Talk:Erivan province (Safavid Iran)

Name

@LouisAragon:, "Chokhur-e Sa'd" seems to be by far the most popular name for this province. "Erivan Province" would be alright, I guess. But "Yerevan Province" is without any doubt an anachronism. The spelling "Yerevan" did not appear in English until the 1940s, after the Soviets "nationalised" the names of Soviet republic capitals for external use (this is also when "Tiflis" officially turned into "Tbilisi"). What was the logic behind choosing this name for the article? This is like calling Tarasios of Constantinople "Tarasius of Istanbul". Also, this seems to create confusion with Erivan Khanate. I am personally for "Chokhur-e Sa'd" but I am interested in your opinion. Parishan (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parishan:, my intention was to eventually change it to "Erivan Province" by the next time I would make a large expansion to the article. Not just because most sources related to the Safavid era use that type of spelling, but also in order to keep consistency with the comparable (but different) entity of the later period, i.e. the "Erivan Khanate". I will fix it soon. Thanks for raising that up.

By the way, the spelling "Yerevan Province" can definitely be seen in numerous (contemporary) scholarly sources;

• These illegal deeds by missionaries were to be prevented everywhere in the territory of the Safavid state, particularly in Isfahan, Georgia, Tabriz, Hamadan, Ganja, Karabagh and Chokhur Sa'ad (Yerevan province), where Catholicism was the (...) -- Herzig, Edmund.; Floor, Willem, eds. (2012). Iran and the World in the Safavid Age. I.B.Tauris. p. 376
• On 21 February Nader called the Catholicos to him, along with the officials entrusted with governing the province of Yerevan. -- Axworthy, Michael. (2006). Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. I.B.Tauris. p. 163

"Yerevan" is just another way of spelling Erivan/Iravan/Erevan, regardless of time period. So I don't really get the "Istanbul/Constantinople" comparison, as they (Istanbul and Constantinople) are both completely different words with different etymologies, though they denote the same city.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"Yerevan" is very marginal as a way of spelling and cannot compare with the predominance of the spelling "Erivan" for the same period. It did not gain stable official usage until way after the October Revolution because there was an official policy of renouncing older spellings in favour of the "native pronunciation", hence Wilno officially became Vilnius, Batum became Batumi and Erivan became Yerevan. Which reminds me: "Erivan Province" may not be so felicitous after all because now it is easily confused with Erivan Governorate. In fact, most results that come up when "Erivan/Yerevan Province" is searched refer to the 1850-1917 Russian administrative unit. So why not simply "Chokhur-e Sa'd"? It is widely used in sources and it is contemporary. Parishan (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because Chokhur-e Sa'd, in the Zand/Qajar era, constituted a different "entity" than it did in Safavid times. A different entity, in a different time period, with different borders. Oh, no ones gonna mix that up; it clearly says "Safavid Empire" between the brackets. "Chokhur-e Sa'd" serves as a dab, which is the best place for it. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not get it. How is having "Chokhur-e Sa'd" for this article more confusing than having "Erivan" for three different and easily mixed up entities (Erivan Province, Erivan Khanate, Erivan Governorate)? I personally do not think that Chokhur-e Sa'd referring to the Erivan Province would lead to any confusion. If your argument is that the Erivan Province is different from the Erivan Khanate because it is a province and not a khanate, then we can simply name this article "Chokhur-e Sa'd Province" and that would solve all problems. In my opinion, not only would it be less ambiguous, but it would be more concurrent with the common historical name of the province ("Chokhur-e Sa'd" does turn up more often than "Erivan" for this particular entity) and it would spare us from the cumbersome title with a bracketed precision. Parishan (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parishan: As LouisAragon mentioned, the definition of "Chokhur-e Sa'd" has changed throughout the Iranian history. Therefore, "Chokhur-e Sa'd Province" doesn't make any sense.
You should rather bring some reliable sources, instead of sharing personal opinions.
—Rye-96 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rye-96:, how can it "not make any sense" if "Chokhur Sa'd" as the name for this province appears much often than "Erivan province" in a basic search on Google Books, whereas must results for "Erivan Province" yield to references to the Russian administrative province? This is not a personal opinion: this is suggested by WP:COMMONNAME. Parishan (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Parishan: "Chokhur-e Sa'd" appearing more often than "Erivan Province" on Google Books doesn't prove anything, since "Chokhur-e Sa'd" has a variable sense. And the combination "Chokhur-e Sa'd Province" doesn't even exist, while both "Erivan Province" and "Yerevan Province" do. Hence why the current title is absolutely fine.
—Rye-96 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)