Talk:Erivan Khanate

Comments

Why Iravan and not Erivan? What is the official transliteration from Persian?--Eupator 15:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m not really sure. In Russian it was Erivan khanate (Эриванское ханство). In Azeri Iravan khanate (the rulers were ethnic Azeris). Grandmaster 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are POV pushing, there was no such term as you add in Azeri, the Turkified term derives from Erwan, the Azeri term is modern and has no place there. It has no etymology neither historic value. stop POV pushing. Fad (ix) 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

According to your pov. I'm going to add a dispute tag very soon unless you cite this. --Eupator 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of POV pushing note that I did not write this article, so obviously there’s no way I could push my POV into it. I think the article should be moved to Erivan Khanate, but I don’t know why you removed the Azeri name in the brackets from the article. All the khanates in the Caucasus were Azeri-Turkic states, except those in Dagestan. Khan is the title of a Turkic ruler, so such titles existed only in those parts of Persia that had Azeri population. Grandmaster 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is not necessarily Turkic. It was mainly Mongolian. Iranians also adopted the title. They were Iranian Khanates officialy part of Persia. Besides Qajars considered themselves nothing but Iranians despite having Turkic origins. If you can show me a written example from the era, using an Azeri name you can add it. As far as I know the city was only known as Erivan during the period. --Eupator 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is a Turkic title, Persians never used it, they always called their rulers Shah. Mongols also took it from Turks, the title existed long before Mongol invasion. Khanates in the Caucasus were Turkic principalities, formally subordinated to Persian shahs, who were also ethnic Azeris at the time. Same Qajars ruled many of the khanates, including Erivan. As for written examples, I don’t have an access to the historical archives, and the rules don’t require any written evidence for inclusion of the name. The name was used by Azeri Turkic rulers and population of the khanate, and that is enough for inclusion. Grandmaster 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this stuff but pan-Turanist beliefs are of no encyclopedic value.--Eupator 21:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kahanate was not removed, as for mongols having taken it from Turks, keep your nationalistic beliefs for you. Erivan derives from Erwan, the Persian term, the Turks and Persians were using the same alphabet and the same name. Fad (ix) 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can easily verify my nationalistic beliefs thru academic sources. It is easy to accuse other people of nationalism to obscure your own ignorance. Khan is a shortened version of Khagan, the title was used by Turkic people (Khazars, etc) long before Mongols. As for Qajars, according to Bakikhanov's book Gulistani-Iram, the rulers of Erivan Khanate were Qajar Turks (Ustajlu was one of Qajar clans), and Qajars ruled Armenia and Shirvan during reign of Safavids. Khans of Erivan and Ganja were their descendants (i.e. also Qajars). Also he describes how 50 thousand Qajar families were settled in Erivan, Ganja and Karabakh by Tamerlan, and in the course of time increased in number. So the population of the khanate was mostly Qajar Turks (one of Azeri clans). See Bakikhanov (in Russian):

Каджары — это племя Джалаирских тюрок из числа тех 200 тысяч семейств, которые были переселены Хулагу-ханом (внуком Чингиз-хана) в Персию. В Ma'acup-u султанийе (истории Каджаров) сказано: Сартак — один из влиятельных людей этого племени, был наставником Аргун-хана и правителем Хорасана и Табаристана. Он имел сына по имени Каджар, от которого и пошло это племя. Часть каджаров некогда переселилась в Анатолию и Сирию. Эмир Теймур (Тамерлан) переселил 50 тысяч семейств каджаров в Кавказский край и поселил их в Эриване, Гандже и Карабаге, где они в течение времени еще более умножились. Многие из этих каджаров при сефевидских шахах были государственными деятелями и управляли Армениею и Ширваном. Это от них произошли эриванские и ганджинские ханы, из которых последние, по имени Зияд оглы, раньше были владыками земель от Худаферинского моста до деревни Шулавер, что выше Красного моста в Грузии. Когда Надир-шах добивался в Мугани персидского престола, то ганджинские ханы, преданные дому Сефевидов, воспротивились его желанию. Однако он, утвердившись на престоле, ограничился только ослаблением их власти, переселив многих из Карабага в Хорасан. Меликов же Бергушадского и Хамсинских подчинил главному правителю Азербайджана. Жителей магалов Карахского из числа переселенных Хулагу-ханом и Борчалинского, поселенных на границах Грузии шах Аббасом I, Надир поручил грузинскому валию и таким образом под властью ханов ганджинских остались только окрестности города Ганджи. [1] Grandmaster 13:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is altaic word which has been used back to China (in its more rudimentary forms) by the mongols. That mongols use it has nothing to do with them having taken it from Turks, but rather that both use languages of the same origin. There is an entry here in Wikipedia about Khagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Khan

Whatever, it still proves that Khan was a title used by Turkic and Mongol rulers, and not Persians. Grandmaster 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And where have I said else? Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: It was mainly Mongolian. Iranians also adopted the title. In fact, Iranians did not use this title, they called their rulers shah. Grandmaster 06:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is true, mainly does not assume it isen't Turkic, like I said, both set of languages had the same origine. I have never questioned what you imply I have questioned. Fad (ix) 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Uggh! I don't visit too often and there is already a discussion! As far as I know the Irevan, Erivan, Yerevan Iravan was written as آرون which allows any connotation. Turkish rulers of the khanate were pronouncing it as Iravan... Before Qajars reassembled Persia, khanate was pretty much independent and ottoman leaning ... Now I don't care really its the same name Abdulnr 01:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is some contemporary spelling on the coin from 1730

http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=12186&si=Yerevan&what=allfields

or: http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=23860&si=Yerevan&what=allfields Abdulnr 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I read Arabic script, آرون is Arwan or Erwan (the first letter is hard to place there, because the aleph I think is not really spelled the same way in Persian, and it depend on if we take the classical Arabic intonation, we need a Persian to confirm it. In any cases, this confirm what I have been saying. As for the prounciation of the Turkish rulers, Ottoman Turkish pronounciation of آرون is not Iravan, it is hard to place in English how it was spelled, there is not letter which would mimic its spelling. I don't know of Azeri, but neither does modern Turkish has the same intonation as Ottoman Turkish had, prounciations have slightly drifted with the modernization of Turkish after the Kemalist system. The thing here is that, the uses of any modern alphabet with its proper spelling has no value neither any places for a period in which this alphabet did not exist, neither the term by this proununciation. Regards. Fad (ix) 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the second coin (ottoman) is spelled without Alef (althought it is hard to read)which makes it Revan. Abdulnr 12:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that without the aleph, according to some classical Arabic proununciation it could still be spelled as an 'yerrr' 'errr' the aleph would accentuate it. I think آرون should be added in the lead, as it is historically valid there.

