Talk:Baku Khanate

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Independence

Here is what Swietochowski writes: "In 1747 Nadir Shah... was assassinated in a palace coup... These circumstances effectively terminated the suzerainty of Persia over Azerbaijan, where local centers of power emerged in the form of indigenous principalities, independent or virtually so, inasmuch as some maintained tenuous links to Persia's weak Zand dynasty" (p. 2).

The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History (p. 22) also mentions Baku Khanate as an independent state.

Another source, Charles van der Leeuw, Oil and gas in the Causasus & Caspian, p. 37: "After the Russian withdrawal in 1735, the independent khanate of Baku was created, ruled by a feudal family".

Robert Strausz-Hupé, Harry W. Hazard, The idea of colonialism, p. 77: "In 1806 [Russian] resistance was finally crushed in the Baku khanate and other independent principalities". brandt 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"independent" means that it had international recognition. But independently functioning in its internal affair is different. These Khanates still recognized themselves as Iranian and they were vassal of the Iranian King.--St. Hubert (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The vassalage was only nominal. Those khanates had their own army, own coinage, maintained international relations and waged wars. Iran had no effective control over the region. I have cited plenty of sources about this. Again:

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

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

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

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

Now will you stop edit warring and reverting for the banned user? Please be aware that Azerbaijan related articles are arbitration covered area, and admins are allowed to place disruptive editors under supervised editing. --Grandmaster 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Khanate of Baku, just like all other Azerbaijani khanates in Caucasus, was independent though formally under Persian suzerainty. It's important to show both references. Atabəy (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This means under Iranian sovereignty but self ruling.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, why don't you present arguments and references as to which "Persian rule" ruled over Karabakh khanate, if the Khan of Karabakh was signing direct treaties with Russian Czar? Iranian sovereignty over the region was over with the rule of Safavids and Afshars, which is why all the khanates were established states.Atabəy (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Signing treaties neither historically nor politically shows independence : also Javad Khan signed some treaties with Russians , but he himself says he is a Beylerbey of Ganja. So is true in modern world such as the treaties of Iraqi Kurdistan and/or states of federal states in EU or USA . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between the khans of Ganja and Erivan and other Azeri khans. The former 2 were Qajars, and thus they remained loyal to their relatives from Qajar dynasty, but others only formally accepted Iranian independence and were de-facto sovereign states. I cited many sources about that which were all deleted. This is not acceptable. The information from reliable sources should not be suppressed. Grandmaster 05:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I knew you as a reasonable man. There is no sense of disagreement it is only a case of formulation. We say the same thing, but some formulations suggest that Iran did not exist and that is not acceptable. At that time also other parts of Iran acted defacto selfruling. This is what the bulk of sources tell us if you read them carfully as a whole. It is how the empire in those days were governed.So any formulkation should keep in mind that those khanates were not more or less different than other parts of Iran 2- They were Iranian territory.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one says that Iran did nit exist, it did exist, but it had no strong central authority after Nadir shah was assassinated. Therefore the khanates north of Araks were de-facto independent, or self-ruling, or whatever term suits better. Some of them even waged wars with Qajar dynasty, like Qarabakh khanate. I think we need to find better wording that would accurately reflect the situation. Grandmaster 06:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

yes better wording. "they were part of the Iranian territory and were self-ruling in the context of the Iranian Zand dynasty's realm". In addition you are right that these Khanates were predominantly Shia Turkicspeaking. Armenian influx came later. I think we can agree about that too and safegaurd this too against Armenian nationalist claims. Once the Iranian and republic Azeri historiography are coordinated, the Armenian side will agree too.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I read Brandt's source [1] differently. The author says "Most of the principalities were organized as khanates, small replicas of the Persian monarchy..." In other words, they modeled their political structure after the Persians. He points out that the Baku khanate was one of these. He also admits that some of the khanates "maintained ...links" with Persia's Zand dynasty. Just because he calls them "weak" or "tenuous" doesn't mean they aren't there.

He also says "Thus began a half-century-long period of Azerbaijani independence, albeit in a condition of deep political fragmentation and internal warfare..." FUNCTIONALLY (or non-functionally would be a better word) independent at best, but clearly, as he says on page one of that book: "From the time of ancient Media and Achaemenid Persia, Azerbaijan was drawn into the orbit of Iran" and "Azerbaijan retained its Iranian character even after the conquest of the region by Arabs and conversion to Islam in the mid-seventh century." In 1722 it was still ruled by Persians. They may have had something called independence but it seems they still saw themselves as Persian, organized themselves as Persian, even after the many challenges with Islam and Arabs. When Nadir Shah was assassinated, no other strong leader emerged and a kind of local tribalism in its stead, modeled on the Persian. The author definitely uses the term "independence" loosely. They simply fell into smaller Persian-like pieces, in my view. Stellarkid (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One could almost imagine if, for example, something happened and the US states gained "independence" and the states made political alliances, warred between one another and made treaties with other countries. They would still be Americans -- they would just be the un-united states of America. Stellarkid (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Small replicas of the Persian monarchy" does not mean that they were strongly dependent or incorporated. Looks like it is a personal interpretation of the source. There was no title of Khan in Persia, neither khanates as territorial divisions. In the 18th century there was an ongoing formation of Azerbaijani people. Suffice to say, the khanates dealt with Russian incursion by themselves. brandt 06:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"no title of Khan in Persia" ?! How many do you want me to count ? :) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading the discussion , I think Grandmaster is mentioning a good point . We have to find the best word that fits to khanate position . The Ganja Khanate had strong ties with the central government of Iran : because Ganja was the biggest city of that region and the governor was a blood relative of Iranian royal family. Khan of Erivan was also a Qajar , and that was because he was supposed to resist against Ottoman and Russian invading forces ( as a Beglarbegi) . The khan of Nakhjavan was a minor khan ,and he was acting in direct connection with the governors of Tabriz ( and Mako ) . In contrast , the powerful khans of Qarabakh khanate did not consider themselves as Qizilbash and their alliance was more with Nider Shah , his son and with Karim Khan (all non Qizibashs ) . The Khan of Baku was a minor Khan in comparison to Quba khan ( which had ties to the northern khans of Darband and Daghistan ) and was less dependent to Iranian Shah , but anyway , both Khans of Qarabagh and Baku lost their position in fight in the side of Iranian king : The Khan of Baku killed Tsitsianov and send his head to the Iranian king and Ibrahim Khalil Khan was been killed(with most of his family ) when he was going to help the approaching Iranian army . The Armenian population change in Russian era was prominent most of all in the regions that were more dependent to Iran (Erivan , Nakhjavan and Ganja ). The Khans of Talesh was not so good with the Qajars and Qizibashs : don't know exactly why , but maybe because Qagars were Turkic language (vs Talish ) and many of the Talishi were Suunis ( vs Shia Qajars).
Summary :lets find the best word! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to find an acceptable wording. The khanates were fully autonomous in their affairs, they had their own armies, their own currency, etc. i.e. they had all attributes of states. So they cannot be called Persian ruled provinces. They were provinces when Iran had a strong central government, but once the central power collapsed, the khanates north of Araks became functionally independent states, only nominally recognizing the authority of Iranian shahs. As for khans of Talysh, they were not native to the region, they were relatives of Safavid dynasty, who settled in Talysh region, and were appointed as rulers. Grandmaster 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran had periods of centralized governments and decentralized government. Zand period is typically such a period, still formally recognation of Iranian sovereignty was enough for the Zand king (actually a Khan) to be part of Iran. In addition these khanates were no exception. Also this was the case with other parts of the Iranian empir, which were selfruling in that period. Nakhchivan, Iravan (Yerevan( and Talysh khanates however were part of Iran untill 1828 under a more centralized Qajar government.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think overemphasis on the army and currency should not be done . Last week I visited the Nakhjavani museum of history and searched for the coins of the Khanates and they answered there was no coin of that period , also when I searched in Internet every picture from the Khanate coins only show the place of coinage with Persian text that was uniform with the other Iranian coins . Also in Tabriz , I have the photos (from Tabriz Qajar Museum) that shows same coins of Khanates with but coined in Tehran and in gold coin ( and not silver ) . About the army , that was characteristic of the Iranian army to use the tribal and local forces : the first western style Iranian army was built by princes Abass Mirza during Iran-Russian war in Caucasus.Agree with Grandmaster when he says "They were provinces when Iran had a strong central government, but once the central power collapsed, the khanates north of Araks became functionally independent states" , but to bare in mind that after the Nader Shah , there were some powerful Iranian states like Karim Khan and some khans ( like Mohammad Hassan Khan Qajar , that was not a Shah but a very powerful Khan ) , that restored the central government rule in the northern Aras region . As an example , the title of Khan was given to the Qarabaghi khans by Adil Shah , or there are many decrees that Karim Khan has wrote to the khans of northern Aras region to do some thing or not to do .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the wording like this:

Baku Khanate was a Muslim principality on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power.

Functionally does not mean de-jure independent, it rather means de-facto independent. But since the terms de-jure/de-facto were not used at the time, maybe "functionally" would be better. Grandmaster 07:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, but without the word 'Muslim', has no value IMO. I hope the neutrality tag departs soon through discussion. Brandt 12:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"de facto selfgoverning Khanate on the Iranian territory". So both issues 1- Iranian territorial integrity (de-jure) and selfgoverning (de-facto) are mentioned.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the core idea of this wording is in connection with the article Khanates of the Caucasus.The opening of the article is this : "Khanates of the Caucasus were Persian ruled[1] [2][3] principalities on the territory of modern day....".Indeed , the new picture in that article may mislead the reader in that it combines the western states (non-Persian), with eastern Khanates (autonomous but under Persian suzerainty) in one picture and it should be changed , but anyway in the opening sentence , the connection with Persia(Iran) , is an important point -The picture is also wrong in depicting the borders of Gulistan treaty- . The states that have no organic connection with Iran , like Abkhazia , Georgia , Chechenia and Daghistan can't be easily considered as Khanates , as their rulers where not khans , and their title was Wālī ,Shamkhal and etc (and perhaps Armenian Malikdoms ).
Anyway , I prefer this sentence: Baku Khanate was a autonomous Muslim principality on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan under Iranian suzerainty. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

we should be very careful with the term territory. It is today in the territory of republic of Azerbaijan, at the time of their existence they were in the Iranian territory. Also suzerainty is ambiguous.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Babak , What's the change that you mean ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Iran had no real control over the region, the Iranian connection was only nominal. How about this:

Baku Khanate was a Muslim principality on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it enjoyed a wide degree of self-governance after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power.

So let's leave all the disputed points out of the intro. Just state the non-disputed facts. We can remove the word Muslim too, if it is redundant. Grandmaster 10:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "autonomous" , "principality" and "suzerainty" is used in the sentence to define the relationship and show the level of control. If we omit all of them , then the sentence may lost the point of reference. As I mentioned before, the title "Khanate" that points to a Khan, which is considered to be equal to "principality" , which points to a prince , needs to be defined : what was a "Khan" and in what regions that title was in use ? The word "Khan" , originally a Turkic word , was in use mostly in Iran , and not in Turkey (which used to use Pasha) ,Georgia (Wali), Russia and Daghistan (Shamkhal).
About the word "Muslim" , I don't insist on keeping it , but anyway , due to current dispute between Caucasusian nations on historical background of the region , I think it's important to mention the religion (see [2] and [3]). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? You cannot refer to those territories as provinces of Persia, as some of them even waged wars with Qajar rulers pf Iran, like Karabakh khanate. The connection of the region to Persia after 1747 was only nominal, as the central power in Iran was very weak. How about this:

The Baku khanate was a Muslim principality, which remained under a nominal Persian suzerainty but was de facto (functionally) independent. Grandmaster 07:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

""'...khanate was a self-ruling khanate within the territory of Iranian Empire then, in the areas which make up today the republic of Azerbaijan". --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think saying that khanate was a khanate kind of does not sound nice. Khanate was a principality, and khan was a feudal title. And in my version it is mentioned that the khans were the subjects of Iranian crown (under a nominal Persian suzerainty). Grandmaster 05:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for the others to propose their options.I think in wording the sentence , we may not only consider the difference between various Khanate relationships with the central government (I mean Ganja vs Qarabaghi relationship with central government), but also timing of them.As an example ,in the book Rostam-al-Tavarikh ,writen by Mohammad Hashem Asef (1247 AH ,1831) , p351, he names Fath `Ali Khan (Quba),Mostafa Khan Shirvan and Panah Ali Khan Javanshir as the Beglarbaygi's of Karim Khan Zand.
The sister of Fath `Ali Khan Quba ( Fatemeh Khanem) was the wife of Abolfazl Khan Zand (Son of Karim Khan) , and Ibrahim Khalil Khan was the helper of Karim Khan in defeating Fathali Khan of Urmia , and the title of Khan was given to him by the Karim Khan. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true, Panah Ali khan received farman from Adil shah, but Adil shah himself was something like a khan, whith no strong authority over the netire territory of teh country. You see that I quoted many sources above referring to the khanates as independent. I agree to drop the word independent despite that, but the claim that north of Araks was Iranian controlled region after the assasianation of Nadir shah is not true. It was only nominally a part of Iran at that time. While some of the khans were loyal to Qajar dynasty, such as Qajar rulers of Erivan and Ganja, other khans were quite disobedient (Qarabakh, Quba, etc). So I agree, situation was different for different khanates, but still, khanates were not provinces, but rather pricipalities which formally accepted suzerainty of the rulers of Iran. We need to find the wording that would describe the situation the best. I made a couple of suggestions, does anyone else has any ideas? Grandmaster 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok you can say "...Khanate was a self-ruling feudal entity within the Iranian territorial realm and under Iranian sovereignty" this represente the situation. Selfruling implies that that their level of autonomy was even stronger than suzereignty. But it should be mentioned that these khanates were de-jue part of Iran".--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The khanate, like some others, declared itself independent after 1789. I don't think there was a significant degree of dependence amid Muhammad Shah Qajar's intention to invade as there is no need for Iran to capture its own lands in this case. Brandt 07:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Qarabagh, Armenians there betrayed Iranians, when they saw Russians around. Of course they were followed by some Muslim traitors as well. The other Muslims did not welcomed Russians really. editors here in wikipedia even have respresented the letter from Khan of Ganja that says their incorporation into Russia was coerced and that they consider themselves Iranian--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do you want to say in the intro that the territory was Iranian? Do you think 2 times will be enough? We can repeat that 3 or 4 times, so that no one had any doubts about it. :) If we are making a general statement about all khanates, then we cannot make unambiguous claims about Iranian realm, etc. The Iranian rulers were unable to dismiss or remove from position any of the khans, khans ruled hereditary and passed their title and lands to their sons. The khanates do not appear to be just provinces, ruled by appointed governors. Some of them were more attached to Iran, than others, mostly rulers of Qajar origin, like those of Ganja and Erivan, others were more independence minded. In general, the khanates were principalities, formally subordinate to the kings of Iran, but in fact fully autonomous in their affairs. This situation came into being after the assassination of Nadir shah, when the country entered the period of feudal fragmentation, before that Iran had a firm control over the region. The khanates were principalities, because that's what "feudal entity" means. How about The Baku khanate was a Muslim principality under a formal Iranian suzerainty? Grandmaster 06:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to lake of any effective communication technic in that time and partially due to relative weakness of central government in Iran , not only in Caucasus , but also in every other part of the Iran (like Khorasan or Lorestan) , situation was the same . But I'm saying that many Khanates was not the same in all time and they considered themselves less independent when there was a powerful ruler in throne ( Karim Khan ) , and more independent when there was a weak Shah on throne(or no one as a Shah of entire Iran) . Panah Ali Khan Javanshir as example , has been a guest (-read hostage-) in Shiraz in the time of Karim Khan and passed there . They were not provinces , but they were connected to Iran. In that time, provinces were considered to be only major cities like Tabriz or Esfahan and their immediate neighborhoods , other divisions were major khanates and subdivisions like malikdoms , iils and mahals .
About the sentence : The Baku khanate was a Muslim principality under a formal Iranian suzerainty, I think it's not bad , but still needs modifications , because this sentence does not covers all the time period between Nader Shah and the Russians . Not only more powerful Shahs ( like Karim Khan ) are ignored , but also political alliances between Baku Khanate and claimants of throne is neglected , as Baki Khanof says :Bu zamanlar Mürtəzaqulu xan Qajar, öz qardaşı Ağa Məhəmməd xandan üz çevirib, Bakıya və mühasirədən iki ay əvvəl Şirvana gəlmişdi. O, qalanı müdafiə etməkdə Fətəli xana böyük xidmət göstərdi. That means "In that time ,Morteza Quli Khan Qajar , cut ties with his own brother, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar , and came to Baku and Shirvan , two months before the sage .He , give a great help to Fatali khan in defending the castle".That means there were still many ties between Khanates and the Shahs or with Khanates and the claimants of the throne (see also Fatali Khan Urumi vs Karim Khan+Javanshirs) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As Alborz says the situation in these Khanates were not different than other parts of the Iranian empire. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Combining suggestions is an alternative :
One : Baku Khanate was a autonomous Muslim principality on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan under Iranian suzerainty. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power (Alborz)
Two :The Baku khanate was a Muslim principality under a formal Iranian suzerainty(Grand master)
Three :Baku Khanate was an autonomous Muslim principality [on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan] under [a formal] Iranian suzerainty. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent [or self-ruling](Babak's suggestion ) after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power ( combination )
--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for vacation, and could not respond sooner. Number 3 looks good, even though the word "principality" implies a certain autonomy anyway, otherwise it would be just a province. Let's work on last proposed version. Grandmaster 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again .Other opinions ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Count

