Talk:History of Azerbaijan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

[No title]

Hi Guys, I am interested in the history of Azerbaijan and that's why I ended up here. I am an Azeri too. I am not going to criticise any of opposite opinions here since I am still trying to learn more.

What made me to write is the unpleasant tone of disscussions. My friends it sounds a kind of shame to argue about past in such a manner in a time that for humans sake all around the world we are supposed to work hard with faith for a better life for any poor or discriminated people.

Where millions of humans are about to die from hunger and AIDS in Africa, people are loosing life because of wrong men of the world like Boush, Bin Ladan, Khamane'ee, etc., what's the point for arguing on the previous name of Republc of Azerbaijan, or that Azeris belong to which nation or country?

It's very usefull to study history for a better improvement of people and countries, but purpose must be in the direction of decreasing hatred among them, not helping to start another fire. Separation of southern Azerbaijan from Iran, or inviting Republic of Azerbaijan to join Iran does not help to anything. The truth is Azeris and Iranians share a very close history, culture and litrature. Like they share many things with their other neighbours and must use them for happy and strong relations.

What helps is giving knowledge to people to know their cultural, social and economical rights and helping them to obtain it in a pieceful way in both Iran and Republic of Azerbaijan.

Khosh yashasin insanlar har yerda, Jafar Rashedi. July 11, 2005

[No title]

Hi Guys,

I just landed here, as I was looking for the Golestan treaty. I am some how surprised by the tone of discussions.

I believe these discussions are fruitless. Facts are facts. Yes, as mentioned in one of the articles, the real name of the region that is called republic of Azerbaijan today is ARRAN.

It was named "Azerbaijan" by Soviet leaders for simple geo-strategic and geo-political reasons. And you know what? We see they have been successfull when we see this type of narrow-minded discussions.

The truth is that Azeri's are much closer to Iranians (yes, Iranians and not only persians) that most of them want to admit. Azeri's share most of their history with Iran, as Iranians share their history with them. Our cultures have the same roots. We even share the same religion (most of Azeris are Chiites like the majority of Iranians, whereas most of Turks are Sunnites). Iranian Crown Princes have been always prepared to rule in Tabriz.

Have you ever asked yourselves why Azeri language is considered as a Turkic language? I let you go back to your books and you will find out the reasons.

Azeris have been among the first popolutions who built and founded Iran and they have been heroical. Have you heard of Babak Khoramdin? He is an Iranian Hero and of Azeri descent. He was a guy you resisted till the last moment the Arab invasion of Iran. He was not fighting for Azerbaijan only. He was fighting for Iran, his land.

There are more Azeris in Iran than in the republic of Azerbaijan. And you know what, they are happy to be Iranians.

Also, as an Iranian, let me tell you (and all Iranians - Azeri or non-Azeri - would tell you the same), we consider you as our brothers and sisters. We consider you as our compatriots.

Cheers, Babak.--81.63.25.171 20:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What brothers and sisters??? The azeri people have no right in Iran! At what kind of friendship and eqality in Iran you can talk?! Iran (PERSIANS) are discriminating all other nations in country. Especially it is valid for azeris! They don't even have right to study in their language at school! (!!!!) However they make up to 35-40% of the population! This kind of Iran will not resist! It has no right to resist! It must brake down! Wikipedia, please don't delete my page. All my words are true even if I'm talking a little taugh

[No title]

198.81.26.43/K1/Roozbeh: Please cease reverting each other's versions of this page and attempt to reach a compromise regarding the content of this page. If you do not, this page will be protected until you do. Thank you. -- Grunt (talk) 23:58, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

Dear moderator,

I respect what wikipedia stands for and I know that when there are constant different opinions regarding a topic, the threads are closed. However, I will have to ask you this question: how can I come to conclusions with chauvinists who try to change the history of a land in order to destroy the existance of ethnic identity and who label anyone writing truthful, non-Persian versions of history as "pan-something" in order to silence the truth?

I don't think the staff at Wikipedia or most people understand the tactics that these Persian chauvinists (Iranianists/Aryanists) use to justify ethnic hatred and genocide against different nations living in Iran.

regards,

Emil Muazin

As far as I'm concerned (and as I'm saying for the third time to ensure that the point is heard), there are two equally valid (invalid?) points of view in contest here. Since there is enough material for two entire articles in two different lights, this much seems to me to be obvious, so if any sort of neutral consensus is to be reached both of you will have to accept that the other's view is valid; then maybe we can create a properly neutral article. -- Grunt (talk) 01:37, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Page protected

Month-long edit wars are bad. I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also please read m:The wrong version and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Thanks - David Gerard 00:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From my Persian Encyclopedia

I did some translation from the Gholamhossein Mosahab's 1966 The Persian Encyclopedia of the history of the Soviet Azerbaijan (which is the Republic of Azerbaijan now). I consider it somehow neutral (at least the historical facts, I don't claim anything about the wordings), and I will be adding stuff from other related articles about the history of the region to subpages here. Please note that there may be copyright violations, so avoid using it for anything but reference: /Soviet Azerbaijan, /Azarbaijan, /Aturpatkan, /Albania (ancient), /Arran, /Shervan /Golestan Treaty, /Torkaman-Chay Treaty.

BTW, Caucasian Albania may also be helpful in resolving the disputes about the history of the area now in Republic of Azerbaijan.

Roozbeh 22:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your "Persian encyclopedia" is only good for people such as yourself. What is "Gholamhosein" (Ghulam Hussein in real languages) Was he a Persian chauvinist trying to change history for you to quote on ? And what is "Golestan" (Gulistan in real languages) and "Torkaman chay" (Turkmenchay in real languages) and where is "Azarbaijan" (Azerbaijan, Azerbeijan in real languages.) Man you need to spell properly..yuck. These Persian pronounciations are worth nothing to a real historian....and neither are any of your Aryanist sources. All your sources are Iranian nationalist (Aryan propoganda) sources that are only useful for people such as yourself. Who cares what "Gholam Hossein" the Farsi grocer said?

You should go and check the United Nation files against Persian chauvinisim..."gholam" and "hosein" and "akbar agha" don't mean anything in reality. LOL.

I consider your wording to be reason enough that you don't want to get into a debate about the facts, but you just wish to restate your opinion about "Persian chauvinism". Please discuss the facts, like when was the current Republic of Azerbaijan first named "Azerbaijan". The Persian Encyclopedia mentions 1918, and the 1911 Britannica mentions that Azerbaijan is what is in the south of Aras/Araks/Araz. Both these point to the idea that the area was not called Azerbaijan before 1911, but Caucusian Albania, Arran, Shervan, Baku, etc. Why is not the word "Azerbaijan" mentioned in the 1911 Britannica article on Caucausia [1] which mention Baku, Elizavetpol (Ganja) and the Kura valley, and at the same time its article on Azerbaijan [2] mentions that the area is limited to Aras on the north? What is your counterclaim? That "Persian chauvinists" influenced Britannica in the early twentieth century? Roozbeh 10:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or let me ask another question. This Azerbaijani source mentions "Arran" two times. Where was it? May not this what is mentioned in this article by C. E. Bosworth, Emeritus Professor of Arabic Studies from the University of Manchester and an expert in the history of the area? Roozbeh 11:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ATROPATAN, the real name of the republic of Azerbaijan ==

To the "Azeri"s

The "Azeri"s on this page are actually Anatolian Turks, advocating the separation of Azerbaijan from Iran. How do I know this??

