Template talk:Azerbaijani Turkic literature

former comments

This is about the Literature of Azerbaijan. I corrected the template by removing non-related figures such as Iranians for example.Hajji Piruz 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They overlap greatly (even if not in the ethnic sense but in terms of regional people being interested in different poets). I am r.v.ing back. --alidoostzadeh 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But then how do the Persian poets fit in and the Azeri language poets that were not born in Arran, Shirvan, or Azerbaijan fit in? I moved the page and changed the article title to encompass a broader spectrum of literary figures.Hajji Piruz 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean Fizuli (born in Iraq)? Well I think the word "literature of Azerbaijan" is general that pretains without necessarily being in the same geographic location. Although the term is more contemporary, that is people of the republic of Azerbaijan and/or in Iranian regions of Azerbaijan identify with these poets, or the poets had a significant role (like Qatran/Homam/Nizami/Khaghani/Shams/Mahasi..etc. who not Azeri-turkic speaking but nevertheless played an important role in the culture of the region and Iran) and etc. I am not going to get involved in the naming dispute again(Aran, Azerbaijan ,etc..) although I guess Khaghani during his own time would be from Shirvan rather than Azerbaijan, but wanted to just clarify some facts (probably some 40% of Fizuli's work is in Persian) and add some important works. It is for example to note that Jan Rypka who invented the term "Azerbaijani style" of Persian poetry also credits Qatran with the creation of that style. Without Qatran, there would not be the later poets. Or the Safina Tabrizi is one of the ten most important manuscripts of the Islamic era in any language. Qatran also uses lots of Shahnameh imagery and actually has a very deep Iranian attachment and is a very important poet in the Safina. So I think the previous name was appropriate (although the current name is ok also but if there is a dispute I am not going to get involved). --alidoostzadeh 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Piruz, please do not invent titles. All those figures are classified as literature of Azerbaijan. Do not move the article without consensus on talk. Grandmaster 06:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the information in the template should reflect the title of the template. How many of these people belong to the literature of Azerbaijan? Only these: Jalil Mammadguluzade , Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli , Huseyn Javid , Jafar Jabbarly , Samad Vurgun , Mikayil Mushfig , Rasul Rza , Aliagha Vahid , Mirza Ibrahimov , Suleyman Rustam , Ismayil Shykhly , Anar Rzayev , Rustam Ibrahimbeyov , Chingiz Abdullayev.

I'm not the only one inventing terms here. How can you include people not born in the Republic of Azerbaijan and call this template "Literature of Azerbaijan"?Hajji Piruz 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you happen to read Britannica article about culture of Azerbaijan? [1] They included as part of Azerbaijani literature figures other than those listed by you, i.e. pre-1918. Don't tell me that Britannica got it wrong and you know better, it is verifiable info. So please stop another war over the name of Azerbaijan, we've been thru this on many other articles. Grandmaster 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good also. In Britannica under Nezami they have [2] (Persian poet), (Persian literature), and (culture in Azerbaijan). The ones that overlap with Persian literature or the Azeri literature of Iran I put as Iranian literature as well. I think the template is good. --alidoostzadeh 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the title Literature of Azerbaijan is general and covers pretty much the authors that modern Azerbaijani people associated their literature with, regardless of whether those wrote in Turkic, Persian or Arabic. There is no such thing as Literature of Arran or Shirvan, no such term was used by scholars. Also, Muhammad Fuzuli is Azerbaijani Turkic poet, as his most significant writings were in this dialect. Of course, he also wrote in Persian and Arabic, which is mentioned in the template. Ali thanks for your additions. Atabek 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, if this is about the literature of Azerbaijan, then lets keep it with Azerbaijani figures. This same issue was discussed in History of Azerbaijan and it was agreed not to mix the two regions.Hajji Piruz 00:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for that. None of the editors involved in this discussion agreed to the changes that you made. See Britannica, Nizami is classified as both Azerbaijani and Persian poet, therefore he belongs here. See the article in Iranica about Azerbaijani literature, they included Nasimi, Khatai and Fuzuli as Azerbaijani poets. Do not make unilateral changes to the article. Grandmaster 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Context context context context...When they say Azerbaijani and Persian poet, they are talking about language. When the templates title is Literature of Azerbaijan, it narrows down the field. The only option is to move the title back to its previous version if you want to include non-Azeri language poets and none Azerbaijanis (republic citizens).Hajji Piruz 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Dreiser wrote in English, he is nevertheless American and not English writer. Also, non-Azeri language writers were included in the list by myself and Ali Doostzadeh. Atabek 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the old form. I found the following speech which shows that Azerbaijan republic also values its pre-Turkic language heritage. [3] remarkably contributed to enriching the Islamic civilization through its illustrious sons of eminent philosophers, scholars, thinkers, historians and poets like Nizami and Khaquani, Bakhmanyar, Masud Ibn Namdar and many others.. Not only Khaghani/Nizami, but Bahmanyar was a Zoroastrian (hence Persian) and Masud ibn Namdar was a Kurd, but it is good to see this strong identification. I think these two figures can be added on the temple, under "only Arabic writing" (although have to check on Bahmanyar). Bahmanyar is the correct transliteration though since it is بهمنیار which means Yar(friend) of Vohumana (good thought). On the issue of "also shared with Iranian literature" which Atabek brought up on my userpage, let me think about it. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I removed also Iranian literature and will list those authors separately. I put a small note though that it includes authors of both Iranic/Turkic origin. I will do the same once I edit Persian literature (in this case it includce Iranic, Indic, Slavic and Turkic origins). The reason is that this way people will not fall into the common arguments that plagued wikipedia a while back. Thanks--alidoostzadeh 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary vs. Early 19th to Mid-20th Century

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)

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)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

change name to Azerbaijani-Turkish literature

Although initially I was supportive of this template(and the main reason was not scientific but because the dispute at that time was between two different parties which was poisoning the atmosphere and I wanted to calm the situation down from further escalation but now that things are calm),I believe this template has too many problems, is discriminatory and has too many ambiguities.

1) Yesterday I went to [[4]] and I had to change it, since the template was directing to Azerbaijani Turkish literature. This is obviously wrong since most of the classical people did not write in that language and the language not formed/spread in the area at their time.

2) Pur-Hasan (Hasan-Oglu) arguably the oldest poet that has written in Turkic close to Azerbaijani-Turkish is from Khorasan. We have two ghazals left from him in Azerbaijani-Turkish but he also wrote in Persian as well. How can Khorasan in Iran be mentioned as part of Azerbaijan? Sure the language is "Azerbaijani Turkish literature" but Khorasan is in Eastern Iran not in Azerbaijan.

3) Why isn't Armenian literature from Azerbaijan mentioned?(Similarly if there was a literature of Armenia, then Persian/Turkish poets from the area need to be mentioned)

4) Why shouldn't Sayat-Nova, Armenian born in Tiflis not be mentioned since he has written important works in Azerbaijani-Turkish? He is by 100% definition Azerbaijani-Turkish literature since he utilized that language and expressed his ideas in it. Just because he is Armenian or born in Tiflis does not mean he should be excluded. Of course then we would have to add also in Armenian and also in Georgian.

5) Fizuli and Nasimi were from Iraq, why is it called literature of Azerbaijan rather than Azerbaijani-Turkish literature?

6) Iranian Azerbaijan is part of Iran first, not Azerbaijan and it is diverse like the rest of Iran. It is not an independent country or region or even mono-cultural. There are diverse people living there including Turkish speakers from Azerbaijan, Armenians, Assyrians, Tats/Persians, Talysh, Kurds. Important Kurdish literature has come from area of West Azerbaijan. Same with republic of Azerbaijan which has along with Azerbaijani-speakers, other speakers like Armenians, Talysh, Tat, Lezgins, Kurds and etc. So literature of Azerbaijan template should include literature of these people(Kurds, Lezgins, Armenians, Talysh)..if we are discussing geographical areas. Although both areas now have a majority Turkish speaking population, this was not the case during the middle ages and they were actually culturally not part of the same space. Although cities in Arran/Shirwan had Persian speaking populations(specially among it's Muslims) in the middle ages, the caucus was always a diverse place. Iranian Azerbaijan on the other hand was mainly Iranic speaking.

