Talk:Karabakh Khanate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Karabakh Khanate 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

	This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Sources 2 POV and tag 3 KHanate origins 4 Khanate was not "Independent"

[edit] Sources

Where's your proof that the source is written by a Armenian. Except for there name, which means nothing. Artaxiad 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

for proof, either pick up a copy of EB or read the full article on the website, it is signed with Suny's name, and is well-known. --adil 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored some of info deleted by Piruz. The article is pretty much sourced, it is based on the chronicles of Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Mirza Adigezal bey, who provided very detailed account of the khanate's history. --Grandmaster 10:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the category, it is justified as the khanate was ruled by ethnic Azerbaijani people. --Grandmaster 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Nowhere in the article is this suggested. Rather persian connection, like Erevan.Hetoum I 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Persian there? The khanate was established by ethnic Azerbaijanis, same as Erivan khanate, where Armenians were a tiny minority. Stop removing categories without consensus. Grandmaster 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the khanate was established and ruled by Azerbaijani Turks along with Shirvan, Talysh, Quba, Ganja, Shaki, Nakhichevan khanates. Ehud 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and tag

VartanM, you recent edit claiming there can be no Azerbaijani khanate if Azerbaijan did not exist in 19th century is the same as claiming that no Armenian history existed prior to the establishment of independent Armenia in 1918. On an unrelated note, the unreferenced tag on the top is baseless given several references listed at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Azeri language template was removed simply because that language didn't existed when when this khanete ceased to exist. You are welcome to add the Persian version. The category is misleading and runs against the rules on misleading terms. Turkmens, Karazars and several other Turkic people were the ruling elites. I am removing it under the rule on misleading terms. And your comparison doesn't make the slightest sense. Armenia and Armenians have existed as terms at least since the fifth century BC and it was recognized as distinct identity. The comparison here is not Azerbaijani and Armenians, but Turkic and Armenians. If you want to start a category on Turkic Khanates do so, but Azerbaijani Khanate is clearly misleading. VartanM (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KHanate origins

The reference to Bertsch says that Karabakh khanate was "Azeri" and expands on the title by saying "Azeri in the sense of Muslims who spoke a version of the Turkic language we call Azeri today". Another reference is added available from Svante Cornell's book. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, NK project tag is inappropriate completely both for this page and in general. First because NK is not recognized by anyone, second because even the map is not the territory of NKAO but inflated to include Shaumian district, and third because Karabakh khanate was Azerbaijani (Turkic/Muslim khanate). Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek don't remove project tags, thanks. And Svnate Cornell is not a reliable source. VartanM (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khanate was not "Independent"

• As it has been discussed here[1],there is doubt in naming the Khanates as Independent. I have scanned a new document to show that the Javanshir clan was not independent and was considered to be a Beylerbeygi of Qajar government.The letter's date is 13 May 1811 ( Jumada al-awwal 1227 AH).
  

It is written in the page 2 , sentence 3 ,Mehdi gholi Javanshir is called as Beylerbeygi of the Karabakh vilayaat(province).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, we are not discussing here the letters of Mehdi Gholi to Fathali Shah or Treaty of Ibrahim khan with Russian czar. Iran itself did not exist as cohesive entity from the time of fall of Safavids till the rise of Agha Mohammed Qajar, so that's the period when khanates became independent principalities. According to variety of references already provided to you, Karabakh khanate was independent of Persia as Karabakh khan did not obey even Qajars. How can Karabakh khanate be dependency of Persia, if Qajar was invading it with army? Atabek (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• An effective and powerful central government is not essential necessity for existence of a national identity. There are also other sources that say so. Anyway, in that chaotic period, the relation between Karim Khan and the Javanshirs was good. Panah Khan was a friend of Krim khan and helped him against Fath Ali khan of Urmiye.The title of " khan of Karabagh" was given from Karim Khan to Panah Khan (Two chronicles on the history of Karabagh:Mirza Jamal Javanshr's Tarikh-e Qarabaq and Mirza Adigozal Beg's Qarabag-Nameh/introduction and annotated by George A.Bournoutian.ISBN:1-56859-179-9. Page 180). Indeed he(Panah Khan)was a quest in Shiraz when he passed away , his body was sent to Aghdam with great honor.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not as knowledgeable as Dr. Alborz on this troubled era, but thankfully Alborz is knowledgeable, and has just put a primary source. Also there are google books. We should definitely put the images in the main entry and I just did. Those are important primary sources. Most of these Khanates were under the orbit of Iran and not Russia. There are Europeans maps from the era we should find and look at. I don't have the maps now, but if I recall, during this period, in the european maps, they are considered to be part of Persia, even if there was semi control on some Khanates. For example Khorasan Khans came into conflict with Qajar central rulers, but still were considered part of Iran. Even lets take two more familiar and more extreme cases. Say the brief period of Pishevari, where Azerbaijan was not under central control, it was still widely recognized as part of Iran. I think recognition is important in this sense. For example Karabagh now is not under Azerbaijani repbulic central government, but on the maps it is part of the republic of Azerbaijan and world wide recognized as so. So I think maps from European countries can help with this regard. Can someone translate also where Bakikhanov calls it an independent state? Just direct words Please. Note we can mention what a primary source says but its interpretation must be done through scholars according to Wikipedia. ُSo Golestan Aram, as well as the two chronicles of Qarabagh and even the letter Alborz just brought are great sources, but the interpretation must be done through historians. I have added two sources. [2] [3]. I will quote the exact words. Portier: "Panah Ali-Khan founded the Karabakh Khanate in the mid 18th century. To defend it, in the 1750s, he build Panakhabad fortress (subsequently renamed Shusha, after a nearby village) which became the capital of the Khanate. It was not until 1805 that the Russian empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persian", Croissant: "Russian annexed the Nagorno-Karabakh region from Iran in 1805 as a result of the first Russo-Iranian war". If these Khanates were 100% independent, there would not be a need for these scholars to mention annexation from Iran. The Qajar system was not really centralized in some of its era and it is called Khan-Khani in Persian (I assume Azeri too) (Perhaps feudal kingdoms is a close concept). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Tapper has a good deal to say on the issue: [4] I added some sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Two facts worth mentioning is that Panah Khan submitted to Karim Khan Zand and Ebrahim Khalil Khan submitted to Fath' Ali Khan Qajar. Ebrahim Khalil Khan's daughter was even married to Fath' Ali Khan Qajar. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh, if I remember correctly, earlier at Talk:Safavid dynasty you insisted that Richard Tapper is not an acceptable historical reference, since he was an anthropologist :). But anyways, I am glad you're interested in this topic and use Tapper, as I think his historical research is valuable. I added two references to Karabakh being independent khanate. But all of these discussions and references are essentially needless, because there is a simple fact of Treaty of Kurekchay from 1805, you maybe even able to find a scanned copy of it from the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia by searching in Google, and if Karabakh khan was not independent of Qajar Persia, he would not be signing a treaty with Russian czar or vice versa. Atabek (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, please stay on the topic. Note I do not bring up the fact that you didn't know Nasimi wrote in Persian (even after Encyclopedia of Islam was brought, you somehow contested it). After you contested it, then I brought actual Persian poems from Nasimi, from books published in the republic of Azerbaijan. My contention with that part of Tapper on Safavids remains. Unlike what I did in Nasimi, in the end, we did not find any primary evidence directly from Ismail himself about "I am the Shah of Azerbaijan" (that is from a historical Safavid source) and the Shahsevan did not exist then. So somehow, until I see a primary source with this regard, I will contest it (although in Wikipedia Tapper is more than a perfect/neutral source and probably better than Leila Alieva source and also Iranian/Armenian sources). I was interested somehow in a primary source with this matter. So those issues are bygones and this is the new year. But anyhow this is Wikipedia, so if Tapper mentioned it, then he is more of expert on the issue than me. And his expertise is much more than the two new sources you brought on this issue. But shahsevan did exist during the time of Qajar, unlike the time of Ismail at 1501. Also as you notice, the citation of Tapper about this issue (the Khanates) is much more extensive than a footnote from one book you brought and just a sentence from another book.

