Talk:Treaty of Turkmanchai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty of Turkmanchai is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	Treaty of Turkmanchai is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	Treaty of Turkmanchai is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

While the whole article needs work, for now only made the intro more consistent with historic facts and other articles, such as Gulistan Treaty. --adil 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not add in POV statements. Wikipedia is not the place for "beliefs", but rather facts.Azerbaijani 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

you are acting in such a bad faith, that it's simply increddible! First off, who included the first two sentences in this paragraph:

"Today, Iran officially sees this and the preceding Gulistan Treaty as the most humiliating treaties signed in the country's millennia-old history. The treaty is the reason many Iranians consider Fath Ali Shah to be one of Iran's most incompetent rulers. Meanwhile, Azerbaijanis see the treaty as the division of their homeland into two parts."

That's complete POV -- unreferenced, unsourced. Why didn't you delete that? And you declare my addition as "POV"? OK, I will add it back, together with this quote since you leave me no other choice:

"However the result of the Treaty of Turkmanchai was a tragedy for the Azerbaijani people. It demarcated a borderline through their territory along the Araxes river, a border that still today divides the Azerbaijani people." Prof. Svante Cornell, "Small nations and great powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus", Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001, p. 37. --adil 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That source doesnt makes sense, as there was not one territory to be separated in the first place. You just contradicted yourself also, as in other articles you said that the Caucasus was not a part of Iran during the Russo-Iranian wars.Azerbaijani 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

-))))) This is Original Research and POV on your part, and you contradict Prof. Cornell? you don't even have a Ph.D. (unlike Cornell, and myself). Sure, Caucasus was not part of Iran (except a few khanates), but South Azerbaijan with its khanates was part of Iran. Also, this is not according to me, but according to the sources I cited. --adil 05:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what this is about but some comments here do not seem constructive. Any article where both Iranian and Azerbaijani republican users might have a slight conflict of idea (and there is not too many of these articles just 5-10),should be discussed with the edits in the talk page in order to reach a agreeable consensus or at least just quote scholarly sources. Or else the Wikipedia experience instead of being constructive will just degenerate into unfortunate comments (the reason I had to archive Safavids many times and that was frustrating).

Over all, I think the article could use improvement from scholarly sources.

I found this from Cornell from the same pages Adil mentioned: In 1812 Russia ended a war with Turkey and went on the offensive against Iran . This lead to the treaty of Gulistan in 1813, which gave Russia control over large territories that hitherto had been at least nominally Iranian, and moreover a say in Iranian succession politics. The whole of Daghestan and Georgia, including Mingrelia and Abkhazia were formally ceded to Russia , as well as eight Azeri Khanates (Karabakh, Ganja, Sheki, Kuba, Shirvan, Talysh, Baku , and Derbent). However as we have seen the Persians soon challenged Russia ’s rule in the area, resulting in a military disaster. Iran lost control over the whole of Azerbaijan , and with the Turkemenchai settlement of 1828 Russia threatened to establish its control over Azerbaijan unless Iran paid a war indemnity. The British helped the Iranians with the matter, but the fact remained that Russian troops had marched as far as south of Tabriz . Although certain areas (including Tabriz ) were returned to Iran , Russia was in fact at the peak of its territorial expansion.

Also this one from Swietochowski who is a Full Professor and much more well known the Cornell. [[1]]. I think Swietochowski's quotes should definitely be in the article as he is a regional expert.

Probably one of the the best also is Cambridge history of Iran which discusses the background of the two treaties: [[2]] (from pg 144 onward). Cambridge source is excellent for Qajar era.

Perhaps I am guessing the recent edits to Gulistan/Torkomanchay have to due mainly with Karabagh khanate which I believe we had a discussion a while back. It is probably a sensitive subject due to modern politics. I found a good article though. This situation of this khanate is partly discussed here:[3].

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).

Although some of these khanates were more autonomous than others, but this acknowledgement of supremacy does not make the khanate independent of Qajars after Agha Mohammad Khan. Because the article furthermore says: Ebra@h^m, in order to maintain peaceful relations with Tehran and retain his position as the khan of Qara@ba@g@, gave his daughter AÚ@g@a@ Begom, known as AÚg@a@-ba@j^, as one of the wives of the new shah (Ba@mda@d, I, p. 12)..

So he was a Khan of Qarabagh and there were many Khans in the Qajar era but this is not exactly being totally independent (can have various definitions) and they had relationship with the Qajars (daughter, wife ..). It seems though Qarabaghi is a Pro-Russian source and on the other hand Iranian sources from that era (Fars-naameyeh Naser), (Tarikh-e Mohammaid) and other sources say something else about Ibrahim Khan. Sorting it out is left to scholars. I was going to talk more about Qarabagh khanate (which should have its own article or probably does) and Ibrahim Khan, but since this article is about Torkomanchay, the best solution with such a matter is to simply fully quote specialists like Swietochowski or Cambridge history of Iran. Qarabaghi says one thing it seems and the two Persian sources say something else and Prof. Bourtounian (sp?) seems to be in the middle. But the best we can do with this article is simply quote several western academic sources like Swietochowski or even Cornell (who is not in the same rank as Swietochowski but their position is not too far off) from google books or etc, even if they have opposing POV's and the reader can judge. Also I think the Persian version of the treaty should be linked somewhere.

Also I'll try to find some maps drawn in that era in European and Iranian atlases to see what European powers considered as territory of Qajar Persia. From what I gather from several maps from Dr. Cyrus Alai's book last time I checked, european map-makers considered caucus (calling major parts of it Shirwan and Erevan..) as part of Persia. But I can confirm this in a future date. For now it seems the three quotes I brought about Torkomanchay (Cornell, Swietochowski and Cambridge history of Iran) should be included fully. Additional quotes from scholarly sources on the caliber of Swietochowski are also of course welcome in describing the situation. --alidoostzadeh 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She could mean the Luristan/Khuzestan area and not necessarily the Median territory (NW). --alidoostzadeh 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the article provided by me offers the most accurate description in sync with the primary (not just the Gulestan and Turkmanchay Treaties, but the bilateral treaties between Georgian kingdoms and Azerbaijani khanates and the Russian tsar) and secondary sources (Baddeley, etc.).

Neither Iranica, which is obviously a pro-Iranian source and is edited by an Iranian-American scholar, Prof. Ehsan Yarshater, nor Dr. Bournoutian can be considered as middle or otherwise unbiased sources. Nevertheless, the article by Bournoutian does not disprove the fact that Karabakh (and several other kahantes, as well as kingdoms) were independent. All it shows is that sometimes, temporarily, for tactical reasons, the rulers of these khanates would supposedly give verbal-only promises to the shah and his emissaries, but never keep those promises (or were misunderstood, perhaps the Iranians only heard what they wanted, not what was said). So if out of its 58 years of existence before becoming part of Russia (and existing for another 17 years as a khanate inside of Russia, plus many years as Ganja-Karabakh beglerbegate), Qarabakh was nominally dependent on Iran for 1-2 years, that doesn't change anything. Neither does the fact that the shah regarded everyone as his vassal, naturally.

Indeed, the very 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. I did not have time to re-read the primary source itself, Qarabaghi, but can do it and am pretty sure will find that Bournoutian or his editor was liberal with their wording. Likewise, I have access to 3 more Karabakh-nameh's during the same period, and can cross-compare them, although I know what would be the result -- quotes proving once more the independence of Karabakh khanate, as well as others.

Now, if we follow the advice and read the 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).

As additional proof, here's the page from Swietochowski as given by Ali, discussing Gulistan Treaty: "The treaty provided for the incorporation into the Russian Empire of vast tracts of Iranian territory, including Daghestan, Georgia with Sheragel province, Imeretia, Guria, Mingrelia, and Abkhazia, as well as the khanates of Karabagh, Ganja, Sheki, Shirvan, Derbent, Kuba, Baku, and Talysh." (Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition By Tadeusz Swietochowski, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 5) Although Swietochowki, despite being a renowned expert, did note make a detailed study of the treaty as his objective -- hence he mentions Talysh khanate, even though it lost independence and became part of Russia only in 1828, before that it was only Lenkoran and some other territories that became part under Gulistan, and I don't think Daghestan is mentioned in the treaty, only Derbent khanate. --adil 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil of course Iranica is a reliable source and you have used it many times and is used throughout academia and wikipedia. It is in the end funded not by Iranian government and the articles written in it are mainly by non-Iranians. For example if it was pro-Iranian it would try to cut the nasty stuff about Iranian culture as well or for example Yarshater would have edited Doefer when he used Southern Azerbaijan. Cambridge history of Iran is also an impeccable source. Perhaps George Bourtounian might be pro-Armenian although again this does not make him not quotable since he seems to be a major western university professor but for now I guess we have accepted Cambridge history of Iran, Swietochowski and Cornell for this article. Cambridge history of Iran article was written by Americans and being edited does not mean Yarshater wrote the text. In the end we have to quote these scholars and sources fully and leave the intrepretations or wordings of wikipedia users in the talk page or outside of wikipedia. Specially the concept of what autonomy or independence means or is defined as is not clear and is beyond Wikipedia users to define them. And if there is multiple viewpoints from scholars like Swietochowski or those that write in Iranica or etc.. they should be brought forth to show that there is not a consensus. Of course as I have shown even in the primary sources there is multiple viewpoint for example Qarabaghi contradicts Farsnaameyeh Naseri. So all these quotes from these sources are good when they are put in. The intrepretation though is left up to the reader. For now I added the cornell quote from the same page since he was already quoted although Cornell is definitely a pro-Azeri republican viewpoint.--alidoostzadeh 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, Iranica could be reliable, but not unbiased. Bias is POV, and hence same fact can be presented differently by two different sources. Iranica is a good source, there is no question about it, but it is a wholly Iranian project, with founder and editor, as well as deputy editor, and many writers being from Iran. Other articles, concerning Azerbaijan, are sometimes written by Armenians, like is the case with Great Soviet, Britannica, Encarta encyclopedia's. So this makes the source somewhat inclined and pro-Iranian, obviously.

