Talk:History of Azerbaijan/Archive 4

Recent edits

User:Azerbaijani made a number of unreferenced edits, which I rolled back for now. This article was written by a number of editors, including User:Tombseye, who made Azerbaijani people an FA article. I think you need to get a consensus for major revisions first. I will ask Tombseye to have a look at this article. Grandmaster 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert is completely unjustified. That whole section is highly inaccurate. It says that the "historical territory of Azerbaijan was split in half" but at that time it was NOT one region! Also, you know as well as I do about the genetic tests that have shown that the Azeri's of the Repulic of Azerbaijan are Caucasian and those of Iran are Iranic. I will post my version of the overview section right here and will source everything.Azerbaijani 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Below you will see the version which Grandmaster reverted. You will see that I sourced some o the major components of it, and removed several POV statements.

Grandmasters version makes comments such as:

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

• That is highly incorrect, and the historical territory of Azerbaijan did not contain the land north of the Araxes, and at the time Russia took Iran's Caucasian territories, Azerbaijan and the region north of the Araxes, were not one. The Area north of the Araxes was made up of small territories.

I fixed this statement by changing it to: In the early 19th century, Iranian territory in the Caucasus was divided in half following wars fought between Russia and the Qajar dynasty of Iran.

2)The Russians annexed the northern parts of Azerbaijan, amid their expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia.

• The Russias did not annex any of the parts of Iranian Azerbaijan. I assume the person who wrote this meant the regions north of the Araxes, which again, were not part of Iranian Azerbaijan. None of the territories signed by Russia and Iran after the wars mentioned anything of the sort.

I corrected the statement by changing it to: The Russians annexed the territories north of the Aras river, amid their expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia.

3)Following the Turkmenchay treaty, signed in February 1828, Azerbaijan was divided along the Araz river (Araxus).

• Again, Azerbaijan was not divided at all. Infact, Iranian Azerbaijan was not even affected by the Russo-Persian wars.

I fixed this statement by changing it to: Following the Turkmenchay treaty, signed in February 1828, the Araz river (Araxus) marked the border between Russia and Iran. (In fact, this is correct, the treaties were signed to mark the border between Russia and Iran)

4)After more than 80 years of colonization under the Russian empire, Russian Azerbaijan attained a brief period of independence in 1918...

• There was no Russian Azerbaijan.

I corrected this statement by changing it to: After more than 80 years of colonization under the Russian empire, brief period of independence came in 1918...

5)The Iranian portion of Azerbaijan, managed to gain autonomy twice in the 20th century; both movements were subjugated by the Iranian army.

• a) Grandmaster reverted two fact tags. b) The Iranian army never subjugated the communist state set up in Iranian Azerbaijan after WWII. The Soviets were forced to leave by the West and the Iranian army simply retook the territory as the Russians left. The little resistance there was came from the hard core communist, and even though the Russians left behind many weapons in hopes that the people would fight for the communist state, nothing of the sort happened.

I find it amusing that Grandmaster asks me to cite my sources when almost none of this section is sourced in his version!Azerbaijani 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for you:

Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828). [1]

I hope this solves the problem. Also I still suggest we get Tombseye to check your proposed edits to maintain neutrality. Grandmaster 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesnt, as that can easily be contested by historical accounts as well as historical maps (funny how you are trying to use Iranica when it suits you). Also, before you try to mislead people with selective quoting, why do you not mention the rest of it? It clearly says that the boundaries region was mostly those below the Araxes and in the north west of the Iranian plateau. the article simply mentions that certain geographers (it names only two, one of which the article says gives "imprecise and contradictory information") included some territory north of the Araxes, sometimes Armenia, sometimes as far down as Sanandaj, and, the article clearly states this, the province of Arran. Infact, the article goes on to mention Arran several times!

Historically, the territory of Azerbaijan has been confined to that of its present location in Iran. From the time of Strabo to 1918, there are clear geographic accounts. There have only been two or three geographers that said otherwise, and one gave imprecise and contradictory information.

Secondly, I do not have to justify anything as none of the information I edited was sourced in the first place. I have sourced my information and given good reasons for my edits.Azerbaijani 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading this version (below), as it is more neutral and coincides with the facts given. (honestly, before it was all POV, nothing was even cited). Tombseye also shows no interest in getting involved.Azerbaijani 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview

According to professor Tadeusz Swietochowski, "as a political or administrative unit, and indeed as a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre- Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran. From the time of ancient Media and the Achaemenid Kingdom, Azerbaijan usually shared its history with Iran". According to the same source, the term Azerbaijan was seldom used for the territory north of Araxes. Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski also writes: What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran.

The heritage, culture and civilization of Azerbaijan has both ancient and modern roots. The Azerbaijanis are believed to be inheritors of various ancient civilizations and peoples including the indigenous Caucasian Albanians, Arattans, Mannai, Medians, and Oguz Turks among others. (Note that several modern peoples of the Caucasus can trace their ancestries to more than one of these same ancient peoples.) Perhaps to clarify who the Turkic-speaking Azeris are by way of ancestry, recent evidence from Genealogical DNA tests show that the modern Azeris of the republic of Azerbaijan genetically cluster the closest with the peoples of the Caucasus (such as the Georgians and the Lezgians), while the genetic contribution of Iranian peoples and Turkic tribes appears to be more minor than was initially expected.[2] Azeri's in Iran have been shown to cluster more with other Iranic peoples) These results may indicate a strong indigenous origin for the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan and links to their immediate neighbors of the Caucasus. During Median and Persian rule, many Albanians adopted Zoroastrianism and then switched to Christianity prior to coming of Muslim Arabs and more importantly Muslim Turks. The Turkic tribes are believed to have arrived as small bands of ghazis whose conquests led to the turkification of the population as largely native Caucasian and Iranian tribes adopted the Turkish language of the Oghuz and converted to Islam over a period of several hundred years.

In the early 19th century, Iranian territory in the Caucasus was divided in half following wars fought between Russia and the Qajar dynasty of Iran. The Russians annexed the territories north of the Aras river, amid their expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Following the Turkmenchay treaty, signed in February 1828, the Aras (Araxes) river marked the border between Russia and Iran. The land north of the Aras river is now the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the land south of the Aras is referred to as Iranian Azerbaijan.

