Template talk:Azerbaijani Turkic literature

message: If we choose to divide the template into period sections, don't you think Iraj Mirza and Parvin E'tesami should be placed in Early 19th to Mid-20th Century, as both of them died before 1950? Plus in terms of literary style, they were classical poets and can hardly be considered contemporary. Parishan 07:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree Iraj Mirza and Parvin Etesami are modern poets. You better bring all 20th century poets into the list of contemporary.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The removed authors wrote in Persian, and that's what footnote says. Please, don't remove names. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary vs. Early 19th to Mid-20th Century

message: Guys , specially GM and Parishan please comment on Alborz's proposal for name change to give the template a clear non-controversial definition so territorial integrity, scientific definition and diversity of regions are respected. I note that Parishan said: "You certainly cannot take away what is Persian from Azerbaijani literature, as up until the mid-20th century the Persian language was an inalienable part of Azerbaijani literature and culture; to such great extent that local poets who wrote in Persian have always been regarded by Azerbaijanis as national poets.".  But at the same time all literature templates are tied with language and in authoritative Encyclopedias, the classics will obviously come under Persian literature since the term Azerbaijani literature was not used by them, no one in their own time used it(they constantly did use Adabiyaat parsi and nazm-e-dari and etc.) and they wrote in Persian where-as Azerbaijani literature means Azerbaijani-Turkic literature.  So what Parishan has commented on in my view is a later ethno-nationalistic reintrepretation of history of the region for boosting national sentiments and it is not scientific (fine for outstide of an Encyclopedia but not scientific).  Iranica, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam and virtually all authoritative sources state those classics under Persian literature.  At the same time in the spirit of compromise, these will not be removed (will be left as it was in the former template) but territorial claims made on Iran and also the fact that there are Talysh, Assyrian, Kurdish, Armenian, Persian (why should one language have primacy specially if majority have written in Persian) literature from Iranian Azerbaijan or Khorasan/Iraq/Tehran will be resolved.  Why won't they be removed?  So Alborz has given a precise meaning to a vague term.  Note this is a simple template, so lets have a compromise where everyone is happy(will get almost what they want).  If it goes to WP:RM, then it will be tied with language to cause no ambiguity like the majority of other literature templates, Encyclopedias and virtually all such templates in Wikipedia (consider if it is what you really want).  Specially given two arbcomms where these sort of nationalistic viewpoints are less tolerated and thankfully there are admins like Moreschi/dab (may they stay in wikipedia for a long time) who would take a scientific viewpoint in a heartbeat rather than names that can cause controversies.  So I expect comments on Alborz's version rather than long intrepretations on history and literature and etc., which will get us no where.  His version seems to satify both sides(except Turkic can be put for Turkish).  I expect comments on Albor'z version rather than intrepretations of the vague former name which I disagree with. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Choice C in Alborz's proposition seems acceptable. Except, instead of saying "The Azeri-Turkish and non-Turkic literature of Azerbaijan Republic and Azeri-Turkish literature in other countries", how about we just say Literature of Azerbaijanis or Literature of Azeris? That way the title is not subject to political or linguistic boundaries. Parishan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am glad that Alborz's proposition is acceptable, then that is way we should go since there is no ambiguity or problem with.  On your additional suggestion, you are again though giving an ethnic identification(it can certainly be read that way) where-as many of the classics were not ethnic Azeris (since they did not speak Turkic language) or can belong to multiple groups (Shah Qasim Anvar has Gilaki poems for example which is very rare and for example Nezami/Khaqani whom I believe where Iranic speakers rather than Turkic) are claimed by different groups(for Nezami say Literature of Persians, Kurds or for Qasim Anvar Literature of Persians, Gilaks and etc.).  But with Alborz's title, all of them will stay (which again I prefer from scientific viewpoint they do not but I am going with compromise) and we can basically go back to the older one except the classics that where from Iran (they would be literature of Iran) and did not write Turkic (and were not really Turkic speaking like Qatran or Shams) will be excised.   Note for me it is a compromise since ideally if we vote, literature will be tied with language obviously (like the overwhelming majority of such wikipedia templates) and we are even walking on unscientific grounds (Khaqani is from Shirvan for his time and Nezami from Arran) with respect to conventions set in Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica and Britannica.  But it will be kept with Alborz's suggestion and we can have the same tag with poets of Iranic/Turkic background.  If we go to WP:RM then the template will be tied with language like virtually all such templates.  So with Alborz's suggestion, my main concerns are also resolved (not all of them but at least with respect to Iran's territory and also diversity of Iranian Azerbaijan and also poets from Iran are from geographical area of Iran, and Khorasan, Iraq are not Azerbaijan and geographical terms are vague and have changed).  So since you accepted Alborz's compromised suggestion, I'll wait for GM or anyone else to comment and basically that should solve the ambiguity issues.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept Alborz's reasoning but I disagree with his wording. The benefit of using 'Azerbaijanis' is that it can refer to both ethnic and geographical background. I think we should take advantage of that, especially if it means to avoid bulky obscure wordings. Parishan (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a benefit but actually creates more vagueness and I believe actually it is almost discriminatory.  Azerbaijanis in Iran identify with Hafez, Sa'adi, Attar, Sanai and etc (literature of Azeris but also literature of other Iranians..same with some of the classics which is literature of all Iranians too).  Second problem, note the anti-Iranian author I mentioned who said: "Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.".  This is unscientific (both ethnicity, geographically(shirvan different than Azerbaijan at that time) and language (Persian not Azeri ).  Also literature is based on language not ethnicity/geographics.  Azerbaijani also means citizen of Azerbaijan so a Lezgin or Talysh or Armenian from Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani citizen(Azerbaijani), but they are not of Turkic-speaking background.  The term Azerbaijani as an ethnic designator is fairly new and some of these people lived in the area before even it became Turcophone and did not use that term in their age.   Or ethnic term Azerbaijani would not at that time designate someone like Pur-Hasan from Khorasan.  For example Khaqani was from Shirvan under Shirvanshahs which was not be called Azerbaijan at that time.  In terms of territory, Iranian provinces with the name Azerbaijan(East and West) are more diverse (West Azerbaijan except few cities is Kurdish and has a historically important Assyrian/Armenian communities).  So the title needs to be precise as possible and scientific.  Plus Wikipedia literature templates are not based on ethnicity but language.  You can not separate a language from it's literature since literature (specially poetry) is untranslatable.  So that is why language is tied with literature.  Again Alborz's version is a compromise since if this goes to WP:RM it will be based on language like any other template.  Precedence in any Encyclopedia is language is tied to literature(Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Britannica have Khaqani/Nezami under Persian literature) but with Alborz's suggestion this issue won't come-up.  Encyclopedia of Islam is the highest quality Encyclopedia with regards to these matters and it has an article Adhari/ Adhari Turkish literature which is about Azerbaijani Turkic literature.  So please tell what is your strong objection to Alborz's suggestion since I am not going to compromise more than what he has suggested.  Alborz's suggestion is a little long(bulky) but it can be compressedto : "Azerbaijani Turkic literature - Literature from Azerbaijan Republic" and will have its clarity.  And this is an exceptional exception to the general rule in Wikipedia and a compromise.  That way you can include both the Khorasani/Iraqi's and also the people who are listed in authoritative Encyclopedias (not Wikipedia which is not scientific due to too many nationalist editors) as Persian literature and of course people that wrote in Russian and etc.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Azerbaijani Turkic literature - Literature from Azerbaijan Republic (based on Alborz's suggestion) does away with ambiguities.  So please comment.  Lets not get into discussion of history which we disagree with..but find a simple acceptable solution.  If we can not, then we will end up with Azerbaijani Turkic Literature through WP:RM.  I can not accept territorial claims on Khorasan, Iran's Azerbaijan (diverse region) or calling literature produced from modern as Iran as part of the republic of Azerbaijan.  These sort of nationalistic claims should not have merit in Encyclopedia.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note if we officially move it,  unlike my compromised proposal, it will be to Azerbaijani Turkic literature like virtually all such Wikipedia templates which link language with literature.  The former name had too many ambiguities, too many notes and too much emphasis on one language.  I have spoken to an admin about this and they agreed with my viewpoint.  Already I had pointed out the problems with the former name and why it was not acceptable.  So the current name Azerbaijani Turkish literature is fine or it can be moved to Azerbaijani Turkic literature - Literature from Azerbaijan Republic.  But literature produced from modern Iran is literature from Iran,  Khorasan/Azerbaijan in Iran are not part of the Azerbaijan republic, furthermore Azerbaijan in Iran is diverse, and the people there do not call their language Azerbaijani but Turki.  So I did not see any reasonable objections to my move.  If there are any and the template is moved back to it's original name, then we should have an official move.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise Version by Alborz

message: I think it is not a good title. First of all TurkISH means Anatolian/Istanbuli Turkic language. If you wanted to stress the Turkicness of Azerbaijani language it still should have been Azerbaijani TurkIC. Secondly most of these figures wrote in Persian rather than Turkic, before the Panturkists in the rep. Azerbaijan put a de facto ban on the usage of Persian.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "Azerbaijani Turkic Literature" is better than "Azerbaijani Turkish Literature".That's a good idea (what about Azeri Turkic Literature?). But about many of these persons also write in Persian (or Russian and etc) , I think the above section of talk shows all the logic:this is a template of literature and not nationality of geographical grouping , so I think that's right to group them as present . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think TurkIC is the correct word. And about those writing in persian and Russian. They shouldnt be include at all if it is only on the language (TurkIC) basis. But it is Ok only if it is on territorial basis.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google books search.  Azeri Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish were more popular than Azeri Turkic and Azerbaijani Turkic.    Azari was a name of an old Iranian language, so I think it is better to call the Turkic language as Azerbaijani Turkic/Turkish in order not have ambiguities.  All four names(azeri/azerbaijani turkish/turkic) are acceptable and are used, and whatever is more encyclopedic is better.  From Encyclopedic/scientific viewpoint, currently Turkish does denote more the Anatolian dialect, so Turkic might be better.  At the same time, the other name is popular and is used.  Turkic is a group of languages, but when a classical author uses the term Turki/Turkche, they do not mean a linguistic family, but rather the name they used for their dialect.  I know some of these people wrote in Persian as well, but the important ones that have a considerable Persian output like Fizuli, Nasimi(whom about half of their poetic outputs are in Persian and both from Iraq) or the ones that have vastly more Persian output (and even peculiar Gilaki Iranian language) like Shah Qasim Anvar can be quoted in Persian literature as well.  As Alborz pointed out, this is not a template of nationality, ethnicity or etc, but literature (Sayat Nova was Armenian but has written more in Azerbaijani Turkic/Turkish and it is discriminatory not to include him because of political conflicts today).  The template before claimed Khorasan as part of Azerbaijan which was unacceptable, separated Iranian Azerbaijan(no clear borders or there is no such a geographical boundary today) as political territory (it can be interpreted that way) and also had other problems, given that Azerbaijan is a diverse place(emphasized one language over others).  Also the term (of Azerbaijan) or even Azerbaijani as geographical region can denote different people in Iran and even the republic of Azerbaijan.  So to stress the fact that this is a language,  (the greatest poets whom were actually from Turkomens in Iraq like Fizuli not Azerbaijan), and to comply with other Wikipedia templates,  I named it to Azerbaijani Turkish which makes it unambiguous that we are talking about literature in that language.  Some of the people that Azerbaijanis of the republic of Azerbaijan feel a shared heritage with (like Nezami) are mentioned in their own article as part of shared heritage.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Turkish rather than Turkic comes from two sources: 1- those with a political agenda (Panturkists and their supporters/ masters). 2- Ignorance from authors from Iran and Turkey. TThe correct terminology is TurkIC.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Azerbaijani Turkish seems more popular in google books but if you believe the scientific definition is Azerbaijani Turkic, then feel free to move it and rename the template to Azerbaijani Turkic.  You will have to also change it in specific pages.  Overall, it should not contain ambiguity and the Turkic/Turkish helps to define language rather than area (khorasan is not part of it or other ambiguities (citizenship..)).--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: In Turkic or Turkish , I can only say that's difficult to chose between them . In fact , the Turkey before the Turkey republic ( I mean the Ottoman empire), was rather a religious state and the national identity in that empire was not defined . That means the concept of Turkey(as a nation) , as well as it's national borders are new . Then for Turkic speakers of Iran (and perhaps Azerbaijan republic) it is unfamiliar to change their old idea of naming their language:I mean for hundreds of years , they called their language "Turki" , because there were no nation with the name of Turkey , then in this last century a new nation with the name of Turkey appeared on stage and the result is the absence of such concept in Persian and Azeri language :In Iran , it's not customary to use "Turkeyei" (ترکیه ای )  for Turkish and (ترک مانند ) for Turkic . In Azeri , it's not routine to use "Turkialy dil" for Turkish and "Turkiye benziyan" for Turkic . In Iran , among Iranian Azeri's when we want to point to Turkish (Turkey) - and not Turkic - we say " Istanbuli Turkish " , and not "Turkish of Turkey" , because the Turkey was often called "Rum " or " Ottamani" in Iran . As the summary , if we use the Turkish and Turkic here in English Wikipedia with success,we would never be able to use it in Persian and Azeri Wikipedia , because it can't be translated to that languages ! Anyway , if babak thinks the concept is not bizarre in English usage , I have no objections and he can change it , but in Persian and Azeri we can't correlate it to a national or lingual concept.  --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay looks like Babak corrected that aspect but I had to do the individual name change.  Currently then, there shouldn't be any ambiguity.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic or Turkish? 

message: Sayat-Nova is an Armenian poet and ashik --Melikov Memmed (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sayat-Nova

message: Medieval period is between 5th–15th century (see Middle Ages). Some of those poets should be moved to Modern or other group/section. Does Medieval have a different period in Caucasus/Middle East region? --Zyma (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval