Talk:Caucasian Albanians

Merge

I propose this article be merged with Caucasian Albania, firstly because Caucasian Albanians were only referred to as Arranis by Persians. Also there is a section in the article Caucasian Albania article that is about the people Caucasian Albania#Ancient population of Caucasian Albania Londium 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only by Persians, but by all middle eastern scholars. Arrani is the proper that even Western scholars use, such as Swietochowski. This is about the people, not Caucasus Albania.Hajji Piruz 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well why dont you add any information to the section about the people of Caucasian Albania instead of creating a new article? Londium 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not have its own article? This article should be expanded. This is Wikipedia, its got millions of articles.Hajji Piruz 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Londium was banned user AdilBaguirov. I reverted his insertion of a merge tag.Hajji Piruz 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote this article and removed OR. Albanians were not the same as modern-day Azerbaijanis, even though they were their ancestors. And people called Arranians by Arabs were Caucasian Albanians, which is a scholarly accepted name for these people. So please do not readd your own opinions and beliefs, this article should contain only sourced info. --Grandmaster 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Swietochowski uses Arrani and he clearly says that the Turkic speakers of the Caucasus were refferred to as Shirvanis and Arranis. Its not OR at all, not to mention that the inhabitants were referred to as Arranis by Arab and Persian scholars...Hajji Piruz 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OR. Arranis of Arabic sources were Caucasian Albanians, who spoke a non-Turkic language. Arranis/Shirvanis/Nakhichevanis etc were Azerbaijani (Turkic) people. While Albanians were ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, they are not the same people. So this article is an original research. If this article is about Albanians, it should be moved to the appropriate title, if it is about Azerbaijani people inhabiting the region of Arran, this should be clarified as well. Grandmaster 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, where does Swietochowski say that the term Arrani was used in 20th and 21st centuries? Citation, please. Grandmaster 04:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, here is a full quote from Swietochowski:

For all the built-in pitfalls in Russian administrative reforms, it was also apparent that these reforms had enhanced the internal consolidation of Azerbaijan in at least two important respects: the dismantling of the khanates weakened deeply rooted local particularisms, and the formation of the two gubermias of Eastern Transcaucasia resulted in a territorial block that the "Shirvanis" or "Arranis" would regard as the core of their homeland. Even the term Azerbaijan, although seldom used for the territory north of Araxes, began to appear in the works of European scholars or journalists. Administrative integration was in turn reinforced by economic and social changes that came, albeit at a slower pace, in the wake of the conquest.

Now, how in the world does this lead you to conclude that "However, the term Arrani is still used in a historical sense and has also occasionally been used in the 20th and 21st century to refer to the Turkic speakers of the Republic of Azerbaijan."? Parishan 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia OR. Swietochowski uses the term Arrani in a historical sense, middle eastern scholars have always used the term Arrani, and not to mention that the term Arrani was still used, up until the 1920's, especially in Iran. Contrary to what Grandmaster says, Arranis were not "Azerbaijani people", the term Azerbaijani as we know it today came into use in the 1930's. Again, refer to WP:NOR.Hajji Piruz 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NOR should be observed. The text quoted above does not support the conclusions made by Hajji Piruz. So please make no personal interpretations. And I actually say that Arranians/Albanians were not the same people as modern-day Azeris. Linking the two under the same term is OR. And 20th and 21st century were not mentioned anywhere in the text. Grandmaster 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where as my claims are sourced, you have provided nothing to support your argument. Azerbaijani is simply a name, thats it, its a name that was used to replace the term Arrani, the people are the same. Your claims are OR, please provide sources for your claim that Arranis are not the same people (how can they not be the same people?).Hajji Piruz 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article about Caucasian Albania. All sources are there. Arranians were Caucasian Albanians. Grandmaster 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And Caucasus ALbanians were Arranians.Hajji Piruz 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

