Talk:Karabakh Khanate

Karabakh khanate

The official language of the Karabakh khanate has never been Armenian. The Armenian word Karabakh khanate should be removed. Zamuel2000m (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Armenian was commonly spoken in the Karabakh Khanate, you're forgetting about the Khamsa Melikdoms. It doesn't have to be the official language to be added, I'm sure Azerbaijani Turkish was not the official language but we're adding it anyway because the population (at least outside of nagorno karabakh) were Azeri Turks.Kailanmapper (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Shusha

HistoryofIran, the statement that "that was the name of the place at that time, being used in WP:RS" is not entirely accurate. The current consensus for Shusha's lead is that "most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan", while "some attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Melik Shahnazar". Also, the earliest cited census of 1823 both in Shusha#Demographics and in this article shows the prevalence of (Azerbaijani) Muslim population. So the Shusha spelling should be preferred throughout the article, even if RS may use some other spelling. Brandmeister^talk 23:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, what does this have to do with its name? And there was no such thing as an "Azerbaijani" at that time, and not all Muslims were Turkic speaking either. Please see Karabakh Khanate#In Azerbaijani historiography. That Demographics section you linked is misusing the cited Bournoutian, never does he state that the Azeris were in Shusha, and the 1823 Russian survey he uses certainly doesn't either - I'll fix that section later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason to prefer Armenian spelling of Shusha in the article in the first place. Actually, the document Bournoutian refers to, "Описание Карабахской провинции, составленное в 1823 году, по распоряженю главноуправлявшего в Грузии Ермолова, действительным Статским советником Могилевским и полковником Ермоловым 2-м", uses Shusha spelling, not Shushi. Generally, most 19th-century Russian Empire sources use the "Shusha" spelling. Shusha was the official name of the town in Persia, Karabakh khanate and the Russian Empire. Multiple modern third-party RS refer to the fortress and the city as Shusha or Shousha rather than Shushi (particularly The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 7 "From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic", p. 126, Tsutsiev, Arthur (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus (maps 3, 5, 6), Baddeley, J. F. (1999). The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus. p.89). Brandmeister^talk 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but these arguments (especially the ones in your first comment) are all kinda fishy to me. I can make a random link to the Russian ebooks too [1] and also cite random sources that use the "Shushi" spelling (also, Baddeley is not WP:RS): Hewsen, Robert (1972). The Meliks Of Eastern Armenia I. Revue des Études Arménie, - Bournoutian, George (2021). From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia's Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801–1813, - Amanat, Abbas (2017). Iran: A Modern History. Do you have a more compelling argument? I may be willing to agree to disagree, but only if you agree to the following; 1) It's not wrong for "Shushi" to be used in articles, i.e. the spelling shouldn't always get changed 2) As soon as someone opposes the Shushi->Shusha change here, we'll change it back to "Shushi" and resume the discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm.. actually, forget about my second condition. How about I change "Lake Gökcheh" back to "Lake Sevan" and "Shushi" back to "Shusha", then everyone is happy, no? It's a shame we can't have historically accurate names in articles related to the Armenian-Azeri conflict, perhaps one day.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. Both Persian and Azerbaijani languages spoken in the khanate use the "Shusha" spelling. This is also the spelling used by most contemporaneous 19th-century Russian sources (not to mention the fact that the city has been de facto and de jure within Azerbaijan since the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War). I see those as sufficient arguments to prefer the "Shusha" spelling. We do similarly in other cases per MOS:TIES. Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I could continue arguing with you, but since we've reached an agreement, let's just stop it here. I have changed the spelling to "Shusha" in the article and will change it along with "Lake Gökcheh" in the map as well later today where I have time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Armenian sources

Using armenian sources to push your agenda is pathetic. "Ethnic Armenians formed a majority once again in the Armenia". They never were a majority in the first place. Blaxoul (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the article heavily relies on just one source - out of 80 current refs Bournoutian is cited 49 times (61%). This introduces one author's POV and academic bias in a contentious WP:AA3 topic. The article would benefit from citing more subject experts. Brandmeister^talk 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blaxoul: That quoted text does not appear in the article, and would certainly not be wrong either (also, Bournoutian is not an "Armenian source", and even if that was the case, that does not make him less reliable). Do not accuse me of such nonsense again, see WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. And @Brandmeister:; Please stop. Bournoutian is a leading author in the history of the Caucasus, and the vast majority of works about the Karabakh Khanate (and khanates for that matter) is from him. He's going to stay, and will be used in a lot more articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against excluding Bournoutian entirely, but he should be cited cautiously in this topic due to his bias. Edmund Herzig, for example, writes in a review: "While Bournoutian repeatedly draws the reader's attention to the Armenian presence, he ignores or downplays reference to the Muslim Turkish population of highland Qarabagh; for example on page 61 an editorial interpolation insinuates that the Muslim population was marginal […] On 58, note 124, Bournoutian suggests that Mirza Jamal's use of the word vatan indicates that he viewed the five highland mahals as “Armenian homeland”, whereas the term refers rather to ancestral homes of two exiled Armenian meliks".

Another example is the sentence "Together, Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar II had the Panahabad fortress constructed in Shusha, a place in Varanda" referenced to Bournoutian as well. This claim was discussed previously and, based on other sources, was not accepted for Shusha's article.

The Background section in particular almost exclusively cites Bournoutian, even though the background Karabakh history has been studied by many reliable scholars. Brandmeister^talk 13:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypicking stuff in an attempt to make Bournoutian look bad is not helpful (also, in the review, Herzig generally praises Bournoutian for his work, something you for some reason left out, should I be concerned?). Its not even a competition, there is countless stuff that shows how great a scholar he is. Scholars are allowed to disagree with each other, its another story if Bournoutians scholarship/credentials has been questioned, or that he is in the minority. Also, every scholar has a “bias”. As for the Shusha bit, it's based of both Hewsen and Bournoutian (who cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir), though that does still not make either of them less reliable. That so called "consensus" is 2 years old and messy, lacking proper WP:RS and whatnot - but I'm fortunately already assembling some WP:RS for it [2]. I was expecting this uncalled criticism of Bournoutian to happen. Can you tell me what exactly Bournoutian says that you find questionable? Not enough mention of Turks? (It will be mentioned that the majority of the Karabakhi Muslims were Turks by Bournoutian himself, the article is still under construction after all). What he says is not different from any other non-revionistic author. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki policies are outdated, don't you think? Also I don't recommend you to argue with Persian and Armenian chuvanists. Blaxoul (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Striked your shocking comment and reported you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The article currently has several POV issues that take some time to point out, as for Bournoutian:

Firstly, he appears to repeat the widespread but actually erroneous claim that "prior to 1918 the word "Azerbaijan" exclusively referred to the Iranian region of Azerbaijan". As Audrey Altstadt writes, "twentieth century historians outside Azerbaijan have dated the use of “Azerbaijan” for the area under Russian rule to the 1890s", with a caveat of an earlier 1861 Russian-language textbook by Abdul Hasan Bek Vezirov for the "Tatar-Azerbaijani" language (The Politics of Culture in Soviet Azerbaijan, 1920-40, pp. 13-14). Also e.g. the 1850 Nineveh and Persepolis by William Sandys Wright Vaux, p. 96: "Northern Media, Azerbaijan, the country between the river Kur and Araxes"; the 1864 "Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan" by British Consul-General in Persia Keith E. Abbott: "The population of Russian Azerbaijan consists of mixed races, Mohammedan and Christian, amounting probably to 700,000 or 800,000 souls".

Concerning the 1823 Russian survey, I see some contradictions between Bournoutian (as cited in the article) and other secondary sources mentioning the survey's data. Will elaborate on this soon, hopefully when I get the full text of this Russian survey. Brandmeister^talk 11:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. Keith Edward Abbott also mentions how the country known to Persians were divided between them and Russians. But Persians and Armenians write on every Wiki page that the northern part has nothing to do with southern Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijan wasn't a country, but a region. Keith Edward Abbott proves them wrong in just one sentence. These pages about Azerbaijan need a major cleanup.

. Blaxoul (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not an "erroneous claim", that's the consensus in scholarship. And if Bournoutian should be cited cautiously, then Altstadt (who also has nowhere the same credentials) should not even be cited [3]. The other two sources are not even WP:RS. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:PRIMARY.

• "The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris

• "In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer.

• "The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.

• "The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.

• "The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter

• "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris.

• "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press

• "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, 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. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica

• "Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1)

As for Blaxoul's claim, who conveniently supports a non-WP:RS report from the mid 19th-century but is vehemently against a leading scholar like Bournoutian because he's an ethnic Armenian;

• "A more recent revisionist view claims that in the nineteenth century Russia and Iran conspired to divide Azerbaijan between themselves. Considering that Iran fought two devastating wars with Russia (1803–1813 and 1824–1828), the idea of a Russo-Iranian conspiracy against Azerbaijan is totally absurd. However, this is exactly what the Azerbaijani nationalist poet Bakhtiar Vahabzadeh claims in his poem titled “Gulistan.” The poem refers to the 1813 Treaty of Golistan, according to which Iran lost part of its Transcaucasian possessions to Russia. This view is now widely accepted by Azerbaijani nationalists. The result has been that Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet national identity is not only Turko-centric but also very much anti-Iran. In many ways, it has been developed in opposition to Iran as “the other,” not only as a state but also as a culture and historical entity. Being Azerbaijani has come to mean denying any Iran connection." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Edited by Shireen Hunter. Lexington Books. p. 31

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In reality, one historical source is better than all of these biased sources. For example, I don't remember Nizami Ganjavi calling Azerbaijan an actual part of Iran. Blaxoul (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Iran, in terms of historical geography, is a loosely defined territory. Blaxoul (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you’re not the judge of that, you cant just call sources you dont agree with “biased”. What you just said at least partly violated multiple rules: please see WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The keyword in "prior to 1918 the word "Azerbaijan" exclusively referred to the Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is "exclusively" which makes the statement not entirely accurate. Iranica itself has a caveat in that regard: "in certain passages, he (Yaqut al-Hamawi) annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Moḡān, all of the province of Arrān, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed".

Also, Vadim Leviatov, Очерки из истории Азербайджана в XVIII веке, 1948, p. 144: "One of Fatali Khan's contemporaries, Colonel Burnashev, [...] in his 1786 description of political situation in Azerbaijani districts, wrote the following: “As for the current state of those lands that are known under the name Adrebijani: Starting from the north Georgia is adjacent, that is, the kingdoms of Kakheti and Kartveli, from the east the Caspian Sea and Gilan province, Iraq region from the south, Turkey from the west... [...] The Khan of Derbent or Kuba is among the most powerful ones [...] he calls for major endeavors against his neighbors like the neighboring Aderbijan khans, such as: of Nukha, of Shirvan and of Shusha" [...] It is also important to note that Colonel Burnashev [...] calls Azerbaijan not only the regions of Maragha, Tabriz, Ardabil, but also the lands of Sheki, Ganja, Shushi, Nakhichevan, Shamakhi, Baku".

Will not write more about it, sapienti sat, but we can avoid this academic dispute in the article by dropping the whole Azerbaijan name issue altogether as tangentially related per WP:TOPIC. Brandmeister^talk 20:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the other sources I cited pretty much say the same. I don't find it convincing to drop the whole Azerbaijan name because of a tiny fraction of primary sources also using the word north of the Aras. One thing is for sure; It's certainly not an "academic dispute". Also, Soviet sources should be very carefully used [4]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We would then blindly follow a detrimental generalization, with no editorial judgement and a potential POV tag hanging in the article. As for Soviet sources, I may use them as long as their statements have not been debunked and authors discredited - it's more about evidence that sometimes gets lost in time rather than evil empire. Brandmeister^talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, the Soviets are the very ones who created and campaigned for this mess of historical negationism and revisionism per [5] [6] [7]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Soviet sources lose to any modern Western academic source. By and large, Azerbaijani (and Armenian as well, but to a slightly lesser extent) Soviet historiography was almost completely revisionist in relation to Western accepted concepts, especially modern academic consensus. See Shnirelman, 2003 and Goff, 2021.

Now with regards to northern and southern Azerbaijans. Shnirelman, p. 33-34:

Термин «Азербайджан» происходит от имени персидского полководца Атропата (IV в. до н.э.). Вначале он звучал как Атрапатакан [Atrapatakan] (армянск.) или Азербийджан [Azerbiyjan] (араб.) и издавна применялся для северо-восточной провинции Персии, лежавшей к юго-западу от Каспийского моря. Это — единственное научное объяснение названия, давно вошедшее в стандартные курсы истории Азербайджана. А севернее располагались земли Ширвана и Аррана. При императоре Александре III последние были выделены в Бакинскую и Елисаветпольскую губернии, и с тех пор термин «Азербайджан» стал понемногу использоваться для них европейскими учеными и журналистами. В России этому примеру последовали лишь после 1917 г. в связи с тем, что на этих землях обитали «азербайджанские тюрки», родственные персидским. Сам термин «азербайджанские тюрки» был впервые введен в 1891 г. либеральной бакинской газетой «Кашкюл» в борьбе за новую идентичность, которая могла бы успешно соперничать с простонародной «мусульманской», и с конца XIX в. этот термин стал распространяться в Елисаветпольской губернии в качестве самоназвания. Все же вплоть до начала XX в. местное кочевое население называло себя, как правило, по племенной принадлежности, а оседлые жители — по названию местности. Иногда использовали такие термины как «мусульмане» или «татары», а в начале XX в. в моду стал входить политизированный термин «тюрки». Правда, по признанию М.Э. Расулзаде, некоторые жители Азербайджана считали себя иранцами, будучи носителями иранской культуры. Но термин «азербайджанцы» до революции никогда не применялся. В переписке большевистских лидеров в 1920 г. использовались термины «татары» или «бакинские татары». Даже в начале 1920-х гг. название еще не устоялось, и в работе одного и того же автора его можно было встретить в формах «Адербейджан» [Aderbeijan], «Азербейджан» [Azerbeijan] и «Адзербейджан» [Adzerbeijan]. Впервые термин «Азербайджан» как официальное название для государства был провозглашен Национальным Советом Азербайджана 28 мая 1918 г.

Goff, p. 65:

Bagirov, demonstrating his familiarity with the region, replied that “Southern Azerbaijan” (the irredentist term that many Azeris use to describe Iran’s Azerbaijan provinces) harbored a wealth of natural resources, a disgruntled population primed for political agitation, and the networks and infrastructure necessary for Soviet penetration of the region.

And Iranica:

AZERBAIJAN (Āḏarbāy[e]jān), historical region of northwestern Iran, east of Lake Urmia, since the Achaemenid era.
The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, 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. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. 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.
After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable.

So, you really can't dismiss an academic source just because you don't like its late attribution of the term Azerbaijan to Arran and Shirvan. Smpad (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karabakh Khanate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• The lead section should be reduced in size. See MOS:LEADLENGTH - with just less than 34,000 characters, the article is recommended to have a length of no more than four paragraphs.

It hurts to remove info, but I've trimmed it down a bit. It is four paragraphs now. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's an improvement, thank you! AM

• Unlink Iranian; Russian (MOS:OL) and these countries never existed then).

I've changed the Iran link to History of Iran and kept the Russian Empire, as the Karabakh khanate was controlled by three kingdoms of Iran and the Russian Empire, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem now. AM

• (Not GA) The useful map in the infobox does lack a scale, and the colours of the neighbouring countries would imo be better having their own colours. I would perhaps add an inset map to indicate the position of the khanate in relation to modern national boundaries. Need any assistance? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125. Thanks for yet another review, I highly appreciate it. When making the map, I did initially give the neighbouring countries their own color, but I thought it made the map look a bit convoluted and made the Karabakh Khanate domain look less noticeable. A inset map sounds good though, and I'll gladly accept assistance for that, as I dunno how to make one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Fell free to use this version of the map, based on your excellent work. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

1 Background

• Iranian Armenia or Eastern Armenia – if there are two versions of the name, why are there two separate articles? Ditto Ottoman Armenia or Western Armenia.

Iranian Armenia and Ottoman Armenia "only" covers the early modern period when they were ruled by Iran and the Ottoman Empire, whilst the Eastern Armenia and Western Armenia cover a larger period. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• 11th-century – has no hyphens. Ditto other examples elsewhere.
• the Turko-Persian name Karabakh – I would put Karabakh in italics here, as it is an introduced term.
• of area - ‘of the area’.
• the Ottoman Empire (c. 1299–1922) and Safavid Iran (1501–1736) – the dates are imo unneeded.

Respectfully I find these to nice to have, so that the reader can get an idea when these kingdoms were around, à la when we add the regnal period for rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• Might a map of the South Causacus be useful here (e.g. this?

I added this instead [8]. I do have a much more detailed map in the works, which I plan to have as the image instead. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Good for now. AM

• there is no contemporary portrait of Panah Ali Khan, but perhaps this image could be incorporated into the section.

I'm personally not a fan of that image, too fictional for my taste, and I think the current image of the Shusha fortress is more relevant/better here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I quite understand. AM

2.1 Panah Ali Khan

• ally – ‘form an alliance’ sounds better imo.
• by five - ‘by the five’.
• in most of Iran – ‘across most of Iran’.

2.2 Ibrahim Khalil Khan

• Introduce Grigory Potemkin.
• in various places is redundant imo.

• Link cavalry.
• he made an attempt – who is being referred to here?
• through boats - ‘by using boats’ sounds better.
• restored ‘rebuilt’.
• subsequently is redundant imo.

• Link Persian; Armenian.
• Introduce Pavel Tsitsianov.
• (Not GA) thirty - ‘30’? (for the sake of consistency)
• "betrayal," - misplaced comma.

2.3 Mehdi Qoli Khan

• Russian emperor – ‘tsar’.

Like this? [9] --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Amended it myself to save time, please revert if you don't like it. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• a major letdown – sounds too informal/idiomatic, I would amend the start of this sentence to something like ‘The Iranians were disillusioned by the treaty’.
• to abolish the khanates – consider amending to something like ‘to eradicate the khanates’, to avoid repeating abolish.

Changed it to "In 1822, Mehdi Qoli Khan fled to Iran as a result of the attempts by the Russian general Aleksey Petrovich Yermolov to abolish the khanates, which occurred afterwards". Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks OK. AM

• lived for the rest of his days collecting a state pension – ‘retired’.

3 Building activity

• states – ‘stated’, as the writer is no longer alive.
• in large fortress-towns – ‘in a large fortress-town’.

4 Coinage

• Link minted (Mint (facility)); numismatists; obverse (Obverse and reverse); toponym (Toponymy).
• shahi – should be in italics and placed inside Template:lang. Ditto rupia.
• The words in italics need to be placed inside Template:lang as well.
• According to the numismatists Alexander Akopyan and Pavel Petrov - are these individuals notable enough to be mentioned here? (If yes, link numismatists.)
• I would add a comma after toponym.
• under the name of Fath-Ali Shah – could be simplified to ‘under Fath-Ali Shah’.

Changed it to "in the name of Fath-Ali Shah", as his name was inscribed there, and it was not just under his rule. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

5 Demographics

• are either – ‘were either’,

7 Administration

• Link rolls (Scroll).

Removed "rolls". --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• use the example – ‘uses the example’.

8 Historiography

• Link chronicles; Soviet historiography Historiography in the Soviet Union); feudal (Feudalism).
• 20th-century – has no hyphen.

9 Notes

• the siege of their capital, Isfahan – consider moving the first link so that it covers all this text.

11 Sources

• Bournoutian, George (1980); Bournoutian, George (1999); Matthee, Rudi (2011); Reid, James J. (1978) are not used as sources in the article. These sources need to be deleted or perhaps moved to a Further reading section.

Spot checks looked fine.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 2 September to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I've tried to address everything. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Passing the article now, an interesting, if quite tricky (for me) read. Please feel free to replace your map with my version. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language

The article claims that:

The administrative and literary language in Karabakh until the end of the 19th century was Persian, with Arabic being used only for religious studies, despite the fact that most of the Muslims in the region spoke a Turkic dialect.

However no source is provided, and it is well known that the literary language in the khanate was Turkic. I'm not aware of any Persian poetry coming from Karabakh, but Turkic poetry is very well known. For example, classic Azerbaijani poet Molla Panah Vagif was a vizier to Ibrahim Khalil khan. If the literary language was Persian, why was Vagif a Turkic poet? As for administrative language, again no source on that, but logically, how would a law in Persian be communicated to the Turkic population? I suggest to remove this claim, it contradicts the known facts, in particular about the region's literature. Grandmaster 08:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

According to sources, Azerbaijani language poetry existed at that time in the region, and Vagif is mentioned in particular.

V. Modern Azeri Poetry. In Azeri-speaking regions during the 18th and 19th cs., cl. trends survived. The Rus.-Iranian wars of 1813-28 and subsequent treaties dividing Azeri-speaking populations on both sides of the Araxes River did nor impede cultural and social interactions. Poets such as Molla Panah Vagif (1717-97), Mirza Shafi Vazeh (1792-1852), Seyyid Azim Shirvani (1835-88), and Ali Agha Vahid (1896-1965) contin­ued to write love poems, many glorifying earthly love in cl. aruz meters, and achieved fame throughout the area with poems often set to music.

The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: Fourth Edition. Princeton University Press, 2012, p. 1474

Grandmaster 09:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The lede is not supposed to be sourced, it's sourced down below. Please read [10] and please see WP:LEDE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Literary language is also not only poetry. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But poetry is also literary language, right? And the most prominent poet of the Karabakh khanate was the Turkic poet Vagif. So how come that Azerbaijani Turkic language was not the literary language of the khanate? Now speaking of sources, the claim about Persian as a sole literary language is based on a single source, i.e. Bournoutian. However, other sources say otherwise. In addition to the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry quoted above, this is from Iranica article called Azeri Turkish Literature:

Due to political events, the 18th century was a period of decline in the Turkish literature of the Iranian province of Azerbaijan. In the north, however, the forerunners of modern Turkish literature of Azerbaijan, Mollā Panāh Vāqef (1717-97) and Vedādi (1709-1809), were active. In fact, a contrast is seen in this period in that whereas bilingualism continues to be practiced in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan, writing is almost exclusively in Azeri Turkish in the urban centers located north of it. [11]

Javadi actually writes something quite opposite to Bournouitan, i.e. that the literature to the North of Araks was almost exclusively Azerbaijani Turkic at that time. Grandmaster 08:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry does not contradict Bournoutian, please stop engaging in WP:SYNTH. This persistent attempt at discrediting Bournoutian is starting to get quite boring. Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Bournoutian is the most prominent historian for studies about the Khanates of the Caucasus, including the Karabakh Khanate. Heck, the work that is being cited is a book about the Karabakh Khanate, whilst you are citing an article about "Azeri Turkish Literature in Iran". Bournoutian is also an extremely important figure for combating historical negationism by Azerbaijan; "One of these challenges deals with the intentional falsification of Artsakh’s history by Azeri scholars and their acolytes in the West. Bournoutian has been on the forefront of combatting this revisionist history, which has now infiltrated western academia through Azeri-funded centers and thanks to some Western scholars who seem infatuated by the Aliyev regime." HistoryofIran (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no synth here. The sources that I quoted clearly show that Turkic was the literary language to the north of Araks. If there are contradicting sources on the subject, per rules we must present all the existing views, not only one. I don't see what the obituary that you quoted has to do with the topic of our discussion. The sources that I quoted are not from Azerbaijan. And Bournoutian is not a specialist on Azerbaijani literature. Iranica says that all the literature to the north of Araks was almost exclusively Turkic, and we can see that the prominent literary figures such as Vagif, Gasim bey Zakir, Molla Vali Vidadi, Khurshidbanu Natavan and others were all Turkic poets. Can you name one prominent poet from the north of Araks that wrote solely in Persian? Grandmaster 08:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw, there is a very good article called The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran by Willem Floor and Hasan Javadi [12] It shows that Persian was not the sole administrative language in Safavid Iran and later in Qajar times, and Azerbaijani language played a prominent role. If Persian was not the sole administrative and literary language of the ruling elite of the entire state, how could it be different in the Turkic provinces of the empire? Grandmaster 08:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Grandmaster, please stop this persistent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We are not historians, and thus I will not engage in you a scholarly discussion. This is Wikipedia, not a WP:FORUM. Last time you opposed the overwhelming consensus in scholarship that Azerbaijan was a historical name of northern Iran [13] and now this. Not to mention that you did not even read the body of the article (and I wonder if you have even done that now) before creating this section, but instead immediately went to the conclusion (a GA article!) that it was unsourced but still showing your personal opinion, which is irrelevant here. If I'm not mistaken, you have also been topic banned from a certain section of Azerbaijan-Armenia articles. Also, you don't need to mention the Javadi-Floor book to me (which you are doing through sheer WP:SYNTH, please stop), I already know of it, and I created the relevant Ajem-Turkic after all, as well as just recently overhauled Azerbaijani nationalism and other similar articles. It's safe to say I am well versed in this topic. But still, that does not mean I will start sharing my own personal opinions/making my own analyses.

And Bournoutian is not a specialist on Azerbaijani literature.

You're right. He's an expert in the history of the Khanates, including the Karabakh Khanate. Guess what this article is about? Again, please read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What has more expertise and relevance, a book on the Karabakh Khanate by the most prominent author in khanate (especially Karabakh) history, or an article literally about the "Azeri Turkish Literature in Iran", written by a person who is not an expert on the khanates? This is very similar scenario as earlier in regards to the Azerbaijan region [14], where you were posting poor sources (mostly non-WP:RS) versus a plethora of very high quality WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If Persian was not the sole administrative and literary language of the ruling elite of the entire state, how could it be different in the Turkic provinces of the empire?

Okay, I'll entertain some of the WP:SYNTH just this time. With this logic, you do realize how much Iranian/Persian stuff could be added to this article? But that would be wrong, because it's WP:SYNTH; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Here's what WP:RS actually says;

"The territorial subdivision into mahal and the courts of Shari'a (divinely inspired law of Islam) remained intact, and Persian continued to be the official language of the judiciary and local administration." / "The literary revival in the native language stemmed from the need to communicate the ideas of the enlightenment to as wide a public as possible. Akhundzada, who throughout most of his life composed lyric poetry in Persian, when writing works that carried a message of social importance used a language comprehensible to all his countrymen, which he called Turki. The renaissance of a native literature, a by-product of the movement, was thus its first and most tangible accomplishment. The hold of Persian as the chief literary language in Azerbaijan was broken, followed by the rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artificial, heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position." - p. 12 and 26, Swietochowski, Tadeusz (2004). Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge University Press.

"To some extent, the Russian administration in the Caucasus initially continued previous Persian political practices, for example by drawing on Persian documents to decide about the status and land rights of individual Muslim notables." - p. 29 Deutschmann, Moritz (2015). Iran and Russian Imperialism: The Ideal Anarchists, 1800-1914. Routledge.

"Although the authors were Transcaucasian Turks, later known as Azerbaijanis, they all, with one exception, wrote their histories in Persian, which remained until the latter part of the nineteenth century the primary literary language of the Muslims of Transcaucasia." / "Armenian and Russian sources notwithstanding, the primary sources on the history of Qarabagh in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are almost all written in Persian, Although the majority of the Muslim population of Qarabagh and Transcaucasia spoke a Turkish dialect, until the later part of the nineteenth century the administrative and literary language was Persian, with Arabic reserved for religious studies. The knowledge of Persian is, therefore, essential to any serious study of the region prior to the twentieth century. It is also necessary to read Persian manuscripts written in the styles of handwriting known as shekaste and nasta'liq, if one is to examine the original sources of the period." - p. x and 1, Bournoutian, George (1994). A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Mazda Publishers.

Even the esteemed Brill-published Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict (page 232), which amongst other things specializes in the emergence and identity of the Azeris, says this; "The South Caucasian Muslims lacked clear cultural or religious boundaries as late as the nineteenth century. Divided into Shiʿa and Sunni populations, with a vernacular language close to Turkish and a literary language still dominated by Persian and then Ottoman Turkish, with no prior experience of statehood and no overall delimitation of the historical homeland, they had to define a separate identity. That construction essentially took place under Soviet rule and on...."

If you agree, we can add that Turkic was the secondary literary language. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, please let's keep this civil, and comment on content. Our topic bans have nothing to do with this topic. And second, I only propose to write that both Azerbaijani Turkic and Persian were used as literary languages. Indeed, as Iranica mentioned, the majority of literature in the region was Turkic, and I mentioned a number of prominent literary figures who are considered classics of Azerbaijani poetry and prose. Vagif, Vidadi, Natavan, Zakir and others were all Turkic poets who occasionally wrote in Persian too. This is not an OR, or SYNTH, because sources support this. So if you agree, we can include that both Azerbaijani Turkic and Persian were literary languages of the Karabakh khanate (and others too, btw). This will resolve the issue, I believe, to mutual satisfaction. Thanks for understanding. Grandmaster 17:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH again, you can mention as many figures (some of which first posted their work after the end of the khanates...) as you want, however WP:RS has spoken, and you're still not a historian (neither am I, obviously), so please stop combining material to reach a conclusion. I am trying to keep this civil, however, you are making it very hard to have WP:GF when you persistently ignore the rules of this website in this talk page. Me mentioning your topic ban is not an attack, but a concern considering your conduct here and up above, especially considering you have been here since 2005, you should know these rules like the back of your hand by now. I mean, I just came with a similar proposal which is more in line with WP:RS; If you agree, we can add that Turkic (in a way that specifies its Azerbaijani Turkic without engaging in anachronism, that was what I meant when by linking Turkic to Azerbaijani in my previous comment) was the secondary literary language, because per up above, Persian was the dominant literary language. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide which language was primary and which was secondary. Sources differ on this. Iranica says Turkic was primary. I suggest we just list both as literary and get it done with. Grandmaster 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not deciding anything, please read the sources up above. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

More WP:RS;

"Before the Russian occupation cultural life in Azerbaijan had been influenced primarily by Persian civilization. Persian language and literature was in general use among the educated classes. This cultural link between the newly conquered country and its still strong Persian neighbor annoyed Russia, who tried to destroy it by supporting local Turkish cultural developments. These and other social currents contributed to the revival of the local Turkish culture, illustrating the Persian proverb which says that ‘the enemy may be very useful, if God wills it." - p. 22, Charles W. Hostler, Turkism and the Soviets: The Turks of the World and Their Political Objectives, Cambridge, 1957.

"Despite Russian conquest, the Persian language remained the main language of the administration in these provinces until the reforms of 1840. The local authorities themselves were either Persians or local aristocrats who spoke Persian, and the Persian tongue continued to be spoken in the courts until the 1870’s. The Shiite clergy, which controlled the schools and the courts, was the main perpetuator of Iranian influence. Persian also remained the language of the upper classes and of literature." - p. 94, Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia, Serge A. Zenkovsky, Harvard University Press, 1960. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source.

Translations of Akhundzadeh

Darbare-ye Nazm va Nasr (On Verse and Prose), an introduction to the poetry collection of Vagef and Zaker

However, during my travels in the Qarabagh region, I became acquainted with some of the ideas of Molla Panah Vagef in which the aforesaid criteria were in some measure evident.¹⁷ I also met Qasem Beg Serajlu Javanshir whose verse in Turkish truly astounded me, inasmuch as the criterion I identified is amply seen in his verses.¹⁸ In my opinion, from the Hegira till today the only poets among the Turks have been these two persons.

17 Molla Panah Vagef (1717-97), Azerbaijani poet.

18 Qasem Beg Zaker (1752-1874), an Azerbaijani poet, contemporary and friend of Akhundzade.

Parsinejad, Iraj. A history of literary criticism in Iran, 1866-1951. United States: Ibex Publishers, 2003.

You can see Akhundzade mentioning 2 Karabakhi Turkic poets, and Parsinejad referring to them as Azerbaijani poets.

And here's another Iranica article

During the 17th-20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish but classical Persian exercised a great influence on the language and its literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1,200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since the 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles, and conduct of war. This long-lasting Iranian-Azeri symbiosis must be borne in mind if one is to understand the modern history of Iran and its language correctly. G. Doerfer [15]

I would agree to state that Persian was the primary literary language if you could name Persian poets from Karabakh. The fact is that all the poetry and prose in the region was Turkic, with occasional Persian by the same authors. I listed a whole bunch of prominent Turkic poets, who are considered classics of Azerbaijani literature. Out of all sources quoted, the only specialist source on Azerbaijani literature is Hasan Javadi for Iranica, and that one says that Turkic was predominant literary language in the region. This is why I propose a simple solution: list both Persian and Turkic as literary languages. Grandmaster 08:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Akhundzadeh's mentioning two Turkic poets are irrelevant here, please read WP:SYNTH this time...

I would agree to state that Persian was the primary literary language if you could name Persian poets from Karabakh.

No. You've already been reminded of WP:FORUM, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS. You also been told that literary is not only poetry, yet you persist in all this. I am not entertaining this. You're also contradicting yourself, it was you who just said "It is not up to us to decide which language was primary and which was secondary." It's WP:RS that decides here.

Out of all sources quoted, the only specialist source on Azerbaijani literature is Hasan Javadi for Iranica, and that one says that Turkic was predominant literary language in the region.

WP:REHASH. Please reply to my latest replies instead of repeating yourself; This article is about the Karabakh Khanate, and thus Bournoutian is obviously more relevant here, considering he is literally the most prominent scholar for khanate and especially Karabakh khanate history. The Iranica article by Javadi is not even focused on the Caucasus, but Iran proper (the second title is "x. Azeri Turkish Literature in Iran", thus accordingly mostly talks about Iran proper). The sources I have posted is by Swietochowski, an expert in the ethnogenesis of the Azeris, a Brill-published major source which amongst other things specializes in the emergence and identity of the Azeris, and a Harvard and Cambridge source which does the same. That's 5 sources which actually specialize in the topic (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:UNDUE). Your Doerfer source also does even not contradict this at all, if anything it indicates that classical Persian was more dominant with its vast influence on Azeri literature. It is clear that the consensus in scholarship is that Azeri was secondary per all these sources. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, Bournoutian is far from perfect as a source on this subject. Professor Edmund Herzig, while giving a generally positive review of Bournoutian's book, noted a certain bias of the author:

Here, for the most part, he (Bournoutian) resists any temptation to rejoin the debate, though just occasionally he reveals his loyalties. He includes in the introduction a section on "The Armenians of Qarabagh," rather than a general historical introduction on Qarabagh, which would seem more appropriate in this context. Here we encounter the claim (impossible to substantiate) that, "Throughout all this period (2nd to 11th century AD), the Armenians maintained a majority in southern Arran". While Bournoutian repeatedly draws the reader's attention to the Armenian presence, he ignores or downplays reference to the Muslim Turkish population of highland Qarabagh; for example, on page 61 an editorial interpolation insinuates that the Muslim population was marginal: "Egan Beg . . . to whom all the clans of Jraberd, all Armenians, as well as the small Muslim groups (on the fringes) of Dizak, paid tribute." On 58, note 124, Bournoutian suggests that Mirza Jamal's use of the word vatan indicates that he viewed the five highland mahals as "Armenian homeland," whereas the term refers rather to the ancestral homes of two exiled Armenian meliks; as always, Mirza Jamal's focus is personal or dynastic rather than national.

Note the mention of downplaying the references to the Muslim Turkish population. Regarding the Iranica article by Javadi, it is the only detailed specialist source on Azerbaijani literature we have so far, and it discusses the literature on both sides of Araks (since the region was part of Iran at the time), and specifically in the period of 18-19th centuries in the north of Araks, and states that the literature at that time was mostly Turkic. It also mentions specific Turkic poets of the era (as does Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry that I also quoted). Note that I quoted a number of sources that deal specifically with literature, as general historians are not always the art experts or art critics. I asked you a very simple question that you are unable to answer. If Persian was indeed the predominant literary language to the north of Araks, who were the Persian language poets of the 18-19 century? For example, when we talk of the literary traditions of the 12th century north of Araks, we can easily name Nizami, Khaqani, Mekhseti and other Persian language poets. When it comes to the 18th-19th century, we know Vagif, Vidadi, Zakir, Natavan, etc, all Turkic poets. If we are unable to name a single Persian language literary figure, and your sources do not mention any either, how can we claim that Persian was the main language, and Turkic secondary? Clearly, it was the other way around. Also, you say that the literary language is not only poetry. Then what literary forms exclusively in Persian besides poetry and prose existed in the region? You still have not elaborated on this. What we have so far are sources mentioning the existence of both Persian and Turkic literature in the region in the 18th century. Based on this, I propose not to go into what was primary, and what secondary, and just list both as literary languages, because that is factually accurate. Grandmaster 10:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source, also specifically about literature. Note how sources on literature mention Turkic poets of Karabakh as important literary figures.

Traditional Islamic Turkic Literature, 1800s to 1850s

The traditional Islamic Turkic literature continued to flourish in the nineteenth century in the Azerbaijani language in both the southern Caucasus (the cities of Baku and Tbilisi) and Iran (Tabriz), in the Tatar language in the Volga-Ural region (Kazan, Ufa, and other cities), and the Chagatay language in Central Asia (Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, Khiva, and Kokand). For traditional Azerbaijani Islamic literature, following the poetic school established by Molla Penah Vagif (1717-1797) in the late eighteenth century, it is worth mentioning two poets, Heyran Khanim (1786-1838) in the northwestern region of Iran and Khurshidbanu Natevan (1830-1897) among other poets in the southern Caucasus under tsarist rule. The poetry of these two poets differs sharply from the other (male) poets of the time for their effort to bring a female voice and feelings to the male-dominated voice in Azerbaijani poetry.

Literature: A World History, Volumes 1-4. John Wiley & Sons, 2022. ISBN: 978-0-470-67190-0, p. 1311

Grandmaster 11:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're copy-pasting the bit about Herzig from up above. This was my response to it, much of it still being relevant; "Cherrypicking stuff in an attempt to make Bournoutian look bad is not helpful (also, in the review, Herzig generally praises Bournoutian for his work, something you for some reason left out, should I be concerned?). Its not even a competition, there is countless stuff that shows how great a scholar he is. Scholars are allowed to disagree with each other, its another story if Bournoutians scholarship/credentials has been questioned, or that he is in the minority. Also, every scholar has a “bias”." Moreover, we have 4 other sources (all experts) saying the same as Bournoutian, which you are ignoring. Also, your source does not contradict those either.

