Talk:Karabakh Khanate

Infobox

Anyone objecting to have the infobox, please raise your concern here. I believe it's a practical tool to help people understand its history. Kentronhayastan (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As there have been already noticed in the posts above, there is an unacceptable distortion of the verifiable references, specifically Bertsch and Ehteshami. The flag of Fath Ali Shah has little to do with the khanate since the realm was not an Iranian possession or other subordinate territory, as those sources say. Moreover, the source for the flag in the file description is not provided. The languages in the infobox should be sourced. Further discussion, if the concerns persist, should take place before any new revert, please do not editwar. Angel670 talk 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

i agree angel670, flag of shah fath ali nothing do with karabakh khanliq. also can not remove source BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The flag is removed. Considering the Armenian population of Khachen, the languages spoken were obviously Azerbaijani and Armenian. There were no "official language" declared in the Karabakh khanate. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your verbal explanaton is not sufficient to make your edits. Please discuss your edits on the talk page before editing the article and making your additions. Thank you Angel670 talk 07:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My verbal explanation is completely in line with the other articles regarding the region, if what you mean is the language spoken in the territory (please verify before dismissing it as insufficient). Moreover, it is a historically known fact that the Karabakh khanate was preceded by Persia (Safavid Empire and its following brief successors until the Ghajars settled themselves). There is no need for a discussion about this as much as there isn't a need for a discussion for the fact that Europeans were preceded by Native Americans in the Americas. Everyone also knows that the Karabakh Khanate was incorporated into Russia after its existence. What's left in the infobox to discuss? The map? No one complained about the map, and there are other maps in Karabakh related articles representing a very similar territory that have been kept, so I don't think the map is the issue. An infobox is a practical tool for interested people to understand the succession of its history. Let's not cripple people who want to educate themselves. Just to be polite, though, I'll allow you to reply before undoing your edit (and this time, I'll place references to secure my edit), and I hope this time you will bring fourth some arguments yourself rather than simply dismissing my arguments with a "your arguments aren't sufficient". Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The facts that in different times Karabakh Khanate was under Persian suzerainty and its incorporation under Russian dominion have already been mentioned in the text. There is no need to overload the article with unnecessary infobox containing repeated information, or irrelevant maps which make it rather complicated than comprehensive. The addition of language is not sourced at all. If you have sources, please provide all of them in the talk to reach the consensus here first. Thank you.Angel670 talk 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is not considered an "overload" on any other page of a state or a region. It is simply a way to organize and summarize articles about states or regions on wikipedia (for example, simply because an information is mentioned in the body of an article, mentioning it in the introduction, the conclusion, adding an image or a map about it, or a box including summarized information on the topic, is not "overload" or repetition). As for the language, I'm assuming what's bothering you is the inclusion of Armenian as a spoken language (since you're Azerbaijani, it doesn't surprise me). Considering the previous and following states of Karabakh had Armenian speakers, it's a given that Armenian was spoken (it didn't simply disappear for half a century and come back). This in itself is enough to include Armenian as a spoken language. However, since this logical reasoning doesn't satisfy you, I will soon update the page with sources (including Azerbaijani sources). (EDIT Reason) Finally, another reason I find for you to revert the article (since you don't give any concrete arguments, I have to guess them), is the fact that it omits the use of "Azerbaijani" for the ethnic group that formed the Khanate. I have edited that as it's simply Azerbaijani wishful thinking. Even the source says "Azeri in the sense of Muslims who spoke a version of the Turkic language we call Azeri today". In other words, the Turkic people who established the Khanate were not ethnically Azerbaijani at the time they created it. Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not trying to just enter infobox, you're trying to wipe off the fact that Karabakh khanate was Azerbaijani. Was it Armenians? :-)) It was Azerbaijani khanate with Azerbaijani Turks as majority before Turkmenchay Agreement (1828). Yes, Armenians lived there too, but they were minority like Kurds and Russians. One more thing is that the capital was never Shushi as you put in the infobox. It was Panahabad, then renamed to Shusha. There are so many sources saying it's Azerbaijani khanate. I will add the sources so that you at last see. Dighapet (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dighapet, thanks for adding sources, however I have some objections about your use of sources. Firstly, WP rules require that the sources you use are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.[1]. You quote authors who are not reliable and recognized historians, with other words most of the books you refer to as proofs, have nothing to do with historical research of the region, thus they are not reliable in topics like this. I have tried to find information about some of the authors you refer to:

• Kristen Eichensehr: Kristen Eichensehr is a third-year student at the Yale Law School, thus not a historian,
• Michael Rywkin: is a political scientist,
• Anoushiravan Ehteshami: is a political scientist,
• Hafeez Malik: again political scientist, did not carry out any research related to the history of Karabakh as the ones above.

My second concern is that you use sources apparently selective. As far as I have read them, most reliable, western scholars (not political scientist concerned with contemporary geopolitical matters...) refer to the khanates of the Caucasus, as Muslim khanates, refraining from the anachronism of calling the Turkic-speaking clans which ruled them, Azerbaijani. Even the sources that you quoted, do not always refer to the Khanate of Karabakh as "Azerbaijani". For instance: The Karabakh Khanate (...) was dominated by a Turkic ruler and had a mixed population. (Frederik Coene, The Caucasus: an introduction, p. 145). Moreover, as you can see, this source refers to the language that the ruling clan, not the ethnicity of the Khanate as you suggest. You should be careful not to misquote a source. --vacio 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave you sources that you wanted. Is Tadeucz Switichevski also not historian? With you dispute you try to prove the khanate was "just" Turkic. And where did all these Turks disappear? It's an Azerbaijani Turkic khanate with Azerbaijani Turkic population and majority. I included the book by Coene because he shows the migration of Armenians into Karabakh and their increase after Karabakh was taken by Russia. Dighapet (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dighapet, first of all, I waited about for 4 days, before undoing the edit I didn't agree with. You reverted in just one hour – not having responded to my above-mentioned objections in the meantime. Please be aware, that in this way you're acting against to WP rules, since that is not the way we try to reach consensus through discussion on WP.

Next, you actually did not respond to my above-mentioned objections at all, which are:

• The scholars you quoted are not relevant/reliable in this topic;
• You use those sources selectively and in one case, as shown above, you even misquote them.

As for your remarks above, you seem to use original research deductions as arguments. Karabakh khanate consisted of both Armenian and Muslim/Turkic population. The latter again consisted of various tribes, of which only a part and only in Contemporary history would become known as Azerbaijani or Azeri. For example the Karabaĝ Aşireti were a Turkic tribe that now life in Turkey, but they were neither at the time nor presently called Azeri's.

Please, from now on, only quote relevant and reliable scholars and refrain from making OR statements. And please stick to the discussion and respond to my objections before making reverts. Thank you. --vacio 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I will tell you the same thing. Is Tadeucz Switichevski a historian or not? Please answer. By writing the statements about Azerbaijan like "various tribes, of which only a part and only in Contemporary history would become known as Azerbaijani or Azeri", you're showing prejudice. They were not just various tribes. They were a part of ethnic group named Azerbaijani Turks. With actions like including only the word "Turkic" you want to apply a tricky way to disassociate Azerbaijani generations from Karabakh. "Turkic" means anything from Turks to Azeris, Turkmens, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. The Turks that lived in Azerbaijan and north of modern Iran are named Azerbaijani Turks and they are the same as Uzbekistan Turks or Anadolu Turks. That's why many conscious scholars and historian note that these are Azerbaijani Turks or the khanate is Azerbaijani khanate. Read all sources without prejudice. The way you suggest is some "Turkic" people lived there, some disappeared and some became Azeri. Wrong. It's actually part of Armenian propaganda that Azerbaijan started in 1918. The Armenians did not become a majority in Karabakh until 1923, after which many Armenians were settled there and even more after 1950-1960's. But before that, during rule of Karabakh khanate, Armenians were only 9% and Frederick Coene notes that on the page I provided. So, please be tolerant toward Azerbaijanis and their existence in the region. @ MarshallBagramyan, you didn't live when the khans ruled, so don't make assumptions. Azerbaijan did exist with various Azerbaijani small states. Armenia did not exist for hundreds of years and especially after Seljuk appearance in 11th century, with Ak Koyunlu, Kara Koyunlu, Atabeks. So, does it mean we have to clear of the name of Armenia in Armenian just because there was no Armenia back then? Come to consensus here first. I provided sources and they will be there until consensus is reached Dighapet (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Vacio says, the sources that are being used in the first line of the article are not specialists in the field or individuals who have authored works that deal with this period. What essentially happened in 1918 was that several politicians came together and decided to name the republic they founded Azerbaijan and imposed this new reality to all the people living in the lands that it claimed. The country itself did not have any recognizable borders and that's why at the Paris 1919 conference they actually laid claim to the entire south Caucasus and parts of the eastern Ottoman Empire, including Karabakh, Ardahan, Kars, Akhalkalak and Nakhichevan – stretching its western border all the way to the Black Sea. And, for the record, as the first Russian census showed in the 1830s the Armenians formed an overwhelming majority in the region of Karabakh.

