Talk:History of Azerbaijan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

That's totally amazing

What's this, POV pushing is all over the place in everything I come accross relating to Azeri.

The Azerbaijanis are believed to be the inheritors of various ancient civilizations and peoples including the indigenous Caucasian Albanians, Arattans, Mannai, Medians, and Oguz Turks among others. Perhaps to clarify who the Turkic-speaking Azeris are by way of ancestry, recent evidence from Genealogical DNA tests show that the modern Azeris genetically cluster the closest with the peoples of the Caucasus (such as the Georgians and the Lezgians), while the genetic contribution of Iranian peoples and Turkic tribes appears to be more minor than was initially expected.[1] This may be interpreted as evidence that the modern Azeris are largely the descendants of the Caucasian Albanians who then mixed with other invaders such as Medes, Scythians, Armenians, and Oghuz Turks. During Median and Persian rule, many Albanians adopted Zoroastrianism and then switched to Christianity prior to coming of Muslim Arabs and more importantly Muslim Turks. The Turkic tribes are believed to have arrived as small bands of ghazis whose conquests led to the turkification of the population as largely native Caucasian tribes adopted the Turkish language of the Oghuz and converted to Islam.

This is totally and entirly rubbish and POV, at least if the one having added it understood the study in question. First, ethnicity has no necessarly genetic bases and in this region language replacements theory are better predicators according to research, and the one cited is not an exception. 'Caucasian Albanians' aren't in the sample, claiming any 'may' is simply original research. Also, 'genetically cluster' is a very strong word, some specific haplogroups frequencies are not a representation of all the other markers which are corralates for that region(and the study conclusion caution readers). For example, if we take the Kurds and the Armenians in the sample, Hg1 cluster closer in their cases with Turkmen, yet Armenians cluster in the same time with Hg21 closer to the Lezgi than Azeri do, while both Armenians and Azeri for Haplogroup 26 were 5%. Other articles published in the same journal clearly reflect how such simplistic analysis might simply be interpreted as POV pushing. Example. [1], [2], [3]... Also it amuses me that Grandmaster has nothing to say when studies are manipulated to serve his POV, but would reject such studies when they reject his prejudicial beliefs [4]. For invadors, Armenians cluster weirdly with Azeris in various markers with a quasi identical %. I haven't gone to read the rest of this article, and I just won't. Fad (ix) 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I wrote much of the article along with Abdulnr, with lots of people helping with the editing including Khoikhoi, I'll put in my 2 cents. You are absolutely correct regarding the details of the study and it is POV since we don't know for certain if the Caucasian genetic markers refer to the Albanians or not and that there is also a relationship with the Armenians who are perhaps more linked to the region etc. I put the two together after reading Audrey Alstadt's book in which she mentioned that the Azeris regard the Albanians along with the Oghuz as their ancestors and some of the findings seemed plausible, but it is better to give more info. and remove the parts that are ambiguous or conjectural. Also, I think we will have to add the relationship with the Armenians which as you correctly point out is substantial. I avoided the Armenians, not because I don't think they are related, but to avoid future edit wars with people. My mistake. Tombseye 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When the Page is Unprotected

To fix disambiguation links, if the two links to "Indo-European" are still in the article, can you please change them (gramatically) to be links to "Indo-European languages"? Dpv 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Partition of Azerbaijan

With regard to POV tag attached to the section Partition of Azerbaijan I would like to quote the Encyclopedia Iranica:

Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828). [5]

As one can see the partition is not the POV of the editors, but the concept accepted in Iranian studies. Grandmaster 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are twisting the words budddy; Iranian scholars consider Azarbaijan to be partitioned from Iran. They never looked at as a seperate entity. It was a partition from Iran. So do not try to paint a picture that Azarbaijan was partitioned between Iran and RUssia as you have tried before. 72.57.230.179 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Read again: Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828).

So who’s twisting the words? Grandmaster 06:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly there is no Soviet Union and the Treaties were signed with the Russian Empire and wording is totally misleading. It basically resulted in Iranian territory being annexed. 72.57.230.179 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article apparently was written in Soviet times and it refers to “present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union”, which does not mean that countries were previously not known under other names, it just a reference to the country names that existed at the time. Indeed, Iran lost part of it’s territory to Russia, now those territories are independent Azerbaijan and Armenia. Grandmaster 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen you are playing with words user:grandmaster. You have been building a reputation for yourself. That citation is incorrect. It is also outdated. THE FACT IS ARAM (PRESENT DAY REPUBLIC OF AZARBAIJAN) WAS PARTIONED FROM IRAN (NOT ANY OTHER REGION, BUT IRAN AS A WHOLE).http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/October/Azari/index.html 72.57.230.179 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit

Number of Azerbaijanis died on front is not 400,000 but 58,400 source. As for POWs, then source from those freed from German camps 20850 were repatriated. --Kuban Cossack 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the figure of 400 000 is too high. On the other hand, 58 000 is too low, I know that every other family in Azerbaijan lost somebody at the war. Plus this is the official number of the ethnic Azeris who died at the war, but there were Azerbaijani natives of other ethnicities who also died at the war. And the total of Soviet military casualties at 8668,4 thousand of the total of 26,6 million also appears to be low, there are different numbers too. Soldat.ru is a very good and reliable website, but I think it uses only the officially published data, which is not always accurate, so it’s really hard to tell the exact number. I think we should include this number with the reference to the source, at the same time if there are other verifiable numbers, they should be included too. Grandmaster 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The clear History of the Azzarbaijan!!!!

This article has a lot of bias that is beyond POV that is totally incorrect. This article exposes that [6] 72.57.230.179

Grandmaster if you want to quote, be unbiased and quote the whole thing. It says that Azaris consider themselves as Iranians. The culture is not different and som amny other points you try and hide.

The fact is that so-called 'northern Azarbaijan' has only borne that name since 1918, and that was in a bid to dissociate itself from Russia and bring itself closer to its cultural roots. Of course, when the Soviets took over, they found the name convenient for future claims on the real Azarbaijan and perhaps well beyond. This meant rewriting a lot of history, some of it here to stay, at least in the short term.

When the Republic of Azerbaijan first declared independence from the Soviet Union, I went to Paris to meet the first delegates the newly independent republic sent to Western Europe. At that time, they insisted on their Turkishness and were still critical of 'Persian discrimination' against Turks, as they had been told and taught.

They spoke of Shah Ismail Safavid, whom they know by his pen name 'Khatai', as their very own king who also happend to conquer a large empire stretching from Isfahan to Kandahar. They also insisted that Nezami wrote his poems in Turkish, not Persian, and if you showed them an original text, they would describe it as 'old Turkish', not Persian, and if you retorted that is was no different from Persian, they would look at you as though you were the one who rewrote history.

The Republic Has rewritten history

That Shah Ismail had red hair, was of Kurdish ancestry, that Nezami was Persian, with a Christian, probably Armenian mother, were not acceptable to them, no matter how hard you tried to give them dates and facts abaout the Turks beginning to arrive in those parts at about the time of Nezami and of the first Shaikh Safi (the remote ancestor of Shah Ismail and the founder of the Safavieh Sufi order).

To reaffirm their claim on the name of Azarbaijan, their then UNESCO delegate produced a letter by Ibrahim Khalil Khan, the great and wily Khan of Qarabagh at the time of Aqa Mohammad Khan's first incursions into the Qarabagh (coincidental with those of the Russians in Georgia). The basis of their argument was just one sentence, in which Ibrahim Khalil complained to the Ottoman Sultan about the fate that had befallen the people of Azarbaijan. (I have a photocopy of that letter).

That Qarabagh, because of its situation on the Aras River, was actually sometimes included as part of the province of Azarbaijan, is a historical fact, so the letter may have referred to that and to the fact that the people of Tabriz also suffered from Agha Mohammad's exactions as he moved north to recover the seceding provinces north of the Aras. But Ibrahim Khalil Khan's letter never meant to include neither Baku nor Shirvan, since these were not even remotely attained by Agha Mohammad Khan who, soon after the capture of Shisha in the Qarabagh, fell victim to an assassin from his own camp.

That does not mean that there were not intimate bonds between the people on both sides of the river. Their commitment to Shiism; their language, the same Turkish Azari on both sides of the Aras; and the fact that Persian was part of the curriculum of the educated elite north of the Aras too, and yes, even their ethnic makeup, made the people of the khanates feel very close not only to the Azaris to their south, but to Iranians in general.

HOW ABOUT QUOTING ALL THIS BESIDES THE THINGS YOU TRY AND EXPLOIT. 72.57.230.179 05:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Proof that the claims from the Republic Of Azarbaijan's Revisionists are FALSE

Azaris are culturally, ethnically and historically Iranian; that said here is acadmeic fact.... Here are more sources that prove a lot of what you are saying is misinformation. http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/PARTIIAzar.html

The pan-Turanian theories discussed in Part I represent only a part of the picture. There is a whole set of beliefs being narrated about Iranian Azerbaijan in both the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. They are using the Turkish language as an instrument to differentiate Iranian Turcophones from the rest of Iran. Some of the pan-Turanian claims to Iranian Azerbaijan can be summarized into the following:

(1) Greater Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.

(2) Azerbaijanis have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years.

(4) The Safavid Empire was Turkish.

(5) Sattar Khan was a pan-Turanian separatist.

(6) Babak Khorramdin was a Turk who fought against Persia.

(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.

Before discussing these items, an important point must be revisited. Pan-Turanian claims to Azerbaijan are supported by a very powerful western lobby in the form of multinational and geopolitical petroleum interests. These hope to access and dominate the lucrative oil bonanza looming in the energy deposits of the Caucasus and Central Asia (see Part VI, items 1-3).

(d) Mr. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh. A leading proponent of Arran’s name change was Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh (1884-1955), the first leader of the newly created Republic of Azerbaijan (see photo below). Rasulzadeh was of Iranian origin from Baku, and was in fact heavily involved in the constitutional democratic movement of Iran during the early 1900s [xviii] (see Sattar Khan in item 5). Rasulzadeh was in fact the editor of the newspaper Iran-e-Now (The New Iran). Russian influence and coercion finally forced the Iranian government to expel Rasulzadeh from Iran in 1909 (?); he was exiled to Ottoman Turkey, where the Young Turk movement had gained power.

By the 1930s, Rasulzadeh’s writings revealed his full conversion to pan-Turanianism:

(a) At first he admitted that “Azerbaijan” (Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran?) was an ancient Iranian province that had been linguistically Turcified since at least the 13th century.

(b) He then rejected his previous writings and declared that Azerbaijan (both Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran) had always been “Turkish” and was never historically an integral part of Persia [xxiv]

Rasulzadeh had betrayed his Iranian heritage in two ways. First, he failed to fulfill his promises to Iranian Azerbaijanis to rectify the name change he had bought for Arran (at pan-Turanian behest). Second, Rasulzadeh adopted a false, divisive, and racist ideology. Rasulzadeh’s legacy continues to haunt the Caucasus and Iran to this day. That legacy has also provided an excellent tool for geopolitical manipulation.

After his arrest and expulsion from Russia, Rasulzadeh settled in Turkey, where he died in 1954 (see his funeral in Turkey below). Rasulzadeh established the “Azerbaijan National Centre” in Turkey, a movement which at the time was organized for the purpose of opposing Soviet rule in Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan).

c) Linguistic Turkification. The process of linguistic Turkification was reinforced with the arrival of the Mongols in the 1200s, and their Il-Khanid dynasty in Persia. Tamerlane’s descendants, the Qara/Kara-Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak/Aq-Qoyunlu (White Sheep) also ruled Iran. It must be noted that the Turkish migrants became absorbed into mainstream Persia, and they greatly patronized Persian, arts, culture and literature. Turks as whole have been tremendously influenced by Iranian culture – a prime example is the Moghul Dynasty of India, of Turkmen-Mongol descent. The Moghuls promoted Persian culture in India, a legacy which lasts to this day in modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

By the early 16th century (see Safavids item 4), Azerbaijani Turkish had largely replaced the indigenous Iranian Azeri in Azerbaijan and had also spread to Arran. The Turkish language however, did not alter the thousands year long Iranian character and legacy of Arran and Azerbaijan. As noted in item 4, the Safavid dynasty, whose members spoke Turkish in court and introduced much Turkish vocabulary to Iran, considered themselves as the heirs of Persia and bitterly fought the Ottoman Turks throughout their reign.

In Persia, identity has never been delineated by singular, simplistic and narrow concepts such as “race”, “mother language” or even “religion”. Consider the following examples:

SafavidsThe aforementioned Nader Shah was an ethnic Turcomen and adhered to the Sunni branch of Islam. Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (see illustration below) and his partisans spoke Luri, a west Iranian language distinct from Persian and Kurdish. The Zands (like Nader Shah before them) were essential in preserving Persia’s territorial integrity after the fall of the Safavids.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years. FALSE

This is at best, a grandiose exaggeration. The real influence of the Turks begins with the Seljuks and Ottomans, and even then, the Turks are only one more layer upon an ancient region that has seen a rich and varied legacy. If anything, it is the Persian and (to a lesser extent), the Greco-Roman legacies that remain in the Caucasus. The Turks, like the Russians and Ukrainians certainly have their legacy in the Caucasus. The issue in question is the exaggeration of the Turkish role, now proposed by pan-Turanian ideologues.

The Caucasus is one of the oldest cradles of human civilization – a prime example being the proto-Kartvelian Hurrian empire (2500-1270 BC) which at one time ruled much of northwest Iran and contemporary Kurdistan. The Hurrian legacy is still evident among the Kurds who use the ergative feature in their speech – a phenomenon seen in modern Georgian. While the Caucasus has certainly seen its share of Persian, Greek, Turkish and Russian influence, she has in turn vigorously and profoundly influenced all of these cultures in turn.

“The oldest outside influence in Trans-Caucasia is that of Persia (p.203)…many of its populations, including Armenians and Georgians, as well as Persians and Kurds, the Transcaucasus had much closer ties with the former Sassanian world to its south and east than with the world to the west (p.204)”.[Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p. 203-204].

'(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.'FALSE

(a) Ziya Gokalp. The notion of Azeris being Turkish because of language is based on the late Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) who equated language with racial and ethnic membership: you are racially Turkish if you speak Turkish. This is a standard argument of characters like Mr. Chehreganli and his western geopolitical supporters. Gokalp was in fact a Kurd born in Diyarbakr. He is one of a long line of non-Turks who helped build pan-Turanian ideology (Part I, item 1).

By no means is the discussion in this item attempting to simplistically outline the complex (and anthropolically interwoven) Iranian and Turkish national, ethnic, and linguistic identities. Such a Herculean task would require volumes of text. Instead, we are clearly confining the discussion to the linear and (in my opinion) divisive concept of “race” – in the purely anthological sense.

The main weakness of Gokalp’s simplistic premise is his oversimplification of the complex interrelationships between ethnicity, nationality, language and historical migrations. His logic is that speakers of a language “X” must also be racially members of “X”.

Likewise, being a Turcophone does not mean that one is automatically Turkish or Turkic by race. National identity is based on a number of domains, only one of which is defined by language. Nevertheless, this simplistic logic (language = race) is being used to attack the Iranian heritage of the people of Azerbaijan and Iran in general.

National identity is multi-faceted. A Belgian could be either a Francophone (Walloon) or Dutch dialect speaker (Flemish). A Frenchman can be Basque (Eskuri) or speak an Italian dialect (e.g. Provencal, Corsican, etc.). In northern France, many of the inhabitants lay claim to a proud Celtic tradition (Brittany).

Many modern Turks hail from Bosnian, Georgian, Iranian (Persian, Kurdish, Azeri) Greek, Arab, Venetian, Slavic and Armenian backgrounds. Arabs are just as diverse – in the eastern Arab world, many have Iranian ancestry (Persian and Kurdish) – the Levant has seen multitudes of Hittite, Mittani, etc. settlers in its history. In the Western Arab world one finds a plethora of Christians (Greek Orthodox, Coptic, etc.). One can also trace much of the ancestry of modern Arabs to the earlier Semitic peoples such as the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians (Aramaic-speakers), Syriacs, etc.

The Iranian ethnic mosaic is far too complex to even begin attempting to define it in the confines of this commentary. If we extend timelines back to pre-Aryan arrivals, we witness proto-Elamites in the Southwest and Southeast, and Hurrian arrivals from the Caucasus. We then have a long period of Iranian Aryan migrations onto the Iranian plateau and eastern Anatolia (many areas of western Iran and modern Kurdistan was already settled by Assyrian peoples). Arab settlers also arrived during Sassanian and post-Sassanian eras (a number of their descendants survive in Khorrassan and Tajikestan)– these are then eclipsed by subsequent Turkic and Mongol arrivals. The very overall sketch just outlined highlights how complex definitions such as “race” and “language” are.

Gokalp was not entirely wrong about Iran – there are a plethora of Turkic settlers who can trace their ancestry to the original Oghuzz (the aforementioned Nader Shah was a Turkmen). But even the identity of the Turkmen (meaning “very Turk”) is hotly disputed. There are claims of strong Iranic admixture within them. This is not surprising as Turkic and Iranic peoples have been intertwined in Central Asia for thousands of years. Even the Mongols who invaded Persia are said to have had some Iranian (North Iranic?) ancestry (see Turnbull in references).

The genetic ancestry of modern Turks is highly varied, mainly as a result of multiple migrations, wars and empires. While modern Turks (and a growing number of Hungarians) stress their genetic connection to Central Asia, scientific evidence fails to corroborate their beliefs. True, there are Turkmen Turks of Central Asian stock in eastern Turkey, however a large proportion of modern Turks have Balkan, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Azeri, Georgian, Varangian, and even some Celtic ancestry. The latter seems surprising; however the term “Ankara” may be derived from the Celtic “Ankyra”. The Galatian Celts appear in Anatolia’s interior after the Greeks defeated them in 230 BC. The original Turkic stock from Central Asia (some of whom live in northeast Iran today) have little or no connection to the European-type U5 cluster.

(c) The Analyses of Colin Renfrew.

Professor Colin Renfrew (see 1994 References) notes how Turkic languages spread by Elite Dominance:

“…incoming minorities…conquer other populations and…impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion…”[Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]

Genetic alteration can only occur as a result of one of more of the following:

[a] Sustained migrations across a long period of time

[b] Population dispersals by farming,

[c] Dispersals forced by climactic changes.

In general, the Turks did not arrive peacefully but as conquering elites who imposed their languages upon indigenous populations (Azeris, Arranis, etc.). Conquering elites provide very modest genetic changes to the indigenous populations that they conquer. However, they can alter the population’s language as result of their elite military and political dominance.

(d) The Cavalli-Sforza et al. Genetic Studies.

Renfrew’s studies have been corroborated by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (see photo below) and his colleagues, who have concluded the following after decades of genetic research:

“Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages…threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey…genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered…(p.125)…Turks…conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453..replacement of Greek with Turkish ..Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers…invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history…(p.152).” [Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]

Hungarians are considered to be Magyar speaking Europeans – not an Asiatic Turkic people. In like manner, why are the Azerbaijanis (of Iran in particular) being forcibly re-defined as “Turanian” simply because they speak Seljuk Oghuzz Turkish? How can a single index (Turkish language) be used to virtually erase Azerbaijan’s mighty civilizational identity in Persia? Azerbaijan has been of vital importance in the development of Persian civilization, just as Hungary has been a vital element in the development of European civilization.

It is here were the barbaric aspects of “race criteria” break down. In Afghanistan we have the Mongol descended “Hazara” (lit. “The Thousand” in Persian) who now speak Persian, or the many people of Khazar Turkish-Jewish descent in Dagestan (next to Chechniya) who speak Persian. Conversely, Azerbaijanis are an essentially Iranic people who mainly speak Turkish. A branch of the Turcophone Azeris are believed to have been settled in Iran’s Fars province by the Safavids– they are today known as the Qashqai’s (note photo of Qashaqi girl by Shahyar Mahabadi).

.....with all this criteria many of the Azari articles will have to refurbished. 72.57.230.179 08:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge this article with the history of Iran

Azerbaijan's history is part of Iranian history. Azerbaijan is only a 16 year old nation, therefore it doesnt have the amount of history that this article makes it seem like it has. Azerbaijani history is part of Irans history. what do you all think? Iranian Patriot 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are long periods of time when the region has its own history and merging it would simply reduce the amount of information and subsume the region for no good reason other than to satisfy the nationalistic desires of some people. When discussing vast areas, we could just as easily subsume Iraq or Afghanistan into the history of Iran, but why would we? While the Albanians emerge in northern Azerbaijan, in Iran early Iranian peoples form. Azerbaijan has its own regional history and making it a sub-section of Iranian history doesn't seem very logical. Tombseye 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

i understand what you are saying, but if we go like this, than every region in the world should have a page on its history. do you know how many that would be? it would be plain ridiculous. I think a page on azerbaijan's modern history is necessary, but the rest of it is not azerbaijani history, its either iranian or caucasus history.Iranian Patriot 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on the History of Tibet for example, and that's just a geographic region today (it's part of China). There's also a History of Siberia, History of the Caribbean, History of Anatolia, History of Southeast Asia, History of South America, etc. So we do have many, many articles about histories of geographic regions. I can't think of any other reason not to have this page. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and there are also situations in which a larger metanarrative ends up reducing the regions and peripheral areas and overlapping areas into nothingness. Why even discuss what happened in Azerbaijan when there are arguably larger events taking place in other regions? Plus, Azerbaijan is kind of one the periphery as the role of the Caucasus has been substantial and modern Azerbaijan is, in many ways, as European as it is Middle Eastern due to the Russian/Soviet past, which perhaps explains the divergence with southern Azerbaijan. Ultimately, we could even eliminate the histories of Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, etc. and write a history of the Iranian plateau, but for what reason? There are numerous instances when the historical events in Azerbaijan veer strongly away from events in Iran, whose borders have also fluctuated over the centuries. The article serves a purpose and even if we end up writing a History of Ossetia for example, it shouldn't threaten the Russians unless they simply want to erase said people and simply assimilate them. Treating different groups, even when they share a great deal of similarities as equals often goes a long way towards political understanding and interaction. Tombseye 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You are confused. Im merely saying that the events in this article have nothing to do with the nation known today as azerbaijan. so either merge this or rename the title to "history of the caucasus". that makes more sense does it not? Im sure that you guys would not support something like having native american history being put in the history of the United States, because that wouldnt make sense. Also, we arent putting the history of anatolia in the history of turkey section are we? it should be the same for azerbaijan. Do you guys get what im trying to say? A simpler solution is to rename the title "history of the region of azerbaijan". how about it?Iranian Patriot 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do? Why? It’s a history of the territory where Azerbaijani people live. Part of it is within Iran, and the other part of it is an independent country, but the region and people have their own history. I don’t think there’s a need to merge or rename this article. Grandmaster 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

let me ask you this: Do you think its correct for Native American history to go under the name of USA history?Iranian Patriot 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It’s part of the history of the country. Grandmaster 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well many native americans would dispute that. Native american history is not apart of the history of the USA which is only 200 years old. even here in US history class we have a pre-USA history of north america, and then we have the US history part of America.

be realistic, and eith merge this article with Iran's history or create a bigger "history of the caucasus" section and then have this info on their. This isnt azerbaijani history, azerbaijani history is only 16 years. im not sure you understand what im trying to say, but hopefully this issue can be resolved.Iranian Patriot 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not realistic to merge or delete this article. It would instead satiate nationalist intentions. Native American history is actually under US history, while in history books it is termed Pre-Colonial or Pre-European history. And actually, there are also instances when it is both presented as separate and together depending upon context. Azerbaijani history is hardly 16 years old as that's just your opinion. There have been Azeri speaking people around for centuries and the historical events of their region have not always been intertwined with Iran. I don't know where this discussion is going since none of us here are going to agree to deleting this article etc. Tombseye 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking for this article to be deleted. I am asking for a title change or a merging. thats it. Yes, azeri people have been around for centuries, but azerbaijan has not, that is my point. The title is misleading. Atleast have a mention to the fact that its mostly caucasian history rather than azeri history. thanks. Iranian Patriot 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

There has been recently a number of changes made, which were not discussed with other editors. For example, the phrase:

In the early 19th century, the historical territory of Azerbaijan was divided in half following wars fought between Russia and the Qajar Turks of Iran.

Was replaced to:

In the early 19th century, Azerbaijan was seperated from Persia by the Russians during the Russo-Persian Wars.

The following text is from encyclopedia Iranica:

Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828). [7]

So division is not just a POV of editors, but the fact accepted by Iranian sources as well. And also can anyone substantiate a POV tag on this section? I can suggest as a compromise to choose phrasing similar to Britannica:

After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran. Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century. [8] Grandmaster 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was I who made some minor changes. Most of the Article seems ok in my point of view. But Azerbaijan was not divided, it was taken by force by Russia. Saying divided makes it seem like Iran (Persia) and Russia decided to split up Azerbaijan, when historically, azerbaijan was Iranian until the russians attacked and took it. Get it?Iranian Patriot 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss the changes, because I actually don’t mind most of them. As for partition, that’s what even Iranian sources say, you can’t say that Iranica is pan-Turkist or Azeri nationalistic source. We can think of better wording though to keep everyone happy. Grandmaster 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with you guys since you got that from Iranica, but the wording Iranic used is also wrong, it is acknowledged, even in the treaties signed with Russia, that that territory was TAKEN by Russia as their spoils for winning the war.Iranian Patriot 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wording of this Article is Manipulating History

The way some paragraphs are worded is a manipulation of history. Forexample, it is mention that Ismail used Turkish in his court (Im not even sure if thats true or not) but never mentions the fact that Persian was used used by the Safavids and by the Safavid courts. Why the manipulation? Also, before my edits, it used to say Turk every time after the word Qajar. Yes, they were of Turkic descent but they certainly viewed themselves as nothing but Iranian. Do we write the word French/Norman after the monarchs of England, since technically they are all of Norman descent, NO! Stop the manipulation.Iranian Patriot 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has various serious issues

I have provided one example about the haplotypes. But most importantly, it doesn't cite its sources and doesn't maintain a neutral language. There are also rationaly impossible assertations. Impossible in anyway that the figure of casulties of WWII could have been anywhere near 400,000, neither is there any indications from materials I have read that 600-800,000 have served in the Soviet army during the war, even if that had been true, the casulties figure would have been over 50% of the conscripted, which would be worst than Normandie or the tranch wars on the front during the Great War. Any casualty figures of over 25% is considered as catastrophic, over 50%, is simply... well, shall I place a word there? The informations following Nadir Shah's assassination and the Khanates, omissions is pretty much surprising and clearly misleading. Baku population increases would have been relevant with a record of ethnic makeup. The independent and civil war section smell a text written by the Azerbaijani Acedmia of science. While the Muslim massacre in Baku is discribed, the much more reported Armenian massacre is nowhere to be found, neither Nuri, Halil etc. excurtions and what resulted from it, neither Karabekir's. It talk about Azerbaijan de facto recognition, but nowhere does it mention the cases of Nakhichevan and Karabakh and the League of Nations position. Also, I didn't knew that the hundreds of thousands of Azeri expelled from Armenia and Karabakh and its suroundings happened up to March 1988, it isen't in any work that I am aware of, maybe those implicated in the article can provide me few sources for that, since from publish works, I thought that the expulsions followed what weant on in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku, there was nowhere that much people expulsed in March 1988. Also, while it refers to the blockage of Nakhichevan, nowhere does it say that it is a retaliation of Baku decision to block Armenia. Also, the language of this article is far from being neutral. It first need to cite its sources and the language be made more neutral. And what I have cited is far from being inclusive to all the issues I've seen there. Fad (ix) 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fadix. I mostly re-wrote and edited the sections to the Safavid period and then abdulnr wrote most of the modern stuff. Your points sound valid. If you can put in some references and re-word for neutrality that would be great. I'll try to help out as well and perhaps shorten the article a bit given it's vast size and write for succintness and avoid redundancy. When I worked on the article, it was much shorter and was badly written and then I (and abdulnr) changed the article as much as possible. It could use some more work though and perhaps we can do exactly what it is you're saying. Cheers. Tombseye 22:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article keeps on saying Turkic or Turk every second word; it is also based on some fictatious myth that is really unacademic and counter to real Azarbaijani history. Azarbaijani was a well establsihed area of Iran and is very Iranian in identity. 72.57.230.179 06:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

baffling claims!

how can they be descendents of more than one group of people? sure they al mixed but no other group of people that i know of can claim ancestry of more than one group. shouldnt there be some sort of clarification as to whether they were iranics or caucasians?Iranian Patriot 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How about people of Latin America? Are they descendants of immigrants from Spain or miscellaneous local tribes and people or both? Are English people descendants of Normans or Angles, Saxons and other local people or both? It’s not that simple. Grandmaster 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

but then we can say that about every civilisation! where will it end? do you get me? then we can say that about countless civilisations in the middle east especially. many iraqi's are of iranian descent, are they inheritors of irans history? just because the egyptians are arab today, can arab civilisation take credit for egyptian history? some americans are descendents of native american tribes, can all americans be inheritors of native american civilisation? this could go on and on....

i think you understand what i mean, and i think you know im right. just because a group of people living is living in an area today, they cannot claim everything in that area as their own? can iranaians claim the elamites as their own? no. can turks (from turkey) claim the hitites or the byzantines? no. that part needs to be taken out.Iranian Patriot 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded that part, and now it makes much more sense. i think we can all agree on the wording i used. it doesnt throw out the possibility that azeri's may be inheritors of other civilisations, but it doesnt make it out to be known either:

Who the Azerbaijani's really are in terms of historical backround is still unknown, but the area of modern day Azerbaijan is the inheritor of many different civilisations. Iranian Patriot 14:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to the way it was when i edited it. before changing it back wait and see what others think. the way i have put it is nuetral and leave open both options. Iranian Patriot 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster you can not dictate or say that you are the supreme judge of material, in fact your editing should be scrutinized. Iranian Patriot has made a lot of good points and if you keep on playing around with his edits you will be reported fro vandalism. Please stop this behaviour. 72.57.230.179

The reason i dont want the specific civilisations to be named is because it is still unknown and could be misleading. before you make anymore edits come talk about this, that is what the discussion page is for.Iranian Patriot 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the previous version had the consensus and until the discussion is finished and a new consensus is achieved, that is what should stay in lieue of edit-warring. The way the article reads under the consensus version is accurate and not at all misleading, pelase explain specifically why you feel it is so. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Azerbaijanis are believed to be inheritors of various ancient civilizations and peoples including the indigenous Caucasian Albanians, Arattans, Mannai, Medians, and Oguz Turks among others.

we can do this exact thing for almost all civilisations. where will it end? it doesnt matter if they are believed to be inheritors of this or that. are persians inheritors of the elamites? No. are englishman inheritors of native american civilisation? No. are the Italians inheritors of the etruscan civilisation? NO. what im trying to say is that if we make this acception for azari's then we must do it for countless others. who says azari's are the inheritors? maybe its the talysh's or the tats. the fact is, if it is not known it should not be mentioned in a way that presents it as true. this is misleading, and i am reverting it.Iranian Patriot 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Talysh and the Tats can also rightly claim to be the heirs of many of these people. If you know the first thing about how genealogies work, it's a safe bet that everyone in the area are the inheritors of all of the nations that were around back then. All of Azeris neighbours including Kurds and even Armenians can claim to be heirs of many of the exact same groups. That's why I took out the word "the" to avoid giving the impression that Azeris are the only "inheritors." They are among the "inheritors". Detailing the list of peoples adds scope and background to the article for anyone researching, who might want to know exactly what peoples are included, and it is legitimately encylopedic information, while suppressing the list and replacing it with mere generalities adds nothing, and is nothing more than censorship. Please do not revert this again, since there is no consensus for it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

you dont understand. if we do what you suggest then where will it end?! we would have to put the same thing in the georgian section, the armenian section, the iranian section, the ossetian section, the dagestani section, etc.... WHERE WILL IT END? please dont be stubborn on this issue, the way i have is just fine, it implies the same thing you say except in a more neutral fashion. i think the best compromise is this: we create a page about the history of the caucasus, which will include many of the civilisation that we are talking about, and then we will put that azari's may be the inheritors of several cacausian civilisations, and then have a link to that caucasus page. what do you think?Iranian Patriot 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Where will it end?" is nothing at all like a legitimate argument for suppressing information. There is no valid reason not to list the names of the civilisations in detail, instead of a generic "certain ancient civilisations". No valid reason whatsoever. On the other hand, there is a consensus to include them, and you are continually reverting against consensus, which may prompt an RFD on the matter if you continue to revert without awaiting consensus for your proposed changes (that amount to censorship, so I doubt if they would ever achieve consensus anyway). ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, persians and medes also mixed alot, persians could also be inheritors of the medean civilisation. persians also mixed with caucasians so persians could also be inheritors of those civilisations, the same with anatolians, armenians, and georgians. lets put the same detail in their pages too.... do you see what i mean? we cant do that now can we....Iranian Patriot 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we? In fact, in plenty of those articles it already mentions the Medes. But pointing to other wikipedia articles as some kind of vague precedent is usually a bad argument. Here were are only worried about what is best for this article, and other articles have their own circumstances and conditions. We are not bound here by what is on other wikipedia articles, in arriving at consensus on questions of this kind, nor are they bound by what is on this one. It seems to me that for any country claiming the Medes as ancestors, we would be entitled to mention that fact, and Azerbaijan is certainly one of several that cn make that claim. And you mentioned the Talysh and Tats also being descendants, and they are also part of the History of Azerbaijan; remember this article is about the whole country of Azerbaijan, not just ethnic Azeris. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

first of all, this article is about the history of the region of azerbaijan, not the country of azerbaijan. secondly, if you claim that azari's are descendents of these people then there should be no question of the turkification of the region in the azari article. there are many contradictions that can go back and forth, i was just simplifying everything.Iranian Patriot 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote JohnStevens, an Azerbaijani from north azerbaijan: 'No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands, as was the opinion spread throughout Iran; the Turkish speakers are nothing but the descendants of the Turks who had migrated in ancient times from Turkestan'

so i will take out the part that the azari's are inheritors of those civilisations, because most azari's believe that they are actually descendents of actual turks, which is laughable, but if thats what they believe, they cant be two sided on the issue.Iranian Patriot 21:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tags

According to the rules, the tags must be substantiated on the talk page. We have 2 tags for the moment, please explain the reason for their attachment and provide your reliable sources that dispute the facts stated in the article. Until that is done I’m removing the tags. Please attach them only after the substantiation at the talk. Grandmaster 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some disputes above. Please wait before removing the tags --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but please explain what exactly is disputed, so that we could correct it. Please show which particular line is disputed and explain with reference to sources why. Also, there’s a tag on one of the sections, while I cited Iranica as a reference to show that it is not a POV edit and that the view is supported by academic sources, but the tag is still there. No explanation is given either. So please properly substantiate the tags and help to improve the article. Grandmaster 09:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article can be improved with the tags on. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag should be for a reason and the reason should be explained. If there’s a real reason for the tag, it remains until the issue is resolved, but so far I see no valid reason for any of the tags. Grandmaster 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that parts of the article are biased towards the Rep. of Azerbaijan POV, I would like to see this be more neutral. —Khoikhoi 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, but please explain which sections or which lines are biased, so that we could correct them. According to the rules what exactly is disputed should be explained on the talk page before attaching a tag. Grandmaster 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar

Clevelender, I think, added a picture of trench digging during WW2 on a sidebar. I think this does not reflect a history of Azerbaijan and has to be replaced by something more appropriateabdulnr 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Filtering

This article is about The R. of "Azerbaijan" and should only be about that. Therefore, the history should go from the Caucasus Albanian kingdom to the present. Why does this article mix up Iranian Azerbaijan and the R. of "Azerbaijan"? These are two seperate things, totally unrelated.Khosrow II 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No,they are not unrelated. It is the history of the same people and the same region. History of North Azerbaijan cannot be separated from the history of South Azerbaijan until the Russian conquest. Grandmaster 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The regions history has been part of Iran and not separate from it. It was a Russian conquest on Iran. Specially Iranian Azerbaijan was Media and predominately Indo-Iranian speaking until at least 14th century. Although historically Iranian Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania were different territories. So if we are talking about a joint linguistic identity it is something about 400-800 years ago. --alidoostzadeh 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

History of both North and South is part of Iranian history until the Russian conquest. This article is focused on the territory, which is understood as Azerbaijan today. Grandmaster 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay that is fine as long that is mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 11:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Grandmaster 11:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This article implies that the R. of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan were one entity that was later seperated between Russian and Iran. This article in its current form is based on POV. This is like making Canada's history and the history of the USA one article. The history of the R. of Azerbaijan starts from the kingdom of Albania up to present. The history of Iranian Azerbaijan is Iranian and Iranian only. Its ludicrous to have the history of this Iranian Azerbaijan inter-mixed with the history of a nation that wasnt even called Azerbaijan until 1918.Khosrow II 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, we understood your point of view. I refer you to Encyclopedia Iranica:

Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828). [9] Grandmaster 10:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That is probably a misprint, as it contradicts itself. It says "Azerbaijan, region of north western Iran" then it goes to say "divided between...". It would not say region of North West Iran if it was also talking about the Azerbaijan SSR. I believe that is clearly a mis-print. Encyclopaedia can have small mistakes like this too, they arent perfect.Khosrow II 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was mostly part of Iran, before it got divided between Russia and Iran. See also Tadeusz Swietochowski: As a political or administrative unit, and indeed as a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names, etc. Grandmaster 09:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Throughout history, it doesnt clarify what points in history. Even you said that when Iran lost Arran/Albania to Russia it didnt even have full control of the territory. This is clearly a misprint as it contradicts itself.Khosrow II 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what the History of the R. of Azerbaijan page should look like: [10], starting with its establishment (1918).Khosrow II 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been overwhelmingly proven that the R. of Azerbaijan and its local history has nothing to do with Iranian Azerbaijan, so why are the histories mixed? This is a serious issue that needs attending.Khosrow II 01:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

False Quote

In addition, Harvard Professor Richard Nelson Frye relates the following regarding the society of Media: "in Azerbaijan (Media) the Indo-European Medes were in contact with a settled majority of non-Indo European (non-Iranian) speakers represented by the Urartians, Mannaeans, Hurrians, Turks etc. possibly related to the peoples speaking 'Japhetic' languages" also spoken in the Caucasus (Russian Azerbaijan, Albania)."

I removed this quote since it is false and the source is not provided. The Median language definitely predates Turkish... --alidoostzadeh 11:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we used the information from the Azerbaijani people article to write some of the history here. There seems to be a lot of false quotes attributed to Tabari and etc. which do not exist in reality. --alidoostzadeh 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is another one:

Kalankatly also states that in the year 629 AD, the army of the Gokturks as well as a series of Khazar Turkic tribes entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be "eternal possession" of Turks, however were driven out by Yazdegerd III.

I have the whole book available to me and I do not see it anywhere! I suggest we just copy and paste the material from the azerbaijani people here which was discussed extensively in the talkpage. --alidoostzadeh 11:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Every quote should be properly verified. Grandmaster 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay I used the information from the Azerbaijani people article on Albania and Media. That was well sources. I think the main unsource parts that I see lack some basis are: Eurasian nomads in pre-Islamic Azerbaijan and Islamic Azerbaijan where it is claimed that the majority were Christians which was not true. Also Khazars and Arabs did fight several times, their main boundary was Darband just like it was in the Sassanid era. Also for example : CE. Tabari also states that by the mid-6th century, there was a significant Turkic presence in Azerbaijan, where no sources is given. Also the term Ural-Altaic is not in use generally by linguistics anymore as the Uralic family is considered separate from Altaic. The Medieval period of the Azerbaijani people article should in my opinion replace pretty much the Islamic Azerbaijan part. --alidoostzadeh 11:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Valid points. I wish Tombseye could contribute to this article as well, as he was a major contributor to this article together with abdulnr. Grandmaster 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again Ali, great job!Khosrow II 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop your idiotic nationalist propagation. Azokh (Azykh) cave is in Hadrut, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Any " historical Azerbaijan " in the nature does not exist at all. Term Azerbaijan till 1918 was never applied to Transcaucasia. Therefore to speak, that ostensibly in 1828 Russia and Iran have divided " historical Azerbaijan " as Poland - delirium, never nobody divided historical Azerbaijan, it always was a part of Iran, since times Media and up to now.Sfrandzi 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement about any Khazars which as if have lodged in Azerbaijan in 200 year is a full delirium with the purpose as much as possible represent as more ancient Turkic presence at Azerbaijan. In a reality this Turkic tribe (however, absolutely not related on language modern Azeri) together with it has come to Northern Caucasus for 200-300 years later. And why suddenly the Armenian historian of Albania Movses Kalankatuatsi receives Turkic name Kalankutlu? And what attitude has Media to Transcaucasia?! Obviously same, as Persian poet Nezami - to Azeri literature. for a long time it is time at last to cease to repeat lie and crazy falsifications and to start to write at last original history azeri people and its country?Sfrandzi 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides at Kalankatuatsi really there are mentions of the state of Khazars, but I have not found, that it placed it on left I protect of Kura. Any references in clause when it is spoken about early settlement of Turks in Azerbaijan, no. The statement, that arabs initially named Azerbaijan Bilad Al Qybchaq (country Kypchaks), it is strange: First Kypchaks have appeared much later, almost simultaneously with seldjuks; secondly they never lived in Azerbaijan, and " Country Kypchaks " steppes of Ukraine and Northern Caucasus referred to. In general - falsifications, falsifications and falsifications. Knowing Russian can check up under text Kalankatuatsi: [11]Sfrandzi 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Independent" Khanates in the 18th century ?!

"Independent"?!

The Persian "gold standard" of ruling any province was choosing a Khan for that distract : So considering every Khanate as a "independent state" seems to be incorrect ...Almost every place in Iran had a Khan in the Qajar era , but every Khan was loyal to the king. Isfahan , Kerman and Tehran itself had Khans to rule the ordinary governmental tasks, but that does not means they where "Independent"... As an example ,Javad Khan of Ganja himself was of the Qajar dynasty and there are many written orders from the Qajar King to khans to do something or and not to do .

About "Javad Khan Ziyad Oglu Qajar"[12] : (in Persian)

1-[13]

2- دنبلي، عبدالرزاق. مآثر سلطانيه. به اهتمام غلامحسين صدري افشار. تهران: انتشارات ابن سينا، چاپ دوم، ص 109.(Dinbali, Maaser Sultaniyen, Ghlaamhoussen Sadriafshar, Tehran, Ibn-Sina Pub,page 109 )

About the relation of Iranian kings and Khanates :

1-اسنادي از روابط ايران با منطقه‌ي قفقاز – انتشارات وزارت امور خارجه – چاپ نخست تهران 1372 ("Some Documents of Iran-Caucasus relations", Vezarat Kharejeh Pub , 1st ed , 1372)

2- [14] (Order of Iranian king to Kabardian , Chechnyaian and Ossetian khans to arm against Russian invasion ) Alborz Fallah

Some were loyal to Shah, others were not. For example, Karabakh khanate was not loyal to shah, and even waged a war with Aga Mohammed shah Qajar. Grandmaster 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Panah Ali khan was a traditional foe of Mohammad Hassan khan Qajar (father of Agha Mohammad khan Qajar[15] )- when both of them were only Khans in Iran (Post- Nader's era) , when Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar became king of all of Iran , he invaded Ibrahim Khalil Khan ( son of Panah Ali Khan ) . That means there have been no doubt about dependency of Khanates to Iran , but because of the personal hatred and competition among them, there were some conflicts ... Alborz Fallah 9 March 2007

There was a rivalry between Qajar and Javanshir clans, because Karabakh was traditionally ruled by Qajars of Ganja, but after Nadir shah took away that land from them, head of Javanshir clan Panah khan declared himself a ruler of Karabakh after Nadir shah's death. Qajars never agreed with that, so they waged wars with khans of Karabakh. However the khanate was independent, because if it was subordinated to the shah, the latter would not invade Karabakh. Grandmaster 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty true! But rivalry between clans doesn't means territorial independence: the worst battles inside Iran was between Zand dynasty and Qajars , Zands where Kurds and Qajar's have been Turkamans but none of them considered themselves tobe un-Iranian .In the turbulent times after the Nadir , every regional government of Iran was doing it's best to became the central government . Javanshirs of Karabakh are still famous in Iran for supporting Persian literature and that seems to in contrast with their regional point of view; "Javan-shir" itself is a Persian word that means "young Lion " , or "Pannah - Ali" means "supported by ali " Alborz Fallah 9 March 2007

Agree, but independence in this case was not as much the desire to break away from Iran as much as it was the weakness of Iranian government. All the independent and semi-independent khanates appeared after the death of Nadir shah. And since Iranian state had no effective control over some of those khanates, they were at least de-facto independent. Grandmaster 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the whole discussion , it appears that "independent" is a partisan word to be used in this place ! Some of the Khanates where officially dependent and some of them were semi-dependent. Anyway; I think using controversial word may misinform the reader.Using the sentence: "Russian and Ottoman intervention and constant internecine strife prevented the formation of an Azeri unified state." in accordance with the "independent states" may induce the concept that Iran and Russia invaded the Azerbaijan and divided it into two parts, but it is not true! Azerbaijan was united in the Iranian body and Abbas- Mirza(Qajar prince , head of the Iranian force in Persia- Russian wars) was himself an Azeri , and the Qajars themselves were Iranian Turks ...Alborz Fallah 9 March 2007

We can change that line for NPOV, but the reason that Russia expanded into Caucasus was that Iran had no effective control over the region. Khans were fighting with each other, and while some of them nominally accepted Iranian dominion, others did not. I think independent is correct, but not applicable to all khanates. For example, such khanates as Ganja and Erivan, both ruled by Qajars, were royal to ruling Qajar dynasty, while Qarabakh and Quba were practically independent and Iran had no control over those areas. I think we need to differentiate between various khanates. Grandmaster 06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of new here ... don't know the exact way of expressing "neutral point of view " .... What Do you think about changing the title " Independent Khanates in the 18th century" to " khanates in ... "(omit the word ) or to change it all to something like "Chaos in the region " And/or what about using the word "vassal state" [16] Alborz Fallah 12 March 2007

The khanates Karabakh, Guba, Talish, Sheki were independent. This is proven, for example, by the fact that they minted their own coins. They had Ambassadors in foreign countries (e.g., Russia for Karabakh khanate). And most importantly, they signed individual treaties on accession to the Russian Empire, separate from the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties. Obviously, the Russian tsar would not bother signing treaties with vassals of another empire -- only with independent rulers. That's why traditionally, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs rebuffed all Iranian claims to lands north of Araxes, stating that even before the Gulistan Treaty was signed, many of those khanates were independent and voluntarily joined the Russian empire. Some references about the independence of the khanates can be found in John F. Baddeley's 1908 book, for example. Others are clear from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and its map. --adil 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's from John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", Longman, Green and Co., London: 1908. "Potto [Russian military historian and general] sums up Tsitsianoff's [the first general, commander of Russian army] achievements and character as follows: "In the short time he passed there (in Transcaucasia) he managed to completely alter the map of the country. He found it composed of minutely divided, independent Muhammadan States leaning upon Persia, namely, the khanates of Baku, Shirvan, Shekeen, Karabagh, Gandja, and Erivan, to which must be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh..." (p. 71)

Then again when describing the aftermath of Tsitsinaov's murder: "The Georgian princes found in it a fresh opportunity to pursue their personal ambitions; the Muhammadan khans renewed hope of independence; while Turkey and Persia were only too ready to encourage all who on any pretext, or for any reason, were hostile to Russia." (p. 73)

Also, this is a key quote, showing best what Gulistan Treaty really was, and what it was not: "...an armistice was followed in October by the preliminary treaty of Gulistan. Russia by this instrument was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with part of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhazia." (p. 90)

"One by one the khanates and other independent States, by policy or by arms, were being brought within the fold of the empire." (p. 135)

"Count Zouboff in 1796 had transferred the throne of Shirvan to his cousin, Kasim, but no sooner had the Russians retired that Moustafa recovered possession, and retained his independence until the fall of Gandja and conquest of Karabagh in Tsitsianoff's time. He had the submitted to Russian suzeiranty..." (p. 139)

"Of all the khanates, Talish, the most distant, alone remained independent, for the reason that its rulers were implacably hostile to Persia." (p. 144) --adil 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About the coins, I would be glad to know more about them, but anyway minting (silver) coins was part of the duty of provincial governments of Iran, and that's no big deal to find such coins. Guba , is still a Persian language region in the Azerbaijan republic [17]and the word "Khudat" (ancient Kuba) means "God" or "God's place" in Persian . Ardabil-Mosque and ancient Zoroastrian temple in the village of Xinaliq,shows it's iranian heritage...The Talish Khanates were hostile to Qajars because of their Sunni belief vs Qajar's Sheia, but they were and still are Persian language (Tat). About the "ambassadors" and the letters(so-called "treaties") to the Russian Empire , that was only when the central government of Iran wanted to replace them , and they did that to find a protector against the Qajars. Almost no one mentions any treaties other than Gulistan and Turkmenchay as the base of annexation of the lands north of Araxes from Iran ... Alborz Fallah26 March 2007

This is from Abbasgulu Bakikhanov’s Golestani Iram, which was written in Persian and might be available to Iranian readers, I quote the Russian version:

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. [18]

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.

Grandmaster 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, what is your point? Do you disagree with numerous sources that most of the khanates north of Araxes were independent of Iran? If so, then you are doing Original Research, and you contravene the Verifiability clause. Meanwhile, if so and so is of Iranian origin and speaks an Iranian language -- doesn't mean they are part of Iran. Example -- Armenians, which speak an Indo-European language and themselves are of Aryan origin (or so is considered). So why are you not claiming them as part of Iran? Gulistan Treaty concerned itself also with all the Georgian kingdoms (there were 4 or 5 of them) -- why not claim them too? Meanwhile, Talish are mostly Shia, who told you they were mostly Sunni? Likewise, the Xinalig, Lagich, and other such villages, are remote small villages that never played an important role militarily or culturally speaking. Just because they are in Guba khanate terrtory does not give the right to anyone to declare all of Guba as Iranian -- that would be impossible as it's essentially in the center of Caucasus, and has so many Caucasian people, such as Lezgins, Avars, etc., living there. Guba khanate was perhaps the most powerful khanate, and together with Karabakh khanate were the most independent of them all. As of Treaties, what matters is that they exist, and they are primary source, and take precedence over secondary sources, such as the "almost no one" you mention.

Regarding coins: in the khanates south of Araxes (Tabriz, Urmiya, Ardabil, Khoy, Garadagh, Sarab, Maragha, Maku Khanates), which one's minted their own silver coins? Because in Azerbaijani khanates north of Araxes most did [19]

As of khans and ambassadors, here's what in 1784, Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, wrote to Potemkin:

"The letters of Ibrahim-khan are written with much greater politeness than the Turkish or other Persian ones when they have reached me. Please inform me who he is. How did he become khan? Is he young or old, strong or weak, and are the Persians inclined towards him?"

In July 1784 the empress bestowed upon Musa Sultan, the Karabakh ambassador, the honour of being the representative of a sovereign friendly state, commanding that an artillery salute be given, and that he be shown all the fountains and sights of Peterhof, "all worthy curiosities, especially our fleet". [Central State Military Historical Archives of Russia, fund 52, list I/194, act 72, lines 130-1, in Russian]

As you can see, Ibrahim khan of Karabakh had a very interesting exchange of letters with the Empress (!) of Russia -- I don't imagine some vassal khan of Loristan or Maku sending a letter (and receiving a response from her!) to Empress Catherine the Great, do you? And full military ceremonial honors were afforded to Ibrahim khan's Ambassador -- once again, can you imagine an Ambassador of the Sarab khanate going to Russia and being received there like a king? --adil 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• About the quote from Abbasgulu Bakikhanov,the Persian sentence can be understood as expressing sadness and complaint over anarchy and chaos,criticizing lack of central power.Bakikhanov himself says in Golestan- e- Iram:(page 174)

"آقامحمد خان‌به‌ استر آباد رفته‌، روز به‌ روز بر مراتب‌ حشمت‌ و تهيه‌ ي‌ اسباب‌ سلطنت‌ افزوده‌ وبر زنديه‌ غالب‌ آمده‌ و به‌ تدريج‌ ايالات‌ عراق‌ و فارس‌ و طبرستان‌ و گيلان‌ و آذربايجان‌ را مسخركرد ودر سنه‌ 1209 به‌ عزم‌ تسخير قره‌ باغ‌، پل‌ خدا آفرين‌ را كه‌ ابراهيم‌ خان‌ قره‌ باغي‌ براي‌ منع‌ عبور لشكر ايران‌، ويران‌ كرده‌ بود، تعمير و بر سر قلعه‌ ي‌ پناه‌ آباد كه‌ آن‌ را شوشي‌گويند آمده‌ و در منزل‌ توپخانه‌ نزول‌ و به‌ محاصره‌ پرداخت‌ و تقريبا" پس‌ از يكماه‌ عزيمت‌ گرجستان‌ نمود و پس‌ از قتل‌ و غارت‌ تخريب‌ تفليس‌، مراجعت‌ كرده‌ ودر موضع‌ چهل‌تن‌ مغان‌ به‌ قشلاقمشي‌ پرداخت‌. حكام‌ شيروان‌ و باكو و شكي‌ و قباو دربند با ارسال‌ عرايض‌ و هدايا اظهار اخلاص‌ كردند ."

"When Agha Muhammad Khan went to Staar-Abaad , he became more powerful day after day....After returning from Tblisi , the rulers of Shirvan , Baku , Shaaki , Quba and Darband write to him and send their gifts to show their loyalty" .[20]

• I would be glad to know more about "Numerous sources" about the khanates that were independent of Iran.Encyclopaedia Iranica as a reliable source may have a different point of view :[21](about Ebrahim Xalil Xan Javanshir as an example).Mentioning Iranian languages of Quba was to show the fact that signing treaties,sending legations or minting coins was not an act of independence in that era . Many local governors and also many members of the royal family of Qajars did do that in that time . There is a large amount of coins that are minted in provincial governments of Iran - in contrast with what you say - as an example :MAZANDARAN [22], QAZWIN[23], TABRIZ [24],KHUY[25]and etc .
• The interesting point is that the "khanate coins" are in same shape and have the same inscribe of other Iranian coins ! The first and second Khanate coin that was previously mentioned [26]has the same inscribe of Iranian coins : "The Sun and moon have become gold and silver throughout the world, from the coin of Imam, indeed the Master of Time" same as all of the other Iranian coins. The other important fact is about the gold vs. silver coins : the central government used to use gold and silver and copper, but the local governors did not used gold . Sending representatives to the superpowers has been a normal act in that era (esp. for the border governers) as that can be seen for the ruler of Lorestān and Khūzestān Sheikh Khaz'al Khan to the British emperor . --AlborzFallah 30 March 2007

• In comparing Armenian and Georgian kingdoms- with an Indo-European language and being of Aryan origin as you mentioned- with Azerbaijani Khanates , and asking about "why are you not claiming them as part of Iran?" and "Gulistan Treaty concerned itself also with all the Georgian kingdoms"; the point is about the "Iranian Azerbaijani's" and the difference between Iranian main lands and non-main lands! Iranian Azerbaijani's are an essential part of Iranian nation and that's different from Armenians or Georgians: about one third of Iranians are Azeris . After the session of the lands, Iranian reactionaries (many of them being Iranian Azeris), who were not satisfied with the Turkmenchay Treaty, attacked the Russian embassy [27][28] and killed the Russian ambassador. There have been also a Fatwa(declaring a holy war) against Imperial Russia for annexation the Iranian-Azerbaijani lands... Still in Persian language , when somebody wants to say something is extremely humiliating or unfair ,they say: "That's Turkmenchay" ! AlborzFallah 1 April 2007

Bakikhanov wrote his book in two languages, with Russian being his later and thus preferred and more correction edition. Yet expressing sadness and complain over chaos is normal, I do that too -- but to hint that Bakikhanov, a Russian Imperial military officer and Colonel, would be pro-Shah is too much.

What about the reference to Iranica's article written by Armenian scholar Bournoutian? Karabakh khanate was independent from Iran, as were several other khanates. Meanwhile, some of the coins your provide are either of copper mint, and minted by a "rebel" (as identified by the source itself), or Kerim khan Zend, who was the de facto ruler of Iran, yet not a shah, all during the period when Iran essentially did not exist, as Zands, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars all fought each other for control, and Qajar's ultimately winning. By the way, Panah Ali khan of Karabakh helped Zand in his struggles in Iran. --adil 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Abbasgulu Bakikhanov wrote Golestan e Iram in Persian.He wrote ten books : one is in Azeri (Riyadh al-Quds), one in Arabic(eyn al mizan )and 8 others are in Persian.He never translated Golestan e Iram to Russian himself .As a foot-note in the Russian text [29], it has been written :

Заключительный раздел «Четвертого периода» труда А. Бакиханова (о Надир-шахе) впервые был опубликован в виде отдельной статьи под названием «О походах Надир-шаха в Дагестан» в газете «Кавказ», № 17, 18 от 27 апреля и 4 мая 1846 г. (см. также: Бакиханов А. К. Сочинения. Записки и письма, с. 150—161, 304).

That translates as :

" The final section of " the Fourth period " A.Bakihanova's work (about Nadir-shah) for the first time has been published in the form of separate clause under the name « About campaigns of the Nadir-shah to Dagestan » in the newspaper "Caucasus", 17, 18 from April, 27th and on May, 4th, 1846 (see also: Bakihanov A.K.Sochinenija. A note and the letter, with. 150—161, 304)."

That means you are reading a translation of the book ! (From A.K.Sochineniya) and not the original ....

• About him being pro-Iranian ,it can be mentioned that he was warmly received by the Shah of Persia and was awarded a Shir-e Khorshid, the highest ranking Persian medal in 1845, that is many years after 1828.
• I think "the discussion section" is provided for exchanging the knowledge and information : then that would be great if you tell us the address of the page that evil- Armenian (!)" Bournoutian" has written about Karabakh.
• Mentioning the coins was to show minting coins does not meant independency in that era . Every province could do that and that was normal. By the sentence "all during the period when Iran essentially did not exist" do you want to say "all during the period when - central power in -Iran essentially did not exist" ? The fact that Panah Ali Khan Involved himself in power struggle in Iran, shows that he did not consider himself a sovereign nation .AlborzFallah 2 April 2007

Why do we argue about facts? Bakikhanov wrote first in Farsi, but later translated the book into Russian himself, albeit with help from Russian colleague Kuzmin and some help from Polish writer Zablotskiy. Bakikhanov updated his newer version of Gulistan-i Iram in Russian, this is clearly detailed in the last academic edition of his book in Russian, published in USSR in 1991, which you cite. Specifically, here are the lines from the introduction to the book:

"изданию полного текста исторического сочинения А. К. Бакиханова Гюлистан-и Ирам, написаннного самим автором на русском языке, причем текст этот не является адекватным одноименному его сочинению на языке персидском" 4

"Сочинение Гюлистан-и Ирам на персидском языке было закончено А. К. Бакихановым в 1841г. 5 В 1844г. с помощью Василия Кузьмина, служившего, как и А. К. Бакиханов, переводчиком при канцелярии Главноуправляющего Грузией, перевел Гюлистан-и Ирам на русский язык 6. Можно предположить, что А. К. Бакиханов к этому времени имел достаточные познания в русском языке и самостоятельно изложил свои изыскания, а Василий Кузьмин помогал ему шлифовать переведенный текст. Кроме Кузьмина большую помощь при подготовке русского текста Гюлистан-и Ирам (тогда История восточной части Кавказа) оказал А. К. Бакиханову сосланный из Польши на Кавказ писатель Тадеуш Лада Заблоцкий 7. Вероятно, это тот список, являющийся автографом самого А. К. Бакиханова, который хранится в Институте рукописей АН Грузинской ССР (фонд РОС, № 370).

Первоначально русский текст сочинения именовался Историей Дагестана, о чем Свидетельствует Фридрих Боденштедт, который в 1844 г. писал: «Ученый хан приехал в Тифлис только На несколько недель, чтобы организовать русский перевод «Истории Дагестана», написанный им на персидском языке» 8. Далее Ф. Боденштедт пишет, что сочинение это «вышло в печати три года тому назад (1846) и дает непроверенный, но богатый материал для ознакомления со странами Прикаспия» 9. [5]

В 1844 же году русский текст сочинения был представлен командиру Кавказского корпуса генералу Нейгарду, который отправил его в Петербург военному министру России А. И. Чернышеву." --adil 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fact or fiction ,Bakikhanov's language and/or changing of his books are not the central matter of this disscusion . Anyway ,this sentence shows that there is still doubt in Bakikhanov's writing in Russian :"It is possible to assume, that A.K.Bakihanov by this time had sufficient knowledge of Russian and has independently stated the researches, and Vasily Kuzmin helped it to grind the translated text." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alborz Fallah (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
• I think the remarks that AdilBaguirov add here : Treaty of Turkmenchay should be very useful :

According to Prof. Svante Cornell:

“ In 1812 Russia ended a war with Turkey and went on the offensive against Iran . This lead to the treaty of Gulistan in 1813, which gave Russia control over large territories that hitherto had been at least nominally Iranian, and moreover a say in Iranian succession politics. The whole of Daghestan and Georgia, including Mingrelia and Abkhazia were formally ceded to Russia , as well as eight Azeri Khanates (Karabakh, Ganja, Sheki, Kuba, Shirvan, Talysh, Baku , and Derbent). However as we have seen the Persians soon challenged Russia ’s rule in the area, resulting in a military disaster. Iran lost control over the whole of Azerbaijan , and with the Turkemenchai settlement of 1828 Russia threatened to establish its control over Azerbaijan unless Iran paid a war indemnity. The British helped the Iranians with the matter, but the fact remained that Russian troops had marched as far as south of Tabriz . Although certain areas (including Tabriz ) were returned to Iran , Russia was in fact at the peak of its territorial expansion. ”

According to Cambridge History of Iran:

“ "Even when rulers on the plateau lacked the means to effect suzerainty beyond the Aras, the neighboring Khanates were still regarded as Iranian dependencies. Naturally, it it was those Khanates located closes to the province of Azarbaijan which most frequently experienced attempts to re-impose Iranian suzerainty: the Khanates of Erivan, Nakhchivan and Qarabagh across the Aras, and the cis-Aras Khanate of Talish, with its administrative headquarters located at Lankaran and therefore very vulnerable to pressure, either from the direction of Tabriz or Rasht. Beyond the Khanate of Qarabagh, the Khan of Ganja and the Vali of Gurjistan (ruler of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom of south-east Georgia), although less accessible for purposes of coercion, were also regarded as the Shah's vassals, as were the Khans of Shakki and Shirvan, north of the Kura river. The contacts between Iran and the Khanates of Baku and Qubba, however, were more tenuous and consisted mainly of maritime commercial links with Anzali and Rasht. The effectiveness of these somewhat haphazard assertions of suzeiranty dependend on the ability of a particular Shah to make his will felt, and the determination of the local khans to evade obligations they regarded as onerous." ”

Iranian dependencies or Independent ?

"The Khan of Ganja , as well as the Khans of Shakki and Shirvan,were regarded as the Shah's vassals"

AlborzFallah 09:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, all sources agree that Iran had a firm control over the Caucasus before the murder of Nadir shah. After Nadir was killed, the Iranian state disintegrated, and while the Caucasus was nominally part of the Iranian state, Iran de-facto had a very weak control over the region, and not any at all in certain regions. Indeed, if Karabakh khanate was subordinate to Iranian shah, why did the latter had to invade it twice, and both times without any success? The answer is obvious, Karabakh khanate was independent, and probably not because it really wanted to break away, but because of the rivalry between Javanshir and Qajar clans. The same is true for Guba khanate, which also was independent. Whatever was the reason, it is a fact that those khanates were fully independent. At the same time the khanates of Irevan and Ganja, ruled by Qajars, were royal to Iranian shahs, but still they were rather vassal states than governorates, because their khans ruled hereditary and did not consult with Iranian authorities on many issues. Grandmaster 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that your own source talks about “attempts to re-impose Iranian suzerainty”, which shows that Iranian state had no effective control over the region, however it tried to reestablish it. Grandmaster 09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• " If Karabakh khanate was subordinate to Iranian shah, why did the latter had to invade it twice?"That was nothing new in that era : the same conflicts was between the Esfahani and Qazvini khans and the King ...as an example , Fat′h Ali Shah Qajar's three successive campaigns (1214-16/1799-1801) to subdue the khans of Khorasan that were only partially successful, doesn't means the independency of Khorasani Khans.All I want to say is the point that there is difference between Independent, sovereign nations/states and the situation of the Khanates. My mother tongue is not English and I can't find the suitable word - instead of "independent" - to show their level of autonomy and avoiding mixing it with today's political nomenclature . AlborzFallah6 April 2007
• More Information : Iranian maps in 1768,1817,1771,1822and 1831Alborz Fallah 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

This article is very confusing. What is it exactly the history of? The Republic of Azerbaijan or Iranian Azerbaijan or what? It certainly cannot be of both, because for the majority of history, these regions were not one. I find this article very confusing. It also needs to cite more sources.Azerbaijani 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Samir-222

Could you please explain your edit? You changed information that has Brittanica as a source. Thanks.Azerbaijani 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan->Caucasus

I changed references such as Islamic Azerbaijan, Safavids and the rise of Shi'ism in Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan under Russian Rule to Islamic Caucasus, Safavids and the rise of Shi'ism in the Caucasus, and South Caucasus under Russian Rule for obvious reasons (for example, there was no Azerbaijan in the Caucasus in the 1800's, so the title "Azerbaijan under Russian Rule" is incorrect).Azerbaijani 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about history of Azerbaijan, and not Caucasus. Plus, not all of Caucasus was Islamic, Georgia for example remained Christian. Grandmaster 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But then how can you say Azerbaijan when, for example, there was no Caucasian Azerbaijan during the time of the Russian conquests of the Caucasus? We could change them to South Caucasus if that suites you better.Azerbaijani 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it as it is. Azerbaijan was used to refer to the territories north of Araks as well. And South Caucasus is not just Azerbaijan, it is also Georgia and Armenia. Grandmaster 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What, what on obvious bias..."just leave it as it is". Actually, no, during the Russian conquests, it was not called Azerbaijan, when the Muslims conquered the Caucasus, it was not called Azerbaijan, etc..., so what are you talking about?Azerbaijani 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Satrapy

Caucasus Albania was a satrapy. Shapur makes that clear in his inscription.

Encyclopaedia Britannica: The list of provinces given in the inscription of Ka'be-ye Zardusht defines the extent of the empire under Shapur, in clockwise geographic enumeration: (1) Persis (Fars), (2) Parthia, (3) Susiana (Khuzestan), (4) Maishan (Mesene), (5) Asuristan (southern Mesopotamia), (6) Adiabene, (7) Arabistan (northern Mesopotamia), (8) Atropatene (Azerbaijan), (9) Armenia, (10) Iberia (Georgia), (11) Machelonia, (12) Albania (eastern Caucasus), (13) Balasagan up to the Caucasus Mountains and the Gate of Albania (also known as Gate of the Alans), (14) Patishkhwagar (all of the Elburz Mountains), (15) Media, (16) Hyrcania (Gorgan), (17) Margiana (Merv), (18) Aria, (19) Abarshahr, (20) Carmania (Kerman), (21) Sakastan (Sistan), (22) Turan, (23) Mokran (Makran), (24) Paratan (Paradene), (25) India (probably restricted to the Indus River delta area), (26) Kushanshahr, until as far as Peshawar and until Kashgar and (the borders of) Sogdiana and Tashkent, and (27), on the farther side of the sea, Mazun (Oman)

Also, the province had a governor, which had all of the power. If Albania was a vassal, it would not have had a governor, and its king would have retained control over his region, but that was not the case.Azerbaijani 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the name of the governor? And if there was a governor, why did Albania had its own king? Grandmaster 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the UK have a monarchy when it it has no power at all? I brought a primary source that says it was a province from Britannica. Iranica also says that the province had governors. Where do you get the notion that Albania had any independence?Azerbaijani 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the source that I quoted? It says that Albania was a vassal state. And Britannica also says that some of territories listed were vassal states. Grandmaster 04:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you also seen what I've posted?Azerbaijani 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The last edit

The last edit was mine.Azerbaijani 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, except the edit comment claiming something "agreed" was not true. Come to consensus first, before removing text from the page. Atabek 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See the agreement between Tombseye and I. Tombseye is the person who wrote this article and we both agreed that this is about the history of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atabek, want your doing is called disruptive editing.Hajji Piruz 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just like you do on Safavid page, no consensus is final. So, with all due respect to all editors, there is only one geographical entity known as Azerbaijan. And as was proven to you, it's spreading from Hamadan in South to Daghestan in North. Whether that entity is politically divided between Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran, is another question, but historical Azerbaijan definitely has a single historical identity. We don't discuss history of the United States by states neither do we discuss History of Iran by its provinces. Atabek 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never violated any consensus on the Safavids article, what are you talking about? My comment was that new users will come who dont know or were not part of Wikipedia at the time of the consensus of the Safavids article, so it shouldnt be a surprise if they mess with the article. What does that have to do here? And the only thing that was proven with regards to Azerbaijan was that it was historically northwestern Iran. This is called disruptive editing. What I see here is you trying to take your frustration out on me. Maybe your angry that the anon's keep chaning stuff on the Safavids article, but this has nothing to do with this article or me, so I suggest you calm down. This is a history of the country of Azerbaijan and its territory, simple as that, nothing more nothing less.

If you want, you can try to merge this article into the history of Iran article, but something tells me you wont. The states of the United States are part of the United States, thats why the history of the United States covers them. The Republic of Azerbaijan and its territory have a history seperate than the historical Azerbaijan and its history. This has all been discussed above and that is the conclusion we have come to.

I will tell you the same thing that I told Grandmaster and Dacy69, something that made both of them pretty much speechless.

You guys are relying an a few sources, most of which are contradictory or make a lot of mistakes, in order to cling onto your POV that Azerbaijan also existed in the Caucasus. However, there are also a few primary sources that say Armenia extended all the way to the Caspian Sea.

So you guys say that even if a few sources say something, that means its correct. So by that same logic, doesnt this mean that historical Armenia extended all the way to the Caspian Sea (therefore the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan would technically be Armenian land right?).

Yes or no, does the few sources that say Armenia's boundaries went all the way to the Caspian Sea mean that those were Armenia's historical boundaries? Its a yes or no question. Either you agree that its the majority of the sources that count, or you dont, and if you dont, then you have to agree that historical Armenia stretched all the way to the Caspian Sea.Hajji Piruz 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no agreement on deletion of info about Azerbaijan. The part that you deleted is directly related to Azerbaijan:

Azerbaijan continued to decline after the reign of Shah Abbas as the Safavids divided the territory of Azerbaijan into four Beglerbegligs (beg[bey, bek, bay] is a noble Turkic title), or administrative areas: Tabriz, Chukhursada (Nakhchivan), Shirvan and Qarabagh. These were previously ruled by Qizilbash wakils, who were being replaced by a Persian aristocracy. Grandmaster 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source for it and why is Tabriz included if its about the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan?Hajji Piruz 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Salam to everyone. Comments (I saw this article via e-mail where someone asked me to get involved and then saw also users in safavid's were involved):

Suggestion: guys lets not start an edit war here. I am not going to edit this page at all, but I do want to make some comments (just for one time).

a) On Shah Abbas actually he retook Azerbaijan from the Ottomans. But I do not think he weakened Azerbaijan. Definitely the constant Ottoman attacks were probably the reason why Isfahan was chosen as the capital and in a sense , if anything weakened Azerbaijan, it had to be the constant Ottoman attacks on Tabriz. For example an Ottoman edict says: Shi'i blood is halal and their women can be taken... Shah Abbas basically weakened the Ghezelbash element but this had nothing to do with any sort of ethnicity or anything in my opinion. The Ghezelbash were simply not professional army and Shah wanted a professional army to defeat the Ottomans. They were more tribal and were fighting amongst themselves many times. So the issue really has no bearing on any sort of ethnic issues. Tabriz was captured in 1603 from the Ottomans by Shah Abbas. So I am not sure when Shah Abbas administrized the areas in question although I do not think ( I could be wrong) that he made a province named Tabriz (since it has always been a city), but before re-capturing them, they were part of Ottoman territory actually. There was no real sense of territorial independence of Azerbaijan or autonomy under Safavids (as opposed to say Pishevari) since this sort of ethnic issues are more from the 20th century and Safavids themselves were Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani speaking anyways. So I do sugest the statement be sourced or fixed up.

About the section: (Pre-Islamic Nomads) [30] this section actually seems to be an exact copy of what was in the Azerbaijani People article. I have discussed this section here:[31][[32], and afterwards mainly Tombeyese but also others including GM and myself fixed it up in the Azerbaijani people. For example the part about Mua'wiyah is about Ra'ish, a Yemense king who in Arab myths conquers Sindh, India, Azerbaijan and etc. According Tabari, Ra'esh helps Manouchehr defeat Afrasiyab in Azerbaijan, and thus Afrasiyab controlled Azerbaijan (Tabari's time, Afrasiyab was believed to be a leader of Turks due to identification of mythical Turanians with Turks). So that whole statement is really a myth. This myth is also in Ba'lami, Miskawiyah and others and Persian myths really are not always historical. (now and days some scholars of the bible claim Noah, Adam were myths too..but that is not the issue).

The other issues I raised before (and then fixed by Tombeyese) is here: [33][34]. Basically 200 A.D., there was no Khazar empire and the quote by Moses Kalankatly was not found. For example:army of Gokturks entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks .. is not in Moses Kalankatly.

About Arrattans, I am not sure if it is related. Some hyper Iranian historian also claimed Arratans were Persians since Herodotus also calls Persians as Aratai. But the time difference between the two Persians and Arratans (Sumerian time) is 2000 years. The location and place of Arratans is not certain really, but anything verifiable and sourced is of course acceptable. I would be interested to see that sourced. Actually I just found the wiki link on Aratta [35]. It seems to say both Urartu (Kinda sounds like Aratta although sound resembelences are no proof) and Jiroft are two candidates. But I am not sure about the reliability of the article.

I recommend working issues out on the talkpage instead of re-editing it and if there is any problem, get someone like Tombeyese involved who really made the Azerbaijani people article and fixed up the history section to a very professional level. Best way to approach any issue that has disagreements is to respect each other, bring verifiable sources, do not talk about outside issues that might raise unnecessary tension, if there is a disagreement about the verifiable sources, then quote them. I'll be glad to help anyone out (regardless of their country) with sources through E-mail but I don't want to be involved in this topic more than this, although another user also suggested I really should, but I have better things to do for now with life. :) --alidoostzadeh 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali, this article is about the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, not the Iranian region Azerbaijan. It was Tombseye who agreed that the article should not include Iranian Azerbaijan as part of its scope. As always, good to read your posts and have your input.Hajji Piruz 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the anon who was making nationalistic attacks on other users and reverting their edits. --Grandmaster 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted sock of the banned user, which needs no explanation, but just in case please be aware that banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any form and their edits are considered vandalism. --Grandmaster 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)