After more than 80 years of colonization under the Russian empire, brief period of independence came in 1918, when the first democratic, Turkic-speaking republic, and the earliest secular state in an Islamic land was established, known as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The state was invaded by Soviet forces in 1920, and remained under Soviet rule until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Iranian Azerbaijan, managed to gain autonomy twice in the 20th century; In 1937, Iranian Azerbaijan was divided into two different provinces, and as of 2005, it is divided into the provinces of Ardabil, East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan and Zanjan by the administration of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

References

Your version contradicts Azerbaijani people article. Grandmaster 07:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is simply because you, as usual, came in and blocked the efforts to change that article as well. That article must also soon be changed so that it is along the same lines Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, and World Book Encyclopedia, as well as the majority of historians.Azerbaijani 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is an FA quality article that was a result of joint effort of many people, including the main editor Tombseye, and your attempts to change it to reflect only certain views failed, as they received no consensus. What you do here is clearly a violation of NPOV rules. Grandmaster 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An article being FA does not mean people cannot improve it or change it, so dont bring that card up again in an effort to keep people from changing things. Also, the article does not concur with major encyclopaedias and historians. Tombseye, who does not show anymore interest, is probably not an expert on the subject, and you certainly are not, as I am not, yet I have the facts to support my claims. The origins section of the article gives a lot of undo-weight to the Turkic origin theory, which is not accepted anymore. It is also not written to incorporate the facts given in major encyclopaedia's and genetic tests. These changes will be made in the future, and considering I have the support of all of those major encyclopaedia's and many major historians and scholars, I dont see what you can do about it. Certainly you are not going to argue with all of those encyclopaedia's and scholars are you? So far, in an effort to keep people from editing the article, you have mentioned Tombseye several times (for reasons I do not yet understand, is he some sort of authority figure?) and that the article is FA, yet neither of these means anything. I do not know why you insist that our backgrounds are Turkic. Our language is Turkic, and our origin could be something other than Turkic, there is nothing wrong with that. Why are you so reluctant? You can help make the article better, or you cannot, thats your choice, but considering that all the facts and references are on my side, I dont see what you can do to prevent changes to the article.

Here are Wikipedia's rules on NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

So let me ask you, how are my proposed edits not NPOV?

Undue Weight:

None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

By this very notion, the changes MUST be made to represent all the significant published points of view, which the article currently does not have. The Turkic origin theory, for example, is pure speculation and OR interpretation, with no support from any major publications.Azerbaijani 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Sorry for the late reply, but I have been super busy. I did help to write much of this article with Abdulnr and mostly we were going by an eclectic selections of sources. Overall, from my own personal interaction with people at Columbia University, Iranica is the best source to use as a barometer for this article, in relation to web sources. Altstadt and Swietochowski are also excellent academic sources for this as is Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana. Here's a good excerpt for example:

In ancient and early medieval times eastern Transcaucasia was populated by Iranian speakers, nomadic Turkic tribes, Kurds, and the Caucasian Albanians, who converted to Christianity in the 4th century and came under the cultural influence of the Armenians. After Arab incursions in the 7th century, Islamic polities were established under local rulers called shahanshahs. The Seljuq invasions in the 11th century changed the composition of the local population and resulted in the linguistic dominance of Oguz Turkic dialects. But, unlike the Ottoman Turks who came to dominate Anatolia, the Caucasian Muslims of Azerbaijan in the early 16th century became Shi'ite, rather than Sunni, Muslims, and they continued to develop under Persian social and cultural influence. Persian-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Samaxi), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Safavid Iran.

The historical territories of Azerbaijan, bordered on the Great Caucasus from the North, the Alagoz chain, the basin of the lake Goycha and the Eastern Anatoly from the west, the Caspian Sea from the East and Sultaniye-Zanjan-Hamadan from the south, is a place of the primary cultures which gave the start to modern civilization. In those territories historically belonged to Azerbaijan people they established rich distinctive culture and the state system.

Sounding of 'Azerbaijan' regularly changed along the history. Historical sources reflect former names of Azerbaijan as Andirpatian, Atropatena, Adirbijan and Azirbijan.

The history of ancient Azerbaijan is built on archeological, ethnographic, anthropological and written historical resources. Archeological funds gave the excellent opportunity to study the history of material culture of Azerbaijan, while ethnographic materials revealed in historical sources and expeditions inform about traditions, material-moral culture, former forms of ruling, family relations, etc.

Archeological excavations in the territory of Azerbaijan Republic revealed patterns of rich material culture related to the first human settlement. Based on the abovementioned the territory of Azerbaijan has been referred to the areas of first human formation. Most ancient archeological and paleontological materials recently found in the territory of Azerbaijan prove that first primitive men settled here 1.7-1.8 million tears ago.

The territory of Azerbaijan is rich with archeological monuments which prove it to be one of the regions of the primitive men's first settlement. Archeological finds of the caves of Azikh, TAglar, Damjili, Dashsalahli, Gazma(Nakhchivan) and other monuments, the shin-bone of the most ancient Azikh man (Azikhantrop) lived 300-400 thousand years ago in the Age of Asheul prove the abovementioned theory.

For this find the territory of Azerbaijan has been included into the map of 'The ancient settlers of the Europe'.

In addition, Azeri people has the ancient state system establishment which dates to 5 000 years. The first states or ethic-political unions in Azerbaijan appeared round Urmiya at the end of 4th and at the beginning of 3rd millennium BC. Newly established ancient Azerbaijan states played great role in military-political history of the whole region. They had closed relations with the Shumer, Akkard and Ashur(Assuria) states, located on the valleys of Tigris and Euphrates and also with Het state located on Asia Minor.

Great states such as Manna, kingdom of Iskit(Skit, Skif), Atropatena and Albania appear on the lands of Azerbaijan in the 1st millennium BC and the 1st millennium AD. Those states played distinctive role in perfection of ruling traditions, in history of the economy and culture of the country and in formation of united people.

The beginning of AD is characterized with difficulties for our country; it was occupied first by the empire of Sasani-Iran in the 3rd and later by Arabic khilafet(kind of ruling) in the 7th centuries. Many people of Iranian and Arabic origin migrated here from Iran and Arabia.

Turkic ethnic groups, the most organized and strong from the military and the political aspect, composed the majority of the population in the first centuries of the AD and played important role in the formation of the people. Oguz Turks prevailed among Turkic ethnic groups.

Since the first centuries AD Turkic language was gaining priority among minor people and ethnic groups lived in the territory of Azerbaijan. Turkic language was the means of relation between the north and the south. This fact played important role in formation of united folk for the reason that monotheism was absent in Azerbaijan at that time. The belief to the head God of the Turks did not prevailed over other spread religions. Zoroastrianism, fire-worship, belief in the Sun, the Moon, the Sky, the stars, ground, water etc. still existed. Christianity was widely spread in the northern part of the country, i.e. in some places of Albania, especially in western mountainous regions. Free Albanian church existed together with Armenian and Georgian churches.

Acceptance of Islam in the 7th century made a great change in the history of Azerbaijan.

Islam turned a strong push in the formation of unique people and the language and quickened this process. Common religion of Turkic and non-Turkic ethic groups brought to formation of the same traditions, widening of kinship relations and deepening of the integration process in the territory of Azerbaijan. Islam united all the Moslem Turkic and non-Turkic ethic groups in the struggle against the imperia of Byzantium, aimed to keep the whole South Caucasus under the influence of Christianity and against Armenian and Georgian feudal lords under its subordination as well.

In the middle of the 9th century Azerbaijan re-establishes its traditions of the state system and in the lands of the spread of Islam we see new states: Sajis, Shirvanshakhs, Salaris, Ravvadis, Shaddadis.