Yes it is historically valid while Irevan is not.--Eupator 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? That’s what khans called their land. Grandmaster 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Provide a written material that attest to that. Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the naming conventions don’t require any written material. Verbal tradition should be enough. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We need published data, which is obvious. Fad (ix) 08:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Persians of Azeri origin

This is what you have when someone does not want to acknowledge a simple fact that the khanate was ruled by ethnic Azeri Turks. Grandmaster 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have even debated that issue. Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eupator replaced the line “However the dynasty and ruling elite of the principality is known to be Azeri Turkish” with “However the dynasty and ruling elite of the principality were Persians of Azeri origin”. To me that sounds completely absurd. Why can’t you just say that they were Azeri Turks? Grandmaster 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are not even saying that population was Turkish or Persian or Armenian (this is a different debate) , we are saying that rulers were turkic and not Persian (Farsi) In most of Persia the dynasties were of turkish (ic) beys with such names as Ustajlu, Bayat, Rumlu, Kengerli. I doubt there were a lot of Persians (I mean ethnically) bar civil admninistrators in Armenia in 18 century. Abdulnr 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple question Abdul, which state under which name did these governors represent?--Eupator 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Another simple question: were they ethnic Persians? The article already says that it was a principality under the dominion of Persia. Grandmaster 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In all likelihood most were not. However, this is a matter of controversy (see the edit wars for Safavids for example). My main point remains that we cannot call them ethnic Azeris no matter what. I have no major problem with the current version. There must be some record of how they identified themselves and my guess is they identified themselves as Persians whatever their ethnicity by our modern standards was. Granted ethnic divisions were murky back then overshadowed by religion and sects.--Eupator 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Their ethnicity is very well known. They were Azeri Turks from Qajar clan (see Bakikhanov). There’s not much to dispute here. If you have any evidence that they identified themselves otherwise you are welcome to present it here. Grandmaster 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. PS: Very objective source you're leading me to: Bakikhanov :) --Eupator 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided my proof. Bakikhanov is one of the main sources on the history of the Caucasus, both South and North. If you noticed, even Armenian historians refer to him. History of Muslim khanates is known mostly from Muslim sources, such as Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal, Mirza Adigezal bey, etc. There were no Azerbaijan or Armenia at that time, so those sources are quite objective. Grandmaster 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange aversion to Turks here. They identified themselves first and foremost as Shia Muslims and then Turks, very unlikely Persian. For example Alevi turks (Shias on Anadolu, as Turkish as you can get) supported Persia and were persecuted. As for khanates, they in many case supplanted beglerbeys and were even more Turkic than governors before. But it depends on the khanate. Between 1747- 95 however, Persia did not exist, and some of the khanates were even under Ottomans. Abdulnr 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your take on the issue. Can you comment about name convention? Thanks. Fad (ix) 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I proposed as you see - Azeri Kizilbash (which means Shia) Turks as opposed to Ottomans so it becomes clear for you. The Problem with saying Persian or Azerbaijani is that this places it out of historic context. nesimi 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bakikhanov is quite objective - he is writing from 18century prospective not from modern point of view and wrote extensively in Persian.

The population of the khanate was predominantly Azeri. See the article from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, according to it even during Russian rule population of both city and uyezd was predominantly Azeri, even after massive resettlement of Armenian people from Persia. [2] This is not disputed even by Armenian sources:

A Russian–Armenian Nucleus

One of the clauses of the treaty of Turkmen-chai of the previous year had laid down that inhabitants of Persian Azerbaijan – and the clear implication was that this referred to Armenians – would be accorded a period of a year ‘in order to transport themselves freely with their families from Persian states into Russian states’. Leading Armenian figures had requested the inclusion of this clause. The intention was to create a nucleus of Armenians in the newly conquered Russian Armenia, which at the time had a Tatar majority (due mainly to Shah Abbas’s transfer of much of the Armenian population from the Ararat plain and surrounding region in 1605). This nucleus was created by emigration from Persia, and strengthened by a further influx from Ottoman Turkey; its value should be balanced against the loss of Armenians from their native lands. At the time it seemed a sound policy; the notion of political liberation of land was alien to a people who felt themselves to be a non-territorial religious community. It was also entirely secondary to the business of freeing the people, and creating for them an environment in which they could live and work without oppressive discrimination. [3] Grandmaster 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to source this than we are also going to cite why and how. The word Azeri is not going to be on this article no matter what!--Eupator 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean - sounds pretty harsh, Grandmaster supplied a good source abdulnr 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

About the 'Persian rule', here's some useful information from a 1906 source:

Where the Armenians were most cruelly persecuted was in South-Eastern Transcaucasia, which was then ruled by Tartar khans or princes under the nominal suzerainty of Persia. The chief khanates were those of Baku, Derbent, Shemakha, Nukha, Erivan, Nakhitchevan, and Ghanja (Elizavetpol).

http://armenianhouse.org/villari/caucasus/armenians-tartars.html Parishan 11:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

lol now we're using Armenian sources? It doesn't matter who the actual khans were. We know they were Tatars and not Persians. Any map of the era will show the region as part of Iran.--Eupator 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I should probably have started a new discussion. I brought this source to the attention of those who claim that the rulers of the Erivan Khanate were ethnic Persians (Khosrow II and others). As for your comment, they were not "Tatar." Tatars are an ethnic group in Central Russia. Tartar, on the other hand (as it is spelled in the source), was how Western scholars erroneously referred to some Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, Azeris being among them. Parishan 11:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

During the existence of the Erivan khanate, its population consisted primarily of Persians (settled largely around the capital), Azerbaijanis (both settled and seminomadic), and Kurds (largely nomadic).[1] it is very "interesting" information. because the closest region to Erevan with Persian population it was and is now - Tehran and Gazvin - several hundreds km's distance. so from where Erevan khanate had Persian population? may be they were transported with helicopters? it's an absurde. Somebody didn't want say: ok, guys, sorry but Erivan Khanate was Azeri feudal stat as many other like Nakhichevan, Maku, Gandja etc... It is just politic, but not science...sorry.

Deportation

Can anyone cite documents related to deportation of Armenians in 1605? A massive scale, small scale. PLease provide a source to satisfy my curiosity. Regards abdulnr 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster cited Christopher J. Walker. You can get tons of sources via google as well. It was a mass deportation of almost all Armenians to Persia. Here's another one, which mentions earlier deportations by Safavids as well: http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0342.shtml Some of these Armenians only returned to their lands during the Russian liberation. The diasporans in Iran are the descendants of those that remained in Persia. --Eupator 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. abdulnr 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Khanate = state/kingdom, and was independent albeit sometimes nominally

Here are some good quotes from a military historian John Baddeley, which clarifies and reinforces the usage/translation of the word "khanate" as a "state" and not mere principality, as well as on the fact that at times (indeed, until 1804), Erivan khanate was independent from Iran. There are several more detailed quotes on how Eirvan was conquered, how brave and energetic the Khan of Erivan was, how he was sometimes victorious in his battles against Russia, etc.

"In 1804 Tsitsianoff, with about 10,000 men and 20 guns, marched on Erivan, another nominally independent khanate at that time actually threatened by a Persian army, but, for once, failed." (John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908, p. 68)

"Potto sums up Tsitsianoff's 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 also be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh, and the Turkish fortresses situated on the shores of the Black Sea." (ibid., pp. 71-72)

"Russia by this instrument [Gulistan Treaty of 1813 - ed.] was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with parts of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhasia." (ibid., p. 90) --AdilBaguirov 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Use Talk Page Before Editing

