Talk:History of Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani khanates

Alborz, first of all, the Iranica you are referring to gives some inaccurate information on Azerbaijan. For instance, it states 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. Well, the actual independence day was declared on May 28, not 26. Furthermore, the source refers to Tadeusz Swietochowski, who in turn, identifies the khanates as Azerbaijani, not Iranian. See [1] and [2]. There are many more sources, but I think there is a clear distinction between the Azerbaijani khanates above the Kura river and Iranian below it. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The inaccuracy in one article , does not means the whole Encyclopedia may not be used as a reference . The determining factor in assessing the value of an article either in an Encyclopedia or in a book , is the writer of the article . In this example , there can be two reasons in giving 26 may and not 28 : One (more probable) is wrong typing , that is not so important at all and does not disqualify the Iranica as a reliable source , Two (less probable) is that the date of declaring the break down of Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic is 26 may , and so the unofficial date of independent Azerbaijan may be considered two days before the official date of 28 . But anyway , that does not have any relevance to other articles in Iranica . About Swietochowski , he is an expert in contemporary history of Azerbaijan republic , but editors like Bosworth are experts in this especial field .Anyway , when we are citing the Iranica as a reference and we are citing the text in foot note , it is definitely wrong to change a word in the Wikipedia article : if you think Iranica may not be cited , then delete the source and sentence all (after proving Iranica is not a RS)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And also look at our previous debate about this topic in [3].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And to add by present change , the other sources like Britannica : [4] is also falsely neglected (Britannica supports Iranian Khanates ) and changing the sentence has made the citing wrong --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To show that the wrong typing problems are not so important , I dare to mention in your comment , you typed the river Kura , instead of Aras ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, that's an encyclopedia we're talking about. If the encyclopedia Iranica is not sure when exactly the document on proclamation of independence of a state was signed, how can we refer to its article on khanates? One may go around with various reasons for those mistakes, but it's inadmissable to accept an assumption when there are facts.

There are tons of sources identifying the khanates as Azerbaijani. With the Azerbaijani Turkic speaking population and independent and semi-independent status, these khanates were Azerbaijani and not under the Iranian rule or had Persian speaking population. Throughout their short history they were subdued by Persia and Russia, but we can't say they were Russian khanates, can we? Britannica does not say anything about them being Iranian, but that they were "Persian ruled" at one point in time. Considering how many times the Iranian shahs attacked these khanates, speaks of their independent status as separate states. Some allied with other khanates, some with Georgia, some with Russian to protect themselves against Iran.

Yes, apologies about Kura. Yes, it should have been Aras. But you're forgetting that I am an editor, not an online encyclopedia to which many refer to. My typos can be admissable, encyclopedia typos are not. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A typo does not discredifies an important Encyclopedia.I think there is no doubt in value of Encyclopedia Iranica as an example of Reliable Source for Wikipedia , and same is trough about Britannica .Britannica says :

Persian[Iranian]-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran....Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran.

For to be used in Wikipedia , we don't need a ton of sources , just show me a few of reliable sources that say the feudal local authorities in that region were not a part of Iranian state and/or had no connection with Iranian state.

