Talk:Shirvan Khanate

Azerbaijani People

User:LouisAragon, it really doesn't matter whatever you want to call the Azeri people. In no way should Tatars be used to classify this population. It was the Colonial Russian way of calling a people which they hadn't experienced much with before which was the whole point of the survey (to gain information on the region and base their policy on it). You don't have to be so trigger happy on this honestly. It definitely doesn't mean reverting my edits on the ethnic groups of the khanate, if you want to have the name changed then change the edit to Turkic people or something but don't remove the ethnic groups, removing them wasn't justified. Edit: I see you have done so, well don't call them Tatars please for the afforementioned reasons. Call them something else Kailanmapper (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kailanmapper:

Wikipedia is written by using reliable sources, not personal opinions and analyses. If WP:RS explicitly note that the usage of "Azerbaijani" is a retractive anachronism, then we can't just bluntly use it. Simple as. The Bournoutian source, which you unfortunately inserted without citing a page number,[1] has dedicated numerous pages explaining why it is wrong to simply call them "Azerbaijanis" or "Azeris". Such way of editing is a violation of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Remember, this is WP:AA2 territory. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

From the Bournoutian source which you cited (2016 p. xvi) :

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an “Azeri” alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii’s two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as “Tatars” and not “Azerbaijanis,” Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the almost three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan."

p. xvii:

"Although after Stalin’s death arguments rose between Azerbaijani historians and Soviet Iranologists dealing with the history of the region in ancient times (specifically the era of the Medes), no Soviet historian dared to question the use of the term Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani in modern times. As late as 1991, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, published a book by an Azeri historian, in which it not only equated the “Tatars” with the present-day Azeris, but the author, discussing the population numbers in 1842, also included Nakhichevan and Ordubad in “Azerbaijan.” The author, just like Petrushevskii, totally ignored the fact that between 1828 and 1921, Nakhichevan and Ordubad were first part of the Armenian Province and then part of the Yerevan guberniia and had only become part of Soviet Azerbaijan, some eight decades later."

From Bournoutian's newest 2021 work (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, p. xvii):

"Until the Sovietization of the South Caucasus, Russian language sources refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims of that region as “Tatars,” while referring to the Ottomans as “Turks.” Prior to the first decade of the twentieth century, the term “Azerbaijan” applied mainly to the Iranian province of Azarbayjan. The Iranian and Russian sources of the time, with rare exceptions, view it as the region located south of the Aras River. Iranian sources refer to the inhabitants north of the Aras by where they lived; hence Yerevanis, Ganjavis, etc. In 1918, the Muslim inhabitants north of the Aras and their spoken Turkish dialect became identified as Azerbaijani. The educated among them, however, continued to use the Persian alphabet for some time. The Soviets, in order to reduce the influence of Islam, as well as to instill a much-needed national identity, devised new alphabets for them."

Same goes for his 2018 work dealing with the Erivan Governorate (Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. (2018), xiv, p. 35 (note 25):

"Furthermore, the terms “Azerbaijan” and “Azeri” do not appear in any of the sources cited herein. Rather, the Turkic inhabitants of the region are referred to as Muslims or Tatars. In addition, most of the territory that formed the future Republic of Azerbaijan was, at the time of this study, divided into the Russian Elisavetpol and Baku provinces. Prior to 1918, the term “Azerbaijan”applied only to the Iranian province of Azarbayjan. (...) Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani."

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should use what the quoted source states, considering Bournoutian has explained the historiography of the subject in detail. Also, ignoring what sources state is usually considered disruptive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon and User:Kansas Bear, I see what you mean as far as Azerbaijani not being the correct term. However, I still disagree with Tatars being a valid name for them. There are several subgroups of Turkic people. Tatar is generally used to refer to the Kipchaks. The Kipchaks were the ones which the Russians were traditionally interacted with, which is why they are called Tatars. This is misleading and associating the Oghuz with the Kipchak, which is why it shouldn't be used. Tatar was solely used by the Russians to call these people. Multiple sources attest to this. [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. It's more of an Imperial Russian way of classifying the Azeris with more familiar groups like the actual tatars, volga, bulgarians, and other turkic people of the russian steppe. It's not an accurate term and lumps the Oghuz Turks of modern-day Azerbaijan with the Kipchaks. Why revert my edit using "Turkics" to describe them when it's clearly more correct than Tatars? Bournountian's book isn't really trying to form a history of the Shirvan Khanate, it's just a English translation of the Russian text (the Russians which called the Oghuz Turks of modern-day Azerbaijan republic the biased term Tatars), so no Tatars is not the correct term at all. Kailanmapper (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kailanmapper: As a compromise, I added "Turkics (later known as Azerbaijanis)" accompanied by a Yale University Press source. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we can say this discussion is over now. Kailanmapper (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Afsarid dynasty ??????

Isn't the Sirvan khanate established after the Afshar dynasty collapsed, how are they affiliated with the Afshar dynasty ? Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Khans

Where is Hadji-Dawud as the ruler of Shirvan? Where is his capture by the Ottomans in 1728? 89.113.137.74 (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The source did not make mention of him, probably because its irrelevant, tbh. The background section shouldn't be that big either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The article about Hadji-Dawud says that he was one of the khans of the Shirvan Khanate. Add at least his name to the list of Khans Editor9769 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There's not a not a single mention of him being 'khan of Shirvan' in the article. Moreover, there's not a single reliable source in the article either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan history template

Why should not Azerbaijan date template be added? At present, the territory of the Sirvan khanate is within the borders of the Azerbaijan state. and a part of the history of Azerbaijan. Sarkars are of Turkish origin as far as I know. Talysh Cadusii (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Kindly read my edit summary, I never said that it shouldn't be added. However, the quality of the article shouldn't be sacrificed just to have it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

So adding this lowers the quality of the article? Are you serious ? 😅 Talysh Cadusii (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

I never said that. It seems you still haven't read my edit summary [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Then do you mind if I leave this to you? If I can't do it, you can. After all, I'm new here, thank you sir. Talysh Cadusii (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

I'm sure you will manage. For a new user you are pretty impressive [7]. Almost reminds me of someone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)