![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No any sources or quotations! This article is seems to be a full POV since July... Andranikpasha 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please provide sources of the period which show it was called and written that way. Also provide name of the encyclopedias which provide such a wording, any material of the period of the Khanate, which provide any written Azerbaijani term for the Khanate. Because as you know, unless you provide sources to back up your claim it is going to be called original research. VartanM ( talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Azeri term simply for the fact that this has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan, no connection at all so it is not relevent. The only relevent term I see could be the Perso-Arabic script as written at the time. Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, I think you need to assume some good faith and lighten up a bit with "You should have known this by now" lingo. I would suggest that you refer to Yerevan article, where the title of this city is actually Persian in origin, yet only the Armenian spelling is used for transliteration. Perhaps, you need to be a bit more consistent and review that page as well. Discuss your edits further. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been over 20 days since it was first removed and Grandmaster and Atabek had more then enough time to provide sources and prove us all wrong. They're failure to provide one source proves that the IP was right all along and Grandmaster is the true disruptive one.
I'm removing the Azeri term simply for the fact that it has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan and the the current Azeri language. There is no connection at all, so it is not relevant. The only relevant term I see is the Perso-Arabic script as it was written at the time. VartanM ( talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Marshal, why do you replace words of Griboyedov with words of Bournatian? Keep them separate, they are 2 different sources, and Griboyedov never says that there was any repatriation, and he knew better, than Bournatian. Indeed, is there any evidence that Armenians settled in Nakhichevan were descendants of those people who were deported from there? And why Muslims deported from there were not "repatriated"? All the opinions should be presented equally, and Bournatian certainly is not a more reliable source than the Russian official Griboyedov, who was personally involved in the process. Grand master 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Bagramyan, some calmness in discussion would not hurt. Of course, Bournoutian is a reliable and respected scholar. I especially respect him for stating a fact in his book, that Armenians prior to Russian takeover of Iravan khanate in 19th century barely comprised 20% of population of the city of Irevan. But at the same time, Griboyedov witnessed the settlement and I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another. Atabəy ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an online article somewhere in which Bournoutian expands on the population statistics and movements, an article which he wrote to criticise and counter the misuse of data and sources (including his own) by some recent Azeri sources. Anyone happen to know the url? Meowy 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a very interesting note. Griboyedov can be included but it should not be used to create a false impression that there was a large number of Armenians who came to Nakhichevan. As Bournoutian shows that number was not large. Capasitor ( talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time Grandmaster, Bournoutian's ethnicity has no bearing on his credibility and you have absolutely no right to present him as a fringe source. Giving Griboyedov equal voice goes against Wikipedia polices, which I quote for the last time, ""Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." The two sources you provided are by journalists (not historians, and one who is admittedly pro-Azeri) and their wording does not otherwise necessarily deny that Armenians were coming back to lands which they were forced to depart from. It's been a week, give up the Bunyadov-Mamedova drivel already.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And who are you exactly to ridicule Bournoutian's works as "ridiculous"? You're subordinating him, the most authoritative source on this period, in favor of an obscure primary source, some second-rate journalist and a novice in Caucasus history, which, on any other article, would be impermissible. The Armenians were being repatriated to Armenia because...Armenians were from Armenia. Is it so difficult to put these concepts together? The Armenian homeland was in the Armenian plateau, not Isfahan, and the only reason they got there were because they were forced out by the laundry list of Turkic elements that invaded the region from the 11th century onwards. You know quite well that Bunyadov and Mamedova are crux behind the reasoning of your arguments, and it would help that you don't feign ignorance. Robert Hewsen gives an excellent reason on how Azeri scholars have squandered their credibility:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, first page of the book's Bibliography.
