Azerbaijan Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

No any sources or quotations! This article is seems to be a full POV since July... Andranikpasha 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted deletion of info by anon, it appears to be banned User:Azad chai. Grandmaster (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, please provide sources of the period which show it was called and written that way. Also provide name of the encyclopedias which provide such a wording, any material of the period of the Khanate, which provide any written Azerbaijani term for the Khanate. Because as you know, unless you provide sources to back up your claim it is going to be called original research. VartanM (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when we need that for the names? Show me a naming convention that requires all the above to include a name in the native language. Grandmaster (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This name as it is in Azerbaijani. I support Grandmaster. Why we need a source. Do we need a source for the name of Germany, or for example, Tirol in different languages--Dacy69 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supported (actually I think I might have initiated) the name change of the entry for "Nakhichevan" to that of "Nakhchivan". I did this because Nakhchivan is the closest rendition that can be found to the place's current official name rendered using the Azeri alphabet (Naxçıvan). However, this argument does not apply to this entry, which is dealing with an historical entity which no longer exists. Some strong supporting evidence is required for it to be changed to "Nakhchivan Khanate". I have a feeling that the form "Nakhichevan khanate" will be far more common in scholarly literature and, since there is no native population to satisfy, the most common name found in legitimate sources should be the form chosen for the title of this entry. Meowy 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the suggestion that the Azeri name (or, to be more correct, the name Azerbaijan now calls the Khanate) should be used - I see no reason for this. This is not the Azeri wikipedia, it is the English wikipedia. It would be like having the Japanese name for the Pacific ocean in the English wikipedia entry for Pacific ocean. Meowy 01:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Azeri term simply for the fact that this has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan, no connection at all so it is not relevent. The only relevent term I see could be the Perso-Arabic script as written at the time. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we remove modern Russian script from the articles about Russian gubernias (governorates)? I see no logic in your clams. Grandmaster (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Kazan Governorate. It has the name in both old and modern Russian script and modern Tatar script too. I see no problem with doing the same here. Grandmaster (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a fallacious logic, the Russian alphabet existed since the 10th century. That's when the modern Russian alphabet appeared, the only differences is that 4 letters and words which are not used anymore were eliminated. And I don't think any of the eliminate words have been used there. As for your second point. For Kazan, the Tatar script should not be there, Perso-Arabic should be used instead. You should have known this by now. VartanM (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I think you need to assume some good faith and lighten up a bit with "You should have known this by now" lingo. I would suggest that you refer to Yerevan article, where the title of this city is actually Persian in origin, yet only the Armenian spelling is used for transliteration. Perhaps, you need to be a bit more consistent and review that page as well. Discuss your edits further. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I'm sure you are aware that the modern Russian alphabet was introduced in 1918. By your logic, it should not be used in any historical articles, yet it is not so. So please stop inventing rules. Grandmaster (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The Russian alphabet exists since the 10th century, so it can indeed be used for that far in history. In 1918 4 letters were eliminated because they were rarely used or had the same pronunciation as other letters. But in this case it doesn't apply, as none of those letters were used in that word. Besides Russian, only the Arabo-Persian script could fit here. VartanM (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek writing nonsense again, Yerevan is derived from Erebuni, it was written in Armenian since the fifth century. Besides the main entry refers to the city of Yerevan, this on the other hand refers to the Iranian Khanate of Nakhichevan, the Azeri name is irrelevant and amounts to POV pushing. Grandmaster, using numerical superiority by having Atabek proxy for you is only disruptive, because Atabek again brought irrelevant statements to justify the revert. VartanM (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, you can see that wiki articles use both old and modern Russian scripts, so what's the problem here? Who says that we can use only Arabo-Persian script here? Do we have any special rules on that or it is just your personal preference? Sorry, we cannot be guided by your preferences, we can only stick to the rules, and they do not prohibit the use of modern alphabets. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 20 days since it was first removed and Grandmaster and Atabek had more then enough time to provide sources and prove us all wrong. They're failure to provide one source proves that the IP was right all along and Grandmaster is the true disruptive one.

I'm removing the Azeri term simply for the fact that it has nothing to do with the modern Nakhichevan and the the current Azeri language. There is no connection at all, so it is not relevant. The only relevant term I see is the Perso-Arabic script as it was written at the time. VartanM (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need any source for Azerbaijani spelling. This was a state with Azerbaijani population and Azerbaijani rulers of Kengerli clan, later known as generals Nakhichevansky in the Russian and Soviet armies. Please show me a rule that requires a source for the native spelling. So far you haven't done that. I reverted banned user Azad chai, which does not count as an rv, and I roll back your deletion of info as well. If anyone wishes to remove the Azeri name again, please show me a rule that does not allow using Azerbaijani name. Grandmaster (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal, why do you replace words of Griboyedov with words of Bournatian? Keep them separate, they are 2 different sources, and Griboyedov never says that there was any repatriation, and he knew better, than Bournatian. Indeed, is there any evidence that Armenians settled in Nakhichevan were descendants of those people who were deported from there? And why Muslims deported from there were not "repatriated"? All the opinions should be presented equally, and Bournatian certainly is not a more reliable source than the Russian official Griboyedov, who was personally involved in the process. Grandmaster 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. It's ridiculous that you even raise the matter (par for the course, I suppose). We don't use primary sources for such controversial matter and you can take that to bank and the admins of Wikipedia. Bournoutian is a reliable, peer-edited, third party source, working in the 21st century with multiple Persian, Armenian and Russian sources and whose specialty is the history of Armenia and Persia during this time period. I think he would know far better than a Russian statesmen who barely had the chance to acquaint himself of the situation.

Go read the chapter in the book and review the similar comments on this page. There's so much nonsense in your post that I'm not going to comment any further. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagramyan, some calmness in discussion would not hurt. Of course, Bournoutian is a reliable and respected scholar. I especially respect him for stating a fact in his book, that Armenians prior to Russian takeover of Iravan khanate in 19th century barely comprised 20% of population of the city of Irevan. But at the same time, Griboyedov witnessed the settlement and I think both opinions should be equally cited instead of removing one for another. Atabəy (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griboyedov was directly involved in the process, of course he knew a lot better than Bournoutian, a person with an obvious conflict of interest in this issue. Do not replace the words of Griboyedov with the words of Bournoutian, if you want to quote the latter, you can do it without removing Griboyedov. The way it is now both opinions are stated separately, which is quite in line with NPOV. Also, please mind WP:CIVIL. Grandmaster 06:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, the Muslim population of Yerevan was greater than that of the Armenians' only because Armenians were leaving the region because of the harsh rule of the khans and beks and Muslims were entering it in the centuries prior to the Russian annexation! Second, Atabek, the fact you have already been topic banned from so many Artsakh/Karabakh related articles for making disingenous and frivolous edits diminishes, if not outright nullifies, the credibility of your arguments.

To Grandmaster: I suggest you reread the rules regarding primary sources and their reliability in relation to third party sources before making such absurd comments as "of course [!] he knew a lot better than Bournoutian" I suppose then that ancient historians are far more reliable than modern scholars simply on the basis of witnessing things through their own biased perspectives then....Bournoutian utilizes official Russian documents, Turkish, Armenian, as well as Griboyedov's, works as sources, and is the foremost scholar to give an overall opinion on this time period, whereas you are still insisting on the use of a contemporary Russian politican who was stuck in his own time. It's pathetic that you're using him as the foundation for this weak argument (for that matter, place his words in quotation marks to avoid further confusion). Controversial articles aren't based on fringe primary sources and you're going to have let go of the usual brouhaha coming from the Baku school about "alien elements", "Armenian newcomers" and "land usurpers".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. adhere to scholarly language. Leave brouhaha for yourself. The source does not specify the ethnicity. so, you edit is not substantiated--Dacy69 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't restrain the "historians" from Baku in the dissemination of bullshit. Sorry Dacy, but vandalism is intolerable and it's interesting that you decided to pop up in the middle of the revert war without evening adding a letter to the talk page. The fact you reverted blindly speaks volumes of the amount of supervision is required to scrutinize your edits. Obviously you didn't even bother reading the book, which is accessible online, or checking the citations which clearly writes "Some 30,000 Armenians were encouraged to repatriate from northern Persia." (Bournotian, p. 105). Keep it up, and I'm reporting you to AA/2 and hopefully they'll do a better job than my verbal warnings.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, you cannot replace the source you do not like with the one that you like more. Do not replace Griboyedov, an eye witness of the process, with Bournatian. Add Bournatian after Griboyedov. If there are different views on the subject, we should present them all. This is not Armenianpedia, and we do not provide here only the opinion of the Armenian side. "Armenian newcomers" is the wording used by Griboyedov, I hope you are not going to claim that he was an Azerbaijani propagandist. He said: Если ваше сиятельство предпишете в наискорейшем времени переселить упомянутое число 500 семейств новопришедших армян в Даралагезский округ, то окажете сим истинное благодеяние Нахичеванской области. I will leave the translation to yourself, as you are fluent in Russian. In sum, please keep all the sources there, and do not replace one with another. Instead, provide all points of view. Of course, Bournatian would say that it was repatriation, but how does he know if the newcoming Armenians were descendants of those who was deported from the region before? He does not know that, of course. It is just an Armenian POV. We can include it too, along with Azerbaijani one. But the opinion of Russian officials is also important, and should not be suppressed. Grandmaster 06:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an online article somewhere in which Bournoutian expands on the population statistics and movements, an article which he wrote to criticise and counter the misuse of data and sources (including his own) by some recent Azeri sources. Anyone happen to know the url? Meowy 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html Meowy 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that Griboyedov letter from which the "exceeded all reasonable limits" quote has been plucked needs a careful translation. From what I can gather via online translators, the comment seems to refer to possible tax-raising problems. All the newly-arrived Armenians from Persia are to be free from taxation for 6 years, and so this is going to increase the taxation level of those (mostly Tartar Muslims) who were already there (in a province already with little wealth). The old residents were beginning to protest at this probable burden, to the extent that there was a risk that they would move to Persia and there would be no revenues raised at all. Griboyedov was wanting a proportion of the newly-arrived to be moved on and resettled in other regions. The majority do seem to have gone elsewhere. Bournoutian says in that online article that only 3,883 Armenians immigrated to Nakhichevan (3,856 from Iran and 27 from Turkey) between 1828 and 1831. But 23,568 Armenian from Iran immigrated to Erevan. And it is worth remembering that a good percentage of that 23,568 would have had to pass through Nakhchivan to get there! I.e. that letter by Griboyedov seems to represent a snapshot of a passing moment in time, and isn't necessarily representative of the longterm picture. Meowy 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is a very interesting note. Griboyedov can be included but it should not be used to create a false impression that there was a large number of Armenians who came to Nakhichevan. As Bournoutian shows that number was not large. Capasitor (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presented all existing opinions separately. Neutral sources call this immigration or resettlement, I added 2 secondary third party sources. Griboyedov never uses the word "repatriation", so you cannot put in his mouth the words he never used. He calls this resettlement, and discusses the problems with Armenian newcomers (that's the word he uses). In any case, I presented the issue as neutral as possible, and used the word "immigration" instead of resettlement or repatriation. Bournoutian is not removed, but his opinion is attributed to him, and not presented as fact, per WP:NPOV. And Griboyedov is not talking about taxation problems, it is just one of the issues he raised. He says that the Armenian immigration resulted in suffering of local Muslim population, and that the complaints of Muslims are valid and well-grounded. Armenians from Persia were settled in Muslim lands, and Griboyedov was afraid that the Muslim population would have to flee to Persia, as some of them did before, or would want the province to rejoin Persia. Grandmaster 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time Grandmaster, Bournoutian's ethnicity has no bearing on his credibility and you have absolutely no right to present him as a fringe source. Giving Griboyedov equal voice goes against Wikipedia polices, which I quote for the last time, ""Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." The two sources you provided are by journalists (not historians, and one who is admittedly pro-Azeri) and their wording does not otherwise necessarily deny that Armenians were coming back to lands which they were forced to depart from. It's been a week, give up the Bunyadov-Mamedova drivel already.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal, you cannot simply delete the sources that you do not like and replace them with those that you like more. I provided 2 third party sources, and you removed them and replaced them with an Armenian one. It is nothing but disruption and violation of Wikipedia rules. The claims that Armenian were "repatriated" is simply ridiculous, first, the Armenians deported by Shah Abbas were sent to Isfahan, and those settled in Nakhichevan were from different regions of Persia, and second, Russians never inquired if those immigrating to Russia were descendants of those deported centuries ago or not. It is just a POV of Armenian scholars, which you are trying to present as a fact, and not as the opinion of a particular source. What do Buniatov/Mamedova have to do with this is beyond me, and how the Armenian POV is better than the Azerbaijani one? Stick to neutrality, and properly attribute all opinions, as the rules require. Edit warring is not gonna help. Grandmaster 09:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Charles King is not a journalist, he is a professor at Georgetown University and the author of the book on the history of Caucasus. And I wonder who says that de Waal is pro-Azeri? It would be nice to see a serious source claiming so. Grandmaster 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you exactly to ridicule Bournoutian's works as "ridiculous"? You're subordinating him, the most authoritative source on this period, in favor of an obscure primary source, some second-rate journalist and a novice in Caucasus history, which, on any other article, would be impermissible. The Armenians were being repatriated to Armenia because...Armenians were from Armenia. Is it so difficult to put these concepts together? The Armenian homeland was in the Armenian plateau, not Isfahan, and the only reason they got there were because they were forced out by the laundry list of Turkic elements that invaded the region from the 11th century onwards. You know quite well that Bunyadov and Mamedova are crux behind the reasoning of your arguments, and it would help that you don't feign ignorance. Robert Hewsen gives an excellent reason on how Azeri scholars have squandered their credibility:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, first page of the book's Bibliography.

As if that wasn't flagrant enough of a reason, we have pseudo-scholars like Bunyadov and Mamedova claiming that Armenians didn't make an appearance in the region until the Russians brought them there. You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text says "In 1840 this became a province of the Russian Empire and was renamed the Erivan Governorate". However, the Erivan Governorate article gives the date 1850. No sources are given for either date. Argan Aivasian's book "Nakhchivan Book of Monyuments" gives the date 1849 - so does Robert Hewsen in "Armenia: a Historical Atlas". I am altering the date to 1849. Meowy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through page 173 in Robert Hewsen "Armenia: a Historical Atlas" and, using its content, have rewritten and expanded that section of the article. Meowy 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a series of books about generals from Khan Nakhichevansky family by the Russian historian Rudolf Ivanov. I added a reference to the last one. I own that book and can provide a scan of any page by request. There's detailed info about the family of Nakhichevan khans in those books, and many members of that family were prominent Russian military commanders. Grandmaster 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think there is anything contentuous within the content of that Khan Nakhichevansky section, but because it contained information that was fairly obscure having a source for it is useful. Meowy 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Btw, the title of the article and the talk page do not match. This needs fixing. I think Nakhichevan khanate was a better title than the present one. Grandmaster 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]