Note the fact that Panah Khan submitted to the Zand Ruler, and Ebrahim Khalil Khan submitted to the Qajar king, and was appointed governor, makes a big difference. One can not claim independence from 1746-1822! when the rulers submit to the King. For example, in Afghanistan, various warlord factions signed treaties with different countries. But they did not claim independence from Afghanistan. The Kurdish entity in northern Iraq is signing oil/trade contracts with foreign governments without the approval of the central government of Baghdad. But one has to agree, Kurdistan of Iraq is part of Baghdad. Thus I have seen words like "Iranian/Persian control","nominal control", "semi-autonomous" and etc with regrds to some of these Khanates. That is why primary sources can only be considered through the eye of scholars in Wikipedia. The interpretations might totally differ. Also note what I just said about recognition. I also brought other sources that Russian gained control. Anyhow the sources I have brought are more relevant to the topic at hand. They are books rather than articles. Alborz also brought a primary source. I would appreciate a more detailed citation from your new sources, since the authors you mentioned are editors and not the authors of the particular articles. For example, it would be good to mention the actual authors, the name of the article and then mention the editors, the name of the book which the article is in and etc. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh, interesting comment on Nasimi. If I recall that one correctly, you were insisting that Nasimi's poetry in Persian is as important as the Turkish one - until Britannica reference :). Anyways, you cannot contest a source, be it Richard Tapper or Leila Alieva, a Berkeley scholar at a time, unless you provide qualification above those to judge on a particular subject. Pending those qualifications, all we can do is present any and all references, just as it was done in Safavid dynasty article, and let the reader judge, which ones are more relevant. I believe Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, and hence reader should be given opportunity to access all available sources, not just those that Ali Doostzadeh or Atabek decide as more relevant. And I added the quote from Gary Bertsch book about independent khanate as well, that's the other reference. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No you are recalling wrong.. [5]. Sorry for the poor Azeri, all I can say to your claim is: "Sharab-i yeni Bayram Mesihilar Mahv Olsun". (joke). I never claimed Persian or Turkish of Nasimi was more important. Anyhow, have a good new year, and I guess this is after all Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the introduction should just have that it was Khanate and be minimal. There could be some disagreements about the sources, and then the reader can judge. Many sources have semi-autonomous, and etc which contradict the word independent. So we can not give prominence to one view over another. Note Swiechowski, a well known scholar, mentions that vast tracts of Iranian territory including Karabagh khanate was seceded to Russia. The introduction contradicts itself in many aspects, including Swietchowski who says that in 1805 Russians became overlords, so independence could not have been up to 1822, if the Russians controlled it in 1805. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not acceptable. Because even though the Khanate was part of Gulistan treaty, it was nevertheless controlled by Russia in 1805 and there was even the Treaty of Kurekchay signed directly and formally between Karabakh khan and Russian Tsar. And there are references showing the khanate was Azeri and it was independent. And I brought two references for you on independence, not just the one where Leila Alieva is only a co-author. And would you please, explain how references you brought are more relevant? Ibrahim Khalil khan withstood the Qajar siege of Shusha for weeks, and fled second Qajar invasion, and the fact that next Qajar king was appointing him as governor, when Ibrahim khan was already a ruling independent khan of Karabakh fighting the preceding Qajar king, is really a nice joke :). I am sure even Armenian sources would argue in such case that Karabakh khanate was de-facto independent and de-jure part of Persia :) Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ultimately we are going to have quote all the sources. The references I brought were more relevant, because they were full books on the issue, and the title of books show their relevance. For example take a look. An article on a book on "Refugees" is not as relevant to the topic as Tappers extensive overview. Just check the extensiveness. Neither is unfortunately a footnote in an article. Just a mere footnote! And we can perhaps compare and contrast their academic backgrounds (Professors vs just a Dr or Postdoc). But here is another source. "By a verbal truce Ebrahim acknowledged Qajar supremacy and was permitted to continue his tenure as khan of Qarabagh", "Ebrahim, in order to maintain peaceful relations with Tehran and retain his position as the khan of Qarabagh, gave his daughter Agha Begom, known as Agha-baji, as one of the wives of the new shah ", [6]. Also found three references in google books which use "semi-independence", which I will add later. One reference also mentions "Iranian" administered So while Ibrahim Khan did not acknowledge Aqa Muhammad Khan, he did acknowledge Fath' Ali Shah Qajar. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If we agree that the Russians took over in 1805, then 1822 should be removed from intro. Also given that a variety of sources state that Ibrahim Khalil Khan (accepted Qajar lordship(Tapper, Iranica) in 1795, then there is a period of 10 years 1795-1805 that the Khanates can not be independent That is before it was lost to Russians, the Khan of Karabagh considered himself as part of Persian lordship. So eventually, after Nadir Shah, they are part of Iran just based on these two sources. Also assuming based on the sources that Panah Khan submitted to Karim Khan Zand (died in 1779), then he and his son had accepted the Zandi lordship from 1762 to 1779. As per the Armenian/Azeri angles, I am sure both of them would like to say they were never part of Iranian empire (USSR histography at work), but anyhow, will let the sources speak for themselves. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh, every single sentence in the introduction to this article is sourced. So I don't see a reason why you're suggesting to remove something in favor of another source, are you more qualified than those sources? If Iranica source (note the title for neutrality purposes, although I don't mind using it) claims that Ibrahim khan "submitted" to Qajar lordship, go ahead and add it in the body where you added Tapper reference. But again the fact is that Russians did carry out negotiations with Karabakh khan directly and many in his family received Russian aristocratic titles, while Karabakh khan also did fight with Qajar king. This is regardless of Agha-begom or Agha-baji, or other wives of Qajar shah. And Ali, how is this edit of yours at all relevant to the subject "became Fath' Ali Shah's twelfth wife; highly respected at the court, for some reason remained a virgin". Thanks for the humor though :) Atabek (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note one of the sources you mentioned:"Shusha became the capital of an independent Azeri Khanate in 1752". It does not say 1752-1822. It does not give a duration. The most we can ascertain from this that it was independent in 1752. Okay, maybe I can agree with that. Tapper and Iranica state that from 1795-1805, Ebrahim Khan submitted to the Qajar king. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The other source (Vayrynen and Alieva), "subsequently became an independent Khanate in 1747-1822". This source could have received it wrong information from Wikipedia or some other source of wrong information. How could they be independent up to 1822 when the Russian Empire gained control in 1805? This is a major mistake I believe. Also nothing against Leila Alieva personally (note I was the person that created this article [7]), but her academic credentials (lack of Ph.D.) makes her a weak source.

[8]. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So I hope these concerns are addressed. Thanks.

--alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2000 source may have received wrong information from Wikipedia?? Did Wiki even exist in 2000? The khanate, that is Javanshir family lordship over Karabakh, was dissolved in 1822. The khanate carried out foreign policy independent of Persia prior to 1805, hence by the realities of those times it was independent. Also Leyla Alieva is a PhD - [9] and [10]. And I believe the fact that you created Igrar Aliev article is absolutely irrelevant in this context. Atabek (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So the first source does not given a duration. Just 1752. This should be corrected or moved to another section. As per Leyla Alieva, the wrong information came from somewhere (I mentioned Wikipedia as a possibility but I mean a general internet website). I still do not see a very high credential or the minimum assistant Professorship. Also the wording contradicts Swietchowski and tons of other sources. If the Russian annexed Karabakh in 1813 or 1805, then that is that. There could be no independence in 1813-1822 (this is the main point), something which your second source claims. Even if the Javanshir family was there, that is not the main point. The main point is that then there is no independent Khanate up to 1822, since after the Gulistan treaty, the area was effectively part of Russia. So this is a contradiction and the source is wrong. The source says: "subsequently became an independent Khanate in 1747-1822". But as we saw, (forget about the Persia part), this is totally untrue about the Russian part. You should clarify how up to 1822 could the Karabagh Khanate be independent from Russia when all the sources claim it part of Russia, at least from 1805 and definitely by the time of the Gulistan treaty. Note Iranica for example: "On 2 June 1806 the Russians, instigated by Ebra@h^m's grandson and fearful of their own vulnerability, attacked the camp and killed Ebra@h^m, one of his wives, a daughter, and his youngest son (Atkin, 1979, pp. 79-98). The Persian army withdrew, and Qara@ba@g@ remained in Russian hands. To attract the much-needed support from the local Muslims, General Gudovich, the new commander of the Caucasus, appointed Mahd^qol^ Khan, the remaining son of Ebra@h^m, as khan of Qara@ba@g@. Mahd^qol^ served the Russians until 1822; then, fearing Russia's wrath for the overtures he had made to the Persian government, he fled to Persia. Russia then incorporated the khanate into her empire. In 1836 Mahd^qol^ returned to Qara@ba@g@ to claim his family property and lived the rest of his life as a Russian pensioner (Atkin, 1979, pp. 99-100)." and of course Swietchowski, and many other boks that mention the Gulistan treaty. So this source is wrong. Swietchowski: ""The brief and successful Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan, which was signed on October 12 of the following year. The treaty provided for the incorporation into the Russian Empire of vast tracts of Iranian territory, including Daghestan, Georgia with the Sheragel province, Imeretia, Guria, Mingrelia, and Abkhazia, as well as the khanates of Karabagh, Ganja, Sheki, Shirvan, Derbent, Kuba, Baku, and Talysh"""

The Khanate was dissolved in 1822, fine, but it was not independent at least from 1805 (since Russian control), something your source claims. I will wait for clarification and hopefully this point is addressed. But if it is one against 10 sources that say Karabagh Khanate was incorporated into the Russian empire since 1805, then that source is wrong and should be removed. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note you say in the above: "Because even though the Khanate was part of Gulistan treaty, it was nevertheless controlled by Russia in 1805 and there was even the Treaty of Kurekchay signed directly and formally between Karabakh khan and Russian Tsar. ". So it does not seem possible that there was independence after the Russian annexation. The source is wrong. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Karabakh khanate was not independent from 1805 till 1822, since it was subdued to Russian Empire. What's important though that it was independent before that as Karabakh khans did not yield to Qajar shahs, fought them, and even withstood the siege of their armies. Also prior to Agha Mahammad Qajar (who "set out to reunify Persia" as Qajar article says) and after the fall of Safavids, there was practically no unified state entity so that Karabakh would be dependent on it anyway. So 1822 is only the date when Khanate ceased to exist. In any case, again, I don't think you have an authority or qualifications to dispute a book reference from various scholars and judge who is more relevant. And I don't think your discussion of the level of scholarship at which Dr. Leila Alieva, PhD is going to yield any fruit. As I said, all references must be incorporated and reader, just like you do, judges what's more relevant. Atabek (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Salam. Okay the above is admitting that the reference is wrong, at least not from 1805-1822 there was no independent Khanate. But I think we need to provide as I said the authors name in the book the editors name. I would appreciate that we do this, since then we are giving the readers accurate information. Usually the editors of the books and title of the books are cited after the author and the article are cited. I am not sure if the current wikipedia template allows that and it might be easier just to put it in manually. As per Karabagh dependence or independence or semi-independence, I think we are going in circles and I have given my arguments based on Swietchowski, Tapper and Iranica, European Maps of the time, submission of Panah Khan to Zand and Ibrahim Khan to Fath' Ali Shah and etc.. So I'll try to fit that in the intro or the body of the text of somewhere. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Karabakh khanate was under Russian domination from 1805 to 1822,does not make reference wrong, because the khanate was indeed independent from 1748. I believe I presented arguments to support the "independence" claim as well, not by one but by two references, while you're only disputing one reference. Anyways, I added another reference to Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet indicating that Ibrahim Khalil Khan was independent of Qajar Shah. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That reference is wrong because it claims independence was up to 1822. I never disputed Ibrahim Khalil Khan was independent of Aqa Muhammad Khan. I am talking about Fath' Ali Shah. So that does not negate what I said. The Bradly book is a bit outdated. Anyhow I believe we need to make a small section presenting both views , by different scholar. What is in the intro right now is not correct, because with the exception one source, none of them claim independence for the whole period from 1847 to 1822. In the lead we can say some sources consider them independent for some periods, all periods and other source consider them semi-independent and etc. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the current introduction claims that Karabakh was independent for the whole period from 1747 to 1822, but it's clear from references that both Panah Ali Khan who fought against the attack by Fath Ali Khan Afshar and Mahammad Hasan khan Qajar before that, and Ibrahim Khalil Khan who fought against Aqa Muhammad khan Qajar and signed a Kurekchay treaty with Russia during Fath Ali Shah Qajar exercised independence from Persia. Since both father and son considered sole rulers of Karabakh during the period, and they ruled independently, it's safe to say that Karabakh khanate was independent till the Russian conquest, which is what references confirm. If you want to spell out that it was independent till 1805 specifically, fine, we can do that. But introduction must say that Karabakh khanate was independent, because that's what many references and interpretation of historical Karabakh-Qajar relations as we know them agree upon. Your arguments in this case are controversial. First you dispute only one reference, since one of the co-authors is Leila Alieva. You questioned her qualifications and were proven that she holds a PhD and was a scholar at Berkeley. Now you have 4 references, you question that Bradly is outdated because it's 1908. So what? Archimedes lived before the birth of Christ, it does not make his laws wrong over 2000 years later. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My dispute on that reference is simply the statement is wrong: 1747 to 1822. If we are going to mention every reference, then we should mention the exact statement of this reference. L. Alieva and the author author believe: ""subsequently became an independent Khanate in 1747-1822",.. Also being a scholar or postdoc or whatever is not the same as having an academic position which is much harder to obtain. But anyhow, I guess this is wikipedia and we can include everything. The fact that there was no "independent Khanate in 1747-1822". We should be likes is Richard Tapper believes: ...Svante Cornell believes: ..semi-independence..". Again you have your position and I have mine. We have discussed it, and you do not believe that Ibrahim Khalil Khan submitted to Fath' Ali Shah Qajar, or Panah Khan submitted to the Zand ruler. But I have sources that state otherwise. The intro should simply state various views exist on the dependence/independence of the Khanate from 1747 to 1822. Then we will make a section and describe all the views. Also I would appreciate it if you mention the actual authors of those articles in the references. If the Wikipedia template does not do it, then we need to use the simple ref key. As per Bradely, he is outdated because it is 1908, and he did not have all archives available at the time. So what, 100 years ago, everyone thought Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili was a Shi'ite, but now almost every source mentions him a Sunni. 100 years ago, there was a Turanian theory on linguistics, but now it is dead. But sure, the pythagorean theorem is always valid. But history does not work the same. Anyhow, I have no problem with even the 1908 reference, since I will mention that Bradley in 1908 believes... as long we make a small section and mention both views. I already have 6+ references which contest the intro. They need to be incorporated. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what the current introduction states, it only says that Karabakh was independent. As I said we can spell out that it was independent till 1805. Cornell says semi-independent but there is no reference that can conclude that Karabakh was dependent on Persia during the period from 1748 to 1805, because only 1779 Agha Muhammad Qajar "set out to reunify Persia", and failed at it in Karabakh, and was killed right after capturing Shusha in 1797. Because Karabakh khans fought against Qajars and Afshars, because Qajar king laid siege on Shusha, the capital of Karabakh khanate. Does the king have to lay siege on a capital of Khanate who acknowledges his authority, I don't think so!