Neither did I say that Yarshater wrote that specific line -- just noted that he is a co-editor of the book. Ali, you can't expect me to accept all those Atabaki's, Yarshater's, Iranica's, etc., as neutral and unbiased, whilst you and others don't accept as neutral and unbiased not only ethnic Azerbaijani sources or sources from Soviet Union, but even Western sources like Dr. Brenda Shaffer. Especially since I am not asking to refrain from usage of pro-Iranian sources, but only to properly identify them as such, and keep that mind, instead of presenting Atabaki's, Yarshater's and Iranica's as purely "Western" sources.

Meanwhile, George Bournoutian is not a "major western university professor". He simply is not and his books are mostly published by small and non-academic Armenian publishing houses in California.

The fact that Southern Azerbaijan is not found elsewhere in Iranica, aside from Doerfer (and Northern Azerbaijan by a Russian archeologist in a different article in Iranica), means it probably fell through the cracks, as Yarshater is an old and frail man, he can't be expected to see everything. Although, Iranica's board might have realized that it is nonsense to supress the name, especially in light of West/East Azarbaijan, Eastern/Western Armenia, Eastern/Western Iran, Persian Kurdistan, etc.

If you need a definition of autonomy and independence, you can look in any dictionary such as Websters online. I think everyone understands perfectly what they mean and the difference. Otherwise, this is reminiscent of President Clinton wondering "what is the definition of is?"

I don't know what Naseri wrote, but he can't be compared with any of the Karabakh-nameh's authors, who were native, and didn't have a set preference between either Russians or the shah, and there were 6 of them in total, 4 of which are available in Russian, and 2 of those 4 in English.

The Cambridge History of Iran, like other sources, simply don't say what you or user Azerbaijani say -- they clearly acknowledge that most of the North Azerbaijani khanates, like the Georgian kingdoms, were independent, except briefly during shah's incursions, when they verbally submitted. Whichever khanates were not independent, like Shirvan khanate, were still semi-independent and otherwise autonomous to a greater degree than any khanates south of Araxes. And this is during the Qajar era -- I don't even touch the 1747-1780s period, when it was total anarchy and pretty much all khanates and kingdoms were independent. --adil 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil Shaffer is a post-doc not even an assistant professor although even she refers to Iranica in her book! Besides her viewpoints on Iran's nuclear program and etc.. makes her not a history person anyway but a politican. A political post-doc is not a reliable academic position relative to a full professor besides what harper magazine has already revealed. I stick with Atabaki because he is a full Professor in a Western University and not because he is Iranian. But I did not quote him here anyways. And I am not quoting Dr. Bourtounian either althoug Mazda Publishers [[5]] gets its share of books. But from the amount of publications, he seems quotable although on issues related to Iranian-Azerbaijani republic although I'll leave him out of those sort of articles. I have no problem with Western academic sources with regards to ancient Iranian history but not from a post-doc who are concerned with modern Iranian politics and Mullahs and Russia and Oil and Israel and ...

Back to the issue. About Cambridge history of Iran, again I have no problem with quoting it in full quote as I did with Cornell. Same with Swietchowski. Same with Britannica, Encarta and etc. They should just simply be quoted in full without any intrepretations. This way the article remains academic . --alidoostzadeh 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, that's fair enough, and I will add the Cambridge quote then too. Meanwhile, I mentioned Atabaki especially because of his quotes used in other articles, which were clearly ripped out of context and misinterpreted, and you seemed to agree and even promise to find the full letter from that Persian language journal, Ayandeh (1988). --adil 06:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay that is good. I am glad this matter is resolved. I just made sure the source is named and is quoted. As per Atabaki, I do not think his quote were out of context per se until I have time to study those sources. --alidoostzadeh 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)