Talk:Erivan Khanate

message: Can anyone cite documents related to deportation of Armenians in 1605? A massive scale, small scale. PLease provide a source to satisfy my curiosity. Regards abdulnr 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandmaster cited Christopher J. Walker. You can get tons of sources via google as well. It was a mass deportation of almost all Armenians to Persia. Here's another one, which mentions earlier deportations by Safavids as well: http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0342.shtml Some of these Armenians only returned to their lands during the Russian liberation. The diasporans in Iran are the descendants of those that remained in Persia. --Eupator 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deportation 

message: Here are some good quotes from a military historian John Baddeley, which clarifies and reinforces the usage/translation of the word "khanate" as a "state" and not mere principality, as well as on the fact that at times (indeed, until 1804), Erivan khanate was independent from Iran. There are several more detailed quotes on how Eirvan was conquered, how brave and energetic the Khan of Erivan was, how he was sometimes victorious in his battles against Russia, etc. 
"In 1804 Tsitsianoff, with about 10,000 men and 20 guns, marched on Erivan, another nominally independent khanate at that time actually threatened by a Persian army, but, for once, failed." (John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908, p. 68)
"Potto sums up Tsitsianoff's achievements and character as follows: "In the short time he passed there (in Transcaucasia) he managed to completely alter the map of the country. He found it composed of minutely divided, independent Muhammadan States leaning upon Persia, namely, the khanates of Baku, Shirvan, Shekeen, Karabagh, Gandja, and Erivan, to which must also be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh, and the Turkish fortresses situated on the shores of the Black Sea." (ibid., pp. 71-72)
"Russia by this instrument [Gulistan Treaty of 1813 - ed.] was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with parts of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhasia." (ibid., p. 90) --AdilBaguirov 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khanate = state/kingdom, and was independent albeit sometimes nominally 

message: Adil you really need to stop and think for a little. Don't you think adding that kind of information to the article without discusson, without references would be reverted back???? Next time don't tell me that I don't use the discussion page when your doing it the same thing. ROOB323 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, I'm tired of this, and reporting both of you -- you have removed: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality, but a state or kingdom; and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas. All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided. --AdilBaguirov 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead report me I don't give a shit anymore and report what I said in here also because I don't give a damn anymore I am sick and tierd of this shit. People come here and contribute, but fuckers like you come here and fuck up everything. ROOB323 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: My removal has nothing to do with your references as long as the diff is there it is evidence. Artaxiad 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as ArbCom goes on, references should stay in their original form, and that should apply to all pages on Wikipedia. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I'm sorry when was this rule enforced? my mistake. Artaxiad 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use Talk Page Before Editing 

