Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology and usage

Main article: History of the name Azerbaijan

There are several hypotheses regarding the origins of the name "Azerbaijan." The most common theory is that Azerbaijan was eponymously named after Atropates or Atarepata, a satrap(governor) of Media, who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene.[1] Atropates' name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."[2]

There are also alternative opinions that the term is a slight Turkification of Azarbaijan, in turn an Arabicized version of the original Persian name Âzarâbâdagân, made up of âzar+âbadag+ân (âzar=fire; âbâdag=cultivated area; ân=suffix of pluralization); that it traditionally means "the land of eternal flames" or "the land of fire", which probably implies Zoroastrian fire temples in this land.

According to Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski, Azerbaijan is the name of the region stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. As a political or administrative unit and a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran.[3]

However beginning from the 13th century A.D. the name of Azerbaijan became applied to the territories north of Araxes river.[4][5]

  • Please note that someone seems to has defaced this page. Please have a look at the photo `beth.jpg` for the current president. Jesselong 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is my idea for what the section should look like. Doesn't mention modern republic's reason for the name, doesn't mention the Musavat, but links to the relevant Wikipedia article. The Behnam 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This doesn't look acceptable to me, especially the last sentence, but I'll reserve my final judgment until after I've heard what User:Azerbaijani has to say about the issue. --Mardavich 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What about it is not acceptable? Is it because it uses Kaveh Farrokh? The Behnam 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's too short, why don't we expand the last sentence to include a short line regarding the modern Republic's decision to adopt the name Azerbaijan by saying "According to some sources...But according to the other sources...". What do you think? --Mardavich 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If we divided it into clear sides without elaborating on one or the other too much, if may be acceptable. Paste your idea underneath this so I can give a better response. The problem currently is because the "illegitimate" view was receiving much more weight on this page, even though this is the main page for the whole nation. Understandably, this caused a lot of Azeris to be offended, and then came all of the conflict here. The Behnam 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Iranica, which is a reputable and neutral source, we have the following:
"Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828)."
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc
So, as the above clearly states, Azerbaijan is indeed according to a neutral source an area belonging to north and south of the Aras river, which was divided by the two treaties among which the last one is mentioned in this particular instance. There are also other places at Iranica where there are references about "greater Azerbaijan" when they talk about Iranian and the independent Azerbaijan. However the sources mentioned in this article are from Armenian and Iranian sources and I read those sources. They have no desire to hide their prejudice toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. According to Wikipedia rules sources should be "verifiable" and "neutral". However, no matter how much we try some members have no intention of doinbg anything but distorting issues.
About some "conflicts" about the name Azerbaijan it is obvious that some parties and sources dispute the name of an independent and recognised country by the UN. That is their business. But neutral sources, whether it is the UN or it is Iranica recognise both independent Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan as being Azerbaijan. Don't forget that there was no Azerbaijan clearly defined prior to the establishment of the province of Azerbaijan in Iran by the Qajar. And this was AFTER northern Azerbaijan was ceded to Tsarist Russia. I found this on the article about Iranian Azerbaijan (again mocked by user Azerbaijani and a few others) where the source, correctly, was another Western one, Columbia Encyclopedia. So if there are also some local (Iranian, Armenian or Soviet sources) who dispute the name, or if some individual, Resulzade for example, are told to have said that Azerbaijan is different from Iranian Azerbaijan then all this should be made into a separate article. Roazir 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, someone had written than I am an old user. I wish I was because if I knew how to do all the things around here I would have done a lot of editing and I would have reported user Azerbaijani to the admins. I will learn if I will have time. Please, those older users, edit and remove nonesense material that are offending to the citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I am from Iran and it is shameful for me that my Fars compatriots are doing harm to articles about Azerbaijan. Roazir 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If the above link doesn't work try this:

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v3_articles/azerbaijan/geography&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html

