Template talk:Azerbaijani Turkic literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we choose to divide the template into period sections, don't you think Iraj Mirza and Parvin E'tesami should be placed in Early 19th to Mid-20th Century, as both of them died before 1950? Plus in terms of literary style, they were classical poets and can hardly be considered contemporary. Parishan 07:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Iraj Mirza and Parvin Etesami are modern poets. You better bring all 20th century poets into the list of contemporary.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The removed authors wrote in Persian, and that's what footnote says. Please, don't remove names. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

change name to Azerbaijani-Turkish literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This template was not meant to reflect only authors who wrote in the Azeri language (hence the extensive footnote box) but more to mention both poets and writers of Azerbaijani (geographical) descent and those from outside the area populated by Azerbaijanis but who wrote in Azeri (and I have no objections, if you want to add Sayat-Nova to this list). Poets from Azerbaijan who wrote in Armenian were not included because Armenian literature does not represent the traditional Islamic literary styles common to Persians and Azeris. You certainly cannot take away what is Persian from Azerbaijani literature, as up until the mid-20th century the Persian language was an inalienable part of Azerbaijani literature and culture; to such great extent that local poets who wrote in Persian have always been regarded by Azerbaijanis as national poets.

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

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

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

For Parishan. Azerbaijan in Iran is part of Iranian territory, it can not be put in a template in the Azerbaijan as territory. It is recognized territory of Iran and it includes diverse people and belongs to all Iranians. For example, Kurds make a substantial if not majority(depending on who you ask) population of western Azerbaijan of Iran. Or Assyrians and Armenians have been there historically. Now why should they be excluded? Of course, the literature output from them is Literature of Iran, since they are part of Iranian state. Same with Azeri literature from Iran. Just like, if literature of Armenia for example had western Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan(say Karabagh), then it would cause problems in Wikipedia. "Armenian literature" on the other hand can include anyone, even from Alaska if they wrote in the language. The criterion for the templates were not clear. Any literature from Iranian Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani Turkish literature from Iran and hence literature of Iran (geographical region). Else this pushes irredentist claims. Same with Khorasan in Iran (the first poet to write in Azerbaijani Turkish was from this area) or Iraq. There is geographical ambiguities with this term "Literature of Azerbaijan". Khaqani Shirvani for example would not be part of Azerbaijan at that time. He was part of Shirvan. So this is inaccurate. Or even Nezami uses the term Arran and Azarabadegaan (which implies separate regions). Sometimes a person was just born in [Tabriz]] like Parvin Etesami but their father was from central Iran. So it includes anyone born in Azerbaijan or Iranian provinces like Eastern Azerbaijan. Other times though it does not, like with the case of Iraq or Khorasan. Then Lezgin, Talysh, Avar, Tat, Armenian literature from the republic of Azerbaijan can not be excluded, if this is a literature of Azerbaijan. Neither can Persian literature be given a secondary role, given that the area has produced more Persian literature up to the 19th century and if we are talking about literary output, combining Azerbaijani-Turkish speaking populations of Iran and Azerbaijan, again Persian has more output in the last two centuries, so the template should contain "wrote in Persian unless indicated"(given that up to 19th century the ratio is even greater and the area had Persian poetry at least 300 years before Turkish poetry). So the template does not give Persian literature it's true place. Also the claim: "Armenian were not included because Armenian literature does not represent the traditional Islamic literary styles common to Persians and Azeris." does not have merit, since if Karabagh and the rest of Armenians are from the geographical territory of Azerbaijan, they can not be excluded. That is discriminatory and I do not see Islamic literature only being mentioned in template and the title being called "Islamic literature of Azerbaijan". Similarly if there is a template literature of Armenia, it needs to include Azerbaijani-Turkish and Persian and Kurdish literature and it should not include territories of the republic of Azerbaijan or Turkey, even if they wrote in the language. It is the same with Iran (if there was such a template). Note yesterday I changed Iranian_Literature and also I noticed there was a conflict in Sayat Nova, but since this is an Encyclopedia and one can not exclude him because he is Armenian. The template of literature of Azerbaijan was on the other hand going to Azerbaijani Turkish literature. And if Iran's Azerbaijan is claimed(which is irredentist and unacceptable, since it is part of Iran), then Armenian, Assyrian, Talysh and etc. poets can be put it, but Iranian Azerbaijan is part of Iran. A separate article on the importance of Persian literature from current territory of the republic of Azerbaijan (starting at least from Shaddadids) and the Caucus in general, can have its own article and be a footnote. No one is taking away Persian literature from the republic of Azerbaijan, but template goes with a language. This would make it scientific and then it can be put in the footnote, but Persian language itself can not be put in a footnote, since it has had the primary role and still does in Iranian Azerbaijan in terms of literature(since there was no Russian