Talk:Western Azerbaijan (political concept)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Armenia  
WikiProject icon Western Azerbaijan (political concept) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Azerbaijan  
WikiProject icon 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 project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deleting 90% of the article?[edit]

Marshall, if you don't like the article it shouldn't mean you can do whatever you want to it. As far as I can see, the article is well sourced. If you doubt the sources, ask the editor(s) who created the article for more sources, wherever citation is needed. But to delete large chunks of text just because you don't feel it should be there is not acceptable. Try to be more considerate in the future. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] this was a vandalist edit by MarshallBagramyan, he should be reported to admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please maintain a tone of civility and WP:AGF Tuscumbia and please do not make empty accusations. I did not make my edit for the simplistic reason that I don't "like" it. The question is not about the sourcing but the purpose which this article serves. "Western Azerbaijan" has never been a legitimate geographical term to describe this region - the name of this region has always been Armenia/Persian Armenia/Eastern Armenia/Russian Armenia, whether it referred to a specific kingdom or a general geographical term. Western Azerbaijan is simply an irredentist ideology propagated only in Azerbaijan and which seeks to usurp an entire region by claiming it as its own. The sources themselves speak nothing about the legitimacy of the term - they only speak about populations and show that it is widely used in Azerbaijan. Can anyone show a single third-party source written by a reliable historian which states that this was a common term used to describe the region?

The reason I removed most of the information is, as I noted in my edit summary, it all duplicated in the Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia article; and, in which case that it is not present, can be added there, not here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I complete agree with Marshall, this is indeed irrendestic term and ambition of Azerbaijan. This area never existed under such name and ofcourse its been coined to claim those lands. Only ultranationalist people in Azerbaijan might use this term. All the information about it is completely useless and irrelevan e.g. such as population of Zangezur on one given date, besides it was split off from Russian provine not ADR, or the fact that there aren't Azeris in Armenia is due to NK war, and same applies to the opposite side. Not to mention that they never had independent state on those lands so how can it have a name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, nobody said it was a geographical term. It is rather something equalling to the concept of Greater Armenia or Western Armenia. If you feel Western Azerbaijan is an irredentist term, you should feel free to add the term to the aforementioned articles as well. The reason for usage of the term in Azerbaijan is due to historic presence of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Armenia, both as population and as Azerbaijani Turkic nation states. Therefore, the historical background to the term is quite OK with the article, just like the expanded article Greater Armenia (political concept) parts of which have been incorporated from other articles. I hope this makes sense. Awaiting your response.
PS: And please, whoever this sockpuppet IP is (clearly being coordinated to jump in this article talk page), keep yourself updated. Not all Azerbaijanis were deported due to Nagorno Karabakh War. Two hundred thousands Azerbaijanis were relocated by Stalin in 1940's-1950's to create living space for Armenians from diaspora. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Western Armenia is a reality, the article states that it is same as Byzantine Armenia, Turkish Armenia, Ottoman Armenia ( historical regions during different periods ) and was coined when the Greater Armenia and/or Armenian Higland was divided between Ottoman (West) and Persian Empires (East). But Azerbaijan never having an independent state could not be divided into different parts and of them being on Armenian Highland. The territory of Armenia could be referred by Azerbaijani as Western Azerbaijan only because of their territory claims. Or why isnt Nakchivan part of Western Azerbaijan ? Ofcourse because it is already part of the Azerbaijani Republic. The presence of current Azerbaijani can securely be date to only the period when Shah Abbas resettled Armenians to Persia and Iranian Azeris moved to the region from that period onwards. And lastly, this term is a completely modern term created by current propaganda that exists in Azerbaijan inlcluding their president who everytime says that Armenia is ancient Azerbaijani land, however no historian would ever agree to that. Or you want to claim that in Soviet and Pre-Soviet times that land was reffered to Western Azerbaijan ? Ofcourse not. And I have no relation, contact or whatsover with Marshall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Greater Armenia was a legitimate geographic and historical term going back to over 2000 years and was used by numerous peoples. In Armenian, it referred to the kingdoms of ancient antiquity (Mets Hayk); it was picked in Greek and was referred to as Megas Armenios and in Latin it was referred to as Armenia Major. Western Armenia, as a geographical term, was first put into circulation by the Roman Empire and was more prominently used during the Ottoman-Safavid wars in the 16th century and was largely in use until 1923. This is the basis behind the history of the Greater Armenia (political concept) article, which is nevertheless implied as an irredentist ideology. No such precedent exists for the term "Western Azerbaijan" and that is why it is described in the article as an irredentist move. Furthermore, since there was no real Azerbaijani state until 1918, it is disingenuous to speak of all the Muslims who once lived there as a part of Azerbaijan's history.
There is no need for this article to speak about the presence of Azeris in Armenia because, for the third time, it is/can all be mentioned here: Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia. There is no good case to prefer this article over the " Armenia" one.
And, again, please mind AGF and respect the IP by not being so quick to label him a sockpuppet.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Greater Armenia is a term coined by the Armenians, not Romans, due to the same political concept that is lived up by Armenians today. The difference is that in the past there have been Armenian states on some of those territories, today there are none except for Armenia itself. The concept of Western Azerbaijan dates to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and is fairly new. But, that's not the point I am making. The point is that if you are deleting 90% of the article claiming it's the repetition of some text from Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia, then why don't you delete large chunks from Greater Armenia (political concept)? After all, it's the repetition of text from History of Armenia and Western Armenia articles. And, yes (!), there have been Azerbaijani states before 1918. Not having a title "Azerbaijan" in them does not mean they weren't Azerbaijani Turkic or their population was not Azerbaijani Turks.
I am assuming good faith; don't you worry. The IP is clearly a sockpuppet, operated by someone somewhere. Showing a different IP in an attempt to distinguish himself from the previous socks in the past does not justify the ban-evading actions. An IP was sleeping and all of a sudden decided to contribute in Wikipedia and where should he start first? The talk page of Western Azerbaijan article. What a coincidence :) Tuscumbia (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, to remove the entire content of article, there is a procedure described Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. I think that would be more appropriate than your repeated reverts to remove the entire sourced content with dozens of references, which may be viewed as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why do we not add political concept to the article so that the reader may know that this is simply an irredentist ideology propagated solely in Azerbaijan? The fact that my edits stating this were removed wholesale implies that there is a reluctance to admit or concede to as much. The history section, as it stands, suffers from deep flaws and the problem itself is characteristic of problems found in other related articles. Of course none of these pre-1918 states cannot be termed Azerbaijani because the nationality itself was formulated during the first quarter of the 20th century.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia instead of showing your rude attitude and poor logic you could have been more polite or constructive to your own work. How does the term date to ADR ? And there hasn't been any Azerbaijani states in the region or on the Armenian territory. Caucasian Albania is more related with Armenia and at most only Eastern parts of Albania could have assimilated into Azerbaijani in the future ( east of Kura ) and certainly they were not turks prior to that. And they didnt have control over current Armenian territories. I hope you won't claim Ak-Koyunlu as Azerbaijani state as they were various turkic tribes and labelling them as Azeri would be wrong,. Byzantine Empire had some Armenian emperors but it does not become an Armenian Empire. Besides Armenians always live on the territory of Greater Armenia for over 2000 years(hence the name Armenian Highland) and only due to events of the beggining of 20th century such as the Genocide, most Armenians were killed and remaining deported, many of whom died, therefore the region was almost completely emptied of Armenians by direct policy of the Ottoman government. I always used to read some articles about Armenia, Karabakh and regional issues concerning the two, but never had time to register or make any posts. First of all like Marshall mentioned, the reader should find out what Western Azerbaijan means and he correctly said that "this is simply an irredentist ideology propagated solely in Azerbaijan". Information provided here such as population of Zangezur in 1888 or whatsoever is completely irrelevant, since in 1920s the demographics were quite different and at the end Armenian SSR only got about 60% of Zangezur. What does information about the number of Azeris currently living in Armenia has to do with article is also a question. The whole description has irrelevant to the name of the article, Soviet deportations, or Armenian-Tatar massacres, or the Events of Karabakh War are not related to the ultra-nationalist term of "Western Azerbaijan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Leon

Well the article does not really assert that these territories are Western Azerbaijan. It only demonstrates the conceptual approach by Azerbaijanis, especially by those who were forced out or ethnically cleansed from the said territory during 20th century. I think it is important that the concept is reflected in encyclopedia article, firstly, because there is a multitude of references on Armenian resettlement into predominantly Muslim Karabakh and Erivan khanate areas after the Russian conquest in 19th century. Secondly, because similar articles exist in regards to other nations, for example Greater Serbia, Greater Armenia (political concept), Greater Albania, etc. Atabəy (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Splendid. Can we then slightly rename this article and attach "political concept" at the end and explicitly state that this is a political ideology found solely in Azerbaijan? I have no problem with stating that the basis for this ideology is hinged on the fact that Muslims once formed a majority here prior to the Russian conquest but the level of detail included here, as the IP mentioned quite correctly, is unnecessary. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two; any other relevant pieces of information can be directed to the "Azeris in Armenia" article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind attaching "political concept" at the end of the title. Yes, Azerbaijanis regard the territory of present day Armenia as western parts of Greater Azerbaijan. However, there is no need to trim anything down. If the article gets the title of a political concept, it is clear to the reader that it's a political concept based on the historical and demographic backgrounds which should be integral parts of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[2] second case of vandalism by MarshallBagramyan against this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
the article is about the geographical location of western azerbaijan, that should include the history of azerbaijanis in modern armenia, and their deportations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
also an investigation should be launched on the ip user: who is a sucketpuppet of MarshallBagramyan. how funny he "suddenly" starts to contribute on this article at the same time as MarshallBagramyan started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Greater Serbia, there has been such a state if I am not mistaken and besides the page states there that it is an irrendentist ideology, same goes to Albania's page - "The term Greater Albania[1] or Ethnic Albania as called by the Albanian nationalists themselves", as far as I know there was never such state, and same applied in your case, but nevertheless you already have a page on Whole_Azerbaijan, if that is divided in few parts ( e.g. West being Armenia, South being Iran, North being Russian and Georgian territories ) then maybe you should add it to that page IMHO, but I think it is already written there in description just without mentioning the direction(NESW). As you colleague Tuscumbia mentioned, its not geographical or historical concept, so it is a political ideology then I can't see how you could expand the article further. In regards to IP 145.93 etc, the old proverb says, that if you are blaming someone, in particular case me being a sockpuppet, then its more likely that you are actually the one who carries such action and trying to blame someone else to look innocent.I hope that made sense. I randomly found this article and I thought that its not well made and is useless, same goes to Roman Azerbaijan, I would have to contribute to that page as well probably.-- (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Leon