As if that wasn't flagrant enough of a reason, we have pseudo-scholars like Bunyadov and Mamedova claiming that Armenians didn't make an appearance in the region until the Russians brought them there. You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The whole section should be removed – it is about a non-event. The Russian figures, quoted in the article by Bournoutian, state that only 3,856 Armenians emigrated to Nakhichevan from Iran between 1828 and 1831. Meowy 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to offer any substantial counterarguments besides Bournoutian's ethnicity, which in your view in any case makes him unreliable. How sad and pathetic.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The text says "In 1840 this became a province of the Russian Empire and was renamed the Erivan Governorate". However, the Erivan Governorate article gives the date 1850. No sources are given for either date. Argan Aivasian's book "Nakhchivan Book of Monyuments" gives the date 1849 - so does Robert Hewsen in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas". I am altering the date to 1849. Meowy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a series of books about generals from Khan Nakhichevansky family by the Russian historian Rudolf Ivanov. I added a reference to the last one. I own that book and can provide a scan of any page by request. There's detailed info about the family of Nakhichevan khans in those books, and many members of that family were prominent Russian military commanders. Grand master 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Btw, the title of the article and the talk page do not match. This needs fixing. I think Nakhichevan khanate was a better title than the present one. Grand master 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I was away. I did much reading on subject and found little additions. I also studied wikipedia more and I think I understand better. I will make corrections and additions soon I found some sources. Also, I noticed is there reason there is another spelling before persian script in introduction? Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends. First, no one answer me, and I do not see why we see republic of Azerbaijan spelling for any reason. even more funny, why this is before the contemporary persian writing. no other khanate page has azeri spelling and i do not see why. Then, name Kangarli is wrong, it is kangarlu, and many irrelevant sections were removed. also, i dont see reason to talk about this so-called "nakhichevansky" family on this page. first, i think seperate page needs to be created, second more references need to be added. many subjects in old article had no citations. I did much research on google books and encyclopedia iranica and there is little on this province. we should work together and provide relevant information in such case. Shahin Giray ( talk) 04:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Also, world statesmen is not reliable, it misspells and list is not complete. but i cannot find anything else, so i will not remove it. Shahin Giray ( talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Azerbaijani name was removed from this and other articles about Azerbaijani khanates. See this source, for example:
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
More about Azeri khanates:
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
Nakhchivan khanate was virtually an independent state, though it formally recognized the suzerainty of Persia, it was fully autonomous in its internal affairs. After the death of Nadir shah Iran was in the state of anarchy, and the power of shahs was very weak. Russia took advantage of that and conquered the khanates of Caucasus, some of which voluntarily accepted Russian sovereignty. Ehsan khan, the ruler of Nakhichevan khanate, was one of such rulers. He hated Qajars, because Aga Mohammad shah blinded his father. And the history of khans of Nakhichevan is relevant here, and the info about them being generals in the Russian army is supported by the reference to the book of Rudolf Ivanov, a Russian historian. I don't understand why you attached all those fact tags. -- Grand master 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but you must provide reliable third party sources and not vague references to "independent" khanates. NO other khanate page has such an azerbaiajani name, and i do not think this spelling and name has anything to do with a territory of persia. My requests for other quotations were ignored as well. Why not add this name then to Erevan khanate or even caucasian albania, please keep pages reflective of reality not propogandists like the tadesz whose works seriously lack credibility and obscure out of context passages. I appreciate your help. Shahin Giray ( talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure where these quotes are going or these comments are out of context, including "history of azerbaijan templates. All my information has been cited from reliable sources. Persian spelling is perfect since it was administrative language of country that owned it. nor russian, azerbaijani or armenian.i do not see games you are playing with me. Shahin Giray ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, i reviewed your arguments and i agree with some of them, but others are simply illogic. First, I see problem with using Iranica spelling becuase this is for not specialist readers. But then i added kangarly section and added fact tag which brings me to my first point about fact and dubious tags.
first i put so many fact tags because previous sections in the article were not cited and when i researched data some of it was wrong. The khanate was not "founded" in 1747 but "given to govern" to the Kangarlu in 1604. So i could not find information for other sections, but if it can be found and verified why not keep? but until then, reader should be aware of possible errors here.
Second is introduction about being "feudal state" - do all of you know the meaning of feudal and it's understanding as something in medieval christian rule???? look it up in a dictionary. meowy says it is too vague what I said, and I agree it is vague, but it is also most correct since no other data exist. we can write about gradual fragmentation of iranian rule and growing powers of khans within the realm, but there is no sources for this for any of the khanates availoible easily to me and no one else writes or adds sources about this, but no source called this a "feudal state in the caucasus." same argument for region occupied by the khanate. there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured - picture worth a thousand words.
finally the dubios tag is becuase list of khans listed only from 1747, given no academic citation and kangarlu misspelled.