Because I myself am an Azeri. But like millions of Azeris, I am also a proud Iranian. Iran in fact belongs to us. We helped defend Iran against the Iraqis. We helped defend Iran against The Ottomans. For God's sake we even ruled Iran. who were The Medians? Who were the Safavis? Who were The Qajaris? Who were the Pahlavis? Who is Ayatollah Khamenei? Ayatollah Khamenei IS an Azeri. Iran is ours. And I am not going to sit and be convinced to separate and move out of the land that is ours. The Azeris are in fact the remnants of The Medians. I claim this for a fact. We even have indigenous Turks in Fars. Besides, Iranians, unlike the Turks and brainwashed Sovietized Azeris are warm blooded people. Olar yakhchi adam dular.

The Republic of Azerbaijan should return to its motherland, Iran.

Iran IS the homeland of Azeris. Khosh keisin.--Zereshk 09:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And this poem is from Shahriar, the great contemporary Iranian poet, from Azarbaijan, in answer to those who tell Azaris they are not Iranian and should be separatists. Funny thing is that most illiterate Pan-Turkists claim him as a Turk "symbol" because of his famous "Heydar Babaye" book. The following poem is from his "Divan Ghazaliyat":

درد دل را با زبان دل بيان کردی ولی --- کيست اهل دل که باشد آشنا با آن زبان

ليکن اينها دشمنان کردند از ايران مرنج --- دوست را قربانی دشمن نشايد کرد هان

تو همايون مهد زرتشتی و فرزندان تو --- پور ايرانند و پاک آيين نژاد آريان

اختلاف لهجه مليت نزايد بهر کس --- ملتی با يک زبان کمتر بياد آرد زمان

گر بدين منطق ترا گفتند ايرانی نه ای --- صبح را خواندند شام و آسمان را ريسمان

بيکس است ايران به حرف ناکسان از ره مرو --- جان به قربان تو ای جانانه آذربايجان

تو همايون گلشن قدسی و نزهتگاه انس --- دامنت زرتشت را مهديست طوبی سايبان

آسمانی کشور آذرگشسبی لاله خيز --- دامن سرسبز تو رشگ بهشت جاودان

The above is just one of numerous examples of his poems which clearly shows how he felt about Iran and Azarbaijan's inseparable bind with Iran. He has many poems about the Achamenids, Sassanids, Ferdowsi, and many other exmples which show how Azaris feel about Iran. Oh, and yes, this is the same Shahriar (Hussain Bihjat Tabrizi) who wrote "Heydar Babaye ُSalam"! --80.58.5.42 06:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey you choonies ! Zoroaster was not a Turk. The Medians were not Turks. The Turks were living in caves in Siberia drinking goat blood, sucking reindeer teats and their shamans were smoking wild dog pubic hairs while the Persians and the Greeks were civilizing the Middle East and Mediterranean.

Here's a great page about proto-Azeri culture: http://www.priroda.net/schoolclub/rock.html

Hello everyone as you all can see by my name Im Azeri and I would like to say a few stuff about the previous post. First of all you are right Azerbaycan should not go back to Iran. Azerbaycan is a different country now, we have grown apart. The northern of Iran is actually Azeri territory. But all of Azerbaycan used to be part of the Persian empire, there is no doubt and discussion about that. Offcourse Im a proud Azeri but lets keep it real, Persia is older then Azerbaycan. It is true we defended their land including our own, great King like Babek defended Iran and Azerbaycan over 20 years.

And I would like to say there should be more to search about Babek, he was the greatest king Azerbaycan ever had, a true example of Azeri. I see Babek as the prime example of greatness. I tried searching google about Babek, but not much succes, its shamefull, there must be something done about this. I tried searching it on this site but I only got like 2 very small articells, long not enough! Babek fought against the barbarian muslim army for over 20 years, the muslims couldnt defeat him so they bribed some general to backstab Babek. But nowhere in the internet does anyone mention this. So remember all Babek was NEVER defeated on the battlefield or anywere else who got backstabbed!

I also think there should be a movie about Babek, a new one, I have seen the old Sovjet one, great movie. But I think its time to shake the rest of the world about this great King. I mean the western world is already pride when they have a king who fought a much greater army for 2 weeks. Like these Greek and Roman movies. These Empire's are nothing compared to what Babek did. Imagen a King who fought endless muslim army for over 20 years, thats something truely the world needs to hear. Also its a great true story, about passian, pride, love and loyality & betrayel. I would like to hear your opinions about this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baku87 (talk • contribs) 18 Aug 2005.

No proof

There is noe historical data to back up the claim that modern Azeri's are decendants of the Sumerians or the Urartians. Therefore I removed those two peoples from the article.--Moosh88 20:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And it is Wikipedia policy to cite verifiable sources, so in an article this contested, these need to be especially authoritative ones. El_C 04:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have consulted various books, there are various elements of this article that are opposed. Are there no historians of the region in Wikipedia that could read this article, what I know of it, is that the first section is to be entirly writen, there is nearly nothing that could conform to the NPOV policy. Fadix 19:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please examine this edit?

I have no expertise on this topic but this edit came from a contributor many of whose edits have amounted to vandalism. Someone should check it closely. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Medes

The first articale about the Medes is completely true, and may I add; the Medes Queen married the Persian king to unite their empires, their first son Cyrus was later on a the first Persian King.

The part about Babek is not right. First Babek was Azeri, he said he was Azeri, it is written he is Azeri, Even in his castle there is written land of Azeri! And Babak does not mean father, Baba means father.

Controversy

The Medes were aryans(Iranian) and Herodotus specifically calls them Aryan. So do Moses of Khorentasi and also Strabo mentions that the Median language is mutually intelligble with Persian. It must be mentioned that there does not exist any trace of Turkish in Azarbaijan before the turco-mongol Ilkhanid dynasty. That is there does not exist any trace of Turkish on stone, paper, tree, papyrus, book, etc. before the Ilkhanid Turco-Mongol dynasty. Elamite and Mana and Media and Hurrians were not Turkic civilizations and such false information makes this article useless.

Bal'ami the historian never wrote that any of these lands belong to Turks. Bal'ami just translated portions of the history of Tabari in Persian (with some additions of his own). Also Ibn Vazeh Yaqubi and majority of sources clearly distinguish between Azarbaijan which is a province in Iran and the caucasian territories Arran and Armenia. For example Ibn Vazeh Yaqubi mentions that Arran (modern country of Azerbaijan) is part of Armenia. So one can not take a few sources and we must look at al sources in order to make a clear assessment of historical facts.

In the history of Tabari there is a direct reference to a certain governor named Mohammad al'Baith who composed poetry in Persian and Arabic. This shows that Turkic was not a language of that time. Also Babak Khorramdin is Persian as counted by the Armenian history Vardapet and also the arabic historian Ibn Hazm. The name "south Azerbaijan" is not recognized by the UN and the article makes another false claim here. The name of the founder of the Sassanid dynasty was also Babak and Babak means Father in Khorasani and Kurdish dialects. Similarly Khorramdin is a mazdakite religion whereas the religion of ancient turks was shamanism.