Again I am asking is it right that you changed a sentence with two sources , but the citation still remains in the text ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, with all due respect, I'm not really understanding what you're asking. Why should I remove Iranica? I do accept it as a source but have highlighted some mistakes on that specific page which describes the khanates as Iranian. Just google Azerbaijani khanates in Google Books and you'll come to find many reliable sources attesting to what I argue about. It's no surprise that many authors refer to khanates above Aras as Azerbaijani and never refer to the ones below Aras as Azerbaijani. Please, refer to the actual sentence in the article ...sometimes de facto independent founded under nominal Persian suzerainty which clearly describes the status of some of the khanates and does not contest Persian suzerainty at certain periods of time throughout their existence, but the fact that they were Azerbaijani with language spoken, ethnic composition and so forth is undeniable. To make it clear again, these were khanates, independent and semi-independent and some under Persian suzerainty, at different periods of time. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentence that the khanates were Azerbaijani with language spoken and ethnic composition : that's right . But you know , being Iranian has no contradiction with being Azerbaijani (in ethnic and lingual terms ) . Some of the Khanates were in rebellious state against the emerging central government (Qajars) in the eve of Russian invasion (like the Quba khanate (Haji Chalabi) and Qrabagh khanate (Javanshirs)) , some of them were strong supporters of the new dynasty in Iran ( like Ganjeh , Iravan and Nakhjavan khanates) and some of them were relatively neutral (like Baku and Talish khantes). Over all , I think if you mean to show the ethnic composition of the khantes , they were Azeri language and Azeri ethnic , If you mean the political orientation of the khantes , most khantes were Iranian origin , some of them loyal to new Iranian government and some of them in rebellion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you just answered your own question. The khanates were Azerbaijani (ethnicity, language, independent, semi-independent status) but some were under nominal Persian suzerainty as the line in the article states. As I said, some were dependent, some independent, some were continuously and directly engaged in warfare with Qajars like Karabakh and Shaki khanates, some like Guba khanate assisted them indirectly, some fought between themselves, etc. So, the article confirms their status and being Azerbaijani based on sources and that they were at times under Persian suzerainty. Karabakh khanate signed the Kurekchay Treaty in 1805 coming under Russian suzerainty, while it was officially abolished in 1813, but we don't say it was a Russian khanate, do we? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We say it was Russian if the Russian build it in first place. Al most all Khanates in north of the Aras river were built by Iranian central government at first.If some of them engaged in war with Qajars , that was because the Qajar government in Iran was in it's beginning period and was not an official government at first . The Qajars themselves were originally from the Qarabagh region and in the time of Nader Shah , he dislocated a group of them to northern Khorasan , and some of them remained in the territory of today's Azerbaijan republic , so that ethnic composition is not decisive at all , but building local states under the central government supervision was very common in the time of Safavid , Afsharid and Zand Iran . Almost all khantes has known history of building by central government of Iran . I think we can't change the text of the reference just because we think it is wrong and we are not allowed to put our own understanding in the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Where exactly do you get that from? The khanates were not built by central government, but were founded by clans and royal clan leaders, many remaining under Persian suzerainty. I'm not sure what exactly you want from the article if it already states that khanates were under Persian suzerainty? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Every Khan from any clan had to have a Firman (decree) from the Shah , including some rebellious Khans like Panah Ali Khan , that had the Khan decree from Adil Shah , and Ibrahim Khalil Khan from Karim Khan ; and every khanate has been a subdivision of feudal system of central government . I only want to say if a sentence is being used from a reference - Iranica & Britanica - , it should be used as same in the text . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, if you open any reliable third party source describing the establishment of the khanates, at the very least, the ones above Araz, you will see them stating that the khanates were founded after Nadir Shah's death. So, whether or not a firman was ever obtained from a Shah is irrelevant. I am guessing that firman meant a permission? Well, even if there was such a permission or decree to have the khanates established, it was not Persian governmental authorities establishing the khanates, but independent lords, some of whom eventually went under Persian suzerainty and not at its own will, but to protect themselves from other khans, Georgia or Russia. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem in obtaining third party opinion , if you agree I will ask for it . And no , NONE of the khanates were founded after Nadir Shah's death (except Javanshirs of Qarabagh that get their decree - after Nadir Shah- from Adil Shah and Karim Khan). Just name any one of them that you want , and I will show the sources that show they were founded by which shah and in which date . As an example , just to show you the point , I show the document about khanate of Shaki , (because Hajji Chalabi was a rebellious khan against the Iranian government): Farman by Nadir Shah Afshar and [5], that shows the khanate was founded many years before the death of Nadir shah . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I was talking about third party sources, not the third party opinion, although you're more than welcome to file an RfC as well. Please read Shaki Khanate based on third party scholars who speak about foundation of Shaki Khanate. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the third party source , if you mean the present source is not neutral , take a second look to that page and found it out that is a document of Azerbaijan SSR , in the history institute of Baku , and it is published in an Azeri book !The Russian source ([6]) mistake is confusion of Nukha with Shakki , I mean both of them are now a new city , but before Haji Chalabi , the city - that was an Iranian khanate from the time of the Safavid Shah Tahmasp - was in else where (in the bank of the river ) but at the time of Nadar shah , the city was destructed by the river flood and in the new city , the new khan that was not elected by Iranian shah took the position , so the Russian source say the Khanate was built by the renegade khan : He built the city , but not the khanante : it was a khanate from the Safavid time (200 years before 1743).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And again , as you know , salim khan shaki was elected as the khan by Agha mamad khan qajar , as after Russian's victory , he flee to Iran with many of his tribesmen and they are among Shahsavan's tribe .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, you're using an unacademic argument that the city flooded and then built anew, and hence it's a different city :) Shaki, as some other cities such as Shemakha, Quba, Baku, Moscow (you name it) had seen destruction by erathquakes, fires, etc and was rebuilt but that doesn't mean it's a "new" city. The link to the document actually supports my arguments above. Haji Chalabi Khan who founded the khanate (google all reputable scholars who trace foundation to him) was as rebelious as some other Azerbaijani khans above Araz river and the Persian Shah fought him, appointing someone to take his place because his khanate did not want to go under Persian domination. The Russian source also confirms the khanate was founded in mid 18th century in the northern part of Azerbaijan under leadership of Haji Chalabi Khan against Iranian domination. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly know why Russian source says so . But it is well documented that the Shaki khanate exists before Haji chalabi . As an example , this khanate in the era of Safavid Shah Tahmasp helped Shirvan khanate in war against the Safavid shah and that caused the shah to displace a part of population after the defeat of the khans .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I am disputing your knowledge, but is that knowledge based on third party sources? As far as I can remember as per third party reliable sources, at least khanates above Araz were established after the death of shah by lords who declared them independent (some agreed to be under Persian suzerainty). Tuscumbia (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again , please look at [7] , how can Darvish khan , the alleged grand father of Haji chalabi ,can be a khan , before building that Khanate ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't dispute the name or relative links of Darvish khan, I must note that khan is a title and does not necessarily mean, the person was the founder or ruler of a khanate. There have been many khans from Genghis Khans to Behbud Khans and Fatali Khans. Not all of them were founders of a khanate. He could have been a khan ruler of a city, of a tribe, etc. but I don't see a record of him being the khan of Shaki khanate. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Russian tends to be better than mine , doesn't the sentence "Дервиш Мухаммед хан, Шекинский хан (1524—1551)." translates to "Dervish Mohammed Khan of Sheki Khan (1524-1551)." Is it part of his name ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As another source , look at this one :Azərbaycan Tarixi Portal . I think you can accept it as a reliable source . As you see , in that document , many times the title of Khan is used for the governors before Haji Chalabi , and you can see in page 10 , it has written that Hacı Çələbi himself was a vakil (officer) of Nadir Shah for the Sunni Shakki citizens . And about several Khans of Shakki like Salim Khan , you can see they received their decree from the shah .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I understand your point but what we're talking about is independent khanates, not provinces of Persian Empire before these khanates became independent. What you refer to (khan) is a title as I already mentioned and it does not imply that there were khanates per se. Khan could have been a military lord of a city, village or a province. For instance, there have been "qeza"s and "mahal"s in Persian and Ottoman empires, and they continued to be named so within Russian Empire ("uyezdy" and "magaly") and within Azerbaijan Democratic Republic ("qezalar", "mahallar"). So, the point that there were lords with the name title khan does not mean they were rulers of the same khanates which emerged after Nadir Shah's death and it does not mean that if there was something called khanate before his death (which I don't see any evidence), that they were of the same status as the khanates we are discussing here. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan , Khanates