encouragement of disuse of Persian as in the Caucus). For example you said: Persian language was an inalienable part of Azerbaijani literature and culture. In reality it is Persian literature not Azerbaijani literature, since the authors themselves would refer to it as Persian literature/poetry. For example: نظامی که نظم دری کار اوست دری نظم کردن سزاوار اوست Nezami whose skill is producing Persian poetry (Nazm-e-Dari) Versification of Persian(Dari Nazm Kardan) poetry is what suits him but more importantly, Persian literature is an inalienable part of the culture of Iranian Azerbaijani currently. And there are more Iranian Azerbaijanis. Literature goes with language, specially when it goes back to periods when national identities were not formed yet. Note, authoritative Encyclopedias do not list Persian literature under Azerbaijani literature and if anything, we can not give Persian literature a secondary position. Persian literature should not be called simply "literature of Azerbaijan" , but it should be "Persian literature from the geographical territory of Azerbaijan". Since the authors themselves call it Persian poetry or literature (Adabiyaat Farsi). Or another option is that you can have a separate template Persian literature from the Caucus, if such a template is necessary, but it is not, since the most important ones are contained in the general Persian literature template. The best solution is to simply make an article Persian literature from the Caucus. Look, no hard feelings, but the template was somewhat nationalistic/irredentist(I talked to an admin about this to get his opinion with regards to what I mentioned) and it can not contain Khorasan, Iranian Azerbaijan or excludes various ethnic groups from Iranian Azerbaijan or even the republic of Azerbaijan (Armenians or other groups can not be excluded just because there was an conflict since Encyclopedia needs to be technical). Also, if we look at it from nationalistic angle, the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan belonged to Iranian states many times and it can be said "literature of Iran". Where-as the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan has never been a separate state that was jointed to the republic of Azerbaijan, without including portions of Iran. Note even if there was feudal kingdoms, some of the famous poets have praised their rulers as rulers of Iran. Of course you will not accept this either. All this sort of arguments will get us no where, we need to to be scientific and there should be something that is clear and encyclopedic without causing such nuisances. For example if a poet is considered a national poet or an important poet, then it should be in its own article (like Nizami who is shared by four countries and the article reflects it). But the concept of "national" implies nationality/citizenship and is ambiguous. In Tehran even, there are people that compose Azerbaijani Turkish poetry, but this can not be called Azerbaijan as a territory. But they have composed it in Azerbaijani Turkish language. Azerbaijani Turkish literature with its own rich literature does not cause any ambiguity(except some have preferred Azerbaijani Turkic). This template should cause no ambiguity. If there is back and forth arguing, we should simply take a vote in Wikipedia, since I do not know if I can make myself more clear by repeating the same stuff. Virtually all templates I have seen refer to a specific language and the ones that don't will have some of these contradictions and should be changed. I believe I made the contradictions clear enough keeping in mind that primary goal is writing an Encyclopedia that should not be ambiguous.--Nepaheshgar (talk)

Note due to different climate, experiences and upbringing, I think we can go on with different arguments and you can have your own point of view and me my own. I'll be glad to listen to more arguments in private, but I think if you believe the template was scientific and had no ambiguities, then my concerns need to be addressed and then there should be a vote. Perhaps I will initiate vote to make it official if there is further disagreement. Literature of Azerbaijan has too many ambiguities as I noted. Recently, an irredentist has claimed(you know which author probably and I just read his unscientific article and realized what is occuring): "Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.". This might be some people's point of view, but it is not scientific. The article was from a separatist POV of course but we no such a thing does not stand in general Academia, as there was an Iranian Azari language in Iran, not under Shirvanshahs, and the Shirvanshah supported Persian literature and language and "Azerbaijani Turkish language"(if it has been formed from unified Oghuz at the time, would have been called Turkish literature). Yet I see a news item that if someone calls Nezami's poetry as Persian literature (a term Nezami used himself for his literature), they are considered chauvinist Persians(like Iranian president Khatami was called by Ayna)! So the term Persian literature can not be excluded as it is in every authoritative Encyclopedia and the authors themselves call their work nazm-i-Darri (Persian poetry, Dorr-i-Dari (Persian Pearl), Adabiyaat-e-Parsi (Persian literature). Furthermore, there has been irredentist claims on Iranian Azerbaijan, which is territory of Iran and at least 20-25% are speaking Kurdish languages (about 2 million out of total 8 million people) and it is a diverse region. This template in a way supports this irredentist claim where-as Azerbaijani Turkish literature does not. Obviously Khorasan in Iran is not part of Azerbaijan or Tehran (where many Azerbaijanis live). So a template for Azerbaijani Turkish literature is the only scientific and non-controversial solution with the many problems I have listed. A separate article on the history of Persian literature in the Caucus or mention of association with the modern republic of Azerbaijan where someone is a cultural icon (in their own article) can alleviate any other issues of concern.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkic or Turkish?

