Talk:Nakhichevan Khanate

Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster
Sources written by Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster need to be double checked (and possibly deleted) as per VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nakhichevan Khanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110429161341/http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abbasabad-fortress to http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abbasabad-fortress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Name in Azerbaijani
Other khanates like Erivan khanate, Karabakh khanate etc. have names put in Azerbaijani as well. This should be the case here too. We cover this khanate as part of our history since it is the part of Azerbaijani people. If we write it in other khanates, it should be the case here too. So I suggest to change it with the addition of Naxçıvan xanlığı in Azerbaijani. If I do not see logical arguments, I will change it myself. Aydan B-va (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been discussed a zillion times, what you’re trying to is anachronistic. We dont add Modern Italian to the Roman Republic either, etc. And how are you suddenly the judge of that? No, you will have to reach WP:CONSENSUS, just like any other editor. Trying to force your way is not constructive. HistoryofIran (talk)

Then explain me why there are Azerbaijani names in Erivan and Karabakh khanates. If we do it for others, can do for Naxçıvan too. Aydan B-va (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:RS in addition to WP:CON. Having said that, I can agree with the inclusion of the Azerbaijani spelling in the Arabic script. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not an answer to my concern. What is the logic? Why in other khanates Azerbaijani name can be allowed but not here? The previous argument about Rome empire applies to there as well. I am waiting for a logical argument! Aydan B-va (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The linked WP's are the "logic" you're referring to. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The linked sources do not explain why we cannot use Azerbaijani spelling. We don’t use Arabic script. For consistency, if the other khanates that existed almost at the same period have the spelling, this should be also the case. Put normal argument or the page should be changed like I did. Otherwise, call 3rd party opinion. Aydan B-va (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "The linked sources do not explain why we cannot use Azerbaijani spelling."
 * Then you clearly did not read any of the WP's. FYI, they are not "sources".


 * "We don’t use Arabic script."
 * Thank you for confirming what I was already thinking. You are retroactively trying to "Azerbaijanify" (as in, the modern-day post-1918 entity) an entity that ceased to exist long before the establishment of the modern-day republic, and long before the creation of a Latin Azerbaijani script by the Baku goverment. The Latin Azerbaijani script was not in use in the 19th century, and thus it is an anachronism. The Azerbaijani language (or "Turkish/Tatar/Turko-tatar" language as it was called at the time) was written in the Arabic script. Hence, only the inclusion of a transliteration in the Arabic script can be argued.


 * "For consistency, if the other khanates that existed almost at the same period have the spelling, this should be also the case."
 * Once again, just because it happens to be added to those articles by drive-by IP's and sockpuppets/meatpuppets, etc., it doesn't mean you can use that as an argument to include it here. It should be removed or changed to Arabic Azerbaijani in those articles when those articles are finally given the care they need. The Erivan Khanate is a different story, as there was actually a discussion in relation to language inclusions on its talk page (i.e. consensus).


 * "Put normal argument or the page should be changed like I did. Otherwise, call 3rd party opinion."
 * Nope. Both me and user:HistoryofIran have acted conform Wikipedia's guidelines, whereas you have not. If you disagree you may file a RfC or file a 3PO case, but this is where it ends. Either an Azerbaijani Arabic inclusion, or no inclusion,as far as I'm concerned. Any further attempts to include an anachronistic transliteration without WP:CON will be labeled as WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and will be dealt with as such. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read your linked ‘sources’, nevertheless, they do not have relation to what I was writing. Yes, you just wrote that there was consensus on Erivan khanate. That’s what I meant all the time. Then we can use that consensus here because it is really waste of time to bring all the arguments again. We can add Arabic script, but with Latin script too. This khanate is part of Azerbaijanis’ history and is currently with its majority in Republic of Azerbaijan, so Azerbaijani name as it is written now should be used to be readable. Aydan B-va (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "We can add Arabic script, but with Latin script too."
 * Good to see that you're willing to compromise. Sure, lets do that. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)