I think the material you presented on Karabakh and Qajar king relations are valuable in the body of the article. I think we may also be then interested in showing that Qajar dynasty were essentially the same Turks as rulers of Karabakh, and even the names of tribal families within the region were purely Turkish. Hence the usage of name Persia in this or any other Qajar-related context is only symbolic and has to do with Western generalization rather than with ethno-linguistic identity.

You can add 66 references on the fact that Karabakh khanate was part of Persia, but give the fact of Qajar-KArabakh wars and Kurekchay treaty, disputing the independence would simply misrepresent the historical reality. Atabek (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of Karim khan Zand, he was "de facto Shah of Persia" from 1760 to 1779. So even if Karabakh khan claimed submission to him in 1762 in order to defeat Fath Ali Khan Afshar, then in order to dispute independence of Karabakh khanate altogether, you should also provide references on how that submission was exercised during 19 years of Zand rule, and how was it exercised from 1779 to 1805 (especially during wars with Aqa Muhammad Khan). Atabek (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course the name of Persia is geographic here. And the Qajar kings were Turkic, but we consider them part of Iran just like you guys consider Bahmanyar/Masud ibn Namdar/Shirwanshahs as part of the culture of Azerbaijan. So there is no contestion about the ethnic backgrounds of these rulers. As per me having 6 or 66 references, again I dispute your references and you dispute mine. That will not solve the problem, since I have contested three of your references. One is wrong because it claims 1747-1828 (this make the reference invalid since this is the actual sentence). The other author just mentions independence in 1747, but gives no duration. The other author is from 1908, which in terms of writing history books, it is somewhat outdated. I only see one valid reference, but even that does not give a duration. On the other hand I have Cornell, Swietchowski, Iranica, Croissant, Altsdat (interesting enough in 1992 she wrote independent but in 1996 she writes semi-independent, this is an important point!), Cambridge history of Iran and etc. So the intro needs to be changed and two separate sections created explaining the validity of both viewpoints. The Kureckchay treaty and stuff, those are primary sources, and its intrepretation is up to scholars. Also as I said between 1795-1805, so that does not cover the period of treaty. As per Karim Khan Zand, he was the ruler and had a capital and etc. But he considered himself Vakkil of the people, but effectively, he was in charge of a large area. I am not sure yet how the submission was exercised during the 19 years of the Zand rule. So I only state what is available. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, we similarly consider Safavids as Azerbaijani kings as well. But in the context of end of 18th - early 19th century independence implied that the state coined its own money, had its own defense forces and ran an independent foreign policy. All three are known facts with Karabakh khanate, especially given the fact that Karabakh rulers fought with army against Qajars and that they ran an independent foreign policy by having direct treaty with Russian Empire.

As I said apart from statements we need to also see some references on how the dependence on Persia (whether Zand or Qajar-ruled) was exercised. Independence word does not only mean symbolic gestures, but specific facts, at least that's what independence claim is based upon. Croissant is not a neutral reference, he is very much a POV anti-Azeri writer, known for inflating numbers and fabricating historical references. Alstadt is acceptable as are Cornell, Swietochowski and Iranica. So along with presenting these referenced quotes please, include evidence on factual dependence.

As I said argument that 1908 reference is not acceptable simply does not withstand any criticism. If you believe there are "some archives" that improved since 1908, why don't you be more specific on which are those "archives"? Regarding the other two references, the duration 1747-1828 does not make entire reference invalid. Similarly I can claim invalid any reference denying Karabakh independence using simply Kurekchay treaty or Qajar sieges of Shusha.

Perhaps, as a matter of step forward we may want to start using words de-facto and de-jure. The recognition of Zand authority was de-jure dependence, while de-facto, Karabakh was independent khanate. How about using these definitions in introduction? Atabek (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Dr. Alborz brought an important primary source. I'll try to bring actual primary sources as well, but intrepretation of primary sources is really through scholars. So that would really commiting OR if I try to weave a narrative since in the end we need to just quote what scholars say and rephrase their words. That is a very important Wiki guideline. As per archives, for example there are many books from the 19th century which were not published in 1908. A good examples is the Tarikh-e-Qarabagh which mentions Ibrahim Khalil Khan and his acceptance of Fath' Ali Shah Qajar, after the death of Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar. There are lots of Persian books from the era that were not published in 1908. Also some other Khanates, even within Iran proper as Dr. Alborz mentioned minted their own coin. So at least the coin issue is discussed here in more details: [11] (do a search for the word "Mazan"). That is many local rulers in current area of Iran minted their own coins. The treaty you are mentioning seems to be from 1805, but many other Khans in Iran had treaties with foreign governments. Intrepretation of treaties and primary documents should be left to scholars. But they can sure be mentioned, but we can't personally create our own research around them. As per Croissant, okay since you say he is anti-Azeri, I won't use him. I still have 7-8+ sources that use terms like nominal, semi-independence, Iranian territory and etc.. I believe that during the duration of 1795 to approximately 1805, what Tapper, Iranica say is correct. Also the words independence, semi-independence and etc.. have many definitions. My proposal will be that we should either not mention their political status in the intro, or mention both views. For example at different times of their duration (1747 to 1805) scholars have considered them: semi-independent, part of Iranian orbit, semi-autonomous and independent. For me, independence is not about minting coin. Independence would be what Kosovo Albanians are trying to do in Kosovo. Where-as these Khans according to Swietchowski played an important role in Iranian affairs and involved themselves in Iranian affairs. So I consider them autonomous in this sence. And then we can delve into both views in each section. I'll look at the issue again in the weekend. First I'll try to make a list of my sources over the weekend and then. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah brought a source that Ibrahim-khan accepted Fath Ali Shah, which is de jure Persian suzerainty. Apart from giving his daughter for marriage to Fath Ali Shah, there was no factual evidence of submission of Ibrahim-khan de facto, especially given the fact that in 1805, a year before his death, Ibrahim-Khalil khan signed Kurekchay treaty directly with Russian empire acknowledging Russian authority and obviously denouncing that of Fath Ali Shah. Before Ibrahim-Khalil khan, his father fought off Mahammad Hasan Qajar and Fath Ali Khan Afshar, and forged alliance with Karim Khan Zand who was only trying to unite all under his domain. The independence mentioned in the 4 references that I brought, during both Panah-Ali and Ibrahim-Khalil khans was de facto. Both ran independent policy during the turmoil and after it, during Russian conquest. So the introduction can say it was de-jure Persian suzerainty but de facto independent.Atabek (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tapper, Iranica say Ibrahim Khalil Khan was officially appointed by Fath Ali Shah Qajar and he accepted the Qajar lordship. This seems to me like semi-independence. Anyhow, I already gave valid criticisms upon three of the sources. None of your sources except the Alieva source mentions it was independent from 1746 to 1805(actually wrongfully mentions it even up to 1822). Our definition of independence does not coincide either. These guys considered themselves part of the Iranian cultural world of the time and part of the Perso-Azeri Shi'ite state and world. They weren't trying to separate but actually Panah Khan had ambitions to expand and he did in some stages. I will note this though, Altsdat (which is definitely not an anti-Azeri source) mentions independence in a 1992 book but mentions semi-independence in 1996. This is something to think about. I believe this to be a middle ground, and I have many sources that use semi-independent/semi-autonomous/autonomous. Else we have to mention scholars have differing views in the intro and explain both in detail. I will gather my sources over the weekend (and I have excised Croissant). Till then, perhaps you can think of other proposals and write them on the talkpage. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We rely on multiplicity of references not just Alstadt or someone else. All references I brought concur that Karabakh ran independent policy, since otherwise, it would not be possible for Russian to directly deal with their leaderships. Also khanate which acknowledged Persian sovereignty would not be fighting against Aga Mahammad Khan or Mahammad Hasan Khan. I think there is a bit of exaggeration on the extent of control of Persia over Caucasus, because after the death of Nadir Shah in 1747 and before the brutal ascent of Aga Mahammad KHan, pretty much any ruler in Safavid domain felt free to fight with others and proclaim himself Shah of Iran, but no one was in real control. So it's safe to conclude that Karabakh khanate just like any other feudal estate was de facto independent and de jure part of Persian imperial domain. I believe my proposal to put de facto independent with 4 references I have and de jure Persian with the ones you have is good enough of a compromise. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we rely on multiplicity of sources, but the current intro is partly OR. None of the sources except one mention it was independent between 1747 to 1805 (and that one really is wrong because it said independent up 1822). The period between 1795 to 1805 and also the acceptance of Zand lordship is important. I also believe there is a bit of exaggeration about "independence" and interpretation of primary sources. Anyhow, I'll post some of my sources over the weekend and after we jointly study them, we can perhaps discuss how the intro can be changed or these sources be incorporated since they contradict the current wording (they use autonomous, semi-independence and etc). I believe instead of independent, we should have "autonomous" or "highly autonomous" or "autonomous to large extent". I will make a stub page soon on this as I said and I will include the current sources you brought as well. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is Cornell, one of the sources I gathered so far: "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).". Note the bolded portion, it is very important. Specially a say in Iranian succession politics (which shows their involvement). I will have a list of these sources which we will need to either incorporate into the intro or have a section for them. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is Alstdat, "Alstadt, Audrey L. “Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Soviet World: Case Studies and Analysis” in: L. M. Drobizheva, Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Soviet World: Case Studies and Analysis, M.E. Sharpe, 1996. Pg 229, Excerpt:”At the time of the Russian conquest early in the nineteenth century, semi-independent Karabagh Khanate (princely State) was ruled by indigenous Khan(prince), probably an ethnic Turkic, and vassal to the Shah of Iran”.

Here is another source, which I have all the valid Wiki reasons to use, but for compromise I won't. Aagop Jack Hacikyan, Gabriel. Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, “The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Eighteenth Century to Modern Times”, Wayne State University Press, 2005. pg 9, excerpt: “At the close of the eighteen century, the Eastern Armenian Khanates of Yerevan, Nakhjivan, Karabagh, Ganja were under Iranian rule”.

Croissant which again I will not use for compromise. Michael P. Croissant, “The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications”, Praeger/Greenwood, 1998. pg 12, excerpt: “In the momentous event for the development of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, Russia Annexed the Nagorno-Karabagh region from Iran in 1805 as a result of the first Russo-Iranian war. Administered by the Iranians as a collective source known as Karabakh Khanate… In an attempt to consolidate their rule, the Russians dissolved the numerous administrative units in the conquered territories, and reorganized them in the handful of large guberniia, or provinces”.

Cornell again: "“By the middle of the eighteen century, the internal conflict between the ruling family had destroyed the local Armenian elite in Karabakh. This led to the region slipping out of Armenia control, and a Turkic ruler managing to impose his rule and create semi-independent dynastic state, the khanate of Karabakh, based in Shusha.".

Also what I mentioned already about Fath' Ali Shah Qajar and Karim Khan Zand. I will collect these over the weekend and then we can have more clarity. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that current introduction is OR, when I only edited it to reflect your point of view on 1805 vs. 1822, while there are 10 references used is not quite fair. In this case, I can also go back to strictly quoting independence references in introduction as it was before. Similar cases in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia use wording de facto independent, de jure part of the country. Same principle would apply in this case, since Karabakh khanate minted its own coins, had its own army, ran independent policy and engaged in warfare with central authority. It was actually more independent than self-proclaimed separatist regimes in the former Soviet space, because Karabakh khanate wasn't foreign controlled in military sense. These are facts. We can invite mediators to prove whether independence term is applicable or not, if you like. Also, can you perhaps provide a referenced explanation of what independent vs semi-independent means. And how does semi-independent differ from de facto vs de jure wording I propose.Atabek (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can put 1822, but who are we kidding? This will just make the reference look bad for scholars (not novices), so that isn't really a help. Even the novice will put 2+2 together and note that all the other source mention they lost their "independence" in 1805! So if you put 1822, the reference will invalidate itself. Assuming good faith, note we have excerpt from most of our sources, but not that particular one. The other three sources though do not say it was independent continuously from 1747 to 1805, so that is the OR part. Where-as I brought evidence with regards to Ibrahim Khalil Khan.. and other things I mentioned by now several times. Many Khans of Iran minted their own coins, had their own army, had foreign policy contacts and had problems with central authority. For example Aga Muhammad Khan Qajar fought with the Khan of Khorasan (who were Azeris also). But they are not "independent". I believe the situation you are describing, semi-independent is correct. They were highly autonomous. But independence requires recognition, just look at the European maps from the era, the whole area is considered part of Persia. We can say they ran even "independent policy" (that might be as far as I can go), but they were not independent from Persia and the Perso-Azeri Shi'ite world. In fact they were part and parcel of the Shi'ite Iranian world. Also for me what is important is that these Khans of the Caucus had a say in Iranian politics and considered themselves part of this domain rather than Ottomons or Russians. Anyhow, sources that mention nominal Iranian control, Iranian control, semi-independent and exist. These exact words should be used as they are used by scholars that I have mentioned. Semi-independence and independence both have wide meanings. But for me, independence means that they actually wanted to secede from Persia and join Christian Russia and Sunni Ottomons, which they did not. Instead, some of them like the Khan of Karabagh was more ambitious and if he could, he would have made himself Shah of Persia. He didn't like the Qajars, but Panah Khan accepted the Zands. Maybe Zands did not have any control over them but Panah Khan accepted Karim Khan. Maybe Fath' Ali Shah had barely any control, but Ibrahim Khalil Khan accepted him and gave him his daughter. Your view is that these rulers were independent of Persia where-as I showed according to Tapper/Iranica some of them even accepted Karim Khan Zand and Fath' Ali Shah Qajar. How can they be independent from 1747 to 1822, when the ruler like Ibrahim Khalil Khan accepts Fath' Ali Shah Qajar as his king and is recognized as a governor and not an independent ruler by Fath' Ali Shah Qajar? I don't think we need mediation, but simply mention the multiplicity of sources. This will be the result of mediation anyway. But since we have worked out problematic articles before, I believe we can work out this issue as well. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One final comment for today before the break. I didn't read your comment fully but there is absolutely no comparison to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabagh and Kosovo and etc! These Khans were not seeking to be independent from the Shi'ite Perso-Azeri world! They were part and parcel of it. Thus they were autonomous or we can even say fully autonomous, but that is the problem I have with the word independence! The Abkhazia/Karabagh comparison is invalid. The Khans of Karabagh played a part in its politics of Iran, were related to Zands/Qajars by marriage, supported Karim Khan, accepted governoship from Fath' Ali Shah and etc. If a person from Abkhazia is given a chance to be the president of all of Georgia or just an independent Abkhazia, they will choose Abkhazia. But Panah Khan, if given the choice being the ruler of Persia( or say having Karim Khan as a ruler) , he would choose these options over the independence of his territory. This is exactly why I think we need to mention the other sources in the intro or removed the whole political status in different sections, so nobody conjectures a comparison with the current separatism issues in the Caucus. Heck I don't care if we say they were 100% autonomous from the Central Rulers of Persia and Qajar, but the reason I oppose the word "independence" is due to the possible comparisons that can be made with Abkhazia, modern Karabagh and Kosovo. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)--alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Once I gather my sources over the weekend, I will continue. Meanwhile, lets take a break and perhaps we can come with better proposal. Have a good new year.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"These Khans were not seeking to be independent from the Shi'ite Perso-Azeri world" -- Ali, khans actually didn't know or care about definition called "Perso-Azeri world". They only cared about fighting off other khans and reunifying all provinces under their own authority. What matters though is the real outcome, that is Kurekchay treaty and resistance of Karabakh khan to Agha Mahammad Qajar's invasion. Of course, Qajar Turks and Karabakh khans did not differ much in identity, that's not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is evidence that Karabakh khanate did have independent policy from what we call Persia.

Abkhazia and Karabakh examples are absolutely relevant here, because both are de facto independent from the states part of which they're recognized de jure. Same as Karabakh khanate was de jure part of Persia, but de facto ran its own statehood, collected its own taxes, fought its own wars, and signed treaties with foreign powers on its own.Atabek (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, and here is the 5th reference on independent khanate, from Cambridge History of Iran:

• Avery, Peter; Hambly, Gavin (1991). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press, 126. ISBN 0521200954. “Agha Muhammad Khan could now turn to the restoration of the outlying provinces of the Safavid kingdom. Returning to Tehran in the spring of 1795, he assembled a force of some 60,000 cavalry and infantry and in Shawwal Dhul-Qa'da/May, set off for Azarbaijan, intending to conquer the country between the rivers Aras and Kura, formerly under Safavid control. This region comprised a number of independent khanates of which the most important was Qarabagh, with its capital at Shusha; Ganja, with its capital of the same name; Shirvan accross the Kura, with its capital at Shamakhi; and to the north-west, on both banks of the Kura, Christian Georgia (Gurjistan), with its capital at Tiflis.”

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, we talked about the submission of Karabakh Khanate to Fath' Ali Shah according to two sources. So again, your inclusion does not contain the period from 1747 to 1805. We need to break down the periods. Thus 4 of the 5 sources do not talk about independence continously from 1747 to 1805. Note on the same page, first Ibrahim Khan was forced behind Shusha walls (This hardly makes the whole area of Qarabagh) and also: "Both sides desired a settlement, and Ibrahim Khan eventually decided to submit to Agha Muhammad Khan, to pay regular tribute and to surrender hostages, although the Qajars were still denied entry into Shusha." Okay so right in this instance, there was a period where he was not independent and large portions of Qarabagh was under Agha Muhammad Khan, Ibrahim Khan submitted and Ibrahim Khan was just behind the walls of Shusha. So that by itself contradicts continous independence of all the area of Qarabagh Khanate from 1747 to 1805.

Note Cambridge history of Iran, it does not give a duration from 1747 to 1805 as the intro makes it seem. Just read the Chapter on Fath' Ali Shah right afterwards. Part of the same source:"According to Cambridge History of Iran:

“

"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 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 depended 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."[1]

”

". Note the Khanates of Baku and Qubba are in different league than those of Erivan, Nakhchivan and Qarabagh in this statement. We can't rely on one source to define everything from 1747 to 1805 (or wrongly 1822)! Also I do not have a problem with independent policy" rather than "independent". So if you want to fix that wording, then you can save both of us time. Else the only way to fix the article is to have a section for political status mentiontiong all these sources. I will use exact wording "Vassal", "Semi-independence" and etc. I'll list both Cambridge sources over the weekend as well your sources and mine, then make a small section discussing all the multiplicity of sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ali. I’m glad that you joined editing this article, as you always make valuable contributions to the topics that you edit. I think both you and Atabek have valid points. We know that Panah khan declared himself the ruler of Karabakh and was later officially affirmed at that position by Adil shah of Iran. However since Iran had no strong central authority after the death of Nadir shah, the khanates of the Caucasus were independent, only formally accepting suzerainty of Iranian rulers. In case of Qajar, there was a long standing rivalry between Qajar and Javanshir clans, and Qajars were trying to restore Karabakh to their relatives in Ganja, which eventually resulted in a war between Karabakh khanate and Agha Mohammad khan Qajar. After the death of the latter Qajars stopped trying to depose Javanshirs and made some sort of peace with them, acknowledging them as rulers of Karabakh in return to formal acceptance of Persian sovereignty, which did not last long. Soon Ibrahim khan signed a treaty with the Russian tsar and his khanate became of a vassal state to the Russian empire. The independence of the khanates in the Caucasus is supported by primary sources, such as 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. [12]

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.

I think we need to mention both aspects, i.e. Iran had no real control over many of the khanates, while some of them, especially those ruled by Qajars remained loyal to Iran. At the same time most khans formally accepted vassalage to Persia, but ruled independently, and Karabakh was one of such khanates. Iranian shahs had no real control over what the khan did, so it was practically an independent state. This situation came into being after the death of Nadir shah and lasted until the subjection of the region to Russian empire, which took advantage of the weakening of the influence of Iran in the region and filled the political vacuum. Grandmaster (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation as I am learning about this important era. I believe Dr. Alborz has the Persian of Bakikhanov. On Bakikhanov quote it seems to be a general picture although we know some of the Khanates were firmly royal (Erivan, Ganja).. We can quote Bakikhanov but intrepretation is different. I agree we need to mention the different sources. Alborz also has some primary sources as well. But we need to let the scholars intepret them. I believe some statements in some sources contradict other sources. For example note how Tapper/Iranica mention the relationship of Fath' Ali Shah Qajar and Ibrahim Khalil Khan, or the relationship of Panah Khan to Zands. Or note Conrell mentions semi-independence and how these Khans were involved in Iranian politics and domain. Many of the factors used to assess independence (minting coins, fighting with the central government, having relationship with foreign delegates) holds true for some of the local Khanates/Khans of modern Iran proper. Independent policy is different than independent state. There are good amount of European maps from the era, and if these portions were not considered part of Persia, they would be highlighted as outside of Persia. So I agree autonomous/independent policy in many aspects, but they were not independent. Also there is the question of continuity from 1747 to 1805, where-as Cambridge History of Iran, Tapper, Iranica and etc. say at different times, the Khans of Karabagh became subordinate, so that kind of makes the continuity theory invalid(only one source mentions it and that from 1747 to 1822 which is wrong anyway). The other issue is extent. If Ibrahim Khalil Khan was forced behind the walls of Shusha by Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar, then effectively Qajars held Qarabagh for some time of that duration. Anyhow as a first step I will compile all the sources, but keep in mind these two issues. Continuty and its break from 1747 to 1822. Note just the Cambridge quote from the same page: "Ibrahim Khan eventually decided to submit to Agha Muhammad Khan, to pay regular tribute and to surrender hostages". Okay so there were times the Khans submitted to Aqa Muhammad Khan and Fath' Ali Shah. The actual domain at different years is also important. At least when Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar visited, the Khan retreated behind the Shusha Walls. Later on he was assigned governoship by Fath' Ali Shah. So somehow we need to mention these things in detail. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this part you mention is also important: "acknowledging them as rulers of Karabakh in return to formal acceptance of Persian sovereignty, which did not last long.". But I believe the situation was actually slightly different. It was different Khans trying to gain power and the Qajars prevailed. So the question was not that of acceptance of "Persian sovereignty" but rather "Qajar sovereignty". As I said they were already part of the Perso-Azeri Shi'ite World and Panah Khan accepted Karim Khan zand just as later, Ibrahim Khalil Khan accepted Fath' Ali Shah Qajar. Even if these periods were brief, it means there was no continous 100% independence from 1747 to 1805. The country was in a civil war until Qajars began consolidating, but from international standpoint, all the maps show these areas as Persia. Or De-Facto as we said. The situation of Khans of Shirvan might very well differ. But it seems we can place the Qarabakh Khanate somewhere between the situation of the Khans of Shirvan at one hand and Khans of Erivan/Ganja on the other. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Independence in this case was rather de-facto, speaking in modern terms, as the region was at the time considered to be formally a part of Persia, which is why it was shown at contemporary maps as such. But the question is to what extent Persia had a control over the region? Clearly Persia did not have a strong hold of Caucasus after the death of Nadir shah, and the local rulers only nominally accepted the suzerainty of the shah, but Persia was unable to depose any khan in the region and they were all transferring power to their sons and other legitimate heirs. Of course, you are absolutely right, it was not so much about the acceptance of "Persian sovereignty" as much as it was about the acceptance of "Qajar sovereignty". But Qajar sovereignty in this case was equal to Persian sovereignty, so if Qajars had no control over a certain region, it was independent. The rivalry between Javanshir and Qajar clans had its own history, which was based on the fact that Karabakh was historically ruled by Qajars, who did not want to give the region away to khans of Javanshir tribe. That’s why Ibrahim khan did not want to accept Aga Mohammad as his sovereign and that’s why Aga Mohammad wanted to return Karabakh to the rulers of Ganja, who were also Qajars. Indeed, the region was completely independent for a few years until Aga Mohammad marched into Karabakh, and even after that the khan of Karabakh only formally accepted the Persian sovereignty and tried to get the Russian protection to remain independent from Persia (and Qajars). But Russia had its own plans and this did not work out. I think we need to collect all the available sources to present the complex situation in a neutral and objective manner, which is what we all want to do, so let’s continue working on this. I will present more primary sources soon. Grandmaster (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. The question of what extent there was centralization can be applied to Khanates in Iran proper who had their own army, coins and etc. Also there is slight difference between Qajar sovereignty and Persian sovereignty. Since Qajars had to deal with many Khans within modern Iran proper, but none of these Khans and their territory can be considered independent of the recognized territory. My definition of Independence versus autonomous has been given. I believe autonomous or fully autonomous is the key word and autonomous perhaps is equivalent to semi-independent as some sources have used. But independence for me is contradicted by the fact that all the maps from the era show the area as part of Persia (all the maps I have seen). Also agree that Ibrahim Khalil Khan fought against Aqa Mohammad Qajar, but he did swear allegiance to Fath' Ali Shah. His father , Panah Khan, sweared allegiance to Karim Khan. So they were fully autonomous, but we can not say independent. A user brought Abkhazia as an example and I didn't like it. So that is why I disagreed with comparison to say Abkhazia, since these clans, even if there was rivarly, where part of the same cultural world and part of Iran. This is mentioned by Cornell who is alleged to be even a pro-Azeri source: "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.". This can be seen by the primary source of Alborz where Mehdi Gholi Khan Javanshir is addressed as governor by Fath' Ali Shah. Anyhow, if autonomous and independent policy from central government are even okay by me, but independent by itself is not correct. None of the source except one invalid one claims continuous independence from 1746 to 1805. The invalid one, makes a big error, which makes it useless source. Anyhow I am going to add all the sources in the weekend and then folks can study it for a week or so. If no agreed wording come about, then we have to mention them all per wiki guidelines: "Semi-independent, autonomous, Indendepent, Vassals, Nominal Persian control and etc". I rather just say autonomous or highly autonomous or even perhaps fully autonomous and part of Qajar Persia as a compromise rather than go through the whole processs.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow! Just a few days of absence and how many comments!! Thanks all for the concern and also for discussion.
  Abbasgulu Bakikhanov’s Golestani Iram was originally in Persian, and although Bakikhanov may have a role in translating it to Russian, but still the original language is more reliable, either for his fluency in that language or because of the political reasons that may be involved for Bakikhanov and/or other translators to the Russian that was the language of the Bakikhanovs lords in the Russian army. In the Persian text , it is written as fallows :