According to the famous historian al-Masu'di, who lived in the 10th Century AD, the Persians are:

According to Masoudi the Arab historian, the Persians are: " a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8)"

Ibn al-Nadim writes in his book al-Fihrist that the language of Iranian people could be divided in five classes including Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi, Khuzi (language of people in Khuzestan) and Soriani. Relying on what Ibn Muqaffa' said, he opined that Dari was the language of courtiers while Farsi was the language of priests and scientists and the language of people of Fars; Khuzi was the language that kings and dignitaries used in their intimate talks. Soriani was the language of people of Iraq while Pahlavi was spoken by people of Isfahan, Rey, Hamedan, Mah (Mede), Nahavand and Azerbaijan. His writing goes as such:

"Ibn Muqaffa' said: Iranian languages are five: Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi, Khuzi and Soriani. Pahlavi is attributed to Pahleh, which includes five regions of Isfahan, Rey, Hamedan, Mah, Nahavand and Azerbaijan. Dari is the language of cities in Madaen and courts of kings. Dari is eastern. Farsi is the language of priests and scientists. Dari is mostly spoken by people of Khorassan, Balkh and some regions in Fars. Khuzi is spoken by kings and dignitaries, but Soriani is the language of people of Iraq."

Just to summarize: There does not exist any trace of Turkish on stone, paper, tree, papyrus, book, etc. before the Ilkhanid dynasty and the oldest example of Turkish is the post-Islamic Orkhon inscriptions situated in modern Mongolia. Similarly all travelers before the Ilkhanid dynasty have mentioned that the land speaks Persian dialect.

The Overlooked Conflict

Not to change the subject out of hand, but to someone who is not personally embroiled in the ethno-cultural-historical-ect. politics of Azerbaijan, I believe that the fact that I cannot find anything about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a huge omission. I have heard that more people died in that conflict than in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's. Yet this is not common knowledge, nor can I find out about the conflict in Wikipedia because there seems to be no interest in explaining this important historical event.

[No title]

I have started to edit this page and will continue to do so during this month. While bulk of the facts reported is correct, this article does not reflect NPOV esposed by Wikipedia and is subjective. I am trying to make it more neutral and factual, or if you may, politically correct. I am willing to discuss the details of the editing on these pages. While separation of Turkic peoples of Azerbaijan is beyond question, the one sided tone of the argument is. We should be impartial while writing encyclopedia.

Hormet ile

Nazim Abdullayev, December 2005.

Inaccuracy on UN reference to Iranian Azarbayjan

Regardless of Pan-Persian or Pan-Turkic chauvinism (I dislike both), I would like to note as a United Nations Official that the UN has never refered to Iranian Azarbayjan as South Azerbayjan in any legal document. Please correct this issue as soon as possible. If this is not corrected within the next month (end of January 2006), I will ask Wikipedia to remove the entire post because of inaccurate information.

On the personal side, I myself am Kurdish married to an Azari, and I find these issues rather ridiculous. Iranian Azaris have played a major role in all the social and political development in Iran in the past 1000 years and the Iranian culture cannot be defined without them. Azeri/Azari culture is beautiful and Iranian Azaris have enriched the Iranian culture as have Persians, Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Gilaks, Lors, etc. If we wanted to create a country for every ethnicity that exists in the world and has a population of over 100,000, we would have 18,700 countries. Countries like Switzerland have Italian, French and German speaking people living side by side in harmony. I don't see why that can't be the case in our region. Yashasan Azerbayjan/Azarbayjan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.129.165 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 December 2005.

Recent edits

Dear user - the UN reference to Iranian Azerbajan has been removed, until evidence is shown. I also would like to commend user User:Tombseye for excellent edits on Ancient history of Azerbaijan, as well as supplying and correcting references I have assembled. I will try to follow this format. I am still continueing with contemporary and medieval history. Also very timely raised is DNA testing results from Univ. of Chicago. Please raise any issues on these pages

Yeah, hopefully this page can really be cleaned up. --Khoikhoi 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Khoikhoi, I am new here, so I am trying to follow the format and the rules. I think that dispute should die down now, since the article is more objective at the moment after the edits. The dispute was about the Iranian/Turkic nature of Azeri nation.Evidence is shown here for both sides, and the sign can be taken off in a near future? - abdulnr, 28 December

Ok, I'll take it down now. --Khoikhoi 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys. This article seems to have gotten very long and in some cases repetitive, so I'm editing as much as possible to make it clearer and easier to read as many of the links give in-depth information anyway so I'm shortening it as much as possible so that non-Azeris can better understand and get more out of the article. Hopefully, this article will be looking great real soon. Also, my recommendation would be to not add any more information unless absolutely necessary as the article needs to be readable for non-historians as well as historians. Let me know if this is all okay with everyone. I think the article is definitely more neutral and objective and I can't imagine why people would still complain or think it's biased as it it just relating academic information from the books and references noted. By the way, good job both of you! Tombseye 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I will not add anymore stuff, except correction of my own gram. errors, where I can. Thanks a lot for great work. I don't mind any edits, if I have any objections, i will correct them.

--User:abdulnr22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Sound great Abdulnr! Tombseye 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The myth of "Azerbaijan's partition"

Today's Republic Azerbaijan has never been part of the historical land "Azerbaijan". There has never been a "partition", but the former Iranian province Arran was named "Azerbaijan" by the Russians to further expand their territiroal demands into Iranian heart-lands. As you can see in the map below (Abbasid Caliphate), modern "Azerbaijan" was known as "Arran", while today's Iranian-Azerbaijan is the REAL and HISTORICAL Azerbaijan:

Abbasid provinces during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid

Abbasid provinces during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid

-Tajik 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The main point is really that a people who speak Azeri live in both what is today Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. They don't speak Persian and, according to genetic tests, appear to be related mainly to the native people of the Caucasus moreso than the Iranian peoples.