revert

• I reinserted the information. Please do not remove the information and please refer to WP:NOR. Use the talk page and bring forth evidence. --Alborz Fallah 08:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, the text that you quote from Russian source does not appear in the reference you cite. Can you please, bring us the excerpt of Russian reference where the claim you insert has been made? Thanks. Atabek 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not quote from the source, but I reinserted it .The address seems to be correct. But any way, I find this text online: "азербайджанские татары, совершенно неправильно называемые персами. Они мусульмане шиитского толка и подражают персианам во многом, но их язык тюрко-татарский. Они составляют массу чернорабочих, но между ними немало купцов и владельцев нефтяных промыслов, и " [1]: "Azerbaijani Tatars, quite correctly called Persians.....They are Shiite Muslims wing and models persianam much, but their Turkic-Tatar language."--Alborz Fallah 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me a source for this: The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis It is an OR since no source has been provided for this claim. Grandmaster 08:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This particular quote brought by Alborz refers to 19-20th centuries, to first oil boom period and cannot be linked to Albania/Arran/Arranis when the latter was/were long extinguished. Let's discuss more before you insert. --Aynabend 09:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think that name (Arrani), get out of use after Mongol invasion . Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Rānīya was still spoken in the capital Barda'a or Barda'a in their time (4th/10th century). --Alborz Fallah 09:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But why to delete this part?! :
"The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis. However, the term Arrani is still used in a historical sense (Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. pg 10, 16) and has also occasionally been used in the 20th and 21st century to refer to the Turkic speakers of the Republic of Azerbaijan.( Same refrence)"

Aynabed do not remove sourced information please.

Because the source says nothing like that, see the quote above. Grandmaster 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'm asking for the source for this claim: The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis. Please do not rv the article to the version with this claim before the source is provided. Grandmaster 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

this article is about the people and have some reliable sources in it. I reverted it back to last version of Grandmaster, obviously there is no consensus for redirecting this page. --Pejman47 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article provides no additional info, same info can be found in Caucasian Albania article. Grandmaster 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, I am yet to see any evidence that this is about a different set of people, as no definition of a strict period/region/language has been provided. As you have reverted it, are you asserting that you know for a fact that this topic is valid, and are you able to provide a strict definition of the people called "Arrani"?

I wont revert this immediately, but I expect a very good source to be provided, in English or translated in full, and it will need to have been written by an indisputable expert. John Vandenberg 09:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

more info reqd

Does anyone has access to "Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition"; care to provide an exact quote of the cited passage?

Also, anyone care to write stubs for Nikolay Yadrintsev, "Kharuzin" and "Chantre". John Vandenberg 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full quote of the relevant paragraph:

For all the built-in pitfalls in Russian administrative reforms, it was also apparent that these reforms had enhanced the internal consolidation of Azerbaijan in at least two important respects: the dismantling of the khanates weakened deeply rooted local particularisms, and the formation of the two gubermias of Eastern Transcaucasia resulted in a territorial block that the "Shirvanis" or "Arranis" would regard as the core of their homeland. Even the term Azerbaijan, although seldom used for the territory north of Araxes, began to appear in the works of European scholars or journalists. Administrative integration was in turn reinforced by economic and social changes that came, albeit at a slower pace, in the wake of the conquest.

I don't see how this quote supports the claim: The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis. However, the term Arrani is still used in a historical sense and has also occasionally been used in the 20th and 21st century to refer to the Turkic speakers of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Shirvani and Arrani were not ethnonyms, this is only the reference to the people who populated those regions regardless of their ethnicity.

Grandmaster 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Swietochowski says that the Turkic speakers of Azerbaijan (the country) were referred to as Shirvanis and Arranis.

Furthermore, the term Caucasus ALbanianis is completely wrong for this article, as Caucasus Albanian has never been used to refer to the people except for the acnient context. Caucasus Albanians is not what they were referred to as after Islamic times.Hajji Piruz 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this article about Turkic speakers or Albanians? Albanians were not Turkic speakers. If this is about Albanians, then various people had various names for them, but the scholarly accepted one is Caucasian Albanians. If it is about Turkic speakers, then Arrani was not an ethnonym, it was a regional denomination. Let's first decide on what this article is about. Grandmaster 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about Caucasian Albanians, I removed the information that had no relevance to them. Grandmaster 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is NOT about Caucasus Albanians, its about Arranians. This title is completely misleading and needs to be correct and moved back to its previous title.

