Jump to content

Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Southern Azerbaijan Argument

None of you guys are making valid arguments. The number of searches on Google or the belief that most people refer to the region by Southern Azerbaijan are not valid, relevant or even correct facts regarding your argument.

Klymen 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Things that can be confirmed

FWIW, I have a couple of rather old atlases and can confirm that the term "Azerbaijan" in the early twentieth century referred to a region in modern-day Iran, south of the Aras; these sources corroborate the 1911 EB.

The region later known as the Azerbaijani SSR and more recently the Republic of Azerbaijan was at that time part of what was called Transcaucasia, which was under Russian control.

Maury's New Complete Geography (1906)
depicts this in the map facing page 136, and in the text on 149 says this: "Transcaucasia, formerly Georgia, lies on the south side of the Caucasus Mountains... The people... belong to the Tatar (tah'tar) race... Tiflis is the capital and chief city. The region about Baku is famous for its wells of petroleum..." This clearly includes what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as what is now Georgia, and probably also Armenia; the border between Transcaucasia and Persia on the map appears to be very close to the same shape as the northern border of Iran in my late-cold-war-era 6th ed. National Geographic Atlas of the World, and in the same position relative to Tabriz.

Additionally, the New Ecclectic Series Complete Geography (1896) shows Caucasia, a region belonging to Russia, in the same location as Maury's shows Transcaucasia. This atlas however does not have sufficient detail of Persia to show the region then known as Azerbaijan; for that we have to go with what Maury's and the Britannica tell us, in the absense of another source from that era.

Unfortunately, I do not have an atlas from the 1920s, which would be very useful for resolving at least one point of dispute. I do however have a dictionary with maps from the early fourties (which shows Poland dividing East Prussia from the rest of Germany), and this shows Azerbaijan as part of the USSR, east of Armenia, in roughly the present location of the Republic of Azerbaijan (though borders between the SSRs are not drawn in on this map), showing the state of affairs between WWI and WWII. This is from Webster's Complete Reference Dictionary and Encyclopedia, The Publisher's Guild, NY, The World Publishing Company, 1944.

If someone has maps, or, better, a detailed atlas, from the 1920s, that would help to nail down _when_ the term 'Azerbaijan' began to refer to the region north of the Aras. Why may be harder to establish, but let's start with what should be straightforward and go from there.

And please stop calling people Persian Chauvenists and Pan-Turkists; it helps nothing.

--Jonadab the Unsightly One

The fact is as my learned friend above has mentioned Southern/Iranian Azerbaijan should simply be Azerbaijan based on historical grounds. Azerbaijan SSR was a soviet contruct and it has no more right to refer to Azerbaijan as South Azerbaijan than people in New England have a right to refer to England as East England or Novo Scotian to Scotland as East Scotland. I think the argument here are rather silly. The implication is that the twenty million or so Azerbaijanis in Iran who are pillars of a strong country and central to the great Iranian culture should accept the suzerainty of four million people living in a small, weak and rather undistinguished country whose history does not extend beyonf twenty years. It should be the reverse. Those people in the caucauses who identify themselves as Azerbaijanis should join the mainstream of their cultural identity and enter the brotherhood of the Iranian nations. As the heirs to the Median culture, Azerbaijanis are one of the principle groups of the Aryans and the racist comments made about them by random contributors shows an ignorance when distinguishing language and culture.

Google results

"South Azerbaijan" - 862 results "Southern Azerbaijan" - 4,240 results

"Iranian Azerbaijan" - 5,020 results "Iranian Azarbaijan" - 227 results

As seen from above, "Iranian Azerbaijan" and "Southern Azerbaijan" are the most commonly used names for the area. Thus, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, the entry should be in "Iranian Azerbaijan". --Tabib 14:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Try with "Azerbaijan-Iran" in google. You find 18,300 results with this one. I think, it is some more dann 4240 by "Southen Aterbaijan" .... PS: I dont find the number of Google results clever for comparing but i repect it when another one do it, and the above argument is for answer to this Problem......17.6.05 141.2.37.83

please, do not disrupt Wikipedia and follow naming conventions as well as Wikipedia norms of behavior. "Azerbaijan-Iran" is simply the combination of two words, names of countries, whereas 'Iranian Azerbaijan' and 'Southern Azerbaijan' are actually the most widely used references used for most of the northwestern part of Iran. I ask other editors to intervene if necessary because, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a new senseless and artificial dispute here. --Tabib 15:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "South Azerbaijan". This term is extremely offensive to all Persian people as it is only used by a very small group of terrorist seperatists. The only land to have ever been named Azerbaijan is the current Iranian province. When Russia took the Caucauses from Iran in 1813, the Russians decided to name the 3 previous Persian provinces "azerbaijan" in hopes of further expantion into Iranian territory. Please remove this article as it is innaccurate and the content is false.

    • newer results : south azerbaijan 164,000,000 southern azerbaijan 56,400,000, it's true that it's offensive cause persians wanna think that whatever they saw in persian empire's map is true, in that case greece and egypt should be persia too, after islam how Iran was being kept?

the fact is iran became a country since 80 years ago, before that iran was a country with 4 main lands, and states in them, well persian theory is old which genetic refuses being azeris as even indo-europeans

Why the title should be at Southern Azerbaijan

"Southern Azerbaijan"/"South Azerbaijan" is much more common than "Iranian Azerbaijan". Most people refer to it as the first two names. --Hottentot

Page moved at request of Hottentot: had been listed on WP:RM for three weeks, unopposed. -- Francs2000 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a Fallacy :
Improper appeal to practice
1. M defends action X against criticism by arguing that X is widely practiced or is a custom or traditional practice
2. The existence of the practice of X is either not relevant or not sufficient to justify M's defence of X
"Everybody does it!"
--klymen

Population and name of "Iranian Azerbaijan"

  • The population of Iranian Azerbaijan is less than 8 million. The area is only some 7% of the total territory of Iran and consists of less than 10% of the Iranian population. So, the REAL population number should be something arround 6 or 7 millions, NOT 28 millions. That's totally wrong! Source: Encyclopaedia of the Orient
    • That information on Encyclopaedia of the Orient is 30 years old, you can go on Iran's page which is 15 years old and guess what can be the truth right now
  • The name "South Azerbaijan" is politically motivated, has no historical basis, and is usually used by Turkish nationalists and fanatics. As you can see in the following map: Abbasid Caliphate, the nation "Azerbaijan" has never been a part of the region known as "Azerbaijan". There is no such thing as "North or South Azerbaijan".
      • Interesting argument, using this map. According to this map and many other documents, there was never ever a real country or state called Iran till the Safavids coming to power. Iran and Turan were mythical lands in Shahnameh.


    • "Iranian Azerbaijan" has more than 17,000 google-hits: [1]
    • "South Azerbaijan" has not even 1000 google-hits: [2]
    • Using google to decide on this matter is a waste of time - There is absolutely no reason why this article should be called South or Southern Azerbaijan, This article should be merged with the current article Azarbaijan, the region in Iran. This problem is probably created by one or more nationalists from Azerbaijan who are trying to claim a land that has been part of Iran for centuries. --Kash 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


    • People of south azerbaijan I don't know why but they are going to forget persia because they have found an older history, well, if you had something in mind could go on google and see it's a little more than a 1000! and the population is a little more than 8 million, don't keep your line going, perspolis doesn't even have a roof, why don't you jus do a genetic test, then how come persians doesn't have green eyes just like their indian or europian brothers? well I guess you need to make yourself up to date, or if you are thinking abouth Persian empire why don't you say that egypt and greece were part of Iran??

MERGE

I have merged the two articles Iranian Azerbaijan, and Azarbaijan. Make sure to keep the distinction in mind, that on Wikipedia, Azarbaijan refers to the country, whereas Azerbaijan refers to the region. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Azeris: What's in a Name

Excuse me, but I am half Azeri, and we refer to ourselves as Turks, and Azeris as well. Yes we are Iranian Azeris, but that does not make us Persian...the only thing that makes ME Persian of course is my Persian mother. My father is Azeri, and I will defend his Azeri heritage against Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism, even though I am 50 percent Persian. Yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin dilimiz. Biz torkuz ve tork qalacagiq.

Qardaş men de Turk'um lakin Wikipedia'da, bir çox Fars şövenistleri var. Azerbaycan ve Türk milleti haqqında her mevzuda sataşırlar ve Azeriler Farsi millet deyirler. Meraqda qalmayasan, bir gün milletimiz bir olacaq, buna imanını yitirmeyesen. Tanrı Türk'ü Korusun! İstanbullu qardaşın. Orhanoglu 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

who are Persians? And where are they living?

I have lived in Iran several years, but I never hear someone said "I am Persian”. They introduced themselves as tehrani, shomali, esfahani,

Why are you deleting the intro without notice? El_C 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan

The title of this article is Iranian Azerbaijan but thats not the correct name, the UN official accepted the name South Azerbaijan a few years ago. Official there is no such thing as Iranian Azerbaijan its supposed to be South Azerbaijan. Can I have permission to edit this?

Baku87 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Sorry, but calling it South Azerbaijan wouldn't be neutral. Iranian Azerbaijan is simply a geographical name, while South Azerbaijan is political. By calling it that you would imply that the region should break apart from Iran and become part of Azerbaijan, that's why the term is used by separatists. --Khoikhoi 02:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Spelling

Azarbaijan is a region inside Iran. For the spelling, we use the official spelling which is used in websites such as http://www.ostan-as.gov.ir/english/ (East Azarbaijan Province). Bidabadi 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make any changes yet please, I'm going to consult some other Iranian editors. --Khoikhoi 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there isn't any objection. So, we should ask the administrators to move the page (or make it possible to move the page). Bidabadi 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked Zereshk about it, and he said we can use both spellings. [3] I don't think it's necessary to move the page. --Khoikhoi 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

OK. I added some stuff. It should alleviate some concerns, I hope--Zereshk 01:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Southern Azerbaijan in the lead is not an also called

It clearly mislead the reader into believing that it is the South of Azerbaijan, which is simply wrong. Beside, it is only Azeris that call it that way. also Grandmater, I won't consider that you are doing this on purpouses this time. But before claiming that it gives that much result on google, you should first check the results and concord with what you are claiming.

Southern Azerbaijan results also contains google hits which includes the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, this coppeled with Azeris websites as well as unrelated sites which contains the text ' Azerbaijan' in the same phrase and the term 'Southern.'

Also, Azerbaijan in the form it has been presented is a VERY RECENT term, the second paragraph was simply wrong, call it what was called at that time, but it was not spelled 'Azerbaijan.' Fad (ix) 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, it's still a name that is used by Azeri nationalists who hope to see the incorporation of Iranian Azerbaijan into Azerbaijan. I don't think anyone is confused here. --Khoikhoi 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
An also called is used for a notable term, not what some group of people refers too. Maybe we should edit the Holocaust and also add the term Holohoax, because some neonazi who denies the Holocaust call it such? The term Southern Azerbaijan has a place in the article, but is simply not an 'also called.' What would happen if I added 'Western Armenia' as an also-called for the entry about Anatolia? The term Western Armenia is much more used and not only by Armenians, even included in history books after the Republic of Turkey was founded.
BTW, the second paragraph in its form is simply wrong, there was no spelled 'Azerbaijan'... try finding any history book of that period claiming what it is claimed there. In a prior discussion I have requested to an Azeris this, I had recieved no answers. Wikipedia can not just make up things, names(when they exist for that period) are not projected from what is called now to the period that is covered. Fad (ix) 18:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care that much about the removal of the second paragraph, but I know that "South/Southern Azerbaijan" is definitely notable. Azeri nationalists (or ultranationalists, if you will) do not refer to the region as "Iranian Azerbaijan". Virtually all the Azeri independence movements in Iran refer to it as "South/Southern Azerbaijan". It is definitely worth mentioning. --Khoikhoi 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, for most historian Azerbaijan by its name never existed other than the current republic of Azerbaijan, and also called implies that it is more than Azeris nationalist term. Fad (ix) 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just one simple fact. South Azerbaijan gets 162,000,000 hits in Google, while Iranian Azerbaijan only 142,000,000. It is not only Azeri nationalists who use that name, it is quite popular with people around the world. According to the naming conventions, the article should be titled South Azerbaijan. I’m not insisting on that, because I don’t want to stir up nationalistic feelings, but the name of South Azerbaijan should definitely be included in the article according to Wikipedia rules. Grandmaster 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you even read what I write? Google hits doesn't say much when one uses terms like 'South Azerbaijan' or what have you? South Azerbaijan is also the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, or the term South could be in the same paragraph as the term Azerbaijan but yet those are included in googles hit. And you very well know it but still use that as evidence. A peoples claim over a land can not be an also called in an encyclopedic article. We all have seen all the conflicts that has generated over Kurdistan articles, but it might be OK for Kurdistan, because there is no country by that name, there is no need for desumbiguation. But the Republic of Azerbaijan DO EXIST! And South Azerbaijan for the VERY LARGE MAJORITY in this planet Earth IS the south of the republic of Azerbaijan. If you live in the US, go ask anyone in the street about what is the South of Azerbaijan. What you are requesting is to present a word which suggest that a pieces of Iran is part of the republic of Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The rules require to use common names of persons and things, and terms North and South Azerbaijan are used not only by Azeri nationalists. There is a simple fact that the region is also called South Azerbaijan. You can’t say that it is not called so. The article should reflect that. And see an example that the term is not used by Azeri nationalists only, see Columbia encyclopedia:
Azerbaijan remained entirely in the possession of the shahs until the northern part was ceded to Russia in the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmanchai (1828). The remainder was organized as a province of Persia; in 1938 the province was divided into two parts. In 1941, Soviet troops occupied Iranian Azerbaijan; they were withdrawn (May, 1946) after a Soviet-supported, autonomous local government had been created. Iranian troops occupied the region in Nov., 1946, and the autonomous movement was suppressed. [4] Grandmaster 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No, read the policies again, you present a supposed encyclopedic article from an encyclopedia which has a history of letting a concerned party to write the text, and that it uses the term Azerbaijan even when reffering to the Uratian period clearly shows that the authors article is far from being encyclopedic. Britannica 1911, present Azerbaijan as a land of 32,000 sq. km insteed of the current republics 86,600 sq km, it doesn' talk of anything else about any South, West, East. The republic of Azerbaijan exist, and there are no historc words of that period claiming what you claim, Britannica being one example, Britannicas reported Azerbaijan is even smaller than the current republic of Azerbaijan. South of a republic, is South of a republic. You can't impose a term which is not notable in the English world, and this is English Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Rectification, Britannica uses sq. m., this is either a mistake(during the vectorisation of the scan) for km, or mi... if it is miles, the convertion would bring it to 82,880 sq. km, still smaller than the current republic. Fad (ix) 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of notability of the term, it has nothing to do with history. It is a fact that South Azerbaijan is a popular name for the region nowadays. I checked first 100 hits for South Azerbaijan from google, of them only 2 were referring to the southern part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the rest were about Iranian Azerbaijan. In Russia, for example the most popular term is South Azerbaijan. Even Russian section of Radio Liberty uses the term South Azerbaijan. [5] It is a notable term and should be mentioned as such in the lead. Grandmaster 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, MOST of the hits on google have NOTHING to do with what you claim. Go on to the few hundreds hits later and see what you find. The term is not only not notable beyond Azerbaijani separatists, but also it doesn't concord with name conventions, there is an entire page covering misleading names and such things are not encouraged in Wikipedia. By requesting this you are simply showing your hypocrasy. You requested the removal of the term enclave for Karabakh, which was used widely including by the CIA factsheet and the very large majority of newspaper articles, records, documents etc. And now, you want the inclusion of a term which is only notable in Azeri publication. Your double standard is only affecting your credibility here Grandmaster. Why should I not also include in Karabakh entry 'also called the republic of Nagorno Karabakh' ? Would you accept that? Afteral it is notable among Armenians. The fact is, that South Azerbaijan for the very large majority of people is the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, that you like it or not. Fad (ix) 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
How do you know what most of the hits on google refer to? Did you check them all? The term is not notable just in Azeri publications. I showed you that Columbia encyclopedia uses the term northern part of Azerbaijan with regard to the territory of Azerbaijan republic, I showed you that Russian version of radio liberty uses the term South Azerbaijan. And Karabakh has nothing to do with this. In fact, the article about NK says that it is called by Armenians the republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and it has no international recognition. I don’t know what happened to you and you suddenly started showing so much interest in this issue and claiming that South Azerbaijan is South of Republic Azerbaijan for most people without giving a single proof. How do you know what the term means for most people? Grandmaster 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
For hell sake, you don't even try to comprehend anything. The Columbia Encyclopedia also use the term Azerbaijan for the period of Urartu. It has a history of letting people that have interest to push their POV writting those articles, but unlike Universalis they aren't even honest enough to provide the author of their articles. AND YES!!! I DID GO ON PAGES BY PAGES ON THE HITS ON GOOGLE, GO ON AFTER THE FIRST HUNDREDS OF HITS AND SEE HOW MANY DO YOU FIND THAT ARE EVEN RELATED TO THAT? Look here Grandmaster, I have no interest to continue on that, from all the discussions we had you had no inclination to stop for a while TO try understandING what others are saying. The naming convention in Wikipedia is a guideline, and I DO NOT MAKE THE RULES, this is what is written ON ITS FIRST LINE. Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page. [6] I have told you to read the policy in various occasions and this didn't changed a single thing, you will go on with what you have in your mind and have since now not a single time tried understanding what others are trying to make you understand. And I repeat, if you want to use your own standards at least don't impose it to be used in one direction. You were the one going on fighting to get the term enclave deleted from the entry on Karabakh while the majority of sources call it that, but here you try to impose an independantist movements name and you even make use of dishonest tactics as to claim it has some notability beyond those nationalist circles. I repeat this for the last time. SOUTH AZERBAIJAN REFERS TO THE SOUTH OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN FOR THE VERY, VERY, VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLES. ACCORDING TO THE GUILDLINES ON NAMING CONVENTIONS THIS TERM SHOULD BE EXCLUDED, BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS AND IS MISLEADING. I never said that this term has no place in the article, BUT IT IS NOT, NOT AN ALSO KNOWN. CLAIMING IT IS ALSO CALLED OR ALSO KNOWN IS SIMPLY POV PUSHING. Now write whatever you want, I do not want to waste my time repeating myself all over again. I will not take part in a revert war, introduce your POV for all I care. Fad (ix) 20:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Again, not a single proof that South Azerbaijan refers to South of Republic of Azerbaijan for most or many people. And I actually don’t find it to be correct that the name of South Azerbaijan is used primarily by Azerbaijani nationalists. In fact, it is the only term used in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the term Iranian Azerbaijan is not commonly used. It does not mean that people of independent Azerbaijan lay claims on Iranian Azerbaijan, it is just a name that’s always been used there. According to the current version of the article, all people of independent Azerbaijan are Azerbaijani nationalists. To me it does not sound right. Grandmaster 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can start with http://www.questia.com/, and search 'South Azerbaijan' and see how many results you will obtain. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ yield no relevent result, neither http://www.jstor.org/search/ Search if you find any relevent articles there. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/, I had no result for the Sage Full-text Collections. The ISI database yield no result. While those yield no result for South Azerbaijan, most do for 'Western Armenia' and 'Western Armenian' yields millions of results on google. But I know that adding Western Armenian to Anatolia is not a good thing to do, because it is misleading and against the guidline. The guidline specifically covers the uses of words that are misleaing in their nature. That the independence movement is more important now, doesn't change the fact that for nearly all non-Azeris people, South Azerbaijan means the South of the republic of Azerbaijan. I do not make the rules, that this was there before before an anonymous user deleted it doesn't change the fact that this term is not an also known, because the very large majority of people don't know that place as South Azerbijan, and that as if that was not enough that term is in contradiction with the guidlines because Azerbaijan is a republic and its South is it's South. That term has a place in that article, by saying something such 'Azeris often refer to that locality as 'South' or 'Southern' Azerbaijan, but to say that it is an also known is simply wrong, it simply conflict with another existing place, which is the South of the republic. Also, that term was not there first, it was introduced there by Tabib, who also requested the term 'Khojali genocide' as an also called in the lead of the article in Khojali massacre, and he claimed that just because Azeris claim so or that it yields result on google it should stay. The term 'holohoax' yield more result than South Azerbaijan, according to those standards the Holocaust entry should also contain something to the effect 'holohoax.' We have guidlines for a reason, and it is for the quality of the articles, if every national group was to write things the way they would want, Wikipedia will just fall apart. Fad (ix) 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, you have not provided a single proof that for the most people South Azerbaijan means south of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now see the following text from the US Library of Congress:
1813
Treaty of Gulistan officially divides Azerbaijan into Russian (northern) and Persian (southern) spheres. [7]
This proves that the term is used not only by Azeris and the region is “also known as”. End of story. Stop pushing your POV into this article. Grandmaster 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Pushing my POV? How am I doing this? And why should I care there? Do you think that by returning my accusation against you against me you will have a point? That every significant databases from internet(which contains reputable journals like those in oxford databases) doesn't even yeild any result IS enough to not present something as an also known. As for the library of congress, read it a second time, more particularly the part about Armenia. The Treaty's concencerned territories had little to do with what Azeris nationalist call Southern and Northern Azerbaijan. Also the library of congress does have documentations contradicting even this text which doesn't yet support you. Maybe you should take a look at their articles on Armenia and Karabakh too, using it I can creat an article about far East Armenia and say it is also know as the republic of Azerbaijan.
I am simply here to say that your claim is POV pushing, that you answer the same for me doesn't mean much, when I myself have more supported your position in the Safavid article and that there is no any reason for me to POV push. And the most laughable part is that you want evidences to prove that South Azerbaijan refer for most people the South of Azerbaijan. Are you KIDDING ME????? What is the South of France, the South of Canada, the South of US, the South of Germany, the South of Austria, the South of Russia, the South of Japan, the South of China, the South of Congo, the South of Lebanon, the South of Syria etc..., for most people? Answer, and PROVE ME!!!???
I apply no double standard as you do, if I have double standards just provide one example, you have deleted Karabakh Enclave, which gives much much more results, and even if it is included in various reputable very notable publications..., you did it according to your original research about the definition of enclave to justify the deletion of a word that is used in the most notable sources, and now you want to include a word that has no any notability beyond Azeri nationalist circles. Go read how entries about Kurdistan mains have been sliced neutralised beyond needed, even if there is no country of the name Kurdistan which would lead people to believe that such geographic characterisations are part of Kurdistan.
Obviously you are pushing your POV, and I doubt that any neutral users would deny it. When Azeris claim something it becomes notable enought, when somethings notability is not limited to nationalist cicles when it doesn't satisfy you it has no place in Wikipedia. This is called POV pushing and you are a POV pusher. Now, call me POV pusher for all I care, but that you refuse to adhere to the guidline is an indication of who is the POV pusher. Fad (ix) 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I’m really tired of you. It does not matter if the information in LoC document is right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that the term is used, which is the point here. If you are not happy with inclusion of the term, start an RfC and ask community’s opinion. Grandmaster 19:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well sorry, be tired, you should have known I don't like POV pushers. I have few things to do now, but when I have free time next week, I should maybe re-add the term enclave and creat an article about far Eastern Armenia and call it also known as the republic of Azerbaijan. Afteral, the library of congress support it. Oh yeh, I should also maybe add for the Anatolia article, 'Western Armenia' because afteral it gives millions of links on google, or add idiotic terms like 'Holohoax' in the Holocaust article. You are contributing for months yet still doesn't comprehend the basics. So again, be tired. As for community opinion, there is no question that you won't obtain the support needed if I place a RfC, the problem here is that by suggesting this you even think that the community might support such an obviously against the guideline act. Kurdistan articles had a clear opposition for much less than that. Fad (ix) 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are sure that I won’t get community support then just start an RfC instead of wasting people’s time. That’s what I call POV pushing, denying a widely accepted term without giving any valid reason. Grandmaster 04:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
BS, there are various examples of other cases, starting with articles related to Kurdistan in which even Kurds had to admit and accept for less than what you POV push. Grandmaster, I am warning you to stop calling me a POV pusher unless you provide the example of POV pushing, repeating what I have been accusing you of doesn't give credence to your claim. One has to read what you accept and revert to on the History of Azerbaijan to see who the POV pusher is. Had such cases been in Armenian articles, I would have been the first to edit them. For others, you might visit the history of Azerbaijan and read what I have added in the talk page, and while I said I would not read the rest, I did. The fact is that there is probably no encyclopedic article relating to Azerbaijan that could be found here thanks to POV pusher like Grandmaster who don't understand that this site is not theirs but conform to guidlines and policies and that if they don't want to adhere to those guidlines(example name convention Grandmaster doesn't want to conform with), they should find elsewhere. Such POV pusher with their double standard have no credibility to impose guidelines. As for RfC, I will Grandmaster, not for the article, but on you next week. Have a nice day. Fad (ix) 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Why next week? Do it now. It does not take much time, just a couple of minutes to fill in the form. Your friends once filed a complaint on me to Medcabal, but the outcome was not what they expected. You can try as well, I stand by everything I said and did here. I see you desperately trying to find some fault with me, searching thru every article I have anything to do with. I have no problem with that. Btw, I did not contribute to the History of Azerbaijan, I just fought vandalism there, and I can get other people to prove that the actions of anons and socks were nothing but vandalism. Grandmaster 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue of the 'friends' you are talking about, but I guess you haven't still understood that in Wikipedia there is no ghettos or friends by 'faith' or 'my opponments' polarising people. And no, I haven't read every crap(as we are now, I guess with all the POV pushing you've been doing, I can from this day on consider those crap) you've been introducing. I just got interested in the article History of Azerbaijan, and the first paragraphs were already tainted by the sort of crap you've been spewing. As for your question, for now I have better things to do than chassing again some dishonnest POV pushers that still can't comprehend that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not there to present what they believe as truth but positions. Also it amuses me that you have requested comment for name conventions after you have been adviced to read those guidlines. Assuming good faith has limits and this limit has been crossed. I make concessions and debate trying to come to solutions and I, as a Wikipedian, and not your opponment(I doubt you are understanding the differences) will not tolerate such behaviors which are harming Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Azeri are ethnically Turkish. Look here: [...however, the radical anti- Azerbaijan policy made by the Tehran regimes is still being faced the internal pressure of the Azerbaijani Turks.] from: http://www.gamoh.org/en/guney_eng.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.227.201.90 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 April 2006.

They're not ethnically Turkish, yes they are a Turkic people (although this is disputed) but they are a separate ethnic group from the Turks of Turkey. —Khoikhoi 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Azari people are genetically Iranians, NOT turks!

Pan-turanists (turks) are trying to deny Azari people their Persian heritage. Turks from Turkey are making up false claims and lies about Azari people. It really annoys me when people try to say that Azaribaijan is not Persian. Here are the facts:

Azarbaijan is a Persian word meaning land of fire, (reffering to the the ancient Iranian religion of Zoroaster).

Azarbaijan was a province of Iran and settled by Iranians thousands of years before the turks ever left mongolia and outer china.

Azari people are racially, ethnically Iranian. They are caucasoids of the Iranian branch. Not central asian ural-altaic turks...Simply, they look like Persians not mongolians..or people from central asia.

Azari culture is Persian. They celebrate ancient Iranian holidays like now rooz, char shambeh suri, etc...Their cuisine is Persian, their traditional costumes are Iranian...(original turks were a nomadic horse breeding people and had no similiarites culturally to the present day "turks" of azerbaijan or turkey. Azeri music is definatly Persian, (instruments, etc...)

More than 40% of the Azari langauge is Farsi (Persian).

Most "Azari" names are actually Persian.

The only land to have ever been named Azerbaijan is the current Iranian province, The fake republic of Azerbaijan was actually 3 different Iranian provences when Russia invaded and seperated them from Iran.

Throughout History Azerbaijan was always under Iranian rule, (the northern part of the territory was taken from Iran by the USSR in 1813 -turkmenbachi & golestan treatys) Dariush4444 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I've been told by my mother and grandparents who are Azeri themselves. Alireza Hashemi

IRANIAN AZERBAIJAN

Iranian Azerbaijan is the only legally recognized name for the provances in northern Iran. Using the term, "southern Azerbaijan" is extremely offensive! This is a fabricated term only recently used by Turkish seperatists who want to cause trouble in Iran. The term must be removed. I can not beleive that Wikipedia would allow such a thing to be posted on their website. Wikipedia should not be used as a political platform..this is supposedly an encylopedia!!

Should I change the name of the English channel, the gulf of mexico, the panama cannal, etc....just because a few nationalists call these internationally recognized areas by another name!!Dariush4444 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It would make more sense calling "the republic of Azerbaijan",... Northern Iran because it was just another provance of Iran for all it's history until the USSR invaded and seperated it from Iran. The only place to have ever been named Azerbaijan are the current Iranian provances...the "republic" was actually 3 different provances with seperate names, Aran, etc...Dariush4444 03:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The only name for the region is IRANIAN AZARBAIJAN....No other term will be accepted. It is irrelevent what some terrorist seperatists and wacko nationalists call Iranian Azerbaijan...This is an encycolpedia and it is supposed to only deal with facts, not propoganda!Dariush4444 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources. Until then, wilful, verifiable edits will not – cannot – be accepted.
Actually, Azarbaijan alone is arguably more correct. Relatedly, as per the Azerbaijan talk page, a move request will soon be placed to retitle this article to Azarbaijan (Iran) ... which harks of the two provinces of Iran and their respective Wp articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you even know anything about this issue??

The TERM South Azerbaijan is only used by a few terrorist seperatist groups. It is not a legally or officially recognized name! It has NO place in an encyclopedia article!

If anything, The "republic of Azerbaijan" should be called northern Iran!Dariush4444 03:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "legally" and "official" should be nixed (restoring this was an error of mine) but this notation should otherwise remain and be tweaked.
Pot, meet kettle. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, nor will your gibbering about the propriety of the term without substantiating your position in accordance with Wp policies and procedures. Until then, I've nothing more to say ... but I encourage others to do so. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"nor will your gibbering " No actually your propoganda and false information will not be tolerated. This is an encylcopedia, not a zoo.Dariush4444 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as south Azerbaijan

This phrase must be totally removed from the article. It should not even be mentioned at all. It has no relevence to the content. Again, this is not a politcal platform, and that term is not legal. No one but a hand full of terrorists uses that term therefore it does not belong in the article.

I believe SouthernComfort's recent add/edit with source satisfactorily notes this issue. As for the other ... comments made, no comment. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The term is used even by the US Library of Congress:
1813
Treaty of Gulistan officially divides Azerbaijan into Russian (northern) and Persian (southern) spheres. [8] Grandmaster 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here...in 1813, the ONLY place to have been named Azerbaijan was the current Iranian provance. The northern Iranian provances (republic of azerbaijan), were actually 3 different provances that were seperate from Azerbaijan, the region was known as Arran, (read the new links in article). Arran is what the USSR seperated from Iran (gulistan treatys) Dariush4444 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we are talking about the term being used or not. You have to agree that it is also used, maybe falsely, maybe not, but it is used. That’s what the article reflects. Grandmaster 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the latest edit by SouthernComfort makes sense, but we may need to clarify who considers the terminology controversial. I don’t say that it is not considered controversial, but not by everybody, because some authoritative publications use the term. Maybe we should say considered by some or something to that effect? Grandmaster 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell, except for the Republic of Azerbaijan, no non-Azeri entity uses these terms. What authoritative publications use this terminology? SouthernComfort 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, The Persian members here should not accept this PC rubbish. A few people are calling our country's provance by another name and this website is including their opinion as fact!!! This is outrageous. Mexicans call all of the American south, Northern Mexico...Why dont we include that in the America article!

The fictional term,"South Azerbaijan" MUST be removed.Dariush4444 05:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big of an issue considering the clarifications I've provided. SouthernComfort 05:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It’s not fact, it just says that the term is also used by some, which is true. You can see that it is used in some authoritative publications:
The origin of this issue actually begins with the Treaties of Gulustan (1813) and Turkmanchay (1828) signed after Russian victories against Iran. As a result of these treaties, the northern section of Azerbaijan became part of the Russian empire, and the southern section of Azerbaijan (divided physically by the Araz River) remained with Iran. [9] Grandmaster 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Treaty of Gulistan has nothing to do with the current republic of Azerbaijan, neither what is called Iranian Azerbaijan, both are entirly different things. You have yet to justify the notability of this term. While Northern Kurdistan is more notable and actually found in notable publications unlike your Souther Azerbaijan, the article was redirected and it has even no such mention as 'also known as Northern Kurdistan.' Kurdistan does not exist as a country so that the term may mislead the readers, still the redirect did happen. Your persistence is simply POV pushing. I have provided various databases including oxfordjournals... and your Souther Azerbaijan yield no results. Stop POV pushing please. Fad (ix) 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing, that's not actually using the specific phrase "South (or Southern) Azerbaijan" ("south" being capitalized). I mean, it's an issue of semantics - there are different implications to saying "southern Azerbaijan" and "Southern Azerbaijan" or say, "southern part of Azerbaijan." Geographically speaking (and totally ignoring political and territorial realities) there is nothing wrong with saying "southern Azerbaijan." But of course the situation is intensely political because of the obvious existence of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the other half having remained a part of Iran. From a modern point of view, "southern Azerbaijan" is therefore irredentist, just as with "northern Azerbaijan." Because the Republic of Azerbaijan exists and has been separated from Iran for quite awhile now, there is no longer any "north" or "south." We have the Azerbaijan Republic, and we have the Azarbaijan of Iran. SouthernComfort 06:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don’t argue with that, but the terms southern part of Azerbaijan or southern Azerbaijan are also used, and not only by Azerbaijani people, but as you can see in some third-party publications. Grandmaster 06:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I was actually surprised to notice that the term of Southern Azerbaijan is perceived by some Persian people as irredentist, while in Azerbaijan it’s just a geographic term. For some reason that has been the only term used here. I can’t say that the idea of separating Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran is really popular in Azerbaijan, but apparently it is the perception that dominates in Iranian society. Grandmaster 06:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
From the two references you were able to provide, one doesn't support your also known, the other also doesn't support an also known. Also known imply that the term has some notability, which it has abiously not, and it conflict with a guidline you still refuse to adhere to. The guidline is clear, a name that conflict with anothers is not to be used. Pratically speaking, Azerbaijan is a republic, and its South is its South. And I don't have to prove this as you requested. South Canada is the South of Canada, South Syria is the South of Syria. I am repeating myself like a parrot, but you still show no inclination at all. It really is a shame. Fad (ix) 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So you are trying to say that the words “southern section of Azerbaijan” are about the south of the republic of Azerbaijan? I showed you that the words south or southern Azerbaijan or southern part or section of Azerbaijan are used as a reference to the region by sources other than ethnic Azerbaijani. The exact wording may not always match, but nonetheless it is sometimes being referred to as southern part of Azerbaijan. There’s absolutely no need to politicize this issue, as some people do. You previous comment is absolutely irrelevant. The term maybe wrong and has no historical justification, but it is still used by authoritative sources and is therefore notable. And you repeat yourself just because you have personal beef with me over Azeri-Armenian disputes and you follow me to every page I contribute to desperately trying to find some fault with me. Grandmaster 06:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you did not, only one of the two sources you have mentioned come close to your claim, one sources is not enought to estbalish an also known. I won't debate more over this issue.
I'm coming into this really late upon Grandmaster's request as the other articles are kind of time consuming of late, but I'd say that SouthernComfort's last edit makes sense to me. It is also true that before the treaty the term Azerbaijan was applied to Iranian Azerbaijan, while the north was Arran so South Azerbaijan is something of a newer term, although it is undeniable that the people on both sides of the border speak the Azeri language and are related etc. At any rate, this is just pointless semantics and I think SouthernComfort's compromise edit is fine as it mentions that the term is also used, but is not common and is politically charged etc. Tombseye 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is from encyclopedia Iranica, which often uses the terms North and South Azerbaijan:

In North (Soviet) Azerbaijan the Latin alphabet was introduced in 1925…. In South (Iranian) Azerbaijan the Arabic alphabet is still used … [10] See page 246 Grandmaster 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there’s no justification now for the statement “though this terminology is considered controversial and politically loaded”. I’m removing it, because Iranica cannot be considered a source, pursuing some Turkic nationalistic agenda. Grandmaster 12:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New edit OK

I don't know who placed it there, but the last edit was from Grandmaster so I guess he endorsed it. I guess the case has resolved. Fad (ix) 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move to Azarbaijan (Iran)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~.

Comment

There seems to be some ambiguity about what the "proper" spelling, a misnomer, of the region and polities are. Some Wikipedians have commented that Azerbaijan should be used. In fact, there are numerous spellings in English: Azerbaijan (common), Azarbaijan, Azerbajdan, Azerbaydzhan ... Just because one prevails, that does not mean it is appropriate in this instance. Importantly, the provinces of Iran (in Wp and elsewhere, like the Encyclopædia Britannica) are commonly rendered as Azarbaijan ... and little has been presented to forego or demonstrate why the Iranian region (co-terminous with the provinces) simply rendered should differ. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here’s how other encyclopedias handle this issue:
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Azerbaijan, also spelled Azarbaijan, or Azarbayjan, Persian Azarbayjan … [11]
Columbia encyclopedia:
Azerbaijan, region, Iran (ä´´zrbjän´, ´´zr–) (KEY), Iran. Azarbayejan, region, … [12]
I think we should also use the name of Azerbaijan as traditionally accepted in English language (see naming conventions) and list all other spellings in the lead. Grandmaster 06:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As above: per Encyclopædia Britannica (print volume; which I've been graced with), 15th ed., v. 1, p. 754:
  • Āzārbāijān-e Gharbī, English WEST AZARBAIJAN, or AZERBAIJAN, ostān (province), northwestern Iran ...
  • Āzārbāijān-e Sharqī, English EAST AZARBAIJAN, or AZERBAIJAN, ostān (province), northwestern Iran ...
These renditions are also reiterated in the EB Book of the Year 2003. I defer to my prior comments. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but does your print edition of Britannica have an article about the region in general, not administrative parts of it? I just wonder how they handled this issue in the article about the whole region. Grandmaster 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It does not; it only has an entry for the republic, the lead for which includes various renditions of the name (much as above). Immediately prior to the republic entry, though, there are two added line entries: one each of East and West Azerbaijan; however, these refer to the entries I've indicated above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(left justifying)Curious: the 2003 printing of the Britanica (same page reference) has

Azarbaijan(Iran) see Azerbaijan

and then two separate articles, one on the Iranian region, one on the republic. Both are titled simply Azerbaijan, also spelled... with different sets of alternate spellings. Both use Azerbaijan consistently in text. Septentrionalis 15:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is an attempted imposition of an (overly-literal) transliteration from Farsi script, which has no equivalent of e. Septentrionalis 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I hardly see how it is an imposition when the -Ā/ā- is noted for the provinces in its 2003 annual yearbook. And the above is curious: is there no mention of the provinces in this printing, which the comment above implies? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. The first article Azerbaijan is about the provinces; the second about the republic. Septentrionalis 22:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You previously indicated the article regarded the region, now just the provinces (which are uniquely titled in my ed and elsewhere): the region and the provinces, though co-terminous, are not necessarily synonymous (e.g., Ardabil). Who's being nonsensical, if not confusing, now? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian pronounciation of it is Azarbaijan so that should be fine? We can take a vote if needed for that but shouldn't be necessary. The name of the article shouldn't be affected by its alternative spellings which can come straight after it in the intro -- - K a s h Talk | email 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite all of the above, IMO, little above justifies why we should not render the region similarly to the provinces (with -a-). Besides, another vote is unnecessary: not only is the proposed title a valid rendition, but it is already affirmed by near unanimous support (provisionally) in the move vote above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Four voices prefer Azerbaijan, as of this moment. Describing that as "near unanimity" is dishonestyabuse of language. Please stop and consider following WP:UE; and please specify exact Britannica usage which accepts Azarbaijan as article header. Septentrionalis 22:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, National Geographic uses Azarbaijan for one thing. Would you like me to scan the map page? —Khoikhoi 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I, and others, already have cited reasons and sources ... not solely depending on one interpretation. Azarbaijan is English, so invoking that it isn't rings false. And the vote above is clear: so far, ten of twelve support the move, eight of whom support -a-, and two oppose; if that isn't near unanimity, or at least consensus, what is? If, based on available information, someone does not desire the move they can vote to oppose it as you have. Anyhow, the RM admin can make their own determinations. Lastly, when citing a guideline (not policy) et al., perhaps you should stop and be more judicious in your usage of English before insinuating dishonesty on my part. Hereafter, I'll comment when necessary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you count carefully, you will find that there are only seven votes for "a": "Support per above" is hardly unambiguous on "a" vs "e" when it immediately follows a vote supporting the move but with "e". That said, I think Septentionalis owes you an apology for his breach of parliamentary propriety. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Duly altered, on the assumption that Anthony meant Wikipedia:consensus. Septentrionalis 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've amended the above as needed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The vote immediately 'above' is mine. In any event, and I won't belabour this, ten currently support the proposed move. And Google tests aside: I won't get drawn into a counting coup and needn't make (added) assumptions about individual votes: editors either support the move as proposed or oppose it; Wikipedians and (upon conclusion) an Admin can make their own determinations. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
With due respect, you might recall that it was your comment that started counting and interpreting other people's votes. You have every right to abandon this tack, but if you open a door, you ought not complain if other people accept the invitation and walk inside. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes: I was responding and summarising. You opted to interject and split hairs s'more, so – with due respect – I have every right to close the door and end this thread. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I must be sleepy -- I was prepared to swear that Grandmaster's comment was the one immediately above. My opinion remains unchanged, and I think that a Google search is decent evidence of frequency of usage, but I do apologize for my error. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The OED uses Azerbaijani as its article header, and indicates no alternative spellings as in use.
    • There are alternate spelling in its earlier quotes, but Azarbaijani is not one of them.
  • The Britannica redirects Azarbaijan to one of the two articles on Azerbaijan
    • The suggestion that the Iranian region (which the Britannica gives precise bounds) should be spelt otherwise than the two provinces that comprise it is bizarre; if such a distinction can be made, this article is about the region.
      • Well, the above entries in EB for the provinces – and regional refs elsewhere – indicate -A- (transliteration and not) first, so (again) insinuation of a spelling for the over-arching region that is different from them is even more bizarre and inconsistent. I am not solely reliant on EB, nor (apparently) are other proponents. And as various other sources indicate (the Columbia Encyclopedia et al.), the region includes not just the two titular provinces. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Four of the votes, when Anthony made his claim, expressly prefered "Azerbaijan" to "Azarbaijan"; several made no distinction. There may be an argument that this was consensus, in our sense; it is certainly not unanimity. Septentrionalis 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Wp is dynamic and votes have been made for and against since. On the face of it, "near unanimous support (provisionally)" was an apt assessment and based on a binary read of the votes (and therefore not an "abuse of language", which is arguably even more problematic), which the RM Admin will do. I've no difficulty settling for references to mere consensus ... as that is all that Wp requires. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I accept E Pluribus's retraction; but it would have been preferable to read the discussion while counting the votes. Three supports for Azarbaijan, four (now seven) for Azerbaijan, and four not discussing the matter do not make consensus - they may excuse an erroneous claim of consensus. Septentrionalis 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm unsure and frankly unconcerned with what the above intent is or with what counting system/interpretation is being used, but I'll excuse it in favour of clearer interpretations of support or oppose above ... which is rather self-evident. And on that note, I'm ending this rather tortuous thread. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Azerbaijan

Since the above comments make a clear majority for the prevalent English name Azerbaijan, this page should be moved there. Other comments in the above section should be counted, and are clearly intended to express opinion on this issue.

  • The accuracy and validity of this comment and reopening is challenged. First, a consensus scant days ago supported the recent move to Azarbaijan (Iran). In addition, the reopening is based on the somewhat faulty premise that the current title is not English, which various sources contradict. Moreover, as all things are not equal, the tally below is somewhat misleading: it glazes over users who actually supported moves to x Azerbaijan not Azxrbaijan (Iran) (e.g., including anon and another, suggesting South(ern) Azerbaijan or status quo Iranian Azerbaijan), thereby indicating (if anything) near-parity ... which is yet insufficient to forego prior consensus. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

  1. Grandmaster
  2. Mehrdadd
  3. Aldux
  4. Septentrionalis
  5. Robert A. West
  6. Abdulnr
  7. Baku87
  8. TimBits
  9. Karabakh (new user, created in April 28)
  10. Tabib
  11. 195.169.153.5 preference clear; other spelling not expressly opposed.

Azarbaijan

  1. E Pluribus Anthony
  2. Southern Comfort
  3. Khoikhoi
  4. Houshyar
  5. ManiF
  6. Bidabadi
  7. Klymen supported move to Azarbaijan (Iran); no statement on spelling.
  8. Tombseye supported move to Azarbaijan (Iran); no statement on spelling.
  9. Kash supports the correct Azarbaijan spelling.
  10. George McFly
  11. 72.57.230.179
Mh. It seems there's no consensus for this change, is there? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no consensus. Grandmaster 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Correction: there's no consensus for the second move: the tally above, given (re-)interpretations this or that way and as already stated, is not necessarily agreeable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Re-correction: There was no consesus for any of the moves. Neither the first or the second. The only difference was that the move was hastened and went ahead in the first one, even without a consesus. So, I hope there will be a consensus on the third move, but considering that there has been two recent votes, I would say that it is wise to wait for some time for that one. --TimBits 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire, as before. In any event, hope springs eternal and three times a lady. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you are still here? :) Well, whatever it takes, but the deed will be done. --TimBits 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis from Azarbaijan

It is kind of strange now that the people of the region are called Azerbaijanis, while the region is called Azarbaijan. Grandmaster 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really: it's no stranger than other renditions and prior inconsistencies. In any event, I think this can be dealt with when necessary through tweaks and rewikifying ... and the entire article is in need of a shakeup. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Azarbaijanis is a Persian version of the name, but the people call themselves Azərbaycanlılar, i.e. Azerbaijanis. It is internationally accepted version of the name, and I never heard anyone calling them Azarbaijanis. Grandmaster 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No real argument; as above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Granmaster. We are out of step with major encyclopedias and refrences. The spelling of Azerbaijan has been like this for decades if not for century or more. For instance please look at an online version of Encyclopedia article written on Azerbaijan at 1911 it doesn't even mention this alternate spelling of yours !. Mehrdad 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not my spelling: it is one found elsewhere and affirmed through the above vote. Sorry. Otherwise, as above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In Azeri language the letter ə is a combination of a+e, thats why Persians write with a. But international its written with a e. 195.169.153.5 10:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Its Azerbaijan not Azarbaijan Baku87 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Using a different letter would make sense only if these were unrelated words that just happened to be spelled alike. This is not the case, origin of the word is the same no matter you spell it Azarbaijan or Azerbaijan. While I understand the political motivations in trying to differentiate it as much as possible, but those political aims can not be the reason for us here in Wikipedia to decide about such matters. The voting process was hastened and the matter is going to be opened again. --TimBits 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The final vote was as follows:

  • 9 unqualified for the move that was done.
  • 2 expressed preference for a move to "Azerbaijan (Iran)", but were willing to support the move that was done.
  • 7 opposed the move, all expressing a preference for "Azerbaijan" over "Azarbaijan."

So, the vote to move to Az*rbaijan (Iran) was 11 to 7. This is not a consensus under any definition, but take the result as given. The problem is that the spelling preference was dead-even. For anyone to claim that the vote reflects a consensus over spelling would be silly. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic spells it Azarbaijan... —Khoikhoi 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I voted for move to Azerbaijan (Iran) only. So I don’t support the current move. Grandmaster 04:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The voting process transpired over time as with any other, so it was hardly hastened. Moreover, the above interpretation of consensus is, per WP:RM, inconsistent with the usual gauge of it (generally 60%): the above tally still indicates this and a binary read definitely does (11 vs. 5 (68%), less votes beyond vote closure). This was affirmed by the RM Admin with the move. Even using alternate vote counts/interpretations (11 vs. 7, etc.), consensus was achieved. Lastly, the (proposed) move was clearly to the -a- spelling, not -e-, so those who supported the former with proviso still did so. So, who's being 'silly'? And while I'm not wholly resistant to the other spelling, the proposed move was not for that. Perhaps this will be allayed through another proposed moved to the alternate spelling, but until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But I clearly marked my vote as a conditional support, the condition being move to Azerbaijan (Iran). I did not expect this to be construed as a support of the current move. Grandmaster 05:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't my challenge. You and others chose to render your votes as you did even though the boiler uptop indicates "Add *Support or *Oppose" followed by optional commentary: said editors are/were equally capable of opposing the proposed move, which clearly was to the current title. You've recanted ... but that doesn't change an outcome supported by others and validated by the move since. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It was just a misunderstanding of the voting process on my side. I never supported the present title, which is clearly stated in my vote comment. Grandmaster 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As I have stated earlier the vote was hastened. Plain and simple. I will support or initiate re-opening if the issue as soon as possible. And the attitude like 'it is gone, suck it up' is disrespectful at the best. --TimBits 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And as I've stated earlier, nothing was hastened. And said users, present company included, reap what they sow. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And ss I've stated earlier you are wrong. This matter should be reopened. It is Wikipedia. It is not democracy, arguments are more important than majority or plurality. --TimBits 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And as the above demonstrates, it's not about you and it's not about me. And frankly, argumentation otherwise did little (and has since done even less) to obviate the recent move. And on this note, I'll comment hereafter when necessary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I know that it is not about you and me. :) Take it easy. As for the argument, my argument is that artificially differentiating these two words by only one letter is not correct in this situation. That letter can be transliterated form the Arabic script in a number of ways, and in the case it is mostly by e. But even if we accept the a version then the name of the Azerbaijan Republic should be changed in order to agree with this. Otherwise, this move will be nothing but an attempt to artifically differentiate between two, rather than having the correct spelling. Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan are not two different words with different origins. Azerbaijan Republic refers to the areas north if the Iranian Azerbaijan. Untill any argument proves it otherwise, this very well obviates the recent move. --TimBits 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Noted. There is nothing artificial (except for the fact that all renditions are artificial human constructs) nor incorrect about a rendition which numerous sources already indicate and is also reflected in bona fide Iranian provinces that are co-terminous with the region. This is old hat and has already been discussed, so the argument above obviates nothing. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself buddy. OK, then let's say intentional instead of artificial. I know you can find other meanings to anything said, but nitpicking aside I know that the context was understood. What I am saying has not been discussed at all. And it is questioning the need to deliberately differentiate between the words of the same origin by a letter instead of a qualifier in a bracket. This argument standing, the merit for the recent move will be questionable. And as I have made it known before, I will not accept this 'suck it ap and let's move on' attitude. --TimBits 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes ... and I am not your buddy. And until you can compel for changes without using similarly repetitive arguments, I have nothing further to add. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, buddy. You have to repeat your argument when somebody pretends not to have seen it in order to avoid answering it. It is not repeating yourself, repeating yourself is repeating the same disproven position again and again. Instead of acepting the fact that you are wrong-which I expected from you- you seem drag the matter. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you. Don't take it personal, buddy. I don't know you and have nothing against you. I'm ony arguing against yor position. Bye. --TimBits 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No comment. Sufficient? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Unless it means withdrawal of your position in this matter altoghether as I understand it. --TimBits 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Deal with it. I do not withdraw (given the resolution already of the recent vote) and your commentary above (which disproves nothing, really) can be addressed by someone who is compelled to do so or cares enough to engage you. A bientot. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Good. Well then as you consider the matter closed, I expect you won't be involved when the issue will be brought up again. And as for my argument, as you probably know, it disproves your position altogether, if you disagree I challenge you. If not, have a good day. --TimBits 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A quote from encyclopedia Iranica:
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). [14] Grandmaster 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone have a good picture from azarbaijan, please upload and put it on the article, it needs to be prettier than the "azarbaijan country" article, so it can attract people into reading this prior to that. lol just kidding, but this is a very important article.--Darkred 06:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[No Title]

The term south azerbaijan is mainly used by azeri nationalists as can be seen in CAMOH's home page and those of other separatist groups. Even if Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term, it does not change the fact that this term is loaded. The neutral term is Iranian azerbaijan since the area is a province of Iran. This must be clear to any reader of the article. So Grandmaster, please stop your endless reverting of the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.23.206 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 May 2006.

The term South Azerbaijan is used by various sources, not just CAMOH. Iranian Azerbaijan could be more correct and appropriate, but it does not change the fact that South Azerbaijan is also sometimes used by reputable sources. For the same token you can claim that the term Aryans is politically loaded, because it was used by Nazis. Grandmaster 11:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan (Iran)

  • South Azerbaijan (Iran) is a more descriptive title for this article. The fact that a term has been also used by this or that group is irrelevant, and point less to argue over it. The agenda behind changing the titles ot this article are very much politically driven. I understand the concern of our pan-farsist friends, as they feel threatened by any term or name that shows the relation between Azeri the inhabitants of the north and south of Araz river. The push for the change of the article from Iranian Azerbaijan to Azarbaijan (Iran) follows the same trend. To me it shows the desperation of few out of touch people to hold into old grandpa stories. It is a sad case of not understanding that it is not the Wikipedia that makes the facts, but other way around. Denying the fact that there is a strong bond between Azerbaijanis in the south and north not only would not solve any problem it is just a case of heads being in sand. Wikipedia should be reflecting the facts on the ground not on some small minority who can influence this free encyclopedia. Mehrdad 04:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Mehrdad, first of all the term "pan-farsist" is a very strange term that you are using here. Who did you infact had in mind when you made such an accusation? I had never heard of it and It is quite hilarious! In any case, the whole argument is just funny. The Azarbaijan in Iran, is part of Iran, nevermind the ethnicity of the people. The term "south Azerbaijan" however is a POV. Thanks for your suggestion though, -- - K a s h Talk | email 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Kash, Pan Fars-farsist/panfarsist is a term to defines those who promote and would like to impose control of Farsi people over the rest of the Iranian population. In effect they are the grandchildren of Pan-Iranists and they carry the same ideology of supremacy of Arian race etc, but due to crumbling state of pure race theories of last century, these ones are too shy to shout as loud as the grandpas. I know you may find strange but these people see the world via prism of race! Hope it was helpful. Thank you for showing interest. Mehrdad 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mehrdad, it seems that a Google search shows that it is mainly Turkic websites which use this term, perhaps a case of Neologism especially as it is with the term "Farsi people" -- - K a s h Talk | email 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I can not find any disputes over the accuracy of the article, dispute seems to be about the title. So I will remove that. -- - K a s h Talk | email 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand what is wrong with the title? The official name is Iranian Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan (Iran) abut the alternative titles are usually mentioned in the first paragraph and it is mentioned here so what is the problem? Gol 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether it should be called Azarbaijan or Azerbaijan. As you can see, at least 11 people dispute the current title, hence the tag. Grandmaster 05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the dispute tag. But my reason is different. As I've pointed out earlier, all the external links are toward one POV. See my proposal [15]. Bidabadi 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WHo added this?

It is often claimed that Iranian Azeris (Azaris) are not allowed to freely speak their language, propagate their culture, or have their own ethnic media. This is absurd! 72.57.230.179

This article has a lot of POV that comes from the Repubic of Azarbaijan or Turkey. It is not sustanable or accurate. Very misleading and is basically unclear. Azarbaijan is a recognized term used official by the governments of Iran, various Middle Eastern countries, Cyprus, and Greece in much of their English corrispondance. 72.57.230.179 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What about this, this does not come from the Republic of Azerbaijan or Turkey. See Amnesty International report, called Iran. New government fails to address dire human rights situation
2.1.3 Azeri Turks
Iranian Azeri Turks, who are mainly Shi’a Muslims, are the largest minority in Iran, believed to constitute between 25-30 per cent of the population. They are located mainly in the north and north-west of Iran. As Shi’a, they are not subject to the same kinds of discrimination as minorities of other religions, and are well-integrated into the economy, but there is a growing demand for greater cultural and linguistic rights, including implementation of their constitutional right to education through the medium of Turkish. A small minority advocate secession of Iranian Azerbaijan from the Islamic Republic of Iran and union with the Republic of Azerbaijan. Those who seek to promote Azeri Turkish cultural identity are viewed with suspicion by the Iranian authorities, who often accuse them of vague charges such as "promoting pan-Turkism". [16]
I see now where that popular pan-Turkist accusation comes from. Grandmaster 07:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming Dispute

Since we are very divided on the issue of the term southern azarbaijan, i thought we could follow the naming dispute on the Persian Gulf page. Since it is not an official name of the region, i don't think it should be included at the top, but since many feel that the name is relevant, maybe the new edit will appease all. we can even reword the naming dispute section, let me know what you think. thanks Rugsnotbombs 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Tons of pages list the unoffical names at the top. See Gdańsk for example. The city hasn't been part of Germany since WWII and there are hardly any Germans living there. —Khoikhoi 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
And Wikipedia's standard on naming issues is not to hide the alternate names near the bottom of the page, so no one can see them. —Khoikhoi 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not hiding the name, i was just following the example of the Persian Gulf page. you can move the naming dispute to the top if you'd like. But we shouldn't be renaming territories of another country. If other people like to call it southern azarbaijan, that's fine, but i don't think it should be mentioned in the article at all, let alone along with it's official name. so this to me is a compromise, to include a disputed name in the article and title it as such. i believe it's less confusing this way, and gives people a better perspective. and note that nothing was removed from the article, it still says the same thing, just shuffled around. i'm curous to what others think, so please be patient as we haven't tried this yet. Rugsnotbombs 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that there’s no formal naming dispute. There’s no dispute at all, except here. The name of South Azerbaijan is also used in academic sources, so therefore it’s notable enough to be mentioned. I don’t think that sources like Iranica pursued any political agenda by using it. So mentioning that this name is also sometimes used would be helpful, because some people may encounter it in some source and think “Where is that?” Grandmaster 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for The First Paragraph

Instead of endless debates over various issues, I think it is a good idea to have a paragraph, similar to the first paragraph of Britannica article [17] (for the beginning of the page). The first paragraph of the article in Columbia Encyclopedia [18] is also very similar to the article in Britannica. I don't see any reason for us to be different. Is there any objection? Bidabadi 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

could you please explain more? Why the current first paragraph is fine and the the first paragraphs of the articles in Britannica and Columbia (which are quite similar) are not fine?Bidabadi 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said the paragraphs at EB & Columbia are not fine. I said that there's no reason to change the paragraph at this article, as it is the result of a compromise after various edit wars. Furthermore, just because "South Azerbaijan" offends some people like Dariush4444, doesn't mean we have to censor it. —Khoikhoi 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
looks good to me, we should adibe by standards. and if both those pedia's are similar, then we should do the same and stop people from pushing thier POV Rugsnotbombs 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is OK the way it is now. I did not see any desire on part of certain editors to follow the standards of Columbia and Britannica in articles such as Safavids and Kizilbash, so why should we here? Keep it as it is. Grandmaster 06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of liking or disliking. It's about trying to follow an acceptable academic standard. Could you please give me a reason for your objection to their format? In this page, we are talking about Azarbaijan (the region in Iran). To discuss about Safavids, go to its talk page and raise the issue there. Bidabadi 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are no specific rules requiring to abide by the standards of other encyclopedias. I don’t see how the current lead does not follow academic standards. What are you specifically not happy with? Grandmaster 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no specific rule about that. However, when the first paragraphs of the articles in the two major encyclopedias are quite similar and the first paragraph of this article is very different from them, it's a good indication of a strong POV and the necessity of its modification.Bidabadi 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. As I understand, your only problem is the inclusion of the name of South Azerbaijan, which you don't like for some reason. But in this case we have our own Wiki rules, which allow for inclusion of alternative names. Grandmaster 09:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This page does have a host of problems as even the spelling veers from the common English language usage of Azerbaijan as opposed to the native Azarbaijan used in Iran. Simply listing alternative names shouldn't raise automatic alarm bells. Most of the time, I've read Azerbaijan and then the Republic of Azerbaijan, while I've also read Iranian Azarbaijan and South Azarbaijan when used in discussion regarding the Turkmenchai treaty etc. A more encyclopedic rendition would be to avoid narrative and just list the alternative names (with links that denote their usages) and stop catering to any one side. Thus, nothing about South Azerbaijan is also used and is seen as nationalistic etc. Just list it and leave it as is. Tombseye 21:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a balance among the external links. Now, all of them are toward one Point-Of-View. Bidabadi 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is to have:

  • 3-4 links to Governorships of the provinces which are inside the region
  • 2 links to websites (or webpages) which emphasise on the Iranian identity of Iranian Azarbaijan.
  • 2 links to websites (or webpages) which emphasise on the Turkic aspects of the culture (such as Azerbaijani language).

Bidabadi 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

any opinion? Bidabadi 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any objection to this proposal? Bidabadi 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there isn't any objection to this proposal. I will implement it at the end of this week. Among the current links, only two of them should remain as external links.

I agree that the links need sorting and have equal representation of Iranian governmental sources. They can be divided into two sections, each presenting a certain position, as it’s done in some other articles. Grandmaster 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That is what you call a fast ball. The name is Azarbaijan and that is the term used by the people of the area. Once again it is popularily, formally, officially, and historically Azarbaijan. I oppose Grandmaster's suggestion and think it is not valid. 72.57.230.179

this page is completely wrong

first off, i just checked the Azerbaijan_(disambiguation) page, and it was missing both the provinces of zanjan and ardabil. now, those two provinces are a part of iranian azarbaijan, yet are not "turkic" language provinces. the term southern azerbaijan, which is incorrect to begin with, refers only to the two east and west provinces of azarbaijan in iran. therefore including it in the title is completely false. not to mention parts of gilan which are also considered a part of iranian azarbaijan and are completely non-turkic, and not a part of this so-called southern azarbaijan. people drop your opinions because this title needs to change. iranian azarbaijan does not equal the area falsly considered area of "southern azarbaijan". Rugsnotbombs 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Rugsnotbombs , for your information both Ardabil and Zanjan are both historical part of South Azerbaijan, and both are populated by the Azerbaijanis. The administrative division of Azerbaijan region to four ostan has nothing to do with the ethnicity of these divisions being different. Most of Gilan has never been considered to be part of Azerbaijan, the only Azeri city in Gilan is Astara. I fail to understand why people are jumping into the discussions that do not know much about it? Right now as I write these words , there is a wide action demonstration and protest activity going through out the Soutern Azerbaijan cities of Urmia, Tabriz as well as Ardabil and Zanjan, in reaction to a belittling article agains Turks. Mehrdad 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
well i hate to burst your bubble, but i grew up in astara, gilan, and no that is not the only azari city in gilan, bandar anzali, talysh have large azari populations. and no, there is nothing going on in urumia, tabriz, ardabil or zanjan, i have family in all those cities. all that has happened is a few students in tabriz went on a hunger strike protesting university matters, having nothing to do with turkish or whatever else you claim. i am an azari from iran, and we are not turks, and no matter how hard you try to label us as such, you will never succeed. man azariam, amma turk dayiram, dushdu shimdi? i might know turkish, but no azari i have ever met has claimed to be turk.
further for your information, both zanjan and ardabil have been historically part of azarbiajan, not "south azrbjn". please explain this for me then. there is no doubt that the greatest iranian azari hero is Babak_Khorramdin, he was an azari, yet he existed well over 200 years prior to the turkish invasion/migration. are you telling me that he wasn't an azari because he wasn't a turk? how about all the people in azarbaijan who were there prior to the turks coming. remember, the turks joined us, not the other way around. read some history or go to iran and learn something Rugsnotbombs 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag

This is just ridiculous. This region does not have a flag. Please stop adding this to the article. -- - K a s h Talk | email 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The region does have a flag, but not official. Nagorno-Karabakh and other unregonized regions also use unofficial flags and yet they are all displayed in wikipedia, so why make a double standard on this region? Stop your vandalism or I will report you, if I see you making a redirect on the flag to another flag or upload another flag I will report you for vandalism. Baku87 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87
Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent country, so of course it has a flag. The region Azarbaijan however is 100% in Iran. Also, it would be one thing if most of Iranian Azeris used the flag, but they don't. The majority of people that do want to separate from Iran and join Azerbaijan. Therefore, see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (for example, a place for propaganda or advocacy) Although Kash shouldn't have vandalized your image, the flag just shouldn't be at this article. —Khoikhoi 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest developments

This probably needs to be reflected.

Funny how when you read the real, unbiased news, it says something totally different. I can't wait to see how many soviets were arrested, as they are every year for entering the country and trying to cause a divide.
* Iranian Student News Agency
* Newspaper's Statement of Intent over the Cartoon Rugsnotbombs 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
By real, unbiased news you apparently mean the information from the state-run IRNA agency. To me it’s pretty much the same as the Soviet TASS agency, which was not trusted even by Soviet people. I prefer info from third-party sources. I could not read the source that was in Arabic script, as for IRNA report, it was about the newspaper employees protesting the closure and blaming the “mistake” on “one of the daily's journalists”. But it does not change the fact that this cartoon controversy led to serious unrest in Iranian Azerbaijan. And what “Soviets” have to do with it, it’s Iran’s internal problems. Grandmaster 17:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I figured you would miss the point. By real i meant, it wasn't ethnic tension and blown out of proportion like your links suggested and when you read the newspaper's statement, it shows that it wasn't meant to cause a divide as your links also suggest. And yes, IRNA is state run, just like the CBC, and BBC and the hundreds of other state run news agencies, not some unofficial news agency like the ones you cited. I guess you would prefer "privately" funded Mediaset right? As for the soviets in Iran, you should look up and read Aliyev's apology speech regarding soviets that entered iran in a failed effort to cause a divide, funny enough, it was azari's who captured, turned them in, and executed them. Rugsnotbombs 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what Aliyev’s apology speech you’re talking about, but there are no Soviets now anyway. As for my sources, I cited Reuters, Boston Globe and Agence France Presse. All are very reputable sources. The intention of the cartoon may not be to spark controversy, but the result was. I’m not making any judgment and just reading the information as it comes in. Grandmaster 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that's why you have to take all these articles with a grain of salt. There were Soviet Azarbaijani's who snuck into Iran a few years ago and started to spread propoganda against the gov't of Iran in hopes of getting the Azari's to seperate from Iran. The plan failed, they were arrested, charged with espionage and executed. Aliyev apologized about it and it went away, and now i'm sure they're trying again. Because what happened in Iran was the equivalent of those people who protest infront of Kmarts and Wallmarts, just a handful of people trying to make something out of nothing. I'm just clearing up the info in the articles you gave and taking the bias out, because most people don't understand the situation in Iran, even those who report on it. Rugsnotbombs 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
C'mon guys this is Wikipedia. Lets stick to article discussions. --K a s h Talk | email 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan_(Iran)/Archive_1&oldid=1143741281"