Prosperity touched all the spheres of the politics, economy and culture with the appearance of the independent states. Thus starts the period of Azerbaijan Renaissance. The establishment of native states (Sajis, Shirvanshakhs, Salaris, Ravvadis, Shaddadis, of Shaki dominion) after 600 year long Sasani and Arabic occupation and victory of Islam over the whole territory as the only monotheist religion, plaid an important role in ethnic evolution of Azerbaijan people and formation of unique language and culture.

In the period when separate feudal dynasties ruling Azerbaijan changed each-other, Islam played a prominent role in unification against foreign invaders of all Azerbaijan people, i.e. Turkic tribes, founding the base of our nation and non-Turkic ethnic groups integrated with them.

After Arabic Khilafet fell into decay since the mid of the 9th century Turkic-Islamic empires increased their role in the Caucasus, in all the Near and the Middle East. States ruled by such Turkic-Islamic dynasties as Sajis, Shirvanshahs, Salaris, Ravvadis, Shaddadis, Shaki governors, Saljugis, Eldanises, Mongols, Elkhanis-Hulakus, Chobanis, Jalayirs, Teymuris, Osmans, Garagoyunlus, Aggoyunlus, Safavis, Afshars, Gajars and others remained in the history of the state system of Azerbaijan, of the whole South Caucasus and the Near and the Middle East.

State system establishment of Azerbaijan progressed between the 15th and the 18th centuries and later. The great empires of the period Garagoyunlu, Aggoyunlu, Safavi, Afshar and Gajar were directly ruled by the Azerbaijan dynasties.

This fact found its positive reflection in the internal and the international relations of Azerbaijan; widened influence of the country and the people in military and political spheres, also intensified the usage of Azerbaijan language and thus created favorable conditions for the development of material and moral culture of Azerbaijan people. In that historical period Azerbaijan states plaid important role in the international relations and military and the political life of the Near and the Middle East, take active part in the relations between the Europe and the East.

In the reign of the great statesman of Azerbaijan Uzun Hasan (Hasan the High)(1468-1478) the emperor of Aggoyunlu appeared as a great military-political entity in the whole Near and the Middle East. State system establishment of Azerbaijan had been developing. Uzun Hasan aimed to create strong centralised state embracing the territory of the whole Azerbaijan. For this purpose he composed 'Ganunname'(the about the Law). He made one to translate Gurani-Kerim (Koran) into azeri, ordered Abu Bekr Tehrani to write Oguzname (Oguz epic) in the name of 'Kitabi-Diyarbekerriye'.

The distinctive importance carries out the period of the late 15th and early 16th , when the prominent statesman and the grandson of Uzun Hasan Shah Ismail Khatai(1501-1524) realized his grandfather's wish and united all the territories of Azerbaijan under his control.

He created a centralized Azerbaijan state -Safavi; the capital was Tebriz.

During the reign of the Safavis state system establishment in Azerbaijan progressed. Azerbaijani had been the sate language.

Reforms carried out by Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasib and Shah Abbas and other Safavi rulers, their internal and foreign policy changed the state of Safavi to one of the greatest empires of Near and the Middle East.

After Savafi fell into decay Nadir shah Afshar(1736-1747), a prominent Azerbaijani commander, continued ruling traditions in Azerbaijan territories after Savafi fell into decay. Being of Turkic-Afshar origin from Azerbaijan, he strengthened the borders of the former empire and in 1739 occupied the Northern India including Deli. Despite of his great efforts he couldn't establish the great centralized state.

After Nadir Shah's death his great empire fell into decay and in the second part of the 18th century the struggle of Azerbaijan for freedom gave the birth to new smaller states; khanates and sultanates appeared in the territory of Azerbaijan.

At late 18th century the government of Iran passed to the dynasty of the Gajars(1796-1925) of Azerbaijani origin. Their main policy was to unite all the territories once ruled by their ancestors--the Garagoyunlus, the Aggoyunlus, the Safaviz and by Nadir shah and Azerbaijani khanates as well, under their government. This gave the start to long lasting wars between the Gajars and Russia, aimed to occupy the Southern Caucasus. Azerbaijan was oppressed in the middle of bloody struggle between two great states.

According to Gulustan (1813) and Turkmanchay (1828) agreements Azerbaijan was divided between the two empires. The north part of Azerbaijan joined to Russia, while the south of it to Iran kingdom ruled by the Gajars.

This historical event determines the origin of new political-geographical notions: "The North Azerbaijan"(or "Russian Azerbaijan") and "The South Azerbaijan" (or "Iranian Azerbaijan").

Invaded Azerbaijan with the purpose to create support for itself in the Southern Caucasus, Russia on mass scale resettled Armenians from abroad in to the territories of Azerbaijan, especially to the mountainous regions of Karabakh and the regions of the former Iravan and Nakhchivan khanates and thus in the bordered on Turkey western lands of Azerbaijan, i.e. in the territories of the former Iravan and Nakhchivan khanates appeared 'Armenian province', artificially established for the definite purpose. Such was laid the foundation of future Armenian state on Azerbaijan lands.

In 1836 Russia liquidated free Albanian church, subordinated it to Armenian Grigorian church and thus created a favourable condition to grigorianization and armenianization of the ancient population of Azerbaijan--the christian Albans. Armenians started claims to our lands. Later the tsarist Russia made the next effort: it armed armenians and began mass genocide against Turkic-Moslem Azerbaijanis and gave start to the genocide of all Azerbaijanis and the Turkic-Moslem population of the southern Caucasus.

The liberty movement in Northern Azerbaijan concluded tragically. In March 1918 the dashnak-bolshevik government with S. Shaumyan at its head executed the terrible genocide against Azerbaijanis. But the interference of Turkey brought victory to liberation movement in Azerbaijan. In May 28th of 1918 the northern Azerbaijan witnesses the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan --the first Parliamentary Republic in the history of the people of Azerbaijan, the first democratic, legal and secular state in the whole East and Islamic world.

In the period of Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan parliamentary experience had been gained in two stages. The First period lasted from May 27th till November 19th of 1918. In may 28th the Parliament declared about independence of Azerbaijan, assumed governing of the country and adopted historical Declaration of Independence. During 6 month period the Parliament composed of 44 turkic-moslem members, functioned under the name of the National Board of Azerbaijan and adopted very important historical decisions.

The Second period of parliamentary experience of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan or the Baku period, started from December 7th of 1918 and lasted till April 27th of 1920; only 17 months. By its decision from September 1st of 1919 the parliament established the Baku State University. The establishment of the national University was the most important event in the history of our people. Though the fall of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the Baku State University helped to preserve the ideas of Republic and played great role in re-gaining of the independence.

In lifetime of the DRA the parliament gathered 155 times. 10 of them were in the period of the National Board of Azerbaijan (May 27th -November 19th 1918), the rest 145 in the period of the Parliament of Azerbaijan (December 7th 1918- April 27th 1920).

Parliament discussed over 270 drafts. 230 of them were adopted. Active and business-like disputes caused the adoption of the laws on the third reading. During its 23 month live the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan proved that no colonial or repression regime, how cruel it might be, is in power to crush liberty ideals and state traditions of Azerbaijan people.