True, Armenia lost its independence in the eleventh century (though regained it with the establishment of the Cilician kingdom in the next century) but it existed well enough. That land was always referred to by non-Armenian historians, chroniclers, and travelers as "Armenia" and shown on the maps as such, if not in a geographic sense, then as the place where the Armenian people resided. There isn't a single map published prior to 1918 which shows a place called Azerbaijan north of the Araxes River.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dighapet, you are again using OR statements as arguments and you refrain from discussing the objections against your usage of sources in the article. Once again, please quote reliable historians to support your arguments rather than making ahistorical statements like "Armenians did not become a majority in Karabakh until 1923". It is generally accepted that Armenians have lived in Karabakh since ancient times and your argument makes no sense at all (although through the last two Russo-Persian Wars there was a momentary decline of the Armenian population in the Caucasus region).

Furthermore, I don't claim there was no Azerbaijani ethnicity before 1918. But Azerbaijan as a state and as a nation came into being only in modern times, I hope you will not deny that. Before that, the ancestors of this nation were generally referred to as "Tatarian", "Muslim" or "Turkic" peoples. Thus – as most historians refer to them as "Turkic" when speaking of the ruling clan of the Karabakh khanate – we should use the same denotation here. After all that's what WP rules require.

I will once again summarize my objections against your usage of sources hoping that this time you will agree to discuss them:

• The sources you quoted are not specialists in this topic,
• Even those sources use different denotations like "Turkic",
• Furthermore I think, that the way you quote these sources is wrong. The phrase Karabakh khanate was an [[Azerbaijani people|Azerbaijani]] feudal khanate seems to suggest that this frugality consisted purely of Azerbaijani people, which is once again a misusage of sources since even the one you quoted refer not to the ethnicity of the region, but the clan that ruled it, the Javanshir clan. All the sources agree that Karabakh had a mixed population with Armenians forming majority in Highland Karabakh.

My suggestion to improve the article intro is: 1. to replace Azerbaijani with Turkic or Muslim, 2. to indicate that this refers to its ruling clan, 3. to indicate that the khanate had a mixed population.

Meanwhile, to stop the edit war while we are discussing, I have added the "disputed" notification in the article. --vacio 05:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A contemporary source to illustrate my point on how the peoples of the region were referred to at the time, is the Transkaukasus of August von Haxthausen, fully available on Google books [2]. --vacio 06:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to google books: "Karabakh Khanate" + "Azerbaijani khanate" 0 results. We must control sources shown in this article, again. -- Takabeg (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dighapet has provided sufficient reliable sources to support his edit. While I appreciate discussion on the talk page, most of the claims I read above are original research, verbal and not supported by any source. "Azerbaijan as a state and as a nation came into being only in modern times" is an offensive claim revealing lack of the knowledge. Angel670 talk 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

About the sentence ""The flag of Fath Ali Shah has little to do with the khanate since the realm was not an Iranian possession or other subordinate territory."" , I have to explain that not in all course of this Khanate , it has been a rebellious Khanate and in times , central Shahs of Iran like Adil Shah or Karim Khan recognized them as Khans in that region . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Vacio, I already provided sources to you but you also did not answer my question. But I'll explain what is meant by majority in Karabakh. Karabakh had mixed population and besides Armenians and Azeris, it had Kurds, Russians and Caucasian Albanians living on the territory. That's why there are so many names looking like Albanian names from eastern Azerbaijan. Armenians were in majority some time in the history and before Safavids but demographics change like Azeris were in majority in Yerevan until beginning of last century. But before Russians occupied Karabakh, Azerbaijani Turks always were in majority and Coene writes that. They were not just Tatarian or Muslims. They were Azerbaijani Turks. Yes, the term for citizenship appeared after ADR was created but the geographic defining of Turks which lived in Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani Turks and they are ancestors of today's Azerbaijani Turks. What is so not understandable? No, it was not just Javanshir clan that was only ruling clan. As I said before the Azerbaijani Turks were in majority and after Russians took power in Karabakh they migrated Armenians from Persia and Turkey (Ottoman Empire). Here are more sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I don't understand why it is so much defense against Azerbaijan having majority in Karabakh at that time and the fact that it was Azerbaijani khanate? It was one of 15 Azerbaijani khanates which all are described as Azerbaijani. Dighapet (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  

