Talk:Arran (Caucasus)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moved from article

I'm moving the following text out of the article. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on its accuracy, but it sounds very much like an attempt to persuade rather than inform. On the other hand, there's also lots of info. Someone more knowledgeable than me will need to sort the good from the bad. Isomorphic 15:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[begin text]

Historically speaking, the territory in the Caucasus that lies to the north of the Aras river, was never called Azerbaijan until the year 1918. Giving it this name created difficulties in the first half of the 20th century and in the succeeding years, and these cannot be ignored. History, as well as the works of ancient geographers and Islamic writers bear witness to the fact that the land to the north of the Aras River, which is now known as Azerbaijan, was known before as Albania (Alban). Classical writers, such as Strabon and others, called this region Albania, Armenian, or Alvanak (Aghvanak), while Iranians called it Aran. Aliyov, a historian in the former Soviet Azerbaijan, in his article "Sources Relating the Ancient History of Caucasus's Albania", wrote that in the Parthian era, the eastern part of the Caucasus was called "Ardan". Greek materials referred to this place as "Albania". Barthold, the famous Soviet scholar, believed that in the Islamic era and, according to Arabic sources, this name has taken the forms of "Al-ran" or "Aran", which probably is a transformation of the ancient Parthian name "Ardan".

There is no reason to doubt that Aran was separate from Azarbaijan and that the Aras River constituted the northern border of Azarbaijan, and Aran had never been called Azerbaijan. The academician Barthold most clearly mentioned the Aras River as lying between Azarbaijan and Aran or the ancient Albania (Collected Works, Volume 7, Moscow, 1971, page 123).

Prior to the invention of the name Azerbaijan to designate Aran and Shirvan, Tzarist Russian sources recognized only one Azarbaijan, the true Azarbaijan. The first volume of the Russian Encyclopedia (pages 212 and 213), which was published in St. Petersburg some 102 years ago (in 1890), stated: "Azarbaijan, which was 'Aturpatekan' in Pahlavi and 'Azarbadekan' in Armenian, is the rich industrial northern province of Iran. It borders Iranian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia and the Southern Caucasus to the north. Its border is marked by the Aras River". Had the name Azerbaijan been used for the land to the north of the Aras, undoubtedly, this encyclopedia would have used the name "Russian Azerbaijan" just as it had used the designations "Turkish Kurdistan", "Iranian Kurdistan", "Turkish Armenia", or "Russian Armenia". It can easily be seen that only one Azarbaijan existed and that was the Iranian Azarbaijan.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution and the ensuing turmoil in the Russian empire, Turkish politicians of the time became intent on establishing a puppet state in the Caucasus. In 1911, a party named "Mossavat" (Equality) was founded in Baku, which was supported by the Ottoman Turks. It held a joint congress with Turkey's Party of Federalists in 1917. In this congress, the two parties united and called themselves the "Democratic Party of Turkish Mossavat Federalists". Their goal was to unite Turkish-speaking people under the umbrella of Turkey.

The Mossavatis set up a government on 27 May 1918, and called the area the "Azerbaijan Republic". Their capital initially was Gandjeh, but after the occupation of Baku by the Turkish army under the command of Noori Pasha on 15 September 1918, the capital was transferred to Baku and their government was consolidated through the support of the Turkish army. They ruled Aran and Shirvan, calling these areas collectively as the Azerbaijan Republic for two years. This situation continued until 28 April 1920, at which date the Bolsheviks attacked Baku and declared the area as a Soviet republic. The Soviets persisted in using the invented name, calling this territory the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan".

Barthold disclosed the reason for choosing to apply such a name. In page 782 of the second volume of his Collected Works, he noted: "The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one." As can be seen, the name 'Azerbaijan' was used with a specific goal that became manifest at a later period. Somewhere else in this same volume, Barthold wrote: "Wherever and whenever a name should be required with which one can refer to the whole region of the Azerbaijan Republic, one can use Aran" (page 703).

From the very beginning, the use of the name "Azerbaijan" for Aran met with the protests of Iranian patriots, including Sheik Mohammad Khiabani and his comrades. But since this naming had been carried out, the Democrats siding with Khiabani decided to change the name of Iran's Azarbaijan to "Azadistan" (land of freedom). This fact was clearly stated in Kasravi's book titled "The Unknown Kings", where he expressed surprise at the use of the name Azerbaijan to refer to Aran, writing: "Why are our Arani brothers destroying their national history and their past at the onset of their national life? This itself is an enormous loss and there is no other example of such a strange deed in history" (second printing, page 265).

After foreign forces entered Iran in Shahrivar 1320 (August 1941), under the tutelage of the Red Army, a party was established in Tabriz called "The Party of Azerbaijan". It was mostly run by immigrants from the Caucasus and the executors of Soviet policy, especially the cronies of Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the secretary of the central committee of the Communist Party of the Caucasus. At first, the leaders of this party clandestinely advocated the separation of Azarbaijan (from Iran). The excuse they used to carry out their aims was the prevalent use of the Turkish language in this area, which was actually forced upon the people of this region centuries ago, again through the immigration of Turks.

Kasravi wrote: "Their secret aim was separation from Iran" (Nameh-e Parcham, 2 June 1943). Three and a half years later, on 4 September 1945, Caucasian agents created another party named the "Democratic Party of Azerbaijan", which ostensibly advocated adherence to the Constitution and the establishment of provincial and state councils. Its real goal, however, was unification with the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. The instigators of this idea for unification invented the names of "South and North Azerbaijan", whereas the land to the north of the Aras River had another name as mentioned earlier.

The leaders of the Democratic Party, who purportedly advocated the establishment of provincial and state councils, openly spoke about their secret aims following their escape from Iran and after finding refuge on the other side of the Aras. A message printed in the 'Azerbaijan' newspaper, which was the official organ of the Democratic Party, explicitly stated: "The people of South Azerbaijan, which is an indivisible part of North Azerbaijan, like all the peoples of the world, have their hopes fixed on the great people and the state of the Soviet Union" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 213, Baku, 23 December 1950). In another telegram to Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, these officials wrote: "Three whole years have passed since the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party that leads the struggle toward national liberation and the emancipation of the southern part of our motherland Azerbaijan, which has been suffering in the black hands of Persian chauvinists" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 81, Baku, 8 September 1948).

Following these actions, the terms "North Azerbaijan" and "South Azerbaijan" were skillfully manipulated into books and into translations from Turkish and Russian in order to inculcate this idea into the minds of readers. Some, knowingly or unknowingly, aided in propagating this idea. For instance, these unreasonable terms were included in history and geography textbooks and some of our translators repeated them. This practice has progressed to such an extent that a number of our local newspapers, without paying the least attention and consideration, have used these wrong and damaging terms, even in their recent issues, despite the fact that it is very easy to refute this be aware of the reality.

The author of the book "Corners of Iranian History" wrote: "The unification of North Azerbaijan with Russia played a progressive role and the only government that helped the people of the Caucasus against Iran and the Ottomans was Russia" (see pages 44, 192, 224). Did this reflect the real situation? How then can one explain the resistance of the people of that land in the past and the uprisings of Muslims, including the one led by Sheik Shamel in Daghestan, as well as the present reaction of the Caucasian and Central Asian people, and the Islamic movements in these republics? In many pages of this book, we find the terms North and South Azerbaijan.