Adil you really need to stop and think for a little. Don't you think adding that kind of information to the article without discusson, without references would be reverted back???? Next time don't tell me that I don't use the discussion page when your doing it the same thing. ROOB323 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's it, I'm tired of this, and reporting both of you -- you have removed: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality, but a state or kingdom; and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas. All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided. --AdilBaguirov 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead report me I don't give a shit anymore and report what I said in here also because I don't give a damn anymore I am sick and tierd of this shit. People come here and contribute, but fuckers like you come here and fuck up everything. ROOB323 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this suppressing information? the diffs are evidence. Artaxiad 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad has been frequently found to purging damaging references, including the above one by ROOB323, today. I have restored it, for at least as long as ArbCom is going. After that, only myself, ROOB323 or admins have the moral authority to remove this disparaging attack. If you are so disturbed by this personal attack, you should express that to ROOB, and not try to quietly remove it. --AdilBaguirov 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My removal has nothing to do with your references as long as the diff is there it is evidence. Artaxiad 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as ArbCom goes on, references should stay in their original form, and that should apply to all pages on Wikipedia. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry when was this rule enforced? my mistake. Artaxiad 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I added a quote, seems informative. Artaxiad 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: user Artaxiad (Nareklm) has just been found making a false statement, and deliberately misquoting! First off, the quote user Artaxiad provides is not on page 145, but page 149. Secondly, what he quotes is actually a FOOTNOTE, not the text itself, and is preceeded by the following actual comment by the author, John William Kaye: "The characteristic words of the Russian manifesto, announcing these events, are worth quoting: --"Obliged to pursue enemy..." (the full page is available here [4]) In other words, what Artaxiad (Nareklm) has quoted, is not the words of Mr. Kaye, but the statement of the Russian manifesto -- which was written by an ethnic Armenian, Col. Lazarev -- his role in Turkmenchay Treaty and the Russian-Iranian-Azerbaijani war of 1826-1828 is well documented by Sergey Glinka in his 1831 book, published in the Lazarev's Institute (which I also have). It is very unfortunate, that not only Artaxiad does not provide a correct bibliographic citation for the quote, getting wrong the page number, and not providing details of the publishing house, place of publication, year of publication, etc., but also resorts to a blatant misquotation attempt by falsely attributing the sentence not to its original author -- an ethnic Armenian Colonel Lazarev writing the Russian manifesto -- but to the British author Kaye. And all this while disregarding other presented quotes and evidence on the Talk page, and reverting the correct edits performed by myself designed to NPOV the article -- i.e., mention that along with all Armenians, all Jews and Muslims were resettled by Shah Abbas, etc. Very, very sad that some editors stop at nothing. --AdilBaguirov 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was from the book go search, books.google.com Artaxiad 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everything is pretty clear and evident here, no need to play innocent dumbfounded angel here. You've manipulated evidence, by deliberately misquoting Mr. Kaye to present a sentence from a Russian manifesto, written by an ethnic Armenian, as the opinion of Mr. Kaye! You have provided a false attribution and a false citation to the page, as well as no other required information such as year and place of publication, and publishing house. Restore my edits immediately and remove your misquoted and misattributed sentence. Also tell your friend ROOB323 to stop revert warring once and for all. --AdilBaguirov 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Baguirov, I lost count of all the personal attacks in your response above. If you think there is a mistake in the attribution correct it and add the right name.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I got my quote straight from Books.google.com, I don't know what Adil is talking about there were two of the same books i chose the second one, its the right page also, the quote is seen on two pages. Artaxiad 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Heres the exact page and quote where I got it from, [5] Artaxiad 15:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Erivan

There are many references to "Erivan" khanate, including the one from Armenian scholar Bournoutian, not a single one calling it "Yerevan khanate" though. Please, provide justification for the edit removing the historical spellings and discuss them on the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the article to reflect the fact that Azerbaijanis did not exist before the 20th c. I don't think the alternate spellings are notable, or even verifiable.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct name is Erivan khanate. And since Azerbaijani language was the language of the majority of population, including the rulers of khanate, it needs to be mentioned. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think "EREVAN" is the most correct version.I do want to change the article according to Iranica Article about the Khanate (and some additional sources) , but since according to some conflicts between Armanian and Azeri editors , that seems difficult to find the most proper edition, I have not change anything until now.If other editors what to change the article , the above mentioned source is a good one. Thank you . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see what I did became reverted. Yes, there is several ways to spell modern name for Yerevan. Problem is that Yerevan is in Armenian. The persian spelling is originally from Ilkhanid times and we see diverse spelling like Airavan, Irevan, Erevan and much more. The spelling used by EI is one I adopted. I thought it would be easy just to say Yerevan, but seems people are upset. I know Encyclopedia of Islam (English and Turkish version) will have articles about this and also the book by the American scholar Bournotian as someone above mentioned. His work is considered the most important work and most authorative on the topic and is a big book opposed to several page article in iranian encyclopedia. Also, anyone who studies this state will affeliate it with nothing but Persian empire of Safavids and Qajars and anyone between,. I studied bournoutian book beofre and he spends a lot to explain about ethnic groups of persians, kurds, armenians, and Turkic tribes (dozens!) with specific names and islaimc denominations, I think Qizil Bash, Qara Qoyunli (tribe name, not to be confused with famous states and organization associated with names), these Turkic people were not referred to as Azeris, but muslim tribesmen. I will get book soon and cite explanation for this. I understand and I share your sincere love to own people, its history and culture, but this has no any relation to modern republic of azerbaijan.24.24.200.113 (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC) also, if I am wrong, I ask for contributors to cite sources when they think to change me and revert me.24.24.200.113 (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually they were not even called Tartars back then. They were Turkic speaking Muslims.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are today called Azeris. They were the same people, not Tatars of Volga. Grandmaster (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is not about today, it needs to reflect contemporary terms. No need to use fictional names.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Brokhauz uses the term Azerbaijani Tatars, so you are altering the primary source. And you violated your parole too, here's your chance to revert yourself. Grandmaster (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse edits with reverts. VartanM (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the history, Tigran has already removed the mention of Azerbaijani people before, and did it twice again today. Grandmaster (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing Azeris with Tatars is not a revert--in fact I had not done it in this article. At any rate, I removed both terms, so the point is moot.

The whole new segment added by the anon user describes the liberation of Armenia from the Turkic element after the Erivan khanate had been abolished. This process of cleansing was finally completed in 1989-90 (1992 in NK, with the capture of Shushi). It has nothing to do with the period of the Erivan khanate. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is of political nature. New segment is relevant to Erivan khanate and his subsequent history.--Dacy69 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to cover subsequent history we should also cover how those nomad turkic tribes got to Erebuni. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Including the Turkish spelling

An anon has been edit warring over the inclusion of Turkish spelling Revan Hanlığı on this article (and edit warring elsewhere), so I have semi-protected this article. I have reverted because there is a lot of talk discussion here that mentions Turkish history, and I dont think it hurts to include too many spellings. It might be useless information (most Wikipedia articles have snippets of useless information), but I fail to see why someone is getting so upset about it, which makes me suspicious it is nationalist editing. Any thoughts about the Turkish spelling? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hanlığı just means "belonging to a khan" (i.e. a khanate) - and I think it is modern Turkish (i.e. it would not be the term used by the Ottoman empire to describe the khanate). So I don't think it has a place here, in an English wikipedia article about a no-longer-extant territory. But the word Revan should remain. I suggest changing the first sentence to "The Erivan (Yerevan) or Revan khanate". 81.76.14.112 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To add or not to add ?

In 2008, president Ilham Aliyev, talking about Nagorno Karabakh, said: In 1918, Erivan was granted to the Armenians. It was a great mistake. The Erivan khanate was an Azeri territory, the Armenians were guests there [6].
What's the opinion of the editors about adding this sentence to the article?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erivan Governorate

Why is the term Yerevan Province being used here..?!? The article which its redirected to is called Erivan Governorate, thus it should be named like that. I corrected this. Baku87 (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Turkish

Turkish was not written in Latin letters at the time. Any Turkish speakers in the region would be speaking the Azeri dialect (in addition to Persian and perhaps Kurdish), so khanate would be Romanized as khanlighi and not hanlığı, which is the reformed Turkish spelling that was introduced during the Kemalist reforms. If someone can find the actual Turkish name for the khanate in the original Arabic script, then please insert it. Thanks. Hakob (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then why would you not add Azeri version of it, i.e. "İrəvan Xanlığı" ? --Aynabend (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it in the Perso-Arabic script, along with an IPA transcription for pronunciation. The other scripts adopted by Azeris (Latin, Cyrillic) were not in use during the khanate's existence. Hakob (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is a need to add the town's name in Perso-Arabic script, when the Persian[Gajar] writing of the town is already there. It would only be duplication, since both spelling (Azeri and Farsi) of the town/province in this script would be the same. Only Azeri modern spelling should do it. --Aynabend (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) It is a stupidity not to add name of khanete in Azerbaijani , give up your armenian stereo types and let us change some parts of article . Babak Khorramid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaur heydarov (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no azeri hate welcome here.194.186.188.249 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Azeri name should be written in the Perso-Arabic alphabet, because that language was written in that alphabet in Yerevan at that time. But one thing. I oppose Xanlighi, since it is a neologism. The word which was used at that time was Xanat.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Additions

I added a lot of information and improved the format of the article. I would like some of the other users who previouslt editted to add more, maybe pictures. I think most important is to find more sources since Iranica is very limited and talks only about story from heavily Armenian context. More needs to be said of transformation of the territory from early administrative region to later khanate and it's history in context of caucasus history. I also fixed spelling.

I think there is no need to add the foreign Azerbaijani or Turkish spelling to this article. I do not understand why it needs to be added like spanish or chinese. Maybe armenian name can be added because it was like next to persian and self rule? I dont know, I think this article can be bigger. Regards. Shahin Giray (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of Khans speak

1736-40 Tahmasp-qulu khan
1740-47 Nader Shah
1745-48 Mekhti-khan Qasımlı
1748-50 Hasan Ali-khan
1750-80 Huseyn Ali Khan
1752-55 Khalil Khan
1755-62 Hasan Ali Khan Qajar
1762-83 Huseyn Ali Khan
1783-84 Qulam Ali (son of Hasan Ali)
1784-1804 Muhammed Khan
1804-06 Mekhti-Qulu Khan
1806-07 Muhammed Khan Maragai
1807-27 Huseyn Qulu Khan Qajar

The word ...qulu in Azerbaijani (Turkic) means slave of.... The root of word is qul which means a slave in Azerbaijani (Turkic) which is followed by the suffix -u that has four forms -ı, - i, -u, -ü. This suffix expresses the idea of belonging to, being of the preceding subject.

Azerbaijani (Turkic) language as many other Turkic languages has the law called vowel harmony. According to this law relevant hard and soft vowels follow each other in harmony. This is why the noun qul is followed by the -u form of the suffix: qulu. Persian sources (nationalists) try to hide this truth spelling this word like qoli.

So, Huseyn Qulu means a slave of Huseyn. Huseyn is the name of the grandson of Islamic Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Mainly Shias are proud to feel like the slaves of Huseyn, or his brother Hasan, or their father Ali, or imam Mekhti who is believed to return to the World once again, or other 11 imams.

Thus, the names Huseyn Qulu, Hasan Qulu, Mekhti Qulu, Abbas Qulu... are very common among Azerbaijani turks.

With Ali (the name of the fourth caliph, who had to be the first according to Shia thought) Azerbaijani people mostly use Qulam: Qulam Ali. -am is again an Azerbaijani (Turkic) suffix which has two forms: -am, -əm (or -yam, -yəm, after a vowel sound). This Suffix is again controlled by the law of vowel harmony: Qulam, where u and a follow each other, both of which are hard vowels in Azerbaijani language.

The suffix -am(-əm) means I am: Qulam = I am a slave. Thus Qulam Ali means: I am your slave, Ali in Azerbaijani (Turkic), not in Persian or any other language, but in Azerbaijani.

-lı, - li, -lu, lü, another vowel harmony-controlled Azerbaijani - turkic suffix which means from: Qasımlı = From Qasım.

Common-sense. Just think that one claims that Scottish are English, Tatars are Russians, Uyghurs are Chinese. These all sound illogical. All the cultural and art values that the Scottish, the Tatars and the Uyghurs have belong accordingly to the Scottish, the Tatars and the Uyghurs (not to the English, Russians or Chinese).

The same is About Azerbaijani Turks. Azerbaijani carpets, miniatures and other elements of Azerbaijani culture are propaganded as Persian. There are many reasons. The main reasons are the stereotype that "Turks cannot create" and the "nostalgia" that most Western authors have approaching to the history of the region. They try to see everything as it were thousands years ago. Once upon a time there were a Persian empire, although it does not mean that all nations living in Persian empire were the Persians. They started to call everything connected with the region using the adjective Persian -. For an American it is easier to call a carpet woven by Azerbaijani (Turkic) men of Tabriz, Ardebil etc."Persian - " or a miniature by an Azerbaijani artist "Persian - " to simplify his understanding and sometimes also to strengthen the stereotype "Turks cannot create". They sometimes overstep the line of madness and call Pazyrykh carpet Persian when neither Altay nor the Skits have any connections to the Persians.

Calling Azerbaijani (Turkic, Tatar) khans Persian is the same issue, the same stereotype, the same deceiving nostalgia, but not a fact, or history.

Teymur Shushali (talk) 11:00, 7 September, 2009 (UTC)

Armenian spelling

Please explain how the Armenian spelling is relevant to this Turkic khanate? Armenian was not the language the khans and their administration spoke. Meliks were in charge of the Armenian population only, which made about 20% of the entire population. They were not the khans. If one creates a separate article about meliks, the Armenian spelling would be relevant there. But here it is not. Grandmaster 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Explained in my edit summary. It is not turkic but persian khanate with high degree of armenian self rule. for example, in safavids article we include georgian and azerbaijani version of dynasty name too but they made up what portion of population. please se meliks article to learn more, btu this is different topic. im not sure what is criteria in your mind for inclusion of name in articles, but I see more fantastic examples and no one seems to complain, would you like me to give examples?Kazanciyan (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgian and Azeri names are in Safavids for a different reason. Safavids were native Azeri speakers, and had Georgian and Azeri ancestry. Khans of Erivan spoke no Armenian, and were not related to Armenians in any way. So the Armenian spelling is irrelevant. Azeri spelling is, because the khans of Erivan and most of population spoke that language. Grandmaster 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so Armenian was used as administrative language as did Azerbaijani. Also, georgian spoken by a ruling elite, like meliks. I think it is clear.Kazanciyan (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not. Khans did not speak Armenian. It was a language of a minority. Grandmaster 05:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But nevertheless minority of official administrative rulers, not to mention that Azerbaijanis and Georgians were likewise a minority in the safavid empire.Kazanciyan (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? How does it justify the inclusion of the Armenian name? It was not the language the khans spoke. Grandmaster 06:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read comments and try to come to constructive conclusion. Do not incite users and run in circles. Khanate was an administrative region that had a dual govermnment - a khan and melik, both had equal powers over their respective communities. Do not try to find excuses to remove Armenain name with your anti-Armenian hysteria. I have answered all your concerns, but continue to get meatpuppeted by your friends.Kazanciyan (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenian name in the lead of the article

Armenians were not the majority, they were only 20% of population, and therefore Armenian name is not appropriate in the lead of the article. Chippolona (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes, yes they were. Therefore, through your logic it is not only appropriate but of the utmost importance to this article.Fazeri (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, Hetoum, you can use as many socks as you like, but the fact remains that Armenian was not the language of the government in this khanate. Simple as that. Therefore you cannot have the name of this state in Armenian. You can have in Azeri, you can have it in Persian, but not Armenian. It was the language of minority. Grandmaster 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind compromise, I just don't think that Iranica says anything about autonomy for Armenians, it just says that Armenians were subordinate to an Armenian melik, who in turn was subordinate to the khan. I think we should use the exact same wording as the source. --Grandmaster 11:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Content that had been removed from the lead

Grandmaster removed the following from the lead section: that the khanate "had a high level of self-government together with internal autonomy for its Armenian inhabitants". The removal of the claim that the khanate had a high level of self government was done without explanation, and is contrary to one posting on this talk page which did seem to indicate there was a degree of independence from Persia. Also, that content has been there for a long time, and in thattime nobody has disputed the claim that it had a degree of independence. The "Armenians were just subordinate to a melik, who was in turn subordinate to the khan" explanation given for the removal of the "together with internal autonomy for its Armenian inhabitants" is flawed. We are not talking about an age were individual members of a population had votes and parliamentery representation - I think wording like "internal autonomy" seems an appropriate description for the state of affairs, just as self-government is (in the context of the time) an appropriate description of the relationship between the khanate (whose khan was subordinate to the Shah) and Persia. This "internal autonomy" content has also beeen there for a long time, and has not been disputed before. Meowy 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an OR. Please provide a quote from a reliable source that describes the situation of Armenians as "self-rule", or "autonomy". I see that Iranica says:

Although the khan of Erevan, also known as the sirdar (Pers. sardār, “chief”), governed the entire khanate, from the mid-17th century until the Russian occupation in 1828 the Armenian community was under the immediate jurisdiction of the melikʿ (Ar.-Pers. malek, “ruler”) of Erevan, of the house of Melikʿ-Ałamalean.

The melikʿ of Erevan had full administrative, legislative and judicial authority over his people up to the sentence of the death penalty, which the sirdar alone was allowed to impose (Hewsen, 1973-74, pp. 297-98).

I don't see the source ever using the words "self-government", "autonomy", etc. It just says that the Armenians were subordinate to a melik, who in turn was subordinate to the khan. So let's stick to the source and refrain from making our own interpretations of the text. Plus, why the 20% minority is so important, that it has to be mentioned in the very first sentence of the article? How about the 80% majority, and why it is not mentioned in the first line? Grandmaster 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"The melikʿ of Erevan had full administrative, legislative and judicial authority over his people up to the sentence of the death penalty" - and you actually deny that amounts to internal autonomy! To have that amount of autonomy would be the wet dream of any present-day Basque or Catalan nationalist! Your recent edits are without any merit and are damaging the article. The introduction section is meant to provide a concise summary of what the the article will later explore in depth(and not for verbatim quotes from sources). Part of that is would be to sum up the essence of what the khanate was. The words "that, from the mid-17th century onwards, had a degree of self-government together with internal autonomy for its Armenian inhabitants" did exactly that. Meowy 13:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Meowy is correct, they also constituted a majoriyu for mosty of the life of the khanate. main issue is why to include azerbaijani without any connection to azerbaijanis in the text content. most of the khanates populations were nomadic tribes with names listable, not an ethnic group called "azerbaijanis." CaptainGio (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed in the discussion. Parishan (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I tore this page up, I could find nothing of the sort, no one adresses why the removal of the language of Armenian government of khanate, or citation confirming them to be majority for most of khanate's rule was removed.CaptainGio (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tear it up again: [7]. As for the Armenian language, this was not an Armenian political entity, nor did they form a substatial portion of the khanate, as seen from Bournoutian's figures. Parishan (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it only mentions perso-arabic script, the proper version of which, with english transcription was re-added. Again, you lied through a dubious edit summary, and again you have failed to make any connection between azerbaijanis and this khanate as to why an azerbaijani name needs to be included.CaptainGio (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Read closer: it says "Azeri name in Perso-Arabic script", which is exactly what I added. Parishan (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the armenian here is pre-reform spelling, so it would have been the contemporary spelling used my armenians and armenian administration of the khanate.CaptainGio (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing away with distortion

The first item to address is the issue on demographics: first, such specific statistics should not be added to the lead, especially when they lack complete context; that section is merely to summarize basic information about the khanate, not to hammer away a point which obviously requires clarification to the unsuspecting reader. Second, the Muslim majority of 80% only represents the last decade, which obviously represents a fraction of the khanate's history which spanned from 1604–1828. Those figures are based on the figures the Russians carried out when they took control of the region and relate to the numbers just prior to their conquest. There are two events other than Shah Abbas' (1604) depopulation of Armenian, which caused the widespread emigration of Armenians.

The first one took place under Nadir Shah (starting in 1736), from An Historical Atlas of Islam by William Charles Brice, (Brill Academic Publishers, 1981 p. 276), we read:

In the [Muslim year] 12th/18th century under Nadir Shah, the Armenians suffered excessive taxation and other penalties, and many Armenians emigrated, particularly to India.

The second massive emigration started more than two decades prior to the Russian conquest. In The Cambridge History of Iran (eds. William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Ilya Gershevitch, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville, published by the Cambridge University Press, 1991 p. 339), it writes:

Griboedov not only extended protection to those Caucasian captives who sought to go home but actively promoted the return of even those who did not volunteer. Large numbers of Georgian and Armenian captives had lived in Iran since 1804 or as far back as 1795...

.

To this, we should add the 20,000 Armenians who left for Georgia. The statistic of 20% comes from Bournoutian who writes:

...prior to Russian conquest the Armenians accounted for some 20 percent of the total population of Eastern Armenian, and the Muslims 80 percent;

But Bournoutian recognizes that the Khanate only lost its Armenian character under Nadir Shah.

The quotation of 80% was unfortunately recycled and placed out of context by Azerbaijani scholars, and some scholars like Tadeusz Swietochowski, without any context and without mention of the mass migrations starting less than a century prior to the Russian conquest. Prior to those, in the Khanate, the Armenians had pluriality over the Persians and Turkic population, which at that time was significantly considerably Sunni and could not be distinguished from the Ottoman Turks.

Obviously the claims that Muslims formed 80% of the Khanate are misleading, because this represents the situation just prior to the Russian conquest and that the Armenians from 1604 to 1828 suffered three phases of massive emigration, up until the last years which they ended up representing a minority. But during most of the Khanate period Armenians constituted a pluriality. So that information in the introduction by the fact that it represents a fraction of the history of the Khanate is obviously misleading.

Justin McCarthy, who is known for his pro-Turk sympathies and the denial of the Armenian Genocide, writes on what you keep sustaining that:

...statistical analysis proves it to have been impossible.

As for the constant inclusion of the Azerbaijani spelling - we have been through this perhaps a thousand times. Provide any material which proves that during the period it was written this way. The justification of its use is based on the claim that they constituted majority and that it was the language. Both are wrong - even in Turkic manuscripts, the Persian word was used, the Azeri term written in Perso-Arabic script is derived from the modern Azeri orthography and pronounciation which has absolutely no historic basis to support it. It's just a way to contrevene the none existance of the modern Azeri alphabet. This is unacceptable and an outright violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. On the other hand Armenian manuscripts abound naming the place in Armenian yet we reached a compromise to not even use it on this article.

One more thing - do not undo reverts by suspected or confirmed socks if their reverts are otherwise legitimate. You have no basis to do such a thing and this I and others have repeated for you to not do this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You should stop reverting the article for the banned user. It is against the arbitration enforcement. Make your own edits. Now please explain, why the demographics section should be pushed down to the bottom? What happened to the line: Although the khan of Erevan governed the entire khanate? What's up with the removal of the line: Occasionally the khanate of Erevan had to submit to Erekle II of Georgia, Panah Ali Khan, and Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir of Karabakh Khanate. Both are quotes from Iranica, that were removed for no reason. Is this what you call legitimate edits? Sorry, that should be rolled back. With regard to 80%, it is explicitly stated in Iranica:

The khanate was divided into fifteen administrative districts (maḥāll). Muslims (Persians, Turco-Mongols, Kurds) made up 80 percent of the population and were either sedentary, semi-sedentary, or nomadic. Christians (all Armenians) constituted the remaining 20 percent of the population and lived in Erevan or the villages.

So Armenians were 20%, and nowhere does Iranica say that this was in the 19th century only. Please stop reverting to the same POV version. And Azerbaijani language was also discussed in much detail, it was the language of the majority of the population. Grandmaster 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did make my own changes: [8], [9] but apparently you decided it better to revert to me by misleadingly leaving in your edit summary the line that you are reverting the edits of a sock. Do mind WP:AGF next time, please.

No, Iranica does not provide any dates but re-read that section. It refers to the period which describes the khanate after it was taken back from the Ottomans (who managed it from 1723-30's), i.e., under Persian rule. The context is even clearer in Bournoutian work. As for the reason as to why I left the Khanate "occasionally had to submit to Erekle II of Georgia, Panāh Khan, and Ebrāhīm Khan Javānšīr (qq.v.) of Qarabāḡ" out was because not only it's a distortion of what Iranica says, but also leaves the date out. . That was the actual context: "It was governed by various khans who, during the turmoil in Persia in the second half of the 18th century, occasionally had to submit to Erekle II of Georgia, Panāh Khan, and Ebrāhīm Khan Javānšīr (qq.v.) of Qarabāḡ, all of whom were endeavoring to extend their influence in Transcaucasia. Erevan then submitted to Aḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār and his successor Fatḥ ʿAlī Shah." You're leaving out the context and are inserting in a line by insisting and presenting a certain fact as a uniform truth during a 300-year time span. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Azeri spelling is not an adaptation of modern orthography. The present-day use of it by Iranian Azeri websites proves this. Whatever orthography reforms took place with regards to Azeri in the twentieth century only concerned the Roman and Cyrillic-written literary standard of Azerbaijan, which Iranian Azeris do not abide by, having continued to write in the fossilised Perso-Arabic script. It certainly existed and was widely used at the time of the khanate (Azeri literary tradition has been around since the fourteenth century) and has seen no spelling reforms because it was never regulated by an official body. As for the pronunciation, it is irrelevant to spelling, and it is a scientific fact that every generation pronounces words slightly differently than the previous one. I am sure that 200 years ago, Armenian phonemes were not realised in their modern way either. This cannot serve as an argument. Just as the claim that Azeris, or Turkic-speaking Muslims, did not constitute majority in the khanate, which they certainly did. Parishan (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As an Iranian Azeri , with good knowledge of that so-called fossilised Perso-Arabic script , can you guide me to a single Iranian Azeri website that uses any other word or pronunciation for Īravān? As you know , there are hundreds of Iranians with the family name of Īravāni , either Azeri Iranians or non-Azeri Iranians , and I can not find any difference between Iranian Azeri pronunciation of Īravān and Persian Īravān. If you mean ایروان خانليغي , the name Īravān is the same in both of them , and the word xanlığı is Azeri form of Khan in Persian (Khanate). Over all , writing in Azeri was not widely in use in that era and almost all literature was in Persian : that was because of the conventional education system ( Maktabs ) that only used Arabic for Quran and Persian for ordinary use . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said it a was different word in Azeri. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Yes, Persian was a more widely used literary language than Azeri at the time, but not a language used exclusively. This is why Azeri is listed second to Persian in the introduction. Parishan (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is two points : first , if both words of Īravān and Khan are the same in Persian and Azeri , then what's the reason to add them differently to the article ? why not using Persian and Azeri formulation ? Second , although I have had a personal interest in finding the texts of literary Azeri language in 17th and 18th centuries , I did not find texts of that kind in sources : can you mention a source of that time that used written Azeri in general , or İrəvan xanlığı in particular . As I searched in the Azeri Wiki page , there was no Azeri language source mentioned in the article that used the word İrəvan xanlığı . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is in the morphological structure of each language. The word khānat and the izafet word formation method are alien to Azeri. The presence of a large Turkic-speaking Azeri element in the khanate, which clearly had a name to refer to it, is not a matter of discussion. You cannot discuss the history of what was pretty much an Azeri political unit without accounting for the Azeri language in the introduction. You personal interest of finding literary works Azeri can be satisfied if you take a look at the writings of Khatai, Vagif or Vidadi. Both İrəvan and xanlığı are used in literary works of nineteenth-century Azeri authors writing in Azeri, such as Shirvani. Parishan (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oral literature is often considered a part of folklore , and not [written] literature . Shah Ismail (Khatai) , Vaghef and Vodudi did not published any book in their own time and their poetry was only gathered in coming centuries . I'm mentioning that to show it's difficult to present a written source in Azeri - in that era - which uses the word İrəvan xanlığı . And about Shirvani , as I know , his life was years after Russian occupation of Iravan , and also I don't know in which verse of his Divan , he used the word xanlığı . The language of people in that khanate was sure Azeri , but that clear name that you say is not so clear for me : did they used to use Iravan Beglarbegi ? Did they only used Chokhour Saad ? or did they used Khanat - e - Iravan ? (That is very very common in Azeri language to use the direct Persian word : With Persian Izafeh and with plain Persian morphological structure). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As an example : in nowadays Tabriz , just like the Iravan in 18 th century , almost all population are ethnic Azeris and all use Turkic Azeri , but for naming administrative divisions like Shahrestans , we never use an Azeri word and we do use the Persian word , with Persian morphological structure : like Shahrestan-e-Sarab (instead of Sərab şəhristanı) and etc.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Azerbaijani language?

