Talk:Mirza Jamal Javanshir

Recent edit by the user HistoryofIran
Thank you for the edit summary, but I don't think it's compelling enough to completely revert my edit, even the minor grammar corrections. Are you really disputing each and every part of the edit I made? I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it did not have any official status" considering that, as I'm sure you're aware, the idea of an official language was novel and unheard of at the time. You're essentially saying that the three reliable historians I included are wrong in your edit summary. These three sources mention Mirza Jamal and say he was an Azerbaijani, whereas none of the sources in your sandboxes mention Mirza Jamal. Questions about if Azeris existed or not (which is itself a very poorly-posed question, but that is for another discussion) isn't a relevant discussion for this article. Also, who is the non-RS person I inserted in this edit as you claim? Hewsen, who has a number of articles out with well-known American publishers? Or Petrushevsky, whose articles have appeared in reliable Western publications and in The Cambridge History of Iran? In case you don't have access to the sources, I'll cite them here:

Bournoutian writes: "The search for regional histories, however, led me to a number of chronicles dealing exclusively with Qarabagh. Although the authors were Transcaucasian Turks, later known as Azerbaijanis, they all, with one exception, wrote their histories in Persian, which remained until the latter part of the nineteenth century the primary literary language of the Muslims of Transcaucasia. The earliest chronicle on Qarabagh is the history of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, which concerns itself with political and, to some extent, socioeconomic conditions in Qarabagh from the 1740s until 1806."

Hewsen writes: "Although written in Persian, the work of Mirza Jamal Javanshir (1773/4-1853) is actually a product of Azeri historiography: its author being an Azeri noble of the Javanshir tribe, who began his lengthy career as a scribe in the service of Ebrahim, the Azeri khan of Karabakh."

Petrushevsky writes (translated): "Compiled in 1845 on behalf of the governor of the Caucasus M. S. Vorontsov by the Azerbaijani Mirza Dzhemal, the Persian-language "Tarikh-i Karabag" ("History of Karabag") is mainly a compilation of data from Arab and Persian chroniclers, and only a presentation of events from the beginning of the 19th century is of independent interest."

I'm fine with writing "Transcaucasian Turk, later known as Azerbaijani" to avoid an argument and I actually tried that first in the Background section but it looked weird to call him Transcaucasian Turk, Azerbaijani and Javanshir in same sentence, despite the three essentially being the same group, so I just used "Azerbaijani" similar to Hewsen and Petrushevsky. Apollo  (Helius Olympian)  22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bournoutian literally says that the Azerbaijanis first emerged later in that quote. Hewsen does not seem to aware that the ethnonym "Azeri" did not exist back then, and which certainly isn't a dispute in the academic world (he later frequently uses the word "Tatar" in reference to the Turks of the South Caucasus in his Atlas book, though frequently reminds the reader that they're the later Azeris). Petrushevsky/Petrushevskii is a Soviet source, being part of the heavy Soviet engagement in historical anachronism and revisionism. The Turks of the Caucasus and Azerbaijanis are certainly not "essentially the same group" either, the Azeris constructed a completely new identity and history under the Soviets. All this is mentioned in the two sections I mentioned . The cited books go into even more detail. "Transcaucasia(n)" is also a outdated term, which Bournoutian stopped using in his later books - the proper term would be "South Caucasian"/"from the South Caucasus" in this case. And please don't put words in my mouth, I never made a single mention of "non-WP:RS". Also, your addition in the "Work" section seems to be WP:SYNTH, as per the quote Hewsen does not actually give his reason for using the word "Azeri", but you made the reason for him by using another source. That could be reworded a bit to avoid WP:SYNTH.


