Jump to content

Talk:Azerbaijan–Iran relations

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

POV

[edit]

Articles contain some one-sided opinion and POV which should be removed. Historical context poorly written.--Dacy69 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats POV? Everything is sourced...From neutral sources.Hajji Piruz 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dacy. It is irrelevant which country the territory of modern Azerbaijan belonged to. What matters is who lived there. India also belonged to Britain. So what? Does it mean the territory is historically Anglo-Saxon? I think the historical context must be rewritten and the reference to Iran must be removed.Batabat 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is different to the India-UK case. it is more like India-Pakistan. --Pejman47 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Grandmaster 11:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have talked about the Azerbaijan issue. I've talked about it with Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek. Maybe, if you guys are so insistent on the few sources, you guys should add that some sources say Armenian land extended all the way to the Caspian sea in the NK article or other disputed territorial articles. Why are you guys editing with this double standard?Hajji Piruz 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe any reference to any country's territory belonging (being part of) in the past to any modern country is absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary. We are talking about Azerbaijan, not about Iran. Such references are mostly politically motivated and carry the seads of territorial claims, which has nothing to do with history. Therefore, introducing the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Wiki users as the territory that was part of Iran in the past is just as much irrelevant as writing a page on Algeria and starting with the sentence that it belonged to France. These references take the topic off the route and divert it to a different and irrelevant direction.Batabat 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should spill one dispute over many pages. Secondly, some statements are one-sided anyway, for example about culture and needs 1) proper references 2) more balanced approach 3) inclusion other views on the issue.--Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Iran-Azerbaijan relations, not anything else Dacy69.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then first of all issue about name has nothing to do here--Dacy69 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about the name issue. I put in information about the relations between the two nations in 1918...Are you trying to say that Iran and Azerbaijan did not have relations in 1918?Hajji Piruz 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the name of Republic of Azerbaijan. quiet controversial and you mention that it had repurcussion in Iran and the same time you are removing cartoon issue which had reopurcussion in Azerbaijan. Don;t then accuse other poeple in double standards--Dacy69 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoon issue, started by an Azeri (ironically), has nothing to do with the political relations between these two COUNTRIES. The naming issue was a political relation that the two nations had in 1918. I merely quoted Swietochowski so that there wouldnt be any controversy.Hajji Piruz 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon issue, much more than name issue in 1918 was implications between TWO COUNTRIES. You can check a number of articles in internet. It was mentioned many times.--Dacy69 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cartoon's issue, was a problem that still needs debate. Considering the cartoonist's picture "designed to insult Azeri identity" is a prototype of such "Articles [that] contain some one-sided opinion and POV " that you have mentioned before. The real story is that the Persian slang has many loan words from Azeri-Turkish. I'm an Azeri-Iranian myself and know many of such words , like Qarashmish (chaotic in Persian), Yer be Yer ( even ; as in "we are even" ) and so on ... The expression " Namana" ,that is used in Persian Slang, is used when a person is encountered with a surprising task and want to reject it , something like "What did you said ?!" (Plus surprise and rejection) .The cartoonist himself was Azeri and almost all of his cartoons have such slang expressions. Changing the government from reformist to conservative , the potential for revolt was high and the reformists forces in the government help the revolt in the cover "insult to the Azeri ethnic"... So that's more complex than considering it a mere ethnic conflict, and that can't be mentioned here.... Sagh Olasan --Alborz Fallah 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue should not be completely omitted from the article. We strive for providing objective information in Wikipedia, and the restriction of information about the protests which did happen is not quite encyclopedic, regardless of our interpretation of them. So, I think the protest shall be mentioned and references to their interpretation by any side shall also be brought. Upon discussion, we can incorporate those in the article. Atabek 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Representing links can fulfil that need:the user himself can understand the NPOV out of them.No need to add our and /or certain media explanation in the main body of the text.YASHA!--Alborz Fallah 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a government or news agency, in order to provide some information and withhold other. Protests were a fact, and they numbered millions. So that should be presented for fairness. Interpretation of them should be left out for reader to judge. Atabek 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alborz, Wikipedia is based on sources. WE don't make any interpretation out of the cartoon events. I cited reference. That's it. It should stay. All your observation of cartoon issue might be interesting but it also might be your own opinion or OR. So, the event is well-known and referenced. It had repurcussion in both countries. Thus, it should be in the article.--Dacy69 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern relations

[edit]

I added some info on modern period and I believe two links in references are dead and should be removed. I put info on events which had implications for the relations. --Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADR-Iran

[edit]

I added couple more references on diplomatic and governmental exchanges between ADR and Qajar court. Atabek 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that all Iranian Azeris objected to the words of Azerbaijani president is unsubstantiated. The reference is made only to Iranian officials. Grandmaster 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah this way. Then bring me evidences that all inhabitants of the republic Azerbaijan were happy about renaming the area as Azerbaijan--Babakexorramdin 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)![reply]