Also, the Oghuz Turks who arrived in the region, even by Abbassid times hadn't formed as we know them today. These Turks had been imported as slave soldiers and yet would end up ruling most of the previously Arab controlled lands and beyond. Thus, the Turkification of Azerbaijan and Aran had not yet taken place, but through a process of centuries this ethnic group emerged as the native peoples were assimiliated etc. The usage of the name 'Azerbaijan' is really not the point as its just a name. It might have been just a local name of a province that the Turks decided to adopt, but it doesn't matter. For example, the Bulgars of Bulgaria aren't Turkic, but Slavic so obviously the local Slavs adopted the name rather than the actual ancestry for the most part of the Turkic Bulgars. These are important points to realize here as well. Tombseye 18:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if it makes a difference. Azerbaijan is a land that is right now populated by Azeri Turkish speaking majority. This geographical entity includes provinces of Arran or Shirvan (which is only a part of the territory of the Republic) and also of Iranian Azerbaijan. This geographical region needs a definition - which is given here, e.g Azerbaijan. Since this territory, where the Azeri Turkish speakers of Shia faith, are the majority is separated in two parts - hence the term partition. Perfectly legitimate term. Abdulnr 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree to this explanation. This article is about the history of today's nation-state known as "Azerbaijan". Since this region has never been part of the historical Azerbaijan, it has no right to claim "partition" from the region known as "Iranian Azerbaijan". All this "partition" discussion is being provocated by certain people who have certain agendas - most notably the "Gray Wolves" and their pan-turkist idelogies. Any claims of Azerbaijan on Iranian lands is baseless and illegitimate - historically and politically. The same goes to Pan-Iranists who claim modern Azerbaijan. It is important to mention that today's "Azerbaijan" used to be the Persian province "Arran", was then annexed by Russians who changed the name to "Azerbaijan" to expand their territorial demands into "Iranian Azerbaijan". Pan-Turkists simply continue this Russian tactic because of their own agendas. The terms "North Azerbaijan" and "South Azerbaijan" are historically and politically wrong, and thus should not be used in Wikipedia. Tajik 07:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that there a people known as Azerbaijanis who live in the regions we are covering here. If you'll note, most of the time the references are to a people of Albania and as genetic testing of the Azeris points to their links to Caucasian peoples this is meant to be to understood that the Azeris as we know them spread out obviously after being the Azeris. In other words, the Albanians and others (possibly Iranian tribes in Iranian Azerbaijan) were Turkified and became Azeris who in turn now inhabit the region. Not sure what Pan-Turkism has to do with this as the only point here is that the Azeris speak a Turkic language and are found on both sides of the border and their history sometimes overlaps. It is not stated that they have always been Azeri etc. Also, the usage of "Iranian land" seems a bit strange since the Azeris are the predominant group in both north and southern regions. Are you saying they are on Persian territory or something because that opens up a whole can of worms here. Perhaps someone should find the descendents of the Elamites and give them the land. People write history. At some point people decided to call Persia, Persia even though the Iranian tribes that lived there weren't all Persians. Obviously, these are choices. Azeris were just called Turks before and probably quite similar to the Turks of Turkey and Turkmenistan language wise. See, the thing is that it was the Persian-controlled province you mean. The Turks ruled Persia for a while and I don't think you'd want to call it Turkestan. The Azeris still live there and in some way their history needs to be told. If it turns out that the Azeris are the Albanians who were turkified and then expanded then that's their history. Also, a lot of reference books use the terms south and north azerbaijan. Perhaps this is more of a Persian sensibility rather than an actual problem. Tombseye 09:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye. I am not pushing Azeri point of view, in fact this has nothing to do with political agenda, and I strongly oppose any union of the "Azerbaijans" under any guise. The history covered here is not of republic of Azerbaian (at least until 1828), but of a wider region that is populated currently by Azeri Turkish speaking majority. The history of two parts is intertwined, for example - state of Turkic dynasty of Atabeqs included South (or Iranian ) Azerbaijan and area of Aran in the current republic. So is every single state in Medieval times you can mention, shifting their borders on yearly basis. Besides, within Iran proper, history of South Azerbaijan has little to do with history of Khurasan and much more to do with areas north of Arax river. It makes sense to unite both areas currently named Azerbaijan. Otherwise you can create monsters such as "the territory currently named Republic of Azerbaijan, part of which was in middle ages named by some Aran and Shirvan ( TCNRAPWWMANSAS)". Abdulnr 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do understand you points, but this does not solve the problem. This is not about Turkish-speaking Shia peoples (there are many Shia Azerbaijanis, and also many Azerbaijanis who do not speak Turkish) - this is about the POLITICAL history of the region known as "Azerbaijan". The nation "Azerbaijan" claims that this country was "partitioned", the same way Korea or Germany were partitioned. But this is not true. There has never been a partition but simply a name-change. This claim of "partition" somehow reminds me of the Czech Republic where the western parts of the nation, known as "Sudentenland" is mostly inhabited by ethnic Germans. German nationalists still continue to call that region "Sudentendeutschland", the same way Turkish nationalists use the improper name "South Azerbaijan". Both cases are politically incorrect and wrong. However, this is not about how the country is called today - it is about how the nation got its name. It is about correct history. For more information, see the Encyclopaedia Iranica and "Azerbaijan": 230 - as correctly stated by the Encyclopaedia Iranica (the most authoritive work of Iranian and Oriental studies), there has never been a "partition". Tajik 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WHy do the students of the Khazar Univeristy of the Republic of Azerbaijan claim that Iran and Russia divided their country? There was no partian just Russian annexing Iranian territory. A student at the univrsity asked the Iranian Ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan this!!!! They have never heard of the Treaties the Qajars signed???? What propaganda. Azerbaijan was a part of Iran for almost all its existance. 69.196.139.250 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Azeri Identity

OK, my father is an ethnic Azeri TURK from Hamadan Province (Iran) and my mother is Persian. But let me make one thing clear...we Azeris are Iranian, yes, but we are NOT Persian. In other words, "menim babam fars deyir" (my father is not Persian), nor does he like to be considered as such, since that is not his true identity. I am not anti-Persian, after all, how can I be when my own mother is Persian? Now, I do not favor total secession for Iran's Azeri provinces (East/West Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Zanjan and northern Hamadan province)...after all I come from a mixed family, and do not want to see my family split between two countries. It is a known fact that because of the common Shi'ite faith, and common Iranian nationality, there have been millions of mixed Azeri-Persian marriages. Also, Tehran is home to over 4 million Azeris, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that a large number of businesses in Tehran are Azeri-run. Azeris are well integrated in Iranian society (being Shi'ite correligionists is one of the main reasons), and there are many Azeris in prominent government positions. That said, it does not change the fact that Iran's mullahcracy is continuing the Shah's policy of stifling Azeri language and culture. Why should young Azeri children attending school in Tabriz have to learn arithmetic, geography and science in Persian, a language that does not come naturally to them? Why does the Iranian government prohibit the Azeri language to be taught and used in schools, in newspapers, TV and radio stations? The longer the Iranian mullahcracy denies the Azeris linguistic and cultural freedom, the more secessionist sentiments will grow in Azeri provinces. I support autonomy for Azeri provinces, with respect for Iranian territorial integrity, so I am not for total independence and unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan. My father always taught me "We are Iranians first". I can appreciate that, but I am gradually getting fed up with Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism, and I am becoming more and more sympathetic to Azeris who have nationalistic aspirations leaning towards Baku. I cannot forgive the mullahcracy for supporting Armenia against fellow Shi'ites in Qarabag, not to mention this was a slap in the face for Iran's 35 million Azeris. Also, Iran allows Tehran's Armenians to hold demonstrations in front of the Turkish Embassy, but does not allow Azeris to hold demonstrations in front of the Armenian Embassy in Tehran. Enough is enough. Yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin dilimiz.Azeroglu 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Azeroglu

Interesting view ... do you think the same way when discussing the problems of 15m Kurds in Turkey or some 1m Non-Azeris in Azerbaijan?! This is just a question, no offence intended. By the way, the number of Azeris in Iran is less than 15m. According to the CIA factbook, there are only 17m Azeris in Iran, according to the Encyclopaedia of the Orient only 12m. Encarta claims that all Turkic peoples in Iran count together some 18m. So, where did you get the 35m (making Azeris the largest group in Iran - keeping in mind that there are only some 34m Persians in the country). Seems to me like a cheap Pan-Turkist propaganda-number. Like saying that "there are more Kurds in Turkey than ethnic Turks" or that there are "more Tatis in Azerbaijan than ethnic Azeris". Tajik 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me when was the last time you went to Iran. There are a lot Azeri radio broadcasts, Azeri language papers in Tehran or Tabriz or other areas. WHat do you mean it is banned? Azeri is a protected national language. It is spoken freely by Azeris all over Iran. There are eeven private Azeris schools and Azeri is taught at university level along with Kurdish and other languages in Iran. So what is this TALE? This is untrue. I want to point out that in world reports Iran is deemed a freer country than the former Soviet Republics, all the Middle East (excluding Israel), much of Asia, and many other countries. Do you know who the biggest opponents and critics of Iran are? They are Iranians themselves becuase Iranians have a very strong sense of democracy, freedom, and politics. Even the label Islamic fundamentalist was one of Iranian origin becuase the post-1979 system of Islamic theocracy was too eextreme for them but is extremly tame compared to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. 69.196.139.250 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arran?

Is it not true that most of what is today the republic of Azerbaijan was not called “Azerbaijan” before it was separated from Iran by Russians? And it was called Arran instead? A few editors have claimed it and I have heard it from other people (mostly Azeri Iranians) as well. However it is not mentioned in the article so I was wondering if it accurate or not. I have never heard this claim from anybody other than Iranians so it is safe to say it might be biased and not entirely true.

I appreciate if some one could clarify it for me

Thanks Gol 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Useful information "Arran, the real name of the republic of Azerbaijan"

Dr. Enayatollah Reza is a celebrated researcher in the social sciences, especially of historical subjects. His latest studies are focused on the history of Azarbaijan and Aran. He asserts that, based on historical texts, the real name of Caucasus's Azerbaijan is "Aran" and its former name was changed for political reasons. In the following interview, he talks about the content of his upcoming book titled "Azarbaijan, Aran and Albania".

Q: Dr. Reza, you are practically the first Iranian scholar who has researched on Aran and Caucasus's Albania and you have written a book on this. Please explain your views regarding the name of Azerbaijan. Why do you believe that there is only one Azarbaijan, the Azarbaijan of Iran, and that there is no such land called Azerbaijan to the north of the Aras River?

A: Historically speaking, the territory in the Caucasus that lies to the north of the Aras river, was never called Azerbaijan until the year 1918. Giving it this name created difficulties in the first half of the 20th century and in the succeeding years, and these cannot be ignored. History, as well as the works of ancient geographers and Islamic writers bear witness to the fact that the land to the north of the Aras River, which is now known as Azerbaijan, was known before as Albania (Alban). Classical writers, such as Strabon and others, called this region Albania, Armenian, or Alvanak (Aghvanak), while Iranians called it Aran. Aliyov, a historian in the former Soviet Azerbaijan, in his article "Sources Relating the Ancient History of Caucasus's Albania", wrote that in the Parthian era, the eastern part of the Caucasus was called "Ardan". Greek materials referred to this place as "Albania". Barthold, the famous Soviet scholar, believed that in the Islamic era and, according to Arabic sources, this name has taken the forms of "Al-ran" or "Aran", which probably is a transformation of the ancient Parthian name "Ardan".

There is no reason to doubt that Aran was separate from Azarbaijan and that the Aras River constituted the northern border of Azarbaijan, and Aran had never been called Azerbaijan. The academician Barthold most clearly mentioned the Aras River as lying between Azarbaijan and Aran or the ancient Albania (Collected Works, Volume 7, Moscow, 1971, page 123).

Prior to the invention of the name Azerbaijan to designate Aran and Shirvan, Tzarist Russian sources recognized only one Azarbaijan, the true Azarbaijan. The first volume of the Russian Encyclopedia (pages 212 and 213), which was published in St. Petersburg some 102 years ago (in 1890), stated: "Azarbaijan, which was 'Aturpatekan' in Pahlavi and 'Azarbadekan' in Armenian, is the rich industrial northern province of Iran. It borders Iranian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia and the Southern Caucasus to the north. Its border is marked by the Aras River". Had the name Azerbaijan been used for the land to the north of the Aras, undoubtedly, this encyclopedia would have used the name "Russian Azerbaijan" just as it had used the designations "Turkish Kurdistan", "Iranian Kurdistan", "Turkish Armenia", or "Russian Armenia". It can easily be seen that only one Azarbaijan existed and that was the Iranian Azarbaijan.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution and the ensuing turmoil in the Russian empire, Turkish politicians of the time became intent on establishing a puppet state in the Caucasus. In 1911, a party named "Mossavat" (Equality) was founded in Baku, which was supported by the Ottoman Turks. It held a joint congress with Turkey's Party of Federalists in 1917. In this congress, the two parties united and called themselves the "Democratic Party of Turkish Mossavat Federalists". Their goal was to unite Turkish-speaking people under the umbrella of Turkey.

The Mossavatis set up a government on 27 May 1918, and called the area the "Azerbaijan Republic". Their capital initially was Gandjeh, but after the occupation of Baku by the Turkish army under the command of Noori Pasha on 15 September 1918, the capital was transferred to Baku and their government was consolidated through the support of the Turkish army. They ruled Aran and Shirvan, calling these areas collectively as the Azerbaijan Republic for two years. This situation continued until 28 April 1920, at which date the Bolsheviks attacked Baku and declared the area as a Soviet republic. The Soviets persisted in using the invented name, calling this territory the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan".

Barthold disclosed the reason for choosing to apply such a name. In page 782 of the second volume of his Collected Works, he noted: "The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one." As can be seen, the name 'Azerbaijan' was used with a specific goal that became manifest at a later period. Somewhere else in this same volume, Barthold wrote: "Wherever and whenever a name should be required with which one can refer to the whole region of the Azerbaijan Republic, one can use Aran" (page 703).

From the very beginning, the use of the name "Azerbaijan" for Aran met with the protests of Iranian patriots, including Sheik Mohammad Khiabani and his comrades. But since this naming had been carried out, the Democrats siding with Khiabani decided to change the name of Iran's Azarbaijan to "Azadistan" (land of freedom). This fact was clearly stated in Kasravi's book titled "The Unknown Kings", where he expressed surprise at the use of the name Azerbaijan to refer to Aran, writing: "Why are our Arani brothers destroying their national history and their past at the onset of their national life? This itself is an enormous loss and there is no other example of such a strange deed in history" (second printing, page 265).

After foreign forces entered Iran in Shahrivar 1320 (August 1941), under the tutelage of the Red Army, a party was established in Tabriz called "The Party of Azerbaijan". It was mostly run by immigrants from the Caucasus and the executors of Soviet policy, especially the cronies of Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the secretary of the central committee of the Communist Party of the Caucasus. At first, the leaders of this party clandestinely advocated the separation of Azarbaijan (from Iran). The excuse they used to carry out their aims was the prevalent use of the Turkish language in this area, which was actually forced upon the people of this region centuries ago, again through the immigration of Turks.

Kasravi wrote: "Their secret aim was separation from Iran" (Nameh-e Parcham, 2 June 1943). Three and a half years later, on 4 September 1945, Caucasian agents created another party named the "Democratic Party of Azerbaijan", which ostensibly advocated adherence to the Constitution and the establishment of provincial and state councils. Its real goal, however, was unification with the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. The instigators of this idea for unification invented the names of "South and North Azerbaijan", whereas the land to the north of the Aras River had another name as mentioned earlier.

The leaders of the Democratic Party, who purportedly advocated the establishment of provincial and state councils, openly spoke about their secret aims following their escape from Iran and after finding refuge on the other side of the Aras. A message printed in the 'Azerbaijan' newspaper, which was the official organ of the Democratic Party, explicitly stated: "The people of South Azerbaijan, which is an indivisible part of North Azerbaijan, like all the peoples of the world, have their hopes fixed on the great people and the state of the Soviet Union" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 213, Baku, 23 December 1950). In another telegram to Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, these officials wrote: "Three whole years have passed since the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party that leads the struggle toward national liberation and the emancipation of the southern part of our motherland Azerbaijan, which has been suffering in the black hands of Persian chauvinists" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 81, Baku, 8 September 1948).

Following these actions, the terms "North Azerbaijan" and "South Azerbaijan" were skillfully manipulated into books and into translations from Turkish and Russian in order to inculcate this idea into the minds of readers. Some, knowingly or unknowingly, aided in propagating this idea. For instance, these unreasonable terms were included in history and geography textbooks and some of our translators repeated them. This practice has progressed to such an extent that a number of our local newspapers, without paying the least attention and consideration, have used these wrong and damaging terms, even in their recent issues, despite the fact that it is very easy to refute this be aware of the reality.

The author of the book "Corners of Iranian History" wrote: "The unification of North Azerbaijan with Russia played a progressive role and the only government that helped the people of the Caucasus against Iran and the Ottomans was Russia" (see pages 44, 192, 224). Did this reflect the real situation? How then can one explain the resistance of the people of that land in the past and the uprisings of Muslims, including the one led by Sheik Shamel in Daghestan, as well as the present reaction of the Caucasian and Central Asian people, and the Islamic movements in these republics? In many pages of this book, we find the terms North and South Azerbaijan.

These propagandists have been trying to pretend that Azerbaijan is a divided land and that it should be united someday. During the previous years, unification was to be realized with Soviet power. Today, the propaganda has taken another form, with American propagandists having involved Turkey and introduced it as a model. They use the wrong term "Azeri" in referring to the people and the land of Aran. The people of Aran should be called "Arani" as "Azeri" is a term that should be used only for the people of Azarbaijan. There is no link between the title "Azeri" and the people of Aran. 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. There is no relation between the old Azeri language and Turkish. There still exist in Azarbaijan groups of people living in the mountains speaking the Azeri dialect. The language spoken by the people of Aran is not Azeri nor is it ancient Arani. Rather, it is one of the Turkish dialects that has been mixed with local languages.

In the case of Azarbaijan and Aran, there are some who try to call Aran "Azerbaijan". This is a gross mistake. While the rulers of Azarbaijan ruled over Aran during certain epochs, Azarbaijan is a separate entity from Aran. At times, the rulers of Tabaristan ruled over Gilan and those of Gilan, such as the Buyids, ruled over Tabaristan; yet, Tabaristan and Gilan were separate and are considered separate lands now, even though they are adjacent. No one has ever denied the fact that Aran was under the rule of Iran and belonged to it, but taking the two as the same and using the damaging and wrong term of "North Azerbaijan" is a wrong approach.

I do not understand why some refer only to what they are interested in and ignore most of the well-known writings. Bal'ami's work has long been revered as a Persian work, but, he was a translator of the Tarikh-e Tabari. The point that was noted in the Tarikh-e Bal'ami does not exist in the Tarikh-e Tabari (see Tarikh-e Tabari, Volume 5, page 1979, translated by Abolghassem Payandeh). But one should know that on geographical matters, the views of geographers are preferred. I do not wish to mention all such sources, but to clarify the situation of Azarbaijan and Aran, in the 10th and 11th century, which happens to be the time of Bal'ami, one can see the works of Ibn-e Khordad-beh who was the head of the 'Barid' (postal service) of Djebal (Media), and of Ibn-e Rosteh and many others, provided one is really seeking the truth and is not trying to verify one's own wishes and illusions.

Fanaticism is a sign of stupidity. Some accuse me of viewing the Mossavatis through the eyes of the Bolsheviks. The future will make everything clear and those who seek to deceive will be exposed to the nation. The final judgment will be made by men of reason, not by some ignorant fanatics.

I have not written anything regarding my beloved native land, Gilan; yet, I have dedicated a large part of my life to the study of Azarbaijan. This shows how much affection I feel for the people of Azarbaijan. When during my diaspora I was living in the mouth of the dragon, I did not ignore this sacred duty. My affection for the people of Azarbaijan cost me dearly during my migration. I had to suffer many deprivations. The separatists made my life and that of my family very difficult. I endured all these hardships for the sake of my country, of which Azarbaijan is a part.

Now that an independent republic has been established in the land of Aran, it would have been appropriate if it would stop abusing the name of Azarbaijan and would use its true historical name. Currently, Iran's enemies are unfortunately exploiting the existence of this misnomer by propagating false and misleading information. One example is Radio Liberty, which is run from Munich. It carries out its activities from a budget it receives from the US Congress and its broadcasts show the sinister goals that it seeks against the integrity of our country. You can also find similar things in the propaganda of some other countries. It is bizarre that a number of neighboring republics deviate from being sincere and honest, imagining the Iranian people as being ignorant of the facts. This is not so, as we do see and consider everything.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has proudly carried out its religious and neighborly duties toward the newly independent states bordering it. Even in the initial moments when its neighbors regained their sovereignty, Iran ignored the issue of name and some of their unjust behaviors, hoping that with the passage of time, its brothers and neighbors will pay due consideration and take notice of the facts. The Islamic Republic of Iran could make its recognition of the newly independent republics subject to certain conditions; however, in observing its religious and neighborly obligations, it did not choose to do so in order to enable the emerging states to achieve stability. The steps taken by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote economic cooperation proves this fact. Now it is appropriate for our Aranian brothers to take these factors into consideration and choose a path that will lead to strengthening the ties of friendship.

Q: Recently, in a book published under the title "Speaking with History", Nooreddin Kianoory accused you of repenting from the socialist ideas you had held for many years, that you returned to Iran and joined the regime of the Shah; in general, that you have publicly recanted your ideas and opinions in order to have gain important positions. What can you say about these?

A: Regarding the shift in scientific views, I should say that one is not born a scientist and from the beginning to the end of one's life, the scientific outlook of a person undergoes many changes. This is required for the growth and development of a human being. The distinction between man and animals is that man studies and thinks and through thinking, his perceptions evolve. This is the law of life. Hence, censuring people for changing their minds is inane and unreasonable. Whose intelligence ever remained on the same level as it was during one's youth? Only lunatics and retarded people could be so. Have the scientists who have made great discoveries in the social sciences, remained on their initial level of thought? Man studies every problem and arrives at new concepts and his knowledge develops. The most foolish people are those who think their own ideas constitute the pinnacle of human thought.

As to repentance, I came to Iran under the condition that no one demand repentance from me. I never repented publicly in any media. Those who accuse me of public repentance are liars and I should confess that truly, no one ever asked me to repent.

Equating development with repentance is in itself an indication of the lack of wisdom. In my life, and especially during my migration, I have learned many precious lessons that were not acquired cheaply. But these same experiences taught me not to keep my way of thinking on the same level as it was during my youth. It is surprising that while many of my writings contain many criticisms of Bolshevism and what I had predicted has been realized, still, you find people making such statements. Does this not indicate a lack of originality in their way of thinking and in the way their mind works?

I have been attacked from two sides, but I will bear these attacks for the sake of the integrity of Iran and for the sake of the existence and unity of my homeland. We die and what remains for our children and descendants is the homeland that both the old and the young should be proud of.

When I think about some of the false accusations, I cannot help from being reminded of what the famous Russian writer, Turgenyev, said: "One day a slick, old professional character told me while giving me advice that, 'Whenever you decide to hurt your enemy, accuse him of your own flaws and be ruthless in making such accusations. This is of dual importance. First, with this accusation, you pretend that you yourself are free of such flaws. Second, your accusations appear sincere and honest ... Here you can utilize the reproaches of your own conscience to your benefit. If you yourself are treacherous and devoid of conscience and honesty, accuse your enemy of treachery and dishonesty. If you are servile and subordinate, call your enemy an odious mercenary.'"

Would those who have characterized my book as arising from my feelings of spitefulness and enmity towards the people of Azarbaijan, characterize their own works as the result of their own enmity and personal vendetta against the non-Azeris who are wrongly called Persians? Are they not accusing others of having their own flaws?

I have written a book about Azarbaijan and others have also written articles about it. The right to judge these belongs to the community of (those who engage in) research and (those who follow) reason, not to fanatics and blind ignorants. The issue has been raised, and undoubtedly, it will be studied by researchers, then the facts will become clear. I did not write the book "Iran's Azarbaijan" in order to obtain a post. This favor I will leave to those who seek favors.

In the end I say: If returning to one's own homeland and working in a library as a researcher in the service of culture is the same thing as obtaining posts and affluence, this post and affluence I will gladly offer to Mr. Kianoory. In the 28 years following my return to my beloved homeland, I have only served in literary, cultural and research capacities and I am proud that the result of these efforts has been tens of books, authored and translated, as well as a role in putting together one of the most valuable encyclopedias of the Persian language. Now, we should see whether such services are valuable or whether the lies and the gibberish that some put together in order to sell the results of 50 years of treason, spying, betrayal of one's own country that make people hate everything associated with socialism, as service to their compatriots

the myth of "Azerbaijan's partition"

As you can read in the information presented above, today's country "Azerbaijan" has never been part of the historical land known as "Azerbaijan". Therefore, there has never been a partition, as constantly claimed by Turkish nationalists. I suggest to re-write that paragraph and write the correct information in it. Tajik 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Tajik, we have no need for an Afghan, in essence, a foreigner, to get involved in our domestic Azeri/Persian issues and then make it sound as if his version of Iranian history was gospel. We don't get involved in your demographic issues with Hazaras, Tajiks, Pushtuns, etc. As for your sources, THEIR source is none other than the official statistics given out by the Iranian government, which has never carried out an official census of Iran's Azeri provinces, yet local Azeri government officials have. Why would a foreigner be such a passionate apologist for Persian ethnocentrism? Perhaps you are actually Persian? Otherwise if you really are Afghan, perhaps a study of Faryab's province's Uzbeks should be of more interest to you?

Tajik - otherwise you seem as NPOV person, but this is a plain bias. We have extensively covered this topic. It is widely known that Azerbaijan as an entity was separated. It can not be compared to Germany or Korea because these two countries existed as states to be split in two, Azerbaijan did not. But the region of Azerbaijan (or Arran + Azerbaijan as you prefer) existed united by common properties such as majority Shia Turkic speaking population. I know you will want to rename this partition into conquest of Iranian territory by Russia. This is not tecnically correct. Iran did not exist as united entity since 1747. During this war Iran wanted to get independent khanates of the North, the same way as Russia. So, I just do not see your point at all, except as a nationalist sensibility.Abdulnr 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Grandmaster,As you mentioned about Azeri identity (Turkish speaking) then tajiks are Persian too because they speak Persian, Americans are English, Argentineans are Spanish, Egyptians are Iraqis, Congolese are French and ghashghaies are Azeri !!, because they are shiat and Turkic speaking. after all, who are Persians? where do they live? Through out all the years I lived in Iran never heard no one ever called himself Persian.(Peyman.a 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Refering to talk page

I edit the article, because I think it is not based on true fact and scientific approach.

Refering to talk page

Grandmaster,It isn't nice to delete refering to talkpage

I’m still waiting for you to explain what’s wrong with the whole article. Tajik explained his problems with one of the sections, I think he just tries to deny obvious facts based on his POV, but at least we know what he disputes. Those who want to attach the totallydipated tag to the whole article should explain what their problem with the entire article is, otherwise anyone has a right to remove it. Grandmaster 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fanatical!!!

Why do you delete the explanations about real history of republic of Azerbaijan, it is historical fact, why do you deny it, you can find truth in many academic references. Dear friend, the truth, historical facts and academic references do not change by denial of the fanatic people like you.(Sampa 06:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Grandmaster, I am sorry for you.Now,I Understand why Armenian defeat republic of Azerbaijan simply!!!!(Sampa 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Copy-paste is a simple operation, and looks like you’ve learned it pretty good. But if you have facts and sources to back up your POV, post them here for discussion. If you think that you can add nonsense to the article and get away with it, you are wrong, my friend. Grandmaster 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster- You don’t discuss you delete! You try to solve the problem by erasing it. There is very good source in this talk page “Arran, The real name of the republic of Azerbaijan”. But you don’t tolerate referring to it then how can you talk about discussion. You will deny every reference. Believe me you will!!!"(Sampa 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

GRANDMASTER YOU ARE A LIAR

Azerbaijan has bee a part of Iran for almost its entire existance. Russian annexed portions of it. You try and re-write history to indulge your wrong and amoral views. 69.196.139.250 04:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

this is what people wants

Hi, i was a boy who was born in tabriz and as every body knows Tbriz is an almmost compelete azeri turkish speaking city.

my mother and father they were both azeries but when it came to me, after i was born they started teaching me farsi (persian) which is the official language of iran, so i started speaking farsi, and my dad always was supporting me learning this language, because of the medias and papers, i learned this language good, well in my mind i was speaking farsi better because i had no accent, so when i asked my father why do you insist telling me to study my farsi good he said be coz i want you to be more educated, that was the fact, iran is being ruled by persian education, and as an official language everybody needs to learn it, but this wasn't all, when i was around 14 i started thinking about that why in persian medias there was always something clear: in movies and radiosm, azeri speaking people were being used to use their accent playing the roles, and because i used to go to the capital (which is persian mostly) alot, i saw persians making fun of turksih speaking azeris, well they used to make funny things about them and i used to laugh too, becoz it was funny though, but that wasn't all. there was something clear for me which was that azeris are diffrent from persians, so i couldn't be wrong about that, there was a lot of pressure on azeris, becoz of their native language, they were being forgotton from the rulers as iranians, jokes about turkish people were being made tens a day, i really couldn't close my eyes and say ok, i'm speaking farsi so these are (torke khar) turksih people who are like donkey! persians used to make jokes for azeri turkish people BUT azeris didn't do anything but respect, becoase of my parents who used to talk in turkish at home i could understand turkish completely, So i couldn't just stay quiet, at 15 years of age i startd to quit farsi and speak turki, at the beginig it was a bit hard because azeri turki needs a stronger accest which persians can not sound like that, but there was no problem, more respect turkish people made was making me to hate more from persians, after a while i never taught that i could feel that I'm not a fars (persian) be cause i don't enjoy sacrificing a nation be cause of a PERSIAN-EMPIRE based history, coz i can see that azeris do exist then they are a truth, i can not deny that many azeris now don't know even how to talk turkish, but i can see that they want their right, and i'm gonna teach my kids azeri turkish beside english, it's so good that i can say i almost can not speak farsi anymore! and not like my dad, because now i can right and speak azeri better than many many people in northwestern part of iran, and one thing i gotta say about iran, if people and specially persians don't know how to respect other people, there will be no democracy in iran, i rather iran breaks apart so people can breath.

Please capitalize words at the beginning of sentences. I'm having difficulties reading that. El_C 07:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy has a point though. This is what I heard from many Iranian Azeris, they face discrimination of their rights not only on governmental level. Grandmaster 08:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A nice story from traitor separatist, I am Tabrizi too and you are anti Iranian traitor. We have ruled Iran for more than thousand years. The Persian has been official language of greater Iran and Turk dynasties accepted it and developed it. this language don’t belong to Persian. Who are Persians I am Iranian but don’t know them and can not recognize them!!!!!!!! Mysterious!!!!!

That is pure fabrication. IT HAS CONSTANTLY BEEN PROVEN THAT THE ORIGINATORS OF THESE TALeS ARE NOT EVEN AZERIS BUT TURKS SPREADING PROPAGANDA. You make me laugh grandmaster all the civil servants for the government are Azeris so don't make these pathetic lies. It is actually the otherway around Perrsian, Kurds, Armenaians, and Georgians amongst others complain of discrimination from Azeris when their are complaints. As a person of Azeri background I can tell you that this is all purly fabricated rubbish. 69.196.139.250 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Azeri has had its periods as the de facto offical language of Iran as well. In Iran the tradition was that Persian was the langauge used by the civil service and Azeri the langauge used by the armed forces and police. It was only around WWI that Persian became the official langauge of Iran. Azeris are proud Iranians and this is propaganda and i doubt it was written by a real Azeri, because real Azeris do not think like that.

Also by the way Tehran use to be almost all Azeri and still has a large Azeri population. All this is unture, Here is an article from a Turkish media source interviewing a foreign expert on Iran to prove that this is all lies. He clearly verifiess that Azeris are the backbone of Iranian government. All Iranian rulers have almost always been Azeris who have fought pan-Turkism. If these leaders saw themselves are Turks why would they do this? If we the Azeri people and I have a right to say we the Azeri people of Iran who are the majority of the world's Azeris (making 75-80% of the Azeri population) beleived we were Turks and not Iranians why are we the greatest defenders of Iran. Many of the clerics are Azeris, inlcuding the Spiritual Leader of the Iranian Revolution. Almost all military commanders are Azeri. Almost all bankers and finacers are Azeris. Most industrialists are Azeris. Also all the civil servants and government workers are Azeris. So what is all this crap?????

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=29867

READ MY LIPS I AM A AZERI AND I AM A PROUD IRANIAN IN THOUGHT, NATIONALITY, AND RACE!

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=29867

READ THE ARTICLE. This is a portion of its lower body........

And the role of Azeris?

-Azeris make up about 20 percent of Iran’s population. Since the 17th century they have been the ruling elite of Iran, and remain so. Most leaders in Iran such as Hamaney, the religious leader, have an ethnic Azeri background. The Azeris, who are part of the political elite are bilingual, speak Azeri and Persian. The Safawi dynasty was Azeri. The Kaja were Azeri. The difference between the present Islamic republic and the monarchy that became corrupt is that the domination of the country by Azeris has been diluted. In Tehran, which people joke about as the capital of Azerbaijan, there has been a lot of movement of non-Azeris into the city. So Tehran is no longer considered an Azeri city as it was from 1786 to 1979, almost 200 hundred years. A lot them are just “Persianized”. Among Persians, and virtually everyone in the Iranian government who claim to be Persian, they have at least one or probably four Azeri grandparents who couldn’t speak a word of Persian. They lose the language. Persian is considered among the elite. When you tell an Iranian that Islam mystic Mevlana Jalaladdin-i Rumi spent most the productive parts of his life in Konya, even people in Turk Tebriz, they won’t believe it, they’ll get mad. They won’t agree because he wrote in Persian.

69.196.139.250 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I’ve been to Tehran myself about ten years ago and was surprised that so many people spoke Azeri language there, I had absolutely no problem communicating. I like people of Iran of whatever ethnicity, they are very warm and hospitable. But I find that despite Azeris being backbone of the Iranian statehood, as some of you say, they are constantly being discriminated by some Persian nationalistic type people. You can see it even here. You guys say that Azeris ruled Iran since 17th century and Safavids were Azeris, but any attempt to mention that in the articles like Safavids meets fierce resistance of certain people from Iran. If role of Azerbaijani people is so appreciated, then why those people have hard times with any mentioning of Azeri origins of some Iranian rulers? Can anyone clarify that? Grandmaster 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster you know nothing about Iran or Azerbaijanis. These are bogus and untrue statments you are trying to pass as fact. 69.196.139.250 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Which statement is untrue? Grandmaster 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok this was my story and i'm gonna tell you that it was the truth, and to just let every body knows, WE AZERIS ARE GOING TO FORGET IRAN BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW HOME AND IT'S NOT TURKEY, well now you know what a separatist means, good, yes we were ruling Iran for a long time and we kept it, but when it comes t persians they didn't know how to rule, well, what's the point of being together if we can't!!! and just to say that I'm a 400% azeri, speaking azeri which is a turkish accenst but this doesn't mean that every turk should be from Turkey (the country) it's like to say that if an american says that i'm an american this doesn't mean that he or she is being supported from England, so "pan-turkism" is just a name that persians are scared of that (i think they shouldn'y be) because there is no way of denying that many people in iran are speaking with a language that every body calles that Turki (not even azeri), my problem is NOT azeris who say they are iranians, are those persians who say azarbaijan is part of Persia???!!

Persia is just one part of Iran

Ok, what i'm gonna say here is that many persians whenever they are out of Iran if some one asks then "where are you from" they will just say persia, ok that's right they are persians, but i guess "persian" was just a name given from greek people to that dynasty at that time, but how long did it take? they were gone at the end and till 80 years ago in a country with the name of Iran no body was proud of being a persian, it means that they are right now, but what happened to other people who couldn't say they are persians, well i think it's not true to be proud of capturing egypt greece, and building up an empire and after 2500 years reminding that persia is the same as Iran, well it's a way of thinking but some people you know...

Iran's government tries to remove that part of history that was before persians so can say ok these persians are pure and noble people who used to live here since the begining, then how come "Perspolis" dosn't have even a roof? Why should azeris be proud of that, persians are dreaming of building up that dynasty again so they can capture the world, but how? price of blood? lots of nations won't let them, may be a few will support them, but some people should know terrorism dosn't mean anything if every body goes to defend. what i say is if Iran is persia, then i rather not to be an iranian.

Iran's government does ot try to do that this beyond POV it is pan-Turkist propaganda. I checke dout this users history who did not sign on the history of this discussion. It is very suspecious. ALl these sttments by so-called Azeris or so-called Iranians are really Turks trying to push there propaganda. Oh yes no one forgot how Kurds were so-called Mountain Turks in the past. Ya givce me a break with this rheotoric. If anything the Republic of Azerbijan should come be reunited with the Iranian motherland. Ask the majoirty of Azeris what there motherland is and the will proudly say Iran. 75%-80% of Azedris live in Iran and they know that their motherland is Iran not some 'theortical Azerbaijan that was divided'. That is so lame the pan-Turkist story and fairy tlale of how Azerbaijan was divided between Imperial Iran and Czarist Russia. That is so lame. The truth is the Republic of Azerbaijan was Iranian territory that was divided from IRAN.69.196.139.250 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Attention! Before 1918 there was only one Azerbaijan (azarbaijan).

That is a lie!!! It is a misleading statment. You are talking about the brief period when the Republic of Azerbaijan was established after Russia surrendered in WWI and before the Republic joined the USSR. I see you are also editing Tabriz, Iranian Azerbaijan, etc. with pan-Turkist propganda. User 65.34.171.49 (Talk | Block log). Why don't you sign your statments! Sneaky. 69.196.139.250 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a lie. It is a true fact. You can find very good sources in this talk page and you can read the article about Aran too.(Peyman.a 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I just do not understand why the mere existence of term Azerbaijan gets some people fired up. Look, we cannot and will not rename ourselves for whimsical reason - where there are hundred and hundred of pages of discussions about this subject, and repeating arguments already made is useless. It is irrelevant to present situation. There are two Azerbaijans in the foreseeble future. Abdulnr 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I tell you why!! Because some one has stolen another's name!!!

It's a similar situation with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.--Eupator 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are fantastic!!

Grandmaster, I see you talk about discussion again. You are fantastic!!

If this is a compliment, then thank you. I asked for explanation of removal of text from this article. It’s pretty normal to discuss your edits with other editors of the article before making them, considering that some of the latest edits are very questionable. Such edits should be discussed first. Grandmaster 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry grandmaster for insulting you!!(Sampa 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC))