Azeris. The language connection is a dead giveaway. Can we start then with these two premises: language continuity and geography and later religion as to what constitutes Azeri Turkish identity and history in the region? Tombseye ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I see it there are some conflicting views SO in such a matter I think we can do a few things. First, Meowy's suggestion that we re-title the article is a good one so I figured we could start some kind of voting to figure out which title everyone can live with. Second, since there are conflicting views, why not simply present the differing views so long as the sources are academic and neutral? I'm in favor of a title that reads "Turkic and Azerbaijani-Turkish Communities in Armenia". Next, I believe that the Azeri identity stems from the local Turkmen, both Sunni and Shi'i which evolves into a largely Shi'i group that speaks a dialect of the Turkmen language. The ethnic issue here is hazy as it is based upon religion since the Sunni Turkmen are clearly related in this regard. Also, obviously we're talking language replacement as the Turkmen were relatively few in number as they crossed through northern Iran into the Caucasus and, no doubt, Turkicized the earlier Iranian and Caucasian groups (Albanians and Armenians among many others). This is generally true of many invasion scenarios as a small force of males invades and conquers and gets assimilated, but may also impart and spread their language and religion/culture to the locals. Thus, the pre-Indo-European groups in Greece are conquered and assimilated by Proto-Greeks and form a new identity. This applies to the Armenians as well etc. as their Indo-European language comes through conquest from most likely the Ukraine millenia ago. At any rate, I believe we should simply go with a neutral title that everyone can live with AND state that the conflicting views rather than argue about who's right as that will simply continue the impasse. Tombseye ( talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
But who says that we should use the contemporary terms only? That’s not what other encyclopedias do. Whatever those people were called in the Russian empire, they were the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. And the term Azerbaijani as an ethnonym was used in the Russian empire and in the west by the scholars like Ernest Chantre. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality, I don’t know how Meowy came to a conclusion that Azerbaijani is not an ethnonym. See what Britannica says: After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran. Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century. [19] See that the article uses both Azerbaijani and Azerbaijani Turk to describe the events of 1813. If they do it, why cannot we? About Azerbaijani being an ethnicity:
Azerbaijani - 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. [20]
In my opinion, this article should cover Azerbaijani people and their ancestors, who lived in Armenia and constituted a majority before the Russian conquest of the region. I mean, how can you cover Azerbaijanis and say nothing about the history of their presence in the region? It is not gonna work like that. Grandmaster ( talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Who were the people referred to by Russians as Azerbaijani Tatars, the Azerbaijanis or some other ethnicity? Britannica makes it clear:
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.
So if Azerbaijani Tatars = Azerbaijanis, why should we remove the period of history when Azerbaijanis were referred to by other well documented names? Grandmaster ( talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So in my opinion the article should cover the history of Azerbaijani people from the time when Turkic people moved in the area to the modern times. Since the Turcomans that settled in the area were the ancestors of modern day Azerbaijanis and it is very well documented and verifiable info, the history of Azerbaijani people in Armenia should cover the entire history of presence of these people in the territory of modern day Armenia. In any case, this article only coves the history of Azerbaijani people in Armenia, as currently no Azerbaijani people are left in Armenia as result of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Grandmaster ( talk) 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have a solution that may appeal to some, but not everyone. I suggest retitling the article Turkic and Azeri- Turkish Communities in Armenia. In addition, I suggest we present the 2 views here: that the Azeris are descendents of the Oghuz Turks (and assimilated other Turks/Tatars) in the Caucasus and the opposing view that there were many different Turkic communities and it is not clear as to which groups are directly related to the modern Azeris. Surely that is agreeable? Just presenting the differing views tends to be the more viable way to overcome an impasse like this. Tombseye ( talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim that community in Armenia was Turkic and not specifically Azerbaijani does not withstand criticism, given the following basic historical facts:
So I believe the title "Azerbaijanis and other Turkic people in Armenia" would be more appropriate. Atabek ( talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreement seems pretty difficult here. I'm wondering, can we agree that the Oghuz invaders in the Caucasus can be considered the ancestors (more in a linguistic and cultural sense obviously) of the Azeris, especially since linguistic data seems to support such a view? Also, I'm getting the sense that the dissension is based upon the view that the term Azerbaijani can be applied to any people living in the area (Turkic and non-Turkic), BUT one point though, isn't Azerbaijani itself a turkicized version of the area's previous name denoting its change (and Albania has long sense gone out of usage) and eventual appropriation if you will of the Turkic/Turkicized population? This reminds me of the impasse over the use of the name Macedonia and the Greek objection to it a bit (obviously there are differences). People change, but the geography often remains static and then nationalism comes into play as neighboring groups object to a 'new' people using an old name as exclusively their own etc. However, are the Azeris entirely a new people? Their language came in later that much is clear. However, I would contend that both the Azeris and Armenians are, to varying degrees, both of indigenous and external origin so is the transferred name of a region being used by one group of great importance? Lastly, and this may have already been suggested, can the term Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia be used instead then? Seems like a compromise as it puts in Azerbaijani AND also explains that these are the Turks (as opposed to Armenians, Talysh, Lezgi etc.). Tombseye ( talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we are all OK with the title Azeri and Other Turkic Peoples in Armenia then I hope! Whew. I think it should be OK simply because Azeri for most people (in the English speaking world) equals Azerbaijani anyway. This title effectively eliminates the issue but also includes the key term as well only in its short form. Plus, I would suggest, when discussing history, differing views so as to avoid future conflict. Great job everyone. I'm glad we could resolve this! Tombseye ( talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Done! Tombseye ( talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)