Atabek's newest addition

[edit]

Atabek's newest addition really doesnt have anything to do with this article, as it belongs in the Iran-Armenia relations article, but whatever... Anyway, I took out the part about Nowruz, as that certainly has nothing to do with anything, and I put that Armenia and Azerbaijan are enemies at the end, so that it doesnt imply that the source is saying that.Hajji Piruz 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attempt to reinsert deleted image

[edit]

Alborz tries to link page to the image previously deleted in Wikipedia and now uploaded to personal images database. That is not reliable source.--Dacy69 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image was deleted only because of the copy right standards of the Wikipedia and not the reliablity of the source!
If there is any evidence of change in territorial claims of the Azerbaijani primary school's text books in recent years , I would be more glad to show the positive changes .
Dacy , do you mean that's not the cover of the history book [anymore]? If it's the case, I do need the new book's cover image and would be so thankful if you send me the new book- cover's image.--Alborz Fallah 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from a news agency, it's a scan of the fifth-grade history book from the Republic of Azerbaijan showing the Iranian and Armenian territories under the modern Azerbaijani flag, I provided the correct link. AlexanderPar 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Dacy want to be positive , he can scan the new book's cover and show it here . The text book is from 1994,and I think it has been changed nowadays (after Iranian government's protest).Showing the change from the Elçibay's aggressive attitudes toward Iran to a better one is the mean reason of this article. Azerbaijan republic lost the support of the best power in the region(Iran),in the middle of his war with Armenia ,just for such a claims. Turkey is not interested in relations with Asiatic Azerbaijan and does not have the historical and cultural ties and it's geography without a good border with Azerbaijan does not help it's relations with Az.Republic, so for a land-lacked country like Az.Rep surrounded by unfriendly neighbors , that's reasonable to have the best relations with Iran .--Alborz Fallah 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no support from Iran to lose it in the first place. Iranian leadership was quite nervous over the fact that Azerbaijan could become an independent state, and Elchibey only added fuel to the fire with his extreme political views. The book was published in Elchibey's times, the source says 1994, if I'm correct. Nowadays no such textbooks are being published. Grandmaster 11:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I know Iran was the first or second country that officially recognized Az.Rep. Many western sources considered Iran as a supporter of AZR in the beginning of its war with Armenia and Iran was the first country that participated in conflict mediation. Anyway, in comparison between Israel and Armenia, neither Armenia is stronger than Israel, nor the Hezbullah is more connected to Iran. There have tobe a reason for Iran in not supporting it's blood relative in full scale.
    I think if such textbooks are not published anymore, that's of extreme importance to show that positive change here--Alborz Fallah 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same apply to Iran - there is book and maps showing Azerbaijan as a part of Iran. That sentence can be inserted in text where we speak about Elchibey. Nowadays, no such textbook exists. Anyway, proper reference should be used for that book. And if we gonna use Iranian refrence, Azerbajani ones can be also used.--Dacy69 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the same can be applied to Iran. If you know a history text book of Iran that shows any other country with flag of Iran , I would be glad to know it . The text is about Iran-Azerbijan,it talks about the pre-soviet era to nowadays. Don't you think it needs to discuss about the roots of some disagreements? Naturally, Iran-Azerbaijan relation tends to be the best possible relations between twin nations , but when the reality is not that, the etiology maybe discussed. Any Azeri reference that shows Iranian text books with such a flag is welcomed --Alborz Fallah 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right, Dacy69 is now claiming that there are "maps showing Azerbaijan as a part of Iran"? Please either provide a single Iranian map or book cover showing Azerbaijan's territory, or any other country's territory, under the official Iranian flag or don't make absurd claims without evidence.AlexanderPar 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See page Greater Iran--Dacy69 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I see there is historical maps.Hajji Piruz 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually know the publication date of that book? --Grandmaster 05:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source says 1994 , and the chief of editors is none of the three that are mentioned on the image , with the name of "Zeya Bonyadov". The date of the report in the mehrnews is 5/17/2006 (1385/2/27 Iranian calendar).--Alborz Fallah 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Ziya Bunyadov would be involved in publication of textbooks. That probably is a mistake, I think we need to see a title page with the names of editors to be sure. As for publication year, it is from Elchibey times, not surprising at all. Grandmaster 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before , the best positive responce is to scan the changed cover of the book and at least show it in the talk page . Then we can add a tag of (See talk page) to the article and fix the whole problem .That will show Iran's problems with Elchibey had justificable causes in that time ,and now there is no problem .--Alborz Fallah 09:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And about Ziya Bunyadov , thankyou for mentioning the correct form of name. Don't you think does this report and the whole history book and the Iranian government responce had any thing to do with Ziya's secularism and nationalism ?! Do you think same as zardabi, there exists a connection between hatered toward Islamic theocracy and denial of the Iranian historical presence in Az.Re?
I find this article Writing Azerbaijan's Historyvery interesting and I think that's about the discussion and Ziya's views and his connection with Elchibey.Indeed the Iranian article's title in the Mehrnews is almost the same as the Farid Alakbarov's article : " الگوی تاریخ نویسی در جمهوری آذربایجان برگرفته از دوران شوروی سابق است"
[1] That means : "The pattern of writting history in Azerbijan Republic is under the influence of the former USSR period" --Alborz Fallah 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ziya Bunyadov had nothing to do with Elchibey. In fact, he was opposing Elchibey's government. I highly doubt he had anything to do with this book. Grandmaster 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so familiar with the academic atmosphere of Az.Rep. You do know more than me about this. Any way, as a rational reasonable doubt, when someone reads the following from the above mentioned Azerbaijani article:

and considering that Bunyadov was also a nationalistic historian of the same university , and also the notoriousity of Professor Bunyadov in being so called "chauvinist" and "No one Enemy" of Armenia" ( the text ) , that may seen as acceptable to consider him a comrade of Elchibey ....--Alborz Fallah 07:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz, isn't historiography in Iran under the influence of a similar principle "as if Turks did not exist"? But it's interesting POV/OR being pushed. On one side we see User:AlexanderPar claiming at Ethnic minorities in Iran that Bill Samii of RFE/RL is not at a neutral source, reverting sources from BBC Persian, Amnesty International and HRW. Now we have, Mehrnews being cited here, on a topic where it obviously is NOT neutral and NOT reliable. Don't you find this dichotomy ironic?
And also, why should the republishing maps be "positive changes" when:
  • 1. Map shows flag only over territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, while clearly marking the border of terriories known as historical Azerbaijan (including the states of Ildegiz Atabakan-e Azerbaijan and Qaraqoyunlu).
  • 2. There are dozens of maps of Greater Armenia in Wikipedia and elsewhere published mostly by Armenian sources, claiming parts of Republic of Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, about which there are never complaints from Iranian contributors.
  • 3. When both Iranian officials and scholars often make insulting statements regarding the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan or invalidity of its application.
All of the above are part of a larger Turkophobia issue, which is a problem in Iran rather than in Republic of Azerbaijan. All these campaigns and wars on Azerbaijan-related pages, POV, OR pushing, etc. seem to be leading in the same direction - anti-Turkism. And the question is: why so much hatred? What's the purpose and who is the benefactor? Atabek 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Alborz, isn't historiography in Iran under the influence of a similar principle "as if Turks did not exist"? " Ha Ha ! Where did it come from ? Have you ever read a Persian source?! Do you think history writing in Iran is something new?! Who said that Turks did not exist?! I did not site the Mehrnews as the source: only the image is mentioned in the Wiki article : Mehrnews says many other things about the history book , such as the thing that it says against the prophet Mohammad and about the capitalism and etc . I only site the image and nothing else at all!
The flag is hanging over a yellow area that is above and below the Arass river: let's not change an obvious fact!! I don't think neither Agh-qouyounlu or Qaura-qouyounlu used the three colored flag instead of the qouyoun (sheep) flags and their territory was not limited only to the Azerbaijan but also the other parts of Iran and Turkey and Iraq and etc ...
The historical maps can't be considered as a map with a modern flag in a textbook . --Alborz Fallah 08:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing

[edit]

I fixed up some things, such as rewording some sentences and taking out others that make no sense. This article is a mess, it should be organized better.Hajji Piruz 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this line which you deleted: There were incidents involving of the use of force or its demonstration on the part of Iranian military forces. It is factually accurate. Also, there was no popular protest among Iranian Azeris over the words of Azerbaijani president. You cannot make generalizations like that without proper references. The only angered ones were Iranian officials, who act in line with the official policy of Iranian government. Grandmaster 05:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring the part about Iranian Azeris. It's not just the officials who were unhappy, many Iranian Azeris were unhappy as well, there were protests outside the Azerbaijani consulate in Tabriz. As shocking as it may sound to you, most Iranian Azeris are religious Shias (far more religious than Persians) and dislike what they consider "interventionist" and "anti-religious" politics of the Azerbaijan republic. Such protests outside the Azerbaijani consulate in Tabriz are regular affairs.[2] AlexanderPar 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a government sponcored action to me. From what I can see protests against the opression of Azerbaijani language draw bigger crowds. Grandmaster 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you restored the line: President Ilham Aliyev's attitude of calling Iranian Azeri's as "Azerbaijanis who live in Iran" has angered some in the Iranian Azeri community. So whom exactly did those words "anger"? The only reference is made to Iranian officials. Your reference is unrelated, those students were protesting some anti-religious article in Azerbaijani media. Grandmaster 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence even mean: There were incidents involving of the use of force or its demonstration on the part of Iranian military forces.? Did Iranian military forces suppress demonstrations in Azerbaijan?Hajji Piruz 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were used to exert pressure on Azerbaijan republic, attacking Azerbaijani exploration ships and invading Azerbaijani air space. Grandmaster 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the incident in July 2001, when Iranian boat opened fire on BP research vessel in Azerbaijani waters, was followed by intrusion of Iranian planes onto Azerbaijani airspace. The aggressive action was properly warned by Russian diplomatic demarche and the show of Turkish F-16s in Baku, which clearly demonstrated the limitations of aggressive conduct for the Iranian side. These details are worth exploring and incorporating into the article.Atabek 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]