These propagandists have been trying to pretend that Azerbaijan is a divided land and that it should be united someday. During the previous years, unification was to be realized with Soviet power. Today, the propaganda has taken another form, with American propagandists having involved Turkey and introduced it as a model. They use the wrong term "Azeri" in referring to the people and the land of Aran. The people of Aran should be called "Arani" as "Azeri" is a term that should be used only for the people of Azarbaijan. There is no link between the title "Azeri" and the people of Aran. And neither is "Azeri" the language of the people of Azarbaijan nor that of Aran. "Azeri" is one of the Iranian dialects, such as Kurdish, Lurish, Gillish, Mazandarani, Balouchi, Bakhtiari, and others. There is no relation between the old Azeri language and Turkish. There still exist in Azarbaijan groups of people living in the mountains speaking the Azeri dialect. The language spoken by the people of Aran is not Azeri nor is it ancient Arani. Rather, it is one of the Turkish dialects that has been mixed with local languages.

In the case of Azarbaijan and Aran, there are some who try to call Aran "Azerbaijan". This is a gross mistake. While the rulers of Azarbaijan ruled over Aran during certain epochs, Azarbaijan is a separate entity from Aran. At times, the rulers of Tabaristan ruled over Gilan and those of Gilan, such as the Buyids, ruled over Tabaristan; yet, Tabaristan and Gilan were separate and are considered separate lands now, even though they are adjacent. No one has ever denied the fact that Aran was under the rule of Iran and belonged to it, but taking the two as the same and using the damaging and wrong term of "North Azerbaijan" is a wrong approach.

It is not understandable why some refer only to what they are interested in and ignore most of the well-known writings. Bal'ami's work has long been revered as a Persian work, but, he was a translator of the Tarikh-e Tabari. The point that was noted in the Tarikh-e Bal'ami does not exist in the Tarikh-e Tabari (see Tarikh-e Tabari, Volume 5, page 1979, translated by Abolghassem Payandeh). But one should know that on geographical matters, the views of geographers are preferred. I do not wish to mention all such sources, but to clarify the situation of Azarbaijan and Aran, in the 10th and 11th century, which happens to be the time of Bal'ami, one can see the works of Ibn-e Khordad-beh who was the head of the 'Barid' (postal service) of Djebal (Media), and of Ibn-e Rosteh and many others, provided one is really seeking the truth and is not trying to verify one's own wishes and illusions.

Fanaticism is a sign of stupidity. Some accuse me of viewing the Mossavatis through the eyes of the Bolsheviks. The future will make everything clear and those who seek to deceive will be exposed to the nation. The final judgment will be made by men of reason, not by some ignorant fanatics.

I have not written anything regarding my beloved native land, Gilan; yet, I have dedicated a large part of my life to the study of Azarbaijan. This shows how much affection I feel for the people of Azarbaijan. When during my diaspora I was living in the mouth of the dragon, I did not ignore this sacred duty. My affection for the people of Azarbaijan cost me dearly during my migration. I had to suffer many deprivations. The separatists made my life and that of my family very difficult. I endured all these hardships for the sake of my country, of which Azarbaijan is a part.

Now that an independent republic has been established in the land of Aran, it would have been appropriate if it would stop abusing the name of Azarbaijan and would use its true historical name. Currently, Iran's enemies are unfortunately exploiting the existence of this misnomer by propagating false and misleading information. One example is Radio Liberty, which is run from Munich. It carries out its activities from a budget it receives from the US Congress and its broadcasts show the sinister goals that it seeks against the integrity of our country. You can also find similar things in the propaganda of some other countries. It is bizarre that a number of neighboring republics deviate from being sincere and honest, imagining the Iranian people as being ignorant of the facts. This is not so, as we do see and consider everything.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has proudly carried out its religious and neighborly duties toward the newly independent states bordering it. Even in the initial moments when its neighbors regained their sovereignty, Iran ignored the issue of name and some of their unjust behaviors, hoping that with the passage of time, its brothers and neighbors will pay due consideration and take notice of the facts. The Islamic Republic of Iran could make its recognition of the newly independent republics subject to certain conditions; however, in observing its religious and neighborly obligations, it did not choose to do so in order to enable the emerging states to achieve stability. The steps taken by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote economic cooperation proves this fact. Now it is appropriate for our Aranian brothers to take these factors into consideration and choose a path that will lead to strengthening the ties of friendship.

Q: Recently, in a book published under the title "Speaking with History", Nooreddin Kianoory accused you of repenting from the socialist ideas you had held for many years, that you returned to Iran and joined the regime of the Shah; in general, that you have publicly recanted your ideas and opinions in order to have gain important positions. What can you say about these?

A: Regarding the shift in scientific views, I should say that one is not born a scientist and from the beginning to the end of one's life, the scientific outlook of a person undergoes many changes. This is required for the growth and development of a human being. The distinction between man and animals is that man studies and thinks and through thinking, his perceptions evolve. This is the law of life. Hence, censuring people for changing their minds is inane and unreasonable. Whose intelligence ever remained on the same level as it was during one's youth? Only lunatics and retarded people could be so. Have the scientists who have made great discoveries in the social sciences, remained on their initial level of thought? Man studies every problem and arrives at new concepts and his knowledge develops. The most foolish people are those who think their own ideas constitute the pinnacle of human thought.

As to repentance, I came to Iran under the condition that no one demand repentance from me. I never repented publicly in any media. Those who accuse me of public repentance are liars and I should confess that truly, no one ever asked me to repent.

Equating development with repentance is in itself an indication of the lack of wisdom. In my life, and especially during my migration, I have learned many precious lessons that were not acquired cheaply. But these same experiences taught me not to keep my way of thinking on the same level as it was during my youth. It is surprising that while many of my writings contain many criticisms of Bolshevism and what I had predicted has been realized, still, you find people making such statements. Does this not indicate a lack of originality in their way of thinking and in the way their mind works?

I have been attacked from two sides, but I will bear these attacks for the sake of the integrity of Iran and for the sake of the existence and unity of my homeland. We die and what remains for our children and descendants is the homeland that both the old and the young should be proud of.

When I think about some of the false accusations, I cannot help from being reminded of what the famous Russian writer, Turgenyev, said: "One day a slick, old professional character told me while giving me advice that, 'Whenever you decide to hurt your enemy, accuse him of your own flaws and be ruthless in making such accusations. This is of dual importance. First, with this accusation, you pretend that you yourself are free of such flaws. Second, your accusations appear sincere and honest ... Here you can utilize the reproaches of your own conscience to your benefit. If you yourself are treacherous and devoid of conscience and honesty, accuse your enemy of treachery and dishonesty. If you are servile and subordinate, call your enemy an odious mercenary.'"

Would those who have characterized my book as arising from my feelings of spitefulness and enmity towards the people of Azarbaijan, characterize their own works as the result of their own enmity and personal vendetta against the non-Azeris who are wrongly called Persians? Are they not accusing others of having their own flaws?

I have written a book about Azarbaijan and others have also written articles about it. The right to judge these belongs to the community of (those who engage in) research and (those who follow) reason, not to fanatics and blind ignorants. The issue has been raised, and undoubtedly, it will be studied by researchers, then the facts will become clear. I did not write the book "Iran's Azarbaijan" in order to obtain a post. This favor I will leave to those who seek favors.

In the end I say: If returning to one's own homeland and working in a library as a researcher in the service of culture is the same thing as obtaining posts and affluence, this post and affluence I will gladly offer to Mr. Kianoory. In the 28 years following my return to my beloved homeland, I have only served in literary, cultural and research capacities and I am proud that the result of these efforts has been tens of books, authored and translated, as well as a role in putting together one of the most valuable encyclopedias of the Persian language. Now, we should see whether such services are valuable or whether the lies and the gibberish that some put together in order to sell the results of 50 years of treason, spying, betrayal of one's own country that make people hate everything associated with socialism, as service to their compatriots.

[end text]

Hi - the article you deletetd is a very informing interview with an Iranian historian, the info being historically precise and very well documented. Rest assure that this article gives a very precise overview of the history of a critical period in that era. I repasted the relevant passages of the interview and left out the stuff you would call "persuasive work".

Syaoshant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syaoshant (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [1]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected: Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Remove stub tag?

Hi, it seems to me like its time to remove the stub tag from this article. I would do it myself but the article is locked. I'm here because of the Stubsensor cleanup project. Triddle 06:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the region of Arran is Armenian. Historically speaking, all lands east of the Kura river are Armenian. This is evident not only by Armenian culture present here, and famous historians, but also numismatic evidence. Abbasid coinage bear the title Arminia Barda, inticating province of Arab Armenia, and mint of the city of Barda in the region of Arran, indicating this region was within Armenia, even in Arab times. Furthermore, there are coins struck here in the name of the Arab governor/emir of the province of Armenia. Finally the region of arran extended to the shores of Lake Sevan, within the borders of modern Armenia, making this a historic part of Armenia.

Quite preposterous unbacked statement. Nevertheless, we are discussing it under History of Azerbaijan. Abdulnr 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hello,

I have better tried to cite the sources. Regards, (209.158.161.194 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Can I have quotes of the paragraphs from the sources you are referring to? And also, how about using neutral sources? I mean A. Mousheghian, 'Monetary Circulation in Armenia' and R. Bedrosian, History of Armenia. You know, I have Azeri sources that say quite the opposite. And there’s absolutely no need to mention all the names that the cities were ever known by in the history. It is not a common practice here. Grandmaster 21:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Cf. from chronicle in Minorsky's book p. 17:

in 383 he {Fadl} took possesions of Barda'a and Baylaqan.

Minorsky himself under the connotations states from other contemporary sources p. 40:

"Patlun (Fadl)invited Gagik, son of Hamam lord of Tandzik, killed him and seized his dominions, and so becoming powerful, he ruled Khachen, Goroz and Sevordik."

He explains: These Hamam lords, appearently ruled in Alvank (i.e. Partav/ Bara'a).

---

Also, the existance of the Armenian Kingdom of Gardman - Parisos in Arran , east of Lake Sevan supports this. Abbasid Region of Arran (At times part of Arminyya province) also included territories into the modern ROA: Cf.

http://www.ghazali.org/maps/abasid.JPG

this is an ok map. Also, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abbasid_Provinces_during_the_caliphate_of_Harun_al-Rashid.JPG

Likewise, at times, even Derbent was part of the Arminiyya province of the caliphate, but I am not claiming this city as Armenian. : ))) Only into Arran : )))

---

as for Mousheghian, I simply cited him because he lists an abbasid coin minted in the province of Arminyya and city of Barda'a. It is simply a mint reading. Azerbaijani numismatist are respectable too. : )))

I can show a picture of this type of coin, but I am not sure you can read the arabic on the piece, can you?

---

As for Bedrosian, I suppose you will dispute him, just as I may Azeri sources, but please do discuss them. I placed dispute tags on this topic before I added my info because I realize you might dispute them, but I am ok with all sides being heard in this issue. (207.69.139.12 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Hi. Your source states: These Hamam lords, appearently ruled in Alvank (i.e. Partav/ Bara'a). Apparently does not mean definitely, right? It is supposition that they probably were ruling that area. If you want that included, it should be mentioned as one of the versions. Also the fact that a certain area was a part of Arabic province called Arminyya does not mean that that area had anything to do with Armenians. So I think for the moment I’ll remove most of your changes and leave only the reference that Arran was part of the Abbasid province called Arminyya. Any serious additions to the article must be based on a good citation from a reputable source, according to the rules of Wikipedia. See for reference Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Regards, Grandmaster 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

You seem quite eager to revert changes. Perhas you should be a little more patient and wait until I respond. I was paraphrazing from text. If you are going to be a sticler, here is EXACTLY what it says:

"Patlun (Fadl)invited Gagik, son of Hamam lord of Tandzik, killed him and seized his dominions, and so becoming powerful, he ruled Khachen, Goroz and Sevordik. KHachen, Goroz, and possibly Tandzik correspond in our source to Fadl's aquisitions(373/993) of the territories of Barda'a and Baylakan, between the rivers Kur and Araxes." and here is his connotation:

I have not succeeded in identifying Gagik, son of Hamam, but this name occurs in the history of the princes of Alvank(i.e. Barda'a/Baylakan)

Furthermore, we know of the existance of the kindom of Gardaman-Parisos, exactly north of Artsakh/Karabakh circa 1000. this was a non-Bagratuni Armenian kingdom that was devided between the Bagratuni's and Shaddadids. It was in Arran.

And you said: If you want that included, it should be mentioned as one of the versions. Also the fact that a certain area was a part of Arabic province called Arminyya does not mean that that area had anything to do with Armenians.

No, it does not, for that matter, that is why I mentioned derbent, and not to mention Tiflis was part of Arminyya as well. What I mean is the circuit of Arran incorporated part of modern teritories of Armenia. Should we go on to ancient Urartian and Artaxiad history?

Regards, (207.69.139.148 22:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, I don’t find this to be compelling. It is an assumption that this guy could be the one mentioned in the chronicles of Barda. To include something in the text you should come up with a better citation. And also, you keep adding the phrase “and Mardigah and Eshekabad in general”, this is nothing but a plain vandalism, you know perfectly well that no such city ever existed and that eshek means a donkey in Turkic languages. Grandmaster 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I do not want to get into a detailed description here, but your sources appar to contradict. Site on Arran does not refer to any of the facts you have outlined.

1. Agree with Grandmaster that arabic province Arminiyya does not indicate modern Armenia, it is very foolish to pre-suppose that.

2. It is true that during early -VII centuries, part of the region was under dominance of various armenian prinicpalities, (Sisakan, Sunik etc). I have my doubts about Barda and Beylagan.

You say:

Furthermore, we know of the existance of the kindom of Gardaman-Parisos, exactly north of Artsakh/Karabakh circa 1000. this was a non-Bagratuni Armenian kingdom that was devided between the Bagratuni's and Shaddadids. It was in Arran.

I am not aware of Hamam-Girdiman Armenian lords ruling over principality of Partav (Barda). Barda was an arabic city and centre of islamic Ar-ran, later to become the capital of Salarid state. So we need more organized sources here.

Proposal here is get leave disputed tag and discuss controversy.

Also what is the purpose of the article. History of Arran is described in the History of Azerbaijan section in much detail. This appears to me an article about toponym of Arran and evolution through time. I quite understand the political context, but we have to avoid it here.

3. Could you please list sources in order. They are scattered, and we all lost track of your citations

I have deleted what i think is irrelevant to the article. Abdulnr 00:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You know better than me that Partow/Partav/ Bardaa was not an Arabic city. It was a city of Islamicized Arrani (Caucasian Albania), and probably it had still a large Christian population in the early medieval times. --Babakexorramdin 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Babakexorramdin 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

re

Well, you do not have do agree, that is why dispute tags were placed, and more info was added, I try to be reasonable.

Gardaman Parisos and otherwise

I did add pictures for sources.

I never said Gardaman Parisos ruled Barda or Partav, I said it was north of Karabakh, while Barda is east.

Thanks but I have to delete the picture saying 980-1240 Syunik, for the following reasons - as we have stated Barda was never a part of Armenian kingdom (orange color) especially post IX century - Right bank of Kura was ruled by Salarids, and Shaddadids as you know. No armenian state existed after Arab conquest/We need independent sources and not armenica.com, otherwise i can supply you with similar nonsense from our side.

As for the Gardaman (Qirdiman) in Azeri - i do not have an opinion at the moment. All "kingdoms" you indicated are no more than dependent principalities. Abdulnr 13:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - what is picture of Greater Armenia doing here? It is an article about Arran. If you do not explain I will have to delete it.Abdulnr 13:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No armenian state existed after Arab conquest - Yes they did ... I think this map shows this ...

i do not have an opinion at the moment. All "kingdoms" you indicated are no more than dependent principalities. - Gardaman was not dependent on anyone, not Armenian BagrAtunis or moslem lords of the region, that is why their territories were destroyed and rulers slain. they were not assimilated.

For greater armenia it is to show this region was once part of the greater Armenia under artaxiads.

and srry, I reverted edit before reading here.

It is not clear who drawn those maps and where they were taken from. Could you please explain their source? And also, there are too many Armenian maps anyway, the history of the region continued well after 10th century, so some of the maps should be replaced anyway with the maps of the later period. We should have the maps shoving Arran as part of Caucasian Albania, Seljuk empire, Safavid empire, the period of independent khanates, etc. Grandmaster 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I think we can remove the syunik map and tigranes era map. I just wanted to show emphasis on these two issues, but I will accede to removal of those two maps. I am however, strong on keeping a map of Gardaman Parisos. Is that fine?

Sincerely,

Well you do not need to prove anything here, we are all grown up. I have no idea on your Gardaman map, please provide sources behind the map. Abdulnr 21:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a map of a 10-11th century Armenian kingdom in Arran from Armenica.org ... I do not know how else to explain anything ...

It is better to use sources other than Armenian and Azeri. Armenica is not a third party source, as you know. I can provide the maps from Azeri sources, showing completely the opposite. Grandmaster 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Point is taken on the neutrality. However, as I said Gardaman - Parisos, and its existance is discussed by Minorsky, it is not made up that Armenian lords ruled over this territory, until they were destroyed by Bagratids of Lori and Shaddadids of Janza. I posted Armenian map because I know of no other that shows the principality. If you can find a decent map, even if Azeri, showing this minor principality, I welcome to listen. But probably, Gardaman Parisos deserves a seperate page. If you give me some time, I will start a seperate topic for Gardaman - Parisos, so, you think this map should be deleted as well??? Maybe I should start a new topic on this, and just give a brief mention of htis kingdom in the Arran article?

June 11 edits

• I am a totally neutral editor on this subject, knowing next to nothing about the subject itself. I have edited it primarily for grammar and tone, but also for spelling and wikification. My edits are not intended to change or bias the article at all. I removed one sentence that had a tone of bias, please review the history and review my edits. If you dispute any of my edits, please let me know here (as I am watching this article). Also, you might want to check some of my wikification links to verify their validity, or duplications. Thanks a bunch! Em3rald 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gardabani/ Gardaman/ Qirdiman?

Just a Question. I do not know it exactly. But can be the Gardaman, Qirdiman be related to the town of gardabani in Southern Georgia. Both the name is close to to Gardaman and it is also located to the north of Qarabagh/ Artsakh. So I wonder if it is related to it. If yes the area is Georgian. Even the adjacent areas to it in nowadays republic of Azerbaijan, were Georgian once. the Georgian kingdom of Hereti was in this area. Also the town of Zegam, once a capital of Eastern Georgia was there, Although It is possible that Armenians and Caucasian Albanians lived in this area too. --Babakexorramdin 14:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is an expert on iranian history and iranian languages. He was born in greece, and is half azari half ossetian. he has spent many many years of his life researching and writing many articles and books. IF YOU CANNOT DISPROVE HIS INFORMATION THAN I SUGGEST YOU DO NOT REVERT THE ARTICLE.Khosrow II 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is not even Iranian, he was born in Greece, that would make him of the Greek nationality.Khosrow II 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is there to disprove? If these people say that “Historically, the name Arran has been used to refer to the territory of present-day Azerbaijan Republic”, as you included in this article, obviously these people are ignorant and know nothing about this topic. Let’s see what real authoritative sources say:

Arran, a region of eastern Transcaucasia. It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by Shervan; on the north west by Shakki and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan province; and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Muqan or Mugan. Arran's situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers.

This is from the article about Arran by C. E. Bosworth from Encyclopedia Iranica [2]

As you can see from the above, Arran is only one part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In addition to Arran, Republic of Azerbaijan includes Shirvan, Mugan and Nakhichevan regions. So saying that Arran should be the real name of the republic of Azerbaijan shows ignorance of those “scholars” who say so. Why Arran and not Shirvan or Mugan? The information about the name of the republic of Azerbaijan has no relevance to this article, and your sources are nationalistic motivated and unreliable. Grandmaster 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arran is a more legitimate name for the region thatn "Azerbaijan". Calling Arran Azerbaijan is like calling the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf, its politically motivated and its aim was to take iranian territory. Azerbaijan is not the real name of that part of caucasia, and you know as well as i do that the people of what we now call the republic of azerbaijan are not azari's, they are arrani's.

Also, Dr. Farrokh, and expert on iranian languages, has done lots of research and has found maps and accounts of arran, which basically describe modern day north azerbaijan.Khosrow II 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Arran is only one part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. So the information in this article and in your biased sources is wrong. And the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan is what it is, no matter what some people outside of the country think. Grandmaster 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

People have a right to know the history of the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I dont even see how you can dispute my edits. This is an encyclopaedia, and i added information by one of the best Iranian historians today.Khosrow II 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia should provide correct information. Arran is only one part of North Azerbaijan. Claims of some Iranian authors should be described in accordance with NPOV rules. Grandmaster 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Arrian (92-c. 175 AD): The region north of the Araxes River is cited as “Albania” and south of the Araxes as “Media Atropatene”.
• The Hodud-ol-Alam Text (10th century AD): Cites the Araxes River as the northern limit of Azerbaijan.
• Ibn-Hawqal: Cites the Araxes River as the southern limit of Arran.
• Al-Muqaddasi (10th Century AD): Divided Persia into eight regions which include both Azerbaijan and Arran. Defines Arran as being situated between the Caspian Sea and the Araxes River.
• Yaqut Al-Hamavi (13th Century AD): Defines Arran and Azerbaijan as distinct territories with the Araxes River forming the boundary between them. Arran defined as north and west of the Araxes, with Azerbaijan to the south of the River.
• Borhan-e-Qate (Completed 1632 AD): Aras (Araxes) defined as a river flowing past Tbilisi in Georgia and forming the boundary between Arran and Azerbaijan.

As you can see Grandmaster, Azerbaijan was never used to refer to any other region other than Iranian Azarbaijan! Also, it doesnt matter if today Arran cconstitutes some parts of the R. of Azerbaijan, what matters is the historical context of it, and Arran was alway the land north of Iranian Azarbaijan. Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is a very distinguished historian, he is even giving talks at Stanford University and working with the History Channel as we speak!Khosrow II 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On top of all of that, Armenian, Parthian, Arabic, and Sassanian sources all mark the region north of Iranian Azarbaijan as being Arran. Grandmaster, I dont see how much further you want to go with this debate, but clearly it is evident that Azerbaijan was NEVER used in reference to Arran, and that the name change from Arran to Azerbaijan was politically motivated by Pan Turkists, and was protests BY BOTH RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN SCHOLARS OF THE TIME. This should clearly show that the region was never called Azerbaijan, but rather Arran.Khosrow II 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You don’t understand. The name of Azerbaijan was used by some historical sources to the territories north of Araks, but in general it was used to refer to Iranian Azerbaijan. I don't dispute that. At the same time, Arran is only one part of the territory of current Republic of Azerbaijan. So you cannot say that Azerbaijan should be called Arran. Why Arran and not Shirvan, for instance? The information in the article is wrong, and your sources are dilettantes. Iranica and Bosworth are more trustworthy. So the name dispute by some Iranian authors should be dealt with in the article about the country, but not here. Claims that Azerbaijan should be called Arran or whatever else are clearly not serious. By the same token you can say that it should be called Shirvan or Mugan. But the fact is that it is called what it's called and it's not gonna change. So the claims by people like Farrokh or the other guy can be briefly mentioned in the article about the country, but there's no need to include them in every single article about Azerbaijan and its regions. Grandmaster 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing that Azerbaijan be changed to Arran now, where did you get that idea? I simply added information about how the Republic of Azerbaijan got its name. You are very paranoied it seems, dont worry, im not trying to change the name of Azerbaijna because as you said, it is what it is today. but my information on how the republic of azerbaijan got its name is correct and it will remain.Khosrow II 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t care if anyone suggests to change the name of the country or not. I just say that this information has no relevance to this particular article. Azerbaijan was not called Arran, Arran is only one part of it. Grandmaster 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranian azerbaijan was never called arran, but the present day R. of Azerbaijan was called arran. do not confuse the two. and this information is relevant in every way shape and form. Please dont tell me you have an agenda, because if you dont, there is no reason why you should be rejecting this. Khosrow II 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already shown you that the present day Republic of Azerbaijan was not called Arran. Arran is only one part of it. If your concern is the accuracy of information, why you keep on including false information in this article? That is clearly against the rules, and I will have to draw the attention to your behavior. Grandmaster 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The region was called Arran, however, just like you pointed out before, it was seperated into different little kingdoms. However, it was NEVER called azerbaijan, and its inhabitants were NEVER called azeri's. all of this started with the pan turk movement. whether you want to believe it or not, this is the truth, i dont know what they teach you in north azerbaijan, but this is it.Khosrow II 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the article about Arran from Iranica? It clearly states the boundaries of Arran. I suggest you read it before arguing. Grandmaster 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, whether the region was called arran or something else (we can change it to what ever you think is right, provided you have the right sources), it was never called azerbaijan, so what do you want to call it then if not arran, which is the common term given to the region, regardless of its actual boundaries.Khosrow II 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock and unsourced POV edits

Removing the unsourced POV by Artaxiad's sock and ArmenianJoe. The latter needs to discuss his changes on the talk page and use sourced information, rather than POV. Atabek 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of Arran by scholars to designate Republic of Azerbaijan ?!

Last part of first paragraph reads "by some scholars abroad, the term Arran is sometimes used to designate today's Azerbaijan Republic". If there is no evidence that non Iranian scholars has used Arran to designate Republic of Azerbaijan, this sentence must go or change to reflect this fact. --Mehrdad 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RVed to Grandmaster's last version to clean up the article as some administrative codes were left behind after unprotecting it. --adil 08:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, how very nice of you. Is that all you did now?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil

The article has just been unprotected and you go back to edit warring? Wait for a consensus before making changes.Azerbaijani 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just this? He went back and reverted around 20 articles in the past couple of days, some as soon as they were unprotected which were locked because of him in the first place. The word consensus is not in his vocabulary.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

users Azerbaijani and Eupator

The edit warring by these two users is significant, and in case of Eupator, he never even discusses anything, never presents evidence -- just reverts and leave pro forma one-liners. Aran was not part of Greater Armenia, which, by the way, was ruled by a dynasty of Iranian origin and most of population in the cities of Greater Armenia was not Armenian either. Meanwhile, Arran throughout history mostly denoted the region between Araxes and Kura, only sometimes denoting most of the rest historic North Azerbaijan. The name Azerbaijan extended north of Kura for two milleniums, since the Atropatena times, as extensive evidence that has been already presented in numerous pages proves. --adil 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the article back to its previous version before the insertion of POV and unreferenced material, such as:

However, the term Azerbaijan included lands north of Araxes river, such as Arran, since the times of ancient Atropatena, and have become prevalent again after Arab and Turkic conquest of the area from 7th century AD.

Azerbaijani 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the unsourced piece of information is being restored:

Arran (ar-Ran) is currently the term is used in the Azerbaijan Republic to signify the territory consisting of the lowland Karabakh plains situated between Kura and Aras rivers, including the Mil plain and parts of the Mughan plain.

...while the one with a reference is being deleted?

Arran (ar-Ran) is a historic geographic and sometimes political term used in the Azerbaijan Republic to signify the territory which lays within the triangle of land, lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of Kura and Aras rivers?

In addition to that, sources like Azargoshnasp.net are dubious, I don't think they should be included in the article. Parishan 06:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this claim, that was inserted in the article twice with a reference to the same dubious Iranian source: In later times term "Azerbaijan" supplanted "Aran", as it was first used to denote a newly established Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918. The Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan later bore this name. [3] Such claims need better sources. Plus, there's no need to make this article a copy of History of the name Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 07:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I merged two references to Movses Kalankatuatsi and added a link to online Russian text of the source. In addition, i deleted this paragraph that cited no sources: Following the collapse of the Caliphate, parts of Arran (this refers to western part of Arran, now within Armenian republic proper) were ruled by various Armenian royal families, as Bagratids, and other minor lords. These minor lords ruled the Kingdom of Gardaman-Parisos in the northernmost part of Arran. If you want that added back, please cite adequate sources. Grandmaster 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I think in general Ali’s edits are good and he significantly improved the quality of the article. I only restored the part referenced to Iranica, which described the original boundaries of Aran. Grandmaster 10:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I moved the page to avoid confusion with the Iranian region of Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not mix your own confusion with the rest of the audience without proper discussion. Arran is only one subregion of a historical region of Azerbaijan spreading from gates of Darband to Hamadan. Discuss your changes in the articles. Atabek 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This Arran article is not only about the region in the present nation, its about Arran through out history. There is a region in Iran known as Azerbaijan, not to be confused with Caucasian Azerbaijan. My page move changed nothing, it just stated the full name of the country of Azerbaijan in order prevent confusion, it still says Azerbaijan right now anyways, so your revert makes no sense based on your argument. Assume good faith.Hajji Piruz 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is untrue, because aside from Arran, there is also a region called Shirvan in North Azerbaijan. Your page move had no purpose, as modern definition of historical Azerbaijan encompasses Arran, Shirvan, Nakhchivan, as well as parts of South (Iranian) Azerbaijan including, Tabriz, Ardabil, Urmiya, etc. Atabek 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also your edits should be referenced to articles. You can't just edit an article and claim term did or didn't apply somewhere, without source. That's called WP:OR. Thanks. Atabek 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arran was not used for Iranian Azerbaijan and it was used in ancient and medieval times to signify the territory which lies within the triangle of land, lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of Kura and Araxis rivers. For this reason I moved back the page to its previous name--behmod talk 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, because you insisted, I added a source which clearly states that Arran is the Persian term and that Al-ran is its Arabized form.Hajji Piruz 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop moving tha page without consensus on talk. Azerbaijan is a reference to the state of Azerbaijan, meaning that it corresponds to the part of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. As a compromise, I suggest we move the page to simply Arran. Grandmaster 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is also a term used to mean a region of Iran. The move changed nothing instead of mentioning the full name of Azerbaijan. It says Azerbaijan anyways...whats wrong with adding two extra words that simply keep a user from becoming confused.Hajji Piruz 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a controversial move, it's matter of accuracy. Arran only refers to the territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan, not the Iranian Azerbaijan. It's as simple as that. AlexanderPar 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is a state, Iranian Azerbaijan is not. Why not naming the article simply "Arran" instead of arguing over the name? Grandmaster 07:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But there is already an Arran, what do we do about that? AlexanderPar 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no page called simply Arran. We can move it there and provide a link to disambig page on top. Grandmaster 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Caucasian Albania?

Actually, since there is Caucasian Albania, and Arran just means the same thing in a different language, why don't we merge the two? Atabek 12:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No because after a period of time Arran comes to signify something other than the ancient Caucasus Albania. Iranica itself has an article on Albania and a seperate article on Arran.Hajji Piruz 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to all of its editors, Iranica is not a template for Wikipedia to follow. Caucasian Albania was Arran in medieval ages, so I don't see why should not this be just the same article, with all redirects going to the same page. Atabek 20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But Google is? Caucasus Albania in the Western World, ended after the Islamic conquest, thats why they refer to it always as "ancient". Arran came to replace the term Albania...Albania and Arran, although Arran is the Persian form of the Greek Albania, come to me two different things in the English language.Hajji Piruz 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arran

Does anyone object to moving this article to the title of simply Arran, like in Iranica? If this proposal is acceptable, I can ask the admin to help. So far no one objected, so please express your opinions. This could end the move war. --Grandmaster 11:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it--behmod talk 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the addition of two extra words to the title as it currently is, did it not say Azerbaijan (the country) before anyway? I just dont understand the basis for all this dispute regarding two words which only seek to prevent confusion. I think first we have to identify the problem and then come up with a solution. Right now, no one has presented any problem...Hajji Piruz 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not an accurate description of the region. Arran only forms part of the territory of Azerbaijan. Plus, there's no article called Arran in Wikipedia, so there's no problem with moving it to a correct title. --Grandmaster 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arran is a historical term, the article is not solely about a region of Azerbaijan, its about Arran's entire meaning. There is no problem that needs to be fixed simply because you dont like the addition of "Republic" and "of" in addition to what was previously in the article. The title says nothing that the previous title did not, it just lessens confusion.Hajji Piruz 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But why is it a problem to have the article simply at Arran, as in Iranica? Do you have any particular reason to object? Grandmaster 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what the problem is with the current title. Why is the page move necessary? What is your objection to the current title? THe current title is no different than the previous title, which you had no problem with.Hajji Piruz 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not happy with the previous title either. But if we are to add the name of the country, it should be Azerbaijan, as the article about the country is at that title. Grandmaster 06:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is also used in Iran. Also, the Azerbaijan country page should probably be moved to Azerbaijan (country).Hajji Piruz 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But there's no consensus on move of that article, despite that you moved this article without any discussion or consensus. Grandmaster 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added two words which changed nothing with regards to the previous title. I dont understand what is wrong with the current title? I dont understand why its so controversial for you.Hajji Piruz 16:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not vandalize the article. I reverted the vandalism.Hajji Piruz 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I rv'd another anon--Dacy69 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? I inserted the quote in the proper section, it is also sourced and there was no explanation of why it should have been removed. Please give reasons for your reverts.Hajji Piruz 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole page of quotes in the History of the name article, and a few other quotes can be copied here. But I think it is better to remove them all and keep them at the dedicated article rather than here. --Grandmaster 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One quote is not hurting the article at all.Hajji Piruz 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I added another quote then for objectivity. Grandmaster 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight.Hajji Piruz 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well...If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

That is what Wikipedia Undue Weight states (I just copy pasted the relevant parts). The tiny minority view is already expressed in the History of the name Azerbaijan article, it does not belong anywhere else in Wikipedia. Lets all respect Wikipedia's rules and policies, as well as Jimbo Wales.Hajji Piruz 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Abbot per Wikipedia undue-weight, it belongs in the History of the name Azerbaijan article, and is included there. I also added more information.Hajji Piruz 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight does not apply here, as I explained many times. Also, according to the rules any claims of consensus should be supported by sources, so please provide a source that there’s a consensus among the scholars about application of the name Azerbaijan before 1918. Grandmaster 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight does apply, as I have explained many times. You havent explained anything. You wont even address the issue. Read it: [4].

Respect and abide by the rules.Hajji Piruz 18:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bartold says that the name of Azerbaijan was not applied to north of Araks before 1918, Abbot applies that name in 1863. How’s that an undue weight? Abbot is a primary historical source and as such cannot be undue weight. Grandmaster 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, once again you avoid the question. Undue weight applies to historical sources as well. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to dig up rules that you yourself should have already read:

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

At what point will reverting practically everything, including heavily sourced statements that are not undue weight, be considered vandalism?Hajji Piruz 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

• As it is apparent in Undue weight section, the minority point of view , that is perhaps under the political influence of the involved party , may not be mentioned as the main and primary view. The British diplomacy was an involved party in the Treaty of Gulistan and Treaty of Turkmenchay, as a middling force, and so the quote of a British counsel in that era may not be weighted as the main saying in the article.--Alborz Fallah 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think this article needs to be merged with the Caucasian Albania article as that is the article about Azerbaijans early history. The Caucasian Albania article mentions that Arran is the Persian name for the region. There is absolutely no reason for a separate article. Also I notice this article is leading and seems POVish. Londium 15:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop adding merge tags to every article where you "think" your right, without actually doing the research. Yes, Arran was the name for Caucasus Albania, but Caucasus Albania drops out of usage, its used for ancient times. Also, Arran came to symbolize a different part of the South Caucasus, not even incorporating all of Caucasus Albania.Hajji Piruz 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dont attack me. Just state if you agree or disagree with the proposal. Londium 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, it's long overdue. Caucasian Albania and Arran mean the same thing. Atabek 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Arran in this context does not represent the territory of Caucasus Albania.Hajji Piruz 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Minorsky it does, Arran is just another name of the same country - Caucasian Albania. Why should there be a different page for it? Atabek 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge request by sockpuppet of a banduser:Londium,

You may re-add it yourself, so you will be the one who requested. And we can discuss the merge--Pejman47 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge here. Caucasian Albania and Arran are the same thing. --alidoostzadeh 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I put back the merge request. The only question is which one should be merged to which. --Pejman47 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, any merge tags should first be discussed and then removed. But in any case, Caucasian Albania is the more ancient and earlier cited name than Arran, which appeared only in Islamic times. Hence the merger is from Arran to Caucasian Albania.Atabek 13:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Although they may represent a relitively similar geographical entity , but they are not the same in origion . Caucasian Albania is more "Caucasian" in nature ( ethnicity , history and language ) and is older , but "Arran" is relatively more " Iranian" and is more modern . That's some how alike to merge " Republic of Turkey" with "Byzantine Empire" that both represent almost the same geographycal entity . --Alborz Fallah 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arran is an Arabic/Persian translation of the same state in the same historical timeline, Caucasian Albania. Byzantine Empire preceded Turkey and Ottoman Empire in historical timeline, hence was not the same state. And why should "Arran" being Iranian is more modern? Can you please, bring some scholarly arguments in this regard. Actually the modernity of it is North Azerbaijan or Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkic-speaking independent state of Azerbaijani people. Atabek 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong ! By the word " modern" , I mean " more new in timeline " , and not "better" . Anyway , the term " Arran " appears to apply more on the period of Mihranids and it's after , but the term "Albania" is used more before that period.--Alborz Fallah 07:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The right citation from Iranica

There isnt a sentence here marking Karabakh as a part of Arran [5]. So the citation need a correction. Also they write -"junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras" which geographically directed out of Karabakh region. Andranikpasha 13:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully:

It seems to have been replaced as the capital of Arran by Baylaqan, but this was in turn sacked by the Mongols en route for Shervan and Darband in spring 1221 (Jovayni, tr. Boyle, I, pp. 148-49); after this, Ganja (q.v.), the later Elizavetopol and now Kirovabad, rose to prominence, the southern part of Arran now becoming known as Qarabag (q.v.). The old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.)

Qarabaq was part of Arran. --Grandmaster 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I cant understand what they mean as "q.v." and the text seems to be not in English alphabet. Then, in description of territory they wrote- "It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by ˆerva@n; on the north west by ˆakk^ (Armenian ˆak¿e) (??-I cant read this-Andranikpasha) and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan (very, very interesting quotation!- Andranikpasha); and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Mu@qa@n or Mu@ga@n. Arra@n's situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers". You can look it up in the map. And if in the last period Ganja (a city in the Lowland Karabakh) became an Arran city (he wrote it in the final history section), its never means we must write both nowdays Karabakhs (also Mountainous one) were in Arran (espeshially we cant write "lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of Kura and Aras rivers,[2] including the highland and lowland Karabakh", as Karabakh geographically is off this region). Andranikpasha 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. The source says that Qarabaq was southern part of Arran. Any personal interpretations should be kept out of the article. --Grandmaster 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And please read again my answer. The only interpretation is- "to see the map" despite the geography is not an interpretation rather a fact! If anyone wrote that a country in Europe is now in Africa, must we beleave? also with a specific pronounction of the term- Qarabaq, are they the same? also we cant read some of very important terms! so please read and answer my other points too (especially mark they didnt put Qarabaq in description, only in last part of history). thanks! Andranikpasha 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, Karabakh/Artsakh was part of Caucasian Albania/Arran per CJF Dowsett, Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies from Oxford:

C. J. F. Dowsett. "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Goš", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3. (1958) p. 475: "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence, and we know that it was partly at the request of one of its rulers, Prince Vaxtang, that Mxit'ar composed his lawbook."

Do not revert and remove the references unless you have presented counter arguments disproving the quote above. Atabek 07:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you write is a contrargument, isnt it? Read it again pls. Thanks! Andranikpasha 08:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) PS- Also pls, until we dont merge Cauc. Alb. and Arran lets differ them to not start discussions already ended at Talk:Caucasian Albania:)Andranikpasha 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, you have not provided a single reference so far, yet try to argue against legitimate references and removed sourced text. Discuss your edits with references, please, not with plain words. Atabek 13:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And Iranica clearly says: southern part of Arran now becoming known as Qarabag, i.e. Qarabaq was southern part of Arran. Grandmaster 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I had to repeat my answers and questions: "And please read again my answer. The only interpretation is- "to see the map" despite the geography is not an interpretation rather a fact! If anyone wrote that a country in Europe is now in Africa, must we beleave? also with a specific pronounction of the term- Qarabaq, are they the same? also we cant read some of very important terms! so please read and answer my other points too (especially mark they didnt put Qarabaq in description, only in last part of history). thanks!". should I repost also my pre-previous questions related to Iranica? PS- If its not hard for you pls answer to all the questions as this online article by Iranica seems not to be reliable. thanks in advance! PS2- Atabek, shall I represent references which are asking something like "Karabakh was not in Arran":) By one side I think I can (but when anyone ask to prove that Karabakh was not for example in Syria or Egypt, I will really meet problems. Can you?)! When I prove it (if I had such a purpose and find such a quotation about Arran) Id like to post that quotation to the article (if you think its not off the topic)... Thanks again!Andranikpasha 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of maps is an original research. Wiki rules do not allow that. We have sources that say Karabakh was part of Arran. Show me your sources saying that it was not, or stop reverting the article. Grandmaster 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

again: about your source see below!Andranikpasha 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing below. But I see that while Iranica says that Qarabaq was the southern part of Arran, you keep removing sourced info, which is against the rules. Grandmaster 10:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is (I repeat it again): First of all, I cant understand what they mean as "q.v." and the text seems to be not in English alphabet. Then, in description of territory they wrote- "It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by ˆerva@n; on the north west by ˆakk^ (Armenian ˆak¿e) (??-I cant read this-Andranikpasha) and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan (very, very interesting quotation!- Andranikpasha); and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Mu@qa@n or Mu@ga@n. Arra@n's situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers". And if in the last period Ganja (a city in the Lowland Karabakh) became an Arran city (he wrote it in the final history section), its never means we must write both nowdays Karabakhs (also Mountainous one) were in Arran (espeshially we cant write "lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of Kura and Aras rivers,[2] including the highland and lowland Karabakh", as Karabakh geographically is off this region). also with a specific pronounction of the term- Qarabaq, are they the same? also we cant read some of very important terms! so please read and answer my points (especially mark they didnt put Qarabaq in description, only in last part of history).Andranikpasha 11:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NOR. We are not allowed to interpret the sources. Iranica article is written by a well known scholar C.Bosworth, and it says that Qarabag (this is how it is spelled in Azeri) was southern part of Arran. This is verifiable info and you cannot delete it from the article. If you have source that contradict Iranica, please cite them. Otherwise the source cannot be contested. Grandmaster 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For q.v. see List of Latin phrases (P–Z). Grandmaster 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again and again: pls see all the questions! A source cant be called reliable if a part of it (Armenian one) we cant read...Andranikpasha 12:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we ask for a third party opinion on this? Grandmaster 12:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I really dont know? especially as now you asked for an arbitration against me, pls add!Andranikpasha 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked the admin from AE board to provide a third party opinion here. Grandmaster 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

User:Andranikpasha states that Karabakh was never part of the region called Caucasian Albania and later Arran. However, the article about Arran in encyclopedia Iranica, written by a well-known scholar C.Bosworth says the following:

It seems to have been replaced as the capital of Arran by Baylaqan, but this was in turn sacked by the Mongols en route for Shervan and Darband in spring 1221 (Jovayni, tr. Boyle, I, pp. 148-49); after this, Ganja (q.v.), the later Elizavetopol and now Kirovabad, rose to prominence, the southern part of Arran now becoming known as Qarabag (q.v.). The old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.) [6]

In my opinion, this quote clearly says that Qarabaq was a southern part of Arran. Grandmaster 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, first, no need to leave messages in my personal page regarding the March Day article. If you leave a comment in the article's discussion page, I will respond to that. Secondly, it is absurd to separate Arran from Garabakh. If you insist, I will cite Armenian historians saying that. Armenian historians in usual separate C. Albania from Arran geographically and definately include Karabakh to the latter. --Aynabend 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a sucpicious new account who reverted this article. Discuss the issues on talk first. Grandmaster 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

There is some original research in the article, claiming that overwhelming majority of sources distinguished Arran, Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to 1918. This statement is untrue provided an 1863 source from Keith Abbott, British Consul General in Persia, stating that area north of Araxes and extending to Baku on Caspian is Russian Azerbaijan. I added the quote. Thanks. Atabek 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not original research. Swietchowski mentions this :Even the term Azerbaijan, although seldom used for the territory north of Araxes, began to appear in the works of European scholars or journalists.. From a technical perspective I would like to put my two cent's on Abbot. Abbott's letter is not official relative to British or Russian government. It is in a non-official magazine. Most importantly it states on the first-line: "The country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia , the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole". But he does not state which Persian source. The Qajars did not have a "country" also known as Azerbaijan. Mamalek Khorasan, Fars, Araq, Azerbaijan simply meant land. I can almost 99% verify that there is no Persian or Persian language source that has considered some of these territories like Abkhazia as part of Azerbaijan. If anyone knows a Persian source that considers western territories of Georgia as Azerbaijan, I would appreciate it. Keith Abbot basically was not a scientist/historian and his letter in a very out-dated issue of 1864 describing Atropatene is also wrong. Unfortunately he does not state the Persian source he is referring to. We should check actual official British data rather than a "Persian source" with this regard at that time. Or some of the caucus sources, for example Bakikhanov, Mirza ‘Alabedin Shirvani and if Bourtounian is right (Mirza Jamal and Mirza Adigozal Beg)and etc. Overall I agree with Swietchowski's assessment that the name was seldom used above that Aras river, but the issue is already discussed in another article. My issue is a matter of style editing. We have an article "history of the name Azerbaijan" (and note I am not interested in removing or adding sources like Bakhikhanov, Mirza Jamal and etc.), the admins(EIC) have endorsed the idea that this issue should be in one article and it seems to be proper Wikipedia editing. So I have removed it from Iran-Azerbaijan relationship, Arran (republic of Azerbaijan). Please remove it from any other article you find per admin EIC or if you can not, please let me know. This issue can not become a matter of debate in every article. Thanks --alidoostzadeh 03:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text remove: Prior to 1918, Arran was still a term used in Iran to signify areas of the Caucasus north of the Aras river. Today, the term Arran is mainly used in the Azerbaijan Republic to indicate territories consisting of Mil and Mughan plains (mostly, Beylaqan, Imishli, Saatli, Sabirabad provinces of the Azerbaijan Republic).

According to Vasily Bartold:

“ The name Arran is the most appropriate term for all the regions incorporated in the Azerbaijani Republic. However, the name Azerbaijan is chosen because it was anticipated that the Persian Azerbaijan and this country would be merged into one state since the compositions of their populations are almost identical. Therefore, the name Azerbaijan was assigned to the republic. ”

In fact, there is a general consensus among scholars that the term Azerbaijan was not generally used to refer to the area above the Aras river, with Azerbaijan being separate from the regions of Armenia and Arran.. In some descriptions, the entire South Caucasus above the Aras river, including the territory of Arran, was either part of Armenia or Georgia. Although the overwhelming majority of accounts, starting from ancient times until 1918, distinguish the separate regions of Arran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, there are a few instances where some have described the region of Azerbaijan extending above the Aras river. In 1863, Keith E. Abbott, the British Consul General to Persia, in his report to the Royal Geographic Society in London, referred to the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as Russian Azerbaijan, "bounded on the north and north-east by the mountains of Caucasus, extending to the vicinity of Baku on the Caspian" . Azerbaijan has also extended above the Aras river for administrative and tax purposes.

Removal is unnecessary. Its heavily sourced, is about the boundaries of Arran, and was not identified as any kind of spam. I'm reinserting it.Hajji Piruz 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcax

This quotation is unrelevant: "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence, and we know that it was partly at the request of one of its rulers, Prince Vaxtang, that Mxit'ar composed his lawbook." In Albania (even not in Arran, there are different article on Albania) Xacen (which was a part of Arcax, not Mountainous and Lowland Karabakh- there're some difference) preserved independence (from whom?). It was an independent part of Artsakh, not a part of Albania. Also the source is calling other part of Artsakh an old province (of what?). Again we need some addit. quotations. This material is seems to be dedicated to Armenian historcal persons- Mkhitar Gosh and Vaxtang. Andranikpasha 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcax was part of Albania, the quote says so. Arran was the Persian name of Albania, and later a smaller region in the triangle formed by Araks and Kura. Karabakh was part of it. The quote is quite appropriate. Grandmaster 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Arcax was part of Albania, the quote says so." -? I cant find such a quote here! It just called the part of it (without Independent Khachen- Mountainous Karabakh) a province (of what the state?). "Arran was the Persian name of Albania"- then pls make a redirect from Arran to Albania! "Karabakh was part of it."- is it your opinion? any reliable sources? "formed by Araks and Kura." - sorry I will repeat myself- Karabakh is out of marked territory. Geographically its not right. If even you find a reliable source we must change, not "included" but "also" Arcax (or Karabakh- depends what the source is saying).Andranikpasha 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All the sources are there. The one you mention says: "In Albania, Xacen, etc", i.e. Xacen was located in Albania. Iranica also says that Karabakh was southern part of Arran. Ask for third party opinion if you are going to insist that those sources say no such thing. Grandmaster 06:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster lets stop to make original research here, ok? Do you see anywhere the term of "Mountainous and Lowland Karabakh"? Its just a OR adding by you nothing more. and the source you added discussed here many times and were deleted as both unreliable and unrelevant. Andranikpasha 16:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The source (i.e. Iranica) is reliable. It says that Karabakh was part of Arran, and Karabakh is a reference to the whole region, i.e. both mountainous and lowland parts of it. The fact that you tried to delete it does not prove that it is unreliable. Grandmaster 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here re the question for its reliability:

1.First of all, the text seems to be not in English alphabet. 2. Then, in description of territory they wrote- "It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by ˆerva@n; on the north west by ˆakk^ (Armenian ˆak¿e) (??-I cant read this-Andranikpasha) and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan; and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Mu@qa@n or Mu@ga@n. Arra@n's situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers". And if in the last period Ganja (a city in the Lowland Karabakh) became an Arran city (he wrote it in the final history section), its never means we must write both nowdays Karabakhs (also Mountainous one) were in Arran (espeshially we cant write "lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of Kura and Aras rivers,[2] including the highland and lowland Karabakh", as Karabakh geographically is off this region). The link has some points why its unreliable!Andranikpasha 14:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranica uses special characters, you need to download a special font from their website to be able to read them. But generally the text is readable even without Iranica font. Iranica is a reliable source, you can ask anyone here, it is used in many articles in Wikipedia. The article about Arran is written by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, a well known western expert on the region. And the article says: Arran lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. The only mountains at the western part of the territory between Kura and Araks are in mountainous part of Karabakh, and in addition to that the article clearly says that Karabakh was southern part of Arran. I see no point in further repeating the same arguments over and over again, if you still insist that Karabakh was not part of Arran I suggest you pursue dispute resolution. Ask for a third party opinion, I already asked EI C to provide third party opinion before you got blocked indefinitely, and he agreed to have a look at the issue, you can ask him again, or I can do that if you wish. Alternatively you can try asking someone else who is knowledgeable on the subject. Grandmaster 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations! Ill try to find and download their fonts as some important Armenian words we cant read and I dont see them added to this article despite they're descripting the borders of Arran. I disputted not the Iranica but this Internet-variant. Sorry Im good at geographics but I cant understand how "The only mountains at the western part of the territory between Kura and Araks are in mountainous part of Karabakh"? All the Karabakh with its mountains is out of the territory between that rivers! Also its an original research as the source never asks Mountainous Karabakh (which is a large geographic and political region) and if even some mountains of it can be borders of Arran, it never means that all other mountains (which are deeper in the Karabakh region- for the example- in the center), were also part of Arran. So Im surely agree if you ask for a third opinion.Andranikpasha 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research, the source says that Karabakh was southern part of Arran. And yes, Karabakh is located between the rivers Araks and Kura, just look at the map. And the only mountains in the western part of the territory between those 2 rivers are in Karabakh. So Arran was indeed "lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west", i.e. it included plains and mountains of Karabakh. Grandmaster 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Khachen in Arcax was an independent Armenian principality. So lets to not misinterprete the source. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Khachen and Karabakh were part of a larger region of Albania/Arran. The sources clearly say so. I don't understand what is dubious about that, if the sources say it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish meaning

The word Aran in Kurdish means Lowland; I will add this because Median was once spoken in the area. Alexandersaro 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)