Regarding the Iranica article by Javadi, it is the only detailed specialist source on Azerbaijani literature we have so far

WP:REHASH. Again, please reply to my replies.

You still have not elaborated on this.

No, and I already told you why countless times. Even if this was the 12th-century I would still not entertain this. Why? Because we base our info on WP:RS, we don't engage in WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FORUM. This is the last time I'm going to mention those rules, if you continue then I think it's safe to call this disruption. I'll quote the former again; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source, the very well respected Encyclopedia of Islam, the article on Azerbaijani literature:

In this new development, which continued through the 17th and 18th centuries, an important part was played by the political, social and cultural movements then afoot in Adharbaydjan. Classical literature began to develop side by side with the literature of the people, in the semi-independent khanates then coming into existence. Among the products of this folk-literature were romantic poems such as Kor-oghlu, Ashlk Gharib, Shah Ismail and Asli we-Kerem. This genre, known as ashikh (ashik) literature, made great advances in Adharbavdian and formed a bridge between the classical literary language and the local dialects. The progress made by folk-literature had its effect on the development of the classical literature, as is particularly evident in the language of the 17th-and 18th-century poets Mesihi, Sa'ib Tabriz! [q.v.}, Kawsi, Agha Mesih Shirwani, Nishat, Widadi and Wakif. Of these, Kawsi and Mesihi are especially noteworthy for their poetic power. Above all, the creative writers Widadi and Wakif (18th century), who were steeped in the ashikh literature, secured a large public for their poems among the broad mass of the people. Widadi, a prolific lyric poet, greatly enriched Adhari literature. His contemporary, Molla Panah Wakif (1717-97) is considered the founder of the modern school. He chose his themes from life and appears in his poems as an historian and a realist. The simplicity, sincerity and melodiousness of his sweet songs in praise of his beloved and other beauties, replete with the lyricism of the people, have won him a great and abiding fame among the Adharis. In the same category is Dhakir (1774-1857), the greatest master of 19th-century comic poetry in Adhari. The foremost stylist of Adhari literature, he exposed in biting lampoons the injustices and shortcomings of the age.

After Wakif a new stage begins. Adhari literature underwent a virtual revolution, acquiring a number of new genres, thanks to the mature genius of Akhund-zade [q.v.]. For the first time we find historical works, drama and prose-writings. Abbas-Kuli Agha Kudsi (Bakikhanli: 1794-1847), poet, scholar and lover of learning, is noted for his lyrical and satirical works. The literary coteries founded by Mirza Shefi "Wazeh", Nebati and Natawan Khanim (1837-97) on the one hand, and in Karabagh and Shamakhi on the other, and continued by such poets as Sayyid Azim, Asi, Newres, Kudsi, Safa and Salik, contributed by their rivalries to the enrichment of Adhari literature. Seyyid Azim (1835-88), who was recognized as a master of the ghazal and the casida, joined Ekindji, the progressive newspaper founded in 1875 by Hasan Bek Zerdabi (1841-1907) and devoted his poetic powers to castigating the fanaticism of the people.

Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 1, 1986, p. 193

As you can see, same as Iranica, EOI describes in much detail flourishing Azerbaijani literature in the 18-19th centuries to the north of Araks, with particular mention of Karabakhi poets Vagif, Zakir, Natavan, and poets from other regions in the north (Vidadi, Vazeh, Seyyid Azim, Bakikhanov, Akhund-zade, etc). It is strange for an "unbiased" scholar like Bournoutian not to consult Iranica (to which he contributed) and EOI, and write something totally opposite to what those sources write, i.e. claim that administrative and literary language for the Turkic population of Qarabagh and Transcaucasia was Persian until the end of the 19th century, when every specialized source on the literature says that it was predominantly Azerbaijani Turkic. You cannot not name any exclusively Persian language poet from Karabakh or elsewhere in the north for a simple reason that sources do not mention any. The sources that you quoted are historians, but not art historians. The sources that I quoted are expert sources specifically on the literature of the region. And my sources attest that Turkic was the primary literary language. So how can we write that Persian was the primary literary language when the specialist sources on the literature say otherwise? Also, the article says that "Karabakh Khanate was a miniature version of Iranian kingship", but we know that Persian was not the sole administrative language in Iran at that time, and Turkic was used in parallel, and was the main language spoken at the court. So how the Turkic speaking regions of the empire could be different? And no need to quote WP:SYNTH, the sources that I cited are all about the literature of the region to the north of Araks, in particular during the Karabakh khanate. If we are discussing literature, we should consult sources that deal specifically with the literature. Grandmaster 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You literally have one source (Javadi) that says Azerbaijani Turkic was the primary literary source, that's it. The other simply describe Azeri literature, but you're adding your WP:SYNTH to it. I have posted 5 which contrary to yours specialize in the topic, yet you're blatantly ignoring the 4 others and keep trying to discredit the most esteemed one - Bournoutian (yet you keep posting your personal analyses, I guess those are more reliable than Bournoutian...). I asked you multiple times to refrain from WP:SYNTH, WP:REHASH, WP:FORUM and WP:OR, yet you keep doubling down. I think it's safe to call this WP:TENDENTIOUS. You're WP:STONEWALLING this discussion with your persistent disregard for the rules of this website. Unfortunately, it does not seem that you learned from your past warnings and sanctions at WP:AE. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, yet another source which actually says something about this topic without having to violate WP:SYNTH, that makes 6; "The Muslims of Transcaucasia were predominantly Shi’ite Muslims and had an Iranian culture. Like the Turkic speakers of Iran, they spoke an Oghuz Turkic language with an extensive Persian vocabulary, identical (or at least very similar) to the language spoken in the Iranian region of Azerbaijan and they used Persian as a literary language. In fact, they were mainstream Iranians, unlike the Transcaucasian Georgians and Armenians, who, despite the absence of independence for centuries, had developed a sense of national identity, mainly due to their ‘national’ Christian churches." p. 154, The Karabakh Conflict, Conflict and Peace in Central Eurasia. International Comparative Social Studies. Vol. 31. Brill. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, please stop making personal comments, and comment on content. I make no mention of your own AA topic ban, because such things are not to be discussed at talk of the article. Let's remain civil. Now we have two groups of sources. We have some that say Persian was the literary language, and others, one of which says that Azerbaijani was the main literary language to the North of Araks (Javadi, literature expert), and those that mention flourishing Azerbaijani literature in the khanates (Encyclopedia of Islam: Classical (Azerbaijani) literature began to develop side by side with the literature of the people, in the semi-independent khanates then coming into existence.) Doerfer in Iranica writes: During the 17th-20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish but classical Persian exercised a great influence on the language and its literary expression. According to Literature: A World History: The traditional Islamic Turkic literature continued to flourish in the nineteenth century in the Azerbaijani language in both the southern Caucasus (the cities of Baku and Tbilisi) and Iran (Tabriz). These sources make a particular mention of Karabakhi poets Vagif and Zakir. I suggest to present all the existing sources in the following manner: According to sources, the administrative and literary language in Karabakh khanate was Persian, while others mention that Azerbaijani Turkic literature flourished in the region. What do you think? Grandmaster 09:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Bournoutian contradicts Swietochowski and other sources that you quoted when he writes that Persian was dominant until the end of the 19th century. Akhundzade mostly wrote in the mid-19th century, and another source that you quoted states that Persian was used for administrative affairs until 1840. Grandmaster 09:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, please stop making personal comments, and comment on content. I make no mention of your own AA topic ban, because such things are not to be discussed at talk of the article. Let's remain civil.

I will keep that in mind, but please take what I've said in mind as well - because you were indeed continuously violating several rules, and that's not okay.

According to sources, the administrative and literary language in Karabakh khanate was Persian, while others mention that Azerbaijani Turkic literature flourished in the region.

I have obviously no issue in mentioning the poets and flourishment of Azeri Turkic literature and so on. However, omitting that Persian was the dominant literary language is not neutral. Grandmaster, you have ONE source (Javadi), which focuses on Azeri literature in mainland Iran and barely mentions the Caucasus, yet you are putting it on par with 6 other sources, which actually focus and specialize on the topic, including one by the leading scholar in the region, Bournoutian...? Do you think that's WP:NEUTRAL? This would be more in line with the listed WP:RS;

"The administrative, judiciary and dominant literary language in the Karabakh Khanate was Persian. Azerbaijani Turkic, which was spoken by most of the Muslims in the region, served as a secondary literary language. Albeit under heavy Persian influence, it continued to develop and flourish. The 18th-century poet Molla Panah Vagif is considered the founder of the modern school of traditional Azerbaijani Islamic literature. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic." And with a note that emphasizes that "Azerbaijani" was a later word and the language was historically referred to as "Turkic" during that period.

Also note that Bournoutian contradicts Swietochowski and other sources that you quoted when he writes that Persian was dominant until the end of the 19th century. Akhundzade mostly wrote in the mid-19th century, and another source that you quoted states that Persian was used for administrative affairs until 1840.

Bournoutian says "until the later part of the nineteenth century" (second half of the 19th-century), so not really. Regardless, this still means that both Bournoutian and Swietochowski still considered Persian to be the dominant literary language in the khanates. Also, administrative and literary are two different things, and the quoted source says more right after that; "Persian also remained the language of the upper classes and of literature." HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we keep it shorter. The sources that you quoted say that Persian was the literary language, and I do not argue about that. But there can be more than one literary language, and we have multiple sources describing Azerbaijani literature of the 18-19th centuries. There can be no reasonable doubt that both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkic functioned as literary languages, as it is known that most poets and writers in the region were bilingual (like Akhundzade, for example), or even multilingual (like Bakikhanov, who also wrote in Arabic). But all of them were Azerbaijani speakers, and wrote mostly in Azerbaijani Turkic. I do not propose to make any changes to the line about Persian, it is fine as it is. I just propose to add that Azerbaijani literature also existed in the region. After all, Karabakh is considered the cradle of Azerbaijani culture, and home to many prominent Azerbaijani poets, writers and musicians, and Vagif was the most prominent poet of the Karabakh khanate. How about this:

Persian was the administrative, judiciary and literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while Azerbaijani Turkic literature also flourished in the region. The 18th-century poet Molla Panah Vagif, who was vizier of Ibrahim Khlalil Khan, is considered the founder of the modern school of Azerbaijani literature. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic.

I will not argue about the administrative language. We know from sources that in Safavid and Qajar Iran both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkic were used as administrative languages, and it is unlikely to be different in the Turkic provinces. But since there are no sources specifically about Turkic as administrative language to the north of Araks during the khanate times (but not in the Russian empire, sources do not agree on that), we can leave only Persian as administrative language until we have sources on other languages. But sources on Azerbaijani literature are abundant. There can be no reasonable doubt that there was rich Azerbaijani literature in the khanates of the Caucasus, and later times (Vagif, Zakir, Vidadi, Natavan and many others), which is why adding a line about Azerbaijani literature after the Persian should be alright to describe the situation. Grandmaster 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we keep it shorter. The sources that you quoted say that Persian was the literary language, and I do not argue about that. But there can be more than one literary language, and we have multiple sources describing Azerbaijani literature of the 18-19th centuries. There can be no reasonable doubt that both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkic functioned as literary languages, as it is known that most poets and writers in the region were bilingual (like Akhundzade, for example), or even multilingual (like Bakikhanov, who also wrote in Arabic).

Yes, there can indeed be one more, which is described in the suggestion I came with. However, WP:RS makes it clearly that Persian was the dominant one, (Azeri) Turkic first gaining a more prominent status later under the Russian Empire. And thus I see no reason to omit that - after all, we follow what WP:RS says. The same goes for mentioning that the Muslim inhabitants had Turkic as their mother tongue, that should deffo be mentioned as well. Also, my suggestion only has one line more than the current one in the lede, it's still short. Also, with the lede getting slightly changed, that also means the body of the article has to follow suit, the latter which obviously has space for even more details (the lede is after all meant to be a summary of the body, WP:LEDE).

After all, Karabakh is considered the cradle of Azerbaijani culture, and home to many prominent Azerbaijani poets, writers and musicians, and Vagif was the most prominent poet of the Karabakh khanate.

Actually, this is an anti-Armenian narrative later created by the Azerbaijani government; "Indeed, anti-Armenianism was already thriving in Soviet times, as evidenced by Argam Ayvazian’s essay, entitled “Testimony of a Researcher in Nakhichevan”, in this volume. Other such pieces of evidence exist, such as the stoning of train wagons coming from Armenia while crossing Nakhichevan. The theme of Karabakh, however, was the most important one and it pre-dated the conflict that started in 1988. It is central to the Azerbaijani nationalistic narrative in two different ways. First, Karabakh is portrayed as a cradle of Azerbaijani culture, especially music." - pp. 222-223, Astourian, Stephan H. (2023). "Origins, Main Themes and Underlying Psychological Disposition of Azerbaijani Nationalism". In Dorfmann-Lazarev, Igor; Khatchadourian, Haroutioun (eds.). Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict. Brill.

And I assume you're using "Azerbaijani" in a linguistic sense here, considering the Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym back then, being divided by several identities per WP:RS [16]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

According to other reliable sources, such as Iranica and EOI, Azerbaijani had importance as a literary language in the khanate times. Vagif, Vidadi and others lived before the Russian imperial times. And Astourian is not an expert on Azerbaijani culture. There is nothing nationalistic about Karabakh being a cradle of Azerbaijani culture, considering how many prominent poets, writers and musicians came from the region. Many reliable sources say that Karabakh and Shusha are the cradle of Azerbaijani culture. For example, the most prominent researcher of the Karabakh conflict Thomas de Waal writes in his book Black Garden that "Shusha is also known as a cradle of Azerbaijani culture" (p. 193). I don't think anyone can argue that de Waal is an Azerbaijani nationalist. And I agree, there should be more details about the cultural affairs of the khanate in the body of the article. How about this:

Persian traditionally was the administrative, judiciary and literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while Azerbaijani Turkic literature also flourished in the region. The 18th-century poet Molla Panah Vagif is considered the founder of the modern school of Azerbaijani literature. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic.

Grandmaster 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to other reliable sources, such as Iranica and EOI, Azerbaijani had importance as a literary language in the khanate times. Vagif, Vidadi and others lived before the Russian imperial times.

Grandmaster, you have already said this multiple times now (WP:REHASH), which I have addressed. My suggestion does not omit that Azerbaijani Turkic was a literary language nor its importance, but also includes that Persian was the dominant literary language, which WP:RS (6 of them) clearly says here, which only an Iranica (Javadi) article not even focused nor specialized on history of the region (let alone the khanates) contradicts in a passing mention about the Caucasus. Please let your next response to me be one be in line with the policies of this site, otherwise I am going to assume WP:JDLI. EIO mentioning that Azeri Turkic developing/flourishing does not contradict the statement that Persian was the dominant literary language (if you think so, then that's WP:SYNTH). Also, I'm not sure why you are suddenly against using Doerfer as well, you cited him after all. He says that Azeri Turkic was under heavy Persian influence, and that should be mentioned as well. The same goes for mentioning that Turkic was the mother tongue of the Muslims, which already is in the lede. The lede is meant to a summary of the important stuff, and those are all important. Heck, the Armenians should get a mention too.

This suggestion is much more in line with WP:RS;

"The administrative, judiciary and dominant literary language in the Karabakh Khanate was Persian. Azerbaijani Turkic, which was spoken by most of the Muslims in the region, served as a secondary literary language. Albeit under heavy Persian influence, it continued to develop and flourish. The 18th-century vizier and poet Molla Panah Vagif is considered the founder of the modern school of traditional Azerbaijani Islamic literature. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic, and the Armenians mainly inhabited the highlands, today known as Nagorno-Karabakh."

And Astourian is not an expert on Azerbaijani culture. There is nothing nationalistic about Karabakh being a cradle of Azerbaijani culture, considering how many prominent poets, writers and musicians came from the region. Many reliable sources say that Karabakh and Shusha are the cradle of Azerbaijani culture. For example, the most prominent researcher of the Karabakh conflict Thomas de Waal writes in his book Black Garden that "Shusha is also known as a cradle of Azerbaijani culture" (p. 193). I don't think anyone can argue that de Waal is an Azerbaijani nationalist. And I agree, there should be more details about the cultural affairs of the khanate in the body of the article. How about this:

So now being an expert suddenly matter? "Astourian is not an expert in Azerbaijani culture", yet he was chosen as one of the authors of a vast Brill published book focused on the exact topic? And then you go on to cite de Waal, a journalist...? That doesn't make sense. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you quoted are one liners that say in passing that Persian was the literary language with no details about the actual Persian literature in the region. I quoted sources on the Azerbaijani literature that mention prominent names, their role in the development of Azerbaijani culture, etc., but I have not yet seen a dedicated source about the Persian literature of the region that would detail who the Persian literary figures were, and what literary works they created. Note that Javadi is the source dealing specifically with the literature, and providing the actual names of the poets who created literary works at the time. But I don't want this to become an endless argument, so let's keep it short in the intro, and focused strictly on the languages spoken. Further deatails on the actual literarture could be provided in the body of the article. We have no sources that would say Azerbaijani was secondary, so that would be an OR. Therefore, I suggest we phrase it like this:

Persian was the main administrative, judiciary and literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while the literature in Azerbaijani Turkic, spoken by most of the Muslims, also flourished in the region. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic.

Also, you argued that Doerfer and other sources that I quoted were not specific to the khanate, but now you want to use him. I do not deny that there was a strong Persian influence, bur Doerfer also mentions Turkic influence on the Persian language. I think it is better to leave this for another article, for example Azerbaijani literature.

Regarding Tom de Waal, he has not worked as a journalist for about 30 years now, and is currently a senior fellow with Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region. He is a political analyst and the author of a critically acclaimed book on the history of the Karabakh conflict. And he is not the only international source that calls Karabakh and Shusha the cradle of Azerbaijani culture, I can provide more. This destroys Astourian's argument, because it would imply that de Waal and other authors and journalists using this term work for the Azerbaijani propaganda, and it is not so. In any case, this is a subject to a separate discussion, not related to the Karabakh khanate. Grandmaster 09:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you quoted are one liners that say in passing that Persian was the literary language with no details about the actual Persian literature in the region.

Suddenly changing arguments now based on no existing policies... This is starting to get on the realm of WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM now. All this time you have been clinging to Javadi, who himself makes a passing mention of Azeri literature in the Caucasus, and whose work does not even focus on the Caucasus and barely mentions it, and now the sources I listed are of less validity due to "one liners"? It's focused on the whole region, culture and peoples, being written by experts on it, this is undeniable.

But I don't want this to become an endless argument / We have no sources that would say Azerbaijani was secondary, so that would be an OR.

This is an "endless argument" because you are severely WP:STONEWALLING and keep making the same arguments (WP:REHASH) based on your opinion/deductions (i.e. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) or even blatantly ignoring listed sources or trying your best to discredit them despite of obviously being of higher quality, which you have done non-stop (and please don't start to call me uncivil again, WP:SPADE and WP:CPUSH, there are countless diffs here to demonstrate that). While we should in fact follow WP:RS, and specialized ones a that. This makes it even more rude to accuse me out of all people of WP:OR, when I have already listed these sources, which you are denying. I think I have engaged in enough WP:GF, last attempt before the WP:ROPE runs out (also please read WP:UNDUE;

1. "The literary revival in the native language stemmed from the need to communicate the ideas of the enlightenment to as wide a public as possible. Akhundzada, who throughout most of his life composed lyric poetry in Persian, when writing works that carried a message of social importance used a language comprehensible to all his countrymen, which he called Turki. The renaissance of a native literature, a by-product of the movement, was thus its first and most tangible accomplishment. The hold of Persian as the chief literary language in Azerbaijan was broken, followed by the rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artificial, heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position." - p. 26, Swietochowski, Tadeusz (2004). Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge University Press.
2. "Although the authors were Transcaucasian Turks, later known as Azerbaijanis, they all, with one exception, wrote their histories in Persian, which remained until the latter part of the nineteenth century the primary literary language of the Muslims of Transcaucasia." / "Armenian and Russian sources notwithstanding, the primary sources on the history of Qarabagh in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are almost all written in Persian, Although the majority of the Muslim population of Qarabagh and Transcaucasia spoke a Turkish dialect, until the later part of the nineteenth century the administrative and literary language was Persian, with Arabic reserved for religious studies. The knowledge of Persian is, therefore, essential to any serious study of the region prior to the twentieth century. It is also necessary to read Persian manuscripts written in the styles of handwriting known as shekaste and nasta'liq, if one is to examine the original sources of the period." - p. x and 1, Bournoutian, George (1994). A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Mazda Publishers.
3. "Before the Russian occupation cultural life in Azerbaijan had been influenced primarily by Persian civilization. Persian language and literature was in general use among the educated classes. This cultural link between the newly conquered country and its still strong Persian neighbor annoyed Russia, who tried to destroy it by supporting local Turkish cultural developments. These and other social currents contributed to the revival of the local Turkish culture, illustrating the Persian proverb which says that ‘the enemy may be very useful, if God wills it." - p. 22, Charles W. Hostler, Turkism and the Soviets: The Turks of the World and Their Political Objectives, Cambridge, 1957.
4. "Despite Russian conquest, the Persian language remained the main language of the administration in these provinces until the reforms of 1840. The local authorities themselves were either Persians or local aristocrats who spoke Persian, and the Persian tongue continued to be spoken in the courts until the 1870’s. The Shiite clergy, which controlled the schools and the courts, was the main perpetuator of Iranian influence. Persian also remained the language of the upper classes and of literature." - p. 94, Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia, Serge A. Zenkovsky, Harvard University Press, 1960.
5. "The South Caucasian Muslims lacked clear cultural or religious boundaries as late as the nineteenth century. Divided into Shiʿa and Sunni populations, with a vernacular language close to Turkish and a literary language still dominated by Persian and then Ottoman Turkish, with no prior experience of statehood and no overall delimitation of the historical homeland, they had to define a separate identity. That construction essentially took place under Soviet rule and on...." - page 232, Monuments and Identities in the Caucasus Karabagh, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan in Contemporary Geopolitical Conflict, Brill Publishers
6. "The Muslims of Transcaucasia were predominantly Shi’ite Muslims and had an Iranian culture. Like the Turkic speakers of Iran, they spoke an Oghuz Turkic language with an extensive Persian vocabulary, identical (or at least very similar) to the language spoken in the Iranian region of Azerbaijan and they used Persian as a literary language. In fact, they were mainstream Iranians, unlike the Transcaucasian Georgians and Armenians, who, despite the absence of independence for centuries, had developed a sense of national identity, mainly due to their ‘national’ Christian churches." p. 154, The Karabakh Conflict, Conflict and Peace in Central Eurasia. International Comparative Social Studies. Vol. 31. Brill.

Also, you argued that Doerfer and other sources that I quoted were not specific to the khanate, but now you want to use him. I do not deny that there was a strong Persian influence, bur Doerfer also mentions Turkic influence on the Persian language. I think it is better to leave this for another article, for example Azerbaijani literature.

Wrong. "Your Doerfer source also does even not contradict this at all, if anything it indicates that classical Persian was more dominant with its vast influence on Azeri literature." He fits great for both this and the Azerbaijani literature article. You are the one changing your mind, not me. And I want to know why. Amongst other things you are also not explaining why you don't want Armenian listed as well.

Regarding Tom de Waal, he has not worked as a journalist for about 30 years now, and is currently a senior fellow with Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region. / because it would imply that de Waal and other authors and journalists using this term work for the Azerbaijani propaganda, and it is not so. In any case, this is a subject to a separate discussion, not related to the Karabakh khanate

Please read what a journalist means and then our guidelines, that is all I can say since this is not the main subject. I also know this is not the first time you have been told this about de Waal. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not mind stating that Persian was the main literary language, even if we cannot name any prominent Persian poet/writer from the region. We have sources that support the claim, so I'm alright with it. See my latest proposed version. I do not mind either mentioning that Armenian was also spoken and written in the region by the Armenian population. In the part about the languages of the region, we can add: "Armenian was spoken and written by the Armenian population of the region", or something like that. But we also have sources to support that there was rich Azerbaijani literature in the region, the most prominent representatives of which were Molla Panah Vagif, Gasim bey Zakir, Khurshidbanu Natavan and others. What we cannot agree on is how to word this information the best way. At this point, I think we should try a dispute resolution. How about we ask for a third opinion, or do an RFC? Grandmaster 16:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not mind stating that Persian was the main literary language, even if we cannot name any prominent Persian poet/writer from the region. We have sources that support the claim, so I'm alright with it. See my latest proposed version. I do not mind either mentioning that Armenian was also spoken and written in the region by the Armenian population.

I do admit that it was my bad not seeing the "main" bit you had just added to your suggestion ("Persian was the main administrative, judiciary and literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while the literature in Azerbaijani Turkic, spoken by most of the Muslims, also flourished in the region. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic."), so you have my apologies for that. However, this still leaves a lot of stuff out, and you haven't explained why you don't want it included.

But we also have sources to support that there was rich Azerbaijani literature in the region

WP:REHASH for the ninth time, my proposed version literally mentions this, I've said this multiple times now (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Not only does it mention flourishment and development of Azeri and it being the language of the majority of Muslims in the region, but also the administrative, judiciary and dominant literary status of Persian and its influence on Azeri, and the Armenians in what is now Nagorno-Karabakh. Heck, it also mentions that Vagif founded the modern school of traditional Azerbaijani (Islamic) literature. So clearly, I have no issue with mentioning anything Turkic related (heck, the Turkic part fills out even more than the Persian part in my suggestion) - you however, want to leave out certain stuff for some unknown reason (also, please stop WP:OR/WP:SYNTH mentioning Zakir and Natavan, the former published his work after the Karabakh Khanate [17], and the latter wasn't even born when the Karabakh Khanate existed).

Your suggestion for Armenian also sounds less fluid and more obscure. The Armenians specifically populated the highlands (i.e. Nagorno-Karabakh), this is what constantly mentioned and emphasized throughout the article, and thus that should clearly appear in the lede as well per WP:LEDE.

Again, this is my suggestion (slightly adjusted the Armenian part for consistency and removed unnecessary "in the Karabakh Khanate"). Please don't say it's omitting the flourishment of Azeri again, because it literally mentions it along with more.

"The administrative, judiciary and dominant literary language was Persian. Azerbaijani Turkic, which was spoken by most of the Muslims in the region, served as a secondary literary language. Albeit under heavy Persian influence, it continued to develop and flourish. The 18th-century vizier and poet Molla Panah Vagif is considered the founder of the modern school of traditional Azerbaijani Islamic literature. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic, and Armenian was mainly spoken in the highlands, today known as Nagorno-Karabakh."

What we cannot agree on is how to word this information the best way. At this point, I think we should try a dispute resolution. How about we ask for a third opinion, or do an RFC?

That would be WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Please listen what the other part says (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) instead of persistently engaging in WP:REHASH, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I have answered the same comment multiple times now. This is the part where you answer my answer, not repeat the same comment/ignore mine. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no source that would say that Azerbaijani was secondary. So it would be an WP:OR to write that. And yes, Zakir was born in the Karabakh khanate, but created literature in the Russian empire. And Natavan was also a mid-19th century Turkic poet. But Bournoutian was saying that Persian was literary language until late 19th century. What about all the Karabakh Turkic poets of that time then? Let's stick to what the sources actually say. We have sources that say Persian was main language of administration and literature, without mentioning any Persian writers and poets, and then we have sources describing rich Turkic literature and mentioning the actual poets. Iranica says that Turkic was predominant literary language to the north of Araks, and it is a serious source. And then we have many serous sources dedicated to literature who describe flourishing Azerbaijani literature. So let's just quote what the sources say, as follows:

Persian was the administrative, judiciary and main (predominant works too) literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while the literature in Azerbaijani Turkic, spoken by most of the Muslims, also flourished in the region. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic, and Armenian (and Kurdish) was mainly spoken in the highlands.

Regarding Persian influences, it is not appropriate for the lead, as it should be concise and state general facts. But we can mention that in the body of the article, where I want to create a section on the culture. Vagif can also be mentioned in the body of the article, as the most prominent literary figure of the Karabakh khanate and influential for Azerbaijani poetry in general. Btw, Nagorno-Karabakh does not exist as a territorial entity anymore. Even international organizations do not use the term. And my suggestion for DR still stands. It is not gaming, but an advised course of action in case of a content dispute.

And here's another source on Azerbaijani literature of the 18th century. It is the same source that I cited before, but a different chapter.

In the eighteenth century the division bet­ween the northern Azerbaijani (in the south Caucasus) and the southern (Iranian) Azerbaijani territories begins with the establishment of numerous small khanates in the north breaking away from the weakening rule of the Safavids and later the establishment of another state under the Qajar dynasty (also of Turkic origin) in 1785. Many khanates also became centers for the patronage of literary activity and many khans also wrote poetry themselves, including Feth Ali Khan, Ebul-feth Khan (pen name: Turi), and Abbas Kuli Agha Bakihanli (pen name: Kutsi). Several poets who lived in the eighteenth century were regarded as precursors of modern Azerbaijani literature, which would begin a century later. One of these forerunners, Molla Penah Vakif (1717-1797), was not only a reformer and founder of many schools, but he introduced realism in Azerbaijani poetry. Vakif and his close friend Molla Veli Vidadi (1709-1809) drew upon Turkic folk genres and styles to write poems using Turkic syllabic meters in a purer Turkic literary language. Many other poets became their followers.

Literature: A World History, Volumes 1-4. John Wiley & Sons, 2022. ISBN: 978-0-470-67190-0, p. 858

I don't see all the top international literature encyclopedias saying that Azerbaijani was a secondary language. Quite the contary, this source says that the khanates were patrons of the Azerbaijani literature. I hope we can reach an agreement, if we refrain from using the words such as "secondary" that are not used by any sources. Grandmaster 09:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no source that would say that Azerbaijani was secondary. So it would be an WP:OR to write that.

Seems you didn't read Swietochowski.

And yes, Zakir was born in the Karabakh khanate, but created literature in the Russian empire. And Natavan was also a mid-19th century Turkic poet. But Bournoutian was saying that Persian was literary language until late 19th century. What about all the Karabakh Turkic poets of that time then?

WP:REHASH and WP:SYNTH. Again, you're not a scholar, kindly stop trying to put your deduction above other scholars, especially the likes of Bournoutian, the leading scholar in khanate history. As I've already said, he is referring to the second half of the 19th-century. Regardless, it's still after the Karabakh Khanate era, and we don't do the deduction work here, that's up to the experts.

Btw, Nagorno-Karabakh does not exist as a territorial entity anymore.

You mean Republic of Artsakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is still a historical region. And if you're indeed speaking the truth (that it's not even a historical region anymore, which you will prove with WP:RS and not your own words), then we can just say "former Nagorno-Karabakh". Problem solved.

Persian was the administrative, judiciary and main (predominant works too) literary language in the Karabakh Khanate, while the literature in Azerbaijani Turkic, spoken by most of the Muslims, also flourished in the region. Religious studies were conducted in Arabic, and Armenian (and Kurdish) was mainly spoken in the highlands.

"Predominant works too" sounds silly and unnecessary, this is a GA article. Putting Kurdish alongside Armenian is not WP:NEUTRAL. Again, please read WP:LEDE as well as the body of the article.

I don't see all the top international literature encyclopedias saying that Azerbaijani was a secondary language. Quite the contary, this source says that the khanates were patrons of the Azerbaijani literature.

I'll be blunt, next time you engage in engage in WP:SYNTH I'll take this to WP:AE. Enough is enough, I've reminded you of that policy literary 12 times now.

Even international organizations do not use the term. And my suggestion for DR still stands. It is not gaming, but an advised course of action in case of a content dispute.

Considering your conduct here, then yes - it is indeed WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Swietochowski does mention a secondary role of Azerbaijani as literary language, I missed that, sorry, while Javadi in Iranica says that the literature to the north of Araks was "almost exclusively in Azeri Turkish". That is a coflicting info. In any case, since there are a few more references on Persian, even if not by literature experts, I will not argue about that part. In any case, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Azerbaijani Turkic was also a literary language in the region. It should be reflected in the infobox as well. "Former Nagorno-Karabakh" or "known since Soviet times as Nagorno-Karabakh" will work too. Words in brackets are possible alternative wording or additional info. I mean it could be either main or predominantly, not both at the same time. As for Kurds, we could mention that they lived in other highland areas (Lachin/Kalbajar), or leave them out. Grandmaster 09:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Azerbaijani Turkic was also a literary language in the region. It should be reflected in the infobox as well.

Agreed, though I have not opposed against this nor suggested otherwise? Heck, I was the one keen to keep mention of the Muslims mostly being Turkic speakers when it was initially omitted in your suggestion and came up with the suggestion of "Molla Panah Vagif is considered the founder of the modern school of traditional Azerbaijani Islamic literature". Am I missing something here?

"Former Nagorno-Karabakh" or "known since Soviet times as Nagorno-Karabakh" will work too.

The former only works if Nagorno-Karabakh suddenly ceased being a historical region, which I find pretty random especially when it predates Artsakh, but alas WP:RS rules here, so if you have WP:RS on it, then sure. If not, then "known since Soviet times as Nagorno-Karabakh" sounds good.

I mean it could be either main or predominantly, not both at the same time.

Sorry, but I still find it random and unnecessary. What is it even supposed to mean? If Persian is already mentioned as the main literary language then what does this add? Just sounds like overkill imo.

As for Kurds, we could mention that they lived in other highland areas (Lachin/Kalbajar), or leave them out.

Not sure how important this is for a local language of a group that didn't seem to have any noticeable role in the Karabakh Khanate, which is also demonstrated in the article. The Kurds are (very briefly) mentioned twice in the article, I couldn't find anything else as I recall, including mention of Lachin/Kalbajar. I assume you have certain WP:RS in mind? HistoryofIran (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We can leave the Kurds out of the lead, I do not insist on including them. As I said, the words in the brackets were proposed alternative or additional wordings. Nagorno-Karabakh is the Soviet invention. No such term existed before 1923. There is a historical region of Karabakh, and Bolsheviks created an autonomy for the Armenian population calling it Nagorno (mountainous) Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. But before that there was no distinction between highland and lowland Karabakh. Therefore "known since Soviet times as Nagorno-Karabakh" is better. And also, why no Azerbaijani name in the lead, considering that Azerbaijani was the language of the majority of the population and the ruling elite, and one of the literary languages of the region? Grandmaster 09:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh is the Soviet invention. No such term existed before 1923. There is a historical region of Karabakh, and Bolsheviks created an autonomy for the Armenian population calling it Nagorno (mountainous) Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. But before that there was no distinction between highland and lowland Karabakh. Therefore "known since Soviet times as Nagorno-Karabakh" is better.

Not sure why you're telling me this, I have never said otherwise. My suggestion was "today known as Nagorno-Karabakh." (which is more or less the same as your second suggestion and which I haven't opposed against) but for some reason you thought I was talking about Artsakh at the start.

And also, why no Azerbaijani name in the lead, considering that Azerbaijani was the language of the majority of the population and the ruling elite, and one of the literary languages of the region?

Since when have we added languages based on population to political entities? Are we going to add Greek and Persian to Abbasid Caliphate then? And please stop making WP:OR claims, it's no better than your earlier WP:SYNTH. If you have WP:RS that it was spoken by the ruling elite, show it. If not, please keep it out of this discussion (in fact, Zenkovsky says something else up above). (Azerbaijani) Turkic had no official purposes in the khanate, thus irrelevant in the lede. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't the language be referred to as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkish in the infobox and elsewhere? It's confusing to have it as Turkic and linking to Turkic languages in general, when it's quite clear that the Turkic spoken there was the ancestor or (or the same as) the Azerbaijani language. Looking at many of the sources cited above, it also seems quite common to refer to the language in this context as Azerbaijani Turkish, Azerbaijani etc. Language names can be anachronistic in historical writing; for example, nobody who spoke Middle Persian called it that. Revolution Saga (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Persian name in lead

In The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan (p. 2), Bournoutian suggests that the word khanate does not exist in Persian and that the terms ulka, tuman or hakem-neshin. I'm not sure what the general policy is for using names that are historically anachronistic but present in the historiography (assuming that khanat is in fact used in modern Persian historiography). Can anyone with a knowledge of the Persian-language historiography verify that the term khanat is used in reference to the Karabakh Khanate? I know it's the title of the equivalent Persian Wikipedia article, but I'd like more solid verification. @HistoryofIran any chance you can shed light on this? Revolution Saga (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Revolution Saga. While I understand Persian, I can't understand it's script unfortunately. Not sure about the reliability of the listed books, but it's worth a look, I simply wrote "Karabakh Khanate" (خانات قره باغ) in Persian. I'll update you if I find anything else [18]. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Although this is a news article, it's published in Cgie (which Encyclopaedia Islamica translates its history articles from) [19]. Google Translate; "According to the second and third articles of this treaty, the Khanate of Karabagh, Ganja and Khanates of Shaki and Shirvan, Darband and Badkobeh..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Indeed, the link you provided contains the word khanat in reference to the khanates. Do you think there should be some indication in the lead that this is a modern and not a contemporaneous term? Best, Revolution Saga (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How about something like this (Zamani is the author of the Cgie news article); The Karabakh Khanate (also spelled Qarabagh; Persian: خانات قره‌باغ, romanized: Khānāt-e Qarabāgh

HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looks good, I would just make sure the foreign terms ulka, tuman and hakem are in italics. Best, Revolution Saga (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Revolution Saga: Hmm, looking at the direct excerpt again after many months ("It is important to note that the term “khanate,” does not exist in Persian. It is derived from the Anglicized version of khanstvo in Russian and khanut`iun in Armenian. The Persian term for these provinces was ulka or tuman, which was administered by a hakem or governor, who could either have been elevated to the rank of khan by the shah or had assumed the title."), I realize I might have slightly misread it. What are your thoughts on this edit? [20] [21] HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think this good. Strictly speaking Bournoutian does not talk about the term "khanate" being borrowed into Persian but one can tell from the context that when he says "'khanate,' does not exist in Persian" that he means the Persian of the period under discussion, not today's Persian. Revolution Saga (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)