Revision as of 01:45, 1 August 2008 editEupator (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,166 editsm -← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:18, 11 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,276,103 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{Architecture}}, {{WikiProject Armenia}}, {{WikiProject Iran}}, {{WikiProject Islam}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(54 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{WPAM|class=start}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Architecture}} | |||
{{WikiProject Armenia }} | |||
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Islam|Mosques=yes|importance=low}} | |||
}} | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-09-04">4 September 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-12-11">11 December 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
I do not understand reason to include azeri name for this mosque in Armenian. It is not part of present azerbaijan, it was build before ethnogenesis of azerbaijani race(in 1766, I think no one calls people Azerbaijanis by ethnicity, only by region in persia Adharbayjani as resident of a region including kurd and persian and all others, this latin script did not exist in 1766, azerbaijanis did not build this but the great persian khan of city. i can explain further.] (]) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
: ] addressed this in his book: | |||
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
: ''That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis''. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221033541/http://www.todayszaman.com/world_armenia-applies-to-place-blue-mosque-on-unescos-world-heritage-list_304799.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/world_armenia-applies-to-place-blue-mosque-on-unescos-world-heritage-list_304799.html | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
: ''Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. ISBN 0814719457'' | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
: So Azeri spelling is relevant and should remain in the article. ] (]) 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Regarding the names: | |||
* - for the Azeri name | |||
* - for the Turkish name | |||
The links were not provided in the article because the edit requesting the sources was bad faith; it only tagged the Turkish and the Azeri name. ] (]) 05:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:''"The largest mosque of Yerevan and. only one still preserved, the '''Gyoy''' or '''Gök-Jami''', (gök means "sky-blue" in. Turkish) was built in AH 1179 or AD 1765/6..."'' . ''Gyoy'' is the rendition of the Azeri ''Göy'', and the Turkish name is also in the article. If there is a name, whose relevance and significance needs to be addressed, it is the Armenian name. ] (]) 05:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Only extant building of the Iranian period claim== | |||
Yerevan's ], from 1693, also dates from the period of Persian control of Yerevan. Because of this I have deleted the "and the only extant building of the Iranian period in Yerevan" claim that was in the lead. ] (]) 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
==Issues of implied and stated Iranian ownership== | |||
actually it calls it gok means sky blue in turkish and nothing about gyoy. you are a dirty azerbaijani liar and i cannot trust your translation and interpreting sourse would also be original research name is probably of turkic origin and not TURKISH and AZERI. as for meaning of name, kiesling says it means sky blue but on encyclopedia iranica under article of erevan it is kalled only gok jami and means mosque of heaven so meaning is not clear either and kiesling is not a reliable historian for critical survey of language or topics. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
There are a number of claims that need sources or need rewording. The lede "serving Iranians" claim implies non-Iranian Muslims cannot use it but no source unambiguously states this. The wording in the "today" section implies the same when it says "religious and cultural center for the Iranians residing in Armenia and Iranian tourists visiting Armenia". The cited source for this actually says "serves as a hub for a growing number of Iranian residents and tourists". So, is it open for worship for Iranian passport holders only? Are the Mullahs Iranian? Will they kick out non-Iranians? What about non-Shia Muslims? There also seems an over-reliance on the Darieva source, and I don't see why there has to be so many direct quotations from this source within the text. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Darieva == | |||
:Yeah, whatever. ] (]) 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
*''Darieva notes that it served as a Friday mosque for "Yerevan’s Muslim (mostly Azeri-speaking) population, until the middle of the 1920s."'' | |||
