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)