Talk:Ibrahim Khalil Khan

Persian rule

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. [1]

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)

The khanates Karabakh, Guba, Talish, Sheki were independent. This is proven, for example, by the fact that they minted their own coins. They had Ambassadors in foreign countries (e.g., Russia for Karabakh khanate). And most importantly, they signed individual treaties on accession to the Russian Empire, separate from the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties. Obviously, the Russian tsar would not bother signing treaties with vassals of another empire -- only with independent rulers. That's why traditionally, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs rebuffed all Iranian claims to lands north of Araxes, stating that even before the Gulistan Treaty was signed, many of those khanates were independent and voluntarily joined the Russian empire. Some references about the independence of the khanates can be found in John F. Baddeley's 1908 book, for example. Others are clear from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and its map.

Here's from John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", Longman, Green and Co., London: 1908. "Potto [Russian military historian and general] sums up Tsitsianoff's [the first general, commander of Russian army] 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 be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh..." (p. 71)

Then again when describing the aftermath of Tsitsinaov's murder: "The Georgian princes found in it a fresh opportunity to pursue their personal ambitions; the Muhammadan khans renewed hope of independence; while Turkey and Persia were only too ready to encourage all who on any pretext, or for any reason, were hostile to Russia." (p. 73)

Also, this is a key quote, showing best what Gulistan Treaty really was, and what it was not: "...an armistice was followed in October by the preliminary treaty of Gulistan. Russia by this instrument was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with part of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhazia." (p. 90)

"One by one the khanates and other independent States, by policy or by arms, were being brought within the fold of the empire." (p. 135)

"Count Zouboff in 1796 had transferred the throne of Shirvan to his cousin, Kasim, but no sooner had the Russians retired that Moustafa recovered possession, and retained his independence until the fall of Gandja and conquest of Karabagh in Tsitsianoff's time. He had the submitted to Russian suzeiranty..." (p. 139)

"Of all the khanates, Talish, the most distant, alone remained independent, for the reason that its rulers were implacably hostile to Persia." (p. 144)--adil 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baku "fell into the hands of Persia in the sixteenth century, although it maintained its autonomy under a separate Khan. The Russians finally stormed and took it in 1806, and in a few months' time it will have been a century under the dominion of Russia". Source: James Dodds Henry, "Baku, an Eventuful History", Ayer Publishing 1977 Reprint of the 1905 ed. published by A. Constable, London, p. 3. [2]

"This success caused the Chans of Derbent, Baku, Karabagh, Karaikaitakh, and the Sultan of the Avares, to take the oath of fidelity to Russia." Source: Francis Rawdon Chesney. "The Russo-Turkish Campaigns of 1828 and 1829: With a View of the Present State of Affairs in the...", 1854, p. 27. [3]

Then a quote from Iranica/Bournoutian admits: [4]

In 1795 Agha Moháammad Khan crossed the Araxes (q.v.) and entered eastern Armenia. The khans of Erevan, Nakhjavan, and Ganja submitted, but Ebrahim Khan attacked. He was defeated and sought refuge in the fortress of ˆshusha. The mountainous terrain and ˆshusha's splendid fortifications stood in the way of AÚg@a@ Moháammad's plan for total conquest of the region. By a verbal truce, Ebrahim acknowledged Qajar supremacy and was permitted to continue his tenure as khan of Qarabagh (Qarabaghi, p. 92).

As you can see, Ibrahim khan attacked (not a typical action of a dependent vassal, now is it?), whilst the three other khans submitted, which means BEFORE that (for decades) they were independent.

Cambridge History of Iran, specifically the pages suggested by Ali, it offers the same explanation: "Even when rulers on the plateau lacked the means to effect suzerainty beyond the Aras, the neighboring Khanates were still regarded as Iranian dependencies. Naturally, it it was those Khanates located closes to the province of Azarbaijan which most frequently experienced attempts to re-impose Iranian suzerainty: the Khanates of Erivan, Nakhchivan and Qarabagh across the Aras, and the cis-Aras Khanate of Talish, with its administrative headquarters located at Lankaran and therefore very vulnerable to pressure, either from the direction of Tabriz or Rasht. Beyond the Khanate of Qarabagh, the Khan of Ganja and the Vali of Gurjistan (ruler of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom of south-east Georgia), although less accessible for purposes of coercion, were also regarded as the Shah's vassals, as were the Khans of Shakki and Shirvan, north of the Kura river. The contacts between Iran and the Khanates of Baku and Qubba, however, were more tenuous and consisted mainly of maritime commercial links with Anzali and Rasht. The effectiveness of these somewhat haphazard assertions of suzeiranty dependend on the ability of a particular Shah to make his will felt, and the determination of the local khans to evade obligations they regarded as onerous." The Cambridge history of Iran By William Bayne Fisher, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 145-146

So there we go, Cambridge history of Iran, also co-edited by Iranian-American Ehsan Yarshater, admits that most khanates were independent, and only sometimes fell into dependency. Interestingly, per Iranian POV, the book goes on to call one of the Georgian kings as simply "vali", to denote his vassal status. But what is important, is that Georgian kingdoms are always placed on the same level as Azerbaijani khanates -- and if someone is gonna keep on trying to diminish the fact of independence of Azerbaijani khanates, and with it, Georgian kings, then we need to involve the Georgian editors into this, as well as knowledgeable Russian and Turkish editors (as the latter two empires were also direct parties to all territorial disputes of the area). --adil 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Azerbaijani khanates north of Araxes did mint their own coins [5]

As of khans and ambassadors, here's what in 1784, Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, wrote to Potemkin:

"The letters of Ibrahim-khan are written with much greater politeness than the Turkish or other Persian ones when they have reached me. Please inform me who he is. How did he become khan? Is he young or old, strong or weak, and are the Persians inclined towards him?"

In July 1784 the empress bestowed upon Musa Sultan, the Karabakh ambassador, the honour of being the representative of a sovereign friendly state, commanding that an artillery salute be given, and that he be shown all the fountains and sights of Peterhof, "all worthy curiosities, especially our fleet". [Central State Military Historical Archives of Russia, fund 52, list I/194, act 72, lines 130-1, in Russian]

As we can see, Ibrahim khan of Karabakh had a very interesting exchange of letters with the Empress (!) of Russia -- I don't imagine some vassal khan of Loristan or Maku sending a letter (and receiving a response from her!) to Empress Catherine the Great. And full military ceremonial honors were afforded to Ibrahim khan's Ambassador -- once again, can one imagine an Ambassador of the Sarab khanate going to Russia and being received there like a king? --adil 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Azeri or Turk(oman)?

Grandmaster, can you provide the quote from Hewsen suggesting the Azeri ethnicity of Ibrahim Khalil? It is well known that Ibrahim belonged to the Turkish tribe of Javanshir. And Hewsen himself calls Panah Ali a Turkoman chieftain in his recent work. --Vacio (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Javanshir was the Azeri tribe. Turkomans live in Iraq, not Azerbaijan. This is what Hewsen writes:

Although written in Persian, the work of Mirza Jamal Javanshir (1773/4-1853) is actually a product of Azeri historiography: its author being an Azeri noble of the Javanshir tribe, who began his lengthy career as a scribe in the service of Ebrahim, the Azeri khan of Karabakh.

So please stop removing the references and asking for a source. It has been provided. Grandmaster 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. But in his recent work R. Hewsen calls the father of Ibrahim Khan a Turkoman, apparently he changed his point because the 18th c. was an earlier stage of the consolidation of the Azerbaijani people. Here is the quote where he calls Panah Ali Khan a Turkoman:

Qarabagh. The khanate of Karabagh (Per. Qarabagh; Arm. Gharabagh; Russ. Karabag) was a late foundation. Originally a part of the khanate of Ganja, its territory was ruled by five families of Armenian meliks, local princes who had been assigned to the governorship of the territory by the Turkoman lord Jahan-Shah (1437-1467) when it was a frontier region of his empire. In 1747, Panah Javanshir, a local Turkoman chieftain, sized control of the region after the death of Nadir Shah.

Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.

And even Mirza Jamal wrote that the ancestors of Panah Javanshir came from Turkestan:

The late Panah Khan's lineage was of the Javanshir tribe of Dizak, of the clan of Sarujlu, which was a group whithin the Bahmanli tribe, and which in times past came from Turkestan.

A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Transl. George A. Bournoutian. Mazda Publishers, 1994, p. 45. ISBN 1568590113, 9781568590110

Moreover, there are dozens of sources which call ther Javanshirs a Turkish dynasty, here some of them:

There were Bayat turks at Maku, and a firther branch of the Qajar in Erivan and Qarabagh, where the Javanshir Turks and the Qarachurlu Kurds lived.

William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville. The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 512. ISBN 052120095

...заключил военный союз с вождем кочевого тюркского Сарыджаллу Панах-али, предоставив ему с его людьми место для поселения в Шушинской крепости.

Russkoe genealogicheskoe obshchestvo. Genealogicheskiĭ vestnik. "Izd-vo VIRD", 2002, p. 57.

Thus according to the most sources (including Hewsen himself) Ibrahim Khan had Turkish origins. I think the Muslim khan of Karabakh would be lesser controversial. Anyone agree to this, or are there other proposals? --Vacio (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. He was Azeri, and the source confirms that. Azeris are Turkic people, that's why some sources call them Turks. But Turk is a general term, used to refer to all Turkic people, Ibrahim khan was not just any Turkic person, he was an Azeri Turk. Turkic can still be Azeri, there's no contradiction here. Another source:

ordering him to take part in a campaign against Ibrahim, the Azeri khan of Karabagh,

Nikolas K. Gvosdev. Imperial policies and perspectives towards Georgia, 1760-1819. St. Martin's Press in association with St. Antony's College, Oxford, 2000. ISBN 0312229909, 9780312229900

And Russkoe genealogicheskoe obshchestvo is not a reliable source anyway. --Grandmaster 06:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a relation between Turkic and Azeri, the later originated from the first. But I don't think they are the same: Turkic people are the people who emigrated from central Asia to Anatolia and Caucasus, Azeri people are the people who live in present-day republic of Azerbaijan and northern Iran. If most of the sources call Ibrahims' dynasty Turkic or even Turkoman we have not the right replace it with Azeri. Here another source asserting that Panah Ali and Ibrahim Khalil were Turkish and Jevanshir clan came from Turkestan:

This province was at that time the hereditary fief of the Turkish clan of Djewanshir, the family of Saricalu, a descendant of Avshar or Afshar, eldest son of Yulduz, third son of Oghuz (...) This clan emigrated from Turkestan with Hulaghu and was brought back from Asia Minor by Timur and scattered over Turkestan, Persia and Afghanistan, especially around Kabul and Kandahar. Its chiefs were called from father to son alternately Panah and Ibrahim Khalil;

M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel. E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936. BRILL, p. 727. ISBN 9004097902, 9789004097902

Given the fact that even the same author calls him in one place an Azer khan and in another place his father a Turkoman chieftain, I think the best choice is to reflect both opinions in the article or to call hims simply a Muslim khan. --Vacio (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Turkish or Turkic does not mean that he was not Azeri. He was Azeri Turkish. --Grandmaster 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid Origina Synthesis, Turkish and Azeri Turk are quote differens concepts. --Vacio (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Azeris are Turkic people. That's why some sources refer to khanate as Turkic. It does not mean they were not Azeri. Grandmaster 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't say Turkic but Turkish or Turkoman, there is no evidence that the latter were in everycase Azeris. Here, to quote Wikipedia, the difference between Turks, Turkomans and Azeris: In the 11th century A.D. with Seljukid conquests, Oghuz Turkic tribes started moving across the Iranian plateau into the Caucasus and Anatolia. The influx of the Oghuz and other Turkmen tribes was further accentuated by the Mongol invasions,[35]. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens or Turcomans, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" or "Turcoman" for a long time: from 13th century onwards they gradually Turkified the Iranian-speaking populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Oghuz Turkic. However, it is notable that the Turkification of Azaris was completed only by the late 1800s. --Vacio (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Azeri Turks live in the territory of Azerbaijan, Ottoman Turks live in Turkey. There were no Ottoman Turks in the Caucasus. You just prove my point.--Grandmaster 15:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources call the Jevanshir clan a Turkish or Turkoman clan which is not the same as present-day Azeris, though such Turkish or Turkoman tribes may have been the ancestors of Azeris, that what the quotes says and it contradicts with you opinion Turkish or Turkoman are in every case equal with Azeri or Azeri Turk. --Vacio (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then where did those Turks vanish from Azerbaijan and how come an expert like Hewsen does not know that Azeri is not the same as Turkish? --Grandmaster 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They never vanished, but they are the ancestors of the Azeri (Turk)s and Hewsen knew this very well when he wrote:

As far as we can tell, then, the population of southeastern Caucasia, whether north of the River Kur or south of it, consisted of a great variety of peoples: Caucasian mountaineers (Including Albanians), proto-Georgian elements, Scythian enclaves, Iranain, Armenian, and Arab settlers, other miscellaneous interlopers (including some Hungarians and above all, a veritable flood of Turkic tribesman. Ultimately the Christian elements in this heterogeneous mass must have been assimilated to the Armenians (and, in part, the Georgians), while the Islamic population was absorbed by the Azeri Turks

Robert H. Hewsen. Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.