::I don't see what the argument is about, or why it has got so vicious. All the names mean exactly the same thing - "blue mosque"! The name in English should be first because none of the other varients are as notable as it. The name in Armenian should be next because locally used names should take precedence. After that it is arguable, but I have chosen the Turkish one to be next because that seems to be more widely used than the Persian one. ] 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
"mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague on time period, hence I believe it should be removed. ] (]) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree. In addition, an Azeri name can be used if it's shown that it's not simply a translation of Blue Mosque to Azeri. A pre-republic use of the name is fine with me.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:How is it vague? ----] ] 07:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Please pay attention, the Azeri name is shown in the Armenian source listed above, albeit using a different spelling convention (''gyoy'' for ''göy''). And even had it not been shown: regardless of its presence in sources, for over 200 years the mosque was the worship venue almost exclusively for the city's once majority-forming Azeri community. They certainly did not use the Armenian name to refer to it, and there was no necessity to "change" the name of the mosque after 1991. It is not an Armenian cultural site. If there was ever a translation, it would be the Azeri/Persian/Turkish name being translated into Armenian. What I can't wrap my head around is not just the adding of the historically alien Armenian name (what relevance does it have to this particular landmark? I'd say '''zero'''), but its listing above all the other names. If your argument is merely that it is situated in what is now Armenia, that is fine by me, but in that case, please be kind as to add priority-Azeri names for all the Armenian churches and monasteries located what is internationally recognised as Azerbaijan. Have we got ourselves a deal? ] (]) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Because it doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. ] (]) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your comparison of Armenian vs Azeri doesn't hold water. Gyol is not 'Azeri', it is pre Kemalist Turkish and etc., it is one of the oldest attested Turkic words, it is even found in Tibetan for green/blue. In this manner I can say the name Azerbaidjan is an Armenian name because of it's Persian origins and since Persian and Armenian are both IE languages therefore Persian=Armenian. Kyol was first used to mean lake, long before any Azeri language existed. So Gyol or Gyoy (which is a modern manipulation) is basically the same thing as the mothern Gyok or Gok. And your source does not support this modern Azeri manipulation of the term where the Turkic and Persian terms are merged. You have to support that such terms ever existed. As for your claim that there was any Azeri identity in Yerevan that far in history, as discussed prior, it is not backed by any credible sources. Those people were Turkic speaking Muslims, period. The other variations of the Turkic word (Gyol) can be added, Turkish be replaced by Turkic, but the association between the Turkic and Persian word is a modern Azeri invention, creating an Azeri term not backed by historical sources. --<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::But it does say until when and it's factually correct. ----] ] 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
Is there a Misplaced Pages policy on this. A lot of the so-called "Azerbaijani language" (And probably a few of the "Armenian language" alternative titles in Misplaced Pages articles are nothing of the sort. It is actually "Azerbaijani alphabet", "Armenian alphabet", etc. I.e. they are actually the same name but spelt using different alphabets! Look here for example: ]. ]: قره کیلسه - ''Qara kilsə'' we are told. But Kara Kilise is actually Turkish, and is just rendered using the current alphabet used in the Republic of Azerbaijan. And the Arabic letters are exactly the same as the ones used to render the Iranian name (which is also just the Turkish name rendered using Arabic script). ] 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::] But it neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant? ] (]) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::Where did you get the information that the mosque was ever mostly used by Persians rather than Turkic-speaking Muslims (i.e. Azerbaijanis)? The source does not have to explain everything in order to be included. Your concern appears to be that "mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague, yet I fail to see how replacing it with simply the "Muslim population" makes it any less ambigious. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{tq|Where did you get the information that the mosque was ever mostly used by Persians rather than Turkic-speaking Muslims (i.e. Azerbaijanis)?}} | |||