7) Historically too, some of these poets would be from Arran/Shirvan at that time not Azerbaijan. For example Khaqani Shirvani would not consider himself from Azerbaijan at that time, since it was Shirvan and he lived under the Shirvanshah. So this is inaccurate.

8) Shah Qasim Anvar has two ghazals in Turkish and 8-20(I forgot the exact number) ghazals in the peculiar Gilaki Iranian language, and the rest of his work (99% of it) are in Persian. Now we would have to add "Also in Gilaki"(along with Georgian and Armenian for Sayat-Nova).

9) Too little emphasis on the Persian literature of the area relative to Azerbaijani Turkish. The template says:"Unless otherwise indicated author wrote in Azerbaijani". I do not think Azerbaijani-Turkish is superior than any of the languages named that it should have this distinction. For example, I can name 114 classical poets from Shirwan,Arran, Azerbaijan, Tiflis just from the one book Nozhat al-Majales, all of them writing in Persian(note the list does not need 114 names but I am just pointing out). In fact, I can argue that prior to the 20th century, there has been more Persian output than Azerbaijani Turkish output. That is definitely case prior to the 19th century and the ratio too would be something like 10 to 1, if not more. Note I am not saying Persian is superior, but the note that "unless otherwise indicated author wrote in Azerbaijani" puts primacy to Azerbaijani Turkish.

10) The solution that does not cause any ambiguity is to change it to Azeri-Turkish or Azerbaijani-Turkish literature, so Fizuli(Iraq), Pur Hasan(Khorasan), Nasimi(Shiraz, Baghdad, and other places depending who you ask),Sayat-Nova are mentioned and the rest of the complications(geographical boundary, politics, deemographic changes) are solved. The people that wrote in Persian literature are already in the Persian literature template. They themselves consider their poetry to be Persian literature (for example Nizami Ganjavi mentions Dorr-i-Dari (Persian pearl) with regards to his work). Similarly Fizuli describes his Turkish work as Turkish. Literature at it's fine point is defined by the language it is written in. Some of the people that are popular regardless of their ethnic background can be mentioned with regards to the modern association that is felt between them and the republic of Azerbaijan irregardless of background in their own articles (see the introduction of Nizami where we said his cultural heritage is shared by four countries). But we know at many times there was no country Azerbaijan or Iran, although geographical area existed and most of the time, Azerbaijan along with Arran/Shirwan would be part of geographic/cultural Iran(See Nezami's reference with regards to Shirwanshah). Also Iranian Azerbaijan should not be considered a separate component from Iran (this template gives it this feeling) and of course definitely not Khorasan. For example Rudaki was born near Bukhara(modern Uzbekistan), he is culturally associated with Persian language and culture, but in reality if we are naming an area, it would be "literature of Uzbekistan". Same with some of the authors like Nasimi, Pur Hasan, Fizuli which are probably among the important three(Literature of Iraq, literature of Iran/Khorasan), but none of them are from Azerbaijan. Or the Zoroastrian Persian Bahmanyar who seems to be more popular in the republic of Azerbaijan(of course due to the last 100 years of USSR encouragement in science) than even in Iran, despite being from Iran and Zoroastrian. If there are objections, please let me know and we can take a vote. Virtually all the templates I have seen associate language with literature and clicking on it will take you to that language's literature. Territories, boundaries, histories, demographics change but the language of the authors will always be a constant so the template should change. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting any feedback by the end of this weekend before I proceed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the reasons above (no one responded also to my comment), and additionally the fact that the name causes many ambiguities(Iranian Azerbaijan is Iran and diverse and does not belong to one ethnic group and there are Avars, Talysh, Caucasian Albanian, Lezgin, Armenian, Kurd, Assyrian, Persian in the region and the republic of Azerbaijan (known as Shirvan in Khaqani's time or Arran in Nizami's time)) as well the scientific definition and much more common convention followed in Wikipedia (literatre=language rather than region), I changed the name to an unambiguous template. We can obviously take a vote in Wikipedia if there are problems and I am confident that the name/convention followed in virtually all Wikipedia articles I have seen as well the lack of ambiguities makes the current name correct. Borders will change but ambiguity about which language the literature is written(even if the oldest known author is from Khorasan in Iran and the most famous is from Iraq) does not and the former template gave primacy to one language which is not correct from historical point of view or fair, and associated the region with one culture(by giving primacy to one language) at the expense of other people in the region who have lived there historically and also people who believe Iranian Azerbaijan is part of Iran. The current name though won't have any problems and it is the most scientific definition. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely. What was the rationale behind renaming it to "Azerbaijani Turkish"? It is not a preferred name for the language, given that "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" each score a lot more results and given that calling it "...Turkish" creates termilogical ambiguity making the language seem like a variety of Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan.

This template was not meant to reflect only authors who wrote in the Azeri language (hence the extensive footnote box) but more to mention both poets and writers of Azerbaijani (geographical) descent and those from outside the area populated by Azerbaijanis but who wrote in Azeri (and I have no objections, if you want to add Sayat-Nova to this list). Poets from Azerbaijan who wrote in Armenian were not included because Armenian literature does not represent the traditional Islamic literary styles common to Persians and Azeris. 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.

I suggest the template be reverted based on the previous consensus. Parishan (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand why Ali changed his position 180 degrees and says now completely the opposite to what he was saying before. The article about the language is called Azerbaijani language, Britannica and most other source also call it Azerbaijani language. And literature of Azerbaijan does not include only the literature in Azerbaijani language, literature in Persian and Russian langauges also play an important role. Why literature in other languages should be ignored? --Grandmaster (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, there are two issues here. Name and resason for change. First to GM: On name, I followed Encyclopedia Iranica (Azerbaijani Turkish literature). The Encyclopdia of Islam, just uses "Adhari, a Turkish dialect" and uses the term "Adhari Turkish". These two are more authoritative than Britannica. So I noticed the term being used in scientific circles to denote the language. Azerbaijani, although also refers to the language, it also denotes variety of things including geography(which has been varying), citizenship, ethnicity and etc. Also in Iran, virtually no one uses the term Azerbaijani for the language. For example if you ask someone from Iranian Azerbaijan where you are from, they would say I am from Tabriz or Ardabil or etc. And if you ask what language you speak, they will say "Turki/Turkche" and very few might say Azeri, but hardly anyone calls it Azerbaijani. That is the native language of the name in Iran. Actually, I have not found a single person that calls it Azerbaijani from Iran. So the term Turki is historical name for the language. For example Sam Mirza when describing the poetry of Esmail I, uses the term "Turki". So overwhelming majority of Iranian Azerbaijanis do not use this term "Azerbaijani" to refer to their language. Turki is the historical term, and Azerbaijani Turki(Turkish) makes it clear we are describing which Turkic/Turkish language. Rasulzadeh when visiting Urmia, notices that although everyone speaks "Turki"(Turkish/Turkic), virtually everyone prefers to read and write in "Farsi"(Persian). So the term is the historical term and Azerbaijani Turkish makes it clear. The argument of Turkic vs Turkish has some merit, but I went with Encyclopedia Iranica and Islam and used "Turkish". Babak prefers Turkic, but I prefer what authoritative Western Encyclopedias use. On the original template, I never changed my position much, rather at the time one user was causing lots of noise and it was better to just let it be. I then didn't care much until I ran into series of articles and views outside of wikipedia who can potentially misuse the title to make irredentist claims and invalid history. Also later on, I noticed that it is starting to claim even Khorasan in Iran(who was not there before). Khorasan is all the way in NE Iran. Hasan Oghlu is from Khorasan but the first person to write in Azerbaijani Turkish. If it is geographical territory, then it would be considered literature of Iran, and Turkish literature of Iran, not literature of Azerbaijan. Encyclopedia needs to be precise. Now that user is not active(if he was I probably would have not bothered), it is time to make this scientific, specially irredentist claims with regards to Khorasan and Iranian Azerbaijan is not acceptable(same with Iraq of course). Also the template can not exclude Sayat Nova because he was born in say Georgia. So to summarize: a) Majority of its speakers call it Turki, b) and so do some authoritative Encyclopedias call it Azerbaijan Turkish c) all of it's literature up to the 20th century was considered Turki.