Unfortunately I am quite sure users such as "Azerbaijani" will come and say that this is all POV, or they will probably disappear for a while, then after the article had been corrected, remove everything and say that it is vndalism, POV etc!!! Roazir 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Pejman47 wrote me that he agrees with the proposed changes. I don't know exactly how and what to do. The above, as I have written are from Western renowned sources. They are not perfect but they are scholarly sources, without political bias. We should not put texts that have biased sources, such as the ones from Armenia and Iran. These texts are making this article look like a political pamphlet. Please read the above sources and bring arguments against them but please use neutral sources. This is the Wikipedia rule as far as I know. One of the sources is the Armenian envoy to the UN, right? That source is just a joke. Did an IRANIAN put that source on? Pure pity for an Iranian (Azerbaijani or Fars) to do that. Such a pity. To quote a source from a waring nation!! The other source is an Iranian named Farokh who DOES NOT HIDE his prejudice toward the issue. His writing IS NOT scholarly. It is an article. We cannot use this quote for this article becasue this article is about the COUNTRY Azerbaijan. I don't know how to unlock. Would someone more experienced do it? And I don't know when user:Azerbaijani or someone like that will appear and start calling what we have done VANDALISM or POV. Then we should do our best to get him blocked. Roazir 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets not be selective about quoting Iranica. the final episodes consisted mainly of stabilization and integration, such as the organization of the large confederation of the ˆa@hsevan, evolving between the highlands of Azerbaijan (notably the huge massif of Savala@n) during summer and the lower lands of the Araxes and Transcaucasus in winter. The annexation of the latter by Russia with the treaty of Torkamana@y, in 1828 fixed the political borders of the Iranian state, in an artificial manner, by dividing the Azeri ethnic group but without really affecting the profound unity of a common cultural space, marked by the Shi¿ite affiliation and the resonance of Iranian civilization.[1]
As per the user Behnam's quote, I disagree, it should be shorter. I think this is sufficient [2]: The name Azerbaijan itself is thought to be derived from Atropates, an Iranian Median satrap (governor), who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene.[1] Atropates name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."[2] The name is also mentioned in the Avestan Frawardin Yasht: âterepâtahe ashaonô fravashîm ýazamaide which translates literally to: We worship the Fravashi of the holy Atare-pata. [3]. For the history, etymology and designation of the name of Azerbaijan see[3]. If there is any proof that there is any Turkification of the term Azerbaijan, then relavent linguistic scholarly references should be brought as well and added to the etymology section of this article for that particular sentence. The thing is we want to keep the naming of that section too a minimal, thus quoting the same scholar(Tadeusz Swietochowski) who wrote: What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. might also be a POV push. I think just keep it as minimal as possible.
On the mussavites, the same thing..they established a government and etc.. And then we refer to the relavent Mussavite article where the nature of their government is discussed. --alidoostzadeh 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am supportive of the current version [4] as long it's not significantly changed. --Mardavich 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay excellent. I believe Pejman is also. And most likely is the user Azerbaijani who will probably put his sources in the Mussavite article. Thus the dispute is finished and we should ask for a full unlock. --alidoostzadeh 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for working this out. One minor thing; should we say "Iranian Median", "Persian", or "satrap of Media"? I think the third is best because it avoids the conflict between sources over exactly which type of Iranian he was; see the discussion further up on this page for links. I don't see the importance of his ethnicity here anyway, so I think that simply mentioning that he was a satrap of Media avoids the unnecessary ethnicity source conflict. The Behnam 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian Median" is the best accurate description, as both Persians and Medians were Iranian. Iranian here is a significant linguistic and geographical designation, it shouldn't be omitted. --Mardavich 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
How about "Iranian satrap of Media"? If you take a look at the Atropates section of this talk page, there isn't consensus between the sources as to whether or not he was Median or Persian. So, if we don't know, say "Iranian", and if we do know, just say either "Median" or "Persian" since they imply Iranian ethnicity and hence saying "Iranian" would be redundant. By the way, "Iranian Median" sounds terrible in English regardless of whether or not it is true. The Behnam 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Strabo says the Medes and Persian language are the same. I looked at Iranica [5] and they just he was a Satrap of Media of the Achaemenid empire. Probably that is all we know. Someone might want to add reference to this Iranica article as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Iranian satrap of Media" is fine with me, since he was either Persian or Median and the term Iranian is a significant linguistic and geographical designation here. --Mardavich 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there TWO Medians to specify whether it is the Iranian one or the non-Iranian one? Just trying to be informative and neutral it does not blend well with neutrality to write "Iranian" Median unless there is also another Median. For example when you say IRANIAN Azerbaijan it is correct becasue you say so in order not to have confusion with northern Azerbaijan. It is funny that WE, the Iranians, are writing the article about the Republic of Azerbijan. It is not very nice of us but we are probably numerically superior. Roazir 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually you are right there is only one Median. About writing about the republic of Azerbaijan, I think Iranians are involved in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, republic of Azerbaijan mainly due to the fact that they feel attachment to these lands. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the wording as of this post [6]. The Behnam 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys I think the current wording is accurate although someone might want to word it slightly differently. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "Mussavite"? Is it Musavat? There are people who are asking (begging) for discussion there and I am not much aware of Musavat but it would be nice to talk before putting tags or editing. Roazir 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL I guess a combination of Arabic pronounciation and English. Musavat article is here: [7]. There was disputes about their nature, but it was agreed by everyone that anything about the political philosophy of Musavat be moved there. That is a discussion actually that I am not interested in since I have found many different sources from Rasulzadeh being pro-Iran, then anti-Iran and to sort everything out is something I do not have time for and that government is long gone. --alidoostzadeh 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is useful and necessary to mention that here, in the talk page, that the people of Azerbaijan are not PAN-TURKIST as many Iranians think and loath about. Pan-Turkist means different things but it essentially links the identity of Azerbaijan primarily with Turkey, rather than the Azerbaijanis in Iran and the Iranian culture and heritage. The Republic of Azerbaijan from its inception has been relatively pro-Turkey becasue Turkey was, and still is, the only powrful country in the region that offered serious support to Azerbaijan. Let's remind that Iran's Islamic regime gave economic aid to Christian Armenia during the Armenian campaign against Azerbaijan while Turkey has a blockade on Armenia even now due to its aggression toward Azerbaijani territory. And in 1918 when the Republic of Azerbaijan was established Iran was in a civil war and in a deep internal chaos, so Azerbaijan found its only refuge to survival in the Ottoman Turkey of the time that was just starting to become a Turkish nationalistic state. And finally let's not forget that although Azerbaijanis in Iran are powerful and influential they do not have some very important human rights respected by the Iranian regime, such as their own specific culture and language. So, Iranians shall not view Azerbaijan in a negative way becasue it has been Iran's fault too. But Azerbaijanis are different from Turks in Turkey and this difference is a deeply-rooted difference that has been the main cause of their historic union with Persians. Roazir 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can work on this subject in the main article for the topic. We are really trying to avoid problems on the nation's main page. Believe me, you don't want to reintroduce the topic here, because this will inevitably lead to the edit wars that recently subsided. Simply not discussing has proven to be the most effective method of maintaining neutrality on this page, and it would be a shame to lose it. The Behnam 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, but I wanted to remind the Iranians that most of what they think, is not founded and they should be more friendly to Azerbaijanis in the Republic. Roazir 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My main problem with the republic of Azerbaijan is that there is a lot of negative news about Iran which I believe actually that Turkey is planting and perhaps some grey wolf groups or who knows what. These groups are definitely not the representative of the people of Azerbaijan. The people there are our kin and even I have Azeri relatives (great aunt). I think a better idea is to make an Iran-republic of Azerbaijancooperation board since lots of topics are in common (Shervanshah , Safavids, Qajars, Aras, Mugham, Akhunzadeh..). A book that is going to be the hot topic for sometime is the Safina Tabrizi. [8]. The book is from Tabriz and thus the people of the republic of Azerbaijan who are also culturally part of the Iranian world should also do research and write about it. I do not think in the last 100 yers a more important manuscript has been found from the area. Also I disagree with human rights and Azerbaijan in Iran, because now there are Azerbaijani language courses in universities and summer, as well as there is government backed TV, newspaper, music and etc. Even programs from Azerbaijani and Kurdistani provinces are on sattelite and can be seen by everyone. [9]. I am not sure what the situation of minorities is in republic of Azerbaijan, but I believe Iran is better than Turkey with this regard. There has been attempts to incite some groups in Iran at least from the time of the USSR. In Azerbaijanis it won't work since they are organic part of Iran. I hope for better relationship between what-ever governments are in place in both countries and right now actually the situation has improved relative to the time when ilchibay was in power. Anyways these are issues I am interested in and willing to discuss with anyone (specially the republic of Azerbaijan) but since it is not related to topic at hand, I'll stop here. I am glad that compromise was reached at least in this important topic since this is the first google link and it is important that people of the republic of Azerbaijan are also not offended as you said. --alidoostzadeh 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ali, our main problem with negative perception of Iran has nothing to do with Turkey. The negative perception of Iran in Azerbaijan is mostly due to radical Shia religious movements incited in the Republic by the Iranian state. In fact, I don't understand why you blindly blame Turkey without having facts at hand. This country by itself goes through deep identity transformation, and issues of Grey Wolves and other ultra-nationalism were left in 1970s. It's appalling to see educated Iranians still living with perceptions and stereotypes of 16th century though.
Instead of quite visible jealousy of Turkish influence in Azerbaijan, or trying to denigrate Turkic identity, and emphasize Iranian connection, you should think of more peaceful and respectful solutions, more of a balance. We carry no goals of dividing Iran in Azerbaijan. But we also expect respect towards our statehood and people, and especially ceasing unpaid services to the known enemies of our country, from Iranians. Believe me, these issues again have nothing to do with Turkey or Turkish people. Atabek 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Atabek. Actually the MHP party is strong in Turkey (even at least 5% of the vote in a country of 70 million is significant but they have more that) and believe me there is rivarly between Turkey, Russia and Iran governments with regards to Azerbaijan. Turkey's government will push pan-turkism and Iran's government will push pan-Shi'ism and Russia will use its economic and military influence. All these aside (and they are all wrong in my opinion), I do not think we can equate government with people. That is why I said Turkey and I did not say people of Turkey whom I have no problems with. Thus the average Iranian harbors no ill will towards the average Turk from Turkey or the average Azerbaijani republic citizen. I believe the feelings are mutual there. Also I am not aware of what you mean by unpaid services. I also do not think the rivarly between Armenian government and Azerbaijani government means that we should not have relationship with both countries and do our best to make a peaceful settlement. Indeed Russia will look out for Armenia and Turkey for the republic of Azerbaijan, but Iran as a country that has both Armenians and Azerbaijanis with strong national Iranian identity. I am not happy with the geopolitical situation of the region as I am sure you are not either, but I can gaurantee you that average Iranians have nothing against the average person from the republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey. I hope the feeling in those countries are the same. --alidoostzadeh 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ali, Iran, in case it was a normal and relatively democratic country, would have sided with Azerbaijan, not Armenia. It is offensive for all Azerbaijanis, from all countries, that Iran helped Armenia (economically, not militarily) and has good relations with Armenia. Armenia was and is an aggressor (occuppying Azerbaijani land) and 25% of Iranians are Azerbaijanis. There are at most 200.000 Armenians living in Iran so the comparison is not relevant. I hope that the attitude is ONLY the government and not the Fars people, and I really think so. Maybe those who are acting as if they were from Iran or Iranian Azerbaijan and editing Azerbaijani (people as a whole or the republic) articles in an offensive and misinformative manner are NOT actually Iranians. I hope so. Roazir 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Roazir Jan. I think Iran was neutral and Iran also has economic ties with the republic of Azerbaijan. I think Iran's responsibility is to really bring lasting peace and give humanitarian aid to both sides. I know there is less Armenians than Azerbaijanis in Iran, both are Iranians first. Thus Iran must actually try to make sure the conflict does not spill over in its own borders (which so far thankfully it hasn't) and also it must try to bring peace. I did a google search and found this article [10]. Although it is on an Armenian website, it seems to be from an Azerbaijani republic newspaper (Zekarlo), Baku. These sort of newspapers seem to publish false information unfortunately from demographics to everything else urging ethnic agitation. The newspaper though makes one logical point. There is another question - why did the Tehran regime and radical Shi'is prefer to support not Shi'i Azerbaijan, but Christian Armenia? This question, as it were, is completely clear. The point is that Christian Armenia has never laid territorial claims to Iran.. That is why I said we should not allow politics to get in the way of friendship between Iranian people and the people of republic of Azerbaijan. I think the Azerbaijani government (not people) is not innocent when it comes to dealing with Iran either and their preception of both countries with respect to each other is wrong. Iran's Azerbaijan is integral. Even the the newspaper claims there are 8 million Azerbaijans million out of 12 million people in Tehran. (which is not true but assume it is they should then ask are the 8 million Azerbaijanis or 2-3 million or whatever going to leave Tehran since this is larger than the population of the republic of Azerbaijan or Baku). Anytime there is a conflict 99% of time both sides are at fault. Thus the mistakes by various governments should not reflect upon the preception of the people of two countries upon each other. Well that is all I am going to discuss. believe I got my point across that the average citizens with no ties to either of those governments should try to be understanding. I'll be glad to discuss this topic further via e-mail with anyone. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was rather amused to find a link to my website, Million Dollar Babies, embroiled in some virtual turf war on Wikipedia. But I was also bemused and insulted by some of the childish ranting that passes for rational discussion on your forum - probably why I (and others) try to assiduously avoid using any information posted to your site. If any of you took the time to view the material on my site - and I'm doubting that few have - then you would realize that the offending text is intended to be my summary of Events and Causes of the chaos that provided the background noise to historical periods of Hyperinflation. These summaries are all from information that I have gleaned from NON-WIKIPEDIA sources, and condensed to present viewers with a sense of zeitgeist while viewing my collection.

None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious. However, it is not "utter bunk" as stated by Francis Tyers · 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Nor is it "Milliondollarbabies numismat site is even more laughable reference, and insult to intelligence of Wiki users." As proposed by Atabek 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC). ( actually, I take this as a compliment… as "spellchecking" seems to be an insult to the intelligence of most Wikipedians ).

The only rational voice in the crowd seems to be Grandmaster, who stated that, "And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article."

Well… no, I am not an Azerbaijani Historian (and would not care to be after seeing the disparaging comments offhandedly posted here), but I have researched my material and stand by it. Now if you boys find you are having trouble with some Wiki-troll linking to my website - and can find some free time between your squabbles - then I would gladly write up a little ".htaccess" file to block my offending material from your playground. That is… if you have the brains and/or guts to NOTIFY ME FIRST, instead of assuming that your opinions are the only ones that matter in the world.

Alan Kaim

Dear Alan, I am sorry that my statement made you feel insulted about your work on the website. My criticism was not directed at the essence of your work but at the context in which some Wiki-trolls (as you mentioned above) used it as a historical reference. The problem still exists because your page: http://www.milliondollarbabies.com/Azerbaijan1e.htm, which became a matter of fierce debate, firstly, does not have any references, and secondly, seems mostly irrelevant to issues of inflation or finance. So there is a room for misinterpretation and usage for irrelevant purposes, as it was clearly used, and not by myself.
I also apologize for spelling errors, which are usually due to amount of writing and speed with which I and many other users type to express our positions. If you would still like to scrutinize my knowledge of English, I welcome that challenge in private. Regards.Atabek 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I am greatly sorry for any offensive statements. We have managed to find a solution to the problem that satisfies both parties. Obviously, there was a rather heated discussion, and I apologize for any disparaging remarks about your website. The basic problem was that your website, focusing on hyperinflation, wasn't the best choice as a source for the information that we were looking for. The academic sources that you used in creating your website would probably be more appropriate here. You put it best, "None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious." About the spell checking... aside from the articles themselves, spelling isn't important on discussion pages like this one as long as the idea is communicated effectively. And as far as trolling goes, the problem has passed, and hopefully will not resurface on this page. Thanks for the feedback. The Behnam 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "Since R1a1 is linked to IE originators it make sense look for ethymlogy at spurce of largest this gen concentraion. The polish word 'żar' - red hot fire or 'yaży' rdiation of 'zar'. The word 'zar' is conotated as fire 'zar' or sun 'zar. In polish "A zer baijan" will mean "a fire/firce or sun hot warioor" since baijan mean warior ." ???? I am also curious to know about 70% Shia. Are there data for this? Roazir 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it; in fact I am considering doing it myself. Some new account went to bunch of articles adding supposed genetic and linguistic information that relates Polish people to Iranian peoples. From what I could tell, none of the information was substantiated, so I think it should be removed from all pages it was added to. The Behnam 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it. The Behnam 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam,

Thank you for your explanation and kind words. My best wishes in the Sisyphean task before you.

Alan Kaim

Hi Alan. My sincere apologies if some comments by some users sounded offensive, the problem was that certain people used your website as a reference to back up very strong claims. Those comments were directed not as much at you, as much as they were directed to those who did not even try to make their own research of facts and sources outside of Internet. Without any disrespect to the hard work you’ve done to create your very interesting articles and website, we have the rules that require using published academic sources, which some people don’t realize or don’t want to realize. I would very much encourage you to be involved in the study of the history of Azerbaijan and the region in general and would appreciate your input in any of the articles about our region. Regards, Grandmaster 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Roazir, the 70% Shia for republic of Azerbaijan is a common estimate, see for example the US Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745.pdf --AdilBaguirov 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I often thought almost all Azerbaijanis were Shia. For example in Iran almost all Azerbaijanis and all Persians are Shia. Almost all means probably more than 98%. So, about 70% of the republic of Azerbaijan are Sunni. Well, I have known that most Azerbaijani citizens are very secular and often hardly know about Shia-Sunni. Are the 30% Sunni newly-turned Sunnis or they have historically been Sunni? Roazir 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Northern regions of Azerbaijan are largely Sunni. It historically has been like that. Central and southern areas are overwhelmingly Shia. However, Azerbaijani people are mostly secular and don’t care about religious differences, so for the most part Sunni – Shia denomination is nominal. Grandmaster 10:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that out! As you can see, we the Azerbaijanis in Iran, worked to fix the problems that existed in this article. We are all Azerbaijanis, no matter from the south of the Aras or the north. Roazir 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, bro. It is indeed so. Grandmaster 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Conducted a review and left points

Talk:Azerbaijan/Comments Alan.ca 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Very useful comments. I think the suggestions should be implemented. Grandmaster 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:49 (UTC)

Azeri Wikitravel/Data Transfer to Wikitravel

Greetings,

I am looking for people to work on the Azeri Wikitravel Language expedition, but have been unable to find anyone to help with it as of yet. If anyone is intersted, please visit the langage expedition page at http://wikitravel.org/shared/Azeri_Wikitravel_Expedition. Also, I am intersted in finding partners in transferring pertinant data from wikipedia to the wikitravel Azerbaijan page. Thanks a lot for everyone's help on this project!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jowa58 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hoax

Someone added a link to a hoax article, which I removed. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossarian Rustamova. Grandmaster 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

s/administrative subdivisions/raion/

Raion isn't the normal english terminology for these divisions of state. See the Raion page. Use of localised or common terminology is preferred in the language appropriate to whatever version of the wikipedia that language is written for. Jeff Carr 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article gives an alternative spelling, which is rayon. That's way it's spelled in French (from where it came to English) as well. Parishan 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The name is raion, therefore, we use it... it is a valid subnational entity. As you can see from THIS PAGE, the formal English usage IS Raion.Rarelibra 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection by an admin

This page seems like a very good candidate for semi-protection to edits only by established registered users. This page appears in many arbcon disputes and for some reason draws in mostly vandals. Almost all edits in the last 3 months have been vandalism. Jeff Carr 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

§

§ Wow, this is a cool sign.

History Section

I made some changes according to the agreement on the "History of Azerbaijan" article. Sorry for accidentally putting "History of the name Azerbaijan" in the edit summary, I meant to say "History of Azerbaijan".Azerbaijani 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Landlocked

Someone removed the landlocked category saying that Azerbaijan is <not> landlocked. That is not correct. Looking over at Landlocked, the term is defined as a country that has no direct access to sea or ocean. Agreed, Azerbaijan borders the Caspian Sea, but looking over at that page, we see that it is only the largest lake on Earth, definitely not a sea. Therefore, Azerbaijan does not border any true sea or ocean, therefore it is landlocked. byeee 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no land on Azerbaijan's east border, so it isn't landlocked :) The current version of the Landlocked article uses unquoted theorization, which is a verbalism IMO: "The Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea are sometimes considered to be lakes. If that is taken to be true..." The article indeed is labeled as missing citations and/or footnotes. --Brand спойт 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! This is not as clear-cut as stated. Per Byee above, a number of sources/references indicate that Azerbaijan is landlocked -- e.g., [11] - p.2. Depending on definition, while the country proper may or may not be landlocked (and it might be prudent to exclude any such notations, if its ambiguous or contentious), its exclave Naxçıvan definitely is. :) Quizimodo 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently the Wiktionary defines sea as "a large body of salty water and Wikipedia also as a large, usually saline, lake that lacks a natural outlet, such as the Caspian Sea". The fact whether the Caspian Sea is a sea is disputable indeed. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary explains the term "a landlocked country" as being enclosed or nearly enclosed by land. Webster's 1913 Dictionary also describes the landlocked adjective as inclosed, or nearly inclosed, by land. MSN Encarta Dictionary defines landlocked as surrounded by land: closed in completely or almost completely by land.
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary in particular defines sea as a salty water which covers a large part of the surface of the Earth, or a large area of salty water, smaller than an ocean, which is partly or completely surrounded by land. Thus the dictionary's entry for landlocked ("enclosed by the land of other countries and having no sea coast") is also valid. The appropriate edits have been made in the landlocked country article. --Brand спойт 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect info

I am removing incorrect, inaccurate information about Azerbaijan as thsi issue was discussed on page History of the name Azerbaijan.--Dacy69 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan

Guys, see the conclusion on the main article for the history. The history of Azerbaijan should only correspond to its territory. I took out the statement about the Mannaens, who lived in what is today northern Iran.Azerbaijani 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I largely rewrote the History section based on History of Azerbaijan article. I think we can remove the tags now. Grandmaster 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

14%

De Waal's book does not state that Armenian forces presently control 20% or 16% of Azerbaijan's territory. Rather he cites 13.62%, rounded to 14%.

From pg 240 of De Waal's Black Garden:

They [the Armenians] had achieved this basically by conquering the entire southwest corner of Azerbaijan, an area that–including Nagorny Karabakh–comprises almost 14 percent of Azerbaijan's officially recognized territory.

From pg 286 of the same book:

The Armenians fully occupy five of the seven "occupied territories" outside of Nagorny Karabakh. They are Kelbajar (1,936 km²), Lachin (1,835 km²), Kubatly (802 km²), Jebrail (1,050 km²), and Zangelan (707 km²). They also occupy 77 percent or 842 km² of the 1,094 km² Aghdam region (this figure was given by the head of the Aghdam region, Gara Sariev, at the front line on 19 May 2001) and approximately one-third (judging by maps) or 462 km² of the 1,386 km² of Fizuli region. The Armenians also occupy two former village enclaves of approximately 75 km² in the Nakhichevan and Kazakh regions. (For their part, the Azerbaijanis occupy one former Armenian enclave of about 50 km²)
This means that the combined area of Azerbaijan under Armenian control is approximately 11,797 km² or 4,555 square miles. Azerbaijan's total area is 86,600 km². So the occupied zone is in fact 13.62 percent of Azerbaijan–still a large figure, but way short of President Aliev's repeated claim.

Hence the reason for my revert. -- Aivazovsky 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See CIA World factbook:
Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan [12] Grandmaster 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's great, but do they cite where or how they came up with that percentage? De Waal does and thus he is a more credible source in this regard. -- Aivazovsky 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
They don't need to, it is a reliable source, and we need to cite all existing figures. Grandmaster 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Then we shall cite both. -- Aivazovsky 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We should say "by various estimates between 14% and 16%", etc. Grandmaster 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Controlled vs. occupied

Aivazovsky, page 286 from De Waal's book says "Armenians fully occupy....". So why do you replace the word occupy in the article text with "controlled"? Atabek 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added link reference to U.N. Security Council resolutions from 1993 in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh and precise wording used in "Black Garden". Atabek 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on edit: Azerbaijan does not border Chechnya, but only Daghestan Autonomous Republic of Russia. Atabek 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite what De Waal says, we agreed to use the term "controlled" as opposed to "occupied" early on the Nagorno-Karabakh talk page as it was less POV. -- Aivazovsky 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not only De Waal but four U.N. Security Council Resolutions, which you removed. We shall use the internationally accepted wording rather than indulging in discussion of what's considered a POV or not. Atabek 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, this is Wikipedia, not the UN. I would avoid using the term "controlled" unless you ran it by a Wikipedia admin who has experience with the Armenian-Azeri conflict (someone like Khoikhoi or Golbez). -- Aivazovsky 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky, the UN is international body, of which both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members. I don't see why you reverted GM the article removing the UN resolutions, which are relevant facts. Atabek 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, WP:WTA does not have any reference to claim that the word "occupy" should be avoided. The facts on the ground are: 1) NK and 7 surrounding districts are internationally recognized parts of Azerbaijan; 2) NK and 7 surrounding districts were forcefully occupied by armed Armenian formations (from the Republic of Armenia), ethnically cleansing entire Azeri population in the process; 3) There are 4 UN resolutions calling for "immediate withdrawal and cessation of occupation". So no POV pushing is acceptable, Aivazovsky, the UN resolutions directly referring to NK, Azerbaijan and Armenia should be included in the introduction to the article. Atabek 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think all UN documents can be easily quoted by using : " ". It is just my opinion. --Pejman47 16:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
can someone explain to me why there is such a dispute over these UN resolution? I added them back, because you can't ignore and omit the Security Council resolutions. Ateshi - Baghavan 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) and also can you explain me the reason why they are removed? they aren't fake and i do not know any other authority higher than UN. if someone is suspicious and believes that there weren't such resolutions, i can email them to him/her. Ateshi - Baghavan 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a big disagreement between Armenian and Azerbaijani users on whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions are in fact, occupied by the Republic of Armenia. Armenians say that occupation is too strong a word since Armenians were living in the region prior to when hostilities, therefore, negating the definition that they are "occupying" the land when in fact they control it. Azerbaijan sees the entire region as full scale military occupation by the Republic of Armenia, regardless of the de facto status of the NKR which is ruled by Karabakhtsi Armenians.

