Talk:Karabakh Khanate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Azerbaijani Khanate

There are several sources which claim them to be Caucasian Khanate, Persian, Iranian and Turkish Khanate... the term Azerbaijani given the period is the most innacurate. Ionidasz (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one using the talkpage here? Grandmaster, I don't know if you noticed, but you just blindly reverted by giving as justification something which was shown to not be accurate in my own edit summary. Ionidasz (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it not accurate? They say that khanate was Azeri. There are more sources about that. I can quote, if needed. Grandmaster 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And there are sources claiming them as Caucasus Khanates, Iranian, Persian and Turkic. I left them Shushi for Shusha and replaced with with Turkic instead of Iranian or Caucasus. You don't appear to make any concension at all. First source place it in quotation, and Cornell is not a historian neither a reliable source. Ionidasz (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani is an anacronism for the period. I had replaced Shushi by Shusha and used the term Turkic instead of Iranian or Caucasus. I don't see what the problem is and I also see no talk by either the IPs, Parishan or Brandmeister and this is unacceptable. Ionidasz (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And why Azerbaijani should be anachronism? Even Hewsen calls Ibrahim Azeri khan of Karabakh. Turkic is too general, and not informative. It is not clear which Turkic people are meant. Grandmaster 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see in the article Ibrahim Khalil Khan what you mean, the source is a review and 5 sources saying else. And it is not too general, it's an accurate description since the national identity Azeri was yet not formed. Ionidasz (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the national identity of Azeris. What is important is that the rulers of the Karabakh khanate belonged to the same ethnic group as the majority of the population of present-day Azerbaijan, regardless of how they referred to themselves. The current internationally accepted and most accurate term to refer to that ethnic group is Azeri/Azerbaijani. Parishan (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to throw words like internationally recognized, harder to actually prove it. I find it weird you claim this is not about the ethnic identity, when this is exactly what is claimed here. It is your belief that we can interchangedly use the word Qajar and Azerbaijani, it is mine and neutral scholars that we can not. I notice this problem does not exist in other Khanates, I won't venture myself by making bets but I won't be surprised if this has anything to do with the fact that NK is currently a disputed territory. Why don't you ask a third opinion or a RFC to see how it is internationally recognized? According to the article history, the statue-quo was Turkic prior than Brandmaster changed it. where is Grandmaster request for concensus, does it disappear when the coin is flipped? Ionidasz (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished by the easiness Brandmaster reverts without even bothering to read not contribute in the talkpage. He removed a source, which unlike what he claims use the term Turkic, and then add a source which does not claim it to be Azerbaijani. This us unacceptable, I believe this user should either behave or be restricted to contribute. Ionidasz (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand when one user distorts the sources. But two? Page 45 of Stopping Wars and Making Peace does not even contain the word "Turkic". I made a search thru that book and nowhere it says, that KK was Turkic. The reference I replaced that with supports the statement that the khanate was Azerbaijani: "Kajars settled in the Karabakh Khanate of western Azerbaijan". Brandmeister[t] 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of distortion are groundless, please assume good faith. I see that you finally decide to make use of the talkpage after one warning in your talkpage which you ignored and having warned two administrators about your revert warring. On page 45... ..., Russia extended its control into the Area controlled by the Turkic Khanates, and, by 1805, Russia had conquered the Khanates of Karabakh. The source is accurate a little bit after it annexed Georgia (see source), it extended its control, already the Khans and Russia were negociating..., but later it did more than just extent its control it actually started conquering. Your source on the other hand both place Azerbaijani and Turkic in asterix, and claim the dynasty being Qajar. The next time you gowndlessly accuse me of distorting sources I will report you. Please be careful. Ionidasz (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Report me?:) The source applies "Turkic" to khanates generally, without even mentioning KK. Whether in asterix or not, we should simply cite sources, without diving into original research. The references provided before your revert specifically show, that KK was Azerbaijani. Brandmeister[t] 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? So according to you, he meant Turkic for all the Khanates, except for Karabakh. Bring any third party editor and ask him what the author meant. She discussed the control on the Khanates, and then finally conquering of those of Karabakh. As for your source, Qajar dynasty..., that's all it says. Ionidasz (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't interpret what author meant, but every literate person knows that Turkic is an umbrella term, which does not exclude Azerbaijani. Other sources specify that issue in the context of Karabakh khanate. Brandmeister[t] 20:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkic also include Qajars, and as you say we don't interpret. Ionidasz (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where on the face of the earth is "Western Azerbaijan"? It sounds as if they simply recycled some of the irredentist garbage coming from the pseudo-scholarship sponsored by the Azerbaijani government, which has laid claims to every part of Armenia and its monuments. Until 1918, Azerbaijan was simply a province of northern Persia, south of the Arax river. Contemporary geographers never referred to the lands north of it as "Northern Azerbaijan" or "Western Azerbaijan" or whathaveyou. Myself and others have more than adequately demonstrated the hollowness of these arguments in the past. The people during that period never referred to themselves as Azerbaijanis and I think if they were here now they too would appreciate that such anachronistic labels not be attached to them.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To once and for all dismiss any doubts: do not mix Azeri of present Azerbaijan and Azeri of Persia/Iran. Persia referred to different geographical zones as "Azerbaijan" in different periods of time. it can be easily read in Iranica [1]. Using the term "Azeri" to describe a state or national belonging of history before 1918, when a country with a name Azerbaijan was first established, is unacceptable.

Now the references to dismiss this comedy of "Azerbaijani Khanate" term. The first of the current references says nothing about it. It holds "Azeri" in brackets and notes, that it is meant only to show the linguistic similarities: "...Azeri in the sense of Muslims who spoke a version of the Turkic language... (nothing to do with Azerbaijan)". Whoever claims the second source is relevant, bring a full citation with at least 2 paragraphs before that claim and 1 after so the context can be seen.

These references are here to dismiss those pathetic claims:

1. V. Schniremann, "The Value of the Past" - English, page 192: When he is describing the decree of G. Aliyev he mentions, quote: "In March that year [1998], President Aliyev signed a decree making March 31 the day of the genocide ofthe Azeri people. In this decree the Russian-Iranian peace treaties of 1813 and 1828 were associated with the beginning of the [quotes Aliyev] "dismemberment of the Azeri people, the redistribution of our historical lands" (a period of time was referred to when East Caucasian Turks had no idea of any "Azeri people", and the term itself had not yet been coined V. Sh.). The decree read, that these treaties had caused ....." End of quote.
2. Svante E. Cornell, "Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the ...", 67 p.: [2] quote: "By the middle of the 18th century, the internal conflicts between the ruling families had destroyed the local Armenian elite in Karabakh. This led to the region slipping out of the Armenian control and a Turkic ruler managing to impose his rule and create a semi-independent dynastic state, the khanate of Karabakh ..... All of these khanates were ruled by Turkic Muslim families." End of quote.
3. Michael P. Croissant, "The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications", p. 11 [3], quote: "Importantly, disunion amongst the 5 Princes allowed the establishment of a foothold in Mountainous Karabakh by a Turkic tribe around 1750. This event marked the first time that Turks were able to penetrate the easern Armenian Highlands; for the prior seven hundred years Turkic tribes had inhibited the plains of the southeastern Transcaucasus following their large-scale migration from Asia Minor." End of quote.
4. Once again about who ruled the administrative divisions talks Britannica [4]:"Persian-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran."

And unless a normal explanation and citation can be made and discussed, pls do not change the article. This way of editing in AA2 is highly disruptive. Aregakn (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkic does not mean that they were not Azerbaijani. Turkic could be Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Kirgiz, etc. So we need to be more specific, and explain which Turkic people inhabited this khanate. Clearly, this could be nobody else other than Azerbaijani people. For instance, Rovert Hewsen calls the rulers of the khanate Azeri:

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

Robert H. Hewsen. Review of George A. Bournoutian, A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh, in Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies: JSAS, 1995, p. 270

So stop replacing Azeri with Turkic, as if the two are different things. Grandmaster 05:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling them Azeris would essentially be like calling the inhabitants of New France, Quebecers - mere nonsense. This amounts to anachronism because because neither Azerbaijan, nor the province of Quebec were formed back then in their respective geographical areas. -- Davo88 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, it is probably you, who is mixing Azeri with Turkic. Azeri is Turkic but Turkic isn't Azeri. Your current engagement is edit-warring as you had been shown sources, that the term "Azeri" did not exist in that period. The use in modern works the term Azeri by some doesn't mean that they refer to current Azerbaijan. You are intentionally connecting the Khanate with the present Azerbaijan and do not even wish to discuss it before your edits and reverts, especially given sources that say, that even a century later there was no term as "Azeri people". You also claim by your edits, that the source, that tells, that Turkic tribes migrated to the Eastern Armenian Highlands from the west are Azeri. Why wouldn't you call Turkey also Azeri or Azerbaijan, if so? Please stop disregarding the many proves of your misinterpretation and intentional editing of this section. Aregakn (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there any other significant Turkic group in KK other than Azerbaijanis? Azeri is not a kind of ADR invention, which popped out in 1900s, read the article Azerbaijani people. We have already discussed that in the thread above. Croissant says KK was Turkic. Other sources specify that issue, most notably Anoushiravan Ehteshami, From the Gulf to Central Asia: players in the new great game: "Before 1918, Nagorno-Karabakh had been a part of the Karabakh Khanate, an Azerbaijani feudal state..." Bertsch confirms, that the khanate was inhabited by people, "who spoke a version of the Turkic language we call Azeri today". Brandmeister[t] 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, its not just me who calls the inhabitants of khanate Azerbaijani, I cited a number of sources, which were removed for no reason. Turkic does not contradict Azerbaijani, Azerbaijanis are Turkic people. You cannot simply remove the sources just because you do not like them. We can add both Turkic and Azerbaijani, there's no contradiction here. But removing Azerbaijani is not an option, the term is supported by multiple reliable sources, and removal of sources is a disruption. Grandmaster 07:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And again you are missleading readers. Persian/Iranian writers refer to geographical locations with the word Azer. NOT national belonging. If you call it national belonging, then call the Turks Azeri too! If you do not, then stop the interpretation of Turkic as Azeri.

1) The Turkic tribes came from the west (current Turkey) according to RS. Are Turks Azeri?

2) Azeri was coined as a nationality in the early 20th century and RS support it. Any historical event describing periods before it should be addressed Turkic.

3) Very importantly, the Khanate was NOT Turkic but it was ruled by a Turkic family. Here is another misinterpretation by you, guys.

4) The Article of Azerbaijan has not been reviewed properly yet, so do not bring it as an example or some way of proof.

5) Calling the Khanate Azeri is like calling Albania Azeri kingdom. "Azeri" as a NATIONAL entity or STATE entity appeared only in the beginning of the 20th century and that is supported by RS. Aregakn (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just answer my question: which Turkic nation ruled the Karabakh khanate in your opinion? I did not cite the article Azerbaijan, I was referring to the featured article Azerbaijani people, which explicitly shows that Azeris as a national entity existed long before the 20th century. Enough original research. Brandmeister[t] 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple: a Turkic tribe did, not a nation. And you tell me, which Turkic "nation" ruled in anatolia from where the Turkic tribes came to the Khanate?

This featured artcle, as you say, is soon to be reviewed due to it's POV, then. Aregakn (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So which Turkic tribe exactly? As for Anatolia, I have no specific interest for that. Brandmeister[t] 05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, there were no specific Turkic tribes there and whether you have no or a lot of interest doesn't matter for you answering my question is directly related to your advocated change. Neither do you address my other remarks. Aregakn (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There were. The first reference says "Azeri in the sense of Muslims who spoke a version of the Turkic language we call Azeri today", while the khanate itself was located on the territory of modern Azerbaijan AND was ruled by local khans, not some foreign intruders. There was no high-powered Turkic group in the khanate other than Azerbaijani. Brandmeister[t] 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to answer my questions and ignore them, it doesn't seem we are discussing an issue. It seems you "shout" yours when I am talking and the wind is blowing as an answer only. Maybe we should refer to the help of others.

As for you interpreting Turkic as Azeri for that period, it's only your POV but not the sense of the authors. Aregakn (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome the others' help, although don't know any Azeri-speaking Turkic group other than Azerbaijanis and this is what Bertsch suggests in the reference. Brandmeister[t] 08:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again you try tofalsify what the authors say. They say Turkic speaking and Turkic tribes and not Azeri. There was no such language or state or ethnic entity then.

I suggest to change it Armenian Khanate, because it was populated by Armenians int heir majority, governed by a Turkic family. The region was Armenian populated in its majority according to RSs and so this is the only ethnic or national belonging, also in the historic sense, the Khanate can refer to.

We should see how other involved editors say about this offer and then, maybe, ask others' opinion. Aregakn (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not Armenian-populated. Besides, in the 17th and 18th century Kajars had settled in the khanate. Once again, the first reference explicitly says: "Azeri in the sense of Muslims who spoke a version of the Turkic language we call Azeri today". Are there any Azeri-speaking Muslims other than Azerbaijanis? Brandmeister[t] 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not Armenian-populated.???

• The Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, Volume 1, by Malcolm Cross, p349.
• The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Eighteenth Century to Modern Times, by Agop Jack Hacikyan, p9.
• The newly independent states of Eurasia: handbook of former Soviet republics, by Stephen K. Batalden, Sandra L. Batalden, p98.

Just a quick search results in these books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one....

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications, by Michael P. Croissant, p12. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue of the Khanate being Armenian is not disputable anymore. Ridiculous to give a dialect a status of language and because some tribes moved there and spoke a dialect to start calling the administrative division with what presently is called Azeri. So I offer a consensus for the change to be "Armenian Khanate ruled by a Turkic family". What is the opposition? And please let it not be the reasoning, that the geographical location was called Azerbaijan by Persians. The geographical local name has nothing to do with the national belonging of the division. Aregakn (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenian khanate? Are you serious? Since when did Armenians have khanates, Muslim states? Can you find such combination of words in any reliable source? Grandmaster 12:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the term "khanate" does not belong to a religion. It is unserious of you to tell it.

Secondly, the type of a division (Republic, Oblast, State, kingdom, sultanate, khanate etc.) has nothing to do with the national belonging. I don't think you'd the same way be surprised to hear Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Nagorno-Karabakh A. Oblast, or you wouldn't claim that a Republic is Christian only (or French f.i.) and so Azerbaijan can only be Sultanate, would you?

Thirdly, Editors are not here to copy-paste word combinations or words from RSs but to present the sense of what the sources say.

Fourthly, Armenian Khanate shows the national belonging. Your vision of terms in general and word-combination showing belonging are too distorted, I can see. I hope you will read with great intrest the article of Falsification of Azeri History on the Russian WP. Would you like the link? Here it is: [5]

If you understood what I wrote above, then I am happy to hear if you have arguments to these points. Aregakn (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, show me a RS that uses the term Armenian khanate. We cannot invent terms here. It is against the rules. Grandmaster 08:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources quoted by Kansas Bear stem from artificial resettlement of Armenians in Azerbaijan, conducted by Russian Empire. See for example Erich Feigl's "Karabagh? Karabagh!":

Following the conclusion of the Gulustan and Turkmanchay treaties in 1813 and 1828 respectively, the process of moving Armenians to Azerbaijan territories substantially increased. At that time 86,000 Armenians from Turkey and 40,000 more from Iran were moved to the territory of Western Azerbaijan, which is presently annexed to Armenia. The Armenians were settled mainly in the territories of Nakhchivan... and Karabakh khanates. Afterwards, the efforts on the disintegration of Azerbaijan kept on...

Divide et impera :( Brandmeister[t] 18:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Feigl as a reliable source, lol! I wonder if lol is as strong as a word to discribe my laught. :b Ionidasz (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To Brandmeister: your noted author Feigl is a renown fascist anti-Armenian:

The work [A Myth of Terror] follows the standard Turkish argumentation that denies the genocide. According to Feigl, the death marches into the deserts and the concentration camps of Mesopotamia were a part of a legitimate relocation program (see map inside cover). While the Armenians are denounced as terrorists who made genocidal attempts on the Turkish majority, the Moslems are portrayed as culturally superior victims (pp. 88ff.). Feigl compares the Armenians to the Nazis (pp. 78-79) and proclaims all and any Armenian documentation as forgery. Vidal-Naquet, "By Way of a Preface," p. 4, summarizes this type of argument: "There has not been a genocide of the Armenians; this genocide was fully justified; the Armenians massacred themselves; it was they who massacred the Turks." Playing on greed and materialist jealousy, Feigl includes photos of luxurious buildings to drive home the point that Armenians were prosperous and thus guilty of a world conspiracy, as is repeatedly insinuated, for instance, when Armenian-American as well as Armenian-Russian relations are slanderously exposed... He cites instances of contemporary Armenian "terrorism" out of context to justify the Turkish massacres retroactively. He goes so far as to deny the existence of an Armenian people and an Armenian identity... He dismisses scholarship contradicting his findings, suggesting that authors expressing pro-Armenian points of view do so out of fear of becoming the targets of Armenian terrorism (pp. 6).

[6] "Hilsenraths Other Genocide" of Dagmar C. G. Lorenz.

This once again shows that you have no intension to come to a solution but you are here with 1 goal, to falsify the reality by all means, as seen above.

To Grandmaster: I shall start with a little language-lesson-intro; what we are discussing now is a "proper adjective". A proper adjective is an adjective deriving from nationality. This has nothing to do with inventing a term but understanding the term. The referece to Azeri here cannot be done, as there existed no such ethnic, national entity or a state division. I guess you did read the references I brought about THIS very case. The only proper (nationality-)adjective it can refer to is "Armenian" in this case.

For us to see the bigger picture and understand things better I will bring some simple examples:

• Bavaria (Bayen): it is the name of an administrative division in a state, right? It has a different name but it is a German Land and it is called so as a proper adjective because of the national blonging. You cannot refer to it as Turkish, even if the first minister there becomes Turkish or many Turks live there, can you? (rhetoric question I guess)
• Cyprus: the Northern Republic of Cyprus is an unrecognised state but it is an administrative division in A way, isn't it? And tell me if you call it Greek, as the Republic of Cyprus? No! Turkish is called the republic of northern cyprus becasue of the national belonging at the time.
• Cilicia: the Mediaeval kingdom was called the Kingdom of Cilicia. But when people refered to it with a proper adjective, they called it the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia at that time because of its national belonging, even if the kingdom was part of the Eastern Roman Empire or had a different name than "Armenia".
• Achaia, Sparta, Macedonia, Crete etc.: These were separate kingdoms, divisions in the Roman Empire by the way. But all those kingdoms were called to be Greek because of national belonging.
• Macedonia: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is quite a new state, as Azerbaijan is. When speaking about Alexander the Great (f.i.) and calling him Macedonian as a nationality, what do you think, how would the reader in our days understand it? And it is clearly not what the reality is, right? The current Macedonia has little (if not anything) to do with the historic Macedonia. And so Alexander is a Greek King, not Macedonian as nationality.

Once again, at the time-period in question cannot contain any national or state links to the terms "Azeri" or "Azerbaijan" as these entities had never existed before and until the early 20th century. Nothing historic before the early 20th c. can be claimed Azeri or Azerbaijani in THIS regard (national or state proper adjectives). So as you see, I am not inventing terms, but, most probably, you are, and I don't know how more easy I could construe the subject. Aregakn (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not citing A Myth of Terror here and we are not discussing Armenian Genocide, stop diverting the discussion. Regarding your examples, I see no parallels. Khanate was not Armenian entity and if you think there was no resettlement of Armenians, give proper sources instead of cherrypicking. Further distortion of sources would be a disruption, everyone is able to verify the references provided, including those added by me. Brandmeister[t] 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are citing something which was written after Feigl died, lol! Besides, there was pratically no Armenian resettlement in Karabakh, neither is there any record of tens of thousands of Armenians leaving the Ottoman Empire during those period in Ottoman records. Had there been any, Turkish scholars would have blown them out of proportion to support their position. Ionidasz (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? The article "Karabagh? Karabagh!" was written by Feigl and the publication where it was published has been provided, including ISBN. Besides, the khanate was not semi-independent: after the death of Nader Shah it gained full independence. Secondly, there was a Treaty of Kurakchay, so the claim that the khanate was officially ceded to Russia by Persia is not correct. Brandmeister[t] 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything such, and it does not matter, he's credibility is near to nonexistent. As for the independence..., that's innacurate and either way the intro include from it's formation to its end. Also, please stop edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop distorting the sources, specificallly Bertsch, who says "independent" and "Azeri"? Secondly, it was not ruled by the Qajar dynasty, but by individual khans, as the name suggests. Brandmeister[t] 07:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's at least the second time you are accusing me to distort, I explained above that the intro include from its foundation to its end. I'm sure you understand the relevancy of this point and why for this reason the word independent can not go there. I have sufficiantly explained to you that you can not sherry pick and misinterprete sources, or revert flasly claiming per talk. Anyway, you have to discuss about this with other editors, because I won't be here. But I sincerly expect you to stop this behavior of yours, jumping in edit wars sending other editors to hell. Bye. Ionidasz (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you acting so on purpose or don't you really understand the relevance, Brandmeister? I was not talking about the very book but the compromised personality of the author and his anti-Armenian Turkified stance on the issues. You better read what I write exactly and don't interpret it at your discretion.

If you do not stop your edits without discussions, discussions make no sense. Aregakn (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bandmeister, have you read what I explained to Grandmaster? You are repeating what he was telling and Idon't want to be repeating myself. If read, then comment accordingly. Aregakn (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost every author has some bias. Tacitus had disaffection towards Greeks, which influenced Roman culture of his time, but can not be ignored in general. Regarding Feigl, there was the aforementioned Kurakchay treaty, so the reference to him is redundant. Brandmeister[t] 11:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a good example and forget about the author that is purely seen biased by his peers. Also stop your edits and get to the point in the discussion. You arefailing to comment what I said in "To Grandmaster" already for the 3rd time and are making edits with no compromise.Aregakn (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Bertsch speaks about Azeri-speaking people, while Eichensehr does not even mention the word Qajar/Kajar. The latter and Croissant are talking about umbrella term, while the sources provided previously write specifically, i.e. "Azerbaijani". How about this: "...was an Azerbaijani khanate, established in about 1750 by Panakh Ali Khan under Persian suzerainty. Following the death of Nader Shah the khanate became independent". Brandmeister[t] 10:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the first sentence of this article, why should only the alleged Azerbaijani characterization of this khanate be included, whereas the other characterizations (Turkic, Caucasian, Qajar, etc.) are ignored? --Davo88 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The page Turkic is a disambiguation and Turkic people is an umbrella term. Two verifiable third-party sources write more specifically in that issue - Azerbaijani and as such are more encyclopedic. Brandmeister[t] 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Brand, you are not commenting my answer and explanation to Grand. You also continue interpreting the sources at will and as it suites you. What the language has to do with national belonging of the khanate is unexplainable. You are trying to project what you wish to see in your group to what the sources say and even look for inexistent links.

Address what I said about the national belonging to Grand point-by-point and do not be playing around. If you do not address those issues, it'll show your refusal to get to the point. Aregakn (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ask Grand if you wish, not me. I do not interpret sources, just quote them and everyone can verify them via Google Books. As I wrote above, two verifiable 3rd-party sources have been provided on behalf of what you are challenging. Brandmeister[t] 14:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see refusal of you to get to the point and discuss the issue in a proper manner. You behave as if you are not from the editors community but some privileged editor. Are you sure you are not willing to come to a consensus? Aregakn (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should not serve as a stonewall filibuster. I have already offered one version of the intro above, on June 6, but do not see any feedback. NIGHTBOLT t 20:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we can see Nightbolt as Brandmeister, the "transition process" should pass and until then I don't think continuing the discussion as with Brandmeister is adequate.

Your offer (if you are Brand.) is what is long being discussed and is no different from Grandmaster's, which I commented point by point why it is wrong, so I think you must read the discussion. In addition I also offered a correct forming of the lead in accordance to the attributes of the subject administrative division. So once again, read it all and understand why your version is wrong and if you see my offer wrong, note in separate points the way I noted why your (and Grand's) versions are wrong. Aregakn (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

As there is an edit war that seems to be on the verge of derailing the discussion above, I have protected the article for a week. Hopefully that will be long enough to find a consensus. Please consider other methods such as a WP:RFC to get uninvolved editors' opinions if you can't reach consensus. Thanks. GedUK  14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous edit war has to stop. I don't see the IPs contributing anything to the discussion at talk. Coming out of nowhere just to rv is not acceptable. Grandmaster 08:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Twilight Chill who started the edit war after this page was unlocked by reverting it to the Azerbaijani version. And that is not unacceptable for you? --Davo88 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about proper referencing in accordance with WP:V, which also demands the sources to directly support the material in question. The distortion is not welcomed, given the excerpts from sources in the corresponding section. Twilightchill t 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear there may be a new edit war if we do not keep an eye on this article and stop the POV pushers.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection due to Edit War

Hi,

I have fully protected this page for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Please discuss any further changes on this talk page before requesting unprotection of the page.

Kind Regards,

The Helpful One 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)