For Parishan. Azerbaijan in Iran is part of Iranian territory, it can not be put in a template in the Azerbaijan as territory. It is recognized territory of Iran and it includes diverse people and belongs to all Iranians. For example, Kurds make a substantial if not majority(depending on who you ask) population of western Azerbaijan of Iran. Or Assyrians and Armenians have been there historically. Now why should they be excluded? Of course, the literature output from them is Literature of Iran, since they are part of Iranian state. Same with Azeri literature from Iran. Just like, if literature of Armenia for example had western Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan(say Karabagh), then it would cause problems in Wikipedia. "Armenian literature" on the other hand can include anyone, even from Alaska if they wrote in the Armenian language. The criterion for the templates were not clear. Any literature from Iranian Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani Turkish literature from Iran and hence literature of Iran (geographical region).

Else this pushes irredentist claims. Same with Khorasan in Iran (the first poet to write in Azerbaijani Turkish was from this area) or Iraq. There is geographical ambiguities with this term "Literature of Azerbaijan". Khaqani Shirvani for example would not be part of Azerbaijan at that time. He was part of Shirvan. So this is inaccurate. Or even Nezami uses the term Arran and Azarabadegaan (which implies separate regions). Sometimes a person was just born in [[[Tabriz]] like Parvin Etesami but their father was from central Iran, yet Kurds/Armenians/Assyrians/Talysh/Lezgins have been in the geographical region of Iranian Azerbaijan and the republic of Azerbaijan for at least a thousand year. So that makes no sense. Other times though, we have people in Iraq or Khorasan. Then Lezgin, Talysh, Avar, Tat, Armenian literature from the republic of Azerbaijan can not be excluded, if this is a literature of Azerbaijan(Geographic). Neither can Persian literature be given a secondary role, given that the area has produced more Persian literature up to the 19th century and if we are talking about literary output, combining Azerbaijani-Turkish speaking populations of Iran and Azerbaijan, again Persian has more output in the last two centuries, so the template should contain "wrote in Persian unless indicated"(given that up to 19th century the ratio is even greater and the area had Persian poetry at least 300 years before Turkish poetry). So the template does not give Persian literature it's true place. Also the claim: "Armenian were not included because Armenian literature does not represent the traditional Islamic literary styles common to Persians and Azeris." does not have Encyclopedic merit, since if Karabagh and the rest of Armenians are from the geographical territory of Azerbaijan, they can not be excluded by definition. That is discriminatory and I do not see Islamic literature only being mentioned in template and the title being called "Islamic literature of Azerbaijan". Similarly if there is a template literature of Armenia, it needs to include Azerbaijani-Turkish and Persian and Kurdish literature and it should not include territories of the republic of Azerbaijan or Turkey, even if they wrote in the language. It is the same with Iran (if there was such a template). But virtually all the literature templates I have seen are related to a language. Note yesterday I changed Iranian_Literature and also I noticed there was a conflict in Sayat Nova, but since this is an Encyclopedia and one can not exclude him because he is Armenian. The template of literature of Azerbaijan was on the other hand going to Azerbaijani Turkish literature. And if Iran's Azerbaijan is claimed(which is irredentist and unacceptable, since it is part of Iran), then Armenian, Assyrian, Talysh and etc. poets should be put in, but the major complication is that Iranian Azerbaijan is part of Iran. A separate article on the importance of Persian literature from current territory of the republic of Azerbaijan (starting at least from Shaddadids) and the Caucus in general, can have its own article and be a footnote. No one is taking away Persian literature from the republic of Azerbaijan, but template goes with a language in virtually all the Wikipedia articles. This would make it scientific and then it can be put in the footnote, but Persian language itself can not be put in a footnote, since it has had the primary role and still does in Iranian Azerbaijan in terms of literature(since there was no Russian encouragement of disuse of Persian as in the Caucus). For example you said: Persian language was an inalienable part of Azerbaijani literature and culture. In reality it is Persian literature not Azerbaijani literature, since the authors themselves would refer to it as Persian literature/poetry. For example: نظامی که نظم دری کار اوست دری نظم کردن سزاوار اوست Nezami whose skill is producing Persian poetry (Nazm-e-Dari) Versification of Persian(Dari Nazm Kardan) poetry is what suits him

but more importantly, Persian literature is currently an inalienable part of the culture of Iranian Azerbaijanis and Iranians in general. And there are more Iranian Azerbaijanis, so it can not be given a secondary role. Literature goes with language, specially when it goes back to periods when national identities were not formed yet. Note, authoritative Encyclopedias do not list Persian literature under Azerbaijani literature and if anything, we can not give Persian literature a secondary position. Persian literature should not be called simply "literature of Azerbaijan" , but it should be "Persian literature from the geographical territory of Azerbaijan". Since the authors themselves call it Persian poetry or literature (Adabiyaat Farsi) and we should not reinterpret history based on nationalistic historiography. Or another option is that you can have a separate template Persian literature from the Caucus, if such a template is necessary, but it is not, since the most important ones are contained in the general Persian literature template. The best solution is to simply make an article Persian literature from the Caucus. Look, no hard feelings, but the template was somewhat nationalistic/irredentist(I talked to an admin about this to get his opinion with regards to the points I mentioned and the template is in many discriminatory and irredentist) and it can not contain Khorasan, Iranian Azerbaijan or excludes various ethnic groups from Iranian Azerbaijan or even the republic of Azerbaijan (Armenians or other groups can not be excluded just because there was an conflict since Encyclopedia needs to be technical). Also, if we look at it from nationalistic angle, the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan belonged to Iranian states many times and it can be said "literature of Iran". Where-as the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan has never been a separate state that was jointed to the republic of Azerbaijan, without including portions of Iran like Jebal or Tehran. Note even if there was feudal kingdoms, some of the famous poets have praised their rulers as rulers of Iran and that was their cultural world. Of course you will not accept this either. All this sort of arguments will get us no where, we need to to be scientific and there should be something that is clear and encyclopedic without causing such nuisances. For example if a poet is considered a national poet or an important poet, then it should be in its own article (like Nizami who is shared by four countries and the article reflects it). But the concept of "national" implies nationality/citizenship and is ambiguous. That is it is defined by citizens of a country rather than an Encyclopedia. In Tehran even, there are people that compose Azerbaijani Turkish poetry, but this can not be called Azerbaijan as a territory(there are irredentist claims). But they have composed it in Azerbaijani Turkish language. Azerbaijani Turkish literature with its own rich literature does not cause any ambiguity(except some have preferred Azerbaijani Turkic). We can not use narrow criterion and unscientific views to define the meaning of terms. This template should cause no ambiguity. If there is back and forth arguing, we should simply take a vote in Wikipedia, since I do not know if I can make myself more clear by repeating the same stuff. Virtually all templates I have seen refer to a specific language and the ones that don't will have some of these contradictions and should be changed. I believe I made the contradictions clear enough keeping in mind that primary goal is writing an Encyclopedia that should not be ambiguous. The problem of territorial integrity is important for citizens of Iran just like it is for other regional countries and we can not have Iranian Azerbaijan or Khorasan be mentioned outside of Iran or under another country's name in a template.--Nepaheshgar (talk)