One party says because the reliable source (Iranica) has an error in the date of an event , other sentence that is cited from the source ,that has no connection to the wrong date, should be changed as "Azerbaijani khanates" instead of "Iranian Khanates" . I think we can not cite a sentence from a source , but change it . Besides , other reliable source (Encyclopaedia Britannica) says the same as Iranica (in my opinion ).Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Using the source or changing the sentence

I want to ask the opinion of the editors about this change : [8].The Encyclopædia Iranica's text is as fallows :

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. [9]

The alternative party says (see upper section )because that article (Iranica) has an error in the date of an event , the sentence that is cited from it , should be changed as "Azerbaijani khanates" instead of "Iranian Khanates".

More than that , what is the opinion of the other editors about the interpretation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: History of Azerbaijan Encyclopædia Britannica ?

Persian -ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran....Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran.

Can Britannica be used as a source for "Iranian Khanates" ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Alborz, I think you're slightly misrepresenting my argument here. While I had pointed out some erroneous entries in Iranica, I also gave you the reasons why these khanates are not Iranian (please see above). The books by renown scholars and authors do indicate the khanates were Azerbaijani, not Iranian. Iranian khanates which were ruled directly by the Iranian shah were located below the Araz river. The ones above it were Azerbaijani, both by population of Azerbaijani Turks and by geographical name and location. They were independent (when independent they often fought the Iranian shahs who attacked them from the south) and semi-independent (when semi-independent, they were under Persian suzerainty). Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the ordinary editors are not familiar with this topic and if we ask them to comment about the whole disagreement , they would not participate . I reduced the complex problem to a simple one of citing from the sources - that has a general guideline in Wikipedia - to get the response from the editors . So simple : Can we select a sentence from a source , but change it in the article to a new opposite one with any reason ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So, your intent is to just get one editor come and answer one limited question to possibly support you, and then leave while the counter argument is not considered? I'm sorry Alborz, but the very nature of the discussion can't be ignored. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We will reach an end result Step by step.I have objections against the presented sources , but first we may reach a result in clear problems.First is to reach a consensus about how to do citing from books.Shan't we use the sources in correct manner ?Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Alborz, but your very request for comment misrepresents my arguments. The argument is not because Iranica "has an error in the date of an event". The indication of an error was to let you know that this online encyclopedia may not be precise and erroneous with facts, while the addition of reliable sources by neutral historians stating the opposite should be added. A third party commenting here needs to be aware of the details. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the Iranica is not a reliable source ? If yes , we can talk about it .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I don't say it's unreliable. You must be misunderstanding me. I am saying the reliable sources that define the khanates as Azerbaijani which were added to the article indicate these were independent and semi-independent khanates under Persian suzerainty and when you tried to argue otherwise presenting Iranica as a source, the response was that Iranica can be erroneous due to incorrect factual mistakes on other related data. In general, as I had already stated above, I don't understand what exactly we're discussing for so long if the article already says these Azerbaijani khanates were under Persian suzerainty. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps it would make the article more readable and neutral to use the plain word "Khanates" without prefixing it as Iranian or Azerbaijani. I don't see what value the prefix adds, and since the sources are using both, the prefixes seem to be generating more heat than light. I recommend removing the prefix altogether, and creating a footnote that briefly summarizes the sources that say Iranian vs Azerb. Alternatively, capture the Iranian/Azerb choice in a sentence in the prose, and explain to the reader how the Khanates are considered to be Iranian in some contexts, etc. --Noleander (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The word Azerbaijani does not necessarily imply the political affiliation, but a geographic and ethnic one. Hence the usage of word combination Azerbaijani khanates by renown scholars and historians (See the books in google link I provided). Tuscumbia (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is more complex than showing a word in a book . The whole picture of the situation is available in previous talk that the result was to avoid such combination. My personal opinion is that using the word Azerbaijani in ethnic sense is correct , but deleting a sourced material pointing to the Persian political connection is not correct . Again , what is the problem of the Britannica and Iranica sentences ? Why can't we use the exact word of that reliable sources , alongside the explanation that the term "Azerbaijani Khanate" has an ethnic meaning , and not political burden . From geographical-historical point of view , the north of Aras river was not called Azerbaijan before 1918 , and the nation-state of Azerbaijan has not been established in 18th and 19th century ; so insisting in using the ambiguous term is kind of misinforming the reader .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is incorrect information. The area was called Azerbaijan and the information can be found in numerous accounts of travellers before the 20th century. What happened in 1918 is that the name Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was given to an independent state. That's probably why historians do refer to the khanates as Azerbaijani. When you say "reliable sources", why do you choose to dismiss these sources: [10], (pp. 117-119); [11] (pp. 12, 13, 150 - Note: On page 25, read about division of "Azerbaijan into two parts"); [12] (pp. 2-4, 5 - Note: read the exact wording you were looking for); [13] (p. XI - Note: You can read the chronology of states on territory of Azerbaijan (yes, the area was called Azerbaijan), p. 32 (Note: See how Iranian Azerbaijan is explicitly distinguished from Northern Azerbaijan), p. 4); [14] (p. 110); [15] (p. 5 - Note: it even states they were under Iranian and Russian suzerainty, not just Iranian); [16] (p. 159); [17] (pp. 143-144); [18] (p. 47); [19] (p. 190); [20] (p. 222); [21] (p. 82); [22] (pp. 24, 92). There are a lot more sources, stating the same. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That debate is an old , extended one : Please read the bulk of evidences . It does not have a clear cut answer that can be Googled out of books ! But anyway , I think previous results of Wikipedia talk pages about this topic is of use .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved editor). I'm in general agreement with Noleander's suggestion, which envisions that we will provide the reader with the available information but that we will not try to reach our own decision about whether "Azerbaijani" or "Iranian" is the best description. I don't know if the dispute requires a footnote. I think it might be handled with simple, concise text that accurately notes any disagreement among reliable sources, with separate footnotes quoting them. Would this be correct: "Several Muslim khanates, variously described as Azerbaijani or as Iranian , that were sometimes ...." (The first two footnotes are to the Świętochowski and Buttino books; the second two are to the Iranica and the Britannica.) JamesMLane t c 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.I think if Tuscumbia (other party) agrees , we can change the sentence as JamesMLane suggests .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Abulfaz Elcibey.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abulfaz Elcibey.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)