The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan fell under the military attack of the Soviet Russia. State independency of Northern Azerbaijan was liquidated. In April 28th of 1920 in the territory of Azerbaijan the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan (SSRA) appeared instead of the Democratic Republic.

The system of the independent state government established in DRA had directly been liquidated after Soviet occupation.

The 'Read Terror' occupied the whole territory of Azerbaijan. Every one who struggled against Bolshevik regime was the victim of the 'red terror' under the names of the 'national enemy', the 'anti-revolutionary' or the 'saboteur'.

So after the March genocide in 1918 Azerbaijan people had to bare the new one. The second genocide was directed to the prominent persons of Azerbaijan people-the prominent statesmen of the DRA, the generals, high rank officers of the National Army, the progressive intellectuals, the heads of the parties, the famous scientists. The band of Bolshevik-dashnaks purposed to abolished the cream of the society and leave it without a head. This was more cruel and terrible than March genocide of 1918.

The North Azerbaijan completely turned into the Soviet state after the call the first Soviet Conference of Azerbaijan SSR in May 6th of 1921. The first Constitution of Azerbaijan SSR was adopted in May 19th.

Deprivation of freedom followed by the robbery of Azerbaijan riches. The private property over the land was abolished; all the national resources of the country turned into the property of the state; control of the Oil Economy had been entrusted to specially founded Azerbaijan Oil Committee. The head of this Committee was A.P.Serebrovski appointed by V.I.Lenin. In his telegram: 'Winning of Baku is too difficult for us', sent to Military-Revolution Board of Caucasus Front from March 17th of 1920, V.I.Lenin ordered to occupy the Northern Azerbaijan. Soviet Russia owned the Petroleum of Baku.

In the thirties of the 20th century the Azerbaijani people met with repression. 29 000 people were subjected to repression in 1937. All of them were worthy sons of their Land. Among them were Huseyn Javid, Mikayil Mushfig, Ahmed Javad, Salman Mumtaz, Ali Nazmi, Tagi Shahbazi and other thinkers and intellectuals. Many years Azerbaijan remained under the influence of this process which took away the intellectual potentiality and honorable men of our people.

1948-1953 are characterized as new level of mass deportation of Azerbaijanis from their historical lands-the Western Azerbaijan (named as Armenia SSR). Armenians stabled their positions in the Western Azerbaijan and their quantity predominated on that area.

In the 60th of the 20th century for objective and subjective reasons Azerbaijan witnessed drawbacks in many spheres of its economy, industry and agriculture Despite of former successful achievements of Azerbaijan people.

The situation changed in 1969 when Heydar Aliyev started his first period of governing Azerbaijan. To make Azerbaijan one of the most advanced republics of the Soviet Union under totalitarian regime, Heydar Aliyev being a great fanatic of his people implemented the programs of great reforms in all the spheres of life.

The first step of the great politician was the achievement of the adoption of favorable decisions, on the problems of great importance for his Motherland and the development of his people on different spheres of economy (agriculture as well) and culture, at the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, at Plenums of the Central Committee, at the Congresses of the Communist party. The next step was the mobilization of Azerbaijan people to implement achieved decisions and thus he did all his best for the prosperity of Azerbaijan. He wanted Azerbaijan to freely provide itself, be capable for independent life, highly developed in scientific and technical sphere country (or as with that time term 'administrative-economic unit'). In a word, Heydar Aliyev stood at the head of the way leading to Independence of country.

Hundreds of plants, factories and other production swatch established over the whole republic during 1970-1975. 213 great plant facilities started to function. In many important industrial spheres Azerbaijan won the first places in the Soviet Union. 350 kinds of products made in Azerbaijan were exported to 65 foreign countries.

All creative works carried out by Heydar Aliyev in the first period of his government stirred up the national pride, national self-consciousness, the feelings of freedom and independence and in the 70th of the 20th century Azerbaijan made the next step towards the national liberty movement-the step of progress.

The late period of Azerbaijan state establishment has started with the adoption of the Constitution Act 'about the State Independence of Azerbaijan Republic' on October 18th of 1991, on the eve of the fall of the USSR and is still successfully going on.

Azerbaijan states exercised the development and the fall, the internal breaking and many invasions along the history. Azerbaijan always kept peaceful relations with bordering countries. But Armenians settled in the Western Azerbaijan constantly took notice of our lands and never missed a chance to occupy some territories.

Separatist- terrorist groupings of the Autonomous Provision of Nagorny Karabakh and Armenian armed forces began military actions for invasion of Nagorny Karabakh (the Mountainous Karabakh) with the help of the military units of USSR Armed Forces located in Armenia and the Autonomous Provision of Nagorny Karabakh in 1988. The regions of Nagorny Karabakh with Azerbaijani population were invaded the first. On January 15th Karkijahan, on February 10th of 1992 villages Malibayli and Guschular were invaded, peace and disarmed residence were inflicted reprisals, Khojaly and Shuhsa were surrounded. In mid of February Armenian and the Soviet united military forces invaded the village of Garadagli. The night from February 25th to 26th of 1992 witnessed the most tragic events of modern history. Armenian military unions with the help of the soldiers of Russian 366th moto-shooting regiment carried out terrible genocide against Azerbaijanis in Khojaly. The head of the Republic A. Mutallibov resigned in March 1992 when the national movement reached its pick. The absence of the ruling weakened the protection of the Azerbaijan Republic. This gave the opportunity to Armenian and soviet military arms to occupy Shusha in May 1992 and Armenians actually occupied the whole territory of Nagorny Karabakh. The next step was the invasion of Lachin-the tie of Armenia with Nagorny Karabakh. New internecine dissension in the period of the National Front of Azerbaijan ( May 1992- June 1993) much weakened our positions. In 1993 Kalbajar was occupied. The June was the period of deep political crisis. On people demand Heydar Aliyev came to power.

Heydar Aliyev's return was decisive in salvation of Azerbaijan. He prevented the risk of the Civil War.

The position of Heydar Aliyev in the solution of the problem of war was correct. As a wise strategist he took into consideration the real conditions. He realized the strength of our enemies and their supporters, plans and dangerous position of Azerbaijan among them and found the way out in cease-fire.

National leader of Azerbaijan people Heydar Aliyev saved his people from national-moral degradation and insolvency. His decisions were not the result of emotions, which might bring to wrong solution; his decisions rested on drawbacks of "former" rulers, realities of changing world, the realities of life and international realities. He returned the ancient and eternal name of 'Azerbaijan' to out land, nation and language. The patriotism, name and language of our people and Turkic-Islam unity re-established, disappeared the danger of ethic collision.

The authority and fame of Azerbaijan in the international world is growing continuously. Azerbaijan Republic is known all over the world as democratic, legal and secular state. The constitution of our state, being the result of Heydar Aliyev's mind, is one of the most democratic and perfect one in the world. The stability in our country and carrying out internal reforms positively affect the extension of the international relations. Azerbaijan Republic, basing its foreign policy on principles of equality and mutual interest, is an open act state for all the states of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.172.87.228 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now as for the "controversial" points, the Azeris in the north link largely to their Caucasian neighbors, while the southerners are a combination of Caucasian and Iranian elements obviously (the Mannai and the Medes being primary progenitors) so showing these aspects in the article is fine. There is also little question that most academics agree that the Azeris are a product of cultural assimilation, that is the Caucasian and Iranian indigenous groups (and probably some Armenians) were turkified over time.