Note due to different climate, experiences and upbringing, I think we can go on with different arguments and you can have your own point of view and me my own. I'll be glad to listen to more arguments in private, but I think if you believe the template was scientific and had no ambiguities, then my concerns need to be addressed scientifically (without any bias of what people believe the term means) and then there should be a vote. Perhaps I will initiate vote to make it official if there is further disagreement. Literature of Azerbaijan has too many ambiguities as I noted. Recently, an irredentist has claimed(you know which author probably and I just read his unscientific article and realized what is occurring and this was a major motivation to make sure ambiguities do not propogate): "Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.". This might be some people's point of view, but it is not scientific. The article was from a separatist POV of course but we no such a thing does not stand in general Academia, as there was an Iranian Azari language in Iranian Azerbaijan, not under Shirvanshahs in Shirvan, and the Shirvanshah supported Persian literature and language and "Azerbaijani Turkish language"(if it has been formed from unified Oghuz at the time, would have been called Turkish literature) was not present at those centuries in Shirvan. So the apparent dislike of the term "Persian literature" (which the authors who wrote in Persian called their own work and were Persian speaking at that time in Shirvan anyhow) can be seen in the article. Yet I see a news item that if someone calls Nezami's poetry as Persian literature (a term Nezami used himself for his literature), they are considered chauvinist Persians(like Iranian president Khatami was called by Ayna). So the term Persian literature can not be excluded as it is in every authoritative Encyclopedia and the authors themselves call their work nazm-i-Darri (Persian poetry, Dorr-i-Dari (Persian Pearl), Adabiyaat-e-Parsi (Persian literature). Furthermore, there has been irredentist claims on Iranian Azerbaijan, which is territory of Iran and at least 20-25% are speaking Kurdish languages (about 2 million out of total 8 million people) and it is a diverse region. This template in a way supports this irredentist claim where-as Azerbaijani Turkish literature does not. Obviously Khorasan in Iran is not part of Azerbaijan. Neither is Tehran (where many Azerbaijanis live and write poetry). So a template for Azerbaijani Turkish literature is the only scientific and non-controversial solution with the many problems I have listed. If the name is concern then Azerbaijani Turkic or Azerbaijani literature is fine, but it should not be geographical but rather language based. Still no one in Iran calls the language Azerbaijani (majority of Azerbaijanis in the world live in Iran), and authoritative Encyclopedias attach Turkish and finally the authors up to the 20th century called it Turkish. So if the majority of people that use the language call it "Turki", and some portion call it Azerbaijani, then Azerbaijani Turkish which has been used in authoritative Encyclopedias seems like a good solution. The issue reminds me of the term that was coined by Stalin "Tajiki language", "Tajik literature", "Tajiki poetry"! and then Rudaki and Ferdowsi were called by the absurd term "Tajiki literature" writing in "Tajiki language" in USSR, where-as neither Ferdowsi or Rudaki or any classical Persian poet has called their language Tajiki or their literature Tajiki. Overall, the USSR nation building technique was to basically change time and space and assign modern identities to icons in whose time such identities or names did not exist. What is primary is truth for an Encyclopedia. Their usage of "Tajik literature or language" was becausethey were sensitive to the term "Persian literature"(which was used by the icons who actually composed the work), but the USSR is dead now and such notions will eventually stop propagating. If a person is clear that they wrote in Persian and Persian literature, then other names of modern identities can not be assigned to that medieval age. Anyhow, I added the term Turkish to Azerbaijani because it was in authoritative Encyclopedias and the majority of its speakers call it Turki. A separate article on the history of Persian literature in the Caucus(which is scientific) or mention of association with the modern republic of Azerbaijan where someone is a cultural icon (more national sentiments rather than science but it doesn't hurt to mention the people X consider Y as an important cultural icon but we can not define Y in an Encyclopedia through the view of people X) in their own article can alleviate any other issues of concern. The main concern though is irredentist claims(even on Khorasan or Tehran besides the obvious NW Iran and note I am not saying you have such feelings but they are being expressed rabidly elsewhere and it is sensitive issue), secondary position given to Persian literature(despite the fact that if we count from 10th century to now, the combined Persian literature from Iranian Azerbaijan and Caucus is more than any other language) and removal/no mention of diversity of the geographical region(Talysh, Tats, Lezgins, Kurds, Armenians who lived or had lived in the territory that is now called Azerbaijan but their literature is not mentioned and primacy is given to one language). Sure you can mention other criterion but the criterion should follow correct wiki-guidelines and not interpretations due to different cultural upbringings. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, from what I understand, this whole discussion stems from your perception of 'Azerbaijan' and 'Azerbaijani' as merely a georgraphical characteristic. Well, it is not. Whether it is common in some areas and not so common in others, it is a term that describes a single ethnic group that happen to live on both sides of the international border. 'Azerbaijani literature' means literature that belongs to Azeris, Iranian and Caucasian ones, and not literature that belongs to the Republic of Azerbaijan. P.S. Please don't call it 'Caucus'; it's 'Caucasus'. 'Caucus' in English means something completely different. Parishan (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No actually I had made clear objections with clear arguments. I believe you are trying to tell me what the name means, but it does not solve the ambiguities I mentioned. First the name literature of Azerbaijan denotes a geographically vague concept. In Iran there is no offical place called Azerbaijan but rather it is two provinces(one of it with a large or majority Kurdish population) with that name and three to four provinces where Azerbaijani Turkish is the prevalent language. But the language is even spoken in Tehran by the notable population. Now Tehran or Khorasan can not be called Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan in Iran is a historical region and it is a diverse region with different people. Same with republic of Azerbaijan which alongside the Turkic speaking population includes variety of groups. So it is discriminatory to assign it to one ethnicity. Iranian Azerbaijan belongs as much to every Iranian including Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Tats/Talysh and etc. It is part of Iran. So virtually any ethnic groups literature(including Kurds, Armenians, Talysh, Assyrian..) can be put in literature of Azerbaijan if we are speaking about historical or geographic region. It does not belong to a single ethnic group or language, and it's literature if it is produced is in Iran (no matter what language) goes under the literature of Iran. So literature of Azerbaijan can not contain say Iraq or Khorasan or even parts of Iran, since there are part of Iranian territory. Also non-historical/incorrect term with say someone like Khaqani who is from Shirvan. So the geographical argument is not correct. Note your perception is one definition, my perception is another. What is important is that in an Encyclopedia, one needs to follow scientific terms and not nationalistic interpretations or non-technical literature. So that is why I objected after seeing different irredentist articles misusing terms. From a geographical point of view, including Iranian Azerbaijan and specially Khorasan or Tehran or etc. is irredentist. Not acceptable just like possibly (and I am bringing this example to show you my point of view) you do not like it if under literature of Armenia, Karabagh is mentioned and then people start to think that it is part of the geographic region. Geography is not tied with literature, language is.

Now if you are defining by ethnicity, it makes no sense and literature templates are not defined by ethnicity but language. Specially if ethnicity of some of these peoples which were not Azerbaijani Turkic speakers are included. Note you jumped from geography to ethnicity. If it is ethnicity, then the host of Persian poets (whose ethnicity can be discussed endlessly but I believe spoke Iranic languages) need to be removed and Sayat Nova or even Shah Qasem Anvar (with Gilaki poems) needs to be removed. Suprisingly, if you are going by the narrowest definition of ethnicity, then even someone that is Seyyed (descentant of the Prophet Muhammad) would have Arab genealogy (like Shahriyar or Nasimi), despite speaking the language(since you are going against my argument that literature is tied with language). So both Geography and ethnicity make no sense here. Majority of people can not tell their own background after 4 generations. I have not seen literature templates defined by ethnicity and the ethnicity of many people 600-800 years ago can not be ascertained with certainty.