 * Perhaps we can add the "later known as Azerbaijani" stuff in a note along with other info for context? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the term "Azerbaijani" was used during this period to refer to the people. But the group of people who would later be called Azerbaijanis did exist. I also did not say "Turks of the Caucasus", but rather "Turks of Transcaucasus" i.e. "South Caucasus". Bournoutian would've disagreed with your assertion that "The Turks of the [South?] Caucasus and Azerbaijanis are certainly not "essentially the same group"", when he says "Transcaucasian Turks, later known as Azerbaijanis", so would most other historians who clearly state that these South Caucasian Turks or Tatars later identified themselves as Azerbaijanis. But, this topic isn't suitable for discussion within the scope of this article and this issue will can't be resolved here. Petrushevsky's work has been published in several reputable Western academic sources, him living in the Soviet Union does not discredit all of his academic works.
 * About "please don't put words in my mouth, I never made a single mention of "non-WP:RS"": I said it based on this edit summary where you told me to "not stray from WP:RS". If I misunderstood you, let me know what you actually meant.
 * I don't have problem with using "was a South Caucasian Turk{note} from the Javanshir tribe" and I can change the later part of the edit to fix the SYNTH. Do you have any other issues with my edit other than these two? Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  23:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think Bournoutian and other historians would have disagreed with that, I think you should read the quotes in those sections. I am not discrediting all of Petrushevsky's work either, he ("Petrushevskii" in the section) along with other Soviet sources also appear in those two sections I mentioned, please see them - I rather not fill this page with tons of quotes. Azerbaijani shouldn't be added as a transliteration either, it had no official status under the governments that Mirza Jamal lived under, nor did he compose a work in that. Shall I make the note? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The concept of "official language" is a novel phenomenon and adoption of offical national languages all around the world is part of the modernisation process (See Chríost 2003) and even if it wasn't, it would still not be relevant to our discussion. This is not a country article but a biography and there is no policy in Wikipedia that says only official language translations should appear in the lead of biographies. We have two reputable historians directly referring to Mirza Jamal as Azerbaijani or Azeri, and another saying "later known as Azerbaijani" and one of the historians saying that his most prominent work is a product of Azerbaijani historiography. This gives enough justification to include Azerbaijani translation in the lead.
 * For the note, there is already an existing template for it. Template:Caucasian Tatars. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  13:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Was Azeri an ethnyom/identity back then, yes or no? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We're here to discuss content, not what I think or don't think. We seem to be close to reaching a consensus, so I'd be happy if you replied to my last comment instead of asking an irrelevant question. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  14:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is extremely relevant, since I too feel like we're nearing a consensus, and wanted to see if we're on the same footing, since you kinda made the same argument you did in your first comment, which we already went through. Azeris did not exist back then, calling Mirza Jamal Javanshir "Azerbaijani" is simply anachronistic. The Azerbaijani Turkic language has zero relevance here, Russian and especially Persian-which he wrote in-are relevant here. This would be the equivalent of me trying to add the Persian transliteration into Abu Hanifa Dinawari, which has zero relevance, even though the Persians were actually an ethnonym back then. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Bournoutian, as he is literally saying the same. And since you still did not check the two sections, I'll post some citations here:
 * "As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan." -- p. xvi. Bournoutian, George (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.
 * "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): 37
 * "In fact, the change in defining national identity in Azerbaijan was a result of a combination of developments in the 1930s in Turkey, Iran, Germany, and the Soviet Union. The article concludes that these developments left Soviet rulers no choice but to construct an independent Azerbaijani identity." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013). "The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s". Iranian Studies. 46 (4). p. 511
 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to overlook the accounts of Mirza Jamal by Hewsen, Petrushevsky and Bournoutian because of a larger discussion regarding the origin, identity or history of Azeris. I have already made a concession by agreeing to not refer to him as Azerbaijani, despite the fact that at least two reliable authors do. This discussion only continues because you are unwilling to compromise on any point. Hewsen, who writes that Mirza Jamal's most well-known work is a product of Azeri historiography, is just as reliable as Bournoutian. This is enough justification for including the translation in the lead. There's no Wikipedia guideline that prescribes specific requirements for one and your personal opinion of what's relevant or not is not superior to the work of a reliable western historian. However, I'll make another compromise and recommend removing all translations from the lead. About describing his origins, I also propose that we provide the quotes of each of the three authors separately rather than drawing our own conclusions, and allow the reader to create their own conclusion. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  23:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not going to remove the actual relevant transliterations just because Azeri isn't added there. There's no larger discussion, it is a fact that the Azeris weren't an ethnonym back then, and the sources regarding it are only increasing. And again, you cite Bournoutian despite him also saying that, it doesn't make sense. You're also not paying attention to the bit about Petrushevsky, I've mentioned it twice and even linked a citation. Please adhere to WP:RS, I'll post some more here, which I hope you'll read:


 * "Azerbaijan first tried to create a national identity in 1918 at the time of the formation of the first Azerbaijan republic. Because of linguistic factors and despite its deep and long connection with Iran, Azerbaijan constructed its identity on the basis of Turkism and even pan-Turkism." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Edited by Shireen Hunter. Lexington Books. p. 29
 * "A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR." Ahmadoghlu, R. Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Nations and Nationalism. 2021; 27. Wiley Online Library. p. 549
 * "In the pre-national era, both north and the south of the Aras River (Shervan, Mughan, Qarabagh, and Azerbaijan) were provinces, akin to Lorestan or Khorasan of an all-Iranian imperial structure. Following the Russian conquest of the Turkic-speaking regions in the South Caucasus in the nineteenth century, a thin layer of intelligentsia emerged in Baku and began discussing the characteristics of a distinct Azerbaijani identity. The Republic of Azerbaijan was established in May 1918 by the same elite. This short experience was abruptly halted when the Red Army occupied Transcaucasia in 1920/21. Subsequently, the Bolsheviks launched their modern, state-driven nation building projects in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Contemporary Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speakers and their national history could be centered on a Turkic ethno-linguistic identity. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed elsewhere, the Bolsheviks did not prefer this solution. The Azerbaijani national identity and historical narrative constructed after 1937 stressed the indigenous nature of the Azerbaijani people and was based on a territorial definition. The territorial approach found support at the highest level—from Joseph Stalin himself." -- Yilmaz, H. (2015). A Family Quarrel: Azerbaijani Historians against Soviet Iranologists. Iranian Studies, 48(5), p. 770


 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't going anywhere. I've requested a WP:3O. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  23:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not going anywhere because you are blatantly ignoring plethora of WP:RS. This is nearing the realm of WP:TENDENTIOUS. I'll post some sources for those who actually want to read it:


 * "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani. " -- Bournoutian, George (2018). ''Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
 * "At the beginning of the 20th century, the heavily used name “Turks” for the Muslims of eastern Caucasus was replaced by the term “Azerbaijani.” It has dominated since the 1930s as a result of the Soviet policy of indigenization, largely promoted by Josef Stalin" - p. 254, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.
 * "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
 * "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35


 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To 3O: The disagreement started with this edit. We can not come to an agreement about how to describe Mirza Jamal's ethnic origin according to the only three sources available and whether to include the Azerbaijani translation in the lead or not. Apollo  (Helius Olympian)  23:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no "disagreement", this is sheer WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:REHASH from your side. This is the equivalent of calling Spanish settlers in Southern America for "Mexican", "Venezuelan", etc, i.e. pure anachronism. This needs to be taken to WP:ANI if you continue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am currently reading this. This statement sounds like a disagreement between you two to me; for there not to be a disagreement you two have to agree. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Azerbaijani script is written in two scripts: Latin (new, used in Republic of Azerbaijan) and Perso-Arabic (historic, still used by Azerbaijanis in Iran). The one I suggested adding was in Perso-Arabic, which would accurately reflect how the author was referred to during his lifetime. For reference, this translation is the same as Persian, so the translations would simply read "Azerbaijani/Persian: میرزا جمال جوانشیر". HistoryofIran opposes this on the grounds that Azerbaijani was not an "official language" (although such a concept is a modern phenomenon), while I support it since two reliable sources refer to Mirza Jamal as Azerbaijani and one of them also states that the work that made Mirza Jamal notable is a product of Azerbaijani historiography.
 * Also, if possible, can you help us figure out how to describe his ethnicity in the Background section? Since HistoryofIran does not accept writing "Azerbaijani" in the article despite the sources I quoted above describing him as such, I proposed to quote these three sources (which is all we have right now) separately. For example, "According to historian Bournoutian, Mirza Jamal was a "Transcaucasian Turk, later known as Azerbaijani", while historian Robert H. Hewsen calls him an "Azeri noble"". Do you think this is a fair compromise? Thanks. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  18:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite: I oppose adding the Azerbaijani transliteration because it has zero relevance, as he did not write in the language, with Persian and Russian being the dominant languages in the realms he lived in: see also the GA Karabakh Khanate. And again, because Azeris were not an ethnonym back then. There are certainly more than three sources here, please acknowledge that so the discussion can move forward. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. However, Hewsen considers it relevant and refers to it as a product of Azeri historiography. Despite being a reliable author, whose work you have extensively referenced in the Karabakh Khanate article, why is he being ignored? You also did not provide any attribution to him in the Karabakh Khanate article, but did so in this article. Why? Could you please tell me if there are any other sources, apart from these three, that discuss Mirza Jamal in any capacity? I believe our main disagreement lies in the fact that you think the sources you are quoting are relevant to Mirza Jamal. If we cannot cite these sources in this article to provide any information about Mirza Jamal, then they are not valid sources for this article. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  19:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic here is about Turks and Azerbaijanis, how is it not relevant? I've already replied to your argument about the three sources multiple times now. Please reply to that instead.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's Perso-Arabic then we should probably just use the template for Persian script, which is lang-fa and already used. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are not addressing any of my points. The issue is not the template, it's whether or not to include the Azerbaijani translation in the lead. Our disagreement has nothing to do with technicalities or templates. Hewsen's sentence about Azerbaijani historiography was a minor point in our disagreement, but you seem to have understood it as the main problem. Meanwhile, the actual main issues (translation, describing his ethnicity) remain unresolved. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  22:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that I've made it clear in my response that we shouldn't describe him as Azerbaijani. Just including the part in Works should be enough.On the translation... I lean towards not including it unless we can find a source that contains an Azerbaijani version of his name. Claiming it's also Azerbaijani is unsourced, and Hewsen doesn't say that either. It just says he was Azeri, which doesn't make his name Azerbaijani. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My proposal wasn't to include Azerbaijani, but rather to write in quotes what these three sources describe Mirza Jamal as, instead of drawing our own conclusions about him. That's what I wanted a third opinion on. His Azerbaijani name in Arabic script is spelled the same as in the Persian translation, and no one is claiming that the work is in Azerbaijani. My argument is that Hewsen is saying that the work is a product of Azeri (short for "Azerbaijani") historiography, which is why I propose using "Azerbaijani/Persian: میرزا جمال جوانشیر" instead of the current version. Apollo   (Helius Olympian)  22:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the Bournoutian one, we already have the note which says he is a transcaucasian tatar later known as Azeri. I don't think we should add the Petrushevsky source either, it's just a passing mention and can't be incorporated to the Works part. Maybe we can change it to "Some historians" instead of just Hewsen? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Petrushevsky/Petrushevskii and other Soviet sources should be treated carefully, especially in regards to the word "Azerbaijan(i)" per the citations above. I think that the note should also mention that a new identity and history was also forged with the new ethnonym Azerbaijani/Azeri. More sources on this, including another page from same Fowkes source cited up above:


 * ''"Besides Azerbaijan, which as a historical territory in the 12th century has been illustrated in the maps of that era as an area in modern northwestern Iran and distinguished from Arrān, we should mention the term “Azerbaijani”. Prior to the late 19th century and early 20th century, the term “Azerbaijani” and “Azerbaijani Turk” had never been used as an ethnonym. Such ethnonyms did not exist. During the 19th century and early 20th century, Russian sources primarily referred to the Turcophone Muslim population as “Tatars” which was a general term that included a variety of Turkish speaker. Under the Mussavatist government, in 1918 and during the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the term “Azeri people” referred to all inhabitants while the Turkish-speaking portion was called “Azeri Turk”. Thus the concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920 and Azerbaijan before this era had been a simple geographical area." -- pp. 16-17, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.
 * "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli. " -- p. 68, Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan.
 * ''"Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)