I think it is not a good title. First of all TurkISH means Anatolian/Istanbuli Turkic language. If you wanted to stress the Turkicness of Azerbaijani language it still should have been Azerbaijani TurkIC. Secondly most of these figures wrote in Persian rather than Turkic, before the Panturkists in the rep. Azerbaijan put a de facto ban on the usage of Persian.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean "Azerbaijani Turkic Literature" is better than "Azerbaijani Turkish Literature".That's a good idea (what about Azeri Turkic Literature?).
But about many of these persons also write in Persian (or Russian and etc) , I think the above section of talk shows all the logic:this is a template of literature and not nationality of geographical grouping , so I think that's right to group them as present . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think TurkIC is the correct word. And about those writing in persian and Russian. They shouldnt be include at all if it is only on the language (TurkIC) basis. But it is Ok only if it is on territorial basis.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a google books search. Azeri Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish were more popular than Azeri Turkic and Azerbaijani Turkic. Azari was a name of an old Iranian language, so I think it is better to call the Turkic language as Azerbaijani Turkic/Turkish in order not have ambiguities. All four names(azeri/azerbaijani turkish/turkic) are acceptable and are used, and whatever is more encyclopedic is better. From Encyclopedic/scientific viewpoint, currently Turkish does denote more the Anatolian dialect, so Turkic might be better. At the same time, the other name is popular and is used. Turkic is a group of languages, but when a classical author uses the term Turki/Turkche, they do not mean a linguistic family, but rather the name they used for their dialect. I know some of these people wrote in Persian as well, but the important ones that have a considerable Persian output like Fizuli, Nasimi(whom about half of their poetic outputs are in Persian and both from Iraq) or the ones that have vastly more Persian output (and even peculiar Gilaki Iranian language) like Shah Qasim Anvar can be quoted in Persian literature as well. As Alborz pointed out, this is not a template of nationality, ethnicity or etc, but literature (Sayat Nova was Armenian but has written more in Azerbaijani Turkic/Turkish and it is discriminatory not to include him because of political conflicts today). The template before claimed Khorasan as part of Azerbaijan which was unacceptable, separated Iranian Azerbaijan(no clear borders or there is no such a geographical boundary today) as political territory (it can be interpreted that way) and also had other problems, given that Azerbaijan is a diverse place(emphasized one language over others). Also the term (of Azerbaijan) or even Azerbaijani as geographical region can denote different people in Iran and even the republic of Azerbaijan. So to stress the fact that this is a language, (the greatest poets whom were actually from Turkomens in Iraq like Fizuli not Azerbaijan), and to comply with other Wikipedia templates, I named it to Azerbaijani Turkish which makes it unambiguous that we are talking about literature in that language. Some of the people that Azerbaijanis of the republic of Azerbaijan feel a shared heritage with (like Nezami) are mentioned in their own article as part of shared heritage. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkish rather than Turkic comes from two sources: 1- those with a political agenda (Panturkists and their supporters/ masters). 2- Ignorance from authors from Iran and Turkey. TThe correct terminology is TurkIC.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Turkish seems more popular in google books but if you believe the scientific definition is Azerbaijani Turkic, then feel free to move it and rename the template to Azerbaijani Turkic. You will have to also change it in specific pages. Overall, it should not contain ambiguity and the Turkic/Turkish helps to define language rather than area (khorasan is not part of it or other ambiguities (citizenship..)).--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)