So the only thing that makes sense is language which is a constant. Specially since literature and language are tied together and cannot be separated. That is virtually how almost every other Wikipedia template literature is. For example in different Encyclopedias and scientific books (not non-scientific) they do not list Persian literature (specially if the authors have called it such) as Azerbaijani Literature or Shahriyar's Heydar Baba as Persian literature. They don't call Mansur Hallaj, a Persian who wrote in Arabic as Persian literature. Now Shahriyar did not call his language Azerbaijani, but simply Turki. Azerbaijani Turkish literature in authoritative Encyclopedias means literature that is written in Azerbaijani Turkish and sure it can belong to Caucasus, Iraq, Iran (even Khorasan). It is being produced in Tehran as well even Turkey or Georgia (since Azerbaijani is spoken in some places in Eastern Turkey and Georgia). In Authoritative Encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica, I have seen Adhari Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish. So I went with Azerbaijani Turkish which causes no ambiguity. If you prefer Azerbaijani Turkic, Azeri Turkish, Azeri Turkic, Azeri or simple Azerbaijani (as long the note mentions it is language not to cause ambiguity and not citizenship and there is a footnote that it is also called Turki in Iran), I have no problem with it. Persian literature though can not come under Azerbaijani literature, since it is Persian literature and the term Azerbaijani literature has never described Persian literature in the history of Persian literature but it is modern reinterpretation of history based on nationalistic viewpoints(which is not for Encyclopedia and should be kept outside of it). In fact the term Azerbaijani literature would be a term that was coined in the 20th century for what was previously called by it's own authors as Turki. We can have an article for Persian literature from the Caucasus (scientific term) and that would solve any other issue. Turki was added because majority of Azerbaijanis call their language Turki, just like Shahriyar has called his language Turki. It is a historical term that dates back to at least 500 years. If we look at authoritative Encyclopedias, they do not have such a category as literature of Azerbaijan but rather define literature by its language. Anyhow, we can take a vote for official move if you disagree with the name but I have already listed the many problems with "Literature of Azerbaijan" and I can not accept just one interpretation of this term which is vague. So I suggest we look at the issue from the viewpoint of writing an Encyclopedia, not national sentiments. I'll be glad to have this voted out and we can vote for an official move. Worst case I am wrong and maybe your viewpoint is the scientific one. So let me know if you disagree. Either we keep Azerbaijani Turkish (or change to Azeri Turkic/Turkish, Azerbaijani Turkic/Turkish or even if you feel like Azerbaijani (mentioning the language) or we simply vote for it as an official move which will most likely choose a name that is not vague and does not hint at irredentist viewpoint. The arguments I brought show the vagueness/controversial nature of the original term. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GM and Parishan or anyone else. Please let me know if you disagree further and I will simply ask for an official vote to move it. Again, if you ask why I changed my mind, you can read what I have read outside of Wikipedia (in Encyclopedias and also irredentist literature as well(I quoted a sentence and you can find the rest) and the need to calm the former situation. Thankfully two Arbcomm and the disappearance of more hyper users has made things calm). I do not have a problem with Azeri Turkish, Azeri Turkic, Azerbaijani Turkic, Azerbaijani Turkish or Azerbaijani(in it's use as a language). I have already noted how Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica mention it and how majority of it's speaker call the name, besides how it's literature has called it's name. We can put a footnote that it is also called Azerbaijani Turkic, Azeri or simply Turki in Iran. Also virtually all wikipedia literature templates I have seen tie language with literature and none of them tie it with ethnicity or disputed geography(which can support irredentist claims). That is how literature is, it is based on a specific language and can not be separated from it. I did make a long note of objects before I changed the name, but I can go with WP:RM if there is further disagreement, since I am repeating the same points now. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did ask one admin who supported my move about WP:RM. He said If I can, I should offer a compromise version. My compromise is "Literature in the republic of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani Turkic Literature"(we can use smaller font if necessary) and that is the best I can do. This way irredentist geographical claim is not mentioned with regards to territories of Iran (some of them who were not of Azerbaijani background) and also the same notes as the former template with regards to Persian and Arabic literature can be put. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, I am confused. What is it exactly that you disagree with, then? And if possible, could you please summarise your arguments in one short paragraph? Parishan (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are concerned with irredentist claims to the territory of Iran, I don't think that literature can be used in any way to promote such claims. The thing is that there are Azerbaijani writers who create in other languages, see for example Rustam Ibragimbekov or Chingiz Abdullayev, who write in Russian. But they are still a part of Azerbaijani literary tradition. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I get ,the previous title Literature of Azerbaijan was vague in that points :
A-Geographic boundaries of "Azerbajan" is not a defined term .Mostly because of new change in naming Arran/Shirvan regions and partialy because the overlap of new Armenian territory.
B-If the language is the determining factor and not geography , then the Persian language , Russian language and Armenian language writers can not be included under this linguistic title.
C- If a combination of history , language and geography is the goal of this grouping , the title should be something like this : "The Azeri-Turkish and non-Turkic literature of Azerbaijan Republic and Azeri-Turkish literature in other countries" .Anyway , this last title seems to be unconventional in Wikipedia , and it also wrong because the majority of native Azeri speakers are Iranian and are not of Azerbaijan Republic --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Best approach is to have a non-controversial title.

1) "Literature of Azerbaijan" is irredentist with respect to Iranian Azerbaijan since even Khorasan now has been mentioned let alone Iranian Azerbaijan. The literary output from Iranian Azerbaijan is literature of Iran (no matter what language it is). Also there are Azeris in Turkey, Georgia and etc who could contribute to the literature but none of these territories are in republic of Azerbaijan.

2) It is discriminatory since it has monoethnicized a diverse region and must include Talysh(there are poets from Ardabil area), Kurdish,Armenian, Assyrian literature(many from these three in Azerbaijan) from Iran. And the same with Armenian literature and etc. from the republic of Azerbaijan. If I had a literature of Iran template, it will not include only Persian literature.

3) The article has minimized Persian literature, where-as those classical authors consider it themselves Persian literature and every authoritative Encyclopedia mentions them under Persian literature. These classics are not part of "Azerbaijani literary tradition" since such a term and concept did not exist till the establishment of the country of Azerbaijan and their background. As a compromise I can keep only in Persian (as it was) instead of "Persian literature"(a term that since USSR is causing sensitivity in couple of former USSR countries). This compromise is for if we do not go to WP:RM. But the other authors are, since such identity existed when these authors wrote in Russian.

4) My suggestion is to make it non-controversial and precise. Ideally, every literature template is connected to a language, that is virtually all the Wikipedia templates I have seen, or else they will have problems and should be changed. What Alborz has suggested is perfect, scientific and precise. It is not too long and will fit in one line as well and pretty much the former template can be restored (except the classical and modern ones that were from current Iranian territory and did not write in Turkic). The former name was very vague. If this is not a irredentist/nationalistic template(which is not for wikipedia since this is supposed to be an Encyclopedia), then there should be no problem with it. GM and Parishan, I'll await your feedback, and I think this can be resolved with that suggestion of Alborz (you decide Azeri or Azerbaijani but Turkic should stay per the reasonings I gave) without WP:RM. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, Iranica mentions Badr Shirvani, who wrote exclusively in Persian, as a representative of Azerbaijani poetry. This proves my point in that the term 'Azerbaijani literature' unifies poets and writers who are related to Azerbaijan georgraphically and/or linguistically. And Azeri is named as one of the Turkic languages of Khorasan in the same source. Parishan (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Albor'z suggestion and say what you find a flaw in. If we are going by Iranica, then it has an article Azerbaijani Turkish Literature and Khaqani, Nezami and etc. are under classical Persian poetry(they were of non-Turkic background/culture anyhow but they describe their own work as Persian literature and nothing else, but note the compromise version of Alborz will not excise them from the template). As per Khorasan, and Azeri Turkish. Yes Azeri Turkish is spoken by Afshar people there, but Khorasan is not Azerbaijan. Just like if Azeri spoken in Moscrow, Russia is not Azerbaijan. Two different things (where language is spoken and geography). Persian is spoken in California, but California is not Iran. The term can not be used arbitrarily geographically, linguistically and then ethnicity for a template. Azerbaijan in its primary meaning now refers to the country, so any sort of confusion which causes controversy needs to be clarified. To add to the confusion, Azari is the name of the Iranian language in Iranica. The template's title needs to make it clear what this is about. About the article Badr Shirvani, first thing to note is that he has some turkish poems(not many though), so he has Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani Turkish poetry and can be representative of that literature. So unlike what you said, he did not write exclusively in Persian. Second, he was from the republic of Azerbaijan, so the term can be used geographically by that former USSR author(probably from the same country) who wrote it(and he is from USSR, probably even the republic of Azerbaijan and the article in Iranica was probably even during that USSR era). Iranica articles are as reliable as the authors who wrote them. So in that same article the USSR author says: It contains 824 verses (12,437 bayts [couplets]), composed in almost all genres and forms of classical Persian poetry, . Note of course that (824 verses) is a mistake (one of the mistaktes I have pointed out to Iranica editors via e-mail on that article). But just to put all these different arguments for that article on the side, I contacted Iranica about that article Badr Shirvani in the early Summer, after seeing its gross mistakes, very poor and substandard quality, and its numerous flaws. Consequenty, I was even offered to rewrite the article since after they saw my long the criticism of the article, they thought I actually majored in Persian literature! I said I am in technical fields (not literature but Math/Engineering) and it is better that they find someone else. Here he is referenced under Persian poetry[5] by University of Chicago Professor. I can forward you the exact Iranica letter on that particular article for further confirmation, so it is being redone and they have issued a call for rewrite.

Anyhow, Badr's Shirvani mother-tongue would be the Kenar-ab Tati dialect(Jalal Matini) although overwhelming majority of his work is in standard Persian, he does have few Turkish and Tati and Arabic). And given the usage of the Azerbaijani Turkish language used at his time, he would be one of the few who wrote in Azerbaijani Turkish(so he is representative of that literature) in the courts of Ak-koyunlu and so that makes him significant with respect to Azerbaijani Turkish poetry as well, but his Persian work is under Persian literature in the same article. Overall, he has a poor view of the Ak-koyunlu except Jahan Shah. His view on Turkomens (Oghuz tribes) is expressed in this line and I won't bother translating it:

گر شماخی شد خراب از ترکمنان غم مخور

مکه هم گشت از جفای لشکر مشرک خراب

گر ز راه آن ددان دوری گزیدی عیب نیست

آدمی باید که خود را دور دارد از کلاب...

Plus if we are going by Iranica, Khaqani, Nezami and etc. are under Persian literature and not literature of Azerbaijan. And Azeri Turkish literature has it's own article. So one problematic article(which will be rewritten in Iranica) should not yield a nationalist type template and should not be used to make claims on Iranian territory. That is the bottom line here, we are writing an Encyclopedia which must be non-controversial and precise as possible in its terminology. But note, in the compromise version that Alborz offered, I did not say excise Khaqani, Nezami(I can easily make the argument to do so since Britannica, Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam have them under Persian literature and consider them Persian poets) but I said excise Iranian territories like Azerbaijan, Khorasan and also Azerbaijan in Iran does not belong to a single language or ethnicity. Tehran can produce Azerbaijani Turkic/sh poetry but it is not Azerbaijan in territory. Khorasan, Tehran, Iraq have Azerbaijani Turkic poetry but they are not Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijan in Iran is under literature of Iran as a country. And I did not say excise Azerbaijani Turkic poetry from Khorasan, rest of Iran, Iraq and etc but give a correct name.

So again, please consider the compromise version of Alborz, or keep the current name which is used in Encyclopedia Islam, Iranica and authoritative Encyclopedias (which in WP:RM will be voted and a nationalistic template with ambiguities will not stand obviously (specially in light of two arbcomms with nationalistic overtones, people will support a non-controversial title) since in authoritative Encyclopedias like that of Encylopedia of Islam and Iranica, there is an article on Azerbaijani Turkish literature . But in the WP:RM version , I am not offering the compromise Alborz has made here since virtually all Wikipedia templates are tied with language and we know there was no republic of Azerbaijan during the time of say Khaqani (the Russian literature is fine since it is after the creation of the republic or when it was under Russian control, but not those of classical Persian poetry who are called Persian literature under every authoritative Encyclopedia), but in the compromise version of Alborz, I am simply concerned about the issues raised with regards to Iranian territory and discriminatory nature of the template against other groups living in Iranian Azerbaijan and I do not plan to remove those of Persian literature from the republic of Azerbaijan. So please comment on his proposal which is an effort at compromise so we do not go to WP:RM, where taking out the possible mass votes(which will not look good from the admin's point of view specially those who were involved in arbcomm) due to nationalistic reasons, the votes with regards to scientific reasoning will support more prevalent wiki templates that causes no ambiguities (in light of previous issues). --Nepaheshgar --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Version by Alborz

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Turkic or Turkish?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sayat-Nova

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

Discussion about template name

Here [6] , an editor's point of view is :"I do not like double standards. If you write Azerbaijani Turkic literature, write Tatar Turkic, Turkish Turkic, Uzbek Turkish, Turkmen Turkic.If it is no problem and I agree on the Azerbaijani Turkic".
I think such comparison does not make sense because 1- There is no template about none of above mentioned laguages at all (except Turkish) (as shown in [7] ) , and "Turkey Turkic" is equivalent to "Turkish" , but Azerbajani Turkic is not Azeri , because it both means Azeri people and Azeri laguage , but Turkish is only a language 2-An old Azeri has been used in history that is not important now , but when talking about history , and building [historical] templates , that is important 3-None of the above mentioned nations , I mean Tatars , Turkmens and Turkey did not have an extended local literature before Turkification , but Azeri nation does have a strong history of non-Turkic literature before and after of changing language to Turkic .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The Azerbaijani people associated with the Iranian people and I really do not like that in Iran Azerbaijanis called Turks, while the Azeris and the Turks have nothing in common. In Iran under the Shah Azeris tried to equate to the Turks and the Azerbaijani Turkic writing, while the Turks are close Gagauz and the Crimean Tatars, and not Azeris. Azeris are close to the Iranians.

"Azeri nation does have a strong history of non-Turkic literature before and after of changing language to Turkic" - I agree with you. You are right. I want to ask one question. Bertels has proved that Nizami the close to the Azerbaijani folklore and there are scientists who say that Nizami is a poet of Iran and Azerbaijan, but you would be against this. I do not want to touch Nizami, Khagani, Qatran Tabrizi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.47.52 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nezami and Qatran are good examples for showing the problem in using the name Azerbaijani Literature : Nezami and Qatran are Azeris , and omitting them from the list of Azerbaijani Literature is not acceptable , but they don't have single word in Turkic literature . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why, then, in articles about them do not says that they are part of the Azerbaijani literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.8.35 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alborz means that they were "Azerbaijani" in the old sense (spoke Iranian/Persian languages) which is exactly equivalent to Iranian/Persian ethnic group. So they were not separate from other Persian/Iranian culture/groups. There was no separate "Azerbaijani" ethnic group then from the wider Iranian ethnic group, specially one that spoke a Turkic language. So that is why those authors cannot be "Azerbaijani"(its primary definition now has changed) because people from Azerbaijan (then) were speaking Iranian languages and not Turkic. So to claim them today as part of modern Azerbaijani ethnic group is anachronistically giving them a Turkic language, which they did not have. There was either Iranian or Turk. Nothing in between. In the region (Muslim at least) there are now mainly Iranian, Semitic and Turkic languages. The cross-influence has been much. Modern Azerbaijan falls right in between these two groups and so it is a mixture (the Persian cultural heritage is heavier, but the language is Turkic). However, now the people are very mixed together. Someone who speaks Turkish could have been speaking an Iranian language fifth generations ago and similarly someone that speaks an Iranian language could have been speaking Turkish 10 generations ago. Azerbaijani-Turkic is correct name since everyone in Iran calls the language "Torki/Turki" and it was called Torki until the 20th century in the republic of Azerbaijan. The Pahlavids did not call it Turki and that is simply wrong information. It was the Soviets who changed it from Turki to Azerbaijani. It has been called Turki centuries before that. It has never been called "Azerbaijani" until the 20th century. If you had asked Fizuli or someone write me a "poem" in Azerbaijani, they would be puzzled. Similarly if you asked someone in the 10th century about "Azerbaijani literature", they would not know what it is (it might have been the Old Azari Language whose speakers are ethnically identified as Persians by contemporary sources of that time). Because it is anachronistic. They would know what is Persian literature. They would also know Turkish literature (at least from the 14h century in the area). Right now, Azerbaijanis primarily definition is a Turkish language with heavy Persian influence. Literature templates are based upon language and not geography. That is why Fizuli of Iraq or Hasan Oglu of Khorasan is mentioned here but someone like Qatran who spoke Iranic languages (see Old Azari under language of Tabriz) did not. It is not even based on ethnicity, since someone like Nasimi would be an Arab (Seyyed) and someone like Ismail I would be a Kurd. Specially for the 10th century (Qatran) where the area was not even Turkish speaking and in the 10th century, there was no unique Azerbaijani-Turkic language. There are other people in Azerbaijan like Tats, Talysh, Kurds.. who are Iranian speakers and whose language existen then. But the issue is that the people that belong to the Azerbaijani ethnic group has gravitated towards a Turkic identity(specifically more after the collapse of the Soviet Union), so one cannot anachronistically claim people who were Western Persians like Qatran or had Persian culture, to have been the modern people in Azerbaijan (in the republic) who basically consider themselves Turks. Qatran was not a Turk. Nezami was a Kurd and had Persian cultural heritage. So to claim these as Azerbaijanis today is to claim them to be Turks equivalently since the Azerbaijani republic identifies itself as a Turkic nation. They are free to do what they want and I have no problem with whatever they choose. But without the Persian/Iranian heritage of that same geography, they do not have a golden age of culture (which Georgians and Armenians do, but there is no golden age of culture in Turkic culture in the Caucasus). I personally support your view, that Azerbaijanis are Iranians, however, this is not the view of the majority of the republic of Azerbaijan who consider themselves Turks and part of the Turkic world (and as I said, they are free to do whatever they want with this). Scholars also identify and classify based on linguistic criterions. So until your view that Azeris are not Turks becomes the predominant view, then one needs to respect the majority and also the scholarly sources. We need to keep Wikpedia away from nationalism, nationalistic sources and also Soviet concepts of geographical identity (which is rejected by admins in Wikipedia and Western scholar). Admins are well aware of these issues, specially anti-Nationalist admins know these issues well. For example Urartu are not Armenians but Armenians can be partially descendant from Urartu (the substrate is proven). Similarly, the Iranian speaking Persians of the 10th century in Azerbaijan like Qatran are not the modern Azerbaijani-Turkic speakers, but Azerbaijani-Turkic speakers are partially descendant of these. Since at the time, there was no concept of nation state, one needs to classify authors by their culture (which is the one that is well known), then ethnicity/language (which might not be known for a good deal of authors), not by modern geographical/state definitions. So Salah al-Din Ayyubi is not an Iraqi. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Azeris - is not the Turks. Azeris do not consider themselves Turks. Gagauz and the Crimean Tatars call themselves Turks. If the Iranians helped to Azerbaijan during the Karabakh war and in 1918, the Azeris would not have asked for help to the Turks because the Azerbaijanis have always been closer to the Iranians. You take the Turkish, Gagauz, Azeri, Crimean Tatar and Turkmen languages. You will see that it is closer to the Turkish Gagauz language, then the Crimean Tatar language, and in last place Azerbaijani and Turkmen languages.

Regarding Nizami. Here are the English sources, and a lot of them, which speaks of the role of Nizami in Azerbaijan and that its experts are called in Azeri and Persian poet. If you use these sources in the article on Nizami, I really see that Iranians brothers Azerbaijanis. There are specialists who are called Azeri poet Nizami of national-geographic criteria and Persian, according to linguistic criteria. Look completely. There is no dispute that the Nizami of the Persian culture, but why conceal the fact of what role he plays for the Azerbaijani literature, and that he means everything to Azerbaijan. Please do not say that the Azeris - are Turks. For me it is insulting, as well as for many other Azeris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.67.12 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Turkmen is the more archaic Oghuz language, but as far as I have heared, Azerbaijani-Turkish and Anatolian Turkish are almost mutually intelligble (I might be wrong). Azerbaijani-Turkish is still classified as Turkish. Well if you think Azeris are not Turks, you should argue this in the Azerbaijan article. As you notice it says: "is one of the six independent Turkic states in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. ". There are other articles. For example see Turkic peoples where Azeris are again considered Turkic. I have had this argument with Azerbaijanis from the Caucasus in Wikipedia and overwhelming majority of the Caucasus ones actually are hostile to Iranians (let alone consider themselves Iranians). The general sense one gets reading Azeri media is that your(our) viewpoint is minority and majority of people in Azerbaijan as well the countries authorities consider themselves a Turkic people. Anyhow, from a scholarly point of view, the Azerbaijanis of the Caucasus (and Iran) are considered a Turkic people. I even disagree with this, but until the primary definition is changed, then there is no point in arguing. Look, I even go to the Azerbaijani article on Atropatene and they insert Turks there 2300 years ago. This is the current widespread mentality. Look at the article on Scythians, they consider that Turk too. All of these go against mainstream scholarly information. Look at the article on Medes in Azerbaijani wikipedia, against it is called: "mövcud olmuş qədim türk dövləti."[8]. If I was a mean person, I would even write a whole article on this nonsense, but what I hope to demonstrate that Azeris are not only interested in being Turks, but also Turkifying Medes, Scythians, Atropatene and of course Nezami. (Note I am talking about the current state of these articles right now). Now with the internet, one cannot hide the truth. So an average person from Caucasus Azerbaijan will probably learn English and then check the English article on Medes. So I think these things need to be fixed first.

As per that site you showed (I was emailed it about couple of weeks ago or more), except for Chelkowski, Van Ruymbeke, Talatoff, Francois de Blois who have consistently called Nezami a Persian poet (and never have used anything else), the rest of the authors are not Nezami studies expert. So they have no weight in Wikipedia WP:weight. It is like quoting a political scientist about Nezami or a mathematician about Nezami or etc. Also there are other authors that consider using the term "Azerbaijani" for him as political nature, where-as non-exist when he is called a Persian poet. Also no doubt Nezami had influence on Azerbaijani-Turkic literature, but so did even Hafez (for example Nasimi was influenced more by Hafiz than Nezami) or Ferdowsi or etc. Anyhow, on Nezami himself, he writes that نظامی که نظم دری کار اوست دری نظم کردن سزاوار اوست So he calls his own work "Persian poetry". If he had called "Azerbaijani poetry", then that would be an argument.