As per Azerbaijan being part of "Greater Iran", I sourced that as the quote from Iranica at the bottom clearly says that the Caucasus had been party of the Iranian world. As per Iranian culture in Azerbaijan, thats pretty much self evident: Azerbaijan, Baku, Absheron, Zoroastrianism, Mihranids, etc...Hajji Piruz 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, Azerbaijan and other countries are a part of the history of Greater Iran and not only - Roman Empire, Russia, etc. But Republic of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Greater Iran regardless whatever Iranica says.--Dacy69 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? How is Azerbaijan Republic not part of Greater Iran? A source was even given.Hajji Piruz 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any text saying that Rep. of Azerbaijan is a part of Greater Iran. We can't stretch anything from the fact that some parts of the Caucasus were at some moment of its history part of the Persian state. But besides - simple logic - the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 was not part of Iran, so is modern Republic. What else we should prove?--Dacy69 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Iran is not a literal term. Its a geographic term describing the extent of Iranian cultural civilization.Hajji Piruz 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That name, Greater Iran, should be read as a cultural term. That shows how to categorize and classify the cultural heritage of the groups of countries: when we talk about something like "American nations" that does not means Canada or Mexico are parts of the USA! That's a way of classifying and categorizing cultures....--Alborz Fallah 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. Greater Iran does not mean "part of Iran". Its simply a geographic term describing related cultures.Hajji Piruz 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranica is not an NPOV source on this topic. I can bring you sources here from Ziya Gokalp, which claim Azerbaijan as part of great Turanic civilization, nevertheless, this would still not be POV. So, please, review your reference and incorporate only objective and neutral on the subject. THanks. Atabek 01:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its from Frye's article. How is Iranica an Iranian source? Frye is certainly not Iranian.Hajji Piruz 04:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica can always be considered as NPOV .International reference books as their name shows, are reliable. There is no problem in mentioning an article of Ziya Gokalp or any other person from a reliable and international source: the person does not matters, but the reliability of the article does matters...I'm sure we can find some useful information in Ziya Gokalp or any other person, and the judge and jury about the reliability of the article, are the editorial boards of the encyclopedia. Iranica's editorial board, are international, professional and academic.--Alborz Fallah 08:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranica cannot be an NPOV source, since it's written by mostly Iranian scholars. But in any case, the wording you have incorporated is OR which does not appear in Iranica, while the quote does appear. So it's better just to leave the quote for the judgment of the reader and remove the OR sentence. Atabek 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did we get to the point that now even Iranica's reliability is being questioned?Hajji Piruz 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one claims it unreliable, but it's not neutral on the issue of claiming parts of the world as Iranian, as it was authored by Iranian scholars. But even that is irrelevant, because the sentence that was a subject of discussion and removal was an OR not even from Iranica. Atabek 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranica is mostly not authored by Iranian scholars, its mostly done by Western Academics, infact, just look through the editors or their main contributors etc... you'll see some of the biggest names in Western Scholarship there. Furthermore, Iranica is a recognized authoritative scholarly source. This issue should not even be up for debate, its like saying that Britannica is a biased source, or Cambridge History of Iran is a biased source, etc...
I reinserte some removed sourced information and I added another source. I also took out irrelevant information which has nothing to do with Iran-Azerbaijan relations. Furthermore, Brenda Shaffer is not a neutral third party source, she is far from it infact.Hajji Piruz 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV and OR. Why is Brenda Shaffer not a neutral source? And if she is not, then how come Kaveh Farrokh is? Atabek 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If anything, Shaffer is more neutral than Farrokh. --Grandmaster 11:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh is one of the more respected historians in the study of Iranian history and linguistics. He even has heavy weights such as Richard Frye who endorse him.

Who is Brenda Shaffer? She is a historical revisionist who gets paid by governments, such as the Republic of Azerbaijan, to write things in favor of them. There are many who criticize here. She isnt even an expert.

Furthermore, Undue weight states:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.[3]

The opinion that Azerbaijan extends over the Aras river, especially by historical sources, is undue weight, as it is a very very very tiny minority view.Hajji Piruz 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaffer is a notable American scholar, who wrote a peer reviewed book on the subject. You cannot delete the opinions just because you don't like them, and you have no proof that government of Azerbaijan pays her. --Grandmaster 09:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shaffer is not a notable American scholar.
1)She is a post doc, not an academic
2)She writes non neutral anti-Iranian articles again, what kind of historical academic takes sides in a political conflict? Oh wait, one that isnt neutral, third party, or scholarly: Shaffer, Brenda. "Will Iran Dupe the World Again?." The Jerusalem Post (11 November 2004). Shaffer, Brenda. "If Iran is Not Checked, Nuclear Terror is Next: America Needs a Plan." The International Herald Tribune (9 August 2004). Miller, Steven, Tad Oelstrom, Brenda Shaffer, Chen Zak. "The Forgotten Threat? Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction." Event Report Event Report Caspian Studies Program, 12 March 2003.
3)She has ties to Azerbaijan:
The title of the following article is Academics for Hire:
Harvard's program is led by Brenda Shaffer, who is so eager to back regimes in the region that she makes Starr look like a dissident. A 2001 brief she wrote, “U.S. Policy toward the Caspian Region: Recommendations for the Bush Administration,” commended Bush for “intensified U.S. activity in the region, and the recognition of the importance of the area to the pursuit of U.S. national interests.” Shaffer has also called on Congress to overturn Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which was passed in 1992 and bars direct aid to the Azeri government. The law has not yet been repealed, but the Bush Administration has been waiving it since 2002, as a payoff for Azeri support in the “war on terrorism.”
"Harvard's Caspian Studies Program receives a lot of money from both the oil companies and from some of the governments." I share Starr's concerns here, and since I briefly mentioned Harvard in my original story, and since several readers asked for more details, let me provide it here. 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. ..
Brenda Shaffer is not a "scholar", "academic", "historian", or anything really. She has a political agenda, she re-writes history, and oh yea, she gets paid to do this by the people she supports.Hajji Piruz 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of this document? --Grandmaster 06:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Pejman47

[edit]

Pejman47, did you actually notice that you removed other references besides Brenda Shaffer in your last edit? Atabek 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight was removed, and he did so correctly also.Hajji Piruz 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He also removed the other references. If Abbott reference does not go back, then Swietochowski reference will have to go to. Atabek 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Abbot quote violates Wikipedias policy on undue weight. Pejman correctly took it out.Hajji Piruz 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the arbcom will review the behavior of Pejman47, who takes no part in discussions and turns up only to revert. --Grandmaster 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly reworded the paragraph in question. Caucasus has not always been part of Iran, it was also ruled by Seljuks, Mongols, Arabs, Russians, etc. Also I see no relevans of Islamic conquest there, clearly some of the mentioned dynasties were pre-Islamic and others Islamic. If you really think that it should be there you can add it back, but it just takes space and adds little in terms of info. Grandmaster 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source to claiming Republic of Azerbaijan considered part of Greater Iran is Iranica (and even that text needs to be investigated to find the precise wording). So given this fact, the general reference should be replaced with wording that only some Iranian sources consider so, not eveyrone. Please, bring other sources to show that RofA is considered part of Greater Iran. Atabek 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atabek Iranica is online of course and theit is not an Iranian source. At least the author of that particular article is not Iranian. Maybe one can justify saying the article is written by an Iranian (hence perhaps Iranian source) if the author of that particular article was an Iranian(which still does not make it pro-Iran since it has to be shown to have been written based on such intentions). Anyways I think Swietchowski quotes complements that of Professor. Pierre Thorez. So I put both of them in. Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Qajar, Safavids and also local dynasties which controlled some parts of the caucus and some parts of Iran (like Shaddadids,Atabekan..) makes up most of that percentage. --alidoostzadeh 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am tired of seeing the naming issue in every article. I am removing it from this article and several other articles. I'll give my explanation on the Arran article. The issue is simple. In Wikipedia, one article deals with one issue and to mention the same issue in every article is really not Encyclopedic. (much like the etymology section). I have removed this quote:"According to Tadeusz Swietochowski[4]:

“ Although the proclamation restricted its claim to the territory north of the Araxes, the use of the name Azerbaijan would soon bring objections from Iran. In Teheran, suspicions were aroused that the Republic of Azerbaijan served as an Ottoman device for detaching the Tabriz province from Iran. Likewise, the national revolutionary Jangali movement in Gilan, while welcoming the independence of every Muslim land as a "source of joy," asked in its newspaper if the choice of the name Azerbaijan implied the new republic's desire to join Iran. If so, they said, it should be stated clearly, otherwise Iranians would be opposed to calling that republic Azerbaijan. Consequently, to allay Iranian fears, the Azerbaijani government would accommodatingly use the term Caucasian Azerbaijan in its documents for circulation abroad." since the issue is covered in the history of the name of Azerbaijan article.. --alidoostzadeh 02:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its directly relevant to the topic. This is about Iran-Azerbaijan relations, and these relations began in 1918.Hajji Piruz 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reference

[edit]

I am not sure why the reference to independence of Azerbaijan and first state whcih recognized it was removed from the article, but generally before removing article references the editor should discuss and bring reasons for removal. I don't know why does the reference of historical fact bother anyone at all to remove it. Atabek (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, please don't use baiting words such as "Bother anyone". You should ask Persian Magi why he removed it. Although here clearly stated: Turkey's beign first to recognize of independence is not so relevant here. and he did not say: it bothers me. (Recall I decided to be nice and remove "Iranian" from Atropates on the republic of Azerbaijan article although that had some relevance but it did bother some peoplesince you thought he was Greek somewhere else. But on this issue I see no relevancy.). I have to agree with Persian Magi on this. I do not see the fact that Turkey recognized Azerbaijan first in any of the other articles that has to do with Republic of Azerbaijan-country relationship. For example Azerbaijan-USA, Azerbaijan-Israel and etc. If it is in every single other article with Azerbaijan-country relationship, fine. But if it is not, then it has no relevance to Iran-Azerbaijan relationship either. What is the rational of not including it in every Azerbaijan-X article except Azerbaijan-Iran? If there is none (and I do not mean 'emotional rational'), then it should not be there. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember saying Atropates was a Greek, he only served as a satrap of Alexander, so I am not sure what you're referring to, not sure if you are sure of it either. So can you please, present the link to where I said so?

I readded the reference because the article talks about proclamation of independence by Azerbaijan and line of events leading to its international recognition. It's often claimed by some Iranians that Iran was first to recognize Azerbaijan, the statement which is factually false. So addition of the reference in this article is only sought to alleviate misinformation in a professional fashion. And this was not so important as to cause a revert or deliberate removal of reference, was it?

Anyways, per your comment above, if such factual references on Turkey, being the first recognizing, are added to Azerbaijan-USA and Azerbaijan-Israel relation articles, they don't seem to cause such a negative attitude and attempt to remove the referenced information. In fact, even Israel was ahead of Iran in recognizing Azerbaijan's independence on December 25, 1991. Atabek (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes here is the info on Atropates: [[4]] which you said it was not Iranian and so I presume you meant it was part of Alexander's army (Greek/Macedonian). So per your logic, I should go ahead and add Iranian to every article the article of the republic of Azerbaijan, since some citizens of the country had the wrong information? And it seemed to have caused a "negative attitude". On the issue at hand, I don't see any official Iranian document claiming it so. That would be like me putting Zoroastrian was an Iranian religion or Atropates was Iranian or Babak Khorramdin was an Iranian and "not from another group", because I have heard some people make false claims on the internet. Not just on the internet but I can show embassies (more official) that even claim the rulers of Shummer/Akkad, majority of Caucasian Albanians, Babak were Turkish and etc. So just because of these embassies (I can provide the links even), I do not go to Caucasian Albania, Babak, Shummer/Akkad and etc and claim they were not X. So just because some random Iranians (which Iranians?) allegedly make an invalid claim, there is no reason for such correction, specially if it is not part of the Iranian government or officials. I am sure you can find citizens from every country making an invalid claim and it is not the job of Wikipedia to correct every wrong error. Else Wikipedia would be a place where every random internet page is corrected with irrelevant information. We can start with saying 1+0 equals 1 in the Math page, because some middle school student might have the information wrong. Just providing the date or month when Iran recognized the country is sufficient. I just don't see relevance for the other information. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ali, in the link you provided above, I specifically said: "If he was a Median satrap of Alexander the Great, we should say so". I never said he was Greek, like you claimed mistakenly in your comment above. The issue actually also has no relevance to topic of this article, so I don't want to open another extensive thread on Atropates subject here. However, as a quick note, Medes can be claimed Iranian in racial/historical/political terms just as Uzbek and Azeri can be considered Turkic. So if you oppose the latter, I am not sure why you insist so much on former definition?