message: I added a quote, seems informative. Artaxiad 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTICE: user Artaxiad (Nareklm) has just been found making a false statement, and deliberately misquoting! First off, the quote user Artaxiad provides is not on page 145, but page 149. Secondly, what he quotes is actually a FOOTNOTE, not the text itself, and is preceeded by the following actual comment by the author, John William Kaye: "The characteristic words of the Russian manifesto, announcing these events, are worth quoting: --"Obliged to pursue enemy..." (the full page is available here ) In other words, what Artaxiad (Nareklm) has quoted, is not the words of Mr. Kaye, but the statement of the Russian manifesto -- which was written by an ethnic Armenian, Col. Lazarev -- his role in Turkmenchay Treaty and the Russian-Iranian-Azerbaijani war of 1826-1828 is well documented by Sergey Glinka in his 1831 book, published in the Lazarev's Institute (which I also have). It is very unfortunate, that not only Artaxiad does not provide a correct bibliographic citation for the quote, getting wrong the page number, and not providing details of the publishing house, place of publication, year of publication, etc., but also resorts to a blatant misquotation attempt by falsely attributing the sentence not to its original author -- an ethnic Armenian Colonel Lazarev writing the Russian manifesto -- but to the British author Kaye. And all this while disregarding other presented quotes and evidence on the Talk page, and reverting the correct edits performed by myself designed to NPOV the article -- i.e., mention that along with all Armenians, all Jews and Muslims were resettled by Shah Abbas, etc. Very, very sad that some editors stop at nothing. --AdilBaguirov 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? It was from the book go search, books.google.com Artaxiad 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything is pretty clear and evident here, no need to play innocent dumbfounded angel here. You've manipulated evidence, by deliberately misquoting Mr. Kaye to present a sentence from a Russian manifesto, written by an ethnic Armenian, as the opinion of Mr. Kaye! You have provided a false attribution and a false citation to the page, as well as no other required information such as year and place of publication, and publishing house. Restore my edits immediately and remove your misquoted and misattributed sentence. Also tell your friend ROOB323 to stop revert warring once and for all. --AdilBaguirov 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baguirov, I lost count of all the personal attacks in your response above. If you think there is a mistake in the attribution correct it and add the right name.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: There are many references to "Erivan" khanate, including the one from Armenian scholar Bournoutian, not a single one calling it "Yerevan khanate" though. Please, provide justification for the edit removing the historical spellings and discuss them on the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct name is Erivan khanate. And since Azerbaijani language was the language of the majority of population, including the rulers of khanate, it needs to be mentioned. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think "EREVAN" is the most correct version.I do want to change the article according to Iranica Article about the Khanate (and some additional sources) , but since according to some conflicts between Armanian and Azeri editors , that seems difficult to find the most proper edition, I have not change anything until now.If other editors what to change the article , the above mentioned source is a good one. Thank you . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Brokhauz uses the term Azerbaijani Tatars, so you are altering the primary source. And you violated your parole too, here's your chance to revert yourself. Grandmaster (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse edits with reverts. VartanM (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the history, Tigran has already removed the mention of Azerbaijani people before, and did it twice again today. Grandmaster (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

message: An anon has been edit warring over the inclusion of Turkish spelling Revan Hanlığı on this article (and edit warring elsewhere), so I have semi-protected this article.  I have reverted because there is a lot of talk discussion here that mentions Turkish history, and I dont think it hurts to include too many spellings.  It might be useless information (most Wikipedia articles have snippets of useless information), but I fail to see why someone is getting so upset about it, which makes me suspicious it is nationalist editing.  Any thoughts about the Turkish spelling? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanlığı just means "belonging to a khan" (i.e. a khanate) - and I think it is modern Turkish (i.e. it would not be the term used by the Ottoman empire to describe the khanate). So I don't think it has a place here, in an English wikipedia article about a no-longer-extant territory. But the word Revan should remain. I suggest changing the first sentence to "The Erivan (Yerevan) or Revan khanate". 81.76.14.112 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including the Turkish spelling 

message: In 2008, president Ilham Aliyev, talking about Nagorno Karabakh, said: In 1918, Erivan was granted to the Armenians. It was a great mistake. The Erivan khanate was an Azeri territory, the Armenians were guests there .What's the opinion of the editors about adding this sentence to the article?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add or not to add ? 

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

message: Turkish was not written in Latin letters at the time. Any Turkish speakers in the region would be speaking the Azeri dialect (in addition to Persian and perhaps Kurdish), so khanate would be Romanized as khanlighi and not hanlığı, which is the reformed Turkish spelling that was introduced during the Kemalist reforms. If someone can find the actual Turkish name for the khanate in the original Arabic script, then please insert it. Thanks. Hakob (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  Then why would you not add Azeri version of it, i.e. "İrəvan Xanlığı" ?  --Aynabend (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it in the Perso-Arabic script, along with an IPA transcription for pronunciation. The other scripts adopted by Azeris (Latin, Cyrillic) were not in use during the khanate's existence. Hakob (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the Azeri name should be written in the Perso-Arabic alphabet, because that language was written in that alphabet in Yerevan at that time. But one thing. I oppose Xanlighi, since it is a neologism. The word which was used at that time was Xanat.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Turkish