Persian: از این مقدمه اغتشاش به همه ولایات ایران راه یافته دیار شیروان بیشتر از همه محل آشوب و اختلال و هریک از ممالک آن حکومتگاه امیری بر وجه استقلال گردید

"Because of this prelude , unrest accede to all of the Iranian provinces and the land of Shiravn ,more than other [provinces],became a place for chaos and turbulence , and any of it's states turned to the ruling-place of lords that ruled as an independent lord"
(That's the end sentence of the section 4 : I think that's the original section and that's different with the Russian text) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• More references : Tarikh-i Qarabagh, Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi , Two chronicles on the history of Karabagh:Mirza Jamal Javanshr's Tarikh-e Qarabaq and Mirza Adigozal Beg's Qarabag-Nameh/introduction and annotated by George A.Bournoutian.ISBN:1-56859-179-9.,Page 70 :

“

He (Panah Khan) acted humbly and send gifts and letters in which he declared his obedience to Adel Shah

”

Page 71 :

“

A trusted messenger of Emir Aslan Khan Sardar arrived in fortress of Bayat with Adel Shah's firman(decree) granting him (Panah Khan) the title of khan and appointing him the governor of Karabagh.(In addition, the Shah) sent a costly Khal'at , a horse with a gold-inlaid saddle , and a jeweled sword.

”

Golshan-e Morad , Mirza Mohammad Ghaffari Kashani , page 175 : Karim Khan's order to Panah Khan , to battle against Fath Ali Khan Afshar (of Urmiye).
Two chronicles on the history of Karabagh:Mirza Jamal Javanshr's Tarikh-e Qarabaq and Mirza Adigozal Beg's Qarabag-Nameh/introduction and annotated by George A.Bournoutian.ISBN:1-56859-179-9.,Page 83:

“

Karim Khan freed Ibrahim Khalil Aqa , who was imprisoned in Urmiye, and had him brought to him a horse,sword , khalat as well as the title of khan , and the authorithy to rule Karabagh was granted to him and he was sent with gifts and a retinue to Karabagh.

”

Rostam al-Tavarikh , Mohammad Hashem Asef , second edition , Sepehr pub. ,1348,Tehran , page 351 : Name of the four vali's, beglarbegi's and rulers of that time (Karim Khan):

“

Fattali Khan in Qoba is the great Beglarbegi and Panah Khan in shushi ....عالیجاه فتعلی خان در قبه بیگلربیگی با عظمت و جلال و مطاعیت بر همه بلاد آذربایجان داشته و همچنین عالیجاه مصطفی خان قراداغلو در قراداغ و فراباغ بیگلربیگی - عالیجاه مصطفی خان شیروانشاه خان چوپان در شهر شیروان بیگلربیگی - عالیجاه پناه خان جهانشیر در شهر شوشی بیگلربیگی

”

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those primary sources. I will incorporate them. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali Doostzadeh and Alborz Fallah, before you go on further with ignoring any references I present and calling anything written by you as primary, I shall remind that the introduction to the article does not say Karabakh was independent between specific dates. It clearly said de facto independent and de jure part of Persia. There is no evidence whatsoever that Karabakh khans have acted in a way of submission to unrecognized Shahs, apart from declarative statements. The fact that Karabakh khan felt free to fight with someone trying to claim Persian throne and felt free to sign a treaty with external power on the fate of his land, means he was independent. And in light of discussion, please, note that you're using George Bournoutian, which may not be a neutral reference in Azerbaijani context. Nevertheless, I am ready to discuss those references. Atabek (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Provided these, I am not sure what you're actually disputing apart from trying to misrepresent information against already 6 references to prominent books saying it was independent khanate. Also, I think to refresh the truthful information in references, the introduction will say those were Azerbaijani (or Azeri) khanates. Atabek (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said we shall reflect all the references (neither I or Alborz are ignoring anything, please do not accuse and lets have a friendly atmosphere) and some references have used: "dependent, semi-independent, autonomous (which is what I prefer), nominal control and etc". I don't think we are going to resolve the dispute since you believe independent while I believe in the word autonomous. The intro is OR in its current form, because "independent" is not maintained by any of your sources from 1746-1805 except one source which invalidates itself. So time span is also a key. Cambridge also mentions that Ganja Khanate as independent, but we know later on it was definitely a vassal of the Shah and the Khanate was loyal to the Qajar. So you can't take one time instance and extrapolate to the whoe duration between 1746-1805. Only one of your sources does this and that source invalidates itself by its wording. Yet that is the feeling the introduction gives that it is for the whole time span. If they were independent they would have been addressed as Shahs instead of governors. And we have discussed the issues. So the first step to make it NPOV is to collect all the sources as I am doing now. I will also incorporate your sources but will not exclude any sources. You can't ignore one part of Cambridge history for Iran (uses Vassal in the chapter of Fath' Ali Shah) for another (during the time of Aqa Mohammad Khan). Multiplicity of sources as you said. We will quote scholars and at the same time quote primary sources, without intrepreting them. Bourtounian is more than neutral as he is full Professor in a Western University plus he is translating a work. I have already excised two sources because you say they were not neutral. Usually I am making all the compromises. Unless you have the original Persian in an authenticated manuscript which shows Dr. Bourtounian's translation is wrong, then there is no reason for contention. I believe he even gives the original Persian in his book. On the other hand, since one of the sources mentions up to 1828, I think it is worth mentioning that source more fully, because it invalidates itself. I don't find that source acceptable just like you don't find Croissant acceptable. I don't find it acceptable because the authors got it wrong, not because of the background of the authors. So in reality we do not have any source that maintains continous independence between 1747 to 1805. On the Khanates, the intro already says ethnically Turkic, but we can also say they are considered Iranian/Persian Khanates based on geographical reasoning (and many sources use this) and what all european maps show as part of recognized territory. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note you ignored my proposition: I said I will accept the word autonomous (we can discuss adjective too like fully, party, mostly..) which represents a middle ground between independent and dependent. Else, we can't really ignore the many sources that call it nominal, semi-independent, semi-autonomous, and etc and exact wording should be used, so that the article does not look like exactly like the intro to Abkhazia, current Karabagh article and others. Since I have already explained the differences. So please think about this. Else for the intro we are forced to say its status as a political entity has been called Vassal, independent, semi-independent,..etc. (and use exact wording) and then we will write a section explaining all the sources. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are incorrect, the introduction says: "Defacto independent until 1805". Where-as none of the sources except one that invalidates itself claims this. We can either use the word autonomous (with an adjective) or we need to expand each source. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I added 1805 for clarification only because you were insisting it wasn't until 1822. If you want to remove until 1805, that's fine by me. If your objective is to remove the word independent altogether, that won't be appropriate, as there are already 6-7 references saying otherwise. As I said, we are not trying to rewrite history based on pan-views, but only based on references. Your proposition for autonomous is not acceptable because the references say "independent". The most neutral approach here is to say that Khans nominally (de-jure) acknowledged Persian sovereignty but were de fact independent. Don't you agree? I don't see how else the truth of references, that is, the letters and actions of Khans can be interpreted. And what do you mean by "semi-independent"? Semi- means half, can you count the percentage of how much independent a khanate was? Obviously no, so that's exactly why I use de jure/de facto words. Atabek (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek I see 5 references with independence, but only one reference really that says independent from 1747 to 1822! Anyhow, let me gather the sources and I will add your reference. It is just that the intro seems too close to Abkhazia and NagornoKarabagh. We need to mention they were involved in Iranian Affairs, sometimes accepted the Shahs and etc. I mean to have an introduction which is similar to separatism in Abkhazia/Karabagh is really not correct. Also semi-independent was not made up by me, it is scholarly and was used by some of my sources. Semi-independent is what I intrepret as fully autonomous and I do not need to delve and explain it, since it is in few sources also. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, again, there are 5 references (I will add more), using the word independent. I am not sure what you mean again by "from 1747 to 1822", as I am not sure what exactly are you arguing against in general in introduction, because the article nowhere says it was independent from 1747 to 1822. Semi-independent as a referenced term does not as clearly explain the status, as does de facto independent nominally part of Persia, which is what those khanates were. Also, please, note that there are tons of references in my avail in Russian, which say that Karabakh khanate was a) Azerbaijani, b) independent. But I am not using those references for neutrality purposes. This is just a note provided the sources you relied on mostly so far are Persian, not that I object, but just to note. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we need neutral sources ( which is mainly western sources). The article claims continous independence from 1747 to 1805 which I believe contradicts some other sources (Tapper, Iranica) and other sources which use specifically "autonomous" and "semi-independence". For example the allegiances we have mentioned are important. Again it sounds too similar to Abkhazia/Karabagh, giving it almost a separatist feeling where-as we know they were involved in Iran. I didn't rely on any Persian sources, just primary sources from that era that was written mainly by Azeris in Persian.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also by mistake hopefully, you removed the texts from Tapper. Also please check the stub on my page with this regard. I hope to gather all the sources so good intro is reached. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The stub contains almost all of the information brought from both sides. I will leave it in my page for it to be studied for good amount of time or so (several weeks) and perhaps incorporate the view of other side with exact wording. If not then I will probably write a NPOV section containing all the information gathered there-in. Till sources like Altsdat and Cornell and Tapper and other parts of Cambridge history of Iran are incorporated, then I reserve the option of keeping the tag. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek also check your E-mail since proposal might sometimes not work in the talkpage. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well ,if I used "George Bournoutian"; he was translating Mirza Jamal Javanshr's text and Mirza Adigozal Beg's ,which themselves were more than enough pro-tribal(Javanshir) and pro-Russian(Adigozal Beg)! If you mean "Bournoutian" is not translating the text correctly , I would be glad to know where in the text is he doing wrong?
  About the terms "De facto" and "De jure" ,I have to mention the fact that "Independency" is different in meaning with "tobe De jure independent"; when you yourself admit the fact that the Khanates were de-facto dependent , it shows the absolute term "Independent" can not be used here. Besides, not all of the Khanates were as powerful as the Ibrahim Khan and/or if they were, they were not so motivated to show their tendency to become independent.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• To add more evidence,let me quote some other facts from Mirza Jamal Javanshr:

“

He (Fath Ali Shah) gave the governorship of Qaradagh with all it's income to Ibrahim Khan.(page 113)

”

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the book of Ahmad Beg Javanshir, (Published in Baku 1961 :Ahmedbek Dzhavanshir , O Politicheskom sushchest vovanii Karabakhskogo khanstva , Page 92-93 )he says that the Persian party in Karabagh led by Mirza Ali Beg , Fazel Beg , and others urged Ibrahim khan to follow the example of Shakki and acknowledge Fath Ali Shah. Silver coins bearing the name of the shah , were then struck in Shushi. (In the previous talk that we had about the minting of coins [13], it was considered significant by your side to mint coins)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Alborz Jan, I will add these as well. The silver coin minting by itself is definitely fresh information. I have also e-mailed Atabek and will await his response. Alborz is interested in these topics and I am somewhat. Somehow though I get the distinct feeling anything related to Karabakh has modern political implications or else there would be not too many issues after all these sources. Since I consider some Iran related articles more important than others (for example say Safavids)I am just creating a list of sources on the topic: [14]. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I see Persian text of Bakikhanov is not much different from Russian. It says that khans "ruled as an independent lords". Grandmaster (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is slightly different.I think both me and the original translator(mybe Bakikhanov himself) could not show the difference in sense of the text . The stress of the sentence is on the word " Vajeh" (وجه) that means "alike " or "resemble" ...the sense of the sentence is that choas was so much that every local ruler ruled as he was independent ...
A-هریک از ممالک آن حکومتگاه امیری بر وجه استقلال گردید
B-هریک از ممالک آن حکومتگاه امیر مستقلی گردید
Sentence A (the Bakikhanov's sentence) meaning is different with B . If he wanted to say "and any of it's states turned to the ruling-place of independent lords" , he would use B, but he says "and any of it's states turned to the ruling-place of lords that ruled as an independent lord"...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they ruled like independent lords, they were independent, weren't they? Grandmaster (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They did ruled like independent lords at times when the central government was weak (intermittently) , but over all , when we use such a sentence , that means "they resembled it ;but they were not actually independent " , same as when we say "he was as cold as ice" ; that does not means his body temperature was zero degree Celsius!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed unreferenced tag from History section, as there are plenty of references provided for text in that section. This tag is an unnecessary and clutters the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)