Finally, is there an actually reason for growing amount of azerbaijani writing and spelling on this page? i think there is azerbaijani version of this article too, why not use azerbaijani on the azerbaijani page. Maybe we can add russian, turksish, armenian, georgian and even chinese name of khanate. was the Nahcivan khanligi phrase used in this time, did this alphabet used in this time? no sense here in adding azerbaijani na,e. it makes sens for nahcivan autonomous republic, but how does it help article here?
Shahin Giray ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ethnically it was "Turkic" and Azerbaijani ethnogenesis did not occur. I think I can find random sources to match with word "independent" but they lack context. The authors mention the topic in one sentence nor is work peer editted or credibility of authors established in relation Iranica. Like i said, how is source reliable that khanate was founded in 1747 if these persons were given a right to rule since 1604 by Safavi shahs??? Shahin Giray ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Shahin Giray, "Feudal" does not mean or imply "medieval Christian rule" - it is a word that describes a type of land holding and the duties that those holding the land were expected to perform. If the khans were appointed by Persia and were expected, in return, to perform certain military and civil duties for their Persian overlords then "feudal" could be an appropriate word to use. But maybe a better term could be used. You also wrote "there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured". Actually, that is the exact opposite of what a good Wikipedia article should have. Images, especially maps, should be there to back-up information already contained in the text. You shouldn't have added that dubious tag just because the list of khans was incomplete or misspelt or without citation. A fact tag would have been sufficient. Meowy 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Grandmaster. I have no problems with statements about the ethnic composition of this Khanate under the Iranian rule. Obviously the Iranians subjects were Shiite MUslim Turkicspeaking people, more than Armenians. My problem is however the statement that is was an independent Khanate. It was not,. It was just another Khanate under Iranian rule. There is a time period by the way between the rule of Nadir Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. That is indeed a period of Chaos. In that period, Karim Khan, according to many a kind ruler and according to others an incapable ruler, had given much freedom and autonomy to its subject. The situation was different with Qajars. And the feuds of Khan of Nakhjavan with Agha Mpohammad Khan did not affect it. Because it together with Khanate of Iravan remained part of Iran until 1828. In fact it was no more or less different than other parts of Iran in different period of times. For example Sistan and notably Baluchestan were less integrated into the Iranian empire than these Caucasian khanates were. (Those Lezgin and Sunni khanates were also less integrated). All and all I see an urge in the behaviour of some editors e.g. Brandmeister to keep the Iranian legacy of the republic of Azerbaijan unmentioned by n artifical way. We should be sincere about history.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
dear Brand(meister?). Exactly you make good point. First we cannot say "most likely" on wikipedia otherwise we violate original research. Also, when we make fantastic statement like independent country we must back it with reliable data. here we have obscure reference from 19th century russian author. I use well known encyclopedia iranica. I think, we cannot manipulate unless you want to push certain point. Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, your quote confirms point. You cite various sources for "independence" in 18th century. Of course this is taken out of context and abused. Even quote above claims they were simply provinces that temporarily escaped goverment control. Really, it is province founded in 1604. did you forget 150 years of history before independence is remembered? I think we must not push point. The breakup of safavid empire and gradual decentralization is complex topic. it deserves comprehensive coverage in body section, and not manipulating and pushing point in introduction with one sentence. Please read encyclopedia iranica article for this khanate and add more instead of manipulating and making this article opaque. Shahin Giray ( talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Really, this history is complex, and many pieces missing. we cannot make such bold stories about "independence" when we cannot even find decent articles about state. it is simply misleading, especially since this data comes form unreliable and contradictory source. iranica clearly explains after erevan captured in 1604 and safavid control re-established. nakhichevan becomes province seperate from cokur sad. Shahin Giray ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not see point of this revert by you Grandmaster as it entails wholesale vandalism. Discussing russian territorial re-organization of decades later is irrelevant to this article and I am still unclear about reference to 1992 created script. Finally,I tried to add information about fragmentation of safavids to emphasize nominal suzerainty over area. Of course Iranica source I cited continued to call this persian province till 1828.
Grandmaster, I strongly encourage you to modify your behaviour and show more respect and consideration to other memebrs and sources they write, so they will not be repetitive. It will make working with you more pleasant and hope to see you do some behaviour modification. Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
well, how about persian. since it is part of persia? then, maybe some armenian, kurdish and turkic too, for nomadic turkoman tribes that lived here (some of which stayed and some moved out with russian occupation.) maybe there were jews there too, can we add hebrew name of Nakhchivaaaannn Khanate too? or we keep making one up like name "nakhchivan khanlighi, whis is no-n existent outside of sentence in modern azerbaijani language.
82.178.0.72 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
In regards to the last part of this diff, I have created Kangarli Khanate, however there isnt much information about it under the name "Kangarli". OTOH, searches on "Kangarlu" and "Kangarly" turn up even less, except for this.
Could someone check this source: "Иванов Р. Н. Именем Союза Советских… Жизнь и гибель комбрига Нахичеванского. — М.: Герои Отечества, 2007"
Cheers, John Vandenberg ( chat) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, andranik pasha and everyone else, mostly POV and incorrect data. Is this "feudal state" created after republic of azerbaijan. all issues raised before were not answered. it is not about dispoute of opinion but absolute lie of propaganda.!!!!
82.178.0.72 (
talk)
03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fedayee, there is no need to remove the spelling in the native language of Nakhchivan's khans from Nakhchivan khanate. Similarly, there are plenty of names in Armenia too, including but not limited to Irevan (Yerevan), which do not have Armenian origins yet have the Armenian spelling.
Atabəy (
talk)
14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, Yerevan has nothing to do with armenia,and Gandzasar is caucasian armenian, just translated name of capital. its all azeri and those dirty gypsy jew armenians stole it from you atabey!!!! 194.186.188.249 ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the
Kangarlu entry in Iranica, there is more than one meaning for Kangarlu, and
Kangarlu should be a disambiguation page. There is an old tribe, a new modern family, and a village. I think the tribe is notable and we should have an article about it. Is the village notable?
John Vandenberg (
chat)
07:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) updated 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
Grandmaster had changed the article title from Khanate of Nakhichevan to Khanate of Nakhchivan without prior discussion. I have reverted it to the former name because I consider Grandmaster's edit to be a controversial name change which, under Wikipedia rules, requires discussion before any move is decided upon. Meowy 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point, the name has been disputed before (though in a related article) so this article should not have been moved without prior discussion. Grandmaster claim that the article was formerly called "Nakhchivan khanate" is misleading. Looking back over the article's history, it has been called "Khanate of Nakhichevan" for ages, and has been entirely stable in that title. It has also been consistantly called Nakhichevan khanate in the body of the article. Meowy 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the other way around John, why should the article use anything else than Nakhichevan, which is the common English term for the place. This is not Azeri Wikipedia, and John, you should have acquainted yourself with this already. RFC and whatever else are bogus, Nakhichevan is clearly the most used English name. If anything, it should be the main article ' Nakhchivan' which should be renamed.
Journals:
Jstor Nakhichevan: 198 hits Nakhchivan: 31 hits
Google scholar Nakhichevan: 1460 hits Nakhchivan: 267 hits
Books:
Questia Nakhichevan: 193 hits Nakhchivan: 9 hits
Google book Nakhichevan: 1,128 hits Nakhchivan: 646 hits
News:
Google news Nakhichevan: 2790 hits Nakhchivan: 38 hits
Newspaperarchive Nakhichevan: 443 hits Nakhchivan: 0 hit
Also, encyclopedias like Britannica use the Armenian derived word, which is Nakhichevan, that some users like it or not, Nakhichevan is the most commonly used word in English. Changing it to remove the Armenian nature of the name to justify the inclusion of a modern Azerbaijani name or to Azerify the word is not justifiable and amounts to POV pushing in all practical sense. If you are going to reply, come with objective evidence like statistics of both words' usages in English and not some OR or circular discussion. - Fedayee ( talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Before removing Azerbaijani name in support of the banned user over and over again, please show me a rule that does not allow using modern scripts in such articles. Saying that it is anachronistic is not enough. It is just your personal opinion, and I should above that modern scripts are used in other articles. Grand master 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No any sources or quotations! This article is seems to be a full POV since July... Andranikpasha 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please provide sources of the period which show it was called and written that way. Also provide name of the encyclopedias which provide such a wording, any material of the period of the Khanate, which provide any written Azerbaijani term for the Khanate. Because as you know, unless you provide sources to back up your claim it is going to be called original research. VartanM ( talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Azeri term simply for the fact that this has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan, no connection at all so it is not relevent. The only relevent term I see could be the Perso-Arabic script as written at the time. Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, I think you need to assume some good faith and lighten up a bit with "You should have known this by now" lingo. I would suggest that you refer to Yerevan article, where the title of this city is actually Persian in origin, yet only the Armenian spelling is used for transliteration. Perhaps, you need to be a bit more consistent and review that page as well. Discuss your edits further. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been over 20 days since it was first removed and Grandmaster and Atabek had more then enough time to provide sources and prove us all wrong. They're failure to provide one source proves that the IP was right all along and Grandmaster is the true disruptive one.
I'm removing the Azeri term simply for the fact that it has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan and the the current Azeri language. There is no connection at all, so it is not relevant. The only relevant term I see is the Perso-Arabic script as it was written at the time. VartanM ( talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Marshal, why do you replace words of Griboyedov with words of Bournatian? Keep them separate, they are 2 different sources, and Griboyedov never says that there was any repatriation, and he knew better, than Bournatian. Indeed, is there any evidence that Armenians settled in Nakhichevan were descendants of those people who were deported from there? And why Muslims deported from there were not "repatriated"? All the opinions should be presented equally, and Bournatian certainly is not a more reliable source than the Russian official Griboyedov, who was personally involved in the process. Grand master 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Bagramyan, some calmness in discussion would not hurt. Of course, Bournoutian is a reliable and respected scholar. I especially respect him for stating a fact in his book, that Armenians prior to Russian takeover of Iravan khanate in 19th century barely comprised 20% of population of the city of Irevan. But at the same time, Griboyedov witnessed the settlement and I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another. Atabəy ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an online article somewhere in which Bournoutian expands on the population statistics and movements, an article which he wrote to criticise and counter the misuse of data and sources (including his own) by some recent Azeri sources. Anyone happen to know the url? Meowy 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a very interesting note. Griboyedov can be included but it should not be used to create a false impression that there was a large number of Armenians who came to Nakhichevan. As Bournoutian shows that number was not large. Capasitor ( talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time Grandmaster, Bournoutian's ethnicity has no bearing on his credibility and you have absolutely no right to present him as a fringe source. Giving Griboyedov equal voice goes against Wikipedia polices, which I quote for the last time, ""Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." The two sources you provided are by journalists (not historians, and one who is admittedly pro-Azeri) and their wording does not otherwise necessarily deny that Armenians were coming back to lands which they were forced to depart from. It's been a week, give up the Bunyadov-Mamedova drivel already.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And who are you exactly to ridicule Bournoutian's works as "ridiculous"? You're subordinating him, the most authoritative source on this period, in favor of an obscure primary source, some second-rate journalist and a novice in Caucasus history, which, on any other article, would be impermissible. The Armenians were being repatriated to Armenia because...Armenians were from Armenia. Is it so difficult to put these concepts together? The Armenian homeland was in the Armenian plateau, not Isfahan, and the only reason they got there were because they were forced out by the laundry list of Turkic elements that invaded the region from the 11th century onwards. You know quite well that Bunyadov and Mamedova are crux behind the reasoning of your arguments, and it would help that you don't feign ignorance. Robert Hewsen gives an excellent reason on how Azeri scholars have squandered their credibility:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, first page of the book's Bibliography.
As if that wasn't flagrant enough of a reason, we have pseudo-scholars like Bunyadov and Mamedova claiming that Armenians didn't make an appearance in the region until the Russians brought them there. You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The whole section should be removed – it is about a non-event. The Russian figures, quoted in the article by Bournoutian, state that only 3,856 Armenians emigrated to Nakhichevan from Iran between 1828 and 1831. Meowy 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to offer any substantial counterarguments besides Bournoutian's ethnicity, which in your view in any case makes him unreliable. How sad and pathetic.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The text says "In 1840 this became a province of the Russian Empire and was renamed the Erivan Governorate". However, the Erivan Governorate article gives the date 1850. No sources are given for either date. Argan Aivasian's book "Nakhchivan Book of Monyuments" gives the date 1849 - so does Robert Hewsen in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas". I am altering the date to 1849. Meowy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a series of books about generals from Khan Nakhichevansky family by the Russian historian Rudolf Ivanov. I added a reference to the last one. I own that book and can provide a scan of any page by request. There's detailed info about the family of Nakhichevan khans in those books, and many members of that family were prominent Russian military commanders. Grand master 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Btw, the title of the article and the talk page do not match. This needs fixing. I think Nakhichevan khanate was a better title than the present one. Grand master 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I was away. I did much reading on subject and found little additions. I also studied wikipedia more and I think I understand better. I will make corrections and additions soon I found some sources. Also, I noticed is there reason there is another spelling before persian script in introduction? Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends. First, no one answer me, and I do not see why we see republic of Azerbaijan spelling for any reason. even more funny, why this is before the contemporary persian writing. no other khanate page has azeri spelling and i do not see why. Then, name Kangarli is wrong, it is kangarlu, and many irrelevant sections were removed. also, i dont see reason to talk about this so-called "nakhichevansky" family on this page. first, i think seperate page needs to be created, second more references need to be added. many subjects in old article had no citations. I did much research on google books and encyclopedia iranica and there is little on this province. we should work together and provide relevant information in such case. Shahin Giray ( talk) 04:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Also, world statesmen is not reliable, it misspells and list is not complete. but i cannot find anything else, so i will not remove it. Shahin Giray ( talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Azerbaijani name was removed from this and other articles about Azerbaijani khanates. See this source, for example:
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
More about Azeri khanates:
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
Nakhchivan khanate was virtually an independent state, though it formally recognized the suzerainty of Persia, it was fully autonomous in its internal affairs. After the death of Nadir shah Iran was in the state of anarchy, and the power of shahs was very weak. Russia took advantage of that and conquered the khanates of Caucasus, some of which voluntarily accepted Russian sovereignty. Ehsan khan, the ruler of Nakhichevan khanate, was one of such rulers. He hated Qajars, because Aga Mohammad shah blinded his father. And the history of khans of Nakhichevan is relevant here, and the info about them being generals in the Russian army is supported by the reference to the book of Rudolf Ivanov, a Russian historian. I don't understand why you attached all those fact tags. -- Grand master 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but you must provide reliable third party sources and not vague references to "independent" khanates. NO other khanate page has such an azerbaiajani name, and i do not think this spelling and name has anything to do with a territory of persia. My requests for other quotations were ignored as well. Why not add this name then to Erevan khanate or even caucasian albania, please keep pages reflective of reality not propogandists like the tadesz whose works seriously lack credibility and obscure out of context passages. I appreciate your help. Shahin Giray ( talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure where these quotes are going or these comments are out of context, including "history of azerbaijan templates. All my information has been cited from reliable sources. Persian spelling is perfect since it was administrative language of country that owned it. nor russian, azerbaijani or armenian.i do not see games you are playing with me. Shahin Giray ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, i reviewed your arguments and i agree with some of them, but others are simply illogic. First, I see problem with using Iranica spelling becuase this is for not specialist readers. But then i added kangarly section and added fact tag which brings me to my first point about fact and dubious tags.
first i put so many fact tags because previous sections in the article were not cited and when i researched data some of it was wrong. The khanate was not "founded" in 1747 but "given to govern" to the Kangarlu in 1604. So i could not find information for other sections, but if it can be found and verified why not keep? but until then, reader should be aware of possible errors here.
Second is introduction about being "feudal state" - do all of you know the meaning of feudal and it's understanding as something in medieval christian rule???? look it up in a dictionary. meowy says it is too vague what I said, and I agree it is vague, but it is also most correct since no other data exist. we can write about gradual fragmentation of iranian rule and growing powers of khans within the realm, but there is no sources for this for any of the khanates availoible easily to me and no one else writes or adds sources about this, but no source called this a "feudal state in the caucasus." same argument for region occupied by the khanate. there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured - picture worth a thousand words.
finally the dubios tag is becuase list of khans listed only from 1747, given no academic citation and kangarlu misspelled.
Finally, is there an actually reason for growing amount of azerbaijani writing and spelling on this page? i think there is azerbaijani version of this article too, why not use azerbaijani on the azerbaijani page. Maybe we can add russian, turksish, armenian, georgian and even chinese name of khanate. was the Nahcivan khanligi phrase used in this time, did this alphabet used in this time? no sense here in adding azerbaijani na,e. it makes sens for nahcivan autonomous republic, but how does it help article here?
Shahin Giray ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ethnically it was "Turkic" and Azerbaijani ethnogenesis did not occur. I think I can find random sources to match with word "independent" but they lack context. The authors mention the topic in one sentence nor is work peer editted or credibility of authors established in relation Iranica. Like i said, how is source reliable that khanate was founded in 1747 if these persons were given a right to rule since 1604 by Safavi shahs??? Shahin Giray ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Shahin Giray, "Feudal" does not mean or imply "medieval Christian rule" - it is a word that describes a type of land holding and the duties that those holding the land were expected to perform. If the khans were appointed by Persia and were expected, in return, to perform certain military and civil duties for their Persian overlords then "feudal" could be an appropriate word to use. But maybe a better term could be used. You also wrote "there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured". Actually, that is the exact opposite of what a good Wikipedia article should have. Images, especially maps, should be there to back-up information already contained in the text. You shouldn't have added that dubious tag just because the list of khans was incomplete or misspelt or without citation. A fact tag would have been sufficient. Meowy 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Grandmaster. I have no problems with statements about the ethnic composition of this Khanate under the Iranian rule. Obviously the Iranians subjects were Shiite MUslim Turkicspeaking people, more than Armenians. My problem is however the statement that is was an independent Khanate. It was not,. It was just another Khanate under Iranian rule. There is a time period by the way between the rule of Nadir Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. That is indeed a period of Chaos. In that period, Karim Khan, according to many a kind ruler and according to others an incapable ruler, had given much freedom and autonomy to its subject. The situation was different with Qajars. And the feuds of Khan of Nakhjavan with Agha Mpohammad Khan did not affect it. Because it together with Khanate of Iravan remained part of Iran until 1828. In fact it was no more or less different than other parts of Iran in different period of times. For example Sistan and notably Baluchestan were less integrated into the Iranian empire than these Caucasian khanates were. (Those Lezgin and Sunni khanates were also less integrated). All and all I see an urge in the behaviour of some editors e.g. Brandmeister to keep the Iranian legacy of the republic of Azerbaijan unmentioned by n artifical way. We should be sincere about history.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
dear Brand(meister?). Exactly you make good point. First we cannot say "most likely" on wikipedia otherwise we violate original research. Also, when we make fantastic statement like independent country we must back it with reliable data. here we have obscure reference from 19th century russian author. I use well known encyclopedia iranica. I think, we cannot manipulate unless you want to push certain point. Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, your quote confirms point. You cite various sources for "independence" in 18th century. Of course this is taken out of context and abused. Even quote above claims they were simply provinces that temporarily escaped goverment control. Really, it is province founded in 1604. did you forget 150 years of history before independence is remembered? I think we must not push point. The breakup of safavid empire and gradual decentralization is complex topic. it deserves comprehensive coverage in body section, and not manipulating and pushing point in introduction with one sentence. Please read encyclopedia iranica article for this khanate and add more instead of manipulating and making this article opaque. Shahin Giray ( talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Really, this history is complex, and many pieces missing. we cannot make such bold stories about "independence" when we cannot even find decent articles about state. it is simply misleading, especially since this data comes form unreliable and contradictory source. iranica clearly explains after erevan captured in 1604 and safavid control re-established. nakhichevan becomes province seperate from cokur sad. Shahin Giray ( talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not see point of this revert by you Grandmaster as it entails wholesale vandalism. Discussing russian territorial re-organization of decades later is irrelevant to this article and I am still unclear about reference to 1992 created script. Finally,I tried to add information about fragmentation of safavids to emphasize nominal suzerainty over area. Of course Iranica source I cited continued to call this persian province till 1828.
Grandmaster, I strongly encourage you to modify your behaviour and show more respect and consideration to other memebrs and sources they write, so they will not be repetitive. It will make working with you more pleasant and hope to see you do some behaviour modification. Shahin Giray ( talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
well, how about persian. since it is part of persia? then, maybe some armenian, kurdish and turkic too, for nomadic turkoman tribes that lived here (some of which stayed and some moved out with russian occupation.) maybe there were jews there too, can we add hebrew name of Nakhchivaaaannn Khanate too? or we keep making one up like name "nakhchivan khanlighi, whis is no-n existent outside of sentence in modern azerbaijani language.
82.178.0.72 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
In regards to the last part of this diff, I have created Kangarli Khanate, however there isnt much information about it under the name "Kangarli". OTOH, searches on "Kangarlu" and "Kangarly" turn up even less, except for this.
Could someone check this source: "Иванов Р. Н. Именем Союза Советских… Жизнь и гибель комбрига Нахичеванского. — М.: Герои Отечества, 2007"
Cheers, John Vandenberg ( chat) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, andranik pasha and everyone else, mostly POV and incorrect data. Is this "feudal state" created after republic of azerbaijan. all issues raised before were not answered. it is not about dispoute of opinion but absolute lie of propaganda.!!!!
82.178.0.72 (
talk)
03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fedayee, there is no need to remove the spelling in the native language of Nakhchivan's khans from Nakhchivan khanate. Similarly, there are plenty of names in Armenia too, including but not limited to Irevan (Yerevan), which do not have Armenian origins yet have the Armenian spelling.
Atabəy (
talk)
14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, Yerevan has nothing to do with armenia,and Gandzasar is caucasian armenian, just translated name of capital. its all azeri and those dirty gypsy jew armenians stole it from you atabey!!!! 194.186.188.249 ( talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the
Kangarlu entry in Iranica, there is more than one meaning for Kangarlu, and
Kangarlu should be a disambiguation page. There is an old tribe, a new modern family, and a village. I think the tribe is notable and we should have an article about it. Is the village notable?
John Vandenberg (
chat)
07:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) updated 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia
In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.
Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455
In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710
In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.
Grandmaster had changed the article title from Khanate of Nakhichevan to Khanate of Nakhchivan without prior discussion. I have reverted it to the former name because I consider Grandmaster's edit to be a controversial name change which, under Wikipedia rules, requires discussion before any move is decided upon. Meowy 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point, the name has been disputed before (though in a related article) so this article should not have been moved without prior discussion. Grandmaster claim that the article was formerly called "Nakhchivan khanate" is misleading. Looking back over the article's history, it has been called "Khanate of Nakhichevan" for ages, and has been entirely stable in that title. It has also been consistantly called Nakhichevan khanate in the body of the article. Meowy 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the other way around John, why should the article use anything else than Nakhichevan, which is the common English term for the place. This is not Azeri Wikipedia, and John, you should have acquainted yourself with this already. RFC and whatever else are bogus, Nakhichevan is clearly the most used English name. If anything, it should be the main article ' Nakhchivan' which should be renamed.
Journals:
Jstor Nakhichevan: 198 hits Nakhchivan: 31 hits
Google scholar Nakhichevan: 1460 hits Nakhchivan: 267 hits
Books:
Questia Nakhichevan: 193 hits Nakhchivan: 9 hits
Google book Nakhichevan: 1,128 hits Nakhchivan: 646 hits
News:
Google news Nakhichevan: 2790 hits Nakhchivan: 38 hits
Newspaperarchive Nakhichevan: 443 hits Nakhchivan: 0 hit
Also, encyclopedias like Britannica use the Armenian derived word, which is Nakhichevan, that some users like it or not, Nakhichevan is the most commonly used word in English. Changing it to remove the Armenian nature of the name to justify the inclusion of a modern Azerbaijani name or to Azerify the word is not justifiable and amounts to POV pushing in all practical sense. If you are going to reply, come with objective evidence like statistics of both words' usages in English and not some OR or circular discussion. - Fedayee ( talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Before removing Azerbaijani name in support of the banned user over and over again, please show me a rule that does not allow using modern scripts in such articles. Saying that it is anachronistic is not enough. It is just your personal opinion, and I should above that modern scripts are used in other articles. Grand master 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)