Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)/Archive 2

Armenian article

This article is written by Gladiator Armenians. It is a joke! Armenian government is paying individuals to valndalise articles about Azerbaijan. This is an Armenian vandalism. Someof them pretend to be Azerbaijanis. Armenians will not succeed separating Azeris and Persians and time will show that their uncivilised manners, war-mongering, and state terrorism, together with iranian governments' state terrorism will lead nowhere. 80.97.82.93 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit by Tajik

With regard to the recent edit by Hamada Tajik, I checked the sources he mentioned, i.e. the articles about Arran by Bosworth in Iranica and Iran Chamber Society General, Erotic Child Nude and Germany they say nothing about the term South Azerbaijan being politically motivated. In fact, they say nothing about the term South Azerbaijan, because those articles don’t even mention it. See for yourself: [1] [2]

The same with the very interesting article by Svante Cornell, called Iranian Azerbaijan: A Brewing Hotspot. It does not say anything about the term South Azerbaijan being politically motivated. In fact, it uses the term throughout the article. For some reason Tajik named both articles, but forgot to provide internet links, so that other editors could check them. I revert Tajik’s changes, if he feels that it is not justified, he can provide the quotes that state that the term South Azerbaijan is politically motivated. I support Tombseye’s opinion that there’s no need to state if a certain term is criticized or not, it should simply be included as one of the alternative names. Grandmaster 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... The name “Hamada Azerbaijan” for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one…this is the reason why the name “Azerbaijan” was selected (for Arran)…anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran ..." - Quote from Bartold, Union Soviet URSS academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1998.

"... Almania (present Republic of Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (the original Azerbaijan in Iran) ..." - Azeri-Turkish scholar Ramazani, in Blucher, W.V., Zeitenwende, Persian Translation: Safar-nameh-e-Blucher, Tehran, Khwarami, 1984, p.115

Tajik 18:02:60, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does your source say about the term South Azerbaijan? That is the question here, not the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan. And why the term South Azerbaijan is used by such publications as Iranica, which are not motivated by Azerbaijani nationalism? Grandmaster 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term southern Azerbaijan is not in any classical historical books. It is a term invented since 1946 by some political sources. The true Azarbaijan has always been below the Aras river according to historical Persian and Arabic sources. It is like calling KArabagh as West Armenia. It is not accurate either from UN perspective. Furthermore, the term is not recognized by the UN (like east germany and west germany). I didn't see the term Southern Azerbaijan in the article you mentioned [3]. Indeed this article has differentiated between Arran and Azarbaijan.

If you bring the sentence, I would appreciate it. Since I would like to examine it in more detail. BTW many many ancient sources have regarded the current republic of Azerbaijan as either Arran or even part of Armenia.

Indeed I have at least 5 readily available sources from classical Arabic/Persian texts that consider the current republic of Azerbaijan as part of Armenia. Iranian Azarbaijan has always been called either Azarbaijan in the historical text or Azarbaijan of Iran. It is not an independent political entity to have a name chosen by some separatist groups or articles that may back such an agenda. Also the population of the Iranian provinces that are Azarbaijan is about 7 million:

http://www.statoids.com/uir.html . Note this is not the same as number of Azarbaijanis in IRan.

Geographical entities that are named should be terms that are recognized by the UN as well. Also groups that have separatist agenda are not recognized as neutral sources. Remember the NOR (No original research) and the sites mentioned by one of the users, are totally sites with no academic value. There could be another article about separatism, but this article is not it. Also of course there could be articles about Talysh or Armenian or Lezgi separatism in the current republic of Azerbaijan as well. So separatist sources are not main-stream and they do not hold sufficient credibility to be cited in this article. If requested I can email the current editor of the Encyclopedia of Iranica about the academic validity of this term via email.

But the term is not definitely historical and if anything, it was coined in the last century for political reasons. So that should be mentioned as well. Azarbaijan of Iran is completely part of Iran and the UN does not recognize a term such as Southern Azarbaijan. Else anyone can create a separatist webpage on the internet and then claim a part of another country by the separatist name. A good example is atzlan or something in the USA, where some mexican nationalists have attempted to call a portion of the US. But this is not recognized by the UN and so the territorial integrity of the US needs to be respected. Similar issue here. Also the name "southern Azerbaijan" can not be termed as nationalistcly motivated but separatist motivated. Since its currently part of Iran and hence the Iranian nation as a nation primarily is defined by geographical boundaries in the political sense and nationalism has to do with politics.

--Ali doostzadeh 23:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really understand why some of our fellow editors from Iran make such a big deal of the term South Azerbaijan. If this term is separatist, why is it mentioned in Iranica more than once? Moreover, you can come across this term in some Iranian sources that come out against separatism in Iran. See an example here, it’s not an academic source, just some person expressing his opinion, but it shows that Iranian people use the term in a colloquial speech. I think that the term should be mentioned as an alternative name without any mention that it is nationalist or separatist, according to the naming conventions. It is used not only by separatist organizations, but by other sources as well. As for its historic value, it’s not really relevant. The fact is that there are two Azerbaijans as of now, one in the north and one in the south, so for convenience some sources differentiate between north and south. I don’t know why some people try to attach some political meaning to this name. As for the article about Arran, it never mentions the name of South Azerbaijan in any context, as I pointed out above, while some people claimed that this article considered the term to be nationalistic motivated. Grandmaster 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not UN recognized. Is it no historical. Even if some people use it by mistake it does not make it legitimate. AS per Iranica, the editor also agrees that the name South Azerbaijan is made up and has no historical value. --Ali doostzadeh 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in criticism of seperatist political words in other sources, not for anything else. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say so. He says: Of course, Tabriz, the capital of South Azarbaijan is decidedly Persian, as is Baku, the capital of the north (Bad-koobeh, wind-blown). It’s not criticism, he just refers to the area by that name. Grandmaster 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an academic source. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. Read my posting above. Grandmaster 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no reason to put it as an alternative term --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The term is used by various sources. Grandmaster 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? The non academic websites where anyone can publish something? Wikipedia should not be used to promote any political agenda. "Various sources" should be academic, verifiable, reliable and use the term mentioned as an alternative term to Azarbaijan of Iran or they should not be noted --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Iranica? It uses the term, and it is an academic source. Grandmaster 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I thought you said "various sources"? and can you please quote to me how it uses the term? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica:

In North (Soviet) Azerbaijan the Latin alphabet was introduced in 1925…. In South (Iranian) Azerbaijan the Arabic alphabet is still used … [4] See page 246 Grandmaster 11:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suggest we remove the term and if you insist this single academic page where it mentions the word possibly once is your source, bring on the mediation. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not the only source, and you can’t remove the alternative names from the article. For example, the article by Svante Cornell, to which Tajik was referring, also uses the term Southern Azerbaijan:

The politically motivated Azeris are torn between those desiring mainly increased rights within the Iranian state; those seeking political autonomy within Iran; those seeking the creation of an independent state; those seeking unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan; and those seeking a confederation embracing Turkey and both Northern and Southern Azerbaijan. [5]

Also, since it is a name, the sources don’t have to be academic only. If the name is used by people, it should be included, and you can see that it is used even by Iranians. Grandmaster 12:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative name should be notable. With those sources, I suggest first thing that should be done is add "Northern Azarbaijan" as an alternative name to Azerbaijan the country. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to add that it is also sometimes referred to as Northern Azerbaijan, but countries don’t have alternative names. Only the internationally accepted one. And the name of South Azerbaijan is notable, run a google search and see for yourself. Grandmaster 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search isn't the best tool to use here as the term may refer to the Democratic Republic of South Azerbaijan. Only reliable sources count. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the name is not common relative to Azarbaijan for Iran. The UN has not recognized such a term. For example we had East Germany and West Germany which was recognized by the UN. Or North Korea or South Korea. Or in the US South Dakota and North Dakota. One or two authors won't change this fact. The fact is any naming convention should either have historical sources and/or be part of the current UN convention. Else one can also call that area of the US(Arizona,Texas..) Atzlan. Or call Karabagh , West Armenia (which is wrong and Karabagh is part of Azerbaijan as it is affirmed by the UN). For example we know Kurdish nationalist call 1/3 of Turkey as Western Kurdistan. In fact somebody might decide to call all the world Mexico. I will try to contact the editors at Iranica where the word Southern Azerbaijan is used. But I didn't find your article yet. The one by Prof. Boseworth didn't uses this term. Also pages referring to a separatist group or the ambassor of the republic of Azerbaijan to Iran can not be used as academic sources. Remember Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool.

--Ali doostzadeh 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are we letting one person Grandmaster who's from the republic of azarbaijan push his POV? we should just end this now Rugsnotbombs 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not see any reason why not to include an alternative name. UN is not an international notary it is a political organization. Why people trying to keep politics away, want to refer to an explicitly political organization? Other than that, even if we accept that it is only certain separatists using the term, it does not create a reason for exlusion of the term, on contrary it creates a reason to spesifically mention it as it proves that the term is in use. If it is proven that only and only people with separatist intenitons use this term, then that should be included as such. Otherwise, if there are neutral sources using it too, then it should be mentioned as an alternative name in a neutral manner. --TimBits

15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a formal province, it’s an article about a geographic region. Officially Iran has provinces of East and West Azerbaijan and others. They have their officially recognized name, but Iranian or South Azerbaijan is just a geographic term, such terms don’t need an official recognition. For example, UN did not recognize the terms Arran and Shirvan, but we have articles about them nonetheless. So it’s not a valid argument. And see the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it has both the official name of Karabakh and unofficial of Artsakh. Of course, the official name goes first, others follow as alternatives. It’s not that I’m happy with that, but that’s the way it’s done here. As for Svante Cornell article, he’s a western scholar, and not an Azerbaijani separatist. You may agree or disagree with his position, but the fact is that he uses the term, and so do even Iranian sources, both academic and non-academic. It’s just a matter of convenience, for many people it’s easier to refer to both regions as North and South, since they have the same name. Plus South Azerbaijan gets more than 32 000 hits on google, according to the rules the term should be mentioned. And you can check that most of the hits are about the region in Iran. Grandmaster 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijan and Persian Ultra Nationalists

The terms , names and titles are there to serve a purpose, and any term can be said to be political or advocating a certain view, but since it is being used has to be acknowledged.

The South Azerbaijan has born out of necessity to describe a region in Iran whos inhabitants are largely ethnic Azerbaijanis, and historically was under one one administration called "Ayalet i Azerbaijan" (ایالت آذربایجان). Since the recent changes to the administrative divisions the extends of this region is not readily shown on the official maps of the Iran, but never the less the ethnic boundaries are relatively clear.

The term South Azerbaijan indicates the close ethnic kinship with the Azerbaijani inhabitants of this region in Iran with those of in Republic of Azerbaijan. This is a cause for sensitivity of those Persian/Fars ultra nationalists, whose respects for Iranian borders exceed in respecting the Iranian people and accepting the facts on the ground.

This term is widely used in academic as well as in popular media, and I belive Wikipedia need to have an entry for this term. Mehrdad 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdadd jaan, anyone can claim whatever they want, but in this encyclopedia you have to provide evidence for your claims. You see, Uber Ultra Omega Nationalist Azeris, have to remember that Azari is the second ethnic group in Iran and Azeris, originally Medes, created the first native empire of Iran and the whole Azarbaijan region was part of Iran until Russian imperial powers seperated it. The bond between Azaris are Persians are so very much tight in Iran, that these Ultra Nationalist Azeris can only dream on with their seperatist wishes.

Please provide evidence for your claims of the term being "widely used" in academic and popular media (!). Thanks, --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kash, a quick search in the web will provide you with plenty of examples.

Here are some of those:

Mehrdad 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad, A bunch of blogs and letters to websites are not evidence for anything. Big list of links are not scary neither. You should familiarise yourself with WP:V. Just don't make big claims for yourself, blogs are not "popular media" --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more for you, Kash. See Asia Times, the source is quite sympathetic to Iran. It says: Meanwhile, Iranian or "southern" Azerbaijan developed on a massively different historical trajectory. [6]

Here’s an article by David Nissman, he uses the term throughout the text. [7] Grandmaster 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathetic to Iran? Don't flatter yourself. That link is not credible, seems like a personal webpage to me. Perhaps you would like to understand what an academic, reliable source is? WP:V, and see Jimbo's comment on the matter [8]: "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia...it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute" --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try at discrediting the sources, but Asia Times is a well known regional newspaper. As for David Nissman, he’s quite academic and is the author of the book called "The Soviet Union and the Iranian Azerbaijan: The Use of Nationalism for Political Penetration." Available at Amazon.com here Grandmaster 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try yourself mate. Newspapers are not reliable academic sources. No matter how well known they are, and if you like David Nissman, get his book and quote the usage. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The articles are OK, plus you don’t need academic sources for a title. Google search is enough. Grandmaster 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking this issue to a cetain group, namely Persians is not appropriate here. It's not directly related to Persians or even Persian nationalism. So, let's keep finger-pointing out. Other than that, if Azerbaijani People choose to live as Iranian citizens it is because of their allegiance to their country, not their perceived bond with another ethic group in the country. --TimBits

20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijan ( I refuse to call it Iranian Azarbaijan) should be Called Old Azarbaijan

How about calling the reall, historical Azarbaijan 'Old Azarbaijan?' This is more apporiate and the trend is already starting in Iran and Eurasia.

The following is the reason why the area in question can not be called South Azarbaijan, especially because of a vocal and militant minority;

"... The name “Azerbaijan” for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one…this is the reason why the name “Azerbaijan” was selected (for Arran)…anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran ..." - Quote from Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.

"... Albania (present Republic of Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (the original Azerbaijan in Iran) ..." - Azeri-Turkish scholar Ramazani, in Blucher, W.V., Zeitenwende, Persian Translation: Safar-nameh-e-Blucher, Tehran, Khwarami, 1984, p.115

Therefore esablishing the fact that (Iranian) Azarbaijan is in historical fact 'Azarbaijan proper' we can safely realize that there is no south or north Azarbaijan. Any referance is informal venacular terminology and terminal 'ad libb'. This is not original research either, but transparent use of information and verification. If I have documantation verifying that SUBJECT is RED and user:X says/claims/edits that SUBJECT is BLUE (which is falicous) and even possibly finds on a more complicated scenerio or basis non-neutral or non-acadmic verification saying SUBJECT is BLUE it does not mean SUBJECT is BLUE. Then user:X demands I find verification saying SUBJECT is NOT BLUE. This DEMANDING OF OTHER EDITORS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, WHICH IS NOT AN ACADMIC PROCESS AND NON-SCIENTIFIC IN NATURE is a dead end and tactically used for rheotoric. HOw can editors prove SUBJECT IS NOT BLUE OR SUBJECT IS NOT YELLOW? When all acticles say SUBJECT is RED and would never even talk about other colours becuase simple SUBJECT IS RED. These PROBLEMS are compounded becuase user:Grandmaster has a bad habbit of asking other editors to prove a NEGATIVE. What is there to say/verify that SUBJECT is NOT BLUE. It is as if I claimed Japanese were Iranian/Iranic and I said they have to be 'because there is no verification saying they are not Iranian!' This is a generic problem not just for ethnic articles but for all WIkipedia that must be reviewed, analyzed, a addressed, and remedied by us all through the stipulation of certain regulations that are broadly accepted and easy to understand and follow.

Anyone have any questions, comments or concerns please contact me!

72.57.230.179

Even Baraheni calls it "Iranian Azarbaijan"

Reza Baraheni is today perhaps one of the, if not the most famous and heavyweight Azeris of Iran. This is what he says:

البته هستند كساني كه پس از رويت اين بلاها تزريق جدايي طلبي مي كنند. اصلا چه كسي گفته است كه ايران متعلق به ديگري است تا تو از آن جداي شوي؟ بزرگ ترين شهر آذري نشين جهان تهران است، با بيش از نيمي از جمعيت كل اين پايتخت، كه محصور به شهرهاي آذري نشين است، بزرگترينش شهري به جمعيت چند ميليوني كرج، و واقع بين اگر باشيم بايد بگوييم كه تهران و اطرافش، به رغم داشتن ميليونها فارسي زبان، در دنيا، پس از استانبول و اطرافش، بزرگ ترين شهر ترك نشين جهان است،

"Of course there are those that after seeing all these tensions (in Iranian Azerbaijan) inject ideas of secessionism of Azeris from Iran. My question to them is: What other group does Iran belong to that has made you want to secede from Iran? Tehran is the world's largest Azeri city, with half the population being Azeri. And it is surrounded by Azeri cities as well, the largest being the multi million population city of Karaj. And if we even want to be realistic, we can even say that Tehran and its metropolitan area, despite its large Persian population, constitutes the world's largest Turkic city, after Istanbul."

- yeah, Turks who are not allowed to read and write in turkish! and they need to speak persian, and this applies to their children too, so no more turks...!

حوزه آذربايجان ,غرض سراسر آذربايجان است، هم آنچه جدا شده و شمالي خوانده شده و هم آذربايجان ايران

"...The region of Azarbaijan, meaning all of Azarbaijan, both the part that separated off and is called "north", and the Iranian Azarbaijan..."

Source: [9]

Iranian Azerbaijan is therefore correct. No ands, ifs, or buts. Yasashir Iran.--Zereshk 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- We know better than anybody else what to call our lands, so take off the perspolis pictures from your pages please since you have no right to even discuss here...persians... (hey zereshk i C U confused typing turkish lol it's ok, don't get excited)

I agree with name Azarbaijan (Iran) is really confusing, especcially for people who dont know a thing about Azerbaijan, this would only be annoying to read. I think we should change it into Iranian Azerbaijan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku87 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it should be moved to Iranian Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We're on English wikipedia and we should use the most common form in English, at least that's our policy, which is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

It's not hard to see that Azerbaijan is a much more common form, when speaking about the Iranian region.

Or, if you trust printed books more:

bogdan 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user only said use the term Iranian Azarbaijan, notice he used Azarbaijan and not Azerbaijan. Azarbaijan is also used in English and is the proper way of spelling it when refering to the region within Iran. 69.196.164.190

Final line

I have no time reading all discussions and articles and stuff, so non azer - turks out of south-azerbaijan please... We got what we deserved from trusting to persians so it's good to have some respect, but this time we know who to trust lol. so let's just get separated while we keep our peace between

- I mean what is really bodering persians here? you got your land and people and so do I.

persians don't like to accept us as "turks" which doesn't mean anything, you know better than anybody else what you are, so i think they got a problem with the land, i guess they can't get the persian-empire map out of their head, so if it's based on that we should wait for egypt and greece too lol but the thing is "Iran" till early 20th century was being called "countries of Iran" which azerbaijan was one of these countries, independence like others, my dear Iran is not a single unit that you wanna force one language and culture to it, it's been a land based on "Confederalism" not even "federalism" so it's more can be united as a "Union". Otherwise if persians kill themselves or we kill ourselves it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to be persians. I mean what is wrong with this? persians do not know many things about history of Iran, they should open their eyes before it gets late, they need to stop thinking about the persian empire, what? they think that everybody was persian at that time? all those lands?!! if everybody was aryan or persian how come they couldn't do anything when Alexander came to these lands?

Bro.. Don't live in your dreams, you need to learn this: When Turks got the right to determine what to call persian lands, Persians will get the right to name azerbaijan as they want. This applies to all nations

Ethnic status in Iran: NPOV & Sources

This section suffers from a lack of cites and also poor style. Many sentences assess claims, such as '..no incidation...' & '...undermines...'. WP shouldn't be deciding how reasonable a claim is one way or the other, just reporting them. Additionally, the para that starts 'In contract to the claims...' seems like total Original Research and has no sources. Remember, WP isn't here to determine the status of Azaris in Iran, but merely to report what others have said about it. Ashmoo 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move this page to Azarbaijan or Iranian Azarbaijan

The current title is incorrect and misleading. it suggests that the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan are one entity seperated. They are not, they have always been to different regions, and infact, the R of Azerbaijan shouldnt even be called azerbaijan.Khosrow II 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly disagree. This article is quite informative related with the Azeri (Turkic Speaking) people of iran and the region. There are similar issues as in the case of Macedonia. E104421 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is "Persian Azarbaijan"?

Can someone please tell what the heck "Persian Azarbaijan" (in the first line) means. There is no relationship, per se, between Persians and Azarbaijan. We have to edit this non-sense ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.104.63 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2006.

Iran was formerly known to the west as Persia. Therefore, Persian Azerbaijan is basically Iranian Azerbaijan, but with the Western term for Iran.Khosrow II 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 1- Racial issues

This article is biased because there is a passage in article which suggests azerbaijanis are of arian ancistary and thus it suggest azeris can't be regarded as having a distinc idendity from persians. this part should be deleted, because:

1. Idendity is not based on Race. This racial discussions reminds me of Nazi regime. why should an article about a geographical location contain racial theories. for instance see the Catalonia article. although catalans probably have the same racial traits as Castillians, this article does not contain any discussion regarding racial simmilarities and there is no doubt that Catalans are distinct from Castillians.

2. The research mentioned in the article is only a private research on a limmited group of individuals. The results of the research do not have any official status. Indeed there may exict many conflicting research results. so Please do not include the results of this research in the article unless you can show that the results are universally accepted and you unless you can cite credible neutral(non-Iranian) websites which refer to the results of this research.

3. Even if we accept that there is a genetic proximity between persians and azeris this does not mean that Azeris are simmillar to persians. This means Azeris and persians have billateral simillarities. Well the frequency of intermarrigaes between Iranians of different ethnicities (especialy Persians and Azeris)has created a common genetic pool. Indeed in Tehran, the capital of Iran which once was a mainly persian town, you can hardly find any person without Azeri blood in her veins.

4. If you insist on including statements about Racial traits of Azeris all rival theories should be included. For Rival theoris see Azerbaijani_people article.--Faucon7 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 2- Lingual and cultural issues

Culture is the main base of idendity. In this Article cultural distinctness of Azerbaijanis is not underlined. It should be underlined that the language of this region is Azerbaijani, a TURKIC language. any introduction to the Iranian azerbaijan without a reference to the language issue will be incomplete. It should be underlined that while Azerbaijanis are the largest ethnic group in Iran ( according to ethnologe.org), Azerbaijani people can not use their right to be educated in Azerbaijani languge. Indeed Azerbaijanis may be the largest group in the world whose language does not enjoy an official status. Although the current constitution of Iran allows (and not necessates) the education in local languages but it should be born in mind that:

1. this provision is a dead letter . All the activities by azerbaijani activist and human rights advocates have not resulted in a change till now. The Azerbaijani Language is not used in schools now. A new wave of idendity awareness has encourages some young Azerbaijanis to educate themselves in Azerbaijani Language via unofficial means.

2. Even if complied with, This provision of the constitution is far from satisfactory. If you say the Canadian model, where both French and English are co-official all over the country, is a too ambitious one, The spanish model accordin to which the local languages such as Catalan language, Basque language, Galician language, etc. are co-offical with the Spanish language (castillian) in their respective regions, should be an ideal model for Iran.

Apart from the issue of the language other cultural distincnesses of Azerbaijanis should be outlined as well. I agrre that all Iranian have cultural simillarities but the differences should be outlined as well.

also there should be a reference to idendity awareness movements in Azerbaijan including the recent protestations in 2006.--Faucon7 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 3- This article is a stub

This article is incomplete. It's introduction to the culture of Azerbaijan is very short and unsatisfactory, there is no introduction to the economy of Azerbaijan, it lacks maps and images, famous people section etc. --Faucon7 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO POV PROPOGANDA!

Why does the article introduction say that the region is also called "south Azarbaijan?" Only a few Azari nationalists from the ex. soviet republic use that false term. No one in Iran or the rest of the world has ever used that name. It is highly offensive to Iranians and is simply inncorrect. The current provences of Iran are the only land to have ever been called, Azarbaijan! The "country" of azarbaijan was historically 3 seperate provances of Iran, (Persia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.66.84 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 December 2006.

Actually, most people in the Republic of Azerbaijan refer to it as "South Azerbaijan", not just "a few Azeri nationalists". As for the fact that it's offensive to Iranians, see Wikipedia is not censored. The fact is that the term is still notable, and therefore belongs in the intro. Khoi khoi 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very bad liar, I know for a fact that most people in the republic of azarbaijan do NOT call the Iranian provences, "south azarbaijan". I have been to the "republic" many times. There is no evidence for your propoganda. This is an encyclopedia not a political platform! You dont have the authority to threaten people or block anyone because of your own personal opinions.

Actually, I do, and I would appreciate if you didn't make personal attacks towards me. Khoi khoi 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"actually I do"....this is going to be sent to the person who made the mistake of giving you moderator privilages.

This article is completely joke

It's just nothing more than Persian chauvanist propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueEyedCat (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Prove it. this is all your opinion, but do you see the references and sources? Where are you from, are you Iranian? If not, why do you speak of Persian chauvanism? What I see is people trying to seperate us from a nation that we have been a part of for thousands of years!Azerbaijani 14:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you “unsigned”, it is a joke but I am enjoying it! Where lese one could find so much nonsense in the name of factual history? Here the history is made and rewritten by a bunch of armature teenagers on Wiki! Hurray! South Azerbaijan, North Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, North-west Azerbaijan, south-East Azerbaijan, did I miss any? Leave it to America and Israel and we will have South-North-West Azerbaijan and East-North-West Azerbaijan! The smaller the opposition the easier to swallow them. Kiumars

Poor article, biased, without essential facts!

This article is full of flaws. Tajik (his name being Tajik is also an indication of his Aryan-Persian orientation) has intentionally altered reality so that it creates a sense of "Persianized Azerbaijan". First of all there is no mention of Iranian Azerbaijan (or Southern Azerbaijan) as having any separate identity, no mention about their relations to Iran's history, especially to the Safavid and the Qajar, both being strongly related to the Azerbaijani people and also being Azerbaijanis, no mention about their own separate history or identity, and there is extremely little written, intentionally altered, about Azerbaijan and its Turkic origions.

No matter how Tajik would like to believe that Azerbaijan as a whole, and especially Iranian Azerbaijan in particular, is nothing and has never been nothing but one and a simple province of Persia that is either his lack of knowledge or his desire for exaggerating A Persianised Iran or Iran's Persian origins or past, ethnically speaking.

And regarding northern Azerbaijan, southern Azerbaijan, Arran etc it's not right to judge, but to report the fact as they are. Arran has been mentioned in some writings as being a land somewhere about the present-day Azerbaijan. Also Moghan is a land that has been mostly given to the republic of Azerbaijan and the rest is in present-day Iranian Azerbaijan. If the citizens of the republic of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis and they consider themselves to be Azerbaijanis then it's none of third parties' business to tell them that they have got it wrong, which they haven't. There is also a region inside the reublic of Azerbaijan called Arran and they can decide whenever they want to change its name. Iran's Persian chauvinism after the Pahlavis led to Iranian Azerbaijan being split into separate provinces especially to create weakness and an illusion of smallness. And it has worked to some extent. Why haven't all these very important issues been mentioned in the article? These things have affected the people of Azerbaijan's identity greatly. Another fact has been an intentional policy of discrimination against the promotion of Azerbaijan's language and culture so that as many Azerbaijanis as possible become Persianised. This has worked to a great extent as well. Another Iranian post-Pahlavi policy has been to invest as little as possible in Azerbaijani territorries, and therefore Azerbaijanis looking for jobs migrated heavily to moslty Persian areas such as Tehran and its surrounding towns and cities and also other areas of Iran. This policy of weakening Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan) has also worked to a great extent. Why hasn't the article mentioned any? It's clear that the editor is strongly biased. And the problem with the phrase "South Azerbaijan" being politically motivated is absurd and completely wrong because it is simple logic that as long as Azerbaijanis want to know from which part of the fences they come from they need to say either from north or south. It's just about differentiation. Now that there is independent state of Azerbaijan it is "politically motivated" to say that the name of the state should not be Azerbaijan. Iranian Azerbaijanis do not mind having the republic of Azerbaijan be called as it is. There are strong bonds between the two sides of the fences and there is also a growing sense of nationalism in both sides too. Why none of these have been mentioned??? The article is biased and very poor. --Bm79 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what POV is? You talk of facts at the beginning but the rest of your post is inaccurate POV. Your not one to talk. The FACTS are what is in the article, deal with it.Azerbaijani 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not yet very familiar with how editing etc works but I belive there must be an editing of this article so that so many facts are not left out. It is for certain that although there are extremely few Farsi speakers (proper Persians) in Iran's Azerbaijan they are trampling over each other to write about THEIR POV of how they see fit to describe Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan in particular. They are trying very hard to separate the Republic of Azerbaijan, and its people, from the Iranian Azerbaijan in order to protect the integrity of Iran. Irani's integrity has nothing to do with knowing facts and having an objective approach, to gain knowledge about something. And most of Iran's Turks (Azerbaijanis) are not for separatism. There are too many links among Iranian Turks and other Iranian peoples, but this article by distorting facts and manipulation of realities in favour of a more Persianised Iran is reducing the value of Azerbaijan's own separate identity.Bm79 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the references given in the article! Such pure rubbish!!!

Let me paste one phrase from this "source" (reference numer 3) to make the point about the name Arran:

"And neither is "Azeri" the language of the people of Azarbaijan nor that of Aran. "Azeri" is one of the Iranian dialects, such as Kurdish, Lurish, Gillish, Mazandarani, Balouchi, Bakhtiari, and others."

This person who has written all those stuff, has just blatently put Azeri (Azeri is a new term, the people of Azerbaijan have always spoken AZERBAIJANI TURKIC) beside Kurdish, Luri etc to make the reader understand that the people of Azerbaijan speak some sort of a dialect of Farsi. I am surprised he didn't include Arabic there.

And reference number 4 is much worse than number 3. These sources are pure nonesense and mockery of science. I don't understand WHY, for God sake, proper Persians (the Fars) are so much keen to explain to US, Azerbaijanis, who we are? Just go do your own business!!! Why do you feel the need to re-write history and tell us who we are??? OK, we are part of Iran, but that's it. We have a lot of common traditions. This doesn't mean anything else. Azerbaijan has a language of its own, which is very similar to Turkish ans is the same in the republic of Azerbaijan and South Azerbaijan. There are dialects of Azerbaijani both inside Iranian Azerbaijan and also the republic of Azerbaijan as there dialects of Farsi in Isfahan, Shiraz and Mashad. Before forgetting let me paste this from reference numer 4, which is just absurd and whoever put this as a reference was either biased or completely unaware of the facts:

"Elchibey also failed to mention that Ismail was in fact Kurdish, and was an adherent of the ancient Sufi cults of western and northern Persia... Ismail also claimed to be descendant of the royal House of the Sassanian Empire."

My God, are these two guys who have written some absolutely hillarious stuff on the web your sources??? Just get real for God sake!! These people are intentionally manipulating history to make it all "Persian" in its ethnic sense. The Turks of Turkey did similar things in Turkey by giving some complete nonesense to the Turks to arouse nationalism, but that was more than 80 years ago. Enoguh is enough! Bm79 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bm79, when you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make these changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. We're all here (well, most of us) to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources. Simply fix the article and cite your sources, and hopefully this article can be improved. Cheers, Khoi khoi 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to learn soon ;) I've had my account for a long time but never wrote anything until I saw this terribly distorted and poor article. I will try.Bm79 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing az Azerbaijan in IRAN

Before the Pahlavi regime there was a united Azerbaijan in Iran, but today there is no such entity whatsoever in Iran. There are provinces that are populated mainly by Azerbaijanis and there are other areas within other provinces (not majority Azerbaijani populated) that are populated by Azerbaijanis.

Who can write "Azarbaijan has an area of 176,512 square kilometers and a population of about 10 million (estimates vary)." while there is no Azerbaijan to measure???? This article has arbitrarily given numbers (precise numbers such as 176,512) that have nothing to do with anything. They are just guessworks. Begore the Pahlavi today's Qazvin was part of Azerbaijan and some other parts that have been cut have been given to other provinces that are not mostly Azerbaijani. I tried to edit the article but they were all reversed. Please back your writings with proof. All that is written here is POV gibberish. Azerbaijanis in Iran are more than 25% (more likely to be about a third of the population) of Iran's population and that is at least 17,5 million (more likely 22-25 million), from whom of course a large part live in Tehran and other cities that are not majority Azerbaijani, but as long as there is no such thing as Azerbaijan in Iran it is incorrect to give numbers, and it is also incorrect to make boundaries. The Iranian regime has divided Azerbaijan into smaller provinces in order to disunite the people and there is no Azerbaijan as such left in IRAN. Please review the article!!! Bm79 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan is an area, not a province! There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean, the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another. Now you are not only trying to take our land but take away our rightful name too? Stop with your POV edits all over the place!Azerbaijani 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that there is Azerbaijan in Iran, and my edits wouldn't have denied that. But there is no limit, no boundaries to this area. How can you measure the largness, or the population of an area?? The area must be an accepted fact. Where does that area start and where does it end? There is no refernce to it. So we can delete any reference to surface and population. You are telling about my POV? Let me cite this "There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean, the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another." I am from Iranian Azerbaijan, so I cannot take anybody else's land, but I do not like seeing other put "fictitious" boundaries around my homeland. It is just about correctness, nothing else. Bm79 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about you didnt deny... You clearly said that there is no Azerbaijan! Do not edit the article with your POV again. The article is SOURCED and ACCURATE. There are no fictitious boundaries for Azerbaijan, because ultimatly it is part of Iran and will remain so. Where Azeri's live and where Azerbaijan has been located historically are TWO different things! And my statement about the republic is not POV, it is fact, if you knew anything about your own peoples history, or about the history of your country, Iran, like I do, then you would know the truth and not be so easily sucked in to propaganda.Azerbaijani 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a detailed population provincial analysis has been carried in Iran. In the Qajar era there was about 4 to 5 provinces in Iran but now there is 30 the most recent being North Khorasan, South Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan. The population of predominant Azeri speaking in Iran can be ascertained from the provincial analysis. [10]. I am not source what the definition of Azerbaijan in Iran is actually, but if we are counting majority Azeri-speaking provinces then it is East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan. West Azerbaijan or parts of it can be added as well. If someone can count the square meters on this map [11], then that might be accurate. --alidoostzadeh 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO AZERBAIJAN as a separate entity in Iran. This is false to say that there is a defined region or province in Iran called Azerbaijan because there isn't. I don't care about political statments that Azerbaijan is or will be or else from Iran or alike. Those do not have their place here. The article cannot have a source because I do not see anywhere in Iran any region that is officially called Azerbaijan. There was Azerbaijan during the Qajar that was made smaller pieces. I do not know what that Azerbaijan looked like. I would appreciate if someone found a reliable map. At this moment in time there is NO entity called Azerbaijan in Iran that can be measured. And if would like to add East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, Ardebil and Zanjan to make up Azerbaijan then we are being subjective because, as I said, there is no Azerbaijan as a clear territory in any official way. So we cannot add up provinces and call them Azerbaijan. Astara for example is in Gilan ans is mostly Azerbaijani. In West Azerbaijan there are large towns that are majority Kurd. And there are large areas within Hamedan and Qazvin that are majority Azerbaijani. Who is the writer of this article to define ONE CLEAR entity called Azerbaijan??? It is POV. Please edit, revise... Bm79 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, your beating a dead horse! See the articles such as Turkish Kurdistan... THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A PROVINCE! Why do you not understand this? This article is about historical Azerbaijan (not the fake Azerbaijan in the Caucasus). Its a general article, its not meant to be about a province, just as the Turkish Kurdistan article is not meant to be about a Kurdistan province in Turkey. Do you understand now or do you need further explanation?Azerbaijani 04:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Turkish Kurdistan and you will not see exact data about how large the area is and what is the population. The republic of Azerbaijan is an established country and the name is Azerbaijan, recognised by the whole world and you are saying that it is fake? OK, history went this, came that etc, but the fact of the matter is that there is people of Azerbaijan and that this people of Azerbaijan live mainly in north-western Iran (no exact official data exists) and the republic of Azerbaijan. The exact data must be removed from the article so it is consistent with available factual data Bm79 04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHATEVER NAME THEY WISH. That is what the pan Turkists did for the Republic of Azerbaijan and they were allowed to do that because everyone else was busy with WWI and its aftermath and the when the Soviets took the new country they kept the name as a means to an end (the end being turning Iran communist). In 1991, the UN asked the former Azerbaijan SSR to present evidence for the name of their country, and all they did was bring ONE VAGUE letter. Iran at that time had just come out of the war, was enemies with basically everyone, and didnt even bother to put up any type of resistance, because, well, the mullahs didnt care at all! The people are not the same. Tell me, if I start calling myself a Frenchman, does that make me an ethnic French man?Azerbaijani 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a part of this "article" of yours, or whoever wrote it: "Azarbaijan hails from a rich culture from Azari traditions." Have you ever heard of someone saying "My country (whatever name) hails from a poor culture from my country's traditions?" Have you ever heard someone saying their country is poor in culture or tradition or that their country, or region, is ugly? This article is a joke. It presents very few facts and the facts that are there are incorrect, because the size that is given is the size of four Iranian provinces that are mostly populated by Azerbaijanis but there is no Azerbaijan as a defined area in Iran. So we can write the facts as they are instead of inveting stuff. We can write that "there is no clear definition of an area, adminitrative district, province or territory named Azerbaijan in Iran. But there are mostly Azerbaijani populated provinces that prior to the Pahlavi consituted mostly what was known as Azerbaijan." This would be much more objective, or if someone else can come up with a better phrasing then that would be better. If you do not like that the republic of Azerbaijan is called Azerbaija, then again that is you issue. That part of Iran was cut off Iran about 200 years ago (more than 190 years ago) and at those times there were Kahantes in north-western iran and every relatively small area had a Kahanate. There was no Armenia for example, but some Khanates. Beside this, you are not a Frenshman, probably a mixed Azeri-Persian teenager or who knows. I don't care, but I doubt you have lived in Azerbaijan. I have lived in Azerbaijan and I know how things were when I lived there and all my relatives are Azerbaijanis, or mixed with Persians. And Iranian Azerbaijanis consider those in the republic of Azerbaijan as their and vice-versa. Bm79 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS THE LAST TIME I AM SAYING THIS, WIKIPEDIA HAS A NPOV POLICY. I just do not understand why you dont get this. Maybe someone should clarify to you what POV is.Azerbaijani 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a UN document in which they asked Azerbaijan "to present evidence for the name of their country". The UN archives are available online, so please quote the original source, and not Iranian nationalistic authors. Grandmaster 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployed teenager, human bugs of Wikipedia

Bm79, are you an unemployed teenager? If not, don't waste your time trying to edit anything. It's not worth it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable source, it is meant to be an alternative source. Readers know that Wikipedia is a continuously evoloving, not scientific, source of information and they are free to look for more information to find what they are looking for. As long as everybody is able to edit, you never know whether the editor is 12-15-18 year-old stubborn teenager or an informed scholar from a Western country. And because of this there are no scholars doing editing here. This is the realm of the 'unemployed teenagers' as I would call. Young people start to learn a few things and they think they are right about those things and they do not tolerate anyboy disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them they will call you names and they will insult you. This makes Wikipedia full of teenagers who are emotionally attached to some articles they think are correct and if you touch those articles they will insult you and of course immediately they will change the edits. These youngsters usually have nothing to do, guys without girlfriends, without a job and often with personal and social problems. And these problems are reflected on the fact they spend all day on the Internet. Regarding this article I can say that I agree with Bm79. I am from Romania and I know a few friends ehere who are from Iranian Azerbaijan. That was why I was interested about Azerbaijan and I talked to them about these things. As far as I have got to know, after researching a lot, I could not find any reliable Western, or even Iranian, academic or official source to say anything about any Azerbaijan in Iran as any province, official area or alike. As far as I have understood Iranian Azerbaijan is just like Turkish Kurdistan. It is unknown how big it is and what is its population. So, it seems to be that writing exact data about Iranian Azerbaijan is inaccurate. More clarification is needed. And the article gives me the sense that it is not unbiased and it focuses too little on Azerbaijan as such and too much on proving the links between Azerbaijan and Iran, or Persians. I didn't need these political issues to read. I wanted to know about Iranian Azerbaijan as such. grumpy tennagers, if you feel the need to insult me, go ahead and shoot. I don't respons, I never edit on Wikipedia, and I don't mind insults. Claudiusorin 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot create another account Bm79.Azerbaijani 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably what you usually do. Stick to your computer, it's good for you. Good luck!Bm79 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Columbia Encyclopedia

These are phrases from Columbia Encyclopedia I would like to refer to the this article and make relevant changes. In case anyone has any opposition please discuss! I think some parts of the article have been originally taken from the same source, though some parts omitted.

According to Columbia Encyclopedia:

"The majority of the people of Azerbaijan are Turkic-speaking Azeris, who are Shiite Muslims. There are also Armenians, Kurds, Jews, and Persians."

From the sentence above "Turkic-speaking" has been removed.

"The Seljuk Turks dominated the region in the 11th and 12th cent., and the Mongols under Hulagu Khan established (13th cent.) their capital at Maragheh. After being conquered by Timur in the 14th cent., Tabriz became an important provincial capital of the Timurid empire. It was out of Ardebil that the Safavid dynasty arose (c.1500) to renew the state of Persia. There was fierce fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Persia for Azerbaijan. After brief Ottoman control, Abbas I, shah of Persia, regained control of the region in 1603."

And "Persianized" has been added before Seljuk, which is not the same as written at the Columbia Encyclopedia. "Ancient Artvilla" has been added, which also does not exist in the original source.

And follows "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." in which it is clearly mentioned that Azerbaijan also included the area (northern Azerbaijan) that was ceded to Russia. What was ORGANIZED as a province of Persia. Please make note that prior to this Azerbaijan was a united "region" (not organized province) that included northern territories that were ceded to Russia. After that there was created an organized Azerbaijan PROVINCE in Iran, which does not exist today any more.

However the source also says that "Azerbaijanä′′ zĕrbījän′ , ă′′ zər–, Iran. Azarbayejan, region, c.34,280 sq mi (88,785 sq km), NW Iran, divided into the provinces of East Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 3,325,540), West Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 2,496,320), and Ardabil (1996 pop. 1,168,011). The chief cities include Tabriz (the capital of East Azerbaijan), Urmia (the capital of West Azerbaijan), Ardebil (the capital of Ardabil), Maragheh, and Khoy (Khvoy). The region is bounded in the N by Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan (from which it is separated by the Aras River) and in the W by Turkey and Iraq." According to this source "Azerbaijan, the region" is made up of three provinces, West and East Azerbaijan and Ardebil. The editor of this article has, again, put "Zanjan" there and changed the text. I propose that as long as there is no clear-cut official, Iranian or internationl, boundaries or limits for Azerbaijan in Iran we leave the size and the population as being unspecified.

I would like to know whether it is OK to edit. Please check the source by yourselves! Bm79 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size and population!

I would like to discuss about the size and the population. If we are going to accept Columbia Encyclopedia, which was the original text from which excerpts were taken out, cut, added on, and parts re-written, then we shall put the text as it is written in the original source. That source does not mention Zanjan. I think we either need to write as the original source or keep the size and the population unspecified because as long as there is no source to prove and size or population for a region we cannot make up numbers. As I know it is important to have reliable sources rather than what we, or others, think is true. All Iranians know that Azeri population live far beyond the four provinces that are mentioned in the article, but Kurds are a large proportion of the population of West Azardaijan, so those areas that are majority Kurdish in West Azardaijan may be considered, as a region, Iranian Kurdistan rather than Azerbaijan. But if we are speaking about provinces, then there is no province as Azerbaijan. Please give objective arguments so we can improve the article. Thank you! Bm79 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusation instead of changes

This article needs changes, not accusations. If this member Azerbaijani believes that I am someone else that is his problem but stop accusing and reversing and bring arguments. I verified the sources and they are valid. I look at the source, Encyclopedia Columbia, and saw that the data I changed to were more accurate. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, please bring arguments. I am no other member, and stop personal attacks! Scorpionf007 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Azerbaijan (Iran)

This is a dispute about the texts in this article, Azerbaijan (Iran).

I discovered where this article had been copied from, Encyclopedia Columbia, and have written my findings above. I invited anyone to discuss changes after that but no-one replied. Then proceeded to edit. After proceeding to edit the edits were reversed. The original text, from Columbia, has not been copied directly but after being changed, about which I have written above (the title "Columbia Encyclopedia"). It seems that there are editors who do not like what Encyclopedia Columbia has written but they do not bring arguments. I am new here so I may make mistakes and I need some assistance too. My edits have not been successful and I do not have any member who disagrees to talk to in a civilised and argumentative way. There is a link in which there is clear citation from Columbia (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/AzerbjIrn) and the same text can also be found at the link mentioned in the article (http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/AzerbjIrn.html) and looking at this source, Columbia Encyclopedia, it is just stunningly clear what parts have been changed intentionally. It is unmistakably clear that the text of this article has been taken from this source (Columbia Encyclopedia) though drastically altered, which is in violation of the property rights of the original source. I would appreciate if someone impartial could help out. Thank you! Bm79 03:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This apparently goes back to October 2005, when Surena (talk · contribs) created the Azarbaijan article. In January 2006, the content was merged into this article. I've posted something about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Very old copyvio. Khoi khoi 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to deal with this we're going to have to - I know it's a mess - roll back almost a year of edits, back to January 2006 before the offending material was merged in, and then start re-adding any non-copyvio sections which have been added since. I'll do this now, and leave those familiar with the page to polish it. Shimgray | talk | 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mainly had to cut the history and provinces/cities sections - both will need recreated from scratch. We can use the Columbia material as a source, but we can't copy-and-paste its text. Shimgray | talk | 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert at Wikipedia, but can I start? I can take that as a source and write it in an original sense if that is OK. Bm79 04:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, should be fine. Use it as a framework to work from, but don't use their words, and then note them as the source. Shimgray | talk | 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, but if you've got time, later on, take a look and see the result because I am quite new, and as the altered version had shown there are individuals who are quite intent on keeping things a bit different. Thanks :) Bm79 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Future edits

My fellow Iranians, please be more open and discuss changges before doing them. I had no-one to talk to about the dubious content and I had to do hard work to find out that the content was a copy-right violation. After re-writing the article it didn't take more than a few minutes that someone came and changed the article back to somewhere about where it was when it was a copy/vio. Me fellow Iranians are very keen in emphasising and highlighting two things about Azerbaijan: 1) that it is as Persian (opposed to Turkic) as possible, 2) that there has never been anything called Azerbaijan to the north of the present-day Azerbaijan. Believe me that I have no love or special interest in proving my opinion. This website is supposed to be an open-source unbiased and SOURCED encyclopedia. So we need to have some proof when writing something. And we cannot use words such as "liberation" or "ugly" or "beautiful" or "incorrect" as been affirmative or infirmative. We need to bring RELIABLE proof when we write something and when the proof is not reliable then mention opposing suggestions so that the reader decides. I am an Iranian myself if anyone is curious and if you are really really curious ask me whatever you want in Fasiye khodemun!! But let's not make fun of us and write'edit objectively and unbiasedly without nationalistic feelings! Discuss changes before making them please. Thanks! Bm79 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Surena

May I ask why you took some parts of the article out? I have noticed that Iranians (I am an an Iranian too) are actively doing hard works on the history of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis and revmoving some data that may in any way 1) relate the republic of Azerbaijan to the name of Azerbaijan, and 2) make Azerbijan (as language and culture) as much Persian as possible.

I want to have a discussion that can be suitable for an encyclopedia, not political or alike. You have changes occupied or other words to "liberated". Do you think this is appropriate to write eliberated in an encyclopedia? We may of course write it in Iranian history books, but in a modern encyclopedia? And why did you erase my hard work anyway? The previous version was a copy-right violation which I discovered was a copy-right violation. You changed my writings so it looked pretty much like the one which was copy-right violation. All I have written is INSPIRED from Encyclopedia Columbia. Please before reverting them back again let's talk them through in the discussion page. My fellow PERSIAN Iranians are not being often helpful by being so much nationalistic. This is an encyclopedia and I am an Azerbaijani Iranian, so please respect me, just a bit, OK? Thank you :) Bm79 07:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bm79

The term Occupied is applied when there is a forign invasion involved, and since Azarbaijan has always been part of Iran from the dawn of the history, it could have not been occupied by Shapur II or etc. Therefore the term occupied is incorrect. According to your philosophy, French should have not claimed that they have liberated their own country from Nazis, since the term is being considered to be derogatory or nationalist – they should have used re-occupation!

With regard to violation of the copyright, in fact I am helping to depart from the source, i.e. (http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/AzerbjIrn.html), rather than as you claim You changed my writings so it looked pretty much like the one which was copy-right violation!

Also, All I have written is INSPIRED from Encyclopaedia Columbia – I am sorry to disappoint you, but it was me who initiated the Azarbaijan article here at Wikipedia (in this format -dated 24 OCtober 2005), not you; - at that time I was a new Wikipedian and simply have forgotten to mention the source.

With regard to 1) relate the republic of Azerbaijan to the name of Azerbaijan, you are wrong again. The republic of Azerbaijan formerly known as Arran has never been same entity as Azarbaijan. Therefore, Arran is a different topic (see: [12] and [13].

Finally, 2) make Azerbijan (as language and culture) as much Persian as possible, I do not trying to do such a thing, since Azaris and Persians are two separate branches of Iranian family. Nonetheless, Azaris are Iranian as much as the Persians, Kurds, Lurs, etc., it is Turks who are desperately and hopelessly trying to Turkify Azarbaijan and Arran, just because of the language sharing. Azais culturally, traditionally and historically are of Iranian, and no one can change that. :Regards Surena 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your openness to talk! I realised it was you who opened this topic which is great. Thanks againg :) I have not found very many eager Iranians to talk unfortunately and I have ONLY been intereted about Azerbaijan. I have just started, so I will see further what comes up.

We shall be trying to be objective, so "liberated" does not have its sense for an EMPIRE. If the FRENCH liberate their country by fighting agaist others who occupied their country then that is liberation but if Americans come to take France and give it back to the French that is not liberation. Let me give another example! If Kurds in Iraq fought themselves against Saddam and freed their own country then that is liberation but if Iran came there and kicked out Saddam then that is not liberation and even if Iranian Kurds did it it's not liberation because there will always be question signs about other liberating other people's land. I agree with you that MOST LIKELY Azerbaijanis of that time were some sort of Persians, or at least have some sort of Persian dialect or language, but they did not kick those people out but the central government of the Persian EMPIRE did. So, let's be a bit scientific rather than Iranian here, for the sake of foreigners who read these stuff :) You also removed stuff that was related to the Republic of Azerbaijan. I have no great interest about the republic of Azerbaijan, but please look at the source and you will see that the parts you removed are NOT contrary to the source. The source is not long so it won't take long to read it all. You also made some good additions but it would have taken me an hour to sort them out. You also added "Persianized" before Seljuk. Again, let's not be Persian/Iran but rather Wiki here, can we, pleeeez? :) The source did not mention about Seljuks being Persianized. This is history, not the version they teach in Iran ot in Turkey but the version that has been achieved by Western scientists who are much less "Middle-Eastern" style than us. And I accept Western sources of information, not Middle-Eastern. You know very well why, I guess. Let's take this talk to the talk page of the article because I will encounter these same problems with other editors some of whom are not talker but attackers and insulters. Bm79 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bm79

With regards to the Occupation and Liberation terms, you are here playing with words, and frankly I don’t have time for it. I just simply copy and past their meanings from an English Dictionary:

OCCUPATION: 1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. 2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory. 3. the act of occupying or taking possession of a building; "occupation of a building without a certificate of occupancy is illegal" 4. the period of time during which a place or position or nation is occupied; "during the German occupation of Paris."

LIBERATION: the act of liberating or the state of being liberated.

As far as the term Persianization concerns, the term is not equivalent to the assimilation by the Borgs, but simply means “an aliens or cultural entity, is predominantly being influenced by another dominate culture, linguistically, traditionally and historically, in this case the Seljuqs. please refer to Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. The term Persianzation is not a modern invention, but an academic term such Anglosisation deployed by international orientalists, researchers and scholars of repute, as well as used by the renowned scholarly publications such as Encyclopaedia Iranica, Cambridge history of Iran, etc, to address the foreign regimes in Iran influenced and eventually became Iranian.

With regard to "You also made some good additions but it would have taken me an hour to sort them out", so if my contributions was good, so why have you deleted them? It seems to me, your defensive words, and Persophobic statements, are demonstrating that you are not practicing what you are preaching, i.e. impartiality – it is obvious through your editions. You are treating the article as the Azarbaijan province has been an independent state with a long history, with 100s of kings and Queens, long wars with number of Empires, which the Persian oppressors occupied the non-Iranian region and forced you Borgishly to become Iranian, and not only that, but also now Iranians want to deprive you of your long history, and portary Azarbaijan as one of their provinces!! Jus t remember, neither we can manufacturing a new history, nor we can wipe out the historical events, since it has already written -also the historical distortion has always proven to be temporary.

Finally, always remember the British Motto of "Divide and Conquer" - as long as we are an entity, and united as a body, we will be victorious and prosperous, otherwise the only winners in this brutal game going to be the Western Superpowers.

PS. Please read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages in order to sign your name correctly. Reagrds Surena 12:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many Western sources which refer to the Seljuqs, Moghuls, Teymurds, Ghaznavids, Ilkhanids.. as Persianized in culture. For example take the latter name of Seljuqs: KayQobad, KayKavus, KayKhosrow..Or look at the language they supported. According to Merriam Webster: Adherents of Sunni Islam, the Seljuqs adopted Persian culture, and the Persian language displaced Arabic in Iran..

Btw why is there a Wikiproject Azeri here? Can we put Baku, Shervan, Talysh,Ganjeh,Darband,Baylaqan .. under Wikiproject Iran? I think geographic areas of Iran should be under wiki-project Iran only and viceversa. If we are talking about historical dynasties that is another issue. --alidoostzadeh 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Surena,

I appreciate any added value to the article. Please continue to add and I will do my best as well because we would like to inform the readers. I am quoting from you:

"It seems to me, your defensive words, and Persophobic statements, are demonstrating that you are not practicing what you are preaching, i.e. impartiality – it is obvious through your editions. It seems to me, your defensive words, and Persophobic statements, are demonstrating that you are not practicing what you are preaching, i.e. impartiality – it is obvious through your editions. You are treating the article as the Azarbaijan province has been an independent state with a long history, with 100s of kings and Queens, long wars with number of Empires, which the Persian oppressors occupied the non-Iranian region and forced you Borgishly to become Iranian, and not only that, but also now Iranians want to deprive you of your long history, and portary Azarbaijan as one of their provinces!!"

Please do not interpret me so far because I would dislike that :) I do not claim those. All I want is to be impartial, for the sake of knowledge and science. The reason I am interested about Azerbaijan is because it is my homeland indeed but I am also an Iranian and I very much aware of the links between Azerbaijan and Iran. PLEASE DO NOT interpret me as you did above. We are trying to discuss content here, not my beliefs, though if you are asking about my beliefe, my beliefe is that Azerbaijani history and Iranian history are almost indistiguishable. So, I find that interpretation offensive, but I don't think you mean to make it look like that :)

Again, about the word "liberation" I think it is not up to me and you to decide liberation, especially when talking about such a distant history from which we have very little evidence left. Let me emphasize again, I DO NOT have any bias whatsoever toward anything but it is not helpful to politicise or personalise article and issues.

No-one denies that the Seljuk and many other Turkic settlers or native of Iran, or surrounding area, have been affected by the Persian cultur and literature. However writing "Persianised-Turks" does not necessarily convey this. It lacks clarity and impartiality because it looks like being edited by "Persians". Anyway, if we eant to talk about whether the Seljuk were Persianised or not we shall talk about this about an article which could be regarding the Seljuk. If the work Seljuk "Turks" bothers you then don't write Turk, which is no problem, becasue we are not being one-sided.

The British-motto is a good motto, but again, if we are talking about personal beliefs or political views, I shall again (if so many people insist) emphasise my own belief that Azerbaijani people and Azerbaijan are very closely related to Iran and Iran's history, and looking at them as separate will always create the necessity to look at two sources at the same time becasue the two are so much intertwined. Let's just be fair, and leave politics and other views to their appropriate places, and if we truly feel they are significant then we shall write about opposing views, not just one view.

Some of my fellow Iranians feel threatened about Azerbaijani article being viewed in any other way than a part of Iran. We, and everyone, should try to bring evidence and also respect other points of view. It gives us all bad name and makes us look uncivilised and divided if we behave in less respectul atmosphere.

Could someone, more knowledgable than me possible, write about the "Mashrutiyat" (Constitutionalist) period becasue if we do not mention this the article will never be a good source of information.

PS I tried to sign as indicated but I am watching, wondering, why my name appeares differently!!!!! Bm79 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

== Removal of the part related to the north of Azerbaijan ==

Please do not remove this part. It is so important that it was mentioned in Encyclopedia Columbia even if the source was short and there was no mention of Arran there. I am asking editors not to politicise this (and other) articles but unfortunately, little use. If there are political views we shall write all involved views, not just one. And I am trying to dicuss changes but I am not finding counterparts to talk to!? Bm79 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please editors, why do people all the time try to make it so much clear that the Republic of Azerbaijan has never had any relations to Azerbaijan? According to some sources it had, and Columbia Encyclopedia is one serios source. So if there are other points of view then let's mention them in a balance impartial way. Bm79 11:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: North of Azerbaijan

Hello! I am not very familiar with some of the techniques here. I think you added citation needed on the article. Plase look at Columbia Encyclopedia and you will see it there. I don't know how this citing works. If you don't like the wrodinh "ocuupied" (I am guessing what exactly you didn't like) then you can change it to anexed or alike, right? As for the other section of citation regarding "added norhtern area" it is very clearly written on Columbia. Look at the link under the article. I added some stuff about culture. We can add more and please do so if you have data! Why do you take off parts regarding the north of Azerbaijan? Why do Iranians in general dispute that the Republic of Azerbaijan was, according to some sources, part of a REGION called Azerbaijan? This is just about regionalism. Before the area Republic of Azerbijan was separated from Iran there was no official name given to it, and no official name was given to Iranian Azerbaijan as well. Some sources attached the north to Iranian Azerbaijan at around those times (one is Columbia Encyclopedia) ahile others, from earlier times referred to the area differently. I know that there is a sort of a policy of anti-Azerbaijan republic in Iran because they fear for an Azerbaijani nationalism among Iranians but let politics be the game of the politicians, not us! Thanks! Bm79 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely nonsense. We have enough textual and historical accounts that confirm the territories beyond the Aras river have always been known as Arran prior to Soviets' change of name of the province. Arran is nothing to do with Azarbaijan. You should study demographic structure of Arran, and then you will realize that Arranis are not Azaris. Don’t fall for the White Wolves propaganda machine. Surena 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much I try I make so many grammer errors in writing :( Dear Surena, the first time I gear about "White "Wolf" was a few days ago when I found it on some article which was about "Pan-Turkism" and I found the article about pan-Turkism because some member accused me of being pan-Turkist so I had to look to see whta it meant. Really HAHAHAHAHA. It is funny, believe me! I do not live in Iran and I do not know what is the atmosphere there any more. I guess it is much more tense than where I live and people are a bit more akeptical about many things. Can we please do not call anybody anything? Did I call any pan-whatever? I have asked to try to be cool-headed and focus on the sources and leave out the rest. You say Arran. I was a child in Iran and I do not remeber having heard of Aran. Maybe it has been promoted lately because the authorities fear for separatist activities in Iran. I don't know. I saw Aran on Wikipedia for the first time when I looked for the word Azerbaijan. I knew about Shirvan and Derbent, Baku, Ganja and so on that were Khanates that were ceded to Russia. I sincerely did not know about Aran. There should have been an Aran at some point somehwre about that area too. I knew however about Albania for a very long time. Some Azerbaijanis can start labelling those who say Aran of "Pan-Iranism." You will say they are wrong and they will say you are wrong. But the fact is that there is a republic of Azerbaijan now, an independent country. The Iranian authorities seem not to like it. You probably seem not to like. I persoanally don't care, but I know that they have the same language and culture as the people of Azerbaijan in Iran. OK, leaving this aside. I have seem many refrences to the republic of Azerbaijan as being "northern" Azerbaijan in some sources. Other may disagree. Let's not label anybody and wdit according to sources. The source here, Clumbia, if you read it, says clearly about "the north." Doesn't it? Bm79 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear BM79 - I have not accused you of anything, please read my comment once again.

With regard to not having heard of Arran previously, if there is any consolation so as I; However, it does not mean that never existed, but simply means we were not educated enough. Many Iranians still to this date are proud of Darius and Areshir, and most of them still don’t known their names were Kheshatrvairya and Artakheshatra, or Bahrain was called Meshmaheg and "Shahr-e Rey" was called Raga! Molana in the his Divan of Shams says: At this old age, I learnt one thing; that I do not know anything!

Now back to Arran or if you prefer the Republic of Azarbaijan. The Colombia is being considered as a "coffee-Table Encyclopaedia", and never compiled to be a handbook for the academics or scholars (I'm trying to be polite here!). If you want a reliable, impartial and accurate, reference book, which is being compiled renowned international Orientalists, please refer to Encyclopaedia Iranica. There is a reference to Arran and the name change by the Soviets to the Republic of Azarbaijan.

Finally, lets stick to the facts and make sure any insertions should companied by checkable citations, otherwise will be deleted. (PS> when I say citations, I mean scholarly written book, the scholars of international repute – Western Scholars obviously). Surena 15:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you (Surena) removed that part about the north being cut off. If the source clearly states that why do you delete it? I do not want that part to be deleted because it is sourced. Please let's talk why and put something there that does not bother you and at the same time respects the source. It is relevant to the article because the source says that the north of Azerbaijan was ceded to Russia. Is that irrelevant? You are afraid of foreigners saying that the republic of Azerbaijan, according to Columbia was part of the REGION Azerbaijan? Wy be afraid? Maybe Iran will claim the republic of Azerbaijan one day? I don't care about politics, but I am against manipulating articles according to personal or political views. Articles shall be informative. Azerbaijan is my homeland and therefore I want to edit (with other people's help) a good and INFROMATIVE article without politics in it. Bm79 14:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

BM79 –

First, the entries were irrelevant to the Azarbaijan article.

Second, please refrain yourself from personal attacks. Here at Wikipedia we do tolerate insults.

Finally, neither Azarbaijan, nor Wikipedia pages are yours to claim ownership. Surena 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surena,

Personal attacks? Can you please quote my "personal attack" so I can appologise? Seriously, I mean it. You meant that at Wikipedia we DON'T tolerate insults. What insult pleaase?! Sin't you relating me to "White Wolfs" a personal attack? I didn't say you attacked me personally but it is more likely that you did. I have been trying to be reasonable and amenable, but it's not very useful as I see. Wikipedia pages are fre source so I don't understand what you mean. This can be another personal attack?! Or an insult? I asked you to tell me ahy you removed that part and what I receive is the above. I will need to ask for admin intervention again if I have no counterpart to discuss. Sourced information must not be removed according to Wikipedia and you removed it. I am not putting it back before seeing you reply, but please "refrain from personal attacks, no wolfs, pan-whatever etc please, as it can be both-sided!" Bm79 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read the above I hadn't read in which you explained about Iranica. I don't know about the "coffee-table" encyclopedia but talking about the fact, the fact is that there is a country called Azerbaijan, at the UN, Iran and everywhere. OK, so this is not something up to us to dbate whether it is right or wrong. Doesn't Iraniaca EVER mentione "north Azerbaijan"???? Or South Azerbaijan???? Can someone please quotes in which Iranica write that the Republic of Azerbaijan is not named properly? As far as I know scholarly sources have mentioned about an area within or about the repulic that was/is called Aran. Not that there was a country called Aran or that the whole of that area was Aran. Please more data! Bm79 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bm, stop chaning the article with your massive POV ideas.Azerbaijani 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Surena,

Here are excerpts from Iraniaca:

"In only one region of the Iranian plateau did they constitute large enough numbers, as in lower Central Asia, to achieve linguistic integration: in northwest Iran, greater Azerbaijan, from the eastern Transcaucasus (dry, in contrast to the abundantly watered western region, where the Georgian ethnic group maintained itself) up to Qazvin, to the gates of Tehran and Hamada@n (q.v.). It was from these regions that large numbers of Azeri tribes left, mainly as part of the Safavid policy of buttressing the defense of their borders, and spread out in various parts of Iran in the 17th and 18th centuries, as far as Khorasan (Perry, 1974). This unique aspect of Azerbaijan, the only area to have been almost entirely "Turkicized" within Iranian territory, is the result of a complex, progressive cultural and historical process, in which factors accumulated successively (Sümer; Planhol, 1995, pp. 510-12) The process merits deeper analysis of the extent to which it illustrates the great resilience of the land of Iran. 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."

As can be seen, according to Iranica, you can see what scholars are writing 1) about Azerbaijan (greater Azerbaijan is the term used in order to include the dry lands east of Georgia, referring to what is the republic of Azerbaijan today), and 2) Iranica clearly states that the "Azeri ethnic group" was divided by the treaties with Russia.

Anyway, our efforts may be in vain because some members (not Surena) are intent on distroying the work. Bm79 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To BM79 - You act as someone who wishes to portray himself as one of the old members of Wikipedia, with a vast ocean of knowledge and expertise (despite the fact that your bible for reference is Colombia, and you hav never heard of Arran until you visited Wikipedia!), in which Wikipedia have employed you specifically as the project manager, to see through the Azarbaijan article develops so extensively, to be worthy of launching to space with NASA’s next Venus mission; Cool down, and come down from your high horses. You should come to the earth like us and start to crawl before you walk, i.e. educate yourself first, then claim to be an expert in this field!

However, no one has denied that Azerbaijanis are an ethnic group of people; - so come up with an entry from Encyclopaedia Iranica (with URL reference) which states that there were two Azarbaijan; or it was a unified Azarbaijan that was divided between Russians and Iranians. Anyhow, while you are at it, read Arran article by Professor E. C. Bosworth – it is quite educating, as well as enlightening! Surena 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14] this is also a very intersting article. Surena 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I see that there is quite a speicifc policy by certain members of attacking and intimidating those who do not go in line with their versions. You gave me an article written by someone, i.e. a blog. The link in which what I had cited above is this: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f2/v13f2024i.html

I had invited the admins to take a look at what was written here. They saw they were copy/right violations. Member "Azerbaijani" disappeared for a couple of days, though I saw he had activities in other Azerbaijani related article, where he was continuing attacking and intimidating, and of course editing according to his views. The same goes for a few other members, and I have been mistaken to believe that enough members act on good faith. I do not have time for this. So I leave it to you to do whatever you want. One thing is for sure. The readers are aware enough to know what is unbiased and what is not. All these amneties regarding Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis will only be in vain and in a short while all these articles will either be blocked, or changed by admins after being warned for so many times. And in any way Wikipedia is not a source. I have been personally attacked so many times and just looking at above member Surena has brandished me again, with irony and mockery. My dear teenagers, whether they are SOME (I respect people from all backgrounds) Armenian or Fars-Iranians, do whatever you want. You have shown your degree of civilisation and respect toward others with all these attacks and violations. The copy-right-violation versio is up again. Have a good luck, but belive me that it is all waste of time. Azerbaijanis in Iran and in the republic are too busy with real life, but others are not as simple to disinform as you think. Bm79 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To BM79 - In contrary to your claim that the Wikipedia is not a source, fortunately, it has become a source of information for many, which can be accessed and obtained freely; nevertheless, at the same time, it is quite unfortunate that many of the info here are not accurate as they should be. I am a student of Near-and-Middle-Eastern history and archaeology and I for one, am witnessing the related sections are filled with prejudiced entries and misinformation. Most of the articles here are composed by individuals according to their own personal and political inclinations and tendencies. I am not surprised if some of the governmental organisations have also employed number of people to contribute and construct the pages to serve their purposes.

However, you can contribute and no one would object your contributions as long as are based on facts and accompanied by references from reliable sources (not like coffee-table Colombia). I have asked you to come up with an entry from Encyclopaedia Iranica (with URL reference to support your claim) which states once upon time, there were two Azarbaijan; or it was a unified Azarbaijan that was divided between Russians and Iranians, and you did not, since obviously there was no entity to be called Azarbaijan north of Aras River prior to 1918. Therefore, any entry related to former Arran, and today the Republic of Azarbaijan should be included in the nominated page, i.e. Azerbaijan, and NOT the Azarbaijan (Iran) page – that is not so hard to understand – is it? Surena 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear student, you have the link above where it says "greater Azerbaijan" and a few other things. Maybe some of the others are teenagers and students and maybe some are employed by Armenia and maybe others are obsessed teebnagers and students fed with propaganda. Anyway, I am not putting up with these types of issues any more. If SOME Armenians and SOME Persian-Iranians are so much dedicated to distorting Azerbaijan and Azerbaijnai history, then believe me that Azerbaijanis are won't be damaged by these. OK, this is my last post! Bm79 09:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To BM79 - From the style of your writings and feverish-blood-boiling comments, that is mixed with chauvinism and pompoms-self-righteousness, I take it as you shouldn’t be older than 25 years of age. It is fine - once upon a time I was there too, though it seems to me it was a century ago! However, no one here is neither able to damage Azarbaijan nor distort the history, and if they do their distortion is temporary. However, “not all”, but majority of Wikipedians here advocating the truth, and sharing the true knowledge wit each other. You can play with words as much as your heart desires, hide the facts as long as be able to hide them behind the clouds of distortion, and close your eyes to the facts and reality, but you should always remember that truth will prevail.

The problem with our country is that some of us do not subscribe to the path of truth and as the result whole nation is suffering. For instance, in January 7th you have falsely claimed that you written this article (here is the copy of your comment): You changed my writings so it looked pretty much like the one which was copy-right violation. All I have written is INSPIRED from Encyclopedia Columbia, without realizing that it was me who created the page in this format on 25 October 2005! On the same date you self-righteously demanded: I want to have a discussion that can be suitable for an encyclopedia, not political or alike, and what you have contributed so far to this article has been politics, distortion, chauvinism and accusation! Again, I repeat my last advise to you: You should come to the earth like us and start to crawl before you walk, i.e. educate yourself first, then claim to be an expert in this field - also remember that the truth will always prevails and will come out in the end. Surena 11:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article is called Azerbaijan (Iran)?

Surly the right spelling should be Azarbaijan! Kiumars 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the international spelling of the name Azerbaijan, which can be found in Iranica and many other places. Why change it to Azarbaijan? Roazir 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! It is spelled both with “a” and “e”, Iranian Azaris accent uses “a” and the Rep Azeris use “e”! And as this article is about the Iranian Azarbaijan it must be spelled with “a”! Kiumars 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me! Are there reliable sources for that? I know northern Azerbaijanis, and I am Azerbaijani from Iran, and I am quite sure that all Azerbaijanis pronounce "Azarbaydjan" (with "a" as per "aroosak" in Persian or Farsi). I believe it is only about English writing. The spelling on both sides of the border is identical. However Turks from Turkey do not have the "a" (like in aroosak) Azerbaijanis have and they pronounce it differently. Roazir 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 20:26, 13 February 2007; the article explains the different spelling at the beginning of the article. By the way, there are 4 “a”s in Azarbaijan; and 3 of them sound like “a” in “aroosak” then how come only one of them is replaced with “e”? See the “a” after “b” and the “a” after “j”. They should spell it Azerbejen or even Ezerbejen then! Kiumars 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I know, referring to my own native language, and all the sources available, is that both Azerbaijanis from the republic and from Iran pronounce the word Azerbaijan exactly identical, something like Azarbaydjan. However, due to various reasons, the International community has adopted the word Azerbaijan (probably becasue of Soviet or even some Iranian or Turkish writings). I don't see any valid reason to make a differentiation. Maybe some Iranian, or Iranian sources, prefer to call Iranian Azerbaijan "Azarbaijan" but I cannot really comprehend why. In Azerbaijani Turkic langauge there is a (like in mah) and there is ə (like in aroosak). Roazir 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 14:26, 14 February 2007; I just Googled for Azarbaijan and had over 286,000 results, including: encyclopedias, iranchamber, Farhangsara, Universities, Restaurants, Shops, etc, etc. The references to Azerbaijan seem to be all pointing to the Rep. Of Azerbaijan WebPages/sources. By the way, this article is about Iranian Azarbaijan not how some people (in this case the Azaris) pronounce “Ze” or “Che” or “Ghaf”, over all I can safely say that the vast majority of the Iranians (that is all non-Azaris, including Fars, Kurds, Lurs, Gilak, etc) pronounce it Azarbaijan so it should be Azarbaijan to reflect the most common pronunciation. Don’t you agree? After all we would not change the spelling of other Iranian names just because Esfahanis pronounce them differently in their beautiful accent! Do we? Have you seen any of Arhame Saddar’s theatres? If we follow his charming accent we have to rewrite the whole dictionary! Kiumars 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree on one thing: THE CORRECT PRONOUNCIATION is NOT Azerbaijan (it is Azarbaydjan) for the word "Azerbaijan". The word has only been agreed upon in ENGLISH. The people of the republic of Azerbaijan write like this: Azərbaycan (which reads exactly as the Azerbijanis in Iran do). The results that come up on Google are consistent to Iranian sources that have used AZARBAIJAN spelling for a very long time (before there wa the independent state of Azerbaijan) but they are often related to the provinces of West Azarbaijan and East Azarbaijan. So long as the English Encyclopedia goes it is appropriate to use sources that are in accordance with the English-speaking world. Do you have reliable and neutral sources that write "Azarbaijan" referring to Iranian areas populated with Azerbaijanis people? And so long as we, from the region, also know very well that Azerbaijan or Azrabiajn is all the same thing why to make one Azerbaijan and the other Azarbaijan? English-speaking people call one Azerbaijan and the other Iranian Azerbaijan. I don't see why we would disagree with that. Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan is the same thing anyway. I don't live in Iran. I left Iran a very long time ago. Roazir 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir]] 17:26, 14 February 2007; No, that cannot be right! Let’s see; let’s break it to syllables Azarbaydjan = A.zar.bay.djan, can you see the problem? “bay” does not sound right! Any English speaking person reading that would pronounce it like the English word Bay! All Iranian scholars abroad spell it Azarbaijan, I already gave you a few names like iranchamber and Farhangsara! Kiumars 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - guys, in IRAN the province is called AzArbaijan with an a; azar=fire. azer=turkish misspelling - it does not matter, what the turkish name is, the official, historical and only ever name in iran has always been azarbaijan. even in tati (median language isles in azarbaijan) it is azarbaijan. as simple as that. got it?

Objectivity??!!

Hello people! Don't you think there are some quite biased texts on the article that make it relatively poor and look like a political statement of the Iranian government? I'm not accusing anyone, but let's look at the following phrases and try to make them more neutral:

- "The reason is that historically the republic of Azerbaijan has not been called Azerbaijan, but rather Albania and the name South Azerbaijan is a product of the last century." OK, we know that the current "republic of Azerbaijan" was called differently at times in history, but only parts of the the republic were called Albania (northern parts, not south or west) and besides, most recent references to the northern areas, ever since Turkification or before, have been Azerbaijan. So I think we should mention these too.

- "The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris of Iranian stock attested, who are Shi'a Muslims." ??? What does "Iranian stock attested" mean? I'm sorry but this sounds like "these cows are from Iranian stock attested." And why does the article, in so many areas try to make it clear that there are differences between Azerbaijanis and Turks? Of course there are, but why so much effort on this? This reduces the neutrality of the article. What is the difference between AZARI and AZERI? Becasue I see two words used!

- The article contradicts itself by saying once that "Shapur II enlarged Azarbaijan by adding territory in the north known as Arran or Aran (today known as the Republic of Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan)." and then "The northern Iranian provinces of Arran and Shirvan, which today constitute the State of Azarbaijan were ceded to Russia by treaties of 1813 and 1828." If those areas had become parts of Azerbaijan why are they mentioned as different? Again there are two words used "Azerbaijan" and "Azarbaijan". Why two words?

- "Separatist movements in Azarbaijan can visibly trace their origins back to the colonialist policies of the Soviet Union and Imperial Russia." This really looks like biased becasue some separatist movements may trace to local figures or other, non-Russian or non-Sovietic, foreign countries!

- "The people of Azerbaijan are different from most of other Turkic speaking peoples mostly because of their race[7][10] as well as their religion which is Shia Islam." Race??? A word like this, defining a people, cannot have a proper place in an encyclopedia. Nationality, or people, are not defined by race, but by language and culture.

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia but I think the article lacks neutrality and it would be appropriate for the Azerbaijanis and other Iranians to make some effort and make the article more informative. Roazir 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 13:17, 13 February 2007; Judging by your comments I see you are new to the topic! Welcome aboard! Kiumars 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If many people would be interested on this article maybe we could make it more like a real and good (neutral) article. Roazir 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 20:29, 13 February 2007; it may not be good but it is real! Let me brief you, there are three groups of people posting on this article; the good ones, the bad ones; and the ugly ones (I am trying to be very politically correct and not use the Bxxx word!). You study history? Ok, let me tell you, if you can not make it, fake it! Who is going to be able to prove otherwise? Who knows if someone said something 3000 years ago? Just insist on what you say/claim and find some suckers to follow you, you get me? Start with claiming that god promised you the America! Kiumars 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't understand much! What about looking at the issues so to make the article more objetive? It seems that this article doesn't attract much attention from users anyway. We seem to be the only ones! Roazir 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh! Don’t let the appearance deceive you! People are here all the time and are watching and waiting for you to move your finger! You don’t believe me? Ok, then change an “e” to “a” and see how they come down on you like a ton of bricks! Kiumars 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? hahahha! Why don't they do anything else then? I wrote on the talk page. Why don't they participate? And it is already "e" mostly. The fact that it is sometimes "a" too is quite odd though. By the way, who are the bad, the good or the ugly? Why don't these people participate in the discussion? If there is interest then I think the article can be better, right? Other Wikipedia articles (the serious ones) are much more neutral. Roazir 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 08:27, 14 February 2007; Ok, this is the right procedure here; if you want to change something on the article, add your suggestions and sources and reasons (but remeber the NPOV rule!) here (on the Talk page) and ask people to consider the changes. People are not on-line all the time so you need to give it a few days sometimes before you see a response. As for me, I am more interested in the consistency and accuracy of the articles and watch them for that reason from time to time. I am currently looking at several Iran related articles and cross-check them for inconsistencies. By the way, which city are you from if I may ask? I lived in Tabriz almost 5 years and have travelled all over the region and have many good Azari friends. I always visit them when I go to Iran. By the way I am Kermanshahi myself. Kiumars 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in Iranian Azerbaijan and left more than 10 years ago. We never call each other Azari or Azeri. It is only an international term. I prefer Azerbaijani when talking to locals (Irnians or Azerbaijanis or others from the area). I have noticed that some Iranians insist on using Azarbaijan-Azari for the Iranian side and Azerbaijan-Azeri for the republic. I don't quite understand why! This confuses English-seapking people. Roazir 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir 17:30, 14 February 2007; You didn't say wich city of Azarbaijan? Is that a secret? Actually in Iran when people ask you where you are from you say you are Tabrizi, Ardabili, Kermanshahi, Tehrani, Esfahani, Shirazi, etc; we hardly say Azarbaijani or Kurd, etc. As for the confusion that Azari and Azeri may cause, don’t worry the westerners are used to call everything by several different names! Let’s add a few to the list for them! The topic is an Iranian topic and if they want to learn it they must learn the names we use! How would they react if I spelled London as Landan and Paris as Parrees? Or if I called the water way between England and France as “Daryaye Manche”? We have enough problems from the lazy people calling us Persia! What is Persia? Who in Iran has ever called any part of Iran as Persia?

I think Azarbaijan-Azari is ridicules, it is like saying Iran-Iranians or Germany-Germans, I think it is better to call them Iranian-Aaris to differentiate them from the Azaris of the Republic (when necessary).

By the way, I am going to Iran for Noruz in a few weeks, can’t wait! (Although I visit Iran at least once or twice a year). Kiumars 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me when I wrote "Azeri-Azerbaijani" becasue I was referring to two different words, not the two linked together. As long as the articles address the English-speaking audience we shall use relibale and neutral English-language sources and as long as they have given the name "Azerbaijan" instead of the more correct pronounciation "Azarbaijan" (or Azarbaydjan) then we cannot argue with that within the framework of this wbsite. I am from a small town near Tabriz. I am very disappointed about Iran and although I go to visit my family I do not become happier when I am in Iran, becasue I see so many social problems and the lack of freedom. But these are not related to Wikipedia and my discussion here. Roazir 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange! I go to Iran every year (at least twice) and I have not seen any major social problems! At least not as bad as the social problems we have in Europe! As for the freedom, I think the west is catching up and joining the East at last by restricting the freedom! Too much freedom is not good as president Bush said! Kiumars 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree on the name above between the two of us. I agree with you that Iranian sources use "Azarbaijan" for various reasons but as long as this website addresses the English-speaking audience we shall use their reliabel and neutral sources, like Iranica and others. We can talk about social or other issues in Iran but I fear this is not a good place for that. People have different opinions and they are entitled to them. Roazir 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for all the reasons given above I insist on Azarbaijan (See also Ancient Azari language).Kiumars 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should I say "for all the reasons above I insist on Azerbaijan" ?? Argument for conclusion is needed. I had the following argument: "Wikipedia English" (en.wikipedia) is for the English-speaking people and Iran does not establish rules for the English-speaking people, unless Iranian authorities take actions and make changes (not in Iran but for the English-speaking countries). However things as they stand now point to one word: Azerbaijan. English-speaking people have not adopted the word Azarbaijan. That's life. We, here, cannot, and are not entitled to, write what we see as correct, but to write realities. Right? By the way, why do many Iranians need to argue that Azarbaijan is correct, not Azerbaijan? It seems a weak and irrelevant issue. If we pursue correct pronounciation then we should write Fars Gulf instead of Persian Gulf. It creates confusion, nothing more. Roazir 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir; You said you were an Iranian too so why don't you answer it yourself? PS: If we agree on a wrong spelling for Azarbaijan then we need to agree on a different name for Persian Gulf because some kooni in England was paid to call it by different name, then we may even have to change our names to Margaret and Elizabeth! Kiumars 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Azarbaijan" but you did not write "Fars Gulf", why? The correct name, as the Iranians pronounce is rather Fars Gulf, not Persian Gulf. We are not supposed to judge. Some from USA or UK, due to various reasons, have adopted the names Azerbaijan and Persian Gulf. That's the fact. We are not supposed to change that here. I am an Azerbaijani and I don't see it as relevant whether my homeland is called Azarbaijan or Azerbaijan. Other Azerbaijanis don't care either. Persians don't care whther the Persian Gulf is called Persian Gulf or Fars Gulf, and I actually think that they would rather have it called Persian Gulf, not Fars Gulf. Writing "Azarbaijan" and "Azari" creates confusion. That's all. It is irrelevant how they English-speaking people write it. According to Wikipedia rules we are not supposed to go with the truth, but according to reliable and neutral sources. Roazir 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir; Fars is the Arabic version of Pars, the Iranian name when translated to English is “the Gulf of Pars” and the English name “Persian Gulf” means exactly the same thing, Interestingly enough most Gulfs in the world are called like the Iranian name for e.g. Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Carpentaria, Gulf of the Farallones, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Gulf of Guinea, etc, etc, so the correct name for the Persian Gulf should have been “the Gulf Of Pars” just as the Iranian name is!

As for the Azarbaijan, as both versions already exist on the Wiki and we are not inventing a new name, I insist on using the one that is recognised by the majority of the people in the region. The whole population of Rep Azerbaijan is less than 10% of the population of Iran (let alone other countries in the region who write and pronounce the word Azarbaijan like Iranians do) so why a vast majority should follow a small minority? It is Azarbaijan and English speaking people better get used to it! Kiumars 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really long. You are saying that the "English speaking people better get used to it!" But this is not our role to make an article a statement. They (the English-speaking world) write Azerbaijan. This has been their choice and we cannot argue with that. Maybe the government of Azerbaijan or Iran can propose changing the name, but not us on this website. And the most correct thing for any people is to name their region or their country themselves and it is up to the Azerbaijani people to decide. Anyway, I cannot continue this forever. If I cannot convince you then that's it! Roazir 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir; I repeat; the vast majority of the people of the region (Iranians, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, Greeks, Afghanis, Tajiks, etc) write and pronounce the word in a way that is identical to Azarbaijan. As I said before we are not going to change the name of Esfahan to Esfehoon because some Esfahanis pronounce it that way! Or change “Sib.zamini” (potato) to “allow” just because some Shirazis call it that name! Just think about the mess it would create!

I also repeat this again, both versions i.e. spelling with “a” and “e” are already used on Wiki and are established, you can use the one you like but I keep using the version I find correct. Kiumars 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I don't claim that it was resistance. I state, according to Atabaki that Iranian Govt. launched repression - it is the fact.--Dacy69 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) And it was written not only by Atabaki.[reply]

Well you didn't bring the quote. I have access to the book, and I am wondering where does it say that. The whole quote that is. If you can provide the exact quote I would appreciate it and I'll check the book out again in library although I feel such statements does not belong to this article. I guess one should mention that the former Iranian government and the current regime is lead by Iranian Azerbaijanis. Also there is an article on Iran and human rights. I think that is a better place for that discussion. Or else this article will turn into a political discussion. --alidoostzadeh 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an exaggeration to say that the former and current Iranian rgime is lead by Azerbaijanis. Although Khamenei is an ethnic Azerbaijani Turk he is just one individual. It is correct to state that Iranian Azerbaijanis have had significant leadership roles in the Iranian government before and after the revolution. I don't know exactly what you two are discussing but ever since the end of the Qajar dynasty Iranian Azerbaijanis have not had an important role in the leadership. The leadership has been Persian-centric. Roazir 23:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the scholars supporting Persian-centric nationalism have been Azerbaijanis: Arrani, Taqizadeh, Kasravi, Afshar. Also in Pahlavi, Rezahshah was half Azerbaijani half Mazandarani. Even his half Mazandarani part is disputed since some say his whole family migrated from Irevan. His wife was Azerbaijani-Qajar for sure the daughter of Teimur Khn Ayrimlu and even wrote poetry in Azerbaijani. Mohammad Reza Shah thus is 3/4 Azerbaijani. Mohammad Reza Shah's wife Farah is Azerbaijani. The current prince Reza Pahlavi thus is 90% Azerbaijani and his wife is from Zanjan and thus his off springs are virtually 100% Azerbaijani. Also the head of Savak was Azerbaijani. As per this regime, the first prime minister Bazargan is an Azerbaijani. Musavi was also an Azerbaijani. And there is no position as important as supreme leader who is basically the dictator in the country. All these facts can be inserted as well right? Can for example Qajars cruetly in Kerman where they blinded every single person in the Persian speaking town be considered an ethnic crime since one group did it to another? In my opinion no. But that is not the point. I do not think this article is relevant to the discussion since an article exists on Ferqeh already exists. Just like for example I do not think situation of Kurds, Talysh, Lezgis (and it is easy for example to d google search, google books and etc and find something negative) or Azerbaijani democratic party and etc. was relevant to an article on the republic of Azerbaijan. There is already an article human rights on Iran where these things are discussed. If we are going to discuss everything then why not for example the Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan where Qatran the poet and many authors like Ibn Kathir have graphically said was very Brutal ? Or the mongol attack and devastation? Or the Ottoman attack on Azerbaijan where they massacared people? That is why there is a article on human rights section in Iran (entry). Note for example when some Iranian users wanted to write about democtratic party of Azerbaijan in the link of Azerbaijan republic I was against it and I said it has its own link. Same here. Anything about Ferqeh should go towards the article on Ferqeh. On human rights we have an article about Iran human rights. Controversial topics should stay out of the main articles for good reasons. --alidoostzadeh 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for inserting one thing or another into this article. Ali, you had that discussion with someone else. From what I know Reza Shah was Mazandarani, but he may have had some Azerbaijani in him as well. The Pahlavi regime was quite anti-Azerbaijani in their policies. It was hypocritical becasue of their own mixed Azerbaijani blood. However being somewhat Azerbaijani does not excuse one from various policies. The Pahlavi regime had a Persian-centric policy that discriminated Azerbaijani culture and identity and similar policies have been going on after the revolution. However this was not the case for the Qajar who were NOT Persian-centric. They accepted Iran as a multi-ethnic country and they kept their Azerbaijani identity alive. Anyway, I am not arguing for inserting one thing or another into the article. But since you have come to this article please take a look at the above where I have written a few things that I think make the article look biased and this opinion has been shared by many other readers so we may do some editing to make the article more neutral and informative. Roazir 08:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Noosh-Afarin the mother of Rezashah was from Irevan. Rezashah's wife also had Turkish poetry. If Rezashah was really against Azerbaijanis, would he allowed his wife to write Turkish poetry? I have all the relevant sources with this regard. The Pahlavi regime in my opinion was not anti-Azerbaijani. Yes Azerbaijani language was not thought in schools, but it was not thought during the Qajar's era. Persian was declared the official language in 1906 (constitutional revolution led by Azerbaijanis) way before Pahlavids took power. I have a poem from a Qajar king where he considers Turkish as Jahl (ignorance). There are sources that Qajars discriminated against Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Baluchs, Persians as well. So putting one line here or there is not really a scholarly apporach. It is just the revenge approach without offering the whole complex picture. Iran is a multi-cultural society. It is now as well. Also Azerbaijanis are ahead of the rest of Iranians in many things including economy, military and etc. Culturally if Persian is dominant in Iran is due to the population as well as its historical dominance under Qajar, Safavid, Mongols, Seljuqs, Atabeks..etc. By the way did you read that Persian news item I sent you by the way? About your proposals I actually got lost in the above.

Let me examine your quotes although I got lost in your discussion with Kiumars. You said: - "The reason is that historically the republic of Azerbaijan has not been called Azerbaijan, but rather Albania and the name South Azerbaijan is a product of the last century." OK, we know that the current "republic of Azerbaijan" was called differently at times in history, but only parts of the the republic were called Albania (northern parts, not south or west) and besides, most recent references to the northern areas, ever since Turkification or before, have been Azerbaijan. So I think we should mention these too.

Actually most references have referred to it as Albania and then Arran, Shervan and caucus. I checked through many many european maps and russian maps and could not find one with Azerbaijan. It is true some references have called Albania as Azerbaijan and some have called it as Armenia. We can say historically for the most part.

- "The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris of Iranian stock attested, who are Shi'a Muslims." ??? What does "Iranian stock attested" mean? I'm sorry but this sounds like "these cows are from Iranian stock attested." And why does the article, in so many areas try to make it clear that there are differences between Azerbaijanis and Turks? Of course there are, but why so much effort on this? This reduces the neutrality of the article. What is the difference between AZARI and AZERI? Becasue I see two words used!

Actually Frye and Planhol make these statements from Iranica. Those sentences can be moved to Azerbaijani people or given proper sources.

- The article contradicts itself by saying once that "Shapur II enlarged Azarbaijan by adding territory in the north known as Arran or Aran (today known as the Republic of Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan)." and then "The northern Iranian provinces of Arran and Shirvan, which today constitute the State of Azarbaijan were ceded to Russia by treaties of 1813 and 1828." If those areas had become parts of Azerbaijan why are they mentioned as different? Again there are two words used "Azerbaijan" and "Azarbaijan". Why two words?

Yes the first part is not correct and has no source. On the actual treaty of 1813 and 1828 there is really no mention of ceding any portion of Azerbaijan. Also per the second part since the article is about Iranian Azerbaijan, I do not think it is necessary to touch upon Golestan treaty. As per Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan, I guess we should go with Azerbaijan since it is used more common in English. Although the word is actually Pahlavi and Azer if you know Persian somehow sounds like Zer-zadan. By the way are you Iranian Azerbaijani? If you are , read this please [15].

- "Separatist movements in Azarbaijan can visibly trace their origins back to the colonialist policies of the Soviet Union and Imperial Russia." This really looks like biased becasue some separatist movements may trace to local figures or other, non-Russian or non-Sovietic, foreign countries!

Actually cold war archives show that the separatist movement was created by USSR [16]. It leaves no doubt. The USSR through creation of Ferqeh occupied Iranian Azerbaijan in 1946. Note I would read the above cold war archives which is direct commands from Stalin to his Satrap Bagherov.

- "The people of Azerbaijan are different from most of other Turkic speaking peoples mostly because of their race[7][10] as well as their religion which is Shia Islam." Race??? A word like this, defining a people, cannot have a proper place in an encyclopedia. Nationality, or people, are not defined by race, but by language and culture.

Well religion for sure. As per race, I guess we need to mention they are a different race from Turkic speaking people. Azerbaijanis fall into the categories such as mediterranean, caucasian, Irano-Afghan..and the Turkemens, Uighyurs, Kazakhs into the category of Mongloid and some Turanoid. For the most part though we have articles on Azerbaijani people or Iranian origin of Azerbaijani people and etc. We should probably mention Kurds, Tats, Armenians, Assyrians and Persians living there. --alidoostzadeh 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, maybe interested members can do some editing and make the article more neutral. I am a bit too busy and less experinced. Roazir 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also took a look at the Farsi text you mentioned. By the way I am an Azerbaijani and I understand Farsi but my native language is Azerbaijani (Turki). Unfortuantely I do not have a lot of time to have very detalied studies of the issues here. I live outside Iran. I remember that ever since the independence of the republic of Azerbaijan there has been a huge interest in Iran of separating the two Azerbaijani peoples of the north and the south. Both people know very well they are the same people, though becasue of 190 years of separation there also stark differences, such as the role of religion (northerners are much less religious) and the use of some modern words (northerners use some Russian words while southerners use Arabic or Persian words). However there is one Azerbaijani people according to all credible, non-political sources (to be more Wiki-stylish). And Ali, this is not a place for political debate but it is better for us not to act like the various governments Iran had and write the facts as they are, not as we wish. You brought the debate about the name of Azerbaijan that you were against putting those sentences that some Iranians insisted. This is almost like an exchange "we don't touch on that if you don't touch on the this." You know very well what kind of sources were used to write those texts. They were from Persian/Iranian/Fars nationalists and the envoy of Armenia to the UN. And the way it was written was very similar to the way THIS article is written. We Iranians think and feel that we are one of the oldest and most civilised of the world and act quite arrogantly, though the fact of the matter is that Iranian sources and academia are not reliable and the Iranian regime is what it is. And the civilised world is where it is, far from where Iran is. I am not an editor on Wikipedia and I am not thinking of becoming one but it would be nice to write the articles like the ones about Western European and American ones, more neutral and scholarly, and less poetic and nationalistic. Roazir 17:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there is no Azerbaijani people. As per historical revisionism, the government of republic of Azerbaijan does much more historical revisionism specially with regards to ethnic issues and I have even seen some groups claim medes were Turks, Manna, Sumerians were Turks and Azerbaijan is Turkish word, Parthians were Turks, Zoroaster was a Turk..etc. I can easily pull up many such sites from professors there but I have no desire to enter such a discussion. I have never seen Iranian sources and academia make such claims, but you can find it in an official embassy website of the republic of Azerbaijan. (I am here to cool off people and if anyone is interested I can easily e-mail them this info). So I see no basis to make critism of Iranian academida. Also let me say I doubt that you are Iranian since that article I mentioned did not have anything to do with the envoy of Armenia or even Azerbaijani ethnogenesis. Perhaps you will find someone knowledegble in Persian to read it but after a day or two of putting up and then seeing your response. Also Iranian Azerbaijanis are not obsessed with Armenia or Armenian or Persian or etc. Also judging people by their ethnicity is really not the character of Iranian Azerbaijanis. This is done mainly in USSR countries and that is why we can see a lot of venom in various newspapers and enteries against many ethnic groups in former USSR countries.

Note Azerbaijan comes first as the transliteration in this article. Also Shapur II's unsubstantiated quote was removed. Iranian stock was changed to Iranian speakers since I am not sure what stock is. --alidoostzadeh 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disapprove of nationalism, no matter what source and type of it. I disapprove of turning Azerbaijani into Persian, or Persianize it and I disapprove of historical revisionism for nationalistic purposes. What I wrote about Armenian envoy was related to the article about the country Azerbaijan about which I had participated in the discussions. People are different and entitled to their opinions and I am not editing according to my opinions. There are still a lot of biased writings in the article. I have lived in Iranian Azerbaijan until I left at an early age but I speak Farsi perfectly. I am not doubting you being from one place or another so please do the same in regards to me! However it is against my principle of freedom and justice to see non-Azerbaijanis writing Azerbaijani history and identity but that's the way it is. And I am not judging anyone according to whatever you said. It is normal for me, as an Azerbaijani, to be interested about articles about my people. Most other Iranians who participate here are either Fars or from Tehran (who have mixed Azerbaijani in most cases) but there are quite few from Azerbaijan proper in Iran. Roazir 08:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, you describe others of characterisation based on ethnicity and all I see is you talking about ethnicity. All I am talking about is the history and identity of Azerbaijan as it is, without mentioning ethnicities. You have said that Azerbaijanis have ruled Iran. There have been Iranian rulers from Azerbaijan, truly, and most of them have been so until Reza Shah took over. You have edited in the articles "Turkified Iranians" and what does that mean? Doesn't that give a sense of ethnic bias? What about the word race? What does that mean? It has gone beyond ethnicity. These phrases and words are not appropriate in the context of an informative encyclopedia. You also insist what ethnicity I am from. Did I ask you? I think we ought to work together and make the article less of Persian-centric (which it is) text into an informative text. The country Iran is there, standing, united, and it is not our role to promote its ideologies. Roazir 10:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought an article and you said it was related to Armenian envoy. But there was no mention of this!

I am convinced you are not Iranian. شما فارسی بلد نیستید و برای همین ایرانی نیستید since by now you would have made a comment instead of saying it was Armenian envoy. But if you really are, then it should not bother you right? Thus I am dropping the issue and will let our readers decide.

Also as per Iran related issues, any Iranian has the right to take part in Iran related articles. Even non-Iranians take part in Armenian, Azerbaijan and Iranian issues. I personally do not get into matters of Azerbaijani republic or Armenia. Also I never characterized a wikipedia person based on their ethnicity. If I recall you said a while back: Armenian and Persian users... That was wrong since you were labeling the actions of users you disagreed with by their ethnicity. But about historical people and famous people living currently, that is part of wikipedia and if necessary it should be mentioned for example that Rezashahs wife, mother and his sons wife were Azerbaijani. Also I said Turkified Iranian speakers and removed stock since that did not make sense. Turkified Iranian speakers is based on Golden, Frye and Planhol who are known in the field. Thus I removed the word race or stock. Also I never asked for your ethnicity and I do not care about ethnicity of people on WP issues and your assumption about Iranian users is not correct. We have a lot from Azerbaijan proper (Tabriz, Zanjan..) etc. --alidoostzadeh 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so cinvinced I am not Iranian? This is hillarious. If you read carefully I repeated it that I was referring to the article about "Azerbaijan" (not this one) in which one source was a letter from the Armenian envoy to the UN. And there were two other sources that were pieces of joke. Unfortunately I have seen that Fars Iranian (not all of course) editors have not done good work on issues related to Azerbaijan and it was so obvious on the article about Azerbaijan (the republic). On this one from the start I have asked for a neutral article. It may not turn out that way but as long as these articles are in English we ought to make an effort to make these artciles more informative. I wrote some of the issues I thought were not neutral (up) and you corrected some of them, which is nice. I dislike militancy for writing things according to ideaologic and nationalistic views, no matter where they come from. This is often lacking from Iranian articles and it is not boding well for Iran and Iranians. And as I can see you are Iranian becasue you are writing in Farsi which is irrelevant for these issues anyway. I am going to please you and write a bunch of Farsi myself though with latin alphabet. Happy now: omidvar'am ke in shoma ro khoshhal bokone! Let's focus on the subject and make them richer and more neutral and cut the wordings and texts that are not neutral. There are sources that are pro-Persian/Iranian/Shia/Arian bla bla which are not neutral and there are also other sources that are on the opposite view (disliked by you and many other Iranians) which focus on the Turkic side of Azerbaijan. Honestly I am pro none of these ideologies. I am for having neutral articles, especially when they are about my homeland, which is a part of Iran and one other part of is called republic of Azerbaijan. I am not obsessed with Armenia or alike but it is 1) shameful for Iranians to use sources from Armenia to mock Azerbaijan article, and 2) it is also shameful that Iranian authorities (among them Azerbaijani mullahs too) aided Armenia economically (plenty of evidence) while they were the aggressors against Azerbaijan republic. It is shameful for me because my government acts like this while gives money and arms to Hamas and Hezbollah. Such dirty hypocrisy. Anyway, these are not related to these articles but becasue YOU are so obsessed about my nationality or ethnicity I thought to make mentions. Roazir 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are done with (or not) believing that I am Iranian then we can focus of the text itself. I appreciate having productive discussion. I do not see the word "race" appropriate. It is still there. And I do not understand what "Tukified Iranian speakers" means. Really. It is just too much of a stretch. We should remove the word "race". This kind of text is called racism. "The people of Azerbaijan are different from most of other Turkic speaking peoples mostly because of their race" The word race here is not appropriate. Turks in Turkey are Caucasians (race), so are many other Turkic speaking people. So in case we are mentioning such a controversian word we must complete it so the writing does not resemble a racist text. Why is it written "Persianized Seljuk Turks" ?? Why is there a need to mention the word "Persianized"??? What does it mean? Does the word Turk bother people so much? What does Persianized mean anyway? Going back to the above text, what does "Turkified Iranian speakers" mean? Is this also about race? The race is Iranian but they speak a Turkic language? Is there an Iranian race out there I am not aware of? Iranians are of Middle-Eastern Caucasian race. There is no Iranian race. There is Iranian culture though. I am sure some people will come up and get infuriated again. Please read what I wrote and let's not judge otherwise. Thanks! Roazir 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said me being convinced you are not Iranian does not have bearing about the article. Anyone can write some persian after this much time or just find some statements through google. خوشا آنان که هر از بر ندانند. I know enough iranian Azerbaijanis and have relatives to know they do not label wikipedia users by their ethnicity.Anyways that has no bearing on the article. So far the article at least in the history section quotes Iranica and Britannica and cold war archives. Which letter is from an Armenian envoy to the UN? I am not a fan of ideological and nationalistic writing either. Thus I have quoted Iranica, Britannica and cold war archives in the history edits. I have removed the word stock as well since it is not scientific. But Azerbaijanis being mainly Turkified Iranian speakers is scientific and there is enough sources with this regard. Even those who advocate ancestry just from Oghuz turks, Kashgari says that the Oghuz have mixed too much with Persians and does not consider them proper Turks like Uighyurs for example. I am not involved in the article about Azerbaijan republic with the exception of history (ancient) and etymology which should meet scholarly criterion (Iranica, Britannica,..). I am all for scientific sources specially from the last 10 years like (Britannica 2007 and Iranica).--alidoostzadeh 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word race was removed change by DNA. That is a good point. Seljuqids were Persianized in culture and adopted Persian culture besides marrying with Iranian dynasties and notables like Nizam ad-din. This can be found in neutral reference. Here is one.

E. J. W. Gibb, author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series. Gibb classifies Ottoman poetry between the Old School, from the fourteenth century to about the middle of the nineteenth, during which time Persian influence was dominant; and the Modern School, which came into being as a result of the Western impact. According to him in the introduction (Volume I):

“

the Turks very early "appropriated the entire Persian literary system down to its minute detail, and that in the same unquestioning and wholehearted fashion in which they had already accepted Islam.

”

The Saljuqs had, in the words of the same author:

“

attained a very considerable degree of culture, thanks entirely to Persian tutorage. About the middle of the eleventh century they [that is, the Saljuqs] had overrun Persia, when, as so often happened, the Barbarian conquerors adopted the culture of their civilized subjects. Rapidly the Seljuq Turks pushed their conquest westward, ever carrying with them Persian culture ... So, when some hundred and fifty years later Sulayman's son [the leader of the Ottomans] . . . penetrated into Asia Minor, they [the Ottomans] found that although Seljuq Turkish was the everyday speech of the people, Persian was the language of the court, while Persian literature and Persian culture reigned supreme. It is to the Seljuqs with whom they were thus fused, that the Ottomans, strictly so called, owe their literary education; this therefore was of necessity Persian as the Seljuqs knew no other. The Turks were not content with learning from the Persians how to express thought; they went to them to learn what to think and in what way to think. In practical matters, in the affairs of everyday life and in the business of government, they preferred their own ideas; but in the sphere of science and lit¬erature they went to school with the Persian, intent not merely on acquiring his method, but on entering into his spirit, thinking his thought and feeling his feelings. And in this school they continued so long as there was a master to teach them; for the step thus taken at the outset developed into a practice; it became the rule with the Turkish poets to look ever Persia-ward for guid¬ance and to follow whatever fashion might prevail there. Thus it comes about that for centuries Ottoman poetry continued to reflect as in a glass the several phases through which that of Persia passed....So the first Ottoman poets, and their successors through many a generation, strove with all their strength to write what is little else than Persian poetry in Turkish words. But such was not consciously their aim; of national feeling in poetry they dreamed not; poetry was to them one and indivisible, the language in which it was written merely an unimportant accident

”

.

So pointing out race was good and I removed it. I think if you see any inaccuracy then you should mention it. I can either provide a source (like I just did) or remove it. --alidoostzadeh 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

atabaki quote

To Ali - Someone took from the library edition which I quoted in my edit. So, I quote from another Atabaki book (Touraj Atabaki. Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in twentieth Century Iran, British Academic press , London-NY, 1993)

"Indeed the process of negotiations did not take any long and on the eve of 13 June 1946 a final agreement between the Doulat (State) and Azerbaijan Numayandalari (Representatives) was announced" (p.157) - text of the agreement in the book's attachment

"According to some description, what was supposed to be "the army of emancipation, was a savage army of occupation" (it is about Iranian central government) (W.O. Douglas. Strange land and Friendly people, NY, harper and Brothers, 1951, p.45)

"As a result during the early days of chaos which followed upon the arrival of government troops in Azerbaijan, e great number of lives were lost" (T.Atabaki)

besides Brenda Shaffer has also witten about that event. Since current version of the section of the history does not give balance picture I will restore my part. If you don't agree - we can resort to mediation and arbitration. I am pretty sure that I will win this case. I have references an dit is well-known NPOV info.

And don't put please that "Amnesty Int. is not neutral" (?!!!) Definitely, Iranian pro-govt. sources aren't. So, I will win that easily as well. I actually just propose to put one sentence since it pertains to the section of the history, and implication for the population of the region. The rest of information about HR situation can be posted on relevant page on HR in Iran (here I agree with you).--Dacy69 19:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Schaffer is not a source. She has an agenda and many scholars have debunked her book. Also, Amnesty International has given mistaken reports many times regarding Iran, the latest being that Iran doesnt teach Arabic! Also, none of what you posted claims what you have written in the article. I am removing it for now.Azerbaijani 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Atabaki first quotes the British embassy which reports that 400 people were killed (virtually all Ferqeh) and he agrees that Ferqeh went away without a headache. He mentions other reports that the fall of Ferqeh was very quick. Then he quotes another report from douglass which is in the minority viewpoint. He goes with the majority report that Ferqeh fell swiftly. Now we have reports from many people who lived in the Ferqeh era and their biographries including the former minister of Ferqeh. Thus choosing one report and ignoring other reports is definitely not scholarly. Brenda Shaffer as mentioned is not a reliable source and her book has been refuted. She is just a post-doc. And note I have many sources where Ferqeh fell easily. Note the portion you are quoting is not related to this article. If you want to say Ferqeh fell with a fight (it fell in about 24 hours unlike the Kurdish democratic party which had roots), one can quote about the real attacks of Oghuz Turks, Ottomans, Mongols in Azerbaijan mentioned by many poets and writes. I am not here to start edit wars. I'll have more on how Ferqeh fell from some other scholarly sources soon. But those should be in a Ferqeh realted article. --alidoostzadeh 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, I have one personal request, please do not mention again that I am not from Iran becasue it is not funny anymore. You are being paranoic. I am translating what you wrote above and I am expecting an apology: "khosha anan ke har az bar nadanand." Were you relating that to me? Anyway, let's go back to the article. It is good that you took off the "race" word which was an UGLY word to be used when talking about a people. Then, you used DNA. I still do not understand all this obsession about linking Azerbaijanis to the rest of Iranians through DNA. Do you think that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan have different DNA than those in Iran? Do you think that the people of Turkey have different DNA than those in Iran? Do you think that the people of Baluchestan are closer to Azerbaijanis than to Pakistanis? Please, these phrases are not suitable. It is so obvious that great efforts have been made to make this article a piece of fun. And let me mention the "Turkified Iranian" phrase again! Why all this effort to link the Turks of one sort or another to Iranians or Persians, or why all this effort to link the people of Azerbaijan to Persians or others? Of course we can talk about culture, traditions, religion, being common and so on. But using DNA and using dodgy words such as Turkified is not suitable. For instance we can call one same people as both "Persianized Turks" or "Turkified Persians", but do we really need to? Iran is a multi-ethnic country, so we need not to make one linked to any other. They are linked to each other through culture, religion and so on, except for the Kurds, Baluch and the Turkmen who are a bit different, mainly becasue of religion and also some strong local tradition. And although I am not much aware of the above discussion about the Ferqe stuff I am not in favour of censorship just for the sake of it. If there are different reliable points of view then it is better to mention them. Roazir 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on the article but I am not convinced. The word race is not ugly but it was not scientific and lacked any scholarly evidence. Thanks for pointing out and I removed it. Turkified Iranians as far as I know and Persianized Turks as far as I know are scientific and used a lot. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica says: are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (third to seventh century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries. Thus Medes and Persians were too Iranian people. Iranified, Turkified, Arabified..are verbs that are used. Which comes first depends on the sequence of history. I put Iranian speakers not race or anything. That is scientific. Even in the Arab world, some Arabs are called Mu'arrab (Arabicized). DNA is also a scientific concept (specially from Cambridge University), but I did not put that link up. --alidoostzadeh 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this groundles dispute - Shaffer is bad, Iranian sources are good. I am making aformal offer to Azerbaijani and Ali doostzadeh for mediation . If you accept this - I will file petition. If not - I file petition for arbitration. And I restore my information for now.--Dacy69 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his article: Islam and the Growth of National Identity in Soviet Azerbaijan Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:

The isolationist disposition of Soviet Azerbaijani nationalism came to a sudden end with the changed circumstances of history. In 1941, upon the outbreak of the war with Germany, Soviet forces temporarily occu¬pied northern Iran. Inevitably, the Red Army's presence became a fact of political life in Iran, and the Soviets' moves reflected their thinking on that country. As had been the case in dealing with their own Muslims, the Soviets set their stakes on the nationality principle. Their apparent assumption was that national identities of the non-Persians inhabiting Iran—the Azerbaiianis, Kurds, Turkmens, Baluchis, and Arabs—would reassert themselves over sectarian or dynastic loyalties that formed the fabric of the Iranian state. During World War II the focal point of the Soviet Iranian policy was Southern Azerbaijan. Here, hosts of civilian ad¬visers who came from Baku to assist the military occupation authorities, worked on awakening the sense of nationality among Iranian Azerbai-janis. Reversing the Pahlavi assimilationist drive, they set up Azerbaijani language schools and newspapers and organized theatrical performances, while by no means neglecting political agitation. In their work for the Soviet foreign policy goals, they were also motivated by the revived spirit of Azerbaijani unity, a profound experience in the life of a generation, which was amply echoed in the literature. A new element was infused into the Soviet Azerbaijani nationalism at a time when it had already been consolidated—irredentism, which would be in evidence constantly from now on, in various degrees of intensity. By the end of 1945 the Soviet-backed Democratic Party of Azerbaijan proclaimed in Tabriz the autonomous Azerbaijani Republic, nominally a part of Iran. Apart from self-government and land reform, the main point in the party's program was the recognition of Azerbaijani as the official language in the republic. As it turned out, the Soviets had to recognize that their ideas on Iran were premature. The issue of Iranian Azerbaijan became one of the open¬ing skirmishes of the Cold War, and, largely under the Western powers' pressure, Soviet forces withdrew in 1946. The autonomous republic col¬lapsed soon afterward, and the members of the Democratic Party took V refuge in the Soviet Union, fleeing Iranian revenge. In Tabriz, the crowds that had just recently applauded the autonomous republic were now greeting the returning Iranian troops, and Azerbaijani students publicly burned their native-language textbooks. The mass of the population was obviously not ready even for a regional self-government so long as it smacked of separatism. Soviet attempts to loosen the ties of South¬ern Azerbaijan to the Iranian state backfired, and the effect was general weakening of Moscow's influence throughout Iran.’’

Shaffer is a post-doc (not even assistant Professor) and is a highly anti-Iranian source from her news report in wall street journal and international herald tribun and etc.. So she can not be called neutral source. Evan Siegel and Atabaki have already dismissed her book for creating false information. She has actually blatantly falsified facts. [17]. Tadeusz Swietochowski and Atabaki are good sources. Atabaki can not be quoted though through Shaffer, I have access to the whole page on the fall of Ferqeh. I can easily bring it. Also while we are at it shall we enter the republic of Azerbaijan page and talk about lezgins, talysh, kurds and etc. Or how about the Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan where Qatran and Ibn Kathir are historical sources? I am not here to start an edit war, but there is tremendous amount of sources on Ferqeh and how it fell without a fight. We have memoirs from various people and I have access to all of them. --alidoostzadeh 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not quoted Shaffer. I quoted Atabaki - it is the very quote: pls read it. I don't mind to have Tadeush Swietochowski, who mentioned that Pehlevi conducted a policy of assimilation. Nothing which I put contradict what you quoted. it is obvious that the Soviet got fingers there - let's mention that. maybe it was not popular - questionable but let's assume that it was not. But repression took place - Atabaki wrote about it. I put 2 quotes above.

well, the last sentences of yours - it is definitely a threat with edit revenge. Good - I once used it in my dispute resolution and will do it again.

Let's get straight - do you accept mediation?--Dacy69 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy, where in the world did this come from: After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops Iranian government launched a campaign of repression against Azerbaijanis. You are making stuff up now...Azerbaijani 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to accept any mediatation. First you did not quote all of Atabaki and that is not factual. Once I access Atabaki today or tommorow, then I shall bring all of the quote for readers judgement. One can not cherry pick their own quotes. Yes Pahlavi who were mostly Azerbaijanis by blood conduct centralization. This is already mentioned in another article.. Much like the republic of Azerbaijan conduct centralization vis-a-vis Kurds, Talysh, Lezghis, Armenians and there are good amount of sources mentioning this. --alidoostzadeh 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am waiting for your response. If you are pretty sure that you are right and I am wrong why you don't accept dispute resolution and defeat me. Guys you at edit war, as you remove my sourced info. I wait for your responce to my offer until tomorrow. You don't have to accept mediation. I just should follow guidance - as I try mediation and other steps before arbitration, desicion of which will be binding. --Dacy69 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC) You are again in revenge.[reply]

I just checked it and user dacy69's view was definitely one pointed and ignored many references by Dr. Atabaki that Ferqeh fell without fight swiftly. As per many people killed, Dr. Atabaki quotes British embassy of 400 people and Iranian numbers are 800. He mentions the sudden and complete submission of Ferqeh(pg 175). Of course these were mainly Azerbaijanis getting rid of Ferqeh members as mentioned by Tadeusz Swietochowski . Whereas the leaders and bulk of Ferqeh just fled to the USSR. Note the line previous: The Iranian army had prepared itself to face stiff resistance but to everyone's suprise the army did not encounter any serious barriers in establishing its authority on the province.. Thus I am suprised this was not quoted!

Here is another one. According to Professor. Gary R. Hess:

“On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Indeed the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred dominination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective.Gary. R. Hess Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 1 (March., 1974).

Any savagery of Iranian army and Azerbaijani people against Ferqeh was limited to 400 to 800 Ferqeh members who were sumarily executed by angry mobs. Note I have quotes about how Ferqeh when it started to gain power arrested Iranian armies garrison in Azerbaijan (obviously mainly composed of Azerbaijanis) and executed some of them.

Also note this article is not about Ferqeh but I can easily find massive amount of quotes in Irans favors from scholarly sources. Thus complete analysis of Ferqeh should be in an article about Ferqeh and not just consist of one line quote without quoting the rest of the same page or other reliable texts (and of course not post-docs). But can someone explain for example why the number of Talysh in 1938 was around 80,000 and then it dropped to 21,000 in 1989 in the official census? Is there an article menntioing this? Amazingly the number of talysh people drops in percentage in official census every time the official census's are taken... One article even claims there used to be Talysh people but no more.

On the other hand note Lord Cruzon puts the number of Turkic speakers (he says the tatar although he even grouped turkomens) in Persia in 1890 as 1 million out of 6 million. His census was based on Russian information. This makes up about 15%. Currently the Turkic speakers in Iran are estimated to be between 15-25%. I have also some census from the republic of Azerbaijan during the USSR era. As per Persinization we can start from Khiabani to Kasravi to Mahmud Afshar to Taqizadeh to Javad Shaykh ol Eslami.. I can literally quote 20 or so Azerbaijani intellecuals who are very well known. Pahlavids regime had large number of Azerbaijanis. Only Rezashah's father was Mazandarani (close to standard Persian) so his mother, wife and the wife of his son were all Azerbaijanis. Many of the Azerbaijanis who wanted centralization (mainly due to pan-turanism efforts of Ottomons) are known with this regard two major ones being Afshar and Kasravi. Also currently employment in Iranian Azerbaijan is lowest amongst all of Irans provinces. Economically Azerbaijanis have more then their weight represented and own the Bazar of Tehran. The supreme leader of the country is Azerbaijani. So inserting one line quotes without providing the objective analysis of Dr. Atabaki and all of his quotes about the fall of Ferqeh is really unbalanced. Ferqeh as all observors wrote fell less than 24 hours. Lets not act hastly in adding one line quotes and lets be objective and try to end the silly Iranian and Azerbaijani republic disputes in wikipedia. I am not involved in modern history issues of Azerbaijan republic issues because it is not my concern. I am involved in mainly history issues in wikipedia but really I see some attempts to incite Iranian readers for no reason with one line quotes that ignores the rest of the quotes of the same page and also the footnote where 400 is mentioned by British Embassy. Chox Ta'asuf edirem. --alidoostzadeh 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, your aggressive and blaming style is not helpful. You write in Farsi and accuse me of not to be Iranian. And what you wrote in Farsi was not so nice! I also made an effort to show that I am Iranian and I understand, write and read Farsi very well. I asked you to stop this rubbish. And you don't. Anyway, I am here to have a positive effect on articles regarding Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. You are too often mentioning that Azerbaijanis so omnipresent in Iranian leadership. Does that have direct relevance to the subjects. If that is the case then include this in the article. The Qajar were Azerbaijani, they spoke Azerbaijani and they preserved their identity. Pahlavis took Azerbaijani wives but they spoke Farsi and they heavily discriminated against the Azerbaijani people and identity. I know people who were imprisoned in Tehran being accused of separatism while they were just looking for work. There is plenty of evidence for this too but you are against this. There are different sources that say different things. Azerbaijan has been unders-invested in the last 85 years and that has been the main reason for mass migration of Azerbaijanis to Tehran and other Persian cities. There is plenty of evidence in this regard too. The Islamic regime has also discriminated against Azerbaijanis. Although Khamenei is Azerbaijani in origin he does not speak Azerbaijani (home, work etc) becasue he is an Islamist and pan-Iranist ideaologue. What I wrote above, what is not neutral about Turkified, Persianized and the DNA issue are clearly written in a sense to link Azerbaijanis to Persians, which is not necessary. Iranians live together not becasue of being linked to each other with DNA. This is absolutely rubbish. We can include both sides of the dispute in the article to make it neutral. Roazir 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, why don't you mind at all being ruled by Azerbaijanis as I can obviously see you have a pro-Iranic/Persianic/Farsic bias. You are editing mainly FOR the purpose of relating Azerbaijanis to Persians. Not that I would be against it, becasue it is true, but why are we trying so hard to relate Azerbaijanis to Persians? Where is the need for that? I would NOT relate Azerbaijanis to Persians but ALL Iranian peoples to each other instead. This approach is insulting to Azerbaijanis. WE do not need to be linke dto either Fars nor Tukr (from Turkey). Do you know about ample evidence of blames and insults against the Qajar because of their Turkic ethnicity??? This is a Pahlavi propaganda. Roazir 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roazir again that is my opinion that you are not from Iran. Calling Ayatollah Khaemeni a pan-Iranist is really baseless. What is next? Khomeini was a pan-Iranist also? Perhaps you care to explain his once in a while insults(Khamenei) against Zoroastrianism? Reza Shah himself was half Azeri, so not just his wife. He spoke Turkish well as everyone knows. And Mohammad Rezashah was more than half. The wife of Rezashah had Turkish poetry. Khameni speaks Turkish well as his recent trip to Zanjan also shows and spoke some sentences. Calling Khaemeni a pan-Iranist is baseless. I also have verses from one Qajar show that they did not consider Turkish high language and they did not support Turkish culture. One Qajar king says: ترکی جهل است. They might have spoke it, but they were again supporters of Persian culture. During the constituional revolution 1906 (mainly again brought by Azerbaijanis) Persian was declared the official language of Iran before the Pahlavi. No other language was given an legal status. The reason for that time is simple, that had been a tradition for a long time and most of the period when there was Turkic speaking kings. Qajars at the same time they did discriminate against tribes like Lurs, Baluchs, Bakhtiari. Chronicles from their own time for example talk about taking the eye of every single male living in Kerman. Also mass migration to Tehran has occured from every province not just Azerbaijan. Bushehr has had the highest rate relatove to all provinces. Azerbaijan was the 2nd city under Pahlavis and Tabriz and Urmia are very industrial cities. I have statistics with regards unemployment rates. Pahlavids had their own faults, but Azerbaijanis were involved in Pahlavids administration heavily as they are now. They are not marginalized like say Zoroastrians or Jews. Many Qajars took up important position in the Pahlavi era. The IRI and Pahlavis have discriminated against many Iranians based mainly on political stance, but had Azerbaijanis wanted to, they would have supported Ferqeh and it would not fall within 24 hours against the small Iranian army (again mainly composed of Azerbaijanis) who liberated Azerbaijan from Ferqeh. Note Iran has not had the ethnic problems of Turkey or Armenia/Azerbaijan (Karabagh) or Iraq. Now going back to the article, on the DNA issue I did not add that, but if it is backed from Cambridge university, I am not sure what the problem is as long as it is sourced? About Turkified this is mentioned by some authors like Frye and etc. It is mentioned partially by Britannica 2007 as well. It can be given more proper sourcing. I do not see these sources as biased. --alidoostzadeh 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really making me tired becasue I have a lot of work and I want to get over this but before, if possible, to make the article more neutral. I do not know (show me your sources) how Reza Shah was half Azerbaijani. If (IF) his mother from Irevan then she could have been Armenian or Kurdish as well (Yerevan is the capital city of Armenia). The Qajar considered Azerbaijani Turkish as "Jahl" (stupidity or whatever that measn)??? What is your source? They brought up their family in Tabriz and they spoke Azerbaijani among themselves. From what I know the 1906 constitution considered Farsi (Persian) as the common language of Iran becasue the majority were Fars and the capital city was in a Far area (I am using Fars often in order not to consufe with other Persian-like peoples). The Islamists, according to their policies, are as pan-Farsist or pan-Iranist as the Pahlavis were. The Pahlavis talked about their "pure" Aryan-ness (whatever that means) and Mohammadreza Shah even labelled himself Aryamehr, though he had a lot of Azerbaijani mix. I don't want to get into the Aryan issue, which is more disgusting. Anyway, let's talk about the article. The article is ABOUT Iranian Azerbaijan, so there is NO NEED to link the Azerbaijani people, either through DNA or other things to the Fars. If you are insisting on these rubbish then go to Iran article and link the Fars people to the Azerbaijani people there. This is about the people of Azerbaijan and we do not need to be linked to the Fars. We are linked through our culture and religion. This DNA issue or the Turkified Iranian stuff is pure pan-Iranist (more like Pan-Farsist) propaganda. The article is supposed to be about the region of Azerbaijan, so if you want to link the population of the region Azerbaijan to other peoples then don't be selective to Persians. By the way, if you agree to apologise for making me non-Iranian I am willing to write my phone number here, call me and I will pour whatever Farsi you want and I will write here whatever Farsi you want. But, with the condition of getting an apology. My fellow Iranian (fars or non-fars) need to respect other peoples and regard them according to their actions, not their origins. Most of the Azerbaijanis I know from Iran think like me. The power has been mostly at the hands of the Persian nationalists and they have even found (paid etc) Azerbaijanis to act against the Azerbaijani people. Tabriz was the second largest city in Iran (it was first before that) before the Pahlavi and the Islamists. It is now the fourth, after Mashahd and Isfahan. Why? The same is true about many other cities. There are important industries but compared to Fars areas Azerbaijani areas have been largely discriminated. I am not talking about cultural and linguistic discrimination here, which is also true according to ALL neutral sources. Look at the sources that mention how the budget has usually been distributed to Iranian cities and areas. Persian areas first always, believe me (I know you shall not), Baluchi, Kurdish and Arab areas last (Azerbaijani areas in between). Roazir 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I never claimed to be Fars. Thus perhaps you believe anyone who disagrees with you it Persian? Also you can add the DNA link to any article you like inclduing Fars people. That is wikipedia, if a link is corroborated by a high ranking institution like Cambridge why not? I actually received more details with this regards from a non-Iranian Professor when I requested more information. Also I know five Iranian Azerbaijanis in wikipedia currently who do not think like you. Now Mash-had of course is a religious city and that is why it is the second biggest city in Iran right now since the advent of the Islamic republic. Detailed study of Cambridge University's DNA study on Iran (with only one Iranian and mostly non-Iranians) sure can be mentioned in any relevant article including Persian. I have enough sources that state East Azerbaijan has the lowest unemployement rate in Iran. About Rezashah's mother, Nooshin Afarin I have direct contemporary source which calls her a Turk.. oo (nooshafarin) yek Tork bood exact statement. Very direct. Rezashah's wife is clear. Rezashah knowing Turkish is also in the sources. Also Irevan and Baku used to have Azeri/Armenian populations but that is no more unfortunately. BTW Pan-Iranianism was created by an Azerbaijani named Dr. Mahmud Afshar. Mohammad Rezashah whatever he labeled himself had an Azerbaijani mother who was actually the daughter of Teymur Khan Ayrimlu. About Qajars considering Turkish as Jahl it is in a letter exchange between Mo'jaz Shabistari and a Qajar king (Naser- ad-din Shah). I even have the exact Azeri available to me. Also the constitutional revolution of 1906 lead mainly by Azerbaijanis declared Persian as the official language of Iran. This is well known fact. The first constitution of Iran, adopted in 1906 by the Qajar Dynasty (1779-1925) proclaimed Persian as the official language of Iran. This is mentioned in The Politics of Language Purism By Björn H. Jernudd, Michael J. Shapiro pg 88 see the article by Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak. Also this is when reform of Persian language started.

Anyways back to the article and lets just discuss the article. What portion do you currently disagree with? The DNA? I agree the article is about the region of Azerbaijan. I think more should be said about Chaharshanbeh Suri, Sizdah Bedar, Ashura, Yalda, Nowruz and etc as holidays celebrated by Azerbaijanis with iranians. But for the DNA statement I did not put it up even, but I am not sure why it is invalid. I'll be glad to e-mail you more details from Cambridge university from a non-Iranian professor who supervised the research. Also the Turkified Iranian speakers is not pure pan-Iranist theory. I already mentioned Professor. Frye ... --alidoostzadeh 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to portray that almost all those who have had policies discriminating against Azerbaijanis have always been themselves either full Azerbaijanis or partial Azerbaijanis? From what I know the 1906 constituion does not force the use of Farsi in all aspects of official life in all regions and provinces of Iran. Even the Islamist constitution does not force that, but the Islamist constitution IS NOT respected by the Islamists themselves. And I have seen that the 1906 constituion says that Farsi is the "common language" not the official langauge. If Nasereddin Shah has said that "Torki jahl ast." then he must have been a big "jahel" himself, right? You are probably taking this out of context. Reza Shah in case spoke Turki (Azerbaijani) it must have been his second-langauge in order to communicate with most of the army or the monarchy. And I don't know how many word he spoke. I don't know whether Mohammadreza spoke any Azerbaijani. Please ask fo the Iranian Azerbaijanis to participate in this discussion but do not ask those wo are vehement anti-Azerbaijanis pretending to be Azerbaijani (one is user Azerbaijani). I am against Persianising this article. It is insulting and disgusting to link us, though DNA or alike to the Persians in this article? Lik them to us, ok? I don't need my DNA to be examined to be found links to the Persians. These have been Nazi practices. They used to write science they liked while ignore science they disliked. I have no pride in being linked ot the Fars. No need for it. It is appropriate to link all Iranians peoples to each other through more accurate measures, not DNA. Do you think that the DNA of the Shirazi is closer to the DNA of Tabrizi or the DNA of Irvani Armenian is closer to the DNA of Tabrizi. I guess the DNA of Irvani is closer to the DNA of Tabrizi. Why has the article linked the DNA of Azerbaijanis to Persians. This is almost like talking about laboratory mice!! Roazir 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to see this academic source about the disgusting Persianization policies of post-Qajar Iranian regimes (it actually mentions the 1906 constituion and uses the word "official" instead of "common" which I accept being from a credible source). What is written here has been official policy of Iran and also the education system and that is why so many of Iranians that have been reasonable loyal followers of these racist policies also advocate for the same things now on Wikipedia. Sad relity. http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/1999/APR/Iran-policy.html Roazir 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mashallah, good you found a source from a pan-Kurdist website. (The author is well known pan-Kurdist and although I do not consider him reliable, but since an anti-Iranian soruce mentions the same fact, then you see I was right). So now you see it was the Qajars and Azerbaijani constitutionalists who made Persian the sole and only official language of Iran in 1906. The persianization campaign mainly propogated by Azerbaijani intelelctuals and its main backer being Mahmud Afshar was much less severe than azerification in the republic of Azerbaijan or Turkificiation in republic of Turkey. About DNA if you check Kurdish people or Persian people.. there is DNA mentioned. It is nothing racist and actually is the cutting edge and in the future it will solve many mysteries. I think any source that is reliable from say Frye, or Britannica or Cambridge or Iranica is acceptable. Also I am not taking Nasereddin Shahs quote out of context and it was direcly from Moa'jaz Shabistari. But that is not really related to Azerbaijani people. Also you might want to know that a major Qajar prince was one of the first pioneers of seeking the ancient glory of Zoroastrian Iran in the 20th century.. --alidoostzadeh 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That writing is from a British university mate! I don't know who wrote. Who? It was posted on Birmingham University's website man. You call Birmingham university's website a pan-Kurdist website. Don't be ridiculous! I am writing again, if you know other Iranians, especially Azerbaijani Iranians, theit involvement here would be helpful. The article is too much of a Persianization, which has no relevance to the article. Do you know how Soviet Russians, the Chinese (Iranians too) and the Nazi used to legitimise their illegitimate plicies? hey used to find local supporters. Every neutral source accepts that Iran has had a Persianization ploicy and you know this very well and today's world of free people does not accept this. Roazir 11:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by Amin Hasanpur do a google search. As for Iranian government neither Pahlavids nor IRI were as repressive to their minorities as USSR countries or Turkey..There was a centralization policy but it started with 1906 making Persian the official language. --alidoostzadeh 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable source to have compared and reached the conclusion that Iranian regimes have been better? Iranian regimes have killed Kurds by thousands. Do a google search for that! I personally believe that all the three have been repressive, though I don't know which one has been the better devil! Some sources say that Farsi was chosen as the common language and minority language were supposed to be respected. Though only after Pahlavi came to power things turned out different and they have been so. Anyway, this is a different issue. I told you that I am completely against an article (this one for example) that follows the same Persianization policy. This article links Azerbaijani DNA to the Fars. That is ridiculous. It does not make the article NEUTRAL. That is Wiki rule. I am not saying that the DNA stuff is WRONG. I guess it isn't. But the article is a Persianized article. Looks like the Mullahs, or the Farsist nationalists have written it. Roazir 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fight between Kurds and Azerbaijanis (which was a Sunni-shi'ite rivarly rather than an ethnic one) in the begining of the revolution is not about Iranian regime. Right now Chehregani's group claims Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan and the same with the Kurdish democtratic party which claim all of West Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. And actually two sources were brought were Persian was declared official language by the Qajar dynasty under the constitutional revolution of 1906 which was mainly the work of Iranian Azerbaijanis. There was no other official language. About the DNA stuff I guess we should get feedback from other users. But Cambridge University is very prestigious. Also let me add the natives of Turkey were Armenians, Kurds and Greeks. What happened to Greeks and Armenians? Note we Iranians are natives of our own country. The name of it is Iran as it has been about 2000 years. I have considered Azerbaijanis native as well. About the DNA stuff as you said it is not wrong. And I pointed to articles that have mentioned this. --alidoostzadeh 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your, Ali, quote from Atabaki contradicts mine. You can also insert yours. I justified mine.--Dacy69 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does for many reasons. One William Douglass was a judge from the US and not a scholar or Professor. Two he visited Iranian Azerbaijan in 1950 and not 1945-1946. Three Professor Atabaki says Ferqeh fell easily as does Tadsuez. Tadsuez even says the people of Azerbaijan turned against Ferqeh. (We know Ferqeh fell). Thus his views are not accepted by these two famous researches as well Professor Hess I mentioned. You know very well Tadsuez is a non-Iranian source. Fourth one line quote which is not endorsed by Prof. Atabaki without ignoring the rest of he says is wrong and actually unprofessional. Atabaki is a full Professor and mentions another POV but he says the Ferqeh fell easily without a fight and according to the British embassy report 400 people of Ferqeh were taken prisoner and executed (mainly by the people). Finally I believe you want to simply enflame ethnic tensions. That is why despite the fact that I have said I am Iranian and did not say I am Persian, you simply label me as a Persian user. On the other hand in the Safavid page and also the republic of Azerbaijan I went against fellow Iranians. I am a reasonable person. Also Just like in the Azerbaijan republic page where I said the nature of the Mussavites should be put in its own relevant article, it is the same here. 500 lines can be written about Ferqeh and I wrote about 50-100 above from various sources on the talk page. That is why there is specific article about Ferqeh. There is a page about the Ferqeh party of Pishevari. This page is not it. For example it would be like talking about Ayatollah Khamenei on every single page of Azerbaijan and how bad or good he is and putting 500 lines in! Or talking about how the number of Talysh was 79000 around 1930's but the official government in 1989 reported 21000. Is that the right wikipedia procedure? I definitely do not think so. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, don't mix stuff together! I am not aware of what one separatist nationalist or another says, claims or does. One Azerbaijani nationalist may add not just Kurdistan in to Azerbaijan but they may also add some parts of Turkey, Russia and a lot of non-Azerbaijani territories within Iran. That is their business. Go and search for reasonable neutral non-Iranian sources and you will find plenty of Kurdish killings under Ismalist regime. There were villages that were wiped out by the Iranian militias. Don't get yourself involved in the imorality of dirty Middle-Eastern politics! Iranian regime is one of the worst regimes in the wrold from all points of view. If you say that "well, others are bad too!" So what? Does that justify anything? Turkey is a much more democratic country than Iran though. It has also been a curse for me personally to be an Iranian citizen becasue of being associated with the regime and the rulers! That's my personal view anyway. Azerbaijanis (Iranian Turks) fought for Iran, they built Iran and they founded Iran (Safavid and Qajar and Afshar) and don't push all the time with the 1906 constituion. It also shows that the people of Azerbijan have been freedom-loving people and did not want to force their own langauge on a majority-Fars (or semi-Fars) country. It DOES NOT mean they wanted to give up their langaueg and identity, OK? Don't push this all the time, becsue it is insulting. Which legitimate constitution can ban the use of Azerbijani language in Azerbijan? Iranian constituions HAVE NOT banned that, but Iranian regimes HAVE. And ever since the Pahlavi they have pursued a policy of Persianization of Iran. You will say again that the Azerbaijanis have done the Persianization! Please stop this! Insult you own people, not mine, okay?? We, the Iranian Azerbaijanis have worked to build a better Iran and have become the victims of it, if you want my opinion. The majority in Iran are Fars and it is normal to let them be Fars. This does not legitimise forcing making the whole Iran Fars. And you have also repeated that Nasereddin Shah called Turki as jahl. He was a Turk, he spoke Turki and his whole familiy were Azerbaijani Turks. How can you explain this? Did he call himself an idiot? If he did, then take it as that! Probably he was an idiot. My rechoning is that becasue he was the king of Iran then he must have said that NOT SPEAKING Farsi is being unaware of Iran's majority langauge. So, now you are saying that Turks in Turkey are not native to Turkey but Azerbaijanis are. Thanks for letting us be natives! It is so nice of you. I guess we must be good so your excellency (other Aryans and Fars) don't throw us out. God, this is such a disgrace. I regret so much being an Iranian. And I am so sorry for the rest of my people being stuck in that racist backward country! Roazir 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First read this: [18]. Insulting people and their country is considered personal attack. Of course I am not insuled because we Iranians have long history. Also Did I deny killings by both sides? The KDP was supported by Iraq and Irans government supported Kurdish parties in Iraq. I do not think it is anyone's business to add what they like. Also Iranian government did not wipe out any villages. Turkey wiped out 5000 Kurdish villlages. They are clear off a land that was formorely Greek and Armenian. Mind you Indo-Iranians have been around at least for 3500 years (Mittani). And no I am not a politican. I never believed you were Iranian anyway. And I am not here to discuss personal views. Also know one elected you the spokesman of Iranian Azerbaijanis. Indeed I see Khaemeni can easily attract hundreds of thousands when he visits major cities of Iran and Azerbaijan province of Iran. So even if some non-Iranian claims he is Iranian and insults Iranians, I will just boast that we have many many Armenian and Azerbaijani Iranians who are proud to be Iranians. How many Armenians do you find in Turkey or Azerbaijan who are proud? none. Thus this shows the character of Iran with respect to other countries.

But it is good that you agreed (after first claiming Persian was called the common language) that Persian was officialy recognized under Qajar by Azerbaijani constitutionalists as the official language of Iran. Now another thing you need to notice is that of centralization. Modern communications and use of official language in government, politics and the teaching of official language automatically makes normal non-political non-nationalist people adopt the official language. Also aside from official Persian was the inter-communication and common language. Thus it is readily adopted. Also being in a majority Persian speaking country, Azerbaijanis who emigrate to Tehran or Ghazvin or Mash-had adopt Persian. (And even vice-versa say a Persian or Kurd migrates to Tabriz). This is not the case with Iran only, it is the case with the republic of Azerbaijan where hundreds of thousands were assimilated into dominant language (although methods were used which is not the subject of this discussion). As per ban, don't need to lie. Currently there areIranian Azerbaijani publications, Azerbaijani language studies program in Tabriz, Azerbaijani television from Irans Azerbaijani provinces beamed out throughout the world, radio summer coures and university coures and etc. Same with Kurdish. I would like to see how this compares to Turkey or even the republic of Azerbaijan. Also I do not differentiate between Iranians. Iranian Azerbaijanis (and I mean Iranian Azerbaijanis not fake ids behind the internet) are Iranians as any other Iranian. Finally about the Qajar king, the king is very clear when he says: Torki Jahl ast.

معجز شبستری که يک شاعر ترکي‌سرا شناخته‌ای است و بين ۱۸۷۳ تا ۱۹۳۴ مي‌زيست نامه‌ای به پادشاه قجر مي‌نويسد:

ديليم ترکی٬ سوزی ساده اوزوم صهبايه دلداده منيم تک شاعرين البت اولار کاساد بازی دونن شعر یله بیر نامه آپار دیم شاه ایرانه دیدی ترکی نمی‌دانم٬ مرا تو بچه پنداری؟ اوزی ترک اوغلی ترک او اما دیر ترکی جهالتدور خدایا مضمحل قیل تختدن بو آل قاجاری

ترجمه:

زبانم ترکی٬گفتارم ساده است٬ خودم دلداده (عاشق) هستم

متاع این چنین شاعری البته خریداری ندارد

یعنی کسی از اهل ادب دنبال شعر و ادب ترکی نمیرفت دوش به محضر شه٬ نامه‌آی به شعر ترکی بردم بگفتا: « ترکی نمی‌دانیم٬ مرا تو بچه پنداری؟ ترکست و ترک‌زاده٬ گوید ترکیست جهالت خدایا مضمحل گردن تاج و تخت آل قاجار را

It leads to no such intrepretations as yours. It actually says a lot of things with political implications. But since you do not accept sources and you even came up with a unsubstantiated explanation, let me add this one from Ziya Gok-alp [19] about Ottomans. Read the part that starts with: Bu konuda Ziya Gökalp’ın ifadesi çok daha serttir, çünkü ona göre Osmanlı her zaman Türk’e.. from Zia Gok-Alp and the Ottomans. Thats the end of my personal discussion with you. I have collected my sources and etc with this regard. I just state sources from professors and scholars who specialize in specific fields or references like Britannica, Iranica and etc.. I also warned you about personal attacks and insults. --alidoostzadeh 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my writings sound like PERSONAL ATTACK to you? It is a personal attack though to continuously claim that I am lying about my country. I even wrote that I readily write here (for all to see) my phone number and you can call me. If I dislike the country I come from it is not a personal attack toward anyone. So calm down and don't push stuf beyond reality! I say it again that I regret being an Iranian. If you take this as a personal attack toward you then take it twice! So, stop your claims that I am lying! THAT IS PERSONAL ATTCK and insulting. Writing one's POV is not problematic on the talk page. We have both written ALSO points of view here, which is fine. This is a discussion. I don't understand why you are adding Turkey and Azerbaijan into the discussion. I told a couple of times "what has that got to do with Iran?" Iran is Islamist racist fundamentalist country who supports terrorism and discriminates heavily against minorities. All scholarly and neutral sources agree with this. So, you are saying that Turkey and Azerbaijan do similar things. So what? Did I say they don't?? I said that Turkey is quite a democracy though which Iran isn't. I am not from Turkey. I am from Iran. You know mate, Iranian education system under Pahlavi and Islamic revolution has had deep emotional wounds upon the children of Iran that does not heal so easily and many contributors here are the victims of those policies. It is regrettable. We can make our country better only if we accept realities not when we boast about one thing or another that are irrelevant. So Iran has thousands of years of history. So what? Does that justify anything. You know very well about injustices within Iran. Should I hide these as an Iranian? No. We've got that Iran because of our ignorances toward realities. Thanks for putting the Nasereddin Shah text! It adds to my knowledge, so I am grateful for that. The king who was a Turk could not read Azerbaijani Turkish becasue he was the king of Iran and he did not feel the need for it. I never claimed of knowing about this text. Thanks for putting it! Or some other reason! I had told you that I had seen from some sources that the 1906 constitution had made Farsi as the common language but I knew that other sources had written about OFFICIAL langauge. That is not claiming much of anything. Ali, not everyone is prejudices about one ideology or another. So when discussing why do you feel the need to remind people about other prejudices? I have no prejudices. At least I try not to have. Azerbaijan does discriminate against minoritis you say? That is wrong. Trkey discriminates against minorities? That is wrong. Iran discriminates against minorities? That is wrong. But these were, and are, discussions that have little relevance to the text. Be open-minded and leave nationalistic prejudices behind man! That is no good. I appreciate your knowledge and you resources. That is helpful, but trying to make Iran look like better (more interesting) than it is, is not in the spirit of the free world. We, in the free world and the supporters of the free world, do not hide realities. George Bush does stupid things, then people say it without any problem. This person or that persona does something wrong, then we say it. I ask you again not to accuse me of lying. That IS a personal attack. My opinion about my own country is no personal attack toward anyone and if you don't like my opinion about my own country then that is none of my problem. Roazir 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Ali to see the user Azerbaijani put back whatever was there before I edited. You see Ali, these are the children of the education system of Iran. That is why I regret being an Iranian. I have only wdited texts once (this time) and that user claims that my edits were all POV while I had no edits. You see Ali, that is Iran. It is nothing to be proud of. It is intolerance and ignorance. That is the official Iran. And it is unfortunate that so many Iranians (the followers of the Pahlavi and Islamism) follow the official policies and believe in them. Roazir 09:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to discuss politics with you and it is obvious you are prejudice against Iranians and Armenians. As per edits I think we should all discuss it in the talk page as we are doing now. Although not related to this page, that Persian was declared official is affirmed by even separatist Kurdish party members (KDP) in the case Hasanpour. I also brought another example from the book purity of language.. I ca even go further and find the exact statement in Persian from the constitutional revolution if I desire. But those two sources are sufficient. Also Qajars did not name the province Azerbaijan, there was already a territory called Azerbaijan. So I would concentrate on improvement of the article. --alidoostzadeh 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to write an apology if you give me YOUR phone number, I call you and you will be assured that I am Iranian??? I am serious. You have accused me of lying about my citizenship four or five times. Nationalist Iranians such as yourself ought to recognise that being different is neither evil nor alien. I came across this source that I found that has been one of the major sources for this article though it is not mentioned as a source. I don't know how to add sources, so you could add it and that would be helpful for the article. The sources is: http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/AzerbjIrn.html

It is a Western academic source. Please take a look carefully and you will see that it says when the official province of Azerbaijan was declared. If user Azerbaijani is just an agitator then please restrain him a bit so we can do something. Roazir 16:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not prejudices against anybody and it would be hypocritical of me to be prejudiced AGAINST Iranians while I am one of them. I dislike strongly the way most Iranian editors do the editing. These nationalistic edits do nothing but extra harm to the rputation of Iran, which is already very bad. Take a look at the surce I gave you, it also mentions what you had previously removed about Shapur adding the north to Azerbaijan. I am not an expert in history. I would appreciate for you adding to my knowledge. Please also copy-paste the exact text from the 1906 constitution becasue I am very curious. I never denied it. I just want to be more informed. I don't consider you unreasonable. I consider some other users unreasonable, such as the one I just mentioned. You are reasonable enough to talk to me while you had no obligation. I am a Western-self-educated person. I am not against anyone and I am not an Azerbaijani nationalist. I have also seen some Azerbaijani nationalist sites out there, which are no less wrong than Fars and other nationalist ideologies or policies. But you see, in democracy you have extremism and moderation. In theocracy or tyranny you only have extremism of one sort or another. Iran's Persianization poliices (that are wrong) lead to some Azerbaijanis to be extremist as well. They do not have popular support for now but God forbid, they will be strengthened becasue of the wrong Iranian policies. You and me are not here to discuss these, but Fars nationist writings are all over the place about Iranian and Azerbaijani related articles and that bothers me. Roazir 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am done talking politics and matters not relevant to here. As per phone conversation that does not prove anything either (it could be anyone) and I am not interested. But I will mention again that labeling users is probably personal attacks on users (calling them Armenian or Fars nationalists..). So I will just concentrate on the article. Now per the sources you mentioned. The source has some mistakes since it contradicts primary sources. If you look at this: [20], the primary sources and secondary sources have primacy over Teriary sources (Say Columbia Encyclopedia which is written by non-experts unlike Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica which can be considered secondary sources) when Teriary sources contradict primary sources. See the section: (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). And of course Primary sources take precedence over secondary sources. Zoroaster was not born in Azerbaijan according to virtually all the experts today (Boyce, Gnoli, Diakonoff) and this is actually now believed to be Sassanid propoganda. Where-as the Medes spoke a Western Iranian language like Persian, Zoroaster and his Avesta are eastern Iranian much like Soghdian, Chorasmian and etc. Although the young Avesta is about 80% similar to Old Persian but old Avesta is closer to Sanskrit but it is classified as Eastern Iranian language. About Shapur and his inscription, Shapur in his inscription mentions Albania, Balaskan, Armenia as separately as Azerbaijan. We have the primacy source with this regards from Mckenzie and other translators of his trilingual inscription (Greek, Parthian and Middle Persian). Also in the TurkemenChay and Golestan treaty where I have the exact Persian text available, there is no mention of ceding Northern Azerbaijan (a term invented in the last century probably to dismember Iran whereas the majority of historical sources do not name that portion as Azerbaijan and neither do any maps from Tcazirst Russia as far as I have seen). Thus with regards to both Shapur and Qajar treaties we have primary sources which take precedence over Teriary sources. Same with Zoroaster's place of birth, we have secondary sources. (According to OR article: This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.). Although that is not issue, since some primary sources put him at Ragha, some at Azerbaijan, some at Balkh.. But in this case we simply do not know. --alidoostzadeh 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you are done with politics! What do the primary sources say about the time the official Azerbaijan province (that existed during the Qajar and then was split into separate provines or "shahrestan" etc) was created? So, you are not convinced though I understand Farsi, I can read and write Farsi (whatever you write) and I have also offered your voice verification. You are still not convinced becasue I can find Farsi speakers even to talk to you on the phone, right? Well, I am that person, howveer Farsi is a foreign language to me, as is English. My native language is Azerbaijani Turkish. I was born in the province of East Azerbaijan where I did not see any bit of Azerbaijani education however we had Tabriz broadcasting some jubberish Azerbaijani a couple of hours a day (mixed with Farsi to the limit of absurdity, especially to have further an effect into the dilution of Azerbaijani language). You are amazing that you still call me non-Iranian. This is typical Iranian paranoia. Roazir 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not see Azerbaijani education is because Azerbaijani has no official status in Iran and also I have brought my sources (like Persian being official or the Qajar quote and etc.). Iran is not the only country in the world that has one official school language. I am done discussing politics with you (how bad Iran is and how good Turkey is and etc). Now back to the issue, you had put: The rest of the Azerbaijani populated areas south of the Aras river was then made into an Iranian province and named Azerbaijan by the Qajar leadership of Iran.. Actually the name Azerbaijan as a province comes before the Turkoman-Chay and Golestan treaties and that is my point about that sentence. Qajars had four provinces Gorjestan, Armanestan, Shirwaanaat and Azerbaijan. Nakchiwan for example was considered part of Azerbaijan but Baku and Darband were considered Shirwaanaat. On the Russian-Qajar treaties what is mentioned is actually 17 cities of Qafqaz (caucus). --alidoostzadeh 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point that but yoiu said that primary sources take prevalence over other sources. I agree. What is your primary source in this case? There must have been some primary source mentions in this regard, right? If there isn't then the above sentence is OK. Where did I say Turkey is good and Iran is bad? By the way, did I become Iranian now? I said that Turkey is much more democratic than Iran. That is what I wrote. Kurds in Turkey are disciminated against as are minorities in Iran are discriminated against. I never said Turkey good Iran bad. That is funny. Please show me a source about the Qajar provinces prior to the separation of what is now republic of Azerbaijan. Not that I am denying what youa re saying. I simply don't know. If there are no sources to contradict what I had edited then the edit can be done. Roazir 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note your statement again where the part I have highlighted: The rest of the Azerbaijani populated areas south of the Aras river was then made into an Iranian province and named Azerbaijan by the Qajar leadership of Iran... Azerbaijan was already an Iranian province before Turkomen Chay and Golestan and not after. Do you agree? Azerbaijan was named Azerbaijan before the Qajar kings of Iran. This has to do with chronological order. The name goes way back to the Medes. Qajars had a province named Azerbaijan and thus they did not rename it to the same name. Thus it was named after the Russian-Qajar treaties. Also it was an Iranian province before the Russian-Qajar treaties, that is the Qajars held Azerbaijan before their wars with Russia... --alidoostzadeh 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean Ali. You are fogetting about the wording. Azerbaijan is a very old region, which was at times an official province and at times (like it is now) just a region. This is what that sentence is. Is it wrong? Azerbaijan is JUST a region now. Well, in fact it is an unofficial region and we shall mention this. But the Qajar turned the Turkic populated (majority, my guesswork) areas south of Aras into a PROVINCE. Before that there were warlords, or Khan, who ruled upon various parts of the region but there was no official PROVINCE. Roazir 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this was when Qajars took control from Zand before the Turkomen chay. --alidoostzadeh 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is there any source for that? I don't know, is there? I edited accordinh to what I found. If there is a more credible source then we can take that. Roazir 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. [21]. At the same time, ¿Abba@s M^rza@ was assigned the governorship of Azerbaijan; --alidoostzadeh 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ali, you are right. I would appreciate reading more of that Nasereddin Shah conversation with that poet. Where can I do that, if it is not too much of an incovenience to ask? I'd like that, just to learn more about history. You see, I am a NON-Iranian (according to you) who can read Farsi perfectly, so a Farsi source would be fine ;). Thanks! Roazir 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article about Mo'jaz Shabistari from the Iranian Azerbaijani scholar in a Persian journal. Mo'jaz was very secular (some say anti-Islam), but also wanted major reform in education and for women and modernization of Iran up to european standard. --alidoostzadeh 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two of us, so the king was indeed an idiot hahahaha! Roazir 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azari v. Azeri Proposal

As a native English speaker (and not knowing Persian), I must say that "Azari" looks odd because it is not standard English usage. While it may be the pronunciation and spelling used in some Middle Eastern languages, there is an English standard for the word, and that standard is "Azeri." This is English Wikipedia; if we were to enforce 'native' spelling throughout the articles on foreign topics would quickly become quite confusing. I had this problem with Orumiyeh in real life; I didn't realize that someone was referring to Lake Urmia. I imagine the potential for confusion is only greater for people who have no Iranian background whatsoever. I propose that political considerations be put aside to change all use of "Azari" to "Azeri" in accordance with English language standards. The Behnam 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I talked to Khoikhoi about something similar related to Abseron, but he said it didnt matter that much. So I guess Azari is fine.Azerbaijani 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I insist on Azari, it has already been used on Wiki and a search on Google returns several hundred thousand hits! English is a rich language with over two million words and people are used to different spelling for many words and names in their language so I am sure it will not be a big problem for them to add a new one to the list (and learn the correct spelling!). Kiumars 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Persian words appear on the internet; try searching mikonam. Most of the first few sets of results (I didn't bother checking more) that use Azari are in Iranian contexts because it is the usual Iranian word. But this is English encyclopedia. Have you tried searching for azeri in Google? I got nearly 7 million results. I'm rather certain that "Azeri" is the English standard. Typical dictionaries use it; for a quick look see here [22] versus [23]. So, why do you insist? It seems quaint to insist upon the non-standard English/non-English. There is no good reason to be improper when there is a proper alternative. Think about it. The Behnam 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam is right. English sources (English standard for words) use Azerbaijan and Azeri. By the way, why does the article try to link Azerbaijanis to the Fars people (Persians)? I discussed this with Ali (who has a lot of data) but this is just about cosmetics, and making the article neutral. This article is about Azerbaijan, and Iranian peoples are not Iranians becasue of DNA but becasue of citizenship. Why do we need to mention DNA? It is not neutrality. Roazir 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You should read the Iranian Peoples article. "Iranian" signifies Iranian citizenship, but "Iranian peoples" refers to ethnic similarities, often backed up by genetic similarities. The Behnam 10:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam, did you read my comment about Abşeron? Abşeronn is spelled using "ş" which is not even an English letter yet an administrator I talked to said it wasnt a big deal. Now, I dont care whether we use Azari or Azeri, but what I do care about is blowing small things out of proportion and causing edit wars. I just dont want this to go back and forth...Azerbaijani 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a case where there is no standard English word, as far as I can tell. But there is a standard English word on this matter, so I see no good reason to use "Azari" or "Azarbaijan." Thanks for the civil discussion. The Behnam 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 05:53, 25 February 2007; your ignorance really amazes me! “mikonam” is a Parsi word meaning “I do”, like “Man Shoma ra seda mikonam” or “Man ba shoma sohbat mikonam”, so it is not surprising that you come across lots of hit on the web because Iranians use Parsi to communicate on the web, as a matter of fact I myself only speak Parsi on the Iranian website! I hate speaking any other language but Iranian unless I have to! So a few of those hits you mentioned are mine!

BTW I don’t think any of us here has any authority or qualifications to make such important decisions and compromises. If you are really an expert then go and write an academic book and present your ideas to the experts to judge its merits! For all the reasons I mentioned above I (for my share) insist on Azari. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel and you will see that Britain and France have had the same arguments for centuries and arguments still is going on. We have no authority here to compromise on important historical names (Well at least I do not have such authority! Do you?). One of the theories behind the name of Azarbaijan is based on the Atashkadeh-ha that were built on natural gas fields of the area (and Azar means fire in Iranian languages). If the world is capable of calling the waterway between Britain and France by two different names then the world should be able to recognize two spelling for Azarbaijan (the correct one i.e. the Iranian spelling and the wrong one i.e. the Russian spelling!). Kiumars 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the meaning of "mikonam," but thanks User:Kiumars for the personal attack. I brought up "mikonam" as evidence that, like "Azari-", non-English words or Iran-only words are used on the internet. I am not an expert; that is why I provide evidence that "Azer-" is proper English since my word alone is not enough. This evidence definitely outweighs yours; "Azeri-" words are found in actual English dictionaries, millions of Google hits versus a few hundred thousand. You even admit that you are trying to simply put this word into the English language "I am sure it will not be a big problem for them to add a new one to the list". And I am willing to remove "Azar-" uses in Wikipedia as I find them. So none of your reasons for insisting stand. The English Channel is irrelevant; read the article and you will find that the article favors the English usage, probably because this is English Wikipedia. Compare to the French article [24], where the French word is primary. In light of these things, please reconsider the proposal, and prevent yourself from making personal attacks by managing your anger. Thanks. The Behnam 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you people arguing about? "Azari" is not even used in this article. Azarbaijan is used, and that gets hundreds of thousands of hits in English, so there is nothing wrong with it. Artaxiad 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, "The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians. They are followers of Shi'a Islam. There are also Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Jews, Georgians, and Persians." Also, my proposal applies to Azarbaijan, since the English standard is Azerbaijan. The Behnam 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam, I don't comprehend the exact reason for this "Azari" stuff, but I propose also changing all "Persian" to "Fars" becasue it seems much more appropriate and it is used much more in the English-speaking world and returns much more hits than Azari. Roazir 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a new proposal in a new section if you want, but just so you know, I will not support changing "Persian" to "Fars" at all. And I don't think anyone else here will. You see, "Persian" is an actual English word. "Fars", on the other hand, is only used in English to refer to the province itself, or, in the form of "Farsi", to refer to the language. It is not synonymous to "Persian". So, I don't think that your proposed proposal has any merit whatsoever. Sorry. The Behnam 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either but it is much worthier than Azari. Roazir 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that your proposal lacked merit, why did you bring it up? Is it because of this? I must tell you that you shouldn't be on Wikipedia to agitate other editors, so please consider a change in attitude. Thanks. The Behnam 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 23:54, 25 February 2007; can you tell me what kind of qualifications you have to support your statements? Do you have any academic qualification? Are you a known historian? Are you a respected scholar? Have you finished the high school? No? Why should I take what you say then? Wouldn’t you take me for a fool if I took what you say without even checking your qualifications? So tell us about yourself. Kiumars 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Don't harass me, seriously. Welcome to Wikipedia. My qualifications don't matter; my arguments do. Apparently, you cannot refute my arguments at all, and your personal attacks and harassment seeking personal information only make your defeat more apparent. I qualify my statements with arguments, and these I have amply provided. So please, don't dig a hole for yourself by attacking me instead of having a rational discussion of the proposal. Oh, and since your curious, there is a possibility that I have 15 doctoral degrees in a wide variety of fields, one being 'English word usage', all from top universities worldwide. Cheers. The Behnam 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 00:33, 26 February 2007; Harassment! Did I twist your wrist or put a gun to your head? I just asked you what kind of qualifications you had! Is that harassment to you? You need to grow up and fight like a man (Even if you find it difficult initially)! I know that qualification does not matter on Wiki and any high school drop can be an expert here! To refute your rubbish arguments I need to know if you are worth of my time but as you said yourself you are not worth it so why should I bother? BTW you are the one who is digging a hole for yourself! I have not even started to attack you but you pretend to be attacked! When I start attacking you will feel it in your bones! Meanwhile go and get some education! Kiumars 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To refute my "rubbish" arguments, all you need to do is refute them with better arguments. Instead, you attack me, and now you threaten me "When I start attacking you will feel it in your bones!" Again, please refrain from personal attacks, harassment, and incivility, and return to rational discussion of the proposal. My qualifications, however lofty they may be be, are not relevant here, so please discuss the proposal. By adhering to WP rules & trying to discuss the topic appropriately, I am "fighting like a man," so please do the same by acting in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia. Thanks. The Behnam 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about. Everyone calm down. This is not a major issue, why is everyone blowing something this small out of proportion? Everyone calm down, leaveit alone for awhile, and then come back to this subject. Its not that big of a deal, there isnt much difference betwee the "e" sound and "a" sound... I'm amazed that this discussion has gone on as long as it did... there is only one instance of the use of the term Azari, is this something you guys should be fighting over? Guys, please heed my experience with Abşeron and stop this needless bickering.Azerbaijani 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it expanded to include any "Azar-" usage. I can't control Kiumars behavior, but everyone else has been pretty cooperative so I see no reason to drop the debate. As far as Abseron goes, there is no actual English word for it, so it isn't analogous to this situation. There should be no harm in changing to "Azer-" to reflect proper English usage, so I don't see why this proposal has met resistance the way it has. But thanks again Azerbaijani for being reasonable about this situation. Perhaps we could go something like the English Channel article by placing parentheses in the beginning that mention the Persian spelling and "Azar-" transliteration while using the "Azer-" spelling throughout the article itself. The Behnam 01:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done so I don't see anything left except to change the "Azar-" to "Azer-" throughout. The Behnam 01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam 01:07, 26 February 2007; my time costs $100/hrs but your time seems to be free so it is up to you to convince me that you are worthy of my time and you have failed to do so so far! the main difference between you and me is that you try to hide behind anything you can but I am prepared to challenge anyone I am confronted with, so you be the judge which of us will be the winner at the end! I have been asked not to use certain words that have “J” in them but I have a feeling that you are one of those fucking “J”s! Right? Kiumars 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani 01:25, 26 February 2007; please let the conversation go on! Do we need to hide anything going on here? Let people see what is going on here! Kiumars 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiumars, does your time really cost $100 per hour??? You're rich man. For such an expensive man you really have a cheap attitude. YOu just used the "f" word. Behnam, I don't think I ever really wanted to aggitate anyone. If some people support "Azari" why wouldn't they support "Farsi" then? They are both almost the exact way they are pronounced in Iran. It is an argument, not a real proposal. Roazir 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiumars has been indefinitely banned, so the threat of blowing this out of proportion has ended. I think that the spelling change should be made. The Behnam 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason why I think Azarbaijan and Azerbaijan are used is to differentiate between the country and the region. I think it would cause a lot of confusion if we have Azerbaijan in the article, as many people would assume that it is speaking of the country. What do you think? You also have to keep in mind that people reading an article like this are not like you and me, who know about it, but people who are trying to learn about the subject. We need to keep things as clear as possible for the reader, because we, as the "experts", arent the ones who would come to this article for a learning lesson.Azerbaijani 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English for the region and the country has always been Azerbaijan; we should use it for both. No confusion is likely - and any case in which the single letter is the only difference should be rephrased anyway; the artificial transliteration Azarbaijan, which distorts the Farsi alphabet, should be avoided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please refer to http://www2.tabrizu.ac.ir/show.asp?id=1 .

"Tabriz, the capital city of Iranian province of East Azerbaijan..."

the spelling as you can see in latin-english is "Azerbaijan". Azarbaijan remains a respected alternative as mentioned in the beginning of the article. I understand the concern of distinguishing the two Azerbaijans but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is one remains Iranian, and the other as a independent republic / former soviet union. You don't see North and South Korea changing the spelling of "Korea". However if you insist we must use "Azarbaijan" throughout the article, then logically the article should be renamed to "Azarbaijan (Iran)". --- Farzinf 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please not that the term "South Azerbaijan", although in some cases maybe be considered a politically motivated statement, it is in common use amongst non-political, non-separatists as well. When distinguishing it from the republic of Azerbaijan, it is in fact the more commonly used term. Also also "Persian Azerbaijan" is not an appropriate name since "Persian" is a ethnicity in Iran. And the majority of Iran's Azerbaijan region is Azeri. "Persia" may have been the old name for Iran. However we do not call it Persia anymore. Calling the region "Persian Azerbaijan" for this reason would be like calling Kurdistan of Iraq "Babylonian Kurdistan". --- Farzinf 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have removed the statement bellow which is extremely POV. It states without truth in the turkification theory Iran's education system tries to sell.

"The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians. They are followers of Shi'a Islam. There are also Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Jews, Georgians, and Persians. "

That statement was the prelude to the genetic information. You should probably put it back. The Behnam 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this users edit. Please do not remove information Farzinf, also, do not add POV content. That is against Wikipedia policy.Azerbaijani 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state is a POV article for example calling it "Persian Azerbaijan" or especially the quote below:

""The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians. They are followers of Shi'a Islam. There are also Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Jews, Georgians, and Persians.""

The Turkification of Iranian Azeris is a theory and should not be stated as fact here. also no citations are used.

The information i added was not POV and i shall post it below here so you can see. please tell me which parts you found POV:

""Regardless within the Iranian Azeri community, the region is usually referred to as simply "Azerbaijan". "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan" are usually only used when a distinction needs to be made between the current Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran's Azerbaijan. Some will argue though that "South Azerbaijan" is not a politically motivated term since the republic of Azerbaijan was once apart of Iran. And "South Azerbaijan" neither suggest the Republic joining Iran, nor the Region joining the Republic.""

Along with the above I had corrected some spelling errors which you had also reverted. --- Farzinf 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced information is not POV. The Genetic study was conducted by an Iranian Azeri working for CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (which is a reputable Western University). Your information was all POV. The Turkification of Iranian Azeri's is no longer a theory, it is fact (even though there are still those you shun facts they dont like, such as pan Turkists, who still insist that we are ethnically Turkic).

This statement: The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians. They are followers of Shi'a Islam. There are also Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Jews, Georgians, and Persians. Is not POV, it is supported by a Cambridge University study. This is all POV:

"South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan" are usually only used when a distinction needs to be made between the current Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran's Azerbaijan. Some will argue though that "South Azerbaijan" is not a politically motivated term since the republic of Azerbaijan was once apart of Iran. And "South Azerbaijan" neither suggest the Republic joining Iran, nor the Region joining the Republic."Azerbaijani 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please do edit within the posts i make on the discussion page. You have also removed my signature above. and Please tell me which sentences you find POV and please describe why you find it as such.

POV means point of view. Everything you have said there is YOUR point of view, nothing academic.Azerbaijani 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of studies which suggest the origins of Azerbaijanis to be a Irano-Turko mix. Comparing the DNA of a Azerbaijani-turk and a Anatolian-turk and seeing that an Azerbaijani is closer to a Persian then an Anatolian-turk doesn't mean that Azerbaijanis have been turkified. Look at Turkmenis, Turkistanis, Kazakhstanis, they look different then Anatolian and Azerbaijani turks but all of them are still considered Turks since they are all apart of there own Turkic Branch. I have listed some sources below:

I hope this article gets the attention of a superior who will help bring the article to a fair, non-biast stance. I don't mind if a Turkification sectionis added so long as the reader gets all the persectives and not only the one Iran's education system is trying to sell.

1) "Azerbaijan: People", Encyclopedia Britannica (retrieved June 11, 2006)

2) An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992), ISBN 3-447-03274-X (retrieved June 8, 2006).

3) "Turkic Peoples", Encyclopedia Americana, volume 27, page 276. Grolier Inc., New York (1998) ISBN 0-7172-0130-9 (retrieved June 8, 2006).

--- Farzinf 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro re-worked

The current into contained some POV -- for example, it listed Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan, or Persian Azarbaijan in one line, and then in the second line added "the region is SOMETIMES called "Southern Azerbaijan or South Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani language: گوني آذربایجان, Güney Azərbaycan)" ^[1]^[2], which is immediately followed by a counter-argument. That's of course unfair -- first off, the term South(ern) Azerbaijan is nos popular and widely used as the above 3, and of course, if IRI can divide Azerbaijan (south of Araxes) into geographic and political-administrative entities of "Eastern Azerbaijan" and "West Azarbaijan", then the "north-south" analogy can be used too and should not result in ideological arguments.

Then, the fact that the name of Azerbaijan extended north of Araxes since ancient times has been discussed at length in other pages (such as History of the name Azerbaijan), and I've reflected that by adding several non-Azerbaijani authors (as opposed to the Iranian references, which quoted two Iranian researchers): "The contrarian viewpoint is based on numerous historic references that the name Azerbaijan has encompassed lands north and south of Araxes since the BC's^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]." --AdilBaguirov 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejman47, this is based on extensive discussions that have been held previously -- my intro is NPOV, there are no Azerbaijani authors listed (but there are Iranian one's, which makes it unbalanced), and the whole rationale is clearly expressed above. You should not be reverting pages, if you have any factual disagreement, please discuss it. Meanwhile, once again, do not be disruptive. --AdilBaguirov 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You 're intro is not NPOV, can you show me the consensus for your recent edit. You just copy-pasted your proposed intro in talk page and 10 minutes later you put it in the article. please stop thinking that you can fool other users.

The number of editors that favor a specific POV is not important but rationality and verifiability of their claims is important. and where is the list that both party is listed there?! and I think by saying "Azerbaijani" you mean people of republic of Azerbaijan not all the Azaris?, --Pejman47 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "consensus"?! There can be no concesus to an article full of misspellings, grammar errors, and unsubstantiated and POV statements. Pejman47, my re-work of the intro is NPOV and more in accordance with Wikipedia standards, you should not be reverting, like you always do. What is your problem with my intro? That I fixed one of the two "Iranian Azerbaijan" to "Iranian Azarbaijan"? Or that I made "Southern Azerbaijan" and "South Azerbaijan" in bold, like the "Iranian/Persian Azerbaijan", instead of italic? Or that I replaced the POV and unsubstantiated "sometimes called" to "also called"? To measure the prevalence of one term over the other, let's run the standard Google search and see.

Google search results today, March 1, 2007, for South(ern) Aze(/a)rbaijan:

about 58,700,000 for south azerbaijan

about 35,500,000 for southern azerbaijan

about 116,000 for south azarbaijan

about 30,200 for southern azarbaijan

vs. Iranian/Persian Aze(/a)rbaijan:

about 1,350,000 for persian azerbaijan

about 169,000 for iranian azarbaijan

about 81,100 for persian azarbaijan

about 58,600,000 for iranian azerbaijan

As you see, the "sometimes" you defend so vigorously is completely POV and misplaced, as the true, correct and verifiable fact is that South Azerbaijan is more popular and more relevant, hence more applicable according to Wikipedia rules. As such, we should place it FIRST in the list, and indeed rename the article to "South Azerbaijan", whilst leaving a re-direct from the current page.

Then, what is your problem with: "The contrarian viewpoint is based on numerous historic references that the name Azerbaijan has encompassed lands north and south of Araxes since the BC's"^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12]. All those citations are academic, verifiable and authoritative -- how dare you remove them?

Finally, Kavekh Farrokh is POV and is an Iranian source, we should not be using POV sources at all. Same applies to Dr. Enayatollah Reza, who is Iranian, and who in his interview to an Iranian newspaper, can't even quote Prof. V.V.Bartol'd correctly.

Even POV source of Iran Chamber Society writes: "Of course, Tabriz, the capital of South Azarbaijan..." [25]

In the process of your blind revert, you've also brought back all the misspellings like "equpiments", "vehchile", "dinstinct", and Republic with a small "r", not to mention spelling "Azarbaijan" everywhere, despite the obvious preferrence of Azerbaijan by the article (even the name of the article is Azerbaijan). --AdilBaguirov 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole intro was POV and OR. Its also funny that you are still selectively quoting. That article written for Iran Chamber by Reza Ordoubadian also says that Tabriz is a Persian city, as well as Baku, and the whole point of that essay is to show that Azeri's as well as Azerbaijan are not ethnically Turkic or Turk lands... Stop your selective quoting. The term South Azerbaijan is highly incorrect. Keep your POV and OR out of this article.Azerbaijani 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Azerbaijani, your typical accusatory style is noted, as is your inability to debate, resorting to disruptive editing and reverts. The POV and OR are that of Pejman47, and any other editor who reverts to an inferior and clearly POV version of the article. I've made my case and laid out all the facts, whilst you and Pejman47 are unable to justify your reverts and accusations. I will ask to revert the article back and demand involvement by administrators. --AdilBaguirov 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil there is no primary source that Azerbaijan reflects the bulk area of republic of Azerbaijan before Islam. Indeed Albania, Balaskan ..etc. were not part of Azerbaijan in the Sassanid era. And we are talking about ancient sources than why not mention Ibn Hawqal puts Tabriz as Armenia or the many sources that put Arran as Armenia? By this unreasonable logic, we should mention Armenia because Ibn Haqwal and some other authors put portions of Azerbaijan there. I think that is why we made an entry history of the name of Azerbaijan exactly for such discussion. So that there is only one article. Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan also did not name their state Azerbaijan. They controlled a mini-empire where the bulk of it was part of Azerbaijan. We also have Atabkan-e-Maragheh. Note in the Iranica article: ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚD¨ARBAÚYÔAÚN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arran and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians.... East and West Azerbaijan are official names by Iranian government and they are recognized world-wide officially. Also Great Soviet Encyclopedia also says musavites were pan-turkists and USSR sources are not really unbiased when it comes to political matters. It was during the time of USSR when the term South Azerbaijan was propagated. What is factual is that the term South Azerbaijan (Guney Azerbaijan) did not exist until the last century and is not an official term in Iran. Also much more sources consider Albania/Arran different than Azerbaijan and there is many that for example consider Arran/Albania as part of Armenia. That is for the history of the name of Azerbaijan article. Also the google results put : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Southern+Azerbaijan%22&btnG=Search (Southern Azerbaijan 23700) and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Iranian+Azerbaijan%22&btnG=Search (about 29,500) where-as Southern Azerbaijan could mean South of republic of Azerbaijan, south of Iranian Azerbaijan, and etc. Note the article on Karabagh: [26], there is no mention of Artsakh as being official or semi-offical name since it is not an official name and there shouldn't be either. East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan are official names. South Azerbaijan is not an official name. My suggestion is: Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan, also Iranian Azarbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan, or Persian Azarbaijan (Persian: آذربایجان ایران; Āzārbāijān-e Irān; Azarbaijani language: آذربایجان), is a region in northwestern Iran and south of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. . Or simpler: Azerbaijan in Iran bordering.... Then: For the background and etymology of this name see [history of the name Azerbaijan]. Actually the article has a problem since Azerbaijan is not an official territory. So Azerbaijan is a cultural nomeclature which refers to East Azerbaijan and...etc. --alidoostzadeh 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think there is an article on the history of the name zerbaijan. We need to remove the debate to there totally." -- Ali doostzadeh. Ali, please use the field provided for an "Edit Summary". Further you obviously re-added the statement which mine followed; thinking it had been something I'd written. --- Farzinf 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: History Section

This dispute is about the editing of history section, particularly a part concerning the aftermath of the fall of the Government established by the Soviet Union in Iranian Azerbaijan in 1945-1946. For more information on the dispute please see the following sections on this talk page "History Section" [27] and "Atabaki Quote [28]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I believe that the information which I tried to insert [29] is pertaining to this page and well-referenced. My opponent says that my quotation is not complete. I don't mind to mention the rest of quotation in a brief form just I did. My opponent argues that all sources which does not suit his POV are not reliable. He questions Amnesty International reliability. He also argues that my edit should be moved to page on human rights in Iran. Since this page talks about the history of the region, it is important to show most important events and briefly describe the current situation in the region.--Dacy69 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable that alidoostzadeh in his lengthy comments again put allegations in pan-tirkism and anti-iranianism rather than concentrate on edit itself, and dumping references which does not suit his POV. I leave the third party to judge the sources, edit text and ready to discuss further the text rather than to make accusation about another user. And while alidoostzadeh mentiones that I am in Arbcom (indeed I am, and I made a number of steps in DR processes, including mediation offer on this page which was declined by alidoostzadeh) I should note that alidoostzadeh during discussion on this page threatened to launch edit revenge on other Azerbaijani related pages [30], [31] and [32] --Dacy69 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy comments which you, Ali, made below, would not help to supress an opinion. You can not throw away sources by accusing them being anti-Iranian. Your quotation of Atabaki does not denies mine. It is the same book. Besides, in Brenda Shaffer book we can find similar information. Of course your resenment of Shaffer's book has no academic ground because her book received positive review in academic journals. Even an Armenian scholar Gregor Suni praised that book. Also - I shall note that your constant reference to Talysh and Lezgis in Azerbaijan is just lame attempt to evade discussion and third-opinion here. You can discuss their situation on the relevant page about Talysh and Lezgies if you can find appropriate quotes. But surely, their situation can not be compared with minorities in Iran. Talysh, Lezgies in Azerbaijan can teach, learn their languages in schools, print newspapers, have radio channels, etc. But this is not topic for discussion here, anyway. And please refrain from accusing your opponents of being pan-Turkist. You don't know their background, at least mine. This is one of my ancestors' land [33] - page which I created. It requires no additional comment to put all your pan-Turkist accusation aside.--Dacy69 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Shaffer critism are based either on Armenian or Iranian sources which are definitely POV. And you again by lengthy comments on Talysh and situation of Azeris in Iran tryies to deviate from the subject. I believe that such organizations like HRW and Amnesty much more reputable and neutral than Iranian official propaganda so nicely represented here by you. And the case in Arbcom does not mean that pages can not be edited or mediated. Please get acquainted with Wiki rules. And this should be addressed to you actually: The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.So, we state various views and a reader will judge--Dacy69 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please paste your comments here - this information for alidoostzadeh

There seems to be two issues here. But before starting, I would to mention that the user above has been accused of being disruptive in Wikipedia and that is why he is in Arbcomm [34]. Thus even going through a long RFC right now is a potential waste of my time given the fact that the future of the account of this particular user is in serious question due to alleged violation of Wikipedia rules. But I will provide one long response although I will wait for the outcome of Arbcomm before continuation.

One on Amnesty international and Irans human rights violation. Now there is two sides to the story and there are many sources that pan-turkists groups are actively courted by foreign backers[35]. The issue is very complicated. Lets note the first name mentioned: [36]. Now the person Abbas Lisani is well know racist by his own letters. Note the following racist letter in Persian from Abbas Lesani which is quoted in pan-turkist site: [37]. He claims the Shi'i regime is giving Kurds west Azerbaijan and is clearly racist towards Kurds , Persians and probably Armenians. He was arrested for organizing a riot and breaking windows. Also Amnesty is mistaken and there are many Azeri publications in Iran and I can list many of them. Those the information and counter information should be put in the article of human rights in Iran and not take up an space which does not belong here. A specialized article like human rights with Iran with the Azeri section provides room for providing information and counter information. For example how Irans supreme leader is Azeri. Or how it was Azerbaijanis who made Persian as the official language in 1906. I have statements from pan-turkists sites that they were happy during the earthquake in Bam. I have pictures of pan-turkists burning Shahnameh since Ferdowsi was an Iranian nationalist 1000 years ago. I have many hate statements from pan-turkists all over the internet. I have lots of anti-Persian, Anti-Kurdish, Anti-Armenian statements from pan-turkists and Chehregani's group Gamoh and etc. These are pan-turkists who are member of grey wolf and other parties and who are highly racist. Now should we put all that information in this article as well? Then what is the purpose of this article which is different from an article on Human rights in Iran?

On the second issue it has to do with the fall of the USSR created government in 1946. Again note there are specialized articles dealing with this issue.[38] [39].

First I will quote three full tenured professors before examinaning the quote by Dacy69 from a non-scholar who visited the area in 1950. I will note from another article: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. See: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. [40].

In the book: Muslim Communities Reemerge: Historical Perspectives on Nationality, Politics, and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (Central Asia Book Series) (Paperback) by Andreas Kappeler (Editor), Andreas Kappeler (Editor), Gerog Brunner (Editor), Gerhard Simon (Editor) , Duke University Press; English Su edition (December 1994), there is an article by Professor

The isolationist disposition of Soviet Azerbaijani nationalism came to a sudden end with the changed circumstances of history. In 1941, upon the outbreak of the war with Germany, Soviet forces temporarily occu¬pied northern Iran. Inevitably, the Red Army's presence became a fact of political life in Iran, and the Soviets' moves reflected their thinking on that country. As had been the case in dealing with their own Muslims, the Soviets set their stakes on the nationality principle. Their apparent assumption was that national identities of the non-Persians inhabiting Iran—the Azerbaiianis, Kurds, Turkmens, Baluchis, and Arabs—would reassert themselves over sectarian or dynastic loyalties that formed the fabric of the Iranian state. During World War II the focal point of the Soviet Iranian policy was Southern Azerbaijan. Here, hosts of civilian ad¬visers who came from Baku to assist the military occupation authorities, worked on awakening the sense of nationality among Iranian Azerbai-janis. Reversing the Pahlavi assimilationist drive, they set up Azerbaijani language schools and newspapers and organized theatrical performances, while by no means neglecting political agitation. In their work for the Soviet foreign policy goals, they were also motivated by the revived spirit of Azerbaijani unity, a profound experience in the life of a generation, which was amply echoed in the literature. A new element was infused into the Soviet Azerbaijani nationalism at a time when it had already been consolidated—irredentism, which would be in evidence constantly from now on, in various degrees of intensity. By the end of 1945 the Soviet-backed Democratic Party of Azerbaijan proclaimed in Tabriz the autonomous Azerbaijani Republic, nominally a part of Iran. Apart from self-government and land reform, the main point in the party's program was the recognition of Azerbaijani as the official language in the republic. As it turned out, the Soviets had to recognize that their ideas on Iran were premature. The issue of Iranian Azerbaijan became one of the open¬ing skirmishes of the Cold War, and, largely under the Western powers' pressure, Soviet forces withdrew in 1946. The autonomous republic col¬lapsed soon afterward, and the members of the Democratic Party took V refuge in the Soviet Union, fleeing Iranian revenge. In Tabriz, the crowds that had just recently applauded the autonomous republic were now greeting the returning Iranian troops, and Azerbaijani students publicly burned their native-language textbooks. The mass of the population was obviously not ready even for a regional self-government so long as it smacked of separatism. Soviet attempts to loosen the ties of South¬ern Azerbaijan to the Iranian state backfired, and the effect was general weakening of Moscow's influence throughout Iran.’’

Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski is very well known scholar in the field and is quoted in many Azerbaijani related articles.

“On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Indeed the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred dominination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective.Gary. R. Hess Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 1 (March., 1974). Professor Gary Hess is well known.

Third Source is Professor Atabaki himself. Actually Professor Atabaki first quotes the British embassy which reports that 400 people were killed (virtually all Ferqeh) and he agrees that Ferqeh went away without a headache. He mentions other reports that the fall of Ferqeh was very quick. Then he quotes another report from douglass which is in the minority viewpoint. He goes with the majority report that Ferqeh fell swiftly. Now we have reports from many people who lived in the Ferqeh era and their biographries including the former minister of Ferqeh. Thus choosing one report and ignoring other reports is definitely not scholarly. tabaki quotes British embassy of 400 people and Iranian numbers are 800. He mentions the sudden and complete submission of Ferqeh(pg 175). Of course these were mainly Azerbaijanis getting rid of Ferqeh members as mentioned by Tadeusz Swietochowski . Whereas the leaders and bulk of Ferqeh just fled to the USSR. Note the line previous: The Iranian army had prepared itself to face stiff resistance but to everyone's suprise the army did not encounter any serious barriers in establishing its authority on the province. (Atabaki) Thus I am surprised this was not quoted by Dac69! Also the source by Professor Atabaki is not the view of Professor Atabaki. That is why he says:’’The Iranian army had prepared itself itself to face stiff resistance from the Democrats (my comment: that was the name of their party although Stalin and their backers as well Gholam yahya who hanged people on trees was anything but a democrat) over an extended period of time, but, to everyone’s surprise, the army did not encounter any serious barriers to establishing its authority in the province. There were only few isolated cases of Azerbaijani armed resistance. However, according to some description and then Dacy69’s quote. What is interesting is that Dacy69’s view is not shared by Professors Atabaki, Swietschowski and Hess. Furthermore the actual source of dacy69 is from William Dougless. William Douglass was a judge from the US and not a scholar or Professor. Two he visited Iranian Azerbaijan in 1950 and not 1945-1946 (during the conflict). Thus he was not an eyewitness. I have reports from eye-witness accounts of how Ferqeh was and it contradicts Douglass. Interestingly Douglass says the people of Azerbaijan are Persian, but I do not consider him a scholar in this regard. The matter as you can see is longer than just one POV sentence which is not the opinion of scholars and not the opinion shared by Atabeki. Thus that is why there are special articles about Peeshevari and Ferqeh and this article is not it. We just simply mentioned the one year of Ferqeh in power and the rest is for the Ferqeh article. The current article is about a region which has 3000 years of history. Since there is an article on Ferqeh where every single detail can be discussed , there is no need to go over every single detail here. And specially the insertion of POV sentence not shared by any of these three scholars I mentioned.--alidoostzadeh 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futher comment the user claims: [[41]] [[[42]]] are threats for edit revenge. No they are not if anyone reads them .And as per this [[43]] I was suprised why the user is not concerned about the Talysh, Lezgis or other minorities in his own country where lots of sources are found in this regard. He did not discuss his edits at the talk page first. And I said, I am not here to start an edit war very clearly, but why he is starting one? My principle stance is that when there is an article dealing with a complicated issue, it should not be brought into multiple articles where one line POV statement is forked(and not supported by the three Professors including Atabaki). I also note : [POV Fork| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks]: A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. . Note there are two articles dealing with this complicated issue as mentioned and also: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I have three full recognized professors versus a non-eye witness vistor. I am not going to comment about this Rfc while the future account of the user is not clear due to him currently being in Arbcomm. --alidoostzadeh 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy69, anyone can claim to be from any town over the internet. It does not necessarily make it true since there is no way to verify.

As per Shaffer, she is a post-doc. Two full Professors (and one does not become a Full professor overnight) have rightfully criticized her book. ::: [[44]]

[[45]]. Note a post-doc lacks academic qualification, but besides that, her reputation is gone with such articles as these: [46] as well this source [[47]] (note I do not care about this being an armenian website but the part about her organizing with a separatist group is notable) where she joints with a separatista poltical group called WAC [48]. She is obviously a right winger and not a NPOV source. Interestingly enough, there was a quote from one WAC member posed by an Iranian political party which shocked lots of Iranians. (that can be found as well..). Shaffer is a scholar for hire as the article says. Interestingly enough Shaffer does quote Atabeki on variety of stuff but Atabeki repudiates her like most Iranian Azerbaijani people. And also nice try to get me angry, perhaps thinking I'll join you in Arbcomm but it won't work. With regards to Talysh human rights, sure I have read and have copied and access to my sources, but I am not inclined like editing any article with this regard. Unlike you I am not here to provoke ethnic conflicts in wikipedia (look where it got some people in arbcomm where they will either be banned or lack full wiki privilidges). As per you claims, I'll counter it. Azerbaijanis in Iran have t.v. stations, university level courses, summer courses, printing press, music and etc. There has even been a pan-turkist journal called varliq which publishes in Azeri, criticizes everything from Cyrus the great to Ferdowsi and etc. and the government doesn't care. Its been running since pretty much the early days of revolution. Lets say about 20 years. How many journals are there about Talysh people in Talysh language that have been running for 20 years? Here is an official Iranian government site broadcasting in Azeri [49]. Is there official Talysh broadcast on the internet? Have you seen the movie Marmulak? Made in Iran, but an Iranian Azeri and it has many parts in Azeri. [50]. There was a series called Bajanaqlar which was broadcast throughout the country (and not just in Azeri regions). Shahryar the poets birthday is celebrated as the official day of poetry. I have sources for all these as well. As well how Azerbaijani's do in the economic and political sphere relative to say Talysh in Azerbaijan. Now the official language is legaly Persian (1906 constitutional revolution) and 1979 constitution. Many countries have official language. France has French for example. The government of Irans law is clear. Any language in Iran is free, but Persian is official and that is simply the law right now which was based on 1906 (Qajar era) where Persian was made official and even if one is against this law or disagrees with it, then it should be changed through votes. And btw in 1890 the population of Iran was 6 mil and 1/6 was listed as tatar (which means Turkemens were included with Azeris) according to lord cruzon using Russian data. Currently it is about the same 1/6 to 1/5 ratio. Now the number of Talysh in 1989 in Azerbaijan was 29000 , while in an official census in 1931 it was 90000 and right now the government claims it is about 80 something thousand. Even at that time, Miller writes: out of 16688 people in Lenkoran, majority are Talysh but they have officialy claimed all of them as Azeri Turk... Also in 1926 there was about 1.2 million Azeris. So the Azeri population has increased by 6 times. Now how is it that the Talysh population has been reduced. (Note I have lots of unbiased reports about undercounting as well)[[51][52] and much more and they are by say Svante. E. Cornell. In 1970 census no Talysh was listed! Personally I believe each user from each country (and specially nationalists users) needs todeal with its own citizen take care of its own human rights affair. Dealing with GM, Adil and Atabek can sometimes get difficult but I admire the fact that these users try to minimize (or sometimes do their best) any Iranian-Azerbaijani republic issues (perhaps unlike the azerbaijani-armenian issue which is more understandable since the was a full scale war recently). That is why when user Azerbaijani tried to keep putting rasulzadeh being a pan-turk or not (and I do not care or know if he was one or not) in Azerbaijan republic and I asked him not to do a POV fork there. Discuss it in its own relevant article. Now going back to the RFC, as I said you are doing a POV fork since two extensive articles already exist with regards to Pishevari and Ferqeh and its rise and fall are there and your only source is 1949 none-eye-witness account (and it will be listed as such in any ferqeh article) which Professor Atabaki does not agree with and Professor Atabaki quotes British embassy that 400 ferqeh members were killed, the part you forgot to mention and also alongside the quotes I brought by other scholars, this all makes the issue relevant to its own special article. I would read these: [53] and [54]. Note there is no need to suppress information (although your information was not explained as I have explained it much better now by fulling quoting Atbakai and his references and have shown that your viewpoint is not accepted by three Full Professors including Atabaki), but the information should be put in its relevant article in order not to create POV forks. I will point to [[55]] this again. I have no problem even with a minority viewpoint in an article on Ferqeh. But a POV fork in this article which is totally different does not seem like an acceptable wiki behavior. Specially a POV fork which does not mention the tons of quotes which I brought from the full professors who are very relevant to the field and note again there are two articles on Ferqeh. Note from Wiki policy: The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.. Note these two articles: [56], [57]. As per the RFC comments, until your account with arbcomm is cleared up, there is no use for any mediator or person to engange in this conversation. Including myself. But I needed to clearup some misconceptions with regards to some other issues you brought up (scholar for hire and etc..).. --alidoostzadeh 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FULL Professor. Evan Siegel is not Armenian or Iranian. Read his criticism of Shaffer where Shaffer misquotes, plagarizes and makes up false statements. Also Ken Silverstein is not Armenian or Iranian. [58].

As per Professor. Atabaki, he must be reliable by your criterion since Shaffer the post-doc whom you consider reliable quotes him but then he repudiates Shaffer, who is a post-doc. Plus Shaffer by the fact that she writes anti-Iran articles about Irans nuke program can not be a unbiased source with regards to any Iran manner. Look at the title of one of her articles 4). Shaffer, Brenda. "If Iran is Not Checked, Nuclear Terror is Next: America Needs a Plan." The International Herald Tribune (9 August 2004). . Here is another one: Shaffer, Brenda. "Leaning on Iran Not to Make Nukes: A Test for the World." The International Herald Tribune (22 September 2003). . One does not have to be a dummy to see what is going on: [59].

But thanks for providing another proof of racism by claiming that Professor Evan Siegel must be Iranian or Armenian. Perhaps you can call him Siegelian so his jewish background is turned Armenian. How is that. And note that section you highlighted:The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.. Note ONE ARTICLE. And those articles are the Ferqeh (ADR) article and Pishevari article which is already two articles! You can not insert a one line minority POV in an unrelated article. [[60]]. Or else you can attempt to rename this article to ADR or Pishevari, since it is not wiki policy to have multiple articles on the same subject. As per human rights articles on that exist as well Human rights in Iran and I believe there is one on Human rights in Azerbaijan republic. Edits with regards to human rights need to have the whole background and should be put there. Again as long as you are in arbcomm, there is no reason for a 3rd party to comment and I do not need to comment either, but I had to clear up some issues with regards to wiki policy. --alidoostzadeh 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (For third party opinion)

Claim & claim to the contrary

I notice an edit war over the inclusion of a response to the Iranian theory. It is only fair to include the opposing side's view as well, so the inclusion should be permitted. Neutrality & proper weight is important, of course, so both sides should be represented as claims. No side should be portrayed as "the truth" while the other side is simply "a claim," because the issue is definitely not so clear cut. So, include the opposing view, and simply neutralize the wording. Same thing for the current view, the 'Iranian theory'. If both sides are presented neutrally there should be no problem here. The Behnam 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i concur. Khoikhoi's persistent reversions are also replacing such -er- novel spellings as "equpiments" and "dinstinct". Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction has nothing to do with ananian theory. The sources Pmanderson is using are being misinterpreted, or he is making use of sources written in this century. He might as well use a UN map to justify his claim... it makes no sense. Also, the term South Azerbaijan is only 60-70 years old. If these two regions were indeed one, there would be atleast one text after the Russian take over of the Caucasus that referred to Iranian Azerbaijan as "South Azerbaijan".Azerbaijani 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best way to resolve such an issue which has appeared in many articles related to the word Azerbaijan is simply to put the controversial stuff in history of the name Azerbaijan. For example there is no need to put in main Azerbaijan [61] that a good deal of sources consider it Arran or even some consider it Armenia. Likewise the name Souther Azerbaijan is not official name. [62][[63]]. It is like putting Ibn Wazih Yaqubi or Ibn Fiqiyeh considered the territory of modern day Azerbaijan as part of Armenia. I think the article should start with: Azerbaijan in Iran is a non-official name which encompasses East Azerbaijan, Ardabil..etc. for the history and geographical boundaries of this name see [history of the name azerbaijan article].. pretty much like the article with Azerbaijan republic. The issue is much more complicated than insertion of one or two POV forks. --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a relegation to the appropriate page as well, similar to our decision at Azerbaijan. However, if any of the views are included here, it is only fair to include both. If you think that the issue isn't necessary to mention on this page, it is best to keep all of the controversy at the 'history of the name Azerbaijan' page. Of course, both sides should received fair representation on that page as well, but as far as this page goes, it is acceptable that the controversial views be left elsewhere. The Behnam 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I totally agree. This is what we did long time with the republic of Azerbaijan page when there was that Arran/Azerbaijan issue and it seems to have gotten rid of all the edit wars. And again we did this in the case of Rasulzadeh (which was not an interest of mine, but I did not see the purpose of having debate about him in multiple pages) as well again since now the Azerbaijan republic page is not being vandalized and at least the debate is kept in one article where both sides can give their view. So I think editors need to reach concensus with this regard. Adding for example Azerbaijan republic is part of Armenia due to some historical sources or using the term Southern Azerbaijan which was created in the last century and was politically motivated according to some sources or etc.. is really just one POV. There are other POVs. In fact there are many many POVs. Just like Artsakh for example is not official in the republic of Azerbaijan. It is similar issue here, and instead of discussing the region, people will be copying and pasting everything they like (not dislike) from [64] into whatever suits their need which is the last thing that is needed and I think responsible wikipedians need to minimize conflicts and edit wars. Thus I think the suggestion is the best to minimize conflicts about an issue that should be discussed in one article only. --alidoostzadeh 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while it's not correct to say that the term South(ern) Azerbaijan is 60 or 70 years old (Arab geographer al-Yagubi mentions "Upper Azerbaijan" in reference to Barda, a city north of Araxes, at the same time it's not relevant. 60 years old or 600 years old, it deserves to be mentioned. And since it's more popular than other references (according to Google searches), that what the name of the article should be. The Wikipedia policy is that of verifiability, not something else. Also, citing an Iranian source, like Dr. Touraj Atabaki, is not really NPOV. By such measure, Dr. Brenda Shaffer is more NPOV, as she is neither Azerbaijani/Turkish, nor Persian/Iranian. But most importantly, the reverts being made have little to do with the debates here -- all I've done was improve on the existing edit, which was too POV as outlined in the justification above. --AdilBaguirov 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional major pro for usage of South/North Azerbaijan as opposed to Iranian/Persian/Soviet/Russian. The former usage (South/North Azerbaijan) is purely geographic and at the same time more historic (e.g., al-Yaqubi who died in 897), and is consistent with the IRI's own territorial-administrative division of South Azerbaijan into West Azarbaijan province and East Azarbaijan province (and splitting of Ardabil from East Azerbaijan province in 1993, making this part of Azerbaijan a separate province). Hence, if IRI has the right to do that, and all Iranian expatriats, citizens of USA and other countries, gladly refer to it like this, then certainly the term used by scholars and Azerbaijanis themselves (even if only for 70 or 60 years -- or even for 10 years) has at the very least an equal right to be featured and used. Meanwhile, the latter (Iranian/Persian/Soviet/Russian) usage was/is purely political, outdated/incorrect, and racist. For starters, North Azerbaijan does not belong to either USSR (which doesn't even exist anymore), or to Russia -- hence, calling North Azerbaijan as "Soviet/Russian" is an anachronism today. It was still OK in the 1990s -- just like the terms "Newly Independent States (NIS)" or "Former Soviet Union (FSU) republics") -- but not today, when an entire generation was born and raised since December 25, 1991. Meanwhile, calling South Azerbaijan as "Persian" is also both outdated (as Iran is not called Persia since 1935, and even then, Persia was just a simplistic naming of Iran by the outsiders, people of the country and its rulers called it differently -- "Iran" or by the name of the ruling dynasty (dowlat-e Qajar/Afshar/Sefevi), like is the case with China, etc) and racist (as Persians are a different people both linguistically and ethnically). That leaves only "Iranian Azerbaijan", which while I personally do not object to, at the same time is inconsistent, since if the Azerbaijan north of Araxes is rightfully labeled "North(ern) Azerbaijan", then obviously there must also be "South(ern) Azerbaijan". This, by the way, is also consistent with the terminology for the other two Caucasian republics -- Easter/Western Georgia, Eastern/Western Armenia (plus Armenia has the "Greater" and "Minor" labels too, which in case of former claims major parts of Iran).

Pay attention to this source: [65] "He was to die childless ten years later, upon which South Azerbaijan broke away from the caliphate under the Rawadids -- this time for good" (p. 56). Just a few sentences later: "He honoured the Mihranids, who still ruled over their small pocket between the Kura and Upper Karabakh, by renaming his realm Arran after the Albania of old, and promised to respect the rights of the Albanian clergy -- in exchange for their submission, that is" (pp. 56-57).

Also, [66]: footnote 10. --AdilBaguirov 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil, I have access (if needed to check) to the Arabic version of Ahmad ibn Yaqubi Buldan and Baladhuri's Futuh Al-Buldan and also Tarikh-e-Yaqubi. Can you give the relavent section from Ahmad ibn Yaqubi? Maybe we are talking about the wrong Yaqubi, but I notice in one passage Baladhuri differentiates between Azerbaijan and Mughan in Fotuh-al-Buldan. I also access to Ibn Wazih Yaqubi from Ahmad Ibn Yaqubi who wrote Buldan. He says: “ Armenia is divided into three portions. The first part contains Khelaat, Shamshaat and what is in between them. The second part is Kharzan and Tiflis and the Bab- Al-Alan and what is between them. The third part contains the province of Aran and Beylaghan and Darband”

Ahmad ebn Yaghubi, “ibn wazih Yaqubi”, Al-Buldan, translation by Muhammad Ibrahim Ayati, Tehran 1356 (1984)

Original Arabic can be brought upon further request and I will examine it soon to see what Yaqubi says since I found a statement from his Tarikh-e- Ibn Yaqubi that puts Arran as part of Armenia.

As per Brenda Shaffer, she is a just post-doc. But more importantly she was caught falsifying stuff in her book by Full professor Evan Siegel (not mentioning Atabaki here). But going further, some sources have called Shaffer who is post-doc as a scholar for hire. [67]. All of her scholars appear in neo-conservative journals which are against Iran. Either way she is a post-doc, not even an assistant professor. (In defending his own program Starr wrote in one email, “fyi: Harvard's Caspian Studies Program receives a lot of money from both the oil companies and from some of the governments.” ). (As I had previously reported, the Caspian Studies Program (CSP) was launched in 1999 with a $1 million grant from the United States‒Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) and a consortium of companies led by ExxonMobil and Chevron. The program's other funders include Amerada Hess Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Unocal, and Glencore International.). (“intensified U.S. activity in the region, and the recognition of the importance of the area to the pursuit of U.S. national interests")..Even if all these allegations which are from a 3rd party are not true, she is just a post-doc.

The other book you mentioned has this forward: [68]. The forward shows partiality, but furthermore I would like to ask if the author Charles van der Leeuw is a Professor and what are his academic credentials? What are his academic qualifations and he is from what University? Also there might be authors (even Professors) who have referred to Albania as eastern Armenia and etc. The long debates about the history of the name of Azerbaijan should not be included in this article. I have removed the part because the name southern Azerbaijan is a product of last century, leaving this matter for the more specialized article. I think debates about these territories and nomenclature mainly get heated because users do not use all the variety of sources and only look at the few that interests them. Thus a pro-Armenian source would mention my Yaqubi quote, a pro-Azerbaijani source will mention the one quote from Ba'lami while ignoring the other quote of Ba'lami and a pro-Iranian source might mention the other quote from Ba'lami. If we are talking with the right Yaqubi, he differentiates clearly between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Buldan. --alidoostzadeh 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene

I would appreciate a source which denies that Atropatene and Azerbaijan are kindred words.

The name Azerbaijan is not a product of the last century; the Ninth edition of the Britannica uses it, as of 1886; does this mean the nineteenth century - and if so it still requires a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene was the region below the Araxes, as said by Strabo. You are getting all of your sources confused. Atropatene is the source word for Azerbaijan. The term "South Azerbaijan" is a half century old, and was created by the Soviets. The land above the Araxes has not been called Azerbaijan instead for a few instances, and those instances also included the whole Caucasus as well.Azerbaijani 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"republic of Azerbaijan has not been called Azerbaijan" (?) what is your source for this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene, so spelled, is a Greek adaption of an unknown (presumably Median) word. There are conjectures about what that word was and meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is very clear and the word is directly in Avesta. In Pahlavi it is Adharbaad and there are famous zoroastrians priests with that name during Sassanid times. Also please see my suggestion above where debate about the name Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan republic, Albania, South Azerbaijan, Armenia encompassing Tabriz or Albania and all that one-dimensional view stuff be put in the relevant article that was created for this. --alidoostzadeh 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still unclear to me whether Ali is alleging that

Persia ended at the Aras in the eighteenth century, or
The territories north of the Aras were not called "Azerbaijan".

Neither assertion is sourced; both are contradicted by reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatena extended to include Naxcivan and possibly other lands north of Araxes -- this is clearly said not only by Russian and Soviet (non-Azerbaijani) sources, but also by academician Iqrar Aliyev, an ethnic Talysh, who is very much loved and respected in Iran. I've brought his quotes about that before, and can do that again if needed. Meanwhile, for user "Azerbaijani": Strabo, who never visited the region and did not possess modern maps with reliable deliniations of rivers, etc., clearly said that Caucasian Albanians and other indiginous population served in Atropates army -- which means they had at the very least some close political agreement, although most likely were under a loose and nominal dependence from Atropatena. Then during the Arab period there are many references that make it clear that the geographic concept of Azerbaijan extended north of Araxes. And it's not a coincidence that the Ildezid Atabek State was called Azerbaijan (and identified as such in historic sources, including the cited Iranica article) - even though their powerbase was Naxcivan, and their second most important city was Ganja -- both in North Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, unlike what some say, the term North or South Azerbaijan was already used by Arabs, for example, geographer al-Yagubi, as "Upper Azerbaijan" (Azerbaijan al-ulya, Yagubi, "Buldan" publishing house (in Russian), p. 271). --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Ildezid Atabek were called Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan (rulers of Azerbaijan) just like there was Atabakan-e Maragheh and Atabakan-e-Luristan. Although they did not rule Maragheh and Iranica says they ruled portions of Arran and Jebal. If you can bring a source which they called their territory which did not encompass all of Azerbaijan, but encompassed portions of Arran, Jebal and etc. as fully Azerbaijan, I would appreciate it.

Given the fact that there was probably no state by the name Maragheh although there are rulers called Atabakan-e- Maragheh, and Maragheh being part of historical Azerbaijan, one can extrapolate to the same here. Let me quote some classical sources here: Besides Strabo, there are many other sources (Yusuf Flavius, Arian, Diodorus, Polibyus..). Strabo says: by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania; and lastly, on the south by the tract of country which extends from the outlet of the Cyrus River to Colchis, [69]. Also Britannica 1911 [70] and Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in 1890 as well as all of the Russian Czarist maps I have checked do not name the territory of the modern day republic of Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan.

Academian Iqrar Aliyev is widely respected in Iran and the world. According to some other academic sources though he did have a slight anti-Armenian bent which is probably due to the NK war. [71] I quote: A 1997 pamphlet entitled "The Albanian monument of Karabakh" by Igrar Aliev and Kamil Mamedzade, ducks the issue of the medieval Armenian inscriptions altogether. The front cover bears a drawing of the facade of the Church of Gandzasar, but the draftsman has carefully left out all the Armenian writing. Of course assuming Naxchivan as part of Atrapatekan, this does not change the fact that boundaries between Armenia (Armenia as a kingdom having parts of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan provinces in its greatest extent at one period), Atrapatekan and Albania were fluid but the bulk of territory of modern day republic of Azerbaijan as far the classical sources I have checked (any pre-Islamic source) is not part of the pre-Islamic Atrapatekan. As for post-Islamic sources, majority differentiate between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Albania. But some put Albania as part of Armenia (see the quote I brought from Yaqubi above) or Azerbaijan. I have looked at 10 pre-Islamic references with this regard where the bulk if not all of the territories of modern day republic of Azerbaijan is not called Azerbaijan/Atrapatekan. If that is not the case, then it is best to provide a direct source preferably in English. All these back and forth arguments should go in the article: history of the name Azerbaijan. [72] since the discussion is very complex and since it has its own particular article, it is better to discuss all the sources there. Once all the sources are listed, then the issue is resolved for that article. --alidoostzadeh 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the name Azerbaijan

There is a complicated article (which needs more work) in wiki called history of the name Azerbaijan [[73]]. A while back there was lots of edit warring between some users (I was not part of it) in the article of republic of Azerbaijan [74] about geographical boundaries and etc. Not only in that article, but in many many other articles. Thus it was suggested to move it all to the history of the name Azerbaijan. Again in the Azerbaijan republic article, there was debate about the nature of Musvat party and thus it was suggested that the debate be moved in the article which was created for that purpose. Pouring the same debate in multiple articles just exacberates r.v. wars and also is totally unnecessary when there is a special purpose article created for the same reason. Thus it looks like the user Behnam agreed with my proposal to move the debate here:[[75]]. I'll await other suggestions and that is what needs to be done. --alidoostzadeh 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that Grandmaster and several other users agreed to the exact same compromise on the Republic of Azerbaijan article, they are probably also in support of this. I also support this proposal, again, because it was done on the Republic of Azerbaijan article.Azerbaijani 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. Behnam also supports it. I see no reason why the same issue should be discussed in multiple articles when there is one specific article devoted to the topic. That is what happened with the republic of Azerbaijan article as you mention and so this seems like the natural way to proceed. The multiple number of sources which can easily number to a hundred about Arran, Azerbaijan, Armenia..etc. is not the objective of this article. --alidoostzadeh 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article was locked. I do not mind the current edition. The rest belongs to the other mentioned article. --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth looking at by all users: [76]. --alidoostzadeh 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debates over minor issues have caused this article to be blocked

I wanted to see this article progress and report on the true Azerbaijan of Iran and it's people, rather then get stuck over stupid arguments, like whether it should be spelt as "Azarbaijan" or "Azerbaijan". When you look up "Azerbaijan" in the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition[[77]], you will not only find an entry about the Republic of Azerbaijan but also one of the region of Iran (and its spelled "Azerbaijan):

"A historical region in present-day northwest Iran and Azerbaijan. It was settled by the Medes before the 8th century B.C. and later became a province of the Persian Empire. It became a separate kingdom after the death of Alexander the Great, but the region was much disputed and eventually conquered by Arabs (7th century), Turks (10th century), and Mongols (13th century). Persia controlled the region after 1603."

Both Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan are used to refer to this region and both should be mentioned however "Azerbaijan" (Iranian Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan of Iran) is the most common way of spelling when it comes to academic writing. So it should be the one we use throughout the article.

I see the phrase "The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians". And I feel bad. only one; Irano-centric, POV is stated here and with no source. The study that follows (if it's meant to be the source) doesn't prove turkification since Azerbaijani-turks and Anatolian-turks are from two different turkic-peoples. Just like Turkmens, Kazakhs, and the rest. However these Turkic-peoples identity (in regards to being turk) is not being attacked like those of Azerbaijani-turks from iran. It should be noted that this Turkification theory is also the one that the education system in Iran is trying to sell to its people. Again, not that this perspective shouldn't be mentioned, but that other significant perspecitves (with reliable sources) should also be expressed.

Further many ancestors of Turkish people (from Turkey) today adopted being "Turk". So comparing the DNA of Azeris and Turks of Turkey is, in many cases, pointless and non-conclusive.. I quote Who are The Turks by Justin McCarthy and Carolyn McCarthy (a book about the Turks of Turkey)[[78]]:

"Greeks, Kurds, Armenian, and others shared the land, and many of them adopted the Turkish language, and converted to Islam (forced conversians were almost unknown), and became "Turks themselves. Because the Turks had no concept of "race" that would exlude anyone, they accepted those who whished to be Turks as Turks. The Turkish people were thus made up of the descendants of the Turks of Central Asia and those who had become Turks."

Here is another source in support of an alternative perspective:

Genetic Structure of Iranian-Speaking Populations from Azerbaijan Inferred from the Frequencies of Immunological and Biochemical Gene Markers:[[79]]

"the genetic structure of the populations examined with the other Iranian-speaking populations (Persians and Kurds from Iran, Ossetins, and Tajiks) and Azerbaijanis showed that Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan were more close to Azerbaijanis, than to Iranian-speaking populations inhabiting other world regions"

As you can see there are sources that supported alternative views. However the editors of this page have decided to mention a "turkification" of Iranian Azeris, and in doing so alternative perspective of this proportion and significants should be added. Otherwise the article remains one-sided (POV). I think it's more important to focus on things like our culture, famous Azeri people, history, current events, and so on. But as mentioned before this article is "a joke" in its corrent state. After the article is fair and balanced it should be open to the people. Both sides regarding Turkification should be expressed and sourced. --- Farzinf 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another study in regards to comparing Azeri and Turkish DNA. Again, I don't want to push one perspective. I want to have both perspectives expressed.: [[80]] --- Farzinf 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the turkification theory is being thought in Iranian school.. where? Although turkification theory is mentioned by lots of scholars..for example Golden and Iranica and Britannica and arguably the number of Turks entering Azerbaijan was small or else Azeris would be more like. Note this article: [81]. Although not from an official government website and the site just collects articles, I believe I have seen this or similar mentioned in actual textbook or official website. Personally I think all these opinions about origin should go to Azerbaijani people and Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis and similar articles. What is the use of covering the same information in multiple articles? I fully believe the article should be locked until there is full concensus about all the issues. Thus it might take months or it can take a day, but this way is better. --alidoostzadeh 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"or else Azeris would be more like." What do you mean by this? Regarding Iran's education system I will try to find a source asap. And the article at http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/iranian_ethnic_groups.php mentions both theories of the origins of Iranian Azerbaijanis. Yet both are not stated in this article making it..P.O.V.! anyhow the user Azerbaijani considers the Turkification theory as fact. He said "It's not POV, it is supported by a Cambridge University study." Studies don't always result in conclusive non-debatable facts.And when there's legitimate sourced contrarian information it shouldn't be censored like this! --- Farzinf 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All major encyclopaedia's agree that Azeri's were Turkified. Keep your original research out of this.Azerbaijani 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farzinf ..I meant look like turkemens. Since Turkemens speak a pure Oghuz dialect with vowel harmony and 18 vowels . As per the current article.. I think lots of is covered else where. There is no need to discuss similar topics in multiple articles.. That is really a general wiki rule. --alidoostzadeh 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section

I think this section is very poor, and not very well written.. it should be structured better and be centred around the culture of the people in this region which has not necessary been shia forever, and has been in close contact and under a lot of influence between the Persian empire, Ottoman empire (and previous turkic empires) as well as in close contact with other people in the region, however the current version looks like there is a fight over the culture between the Persians and the Turks! I suggest a rewrite perhaps something like.. (excuse my english)

The Iranian Azerbaijan has been a region of distinct culture throughout the history. Since the region has been under the rule of various empires, it has been been under influence of different cultures of the people in the region, such as the Persians, the Turks, Armenians and the Kurds. The name of the region suggests great influence of Zoroastrianism from pre-historic times and there is also a popular theory that suggests Zarathushtra may have been born here. Furthermore previous to the Persian empire and under the Median rule, the region was predominantly Zoroastrian, which was a definite cultural identity to the region through the Median and the Persian empires that succeeded it.

The celebrations of the Zoroastrian festivals such as Norooz and yalda which are still popularly celebrated in the region suggests that this cultural influence was never completley vanished under the Muslim invasion of the region in their conquest. These celebrations have their own local customs and traditions which are although similar to the other parts of Iran, they are very distinctive to Azerbaijan.

The language spoken popularly in the region is called Azerbaijani or Azeri for short. Although it is not recognised as an official language in Iran, it is still one of the most important factor for identifying an individual of being Azerbaijani or having background from this region.

The Azerbaijani culture also has a stinctive local folk music and dance which are well recognisable across the country.

...etc. As the article is protected, I can't add this but I thought I should leave it here for now..--Jalil Azermehr 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, there is no Persian culture or Kurdish culture or Azeri culture in general (there are small differences ofcourse). Mostly, its just Iranic or Iranian culture. For example, all of these groups celebrate Norouz. There is not much of a difference between the culture of the Azeri's in Iran and other people in Iran. The only major difference is language, but other than that, the culture is the same. You also have to take into account that everyone ethnic group going through Greater Iran, whether Turkic or Mongolic, or Arab, all ended up adopted Iranian culture. Even the Ottomans adopted Iranian culture. Do you get what I'm saying? Studies have also shown that there is not much cultural difference between the life of Iranian Azeri villagers and Persian villagers, for instance. You also have to keep in mind that in many parts of Iranian Azerbaijan, Kurdish as well as Persian as well as other languages are spoken too, which all adds up to the culture.Azerbaijani 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jalil Azermehr and Azerbaijani make some good points. A merge of both your points would be nice. For example, "Azerbaijani culture Iran is fairly similar to general Iranian culture, however it does have some distinct differences..." and then the mention of the Mongolic, Turkic influence/rule continueing with music/dance/language....

Here are parts of the article that need some help...

1. "The region is sometimes called Southern Azarbaijan or South Azerbaijan" - the term south azerbaijan regardless of it's suggestion is a more popular term then some mentioned above, especially "Persian Azerbaijan" it is used by average non-biased Iranians themselves when distinguishing between the republic and the region. This should be mentioned, otherwise it is suggesting that if someone uses this term, he/she is without a doubt a separatist. take a look at the following article; South Azerbaijan and Iranian Turks by Dr. Alireza Amir Nazmi Afshar (Center for Strategic International Studies, Washington DC). Does it seem to be politically motivated?: http://www.anayurdu.com/auimages/01ISouthAzerbaijan.pdf

2. "Azeris make up the majority of the population in the Iranian region of Azarbaijan." - Why not just say in the Azerbaijani region of Iran"?

3. Under the Culture section:

"Azeris are culturally very close to the rest of the Iranians though their language is Turkic. The people of Azerbaijan have similar DNA to other Iranian peoples" -- Why is this DNA stuff being mentioned again under the Culture? Also take a look at the first sentence. Why is it worded this way? Why not simply "Azeris are distinguished to common Iranian culture by their language music, however many cultural aspects still remain the same". Why not any mention of our style of dance and music? And how about a picture to go along with it? Why not any mention of Azerbaijani human rights activism or Persianisation? Or a map of the region? How about a mention of the books (the few that there are) written in Azeri-arabic by Azeri-Iranians themselves? Why not a mention of the Governments denial of linguistic rights to Iran's minority? Why not a mention of famous Iranian-azeris. Like Googoosh for goodness sake.

Anyhow I see the Persianisation of Iranian Azerbaijanis whether on Wikipedia or in real life as an attack to my people. Many try to associate Iranian-Azeri pride, or Irainian-Azeri activism as "turkism" or even "pan turkism" (take a look at the googoosh talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Googoosh). Many Iranian Azerbaijanis are being refered to as Persian on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I hope one day Iranian Azerbaijanis will have there linguistic and cultural rights and this Persian Chauvinism thing will be a thing of the past. --- Farzinf 08:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Azerbaijani culture differs in no way to the rest of Iranian culture. The only difference is language, which is clearly mentioned on the Azeri people article. There is no Persian culture for there to be "Persianization". There is just Iranian culture, which is celebrated from Turkey all the way to the borders of China.Azerbaijani 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farzin with due respect that link you brought is from a well known POV separatist. Furthermore claiming Turkish was in Iran since 6000 years ago (that link) and the rest of the article... I agree DNA and etc. needs to be moved somewhere else. Azerbaijan in Iran is not just Azerbaijanis. For example west Azerbaijan is also called East Kurdistan by Kurdish groups.. all sort of non-official names are not to be given preference. Furthermore there is an article Azerbaijani people that covers cultuer. There is an article that covers human rights in Iran. But let me clarify in Iran the official language is Persian but other languages are not forbidden. That is the law of 1906 and 1979. So there is no ban on Azeri (there is t.v. , newspapers, books, university courses or summer courses which have been held). For example there is no ban on Sunni Islam in Iran, but Shi'ite Islam is the official religion and the one supported by government. Also there is no map of what constitutes Azerbaijan since it is not official region right now. I think this article needs to be trimmed significantly. Just needs a History section, perhaps geography and a little about people inhabiting the area with the relevant wiki links that have been created. --alidoostzadeh 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) DNA stuff is some irresponsible misinterpretation. To begin with, the study itself, by an Iranian researcher, is not available online in full, only through Iranian news sources. Secondly, one needs to be an expert to be able to define what constitutes "similar" to other Iranian people, and what doesn't -- what is the degree of the supposed similarity? A certain percentage of men of the entire region have Chingiz Khan gene -- does it make them all Mongol-Tatar? Until one produces the whole study by that Iranian researcher in English (since it was done at Cambridge, it should be in English, not in Farsi) and expertly compares its results with all other available studies of the people of Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia and Turkey, this DNA stuff should be left out completely.

2) Ali, Kurds don't call all of West Azerbaijan province as East Kurdistan, but only a portion of it. Also, just someone calling smth doesn't mean much -- it has to be verifiable and academic. For example, the 'Armenian Plateau' and the 'Eastern Armenia', as well as 'Greater Armenia' concepts, include a bulk of north-western Iran -- should we be mentioning that? Unlike in the Kurdish case, the Armenians have a much more solid and lengthy list of verifiable references. It is ironic to me how Iranians forget or ignore that Armenian nationalists view Iranian homeland (well beyond western portions of South Azerbaijan) as their own native land since times immemorial.

3) user "Azerbaijani", had you been a real Azerbaijani, you would have known that Azerbaijani culture is as different and unique from the Iranian culture as any other culture of the region. You do not say, for some reason, that Armenian culture "differs in no way to the rest of Iranian culture", despite Armenians being Indo-European both (predominantly) racially and linguistically (unlike Azerbaijanis), and living under Iranian rule MORE than Azerbaijanis (in the North). Neither do you say that about Assyrians, or Arabs, or Uzbeks. So how are Azerbaijanis in "no way" different from "the rest of Iranian culture"? Our music is different, as is our cuisine and dresses -- and our national, folk dances, are a world apart. Of course, due to being in the same region, sharing borders, and having intermarriages, as well as political unions and dominations, there is a lot of overlap -- yet Azerbaijani dolma or kebab is different from the one's made by Iranians (come to Baku and taste the difference, if you don't believe), as our Terekeme dance has little to do with any Iranian dances. Likewise with music. I don't even bring in the issue of carpets, since they are classified regionally/provincially, not country-wise -- however, the Torkbaf and Farsbaf distinction is known nevertheless. --AdilBaguirov 08:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil if not all, the bulk of west Azerbaijan is considered part of Eastern Kurdistan by Kurdish political groups. [82] and some academics have used such terms as east west kurdistan... (Note I do not agree with these names like East and West Kurdistan and etc, since they are not official). Here is one map created by Kurdish scholar and writer Mehrdad Izady: [83]. Here is for example a map with slight mistake [84] (perhaps just assigning each province to the predominant language). It seems everyone today wants some sort of East Kurdistan, Southern Azerbaijan, Southern Armenia and etc. Frankly such names have no historical justification with regards to modern territories and they are not official. Also let me comment that in Azerbaijan there are two forms of music (Mugham and Ashiq). The Mugham music is mainly Persian in origin and even the names of its various tunes have kept their mainly Persian origin. Also the caucus dances throughout the republic of Azerbaijan are close to other caucasian people, one of the most famous dances being called "Lezgi" and these dances although might have regional varities, in Iran they are called Raghse-e-Ghafghazi (caucasian dances). But this sort of information belongs to Azerbaijani people or Azeri music or Azeri dances. As far as I can tell, Armenian users do not get involved in these sort of wiki articles that regards Iran but of course I can not do anything about some armenians newspaper or reports. --alidoostzadeh 12:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also comment to all users. The Azerbaijani culture stuff should go under Azerbaijani people and if necessary expand that section and write more about its dances and etc. DNA should go under the origin of Azerbaijanis or Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis or etc..There are two articles already with this regard. Persianization has its own article. (I think there is azerification article also). Pisheravi/Ferqeh have two articles. Azerbaijan in Iran (if we are counting east azerbaijan, west azerbaijan, ardabil and perhaps Zanjan) has diverse people (the majority being Azeri speakers). But there also Kurds, Talysh/Tats/Persians, Armenians, Assyrians. This is not an article about Azerbaijani people or Kurdish people or Assyrians.. Also not all Azerbaijanis in Iran live in what we can consider Azerbaijan. There are more Azerbaijanis in Tehran than Tabriz for example. There are some in Hamadan for example. There is one article that already exists azerbaijani people and had many many talk discussions before it got where it is. Wikipedia's policy and guidelines are clear with this regard. There is absolutely no reason to repeat the same sort of article discussions when the other article about Azerbaijani people was even a featured article (which means it had gone through many archive pages and discussions). The article should contain a brief history section and perhaps links to these various wiki articles in a NPOV fashion. --alidoostzadeh 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil, if you havent noticed already, I am an Iranian Azerbaijani not from the Republic of Azerbaijan! The culture of us Iranian Azerbaijani's is vastly different from the culture in the Republic of Azerbaijan. If you knew anything about Iranian Azerbaijani's, you would have known that! Your culture is completely different than ours, you have gone through 80 years of Soviet occupation, and you assume that we have the same culture? This is ridiculous. I am Iranian, dont worry about me so much about me.Azerbaijani 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani please cons

user "Azerbaijani", it takes more than a nickname to become an Azerbaijani. Forgive me, but I do not believe your tales about being an 'Azerbaijani'. As of the rest of your statement, you are so absolutely mistaken on each and every count, that it makes little sense to waste time refuting it. There are plenty of South Azerbaijanis who live/reside in Europe and USA, as well as in North Azerbaijan -- and culturally, as well as physically/anthropologically, there is no significant difference (provided they are actually born and bred Azerbaijani, and not Azerbaijani only in name). And had you been a real Azerbaijani, you would have known the astonishing "Ayriliq" song (also sang by Googoosh). Had "we" been so different, this song would not generate so much emotions. As of the Soviet occupation, it certainly had a profound effect on many things (and not always negative - compare 99% literacy in Azerbaijan with 80% or so in Iran, 2 or 3 cosmonauts since 1970s vs. just one last year, and even that a US citizen), such as education, religion, science, politics, economy, military, etc., but not culture (i.e., cuisine, dress, music, art, etc). Obviously, modernization and evolution in all of those has happened, but then that happens everywhere. Don't forget that certain regional differences are also normal -- Persians from Fars region would be different, somewhat, from Persians from other parts of Iran, not to mention Bahrein, Iraq, Tajikistan, etc.

Dances -- indeed, those Caucasian dances (Terekeme, a Turkic dance, is different from Lezgi(nka), which is also known as Chechen, Avar, etc., song/dance, although all are fast-paced almost military-style dances, that immitate the movements of horses and eagles/falcons) is one cultural aspect that distinguishes Azerbaijanis, northern and southern, from the rest of Iranians. Same with carpets -- the geometric figures are mostly a trait of Azerbaijani and Turkic carpets, whilst Persian carpets are distinct and different. Same with cuisine - despite having all the same dolma's, plov, pahlava, kebab, etc., Azerbaijani cuisine is very different, taste and appearance-wise, from Iranian (or Turkish, Uzbek, Tatar, etc., for that matter). But again, I am the first one to state that all those are relative differences, and in reality, all the people of Caucasus, Central Asia, Middle East, share a lot in common. But I would prefer our kabab, dolma and pahlava to any other! :) --AdilBaguirov 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

placed back the contrarian view in the intro, together with sources and references. The rest of the article is the same, just the intro. --adil 08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil,I also told Azerbaijani, the different viewpoints belong to the history of the name Azerbaijan article. This is what happened in the republic of Azerbaijan as well and was accepted by different users. Same with Rasulzadeh for example. Also some of the sources like Yaqubi have conflicting reports (mentioning armenia for example all the way to Caspian) and Yaqut just puts Nakhchivan as part of Azerbaijan.. The quotes need to be brought in details which is not the place for this article anyway. I will remove the farrokh and asoutarian and reza though since I agree , when there is conflicting views, it is best to use western scholars. --alidoostzadeh 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I think the culture section, DNA and etc. needs to be linked to the relavent articles (Azerbaijani people or some other article). Probably a sentence like: The majority people inhabiting the area are Azerbaijanis but sizeable number of Kurds (specially in West Azerbaijani province) as well smaller number of Persians, Armenians, Assyrians, Talysh live in the area is all that is needed. --alidoostzadeh 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

As I noted on the latest reverters talk pages, further reverts on this page will lead to blocks. You must use this talk page to discuss your disagreements. Restarting the same edit war after weeks of protection and no discussion here only serves to show that you are unreasonable, and that protection won't help you resolve the conflict. Consider this the warning. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll start discussion about my bit. The Behnam 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aim to establish consensus on English language standard

As I previously discussed at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)#Azari v. Azeri Proposal, the English language uses "Azer-" not "Azar-", so "Azer-" is the spelling that should be used in this article. I see it is part of edit wars and I can only conclude that this is some really trivial nationalistic point, but there is no fighting with the fact that the English language uses "Azer-". As it is incontestably more proper than "Azar-" there is no reason to use "Azar-" here except in the titles of sources that use "Azar-".

Anyway, I'd like to see if we can establish consensus on this spelling once and for all so that we don't have to edit war further on the matter. The previous discussion seemed to die with User:Kiumars but I think it is time to reach a resolution. Please tell me where you all stand. The way I see it, this not only conforms with English language standards but also prevents unnecessarily offending Azeri editors and readers, while in no way detracting from article. I think it is best that we agree on "Azer-" and stick to it. The Behnam 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Iranian region and "Azar-" is the most common and official Iranian spelling which is also common in English, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. This is all a matter of opinion, there is no "proper" English form for a name or word that's not English to begin with. There are hundreds of academic books in English that use the term "Azarbaijan" [85]. If published academics use it in English, you're in no position to call it "improper". --Mardavich 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both names are fine and can be mentioned. Ferdowsi and Nezami call it آذرآبادگان (Azar-Abaadegaan in their poetry). Perhaps the variety of pronounciations should be mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they used Persian language. In English, the proper term is "Azer-"; Farzin even showed an Iranian university that respected this English standard. And I believe that our previous 'Google comparison' brought in way more results for "Azer-" so its sort of a moot point on your part. Also, did you notice this in your search, "Did you mean: Azerbaijan"? Hmm. The Behnam 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as mention goes, I believe it should go in parentheses in the beginning as the 'Persian version', so to speak. The Behnam 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search result is not a basis, as I'm sure all of you have heard of the "French victories" Google search (which used to say "did you mean French defeats").Azerbaijani 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azarbaijan is not just the Persian form, it's also used by Iranian Azeris, and it's also common in English. As I illustrated earlier, there are at least 578 books in English that use the term "Azarbaijan", that fact alone refutes any arguments you may have that the term is "not proper" or "not standard" in English. Published authors don’t use "improper" terms. --Mardavich 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True since the word is not English. My suggestion though was more for having the older pronounciations as well like the oldest modern Persian form آذرآبادگان --alidoostzadeh 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a repeat of the previous discussion. Next I should mention how English dictionaries have "Azeri" but not "Azari" and all that jazz. Since this is English WP, let's favor the most prevalent (in dictionaries for that matter) usage, "Azer-", while simply mentioning "Azar-" for the parenthetical Persian note at the top and for historical/etymology mention. You all should consider the fact that Azeri people show up here offended by the Azar usage too, so going to with the actual English words isn't a bad idea to prevent that as well. The Behnam 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mardavich is Azeri himself. Even Persian or English dialects might pronounce words differently. But I had a different comment altogether. My perspective was that we should also have the archaic Persian version of آذرآبادگان somewhere in the begining of the article as well. Since this form is used in classical Persian literature. --alidoostzadeh 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be mentioned, perhaps as part of the etymology I mentioned. While it is clear that some aren't offended here, there have been others. I see no reason to stick with a usage that not is is not English but also has caused controversy when we can simply go with the English word. The Behnam 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a repeat of the previous discussion because you keep repeating yourself instead of listening to others. There is no "actual English word" for a word that's not English. The usuage "Azer" might be more prevalent when refering to the country of Azerbaijan, but this article is about an Iranian region whose official name is "Azarbaijan" which is also commonly used in English. And why are you speaking on behalf of Azeri people, I am Azeri and I am not offended by the name Azarbaijan, I support it. --Mardavich 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However I agree that references to the country of Azerbaijan and the language in the article should be changed to "Azer-". The Iranian region though can be called Azarbaijan for reasons I provided above. --Mardavich 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "speak on their behalf", I just mention a trend I have observed. Anyway, "Azar" is not an actual part of the English language while "Azer" is. I think I may seek outside opinions. You know, from outside of the 'Middle East" box. The Behnam 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Azar is not an actual part of the English language", then why are there so many academic papers and books in English that use the term? --Mardavich 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These "so many" books are probably using it for specialized contexts. I consider English dictionaries a good source for what words are in English or not. This article is for the general English Wikipedia so it is best to use actual English. So, why have you been so particular on keeping "Azar" anyway? The Behnam 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are these "specialized contexts" you're speaking of? Please cite an example. As far the results show, the books are using the term as the name of the region, and not in any particular context. I'm particular on keeping "Azar" because that's the correct native name. --Mardavich 06:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Mardavich, this is English Wikipedia. We use the English names, not the native names. Sorry. The Behnam 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this case, the the native transliteration is also common in English, it generates 361,000 results on google [86], and 578 results on google books. [87]--Mardavich 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the previous discussion, you can find completely foreign words written in English script, like "mikonam", though I admit that it is sometimes used in English. But we have already run this comparison before; "Azer-" type words get way more hits. Again, let's stick to English words, such as those found in English dictionaries. Thanks. The Behnam 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a big argument. Looks like the current solution is not bad since it repeats itself several times when a new term comes in till etymology and usage when it sticks with azerbaijan. My suggestion was to also add آذرآبادگان per classical literature. I am taking a wiki break till monday but I hope you guys reach an agreement and everyone looks at that. --alidoostzadeh 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the word originally has its root in Old Iranian/Persian and not English or Azerbaijani, and it is more commonly pronounced as Azarbaijan in Iran. --Mardavich 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to mention under etymology. The Behnam 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam, Azarbaijan is used by Azari's/Azeri's all the time, especially in Iran, there is nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, I had a similar discussion regarding Abşeron, which is a Wikipedia title of an article using a non-English letter. It was determined that it was not that big a deal and it remains to do this...I dont see the problem with using Azarbaijan.Azerbaijani 14:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Abseron doesn't compare is because there is not English version of the word. But "Azer-" words are actually found in the English language so they should be king in pertinent articles. It is good that you don't think it is a big deal but unfortunately other users do, for vague reasons. I don't think it should be a big deal to change in article in English Wikipedia to use the actual English spelling of certain words. Thanks for being polite. The Behnam 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd put my two cents in, I dont really want to get involved in this, but may I ask which users are offended by the term Azarbaijan? It doesnt matter what they think because they must keep a neutral point of view, and if we are to take your word for it, they are not doing that, and are complaining about the usage for personal reasons, correct?Azerbaijani 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon

Hello. Please refrain from making POV inclusions or changes, thanks.Azerbaijani 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani, you shoud yourself support your POV with citations and references - I mean your last edit. --Dacy69 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof that Dr. Bonab is ethnically Azerbaijani himself? We can have that he is Iranian for now, until proof is produced of his alleged Azeri origin. More importantly, where's his study in full and in English? And why other studies are not mentioned and linked to the article, despite being available on other pages?

Then, why are you saying "sometimes called South Azerbaijan"? That name is more popular according to Google Searches, and thus should get a far more prominent placing and wording:

South/Southern Azerbaijan/Azarbaijan:

Subtotal: about 107,458,100

Adil! Please revise your research! You should google "South Azerbaijan" not "south" + "azerbaijan". In this case, you only find 29500 pages!!! --behmod talk 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behmod, here's the same search with quotes around the terms, which still shows numerical advantage for South vs. Iranian Azerbaijan:

about 29,500 for "south azerbaijan"

about 22,900 for "southern azerbaijan"

about 3,350 for "iranian azarbaijan"

about 29,200 for "iranian azerbaijan"

Anyhow, what's the big deal? Why are you so opposed? Do you think one can write Easter/Western Armenia/Iran, but not South/North Azerbaijan? --adil 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your method to evaluate the popularity of this words is not correct.

1- Iranian Azerbaijan is mostly simply called Azarbaijan or Azerbaijan and not necessarily Iranian Azerbaijan ex. If you google (azarbaijan -"republic of azerbaijan") You will find 299,000 pages.

2- Most of websites which use "south Azerbaijan" are from Republic of Azerbaijan or Turkey.--behmod talk 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any of my two methods, first being the most simple and widespread on Wikipedia, and second being suggested and used by Ali, are "not correct", then it is obviously only because the results displease you. The method you suggest doesn't make much sense -- why should we compare "Azarbaijan" to "Republic of Azerbaijan"? This is comparing apples to oranges, whilst we need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Meanwhile, once again, if you are going to complain about Azerbaijani (and Turkish) websites mentioning most actively the word "Azerbaijan", then I am simply lost with words, as there is little one can respond with to this. Or let me try again -- and nearly all of the websites that mention the versions you like are Iranian and otherwise Iranic.

Let's keep in mind that we had to provide these statistics to stop the supression or otherwise misrepresentation of the very much verifiable and widespread term "South Azerbaijan" from this article. --adil 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

versus Iranian/Persian Azerbaijan/Azarbaijan:

Subtotal: about 72,447,700

As you can see, the name South Azerbaijan takes precedence over all other names.

Likewise, where's the proof that Azerbaijanis are only "Turkified" but "originally" were of some Iranian stock? This is impossible, as Iranians came to the region late -- 6-7th centuries BC according to Britannica, and even if we regard the Scythians as not just "Iranian-speaking", but ethnically of some Iranian stock, that's still 9th century BC and their numbers and lifestyle was not enough to change the ethnic make-up of the North and South Azerbaijan. Thus, the only conceivable and correct position is that Azerbaijanis, like the people in more mountaneous and harder to invade regions of Caucasus, were Caucasian, but later Iranified and then Turkified. The fact that Urartu people were of Caucasian stock, and its territory spanned across the Araxes, is a good proof.

And we should have a little more in the intro about the contrarian point of view, not just refer to the other article, from which evidence is similarly being removed to make it POV. --adil 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe that, at this point, it is rather clear that the usual English spelling is with "Azer-". If the others do not agree to change the spelling to reflect English standards, I may have to take this dispute to a higher level. Cheers. The Behnam 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil can you r.v. your edits until there is consensus on all issues? But you are not doing a correct google search. "Southern Azerbaijan" gets 22,600 google pages. You have to type "Southern Azerbaijan" and not Southern Azerbaijan. Where-as "Iranian Azerbaijan" gets 29,200 hits. Also note when "Southern Azerbaijan" or "South Azerbaijan" comes we have references mainly to the same articles from separatist sites. These are not neutral google sources. But furthermore in many articles Southern Azerbaijan refers many times to the republic of Azerbaijan and it Southern region.

Also let me examine the contrarian POV:

^ Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky, “Atropatena”, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), 3rd edition, 1970 ^ V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925 (in Russian) ^ Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894 ^ Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354 ^ http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm Yaqut al-Hamavi, "Alphabetic list of countries" (Mujam al-Buldan), 1983, p. 271, (translated from Arabic into Russian by P.K.Zhuze)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia is obviously not neutral source with regards to Iran. I am not sure about 1925 Russian Source either. One needs primary sources about the B.C. stuff. Encyclopedia Iranica on Atabakan Azerbaijan says an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in' Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225. Finally Yaqut definitely does not put the bulk of the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan with the except of Nakhchivan. I am not sure what Richard Tapper says exactly but I am very sure there was no North and South Azerbaijan during Safavid times. Anyways all these information do not belong to this article and that is simply more a POV fork since there should be one article according to Wikipedia rules that discusses this. Same with user Azerbaijani who is putting information from Azerbaijani people, DNA, Iranian origin of Azeris and articles that discuss these matters in details. Guys we already have an article about these issues. We need to concentrate on the main point of this article. Which is really describing an unofficial region, its history and mention its people without going to details that other articles have. (majority azerbaijani, but Kurds as well, Assyrians, Armenians, Tats/Talysh, Persians..). DNA of Azerbaijani's is covered in various articles and there is no need for it here. Of course Dr. Asharfiyan Bonab is an azeri, he is from Bonab in Azerbaijan. But the DNA stuff and Dr. Bonab's study is not relevant to this article.--alidoostzadeh 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, the debate has been going on for months, and if some are not willing to engage, revert without a reason all the verifiable and academic sources without any discussion, then what consensus are we talking about? And what consensus is needed at changing a clearly POV, biased, indeed, racist article?

Even if I go ahead with the Google search your way, placing quotes around "South Azerbaijan" -- a more popular term than "Southern Azerbaijan", which is the only term you provided search results for -- still wins over "Iranian Azerbaijan", with about 29,400 [88] versus the 29,200 hits you cited for "Iranian Azerbaijan". When you note about nationalistic sites/articles for South Azerbaijan, don't forget that an equal number of nationalistic sites/articles appears for Iranian Azerbaijan: Payvand.com, IranExpert.com, Iranian.com, IranChamber, PanArmenian.net, and repeated references to Touraj Atabaki's book (not to mention this very same Wikipedia article, which is also mirrored at other sites).

Hence, as we see, South Azerbaijan being a verifiable evidence, wins over everyone else -- and thus no one has the right to remove it and otherwise de-emphasize it. Indeed, it deserves its own article.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE) is certainly far more neutral towards Iran in this article than your favorite Encyclopedia Iranica. GSE was edited by an Armenian, and had more Armenians on its board than Azerbaijanis, and that article was written by a Russian Orientalist, Dr. Yampolskiy. Whilst Iranica is edited by Iranians and many articles written by Armenians, such as Bournoutian, Garsoian, Bedrosian, Suny, etc. So your one-sided complaints are unfair, to say the least. Meanwhile, the specific article by Dr. Yampolskiy is consistent with other references and there is no need whatsoever for it to be biased in this instance -- it specifically mentions only Nakhchivan as part of Atropatena. In 1970, USSR, the most powerful country in the world, did not need to limit itself - if it wanted to declare that South Azerbaijan and North Azerbaijan were one since Neanderthal times, it could have, and no one would be in a position to prevent. However, nothing of this sort was done, and GSE and soviet historians stuck to facts. Don't forget that many Iranic nations were prominent in the USSR's affairs -- Tajiks, Ossets, Kurds, Tats. And the fact that Scythians are considered as "Iranian-speakers" in scholarship even today is all thanks to one Soviet historian (and they are mentioned as such in the GSE). So there was no bias against Iran neither in this instance, nor in general.

I provided Sisoyev's quote before, if needed, can provided it again.

Prof. Tapper makes obvious that Mughan was considered as part of Azerbaijan.

I am not sure what was your point behind bolding the text from Iranica on Atabeks of Azerbaijan, but the fact that the same article declares (correctly) Naxcivan as their "powerbase" and where their family grave is, whilst at the same time calling their dynasty and country as Azerbaijan, is self-evidently proving my point.

So whenever it's convenient, Dr. Bonab, Ayatollah Khamenei, Maj-Gen. Rahim Safavi, etc., are all Azeri, whilst whenever its inconvenient, someone is half-Azeri, quarter-Azeri, and otherwise, there are many "Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, etc" living in South Azerbaijan. What a great position! Maybe Bonab too falls into that 5% of population category of South Azerbaijan who are not ethnic Azeris? Anyhow, there is no verifiable reference that he is ethnically Azeri. Neither do we see his study in full and in English. Strange for a Cambridge University study. They didn't have enough webspace to host it? --adil 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In google "Iranian Azerbaijan" now gets 31,200 hits. Also "South Azerbaijan" or "Southern Azerbaijan" has also been used for the southern territory of the republic of Azerbaijan and many of the sites using it are not neutral. Also academics should be a concern to Wikipedia. Probably it is good to mention that "Iranian Azerbaijan" gets far more google books hit than "South Azerbaijan" and thus it is far more academic. USSR histography overall has been affected by what historians call Stalinism histography but assuming this not to be true, more importantly GSE you said mentions Nakhchivan as part of ancient atropatekan. Even assuming this is true, this does not make the bulk territory. Also again in terms of wikipedia, there exists an entry that deals with subject more extensively. The Iranica article on Atabakan mentions Arran and Azerbaijan, that was my point. Atabeks ruled Arran and Azerbaijan and Jebal although as mentioned before they did not control Maragheh and certain areas of Azerbaijan. Weather Iranica is better than GSE is to be seen, but by now Iranica is widely more updated and has newer and more updated information. And it definitely is far more specific on topics and contents dealing with the area. Same with Encyclopedia of Islam which is an excellent source. But that matter of opinion is not of concern here. The fact that Scythians are considered Iranians is actually mainly thanks to Herodotus and classical sources. Obviously the USSR was not on friendly terms with Iran. But also etymological work done by Zgusta plus the fact they do not resemble Turks of the ancient period and we have writings from Alans and Saka khotanese.. Dr. Bonab is an Azerbaijani and is a published author. [89] [90]. He is from Bonab and I know someone personally that knows him. But again his research should be put in another article. Also Kurds are more than 5% in Iranian Azerbaijan. The population of West Azerbaijan, Ardabil, East Azerbaijan is about 7 million. More importantly there is an article devoted to this topic and another article or two devoted to topic of DNA. Thus attempts to present all points of views should be in one article. This goes for the Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis which is highlighted here. There are extensive articles dealing with various issues and they should just be pointed to. Also the Mughan talked about Tapper is probably Dasht-e-Mughan (Plain of Mughan or Mughan steppe) where Shahsevans actually migrate too..[91] as I have his article somewhere. But note that he has an article already: J.-P. DIGARD, c. r. de : R. TAPPER, « Nomads and commissars in the Mughan steppe: The Shahsevan tribes and the Great Game », in : R. TAPPER (ed.), The conflict of tribe and state in Iran and Afghanistan, Londres, CroomHelm / New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1983, p. 401-435— Abstracta Iranica, n° 7, 1984, p. 240-241.[92]. Thus he could be presently refering to the Mughan steppe area in Iran..where the Shahsevan do actually migrate to. His map on page 15 (Shahsevan in Safavid Persia) shows a Mughan below the R. Aras (river Aras). Although as I have said the boundaries of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Albania have been fluid in ancient times although the bulk of each was usually distinguished in majority of sources. For this matter there is already an article as mentioned just like statements on DNA probably exists in other enteries. He also mentions statements in support of turkification of Iranian population of the area, but again those statements should be for another article. --alidoostzadeh 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, no matter how we look at it, the term South Azerbaijan is widespread, verifiable, sometimes more popular, sometimes only a close second, and hence deserves a prominent place in the article. Also, once again, the sites that mention your preferred wording are also not neutral, so it is even. Stalinism was until 1953, and then actively dismantled, whilst Iranian historiography is very much in a trap and hostage of various -ism's itself to this day. GSE is also updated, there is a new version called Great Russian Encyclopedia (GRE), also in 30 volumes, also by the Russian Academy of Sciences, and published since 2004. But since it is not yet online, we still use GSE. Iranica is certainly more specialised, but is also at least as biased than GSE/GRE towards Azerbaijan(is), as the former is edited by Iranians about themselves, with the help of Armenians, whilst the latter is edited by pro-Armenian Russians. Dr. Bonab's publications were never questioned -- his alleged ethnicity is. And his study -- where is that research in English and in full? Why is it reported only in some Persian-language news in Iran? Who funded it, what was the methodology, how were samples selected, etc?

The article of Tapper is long, and I have it too, but no time to review it, and for what, I brought in enough verifiable references already. And here's some more:

Naxcivan being counted as part of Azerbaijan is shown also in Timurlane times by Prof. John E. Woods, "Turco-Iranica II: Notes on a Timurid Decree of 1396/798", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1984), p. 331.[93]

And in Safavid times, from a very credible and friendly source: "The Safavids, at one time, for revenue purposes, included some of the lands north of the Arax River as part of the province of Azerbaijan. This practice gradually fell out of use after the fall of the Safavids." Dr. George A. Bournoutian (ed.), "Two Chronicles On The History of Karabagh", Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers Inc., 2004, p. xv. So as you see, even a very friendly Armenian scholar, whom you identified as a history professor at a major university, admits that for several centuries during and even after the Safavid times, some lands (i.e., more than Naxcivan) north of Araxes were part of Azerbaijan. --adil 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil in google books as I mentioned the term Southern Azerbaijan is dwarfed by Iranian Azerbaijan. Google book is academic. And as I said boundaries between Azerbaijan, Albania/Arran and Armenia were fluid. For example ib Hawqal mentioning Tabriz as part of Armenia. The quote from dr. Bournoutian is good but belongs to the Arran/Azerbaijan article. But Dr. Bourtounians quote has to do with Safavid times not B.C. Fact is the designation "Southern Azerbaijan" has never been used until the last century. Yaqubi calling Maragheh as the cneter of upper Azerbaijan,, and then asserting at least two other times as all of the caucus being part of armenia does not really solve the problem.

For example ib Hawqal mentioning Tabriz as part of Armenia. As per soviet histography there is lots of books on it from unbiased scholars and stalinis effects permeated after him. Since there is lots of books on it from independent academics, there is no need to discuss the obvious. As per Iranian histography, it is based on western histography and Iranians did not really do much in the last 100 years or so. This is reflected in Encyclopedia of Iranica. Also it would be good to discuss changes and then get a concensus before making edits. thanks. --alidoostzadeh 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted deletion of sourced info by some anon IP. Every removal of info from the article should be properly substantiated on talk. Grandmaster 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading through all the comments on this talk page, and there is clearly no consensus for User:AdilBaguirov's POV changes to the article. I am reverting his edits until there is consensus here. ArmenianJoe 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommend that. Not all of his revision is controversial so a blind revert only contributes to problems at this page. Do you mind stating specific objections for discussion please? The Behnam 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think blind edit warring will do no good. ArmenianJoe, please explain what exactly you dispute and why you reverted all of Adil's edits. And since when Nakhichevan is an exclave of Armenia? Grandmaster 06:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name, the origins, pretty much all of User:AdilBaguirov's edits are disputed and contested on this talk page. You guys are revert-waring to save his POV changes, and that's contrary to the collaborative spirit of wikipedia, where users are acquired to reach consensus with opposing parties. ArmenianJoe 06:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArmenianJoe does not seem to be interested in facts, and becomes active only when reverts are needed (see his contributions list and Talk page). Just like a few IP anons that have appeared today, using proxies in Amsterdam and California, and only revert. Joe, it is not enough to accuse someone of POV, you have to substantiate it. But because you don't know the subject, and become active only when called in, you can't hold a discussion.

Meanwhile, The Behnam, since you were interested in the Caucasian-Iranicized-Turkified thing, here are some references:

"About the 12th century BC several of the wandering Aryan-speaking tribes seized the Iranian plateau..." Source: Iran; Royalty, Religion and Revolution - Page 18, by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi - 1980 [94]

"The Azeris are a Turkic people, the descendants of early Caucasian peoples, with later Persian and Turkic admixtures." Source: Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States By James B Minahan, Greenwood Press, 1998, p. 16 (ISBN 0313306109)

"The Iranian tribes moving from the north onto the plateau which bears their name undoubtedly borrowed many concepts and practices from the long-settled peoples of the western part of the plateau: Elamites, Kassites, Manneans, Urarteans, and others. The process whereby the Iranian tribes settled must have resembled the movement of Turkish-speaking tribes who would invade the plateau much later. But once settled, this conglomeration of tribes was transformed into a new social and political entity, an empire, first of the Medes in the north and then of the Persians in the south of the plateau." (Richard Frye in "Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective", Robert L. Canfield (ed.), Cambridge University Press, p. 39)

"The ancient Iranians moved southward from Central Asia about 1000 BC and spread over the Iranian plateau." (Richard Frye, ibid., p. 38)

There are several more references and indirect references, but I think this is more than enough to leave any reasonable doubts out. --adil 06:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd contest that accusation. I found something objectionable about one of his edits, so I contacted him and explained what was wrong. He then removed it himself. That is collaboration, more than anything you've done here. You have just made vague claim sand blindly reverted the revision, even parts that were not contested. I've specified that the 'caucasian' part was unsourced. It would be nice if you also raised specific objections instead of blindly reverting and following this with unwarranted violations of AGF on this page. Please be more specific so that we can work out contested issues. Thank you. The Behnam 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adil. Next time add the sources with your edits so that there is one less excuse for these people to blindly revert any attempt at revising the page. They do anyway, but still, at least you are more in the right over the matter. The Behnam 06:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it you will revert the page, I will add the references. And thanks for speaking out. --adil 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I can't revert the page because of Dmcdevit's edict. I'm not sure what the limits are on his edict but unfortunately I had to revert that (sock) anon and I am not sure whether or not I'd be allowed to considering ArmenianJoe's undiscussed and unwarranted blind revert. Maybe I should ask Dmcdevit about the issue because I don't see it making this page any more prone to cooperation, at least for many of the users. Sorry. I'll tell you if I figure anything out. The Behnam 07:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please ask him. I've proposed some time ago to semi-protect all Caucasus and Iran-related pages from IP anons and newly created users, to help decrease vandalism such as the one we see today both from IP anons and previously dormant accounts. adil 07:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys do not make any changes until there is a consensus on any input. Else the way the article is going, it will get locked. thanks --alidoostzadeh 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references from above, frmo Frye and Minahan, as requested by The Behnam, and returned the page to the last version by Alison. The user ArmenianJoe like some IP anons were not genuinly interested in the subject, but were out there to simply revert and wreak havoc. --adil 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask Dmcdevit to remove this "0RR rule" from the page as it has no benefits over protection. It doesn't encourage any more discussion, but would allow complete tripe to be added without anyone being able to remove it. Hypothetically, I could find some separatist site, and add a section saying "The people of South Azerbaijan want to be free from their cruel Iranian overlords" using the site as a source. Then when someone who really cares about the quality of the article (one of us) removes it, Dmcdevit could block for a violating of his 0RR rule for this article. I don't know where he derives the authority to use this unheard-of 0RR rule instead of the commonly-practiced protection, but I see no benefits. I had assumed (based on his edit summary version of the warning) that it meant 1RR but now that I have been blocked, I see that it is a truly preposterous view indeed. I will now ask him to just use protection. If people want to add to the article they can use the proper mechanism for that. There are legitimate and strongly accepted WP alternatives to his 0RR edict. The Behnam 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment again

There has not been any consensus yet. But Bourtounian (some portions in Safavid era), Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan article (which does not define borders), Tirumid Persia is not B.C. times. Furthermore, what the argument was that the name “Southern Azerbaijan” is a new name. Only Yaqubi so far has been mentioned something close upper/lower azerbaijan and he puts Maragheh at the center of upper Azerbaijan which does not correspond really to today’s convention. Yaqubi also mentions Arran as part of Armenia twice in other passages which I have brought already. Furthermore, one should note that there is an extensive article dealing with the Arran, Azerbaijan borders which were fluid. By the principle of : [[95]], that section needs to removed. Admitingly the boundary between Arran/Shervan, Armenia, Azerbaijan were fluid but for example Britannica 1911, 8 maps I have and 1890 Russian encyclopedia do not consider them the same. The argument though is that the name "South Azerbaijan" to designate Iran's Azerbaijan is not historical name, it was a product of the last century. If the argument is wrong or right, it should be in its own article. Also if we are going B.C. it is the name Atropatekan or some derivative of that. But the only reference is from soviet encyclopedia which itself should quote a primary source and even in that source, Nakhchivan is a small territory and one can not consider present day Iranian Azerbaijan as "South" Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan as "north" Azerbaijan. Also DNA/origin stuff has its own article and needs to be moved to there. Also the sentence: The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who were originally of Caucasian ethnic stock, but were later Iranified and Turkified. Assuming true, Iranified happened from at least Scythian/Mede times up to the Seljuqs. This makes it seem like the chronological order was the same which is not true. Frye/Tapper mention Turkification of Iranian population in Iranica and Shahsevan. We need to make sure the chronological order is taken into account. Also about Manna language we do not simply know enough to classify it right now as caucasian although weather Manna kingdom extended to all of Iranian Azerbaijan is questionable. --alidoostzadeh 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Frye quote of Adil in full as well as added Britannica. Also I removed the POV fork with regards to the naming issue. None of the sources mentioned said there was a designation by the entity "South Azerbaijan". None of them mentioned B.C. either with the possible exception of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia which is not considered a neutral source in many wikipedia threads and google searches. But assuming Nakhchivan as part of Atropatene (would like to see primary source), I doubt it was designated Northern Atropatene. There needs primary sources. But regardless for Atropatene and B.C. era there needs to be a primary source. According to this secondary source Atropatene was separatd by Armenia with the river aras. [96]. Anyways as I have repeated that section has its own article. I also propose removing the origin and DNA section to the relevant articles which there exists already. Note I am being neutral here since my own POV would support putting DNA stuff but I see no reason when it is repeated in Azerbaijani people and this article is more about a historic region. --alidoostzadeh 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was able to get the Encyclopedia of Islam article on Azarbaijan. I think it is best to follow Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam and make this an academic article. With regards to some issues like 1) Pishevari 2) DNA..etc. 3) detailed origins of Azeri people 4) historical borders of Azerbaijan.. there exists specific articles. So one can refer to those articles which is in reality following wiki policy. --alidoostzadeh 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Hamadan from the list since Hamadan city is Persian speaking. The next three big cities are also not Turkic speaking: Malayer, Nahavand, Towiskaran. But there are Azeri speakers in Razan/Bahar/Kabudar-ahang but then again there are Azeris in Tehran as well. Also the article by Nassib Nassibli is not NPOV and he is an Azeri ambassador and not full Professor or academic. He is talking about oil pipeline and modern politics. The fact is there is no boundaries for Azerbaijan in Iran since it is not an official region. But this designation has has had fluctuating borders throughout time but for now since it is not official, the general conception is that it refers to NW Iran. Nassibli says pretty much the same:is in North-West Iran.--alidoostzadeh 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also left the North Azerbaijan designation (although gets very little hits compared to the republic of azerbaijan or azerbaijan in general), but added Western Kurdistan (Eastern part of Turkey) and Southern Kurdistan (Northern Iraq).--alidoostzadeh 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A MAP IS REQURİED

This page needs a map.It would be more helpful.A lingusitic map may be.

Hi please sign

Here are three: [[97]] [[98]][[99]]--alidoostzadeh 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The geography and provinces section overlap greatly. I believe they should be merged. --alidoostzadeh 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

I think there is in the article a confusion between Historic Azarbaijan formerly Atropatene, and Azarbaijan as a modern ethnographic region consisting of the regions with a Turkic demographic majority. Berzefir 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atropatene has its own article. As per this article, it is not supposed to be ethnographic since in West Azerbaijan Kurds are at least 50% and we can not describe the ethnography of every minority. Although it is not bad to touch upon when Iranic tribes and later on Turkic tribes came. It is supposed to be more about history and other matters since there are articles on Azerbaijani ethnography and ethnicity already. For example it has started with Manna, Medes and should mention briefly stuff about Achaemenid, Atropatene, Parthian, Sassanid, Abbassid, Ummayad, Rawwadid, Shaddadid, Seljuq, Atabakan, Khwarazmids, Ilkhanids... til modern Islamic republic of Iran. Probably two three sentence on each. --alidoostzadeh 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.

here is an article about Azaraijani Kurds. The aim of this article which is still a stub and needs a lot of improvment is to present more info about Kurds dwelling in Azarbaijan; as you may be aware there are some biased misinformation that Kurds, the second significant Azarbaijani ethnic group, are foreigners or strangers in Azarbaijan. Berzefir 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sentences about Zands, Qajars, Safavids, Afghans. --alidoostzadeh 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was informative, thanks. Berzefir 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

The information here suggests that Iranian Azeris cluster with Persians, yet the article on Azerbaijani people suggests that Azeris cluster closely with other Caucasian groups rather than Iranian-speakers. Certainly there are going to be genetic differences between Azeris in Iran and Azeris in Azerbaijan, so perhaps that should be taken into account at the main article. Atashparast 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. Iranian Azeri's cluster with other Iranic peoples, while Azeri's in the Republic of Azerbaijan cluster with other Caucasians. This makes sense, because the Medes settled in Iranian Azerbaijan, while the Caucasus was always predominantly Caucasian. Therefore, when the region was Turkified, the Caucasian speakers became Turkic speakers, and the Iranic speakers became Turkic speakers (it took several centuries for this to happen). Then, the term Azerbaijani started coming into use in the 19th century I believe. Your right, the Azerbaijani people article has a lot of problems and they will be fixed soon hopefully.Azerbaijani 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem with the Azerbaijani people article is that it does not differentiate between the Azeris of Iran and the Azeris of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Whether this is a result of nationalistic editing or what have you, I don't know, but such a generalization is inappropriate. Though they speak the same languages, they are apparently not the same people. This is also evident in the fact that Iranian Azeris look distinctly different from Azeris in the Republic. Thus, to generalize both groups in a single article is akin to merging the article on Tajiks with Persians - both speak the same language, but are ethnically distinct from one another. I will such issues to others to sort out as most of the sources that I am compiling are mostly concerned with linguistic and ethnic demography, but these are my recommendations. Atashparast 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this article is about Azerbaijan region within Iran. Azeri people (See the article Azerbaijani people), Kurdish people(See the article Azerbaijani Kurds) and etc. has its own article. This is an article about a non-official historic geographic region and its history.--alidoostzadeh 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Azerbaijani people (at least the genetics section) mostly relates to Azeris of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is the point I was making above. The information in this article contradicts the information in that one. Atashparast 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is still the place for the proper edit since this article is about a region. You can put your information there. Since this article is about a region inhabited by various groups of people, the DNA stuff about a particular group should be be moved to a more appropriate article. --alidoostzadeh 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the information per your suggestion. Atashparast 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you removed too much information in some places but I have restored some of it... My suggestion was just a suggestion although it was up to other users as well. But it seems more appropriate that genetics should be discussed somewhere else. --alidoostzadeh 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quote from Akbar Aghajanian's article in International Journal of Middle East Studies to reflect the population of East Azarbayjan in geography section. Thanks. Atabek 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is from 1983. Could you not find anything more recent?Azerbaijani 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the source is out-dated but the demographic data is correct. Specially since Ardabil a recent province was a portion of East Azerbaijan. Also the word which is use in this article is "Azerbaijani" since for average wikipedia reader "Turk" means people of Turkey. I'll keep the data about demographics since there is no dispute on it but it should be under the "people section" not geography. Qashqai's for the most part speak a dialect very similar to Azeri but I am not sure if they are grouped as Azeri's or not. Iranica has a more recent article on Qashqai I believe which shows it is confederacy of mainly Turkic speaking tribes ( along smaller number of Luri/Kurdish/Arab speaking tribes. But the article is about a region Azerbaijan since there is an article on azeris in Iran . If we mention Qashqais, Kurds, ..leaving outside of Azerbaijan it is sort off topic.--alidoostzadeh 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, this is ridiculous, and clearly POV. What do you mean the source is out-dated? Azerbaijani keeps inserting his outdated POV all over the pages related to Azerbaijan and now the 1983 article in Journal of Mideastern Studies is somehow outdated? Please, discuss your edits before removing the reference. Atabek 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "outdated POV" have I ever put anywhere (please show me diff's, if you cant, then stop attacking other users)? Attacks like this will only further damage the reputation you have on Wikipedia.Azerbaijani 20:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was asking Ali, not you. The fact that you inserted POV material earlier from milliondollarbabies and other amateur websites to justify your unencyclopedic points are already known on pages like Musavat, History of the name Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Atabek 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant out-dated in terms of geographics. For example East Azerbaijan is now East Azerbaijan and Ardabil. Zanjan was also split between Qazvin (mainly Persian speaking) and Zanjan (Mainly Azerbaijani speaking). So I kept the data in there, but removed the source since it was really out-dated with regards to geographics. Its not about the date for example, since a 2000 sources describing Khorasan province would be outdated since now we have North,Razavi and South Khorasan. --alidoostzadeh 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, show me diff's. Milliondollarbabies was a source, and would you believe it if I told you that some IP address was the owner of the article your using? No, so I dont see how you can use that as an argument. I suggest you calm down Atabek and read what other people are writing.Azerbaijani 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Encyclopedia Iranica: "Azerbaijan", viii "Azerbaijan Turkish", Doerfer, G. page 246, (LINK)
^ Brown, Cameron S. 2002 (Dec.). "Observations from Azerbaijan." Middle East Review of International Affairs: v. 6, no. 4, (LINK)
^ Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky, “Atropatena”, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), 3rd edition, 1970
^ V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925 (in Russian)
^ Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894
^ Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354
^ http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm Yaqut al-Hamavi, "Alphabetic list of countries" (Mujam al-Buldan), 1983, p. 271, (translated from Arabic into Russian by P.K.Zhuze)
^ Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky, “Atropatena”, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), 3rd edition, 1970
^ V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925 (in Russian)
^ Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894
^ Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354
^ http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm Yaqut al-Hamavi, "Alphabetic list of countries" (Mujam al-Buldan), 1983, p. 271, (translated from Arabic into Russian by P.K.Zhuze)

[1] Encyclopedia Iranica: "Azerbaijan", viii "Azerbaijan Turkish", Doerfer, G. page 246, (LINK)

[2] Brown, Cameron S. 2002 (Dec.). "Observations from Azerbaijan." Middle East Review of International Affairs: v. 6, no. 4, (LINK)

[3] Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky, “Atropatena”, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), 3rd edition, 1970

[4] V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925 (in Russian)

[5] Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894

[6] Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354

[7] ttp://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm Yaqut al-Hamavi, "Alphabetic list of countries" (Mujam al-Buldan), 1983, p. 271, (translated from Arabic into Russian by P.K.Zhuze)

[8] Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky, “Atropatena”, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), 3rd edition, 1970

[9] V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925 (in Russian)

[10] Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894

[11] Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354

[12] ttp://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm Yaqut al-Hamavi, "Alphabetic list of countries" (Mujam al-Buldan), 1983, p. 271, (translated from Arabic into Russian by P.K.Zhuze)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]