Talk:Ibrahim Khalil Khan

message: This is from Abbasgulu Bakikhanov’s Golestani Iram, which was written in Persian and might be available to Iranian readers, I quote the Russian version: 
Вслед за смертью Надир-шаха началось общее смятение и анархия, вследствие коих Ширван навсегда отошел от Персии. Тогда образовались здесь отдельные ханства и владетели их, управляя наследственно и независимо, стали самостоятельными государями. 
After the death of Nadir shah a total chaos and anarchy began, as result of which Shirvan was lost forever to Persia. That’s when separate khanates emerged here and their rulers, ruling hereditary and independently, became independent sovereigns. 
The khanates in Azerbaijan were initially subordinate to Iranian shahs, but after the death of Nadir shah and following chaos they became practically independent. Karabakk khanate emerged after the death of Nadir shah and was completely independent. Aga Mohammed shah Qajar twice tried to subordinate it, but failed both times. In fact, he was killed in Shusha by his own bodyguards. Grandmaster 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian rule 

message: Greetings mates, I stumbled upon this page quite unexpectedly beginning from the Nagorno Karabakh article (Wikipedia is truly a game of 6 degrees!) and I couldn't help but be absorbed by the lively discussions that have or are taking place on these articles. If it would not be so crass of me to do so, I, an uninvolved third party, would like weigh in my opinion and as a user who has some prior knowledge of the current debate.
In my humble opinion, it is a mistake to refer to IBKK as an 'Azeri Turkic', by uniting both terms. By doing such, you're presenting the information as if that's what all the sources are claiming. It will help us to re-examine the sources used and what they say.
The first source is a book review and a book review, in my opinion, is insufficent material to prove claims which can quickly challenged.
The second source is acceptable but it still can be claimed of having a politically bias, as the author is the senior editor of the 'National Interest and adjunct Senior Fellow at The 
Nixon Center', the contributing editor at the Atlantic Council, and professor of national security decision making at the U.S. Naval War College. Those kinds of works are generally 
gratuitously weighted when using potentially polemical terms.
The third source is acceptable, too, but the 
information provided through a quick Google books search here, http://books.google.com/books?id=7CP7fYghBFQC&printsec=copyright&dq=I..., suggests it might be outdated. 
The forth source says nothing about him, but I find some relevance in that he calls them Javanshir Turks. The Cambridge History of Iran is a jem of a source and perhaps more worth mentioning than the rest. Does it mention his ethnic background? I've read it ages ago but don't recall anything to that effect. 
The fifth source is undesirable. It was published in 1932, and it would have been acceptable had there been no other sources. 
The sixth source becomes interesting, as it's the author of the first source. The information about the clan could replace the current version. 
The seventh source is acceptable so I don't have anything to add about this one though.
So, at last, I think the term Turkic is on the whole a more reasonable choice, given the sources we are working with. The word Azeri for this particular period is not adequate for several reasons. To start with, some sources claim that the Iranian Azeri (or 
Azari, if you wish) survived as far as the 17th century. While, on the other hand, 
the use of Azeri to refer to the Turkic population is more recent (say, early 20th century). In 
a simplified fashion, the period covers between the extinction of one Azeri and then the emergence of the other.
It's therefore my opinion that it would be more accurate to name his clan and add its Turkic nature or simply use the term Turcoman. If more information is needed  describing his relationship with the modern Azeri, someone can create an article about his clan, where those 
information's could be developed more extensively and be placed in proper context.
Many thanks, --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion, it is very much appreciated. The thing is that Turkic is too general, and does not give the reader any idea who the person was by ethnicity. There are many Turkic people, from Gagauz in Moldova to Yakuts in Siberia. Turcoman is even worse, as the term is used to describe Turkic people who live in Iraq. I don't think any confusion between Turkic and Iranic Azeris is possible, because Azeri links to Azerbaijani people. If such confusion is still a concern, we can replace Azeri with Azerbaijani. Also note that Iranic Azeris never lived to the north of Araks, so definitely no confusion is possible. In addition, out of 5 sources presented to support the claim that Ibrahim khan was Turkic rather than Azeri only one mentions this person, and that particular source dates back to 1930s and cannot be considered to be up to the present state of knowledge. The claims of alternative ethnic affiliation of this person must be supported by sources that mention this particular person. Also, with regard to the second source, what kind of bias can that author have with regard to the person or region in question? As far as I know, US is not involved in any conflict in the region, and has no special connections with Azerbaijan that it does not have with any other country in Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion from third party

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @HistoryofIran, Azerbaijani is official name of nationality/ethnicity and also a common name, thus I am changing Azeri to Azerbaijani. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'm just reverting everything this troublemaker does, especially since they have been at it for over a year now. This is for another time so I'm going to briefly say this without going into further detail; Azerbaijani/Azeri and Turkic shouldn't be at the start of the lede per relevance, the former which should be in a note or brackets instead since it wasn't a name for Caucasus Turks back then. Something like "He belonged to the Turkic Javanshir clan of the Afshar tribe, which inhabited the Karabakh region in the South Caucasus." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your points, but since sources support that, I believe it is better to distinguish him from just Turkic people. I also understand annoyance that IPs do , I can see that you doing outstanding work in protecting articles from disruptive IP edits. Thank you for that. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 15:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani 

message: The use of the word "Azerbaijani" in the context of a person that lived late 18th century is anachronistic at best and purposefully misleading at worst. The tribe/clan he belonged is not universally regarded as "Azerbaijani" today, and even if it was, the term "Azerbaijani" only began to be used to describe the different Turkic tribes of the Caucasus and Northwestern Iran over a hundred years after his death.  AlenVaneci (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the ethnonym "Azerbaijani"