Now the others source, Rypka is also outdated source, but consistent in calling Nezami Persian literature. He is just note sure about Nezami's father, which is fine (but then states clearly that Persian culture was dominant and he is awaiting a study of Ganja.. he also uses "probably" that the population was not different, however new sources clearly state population was speaking Persian or Iranian language..), but he lived under USSR and his work on Nezami needs to be looked with the critical eye. Anyhow he died in 1968 and now 42 years later there are new sources. There is now new sources like Nozhat al-Majales which means that the regional literature in the 11th/12th century has to be rewritten. At the time of Rypka maybe three poets were known from Ganja, but now there are 24 from Ganja alone at that time. Not a single USSR has referenced this work, because its critical edition was published in 1987. But for example, someone like Francois de Blois refers to Nozhat al-Majales it in his book. Now the rest of the sources: for example Audrey Alstdat, Brenda Shaffer, random websites and the rest of the authors quoted have not written a single study on Nezami or do not even know Persian. Some like Shaffer even claim that Khusraw the Sassanid King was ancestors of the Turks of Caucasus. So it carries no scholarly weight. They have no weight for Nezami studies. Or Sakina Berenjian for example attributes something wrong to Shafaq, Safa and Foruzanfar which does not exist in those pages (I have those scanned in case someone needs it). It doesn't exist. Anyhow her book is not bad, but she is clear that the language of Azerbaijan was Old Azari (something you won't find in Azerbaijani wikipedia). Shafaq, Foruzanfar, Safa did not coin the term she is attributing to them. I can send you the scanned copy of those exact pages (and 5 pages back and forth between them). Iranica and Encylopeadia of Islam also clear he is a Persian poet. If it is about making long lists, anyone can do a google search and find sources: [9] (here is a list 5 times long as the one should showed that state Persian poet).

Even the geographical claim in my opinion is not correct. If you look at Nezami's work, his region is called "Arran" and Azerbaijan proper is NW Iran (in his own work). But putting aside that argument, when praising three different rulers(Shirvanshah, Ahmadilis and Eldiguzids), he calls them the ruler of "Persia/Iran". This is the sense of geography Nezami had of himself. So Arran/Sherwan/Azerbaijan were really part of the larger Iranian cultural world. He calls the Eldiguzids as the Shah of Molk-e-Ajam. He calls the Shirvanshah "Shah-e Iran", he calls the land of Ahmadilis (Atabekan-e-Maragha) as part of Iran. Note the praises of these rulers as Kings of Persia, Kings of Iran, Kings of Molk-e-Ajam (Persian realm) is not only by Nezami. Khaqani for example uses Iran for his geographical area.

On your statement: "that the Nizami of the Persian culture, but why conceal the fact of what role he plays for the Azerbaijani literature, and that he means everything to Azerbaijan". I do not conceal the first part. He has influenced non-Persian literatures such as Ottoman Turkish, Chagatay Turkish, Azerbaijani_Turkish, Pashto, Kurdish, Gurani, Baluchi, Sindhi, Urdu, Hindi and etc. As for "he means everything to Azerbaijan", in wikipedia one must use scientific terms. Some nation building had occured and now even the average Azerbaijani does not want to accept that Nezami is "Persian literature" (like he states himself). I believe that we should strive(doesn't mean we have reached) to the level that only God should mean everything in the true sense. Nezami was a humble servant of God. He was great cultural figure but he always considered himself nothing compared to God and his Prophets. However, if what you state is the case, then why not teach the Persian language in Azerbaijan for the masses (not just a few scholars), so they can get acquainted with 90% of the works of the Muslims of that region who left their mark in Persian? As someone that is studies Persian literature, I can tell you the poems of Khaqani and Nezami are among the harder ones to translate. So access to the original means access to the pure gold. The country of Azerbaijan is not going to find its identity through Russian literature, Western literature or modern Anatolian Turkish literature. It will just be a copy cat. It will need a understanding of the Persian language to find its identity and then comeup with original thought in its current language that has its basis in that geographical location. Or else, it is disconnected from 90% of the literature of the Muslims that lived there before the 19th century.

However, all these asides, I do agree with you on one thing. Current Iran did not do much and Turkey took its place. Arran/Sherwan (wether under Iranian languages and later under Turkish languages) historically have been part of Iran and Iranian culture. The population there has been small though, so a larger country can shape it under its influence (USSR/Russia and now Turkey). On the Karabagh war and 1918 war, the average Iranian wants to see complete peace between Armenians and Azeris. This is the Iranian mentality. We do not want these people fightings each other. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, which was a stupid war. I can clearly state, the average Iranian is the only regional person that is not against either country (even though some groups are supporting separatism in Iran). But the average Iranian, looks at the whole issue, and does not want war. At least this is my mentality. Now what would be Nezami's mentality (which he means everything to you as you said):

Here is a Ghazal

این خرابات مغان است در آن رندانند

شاهد و شمع و شراب و شکر و نای و سرود

هرچه در جملهی آفاق در آنجا حاضر

مؤمن و ارمنی و گبر و نصارا و یهود

گر تو خواهی که دم از صحبت ایشان بزنی

خاک پای همه شو تا که بیابی مقصود

My translation:

This is the ruin tavern of the Magians, and in it are love-rebels (Rend is a difficult word to translate due to its multiple meanings) for God

Witnesses, Candles, Wine, Sugar, Reed and Beautiful Music (these needs to be taken symbolically for the most part)

Whatever that exists in the horizon is present there

Muslims, Armenians, Zoroastrians, Christrians and Jews

If you want to be allowed in the ruin of the Magian (divine wisdom)

Become a dust upon the feet of all of these people, so that you may reach the goal. (Zanjani, Barat. “Ahwal o Athar o SharH Makhzan ol_Asraar Nezami Ganjavi”, Tehran University Publications, 2005, pg 18)

Now this might be impossible for us average people, but as you can see, this is the mentality of Nezami.

However, you are correct, and I do not like politics. But Iran has done a completely horrible job (and we do not have a good regime) in trying to re-establish cultural contacts with Caucasus Azerbaijan/Sherwan. Although one cannot ignore pan-Turkist and Soviet obstacles placed on its path. Despite the fact that at least from Sherwanshah(900 A.D.) to Qajar, and in the Sassanid, Parthian times as well, this region has been connected to the rest of the Iranian world. On this note, I am upset, but until there is a good Iranian government, I do not think the average person like myself can do much. However, even in Wikipedia, despite the fact that the Azerbaijani name for Nezami is anachronistic, I have not opposed it( I will only oppose it if there is an attempt to excise him of Persian culture). Or on Caucasian Albania, I was the only user that said it is okay. (I did not support it on Atropatene due to the article in Az Wikipedia). However, I am vehemently against assigning Nezami to anything but Persian literature (which is what he calls it) or downplaying his Persian cultural heritage (as just limited to "oh he happens to write in Persian" which ignores how he used the language and also the themes of his story being based in Persian culture). His influence in the region and on other literatures is noted.

Since wikipedia is not WP:forum, WP:soapbox, feel free to send me an email here: [10]. Usually, I do not like to violate WP:forum, but you were one of the few Caucasian Azerbaijanis I suprisingly did not see any hostility from. I did not mean to insult you by saying Azeris are Turks, I said that is currently the widespread belief and is reflected in some of the articles (I personally disagree with this definition however the rules are the rules). Just to summarize, literature templates are based on language (not region) (for example the Khorasani Hasan Oglu is included or Iraqi Fizuli). And it is better to use the widespread scholarly definitions on the type of literature a poet belongs too (when in doubt consult with the specialist sources in that area) or what a group is..even if we disagree with it . Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval

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)