Caucasian Albania is a term used to describe a people of a completely different time period. Also, the sourced information once again removed has been discussed prior to my absence. I reinserted the information. Lets see the evidence which contradicts this information. No OR.Hajji Piruz 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who were Arranis? There was no such ethnicity, this is what Persians and Arabs called ancient Albanians. And you cited no sources for you claim that The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis. However, the term Arrani is still used in a historical sense and has also occasionally been used in the 20th and 21st century to refer to the Turkic speakers of the Republic of Azerbaijan Swietochowski says no such thing. We discussed this on Azerbaijani people, and there was no consensus for you edits. Get a consensus first. Grandmaster 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you get consensus for your removal of sourced information? Why is the consensus put on my shoulders WHEN I AM THE ONLY ONE POSTING EVIDENCE AND SOURCES FOR MY CLAIM, WHILE THOSE WHO CONTINUOUSLY REMOVE THE INFORMATION HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR A SINGLE SOURCE FOR THEIR CLAIMS.

Get a consensus. Oh, and me being away for a week does not mean that you right or you can freely remove information.Hajji Piruz 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This same edit was rejected and removed from Azerbaijani people article, where it was discussed with participation of third party users. So there's a consensus for removal of this info. Yet you try to reintroduce it here. Grandmaster 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

by searching in Google Books it seems that it is rather widely used [2]. not much; but enough for making this article stay. Personally, I also have access to a Persian translation of book which shows as late as 1882, the term" Albanians" was still in use, and it was something alike Greeks or Russian or etc

Even if the reader doesn't gain any information (even in Information Theory terminology), it doesn't make the case for deleting this article. Look for example to an article which I created in a couple of months ago: you 're my heart You 're my soul

But please make sure that the this article or the main article remain NPOV. Cheers--Pejman47 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles that a duplicates of other articles have no reason to exist. A redirect to Caucasian Albania takes the reader to the article where all the information they want is. In order for this to not return to being as redirect, you must provide some verifiable information that is specifically about "Caucasian Albanians" or "Arrani" people. John Vandenberg 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No one says that the term "Caucasian Albanians" is not used. The question is does this article provide any info that is not already contained in Caucasian Albania article? If this article could be expanded to become more detailed that the main article about the ancient country and its people, then its existence could be justified, but in its current form it is very short and duplicates the info from the main article. Therefore what's the point in having 2 articles containing the same info? Grandmaster 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As you said the "Caucasian Albanians" has been relatively widely used and this article in its current form is not a fork. Really, I don't get your reasonings. Anyway, if you two insist that this article should be deleted or redirected, why not nominating it for deletion? We will discuss it more at its AfD with probably some new third party users.--Pejman47 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No one says that it should be deleted. It simply provides no info that is not already contained in other articles. I suggest you expand it or it be a redirect to Caucasian Albania until someone makes it an informative article. Grandmaster 07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When you redirect a page to another page, you have de facto deleted it. But again, if you insist that this topic doesn't deserve a page in main-space of WP, please nominate it for deletion. I of course will abide the outcome, cheers. --Pejman47 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The current article is not very informative. The redirect was put in place to take the reader to the article where all the information is. This article currently has very little information. If you are personally willing to start expanding this topic, then I have no problem with it being expanded. If you dont want to undertake expanding this, then it should be a redirect. John Vandenberg 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

if an article is an stub, doesn't make the case for you to delete it; there are lots of articles in wp like You are my heart, you are my soul that I mentioned. Anyway, the best thing that we can do in this situation is to hear the third party view, so I myself nominated it for deletion. I will abide the outcome of that afd. Please give your opinion there. cheers. --Pejman47 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)