Frederick Coene is not a historian, but a diplomatic official with NATO (see here). He is not an expert in the field and it is quite probable that he is quoting or making use of secondary source material. The true specialists in the field (such as Bournoutian) have all made it clear that the Armenians who were settled in the Caucasus were repatriates. The majority of these who repatriated returned to Yerevan and Nakhichevan, and a very small number actually settled in Karabakh. And, as you conveniently ignored or failed to take note, Bournoutian shows that the first Russian surveys revealed that the Armenians formed the predominant majority of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh in the immediate years following the annexation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The absence of Azerbaijani national conscience prior to 20th century or something like that is a WP:FRINGE at best (if you are somewhat bothered with Tadeusz Swietochowski, see Edward A. Allworth for example, who writes about "the Azerbaijani khanates, the principalities that had formed the political structure of the country"). Also S. Frederick Starr writes about "the local centers of power in Azerbaijan in the form of khanates... that were independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Iran's weak Zand dynasty. Firouzeh Mostashari mentions "Azerbaijani khanates" as well. All these authors are historians and there are more of them. Ehud (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Library as the source

The material that HistoryofIran keeps removing is from Presidential Library which is based on archive documents. Archive documents are the most reliable sources to study history. His personal negative attitude towards Azerbaijan shouldn't close his eyes to facts and documents. He has already demonstrated his aggressive and biased attitude towards this country, which motivates his nonobjective interventions to the article.89MsHm (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The president library could be from anywhere, it's a not an reliable academic source. Just read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You do realize that the flag is simply a copy paste of the Russian imperial flag and not the actual flag of the Karabakh Khanate? Also, attack me with your nonsense accusations again and I'll have you reported.--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense? Your hateful comments on Azerbaijan are more than enough to prove your aggression towards the country. You can't threaten others just because you don't like what they say. If you have anger issues go get help. P.S. Glorious history is in the past, the future will be worse. 89MsHm (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know you and I don't care who you are. The fact is you have made a hateful comment about a specific country showing disrespect to its people's choice. Here it is: "In WIkipedia we use academic sources by historians who are spezialised in this field, not some supposed president library made by an authoritarian regime. Keep this up and you will be reported." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&type=revision&diff=975043191&oldid=975013866) Such attitude undermines your objectiveness. 89MsHm (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Aw, that's too bad. Anyways, that's not a hateful comment at all, you've already been told that. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Last warning for accusing me of nonsense (WP:ASPERSIONS). --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Wikipedia and Tourism.Az amongst others. Its non-WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Karabakh khanate

The official language of the Karabakh khanate has never been Armenian. The Armenian word Karabakh khanate should be removed. Zamuel2000m (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Armenian was commonly spoken in the Karabakh Khanate, you're forgetting about the Khamsa Melikdoms. It doesn't have to be the official language to be added, I'm sure Azerbaijani Turkish was not the official language but we're adding it anyway because the population (at least outside of nagorno karabakh) were Azeri Turks.Kailanmapper (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Shusha

HistoryofIran, the statement that "that was the name of the place at that time, being used in WP:RS" is not entirely accurate. The current consensus for Shusha's lead is that "most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan", while "some attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Melik Shahnazar". Also, the earliest cited census of 1823 both in Shusha#Demographics and in this article shows the prevalence of (Azerbaijani) Muslim population. So the Shusha spelling should be preferred throughout the article, even if RS may use some other spelling. Brandmeister^talk 23:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, what does this have to do with its name? And there was no such thing as an "Azerbaijani" at that time, and not all Muslims were Turkic speaking either. Please see Karabakh Khanate#In Azerbaijani historiography. That Demographics section you linked is misusing the cited Bournoutian, never does he state that the Azeris were in Shusha, and the 1823 Russian survey he uses certainly doesn't either - I'll fix that section later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason to prefer Armenian spelling of Shusha in the article in the first place. Actually, the document Bournoutian refers to, "Описание Карабахской провинции, составленное в 1823 году, по распоряженю главноуправлявшего в Грузии Ермолова, действительным Статским советником Могилевским и полковником Ермоловым 2-м", uses Shusha spelling, not Shushi. Generally, most 19th-century Russian Empire sources use the "Shusha" spelling. Shusha was the official name of the town in Persia, Karabakh khanate and the Russian Empire. Multiple modern third-party RS refer to the fortress and the city as Shusha or Shousha rather than Shushi (particularly The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 7 "From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic", p. 126, Tsutsiev, Arthur (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus (maps 3, 5, 6), Baddeley, J. F. (1999). The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus. p.89). Brandmeister^talk 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but these arguments (especially the ones in your first comment) are all kinda fishy to me. I can make a random link to the Russian ebooks too [9] and also cite random sources that use the "Shushi" spelling (also, Baddeley is not WP:RS): Hewsen, Robert (1972). The Meliks Of Eastern Armenia I. Revue des Études Arménie, - Bournoutian, George (2021). From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia's Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801–1813, - Amanat, Abbas (2017). Iran: A Modern History. Do you have a more compelling argument? I may be willing to agree to disagree, but only if you agree to the following; 1) It's not wrong for "Shushi" to be used in articles, i.e. the spelling shouldn't always get changed 2) As soon as someone opposes the Shushi->Shusha change here, we'll change it back to "Shushi" and resume the discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm.. actually, forget about my second condition. How about I change "Lake Gökcheh" back to "Lake Sevan" and "Shushi" back to "Shusha", then everyone is happy, no? It's a shame we can't have historically accurate names in articles related to the Armenian-Azeri conflict, perhaps one day.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. Both Persian and Azerbaijani languages spoken in the khanate use the "Shusha" spelling. This is also the spelling used by most contemporaneous 19th-century Russian sources (not to mention the fact that the city has been de facto and de jure within Azerbaijan since the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War). I see those as sufficient arguments to prefer the "Shusha" spelling. We do similarly in other cases per MOS:TIES. Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I could continue arguing with you, but since we've reached an agreement, let's just stop it here. I have changed the spelling to "Shusha" in the article and will change it along with "Lake Gökcheh" in the map as well later today where I have time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Armenian sources