Now you see the difference between Turkic tribesman and Azeri Turks? --Vacio (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But you did not respond to my proposals to solve this dispute. Let's move any mention about Ibrahims' origin from the intro and put it all in a special subtitle ("Origins") or make a speacial article about the Jevanshir family. Then in this article we will only mention that he belonged to Jevanshir family. --Vacio (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Hewsen does not say that Ibrahim was not Azeri. It is about the origins of Azerbaijani people, which were mixed, but it says nothing about Ibrahim. I see no contradiction between Turkic/Turkish and Azeri. Azeri people are also called Azeri Turks. Grandmaster 07:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how he can be turned into something as specific as an "Azeri" when all the sources clearly state his family's Turkoman origins. And Islamic ruling families generally did not originate from the areas they ruled. I also wonder what on earth Hewsen is on about if he actually used the phrase "Azeri historiography" to describe something from the 18th century. No such thing existed at that time. Meowy 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen knows better than you. He is a professional historian. There were no Turcomans in the Caucasus the 19th century.--Grandmaster 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Meowy, any justification for removing historical references to Hewsen? Are you a more credible scholar? Atabəy (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What's certain is that I am a better writer than you. Please stop making wholesale reverts that reinsert spelling and grammatical errors into the text. Meowy 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The term "Azeri" can be understood with two meaning : First with the modern understanding of the Turkic language ethnicity in Azerbajani Republic ( and Iran) , and second the people with the old Iranian language of Azari , before the establishing of the new interpretation of that name .Ibrahim Khalil Khan , was before of establishing the new concept of the term "Azeri " ( Turkic ) ethnicity , and his ethnicity to be old Iranian ( of Azerbaijan region ) or Turkoman ( of central Asia ) is unknown . Due to "Tarikh – e Karabagh" , (Mirza Jamal Javanshir ) , page 46 , at the beginning of the 16th century , the local Qajar Khans that Safavid Kings sent them to Karabagh , had forcibly grouped the various Turkic tribes into a confederation in the south of Barada .This group was called the Otuz iki (thirty two ) and among this group , there was a dominant clan , Javanshir , that it's chief was regarded as the leader of entire confederation . Gradully the Qajars that the Safavids chose as the governors of Iravan and Ganja , was replaced by otuz iki and Ikirmi dort (Twenty four ) confederal tribes ( Including Shahsavan and Javanshir clans) .That shows the ethnic composition of the Javanshir clan can be Turkoman , Old Azari and more than that , perhaps any other tribal people in the north west region of the safavid empire … Bournoutian himself in the preface section of the book says the term Azeri means various Turkic language groups who inhabited transcaucasia prior to the twentieth century under the general rubric of Transcaucasian Turks or Transcaucasian Muslims . The Russians sources call them Tatars or Muslims .
  