message: I added a lot of information and improved the format of the article. I would like some of the other users who previouslt editted to add more, maybe pictures. I think most important is to find more sources since Iranica is very limited and talks only about story from heavily Armenian context. More needs to be said of transformation of the territory from early administrative region to later khanate and it's history in context of caucasus history. I also fixed spelling.
I think there is no need to add the foreign Azerbaijani or Turkish spelling to this article. I do not understand why it needs to be added like spanish or chinese. Maybe armenian name can be added because it was like next to persian and self rule? I dont know, I think this article can be bigger. Regards. Shahin Giray (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Additions 

message: Please explain how the Armenian spelling is relevant to this Turkic khanate? Armenian was not the language the khans and their administration spoke. Meliks were in charge of the Armenian population only, which made about 20% of the entire population. They were not the khans. If one creates a separate article about meliks, the Armenian spelling would be relevant there. But here it is not. Grandmaster 05:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgian and Azeri names are in Safavids for a different reason. Safavids were native Azeri speakers, and had Georgian and Azeri ancestry. Khans of Erivan spoke no Armenian, and were not related to Armenians in any way. So the Armenian spelling is irrelevant. Azeri spelling is, because the khans of Erivan and most of population spoke that language. Grandmaster 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: Armenians were not the majority, they were only 20% of population, and therefore Armenian name is not appropriate in the lead of the article. Chippolona (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, Hetoum, you can use as many socks as you like, but the fact remains that Armenian was not the language of the government in this khanate. Simple as that. Therefore you cannot have the name of this state in Armenian. You can have in Azeri, you can have it in Persian, but not Armenian. It was the language of minority. Grandmaster 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian name in the lead of the article

message: Why is it that we include the Azerbaijani spelling for the Khanate of Erevan, what exactly the point of this? The khanate as a whole was never part of Azerbaijan, it was only a district created by the Safavids, and the khans themselves were Qajar. The only language I see plausible for inclusion is Armenian, because the Khanate of Erevan as a whole was located in historic Armenia (as accepted by cartographers of the day), and most of its territories were included both in the First Republic of Armenia, and also in the present-day Republic. This is simply an expression of Azerbaijani irredentism over Armenia. -- Davo88 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What language did the people of the khanate speak? I mean the 80% Muslim majority? Grandmaster 07:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever it was, you can't call it "Azerbaijani" since Azerbaijan did not exist in the Caucasus before 1918. -- Davo88 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority spoke Azerbaijani language. There is a difference between language and state of Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

text: Pardon for interrupting , but I think neither Armenian nor Azeri spelling may be included . Armenian is not suitable because the majority was not Armenian language . Azeri spelling is not suitable because Azeri has not been a written language in that time and no source with Azeri language remains from that time with using of such spelling : Who knows the majority Azeri people prefer to use the Persian name of the Khanante instead of the Azeri name . That is very probable in that time because a great number of Azeris know the Persian language in that time and the official name was in Persian . In today Iranian Azerbaijan it is very very common for Azeri Iranians to use the Persian name of a place instead the Azeri name : how knows that was the same in that time ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I never argued for the inclusion of Armenian and do not think that it would be suitable either.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Azerbaijani language has existed before the independence of the Azerbaijani republic. The language wasnt created over night. And this language was spoken by the majority of the people in Erevan. Neftchi (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modern Azerbaijani alternative name is needless. This alternative name had no historical value. But I think that we can add  historical one with reliable sources. -- Takabeg (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: My point has been not about calling Azeri Turkic something as artificial origin . I would never say that . I'm talking about the "factual accuracy" of the modern Azeri word that is written in the article . Is it recorded in any book (or other sources such as tomb stones) that such a word was been used in that time ? About the Persian name , I can show at least 3 sources of that time . What is the evidence to show that the Turkic language people of that region did not used the Persian name ? ( that is very probable and resonable )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignore that Azeri language was spoken by the local people. It was an Azeri ruled entity with an Azeri population. This is what the majority of the people spoke, it must therefore be included. Neftchi (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, modern Azerbaijani alternative names have no historical value. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Azerbaijani language? 

message: This material,- that has been added on two occassions right now, is hoax. The source (in Russian) doesn't back up the added content in any way. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP hopping and blatant hoaxing 

message: Is there any evidence that this is the flag of the Yerevan Khanate? A reverse image search only brings up a handful of Azerbaijani articles. Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Source. --92slim (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly, it's just propaganda. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're talking about a flag, the flag of a Khanate that represents a Muslim ruler, of course it will be Azerbaijani or Persian, and nothing else - there must have been a flag at the time. If the Government of Azerbaijan claims the flag represented the Khanate, I'm sure they wouldn't have made that fact up, I find no plausible reason for them to even consider doing that, and neither does the flag seem controversial to me at all, since it's nothing to do with modern Azerbaijan or any topics related to the Karabakh conflict. --92slim (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your rationale. However if it's really existing and/or located in a museum, one should easily be able to find (at least) one independent reliable source attesting to this. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , would you be interested to present your opinion about the reliability/inclusion of this? Thanks much - LouisAragon (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean     this, then I would say no, that is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For it to be in the article, there needs to be a RS that connects it to the Erivan Khanate. And even if one is found I don't think it should be in the infobox part of the article. It does not appear to be a standardized state flag as such - it is a one-off banner that, probably to give it authority and express the authority of its holder, uses imagery obviously derived from the Persian Empire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The pdf is not a RS, and none of the sources cited in the bibliography of the pdf are RS - with the possible exception of the "Caspian Business News" one. But Caspian Business News appears to have ceased publication in 2006 , and its domain name (cited here ) is for sale, so how can its article be dated 2010? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to the party, again. I agree with Tiptoe - no rs yet, even with one wouldn't belong in the infobox for the reasons given. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: A user is pushing the view that just because the Erivan Khanate was part of the Persian Empire that the alternative names must have Persian first. Thankfully, WP:NCGN solves disputes like this by simply suggesting that we place these alternative names in alphabetical order. Under #2 of NCGN, we read:
Armenian and Azerbaijani, just like Persian, are relevant foreign languages. The Erivan Khanate is important for Armenians and Azerbaijanis as it is for Persians. To prioritize one language's importance over the other is not in the best interest of keeping neutrality within the first sentence of the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that this Wikipedia is in the English language so the common name in English should be first, Erivan Khanate. Then the name used should be the name given to it by the entity that created the Erivan Khanate, the Persian empire. So the Persian name should be first amongst the alternate names. Then the Armenian name, since that is the language used by the country that the majority of the territory of the khanate is now part of. Then the modern Azeri name, since a much smaller part of the khanate's territory is now part of Azerbaijan. Given the clear difference in status and type amongst the alterative names (the Persian name is the actual name used when the khanate was in existence; the Azeri alternative name is a modern term rendered in an alphabet not invented when the khanate was in existence) the argument that the ordering of the alternative names should be alphabetical is not convincing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. The status logic sounds quite more logical than that supposed dispute-fixing guideline.And those are "advice, intended to guide, not force."It's funny that the article of the very mentioned example within the NCGN section has ended up with the same thing.—Rye-96 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact that section says:  Since Persian was the official language, then it has to come first. --92slim (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. It's just that the given example is a little confusing. — The Gulf of Finland is shared between three countries, and is not fully under the governance of Finland; therefore the Finnish name is not placed first.—Rye-96 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NCGN problems at the lead 

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

message: "Erevan Shah" is the oriental title of the Persian style ruler of "Greater Armenia".
10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erevan Shah 

message: The Erivan Khanate did not include the Kagizman district. Ricardolindo2 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024