So, Armenians disagree with the word "occupation" and therefore third party users recommended and have since enforced that the best word to go by is "control". --MarshallBagramyan 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand we are talking about mentioning the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Then, we should use a term "occupation" as this is language of those resolutions. If we generally give description of the situation, like on page Nagorno-Karabakh War, we can use some other term like "controlled". We can put quotation marks to match citation with the text of UNSC resolutions.--Dacy69 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we cannot use the word occupation, but you cannot remove a direct quote from a source, which have been properly attributed. The quote should remain. Grandmaster 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the quote for a few reasons (aside from the fact that I think Karabakh should be granted its desire for separation from Azerbaijan). First, the UN is quite political, as is the word occupied - which already shows a POV as to who *should* control the land. Second, nobody is disputing that Karabakh and the occupied territories are recognized by to be a part of Azerbaijan, we all know they are recognized to be so, that they de-facto are not, the situation on the ground and in the negotiations. So why don't we mention ALL those situations if we are going to mention one, so as to make the entire subject clear? Finally, the entire phrase "the withdrawal of occupying forces from occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic" is clear as mud. Who are the occupying forces? Armenians of course... but from where? Are the ones who are from Karabakh occupying forces? What is the definition of occupied areas? Those parts outside of Karabakh, or including Karabakh? Are Karabakh Armenians who live in Karabakh occupying forces? I am not going to get involved in this argument at this point, I just wanted to share these thoughts for now and hopefully show that the quote, by itself is not helpful, clear or NPOV. --RaffiKojian 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is OK to quote the UN SC resolutions. We are not assuming a position about the conflict or UN SC resolutions, we just inform the reader what they say. The resolutions could be good or bad, but their existence is a fact, and there’s nothing wrong with inclusion of factual info. Grandmaster 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sourced information is being removed by some anon IP. I would suggest registering and discussing the edits on the talk page instead. Atabek 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, what can we do in order to get rid of these vandalisms? recently User:Egeydude spoiled the page and one anon Ip wrote that Azerbaijan is Monarchy? can someone ask for semi-protection? I reverted latest vandalism, but this is only temporary cure. Ateshi - Baghavan 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic names

As per Minorsky: The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Alovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran)

I added in the historic names of the territory.Hajji Piruz 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosworth also says: Arran here was a wider concept than that of post-Islamic Arran, and corresponded grosso modo with the modern Azerbaijan SSR.
It depends on which term one chooses to apply. Arran is the Persian for of Ardhan, which was Parthian. I added Bosworth as a source also, who backs up with Minorsky says.Hajji Piruz 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop adding OR about the name again. It was agreed long ago to keep it short and provide a link to the main article about the name. Grandmaster 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OR? Did you even look at what you were reverting:
The territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan roughly corresponds to the region historically known as Aghvania to its natives, Alvan-k[6][7] in Armenian, 'Ardhan in Parthian, Arran[7] in Middle Persian[8][9], Albania[6][7] in the Greco-Roman world, and Al-ran[6][7] (Arabized form of Arran[8]) in Arabic.
Thats Minorsky, Bosworth, etc... What are you talking about? I just listed the historical names of the region...This is one sentence, what do you mean keep it short? This barely added any length and you kept the sentence in anyway, so in what way did you shorten anything? How did it break any consensus?Hajji Piruz 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, that's not OR. It's relevent, perfectly cited, and non-biased, I am restoring the edit. AlexanderPar 07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Republic of Azerbaijan adopted its name from the Iranian region of Azerbaijan - this part looks like a rather big fat outrageous POV with nothing neutral to back it up.
historically known as Aghvania to its natives - again, no back up. That name wasn't used much after the Islamic conquests. Parishan 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then just remove that part, why are you blindly reverting the good-faith contributions of other editors? This is disruptive editing. I am taking out that line, and restoring the rest of the edit. AlexanderPar 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad, you fixed it yourself. It looks good now. AlexanderPar 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of the parenthesis?Hajji Piruz 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosworth uses the term Arran, and Minorsky uses the term Albania, to refer the the area corresponding to the Republic of Azerbaijan. In all fairness, both should be in the main part of the sentence.Hajji Piruz 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I added and sourced a sentence which states when the Azerbaijan Republic got its name and by who.Hajji Piruz 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Atropates was actually Persian, not Median.Hajji Piruz 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Atropates is not relevant. The origin of the toponym is Atropatene, not Atropates. There is no direct connection between Azerbaijan (a toponym) and Atropates (an anthroponym). Saying 'Azerbaijan' means "guardian of fire" is the same trap that the 7th century Arab historiographers fell into, and which the Encyclopedia Iranica calls a "forged popular etymology".
  2. the citation of the Avesta is OR. Who says "atare-pata" has anything to do with Azarbaijan? And if anyone actually *read* what that citation says, it should be obvious that its not talking about a place. Not that quoting from primary sources is at all legitimate, but has anyone noticed how many atar-xyzs there are in that verse? Apparently not.
  3. the statement about a reference to Russian Azerbaijan does not conflict with Diakonoff as the section presumes it does. What Diakonoff is saying (and what is correctly noted) is that they chose it for the name of the republic (for whatever reasons), he does not say that the name didn't exist before, which is what the article is making it sound like. Anyway, what the British Consul General is referring to with "Russian Azerbaijan" is part of what the Russians got after the Irano-Russian wars. It included all of the present-day republic, eastern Armenia and parts of Iranian Azerbaijan.
    -- Fullstop 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move to Azerbaijan (country)

As per the Georgia (country) article (named so to avoid confusion with Georgia (U.S. state)), I think it would be best to move this article to Azerbaijan (country), so as not to be confused with Azerbaijan (Iran). Note that the Iranian Azerbaijan article already has Iran in parenthesis, the only logical thing is to move this page to Azerbaijan (country).Hajji Piruz 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this was discussed, Azerbaijan should refer to the name of the country, and Azerbaijan (Iran) should refer to Iranian region. The consensus was to keep it at that. The state of Georgia is different from region of Azerbaijan in Iran, Iran does not have a province called Azerbaijan, Iranian region is split to a number of provinces, and the prevailing use in English language is a reference to the country, not the region in Iran. What you propose is made when there are more than one administrative units with the same name, which is not the case here. See old discussions in the archives. Grandmaster 07:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The name Azerbaijan is used for country. As far as I know there is no indication anywhere that Iran has a province called Azerbaijan. Ehud 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don’t see any necessity to move the page, because Azerbaijan cannot be confused with Azerbaijan (Iran). There's no administrative entity with such name in Iran. Azerbaijan is mostly used as a reference to the country and we should avoid redundancies stating it in parentheses again. As for Georgias – the comparison is irrelevant, as there can’t be any confusion in the case of Azerbaijan. Zondi 08:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Azerbaijan is still used in Iran frequently, as well as in the academic world. There is already a West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, and an Azerbaijan as a whole, in Iran. These should not be confused with the country. There is also an Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, an Azerbaijan SSR, etc...

See these discussion: [13] and [14]

The discussion has always been that there is a Georgia country, and a Georgia state, not about how many different uses of Georgia there is, so Grandmaster's argument makes no sense.

The solution they came to was to create a Georgia (disambiguation) page where a person typing in Georgia can choose which Georgia they wanted to read about.

We can have Azerbaijan redirect to the Azerbaijan (disambiguation) page, and users can choose from there what article they wanted to read about.

We move this page to Azerbaijan (country), Azerbaijan (Iran) remains the way it is, we redirect Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (disambiguation).

There is absolutely no reason at all why the Azerbaijan (Iran) article should have Iran in parenthesis. Who decided to give Azerbaijan (the country) the privileged title and on what basis? The only way to be neutral and fair, is to follow the proposal as has been done for Georgia (leads to disambiguation page).Hajji Piruz 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The most popular use of the word “Azerbaijan” is as a name of the country. Therefore Azerbaijan should be used as a name of the article about the country, while all other uses should be listed in a disambiguation page. Parallels with Georgia are not relevant, there’s no administrative entity in Iran called “Azerbaijan”, while there’s a state of Georgia in US. Big difference. Your proposal has already been rejected in the past. And the name Azerbaijan (Iran) was selected on the basis of consensus. Grandmaster 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no administrative region in Greece called Maceodonia yet Macedonia also leads to a disambiguation page, and not FYROM.Hajji Piruz 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. While Georgia (US) is a full-functioning administrative entity, Azerbaijan (Iran) is nothing but a historical region with unclear borders and little current significance. As for Macedonia, its being a historical region is compensated by its enormous historical role as an ancestral land of the greatest and most influencial ancient civilization. Ancient Macedonia's meaning to history and the world today simply cannot be compared to that of Iranian Azerbaijan. Parishan 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Reasons why the page should be moved

  • Georgia leads to a disambiguation page, in which Georgia (country) can be chosen.
  • Macedonia leads to a disambiguation page, in which users can choose the country, or the Greek regions, or the historical regions, etc... The Country Macedonia is not called Macedonia, the title is Republic of Macedonia. There is no administrative region in Greece called Macedonia either, yet Macedonia still leads to a disambiguation page.
  • Here is what Tombseye had to say about a move:
...The main problems are that there are two Azerbaijans, one under Iran and one that is a country. Initially, I was thinking that Grandmaster is correct and he makes some valid points, but then I looked up Azerbaijan in Encyclopedia Americana and it lists Azerbaijan in Iran first and then went to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now, obviously, we all are aware of the two, but the average American or European may not even know of another Azerbaijan. A disambiguation page would only help to inform that there are two Azerbaijans, but the most common usage is the country which would be first in the listing of a disambiguation page and thus a reader could automatically see which usage is the most common...Keep in mind that what we want to do is make sure that readers know as much as possible. The term Turk is most commonly applied to Turkish people and thus required a disambiguation page. [15]
  • From the looks of it, it seems as though the majority of the people initially supported such a move.Hajji Piruz 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Type "Azerbaijan" in google and see what we have - country Azerbaijan, nothing disambiguation.--Dacy69 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
See Georgia and Macedonia, this is Wikipedia, not Google. We are here to maximize the learning experience of the users who come to Wikipedia for information.Hajji Piruz 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Azerbaijan (an internationally recognized country) should be renamed to Azerbaijan (country), when it's clear that province page is called Iranian Azerbaijan or South Azerbaijan. Let's not forget that Greek vs. Macedonians, and Georgia (U.S. State) vs. Georgia (republic) are ethnically different and in second case completely remote regions. In Azerbaijan case, it's the same historical region with the same ethno-linguistic Turkic background of the population, by virtue of history divided between Russia (and now independent Azerbaijan) and Iran. Atabek 14:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.Hajji Piruz 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF and read R. N. Frye and others on the ethnic background of population of Iranian Azerbaijan, if you have doubts about it. Besides this, there is only one country that identifies with Azerbaijani culture, ethnicity and language on the official level - Republic of Azerbaijan - so I don't think the renaming or disambiguation is necessary. Iran, despite large population of Azerbaijanis, does not identify with this ethnicity or language officially. We don't have a disambiguation page for Hungary, just because many Hungarians live in Vojvodina (Serbia) or Transylvania (Romania). Atabek 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont how anything you just said is relevant to a page move...This is about a move based on the name Azerbaijan being used for two different geographical areas and several other geographic entities. This isnt about race, ethnicity, culture, population, etc...I also dont see the need for original research.Hajji Piruz 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with disambiguation as long as you AGF and can substantiate the move based on at least Google search hits, as suggested above. I don't think you did either one. But again assuming good faith in your regard, let me help you to find out how many Google hits you get, for example:
* Baku - 2,070,000 out of 84,300,000 pages mentioning the name Azerbaijan
* Aliyev - 1,080,000 out of 84,300,000 pages mentioning the name Azerbaijan
* Karabakh - 1,040,000 out of 84,300,000
* Tabriz - 175,000 out of 84,300,000 pages mentioning the name Azerbaijan
* Ganja - 147,000 out of 84,300,000
* Ardabil - 70,080 out of 84,300,000
* Urmiya - 21,100 out of 84,300,000
Comparison of other words:
* Azeri - 59,100,000 of 84,300,000
* Azari - 24,600 out of 84,300,000
* Turks - 45,700,000 out of 84,300,000 pages
* Persians - 1,770,000 out of 84,300,000
You can search others as well if you like and present them here, to justify that renaming is necessary. It's quite clear that the search on terms related to Republic of Azerbaijan is 10 fold of those associated with South Azerbaijan. Image search also first produces the maps of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atabek 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT about Google search.Hajji Piruz 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for presenting your evidence :). Google search is a reality to understand what the name implies. Also your OR on the fact that Azerbaijan Republic adopted its name from Iranian region is not substantiated. The Republic was established in 1918, while the name Azerbaijan (Atabakan-e Azerbaijan, Qaraqoyunlu, etc. states) has already applied to both North and South Azerbaijan in 10-13th centuries. You have been also provided a reference earlier on citing of "Russian Azerbaijan" by British Consul in 1863. Atabek 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The page moves sounds like a very good idea and in the spirit of WP:NPOV, there is already precedent for this with Macedonia and Georgia. A formal request for move should be filled as soon as possible. AlexanderPar 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it does not sound like a good idea. As I said before, there's no administrative entity in Iran called Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And even if it was, it's no reason to move the page. It all comes down to significance of the topic. We see that with Luxembourg vs. Luxembourg (Belgium), where the name of Luxembourg the country does not require specification. Parishan 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Save your arguments (opinions) for when a formal request for move has been filled.AlexanderPar 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Parishan. By the same token then Armenia page should be moved to Armenia (country): [16] Grandmaster 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly second those opposed to this unjustified move. AFAIK, Iranian Azerbaijan is not a distinct entity and its comparison with the Georgia (US State) vs. Georgia (country) issue does not hold water (albeit I hate to see "Georgia [country]"). I think this suggestion should not be endorsed. --KoberTalk 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonym

The demonym should be changed, Azeris are not the only ethnic group people in Azerbaijan. There are many other groups of people living in Azerbaijan like Talysh who are active part of Azerbaijan (I am Talysh myself). But this article only shows Azeris, thats not correct in fact thats against the code of Azerbaijan, we are a very multicultural nation who are united as one, there are dozens and dozens of other ethnics groups living side by side in Azerbaijan and this should be added in this article. Other groups which inhabit Azerbaijan are: Lezgiz, Persians, Russians, Jews, Georgians, Turks yes and even Armenians! I can understand we cant add them all but we must do something to represent this correctly.

Next time you should sign your username under the edit, just use four tildes at the end of your writing. Of course, there are many non-Turkic ethnic groups in Azerbaijan (which together comprise about 10% of the republic's population), but this discussion is not about the ethnic composition of Azerbaijan. It's about historical-geographical region of Azerbaijan and the application of it to the area that's now the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atabek 13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes exacly; at first I didnt even know what Demonym meant, but once I clicked on it to get a definition, it showed me; members of a people or the inhabitants of a place. And I know that there are many people in Azerbaijan, like you said 10% are non-Azeri. Im not asking to change this directly but we could give a better view of Azerbaijan by showing them we are a multi-cultural nation. And I dont see this information anywere in wikipedia, thats all I am saying. By de way I am not registered in wikipedia, but here are the tildes anyways 145.83.1.6 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an article about demography of Azerbaijan. It gives detailed information on all ethnic groups. Grandmaster 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article is about a geographic entity of Azerbaijan not ethnic composition or Azeri ethnicity. Certainly, Azerbaijan is proud to be a multi-cultural nation tolerant of all ethnic groups inhabiting it. Atabek 03:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

VAR

I removed User:AdilBaguirovs own website from the list of external links. AdilBaguirov is currently blocked for one year, its inappropriate to have a website which he runs as an external link.Hajji Piruz 18:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a website about Adil Baguirov's personality, it contains useful referenced material about Azerbaijan. Atabek 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was about AdilBaguirov, I said its his website, full of articles that he himself writes and also propaganda articles. Its not a factual website.Hajji Piruz 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles there are mostly by prominent scholars, well referenced and contain valuable material. Atabek 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suspicious account adding POV edits about Azerbaijanis serving in SS to a number of articles. I reverted his edits, however this is clearly a person well familiar with editing Wikipedia. Description of the picture in the original source says that mufti meets "Muslim volunteers in German army in Berlin", and not Azerbaijanis. [17] Grandmaster 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the article, User:Azizbekov is a likely sock. Atabek 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop insulting me. What is sock supposed to mean anyway??? I am dirty????Azizbekov 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, someone name Hajji on here explained to me what this means. Who am I soking? Azizbekov 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

I see some users are bent to attack me and remove information about Azeri-German collaboration and the picture. I am reverting this, even though this is my 4rth time. As I understand wiki rules I read, we can revert more than 4 times if it is blatant vandalism, which I undertand it is. The Article on Germany is a featured article, and they show 3 images under WWII sections. So, what is wrong with this one having one for battle of Caucasus and another for Azeri collaboration. Also, why are they starting to put information about Armenians and Georgians in this article? Not only Soviet citizens but europeans like the Dutch served in SS and wermacht, should we mention all? If anything should be mentioned, it should be about Uzbek and Turkmen, who served under same unit. I also do not understand how the picture is not important when at least 18,000 to OVER 30,000 azeris served in the Armies, and participated in Warsaw Uprising to very significant level. I do not want to fight, so I reported to Administration about this, maybe they will help.Azizbekov 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The image has been removed because
a) It has very little to do with Azerbaijan as a state;
b) You don't have to add it to every single Azerbaijan-related article. Parishan 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I see a problem in the image, but I see you are editing longer than me and know better, and I probably started on a negative note, since I angered at least 3 other users and received welcoming feedback on only one. Is it all right now? Can you give me any feedback or talk?Azizbekov 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted edits of banned sock account Azizbekov in accordance with WP:BAN. Grandmaster 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted an anonymous user, who is apparently a racist, who removed sourced information.Hajji Piruz 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again NPOV was violated. The Abbot issue has been discussed in length several times and it is undue weight.Hajji Piruz 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Diakonoff quote is POV. Knowing that Keith Abbott called North Azerbaijan as Russian Azerbaijan in 1863, it's simply false to claim in 20th century, that the name was invented in 1918 for political reasons. So for NPOV, both quotes must be in.Atabek 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The rules do not say that the websites of users banned from Wikipedia cannot be used as external links. If they do, please show me where. Grandmaster 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Abbot issue has been discussed already. It violates Wikipedia undue weight and completely misrepresents the truth, as Abbot is one source and he makes a lot of mistakes (no maps, no other sources, etc...). See undue weight. That section is backed up by leading figures in the field.Hajji Piruz 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed, though no conclusion (except by yourself) was made that the article violates undue weight policy. Please, seek further consensus and discuss your edits before removing sourced material. Thanks. Atabek 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not conclude anything, the policies determined the conclusion. undue weight:
Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Your comments regarding the above Wikipedia policy?Hajji Piruz 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy bears interpretation, which is yours above. I believe a good summary was provided in the Sandbox discussion section, where you also participated [18]. To my belief, if 1863 reference to Keith Abbott is undue weight, I don't see how Igor Diakonoff is supposed to not be so, and somehow one-sided POV be presented on the page. The year of publication of Abbott article in 1863, and mentioning of Azerbaijan north of Araxes, renders any claim made after 1918 that Azerbaijan wasn't the name above Araxes as simply untrue. This year of publication, apart from all policies is a plain undeniable evidence. Atabek 23:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not interpret anything, I posted the exact parts of the undu weight policy that apply here. The policy says everything that needs to be said. You, nor I, should interpret any of the rules and policies. What part of the undue weight policy did you not understand, if there is any confusion I can try to help out or ask someone else who may be able to explain it better.Hajji Piruz 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz: "I posted the exact parts of the undu weight policy that apply here". I don't deny that you posted exact excerpts of undue weight policy, I just highlighted the part which is your interpretation. As explained, please, follow the discussion at the sandbox link provided above, and also, I don't see how neutrality would be preserved by keeping Diakonoff and removing Abbott reference. Atabek 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

None of it is my interpretation, read the entire thing for yoruself:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

What part of it is my interpretation? This is exactly what undue weight states, whether we like it or not, we have to respect the policy.Hajji Piruz 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haji Piruz . Considering the fact that the capital of the provinces of the northern Arass was Tabriz , some of the visitors call all of the provinces south of the arss river(Armenia and Arran and Shirvan and etc) as " Azerbaijan " , but at that same time they mention that the Azerbaijan proper is the southern region of Arass . I think over emphasis on Abbott's quote is undue weight--Alborz Fallah 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Alborz, "all of the provinces south of the arss river(Armenia and Arran and Shirvan and etc)" are not south but north of Araxes river. Also, the fact that capital of historical Azerbaijani states was Tabriz and at some other times was Ganja does not mean that geographical names don't apply to one or another region. Atabek 07:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not undue weight. It proves wrong the previous quote, therefore it is relevant and cannot be removed from the article. Grandmaster 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A) Only scholars are allowed to make interpretations, B) it is undue weight, as per the undue weight section of WP:NPOV which I posted here, C)Abbot makes huge mistakes, is not a reliable source, and is a single source out of hundreds, which means nothing in the greater context.Hajji Piruz 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Albania

According to Robert H. Hewsen, one of the leading experts on Caucasian Albania, the population of the region was not Armenian. Cornell is not an expert on ancient Albania, he is an expert on modern politics.

What do we know of the native population of these regions-Arc'ax and Utik--prior to the Armenian conquest? Unfortunately, not very much. Greek, Roman, and Armenian authors together provide us with the names of several peoples living there, however-Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians, Parrasians, - and these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans.

Hewsen, Robert H., Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.

Grandmaster 07:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

The reference in CIA World factbook clearly says: [19] - "a nation with a Turkic and majority-Muslim population". Please, do not modify the quoted sentence without discussion like here [20] and [21]. Thanks. Atabek 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Name Azerbaijan

To preserve neutrality, I added back the Keith Abbott reference from 1863, it clearly shows that the name Azerbaijan did apply to North Azerbaijan before 1918, and hence the claims made about political aims are POV by Diakonoff. Date of Abbott's publication cannot be denied. Atabek 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There was never an agreement to remove the section or its information from this article. I reinserted it, plus made other corrections.Hajji Piruz 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There was an agreement when User:Khosrow II was inserting the same claims in this article that the topic will be discussed in 1 dedicated article, i.e. History of the name Azerbaijan. It is enough to provide a link to that article here. Grandmaster 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The agreement with El C was the the info not be spammed in any other articles. The information presented here was ok and within Wikipedia guidelines. You are in violation of the agreement.Hajji Piruz 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
But it is spammed. You can find the same quotes in more than 1 article. It is good that you remember the agreement we had with EI C, now we need to implement it. And it was not me who removed this section first, clearly there's a strong opposition to your edits from many users. Grandmaster 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. May I remind you that that information was in the article for MONTHS and it was in our agreement that it would stay in the Azerbaijan article.Hajji Piruz 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When did we have an agreement on that? The agreement was to keep the topic to the dedicated article. Grandmaster 05:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

There seems to be something wrong because the sum of the percentages equals more than 100% ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Azeri nation

as article shows there were not any turkic speaking people in the region until uguz turks migrated from the central asia to this region and dominated over there. Many scholers believe that azeri people were from indoeuropean origin(talysh or Kurdish or a combination of them as the region was inhabited by these people before the turkic migration). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a laughable idea. There were also no Turkic speaking people in Anatolia until Oğuz Turks came. This will not change the nations identity. Nation is not equal to race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.247.26 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


For me it is quite sad that turkish language got dominance in what is modern turkey and azerbijan, otherwise they were some kind of indo-european anatolian or iranian peoples. Sad but this is the bitter truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.79 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Farsi in Arran?

In that text these pictures are irrelvant and out of context. I'll remove them if no valid objections arise.

Azerbayjan was a part of Iran and it is seprated by russia force!!!!

In fact it is a part of Iran and many many documents are supporting this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.189.210 (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Azerbayjan is, and has always been part of Iran during the whole history, but the whole story is written in a way that seems it was just captured for some time by the Persian impire. It has always been part of Iran during it's whole story, the one who captured it, was Russia. Azeri language is one the most ancient Iranian languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.209.10 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Minority Rights

I added some information about growin concerns about minority rights and systematic assimilation of Azari goverment on Turkification of minorities in "culture" section. I thought I would do that instead of adding a new section as those minorities were only discussed in culture section. The culture section looked like as if someone from Azeri government had put it in there to say how rosy the situation is there and all minorities have government sponsored radios etc. while simple things like mentioning ethnicity of a historical poet is punished by grave crime court. So I added that to balance a pro and possibly a government sponsored earlier edit. There are more links and references and I am sure more human right organizations will follow this later. So please do not delete without proper discussions and bringing better references from "international" sources. (Off course Azeri government will vehemently deny any wrongdoing and will accuse the guy of links etc. ) Persian Magi (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are back. I thought you were leaving for good [22] But in any case it is no good to accuse other editors of being connected to the government or anything of the like without a solid proof. Welcome back and please mind WP:AGF. Grandmaster (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not accuse anyone. I just said it looks like...and that section really looked like a propaganda section. I wonder how it was left at that. You guys should know better that how serious the situation is inside Azerbaijan. Things like what court of grave crimes accusing are noraml day to day research activities in the West. [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Magi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I added extra references about the incident of Talish Newspaper, where the publishing of Nezami and Babak was mentioned. It is so unacademic of some reverting edits without even checking the links properly. Persian Magi (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the news article says on 19th of December. (I really feel for my Azeri brothers who can not even receive research funds and speak their own mind. I guess I am too much used to having freedom as such.)

Editors of "Tolishi sedo" newspaper took stand of betrayal of country

Azerbaijani well-known poet Nizami Ganjavi and historical hero Babek were shown as Talish in these materials published in the newspaper.

Court consideration on the cases of Novruzeli Mammadov, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Linguistics department chief, editor-in-chief of” Tolishi sedo” newspaper and Elman Guliyev, official of Linguistics Institute was started in the Court of Grave Crimes today. Shakir Alasgarov presided at the trial. Court consideration was held behind closed doors. Answering the questions of Ramiz Mammadov, lawyer of defendant Mammadov, Guliyev admitted that Iranian Talish Study scientist Ali Abdeyin rendered amount of financial assistance to “Tolishi sedo” newspaper. Azerbaijani well-known poet Nizami (my comment: Well known Persian poet Nezami) Ganjavi and historical hero Babek (my comment: Iranian Babak Khorramdin) were shown as Talish in these materials published in the newspaper. It was shown in the newspaper that Turkish came to Azerbaijani regions afterwards where Talish people live and these lands were Talish lands historically. Guliyev admitted that they received $1000 a month from Talish organizations in Iran. Trial will continue in the second half of the day. Novruzali Mammadov was detained on February 3 and Yasamal Court passed decision to arrest Novruzeli Bayramov for 15 days. Novruzeli Mammadov faced charge under Article 274 (State betray) of Criminal Code on February 17. Elman Guliyev is also accused of the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Magi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Magi, the information you place is irrelevant to Culture of Azerbaijan section in this article. What does the fact that some guy claimed that Babak is Talysh have to do with description of culture of a country? There is an article for that called Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan, where you can place your references if others don't object. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, It is relevant as minorities are mentioned there. Unless if we completely remove the subject of minorities from culture section.Persian Magi (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Persian Magi, the cultural section is supposed to discuss the fact of existence of various cultures and talk about their heritage. The legal issues, such as claims of Babak being Talysh and being persecuted (without any reference), are relevant in Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan. Just like information on ethnic Azeri cartoon protests and their violent dispersal in 2006 are relevant in Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy and Ethnic minorities in Iran articles, not in Iran main article. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Persian Magi, Atabek is absolutely right, what does the info you are trying to add have to do with the culture of entire country of Azerbaijan? Add it to the article about minorities, if it is so important. Situation with minorities in Azerbaijan is not as dramatic as in some neighboring countries, for instance in Iran. Council of Europe estimates it as quite good: [24]If you are interested in providing objective info about this issue, why don't you make any use of such sources? So far I have an impression that you are only trying to add some negative information to this article, for the reasons unknown to me. Quite possible that this impression is wrong and you will show with your further edits that it is not so. So please refrain from making POV edits to the main article about Azerbaijan and add the info that you want to add to the relevant articles. Main article does not need to cover any minor issue based on personal interpretation of selected sources. Grandmaster (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree. If you are putting things like state sponsored minority radios in there, you should also mention the limitations government put on minority folklore and culture so that the reader has the full picture. Otherwise, you will look like as a salesperson for the government. However, if you like to remove minorities and solely talk about culture, that is a different issue. I do not revert the edits to avoid an edit war. But you guys need to come to your senses and a consensus and not reverting edits without look at the matter objectively. The section as is looks like a copy/paste of an Azeri government propaganda website mainly talking about how 10% minorities are well treated! Persian Magi (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I put forward my references from Azeri and international sites and sources. Why do you repeat claiming that I did not have a source in there! There were three references there if you care to read a little bit less emotional subjective filtering. I have even copied and pasted from the Azeri source above. I do not know you are talking about. Persian Magi (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, it is not unknown to all that you have been pushing your own POV on every subject on Azarbaijan and Iran matters. Everyone is entitled to his own POV but we try to learn not to push our POV on Wikipedia. I understand you are trying to learn too here. But sometimes you still need to try a bit harder. Providing half facts, such as minorities have stations of their own with government money are also considered POV. And doesn't it look ridiculous that in a place that you need to talk about culture you have a section half of which implies how great the government is to provide free air time for minorities while in fact the same government accuses someone of treason (Source: [25] ) for receiving research funds and calling someone of his own ethnicity? Persian Magi (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think that Azerbaijani government oppresses the minorities, how come that international organizations say nothing about it? Quite the contrary, their reports are quite favorable to Azerbaijan. I'm not saying that the are no problems in this area, but they are not as gross as you try to show them to be. There are much greater human rights violators in this world. The fact that minorities have their stations cannot be POV, since it is a fact, as you say. Grandmaster (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, in fact, you are right. The fact that those stations are government funded should be stated as a fact. Because for inteligent minds, those fundings definitely means nothing goes without approval of the government in a place where a historian goes on trial for treason for calling Nezami a Taylish. I brought you from reliable Azeri and independent international sources with facts and figures but you are accusing me of pushing a POV. It is not my opinion that Azarbaijan is not a multicultural society. Read the quotes from Russian expert, Valery Tishkov, I brought forward. I did not invent it. It is your country. If you guys do not care about basic human rights and want to censor the facts to show a rosy picture, then what can I say? Persian Magi (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval History lacks mention of Afshar and Zand rules!

Well, I wonder why that is. Can someone bring about references and details of khanates claimed to have ruled area independently from Afshar, Zand and Qajar (until Turkamanchai treaty) dynasties? My understanding from Western academic sources was that Azerbaijan area was mainly ruled under those dynasties execept for the turmoil periods in between the dynasties (that is normal for any area anyway).