Why is it that we include the Azerbaijani spelling for the Khanate of Erevan, what exactly the point of this? The khanate as a whole was never part of Azerbaijan, it was only a district created by the Safavids, and the khans themselves were Qajar. The only language I see plausible for inclusion is Armenian, because the Khanate of Erevan as a whole was located in historic Armenia (as accepted by cartographers of the day), and most of its territories were included both in the First Republic of Armenia, and also in the present-day Republic. This is simply an expression of Azerbaijani irredentism over Armenia. -- Davo88 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What language did the people of the khanate speak? I mean the 80% Muslim majority? Grandmaster 07:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it was, you can't call it "Azerbaijani" since Azerbaijan did not exist in the Caucasus before 1918. -- Davo88 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority spoke Azerbaijani language. There is a difference between language and state of Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Parishan, you are abusing your privileges of editing by continuing to edit war. Numerous editors have voiced their objections to these edits and yet you still insist on railroading them in instead of respecting the fact that no one but yourself supports their inclusion. You have been overruled three times over the past two years and waiting six months to return and re-insert them are tantamount to disruption and gaming with the system and I will report you if you persist in shoehorning in your views which are not even supported by sources. Like Davo has stated above, whatever they referred the khanate to, it was not something which someone in the 20th century comes and artificially calls Azerbaijani. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If we go by counting, then there were more users supporting the inclusion than those opposing. And mind you, none of the latter presented anything that seemed like a plausible argument. I cannot accept POV as an argument against including an Azeri name for an Azeri-ruled Azeri-populated Azeri-speaking political entity. Parishan (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon for interrupting , but I think neither Armenian nor Azeri spelling may be included . Armenian is not suitable because the majority was not Armenian language . Azeri spelling is not suitable because Azeri has not been a written language in that time and no source with Azeri language remains from that time with using of such spelling : Who knows the majority Azeri people prefer to use the Persian name of the Khanante instead of the Azeri name . That is very probable in that time because a great number of Azeris know the Persian language in that time and the official name was in Persian . In today Iranian Azerbaijan it is very very common for Azeri Iranians to use the Persian name of a place instead the Azeri name : how knows that was the same in that time ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I never argued for the inclusion of Armenian and do not think that it would be suitable either.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani language has existed before the independence of the Azerbaijani republic. The language wasnt created over night. And this language was spoken by the majority of the people in Erevan. Neftchi (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern Azerbaijani alternative name is needless. This alternative name had no historical value. But I think that we can add historical one with reliable sources. -- Takabeg (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both Alborz Fallah and MarshallBagramyan. I will not bother commenting on the ignorant statement about 'artificial origins' of a language that has been a linguistic unit since at least the 16th century. What the language was called at the time is not an issue here. The German language was not a uniform entity (let alone having a written standard) until the times of Bismark and did not even have a universal name, yet we see modern German headings in articles such as Henry the Lion, Holy Roman Empire, German Peasants' War, etc. The point is that this was the name the majority of the population referred to their lands as, and so did their descendants until their total expulsion in 1991. What a language came to be called later is irrelevant. There are dozens of examples of languages whose names have been changed by the academia. This makes them neither 'artificial', nor 'historially non-valuable.' Parishan (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My point has been not about calling Azeri Turkic something as artificial origin . I would never say that . I'm talking about the "factual accuracy" of the modern Azeri word that is written in the article . Is it recorded in any book (or other sources such as tomb stones) that such a word was been used in that time ? About the Persian name , I can show at least 3 sources of that time . What is the evidence to show that the Turkic language people of that region did not used the Persian name ? ( that is very probable and resonable )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You ignore that Azeri language was spoken by the local people. It was an Azeri ruled entity with an Azeri population. This is what the majority of the people spoke, it must therefore be included. Neftchi (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, modern Azerbaijani alternative names have no historical value. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Erivan khanate → Erivan Khanate – Same format as for the others in Category:Khanates. Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRITERIA (consistency). --BDD (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IP hopping and blatant hoaxing

This material,[10]-[11] that has been added on two occassions right now, is hoax. The source (in Russian) doesn't back up the added content in any way. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Erivan Khanate was disputed between several states. According to Stepan Burnashov, russian representative in Georgia, Ottoman Empire in its friman, that was sent to Azerbaijan, "didn't recognized Erivan, as Azerbaijani city, as belonging to Georgian king"

Обстоятельные онаго донесения доставлены мне письменно после отправления рапорта, в коих, между протчим, означаетца, что Порта присланным в Адребежень ферманом объявляет себя защитницою Персии, что Еривань, яко город Адребеженски, не признает принадлежащым грузинскому царю

Ok, where do you see discrepancy? (Apologize for mistakes, my İELTS lvl is 6.5-7.0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.117.135.17 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag

Is there any evidence that this is the flag of the Yerevan Khanate? A reverse image search only brings up a handful of Azerbaijani articles. Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Source. --92slim (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ninetoyadome:, @92slim:, yes, I had found that PDF file myself as well. I initially thought you meant that there was some kind of online gallery where you could see it. I'm virtually entirely sure that its completely violating WP:RS however. I won't go into detail regarding the rather internationally reputable and "renowned" efforts of the government of the Azerbaijan Republic to falsify history, but this PDF seems to be another live attestment to that. What do you gentlemen think? I mean, seriously?.....;

• "The symbols of the spiritual culture of ancient Azerbaijan are an eight pointed star and its semantic synonyms Simurg and Novruz. Adoption of the ancient Azerbaijani philosophy as well as the symbols, in particular the ancient astral symbol of the goodwill of the gods an eight pointed star and the philosophy of the Universe by the cultures of other nations can serve as a proof to it. An eight pointed star in the radial petal and other stylized designs are present in the Azerbaijani carpets which have been woven since the beginning of the first millennium BC, as well as in national embroideries, jewels and other objects of arts and crafts." -- page 4

• "The founder of the Karabakh khanate was one of the prominent statesmen of Azerbaijan Panahali khan Javanshir." -- page 4

• "One of the first steps taken in this sphere was the construction of the Bayaty tower named after the ancient Azeri Turkish tribes bayats in 1748." -- page 7

• "According to the Kurakcha Treaty, Karabakh khanate was annexed to Russia as a Muslim Azerbaijani land. " -- page 7

• "The Kurakchay Treaty is one of the most important documents evidencing that Karabakh, including its mountainous region, historically belonged to the Azerbaijani nation." -- page 7

• "After the occupation of the Northern Azerbaijan, Tsarism pursued the policy of Armenianization in order to consolidate its positions on those lands. In accordance with the 1828 Turkmenchai Treaty and the 1829 Edirne Treaty, Armenians from Persia and Turkey resettled to Northern Azerbaijan, including Karabakh." - page 7

....and so forth. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The sources cited at its "bibliography" section, p. 25, are tourist websites, Wikipedia, and a few other state-owned websites. I believe we can safely conclude that this is an absolutely non-WP:RS source. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, it's just propaganda. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But we're talking about a flag, the flag of a Khanate that represents a Muslim ruler, of course it will be Azerbaijani or Persian, and nothing else - there must have been a flag at the time. If the Government of Azerbaijan claims the flag represented the Khanate, I'm sure they wouldn't have made that fact up, I find no plausible reason for them to even consider doing that, and neither does the flag seem controversial to me at all, since it's nothing to do with modern Azerbaijan or any topics related to the Karabakh conflict. --92slim (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I get your rationale. However if it's really existing and/or located in a museum, one should easily be able to find (at least) one independent reliable source attesting to this. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, @Doug Weller:, @Tiptoethrutheminefield:, would you be interested to present your opinion about the reliability/inclusion of this? Thanks much - LouisAragon (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

If you mean this, then I would say no, that is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

For it to be in the article, there needs to be a RS that connects it to the Erivan Khanate. And even if one is found I don't think it should be in the infobox part of the article. It does not appear to be a standardized state flag as such - it is a one-off banner that, probably to give it authority and express the authority of its holder, uses imagery obviously derived from the Persian Empire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The pdf is not a RS, and none of the sources cited in the bibliography of the pdf are RS - with the possible exception of the "Caspian Business News" one. But Caspian Business News appears to have ceased publication in 2006 [12], and its domain name (cited here [13]) is for sale, so how can its article be dated 2010? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Late to the party, again. I agree with Tiptoe - no rs yet, even with one wouldn't belong in the infobox for the reasons given. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCGN problems at the lead

A user is pushing the view that just because the Erivan Khanate was part of the Persian Empire that the alternative names must have Persian first. Thankfully, WP:NCGN solves disputes like this by simply suggesting that we place these alternative names in alphabetical order. Under #2 of NCGN, we read:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken).

Armenian and Azerbaijani, just like Persian, are relevant foreign languages. The Erivan Khanate is important for Armenians and Azerbaijanis as it is for Persians. To prioritize one language's importance over the other is not in the best interest of keeping neutrality within the first sentence of the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that this Wikipedia is in the English language so the common name in English should be first, Erivan Khanate. Then the name used should be the name given to it by the entity that created the Erivan Khanate, the Persian empire. So the Persian name should be first amongst the alternate names. Then the Armenian name, since that is the language used by the country that the majority of the territory of the khanate is now part of. Then the modern Azeri name, since a much smaller part of the khanate's territory is now part of Azerbaijan. Given the clear difference in status and type amongst the alterative names (the Persian name is the actual name used when the khanate was in existence; the Azeri alternative name is a modern term rendered in an alphabet not invented when the khanate was in existence) the argument that the ordering of the alternative names should be alphabetical is not convincing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. The status logic sounds quite more logical than that supposed dispute-fixing guideline.
And those are "advice, intended to guide, not force."
It's funny that the article of the very mentioned example within the NCGN section has ended up with the same thing.
—Rye-96 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact that section says:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken).

Since Persian was the official language, then it has to come first. --92slim (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@92slim: True. It's just that the given example is a little confusing. — The Gulf of Finland is shared between three countries, and is not fully under the governance of Finland; therefore the Finnish name is not placed first.
—Rye-96 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@LouisAragon: if you are quoting Bourtnoutian 1982 to insist that khanates were provinces, then please quote him all the way, including the passage where he says that these provinces were under nominal Persian control: "By the nineteenth century there were nine khanates in Transcaucasia under nominal Persian control", otherwise this is WP:Cherry-picking.

While Chopin does not say "Azerbaijanis", he says "Tatars" which was the term for Azerbaijanis at the time. Since the term is not mentioned overtly, I added it only as a link, not in the actual text as a form of compromise. You calling this "blatant (sic!) misrepresentation" (as if I linked the article Mayans or the Maori) was a bad faith remark. You have edited dozens on articles on the Caucasus and you are a member of WikiProject Caucasia; it cannot be news to you that "Tatar" in the context of the South Caucasus refers to Azeris (even ru:wiki with its continuous Armenian-Azeri clashes on controversial topics has long accepted this). Are you sure "blatant" is the word you are looking for? Do you in all honesty think that the article Turkic peoples that mentions Yakuts and the Kyrghyz is an appropriate link when talking about Turkic population of Erivan? In any case, linking it to Turkic peoples is just as "blatant" because not all Turkic peoples were called Tatar at the time. Parishan (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, you seem to be active in the article, but I am still waiting for your reply. Parishan (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "if you are quoting Bourtnoutian 1982 (...)"

Not sure where you're getting the "1982" from. Bournoutian has asserted in many of his works, a significant amount of whom are cited in the article, that these "khanates" were "provinces", whether under "nominal Persian control" or not.

"During the eighteenth century, Persian Armenia was composed of the provincial boundaries or Khanates (subdivided into Mahals) of Erevan and Nakhchivan (...)" -- Bournoutian, George A. (1980). "The Population of Persian Armenia Prior to and Immediately Following its Annexation to the Russian Empire: 1826-1832". The Wilson Center, Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies: 1–2.

"A capable administrator, Ḥosaynqolī Khan managed, during his twenty-year tenure, to restore Armenian confidence in the Persian administration and made the khanate a model province." -- Kettenhofen, Erich; Bournoutian, George A.; Hewsen, Robert H. (1998). "EREVAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VIII, Fasc. 5. pp. 542–551

"Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1819 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Sheki: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province Prior to its Annexation by Russia. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers. ISBN 978-1568593159."

• "While Chopin does not say "Azerbaijanis", he says "Tatars" which was the term for Azerbaijanis at the time."

So you are not here to build the article per the reliable sources, you are here to right great wrongs. Thank you. Your own words. Chopin makes no word of "Azerbaijanis", yet you made "Tatars" link to "Azerbaijanis".[14] These Tatars of the area were dubbed in later times as "Azerbaijanis", thats correct, but its still not what Chopin states, the author whom you cited. Whats also pretty endearing is that you additionally added a specialist in law / a prof in international law, a non-RS source, in order to back up the same thing.[15]

Oh, and btw, next time you want to "wait for a reply" on your self-formulated "essays", you should consider replying first to users who are waiting for about 6 months for you to give a source for your "claims"; [16]. Another beautiful, similar, and recent case where you have disregarded the reliable sources, and simply did what you wanted to do. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, my contributions to discussions qualify to be "self-formulated essays" as much as anybody's, including yours. I believe it is legitimate on my part to call for your attention (and mind you, in a much less disrespectful way that you do so) if I see you editing the article for over a week while there is a discussion pending. If a user goes into the trouble of contributing heavily into Wikipedia articles, especially on an arbitrated subject, then he/she should be no stranger to discussion pages and certainly not be irritated by such invitations. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration.

It is nice to see you use your WP shortcuts, but your reference to "righting-great-wrongs" is absolutely irrelevant in his case. The subject of outdated terminology, including of toponyms and ethnonyms, has been dealt with on numerous occasions on AA2 articles. Even such articles as this one, with an explicit use of the ethnonym in question, make a provision in the very introduction to specify which ethnic group the article talks about, and so do many others. This is a fruit of long discussions and compromises reached following an exchange of what you call "self-formulated essays" and "righting wrongs". In this article, I did not even go as far as mentioning Azerbaijanis; all I did was fix a link that would guide the reader into the correct information stream. And instead of taking that as a first step towards building a compromise, you displayed a belligerent attitude, accusing me of "blatant (!) misinformation".

The mere fact that you just personally admitted that "These Tatars of the area were dubbed in later times as "Azerbaijanis", thats correct", yet deliberately chose to link "Turkic groups" to a very broad and ambiguous article on "Turkic peoples" is an illustration of your bad-faith attitude. Parishan (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, but thats where you're fundamentally wrong -- for the dozenth time. Unlike you, I go with what the reliable sources state. And everyone can see that. The reliable sources don't state "Azerbaijanis". They state "Turks", "Turko-tatars", or "Turkics". So we ask you, once again; why do you keep ignoring the reliable sources and why do you keep adding a personal twist to everything? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Parishan: Nobody's supposed to self-formulate anything.
You've been coming up with similar argumentations on various articles for quite a while. This just doesn't work that way.
This is according to George Bournoutian's The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia (page 16):

In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan.

—Rye-96 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert pls

Revert Seymur06 (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Old map of the Erivan Khanate within Persian empire

Erivan Khanate in Persian empire

Why is this antique map of the Erivan Khanate brings such a problem and an unfriendly reaction from the user LouisAragon, who is so much against this.map.Culminatio (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Why is this antique map of the Erivan Khanate brings such a problem"

There are many old maps which depict Erivan at Commons, why singling out this specific one? I have yet to see a reliable secondary or tertiary source (Wikipedia is written using reliable sources) labeling Barda, Gulistan and Kapan as part of the Erivan Province/Khanate at any point in history. I won't object against the inclusion of the map if you have any reliable sources that verify (WP:VER) they were part of the Erivan Khanate/Province at any point in history.

• "(...) and an unfriendly reaction from the user"

I commented on your editorial pattern (i.e. your edit not being "good practise").[17] You on the other hand, made an ad hominem (i.e. WP:BATTLE/WP:PERSONAL) by assuming I "don't know history of that particular region very well",[18] Trust me this wouldn't look good at ANI.

- LouisAragon (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Another ad hominem by user:Culminatio: "(...) because I insert map in the article, which you just don't like personally."[19] - LouisAragon (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on excluding this particular map as anything else but a historical oddity from that period, and not a necessarily accurate depiction of the khanate's borders. And yes this IP is being rather combative with his edits. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Erevan Shah

"Erevan Shah" is the oriental title of the Persian style ruler of "Greater Armenia".

10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.227 (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.227 (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

The Erivan Khanate did not include the Kagizman district. Ricardolindo2 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)