::::::Oh idk, just the fact that it's a Persian mosque? , , | |||
::::::* Ritter, M. (2009). The Lost Mosque(s) in the Citadel of Qajar Yerevan: Architecture and Identity, Iranian and Local Traditions in the Early 19th Century, Iran and the Caucasus, 13(2), 239-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157338410X12625876281109 | |||
::::::" A substantial redecoration with tiles dated 1305/1887-8 suggests <u>a still considerable Muslim community in Yerevan</u> in the late 19th century, 60 years after the Russian conquest. Today it remains the only extant building <u>of the Iranian period in Yerevan.</u>" -- p. 252 | |||
::::::"(...) religious architecture of the late 18th to early 19th century <u>in what was the territory of Iran under the early Qajar rule</u>" | |||
::::::"The toponym Yerevan is in Persian equivalent to Iravan and, more broadly, to Chukhur-i Sad, which denote <u>both the city and the historical Armenian province under late-medieval and pre-modern Iranian rule</u>" -- p. 243 | |||
::::::"At the beginning of the 18th century, Yerevan was taken again by the Ottomans,16 but Nadir Shah and the first Qajar ruler Agha Muhammad Khan secured it together with the neighbouring regions <u>once more to Iran</u>. Subsequently, the advance of Russia into the Caucasus <u>led to two wars with Iran in 1804-13 and 1826-28</u>. In the peace treaty of Gulistan in 1813, <u>Iran conceded supremacy over most parts of the South Caucasus to Russia. Yerevan remained a part of Qajar Iran, and even critical European observers were impressed by its flowering, but in the treaty of Turkmanchay 1828 it also had to be conceded to Russia</u>." -- p .244 | |||
::::::"After a brief Ottoman occupation, <u>Iranian rulers since Shah 'Abbas I in the 17th century considered the South Caucasus as part of their lands</u>". -- p. 244 | |||
::::::{{tq|Your concern appears to be that "mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague, yet I fail to see how replacing it with simply the "Muslim population" makes it any less ambigious.}} | |||
::::::It wasn’t “replaced” with “Muslim population” because “Muslim population” is in the source, “Azeri-speaking” is just a footnote. If you're going to restore a vague statement, please get a consensus yourself. This was discussed 3 months ago. Coming to this article and replying to my last comment from more than 2 months ago and asking ''me'' to "get a consensus" is counterproductive. I'm happy to discuss, but you're the one who needs consensus. ] (]) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The term "Persian mosque" refers to the architectural style rather than an ethnic designation. Everyone who prays in a Persian mosque does not become Persian. | |||
:::::::The quote includes the phrase "Azeri-speaking". If this reliable source thought it was important enough to include, we should too. Here is the complete quote: | |||
:::::::{{tq|Originally, the Blue Mosque functioned as a Friday mosque for Yerevan's Muslim (mostly Azeri-speaking) population, until the middle of the 1920s, when it was closed under pressure from the anti-religion campaign.}} | |||
::::::: I still fail to understand what you think the issue is with fully quoting a source. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I explain everything in my initial comments? And I didn't say everyone becomes Persian, the reason I'm mentioning that this is a Persian mosque and obviously had Persians using it is that the quote doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. It also neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant, and how this isn't anything but vague? ] (]) 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Why should a one-sentence quote explain every single detail about a single phrase? How is it relevant to a fact about the mosque's usage in the 1920s when the mosque started being used mostly by Azeris? Its relevance was determined by the reliable source who provided the quote; it is not up to me or you to decide. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I saw this comment today. I'll think about it and reply tomorrow, sorry. Didn't have time to edit Misplaced Pages these couple of days. ] (]) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::{{tq|Why should a one-sentence quote explain every single detail about a single phrase?}} | |||
::::::::::ok I'll narrow down to 3 main points which I think are reasonable given the context of the quote: | |||
::::::::::1) saying “until” a certain year without a starting year | |||
::::::::::2) how much is “mostly”? | |||
::::::::::3) when did the change from Persian to “mostly Azeri” happen? | |||