With regards to the modern period, we know that the region (like much of the Caucasus came in and out of "Iranian" influence (the Safavids and some later dynasties representing a Turkic dominion that was culturally Iranian though). There is no denying the Iranian cultural element, even amongst the Armenians and Georgians etc. Since this is a history article though, the focus should be on events first. Abdul and I basically started from scratch as there was nothing here really and we worked on it to add sections and a great deal of depth, but did not really work to make a good article and the citations we added sporadically as we wanted to get a good skeleton article up first. As for referring to the area as "Iranian", it was actually Iranian dominated in the south, while the north in the Caucasus was comprised of independent and semi-independent khanates. With this caveat one could borrow what we did with the Azeris article and say that this area was Iranian, while the khanates were independent and semi-independent. More citations are great though and I don't think there is any need to argue over these minor points. When in doubt, just go with the predominant academic view. I hope this helps and I'll check in to see how things unfold. I'd like to help more with the article, but that will have to wait until the summer I'd imagine! Tombseye 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, for a second there I thought you had lost interest. Tombseye, the content of this article is very very confusing. Is this article about the history of the Caucasus or about Iranian Azerbaijan? I do not understand why you and Adulnur decided to write the histories of the region of Iranian Azerbaijan and that of the Caucasus in one article? Historically, Iranian Azerbaijan has been seperate to the land in the north.

There must be two seperate articles. For example, the first 14 sections do not make sense, as Azerbaijan's historical northern border was the Aras for that entire period. Also, it doesnt make sense for this article to even talk about Iranian Azerbaijan when sections 14 through 18 are about the Republic of Azerbaijan's history. Regarding sections in between Do you get what I mean? I suggest you and I create two articles, one being the History of Iranian Azerbaijan (which would be the history of Northern Iran from the times of the indigenous people to present day) and the other being the History of the Republic of Azerbaijan (which would be about the history of the South Caucasus, which would go from Caucasus Albania to present day), using sources you mentioned along with historical references and other sources. Since this article already contains the majority of the history of the South Caucasus, we should simply rename this article History of the Republic of Azerbaijan and rewrite it. I think if you and I work together in creating those articles, we can make those two articles featured articles. What do you say?Azerbaijani 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You idea is interesting, but I would go with simply turning this article into something more focused upon Caucasian Azerbaijan and limit the Iranian Azerbaijan issues to the history of iran where it belongs (as Iranian Azerbaijan is part of Iran). Logically, that's what most references do, that is keep national histories together with modern nation-states. Abdul and I worked with basically nothing and we just went with previous article's premise. Abdul did a great job with the modern period and I worked on the ancient and medieval stuff and editing for grammar etc. I'd be glad to help out when I can with the changing the article to more reflect the northern region which would make sense. Hope this helps and I hope this will end the conflict. Tombseye 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I will start taking out the references to Iranian Azerbaijan and focus the history of the article to that of the South Caucasus and more recently the Republic of Azerbaijan. I'm going to have to read through a lot of the article, but thankfully, the modern history seems to be mostly correct. Would you like to change the name of the article to History of the Republic of Azerbaijan?Azerbaijani 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article can remain the History of Azerbaijan simply because to the world and laypersons who read these articles the History of Azerbaijan refers to the modern nation-state while Iranian Azerbaijan's history is part of Iran just as that of Iranian Kurdistan, Khorasan, and Sistan Baluchistan is part of Iranian history. We can add something at the top that explains that for those looking to read the history of Iranian Azerbaijan they should go to the History of Iran etc. When you edit the article make sure to only take out and fix the parts that refer to situations that don't involve the north and south together obviously. In other words if it impacts the north keep it and also since there is much interaction due to the common language and historical affiliation of the northerners and southerners, the period from the Turkic era onwards is also probably pretty accurate. Just the pre-Turkic stuff mostly needs to be focused. Otherwise, I see nothing else wrong really. I'm sure Grandmaster and I can also help out whenever time allows. Hopefully this will resolve the conflict so that we can just go about fixing this and other articles. Peace. Tombseye 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Also, if you wish you can review my edits once I am done.Azerbaijani 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye, is the section The end of Mongol rule and the Black Sheep-White Sheep rivalry talking about Iranian Azerbaijan or the Caucasus region? Its not clear, but most of it seems to be about Iranian Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant edit

This edit [3] is irrelevant to History of Azerbaijan and information presented in this edit (apart from obviously poor English) is already incorporated in other parts of the article. Atabek (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not distort the words of Hewsen and Minorsky. They say that the original population of those lands was Albanian. Grandmaster (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Walloon culture in the southeast of France?

In the first paragraph of the Ancient History section, the culture that produced the Lascaux cave paintings is called Walloon. Surely that must be Magdalenian. 62.194.143.147 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed bogus coin images

Neither "File:Alexander_The_King_Macedon.jpg" nor File:Alexander_The_King_Macedon2.jpg" has anything to do with "the time of invasion of Alexander The Great". One is a coin of the Roman emperor Hadrian, while the inscription on the other is too small to be read at the uploaded image resolution, but is probably similar. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Scythian Archers

I will be thankful, if someone explain, how this pic and the item pictured there is associated with the history of Azerbaijan. If it was found in the territory of Azerbaijan Republic or was created by Azerbaijani ethnic group? Why is it placed at "Paleolithic" chapter? Zara-arush (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani khanates

Alborz, first of all, the Iranica you are referring to gives some inaccurate information on Azerbaijan. For instance, it states historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918 they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. Well, the actual independence day was declared on May 28, not 26. Furthermore, the source refers to Tadeusz Swietochowski, who in turn, identifies the khanates as Azerbaijani, not Iranian. See [4] and [5]. There are many more sources, but I think there is a clear distinction between the Azerbaijani khanates above the Kura river and Iranian below it. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The inaccuracy in one article , does not means the whole Encyclopedia may not be used as a reference . The determining factor in assessing the value of an article either in an Encyclopedia or in a book , is the writer of the article . In this example , there can be two reasons in giving 26 may and not 28 : One (more probable) is wrong typing , that is not so important at all and does not disqualify the Iranica as a reliable source , Two (less probable) is that the date of declaring the break down of Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic is 26 may , and so the unofficial date of independent Azerbaijan may be considered two days before the official date of 28 . But anyway , that does not have any relevance to other articles in Iranica . About Swietochowski , he is an expert in contemporary history of Azerbaijan republic , but editors like Bosworth are experts in this especial field .Anyway , when we are citing the Iranica as a reference and we are citing the text in foot note , it is definitely wrong to change a word in the Wikipedia article : if you think Iranica may not be cited , then delete the source and sentence all (after proving Iranica is not a RS)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And also look at our previous debate about this topic in [6].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And to add by present change , the other sources like Britannica : [7] is also falsely neglected (Britannica supports Iranian Khanates ) and changing the sentence has made the citing wrong --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To show that the wrong typing problems are not so important , I dare to mention in your comment , you typed the river Kura , instead of Aras ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, that's an encyclopedia we're talking about. If the encyclopedia Iranica is not sure when exactly the document on proclamation of independence of a state was signed, how can we refer to its article on khanates? One may go around with various reasons for those mistakes, but it's inadmissable to accept an assumption when there are facts.