Now for those who only think in terms of their own schooling system history books, please note those books are not written objectively. So please, only academic university references. Had I had enough time, I would have gone to those books in no moment. However, I would like to learn from those who have a different perspective and would like to see their sources. Unless there is a deliberate unfocus on parts to try to picture an earlier independent area for the republic! Anyhow, appreciate honest, best effort non-POV and academic feedbacks. Persian Magi (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I modified the section to reflect the rule of the 3 Iranian dynasties in the area. I see there are references about those khanates emerging. They seem to reflect that khanates were mostly emerged in late Zand and early Qajar era. However, I used the phrase "in the meanwhile" to include all interpretations.
Remember, Qajars, unlike the Pahlavi dynasty, did not have as centralized government/military system. In every area from small khans to big ones basically ruled their own jurisdiction, even in central areas of Iran. Sometimes khans wanted to push their boundaries or assert more powers for themselves and were punished for it by central government. But that was the way it worked. So the term khanate in the treaty were not indicating any existing independence. In fact, the treaty itself was an indication that those khanates were under Qajar rule. But anyhow, sensitive topic and I am sure some of you have emotional attachments to all those things. So I left it in a compromised state. Persian Magi (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology and Atropates

Ali, I think your wikilink in most recent edit was wrong. Atropates was a Median or Persian satrap, why should his affiliation be linked to Iranian peoples, an ethnic/race definition, which has absolutely no relevance to the context of this article or the Atropates. Atabek (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right he was Iranic ethnically: most likely Persian (I haven't seen a souce for Median) [26][27]. So without getting into which one Median or Persian, I put Iranian. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, please, put it back. The "Iranian" is ethnic attribution, for which there can't be a firm proof, Achaemenid Persian or Median is a historical definition which is proven by many scholars. After all, even Cyrus the Great is known as Cyrus the Mede not Cyrus the "Iranic". Regarding reference, please, check Encyclopedia Britannica reference, "Alexander occupied Media in the summer of 330; in 328 B.C. he appointed Atropates, a former general of Darius as satrap...". Thanks.Atabek (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is a both ethnic and geographical designation. I have put Media as well, but ethnically he was Iranian(Median or Persian) as the google books say. And of course there is firm proof as the scholarly sources above say (the google books link) and his name is ethnically Iranian as Minorsky has said. So I am not sure what the issue is? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another reference from The History of Herodotus - "After this Media has made no further effort until the dismemberment of the Empire of Alexander enabled the satrap Atropates to become the founder of a new Median kingdom"Atabek (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Source for what? I agree he ruled Media. I have no issue with that. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ali, the source says he was a founder of Median kingdom. There is no such thing as "ethnically Iranian". Iran is a multi-ethnic society, within which there are ethnic elements, such as Persians, Azeri Turks, Armenians, Kurds, etc. I am not sure what's the objective of claiming that Atropates 2000 years ago was "Iranian", using politicized race terms, when it's much easier just to state that he was Median or Persian. And the Median heritage can be claimed not only by Persians, but also by Kurds and Azeris. Atabek (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Atabek the reason for my change was because Aldstat is a poor source in terms of ancient history and also she does not mention anything about Median origin. Iranian people is inclusive term which includes Old Persians and Medes whose heritage is passed down to modern Iran. The article covers ancient Iranian people like Medes, Old Persians, Sogdians and etc who were Indo-Iranian speakers (Britannica). But we are talking about Iran 2300 years, so it needs to be accurate. The reason Iranian is important is because somebody somewhere in a unscholarly website or something mentioned Greek origin, so I think it is good to emphasize this point that although he was Persian or perhaps a Mede (I haven't seen a source for that), he was a native Iranic speaker as the sources say. And if Azeris share that heritage (ancient Medes), then they should have no problem with it also since the ancient Medes were called Arians (Herodotus)(Moses of Choren) and their territory was included as part of Ariana (Strabo). I just wanted to make sure that people know Atropates was a native Iranian not foreigner as some wrong websites (non-academic) have claimed as Greek. He was just a Satrap of the Greek empire just like he was a Satrap of Achaemenid empire, thus some websites have mistaken him as a Greek which is wrong of course since he was the Satrap of Darius first and his name is Old Persian/Avesta.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, here is another reference [28] - "To Perdicas he gave the daughter of the daughter of Atropates, the Median satrap". I don't think the argument whether Atropates was ethnically Persian or Median is quite relevant in context of etymology. The facts are that he was a satrap of Media, and that he formerly served Achaemenid Persians and later Alexander the Great. History does not remain the same in 2300 years, people and ethnicities mix over such period of time. It's certain that modern Azeri Turks, Kurds and Persians share the heritage of ancient Medes. Perhaps, even that their territory was part of Ariana, so what? The same territory was later part of Arab Caliphate, Sassanid Empire, Mongolian Empire, Seljuk Turks, Ottomans, Safavids, Qajars, etc., this does not establish basis to make definitive claims and/or associations to claim Medians were definitely Iranian and their heritage passed down only to modern Iran. I believe the heritage of Cyrus the Mede is shared by entire Middle East not just by modern Iran, which I think hardly cares about Mede or Achaemenid heritage anyway. Atabek (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes he was the Satrap of Media (as the ancient historian Arian mentioned in your source)..but ethnically the sources he was Persian. He could been a Mede perhaps (I haven't seen any source), but I put it there anyhow. Its relavance to etymology is that ultimately the word is Iranic word. Some websites are contesting that and are making weird claims. One is claiming the word Azerbaijan is from Az+ber+ai+jan and producing a weird etymology for each of these words. Some other websites are also claiming he was Greek or I know I read it somewhere in a wrong website or so. It doesn't have to do with modern Persians, Kurds, Azeris or modern politics. We are discussing about 2300 years ago. I want to emphasize the word is Indo-Iranian and the person was ethnically Iranian not Greek. So whether he was Old Persian (as the sources say) or Mede, he was ethnically Iranian. As Strabo says:The name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations. Herdotus: "These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians". So Arian(Iranian) was also an ethnic designation of the Medes (Moses Khoren also attests) and scholars today classify them as Iranian. So emphasizing the name of Atropates is Indo-Iranian and the Medes called themselves Arian, and are considered by scholars as Iranian has nothing to do with politics but it is history. I am not talking about modern links, but about ancient Iranian people. This fact 2300 does not mean that any modern group does not share in their heritage, specially Azeris who of course share it. But we need to be accurate. Who shares their heritage and other stuff is about modern things and Azeris definitely do. But I am talking about 2300 years ago. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Golbez edit

Golbez any reason that you're removing the reference [29] to Minorsky, which has been in the article for a long time? Atabek (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with etymology. Put it somewhere else, but not in the etymology section. Perhaps a history section? --Golbez (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does and is fairly detail, giving the name in its various forms and period. Here I make an excerpt from the Minorsky source:"called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf).called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf)."

Then move it back, but the sentence it was attached to, about Caucasian Albania, had nothing to do with etymology. --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay, sorry. Also I removed Altsdat before because she is not an expert on ancient history and does not know Persian or Old Persian. Neither is Swietchowski. They are good sources on modern republic of Azerbaijan but when discussing ancient history, idealy we should use historians and experts in ancient history. I wanted to put sources from actual scholars who were linguists so that the sources have some weight. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Golbez, the etymology section was introduced to indicate that name originated from South Azerbaijan, and Minorksy "Caucasica" reference was only supposed to clarify that what is today Republic of Azerbaijan, or North Azerbaijan, was actually Caucasian Albania. And Ali, I don't see the basis for your opposition to Swietochowski or Alstadt, unless you specifically disagree with the facts in their references. Atabek (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, I think for Wikipedia Iranian Azerbaijan is more correct. Just like I respect Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan, Russian Azerbaijan, Caucasian Azerbaijan) and I do not call it Northern Iran, Eastern Armenia and etc. Just a suggestion but you are free to write what you want, but some Iranian users find this ahistorical term (the term "SA" is not found in any book till 20th century) irredentist. Anyhow, even if what Swietchowski, Altstad say is correct, better sources are available. That is they are not historians/linguists of ancient history and languages. I rather use better source (when available). Since the better sources direct us to to correct references. I didn't remove them for now but it was just a guession to use more relavent sources. thanks--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ali, I believe South Azerbaijan was also accepted as a scholarly term in 20th century to define the place of domicile of ethnic Azerbaijani people. Just search in Google Books alone returns 1339 references. The term "Guney Azerbaijan" or "Cenubi Azerbaijan" is also used by many Iranian Azeris. So I don't have a problem calling it either way, the definition is natural, geographical and historical, and has nothing to do with politics, at least for me. Atabek (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for me and also many Iranian Azerbaijanis (also mentioned by some western scholars) it is somewhat political that is why I prefer Iranian Azerbaijan and republic of Azerbaijan which are international names. To give you a feeling, just like I know you prefer Karabagh and not the other name. Of course you are free to use whatever you think, but it was just a friendly suggestion since some sources consider the other term political. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, for me and many other Azeris, it's also political to claim Azeris are ethnic Iranian peoples. This is despite the fact that I do recognize and respect the integrity of modern Iran, challenging this is out of question. I just don't like using history and geography to serve political goals. As I said, I don't have a problem with using either South or Iranian Azerbaijan, as I don't have problem using Artsakh or Karabakh, as long as those names are used in proper historical context. Karabakh was not generally known as Artsakh after about 12-13th century. Atabek (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek that is a separate issue. That is 20th century political naming (South Azerbaijan) according to many sources was irredentist (Western, Iranian). So I prefer using international names. Some Iranians are also referring to the republic of Azerbaijan as Northern Iran. And of course there are sources that use Eastern Armenia. So that is why I like international names rathern than South Azerbaijan or West, East Kurdistan or Northern Iran. As per Azeris and how they are classified Iranic or Turkic. They are classified as Turkic (due to language) and partially culture, but they also have a shared Iranic heritage (Medes, Zoroaster, Persian poetry, Babak, Bahmanyar and etc) with other Iranian people. So I think symbosis is the best approach to the issue rather than all or none. That is my belief which you may disagree with. But I am not here to offend anyone but some people will find the name South Azerbaijan as undermining the territorial integrity of Iran and offensive. Just like Turkey for example might not like the non-internationally recognized names of West Kurdistan or West Armenia and etc. Even though these terms existed probably. So that is why for Wikipedia, I suggest using Iranian Azerbaijan which builds mutual respect and is an international name. Note I am not suggesting Historical Azerbaijan, or Eastern Kurdistan (for parts of it) or Greater Armenia or etc that some people might not like either. It is just the best neutral term.
By the way your latest source from the Greek historian Arriann is an ancient source that should properly be intrepreted by a scholar. It doesn't necessary mention Median ethnicity, but Median Satrap which could mean he was a Satrap of Media. But if you look at my two sources clearly, it is ethnic Persian (one is very clear) and they also mention the name is Old Persian (although Old Median would be very close as the names of Medes in Old Persian inscriptions and the few words recorded also show). I totally agree history and geography should not be used as political tools. But you have to remember identity for many groups is based on their history and identity also is connected to politics. Unfortunately the name Azerbaijan is being misintrepreted in some websites giving very wild etymologies (for political reasons), so I try to make sure at least correct information is given here.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I don't think I added ethnic Median or ethnic Persian in any of my edits, because that's not the issue. The fact is that Atropates ruled over Media, he served Achaemenid Persian kings, later Alexander, and after him ruled independently over Media. So he qualifies to be Median (geographically) or Persian (politically) satrap of Alexander, and there is nothing wrong with this definition. The problem is that by adding wikilink to Iranian peoples, you were trying to introduce ethnic context into discussion, which was not my intent. As for South Azerbaijan, same argument, there is a historical and social reality that people culturally/ethnically known as Azerbaijani/Azeri inhabited a geographical region comprising of Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan for centuries. So the definitions of North and South Azerbaijan are natural too, because whatever you call their region, it does not change the definition of one ethnicity in both parts of Azerbaijan. I don't see why some (mostly non-Azeri) Iranians are trying to make this into an issue and go into lengthy political debates over territorial integrity of Iran, thinking along retaliation and trying to talk about Karabakh/Artsakh, Eastern Anatolia/Western Armenia, etc., or try to call South part as "Azarbaijan" to distiguish from "Azerbaijan" and other language perturbations, when I clearly spelled out that I recognize and respect the integrity of modern Iran. As I said the usage of terms South Azerbaijan vs. Iranian Azerbaijan in my talk page comments are my choice, and I don't think anyone can mandate to use only one and not the other, when there are Western references to South Azerbaijan title too: Tadeusz Swietochowski, Ali Banuazizi, Vladimir Babak, and most importantly, one of your favorite sources Touraj Atabaki. And those are just researching the first page of over 1300 references in Google Books to term "South Azerbaijan". Atabek (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek of course it is your choice. It was just a request which you perhaps can think about it. But reread the last link again, it discusses the political nature of the name. It is not from Dr. Atabaki (although the author is Armenian and the editor is Atabaki but the author nevertheless is giving the view of some Iranians)(pg 99). The Ali Banuzizi is from Swietchowski who also uses Iranian Azerbaijan. The link from Vladimir Babak is talking about a political organization who seeks unification of what they call "South" and "North" Azerbaijan. Also "South, azerbaijan", it yields only 79 hits [30] many of them "south, Azerbaijan" and "South. Azerbaijan" and many (if not most) discussing south of republic of Azerbaijan. So perhaps no more than 20-30 links. "Southern Azerbaijan " yields 213 links with the first one discussing exactly the political nature of the term and most of them talking about the South of Republic of Azerbaijan. "Iranian Azerbaijan" yields 498 links. "Persian Azerbaijan" yields 464 links. Both terms are unambigious. I have other sources also (western too)(not just that Atabaki source) that says the name is political and was used by USSR to undermine the territorial integrity of Iran. So since the USSR used this name for undermining the territorial integrity of Iran, some Iranians are sensitive to it. Of course you do not have to be sensitive (it is your choice) but I was brining other examples to show my perspective (not that I am going to use those names), but show you what I feel would be equivalent. Note both areas are called Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan, republic of Azerbaijan) so I am not negating any cultural feelings. But I am negating what I believe was political attempt by the USSR. Anyhow that was my perspective and I don't think I can explain it better. If you didn't get it, fine, I tried. In the end I guess I will call it Iranian Azerbaijan and Republic of Azerbaijan and some people will call parts or all of Iranian Azerbaijan as Southern Azerbaijan, East Kurdistan...
As per Atropates besides being geographically/politically Median/Persian was an ethnic Iranic just like some articles for example have a person as an ethnic Turk (like Kasghari). So it is complementary. For example Qajars, Afshars, Qaraqoyunlus are Turkic ethnicity but politically Persian. So the starter of the Atropatene dynasty was ethnic Iranic (and this does not negate that the heritage is also shared by modern Azeris just like we share the heritage of Nader Shah). I took the initative in response to some websites which have claimed otherwise and thus felt it was important to mention this. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Atabek, here is Atabaki's opinion [31](pg 2) and here is the opinion of the book that he was the editor (not author)[32] (pg 99). Of course there are other authors as well, and the counter-examples I gave was just to give you a perspective and I had no hint of retalation although I think we are seeing the name "Northern Iran" (Iran Shimali) in many blogs and etc. as a reaction. It was an important suggestion (because the other names for Iranian Azerbaijan cause misconceptions) and since you say you respect the territorial integrity of Iran, I thought I share the other-sides perspective (which you may or may fail to grasp due to your own upbrigning and materials you have read).

Ali, there are also over 250 references to "Southern Azerbaijan" [33], and that's just Google Books. You can also check the reference [34] from Western author, which I just found on unrelated edit about literature, saying: He returned to Urmia in Southern Azerbaijan. Anyways, I think this discussion is unrelated to the topic of Median vs. Iranian, etc., so I hope we can close this discussion. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are 216 (if you go the last page), but the majority of them are about the south of republic of Azerbaijan and many of them discuss the political nature of the term. Where as Persian Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan bring more than 1000 unambigous links. Note also "eastern Armenia" gets a lot of hit (600+) . So does "western Kurdistan" (150+). East Kurdistan gets (310) hits where west Azerbaijan gets (350), but the latter is the neutral name. So just getting number of hits is not important. What is important in my opinion is to use internationally recognized names so no misunderstanding arises. I guess we can close that discussion, but I tried to give the other perspective.. As per "Median vs Iranian", Medes are considered Iranian both ethnically, linguistically and geographically, besides being called Arian (Iranian) by Armenians and Greeks and also Armenian documents identifying Kurds with Medes continuously in the last 1000 years. Nothing to discuss there, given we have enough words from Median (specially personal names) and basic animal names (Dog, Horse)... I think I am done with this current thread and I left the background for its own article. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ali, please, note that you're disputing my usage of the term on the talk page :), not in the main space. Though provided the references to both terms already exist, I don't see the reason for not using one of them just for political reasons, especially so in my talk page comment. I do believe that South Azerbaijan definition embodies the ethnolinguistic and cultural composition of the region much better, given that Azeris live and consider both Azerbaijans as their homeland, but again this is my opinion expressed on a talk page.
Your repeated comparisons to Eastern Armenia or Western Armenia, despite being interesting are still absolutely irrelevant. Because I don't deny that Iranian part is called also Azerbaijan and that conversely South Azerbaijan is Iranian Azerbaijan, and subsequently part of Iran. And I didn't deny that both Kurds and Azeris share the Median heritage, just scroll above to see my comment. Though not sure which Armenian references you refer to in the last 1000 years and why? To prove what?
If you are planning to write again telling me what sourced definitions I should and should not use in my talk page comment, please, don't spend your time. Regards. Atabek (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I made some minor edits which will end any dispute but if I see some people claiming Atropates to have been Altaic/Greek (as in some unacademic websites) or making weird etymologies, I will get back to the issue.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

References error

It looks like reference number 28 and 31 have gone missing from someone removing the named ref tag and forgetting to move the citation to one of the ref tags that used the name only. Anybody know what they were or care to take a crack at cleaning it up? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambitious claims trying to link CA with Azerbaijan were removed. VartanM (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

VartanM there is no need to remove Caucasian Albania link, please, refer to the beginning of Caucasica IV article by Minorsky, which starts with statement that the territory of Caucasian Albania was the same as that of Soviet Azerbaijan. Atabek (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Territory of Rome was the same as that of Italy
  • Territory of Gaul was the same as that of France
  • Territory of Iraq was the same as that of Babylon
  • Territory of Byzantium was the same as that of Turkey
  • Territory of Apache was the same as that of Arizona

...

So you see, your argument doesn't hold water. VartanM (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and territory of what's now Armenia was the same as Median or Persian Empire, Assyrian or Hittite Empires, Turkey and Azeri-populated Erivan khanate, nevertheless, it's still "officially" called Armenia. Atabek (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point, you don't see wikilinks to history of Byzantium in the Turkey article do you? How about History of Persia in Armenia article? VartanM (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats the relevancy of your answer with what the point I have raised? VartanM (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Caucasian Albania is related to Azerbaijan's history as much as Urartu is related to Armenia's. Atabek (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Kingdom of Armenia was the immediate inheritor of the Urartuan civilization. Azerbaijan is the inheritor of Turko-Tatar nomads of the 18th c., who replaced other Turkic nomads in prior centuries, who in turn had replaced Mongol invadors of yet earlier centuries, who had themselves replaced the Seljuk nomads, and so forth. The connection between Albania and "Azerbaijan" is a myth of modern Azerbaijan's ultra-nationalist pseudoscience.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please calm the rhetoric in edit summaries? Let's not escalate anything. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the calming effect of Golbez' voice of reason. If only it was as persistent and enduring as it is fair and reasonable. I am really sorry, I will try to make my edit summaries more neutral.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just doin' my part. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism, without realizing that two consecutive edits were two different vandalisms. The problem is resolved now, and both vandalizing edits were removed. Atabek (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added original research to article. Azerbaijan did exist as a state in history, first instance being Medes-Atropatene as well as Atabeg State of Azerbaijan and Kara Koyunlu kingdom. Atabek (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

UNSC resolutions

I think they are more appropriate in the history section. Grandmaster (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that. --HyeTashnak (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Historical Dictionary of Azerbaijan by Tadeusz Swietochowski and Brian C. Collins, ISBN (retrieved 07 June 2006).
  2. ^ The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule by Audrey Altstadt, ISBN (retrieved 07 June 2006).
  3. ^ Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN 0-231-07068-3
  4. ^ Pan-Turanianism Takes Aim at Azerbaijan: A Geopolitical Agenda; Arran and the Historical By: Dr. Kaveh Farrokh Azerbaijan
  5. ^ Encyclopædia Iranica. Azerbaijan. Geography
  6. ^ a b c V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), p. 504
  7. ^ a b c d "Arran". Encyclopaeida Iranica. By C.E Bosworth
  8. ^ a b Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. The Society, published 1902, page 64. Text states: "In Mustawfi's lists, however, the Arabic article has everywhere disappeared and we have Ray, Mawsil, etc.; while names such as Ar-Ran and Ar-Ras (spelt Al-Ran, Al-Ras in the Arabic writing), which in the older geographers had thus the false appearance of Arab names, in the pages of Mustawfi appear in plain Persian as Arran and Aras."
  9. ^ Prasad, Ganga. The Fountain Head of Religion. Published by the Book Tree in 2000, page 46
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive_3&oldid=786792243"