Talk:Azerbaijanis in Armenia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Back to Eupator

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

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

But there were no Turkic people in Armenia other than Azerbaijanis. And Azeri = Azerbaijani. Certain people use the old trick of Armenian propaganda described by de Waal, please see the quote below. Ethnonym Azerbaijani was not generally used before 1920, Azerbaijanis were referred to as Azerbaijani Tatars or simply Tatars. So these group of users tries to use this fact to remove Azerbaijani people from the history of Armenia. According to them, if there was no ethnonym Azerbaijnani back then, then there were no Azerbaijani people. However people do not appear out of nowhere. These people lived in this territory for many centuries and even constituted ethnic majority before the republic of Armenia was created in 1918. They simply were referred to by a different name. Now their existence is denied, and verifiable sources are being removed from the article. While Vartan and Fedayee claim than the term Azerbaijani cannot be used for the events before 1918, this is what all encyclopedias do. See the article in Britannica, for example: [1] How come Britannica or Iranica use the term Azerbaijani, if as Fedayee claims there were no Azerbaijanis back then? Those encyclopedias are written by well known scholars, and cannot be ignored. Grandmaster (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" was not in common usage before the 20th century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as "Tartars", "Turks" or simply "Muslims." Yet they were neither Persians, nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of the Safavid Dynasty of the Iranian Empire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azerbaijani Tatar was not an ethnonym used at that time; Azerbaijan was accepted to be under Arax River by most sources. The term Azerbaijani Tatar (AKA the Tatars of Azerbaijan) was cooked by the expansionist Russian royalty for referring to the Turkic population north of Arax. It was also not only solely used in Russia because they were speaking of an Azerbaijan North of Arax, but also because they were claiming that they were originally from Azerbaijan (South of Arax). [2] As you can see Britannica 1911 says basically the same thing, it also says that the Tatars of the Caucasus were Azerbaijan Turks: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. [3] Also: The Turkish nomads scattered over Persian territory are often known by the name of Azerbaijanis or Adharbaijanis, though this name is strictly applicable only to the inhabitants of the province of Azerbaijan (q.v.), of which Tabriz is the capital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. While it is true that the Turkmens of Turkmenistan by the large are not Shia, those of Iraq for example are as much as 1/3. Check Halil Inalcik book: An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire which only treat of the Turcoman for that period and for that region. Even Audrey L. Altstadt work which is a political of the same nature as De Waals says: The largest component of the population of eastern Caucasus has been called Turcoman tribes, some of whom were nomadic, some seminomadic, and others settled as farmers of town dwellers. Among the settled were the Javanshirs of K-arabakh.

It’s bizarre that you will make such a claim which shows that you don’t even know, neither understand the context of the disagreement here while both Ulvi and Parishan understood. Turkmen and several Oguz Turkic population are what formed by a homogenization period initiated by the Russians the modern Azeri, AKA Azerbaijani’s. The association of the Turkic people to the geographic region of Azerbaijan (Northern Arax) is modern and a recent ethnogenesis. Prior to that, they were a Turkic population without a common identity.

The Azerbaijani Tatars were a Russian creation:

Roy writes: In Azerbaijan for a brief period (the governorate of Vorontsov in the 1850s, and that of Goltsyn from 1896 to 1905), the Russians encouraged the development of an Azeri identity in order to weaken links with Iran and Turkey (The New Central Asia The Creation of Nations by Olivier Roy I.B.Tauris, (2000) p.56)

Beside as said previously, various people were included as Azerbaijani Tatars when they were even not Turkic speaking: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19) Britannica says the same thing: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe.

As for your quote, it strikes me again that you take from other people's posts whatever fits your position. In this case it does not, 1) Even if you were right, you will see that this quote speaks of Tabriz and the province of Azarbaijan. Not the people north of Arax. Second, if you read the rest of the article, you will see that Britannica is using a particular structure such as.

Turkic nomads, Azerbaijani’s...

Turkic nomads, Osmanli’s...

Obviously, Osmanli’s alone is not a term... they meant to say the Osmanli Turkic nomads, the Azerbaijani Turkic etc... Having said all of those, it becomes apparent that the Turkic population of Armenia prior to the Soviet Union were not associating themselves as Azeri, neither were they. This alone should have been enough but apparently it is not for you. - Fedayee (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Russian statistics made clear distinction between Azerbaijani Tatars (i.e. Azerbaijanis) and any other Muslim people. So we know exactly how many Azerbaijani people lived in this territory. Those people were neither Ottoman Turks, no Kurds or any other Muslim people. They were Azerbaijanis, people with distinct ethnic identity. Note how Britannica refers to them as such describing the events prior to 1920, and the article is written by Armenian scholar Suny, who cannot be accused of pro-Azerbaijani bias: 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. [4] Grandmaster (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring back endless discussions on how the above claim is far from being accurate. It is your words against those of works published in scholarly publications (see above, as presented from the Harvard University Press) on what really represented the 1897 census. And you must be seeing else on Britannica, which actually contradicts what you say, bring any third party editor and he will confirm it. I don’t see you addressing my answer to your baseless claim that there were no Turkmen in Transcaucasia. The next time please verify what you say before spreading obviously inaccurate information.

You also still continue to make your baseless remarks about scholars, Suny is an American scholar not Armenian, he may have one parent of Armenian descent, I don’t see the problem here. You manipulate such information to give strength to your arguments. Adil and his group have harassed Suny to no end by countless letters to Britannica and requesting his head, it’s awfully sad for you to come here and quote the result of such harassment when Suny’s works were targeted by such interest groups both for his articles in Britannica and Encarta to have them modified by constant labelling and pressure. You still bring this back, when for each political source you provide to back your position I can provide a dozen published by reputable publishing houses and apolitical. - Fedayee (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple question. If there were Turkmens in Caucausus, where are they now? And how many Turkmens were in Caucasus? We have Russian statistics, they do not mention any significant number of Turkmens in this region. I wonder how did you come up with this entire Turkmen idea. Any source on that? And Suny writes about Azerbaijani people before 1918, is he also Adil's sock and why Adil is mentioned here and what does he have to do with Suny? Can we have a discussion without mentioning Adil, please? If Suny and Britannica refer to Azerbaijani people prior to 1918, why Wikipedia cannot do the same? Grandmaster (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

And you know why Adil is mentioned, Adil’s group has harassed Suny for several years for his articles by writing mass letters to Britannica. It is futile to quote what is the result of those tasteless harassments. As for your question, it’s easy, because most sources do not call them such, and that Turkmens have a better argument to claim those people as theirs. Are we done yet? This dismissal of Turkmen history in recent Azeri source is obviously retaliation because of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan partly due to Turkmenistan refusal to stop its export of oil to Armenia. Please don't bring off Wiki political conflicts here. - Fedayee (talk) 19:39, 11 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)

Do you have any statistics about Turkmen population in the Russian empire and specifically in Erivan governorate? Please present it. And where did those Turkmen go from Erivan uyezd, people do not vanish without a trace? How come that their presence is not recorded in any source? You claim that they were assimilated by Azeris, any source about that? And why they were recorded as Azerbaijani Tatars by Russians, and not as Turkmen? And why those Tatars were predominantly Shia, unlike Sunni Turkmens? So many questions, and no answers. And check Suny again, he speaks about Azerbaijanis before 1918, and your OR about Adil is of no interest. We only discuss the sources, and there's no proof that Suny is Adil's sock too. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see statistics from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary for Erivan uyezd:

Население Э. уезда (69588 мужчин и 57484 женщины), группирующееся в 16 сельских обществах и 205 селениях, состоит (без города Эривани) из 53,5 % адербейджанских татар, 37 % армян, 8 % курдов, 1 % айсоров и около 0,5 % русских. Около 62 % мусульман (52,5 % шииты), 37 % армяно-григориан и около 1 % православных. [5]

Population of Erivan uyezd (without the town of Erivan) consists of 53,5 % Aderbeijan Tatars, 37% Armenians, 8% Kurds, 1% Aysors and about 0,5% of Russians. About 62% Muslims (52,5 % Shia), 37% Armeno-Gregorians and about 1% Orthodox.

As you can see Russian authorities made a difference between various Muslim and Christian people. Kurds are not counted as Azeris, and Muslim people are mostly Shia. So where are those Turkmen? Please note that original research is not accepted here. Grandmaster (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article about Turkmens from the same encyclopedia:

Туркмены — народ юго-западной ветви алтайской группы тюркского (см. Тюрки) племени, по языку более всего родственные османским туркам (см.) и азербайджанам, еще более близкие с киргизами и в особенности с узбеками, от которых Т. отделились лишь всего ок. 300 лет тому назад. [6]

Turkmens – people of south-western brunch of Altai group of Turkic tribe (see Turks), most related by the language to Osman Turks and Azerbaijans, and even more close to Kirgyz and especially Uzbeks, from whom they separated only about 300 years ago.

As you can see, Russians knew the difference between “Azerbaijans” and Turkmen, and according to Russian statistics Turkmens lived in Central Asia, but not in the Caucasus. I think this puts to rest the fringe Turkmen theory. Grandmaster (talk) 06:56, 14 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)

Grandmaster, the Russian authorities did nothing of the such as you claim, they dumped various nomadic tribes as Turks of Azerbaijan, two sources were provided including Britannica about this but you still keep repeating the same thing. The first Soviet census did not have any Azerbaijani population, the Turkic population was classified as Turks, Ottoman Turks, Karapapaks, etc. [7]... the next census homogenized the Turkic population even more including the Karapapaks to classify them as Azerbaijanis. [8]. You are trying unsuccessfully to erase Turkmen history from the region and attempting to turn it into Azerbaijani, which will be unsuccessful. Few sources, more could be provided, where are the Azerbaijani’s? Only Turkmens. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], Ethic Group being Armenian, Turkman and Kurds, where are the Azerbaijani? [16], [17].

In 1830’s the Turkic population of Northern Arax was still divided between Shia and Sunni, and even the Sunni being slightly more populous. But here we aren’t even talking about what is currently the republic of Azerbaijan, but rather the Turkic population of Armenia which has never from ancestry, including for the most part, originated from Azerbaijan, or true Azerbaijan which is in Persia. Those who are called Azeri of Armenia in modern time find their origin mostly from the Turkmen dynasties and invasions. - Fedayee (talk) 17:29, 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)

Fedayee, according to your own source, i.e. Soviet census of 1926, there were only 4 (!?) Turkmens in Armenia at that time. Where did the rest go, if they were so numerous? Those 4 Turkmens could not have made a serious impact on the number of Azerbaijanis. And Russian authorities knew very well the difference between Turkmens and “Azerbaijans”, see Brokhaus again. As for Karapapakhs, they are just an ethnographic group of Azerbaijanis, same as Ayrums, Padars, etc. they should not have been counted as a separate group. And according to the same census there were slightly over 800 Osman Turks in Armenian SSR. Most of the Muslim population (about 41000) were listed as Turks. These were Azerbaijani people, as this is what the Soviets initially called them and there was no other such numerous ethnic group in the region. See your own source, the article about censuses in Armenia: [18]

Azerbaijanis were simply referred to as "Turks" in the 1926 census, though it should be noted that Turks from Turkey were counted separately as "Ottoman Turks." Figure also includes the Azerbaijani subgroup of Karapapaks who were distinguished as a separate ethnic group in the 1926 census but were counted as ethnic Azerbaijanis in subsequent censuses.

As for Turkmens in the sources you mentioned, those Turkmen/Turcoman had nothing to do with modern Turkmens. The word Turkmen/Turcoman had the same meaning as Turk at the time, just an ethnic denomination for a large group of people. For example, Ismail I was not Turkmen, see Iranica about him. He is the classic of Azeri poetry, not Turkmen poetry. Modern day Turkmens always lived in the Central Asia and were Sunni Muslims, the Turcomans that were mentioned in those sources are Shia Muslims. They could not have been the same people. If they were the same people, where did they all go in the Russian empire and USSR? Moreover, where did they all vanish in Iranian Azerbaijan? Why there are no Turkmens in Tabriz now? Enough of OR, you cannot deny the existence of entire and very numerous people just because of technicality. It won’t work. Grandmaster (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you taking me for an idiot? Don’t you see the major weakness of your argumentation? You are supporting what I am writing, yet you diverge in your conclusion what your arguments are supposed to support. The Turkic population of Armenia for centuries were Turkmens, (and you will see only them mentioned, not Azerbaijan’s) and your unsuccessful attempt to claim they were not Turkmen isn’t helping. They came from what is now Turkmenistan and Dagestan, they did not come from the Caucasus. Those people were never associated with the Azeris, up before the Russians helped the emergence of that identity more eastward. There was no separate homogenous ethnic group as the one you are trying to sell here. This was just not the case. The 1926 census was unclear, unidentifiable Turkic people were just called Turks before later being called Azerbaijani. Also, by dumping Karapapak as Azerbaijani you are proving my point, Karapapak are the Terekeme (it comes from the word Turcoman) who were Turkmen tribes probably origination from somewhere in Dagestan. That Turkic population in Armenia could not have been Azerbaijani in any way, since Azerbaijani is a geographic region, this self identification was not existent for the Turkic people in Armenia, and it was even not in Nakhichevan. You cannot dump all Turkic people into one group and claim their heritage solely as Azerbaijani. While I am aware that this is how the Azerbaijani identity was formed, this certainly in Armenia was not the case prior to 1918. These were Azerbaijani people, as this is what the Soviets initially called them and there was no other such numerous ethnic group in the region. This is assumption, but partly true. The part which is true is that they will later be associated as Azerbaijani, but those people could have been associated with the Turks, Turkmens, it would not have made much difference, as they share the same Oguz Turkic (in fact Turkish would be right too) language. And this is the whole point, the point is that by calling them Azerbaijani you are engaged in revisionism, as you are claiming that the Oguz Turks are solely Azerbaijani which is obviously wrong.

Your last paragraph ignores what I have been saying… the Turkic population was later associated as Azerbaijani, this has been mentioned to you several times. So your claim of where are those Turkmens now does not make sense as it supposes that a separate group of people called Azerbaijanis existed in parallel to those Turkmen groups. Your question itself is not one, since it already concludes by making a false assumption. And please stop calling majority position and general knowledge as OR. - Fedayee (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an Armenian reference which calls them Azeri Turks (Azerbaijanis):

• Artin H. Arslanian and Robert L. Nichols. "Nationalism and the Russian Civil War: The Case of Volunteer Army-Armenian Relations, 1918-20", Soviet Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 561: "the Armenia volunteer army chapter in the Civil War forms a part of the background needed for understanding a hearty dislike which present-day Armenians have for the Azeri Turks (Azerbaidzhanis) and Georgians (who they feel, lorded it over them while Stalin and Beria lived) and why they continue to seek Russian support for their national aspirations."

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)

Since you know that no one is questioning Soviet period Azerbaijani identity, I will not address yet again your provocations, when the obvious purpose of this answer is to soapbox and provoke me. The next time you do this, I will remove your edits myself. - Fedayee (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Turkmens of Turkmenistan never lived in the Caucasus, including Dagestan. Again, neither imperial Russian, nor Soviet censuses recorded any significant number of Turkmens in Caucasus. You failed to explain how come that Russian authorities, who were very well aware of who Turkmens were fail to find any significant number of them in the region. Enough of OR. As for Turkmens from ancinet source, those have nothing to do with people of Turkmenistan either. Turkmen/Turcoman (the latter is more correct name) was the name given to all Oguz tribes. Turkmens of Central Asia are Sunni, while Turkmens of Safavid empire were Shia. Here's a source for you about Qizilbash Turcomans:

The descendants of the Qizilbash: Shiite Turks in Turkey, Azarbayjan and Afghanistan

Since their first brush with Islam in the 8th century the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, Iran and Anatolia have been predominantly Sunnis, generally of Hanafi observance, and the great Turkish dynasties of the Ghazanavids, Seljuqs or Ottomans have consistently appeared as the champions of the Sunna. The Turcoman tribes were an exception, having acquired an unorthodox form of Imami Shi'ism in their westward drift into northern Iran and eastern Anatolia; they formed the armies of the first Safavids under the Turkish name Qizilbash (Red Heads) and from the 16th century were more or less subjected to orthodox Twelver Shi'ism. Their descendants are the (Azeri-)Turkish-speaking Shi'ites of the northern Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the Soviet Republic of Azarbayjan as well as the Shi'ites in Turkey, the Alevis (from Arabic alawi: Alids or Ali venerators) in central and eastern Anatolia, and also in the hinterland of the Aegean coast where the Ottoman authorities settled numerous tribes.

Heinz Halm, Janet Watson, Marian Hill. Shi'ism. Columbia University Press; second edition (August 25, 2004) ISBN-10: 0231135874

As you can see these Turcoman people had nothing to do with modern Turkmens, their descendants are completely different people. Grandmaster (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is claimed that the Turkic peoples that lived in Armenia for the past few centuries are Turkmen, why aren't there any apparent similarities in the facial characteristics of Azeris and Turkmen? I don't think any Turkic peoples whose roots come from present day Armenia, and who were expelled in the beginning of the 20th century, by order of Stalin in 1947-53 and the ones that were forced out in 1988-1990, have any similarities with Turkmens face-wise. Ehud (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming more and more ridiculous, Grandmaster if you have anything new to say, say it, but for God’s sake, stop with this nonsense. You are basically Google searching and incorporating your new knowledge. This is contradicting you even more. Grandmaster, those Turkic populations did not appear there out of the blue from nowhere. How can you push such nonsense I wonder? You claim they have nothing to do with the Turkmen, Grandmaster, the Turkmen of today are also Oguz Turk, and the Turkic population of Armenia originated mostly from what is now Dagestan and Turkmenistan. You are not even addressing the points I am raising, you are changing the subject scratching with technicalities. How on Earth is this supposed to change for example, which is the point of contention. Or how is all this irrelevant discussion supposed to address this: ‘’Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other ...’’ (New Terror, New Wars, by Paul Gilbert p. 61). Or this and this. This work treats the subject of religion in a more complete way, check for the Shia and Sunni distribution in the region, it isn’t as simple as you claim. I also don’t see how this quote contradicts me, you should read what I write, and you obviously are not reading what I type carefully or ignoring it. Because I have been telling you that the Azerbaijani are the descendents, just as the work is saying it. The problem is that the identity was non-existent then. How long will you be pushing this? It has to stop one day. - Fedayee (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is too much nationalist revision involved here. Everything, but history. Fedayee, it is not fair by you to misquote me. I said Turcoman or Turkman, but not Turkmen. One has to see the difference if s/he claims to know the subject. Saying that Turkmens came from Central Asia in the 11th century and got settled in modern Armenia, thus they were still Turkmens in 18th century, relatives of the modern day Turkmens in Turkmenistan, is nothing but a joke, excuse me. First one has to pay attention to the religion and culture for example of the people in Erivan in 18th century and people in Turkmenistan or Turkustan as it was called in those days. One was Shia or Heterodox Shia with several centuries of military and organisational involvement, self identity (such as Kizilbash, Qajar, Afshar, Kengerli and etc.) in ruling dynasties of the region, the other was/is Sunni, ruled by others, never organised or gained self-identity until the 19th century. These people have nothing in common, but speaking in the same sub-group of languages. Even anthropologically, they are different (although not racially). "Azerbaijani" in turn is not a fabricated term. There were even "Azerbaijani Armenians" according to the Russian chronographer Sergei Glinko, who were moved from Khoy, Marand, Urmia, Salmas, Maraga and other cities to the boundaries of Russia after the 1826-1828 war between Russia and Persia (Glinko, S.N. Pereselenie Armyan Adirbijanskix v predeli Rossii, Moscow, 1831). So "Azerbaijani" as a term was used to mean group of people long before 1918. I now suggest one compromise solution if everyone agrees. We will say they were/are Turkic who have been identified itself as Azerbaijani for the last two centuries. --Aynabend (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulvi, please be so kind as to tell me where I have misquoted you: I personally think that "Turkic" in the article can only be mentioned once. It should rather talk more about Azerbaijanis and use Hun, Khazar, Turkoman (Azeri) when talking about general population, and then Seljuk, Atabeys, Beglerbek, Kizilbash, Gajar history in Armenia when talking about the dynasties. Modern period should only mention Azerbaijani/Azeri. Parishan, what's your call on this? (and your differentiation with an ‘’e’’ and ‘’a’’, is not done is scholarly works) Those are your words, and this is what I have repeated. So where is the misquote? Also, re-read what I have written, you are re-interpreting my words, what I have said is that there is as much relation between the several other Oguz Turkic people and the pre-1918 Turkic people in Armenia AND the modern Azeri. Also, where did I say that Azerbaijani was a fabricated term? Please reply to what I write and not what I have nor written nor implied. Azerbaijani means, from the region of Azerbaijan, Persian Azerbaijan mostly (for the period of interest). What was Northern Arax, was a different story, and certainly not Armenia. As for the religious distribution, see here, I already said this to Grandmaster, the Shia and Sunni distribution was not as you mention, at least not as simple. For the rest, I don’t see the relevancy, as I don’t see to what exactly you are replying to. But this: We will say they were/are Turkic who have been identified itself as Azerbaijani for the last two centuries. I disagree with, we are speaking of the Turkic people of Armenia and this statement is just not true. - Fedayee (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This Turkmen nonsense has to stop. You are simply confusing terms. As it was demonstrated, Turcomans who lived in the region had nothing to do with Turkmens of Turkmenistan, these people were ancestors of modern-day Azerbaijanis. Turkmens, Ottoman Turks and Azerbaijanis are all descendants of Oguz/Turcoman people, but Turkmens are descendants of those Oguz who remained in Central Asia, and Azerbaijanis and Ottoman Turks are descendants of Turcoman Oguz who moved to Middle East/Caucasus. So all those Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu and other Turkic states were closely related to Azerbaijanis, but had nothing to do with Turkmens, who lived in Central Asia. And note that national identity is not the same as ethnic identity. Russian censuses clearly shown that the majority of Turkic population in the region were people whom they called “Azerbaijans” or “Azerbaijani Tatars”, predominantly Shia Turkic people. So who in your opinion were these "Azerbaijans"? Leave Turkmens alone please, Russian sources made clear distinction between “Azerbaijans” (Azerbaijanis) and other Turkic people, specifically Ottoman Turks and Turkmens of Central Asia. These people were Azerbaijanis, and they were the most numerous ethnic community in the region at the time. This verifiable fact needs to be reflected in the article, simple as that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:44, 16 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)

I added a reference from Olivier Roy, which clarifies in very concise way the historical identity of Azeris. Atabek (talk) 16:04, 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 sufficiently confused yourself by endless wars along national lines. On one side you oppose my addition of reference, which was sourced at the end of fragment and not simply copied without referencing. On the other side, you refer to that source claiming it reaffirms your words :)

Anyways, whether Azeri ethnicity was titled as such in 1930s, 1918 or earlier it's irrelevant. Shown reference from Olivier Roy confirms that identity which you call Turkmens/Turkomans in mid ages (that's associated with Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu, Safavids, Qajar dynasties, etc.) is known today as Azeris, hence are the inhabitants of Armenia (a.k.a. Western Azerbaijan/Irevan) - Azeri Turks not Turkmens of Turkmenistan, which yields your arguments as being simply baseless. Atabek (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times will you reply to others without reading what they say? Read what I wrote before replying. You cannot just copy paste someone else without properly presenting it as a quotation. I will quote from the same author what you have missed: ‘’The concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920.’’ And this is what the main point of contention is, which was never addressed, neither by Grandmaster, Ulvi nor Atabek (particularly not Atabek whose contribution here amounted to soapboxing). Dutchy’s are not called Dutch or German, Phrygians are not called Armenians. And in this case, it’s even worse, as they are not even about the Turkic population of what is now the republic of Azerbaijan, but rather Armenia. I would like to see any of those who blindly revert (not even actually addressing a large part of materials which were removed by the process). Also, Atabek’s addition has nothing to do with the article, which is about the Azeris of Armenia. But then again, I am not surprised at all. - Fedayee (talk) 20:56, 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)

Ulvi, Turkmen is not different than Turkman, they have been used interchangeably, both of you are now soapboxing the talkpage because you have both changed the entire subject. Ulvi, you have reverted to the other version and claim to have compromised, where have you compromised. In your revert, there are 4 less notes, various informations removed while reinstating redundancy (so you have removed more than 4 notes). Your statement in the talkpage to justify the revert does not cover most important changes. Where is the evidence that the Turkic people living in Armenia have been calling themselves Azerbaijanis, you claimed compromise but added more obviously wrong information.

There was no self-identified Azeri, neither Azerbaijanis in Armenia 200 years ago, various sources have been provided about this… you claim but do not provide any materials, you have rather quoted a long text to prove what? Nothing and your explanation about Swietachovsky reference is mind boggling, first he is not only talking about Ganja, second read me carefully, I said it was more difficult than that… expanding on such technicality without taking the purposes of why this was brought is useless.

Azerbaijani meant from Azerbaijan, at least for a long length of time, the claim that they were self identified as Azerbaijani, and this those Turkic population in Armenia for the last two hundred years is plain wrong and misleading.

Returning to the Turkmen, I will repeat what I have said. The Turkic population of Armenia mostly came from what is now Turkmenistan, Dagestan. They mostly never settled in the region of what is now Azerbaijan prior. In fact, the Turkic people in Nakhcihevan and Armenia after the depopulation of Armenia were significantly from the Ottoman Empire after Abbas defeat and the depopulation of the region, when the territory fell to the Ottoman Empire.

I won’t even bother answering Grandmaster, it’s a circular discussion, he repeats what has been already addressed and properly sourced. If he has anything new to say, he is free to do it. Until then, there is no point in answering what has been already answered again and over again.

So here is my revert, I have addressed the rational of the revert, while Ulvi, you did not do that, as there was just more than the Azeri debate there.

And I don't see any point in answering Atabek. - Fedayee (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, did you even look at what you're reverting? Obviously, not, because you just removed the same reference, which you claimed supports your POV :), which means, you don't even look at history of edits at all. And your comment: "The Turkic population of Armenia mostly came from what is now Turkmenistan, Dagestan." -- neither have border with present-day Armenia, so how did they get into Armenia?...Atabek (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference does actually support what I claim. And I already explained why you cannot do what you did, which is to literally copy word by word an author’s word without proper attribution. Footnoting is not proper attribution, as you have to present it as a quotation. But even then, it is irrelevant, this article is not about the Azerbaijani identity, it is about the Azeris of Armenia. Your question also does not make sense as there was no Azerbaijan north of Arax river when they settled in Armenia. - Fedayee (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many sources have been provided that Turcoman people of Caucasus are not the same people as Turkmens of Turkmenistan. And many sources have been provided that referred to the Turkic population of the region as Azerbaijans, Azerbaijanis or Azerbaijani Tatars. I see no point in Fedayee's revert, see above sources. I'm restoring the original version of the article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What you did amounts to vandalism, and this is not called justifying an edit. And obviously you did not read the discussion before reverting. In the process you have deleted several sourced information and have added nothing new other than for the purpose of the name change. You have also re-inserted Atabek's addition, which was explained to be irrelevant to the article itself. I have no choice than to report you. - Fedayee (talk) 21:36, 17 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)

I'm a bit late to this debate, but that sounds like a good idea. the Turkic umbrella would include the Azeris AND their predecessors who were largely absorbed by the emerging Shi'i Turkic identity group that lived in the Caucusus since the Turkmen or Turkoman waves penetrated the region. The usage of Turkmen appears to be a fairly widely used name, especially since these languages are mutually intelligible and the way to differentiate between larger Turkic groups is obviously a different language (Tatar) or religious/sectarian difference (Sunni vs. Shi'i). Shi'i Turkic Muslim=Azeris as they came to be known and/or their fairly recent ancestors. Really semantics is what is bothering everyone so a re-title including both names is a good way to go.

I'm actually doing a paper on the Tatars and it does appear that the Russians (and other Slavs and Balts like the Poles and Lithuanians) confuse the usage of the term. They sometimes use it to as an umbrella term (like Saracen and Moor, which were very imprecise terms as was the term 'Frank' used by Arabs) and at other times for a specific group, especially once the Russians become familiar with them over time. The Poles differentiate between the Tatars and the Ottoman Turks as well, which is interesting as obviously the Ottoman language is mutually intelligible with Azerbaijani but not Tatar. It would seem that it varies with which writer we're talking about. Some differentiate the Tatars and others lump them together with all other Turkic groups. Regardless, perhaps as a bit of a further compromise the new title could be called (and thus discuss) "Turkic and Azerbaijani Communities in Armenia".Tombseye (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Tombseye. However, a title like "Turkic and Azerbaijani Communities in Armenia" gets us right back to the argument about what an "Azerbaijani" is, and the validity of using such a term before the actual existence of a country called Azerbaijan". I don't mind using "Azeri Turk" or "Azeri Tartar" as an acceptable alternative to Azerbaijani, but something more encompassing like "Turkic" would make the article more valuable. Probably my "Moslem communities in Armenia" suggestion is too encompassing to be useable, so I withdraw it - other ethnic groups such as Kurds or Persians would be better served with separate articles. Meowy 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm OK with some modifications there, but the title sounds odd, especially by saying Turkic and then adding Azeri Turks. I figured since the positions on this issue entail literally semantics as, and I know people will hate me for saying this, the people in that region are all related in some fashion and the Turkic groups change over time just as everyone else does. I figured that if you just put in 'Turkic and Azerbaijani Communities' you would placate both sides sides and thus the compromise and then you can explain in the article that the term Azerbaijani has been applied to various groups including Tatars at various points. Tombseye (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly sources make it pretty clear that Turkmen or Turcoman people of the region were different from Turkmens of Central Asia. The Turkmen/Turcoman of this region were the ancestors of Azerbaijanis, as they were mostly Shia Muslim, unlike Turkmen of Turkmenistan, who are descendants of those Turcoman who remained in Central Asia. It was not like Turcomans of Middle East returned to Central Asia to establish modern Turkmen identity, it was created by those Oguz tribes that remained there. Here’s a larger quote from the source that Atabek has already quoted:

The Turkic tribes are classified into three major language groupings: the Oghuz to the south and west of the Aral Sea, the Qipchaks to the north and east, and the Turki of the settled populations of Central Asia (Chaghatay, present-day Uzbek and Uighur). The first of these groups shifted virtually wholesale in the direction of Iran and Anatolia, leaving Central Asia with today's Turkmens. The second group remained between the Volga and the Kazakh steppes, and this language group contains the Volga Tatars, the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz, the Karakalpaks and the founders of the tribal confederation who were to take the name Uzbeks. The third group became ethnically 'Uzbekised', but its language is at the base of what is 'modern Uzbek'.

The shifting movements of the Turkic populations did not follow a logic of territorial continuity with the steppes. The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name Turkmen' for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris. The adoption of Shiism by these nomads and their conquest of Iran in 1501 established the long-term (and still current) frontier of Iran: it is a religious frontier (Shiites versus Sunnis) rather than ethnic or linguistic. In the desert areas of present-day Turkestan, Turkmen nomadic tribes were already present before the Arab invasion; they did not follow the Anatolian branch in the transition to Shiism. This is the only place where one can speak of a marked opposition between nomadic Turks and sedentary Persians, an opposition which rests more on religious incompatibility than ethnic antagonism. Finally, the Oghuz language group divided into three branches (Ottomans, Azeris and Turkmens) according to both religious criteria (Shiism-Sunnism) and political ones (with the Sunni Turkish dynasty of the Ottomans, the Shiite Turkic dynasty of the Safavid Iranians, and also Sunni Turkmen nomads rejecting supra-tribal structures).

Olivier Roy. The new Central Asia. ISBN:184511552X

I think the above source makes it pretty clear that the Turkmens of Central Asis have nothing to do with Turkmens of Middle East and Caucasus. The Turkmen/Turcoman of this region are ancestors of modern day Azerbaijanis, see the quote, and I also quoted another source above. So no need to bring confusion with Turkmens of Central Asia, they were not present in this region. Also, Turkmen as a reference to ethnicity is a recent creation too, see:

As for the Turkmens, they were never a people or a nation. They were in fact members of the Oghuz language-group who remained tribalised and nomadic, in contrast to those who had become sedentary. This is why today one finds 'Turkmens' in Turkey and Iraq, speaking the present-day Turkish language of Turkey. Their name derives from a very longstanding way of life (tribalism and nomadism) and not from any particular linguistic connection.

Olivier Roy. The new Central Asia. ISBN:184511552X p.17

Turkmen/Turcoman historically was just a reference to nomadic Turkic people, without ethnic meaning. And the general title like “Turkic communities in Armenia” proposed by Meowy would not work, as there were no other large Turkic communities in Armenia. The results of Russian and Soviet censuses fail to demonstrate any significant numbers of any Turkic people other than the people they referred to as Azerbaijans or Azerbaijani Tatars. So in my opinion the article should cover Azerbaijani people and their ancestors, which the Turkic Oghuz tribes that settled in the region were. It is not like Azerbaijani people appeared out of nowhere when the state of Azerbaijan was created, those people always lived in the region, they just were referred to by other names.

And of course Tombseye is absolutely right, Russians used the name “Tatar” to refer to all Turkic people, but they knew the difference between Turkmens of Central Asia and Azerbaijanis. Btw, the term Azerbaijani was introduced by Russian and some Western scholars long before the state of Azerbaijan was created in 1918. I quoted Brokhauz encyclopedia above, and the quotes are included in the article about Azerbaijani people. The name of “Azerbaijani” is much older than the modern state of Azerbaijan. So my opinion is that the article should cover the Azerbaijani people of Armenia and their ancestors. Grandmaster (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the article is about a certain ethnic group in a certain country. When covering an ethnic group, one cannot remove the history of the presence of those people and their ancestors in the region. Fedayee claims that the Turkic people who lived in the region were not Azerbaijanis, and yet he says that they were ancestors of Azerbaijanis, as those Turkic people were assimilated by Azerbaijanis. It is not clear how non-existent Azerbaijanis could assimilate someone, on the other hand, since Fedayee agrees that those Turkic people were the ancestors of Azerbaijani people, why should those Turkic people not be covered in this article? Grandmaster (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If Brockauz Encyclopedia once used the "Azerbaijani Tartars" word as a version to describe Tartars (they and all other pre-1918 sourced commonly used "Tartars"), it never means that the term of Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis in the nowdays meaning existed before 1918. And its obvious, that if among the Turkic peoples there were ancestors of modern Azeris, surely not all of them (not all the Turkic tribes) were the ancestors of Azeris, and then, the Turkic people (especially Turkmens) are different term and different people than nowdays Azeris. Wikipedia is not a right place for OR and misinterpretations. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Brokhauz also used the term "Azerbaijans", without Tatar. Also, have you read the sources that I quoted above? Again: The latter were to keep the name Turkmen' for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris. So those Turkmen are known today as Azeris, plain and simple. Turkmen was not an ethnonym back then, it was a reference to Turkic people in general, see the source above again. So no OR please, it is perfectly clear who those Turkmen were and that they were not the same Turkmen who live today in Central Asia. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 19 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)

Compromise Article

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)

How about "Azerbaijanis and other Turkic people in Armenia"? Grandmaster (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to separate them! We cant have "Ukrainians and other Slavic people in Armenia" or "Russians and other Slavic people in Armenia". Its scientifically not correct. In the 13th century Turkic tribes arived and situated in Armenia (included future Turks of Turkey), while no Azeri nation existed in that time. And we need even to separate these Turkic people in Armenia from the ancestral tribes of nowdays Azeris: these tribes was rather situated in the right side of Kura, and then moved to the other regions. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the title proposed by me is Ok. It covers Azerbaijanis, who were 99% of Turkic people who lived in Armenia anyway, and any other Turkic people who lived in the region, if we can find any info on them, as well as people who can be considered their ancestors. I think what Tombseye proposes makes sense, if the problem is with the title, we can fix it to keep everyone happy. Other issues can be fixed at the next stage. Grandmaster (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can’t support a title for this article that uses the word "Azerbaijani" given that most of the article's content deals with historical time-periods. Under normal usage, an "Azerbaijani" means a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That citizen could be an ethnic Armenian, ethnic Tartar, ethnic Russian, or whatever. Grandmaster's desire to apply the word "Azerbaijani" specifically and exclusively to one ethnic group – Azeri Tartars - is unjustified. Equally unjustified is his expansion of its usage to apply historically to all Tartars living south of the Caucasus from all time periods before the emergence of Azerbaijan as a state.

Remember that the word "Azerbaijan" is geographical in origin, not ethnic. Azerbaijan was defined by its geographical limits, not its ethnic makeup. Because of this, we cannot easily write about Azeri Tartars living in 19th-century or earlier Armenia (which is an Armenia as a geographical area) because Armenia is not in the geographical region of Azerbaijan. What we can do for this period is write about Tartars, and other Turkic communities in Armenia. And of course we can write that they had ethnic connections with their brethren in Azerbaijan, who were also Tartars. During the Soviet period, it does seem that the majority of those Turkic communities came to consider themselves as being "Azeri", though when this happened, why this happened, and what it meant in day-to-day life is unclear. (Turkey’s NATO status during the Cold War would have been a good incentive for Armenia’s ethnic Turks to start calling themselves "Azeri" and for Soviet officials to encourage it). They would not have called themselves "Azerbaijani".

Even this word "Armenia" is open to discussion. Armenia as an independent state did not exist until 1917. Historically, Armenia as a geographical and ethnic entity covered a far greater area and stretched far into present-day Turkey. Why is the article's scope artificially limited to the territory of the present-day Republic of Armenia? Meowy 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As for an actual title - I would accept the title "Turkic communities in Armenia", or maybe, as a distant second best, "Turkish and other Turkic communities in Armenia". Meowy 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes this is the problem when dealing with regions like the Caucasus, which is notorious, like the Balkans, for being home to a huge number of groups in a relatively small area. I have a few other suggestions. First off, the Turkic communities of Armenia sounds good to me. Also, I'm thinking that IF we are going to go with the current Azerbaijanis in Armenia, we should stick to the modern context since these groups all defined themselves from the modern period. The links to their respective articles explains who they are and their history etc. anyway, so just specifics here. For example, if we know for certain that some groups coalesced into what we call Azeri Turks (that is Turkish speakers who are Shi'i) we can naturally see a continuation of that group, BUT with the caveat that the usage and application of Azerbaijani Turks is relatively new, which is true as these groups didn't really identify in strict ethnic terms outside of calling themselves 'Turks' or through their tribal affiliation. I don't know if either of these suggestions of mine will fly here, but basically I'm suggesting that we either have an article that is called (as per Meowy) "Turkic Communities in Armenia" OR even "Turks in Armenia" OR Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia with the latter having a modern scope and the two former having a longer historical scope. Modern nationalism has made construcing history very difficult I must say. Tombseye (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if the phrase "Azerbaijani Turks" has ever been used in relation to Turkic communities in Armenia when those communities existed. "Azeri Turks" yes, but not "Azerbaijani Turks". I still remember a BBC news report I heard on the pogroms of Armenians in Baku, just before the outset of the Nagorno Karabakh war. It was an interview with a spokesman from Azerbaijan. He was, I bet, expecting some hard questioning from the English interviewer. Instead the first question he got was about what he would like his ethnicity to be called, and whether he found it offensive to be called an "Azeri" and would he prefer to be called an "Azerbaijani". I could tell from the guy's voice, and the delay in his reply, that he was genuinely astonished at the question. He replied something like, "I am an Azeri, so why would I object to being called one!" That BBC reporter was so tongue-tied with political correctness backed up by his total ignorance of the subject, that he thought the word "Azeri" was a racial insult, like "Paki". I think that "Azerbaijani" used as an ethnic term in reality does not predate the 1990s. Meowy 02:08, 21 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)

Grandmaster, your'e doing an OR here! No any facts that 99% of Turkic people in Armenia were Azerbaijanis or even their ancestors! And what means Armenia?- Republic of Armenia? Armenia which included Western Armenia and Karabakh? Are you denying that the obvious majority of the Turkic people living in the Western Armenia were Turks not Azeris? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And there are hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis livng in Armenia: Azerbaijani Armenians who left Azerbaijan as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Meowy 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the quote from Britannica that I provided? Please do, it explains who Azerbaijanis are. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality, same as French, for example. Grandmaster (talk) 19:32, 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)

I still think it would have been better just as "Turkic Communities in Armenia", but I will support the general format of Tombseye's solution in order to help get some sort of concensus. And it is certainly an improvement over the current title. However, one problem with the suggested new title is that its wording (through the use of the "and") seems to suggests that the "Azeri-Turkish Communities" are not "Turkic". For accuracy, maybe it should be "Azeri-Turkish and other Turkic communities in Armenia". Moving the position of Azeri-Turkish to the front of the title may also get Grandmaster's support for this title. One final thing, I'm not sure about the "ish" at the end of Turkish, since "Turkish" could imply a citizenship of present-day Turkey. Meowy 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply "Azerbaijani (Azeri) and and other Turkic communities in Armenia"? I think the addition of the word "Turkish" is unnecessary, as the generally accepted ethnonym is either Azerbaijani or Azeri. The form "Azeri" is not used in Azerbaijan, btw, but used in many English sources. This format would allow to include any other Turkic communities, not related to Azerbaijanis, if there were any. Grandmaster (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not going to get an agreement on all of that. If it were going to be just "Azeri and other Turkic communities in Armenia" then I would support it (I agree with you that the word "Turkish" is unnecessary), but I can't support the use of the word Azerbaijani in the title for all of the many reasons that have been stated and restated on this talk page by me and by others. Meowy 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to hear some good reason for exclusion of the word "Azerbaijani". What is your opinion on this: [21] Grandmaster (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Half this talk page is full of good reasons for the exclusion of the word "Azerbaijani"! Meowy 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And you opinion on Britannica is? Grandmaster (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the whole article. But there is no point in it: a general encyclopedia cannot be used to decide on an article's content in Wikipedia. In the interests of getting a workable solution here I've moved quite a way from my original suggestion for this article's title - but you seem unwilling to move at all. Meowy 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did too. I agreed to "Azerbaijani and Turkic". I just cannot understand why Azeri is better than Azerbaijani, when we have an FA article called Azerbaijani people, and it is about the ethnicity and not nationality. Grandmaster (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that you have moved - the whole discussion has been about the use of the word "Azerbaijani". The suggested additions were being made mostly to compensate for its removal (but you want both the additions and "Azerbaijani"). You can't use the existence of one mistake to justify making another: look at its talk page to see there is plenty that is wrong or contentious with the Azerbaijani people article, not the least being its title. Meowy 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you once again that the general and FA article about these people is called Azerbaijani people (not Azeri people)? Grandmaster (talk) 04:21, 22 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:

• 1. The Turkic population of Armenia was predominantly Shia, which identifies them more as Azerbaijani Turks rather than Anatolian Turks, Turkmens, or any other Turkic speakers who are Sunni.
• 2. Both what's today Armenia (formerly known as Erivan khanate of Persia and later Erivan governorate of Russia) and Azerbaijan were part of Safavid and Qajar Empires, ruled by ethnic Azerbaijanis. Khans who ruled both areas were Azerbaijani Turks, and spoke what's known today as Azerbaijani dialect of Turkic. They didn't speak Anatolian Turkish, nor were they part of Ottoman Empire.
• 3. The Turkic population of Armenia which counted several hundred thousands during 20th century, and was gradually ethnically cleansed making Armenia a mono-state with 99% Armenian population, spoke the language known today as Azerbaijani not the one that's known as Turkish (Anatolian Turkic dialect).

So I believe the title "Azerbaijanis and other Turkic people in Armenia" would be more appropriate. Atabek (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, you can now stop soap boxing. You don't have to remind us every second that Azeris no longer live in Armenia, much less repeat the canard that they were "ethnically cleansed" by the Armenians.

Tombeye's suggestion sounds alrite, although Meowy's suggestion of "Turkic Communities in Armenia" is more preferable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while I still think my suggested title is a bit better, I'd now settle for "Azeri and other Turkic communities in Armenia". Meowy 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does using the term Azerbaijani instead of Azeri scare you so much? "Azerbaijanis and other Turkic people in Armenia" is perfectly fine for this article Ehud (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had your sense of finding the most heated AA articles. That is truly an amazing capability. By the way deleting content from userspaces is considered as vandalizm. VartanM (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to keep it to the topic? Comment on content, and not the contributor? And what content of userspaces you are talking about and what does it have to do with Azerbaijanis in Armenia? I would like to ask admins to remove irrelevant comments from here. Everyone, please keep it strictly to the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 10:04, 22 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)

Dear Tombseye,

Most Oghuz tribes were not invaders, many of them resettled in the region peacefully during Seljuk rule. So if we call Oghuz Turkic influx in Caucasus an invasion, perhaps, the same could apply to Indo-European-speaking Armenians, which are by no means an autochtone nation in Caucasus unlike Lezgians or Georgians for example.

I think your suggestion for "Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia" is good as well. The main point of identity pins on the fact that Turkic-speakers in Armenia were Shia by religious identity, hence they were predominantly Azerbaijani rather than Anatolian. In fact, up to the Russian conquest of Caucasus and the following major resettlement of Armenians from Ottoman and Persian domains into Russian one by mid 19th century, Armenians were not a predominant populus in what's known today as Republic of Armenia. The fact of this is spelled out even in the works of George Bournoutian, an Armenian scholar. Atabek (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Will the title "Azeris and other Turkic people in Armenia" agreed to by Meowy resolve the problem? If so, I can agree to such title. My objection to the word "Azeri" is based on the fact that Azerbaijanis do not call themselves Azeris, they call themselves "Azərbaycanlı", i.e. Azerbaijani. The name Azeri is mostly accepted in English literature, but for example Russian sources also use the word "Azerbaijani". Same with "Azerbaijani Turk", this is not the term accepted in Azerbaijan. Plus, the general article about these people is called Azerbaijani people, not Azeri people. Therefore I prefer Azerbaijani, we need to have consistency throughout the wiki articles. But if Tombseye thinks that we can use Azeri instead of Azerbaijani here, I will agree to that to have the problem resolved. Grandmaster (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Azeris in Russia article. The editor of that article seems to have preferred "Azeri" to "Azerbaijani." Same for the articles on Azeris in Georgia and Turkey. Hakob (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Those articles have wrong titles too, I believe. If the main article is called "Azerbaijani people", then other articles should follow the same format, considering that other encyclopedias such as Britannica also use Azerbaijani and not Azeri. I'm interested in Tombseye's opinion on this, and we can move on. Grandmaster (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

??Are you now withdrawing what you had said earlier, and are now not agreeing on "Azeri and other Turkic people in Armenia" as a compromise title? Meowy 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking we are getting near to a final agreement, and that being that "Azeri and other Turkic people in Armenia" is probably the best compromise possible for the title? (BTW, I think it needs to be Azeri, not Azeris, for it to be correct, "Azeris people" doesn't sound like proper English. Also, should it be "peoples" rather than "people"?) Meowy 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article Azerbaijani people describes the people as commonly referred to as Azeri, what is the problem with calling this article Azerbaijanis in Armenia too? After all, the Azerbaijanis referred to in this article are no different from Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan Republic, neither by ethnicity nor by language. As far as I know Azerbaijanis from Armenia speak the same dialect of Azerbaijani language as the Azerbaijanis in Northwestern, Southwestern and Central Azerbaijan. Ehud (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to arrive and start commenting, then maybe you should have take a bit of time to read what had been written here recently and then you would have seen exactly what the problem is. Meowy 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have to ask your permission to "start commenting" on what's important. The real problem is that you along with several users are trying hard to get rid of the name Azerbaijani. If you are agreeing to the name Azeri, why would you not agree to the name Azerbaijani? They are the same people, after all. This is just an effort to attach several names to one ethnicity: Tartars, Turkmen, Azeri, then some are going to call them Azari and claim that they are Iranian Azari who have no relation to the Azerbaijanis from Azerbaijan Republic. The only distinct ethnic Turkic group heard of, on the territories of present day Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Georgia are Meskhetian Turks/Ahiska Turks. Ehud (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The baseless claims about only other group being Meshetian Turks are only put forward by ultra-nationalist Azeri ideologists. In fact it appears to be very close to the claim, which a Turkish friend of mine told me about having been written by Elnur Soltanov on Azerbaijani identity published in for example Ü.Özdağ, Y.Kalafat work. I agree with Tom's compromise, but this still does not explain Grandmaster's and Atabek's reverts and deletion of sourced material, as the new proposal fits perfectly with the version reverted. The obviousness as to why other entries contain the word Azeri and this one Azerbaijani doesn't need to be proven when reading the entire discussion (purely politics). There can be no Azerbaijani prior to the republic of Azerbaijan, when most sources contend that there was no Azerbaijan North of Arax river prior to 1918. That some editors push to request Azerbaijani rather than Azeri, when for them there should be no difference (according to their logic) shows the kind of disruption this articles endure. VartanM (talk) 20:25, 24 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)

I'm OK with it, I thought Grandmaster was (but maybe he now isn't). Meowy 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's settle on Azeri and Other Turkic Peoples in Armenia. We need to move on with the dispute resolution. It is pretty much obvious that Azeri = Azerbaijani, and the ethnonym Azeri will be linked to Azerbaijani people anyway. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Atabek (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Tombseye (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the renaming of the article. This article is dealing mainly with the history of Azeris in Armenia. The part about 'other Turkic peoples' is contained merely in one small paragraph in the introduction. It is not enough to be reflected in the heading and should be treated as background information with regard to the main body. Consider the article Dalmatian Italians: a great deal of it talks about the Roman rule in the Balkans and the Romance Dalmatians, but the article is still called Dalmatian Italians and not Italians and Other Romance Peoples in Dalmatia. I suggest that the original heading Azeris in Armenia be restored. Parishan (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the loooooong discussion that led to the current title, you will see that the point was that there is no concensus on what an "Azeri" is now, and what an "Azeri" was in the 19th century or earlier, and whether they are the same thing. The current title avoids inconclusive and never ending arguments and should remain the title. The choice of the current title was also made in the expectation that it could lead to the article itself being vastly improved - the fact that nobody has yet done that improving is not a reason to remove the current title. Meowy 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider my Dalmatian Italians example. As for the rest, the current version of the article reflects the 20th century period of the Azeri presence in Armenia, for the most part, and the events that had led to it. If someone is willing to talk about Seljuks and Turkification in particular, they may as well start a new article. Parishan (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that during the Soviet era Turkic and non-Turkic Muslim groups in the Caucasus were subjected to forced "Azerification", and that ethnic Turks in Armenia and Georgia were required to be registered as being "Azeri", regardless of whether they were Azeri. I'm disappointed that you are advocating to continue that process in Wikipedia, denying the existence of those non-Azeri Turks, but the current title makes that impossible, which is why the current title must be retained. Meowy 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are insisting on OR. There are no serious arguments in favour of suggesting that the Turkic-speaking population of the Erivan Governorate was not ethnically homogenous. On the contrary, long before the Soviet era, the Russian sources referred to the Turkic-speaking population of the South Caucasus and Northern Iran as the Aderbeijani Tatars or simply the Aderbeijani. There were no other "non-Azeri Turks" registered or ever mentioned in those sources, especially with regards to Armenia, which is why the current title does not make sense. Parishan (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying the Turkic-speaking population was ethnically homogenious shows your lack of seriousness here. Meowy 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead and prove me wrong. You have had two and a half months to provide supporting sources, but all I have seen from you so far are personal assumptions and OR. If this is all you have got, I will request that this article be renamed back. Parishan (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what about Russians who left other republics, which were not nationalist? Russian emigration from Armenia was in fact modest compared to many other republics. Russians were not native to Armenia either. They came for work and went.. But Kurd and Azeris were living there for generations. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)