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide neutral information for educational purposes, and information added was only sought to clarify all misconceptions. Both Turkey and Israel were ahead of Iran in recognizing Azerbaijan's independence. While this in no way should count against Iranian-Azerbaijani relations in any way, especially provided a fact of Azerbaijani Turkic brethren inhabiting both sides of Iranian-Azerbaijani border, it's nevertheless a fact that does not have to be purged out either. Happy Novruz to you again. Atabek (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, since you complain about the reference of Turkey being the first state to recognize Azerbaijan, then why do we have this reference on the page? :"As the leader of Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF), the historian Abulfazl Elchibey, came to power in June 1992, Azerbaijan turned increasingly towards Turkey. Indeed, Elchibey was decidedly Pro-Turkish, secularly oriented, pan-Azeri and vehemently anti-Iranian". Isn't that sought to deliberately establish anti-Turkish POV rhetoric in article unrelated to Turkey? Atabek (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Atabek, you said there: By the way, the introduction says Atropates - "Iranian Satrap". First of all, Atropates was made a satrap by Alexander the Great, and there is no information on his origin or ethnicity.. Okay, now some citizen of Azerbaijan did not know about the origin/ethnicity of Atropates, so do you think it is important to go to the main page (republic of Azerbaijan) and add this information. Or is it more connected to the entry of Atropates? I would say the latter. Even some dubious scholar by the name of Brenda Shaffer recently claimed Khusraw the king of Sassanids is the ancestor of Caucasian Turks. Now I am not going to to the Khusraw Parviz article and say: "Khusraw the King of Sassanids was not the ancestor of Caucasian Turks".
So if someone actually claimed that Iran was the first country to recognize the republic of Azerbaijan, then you should remove it and correct them in the talkpage. Just as if someone said Atropates is Martian, I would remove it and then correct them in the talkpage. I would not say Atropates "was not a Martian" in the main entry. As far as I know, Iran recognized the republic of Azerbaijan during the visit of its foreign minister in early December. This was before Pakistan, Romania and a good deal of other countries. So why not mention this as well? I believe Turkey did it somewhere in November and I am not sure about Israel. Iran did it somewhere early in December. I am not sure which country's foreign minister visited the republic of Azerbaijan first, but I am sure Iran's was one of the earliest. But anyhow you see my point on relevance. Just because couple of Iranians might think otherwise (and I am not sure which Iranians you are talking about), it does not mean the article is written for the purpose of correcting those folks. You are basing the inclusion on the fact that some Iranians could be misinformed. Why not for example list the countries that Iran recognized Azerbaijan before? I would say it would be a good 150+ countries or so. So if you have a source that Iranian official claimed Iran recognized Azerbaijan first, and want to correct him, that is fine.
On the Elchibey quote, it does say: "vehemently anti-Iranian". Here is a president of the country of Azerbaijan. Elchibey's warm relationship with Turkey is not covered in this article in detail, rather his cool relationship with Iran is covered.
On the ethnogenesis of Azeris, I am of the opinion of Xavier Planhol, some other people say Azeris are infusion of three people (and I mean nationalists who say Caucasian Albanians, Iranian Medes and Oghuz Turks) and others classify them as Turkic people because of linguistic reasons or maybe linguistic/cultural/racial. There are a diversity of opinions and as long as it is sourced, it is okay. For me, I believe a symbiosis between Iranian people and Turkic people, as per Xavier Plahnhol although the percentage of each in every aspect of Azerbaijani culture is not known. For example on music: classical Muqam music where many names are Iranian is a pre-Turkic remnant and existed in Azerbaijan before its linguistic Turkification. The folkloric Ashiq music on the other hand, probably traces back to the Oghuz nomads. Nevruz predates the linguistic Turkification in Azerbaijan. Haft-sin also. Other celebrations like Yalda too predates linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the language was brought by Oghuz Turks (due to language replacement in my opinion and others can disagree). I have valid sources for all my opinions and I do not make it up based on emotional reasoning but based on what I believe is correct.
If somebody actually made the false claim Iran recognized it first, then remove it and inform them on the talkpage. But I believe Iran and Azerbaijan relationship is a two way relationship here and what Russia does or Trukey does, is much more relevant for Azerbaijan-Turkey/Azerbaijan-Russia.
Anyhow, many people can believe in many things. But unless they put their weird idea on the actual entry page, then it should be removed and corrected in the talkpage. Unless Iranian officials(and not some average Iranians who you did not bring their credentials) boasted that Iran recognized Azerbaijan first, then there is no need for this. Else another POV would be how many countries recognized Azerbaijan after Iran or if Iran's foreign minister came first or second or third or other countries came first or second and etc. Happy Novruz to you too. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am not interested in articles with modern politics. But I think there are some negative aspects to the article (which is sourced and fine), but it can be balanced in some other areas specially economic trade, railways and cultural contacts (recent Iranian film festival in Baku or the visit of Alim Qasimov to Iran). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend breaking up the sections. The current format is designed to show the poor relationship of Iran with Azerbaijan during the Elchibey era and is only emphasizing that aspect. That is it overshadows the whole article to a great extent. The Elchibey era should be separate from that of the Aliyev era. And probably the article should start with the more modern chronological order. That is have relationship now, during the Heydar Aliyev era, during the Elchibey era, and then during the Mutabilov era. The reason is that is that the Heydar Aliyev was significantly different. So I think the article needs to be balanced with this regard and also highlight some of the positive aspects. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a dispute tag on this article, since it seems to be just a POV war between two sides in quoting negative aspects of relationship without highlighting positive aspects. It is unbalanced due to the fact that these POV quotes are mainly from the Elchibey era, and are not covering the overwhelming duration during the periods when Heydar/Elham Aliyev. That is 90% of the article seems to cover the Elchibey era, so there is some balancing issue that is needed. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nevruz/Nawruz نوروز (that is the good thing about this script, it is spelled one way no matter how you pronounce it) greeting to the good citizens of Iran and Azerbaijan. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Novruz bayrami mubarek! نوروزتان پیروز باد. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ali Don’t bother you self I know this atabayk guy, his real name is Javid Husseinof. And he is very pro-anti-Iranian. He is going around and spending a lot of his energy and his life to just make propaganda against Iranian. Then what ever he says is just base on satisfying his hatred ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.93.120 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR

[edit]

Babakexorramdin, posts in a blog are not an encyclopedic entry in the article. If you have facts, please, produce them in a manner citeable and appropriate for encyclopedia, else don't make claims. Atabəy (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs were used as additional sources. The event was covered by many other sources. The blogs were useful because they showed the pictures and how people reacted to it. In that it was clear that Panturks and irredentist groups claim Iranian territory as that of the republic of Azerbaijan and it was clear that Iranians were angry and upset about it.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal idea is that the whole thing is not important and may not be included in this article .Maybe mentioning it in the article of Eurovision is reasonable, but in this article it don't have real usage : that was only a TV show ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else agree that a few pictures are needed?

[edit]

I was thinking a photo of Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are appropriate,and interesting.All articles need photos,just paragraphs and texts make it boring and bland.Any other suggestions would be fine.

Thanks ChowFan ChowFan (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, I suggest this picture and to crop Aliyev and Ahmadinejad. Neftchi (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5th grade book

[edit]

I removed the 5th grade book section. First of all, it doesnt belong in a "see also" headline. Second there is no objective source for it, mehrnews, is an Iranian newssite, the source is not even in English. Neftchi (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 108.18.222.120 - reverted back the item without even discussing. First changing a few words doesnt mean you can use this source. Seconds of all its not even in English and its a Iranian based source, thus not objective. An thirds this subject does not belong in the Iran-Azerbaijan article and especially not under "see also" headline. Neftchi (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cover of the book is visible on the image of report . According to WP:ELYES , section 2 , I think the 5th grade book cover can be linked in External links section .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also to inform that the non-English article can be used , although English ones are preferred.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is, the real source is a picture. Anyone can draw a picture and print it out and thereby make a claim or accusation. How can we establish this is a genuine book and not a forgery, especially since we talk about a biased source. Also the biased source doesnt even explain what this picture is. The description is an assumption or interpretation. I ask that you give a proper objective source on this controversial claim.Neftchi (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this book , the 5th grade book of 2006 , is fake ? What if I have one myself ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect Alborz but you know we need an objective source. Own research is not allowed. Neftchi (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know how Iranian state telivison, continuously accuses Baku as a Zionist regime and sometimes even shows a wrong map of Azerbaijan. But none of that is included here. Its inrelevant to the relations of Iran and Azerbaijan, let alone a 5th grade book. In fact we must shorten the diplomatic relations, its filled with a lot of small incidents from both sides. We need to expand the economic and cultural section. Neftchi (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem in giving the true picture that is firm relations in cultural and economic ties . It would be also good to rewrite the comment about Iranian support for unrest in Azerbaijan Republic .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and economics

[edit]

This article is missing the cultural and economic relations between the two countries. We need more then just chronological political information. I suggest at least a culture and economy headline, there are many things both these countries and nations have in common.Neftchi (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fairly poorly written, because the relationship is much warmer than during the early decade. This is a positive trend that I hope it continues no matter what sort of regimes are in the region. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exacly what I mean. The diplomacy section needs to be shortened, we need a culture and economic section. Maybe even a section of the mutual city of Astara. Neftchi (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Airbase for attack on Iran

[edit]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/israel-eyeing-azerbaijan-as-launchpad-for-iran-strike-says-foreign-policy.html

If we hype this up enough, we ought to be able to trigger an invasion. Do I have a second on the motion? Hcobb (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

only Shia Muslim nations ?

[edit]

"Iran and Azerbaijan are furthermore the only official Shia Muslim nations in the world where the vast majority of the people are Shia Muslims". What about Bahrain ? Is there something I don't get ? Elfast (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It currently says "Iran and Azerbaijan are furthermore the only majority Shia Muslim nations in the world.[8][9]" which is not true. Bahai and Iraq are majority Shia. The earlier statement you cited ("vast majority") would be correct, but it'd make more sense to cite all four Shia-majority nations.
Further, the two sources cited mention Azerbaijan's Shia majority but don't make any claim about other countries.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan–Iran_relations&oldid=1188846786"