Assuming that we all agree that this article is about a political concept, rather than any real geographical term, the above IP makes an excellent point in not duplicating information which is already found elsewhere. We already have the Whole Azerbaijan article, we already have the Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia, and so adding further historical information on this article seems only to belabor the point. A paragraph providing context may be permissible in this instance but adding large chunks of material fails to provide to the reader a concise summary of the subject. If I were a reader, I would find it much more convenient to be directed to an article which greater detail, rather than go from one article to another, reading the exact same thing that has been copy and pasted on the previous articles over and over again.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. Adding "political concept" is fine. Deleting important information from the article is not acceptable. As mentioned earlier, the supplementary information provides background to the concept. When you delete same amount of text in Greater Armenia (political concept), which also has unnecessary text found in other articles, I would see your good faith intention to find it convenient to be directed. Until then, please do not attempt until all reach consensus. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison is invalid. The difference between the two here is that "Azerbaijan" is essentially an ambiguous concept. Prior to 1918, there had never been any Azerbaijani states. The Muslim rulers and the people living in the khanates did not view themselves as Azeris but identified themselves by their creed or denomination or some other factor. The information here is a just a mishmash of information and original research. We can say that Muslims once formed a majority in the lands comprising the Yerevan Khanate and such but anything beyond this is overarching the scope of the article. If this impasse continues, I will ask for a third opinion, which will better guide us in the improvement of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, not having the name in a title of a state does not mean the states were not Azerbaijani. The states and majority of their population were Azerbaijani Turks. Same applies to the present day Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is not only Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of 1918-1920. It is a vast geographic region, to which this article refers. So, your argument about ambuigity is invalid. Muslim rulers you're referring to identified themselves as Azerbaijani Turks and most kept their state documentation in Azerbaijani Turkic because their states were located on geographical region of Azerbaijan. This article is in parallel to Greater Armenia (political concept) so should be kept in the same format. Please do ask for third opinion. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been searching on google some informations and was sent here. Western Azerbaijan? What is this, who is in charge of reviewing articles? From when the West of the republic of Azerbaijan is Armenia? Who would compare Greater Armenia a term which no one will be mislead by and included in historic geography maps along with all the other historic nations with the term Greater written on the left? Not seing anything wrong with the terms Western Azerbaijan would be like claiming nothing is wrong with calling Nothern United States of America for a region of Canada, regardless of the fact that both historically were build by British colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talkcontribs) 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers, your argument is invalid since nobody refers a region of Canada as "Northern United States of America". However, the term Western Azerbaijan is widely used in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The term is existing! and I agree with the aforementioned thoughts that it's the same concept such as "Greater Armenia", "Greater Serbia" etc. --KHE'O (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

YOU think my argument is invalid, but that is your opinion. It does not matter what many believe in Azerbaijan since for most people in the world, Western Azerbaijan is the West of the republic of Azerbaijan. You can think otherwise but google scholar, google book like every single country in the world recognize that Western Azerbaijan is Western Azerbaijan (of the republic). You can go on by comparing this with the word Greater which by itself is a historic term (and everyone which reads it understand), but that is your opinion and even if for you it might sound valid, for the independent observer it sound as inherently stupid. Magotteers (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, more people refers to Canada as the 51sth state of the US than Armenia to Western Azerbaijan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talkcontribs) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's rather funny how you say "...since for most people in the world, Western Azerbaijan is the West of the republic of Azerbaijan". Well, for most people in the world, Karabakh is an integral part of Azerbaijan and Armenian forces have occupied sovereign territory of a neighboring state, but yet you don't seem to be debating on Nagorno Karabakh Republic page about the opinions of "most people in the world". The term Western Azerbaijan has already been explained numerous times. The western part of Azerbaijan Republic covering regions from Qazakh in the north to Zangelan in the south as well as Nakhichevan exclave are western regions. Western Azerbaijan in capitals is the term used in Azerbaijan and Turkey referring to present day Armenia. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

--Find it funny if it pleases you, but it does not matter that all the analogy that have been found here are nonesense. NKR has no confronting definition like Western Azerbaijan. Any search on google scholar, google book or anywhere else for Western Azerbaijan yield the same result. You can fight to force your view of the world to the majority, but all it will do is some wave from your drop of water. Search Western Armenia on google book and elsewhere and compare it, if it pleases you add political concept, but a simple search will show you that your analogy is far from making any sense.

The content of the article proves my point as every bit of it is controversial and making it uncontroversial also means that the existance of the article would have no purpous.

  • Prior to the Azerbaijani khanates, to be changed with either Iranian Khanates or the Khanates of the Caucasus.
  • De facto self-rule Azerbaijan Khanate also.
  • According to Azervaijanis has here no relevant information to provide.
  • Zangezur province of, neither the republic of Armenia nor the ADR had recognized borders and both incorporated Zangezur in their maps.

Deportations, this section has no purpous in this article other than trying to allude that Western Azerbaijan was depopulated from its population to make place for an Armenia. The 1905-07 text is so idiotically crafted that it alone discredit the author of the article.

The section on demographics throws number à la Azerbaijan. Muslim majority of the area was gradually replaced by migrating Armenians. An estimated 57,000 Armenian refugees from Persia settled on the territory of former Karabakh and Erivan khanates after 1828, while about 35,000 Muslims (Azeris, Kurds, Lezgis, etc.) out total population of over 100,000 left the region[12]. Such migrations, albeit on a lesser scale, continued until the end of the 19th century[12][13]. While the territory of Erivan khanate had a notable Muslim majority in 1826, the situation had been reversed under Russian rule by 1832[14]. Those sections cofirm the reason why there was such a section as deportation, add to deportation the game of numbers, it explains that this article become only relevant when we say that there was a Western Azerbaijan, and that with deportation and Armenian immigration it was crafted to become Armenia. The Cambridge history of Iran for one makes sense and provide a context to the game of numbers: Griboedov not only extended protection to those Caucasian captives who sought to go home but actively promoted the return of even those who did not volunteer. Large numbers of Georgian and Armenian captives had lived in Iran since 1804 or as far back as 1795. You can find that quote in The Cambridge History of Iran by William Bayne Fisher, Peter Avery, Ilya Gershevitch, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville, Cambridge University Press, 1991 p. 339. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talkcontribs) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The arguments you're debating on have been discussed in other articles already and as much as you want to consume the Armenian propoganda, those sections clearly describe the history behind the populating these territories and the fact that mass relocations of Armenian into and Azerbaijani Turks from the present day Armenia and Karabakh region of present day Azerbaijan is uncontested. Again, this had been discussed with plenty of resources and you might want to do your research on the talk pages first. The discussion here is whether these sections should be a part of the political concept article and the common sense says it should as much as the repetitive (from other articles) sections within Greater Armenia (political concept) article will remain. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

-I am consuming no ones propaganda, did you read what I have written above because you still bring the same argument which I have shown to be inherently stupid. It would take few seconds to type Western Azerbaijan on google book and elsewhere and Greater or Western Armenia. Do this and compare it with the results you'd obtain by searching Western Azerbaijan. The next time you claim it is comparable I will post the results here, but I am sure you can type words and press search. Also, there was no such thing as an Armenian relocation in the region constituting present day NK. To the contrary, Russia removed hundreds of families from the Khanate of Karabakh. Russia's attempt to replace the Catholicos of Echmiadzin and the offer to resettle Ganjevi Armenians in Georgia could be interpreted in that light, as could the removal of 250 Armenian families from Qarabagh by a Russian detachment shortly after the fall of Ganjeh. Check Russia & Iran 1780-1828 CB, by Muriel Atkin, University of Minnesota Press (1980) p. 85. That there was any mass relocation is your claim, but you should be able to find works of the same notability as the Cambridge history of Iran, which claims the return of the Armenian captives to sustain your politically motivated claims. Until you do that, for 99% of the world Western Azerbaijan refers to the West of the republic of Azerbaijan. Magotteers (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend my time to convince you of the history of relocations. It would be easy for you to search for relocation of Armenians in google and you'll get all the hits you want. The discussion is whether to include the sections or remove them. As historical background to the political concept, they should stay. 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Google? Google gives indescriminate results, and anyone can use works without having any contexts, contexts such as those given by the Cambdridge History of Iran. Historical background to explain the claimed massive relocation; read my description of the sections, the article sections are either innacurate or out of context, fixing it and fixing the problem of the title would render the article totally useless. Magotteers (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me but whether you specifically think it's useless does not make it useless. This is an encyclopedia and the term Western Azerbaijan is added as any other term which is used in Azerbaijan and Turkey. What Marshall has proposed is fine since this is a political concept used by Azerbaijanis but for every concept there is a background, and to cite the specific example I already gave you an example: Greater Armenia (political concept). Period Tuscumbia (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't excuse you, I will show when I start editing the article by making the relevant changes that this article regardless of the name change proposal another user have found will serve no purpous at all. Magotteers (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead, provided all sources are reliable. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most people in the world know nothing about Karabakh conflict, war and so on and even more people don't care about it, this ofcourse does not make the region Azeri, what makes it Azeri under the law, is the fact that it was put in AzSSR by Soviet authorities (disregarding the absolute majority Armenian population). But we are not discussing this at the moment. You mentioned many times that it is only a term that is used by Azerbaijani in Azerbaijan and thats about it. There is no way you can expand the article. Because the term "Western Azerbaijan" does not have history or geographical meaning, and it was never called so, it precisely refers to the territory of current republic of Armenia by Azeri nationalists. So why is there so much of useless information provided here if it is only needed to explain what the term means, where it is used and how it was coined. Taking the above into consideration, I must assume that is was called so during/after the NK war, since it is the most logical, also knowing how massive is current Azeri propaganda against the Armenians etc. During WW1 there were not established states so they could not refer to any area as western azerbaijan because even Armenia was not defined. Certainly I would not believe that in Soviet Union people would refer to Armenia as Western Azerbaijan, it is absurd. Greater Armenia is called so by many historians and so on. However this example - "The region is referred to by some as South Azerbaijan or Southern Azerbaijan[2][3], however some scholars and sources view these terms as being irredentist and politically motivated" proves that these concepts are solely irrendentist and political.-- (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Leon

Dear Magotteers and Leon, first of all, Magotteers, plz be patient and don't use rude words for the author. Don't you think that it's a result of the Armenian propaganda which you can find much more info on the Internet about Greater Armenia (political concept) rather than Western Azerbaijan or Whole Azerbaijan?! Leon, the term itself is explained and the rest info has a descriptive background role. Moreover, it's well sourced. If you don't like how the term sounds, it's your problem. But I don't see any reason to remove the content.--KHE'O (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can throw speculations all you want, those are your speculations. But I will be neutralizing this article with the relevant sources like those I have presented above and be removing anything which is not sourced. Also, the claim of Azerbaijani Khanate has to be removed, since those were either Iranian Khanates or the Khanates of the Caucasus, that most sources name it that can be Iranian or world propaganda for you but that does not matter. Magotteers (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Magotteers, you continue on removing the content and I am going to add some more relevant sources on it. It's already fully neutralized article, so no need to any extra effort, my friend. --KHE'O (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. Magotteers (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kheo. The page is very well written with good sources.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The contrary would have surprised me, you wrote Robert Hewsen is of Armenian heritage which means his research is doubtful. Hewsen the known undisputable authority of the history of the region. Magotteers (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Listen my friend, I don't have any problems if you hate me for telling the truth that is your problem you perfectly realize how absurd this term is. I already explained enough that the term is solely political, unfortunately this article does not say that. It does not say why people call it in this particular way, maybe because they have problems with Armenia and they don't like their people, certainly it is the result of the NK war. It also does not say when the term became widely used,(because you don't know yourself and/or it is a modern propagandistic term with its political aim/goals) again this proves my previously mentioned points. Those various turkic tribes probably could have been Kyrgyz as well and they could have owned Van Region as well, but today its not reffered to Western Azerbaijan. Don't want to sound rude but this is just collection of useless information that is completely irrelevant to the name of this page.Or what does "now there is no single Azeri in Armenia supposed mean"? It is not true,there are very few, but in anyway it is again not related to this topic.-- (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Leon

I fixed several problems with the article. The article is the product of some irrelevant informations put together. It says nothing about the Western Azerbaijan concept..., it talks about population transfers, some Turkic presence in the region, also demographics under the Khanates. Am I the only one who does not see how those pieces put together make sense as a Western Azerbaijan Magotteers (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers, plz don't remove sourced information from the content! I am pleased with your most edits, but I am going to put that previous sourced data back. I mean the sentences from the "Golos Armenii" newspaper.--KHE'O (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I add the death of George Washington in this article, of yeah, because it has nothing to do with it; But I've got plenty of sources. Golos Armenii sentence was disconnected, maybe you can tell us the purpous. And maybe you can tell us where in the article, the term Western Azerbaijan is covered, the origine of the term, its history. We may just as well retitle the article for The history of Azeri and other Turkic people of Armenia. But there already is an article about that.Magotteers (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand in English? it's a term, and the rest information is the background for the term! You can put whatever you want even the death of George Washington, but plz respect the rules of Wikipedia and obey them. A removal of sourced content is absurd. and what you did in the beginning by deleting almost all the content is even more absurd! Don't make me to report you otherwise plz..--KHE'O (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Given the quality of the text of the current article, I'd believe you'd be the last one here commenting someones else English. You can put whatever you want even the death of George Washington How nice, can I add the capture of Stalingrad, the H1N1 pandemic in the article? the rest information is the background for the term! What background? Please show me anything about that ultranationalistic and irredentalist concept in the article? The article covers the Turkic presence in Armenia, but there already is an article about just that. Show me what is in this article which is not in the other. It is a duplicate! Magotteers (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The maps are also irrelevant, especially the Treaty of Sevres, it does not give to Republic of Azerbaijan any lands so why is it here?-- (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The person who uploaded the picture excluded the legend, probably to make the viewer believe that the borders in blue epresent the Armenian borders according to Sèvres, when they represent the borders allowed to Armenian from the Ottoman lands and excludes the Eastern borders. Magotteers (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the map include parts of Yerevan (where the seat of the Armenian government was based from 1918-1920), Lake Sevan and other parts of the former Yerevan guberniia as a part of Azerbaijan. There's a better map of Wilsonian Armenia provided by Robert Hewsen in Richard G. Hovannisian's The Republic of Armenia, Vol. IV: Between Crescent and Sickle - Partition and Sovietization (Berkeley, 1996), p. 41. We also need some proper third party sources on the specific origin and usage of this term. The history section is secondary. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers, I think you're adding unreliable sources to back up your claims and reverting properly deleted information. First off, Shnirelman is pretty famous for taking an anti-Azerbaijani position in his writings, secondly, the source doesn't even support the statement you added. There is no indication about the word irredentism. Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity. I don't think Azerbaijan as a state has laid claims to current state of Armenia. The only statement quoted was by President Aliyev which was in reference to historical presence of Azerbaijanis in Armenia who were expelled in big numbers throughout the history. Please see the discussion on comparison with article Greater Armenia (political concept) above. If you add the same statements in that article, I would see your genuine intent to come to consensus. Otherwise, you're just edit-warring. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani khanates[edit]

Magotteers, the source ([3]) clearly says the khanates were Azerbaijani and the line in the article clearly says Caucasian khanates or the northern Azerbaijani khanates which is a sufficient compromise on part of the editor. I'm not really understanding why you are trying to diminish or get rid of the fact that these khanates were Azerbaijani. And deportations is the proper term to be used since those were state sponsored movements of ethnic Azerbaijanis and relocation of Persian and Ottoman Armenians in their places, planning initiated and/or assisted by ethnic Armenians Lazarev and Mikoyan. With your logic, should we also consider deportation of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey from Eastern Anatolia to Middle East as population movement? You're taking it to another level with continuous edit-warring. If you keep doing it, you will be reported. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a compromise. How can you call it that, when one side allow the existance of a duplicate article of Azeri and Turkic people of Armenia with a different name and besides its intro, it says nothing about the claimed subject it is supposed to discuss about. I can find more sources calling it a Persian Khanate (eg. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Sources also exist for Iranian Khanates, including written by Turks, eg. 1, "Iranian+Khanates" 2, etc. Besides, historically speaking the term Azerbaijan in that context had nothing to do with the current identity called Azerbaijani which is used as an ethnic identity rather than a qualifier of a geographic region within Iran. For that alone it should be sufficient to remove it on sight for any articles written for the general public since it requires a knowledge which generally they do not pocess.

Deportation is not a proper term, how is the ethnic clash of 1905-07 a deportation, there was no Armenian government then to start with, the claim of more than 200,000 Azeri being deported made by Van der Leeuw can't be backed by any statistical data (not to say that he is overtly an advocate of the Azeri cause), that's more than the entire recorded Azeri population of Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talkcontribs) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a compromise. Make an extra effort and type Azerbaijani khanates in google search and you'll come up with the Google Books results sufficient to determine that these khanates were Azerbaijani. The population was Azerbaijani Turks. They were independent and semi-independent depending on their agreements and treaties with Russian and Iran. The term deported is the correct term and I have already provided an explanation above. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Checking a wording in google book to support what à priori you support is sherry picking, comparaison is not (like the one I have done by searching different words). There are works which calls it Persian Khanates, Iranian Khanates. So leaving off any qualifier is the most sound thing to do. Also, Azerbaijani in the historic sense of the term has no ethnic meaning contrary to the modern definition of the word. It simply means that it was during the hight of the Iranian Empire, its Azerbaijan, derived from its province Azerbaijan. While it might sound relevant to use Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani for those initiated with the history of the region, that's not acceptable in a publication open to the public, a public who only know as Azerbaijani the modern identity of the Azeri Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talkcontribs) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers, I put that "Azerbaijani khanates" term back in the article and tried to make more compromise on that sentence. I want you to inform that the source is from the Cambridge University Press. Moreover, the author of the work is an American-Polish professor and Caucasologist. I warn you last time! If you continue on removing my sourced content I will report you..--KHE'O (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magoteers, you create disruption everywhere. He rudely dismisses all third party sources! Kheo, please report him!  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a serious accusation you have here, an argumentum ad personam at its best. Unless you have anything concerning the article itself, don't add any more unfounded accusations against me. Kheo17, I did not remove it because it was unsourced, I removed it because it is sherry picking and that we can also add and source Persian and Iranian Khanate and that Azerbaijani in those sources have little or nothing to do with what we entend as Azerbaijani in the modern sense. There is a semantic change, a definition drift to the point that several authors need to add when treating the history of the region that the Azerbaijan they are refering to has not the same meaning as the modern term. Also, I'd like you to go further by actually reporting me and I will express how the article is basically a duplicate of an existing article which only difference is an intro and the title. Also to add, that you have included a map for instance, that the legend was removed and passed by you as something which original author did not intend. I was even reverted by you guys for simply clarifying that. Magotteers (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you move the article to ideological concept. This is not an ideological concept. It is a political concept and this has already been discussed. Again, it is not a duplicate. This article is as much an article as Greater Armenia (political concept) article the text in which has been duplicated from other Armenia-related articles. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A political concept may also be ideological, since it is beyond the scope of simply being political... I replaced it for ideological. The article is a duplicate... besides its intro, 100% is a duplicate from another article. As for Greater Armenia (political concept), if you have a problem with it, bring it there not here. Magotteers (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers, I did not put the map of the region after the Serves Treaty. However, the other three maps are mine. I find that map useless as well, so I am going to remove it from there. What concerns the khanates, you can find considerable number of sources arguing the existence of the Azerbaijani khanates in the modern Azerbaijani and Armenian territory. I did not report anybody here yet, but somebody already reported me!--KHE'O (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above again! Magotteers (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Bagramyan, even Democratic Republic of Armenia's map was not recognized by the Allied Powers. Neither Wilsonian Armenia nor the Greater Armenia. It doesn't give you the right to remove the map of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheo17 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Armenia's western borders were properly delineated by the United States but the eastern borders had yet to be delineated. If we all accept this to be true, then we cannot present that map as if it presents borders which were internationally recognized. You are distorting the material and inserting point of view where none exists.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, ADR was never recognised withing those borders. If ADR claimed those lands it does not mean that they belong to them. They did not have control over that territory so how can it be "split" from them, infact most of the time Armenian forces had control over those lands and more. But like Marshall mentioned there were no set borders between those new republics, so there is no way one can claim that something was split, taken away from them or whatever.-- (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, Magotteers was blocked, now we have another sock jumping from article to article and mysteriously finding articles through google :) IP, ADR's borders including Zangezur were de-facto recognized in January 1920 in the Peace Conference while DRA borders were never recognized except for Wilsonian Armenia recognized by Wilson himself, which does not include the present day Armenia. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Zangezur was a bastion of anti-Soviet resistance (under the command of Garegin Njdeh) by the Armenians during the summer of 1920. Even if Azerbaijan's de facto control of these borders was recognized, that does not mean that they were de jure recognized, which means that caption as well as the the map is inaccurate because this area should be shown as being disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan never "lost" these territories because it never fully established control of these regions; it was hardly able to come to a compromise with the Armenians regarding Karabakh. Some of the sources for this article are still insufficient and very poor when it comes to reliability and we need maps produced by historians, not user-generated ones which pick and choose what to highlight and what do omit.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain the name change? Magotteers (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see the discussion above, initially offered by MarshallBagramyan and agreed on by others. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A political concept is an ideological concept, if it is mostly used by Yeraz, it can't only be a political concept. Magotteers (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not only Yeraz who use it. It's been and is used throughout Azerbaijan and is a political concept as much as the term Greater Armenia. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This further proves that it is not only a political concept. Neither is Greater Armenia only a political concept. Greater Armenia was a historical, geographical and is now an ideological concept. So there is no reason to add anything to Greater Armenia, because the term is not alone what a clarification implies. On the other hand, the claim of Western Azerbaijan for the republic of Armenia is a modern Azeri construct which is ideological. While it is true that it is political, it is not only political, because political is only one type of ideology. Magotteers (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So was Azerbaijan. It is referred to as Western Azerbaijan because it was a part of Safavi, Ak Koyunlu, Kara Koyunlu states with Azerbaijani Turkic majority until a certain time in recent history. Ideology is something rather distancing from the realm, regardless whether the realm was the past, present or future. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an interpretation, in the case of Armenia, there is no it is referred to because..., there is no because or words to imply there is an interpretation. See the sources you find for Greater Armenia from google book when you restrict the date of the publications between 1700 and 1800, and then the results for between the years 1600 to 1700. Greater Armenia is a geographical, historical and an ideological concept. The fact that this modern Western Azerbaijan restricts to exactly the borders within Armenia is solely an ideological concept, it might be political, but political is also an ideology. Magotteers (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Besıdes, if you have a problem with the article Greater Armenia bring ıt there, not here. Magotteers (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact. The only reason Azerbaijani Turks did not use the term as much as today is because they never claimed the territories of their neighbors and because there was never an ideological concept of Greater Azerbaijan, again because Azerbaijan never laid any claims to its neighbors. That's why you won't see as much in google books although I had already provided the google books results on this talk page. You can in circles over and over again but the article name has been discussed and compromised on already. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a generalization, you are putting a racial characteristic here, be careful to not cross the border between simple characterization and racism. The google book result is irrelevant, since most of it refers to the Western portion of the republic of Azerbaijan. Also, we're not talking about compromise, you have offered no answer to counter my argument that the term Western Azerbaijan to refer to the modern republic of Armenia with clearly defined borders not extending in Georgia nor Turkey is only a political concept. Magotteers (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Please save that racism nonsense for someone else. You make that kind of false accusations one more time, you will be reported again. Western Azerbaijan is a political concept. When you clearly define what you understand under political and ideological concepts, we can revisit the term. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Your tone was unwaranted, I said be careful, not that you were. As for ideological vs political, read the intro of Ideology, you will see it includes political. Magotteers (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I warned you. Now, I asked you to define not to direct to the article. When you define it in your own words, not as it is written in or may be interpreted from Ideology article, I'll be able to understand what it is that you really want. So, clarify what you understand under political and ideological concepts and the difference between them, and we will go from there. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Western Azerbaijan" is a modern 20th century invention and it was never used as a geographical or historical term for the territories the Republic of Armenia is now located upon. This region was always called "Eastern Armenia" and labeled as such in maps and the Armenians only became a minority after Shah Abbas I's deportation of the Armenian population. The real western Azerbaijan can be said to be the western portion of the Iranian province south of the Araks River.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't a historical term because there was no unified state called Azerbaijan or containing the word Azerbaijan in its name until 1918. But the region and population of the Azerbaijani states were Azerbaijani Turks. The term appeared in the 20th century to refer to a political concept. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Ownership and blind reverts[edit]