There are tons of sources identifying the khanates as Azerbaijani. With the Azerbaijani Turkic speaking population and independent and semi-independent status, these khanates were Azerbaijani and not under the Iranian rule or had Persian speaking population. Throughout their short history they were subdued by Persia and Russia, but we can't say they were Russian khanates, can we? Britannica does not say anything about them being Iranian, but that they were "Persian ruled" at one point in time. Considering how many times the Iranian shahs attacked these khanates, speaks of their independent status as separate states. Some allied with other khanates, some with Georgia, some with Russian to protect themselves against Iran.

Yes, apologies about Kura. Yes, it should have been Aras. But you're forgetting that I am an editor, not an online encyclopedia to which many refer to. My typos can be admissable, encyclopedia typos are not. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A typo does not discredifies an important Encyclopedia.I think there is no doubt in value of Encyclopedia Iranica as an example of Reliable Source for Wikipedia , and same is trough about Britannica .Britannica says :

Persian[Iranian]-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran....Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran.

For to be used in Wikipedia , we don't need a ton of sources , just show me a few of reliable sources that say the feudal local authorities in that region were not a part of Iranian state and/or had no connection with Iranian state.

Again I am asking is it right that you changed a sentence with two sources , but the citation still remains in the text ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, with all due respect, I'm not really understanding what you're asking. Why should I remove Iranica? I do accept it as a source but have highlighted some mistakes on that specific page which describes the khanates as Iranian. Just google Azerbaijani khanates in Google Books and you'll come to find many reliable sources attesting to what I argue about. It's no surprise that many authors refer to khanates above Aras as Azerbaijani and never refer to the ones below Aras as Azerbaijani. Please, refer to the actual sentence in the article ...sometimes de facto independent founded under nominal Persian suzerainty which clearly describes the status of some of the khanates and does not contest Persian suzerainty at certain periods of time throughout their existence, but the fact that they were Azerbaijani with language spoken, ethnic composition and so forth is undeniable. To make it clear again, these were khanates, independent and semi-independent and some under Persian suzerainty, at different periods of time. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentence that the khanates were Azerbaijani with language spoken and ethnic composition : that's right . But you know , being Iranian has no contradiction with being Azerbaijani (in ethnic and lingual terms ) . Some of the Khanates were in rebellious state against the emerging central government (Qajars) in the eve of Russian invasion (like the Quba khanate (Haji Chalabi) and Qrabagh khanate (Javanshirs)) , some of them were strong supporters of the new dynasty in Iran ( like Ganjeh , Iravan and Nakhjavan khanates) and some of them were relatively neutral (like Baku and Talish khantes). Over all , I think if you mean to show the ethnic composition of the khantes , they were Azeri language and Azeri ethnic , If you mean the political orientation of the khantes , most khantes were Iranian origin , some of them loyal to new Iranian government and some of them in rebellion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you just answered your own question. The khanates were Azerbaijani (ethnicity, language, independent, semi-independent status) but some were under nominal Persian suzerainty as the line in the article states. As I said, some were dependent, some independent, some were continuously and directly engaged in warfare with Qajars like Karabakh and Shaki khanates, some like Guba khanate assisted them indirectly, some fought between themselves, etc. So, the article confirms their status and being Azerbaijani based on sources and that they were at times under Persian suzerainty. Karabakh khanate signed the Kurekchay Treaty in 1805 coming under Russian suzerainty, while it was officially abolished in 1813, but we don't say it was a Russian khanate, do we? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We say it was Russian if the Russian build it in first place. Al most all Khanates in north of the Aras river were built by Iranian central government at first.If some of them engaged in war with Qajars , that was because the Qajar government in Iran was in it's beginning period and was not an official government at first . The Qajars themselves were originally from the Qarabagh region and in the time of Nader Shah , he dislocated a group of them to northern Khorasan , and some of them remained in the territory of today's Azerbaijan republic , so that ethnic composition is not decisive at all , but building local states under the central government supervision was very common in the time of Safavid , Afsharid and Zand Iran . Almost all khantes has known history of building by central government of Iran . I think we can't change the text of the reference just because we think it is wrong and we are not allowed to put our own understanding in the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Where exactly do you get that from? The khanates were not built by central government, but were founded by clans and royal clan leaders, many remaining under Persian suzerainty. I'm not sure what exactly you want from the article if it already states that khanates were under Persian suzerainty? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Every Khan from any clan had to have a Firman (decree) from the Shah , including some rebellious Khans like Panah Ali Khan , that had the Khan decree from Adil Shah , and Ibrahim Khalil Khan from Karim Khan ; and every khanate has been a subdivision of feudal system of central government . I only want to say if a sentence is being used from a reference - Iranica & Britanica - , it should be used as same in the text . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, if you open any reliable third party source describing the establishment of the khanates, at the very least, the ones above Araz, you will see them stating that the khanates were founded after Nadir Shah's death. So, whether or not a firman was ever obtained from a Shah is irrelevant. I am guessing that firman meant a permission? Well, even if there was such a permission or decree to have the khanates established, it was not Persian governmental authorities establishing the khanates, but independent lords, some of whom eventually went under Persian suzerainty and not at its own will, but to protect themselves from other khans, Georgia or Russia. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem in obtaining third party opinion , if you agree I will ask for it . And no , NONE of the khanates were founded after Nadir Shah's death (except Javanshirs of Qarabagh that get their decree - after Nadir Shah- from Adil Shah and Karim Khan). Just name any one of them that you want , and I will show the sources that show they were founded by which shah and in which date . As an example , just to show you the point , I show the document about khanate of Shaki , (because Hajji Chalabi was a rebellious khan against the Iranian government): Farman by Nadir Shah Afshar and [8], that shows the khanate was founded many years before the death of Nadir shah . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I was talking about third party sources, not the third party opinion, although you're more than welcome to file an RfC as well. Please read Shaki Khanate based on third party scholars who speak about foundation of Shaki Khanate. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the third party source , if you mean the present source is not neutral , take a second look to that page and found it out that is a document of Azerbaijan SSR , in the history institute of Baku , and it is published in an Azeri book !The Russian source ([9]) mistake is confusion of Nukha with Shakki , I mean both of them are now a new city , but before Haji Chalabi , the city - that was an Iranian khanate from the time of the Safavid Shah Tahmasp - was in else where (in the bank of the river ) but at the time of Nadar shah , the city was destructed by the river flood and in the new city , the new khan that was not elected by Iranian shah took the position , so the Russian source say the Khanate was built by the renegade khan : He built the city , but not the khanante : it was a khanate from the Safavid time (200 years before 1743).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And again , as you know , salim khan shaki was elected as the khan by Agha mamad khan qajar , as after Russian's victory , he flee to Iran with many of his tribesmen and they are among Shahsavan's tribe .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, you're using an unacademic argument that the city flooded and then built anew, and hence it's a different city :) Shaki, as some other cities such as Shemakha, Quba, Baku, Moscow (you name it) had seen destruction by erathquakes, fires, etc and was rebuilt but that doesn't mean it's a "new" city. The link to the document actually supports my arguments above. Haji Chalabi Khan who founded the khanate (google all reputable scholars who trace foundation to him) was as rebelious as some other Azerbaijani khans above Araz river and the Persian Shah fought him, appointing someone to take his place because his khanate did not want to go under Persian domination. The Russian source also confirms the khanate was founded in mid 18th century in the northern part of Azerbaijan under leadership of Haji Chalabi Khan against Iranian domination. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly know why Russian source says so . But it is well documented that the Shaki khanate exists before Haji chalabi . As an example , this khanate in the era of Safavid Shah Tahmasp helped Shirvan khanate in war against the Safavid shah and that caused the shah to displace a part of population after the defeat of the khans .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I am disputing your knowledge, but is that knowledge based on third party sources? As far as I can remember as per third party reliable sources, at least khanates above Araz were established after the death of shah by lords who declared them independent (some agreed to be under Persian suzerainty). Tuscumbia (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again , please look at [10] , how can Darvish khan , the alleged grand father of Haji chalabi ,can be a khan , before building that Khanate ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't dispute the name or relative links of Darvish khan, I must note that khan is a title and does not necessarily mean, the person was the founder or ruler of a khanate. There have been many khans from Genghis Khans to Behbud Khans and Fatali Khans. Not all of them were founders of a khanate. He could have been a khan ruler of a city, of a tribe, etc. but I don't see a record of him being the khan of Shaki khanate. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Russian tends to be better than mine , doesn't the sentence "Дервиш Мухаммед хан, Шекинский хан (1524—1551)." translates to "Dervish Mohammed Khan of Sheki Khan (1524-1551)." Is it part of his name ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As another source , look at this one :Azərbaycan Tarixi Portal . I think you can accept it as a reliable source . As you see , in that document , many times the title of Khan is used for the governors before Haji Chalabi , and you can see in page 10 , it has written that Hacı Çələbi himself was a vakil (officer) of Nadir Shah for the Sunni Shakki citizens . And about several Khans of Shakki like Salim Khan , you can see they received their decree from the shah .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I understand your point but what we're talking about is independent khanates, not provinces of Persian Empire before these khanates became independent. What you refer to (khan) is a title as I already mentioned and it does not imply that there were khanates per se. Khan could have been a military lord of a city, village or a province. For instance, there have been "qeza"s and "mahal"s in Persian and Ottoman empires, and they continued to be named so within Russian Empire ("uyezdy" and "magaly") and within Azerbaijan Democratic Republic ("qezalar", "mahallar"). So, the point that there were lords with the name title khan does not mean they were rulers of the same khanates which emerged after Nadir Shah's death and it does not mean that if there was something called khanate before his death (which I don't see any evidence), that they were of the same status as the khanates we are discussing here. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Abulfaz Elcibey.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abulfaz Elcibey.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan , Khanates

One party says because the reliable source (Iranica) has an error in the date of an event , other sentence that is cited from the source ,that has no connection to the wrong date, should be changed as "Azerbaijani khanates" instead of "Iranian Khanates" . I think we can not cite a sentence from a source , but change it . Besides , other reliable source (Encyclopaedia Britannica) says the same as Iranica (in my opinion ).Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Using the source or changing the sentence

I want to ask the opinion of the editors about this change : [11].The Encyclopædia Iranica's text is as fallows :

This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia. [12]

The alternative party says (see upper section )because that article (Iranica) has an error in the date of an event , the sentence that is cited from it , should be changed as "Azerbaijani khanates" instead of "Iranian Khanates".

More than that , what is the opinion of the other editors about the interpretation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: History of Azerbaijan Encyclopædia Britannica ?

Persian -ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran....Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran.

Can Britannica be used as a source for "Iranian Khanates" ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Alborz, I think you're slightly misrepresenting my argument here. While I had pointed out some erroneous entries in Iranica, I also gave you the reasons why these khanates are not Iranian (please see above). The books by renown scholars and authors do indicate the khanates were Azerbaijani, not Iranian. Iranian khanates which were ruled directly by the Iranian shah were located below the Araz river. The ones above it were Azerbaijani, both by population of Azerbaijani Turks and by geographical name and location. They were independent (when independent they often fought the Iranian shahs who attacked them from the south) and semi-independent (when semi-independent, they were under Persian suzerainty). Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the ordinary editors are not familiar with this topic and if we ask them to comment about the whole disagreement , they would not participate . I reduced the complex problem to a simple one of citing from the sources - that has a general guideline in Wikipedia - to get the response from the editors . So simple : Can we select a sentence from a source , but change it in the article to a new opposite one with any reason ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So, your intent is to just get one editor come and answer one limited question to possibly support you, and then leave while the counter argument is not considered? I'm sorry Alborz, but the very nature of the discussion can't be ignored. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We will reach an end result Step by step.I have objections against the presented sources , but first we may reach a result in clear problems.First is to reach a consensus about how to do citing from books.Shan't we use the sources in correct manner ?Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Alborz, but your very request for comment misrepresents my arguments. The argument is not because Iranica "has an error in the date of an event". The indication of an error was to let you know that this online encyclopedia may not be precise and erroneous with facts, while the addition of reliable sources by neutral historians stating the opposite should be added. A third party commenting here needs to be aware of the details. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the Iranica is not a reliable source ? If yes , we can talk about it .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alborz, I don't say it's unreliable. You must be misunderstanding me. I am saying the reliable sources that define the khanates as Azerbaijani which were added to the article indicate these were independent and semi-independent khanates under Persian suzerainty and when you tried to argue otherwise presenting Iranica as a source, the response was that Iranica can be erroneous due to incorrect factual mistakes on other related data. In general, as I had already stated above, I don't understand what exactly we're discussing for so long if the article already says these Azerbaijani khanates were under Persian suzerainty. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps it would make the article more readable and neutral to use the plain word "Khanates" without prefixing it as Iranian or Azerbaijani. I don't see what value the prefix adds, and since the sources are using both, the prefixes seem to be generating more heat than light. I recommend removing the prefix altogether, and creating a footnote that briefly summarizes the sources that say Iranian vs Azerb. Alternatively, capture the Iranian/Azerb choice in a sentence in the prose, and explain to the reader how the Khanates are considered to be Iranian in some contexts, etc. --Noleander (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The word Azerbaijani does not necessarily imply the political affiliation, but a geographic and ethnic one. Hence the usage of word combination Azerbaijani khanates by renown scholars and historians (See the books in google link I provided). Tuscumbia (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is more complex than showing a word in a book . The whole picture of the situation is available in previous talk that the result was to avoid such combination. My personal opinion is that using the word Azerbaijani in ethnic sense is correct , but deleting a sourced material pointing to the Persian political connection is not correct . Again , what is the problem of the Britannica and Iranica sentences ? Why can't we use the exact word of that reliable sources , alongside the explanation that the term "Azerbaijani Khanate" has an ethnic meaning , and not political burden . From geographical-historical point of view , the north of Aras river was not called Azerbaijan before 1918 , and the nation-state of Azerbaijan has not been established in 18th and 19th century ; so insisting in using the ambiguous term is kind of misinforming the reader .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is incorrect information. The area was called Azerbaijan and the information can be found in numerous accounts of travellers before the 20th century. What happened in 1918 is that the name Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was given to an independent state. That's probably why historians do refer to the khanates as Azerbaijani. When you say "reliable sources", why do you choose to dismiss these sources: [13], (pp. 117-119); [14] (pp. 12, 13, 150 - Note: On page 25, read about division of "Azerbaijan into two parts"); [15] (pp. 2-4, 5 - Note: read the exact wording you were looking for); [16] (p. XI - Note: You can read the chronology of states on territory of Azerbaijan (yes, the area was called Azerbaijan), p. 32 (Note: See how Iranian Azerbaijan is explicitly distinguished from Northern Azerbaijan), p. 4); [17] (p. 110); [18] (p. 5 - Note: it even states they were under Iranian and Russian suzerainty, not just Iranian); [19] (p. 159); [20] (pp. 143-144); [21] (p. 47); [22] (p. 190); [23] (p. 222); [24] (p. 82); [25] (pp. 24, 92). There are a lot more sources, stating the same. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That debate is an old , extended one : Please read the bulk of evidences . It does not have a clear cut answer that can be Googled out of books ! But anyway , I think previous results of Wikipedia talk pages about this topic is of use .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved editor). I'm in general agreement with Noleander's suggestion, which envisions that we will provide the reader with the available information but that we will not try to reach our own decision about whether "Azerbaijani" or "Iranian" is the best description. I don't know if the dispute requires a footnote. I think it might be handled with simple, concise text that accurately notes any disagreement among reliable sources, with separate footnotes quoting them. Would this be correct: "Several Muslim khanates, variously described as Azerbaijani or as Iranian , that were sometimes ...." (The first two footnotes are to the Świętochowski and Buttino books; the second two are to the Iranica and the Britannica.) JamesMLane t c 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.I think if Tuscumbia (other party) agrees , we can change the sentence as JamesMLane suggests .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, we can do that. Alborz, could you please write a draft footnote so that we discuss it here first before add it to the article? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Draft of the section Khanates of late 18th – early 19th centuries