Using armenian sources to push your agenda is pathetic. "Ethnic Armenians formed a majority once again in the Armenia". They never were a majority in the first place. Blaxoul (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the article heavily relies on just one source - out of 80 current refs Bournoutian is cited 49 times (61%). This introduces one author's POV and academic bias in a contentious WP:AA3 topic. The article would benefit from citing more subject experts. Brandmeister^talk 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blaxoul: That quoted text does not appear in the article, and would certainly not be wrong either (also, Bournoutian is not an "Armenian source", and even if that was the case, that does not make him less reliable). Do not accuse me of such nonsense again, see WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. And @Brandmeister:; Please stop. Bournoutian is a leading author in the history of the Caucasus, and the vast majority of works about the Karabakh Khanate (and khanates for that matter) is from him. He's going to stay, and will be used in a lot more articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against excluding Bournoutian entirely, but he should be cited cautiously in this topic due to his bias. Edmund Herzig, for example, writes in a review: "While Bournoutian repeatedly draws the reader's attention to the Armenian presence, he ignores or downplays reference to the Muslim Turkish population of highland Qarabagh; for example on page 61 an editorial interpolation insinuates that the Muslim population was marginal […] On 58, note 124, Bournoutian suggests that Mirza Jamal's use of the word vatan indicates that he viewed the five highland mahals as “Armenian homeland”, whereas the term refers rather to ancestral homes of two exiled Armenian meliks".

Another example is the sentence "Together, Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar II had the Panahabad fortress constructed in Shusha, a place in Varanda" referenced to Bournoutian as well. This claim was discussed previously and, based on other sources, was not accepted for Shusha's article.

The Background section in particular almost exclusively cites Bournoutian, even though the background Karabakh history has been studied by many reliable scholars. Brandmeister^talk 13:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypicking stuff in an attempt to make Bournoutian look bad is not helpful (also, in the review, Herzig generally praises Bournoutian for his work, something you for some reason left out, should I be concerned?). Its not even a competition, there is countless stuff that shows how great a scholar he is. Scholars are allowed to disagree with each other, its another story if Bournoutians scholarship/credentials has been questioned, or that he is in the minority. Also, every scholar has a “bias”. As for the Shusha bit, it's based of both Hewsen and Bournoutian (who cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir), though that does still not make either of them less reliable. That so called "consensus" is 2 years old and messy, lacking proper WP:RS and whatnot - but I'm fortunately already assembling some WP:RS for it [10]. I was expecting this uncalled criticism of Bournoutian to happen. Can you tell me what exactly Bournoutian says that you find questionable? Not enough mention of Turks? (It will be mentioned that the majority of the Karabakhi Muslims were Turks by Bournoutian himself, the article is still under construction after all). What he says is not different from any other non-revionistic author. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki policies are outdated, don't you think? Also I don't recommend you to argue with Persian and Armenian chuvanists. Blaxoul (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Striked your shocking comment and reported you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The article currently has several POV issues that take some time to point out, as for Bournoutian:

Firstly, he appears to repeat the widespread but actually erroneous claim that "prior to 1918 the word "Azerbaijan" exclusively referred to the Iranian region of Azerbaijan". As Audrey Altstadt writes, "twentieth century historians outside Azerbaijan have dated the use of “Azerbaijan” for the area under Russian rule to the 1890s", with a caveat of an earlier 1861 Russian-language textbook by Abdul Hasan Bek Vezirov for the "Tatar-Azerbaijani" language (The Politics of Culture in Soviet Azerbaijan, 1920-40, pp. 13-14). Also e.g. the 1850 Nineveh and Persepolis by William Sandys Wright Vaux, p. 96: "Northern Media, Azerbaijan, the country between the river Kur and Araxes"; the 1864 "Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan" by British Consul-General in Persia Keith E. Abbott: "The population of Russian Azerbaijan consists of mixed races, Mohammedan and Christian, amounting probably to 700,000 or 800,000 souls".

Concerning the 1823 Russian survey, I see some contradictions between Bournoutian (as cited in the article) and other secondary sources mentioning the survey's data. Will elaborate on this soon, hopefully when I get the full text of this Russian survey. Brandmeister^talk 11:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. Keith Edward Abbott also mentions how the country known to Persians were divided between them and Russians. But Persians and Armenians write on every Wiki page that the northern part has nothing to do with southern Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijan wasn't a country, but a region. Keith Edward Abbott proves them wrong in just one sentence. These pages about Azerbaijan need a major cleanup.

. Blaxoul (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not an "erroneous claim", that's the consensus in scholarship. And if Bournoutian should be cited cautiously, then Altstadt (who also has nowhere the same credentials) should not even be cited [11]. The other two sources are not even WP:RS. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:PRIMARY.

• "The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris

• "In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer.

• "The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, 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.

• "The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.

• "The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter

• "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris.

• "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press

• "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica

• "Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1)

As for Blaxoul's claim, who conveniently supports a non-WP:RS report from the mid 19th-century but is vehemently against a leading scholar like Bournoutian because he's an ethnic Armenian;

• "A more recent revisionist view claims that in the nineteenth century Russia and Iran conspired to divide Azerbaijan between themselves. Considering that Iran fought two devastating wars with Russia (1803–1813 and 1824–1828), the idea of a Russo-Iranian conspiracy against Azerbaijan is totally absurd. However, this is exactly what the Azerbaijani nationalist poet Bakhtiar Vahabzadeh claims in his poem titled “Gulistan.” The poem refers to the 1813 Treaty of Golistan, according to which Iran lost part of its Transcaucasian possessions to Russia. This view is now widely accepted by Azerbaijani nationalists. The result has been that Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet national identity is not only Turko-centric but also very much anti-Iran. In many ways, it has been developed in opposition to Iran as “the other,” not only as a state but also as a culture and historical entity. Being Azerbaijani has come to mean denying any Iran connection." 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. 31

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In reality, one historical source is better than all of these biased sources. For example, I don't remember Nizami Ganjavi calling Azerbaijan an actual part of Iran. Blaxoul (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Iran, in terms of historical geography, is a loosely defined territory. Blaxoul (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you’re not the judge of that, you cant just call sources you dont agree with “biased”. What you just said at least partly violated multiple rules: please see WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The keyword in "prior to 1918 the word "Azerbaijan" exclusively referred to the Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is "exclusively" which makes the statement not entirely accurate. Iranica itself has a caveat in that regard: "in certain passages, he (Yaqut al-Hamawi) annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Moḡān, all of the province of Arrān, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed".

Also, Vadim Leviatov, Очерки из истории Азербайджана в XVIII веке, 1948, p. 144: "One of Fatali Khan's contemporaries, Colonel Burnashev, [...] in his 1786 description of political situation in Azerbaijani districts, wrote the following: “As for the current state of those lands that are known under the name Adrebijani: Starting from the north Georgia is adjacent, that is, the kingdoms of Kakheti and Kartveli, from the east the Caspian Sea and Gilan province, Iraq region from the south, Turkey from the west... [...] The Khan of Derbent or Kuba is among the most powerful ones [...] he calls for major endeavors against his neighbors like the neighboring Aderbijan khans, such as: of Nukha, of Shirvan and of Shusha" [...] It is also important to note that Colonel Burnashev [...] calls Azerbaijan not only the regions of Maragha, Tabriz, Ardabil, but also the lands of Sheki, Ganja, Shushi, Nakhichevan, Shamakhi, Baku".

Will not write more about it, sapienti sat, but we can avoid this academic dispute in the article by dropping the whole Azerbaijan name issue altogether as tangentially related per WP:TOPIC. Brandmeister^talk 20:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the other sources I cited pretty much say the same. I don't find it convincing to drop the whole Azerbaijan name because of a tiny fraction of primary sources also using the word north of the Aras. One thing is for sure; It's certainly not an "academic dispute". Also, Soviet sources should be very carefully used [12]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We would then blindly follow a detrimental generalization, with no editorial judgement and a potential POV tag hanging in the article. As for Soviet sources, I may use them as long as their statements have not been debunked and authors discredited - it's more about evidence that sometimes gets lost in time rather than evil empire. Brandmeister^talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, the Soviets are the very ones who created and campaigned for this mess of historical negationism and revisionism per [13] [14] [15]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Soviet sources lose to any modern Western academic source. By and large, Azerbaijani (and Armenian as well, but to a slightly lesser extent) Soviet historiography was almost completely revisionist in relation to Western accepted concepts, especially modern academic consensus. See Shnirelman, 2003 and Goff, 2021.

Now with regards to northern and southern Azerbaijans. Shnirelman, p. 33-34:

Термин «Азербайджан» происходит от имени персидского полководца Атропата (IV в. до н.э.). Вначале он звучал как Атрапатакан [Atrapatakan] (армянск.) или Азербийджан [Azerbiyjan] (араб.) и издавна применялся для северо-восточной провинции Персии, лежавшей к юго-западу от Каспийского моря. Это — единственное научное объяснение названия, давно вошедшее в стандартные курсы истории Азербайджана. А севернее располагались земли Ширвана и Аррана. При императоре Александре III последние были выделены в Бакинскую и Елисаветпольскую губернии, и с тех пор термин «Азербайджан» стал понемногу использоваться для них европейскими учеными и журналистами. В России этому примеру последовали лишь после 1917 г. в связи с тем, что на этих землях обитали «азербайджанские тюрки», родственные персидским. Сам термин «азербайджанские тюрки» был впервые введен в 1891 г. либеральной бакинской газетой «Кашкюл» в борьбе за новую идентичность, которая могла бы успешно соперничать с простонародной «мусульманской», и с конца XIX в. этот термин стал распространяться в Елисаветпольской губернии в качестве самоназвания. Все же вплоть до начала XX в. местное кочевое население называло себя, как правило, по племенной принадлежности, а оседлые жители — по названию местности. Иногда использовали такие термины как «мусульмане» или «татары», а в начале XX в. в моду стал входить политизированный термин «тюрки». Правда, по признанию М.Э. Расулзаде, некоторые жители Азербайджана считали себя иранцами, будучи носителями иранской культуры. Но термин «азербайджанцы» до революции никогда не применялся. В переписке большевистских лидеров в 1920 г. использовались термины «татары» или «бакинские татары». Даже в начале 1920-х гг. название еще не устоялось, и в работе одного и того же автора его можно было встретить в формах «Адербейджан» [Aderbeijan], «Азербейджан» [Azerbeijan] и «Адзербейджан» [Adzerbeijan]. Впервые термин «Азербайджан» как официальное название для государства был провозглашен Национальным Советом Азербайджана 28 мая 1918 г.

Goff, p. 65:

Bagirov, demonstrating his familiarity with the region, replied that “Southern Azerbaijan” (the irredentist term that many Azeris use to describe Iran’s Azerbaijan provinces) harbored a wealth of natural resources, a disgruntled population primed for political agitation, and the networks and infrastructure necessary for Soviet penetration of the region.

And Iranica:

AZERBAIJAN (Āḏarbāy[e]jān), historical region of northwestern Iran, east of Lake Urmia, since the Achaemenid era.
The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia.
After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable.

So, you really can't dismiss an academic source just because you don't like its late attribution of the term Azerbaijan to Arran and Shirvan. Smpad (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karabakh Khanate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• The lead section should be reduced in size. See MOS:LEADLENGTH - with just less than 34,000 characters, the article is recommended to have a length of no more than four paragraphs.

It hurts to remove info, but I've trimmed it down a bit. It is four paragraphs now. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's an improvement, thank you! AM

• Unlink Iranian; Russian (MOS:OL) and these countries never existed then).

I've changed the Iran link to History of Iran and kept the Russian Empire, as the Karabakh khanate was controlled by three kingdoms of Iran and the Russian Empire, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem now. AM

• (Not GA) The useful map in the infobox does lack a scale, and the colours of the neighbouring countries would imo be better having their own colours. I would perhaps add an inset map to indicate the position of the khanate in relation to modern national boundaries. Need any assistance? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125. Thanks for yet another review, I highly appreciate it. When making the map, I did initially give the neighbouring countries their own color, but I thought it made the map look a bit convoluted and made the Karabakh Khanate domain look less noticeable. A inset map sounds good though, and I'll gladly accept assistance for that, as I dunno how to make one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Fell free to use this version of the map, based on your excellent work. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

1 Background

• Iranian Armenia or Eastern Armenia – if there are two versions of the name, why are there two separate articles? Ditto Ottoman Armenia or Western Armenia.

Iranian Armenia and Ottoman Armenia "only" covers the early modern period when they were ruled by Iran and the Ottoman Empire, whilst the Eastern Armenia and Western Armenia cover a larger period. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• 11th-century – has no hyphens. Ditto other examples elsewhere.
• the Turko-Persian name Karabakh – I would put Karabakh in italics here, as it is an introduced term.
• of area - ‘of the area’.
• the Ottoman Empire (c. 1299–1922) and Safavid Iran (1501–1736) – the dates are imo unneeded.

Respectfully I find these to nice to have, so that the reader can get an idea when these kingdoms were around, à la when we add the regnal period for rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• Might a map of the South Causacus be useful here (e.g. this?

I added this instead [16]. I do have a much more detailed map in the works, which I plan to have as the image instead. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Good for now. AM

• there is no contemporary portrait of Panah Ali Khan, but perhaps this image could be incorporated into the section.

I'm personally not a fan of that image, too fictional for my taste, and I think the current image of the Shusha fortress is more relevant/better here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I quite understand. AM

2.1 Panah Ali Khan

• ally – ‘form an alliance’ sounds better imo.
• by five - ‘by the five’.
• in most of Iran – ‘across most of Iran’.

2.2 Ibrahim Khalil Khan

• Introduce Grigory Potemkin.
• in various places is redundant imo.

• Link cavalry.
• he made an attempt – who is being referred to here?
• through boats - ‘by using boats’ sounds better.
• restored ‘rebuilt’.
• subsequently is redundant imo.

• Link Persian; Armenian.
• Introduce Pavel Tsitsianov.
• (Not GA) thirty - ‘30’? (for the sake of consistency)
• "betrayal," - misplaced comma.

2.3 Mehdi Qoli Khan

• Russian emperor – ‘tsar’.

Like this? [17] --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Amended it myself to save time, please revert if you don't like it. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• a major letdown – sounds too informal/idiomatic, I would amend the start of this sentence to something like ‘The Iranians were disillusioned by the treaty’.
• to abolish the khanates – consider amending to something like ‘to eradicate the khanates’, to avoid repeating abolish.

Changed it to "In 1822, Mehdi Qoli Khan fled to Iran as a result of the attempts by the Russian general Aleksey Petrovich Yermolov to abolish the khanates, which occurred afterwards". Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks OK. AM

• lived for the rest of his days collecting a state pension – ‘retired’.

3 Building activity

• states – ‘stated’, as the writer is no longer alive.
• in large fortress-towns – ‘in a large fortress-town’.

4 Coinage

• Link minted (Mint (facility)); numismatists; obverse (Obverse and reverse); toponym (Toponymy).
• shahi – should be in italics and placed inside Template:lang. Ditto rupia.
• The words in italics need to be placed inside Template:lang as well.
• According to the numismatists Alexander Akopyan and Pavel Petrov - are these individuals notable enough to be mentioned here? (If yes, link numismatists.)
• I would add a comma after toponym.
• under the name of Fath-Ali Shah – could be simplified to ‘under Fath-Ali Shah’.

Changed it to "in the name of Fath-Ali Shah", as his name was inscribed there, and it was not just under his rule. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

5 Demographics

• are either – ‘were either’,

7 Administration

• Link rolls (Scroll).

Removed "rolls". --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• use the example – ‘uses the example’.

8 Historiography

• Link chronicles; Soviet historiography Historiography in the Soviet Union); feudal (Feudalism).
• 20th-century – has no hyphen.

9 Notes

• the siege of their capital, Isfahan – consider moving the first link so that it covers all this text.

11 Sources

• Bournoutian, George (1980); Bournoutian, George (1999); Matthee, Rudi (2011); Reid, James J. (1978) are not used as sources in the article. These sources need to be deleted or perhaps moved to a Further reading section.

Spot checks looked fine.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 2 September to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I've tried to address everything. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Passing the article now, an interesting, if quite tricky (for me) read. Please feel free to replace your map with my version. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.