After three blind reverts it is clear that Kheo17 wants to see this article to reflect only those views that he holds. His recent edits and his past editing attitudes demonstrate that he thinks he is in clear ownership of this article that he created, choosing what to include and exclude. The edits which I introduced were substantial but they also included a great deal of refinement and requests for improvement, including the request for sources, format and general copyedits. I also slightly edited lines which were heavily imbued with POV and removed the more wildly inaccurate sentences such as the following “According to some Azerbaijanis, the only wrong decision of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic leadership (1918–1920) was the yielding of Yerevan to the newly formed Armenian SSR on 29 May 1918,” which is absolutely absurd since 1) the Azerbaijani government never established control nor exercised any influence in the area of Yerevan and its environs and 2) the Armenian SSR was established in December 1920, not 1918. Such elementary mistakes serve as good reasons why we should stick clear of amateur websites and rely on works written by scholars or at least individuals with some sort of professional background.

Which leads me to explain why I removed the table from the History section: this article is just little more than hodgepodge collection of sources which don’t really talk about the concept of “Western Azerbaijan” but, as I said in my edit summary, seem to make a very shaky case to the reader why the term is used. The line that precedes the table, “Here is the list of the major cities in the split off part of Azerbaijan in 1920”, is a patently untrue and the sources it uses give population statistics from the year 1900 and 1888, respectively. The map to its right is also just another flight of fantasy, created by an editor with little regard to the facts, since, again, Azerbaijan never had any administrative or legal control in the highlighted regions. These are just the most serious errors that are encountered but it’s impossible to make any changes when Kheo17 displays such an intransigent attitude and makes hollow threats to report me, overlooking his own continuous reverts and problematic editing habits. If no proper rebuttals are made and if only nonsensical and empty arguments are seen, I will proceed to restore the changes I originally made. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You just removed an entire barrage of information without really explaining why. The source actually said Armenian republic not Armenian SSR, so I corrected that. I think you need to talk one by one what you want to change and why. You cannot just write a general message and removed everything to your disliking. Neftchi (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research ?[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OR and Off-topic material added for POV reasons[edit]

I think everything after the introduction section should be erased because it is OR and off-topic. Meowy 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


The leader of Azerbaijan took a new step on the path to the revision of the Transcaucasian past at the international "Islamic Civilization in the Caucasus" symposium held in Baku in December 1998. On December 11, Heydar Aliev made a speech before a group of participants; At that time, he called Armenia "western Azerbaijan", the "place where Azeris and Muslims had lived" from the old days (Bakinsky rabochii, December 15, 1998). It seemed as though the President had already found out "which lands constitute our own historical lands". This idea filled the President's mind and he went back to the issue again and again (for that, see Stupishin 1999: 8).

The celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Nakhjivan Autonomous Region made a new pretext for an anti-Armenian campaign. President Aliev devoted several speeches and decrees to this important event in the history of his native Nakhjivan. He not only referred to historical grounds why Nakhjivan should be an integral part of Azerbaijan, but went much further and called for the revision of the history of Transcaucasia from a pan-Turkic viewpoint. He maintained that a "deliberate" disclaimer of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of the "Irevan region" in favor of Armenia in 1918 was an act of the Azeri generosity. He called the territory of contemporary Armenia the Azeri land and encouraged Azeri historians to "create well-confirmed documents" and to "prove that the territory of contemporary Armenia constitutes lands that belong to Azerbaijan" (Aliev 1999a; 1999b).

A meeting of the State Committee for the Celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the Nakhjivan Autonomous Region was held on February 9, 1999, under the chairmanship of Heydar Aliev (Zasedanie 1999). It was of special interest for those interested in the most recent trends in the field of the study of Azerbaijani history. While opening the meeting, the President called for the truthful representation of the history of Azerbaijan and emphasized the political importance of the jubilee. Manifesting his understanding of the "truthful representation of history", the President stated once again that in 1918-1919 the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic voluntarily let Armenia have the right to the Yerevan Khanate and the city of Yerevan (Aliev 1999c). It is worth noting that no Yerevan Khanate survived until that time; instead, there was a Yerevan Province, where the Armenians made up the bulk of the population. As we have already seen, there was a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918-1919 but it bad nothing to do with Yerevan Province, let atone Yerevan.

The members of the committee immediately picked up their President, and some of them went even further. The chairman of the Supreme Majles of the Nakhjivan Autonomous Region, V. Talybov, called the Armenians the "historical enemies" of the Azeri people. The director of the Museum of History of Azerbaijan, N. Velikhanly (Velikhanova), promised to disprove the assertion by Russian and Armenian authors that Nakhjivan was an Armenian land. A researcher from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, M. Neimatova. already known to us, stated that she had already refuted the Armenian claims to Zangezur, proving that the Muslims had lived there in the medieval period (and we know how she did that). The deputy director of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, M. Ismailov, maintained that the Armenians accounted for an insignificant share of the population of the Yerevan Khanate in the late 18th century, and "our Turkic, Azerbaijani state" flourished in that territory even earlier. At the same time, he did his best to demonstrate that in fact the Armenians had not had any important state after Armenia had been partitioned in the end of the 4th century, and that contemporary Armenia was built out of genuinely Azeri lands. This was not the end of the story. The chairman of the Department of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, the archaeologist V. Aliev, stated that he had managed to prove that "from the very beginning of humanity and to the present day, Nakhjivan was the main center of culture in Azerbaijan". He called for the celebration of the 3,500th anniversary of Nakhjivan. He maintained that since the Urartian period, "Nakhjivan was in the rear sights of the Armenians", and complained that the aggressors of Urartu (supposedly the Armenians! V. Sh.) "had occupied the western territories of Azerbaijan". It seems that he believed that the Azeris lived in Transcaucasia from time immemorial, and the "Armenian aggressors" made every effort to force them out, beginning from the Urartian period at the very least.

Thus, the participants of the meeting were seemingly competing with each other to see who would be able to fulfil better and faster the President's instruction to demonstrate to the international community that the "Azeri people enjoyed an old culture, and had a long history in their own state". This message in the President's decree was very much appreciated by the Minister of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, M. Mardanov. He emphasized the important role of this instruction in the education of youth, for the "formation of the Azerbaijaniness that made up the core of our national ideology". He called Nakhjivan a "very old and originally Azeri land", although, as is well known to specialists, the very name Nakhjivan derived from the Chechen root "Nakh", "Nakhji".

The celebration of the Nakhjivan jubilee turned to be a good reason for the revision of the Transcaucasian history to be not only approved by the President of Azerbaijan but even ordered by him. Azeri scholars began to fulfil their task immediately. As early as February 1999, a solemn meeting of the State Committee was held, devoted to one more jubilee, this time the 1,300th anniversary of the das tan (epic), "Kitabi-dede Gorgud", the original version of which was written in Farsi. Azeri scholars believed this epic to be part of the "early Turkic Azeri culture" (Djamshidov 1991). The President of Nakhjivan University, I. Gabibbeili, argued that this epic was extremely old; so old that it had influenced Homer's "Odyssey'. In his view, this very "fact" was clear evidence of the very long history of the Azeri people who composed this epic. Moreover, he managed to find the place names mentioned by the epic in territories in Iran, Turkey and Armenia. In his mouth, that meant that the contemporary Armenian state was situated on the former lands of Azerbaijan (Gabibbeili 1999). Similar views are shared by the Azeri community in jMfescow. Recently, the Academician A. Dashdamirov, the former secretary of ideology of the Azerbaijan Communist Party and today professor of the Russian Academy of the State Service, called Karabagh the sacred region of the Azeri people, -one of the main centers of the Azeri people's ethnogenesis" (Dashdamirov 2001 )§|pD put it other way, in this interpretation, Transcaucasia belonged to the Turk* throughout all time (for that, see Stupishin 1999: 8).

Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology (Senri Ethnological Studies, № 57), 2001. Pp.193-195. Divot (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


Shah Abbas I deported Armenians from Nakhichevan to a town called New Julfa. It is necessary to mention this fact. --Vitilsky (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)