After Nadir Shah's assassination in 1747, the Persian Empire under Afsharids disintegrated. Several Muslim khanates, variously described as Azerbaijani or as Iranian, that were sometimes de facto independent founded under nominal Persian suzerainty. Within Azerbaijan emerged the khanates of Shirvan, Baku, Karabakh, Ganja, Quba, Shaki, Talysh, Erivan, Nakhchivan and other small city-states. The khanates engaged in constant warfare between themselves and with external threats. The most powerful among the northern khans was Fat'h Ali Khan of Quba (died 1783), who managed to unite most of the neighboring khanates under his rule and even mounted an expedition to take Tabriz, fighting with Zand dynasty. Another powerful khanate was that of Karabakh, which subdued neighboring Nakhchivan khanate and parts of Erivan khanate.

Footnotes

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alborz, agreed in general, but I would like to reword it as follows (grammar, etc):

After Nadir Shah's assassination in 1747, the Persian Empire under Afsharids disintegrated. Several Muslim khanates, described as Azerbaijani, according to some sources [5][6], and as Iranian[3][7], according to other, that were sometimes de facto independent[8][9][10][11] or under nominal Persian suzerainty.[10][12][13][14] Khanates of Shirvan, Baku, Karabakh, Ganja, Quba, Shaki, Talysh, Erivan, Nakhchivan and other small city-states emerged within Azerbaijan north of Araks River. The khanates engaged in constant warfare between themselves and with external threats. The most powerful among the northern khans was Fat'h Ali Khan of Quba (died 1783), who managed to unite most of the neighboring khanates under his rule and even mounted an expedition to take Tabriz, fighting with Zand dynasty. Another powerful khanate was that of Karabakh, which subdued neighboring Nakhchivan khanate and parts of Erivan khanate. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we reach a good point because our main discussion is about the grammar . Because the large sentences are not clear , I write two suggestions as follows :

1- Several Muslim khanates, variously described as Azerbaijani or as Iranian, that were sometimes de facto independent founded under nominal Persian suzerainty.(Alborz's suggestion)

2-Several Muslim khanates, described as Azerbaijani, according to some sources , and as Iranian, according to other, that were sometimes de facto independent or under nominal Persian suzerainty.(Tuscumbia's suggestion)

Now I think the other editors can help as , as they are native English speakers and they are neutral . If you agree , I can ask the other editors to give a comment in choosing one the above sentences , or a third one that they see better than them .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the use of "founded" mean that these khanates were founded in 1747? Or did they exist before 1747 but achieve de facto independence in that year? Both versions are unclear on this. In addition, Version #2 has a problem -- a fine point of English that I think even many native English speakers would miss. To say both "described" and "according to" includes the same concept twice. Also, "other" should be "others". So I suggest a rewrite along these lines:

3A- Several Muslim khanates, described as Azerbaijani by some sources and as Iranian by others, were founded under nominal Persian suzerainty but were de facto independent.

3B- Several Muslim khanates, described as Azerbaijani by some sources and as Iranian by others, became de facto independent while remaining under nominal Persian suzerainty.

The choice between these two would depend on what the status of the khanates was before 1747. JamesMLane t c 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that all of the khanates were built before 1747 . It is clear by searching their article one by one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alborz. The khanates existed before 1747, but were under Iranian control until that year. After the death of Nadir Shah the central power in Iran weakened, and the khanates became de-facto independent. Grandmaster 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster ! Long time , no see .... To be precise ,only the Qarabagh Khanate was built after Nader Shah (1747) , but still it had a period of relative dependency (read semi-control by central Iranian government) in the period of Karim Khan (1760-1779)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alborz. You are absolutely correct on this, the Karabakh khanate indeed was the one that emerged after the death of Nadir shah, but others existed before. Grandmaster 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Azerbaijan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Azerbaijan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lang":

• From Middle Ages: Loyn "Language and dialect" Middle Ages p. 204
• From Qajar dynasty: Lang, David Marshall (1962), A Modern History of Georgia, p. 38. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117033606/http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_heyerdahl_alexidze.html to http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_heyerdahl_alexidze.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Azad khan Afghan ruled the area for quite some time, it should be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.129.156 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Information

The content on this page is incorrect. History has been fabricated to eradicate and rewrite what is commonly known as Armenian lands. BlondieKnot (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)