For making more understandable for western readers , can we add a sentence(s) to the article that compare western noblity like Counts and Marquess to khans ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a source for that, otherwise it would be an OR. If there's a source that draws such parallels, we can quote it. Grandmaster 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as in corresponding pages (Equivalent non-Western titles of Marquess and Equivalents of the title Count) ,no source is mentioned , I think that is possible to write it in the article . Albeit that is OR , and I know that , but if that OR is undisputed , it can be practically neglected .
Anyway , there are some rather weak sources that can be mentioned : ( TITLES AT THE CAPITAL : HOW TO ADDRESS PUBLIC OFFICERS. The New York Times,1890 or [http://web.raex.com/obsidian/glossary.html]).
Overall , again that seems to be not so important , but rather helping ; but if you think it is better no to include it , then so be it ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think at the moment it is not so important. If we have strong sources that draw parallels between the nobility titles in Iran and the West, then we can cite them. Grandmaster 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Most recently an unfortunate edit war has disrupted this article. Without assigning blame, lets just solve this issue at hand. Clearly a consensus on the lead was reached back in 2009. After a long debate among Wikipedians, three leads were put forth:

One : Baku Khanate was a autonomous Muslim principality on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan under Iranian suzerainty. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power (Alborz)

Two :The Baku khanate was a Muslim principality under a formal Iranian suzerainty(Grand master)

Three :Baku Khanate was an autonomous Muslim principality [on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan] under [a formal] Iranian suzerainty. Originally a province of Safavid empire, it became functionally independent [or self-ruling](Babak's suggestion ) after the assassination of Nadir shah and weakening of central authority in Iran due to the struggle for power ( combination ).

Given the fact that the historic events have not changed since that consensus, what reasons are there for the removal of this consensus based lead? We cannot just remove consensus based information, it would be in breach of regulations. Mursel (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit you made has no sources citing anything, while the current version, which has gone unchanged for months, has sources and is more accurate. You just removed the source and claimed it mentioned nothing and then went on to change to your liking.Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit wasn't made up by me. A whole painstaking discussion was held to reach a consensus. Both sides presented good arguments, but neglecting the consensus and pushing POV is no way to edit an article. One of the participants of that discussion is user Alborz Fallah, he explained that he thinks the "old version is the best". I agree with that approach.

Your welcome to discuss the change and put forward your arguments. We can talk about making improvements on the lead. However, since you breached protocol by changing the agreed upon intro, I've restored the original version - until we can reach a new agreement. Mursel (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint regarding the lead, since it has already been discussed thoroughly and a conclusion has been made.Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia in 2009 is not Wikipedia in 2015. A 2009 consensus cannot support a 2015 unreferenced lede for an article that is without any sources. There is also nothing in the article body that supports the lede. A lede is meant to summarise the article content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on past edits, those 2009 consensus options had gone from the article by 2010. The "(i.e. Azeri)" bit seems to have crept in silently sometime this year - I have deleted it as OR synthesis. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we add azerbaijani as a language spoken there?

Well, it was spoken atleast by some people, you can add armenian too, because baku armenians also formed a bunch of the populatio 2003:EA:4F07:87FC:1087:757D:D1B8:5249 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)