This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eupator (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 1 August 2008 (-). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:45, 1 August 2008 by Eupator (talk | contribs) (-)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Armenia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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.24.24.200.113 (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thomas de Waal addressed this in his book:
- 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.
- Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. ISBN 0814719457
- So Azeri spelling is relevant and should remain in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the names:
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. Parishan (talk) 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. Parishan (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.213.123 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever. Parishan (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Meowy 20:24, 2 July 2008 (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.-- Ευπάτωρ 21:29, 3 July 2008 (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? Parishan (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (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. -- Ευπάτωρ 19:01, 4 July 2008 (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? Parishan (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (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.-- Ευπάτωρ 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Meowy 20:24, 2 July 2008 (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: Thaddeus Cathedral. Azerbaijani: 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). Meowy 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: gök, Turkmen: gök, Crimean Tatar: kök, Uzbek: ko'k, Kazakh: kök, Tatar: kük, Bashkir: kük). Armenian does not have front rounded vowels, therefore in Azeri loanwords, "ö" in particular would be transliterated as a combination of "y" and "o" (the palatal glide substituting for the frontness of the vowel). For instance, Alagöz - Ալագյոզ; gözəl - գյոզալ . 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 Dalmatian Italians 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.
- 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 West Azarbaijan, where the cathedral is located. The Turkish pronunciation of the name would be /kaˈra kiliˈse/, while the Azeri is /gaˈra kilˈsæ/ or /gæˈræ kilˈsæ/. The Arabic-script spelling differs from the Persian variant significantly (cf. the Template:Lang-fa vs. the Azeri 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). Parishan (talk) 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". Meowy 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" . Parishan (talk) 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 here and here, 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 here. 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).-- Ευπάτωρ 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 Kars 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. Meowy 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. Parishan (talk) 03:12, 23 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". Meowy 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
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. VartanM (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not "Russian"; it's the Cyrillic rendering of an Azeri name. The Russian would be "Синяя мечеть". 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.
- 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 Tzitzernavank Monastery, Gandzasar monastery, Amaras Monastery before the Armenian names (since the monasteries are located in Azerbaijan), will you? Parishan (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (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).-- Ευπάτωρ 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.
- The ruling dynasty of Erivan was Turkic-speaking, as it descended from the Qajars. 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. Parishan (talk) 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.-- Ευπάτωρ 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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: Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan.-- Ευπάτωρ 01:44, 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.-- Ευπάτωρ 01:29, 1 August 2008 (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).-- Ευπάτωρ 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)