This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Azerbaijan Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Armenia Mid‑importance Khanate of Nakhichevan is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the redirect attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

No any sources or quotations! This article is seems to be a full POV since July... Andranikpasha 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted deletion of info by anon, it appears to be banned User:Azad chai. Grandmaster (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grandmaster, please provide sources of the period which show it was called and written that way. Also provide name of the encyclopedias which provide such a wording, any material of the period of the Khanate, which provide any written Azerbaijani term for the Khanate. Because as you know, unless you provide sources to back up your claim it is going to be called original research. VartanM (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when we need that for the names? Show me a naming convention that requires all the above to include a name in the native language. Grandmaster (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This name as it is in Azerbaijani. I support Grandmaster. Why we need a source. Do we need a source for the name of Germany, or for example, Tirol in different languages--Dacy69 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I supported (actually I think I might have initiated) the name change of the entry for "Nakhichevan" to that of "Nakhchivan". I did this because Nakhchivan is the closest rendition that can be found to the place's current official name rendered using the Azeri alphabet (Naxçıvan). However, this argument does not apply to this entry, which is dealing with an historical entity which no longer exists. Some strong supporting evidence is required for it to be changed to "Nakhchivan Khanate". I have a feeling that the form "Nakhichevan khanate" will be far more common in scholarly literature and, since there is no native population to satisfy, the most common name found in legitimate sources should be the form chosen for the title of this entry. Meowy 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the suggestion that the Azeri name (or, to be more correct, the name Azerbaijan now calls the Khanate) should be used - I see no reason for this. This is not the Azeri wikipedia, it is the English wikipedia. It would be like having the Japanese name for the Pacific ocean in the English wikipedia entry for Pacific ocean. Meowy 01:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the Azeri term simply for the fact that this has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan, no connection at all so it is not relevent. The only relevent term I see could be the Perso-Arabic script as written at the time. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we remove modern Russian script from the articles about Russian gubernias (governorates)? I see no logic in your clams. Grandmaster (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Kazan Governorate. It has the name in both old and modern Russian script and modern Tatar script too. I see no problem with doing the same here. Grandmaster (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a fallacious logic, the Russian alphabet existed since the 10th century. That's when the modern Russian alphabet appeared, the only differences is that 4 letters and words which are not used anymore were eliminated. And I don't think any of the eliminate words have been used there. As for your second point. For Kazan, the Tatar script should not be there, Perso-Arabic should be used instead. You should have known this by now. VartanM (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VartanM, I think you need to assume some good faith and lighten up a bit with "You should have known this by now" lingo. I would suggest that you refer to Yerevan article, where the title of this city is actually Persian in origin, yet only the Armenian spelling is used for transliteration. Perhaps, you need to be a bit more consistent and review that page as well. Discuss your edits further. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VartanM, I'm sure you are aware that the modern Russian alphabet was introduced in 1918. By your logic, it should not be used in any historical articles, yet it is not so. So please stop inventing rules. Grandmaster (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not true. The Russian alphabet exists since the 10th century, so it can indeed be used for that far in history. In 1918 4 letters were eliminated because they were rarely used or had the same pronunciation as other letters. But in this case it doesn't apply, as none of those letters were used in that word. Besides Russian, only the Arabo-Persian script could fit here. VartanM (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atabek writing nonsense again, Yerevan is derived from Erebuni, it was written in Armenian since the fifth century. Besides the main entry refers to the city of Yerevan, this on the other hand refers to the Iranian Khanate of Nakhichevan, the Azeri name is irrelevant and amounts to POV pushing. Grandmaster, using numerical superiority by having Atabek proxy for you is only disruptive, because Atabek again brought irrelevant statements to justify the revert. VartanM (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vartan, you can see that wiki articles use both old and modern Russian scripts, so what's the problem here? Who says that we can use only Arabo-Persian script here? Do we have any special rules on that or it is just your personal preference? Sorry, we cannot be guided by your preferences, we can only stick to the rules, and they do not prohibit the use of modern alphabets. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been over 20 days since it was first removed and Grandmaster and Atabek had more then enough time to provide sources and prove us all wrong. They're failure to provide one source proves that the IP was right all along and Grandmaster is the true disruptive one.

I'm removing the Azeri term simply for the fact that it has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan and the the current Azeri language. There is no connection at all, so it is not relevant. The only relevant term I see is the Perso-Arabic script as it was written at the time. VartanM (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not need any source for Azerbaijani spelling. This was a state with Azerbaijani population and Azerbaijani rulers of Kengerli clan, later known as generals Nakhichevansky in the Russian and Soviet armies. Please show me a rule that requires a source for the native spelling. So far you haven't done that. I reverted banned user Azad chai, which does not count as an rv, and I roll back your deletion of info as well. If anyone wishes to remove the Azeri name again, please show me a rule that does not allow using Azerbaijani name. Grandmaster (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshal, why do you replace words of Griboyedov with words of Bournatian? Keep them separate, they are 2 different sources, and Griboyedov never says that there was any repatriation, and he knew better, than Bournatian. Indeed, is there any evidence that Armenians settled in Nakhichevan were descendants of those people who were deported from there? And why Muslims deported from there were not "repatriated"? All the opinions should be presented equally, and Bournatian certainly is not a more reliable source than the Russian official Griboyedov, who was personally involved in the process. Grandmaster 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did no such thing. It's ridiculous that you even raise the matter (par for the course, I suppose). We don't use primary sources for such controversial matter and you can take that to bank and the admins of Wikipedia. Bournoutian is a reliable, peer-edited, third party source, working in the 21st century with multiple Persian, Armenian and Russian sources and whose specialty is the history of Armenia and Persia during this time period. I think he would know far better than a Russian statesmen who barely had the chance to acquaint himself of the situation.

Go read the chapter in the book and review the similar comments on this page. There's so much nonsense in your post that I'm not going to comment any further. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bagramyan, some calmness in discussion would not hurt. Of course, Bournoutian is a reliable and respected scholar. I especially respect him for stating a fact in his book, that Armenians prior to Russian takeover of Iravan khanate in 19th century barely comprised 20% of population of the city of Irevan. But at the same time, Griboyedov witnessed the settlement and I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another. Atabəy (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Griboyedov was directly involved in the process, of course he knew a lot better than Bournoutian, a person with an obvious conflict of interest in this issue. Do not replace the words of Griboyedov with the words of Bournoutian, if you want to quote the latter, you can do it without removing Griboyedov. The way it is now both opinions are stated separately, which is quite in line with NPOV. Also, please mind WP:CIVIL. Grandmaster 06:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well yeah, the Muslim population of Yerevan was greater than that of the Armenians' only because Armenians were leaving the region because of the harsh rule of the khans and beks and Muslims were entering it in the centuries prior to the Russian annexation! Second, Atabek, the fact you have already been topic banned from so many Artsakh/Karabakh related articles for making disingenous and frivolous edits diminishes, if not outright nullifies, the credibility of your arguments.

To Grandmaster: I suggest you reread the rules regarding primary sources and their reliability in relation to third party sources before making such absurd comments as "of course [!] he knew a lot better than Bournoutian" I suppose then that ancient historians are far more reliable than modern scholars simply on the basis of witnessing things through their own biased perspectives then....Bournoutian utilizes official Russian documents, Turkish, Armenian, as well as Griboyedov's, works as sources, and is the foremost scholar to give an overall opinion on this time period, whereas you are still insisting on the use of a contemporary Russian politican who was stuck in his own time. It's pathetic that you're using him as the foundation for this weak argument (for that matter, place his words in quotation marks to avoid further confusion). Controversial articles aren't based on fringe primary sources and you're going to have let go of the usual brouhaha coming from the Baku school about "alien elements", "Armenian newcomers" and "land usurpers".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pls. adhere to scholarly language. Leave brouhaha for yourself. The source does not specify the ethnicity. so, you edit is not substantiated--Dacy69 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I can't restrain the "historians" from Baku in the dissemination of bullshit. Sorry Dacy, but vandalism is intolerable and it's interesting that you decided to pop up in the middle of the revert war without evening adding a letter to the talk page. The fact you reverted blindly speaks volumes of the amount of supervision is required to scrutinize your edits. Obviously you didn't even bother reading the book, which is accessible online, or checking the citations which clearly writes "Some 30,000 Armenians were encouraged to repatriate from northern Persia." (Bournotian, p. 105). Keep it up, and I'm reporting you to AA/2 and hopefully they'll do a better job than my verbal warnings.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshall, you cannot replace the source you do not like with the one that you like more. Do not replace Griboyedov, an eye witness of the process, with Bournatian. Add Bournatian after Griboyedov. If there are different views on the subject, we should present them all. This is not Armenianpedia, and we do not provide here only the opinion of the Armenian side. "Armenian newcomers" is the wording used by Griboyedov, I hope you are not going to claim that he was an Azerbaijani propagandist. He said: Если ваше сиятельство предпишете в наискорейшем времени переселить упомянутое число 500 семейств новопришедших армян в Даралагезский округ, то окажете сим истинное благодеяние Нахичеванской области. I will leave the translation to yourself, as you are fluent in Russian. In sum, please keep all the sources there, and do not replace one with another. Instead, provide all points of view. Of course, Bournatian would say that it was repatriation, but how does he know if the newcoming Armenians were descendants of those who was deported from the region before? He does not know that, of course. It is just an Armenian POV. We can include it too, along with Azerbaijani one. But the opinion of Russian officials is also important, and should not be suppressed. Grandmaster 06:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an online article somewhere in which Bournoutian expands on the population statistics and movements, an article which he wrote to criticise and counter the misuse of data and sources (including his own) by some recent Azeri sources. Anyone happen to know the url? Meowy 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it. http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html Meowy 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW that Griboyedov letter from which the "exceeded all reasonable limits" quote has been plucked needs a careful translation. From what I can gather via online translators, the comment seems to refer to possible tax-raising problems. All the newly-arrived Armenians from Persia are to be free from taxation for 6 years, and so this is going to increase the taxation level of those (mostly Tartar Muslims) who were already there (in a province already with little wealth). The old residents were beginning to protest at this probable burden, to the extent that there was a risk that they would move to Persia and there would be no revenues raised at all. Griboyedov was wanting a proportion of the newly-arrived to be moved on and resettled in other regions. The majority do seem to have gone elsewhere. Bournoutian says in that online article that only 3,883 Armenians immigrated to Nakhichevan (3,856 from Iran and 27 from Turkey) between 1828 and 1831. But 23,568 Armenian from Iran immigrated to Erevan. And it is worth remembering that a good percentage of that 23,568 would have had to pass through Nakhchivan to get there! I.e. that letter by Griboyedov seems to represent a snapshot of a passing moment in time, and isn't necessarily representative of the longterm picture. Meowy 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. This is a very interesting note. Griboyedov can be included but it should not be used to create a false impression that there was a large number of Armenians who came to Nakhichevan. As Bournoutian shows that number was not large. Capasitor (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presented all existing opinions separately. Neutral sources call this immigration or resettlement, I added 2 secondary third party sources. Griboyedov never uses the word "repatriation", so you cannot put in his mouth the words he never used. He calls this resettlement, and discusses the problems with Armenian newcomers (that's the word he uses). In any case, I presented the issue as neutral as possible, and used the word "immigration" instead of resettlement or repatriation. Bournoutian is not removed, but his opinion is attributed to him, and not presented as fact, per WP:NPOV. And Griboyedov is not talking about taxation problems, it is just one of the issues he raised. He says that the Armenian immigration resulted in suffering of local Muslim population, and that the complaints of Muslims are valid and well-grounded. Armenians from Persia were settled in Muslim lands, and Griboyedov was afraid that the Muslim population would have to flee to Persia, as some of them did before, or would want the province to rejoin Persia. Grandmaster 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the umpteenth time Grandmaster, Bournoutian's ethnicity has no bearing on his credibility and you have absolutely no right to present him as a fringe source. Giving Griboyedov equal voice goes against Wikipedia polices, which I quote for the last time, ""Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." The two sources you provided are by journalists (not historians, and one who is admittedly pro-Azeri) and their wording does not otherwise necessarily deny that Armenians were coming back to lands which they were forced to depart from. It's been a week, give up the Bunyadov-Mamedova drivel already.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshal, you cannot simply delete the sources that you do not like and replace them with those that you like more. I provided 2 third party sources, and you removed them and replaced them with an Armenian one. It is nothing but disruption and violation of Wikipedia rules. The claims that Armenian were "repatriated" is simply ridiculous, first, the Armenians deported by Shah Abbas were sent to Isfahan, and those settled in Nakhichevan were from different regions of Persia, and second, Russians never inquired if those immigrating to Russia were descendants of those deported centuries ago or not. It is just a POV of Armenian scholars, which you are trying to present as a fact, and not as the opinion of a particular source. What do Buniatov/Mamedova have to do with this is beyond me, and how the Armenian POV is better than the Azerbaijani one? Stick to neutrality, and properly attribute all opinions, as the rules require. Edit warring is not gonna help. Grandmaster 09:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, Charles King is not a journalist, he is a professor at Georgetown University and the author of the book on the history of Caucasus. And I wonder who says that de Waal is pro-Azeri? It would be nice to see a serious source claiming so. Grandmaster 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And who are you exactly to ridicule Bournoutian's works as "ridiculous"? You're subordinating him, the most authoritative source on this period, in favor of an obscure primary source, some second-rate journalist and a novice in Caucasus history, which, on any other article, would be impermissible. The Armenians were being repatriated to Armenia because...Armenians were from Armenia. Is it so difficult to put these concepts together? The Armenian homeland was in the Armenian plateau, not Isfahan, and the only reason they got there were because they were forced out by the laundry list of Turkic elements that invaded the region from the 11th century onwards. You know quite well that Bunyadov and Mamedova are crux behind the reasoning of your arguments, and it would help that you don't feign ignorance. Robert Hewsen gives an excellent reason on how Azeri scholars have squandered their credibility:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, first page of the book's Bibliography.

As if that wasn't flagrant enough of a reason, we have pseudo-scholars like Bunyadov and Mamedova claiming that Armenians didn't make an appearance in the region until the Russians brought them there. You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole section should be removed – it is about a non-event. The Russian figures, quoted in the article by Bournoutian, state that only 3,856 Armenians emigrated to Nakhichevan from Iran between 1828 and 1831. Meowy 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshal, where and when did I refer to Buniadov or Mamedova? Are Griboyedov, de Waal and King Azeri sources? You should stop your POV push and edit warring. The articles should not be written on the basis of a single Armenian source, all existing points of view should be presented. Grandmaster 05:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• sigh*

Once again, you fail to offer any substantial counterarguments besides Bournoutian's ethnicity, which in your view in any case makes him unreliable. How sad and pathetic.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I'm getting fed-up following this. The offending content - both "versions" - says nothing and is about nothing. This article is about the khanate of Nakhichevan, but nothing in that section is actually about the khanate of Nakhichevan! The number of Armenians who came from Iran numbered only 3,856 immigrants. I'm going to be bold and remove all of it. Meowy 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshall, it would be good if you read WP:CIVIL, if you haven't done so. I never said anything personal about you, but your every post constitutes a personal attack on those who happen to disagree with you. I said many times that I never removed Bournoutian, but his opinion is not the ultimate truth. I understand that you prefer Bournoutian to any other source, but that's not the way wiki works. You have to include all notable opinions, and not just the one that you like. If you think that you can simply delete the sources that you do not like, you are wrong. I agree that it would be better to remove this section at the moment, too much drama out of nothing. Grandmaster 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There will be an article where the population movement of Armenians from Iranian territory to Russian territory should be mentioned - but just not here given it doesn't seem to have affected Nakhchivan to any great extent. Griboyedov's concerns and statements do not match the reality of the very small numbers actually settling there. However, they could be explainable in the context that almost all those Iranian Armenians had to cross through Nakhchivan to reach Erivan (there is a map in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas" that shows this). But to mention that opinion without having sources would be original research. Meowy 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we have accurate statistics on Armenian migration to the region at the time. The numbers provided by Griboyedov is the only primary source (he provides the numbers of families, not persons, btw). I don't really trust Bournoutian, and I have not seen anything else so far. But I think after Griboyedov's letter the settlement of Armenians in the region was stopped, so eventually the number of Muslims always remained higher than the number of Armenians, and such situation lasted until the collapse of the Russian empire. Grandmaster 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" I think after Griboyedov's letter the settlement of Armenians in the region was stopped" - maybe - though I think he was just misreading the reality on the ground (like someone visiting Ellis Island in 1900 and complaining how can NY cope with that many immigrants - when in reality most of them were in transit, going to other parts of America). Whatever, it, like my own words in my above post, is just an opinion and so amounts to original research. That's why there is no place for the Griboyedov letter in the article. Meowy 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Griboyedov's letter is an important source on this issue. He was an eyewitness of the process. It may not be appropriate for this article, but in general the source is very important for the history of Nakhichevan. It shows reasons for the sharp increase of the numbers of Armenian population in the region after the Russian takeover. Grandmaster 07:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What issue, what process? There was no "sharp increase" in the Armenian population of Nakhchivan. Meowy 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text says "In 1840 this became a province of the Russian Empire and was renamed the Erivan Governorate". However, the Erivan Governorate article gives the date 1850. No sources are given for either date. Argan Aivasian's book "Nakhchivan Book of Monyuments" gives the date 1849 - so does Robert Hewsen in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas". I am altering the date to 1849. Meowy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read through page 173 in Robert Hewsen "Armenia: a Historical Atlas" and, using its content, have rewritten and expanded that section of the article. Meowy 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a series of books about generals from Khan Nakhichevansky family by the Russian historian Rudolf Ivanov. I added a reference to the last one. I own that book and can provide a scan of any page by request. There's detailed info about the family of Nakhichevan khans in those books, and many members of that family were prominent Russian military commanders. Grandmaster 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don't think there is anything contentuous within the content of that Khan Nakhichevansky section, but because it contained information that was fairly obscure having a source for it is useful. Meowy 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Btw, the title of the article and the talk page do not match. This needs fixing. I think Nakhichevan khanate was a better title than the present one. Grandmaster 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nakhichevan khanate" could be any old khanate in Nakhichevan, "Khanate of Nakhichevan" makes it obvious that the article is about a specific entity. Meowy 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text currently reads "The khanate occupied the lands traditionally associated with the Ayrarat, Vaspurakan and Syunik provinces of Armenia, and was therefore made part of the Armenian Oblast after its dissolution by Russian imperial authorities in the 19th century." What source is saying that it was joined with the Armenian Province because of its historical Armenian identity? If there is no such source, then it is not necessary to mention that the territory of the khanate corresponds to territory that was once part of the Ayrarat, Vaspurakan and Syunik provinces of Armenia. Given that many hundreds of years separate those two times, I think stuff like that is best stated in the general article about Nakhchivan. Meowy 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This line should go. It has nothing to do with the khanate. It's history starts in 1747. Anything before that time is absolutely irrelevant. Otherwise we will have to list all the kingdoms and states the region was part of, starting with Urartu, Medes, the state of Atabeks of Azerbaijan, Kara Kayounlu, Safavid empire, etc. The list is very long. Grandmaster 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The line currently has three references but it is not clear what those references actually refer to. It isn't debated that the territory of the khanate corresponded to ancient territiries associated with Ayrarat, Vaspurakan and Syunik provinces. But that is off-topic for this article, unless that ancient association was a reason why it was joined to Erivan to form the Armenian Province. However, so far it isn't clear whether there is a source for that assertion.

I suspect the Russians had more down-to-earth reasons for joining it with Erivan. But Armenians at the time do seem to have seen in the joining something more - which is why the Armenian Province was eventually abolished by the Russians. Robert Hewsen (in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas") says as much - though all that should be in the Armenian Oblast entry, not here. Meowy 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is off-topic, and should go. What ancient history has to do with khanate, the history of which starts in 1747? I agree, there's an article on Armenian oblast, where this should be discussed. Otherwise Griboyedov is quite relevant here too. Grandmaster 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the "and was therefore made part of the Armenian Oblast after its dissolution by Russian imperial authorities in the 19th century" text, given that the "and was therefore" claim appears to have no source, and the "made part of the Armenian Oblast" fact is already mentioned later in the article. I've left the rest because it is factually true. Rather than removing it, maybe the time gap between that medieval history and the khanate should be filled in with some aditional information. I think that, at the very least, the article needs some mention of what immediately preceeded the khanate. Meowy 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that there's any need for any mention of the ancient history. The history of this particular state starts in 1747, and the article makes it clear that previously it was a part of Afsharid Persia. Dedicating space to irrelevant pre-khanate events is not justified, otherwise why are we removing Griboyedov? It was claimed that Griboyedov was removed due to irrelevance to the topic of khanate, why then other irrelevant info remains? Grandmaster 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, sorry I was away. I did much reading on subject and found little additions. I also studied wikipedia more and I think I understand better. I will make corrections and additions soon I found some sources. Also, I noticed is there reason there is another spelling before persian script in introduction?Shahin Giray (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello friends. First, no one answer me, and I do not see why we see republic of Azerbaijan spelling for any reason. even more funny, why this is before the contemporary persian writing. no other khanate page has azeri spelling and i do not see why. Then, name Kangarli is wrong, it is kangarlu, and many irrelevant sections were removed. also, i dont see reason to talk about this so-called "nakhichevansky" family on this page. first, i think seperate page needs to be created, second more references need to be added. many subjects in old article had no citations. I did much research on google books and encyclopedia iranica and there is little on this province. we should work together and provide relevant information in such case. Shahin Giray (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Also, world statesmen is not reliable, it misspells and list is not complete. but i cannot find anything else, so i will not remove it.Shahin Giray (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why the Azerbaijani name was removed from this and other articles about Azerbaijani khanates. See this source, for example:

Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia

In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.

Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.

Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455

More about Azeri khanates:

In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.

Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710

In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.

Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.

Nakhchivan khanate was virtually an independent state, though it formally recognized the suzerainty of Persia, it was fully autonomous in its internal affairs. After the death of Nadir shah Iran was in the state of anarchy, and the power of shahs was very weak. Russia took advantage of that and conquered the khanates of Caucasus, some of which voluntarily accepted Russian sovereignty. Ehsan khan, the ruler of Nakhichevan khanate, was one of such rulers. He hated Qajars, because Aga Mohammad shah blinded his father. And the history of khans of Nakhichevan is relevant here, and the info about them being generals in the Russian army is supported by the reference to the book of Rudolf Ivanov, a Russian historian. I don't understand why you attached all those fact tags. --Grandmaster 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry but you must provide reliable third party sources and not vague references to "independent" khanates. NO other khanate page has such an azerbaiajani name, and i do not think this spelling and name has anything to do with a territory of persia. My requests for other quotations were ignored as well. Why not add this name then to Erevan khanate or even caucasian albania, please keep pages reflective of reality not propogandists like the tadesz whose works seriously lack credibility and obscure out of context passages. I appreciate your help.Shahin Giray (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the references just above, they are all third party. And Azerbaijani spelling should be in Karabakh khanate too, it only nominally recognized Qajar sovereignty, but was de-facto independent. And undoing other people's good faith edits and calling them vandalism is not acceptable. I hope you are aware that Azerbaijan related articles are subject to arbitration ruling, which allows any admin impose editing restrictions on problematic users. --Grandmaster 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The khanate was not in continuous possession of Persia during its existence (compare for example an episode from June 16, 1826 when the khanate was invaded by Persian troops). The Iranian transliteration of Azerbaijani names makes no sense either. Brandспойт 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think "Iranian transliteration of Azerbaijani names" is the corredt characterisation. Firstly, none of the names are "Azerbaijani". And they are not really Iranian transliterations, but English transliterations. That said, I don't think most of them are valid. These obscure letters are mostly found in very specialist literature, and I'm not sure how standard the translitteration system is, and, more importantly, users may not have the correct fonts to display them and will probably not know how to pronounce them. That's why the Wikipedia article on Abbas is called "Abbas Mirza" and not "ʿAbbās Mīrzā". Meowy 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure where these quotes are going or these comments are out of context, including "history of azerbaijan templates. All my information has been cited from reliable sources. Persian spelling is perfect since it was administrative language of country that owned it. nor russian, azerbaijani or armenian.i do not see games you are playing with me.Shahin Giray (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shahin Giray, there was no need to fact tag the Khan Nakhichevanski content - it already had a source. If you are questioning the validity of the source, or whether the source actually contains that content, then I think you should be discussing that here before adding tags. It is not correct to insert fact tags just because you think the material shouldn't be there. I think the information should be in the article, it is legitimate to mention what became of the rulers of a territory after that territory's abolition. And it is interesting information. Meowy 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nor was there any need to rewrite the introduction section. You replaced it with less accurate material. The "corresponds to most of present-day Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" is over-simplistic and not suitable for an article about a territory in a part of the world full of border disputes. Same for your "province of Persia" claim: overly simplistic and not suitable. Meowy 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently added tags. The "Rulers" section has a dubious tag added. Why?

The text "During the Russo-Persian War of 1804-1813, in 1808 Russian forces under general Gudovich briefly occupied Nakhichevan, but as a result of the Treaty of Gulistan it was returned to Persian control". has a fact tag added. Why? There is nothing controversial in it and there is a article dedicated to the treaty. Meowy 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why a source is needed on that, but one can read in more detail about this event in the memoirs of general Gudovich, available online in Russian: [1] --Grandmaster 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, i reviewed your arguments and i agree with some of them, but others are simply illogic. First, I see problem with using Iranica spelling becuase this is for not specialist readers. But then i added kangarly section and added fact tag which brings me to my first point about fact and dubious tags.

first i put so many fact tags because previous sections in the article were not cited and when i researched data some of it was wrong. The khanate was not "founded" in 1747 but "given to govern" to the Kangarlu in 1604. So i could not find information for other sections, but if it can be found and verified why not keep? but until then, reader should be aware of possible errors here.

Second is introduction about being "feudal state" - do all of you know the meaning of feudal and it's understanding as something in medieval christian rule???? look it up in a dictionary. meowy says it is too vague what I said, and I agree it is vague, but it is also most correct since no other data exist. we can write about gradual fragmentation of iranian rule and growing powers of khans within the realm, but there is no sources for this for any of the khanates availoible easily to me and no one else writes or adds sources about this, but no source called this a "feudal state in the caucasus." same argument for region occupied by the khanate. there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured - picture worth a thousand words.

finally the dubios tag is becuase list of khans listed only from 1747, given no academic citation and kangarlu misspelled.

Finally, is there an actually reason for growing amount of azerbaijani writing and spelling on this page? i think there is azerbaijani version of this article too, why not use azerbaijani on the azerbaijani page. Maybe we can add russian, turksish, armenian, georgian and even chinese name of khanate. was the Nahcivan khanligi phrase used in this time, did this alphabet used in this time? no sense here in adding azerbaijani na,e. it makes sens for nahcivan autonomous republic, but how does it help article here?

Shahin Giray (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The independent khanate was founded in 1747 by Haydargulu khan. This was after the assassination of Nadir shah. Before that Nakhichevan was ruled by governors appointed by the shah. After 1747 it was ruled only by the Kengerli dynasty. Iranica does not say that Maqsud sultan was a khan, he was a governor. The independent khanates appeared in 1747, when the Iranian state disintegrated. You can read about that in the book by Abbasgulu Bakikhanov:

Вслед за смертью Надир-шаха началось общее смятение и анархия, вследствие коих Ширван навсегда отошел от Персии. Тогда образовались здесь отдельные ханства и владетели их, управляя наследственно и независимо, стали самостоятельными государями. [2]

After the death of Nadir shah a total chaos and anarchy began, as result of which Shirvan was lost forever to Persia. That’s when separate khanates emerged here and their rulers, ruling hereditary and independently, became independent sovereigns.

Or you can read about it in a modern source:

Nadir Shah, a distinguished military commander, stepped in and managed to restore order, but his assassination in 1747 ushered in a period of civil war. The empire broke apart. The kingdoms of eastern Georgia — Kartli and Kakheti — emerged from beneath Persian overlordship and began to develop stronger ties with Russia, which increasingly portrayed itself as protector of fellow Orthodox Christians across the Near East. Farther south and east a series of functionally independent khanates emerged, controlled by local Muslim elites professing loyalty to either Persians or Ottomans and surviving by monopolizing trade and the natural wealth of their domains.

Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN 0195177754, 9780195177756

Another source on independent khanates:

Agha Muhammad Khan could now turn to the restoration of the outlying provinces of the Safavid kingdom. Returning to Tehran in the spring of 1795, he assembled a force of some 60,000 cavalry and infantry and in Shawwal Dhul-Qa'da/May, set off for Azarbaijan, intending to conquer the country between the rivers Aras and Kura, formerly under Safavid control. This region comprised a number of independent khanates of which the most important was Qarabagh, with its capital at Shusha; Ganja, with its capital of the same name; Shirvan accross the Kura, with its capital at Shamakhi; and to the north-west, on both banks of the Kura, Christian Georgia (Gurjistan), with its capital at Tiflis.

William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Ilya Gershevitch, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville. The Cambridge History of Iran: From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic. Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0521200954, 9780521200950

As you can see, the khanates were practically independent, only nominally recognizing suzerainty of Persia. As for the Azeri name, I cited a number of sources above, which prove that the khanate was ethnically Azerbaijani, not Persian. Therefore it is important to show what the people who lived there and the Kengerli rulers called their state. The contemporary alphabet is irrelevant here, people need to know how to spell the name in Azerbaijani language. And lastly, I hope that you are aware of this ruling by the arbitration committee: [3] It allows the admins to take measures against disruptive editors in Armenia - Azerbaijan related topics. If you continue reverting this article to your preferred version without consensus with other involved editors, I will have to ask the admins to consider placing you on editing restrictions. Please be careful when editing AA topics and reach consensus before making controversial edits. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you reverts are indiscriminate and really harm the quality of the article. I provided a reference for this line: During the Russo-Persian War of 1804-1813, in 1808 Russian forces under general Gudovich briefly occupied Nakhichevan, but as a result of the Treaty of Gulistan it was returned to Persian control. You removed it. Why? I provided the reference for the khans of Nakhichevan, and you restored the ((fact)) tags. This has to stop. Grandmaster 08:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethnically it was "Turkic" and Azerbaijani ethnogenesis did not occur. I think I can find random sources to match with word "independent" but they lack context. The authors mention the topic in one sentence nor is work peer editted or credibility of authors established in relation Iranica. Like i said, how is source reliable that khanate was founded in 1747 if these persons were given a right to rule since 1604 by Safavi shahs???Shahin Giray (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As sources say, in 1747 Nakhichevan was an independent khanate, only nominally subordinate to the Persian rulers. And I cited many sources saying that the khanate was Azeri. So please stop reverting the article. Grandmaster 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shahin Giray, "Feudal" does not mean or imply "medieval Christian rule" - it is a word that describes a type of land holding and the duties that those holding the land were expected to perform. If the khans were appointed by Persia and were expected, in return, to perform certain military and civil duties for their Persian overlords then "feudal" could be an appropriate word to use. But maybe a better term could be used. You also wrote "there is map next to description so no need to say what is already pictured". Actually, that is the exact opposite of what a good Wikipedia article should have. Images, especially maps, should be there to back-up information already contained in the text. You shouldn't have added that dubious tag just because the list of khans was incomplete or misspelt or without citation. A fact tag would have been sufficient.Meowy 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Grandmaster. I have no problems with statements about the ethnic composition of this Khanate under the Iranian rule. Obviously the Iranians subjects were Shiite MUslim Turkicspeaking people, more than Armenians. My problem is however the statement that is was an independent Khanate. It was not,. It was just another Khanate under Iranian rule. There is a time period by the way between the rule of Nadir Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. That is indeed a period of Chaos. In that period, Karim Khan, according to many a kind ruler and according to others an incapable ruler, had given much freedom and autonomy to its subject. The situation was different with Qajars. And the feuds of Khan of Nakhjavan with Agha Mpohammad Khan did not affect it. Because it together with Khanate of Iravan remained part of Iran until 1828. In fact it was no more or less different than other parts of Iran in different period of times. For example Sistan and notably Baluchestan were less integrated into the Iranian empire than these Caucasian khanates were. (Those Lezgin and Sunni khanates were also less integrated). All and all I see an urge in the behaviour of some editors e.g. Brandmeister to keep the Iranian legacy of the republic of Azerbaijan unmentioned by n artifical way. We should be sincere about history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources:

Nadir Shah, a distinguished military commander, stepped in and managed to restore order, but his assassination in 1747 ushered in a period of civil war. The empire broke apart. The kingdoms of eastern Georgia — Kartli and Kakheti — emerged from beneath Persian overlordship and began to develop stronger ties with Russia, which increasingly portrayed itself as protector of fellow Orthodox Christians across the Near East. Farther south and east a series of functionally independent khanates emerged, controlled by local Muslim elites professing loyalty to either Persians or Ottomans and surviving by monopolizing trade and the natural wealth of their domains.

Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN 0195177754, 9780195177756

Another source on independent khanates:

Agha Muhammad Khan could now turn to the restoration of the outlying provinces of the Safavid kingdom. Returning to Tehran in the spring of 1795, he assembled a force of some 60,000 cavalry and infantry and in Shawwal Dhul-Qa'da/May, set off for Azarbaijan, intending to conquer the country between the rivers Aras and Kura, formerly under Safavid control. This region comprised a number of independent khanates of which the most important was Qarabagh, with its capital at Shusha; Ganja, with its capital of the same name; Shirvan across the Kura, with its capital at Shamakhi; and to the north-west, on both banks of the Kura, Christian Georgia (Gurjistan), with its capital at Tiflis.

William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Ilya Gershevitch, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville. The Cambridge History of Iran: From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic. Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0521200954, 9780521200950

Iran was very weak after the death of Nadir shah to exercise any real control over the Caucasus. That's why the Russians moved in here. Grandmaster 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this is exactly what I said. Iran was weak after Nadir Shah, but the source says that they still were loyal to Iran. Moreover it is not a secret that Armenians of Qarabagh were disloyal to Iran. The same can be said about the Lezgin/ Sunni dominated north. Moreover all these named entities were those who were conquered by Russians by the Gulistan treaty. Nakhchivan and Iravan were part of Iran untill 1828. Even after Agha Mohammad Khan's death, when Iranian central government had a more strict control over its territory.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quoted you the sources that say khanates were independent. They nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Iranian shahs, but were de-facto fully independent and acted as small states with their own kings. In Iran there was a complete anarchy, and its rulers were more concerned with struggle for power, rather than establishing firm control over the peripheral lands, which broke away and fought each other for the domination in the region. So yes, as the sources say, the khanates were functionally independent. Please do not rv sourced info, wikipedia is operated not by personal beliefs, but by verifiability, and this info is verifiable. The present version of the article says that the khanate was independent, but nominally subordinate to the Persian shah. That's quite in line with what the sources say. Grandmaster 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And who says that khanliq is a new word? There's no such word as khanat in Azerbaijani language. Grandmaster 04:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said why 1- the source does not apply to Nakhchivan khante 2- The sources all say that they were Iranian territory. Even though self-ruling, they were not more nor less self ruling than other parts of the empire. There is no justification to downplay their Iranian ownership 3- Of course Khanligh is a new word. Do you have any written records of such word in the 19th century? No! Plus the alphabet used at that time was Perso-Arabic.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most likely the Khanate was within the Persian sphere of influence, but certainly it was not rubbed into Iranian state. Compare for example this excerpt from Russian author Vasily Grigoryev (1803-1876): "Въ конце прошедшого столетия (до 1790 года) Нахчыванская провинция была независимымъ Ханствомъ" ("In the end of the previous century (before 1790) the Nakhchivan province was an independent Khanate").[4] brandt 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dear Brand(meister?). Exactly you make good point. First we cannot say "most likely" on wikipedia otherwise we violate original research. Also, when we make fantastic statement like independent country we must back it with reliable data. here we have obscure reference from 19th century russian author. I use well known encyclopedia iranica. I think, we cannot manipulate unless you want to push certain point.Shahin Giray (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are sources for the khanates being independent:

Nadir Shah, a distinguished military commander, stepped in and managed to restore order, but his assassination in 1747 ushered in a period of civil war. The empire broke apart. The kingdoms of eastern Georgia — Kartli and Kakheti — emerged from beneath Persian overlordship and began to develop stronger ties with Russia, which increasingly portrayed itself as protector of fellow Orthodox Christians across the Near East. Farther south and east a series of functionally independent khanates emerged, controlled by local Muslim elites professing loyalty to either Persians or Ottomans and surviving by monopolizing trade and the natural wealth of their domains.

Charles King. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press US, 2008. ISBN 0195177754, 9780195177756

Another source on independent khanates:

Agha Muhammad Khan could now turn to the restoration of the outlying provinces of the Safavid kingdom. Returning to Tehran in the spring of 1795, he assembled a force of some 60,000 cavalry and infantry and in Shawwal Dhul-Qa'da/May, set off for Azarbaijan, intending to conquer the country between the rivers Aras and Kura, formerly under Safavid control. This region comprised a number of independent khanates of which the most important was Qarabagh, with its capital at Shusha; Ganja, with its capital of the same name; Shirvan across the Kura, with its capital at Shamakhi; and to the north-west, on both banks of the Kura, Christian Georgia (Gurjistan), with its capital at Tiflis.

William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Ilya Gershevitch, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville. The Cambridge History of Iran: From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic. Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0521200954, 9780521200950

Now please stop edit warring and removing sourced info. Grandmaster 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, your quote confirms point. You cite various sources for "independence" in 18th century. Of course this is taken out of context and abused. Even quote above claims they were simply provinces that temporarily escaped goverment control. Really, it is province founded in 1604. did you forget 150 years of history before independence is remembered? I think we must not push point. The breakup of safavid empire and gradual decentralization is complex topic. it deserves comprehensive coverage in body section, and not manipulating and pushing point in introduction with one sentence. Please read encyclopedia iranica article for this khanate and add more instead of manipulating and making this article opaque. Shahin Giray (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iranica does not have an article on khanate, and it was not founded in 1604. It was founded in 1747, after the death of Nadir shah. You are misreading the sources. Before 1747 Nakhichevan was a province of Iran, but the history of khanate starts in 1747. Everything before that date is not relevant to the topic. Grandmaster 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really, this history is complex, and many pieces missing. we cannot make such bold stories about "independence" when we cannot even find decent articles about state. it is simply misleading, especially since this data comes form unreliable and contradictory source. iranica clearly explains after erevan captured in 1604 and safavid control re-established. nakhichevan becomes province seperate from cokur sad.Shahin Giray (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be the province in 1604, but the Iranica never mentions the khanate of Nakhichevan, which was established in 1747. So the history of the khanates starts in 1747, and it was only nominally subordinate to Persia, which was in deep crisis because of the struggle for power between various claimants of the throne. And the sources clearly say that the khanates north of Arax were independent, among those sources is The Cambridge History of Iran. So please restore the sourced info back to the article. Also note that this article is an arbitration covered area, and edit warring on Azerbaijan and Armenia related articles may result in editing restrictions. Grandmaster 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grandmaster, before reverting to an IP's POV, discuss if the modern Azeri term is not historically irrelevant. As for me, it is! Gazifikator (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What modern Azeri term? And why you reverted tons of other sources, like Rudolf Ivanov, etc? Grandmaster 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan xanlığı) modern Azeri term. Gazifikator (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see point of this revert by you Grandmaster as it entails wholesale vandalism. Discussing russian territorial re-organization of decades later is irrelevant to this article and I am still unclear about reference to 1992 created script. Finally,I tried to add information about fragmentation of safavids to emphasize nominal suzerainty over area. Of course Iranica source I cited continued to call this persian province till 1828.

Grandmaster, I strongly encourage you to modify your behaviour and show more respect and consideration to other memebrs and sources they write, so they will not be repetitive. It will make working with you more pleasant and hope to see you do some behaviour modification.Shahin Giray (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shahin, you were explained many times with references to reliable sources that this khanate was one of Azerbaijani khanates, that had Azerbaijani population. Once again I'm posting sources about Azerbaijani khanates:

Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia

In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.

Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.

Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455

More about Azeri khanates:

In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.

Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710

In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.

Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.

I posted the above sources a couple of months ago, when you started edit warring on this article, but you preferred to ignore them. Now tell me, if the khanate was Azerbaijani, what language did its rulers and population speak? Grandmaster 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, how about persian. since it is part of persia? then, maybe some armenian, kurdish and turkic too, for nomadic turkoman tribes that lived here (some of which stayed and some moved out with russian occupation.) maybe there were jews there too, can we add hebrew name of Nakhchivaaaannn Khanate too? or we keep making one up like name "nakhchivan khanlighi, whis is no-n existent outside of sentence in modern azerbaijani language.82.178.0.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

In regards to the last part of this diff, I have created Kangarli Khanate, however there isnt much information about it under the name "Kangarli". OTOH, searches on "Kangarlu" and "Kangarly" turn up even less, except for this.

Could someone check this source: "Иванов Р. Н. Именем Союза Советских… Жизнь и гибель комбрига Нахичеванского. — М.: Герои Отечества, 2007"

Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the Kangarli khanate in Iran was the Maku khanate. And I have Ivanov's book. I can scan any page by request. It is in Russian, though. Grandmaster 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Kangarli khanate article has been renamed to khanate of Maku.

Regarding that Russian citation, could you verify that it is OCLC 351718188, and that I have recorded it properly here. Is the author Rudolph N. Ivanov ?[5] And this looks like a review of the same book. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, andranik pasha and everyone else, mostly POV and incorrect data. Is this "feudal state" created after republic of azerbaijan. all issues raised before were not answered. it is not about dispoute of opinion but absolute lie of propaganda.!!!!82.178.0.72 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were answered in much detail. If you start edit warring on this and other pages, I will ask the admins to interfere and put an end to this. Try to achieve a consensus before making controversial edits to articles. Grandmaster 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fedayee, there is no need to remove the spelling in the native language of Nakhchivan's khans from Nakhchivan khanate. Similarly, there are plenty of names in Armenia too, including but not limited to Irevan (Yerevan), which do not have Armenian origins yet have the Armenian spelling. Atabəy (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, Yerevan has nothing to do with armenia,and Gandzasar is caucasian armenian, just translated name of capital. its all azeri and those dirty gypsy jew armenians stole it from you atabey!!!!194.186.188.249 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK then, show me a document which called it Naxçıvan xanlığı, or that they were identified as Azerbaijani. You probably know all by yourself that your comparison is bogus as the Armenian version for Yerevan is identifiable and written by the current scripts. - Fedayee (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is how the name is spelled in the Azeri language, the language of the rulers and the population of the khanate. The modern script is used to convey the spelling in the Azeri language. We don't use only old Russian script for the Russian gubernias and uyezds, etc. We use the modern Russian script as well. See Elisabethpol Governorate, Tiflis Governorate, Moscow Governorate, etc. There's no rule that does not allow using modern alphabets, and it is done in many other articles, so what is the point in discussing this over and over again? Grandmaster 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Kangarlu entry in Iranica, there is more than one meaning for Kangarlu, and Kangarlu should be a disambiguation page. There is an old tribe, a new modern family, and a village. I think the tribe is notable and we should have an article about it. Is the village notable? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) updated 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The village is the center of the new district in Nakhhichevan, so it is notable. Grandmaster 09:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bogus comparison, they were not speaking Azeri but they were speaking Turkic. This is even more true for Nakhichevan (close to the Ottoman Empire) who were speaking dialects close to Kars and other regions. In fact, even stronger cases like Iranian Azeri would not justify this transliteration, rather the Azeri transliteration derived from the Persian alphabet. The place was called from its Perso-Turkic transliteration with the Perso-Arabic letters. Your comparison with Russian is even more bogus because the Arabo-Persian letters are still living alphabets which are translatable (by several hundreds of millions of people) in comparison to the now dead Russian old alphabet which either way is very close to the modern one. The choice is because it's more practical to be rendered and is accurate 95% of the time to transliterate it from old to modern Russian (was this not brought already and the claim being put to rest?). - Fedayee (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no such thing as Turkic language, there are many Turkic languages, Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, etc. The population of the region spoke Azeri. The rest is your original research. I showed you that the modern alphabets are used for historical regions, and the rules do not prohibit it. So there's nothing to dispute here. Grandmaster 05:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's funny, you are accusing me of original research? LOL! I'm sure you've read what I have written, it's just your usual 'ignore what others write'. Let's make this more practical this time at least by letting you provide any rationale that the Turkic population of the Khanate of Nakhichevan was considered, be it by themselves or others, as 'Azerbaijani'. Go ahead sustain that the influence of Turkic languages in Safavit Iran and the existence of the several subsequent so called 'Khanates' would ultimately paint any Turkic people with one brush (Azerbaijani) in the past when such was not the case. After all, you're accusing me of original research so I guess you are free of that and you will provide me with the required rationales, regardless of the fact that for instance this horse was beaten to the grave, like here.

The Dutchy and Germans are not interchangeable terms, both refer to different periods and the progression of one made it become the latter. I showed you that the modern alphabets are used for historical regions, and the rules do not prohibit it. And I also showed you that the comparison is not valid, because old Russian and new Russian are the same 95% of the cases in those articles and the choice is rather one of 'technical' problem in rendering those. Old Russian is not Latin, where there is universal acceptance and rendering when those words are etymologically justifiable for inclusion. That's quite different than the fact that old script, Perso-Arabic is still alive and there is no technical problem having those. Unless you provide a rationale for such an unencyclopedic gesture not followed by any encyclopedia, I will remove it. - Fedayee (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you read the quotes above? I will repost them for you:

Azerbaijani khanates and the conquest by Russia

In 1747 Nadir Shah, the strong ruler who had established his hold over Persia eleven years earlier, was assassinated in a palace coup, and his empire fell into chaos and anarchy. These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty.

Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare. Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy, including Karabagh, Sheki, Ganja, Baku, Derbent, Kuba, Nakhichevan, Talysh, and Erivan in northern Azerbaijan and Tabriz, Urmi, Ardabil, Khoi, Maku, Maragin, and Karadagh in its southern part. Many of the khanates were subdivided into mahals (regions), territorial units inhabited by members of the same tribe, reflecting the fact that residue of tribalism was still strong.

Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN:0521522455

In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran.

Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. ISBN 0761475710

In 1804 Russian troops occupied the khanate of Ganja, and this was followed by the surrender of several other autonomous Azeri khanates in western Azerbaijan.

Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard. The idea of colonialism. Praeger, 1958.

The khanates were Azeri, like it or not. And check the usage of Tatar language in the article Kazan Governorate. Also, I don't understand the logic about old Russian and new Russian being 95% the same. So what if they are? One is an old alphabet, and the other one is modern. Both are used. Again, show me a rule that does not allow the usage of modern alphabets. The alphabets are just means to convey the spelling in the native language. And stop threatening with removal of info from the article without consensus, if you ever try to edit war over the Azeri spelling again, I will have to report you for disruption. Grandmaster 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You ought to do better than that. Just checking the sources you have used proves that you are cherry picking. Do you even know who Robert Strausz-Hupé is and the context of that writing? The book was a criticism of the Soviet Union, by bringing up Russian 'colonialism' of the nations which constituted the Soviet Union. The choice of that wording was politically motivated. He's the father of the American Republican foreign policy and was the mentor of Daniel Pipes [6]. He was known for his production of geopolitics as propaganda (Intellectuals, institutions and ideology: the case of Robert Strausz-Hupé and ‘American geopolitics’, Andrew Crapton, Political Geography, Volume 15, Issues 6-7, July-September 1996, pp. 533-555). You could not have come up with a worst source. As for Tadeusz Swietochowski, didn't I provide a picture that was worth a thousands of words already... but just in case that was not enough, here's another: he was present at the Pax Turcica. The other source is tertiary.

Do you have anything better to reverse the majority position other than by proxy publications? I will reply to just one point: Both are used. Again, show me a rule that does not allow the usage of modern alphabets. I provided the guideline to John. The modern alphabet relates also to a different spelling and a modern language. Your analogy is so nonsensical that it's almost impossible you don't get how nonsense it is. And this coming from a user who refused to split the article on Nakhichevan which had almost exclusively an Armenian history from at least Orontid Armenia to 1604. - Fedayee (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what the picture at Pax Turkica has to do with this issue. Scholars attend scholarly conferences. So what? Swietochowski is a professional historian, a top international expert on Azerbaijan, the author of a number of critically acclaimed books on the topic. Posting pictures of a scholar attending some conference is not a serious argument. We have sources, and that is all that is needed. And I fail to see any guideline that you provided to John. Please post it here, so that I could see it as well. I consider this issue to be resolved. We see that the modern alphabets are used in wiki articles (even modern Tatar alphabet is used), and we have sources about the khanate being Azeri. This closes the issue. If you are not happy with it, you can pursue dispute resolution according to wikipedia rules. Grandmaster 05:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grandmaster had changed the article title from Khanate of Nakhichevan to Khanate of Nakhchivan without prior discussion. I have reverted it to the former name because I consider Grandmaster's edit to be a controversial name change which, under Wikipedia rules, requires discussion before any move is decided upon. Meowy 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen this naming dispute a few times now. I think the most recent is Talk:Nakhchivan#Nakhchivan or Nakhichevan.

Are there any reasons why this article should use a name that is different to "Nakhchivan"?

If they should both use the same spelling, but people dont agree with "Nakhchivan", we should leave this article as it is, and either go discuss it at Talk:Nakhchivan (again), or engage uninvolved people who have worked on other naming disputes, and maybe hold a well prepared RFC so that we can have a binding community decision. Once we have a decision, then we can update all articles to be consistent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was called Nakhchivan khanate, until sock account of Shahin Giray renamed it to the present title without any discussion. Just check the history. I just restored the the city name that existed in the original title. Maybe it should even be returned to the original title of Nakhchivan khanate. The naming issue of Nakhchivan was resolved long ago with participation of Meowy, so I do not understand why he moved the article back. Grandmaster 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly my point, the name has been disputed before (though in a related article) so this article should not have been moved without prior discussion. Grandmaster claim that the article was formerly called "Nakhchivan khanate" is misleading. Looking back over the article's history, it has been called "Khanate of Nakhichevan" for ages, and has been entirely stable in that title. It has also been consistantly called Nakhichevan khanate in the body of the article. Meowy 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nakhichevan or Nakhchivan? Naxçivan (as spelt using the modern Azeri alphabet, introduced in the 1990s) is an existing geographical and political unit: an autonomous republic within the territory of Azerbaijan and the capital of that autonomous republic. Calling it Nakhchivan was a compromise solution - it is as close an approximation to the modern Azeri spelling and pronounciation as you can get. I supported the use of "Nakhchivan" because I couldn't see any sense in naming that article using a spelling that was different from the way its current population pronounced it. However, the Nakhichevan knanate is an historical territory that no longer exists. There is no reason to spell it using a close approximation to the modern Azeri spelling of a political unit of modern Azerbaijan. The spelling should be that which is the most common in English, probably the one that is most used in English-language sources. The "being consistant" argument is not applicable - it would be like arguing for Gaul to be renamed Ancient France for consistancy. Meowy 15:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the other way around John, why should the article use anything else than Nakhichevan, which is the common English term for the place. This is not Azeri Wikipedia, and John, you should have acquainted yourself with this already. RFC and whatever else are bogus, Nakhichevan is clearly the most used English name. If anything, it should be the main article 'Nakhchivan' which should be renamed.

Journals:

Jstor Nakhichevan: 198 hits Nakhchivan: 31 hits

Google scholar Nakhichevan: 1460 hits Nakhchivan: 267 hits

Books:

Questia Nakhichevan: 193 hits Nakhchivan: 9 hits

Google book Nakhichevan: 1,128 hits Nakhchivan: 646 hits

News:

Google news Nakhichevan: 2790 hits Nakhchivan: 38 hits

Newspaperarchive Nakhichevan: 443 hits Nakhchivan: 0 hit

Also, encyclopedias like Britannica use the Armenian derived word, which is Nakhichevan, that some users like it or not, Nakhichevan is the most commonly used word in English. Changing it to remove the Armenian nature of the name to justify the inclusion of a modern Azerbaijani name or to Azerify the word is not justifiable and amounts to POV pushing in all practical sense. If you are going to reply, come with objective evidence like statistics of both words' usages in English and not some OR or circular discussion. - Fedayee (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should use the statistics on the usage of the name Nakhchivan or Nakhichevan khanate. As I said before, the name of this article was changed by the sock account without any discussion whatsoever in January: [7] [8] I don't think such unilateral moves are acceptable. Since this user was relentlessly edit warring, and not being cooperative with other editors, it was not possible to resolve the issue at the time, but I just restored the situation that existed before the disruption by the banned user. Grandmaster 05:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been accepted in that form for over 6 months, so I don't know why you suddenly thought it unacceptable? Looking back over some versions from over a year ago, the article was called "Nakhichevan khanate", so the "Nakhichevan" spelling does not just date from that January edit. Meowy 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nakhichevan is the most used English word, for Khanates or not, and you are free to use the required search tools to see it yourself. Please stop bringing conflicts from the Russian Wikipedia to here. - Fedayee (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always thought that the way the article was renamed was unacceptable. I was just waiting for the issue with the sock account to be resolved, since I was not interested in edit warring. In any case, the name of the article should be selected by consensus, and not the way the banned user did. Grandmaster 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before removing Azerbaijani name in support of the banned user over and over again, please show me a rule that does not allow using modern scripts in such articles. Saying that it is anachronistic is not enough. It is just your personal opinion, and I should above that modern scripts are used in other articles. Grandmaster 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know that plain common sense was a personal opinion, fascinating... That alphabet for azeri language was even not used in that time. Sardur (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is used now. Plain common sense suggests to use the alphabet that is used by people who lived in the khanate to convey the spelling in the native language of the rulers and majority of population. And I see no links to any rules that do not allow using modern alphabets. Grandmaster 09:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a source, I guess... btw, on the same line, the Armenian name should also be included. Sardur (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? Did the rulers speak Armenian as a native tongue? Was it the official language of the khanate? Grandmaster 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hem... I have more than doubts that the "official" language was Azerbaijani with that spelling. Sardur (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azerbaijani language does not have any other spellings. Alphabet may change, but the language remains. It is a standard procedure to use modern alphabets along with the old ones, because they only serve the purpose of conveying the spelling of the words in the language of the rulers. I see no point in further discussion, the argument about anachronism has been answered many times. And if you have doubts about who the khans of Nakhichevan were, you can conduct your own research, read for instance the article about Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski. One of his nephews was a general in the Soviet army, I will create an article about him soon. Grandmaster 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]