I think using the Muslim Khan , or Turkic Khan or Turkic ( nowadays Azeri ) khan can be less controversial . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Javanshir tribe itself were from Afshar tribe . The Afshar tribe were said to be among the army of Hulegu who came from Turkistan and first settled in Anatolia . They later returned from Anatolia with Timur and were scattered and settled in turkistan, Kabul and Persia. some of them were in Karabagh and Arran during the reign of Shah Abbas . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "of the Turkic Javanshir clan". Writing "Muslim Khan" is pointleess because there were no Christian khans. Meowy 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Azeri Turkic Javanshir clan? That would bring clarity to Alborz Fallah point of view about Old Azari vs. presently-known Azeri (Turkic). Atabəy (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkic (nowadays Azeri)Javanshir clan is another option . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "of the Turkic Javanshir clan" is preferable. I recall, that a new article about the Javanshir clan could be a good solution. We can write there about its origin and that it was later absorbed by the Azerbaijani people. --Vacio (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkic is pointless, there are dozens of various Turkic people. Hewsen is right, Ibrahim was not just some Turkic person, he was Azeri.--Grandmaster 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of various Turkic people, but there was only one "Turkic Javanshir clan". Meowy 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and that clan was Azeri, not Uzbek, Kazakh or Uygur.--Grandmaster 06:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Ibrahim was either Turkic or Azeri implies that the 2 are completely different things, while it is not so. Azeris are Turkic people, so there's no contradiction between Azeri and Turkic. Being Azeri means being Turkic. --Grandmaster 05:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster in that the present version the Azeri^[1][2] Turkic^{[3][4][5][6][7]} khan is not informative.The term "Azeri" is a relatively new word :neither in Iran nor in Caucasus the language has not been the determining factor in distinguishing ethnic groups , so applying the modern terms of Turkic,Azeri and Iranian is difficult to the historical figures in that region . They tend to name themselves Qizilbash that was something between being Shia , Turkic and Iranian . I can understand the difficulties of choosing either Turkic , Azeri ,Muslim as his ethnicity , due to the current conflict in Karabagh , and as a compromise I suggest to omit the controversial section and write : Ibrahim Khalil khan Javanshir (1730-1806) was the khan of Karabakh from the Javanshir family, who succeeded his father Panah-Ali khan Javanshir as the ruler of Karabakh khanate.If someone wants to know about the Javanshirs , he can go to their article and find out about their ethnicity . What do you (all) think ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should do that. There could be no doubt about his ethnicity, especially since this is confirmed by such scholars as Hewsen. And why there should be a difficulty choosing between Turkic and Azeri, while it is the same thing? Azeri are Turkic people, so if he is an Azeri, then he is Turkic as well. So I think the article should state that this person was Azeri, as it is sourced info. Plus, other sources included don't even mention Ibrahim khan. They discuss the tribe of Javanshir. Referring to them is an OR, we need sources about this particular person. The only source referring to Ibrahim khan as Turkish is an archaic Brill cyclopedia of 1936, which is way dated to reflect the modern state of knowledge. Grandmaster 09:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well , I'm not insisting and that was only a neutral suggestion . Anyway , there can be two possible objection to concept that Turkic equals Azeri .One is historical : because the Azeri ethnicity has not always been in connection with Turkic languages , we have to determine from when we can call Azeri and Turkic equal ( time problem ) .Problem number two is in the ground of preciseness : Turkic language group is a all-including and vast entity . We may have such a language group , but such an ethnicity is more unknown . Besides , by considering Turkic and Azeri to be equal , there should be problems in applying it to the same ethnic groups in other language branchs : is it correct to consider any individual of Iranic group as Kurd? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah is right, indeed Turkish or Tukic is not always and exactly the same as Azeri. Referring only to his belong to the Javanshir clan could be a good solution. Exactly for that purpose I started that article. --Vacio (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. The only Turkic people on the territory of modern Azerbaijan were Azeris. So what is the point in saying that Ibrahim khan was Turkic, as if he could be an Osman Turk, Kazakh, Uygur, etc? I mean, if he was not an Azeri, then who was he? As for Iranian Azeris, they were long extinct by the 19th century, and they never lived north of Kura river. I don't think any confusion is possible. We have to admit the facts, supported by reliable sources. We have 2 sources saying that Ibrahim khan was Azeri, and they both are reliable academic sources, we have 1 source from 1936 calling him Turkish, but that source is very dated, and another 3 that don't even mention this particular person. I think the choice is obvious. Grandmaster 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion from third party

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)

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)

Let's have a look at the sources provided in support of Turkic ethnicity again.

1. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936. Dated.

2. The Cambridge History of Iran. Says Javanshirs were Turks. Being Turk does not mean that he cannot be Azeri, as Azeris are Turkic people.

3. A History of the Georgian People. The source is from 1932. Dated.

4. George A. Bournoutian. Says: The late Panah Khan's lineage was of the Javanshir tribe of Dizak, of the clan of Sarujlu, which was a group whithin the Bahmanli tribe, and which in times past came from Turkestan. This does not mean that Ibrahim khan was not Azeri. The ancestors of Azerbaijani people came from Central Asia, and mixed with local population.

5. R. Hewsen. This is the same source saying that Ibrahim khan was Azeri. In another publication he says that his father was Turcoman. This really looks very strange, but since it never mentions Ibrahim khan, I believe we should stick to what he says about Ibrahim khan, as this article is about him. --Grandmaster 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• İbrahimxəlil xan Cavanşir.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

@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)

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)

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)

Use of the ethnonym "Azerbaijani"

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)