Talk:Khanates of the Caucasus

Azerbaijan

Today most of the khanate make up the modern Republic of Azerbaijan. I putted this in the article Baku87 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Qajar times and not Safavid times

The Khanates are from Qajar times and not Safavid times.In Safavid era they were called beglarbegies .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

hi

can someone writ abouts the khanates i have link http://azerbaijans.com/content_376_en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.27.127 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Azerbaijani khanates in the 18th-19th centuries.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Khanates to the south of Aras

@HistoryofIran: I didn't quite understand your reasoning for removing all the khanates south of the Aras river. Are you implying that these khanates did not exist? Could you please elaborate further? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess this issue should be reminded 188.253.216.219 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Persian khanates

Azerbaijan khanates, Persian khanates, iranian khanates. First of all, it is said in the sources that the khanates are of Turkic (Azeri) origin. but the phrase "Persian khanates" is confusing. they are not of Persian origin, so the term Persian khanates should be removed, what do the admins think about this? DifaiTal (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

So let me rewrite it for those who don't understand what I mean. The word persian khanates can be confusing for the reader. First of all, the khanates were not of Persian origin, but were ruled by Iran's Azeri feudal lords. DifaiTal (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Not at all, kindly don't alter sourced information / insert your own words, if that's what you're implying here. Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, since when it was established by Persia? Would it be fair to say that Czech Bohemia was established by Austria? This is too much my friend. Any state is a result of subsequent historical events. Those khanates would not exist if there were no Seljuk conquest with the subsequent Mongol invasion. I suggest to rephrase this paragraph. OrkhanScience (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we follow what WP:RS says, not our own personal opinion. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your notice, I am supporting that. But as you may know, we can manipulate historical articles by dumping here all biased books. We all well know that certain academics do have their agenda or simply just don't bother with details. I kindly ask you to answer my statement not refer me to policies.

Bluntly naming khanates "Persian" is very bold statement to make. Just some academic has such opinion doesn't make your revision of this page valid. Lets do our work in Good Faith. As I already said, that would be the same thing if name Bohemia -- Austrian Kingdom, or Scotland - English Kingdom. OrkhanScience (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason I am not answering your comparison is because its pointless, as per my previous comment. If you think any of these scholars are “biased” and that it’s a problem, you need to present evidence that demonstrates so. Perhaps take it to WP:RSN. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I was just stating my opinion. I didn't make any changes. DifaiTal (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Azerbaijani khanate

Except that the khanates are ethnically Azeri, most of the sources mention Azerbaijani khanates.So why is the title written as the khanates of the Caucasus?.I know that even now there are discussions about the political geography of azerbaijan. However, during the Safavid era, these khanates were called ( In Safavi times, the name "Azerbaijan" was applied to all the Muslim-ruled khanates of the eastern Caucasus, alongside the area south of the Aras River.) Azerbaijani khanates.This term was also used during the Russian Empire period.Is there any large source about the khanates of the caucasian? Spasticgamer (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

@brandmaster@Golden@HistoryofIran Spasticgamer (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

@Brandmeister Spasticgamer (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Except that the khanates are ethnically Azeri

They were not.

most of the sources mention Azerbaijani khanates.

They do not.

However, during the Safavid era, these khanates were called ( In Safavi times, the name "Azerbaijan" was applied to all the Muslim-ruled khanates of the eastern Caucasus, alongside the area south of the Aras River.) Azerbaijani khanates.This term was also used during the Russian Empire period.

You read that from Azerbaijan (toponym). You might also want to read the rest of its info, including that the Azeris first emerged as an ethnic group after 1918, and that Azerbaijan was the historical name of the area in northwestern Iran. Also, have you edited in Wikipedia before? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it ethnic? If the ethnicity is not Azeri, why does the article say that the khanates are of Azerbaijani origin?. moreover, there are many sources that even in the sources of the article, the term azerbaijan khanates is more than the caucasian khanates. Spasticgamer (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Huttenbach, Henry R. (1990), Soviet Nationality Policies, Mansell, p. 222, The pattern of the Russian conquest varied: in some cases, notably in the Azerbaijani khanate of Ganja, the emirate of Bukhara, the khanate of Kokand and Turkmenistan, violence and bloodshed were involved.Nahaylo, Bohdan; Swoboda, Victor (1990), Soviet Disunion. A History of the Nationalities Problem in the USSR, Simon and Schuster, p. 12, Its inhabitants being Shiite, the Azerbaijani khanate was more closely linked with Persia than with their Turkish kin. Peter the Great defeated Persia and annexed the Derbent and Baku regions of Azerbaijan in 1724. Spasticgamer (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Swietochowski, Tadeusz (2004), "Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia", Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521522455, Spasticgamer (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Even in this article itself, 65% mentions the Azerbaijani khanates, but there is only one source that I can not support the Caucasian khanates. Spasticgamer (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Cherrypicking sources from this article is not really helping. And even if thats 65%, thats thanks to the cherrypicking of overenthusiastic users - two can play that game if need be. Also, you did not answer my question: Have you edited in Wikipedia before? HistoryofIran (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You really don't answer any of my questions logically. as if you want je, it should be like that in wikipedia. I won't argue with you because it doesn't make any sense. As for your question, no, I haven't been on wikipedia before. Spasticgamer (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

You really don't answer any of my questions logically. as if whatever you want should be in wikipedia. I won't argue with you because it doesn't make any sense. As for your question, no, I haven't been on wikipedia before. Spasticgamer (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Or perhaps I give you answers you just don’t like. And thanks for your answer, that’s all I needed. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not an answer I don't like. You just don't answer logically, that's all. You see wikipedia only from your own perspective and do not respect any other opinion. have a nice day. Spasticgamer (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

You seem to “know” a lot about me despite being new to Wikipedia. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Khanate

Khanates were and are called khanlug ir khanlıg in both Iran and Azerbaijan. Please check this. And also referring Armenian sources instead of Persian, Russian, Azerbaijani sources is funny actually. 188.253.216.219 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

1) No source for your claims, and also contradicted by the WP:RS in the article. Unless you're referring to the historical region in northern Iran, Azerbaijan did not exist back then [1] [2]

2) Azerbaijani "sources" are not WP:RS because they engage in historical falsification/negationism [3] [4] [5] HistoryofIran (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no Wikipedia rule that labels all the Azerbaijani sources as 'not WP:RS'. If there is, let me know.

2. Azerbaijani sources are encouraged to be added by Lewis University's James N. Tallon in his review to George A. Bournoutian's book that @HistoryofIran considers to be a WP:RS.

Quote: Bournoutian is less familiar with the Turkish/Azeri literature and these works are

not present in his bibliography: their inclusion would improve this book.(Link)

3. As far as the existence of Azerbaijan north to Aras (or out of Northern Iran) is concerned, we should turn to the same book written by George A. Bournoutian and promoted by @HistoryofIran:

Note: the words highlighted in bold are direct quotes from the Bornoutian's book. Stars are added by me.

Link for the book: (redacted) Pages: 16-17 of PDF.

First, Bournoutian considers the claim of (unnamed) 'modern Azeri historians and geographers view it a single state that has been separated into “northern” and “southern” sectors and which will be united in the future', considering it (the claim) unsubstantiated that, NEVERTHELESS, rests on a number of factors

Among the factors listed by Bournoutian are as follows:

b) The khanate of Nakhichevan and parts of southern Karabagh (the Qapanat) had been, for a short period, included in the administrative division of the Iranian province of Azarbayjan

c) Following the Treaty of Gulistan, the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan and their khans were subordinate to `Abbas Mirza, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian forces in Tabriz (Azarbayjan)'.

and last but not least

d) The Tadhkirat Al-Muluk, 5 an important Persian source on the administration of Iran in the last years of the Safavids****, seems to include the three provinces of Chukhur-e Sa`d (Yerevan and Nakhichevan), Karabagh (Ganja and Karabagh) and Shirvan (Shirvan, Baku, Kuba and Sheki) as being under the governorship (beglerbegi) of Azarbayjan centered in Tabriz.6

P.S: while stating that Although the overwhelming* number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, Bournoutian, on the same page, provided more sources proving other way around, claiming that 'at least two nineteenth-century Russian sources occasionally confuseoccasionally confuse some of the khanates of the South Caucasus as being part of what they refer to as “Aderbaidzhan'.

Yet, none of the Bournoutian's comments provides direct and unequivocal statement that the term of Azerbaijan or Aderbeijan extended North to Aras, or as a region restricted within contemporary North Iran, as @HistoryofIran noted in his comment.

P.P.S: in another comment he remarks that "The term Azarbayjan which stands before this enumeration refers perhaps (italics mine) to the whole four provinces, similarly to the “Khorasan” in the north-east, although such an abusive use of the term (italics mine) would be incorrect and not supported by geographical works. In fact, the province of the governor-general of Tabriz alone covered most of the historical Azarbayjan.” Minorsky then lists the following districts as being under the Beglerbegi of Tabriz: Astara, Maragheh, Qarajedagh, Chors, Qapanat [present-day southern part of Zangezur in Armenia], **Hashtrud, Mishkin, Sarab, Ardabil, Salmas, Marand, Khoy, Urmiyeh, parts of Mughan and parts of Talesh, ibid.,164–165.

P.P.S: the way Bournoutian interpreted the XIX century Russian sources is just another topic. Long story short, he misrepresented some original texts.

• overwhelming: not all.
  • present-day southern part of Zangezur in Armenia is located North to Aras and out of contemporary Northern Iran, again.
    • Although, it is not clear to me what exactly @HistoryofIran refers to as "Historical Azerbaijan in North Iran", we can learn them from the sources [provided] to support his claim: as one can notivce, many of them are based on the same idea that 'there was no Azerbaijan North to Aras before 1918'. @HistoryofIran adds the list of the sources, making an impression that there are no sources rejecting, doubting or clarifying the idea(as Bournoutian actually did). In fact, they can be found in the Bournoutian's source that he used in the ethnonym paragraph, and avoided to use in the toponym paragraph.

Hew Folly (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not reading all that (WP:TLDR). You are not a scholar, so keep the personal analysis to yourself (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). We already have rules such as WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:UNDUE (which you have been told countless times) - and based on scholarship, Azeri sources are not WP:RS. Didn't look into the link about James Tallon, he is a philosopher and not even an expert in the topic, which shows you do not actually care about credentials as you claim. Bournoutian is not only WP:RS, but is a champion against the historical falsification made by the Soviets and Azerbaijani governments, I'm sure you're going to love this quote which you ignored in the list; "Bournoutian’s scholarship has always been relevant. However, today it is even more essential as Armenia and Artsakh are facing monumental challenges due to the 2020 Artsakh War. One of these challenges deals with the intentional falsification of Artsakh’s history by Azeri scholars and their acolytes in the West. Bournoutian has been on the forefront of combatting this revisionist history, which has now infiltrated western academia through Azeri-funded centers and thanks to some Western scholars who seem infatuated by the Aliyev regime." -- Bedross Der Matossian, In Memoriam, Dr. George Bournoutian (1943–2021). I'll leave this list here for others to read, since you clearly don't want to as it clashes with your POV.

The ethnonym "Azerbaijani" is very recent

"Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25). "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14 "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35 "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68 "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): page 37 "In fact, the change in defining national identity in Azerbaijan was a result of a combination of developments in the 1930s in Turkey, Iran, Germany, and the Soviet Union. The article concludes that these developments left Soviet rulers no choice but to construct an independent Azerbaijani identity." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013). "The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s". Iranian Studies. 46 (4). p. 511 "A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR." Ahmadoghlu, R. Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Nations and Nationalism. 2021; 27. Wiley Online Library. p. 549 "Azerbaijan first tried to create a national identity in 1918 at the time of the formation of the first Azerbaijan republic. Because of linguistic factors and despite its deep and long connection with Iran, Azerbaijan constructed its identity on the basis of Turkism and even pan-Turkism." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Edited by Shireen Hunter. Lexington Books. p. 29 "In the pre-national era, both north and the south of the Aras River (Shervan, Mughan, Qarabagh, and Azerbaijan) were provinces, akin to Lorestan or Khorasan of an all-Iranian imperial structure. Following the Russian conquest of the Turkic-speaking regions in the South Caucasus in the nineteenth century, a thin layer of intelligentsia emerged in Baku and began discussing the characteristics of a distinct Azerbaijani identity. The Republic of Azerbaijan was established in May 1918 by the same elite. This short experience was abruptly halted when the Red Army occupied Transcaucasia in 1920/21. Subsequently, the Bolsheviks launched their modern, state-driven nation building projects in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Contemporary Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speakers and their national history could be centered on a Turkic ethno-linguistic identity. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed elsewhere, the Bolsheviks did not prefer this solution. The Azerbaijani national identity and historical narrative constructed after 1937 stressed the indigenous nature of the Azerbaijani people and was based on a territorial definition. The territorial approach found support at the highest level—from Joseph Stalin himself." -- Yilmaz, H. (2015). A Family Quarrel: Azerbaijani Historians against Soviet Iranologists. Iranian Studies, 48(5), p. 770 "Even as the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijanis continues to be a matter of academic debate, most scholars agree that Azerbaijan, as a national entity, emerged after 1918, with the declaration of the first Republic of Azerbaijan after Word War I" -- p. 585, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023. "At the beginning of the 20th century, the heavily used name “Turks” for the Muslims of eastern Caucasus was replaced by the term “Azerbaijani.” It has dominated since the 1930s as a result of the Soviet policy of indigenization, largely promoted by Josef Stalin" - p. 254, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015. "Besides Azerbaijan, which as a historical territory in the 12th century has been illustrated in the maps of that era as an area in modern northwestern Iran and distinguished from Arrān, we should mention the term “Azerbaijani”. Prior to the late 19th century and early 20th century, the term “Azerbaijani” and “Azerbaijani Turk” had never been used as an ethnonym. Such ethnonyms did not exist. During the 19th century and early 20th century, Russian sources primarily referred to the Turcophone Muslim population as “Tatars” which was a general term that included a variety of Turkish speaker. Under the Mussavatist government, in 1918 and during the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the term “Azeri people” referred to all inhabitants while the Turkish-speaking portion was called “Azeri Turk”. Thus the concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920 and Azerbaijan before this era had been a simple geographical area." -- pp. 16-17, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. "Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill "The ethno-genesis of the Azerbaijani nation can thus be traced, in a formal, bureaucratic manner at least, to the late 1930s. Hardly unique in the history of the Soviet or other states, the Azerbaijani case demonstrates the logic of Stalinist national-state construction, whereby the formation of a Soviet republic named Azerbaijan required the existence of an Azerbaijani nation to inhabit it." p. 229, Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict, Brill "The South Caucasian Muslims lacked clear cultural or religious boundaries as late as the nineteenth century. Divided into Shiʿa and Sunni populations, with a vernacular language close to Turkish and a literary language still dominated by Persian and then Ottoman Turkish, with no prior experience of statehood and no overall delimitation of the historical homeland, they had to define a separate identity. That construction essentially took place under Soviet rule and on the basis of a Soviet political agenda, even though its Pan-Turkist agenda predates that period and appears to have been influenced by some of the Ottoman leaders, in particular Enver Pasha and his younger half-brother, Nuri Pasha. The latter was in fact in Elisavetpol (Gandja) just before the proclamation of independence and subsequently formed the Islamic Army of the Caucasus which captured Baku in mid-September 1918. In a way, imperialism built the nation, its historiography, and its identity. Earlier processes also contributed to these developments: the tsarist territorial subdivisions of Transcaucasia in the 19th century, the growth of Baku, Armenian-Azeri economic antagonisms, and the Armenian-Tatar War" idem, pp. 232-233 "The Muslims of Transcaucasia were predominantly Shi’ite Muslims and had an Iranian culture. Like the Turkic speakers of Iran, they spoke an Oghuz Turkic language with an extensive Persian vocabulary, identical (or at least very similar) to the language spoken in the Iranian region of Azerbaijan and they used Persian as a literary language. In fact, they were mainstream Iranians, unlike the Transcaucasian Georgians and Armenians, who, despite the absence of independence for centuries, had developed a sense of national identity, mainly due to their ‘national’ Christian churches." - p. 154, The Karabakh Conflict, Conflict and Peace in Central Eurasia. International Comparative Social Studies. Vol. 31. Brill.

The long history of historical negationism/revisionism by Soviet and Azeri "sources", which scholarship does not take seriously

"The republication of classical and medieval sources with omissions, with the replacement of the term "Armenian state" by "Albanian state" and with other distortions of the original manuscripts was another way to play down the Armenian role in early and medieval Transcaucasia. ... The Azeri scholars did all of this by order of the Soviet and Party authorities of Azerbaijan, rather than through free will." Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. Senri Ethnological Studies. pp. 160, 196–97 "Bournoutian’s scholarship has always been relevant. However, today it is even more essential as Armenia and Artsakh are facing monumental challenges due to the 2020 Artsakh War. One of these challenges deals with the intentional falsification of Artsakh’s history by Azeri scholars and their acolytes in the West. Bournoutian has been on the forefront of combatting this revisionist history, which has now infiltrated western academia through Azeri-funded centers and thanks to some Western scholars who seem infatuated by the Aliyev regime." -- Bedross Der Matossian, In Memoriam, Dr. George Bournoutian (1943–2021) "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." -- Robert Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press, 2001. p. 291 "It should be noted that such falsifications with regards to the regional history of Iranians and other groups, to the point of denial and falsification of their history (e.g. denial of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides due to modern Turkic nationalism or claims that many Iranian figures and societies starting from the Medes, Scythians and Parthians were Turks), are still prevalent in countries that adhere to Pan-Turkist nationalism such as Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan. These falsifications, which are backed by state and state backed non-governmental organizational bodies, range from elementary school all the way to the highest level of universities in these countries. Due to prevalent political situation in the world, where historical truths are sacrificed for political and financial reasons, falsification of history has even reached some authors who claim affiliation with Western academia as noted in the Part I of this book and exposed in other books such as Vyronis 1993. Another recent example was the desecration of Armenian monuments in Nakhjavan." -- Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. p. 85 (note 277). "Azeri scholars, until some two decades ago, did not deny the historic Armenian presence in Mountainous Karabagh. In fact, the works of Mirza Jamal,'Mirza Adigozal Beg, Ahmad Beg, and Bakikhanov, mentioning an Armenian presence in the region, were printed in Baku. Everything tumed upside down in 1988, following the demands of the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh to secede from Azerbaijan. Azeri politicians, journalists, and, as will be demonstrated below, even academics, in order to justify their government's anti-Armenian actions in Mountainous Karabagh, avowed that the region was never part of historic Armenia and that the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh were newcomers who had gradually arrived there only after 1828." -- Bournoutian, George (2011). The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province. A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Mazda Publishers. p. 427 "A more recent revisionist view claims that in the nineteenth century Russia and Iran conspired to divide Azerbaijan between themselves. Considering that Iran fought two devastating wars with Russia (1803–1813 and 1824–1828), the idea of a Russo-Iranian conspiracy against Azerbaijan is totally absurd. However, this is exactly what the Azerbaijani nationalist poet Bakhtiar Vahabzadeh claims in his poem titled “Gulistan.” The poem refers to the 1813 Treaty of Golistan, according to which Iran lost part of its Transcaucasian possessions to Russia. This view is now widely accepted by Azerbaijani nationalists. The result has been that Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet national identity is not only Turko-centric but also very much anti-Iran. In many ways, it has been developed in opposition to Iran as “the other,” not only as a state but also as a culture and historical entity. Being Azerbaijani has come to mean denying any Iran connection." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Lexington Books. p. 31 "This certainly is the case with Zia Bunyatov, who has made an incomplete and defective Russian translation of Bakikhanov's text. Not only has he not translated any of the poems in the text, but he does not even mention that he has not done so, while he does not translate certain other prose parts of the text without indicating this and why. This is in particular disturbing because he suppresses, for example, the mention of territory inhabited by Armenians, thus not only falsifying history, but also not respecting Bakikhanov's dictum that a historian should write without prejudice, whether religious, ethnic, political or otherwise. [...] Guilistam-i Iram translated with commentary by Ziya M. Bunyatov (Baku. 1991), p.11, where the translator has deleted the words 'and Armenia' from the text, which shows, as indicated in the introduction, that his translation should be used with circumspection, because this is not the only example of omissions from Bakikhanov's text." -- pp. xvi and 5. The Heavenly Rose-Garden: A History of Shirvan & Daghestan. pp. xvi, 5. Willem M. Floor and Hasan Javadi "The young Azeri's seemingly innocuous, abstract archaeological paper was a deliberate political provocation: all the crosses on today's territory of Azerbaijan, including significantly Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan, were defined as Albanian, a people who in turn were seen as the direct ancestors of today's Azeris. // The rest, as they say, is history. The Armenian archaeologists were upset and threatened to walk out en bloc. Protests were filed, and even Russian scholars from Leningrad objected to this blatantly political appropriation, posing as scholarship. [...] // Thus, minimally, two points must be made. Patently false cultural origin myths are not always harmless." -- p. 154, Philip L. Kohl (1996). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge University Press "In the Republic of Azerbaijan, the long Soviet practice of historic falsification has left a legacy which has distorted both the views of many Azerbaijanis of Iran and the true nature of their cultural, ethnic and historic connections. The following are some examples of this process of falsification, which, incidentally, in the last few years, has been picked up and given new credence by a number of Western commentators. Several myths with significant policy implications shape the Azerbaijanis' views of their country, its origins, and its relations to Iran." -- p. 106, Shireen Hunter (1998). Shireen Hunter: Iran and Transcaucasia in the Post-Soviet Era. Routledge. "As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan." -- p. xvi. Bournoutian, George (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. "In fact, after Stalin’s failure to annex Iranian Azarbayjan in 1946, Soviet historians not only proclaimed that the khanates were never part of Iran and were independent entities, but began (and have continued to do so after 1991) to refer to Iranian Azarbayjan as south Azerbaijan, which had been separated from north Azerbaijan, see V. Leviatov, Ocherki iz istorii Azerbaidzhana v XVIII veke (Baku, 1948). Such absurd notions are completely negated by Article III of the Golestan Treaty and Article I of the treaties between Russia and the khans of Qarabagh, Shakki and Shirvan; see Appendix 4." -- Bournoutian, George (2021). "Georgia and the Khanates of South Caucasus in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century" in From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 249 (note 4)" "In a book by Aziz Alakbarli, published by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2007 – and no less edited by Academician Budag Badagov, Prof. Vali Aliyev and Dr. Jafar Giyassi of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences – the entire territory of the current Republic of Armenia is presented as Western Azerbaijan. The Monuments of Western Azerbaijan, reprinted several times in recent years and in different languages, opens with “The map [of ] the Ancient Turkish-Oghuz land – Western Azerbaijan (present day the Republic of Armenia)” [sic!]. According to this “study”, endorsed by the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, all monuments in Armenia are of “Turkic”, “Turkish” or “Arman-Turkish” origin, including the first-century Roman Temple of Garni, “referring to ancient Gargar Turks” [sic!], and the Cathedral of the Holy See of the Armenian Apostolic Church as a 7th-century “Arman-Turkish Christian temple Uchkilsa/Echmiadzin”.19 This kind of re-writing of “history” is based solely on sources produced by Azerbaijani authors, notably prominent academician and national figure Ziya Buniyatov, whom President Heydar Aliyev described as “the constructor of our identity and self-consciousness”.20 This constructed narrative is echoed in the political discourse of President Aliyev and is woven into state policies, diplomacy, public relations, identity construction and, critically, in the construction of extreme anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. -- pp. 586–587, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023. "From the mid-2000s the notion of western Azerbaijan converged with revived interest in the khanates in a wide-ranging fetishisation of the Erivan (Irevan) khanate as a historically Azerbaijani entity. Covering some 7,500 square kilometres and most of present-day Armenia (if not exactly coextensive with it), the Erivan khanate has undergone the same kind of transformations as Caucasian Albania before it. Contemporary Azerbaijani historiography depicts the Erivan khanate as an ‘Azerbaijani state’, populated by autochthonous Azerbaijani Turks and sacralised as the burial ground of semi-mythological figures from the Turkic pantheon.73 ‘Azerbaijani Turk’ and ‘Muslim’ are used interchangeably in this literature, although contemporary demographic surveys differentiate the latter into Persians, Shia and Sunni Kurds and Turkic tribes.74 Emulating the nationalist scientism of Samvel Karapetyan, catalogues of lost Azerbaijani heritage depict a Turkic palimpsest beneath almost every monument and religious site in Armenia – whether Christian or Muslim." p. 117, Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Edinburgh University Press. "Azerbaijani historian F. Shushinku’s insists that it one of the servants of the royal court, jealous of Panah, whispered Panah’s intentions to Nadir Shah. With these claims we are faced with the comedic invention of Azerbaijani historical revisionism, which is miles from historical truth." - p. 5, Maghalyan, A. (2024). The Origin of the Khanate of Karabakh. Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies. Brill Publishers

The toponym of "Azerbaijan" has historically been used for the northern Iranian region. Later to be adopted by the Azerbaijani Republic of 1918

"Let us conclude with an important point. The pre-1918 maps indicate various names of regions or states north of the river Araxes, such as “Albania” or “Arran”. No map knows of “Azerbaijan” north of the Araxes. This name was applied for centuries to the northern province of Iran, originally called Atropatene, around Tabriz, i.e. south of the Araxes. The Encyclopaedia of Islam published in 1913 leaves no room for doubt: “Nowadays, under ‘Adharbaydjan’ is understood the north-western province of Persia”. The name “Azerbaijan”, which the present-day republic adopted in 1918, is, therefore, a result of later socio-political developments.In the 1930s, this name was adopted by the Soviet authorities: it suited Stalin who considered expansion to Iran" - p. 42, Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict, Brill "The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris "In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer. "The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. "The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015. "The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris. "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica "Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1) "Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill

HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I am not a scholar, and neither are you. So revise WP:NOR. Although, I can read and comprehense the Russian texts.

2. None of the sources that you provided assert that all Azerbaijani sources are unreliable, a priori, the conclusion you drew, while not being a scholar.

3. Some of your sources target the non-historians (such as poets, as if it is related to history institutions), and most of your sources target individuals and not a nation, as a whole. Hence, the arguement that 'the Azerbaijani sources are unreliable by definition' doesn't simply exist. It was invented by you. Put another way, neither minority, nor majority issues are relevant.

4. On contrary to your false claim that James N.Tallon is a phillosopher, he is a Historian. Got his PhD from the Chicago University (which is more prestigious than UCLA, Georgetown etc. wehere your 'experts' belong) and, what is more important, worked as an Associate Professor at Department of History, as of 2019 (Link) chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.lewisu.edu/academics/history/pdf/James-Tallon-2017-V3.pdf

You may add it to your negationist 'collection'. Or may not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Hew Folly (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)--Hew Folly (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Hew Folly (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

5. And I would like to provide the source from another prominent expert in the field, Robert N. Suny, who wrote about historical negationism in Armenia.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/340148

You may add it to your negationist 'collection'. Or may not.

1. I am not a scholar, and neither are you. So revise WP:NOR. Although, I can read and comprehense the Russian texts.

I am not the one reviewing a scholar with 1000 more credentials and expertise than me. Your deductions mean nada. Read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH this time.

2. None of the sources that you provided assert that all Azerbaijani sources are unreliable, a priori, the conclusion you drew, while not being a scholar.

It seems you need to read the sources a few times. Azeri sources, being heavily monitored and sponsored by the regime, are not WP:RS as they engage in heavy historical falsifications and even anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian sentiments. All mainly thanks to the Soviets.

3. Some of your sources target the non-historians (such as poets, as if is related to historians), and most of your sources target individuals and not a nation, as a whole. Hence, the arguement that 'the Azerbaijani sources are unreliable by definition' doesn't simply exist. It was invented by you. Put another way, neither minority, nor majority issues are relevant.

Same reply as above.

4. On contrary to your false claim that James N.Tallon is a phillosopher, he is a Historian. Got his PhD from the Chicago University (which is more prestigious that UCLA, Georgetown etc. wehere your 'experts' belong) and, what is more important, worked as an Associate Professor at Department of History as of 2019 (Link)

The philosopher part is an error on my part. Regardless, you do not seem to know what "expert" means. Please read the policies up above to get a better idea.

5. And I would like to provide the source from another prominent expert in the field, Robert N. Suny, who wrote about historical negationism in Armenia.

Classical whataboutism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

1.I am not the one reviewing a scholar with 1000 more credentials and expertise than me. Your deductions mean nada. Read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH this time.

If so, why didn't you use his quotes in the source that you provided.

I already pointed at that.

2."It seems you need to read the sources a few times. Azeri sources, being heavily monitored and sponsored by the regime, are not WP:RS as they engage in heavy historical falsifications and even anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian sentiments. All mainly thanks to the Soviets".

Azerbaijan is neither an academic journal, nor an institution, so to be characterized as a whole.

As far as the government intervention is concerned, Iran is one of the worst countries for the academic freeedom. Yet, you provide "sources" from the institution affiliated with the Iranian government institutions. One of them is the Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies that you refered to several times, peddling it as 'leading scholarship'. Ridiculous.

3. The philosopher part is an error on my part. Regardless, you do not seem to know what "expert" means. Please read the policies up above to get a better idea.

If James N.Tallon is not an expert in this topic, then would you mind to tell about the degree and/or expertise that Eldar Mamedov has? Do some background checking. before calling someone "a leading scholar".

4"Classical whataboutism".

I appreciate that you do not deny the fact of nagationism/biased revisionism in Armenia. What is not clear is why you peddle the Armenian government-affiliated institutions, such as those mentioned above.

P.S: And I think that the overwhelming majority of your references promoting for the colective responsibility of All Azerbaijani sources rest on WP:SYNTH. I already explained that above: Hew Folly (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not replying fully to your barely intelligible rant which is full of errors, and unlike you, I am backing everything I say with WP:RS, you are just using your opinion, which still means nada. I find it hilarious that Azeri sources are still WP:RS according to but you "Iranian" and "Armenian" sources are not, more hypocrisy and more proof that you are WP:NOTHERE. I'm also closing the discussion here, better off reporting you when I have time for your blatant misrepresentation of WP:RS and denial of scholarship because it clashes with your POV. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Not replying fully to your barely intelligible rant which is full of errors...I find it hilarious that Azeri sources are still WP:RS according to but you "Iranian" and "Armenian" sources are not,"

Could you please explain the underlined part?

First, refrain from using a moral characterization such as "hypocrisy".

It is good that you do not deny the fact that Iranian academia is dependent on the local government, and does not have freedom. What is not good is that you promote sources from unfree academia despite telling others not to do the same.

However, unlike you, I did not necessarily mark (and do not mark) all Armenian and Iranian sources as not WP:RS by definition.I simply pointed out the contradiction between what you claim and the sources you provide. Hew Folly (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Dont put words in my mouth. It is quite impressive that you still do not understand that we use WP:RS, not our personal opinions. I can easily dismantle your claims, but why bother when its full of more WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:POV? You're just going to continue nonetheless. HistoryofIran (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#:~:text=This%20policy%20does%20not%20apply%20to%20talk%20pages%20and%20other%20pages%20which%20evaluate%20article%20content%20and%20sources%2C%20such%20as%20deletion%20discussions%20or%20policy%20noticeboards.

Quote: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Hew Folly (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

'Khanate' derived from... 'khanut'iun'

Quote: 'The word "khanate" is an Anglicized form of the Russian word khanstvo and the Armenian word khanut'iun'.

Is there any reliable source suggesting that the word 'khanate' is an anglicized form of the Armenian 'khanut'iun' word? Hew Folly (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hew Folly, kindly cease this. You can literally see that is cited by a WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani Khanates North to Araxes/Aras

According to the George Bournoutian's book, the toponym of Azerbaijan was used in reference to the territory of the contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan long before 1918.

" The khanate of Nakhichevan and parts of southern Karabagh (the Qapanat) had been, for a short period, included in the administrative division of the Iranian province of Azarbayjan" --Bournoutian, George (2016). p. XV The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. " Following the Treaty of Gulistan, the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan and their khans were subordinate to `Abbas Mirza, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian forces in Tabriz (Azarbayjan)" --Bournoutian, George (2016). p.XV The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. " The Tadhkirat Al-Muluk, 5 an important Persian source on the administration of Iran in the last years of the Safavids****, seems to include the three provinces of Chukhur-e Sa`d (Yerevan and Nakhichevan), Karabagh (Ganja and Karabagh) and Shirvan (Shirvan, Baku, Kuba and Sheki) as being under the governorship (beglerbegi) of Azarbayjan centered in Tabriz.6--Bournoutian, George (2016). p.XV The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. " "The term Azarbayjan which stands before this enumeration refers perhaps (italics mine) to the whole four provinces, similarly to the “Khorasan” in the north-east, although such an abusive use of the term (italics mine) would be incorrect and not supported by geographical works. In fact, the province of the governor-general of Tabriz alone covered most of the historical Azarbayjan.” Minorsky then lists the following districts as being under the Beglerbegi of Tabriz: Astara, Maragheh, Qarajedagh, Chors, Qapanat [present-day southern part of Zangezur in Armenia], **Hashtrud, Mishkin, Sarab, Ardabil, Salmas, Marand, Khoy, Urmiyeh, parts of Mughan and parts of Talesh--Bournoutian, George (2016). pp. XV-XVI. The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.

Hew Folly (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2024‎ (UTC)

So now Bournoutian is reliable? You dismissed him a moment ago because he clashed with your POV, despite him being a leading scholar in this field. Worst of all, this is incredibly dishonest WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SYNTH WP:CHERRYPICKING. This is obviously administratively related, not geographically. Bournoutian actually mentions that these are the arguments made by Azeri scholars in their usual rewriting of history, which you blatantly omitted. What the full quote says;

"Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian,2 as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it a single state that has been separated into “northern” and “southern” sectors and which will be united in the future.3 This unsubstantiated claim rests on a number of factors:

"a) Although politically the two rarely formed one region, since the majority of the population of Iranian Azarbayjan spoke the same Turkic dialect as the overwhelming numbers of Muslim Tatars in the South Caucasus, modern Azerbaijani historians view the people and the two regions as one. One cannot argue that linguistically and, to a much lesser extent, ethnically and religiously (Shi`a form of Islam) the two regions are very similar and could be seen as one. Hence, after the rise of their national consciousness at the start of the twentieth century, it was convenient for the Muslim Tatars living in the South Caucasus to refer to themselves as Azeris and to their newly formed independent republic (1918) as Azerbaijan.4 The objections of the weak and dying Qajar Iran were ignored."

"b) The khanate of Nakhichevan and parts of southern Karabagh (the Qapanat) had been, for a short period, included in the administrative division of the Iranian province of Azarbayjan."

"c) Following the Treaty of Gulistan, the khanates of Nakhichevan and Yerevan and their khans were subordinate to `Abbas Mirza, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian forces in Tabriz (Azarbayjan)."

"d) The Tadhkirat Al-Muluk,5 an important Persian source on the administration of Iran in the last years of the Safavids, seems to include the three provinces of Chukhur-e Sa`d (Yerevan and Nakhichevan), Karabagh (Ganja and Karabagh) and Shirvan (Shirvan, Baku, Kuba and Sheki) as being under the governorship (beglerbegi) of Azarbayjan centered in Tabriz.6"

And then the Minorsky quote is included as note number 6, which I don't think you understood. Also, nowhere does it say "The Azerbaijani Khanates North to Araxes/Aras" as your title included. As I said, this is clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS and will not be tolerated if you continue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My title included the "territory of the contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan" which was mentioned by Bournoutian himself(here).

"This is obviously administratively related, not geographically". No, it is not obvious: Bournoutian did not specify the clear difference bewteen Geography and Administration. Do you remeber what you told me here(Link)? Hew Folly (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. Either way, you blatantly misrespresented a source to engage in historical falsification. Do it again, and you will be reported. You just have to accept that scholarship does not consider "Azerbaijan" to have been a historical name for the Caucasus, that Azeris are a recent ethnonym, and that Azerbaijan, starting from the Soviets, have to tried to change this reality and much more. Also, I've expanded the list even further, I'm sure you will like it [6]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

1. You make false accusation. And have not admitted it, yet, despite I informed you about that.

2. Rouben Galichian is an engineer who claims to be an expert in maps, many of his books are self-published.

3. You are not in charge of speaking on behalf of all the scholarship. Specifically, if the scholarship you refer to consists of such 'experts' as Galichian. Hew Folly (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

1. You make false accusation. And have not admitted it, yet, despite I informed you about that.

It's really not that hard to make a working link. Also, thanks for giving more proof that you have WP:CIR issues.

2. Rouben Galichian is an engineer who claims to be an expert in maps, many of his books are self-published.

You might want to click "Read more". Rouben Galichian is a cartographer who was recommended by the Brill published Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict (you know, one of the many sources you are ignoring) in regards to the widespread and state sponsored historical falsification by the Azeri government. Also, you must be really desperate to pick one of out dozen sources.

3. You are not in charge of speaking on behalf of all the scholarship. Specifically, if the scholarship you refer to consists of such 'experts' as Galichian. Hew Folly (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

More cherrypicking and WP:REHASH of the same hypocrisy up above. Just a moment ago you were again sponsoring your own personal deductions [7], yet it's not okay if I do it, even though I am not? The sources speak for themselves, you just have to accept it. Also, I'm ending this discussion here, you're not bringing anything but your own opinion/deductions. Better off reporting you. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:REHASH ? That is what you do. Check this .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khanates_of_the_Caucasus#:~:text=2.%22It%20seems,leading%20scholarship%27.%20Ridiculous.

Wasn't Galichian the same author who claimed that Aghdam was not destroyed? Hew Folly (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)