::::::::::If you can answer these, I'll personally have no objection to having a direct quote. If not, I think we're better off without a direct quote per vague reasons, and it's not like Misplaced Pages demands us to have direct quotes at all times. ] (]) 07:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::{{u|Golden}}, {{u|ZaniGiovanni}}, | |||
:::::::::::Gents, sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation. Just thought that sharing my view may help to reach the consensus. | |||
:::::::::::Regarding the point 3, Mosque functioned since 18 century till mid 1920. It was Shia mosque, design of which some considered Persian. Demographics statistics 1830 and 1831 shows that Azerbaijanis (Tatars at that point) were the majority of the Yerevan population. 1873-1897 Azerbaijanis were holding 48-42% of Yerevan population. Do we have any evidence it was mostly Persian and then changed to the mostly Azerbaijanis? Considering that overwhelming Muslim populations of Yerevan for that perioud were Azerbaijanis/Tatar, it is safe to say that it always was mostly Azeri speaking. | |||
:::::::::::I do not see any policy based reason to remove material supported with the reliable source from the article. ] (]) 06:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
== What is 'Iranian' in this context? == | |||
:Astounding! :) People have no flipping idea whatsoever of what they are talking about, yet they choose to go on with their... agenda thinking they are experts in the field. Without hurting your feelings, neither of you realises how ridiculous this looks. | |||
Did the Muslim population of Yerevan consist mostly of Ethnic Persians before 1917? The answer is No. It consisted of Azerbaijani Turks. | |||
:'''Eupator''', for your information, ''göl'' (''gyol'' - "lake") is a whole different word, unrelated to ''göy'' (''gyoy'' - "blue"), which is of Azeri and only Azeri origin. The "y" at the end is the perfect indication of that, since in no other Turkic language does this word sound as such (Turkish: ''gö'''k''''', Turkmen: ''gö'''k''''', Crimean Tatar: ''kö'''k''''', Uzbek: ''ko''''k''''', Kazakh: ''kö'''k''''', Tatar: ''kü'''k''''', Bashkir: ''kü'''k'''''). Armenian does not have ] ]s, therefore in Azeri loanwords, "ö" in particular would be transliterated as a combination of "y" and "o" (the ] substituting for the frontness of the vowel). For instance, ''Alagöz'' - Ալա'''գյ'''ոզ; ''gözəl'' - '''գյ'''ոզալ . I would appreciate it if you refrained from wasting both of us's time on your baseless original-research speculations emerging from your appaulingly poor knowledge of the structure of Turkic languages. Manipulation-schmanipulation. The cobbler should stick to his last. Incidentally, there is a major lake in Azerbaijan's Khanlar Rayon called Göygöl (lit. "Blue Lake"). I hope you are not going to challenge that claiming the lake's original name is Göl-Göl, and them sneaky no-good Azeris manipulated it down to "Göygöl" for whatever reason. :) | |||
:The "Azeri identity" argument is pure nonsense. There are no indications of groups such as ] identifying themselves as Italians until the modern era. The academic adoption of a new term to designate an ethnic group does not indicate ethnic transformation within the ethnic group. End of story, no need to bring this up again. | |||
Was the Erivan Khanate founded by the ethnic Persian or any other Iranian-ethnic group originated dynasty? The answer is No. | |||
:Now, '''Meowy'''. I am not quite sure how familiar you are with Azeri, Turkish, or Persian, as well as with the conventions of writing in Arabic script. My guess is: barely, if at all. While ''Kara kilise'' might be Turkish, it is not how the name of the landmark is pronounced in the Turkic language that is called Azeri and is spoken widely across ], where the cathedral is located. The Turkish pronunciation of the name would be {{IPA|/kaˈra kiliˈse/}}, while the Azeri is {{IPA|/gaˈra kilˈsæ/}} or {{IPA|/gæˈræ kilˈsæ/}}. The Arabic-script spelling differs from the Persian variant significantly (cf. the {{lang-fa|کلیسا}} vs. the ] کیلسه). And if there was ever a rendition, it was the Persian language adopting the Azeri name, not vice versa, as ''ghareh'' is not a Persian word, but merely a Persianised version of the Azeri ''qara'' ("black", cf. the Persian name for Karabakh: قرهباغ - ''Gharehbagh''). ] (]) 08:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Now Parishan, I'm not quite sure how familiar you are with that monument. My guess is not at all. I've been to the monastery, and the locals pronounce Karakilise, exactly the same as it would be pronounced if it were over the border in Turkey. "Kara", (or "qara", or "ghareh", or however you want to spell it) is not an Azeri word, it is a Turkish word, and the letter "k" in eastern Turkey tends to be pronounced like a "gh". ] 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I am very well familiar with the monument as well as the local Turkic dialects which constitute a branch of the Azeri language. I am sorry, but given how you equate the two pronunciations and do not see the difference between the realisations of the Turkish "k", the Azeri "q" and the Persian "gh" (which are '''all''' pronounced differently), nor between the Azeri and Persian spellings of the name, you have demostrated that you lack the linguistic competence, which makes it difficult for me to trust your personal judgement and conclusions. In fact, I did a quick search and only stumbled across the spelling "Kara Kilise" on Turkish-language websites. Whereas the very source provided in the article to justify the spelling "Kara Kilise" spells at as "Ghareh Kelisa" and "Qara kilisa" . ] (]) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Astounding indeed, you're not being very civil here and you seem to be a little angry. Maybe you should take a wikibreak and cool off? The issue here is not whether or not they were called different names, it's that before the term Azerbaijani was applied to these Tatars they did not even have a collective identity. You need to read carefully. Just recently and , you didn't even post anything in the talkpage while others were posting materials from the said sources to show that they do not support what you added. Regarding your highly uncivil comment about lake not being related to blue. The color blue has been associated in several languages to lakes, oceans, seas, and heaven. In fact, in Azeri Turkish, goy means heaven, see . For a word of Azeri Turkish origin it seems to be used even in some tribal groups in Mongolia. ''Written Mongolian koke "blue" becomes gOY"yo...'' (from A Regional Handbook on the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, University of Washington Far Eastern and Russian Institute, Kun Zhang, Human Relations Area, Files, inc - 1956).--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::It's also that it can make an article look silly. I'm not specifically thinking of this article, but any one which has a long list of alternative names which are actually all essentially the same name with the same pronounciation (the page for ] comes to mind). It's often just inclusivity taken to a pointless extreme. I was only wondering if there was a Misplaced Pages policy on this, to stop things getting out of hand. But it's not worth a big argument about. ] 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Eupator, I am perfectly aware of the etymology of the word ''göy''. Your point? The reference to Mongolian is preposterously irrelevant, I will pretend you did not bring it up. ] (]) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Were the Afshars ethnic Persian? No. | |||
Parishan, with the source you added you have a better chance of adding Russian language version then Azeri. Your source says nothing about Azeris and let me also remind you that the Azeri latin alphabet that you added was nonexistent in 1911. Also don't forget that local names always go first. ] (]) 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Were the Qajars ethnic Persian? No. | |||
Was Irevan an integral part of Qajar Empire? No. | |||
:It's not "Russian"; it's the Cyrillic rendering of an Azeri name. The Russian would be . Just like "Masjed-e Kabud" is the Roman rendering of the Persian name. None of the users ever found that "English". I guess it is just the Azeri that causes so much conflict for you. It will create no problem for me to post sources in the Azeri language that contain the Azeri name, but then you will revert again saying that "Azeri sources don't count." My impression is, you don't even know yourself which sources would qualify in favour of adding the Azeri name. | |||
Then what is an "Iranian Khanate"? ] (]) 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:The alphabet issue we have been over many times. It is the only literary form of Azeri nowadays; if this creates an issue, I will add the Azeri name in Arabic script as well, but the Roman will stay just like it stays for Turkish. Again, you only pick on Azeri in this case, and then you act surprised when you get accused of deliberately removing references to Azerbaijan from Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
:Oh, and since "names always go first", I hope you will not mind sticking to consistency and adding Azeri names for ], ], ] before the Armenian names (since the monasteries are located in Azerbaijan), will you? ] (]) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Yerevan was in fact an integral part of the Qajar Empire, the Khanates were administrative divisions of that state. ] (]) 10:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Even if the Armenian name shouldn't be the first one, Azeri shouldn't be either since it's a Persian mosque built under Persian rule. It's irrelevant if most of the worshippers were allegedly Turks (which can't even sourced by anything other than de waal anyway).--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Ideally the Armenian name should not be there at all - this is not an Armenian cultural site and the name provides no relevant historical information about it. And Armenia's treatment of its Islamic heritage is a good indication of that. | |||
== Is Galichian reliable? == | |||
:::The ruling dynasty of Erivan was Turkic-speaking, as it descended from the ]s. And the mosque was built specifically at the khan's request. The claim of the mosque worshippers being majority non-Azeri is ridiculous; consult the census figures from Erivan and Armenia, for starters. De Waal talks enough about it as well. ] (]) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::Armenian should stay because nobody said there aren't any Armenian muslims attending the Persian mosque of Yerevan but i'm in favor to only leaving the Persian name. De Waal is a journalist not a historian. I'm going to start removing all citations of de waal for all historical issues in the near future. The ruling dynasty? They were in charge of the muslim population only and had little or no authority over Armenians who were under the authority of the melik of Yerevan. Second of all, the khans were subservient to their master in Persia proper. Their Turkic origins are not in dispute, they fact remains that they themselves were Persians and considered themselves Persian.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Rouben Galichian, an engineer, whose book 'Invention of History' was published not by a Western but by a Yerevan-based publishing house. | |||
:::::As for Armenia's treatment of its Islamic heritage, the superb condition of this mosque shows it briliantly. Lets compare it to Azerbaijan's post-Soviet treatment of its Christian heritage: ].--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
He focuses on an insignificant ethnic Persian minority community if the pre-1917 Erivan city, while ignoring the fact of the presence of the Azerbaijani Turkic majority in the city or labels them as 'Iranians' which is obscurant. ] (]) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Rouben Galichian is a highly respected independent researcher. Also, we shouldn't pretend that research throughout the Southern Caucasus is equally biased; Azerbaijani historical negationism is unparalleled in the region. What about the quote is factually wrong? | |||
:He rightly points out that Azerbaijani ethnic identity had not formed yet when this mosque was erected. The ruling class living in Yerevan was mixed between Persians and Turkic groups, their mosques were, as they all were Shia Muslims, identical. The inscriptions are all in Persian. Thus, it is much more accurate to label the mosque "Iranian" than "Azerbaijani" in the modern sense. ] (]) 10:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:18, 11 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blue Mosque, Yerevan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UFO4124.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221033541/http://www.todayszaman.com/world_armenia-applies-to-place-blue-mosque-on-unescos-world-heritage-list_304799.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/world_armenia-applies-to-place-blue-mosque-on-unescos-world-heritage-list_304799.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Only extant building of the Iranian period claim
Yerevan's Zoravor Surp Astvatsatsin Church, from 1693, also dates from the period of Persian control of Yerevan. Because of this I have deleted the "and the only extant building of the Iranian period in Yerevan" claim that was in the lead. 92.17.52.89 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Issues of implied and stated Iranian ownership
There are a number of claims that need sources or need rewording. The lede "serving Iranians" claim implies non-Iranian Muslims cannot use it but no source unambiguously states this. The wording in the "today" section implies the same when it says "religious and cultural center for the Iranians residing in Armenia and Iranian tourists visiting Armenia". The cited source for this actually says "serves as a hub for a growing number of Iranian residents and tourists". So, is it open for worship for Iranian passport holders only? Are the Mullahs Iranian? Will they kick out non-Iranians? What about non-Shia Muslims? There also seems an over-reliance on the Darieva source, and I don't see why there has to be so many direct quotations from this source within the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.118.48 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Darieva
- Darieva notes that it served as a Friday mosque for "Yerevan’s Muslim (mostly Azeri-speaking) population, until the middle of the 1920s."
"mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague on time period, hence I believe it should be removed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- How is it vague? ----Երևանցի 07:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- But it does say until when and it's factually correct. ----Երևանցի 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yerevantsi But it neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Where did you get the information that the mosque was ever mostly used by Persians rather than Turkic-speaking Muslims (i.e. Azerbaijanis)? The source does not have to explain everything in order to be included. Your concern appears to be that "mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague, yet I fail to see how replacing it with simply the "Muslim population" makes it any less ambigious. — Golden 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get the information that the mosque was ever mostly used by Persians rather than Turkic-speaking Muslims (i.e. Azerbaijanis)?
- Oh idk, just the fact that it's a Persian mosque? , ,
- Ritter, M. (2009). The Lost Mosque(s) in the Citadel of Qajar Yerevan: Architecture and Identity, Iranian and Local Traditions in the Early 19th Century, Iran and the Caucasus, 13(2), 239-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157338410X12625876281109
- " A substantial redecoration with tiles dated 1305/1887-8 suggests a still considerable Muslim community in Yerevan in the late 19th century, 60 years after the Russian conquest. Today it remains the only extant building of the Iranian period in Yerevan." -- p. 252
- "(...) religious architecture of the late 18th to early 19th century in what was the territory of Iran under the early Qajar rule"
- "The toponym Yerevan is in Persian equivalent to Iravan and, more broadly, to Chukhur-i Sad, which denote both the city and the historical Armenian province under late-medieval and pre-modern Iranian rule" -- p. 243
- "At the beginning of the 18th century, Yerevan was taken again by the Ottomans,16 but Nadir Shah and the first Qajar ruler Agha Muhammad Khan secured it together with the neighbouring regions once more to Iran. Subsequently, the advance of Russia into the Caucasus led to two wars with Iran in 1804-13 and 1826-28. In the peace treaty of Gulistan in 1813, Iran conceded supremacy over most parts of the South Caucasus to Russia. Yerevan remained a part of Qajar Iran, and even critical European observers were impressed by its flowering, but in the treaty of Turkmanchay 1828 it also had to be conceded to Russia." -- p .244
- "After a brief Ottoman occupation, Iranian rulers since Shah 'Abbas I in the 17th century considered the South Caucasus as part of their lands". -- p. 244
Your concern appears to be that "mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague, yet I fail to see how replacing it with simply the "Muslim population" makes it any less ambigious.
- It wasn’t “replaced” with “Muslim population” because “Muslim population” is in the source, “Azeri-speaking” is just a footnote. If you're going to restore a vague statement, please get a consensus yourself. This was discussed 3 months ago. Coming to this article and replying to my last comment from more than 2 months ago and asking me to "get a consensus" is counterproductive. I'm happy to discuss, but you're the one who needs consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The term "Persian mosque" refers to the architectural style rather than an ethnic designation. Everyone who prays in a Persian mosque does not become Persian.
- The quote includes the phrase "Azeri-speaking". If this reliable source thought it was important enough to include, we should too. Here is the complete quote:
Originally, the Blue Mosque functioned as a Friday mosque for Yerevan's Muslim (mostly Azeri-speaking) population, until the middle of the 1920s, when it was closed under pressure from the anti-religion campaign.
- I still fail to understand what you think the issue is with fully quoting a source. — Golden 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I explain everything in my initial comments? And I didn't say everyone becomes Persian, the reason I'm mentioning that this is a Persian mosque and obviously had Persians using it is that the quote doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. It also neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant, and how this isn't anything but vague? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why should a one-sentence quote explain every single detail about a single phrase? How is it relevant to a fact about the mosque's usage in the 1920s when the mosque started being used mostly by Azeris? Its relevance was determined by the reliable source who provided the quote; it is not up to me or you to decide. — Golden 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I saw this comment today. I'll think about it and reply tomorrow, sorry. Didn't have time to edit Misplaced Pages these couple of days. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Why should a one-sentence quote explain every single detail about a single phrase?
- ok I'll narrow down to 3 main points which I think are reasonable given the context of the quote:
- 1) saying “until” a certain year without a starting year
- 2) how much is “mostly”?
- 3) when did the change from Persian to “mostly Azeri” happen?
- If you can answer these, I'll personally have no objection to having a direct quote. If not, I think we're better off without a direct quote per vague reasons, and it's not like Misplaced Pages demands us to have direct quotes at all times. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Golden, ZaniGiovanni,
- Gents, sorry for jumping in the middle of your conversation. Just thought that sharing my view may help to reach the consensus.
- Regarding the point 3, Mosque functioned since 18 century till mid 1920. It was Shia mosque, design of which some considered Persian. Demographics statistics 1830 and 1831 shows that Azerbaijanis (Tatars at that point) were the majority of the Yerevan population. 1873-1897 Azerbaijanis were holding 48-42% of Yerevan population. Do we have any evidence it was mostly Persian and then changed to the mostly Azerbaijanis? Considering that overwhelming Muslim populations of Yerevan for that perioud were Azerbaijanis/Tatar, it is safe to say that it always was mostly Azeri speaking.
- I do not see any policy based reason to remove material supported with the reliable source from the article. Abrvagl (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why should a one-sentence quote explain every single detail about a single phrase? How is it relevant to a fact about the mosque's usage in the 1920s when the mosque started being used mostly by Azeris? Its relevance was determined by the reliable source who provided the quote; it is not up to me or you to decide. — Golden 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I explain everything in my initial comments? And I didn't say everyone becomes Persian, the reason I'm mentioning that this is a Persian mosque and obviously had Persians using it is that the quote doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. It also neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant, and how this isn't anything but vague? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where did you get the information that the mosque was ever mostly used by Persians rather than Turkic-speaking Muslims (i.e. Azerbaijanis)? The source does not have to explain everything in order to be included. Your concern appears to be that "mostly Azeri-speaking" is vague, yet I fail to see how replacing it with simply the "Muslim population" makes it any less ambigious. — Golden 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yerevantsi But it neglects a key detail of when it went from being used by Persians to being “mostly” used by Azeris. And how much is “mostly”? If Azeris aren’t the only Muslims using the mosque, how is this relevant? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- But it does say until when and it's factually correct. ----Երևանցի 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't say when the Azeris began using the Persian mosque. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
What is 'Iranian' in this context?
Did the Muslim population of Yerevan consist mostly of Ethnic Persians before 1917? The answer is No. It consisted of Azerbaijani Turks.
Was the Erivan Khanate founded by the ethnic Persian or any other Iranian-ethnic group originated dynasty? The answer is No.
Were the Afshars ethnic Persian? No. Were the Qajars ethnic Persian? No.
Was Irevan an integral part of Qajar Empire? No. Then what is an "Iranian Khanate"? 213.172.93.41 (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yerevan was in fact an integral part of the Qajar Empire, the Khanates were administrative divisions of that state. AlenVaneci (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Is Galichian reliable?
Rouben Galichian, an engineer, whose book 'Invention of History' was published not by a Western but by a Yerevan-based publishing house. He focuses on an insignificant ethnic Persian minority community if the pre-1917 Erivan city, while ignoring the fact of the presence of the Azerbaijani Turkic majority in the city or labels them as 'Iranians' which is obscurant. 213.172.93.41 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rouben Galichian is a highly respected independent researcher. Also, we shouldn't pretend that research throughout the Southern Caucasus is equally biased; Azerbaijani historical negationism is unparalleled in the region. What about the quote is factually wrong?
- He rightly points out that Azerbaijani ethnic identity had not formed yet when this mosque was erected. The ruling class living in Yerevan was mixed between Persians and Turkic groups, their mosques were, as they all were Shia Muslims, identical. The inscriptions are all in Persian. Thus, it is much more accurate to label the mosque "Iranian" than "Azerbaijani" in the modern sense. AlenVaneci (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class Architecture articles
- Unknown-importance Architecture articles
- Start-Class Armenian articles
- Unknown-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- Start-Class Iran articles
- Low-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- Start-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- Start-Class Mosque-related articles
- Mosques task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles