Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

US-Azeri Chamber of Commerce

I wonder if it would be informative to also note the many powerful people that sit or have sat on the US-Azeri Chamber of Commerce. Certainly, it would be POV to assert that this has been an influence on US policy toward Azerbaijan and its tolerance, accomodation and some would say encouragement of Ilham Aliev, but readers might deserve to draw their own conclusions from the fact that Ilham Aliez sits on the Chamber with Brzinski, Kissinger, James Baker III, Cheney, Armitage, Scofcroft, etc. http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=267.184.111.43 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

Azerbaijan is Iranian and always will be. "azerbaijani" culture is PERSIAN!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

40% of the Azeri langauge is Farsi (Persian).

Even their names are Persian.

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

(Different person speaking) My commentary and NPOV: Azerbaijan IS a Persian name, and does have Persian culture and has been heavily influenced by Persians, but that is because Persia took over Azerbaijan before the Russians, Azerbaijan is an area that has been occupied by many ethics. The fact that Azerbaijan's culture is Persian, does not mean that the Azeri people are of Persian origin. NavidT 05:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Let me tell you the reality. Unexceptionally all the peoples of the Middle East are ethnically well mixed. Just like in Turkey or Azerbaijan, you can not find any ethnic unity in Iran as well, even in the very Persian regions, both culturally and physically. So the only way to separate societies from each other is the language. Turks and Azeris speak Turkish with different dialects, and the Persians speak Farsi. So Turks and Azeris are on one side, Persians on the other. And it has nothing to do with Panturkism.

I hope it was explicable enough...:)

who is talking about name? this is about history of nation.

It really doesn't matter what Iranians think about Azerbaijan or consider Azeris to be. I am an Azeri, I have Azeri citizenship and gurantee you that the 91% Azeris in Azebaijan ALL consider themselves and their language Turkish. It's a simple fact, no one will deny it. And no one relates themselves to Iranians, this is only seen through the internet by Iranian propaganda whatever its intentions are. Azeris from Iran whatever they are, are not considered or regarded as Azeris in the republic of Azerbaijan either and hardly look like us. Most of them are treated as foreigners. We have nothing in common. They're WAY too religious and basically persianised in culture. Most of them guard their sisters like a baby does with his toys. I personally was shocked when I visited Tabriz and Tehran and I could not understand their language either. Whatever it was, it wasn't the same Turkish we spoke in Naxcivan, it had so much farsi in it I could hardly understand any of it. I don't even think it can be regarded as Turkish. Culturally I found none of our foods to be similar in the least bit, or much else either. There seemed to be more in common with other un-related peoples to us like the Chechens then this supposed brethen to us in Iran. I think most of them have probably mixed with Persians or Kurds or something cause they are nothing like us.

Edit war

What has the name Azerbaijan have to do with the Azerbaijan Turks? Azerbaijan is just the name
of the place, just like Anatolia, which is a Greek name. However, Azeris are Turks from the
Oguz branch just like people of Turkey. They have founded numerous Turkish states, and it is 

well known that a lot of Oguz Turks from Anatolia immigrated to Azerbaijan especially during the reign of Sah Ismail in the 16th century because they see it as a country more adherent to Turk traditions than Ottomans. The people of Azerbaijan are the ones that are claiming they are Turks, they know their heritage and certainly will not bend over to the dumb brainwashing of the Persian state trying to twist history to avoid an ethnic conflict already rising against the oppression of the Turkish culture in the Persia. Surely, your Islamic state which tries to hold together people of different ethnicity on the basis of religion is fearing this to happen. The rest of the things were not even worthy of mention, culture and clothes Persian? yes, sure buddy, dream on. BTW, Nevruz is celebrated in the whole Turkish world and probably in many other cultures as the spring festival, it is funny how weak your claims are.

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

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

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

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

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

40% of the Azeri langauge is Farsi (Persian).

Even their names are Persian.

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

198.81.26.74/K1: Please refrain from reverting each other's versions of the article wholesale. It is apparent that you have issues with the content of each other's versions; why not resolve them here, instead? It will save everyone a lot of hassle. Thank you. -- Grunt (talk) 00:55, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

It is a good suggestion, however resolving the conflict assumes substantiation of version/claims by facts. To begin with I would like someone presents facts that there was a state called Azerbaijan before 1918. - TT

Grunt, I can see that we have a bunch of real competent admins here in wikipedia. You and another admin are locking the pages of this guy's version of lies and deceptions and invite me to resolve the problem with him? Can you read and understand plain english? I responded to your comments on the Talk:South Azerbaijan page the other day, and explained that this moron with a random IP and no histoty of constructive work in wikipedia changes the pages with a CLEAR political agenda, and DOES NOT engage in any dialog. He puts out flat out lies, he is not even a registered contributor, and his rubbish get to overridde my work with over a year of active, accurate and useful contributions to Wikipedia. On page Nezami he writes Nezami has works in Turkish. So in the discussion area I tell him why don't you then just name his "Turkish works" in the article? (mind you, there is NONE) He does not respond. So we revert the article to the version that is CORRECT, and he immediately reverts back to his version. The same bullshit is going on a a bunch of pages, ALL OF WHICH are related to one cause: Pan-Turkism. He has today created a new completely false article Persian Chauvinisim in conjunction with his other contaminations of the neighbourhood -- thanks to admins like you who encourage abuse of the open nature of Wikipedia. This moron's IP should have been blocked a long time ago after a couple of warnings when his abuse and malintentions became apparent. --K1 09:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read m:The wrong version or Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, did you? - David Gerard 23:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The state of Iran was formed on the basis of 1 thing: To take every neighbour's history and "Persianize" it to make the Persians feel better about themsleves. Shame on those who don't accept other's history it is truely a sad case of feeling low about yourself. -198.81.26.106 23:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for Iranians to falsify their history. It is rich and well documented. Unlike Azerbaijani history which is 99% falsified. After all the topic shall be named "History of the territories occupied by Azerbaijan" rather than "History of Azerbaijan".

As far as I'm concerned both of you have equally valid (invalid?) points of view here; we are going to have to accept that fact and attempt to create a version of this article that properly represents both points of view. Clearly two points of view exist; otherwise there wouldn't be enough material to create two versions of the article, would they? If we can just calm down enough to accept that fact, perhaps we'll be able to resolve this whole mess... -- Grunt (talk) 01:35, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Interesting how all the people fighting so passionately for what they write about Azerbaijan are from Iran... All I can read is Iran this, Persia that. I wouldn't be surprised if the admin is some sort of Iranian descent. Is this not supposed to be Azerbaijan's history? As opposed to the glorious Persian history? I hope the brainless admins try searching up some websites made in Azerbaijan to ban these incompetent fools.

I as an Azerbaijani condamn the Grey Wolf pan-Turkist attempt to fabricate a falsified and distorted history for our land. Its as clear as day that we were a part of Persia before being captured by the Russians. You escape reality just to feel good and bring more misery for the people of Caucasus. Get off of my history and go back to your camps in Ankara.

I myself am Azeri, i have taken alot of time into considering where my roots are from. I have seen on this talk page arguements and declairations, but i am going to give my peaceful POV. I think that Azeri people are from more than just one area, some of us may be from centural Asia, some of us may have Persian ancestors, some of us can be Turkish, some of us may be native Azeri, and many other places. What i conclude is that Azeri people are from different places with different mixes of cultures, although i think most are from centural Asia, they would have mixed in with the other ethics by now. I do not think that we are a part of the Persian race, although the cultures are very close together. -Navid

Some material from the Persian Encyclopedia

I did some translations from the 1966 Persian Encyclopedia. It is available at Talk:History of Azerbaijan#From my Persian Encyclopedia. Roozbeh 02:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the yelling at the top

The controversiality notice is supposed to go on the talk page, and that red notice is nothing but an abomination. If someone is constantly vandalizing the page, either work it out somehow or ban them, don't cater to them by screwing up the whole page because of them. --Joy [shallot] 12:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I realise this. I'm just trying to discourage people from making edits which might provoke more edit warring. -- Grunt (talk) 17:42, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

my changes

I hope my changes aren't, you know, offensive, but I noticed a few POV problems, and a lot of unlinked words... ugen64 20:57, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Azerbaijan article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Azerbaijan}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Um, I think this should be deleted:

"Historians, anthropologists and scientists agree that it is in this land that the earlieGarden of Eden once existed."

What?

---

Tabib's edit

Simply great. It has my full support Refdoc 21:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but it is far from "simply great". For example, in the history section is jumps from "IV c. BC" all the way to the Islamic era, without a single mention of the large gap in between. It also does not mention the fact that the name "Azerbaijan" was used only after the end of World War I, although it does mention the formation of it after WW-I. Also it does not mention at all that it used to be called Arran and that "Azarbaijan" has always historically been to the south of the Aras river.

The history section under Azerbaijan page is not intended to give full historical account but simply highlight the major events. From this perspective, I think the history section under Azerbaijan page is quite ok. You are welcome to discuss the historical issues and controversies in the History of Azerbaijan talkpage and after that make your contributions to the relevant page.--Tabib 10:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is a tendency here on Wikipedia that "opposing parties" take over separate pages and expand them, defending them against revert wars and developing them in separate directions. All this has happened in the past in the Azer|Azar-baijan|beycan|beijan complex of pages over and over again. There were "Turkish" pages and "Iranian" pages and others too Very few encyclopaedic pages though. Tabib has - by culling this page to the bone - created a good encyclopaedic page which could last and now allows the disputes to concetrate on one page - the historical page e.g. I do agree on one count - the bit about the "name shift" should be menitioned, preferably in a a way that does not inflame over and again the revert wars. Refdoc 10:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just added some historical info to the article. I was engaged with that region during my university studies for a couple of years.

Thanks,

Syaoshant

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [1]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected: Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

earliest states in Azerbaijan

I just found an English language website at the Azerbaijani Embassy in Romania with an amazing article that goes into immense detail about Ancient states in what is now Azerbaijan

(perhaps contradicting the article's statement:)

The first state to emerge in the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan was Caucasian Albania. It was established in the 4th century BC

Among the ancient states mentioned in this article, that is quite scholarly if not perfectly grammatical, are:

(apparently known from Assyrian and Urartian records)

c. 1000-800 BC: Zamua, Nikdiary (Mekdiary), Allabriya, Karalla Gilzan Messi, Andija, Zikirta Ninni, Shurdira, Kharruna, Simesi, Ulmania, Adau, Kharmasa, Sangibuti, Pulua

c. 850-800 BC: Mannae (mentioned in article I think)

http://www.azembassy.ro/English/pr01.htm

Wow there is a lot of new info for me there, I should have a field day researching this stuff for a while... Any of it sound familiar? --Codex Sinaiticus 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Keystone in all Azeri "histories" is a postulate that everything, which has ever happened on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan, is related, and directly linked to Azerbaijan and Azeries. This is nonsense unless Azerbaijani scientists present solid data proving the concept. Just one remark - how would you respect an Egyptian scientist who would claim that Arabs are ancestors of Nubian and pharaohs? Or Turks are ancestors of Romans? With smile, right? But why you do not smile when Azeris make similar claims? The truth is - there were no state or monarchy, which was Azerbaijani. First state with that name was created only in 1918. People started to be called Azerbaijanis only by 1938. Before they are identified themselves as Tats, Tallish, Lezgi, or even simply as Muslims. TT

interwiki

If you are a sysop, please add the interwiki [[li:Azerbaidzjan]] to the list of interwikis. I am to create the relevant article in a few minutes. Thanks in advance. Caesarion 15:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to user "El C": Sources for the relevant ASSERTIONS are inherent in the local HISTORY!

"Hairsplitting" should not be utilized as a means of distraction from obvious lack of KNOWLEDGE! The Assertions were made building on well-founded Information! (not by myself, though). Your apparent reference to Gogol characters and the sockpuppet page are entirely uncalled for. If you had any knowledge with respect to the local history, you would not approach me in this trivial manner, let allone call my contribution "vandalism". --Bagration-Mukhransky 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is I *don't* know about the local history, which is why I am reverting the uncited material, one that is very similar to the one contributed by the anonymous ip. To my knowledge, I have only reverted vandalism in this article —mostly, much more crude, and which mostly seems to come either from Azeri (aggrendizing) or Armenian (diminishing) nationalists— and have not contributed to it in any appreciable way. If it is well founded, then there should be no issue with validating the addition through propper citation of sources. But policy states that the burden of proof falls on the submitter. I'm going to consider any additional uncited reverts as vandalism and have warned Bagration-Mukhransky that this will lead him being blocked. I hope he will listen to reason. El_C 09:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My experience with Armenia has been similar as well, except naturally, with Azeri nationalists in this case diminishing and Armenian ones aggrandizing. Which is to be expected. Once Tabib is around, I'm confident that he'll be able to clear this latest incident up. El_C 11:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is surely NOT in the interest of WIKIPEDIA! I find it highly questionable indeed, that self-righteous "deputy sheriffs", despite of their obvious and admitted lack of relevant knowledge, feel free to wildly revert sensible edits and confront people in the known with snotty (if not cocky) argumentation. How can edits be termed "vandalism" by a person entirely ignorant of their contents??) On top of that openly teaming up with Individuals, with whom they seem to accord , for some reason. And what, prey tell me, is wrong with anonymous ips, posting sensible info?? As long as such conduct is tolerated by the responsible people on this platform, Wikipedia will remain unreliable and misleading, to a considerable extent. --Bagration-Mukhransky 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking that a source be provided for this "well-founded" claims – what's the big deal? El_C 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absurd claim on historical ethnic demoghraphics

I think I should intervene here to express my support to User:El C for reverting vandal Rovoam's spurious edits as well as for his legitimate point in his communication with User:Bagration-Mukhransky about citing sources first before making any substantial edits.

From history logs I have noticed that there was a brief mutual reverting between User:El C and User:Bagration-Mukhransky (e.g. [2]).

I want to state right away that the edits that Bagration-Mukhransky supported are totally false. I do not question this user's good faith, but I think it is necessary for you and all editors to know that this absurd claim that allegedly "the Azeri Turks" comprised only "around 30%" of the population of Azerbaijan, whereas Talysh minority ostensibly constituted 60% (?!) is simply absurd. (Btw, today Talysh number around 50-70,000 in present-day Azerbaijan and are the fastest growing population group in Azerbaijan). This absurd and stupid claim was first introduced by vandal Rovoam in Azerbaijanis as a part of his massive and wide-range vandalism which covered more than thirty (!) Azerbaijan and Turkey-related WP entries. He is still introducing same vandalisms in that entry, in many other Azerbaijan-related entries and even such unrelated entry as Ottoman Turks (e.g. [3]) or Ottoman Empire (e.g. [4])

As I said, I do not want to question Bagration-Mukhransky's good faith in his edits, but those spurious edits come from vandal and everyone should bear this in mind. I have also expressed similar concerns in Talk:Azeri, where Rovoam introduced same vandal edits. Hope, my message was helpful for you to understand the situation. I call you all to join me and many other editors in common struggle against Rovoam. For additional info, look at regular disclaimers.--Tabib 15:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Term "Azerbaijan" was first introduced in 1918. There were no state with that name in history prior to 1918. Using the term to period in history preceeding 1918 is a nonsence. Moreover, 'Azerbaijani people' is a term for Turks, Lezgi, Tats and other ethnic groups which were assimilated under soviet rule in Azerbaijan. Turks, or Azeri (Turks who lived in Persian northern province of Azerbaijan) constituted ca 30% of the population of the republic of Azerbaijan in 1918. The term "Azeri" became wide spread only by 1938. Thus, refering to people in the region az Azeri for period preceeding 1918 is a nonsence. For example there is absolutely no proof that ancient Caucasian Albania or Manna had anything to do with Azerbaijan.

Main reason for these history falsifications is an attempt to create new "older" history for newly born state and substantiate territorial claims.

Azerbayjan was not inhabited by TURCS prior to Seljuq migration to this area!

Interesting to note that nothing seems to have changed around here! The same old bickering on account of nationalist POV wherever user Tabib Husseynov gets involved (or some uneducated but passionate helpers at his side??) People around here act like ignorant medeaval chronies , running after innocent people , burning them as witches, though now they term them VANDALS (my own - previous - account was blocked on such ludicrous grounds.....) --Luba Gerasimova 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. While indeed, I am thoroughly uneducated, I am nonetheless well-meaning, and I hope that is how I am percieved (I have no particularly strong view on Azeri history). From this position, then, I hold the opinion that referencing claims about the origin of the name is, in the interests of stability, a desirable practice, esp. when these are seemingly more related to an historical overview and ethnography rather than etymology. I remain, as always, open to persuasion. And, again, I thank you for your note. El_C 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El C, and all other editors, the "user" above "Luba Gerasimova" is a banned vandal and sockpuppeteer Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova. Pls, disregard all his edits and comments. For details, pls, see, ArbCom Final decision on this vandal.--Tabib 11:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani literature cleanup

Hi all, I have been tasked with cleaning up the Azerbaijani literature article as part of my involvement with the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. I am interested in literature in general but confess I have no specific knowledge of Azerbaijani literature, so I wanted to leave a message here on this talk page to see if anyone is interested in helping to improve the article. Thanks for your attention. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why this page is protected

High time to stop this nonsensical stalking of editors by certain Azeri (Baku) pundits, who peddle pov, and agressively call for persecution of any sensible editors, questioning this pov User:Benito Juarez (sockpuppet) 01:01, June 25, 2005text attribution by --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

If you have a close look at the previous discussion, this article (along with many others about azerbaijan) has been an important target of vandal(s), and as far as I can see, none of the contributers is against editing "with proper citatons". 24.63.45.168 03:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add a link toward the io wiki (same name as in english).

Maybe we should be more lenient

[deleted spurious and abusive post by a banned vandal sockpuppet]...--Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

That's funny. ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 00:28 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disclaimer

Dear editors, please, be aware that previously banned vandal sockpuppets are actively posting abusive and spurious messages to various talkpages, where I have been active in the past (e.g. this talkpage, Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk, Talk:Caucasus, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, Talk:Artsakh etc.). Their sole aim is to attack me, create a confusion and an environment of animosity, and eventually, disrupt Wikipedia. I ask you to disregard all their spurious posts and if certain that certain post is by a vandal sockpuppet, simply delete them.

For additional information on recently created sockpuppets and their concerted 'campaign' against me, please, see, my requests for clarification to the ArbCom, which has already solved the issue by effectively blocking the known sockpuppets. See, request followed by second appeal. I ask editors to check the "birthdate" and contribution log" of any new "user" that suddently emerges and advances spurious allegations and attacks. Thus you can spot the vandal more easily . --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Dariush (talk • contribs) made a sockpuppet edit here. It has now been removed.

• Just wanted to point out, that this "Dariush" guy sounds to me like he might really be an anti-Iranian agent who is deliberately trying to stir up trouble by "threatening" an invasion of Azerbaijan... Without naming names, there are agencies in the world who stoop to such methods of impersonating their enemies in order to destabilise a region... so be aware, and don't be fooled! Codex Sinaiticus 01:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a heaven for propaganda?

Dear readers,

All topics in Wikipedia encyclopedia regarding Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are bombarded with Azeri propaganda. If you would like to learn anything about Armeian history or Armenians, please use other sources, not Wikipedia. The reason for this is simple, there is an anti-Armenian hysteria in present day Azerbaijan and Wikipedia is a heaven for them to try to change anything Armenian to reflect their hateful point of view.

Just one example. It is hard to find a place on this planet where azeris did not mark with their lie about "20% occupied territories and 1,000,000 refugees. Here is the truth (based on "Black garden" by Van der Vaal and Statistical Reference book, published in Azerbaijan, Azgosizdat, Baku, 1979)

Below are regions of Azerbaijan under Armenian conrol (area/population). Total terrotiry orf Azerbaijan is 86,600 sq km.

Keljbadzhar - 1,936 sq. kм/50,600 Lachin - 1,835 sq. kм/59,900 Gubatly - 802 sq. km/ 30,300 Dzhebrail - 1,050 sq km/ 51,600 Zangelan - 707 sq km/ 33,900 Agdam - 1,094 sq. km /158,000 Fizuli - 1,386 sq km/ 100,000

================

Total population: around 400,000

In addition, armenian forces control only 35% and 25% of Agdam and Fizuli regions, which make 383 and 347 sq km, respectively.

Bottom line is - Karabach, which was "occupied" by Armenians for thousands of years, makes ca 8% of Azeri territory; territories outside Karabach, which are under Armenian control make only 4.9%. Total - 12.9%. In addition, two regions of Karabakh are still under Azerbaijani control (Shaumian and Mardakert). Thus, Azeri territory under Armenian control is only 4.9%, or five times less than claimed by official azeri propaganda.

It is also obvious that there were no 1,000,000 people lived in the regions. Max. number of displaced Azeri cannot be more than 400,000, which is close to a number of Armenians fled Azerbaijan after pogroms in Sumgayt and Baku in 1988 and 1990, respectively.

Thus, all Azeri talks about "20% of occupied territories and 1 million displaced people" is nothing but a big lie.

...................................................................

The word Azerbaycan is a acient Avestian word for Land of the Eternal Flames. Azerbaycan has always had its own culture, dont mix it with Persians or Iranians. We were part of Persia but Azeri remained a different culture untill this day. The word Azerbaycan means in acient Avesta language; Land of the Eternal Flame. That comes from Zerdost religion. But Zerdost religion was also started somewere in Medes Empire. We are Turkish but also Persians. We have great history with Persia, and later on with Turkish.

Azerbaycan has always had its own culture, dont mix it with Persians or Iranians. We were part of Persia but Azeri remained a different culture untill this day. The word Azerbaycan means in acient Avesta language; Land of the Eternal Flame. That comes from Zerdost religion. But Zerdost religion was also started somewere in Medes Empire. We are Turkish but also Persians. We have great history with Persia, and later on with Turkish.

REAL STORY

Iran = Azeri not in refurse, 51& of current Iran are all Azeri and live in North Iran also called South Azerbaycan. Azerbaycan is a Avestian word which means Land of the Eternal Flame. Avestian language was started in Azerbaycan territory in Medes Empire! This is referring to ancient relgion -> Zorastrianism.

Iran is a new name and is no longer the country of Persian but Azeri, Kurds and Persians! Thats why they changed the name from Persis to Iran.

Reply: Iran is not a new name, the Sassanid period it was called Aryanshahr, Time of Darius it was called Aryanam, Iran is derived from Ir (short for Aryan) and An (place of) the Shah then made Iran the official name because the west continued the greek way of Calling it Persia. Iran is not New and only 25-30% of 70 milliuon people are Azeris and then only 20% have Turkish blood. So before you call them Turks or anything else do some research about them. Even the name of the Place is Persian! Medes and Persians are the same race, the tribes split and were related both ethnically and linguistically! --Aryan Khadem 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

AZERBAYCAN

Azeri people are mix of tons of other cultures and people. We were Maoi people at first then we were the Medes Empire. And we were considered as the first Iranians (not Persians). Later Turks came, we were mixed again. Later Russians, Brithes etc, so as you see Azeri people are a mix of a lot of different cultures!

-Maoi?? who are they, and by the way Medes and Persians are the same Race, both Iranic, spoke the same language and shared the same culture. To say that Medes are not Persians is false they are one and the same. If you want more source to prove this am happy to give them! --Aryan Khadem 12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Propaganda

On the Armenian page for Saint Mesrop Mashtots, it is listed that he was the inventor of the historic Albanian or old Azerbaijani alphabet. Since when was Mashtots the inventor of this alphabet? On the same page, it says that Mashtots was the inventor of the Ethipian alphabet too, which is hilarious.

My Contribution deleted why???

The name of Azarbaijan has been one of the most renowned geographical names of Iran since 2000 years ago. Azar is the same as "Ashur" which means fire. In Pahlavi inscriptions, Azarbaijan has been mentioned as 'Oturpatekan', while it has been mentioned Azarbayegan and Azarpadegan in Persian writings. It is Azarabadegan in Shahnameh and Arabs knew it as Azarbijan or Adarbijan.

With regard to the emergence of Azarbaijan, the writing by Strabo, the famous Greek geographer seems to be the most important of all writings.

When the rule of Achaemenid dynasty came to an end, Alexander from Macedonia conquered Iran. A warrior called Otupart rose in Azarbayegan and prevented that land, which was part of the Median empire and was known as 'Lesser Mede' to be captures by Greek warriors. The land was thereafter called Oturpatekan.

Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri pundit, opined that Oturpat was made up of Otur, meaning Azar or fire and Pat, which was later corroded to Paad and Baad, which meant guard.

Why was this deleted, actually I explain the name in linguistic detail, so again why does it keep getting deleted??? I am only contributing to the history of the So called Republic of Azerbaijan!

--Aryan Khadem 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no Evidence or proof of any AZ people why is it even in the article? I thought this is a site for knowledge since my article of Turanism is considered disputed etc why is this page not the same?? I can present more evidence to the blocking out of Persian history to this place, and its false name Azerbaijan, invention of the Russians. But I will like this topic to be contrevesal and disputed and a warning put up.

--Aryan Khadem 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Another problem I have is when I go to search and Type Azerbaijan it comes to the Republic of Azerbaijan there should be 2 links either the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Province of Azerbaijan in Iran. not just one link to this disputed name and area. That way we can avoid the arguements and debates and have two differernt pages one for the Republic of Azerbaijan and one for the Province of Azerbaijan!

--Aryan Khadem 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "Azerbaijan," (originally — Aturpatagan in Parthian or Atrpatakan in Old Armenian) is also a confusing term. It never represented a single political or ethnic unit before 1918, being solely a geographic concept, for centuries designating an ancient northern province of today's Iran. Only in the last decade of 1800s, Azeri nationalist intellectuals came up with a controversial idea to hijack the term "Azerbaijan" in order to give a single name to the lands of the present-day Azerbaijani Republic, located to the north of the "original" Azerbaijan. Ironically, if anyone should be rightfully called "Azerbaijani" at that time, they should not have been the proto-Azeri Turkic tribal infiltrators from the sandy plains of Eastern Caspian, but the aboriginal population of present-day "Azerbaijan," i.e. Armenians, Udins, Talishes, Lezgins, Budughs, Tats, etc. All would later become victims of the Azeri policy of forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing. http://www.cilicia.com/Plagiarism.htm

Azarbaijan The name of Azarbaijan has been one of the most renowned geographical names of Iran since 2000 years ago. Azar is the same as "Ashur" which means fire. In Pahlavi inscriptions, Azarbaijan has been mentioned as 'Oturpatekan', while it has been mentioned Azarbayegan and Azarpadegan in Persian writings. It is Azarabadegan in Shah Nameh and Arabs knew it as Azarbijan or Adarbijan.

With regard to the emergence of Azarbaijan, the writing by Strabo, the famous Greek geographer seems to be the most important of all writings.

When the rule of Achaemenid dynasty came to an end, Alexander from Macedonia conquered Iran. A worrier called Otupart rose in Azarbayegan and prevented that land, which was part of the Median empire and was known as 'Lesser Mede' to be captures by Greek worriers. The land was thereafter called Oturpatekan.

Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri pundit, opined that Oturpat was made up of Otur, meaning Azar or fire and Pat, which was later corroded to Paad and Baad, which meant guard.

In June 1918, the dignitaries of Mosavat (equality) Party, established a government in Caucasus and called it Azerbaijan following suit with policies of Turks. At that time, the naming gave rise to controversies and some even went as far as announcing that, "As if Azerbaijan is a land, which has been divided in two parts; one part lying to the north of Aras river and the other part lying to the south."

The disputes became so hectic that Azarbayegan proper was called 'Southern Azerbaijan' while Aran and Shiravan were called northern Azerbaijan to deceive the Iranian youth.

Mosavat Party whose real name was 'Mosavat Islamic Democratic Party' was established in 1911 in Baku with the goal of unifying Turks in Asia Minor.

Mosavat Party followed the policies of Pan-Turkists and advocated unity of all Turk-speaking people. http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/language_azeri_people_pan_turkism.php

Please add my input I have given references to them. --Aryan Khadem 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

West Azarbaijan is Kurdish?

Some pushy pro-Kurdish PKK editors have taken over the West Azarbaijan page claiming the Kurds are a majority there and that cities like Urmia are "70% Kurdish and 30% Azeri". (a totally absurd claim. Azarb.com even says Urmia is 90% Azeri).

I'm tired of fighting ignoramuses.

Perhaps some of you can help us there: Talk:West Azarbaijan--Zereshk 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Why is m edits about Azeri Genocide erased?

Çok kısa ve net danışacam. Onu diyen pokhumu yisin!

[www.travel-images.com travel images] also states that Urmia is 90% Azeri

yes urmia has a kurdish majority , the whole province of western azerbaijan has a kurdish majority , i am from there and i know azeris would argue otherwise , but it was there , the kurdish republic was proclaimed today ,mahabad, serdesht , bokan and urmia have a kurdish majority , the azeris are in the majority in the towns like maku and nekede but urmia has ssen a exloding population driven by mostly kurdish immigration

[No Title]

Well listen you clever guys.More than 50% of İranians speaks Azeri and are azeri.Languages are same,cultures are same,this is more than 35 mln people.Azerbaijan and İran we separated by Russia and after that people mixed.One word.Armenia never excisted.Russia made it possible.Politics you know? I know thousands of students from İran here.They all say same.So do not discuss things that you read from books which were falsificated by armenian or farsi people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farizfariz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 January 2006.

Can you provide refrences for your stats.. majority of sources I have estimate that 20% of Iranians speak azarbaijani and about 10% live in predominantely azarbaijani provinces: Zanjan, Eastn Azarbaijan, Ardabil and half of West Azarbaijan.

This is really pathetic

Instead of a picture of the President of Azerbaijan - Ilham Aliyev, we have the pictures of 2 obscure opposition politicians  ? What is up with that ?

This isnt a soapbox for your political views(whether its pro Aliyev or anti Aliyev). This is an ENCYLOPEDIA ! There's absolutely no justification for replacing Aliyev's picture with Isa Gambar and (whats her name again ?)  :: User:Mrent

I agree. I'll replace the pictures with one of Ilham Aliyev. --Khoikhoi 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are NOT Persians

My father is an ethnic Azeri Turk from Hamadan Province and my mother is Persian. Therefore I am not anti-Persian. But I am growing weary of the constant "Farsification" which is the same as "falsification" of Azeri history and culture. South Azerbaijan Azeris are Iranians, yes, but they are NOT Persians. They are Iranian, meaning they have Iranian citizenship. Please let us stop these Persian chauvinist and ethnocentric attempts at denying the existence of Turks in Iran...Azeri is a Turkic language, Azeris are ethnic Turks, and have their own culture as well. Azerbaycanin xalqi fars deyir...menim babam torkdu...o torki danishir...biz torkuz....qanmirsanmi? Azeriler ise Qashqaylar=tork milleti. I support autonomy (but not secession or total independence) for Iran's Azeri provinces (East/West Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Zanjan, and Hamadan provinces). But why should young Azeri children in Tabriz have to learn arithmetic, geography and science in Persian, a language that does not come naturally to them, instead of Azeri? Why does the Iranian government prohibit the Azeri language to be taught in schools? Iranian Azeris do not hate Persians...both share a common Shi'ite faith, and Iranian nationality, but as long as Iran denies her Azeri people their linguistic and cultural rights, and ignores their legitimate aspirations as a separate ethnic group, more of us will gravitate towards Baku. I come from a mixed Azeri-Persian family, and millions of Azeris have married Persians, since they are both Shi'ite correligionists and compatriots. But I am tired of Iran's government stifling Azeri language and culture. Azeri should be declared Iran's second official language. Given the fact that there are 35 million Azeris in Iran, that would only be fair. Yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin dilimiz. --- Well I really doubt your mother is Persian. But as per your arguments, I think you have mixed the definition of ethnic/origin and language. A language like English is spoken by many people, most of them who are not ethnic English. Azarbaijanis are also Iranians, but they speak Turkic language. I do not think there is any prohibition of languages being thought, but the Iraniang government is responsible to teach the official languages, else there are literally hunders of small dialects in Iran and many villages have their own dialects which is not understood in the neighboring villages. I have been to Hamadan and the majority of people there speak Persian and the Luri dialect. Turkic is spoken in the northern parts of Hamadan , but the city is Persian speaking. Also I doubt the 35 million number that some people claim. For most parts for example West Azarbaijan speaks Kurdish languages (except in around oroomiyeh which is a mixed city). With all this diversity, the need for a common language is natural and in the 1906 constitutional revolution, Persian was chosen as the official language.

Well, sorry to disappoint you but my mother is Persian, a Mazandarani born in Sari in fact. Did I claim the city of Hamadan was Azeri speaking? Did I say my father was from Hamadan city? If you have in fact been to Hamadan province, you would know it is over 60 percent Azeri speaking. South of Kabudar Ahang and in the Razan areas, Famenin area (my father's native area), and in most parts of the province, Azeri is spoken. Hamadan Province is the southernmost part of historical Azerbaijan, and it was a tactic of the Iranian government to carve out yet another province of this integral part of Azerbaijan.

==Well this is where you are wrong. Because 1/3 of the population of Hamadan province lives in Hamadan city and 90% speak Persian or a close dialect. Also Nahavand, Towiskaran, Malayer and Asad-Abad are mainly Persian/Lur speaking. The Azari percentage in Hamadan is about 2/5 of what you claim. See this article for details: http://www.hamedanpolitic.ir/Group.aspx

As you can see Azari turkish is insignificant in Hamadan city, Malayer, Nahavand, Towiskaran and only 20% in Asad-abad. So if you do the math, the majority of Hamadan province is Persian and the next largest group are Indo-Iranian groups like Lurs/Kurds. Turkic is about 25%. Azari Turkic is small minority in Hamadan, since the three provinces it is predominate (Bahar, Kabudar-Ahang, Razan) are not densly populated relative to the rest of province.

THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THIS IS FULL OF LIES BECUAS IF YOU GO LOOK AT THE EDIT HISTORY AND TRACE THE MESSAGE BACK TO THE UNSIGNED SOURCE YOU WILL SEE IT IS A USER WHO IS NOT IRANIAN AND FROM TURKEY. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE TERRRIBLE PROPAGANDA COMING FROM TURKEY. THEY USE TO CLAIM KURDS ARE A SPECIFIC TYPE OF TURK CALLED 'MOUNTAIN TURKS.' THIS IS REAL LOW.

what is always this lie with 35 millions azeris in iran the whole country has 69 millions , in november 2005 , it was said that the total population numbered about 68,5 millions http://www.isna.ir/main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-686321&Lang=E the provinces , azeris lives in are west azerbaijan , three milions , and everyone on the whole planet knows , that this province has a kurdish majority , some azeris claim that kurds make less then 10% of the population there , that is completly nonsense , i can count several towns like mahabad 170.000 bukan 220.000, piranshar 70.000 serdesht 50.000 with a kurdish majority of at least 90% , according to you azeris , only 300.000 of the 500.000 living there can only be kurdish but they must be lees , according to you , because as you know there are kurdish communities in urmia and nearly every town in the province , which would mean that those towns , should be only half or even less then half kurdish, , and i do not count the villages and sub district , regions with a predominatly kurdish population , east azerbaijan with 4,5 millions, ardabil with 1,3 millions, zanjan 1,7 millions, hamedan with 1,7 millions with a substantial, persian and kurdish population and qazwin with one million all provinces , which azeris claim have a total population of 13-14 millions , considerung the facrt that azeris are a minority in hamadan and east azerbaijan , i would like to know , where are actually the 20 milions , you claim to live , even if we say that cities like tehran have a big azeri community of 5-6 millions , it will still not tell us whre the the rest of the 20 milllions are i mean , by saying that thre are 35 millions azeris in iran ,the number of nonazeris must be not more then 34 millions , taking all the different ethnic group , it would mean that thre are 35 milions azeris and only 20 millions persians , i can only say what my father told me , back in the shahs time ,he worked for the iranian state and he said , that he saw unoffocial documents from that time , iran had 35 millions , which said that there were some 11 millions aeris and 4,5 millions kurds back then , besides ,the rest of populations were mostly persian and other shia iranian groups nie it tell me that toda , thre are about 20-22 millions azeris and 8-9 millions kurds (lek and faillis included) with persian being around 30-35 millions , it depends on what you consider persian

Azarbayjan

I would like to answer the guy who claims West Azerbayjan is Kurdish. Doesn't he/she know that Iran's Kurdistan province population is mainly composed of Turks. Cities like Bijar ang Gorveh and hundreds of villaves speak Azerbayjani.

i know that to east of the kurdistan province azeris are in the majority, but still they are are minority in the province but there is no way , that west azerbaijan has only a minority of kurds , counting less then 300.000 we are in the majority in western azerbaijn , especially , in the mountains and tothe south of the province , in the region mukriyan i am from there and i am really pissed off with you turks you turks claim always everything for you in turkey , wich i do not know has up to 20 millions kurds , they were not exised until several years ago , in cyprus , the turks talked always about making about 35% of the population , only to find out , that after the occupation of cyprus by turkey , they made really less then 20% of the total population , the same story for kerkuk i remember how they claimed that kerkuk has a 80% turkish majority, and kurds arent there , only outsiders , and thre were two elections , both times , the kurdish parties gained over 60% of the votes and there was no turqoman boycott , it is always your ,i do not how to decribe it , approach that is ultra nationalistic and facistic , by denying always others and stripping off our rights , how does it come where were the three millions turqomans in iraq , nowhere of course , because they are only several hundreds thousands you azeris do the same with us ,azerbaijan , tradionelly was the soviet state with the biggest kurdih community , there are officially only 10.000 kurds how come , everyone that there several hundreds thousands , still living thre , of course a lot were deported or left to russia , but still in 1923 there 60.000 kurds , and today , they are only 10.000 hahahahaha, what a joke , the big joke ,that in every census , kurds were lesser then before , given the fact , that kurds tend to have one of the highest birthrates on the planet , it is really a joke now you azeris start the same with the west azerbaijan province , you aim is to illegimate us , even before , we have asked for our right

The main title

Azerbaijan is a country and also a region inside Iran. I think Azerbaijan should be disambiguation page and the current article (about the country) shoul be under the name Republic of Azerbaijan. The situation is the same as Macedonia (which is a country and also a region, inside Greece). We shouldn't have a double-standard regarding Azerbaijan and Macedonia (or regarding Iran and Greece). Bidabadi 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection? Bidabadi 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain the way it is now. Azerbaijan is an internationally recognized country, and the article for the region of Azerbaijan in Iran goes under the name Iranian or South Azerbaijan, which is correct. There is no naming conflict, at least officially, Iranian government never formally objected, so I see no parallels with Macedonia and no reason for change of name of the article. Grandmaster 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia is also an internationally recognized country. Why should we have a double-standard? Bidabadi 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran does not have a conflict with Azerbaijan over the name. Grandmaster 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, in Englesh Wikipedia, we have pages like History of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people. These pages are not only about the Republic of Azerbaijan, but also about Iranian Azerbaijan. Therefore, it is necessary to have a disambiguation page for Azerbaijan. I don't know why are you insisting on avoiding disambiguation. Bidabadi 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - the most common meaning of "Azerbaijan" is the country, not the region in Iran. --Khoikhoi 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which one is the most common. Both of them are reffered as Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan is not negligible (compared to Republic of Azerbaijan). Indeed, Iranian Azerbaijan is greater (in terms of both area and population). Google results can not be a base for avoiding the disambiguation. For example, if you search for America, most of the results are related to USA. But, America is not redirected to United States of America (America is adisambiguation page). Bidabadi 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It does matter, actually. Think about all the articles that link to Azerbaijan, about 99% of them are refering to the country. Since the spelling "Azerbaijan" more commonly refers to the country, the less common meaning should be in a little note at the top of the Azerbaijan article, we shouldn't have to go out of our way to stress the less common one. --Khoikhoi 22:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Azarbaijan should be about the region in Iran. We either should have disambiguation pages for both or have short titles for both. Bidabadi 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Still I don’t understand what’s wrong with having articles called Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. It’s been like that for ages. And it has its disambig – the note on top of the article says: This article is about the country. For the region in northwestern Iran, see Iranian Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure that the above proposal is necessary: the status quo seems sufficient ... with tweaks. By most accounts, the simpler rendition Azerbaijan unambiguously and commonly refers to the country; while not incorrect, Republic of Azerbaijan seems extraneous. As well, if the Iranian Azerbaijan article is correct, the mere title of that article is unambiguous and little would be served by moving it. I don't believe there is a double-standard at play, since that implies the title of this article is ambiguous: conversely, Macedonia and Ireland significantly differ because the simplest forms are easily confused for political or geographic entities that coincide and are otherwise contentious.

If anything, the disambiguation page should be retrofitted to clarify matters, but the articles remain entitled as they are. Thus:

• Azerbaijan (disambiguation): where all permutations are listed, with hatnotes atop all articles:

• Azerbaijan: the country in Eurasia
• Iranian Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan (Iran): region in nothwestern Iran, in ancient times known as Atropatene
• Azerbaijan (region): historically, the greater region comprising the two

My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the situation for Azerbaijan and Macedonia is very similar. Also, in most of the related pages in English Wikipedia (such as History of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani literature and Azerbaijani people), Azerbaijan referes to both the country and the region inside Iran. Bidabadi

I somewhat disagree and, apparently, so do a few other editors. Historically, Azerbaijan formed a greater region of Persia until the early 19th century, when the northern part was ceded to Russia. Currently, however, the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan are distinct and not co-terminous. (For example, the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even include a separate entry for the Iranian sub/region, describing the situation in its entry for the country.) Conversely, the greater region of Macedonia currently subsumes/includes the Republic of Macedonia, the Greek subregion, and others ... and the republic, upon its admission to the UN, adopted a provisional title due to Greek protests over the name. Similarly, the isle of Ireland is shared between (the Republic of) Ireland and the UK. And take a peek at Australia/Australia (continent)/Australia (disambiguation) for another example ... the first is not entitled as per its political name (Commonwealth of Australia; redirect) due to prevailing usage. And all of these have DABs.

Any references in Wp regarding both country and subregion should be enhanced depending on context and to promote clarity. If anything, this begs for the creation of an article entitled Azerbaijan (region) treating the country and Iranian subregion together. Otherwise, I defer to my prior comments. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing which is crucial to understand here is that the Azarbaijan of Iran is actually the mainland of Azarbaijan, not the other way around. The center of mass both in terms of population, and in terms of history, is what is referred to as Iranian Azarbaijan. The historical Azarbaijan also includes the Iranian provinces of Zanjan, Ardabil, Qazvin, and even Nakhchivan. If there were to be any unification, the capital would be Tabriz, not Baku. Therefore, traditionally and historically, "Azarbaijan" referred to the Iranian side, not the northern side, which is a recent artificial creation. I therefore also would have to agree that "Azerbaijan" should not go to the "Republic of Azerbaijan", but should go to a disambig page.--Zereshk 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the comment above. Redirect to disambig-- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - as I mentioned above, by far the most common meaning of Azerbaijan is the country, not the region in Iran. I bet that 99% of all the pages that link to the Azerbaijan are about the country anyways. --Khoikhoi 16:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. The vast majority of Azerbaijan and Azeris are in Iran. I think this page should be a disambiguation, with links to Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. --ManiF 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the most common meaning is country, according to naming conventions Azerbaijan should refer to country, not region in Iran. Have a look at other encyclopedia, what do you get when you run a search for Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just read what everyone wrote and there are many good points. The main problems are that there are two Azerbaijans, one under Iran and one that is a country. Initially, I was thinking that Grandmaster is correct and he makes some valid points, but then I looked up Azerbaijan in Encyclopedia Americana and it lists Azerbaijan in Iran first and then went to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now, obviously, we all are aware of the two, but the average American or European may not even know of another Azerbaijan. A disambiguation page would only help to inform that there are two Azerbaijans, but the most common usage is the country which would be first in the listing of a disambiguation page and thus a reader could automatically see which usage is the most common. In addition, just as South or Iranian Azerbaijan goes to that page, Republic of Azerbaijan could go to the country as well. Keep in mind that what we want to do is make sure that readers know as much as possible. The term Turk is most commonly applied to Turkish people and thus required a disambiguation page. My alternative suggestion would be either a separate article on the collective Azerbaijan or something in the opening paragraph that points to there being an Iranian Azerbaijan that is contiguous with the modern country. Hope this helps. Tombseye 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that to redirect "Azerbaijan" to a country called "Republic of Azerbaijan" is ignoring the rights of the majority Azeris living outside that Republic to call their home Azerbaijan. And thats not right.

It automatically implies centrality for the "Republic of Azerbaijan" as the center of "Azerbaijana", making Iranian Azerbaijan sound like a detached south part of the republic. Whereas in reality, the republic is actually the north part of the real Azerbiajan (based in Iran).

It's like as if tomorrow, some country is established calling itself "Republic of Europe", and then the next day we redirect "Europe" to that republic's article, instead of refering to the region and continent.

The "country" Azerbaijan did not even exist up until 15 years ago. The region of Azarbaijan has however existed for centuries.--Zereshk 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put.Behaafarid 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Azarbaijan (Iran)

Many good and valid points have been made here. All things considered, I suggest changing Iranian Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (Iran) or Azarbaijan (Iran). SouthernComfort 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The main discussion is about this article (about Republic of Azerbaijan). Where should it be? Bidabadi 18:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Azarbaijan (Iran)

So, as discussed, I propose moving Iranian Azerbaijan (whose official status in totality I'm uncertain of) to Azarbaijan (Iran): this also harks of the provincial names/articles in Wp. (See the DAB.) Thoughts? If there are no or few objections ... Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article move request has been formally made. Please weigh in (click here). Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrofit of DABs

As above, I have retrofitted Azerbaijan (disambiguation) to include various notions of the term. This should be sufficient. I have also redirected Azarbaijan to it, since it was completely redundant. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not enough. Azerbaijan should be a disambiguation page (similar to Macedonia and America). Bidabadi 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As above (e.g., Australia, New York, et al.) – until you can compel for said changes, and you have not, it will have to suffice. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the similarity between Azerbaijan and New York? NewYork simply refers to the city and the state of NewYork is named after it. The situation for Azerbaijan is not similar. Indeed Republic of Azerbaijan is named after the region. In your version of Azerbaijan (disambiguation), you have refered to Iranian Azerbaijan as a contemporary subregion of Iran. It seems that you are not familiar with the region and its history (or even familiar to Middle East and Caucasus) or you are misinformed. In that case, why are you so persistent? Bidabadi 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be rather selective in your choosing of examples. I've cited various examples to illustrate the proper and varied use of DABs (e.g., New York (state)/New York (city), etc.); hence they are similar. You seem to imply that Iranian Azerbaijan is analogous to a bona fide polity (the Republic of Macedonia) when, actually, its composed of various Iranian provinces. The region of Iranian Azerbaijan is not synonymous with the greater region of Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan (29K Google hits) + Republic of Azerbaijan (305K Google hits), or almost 100 million with a varied search) and implies possession. In common English use, Azerbaijan generally means the republic so a move would serve little purpose; the current hatnotes/DABs are sufficient.

I persist because I can: I've enhanced the DABs recently to note various meanings of the terms (based on authoritative references) and you've provided only rhetoric. "Contemporary" means precisely that, vis a vis "historical/ancient" references (e.g., Atropatene); insert synonym or not. Otherwise, I defer to prior comments.

And, demonstrating your level knowledge or etiquette by challenging mine, I suggest you refrain from arguably incivil personal attacks hereafter. I can be compelled otherwise ... but not through your approach. I'll respond to you hereafter only when there's cause to do so. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What was my incivil attack? If it's becuase I said It seems that you are not familiar with the region, I apologize for that. I didn't know you consider it as an incivil attack. Bidabadi 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When you assess an editor's level of knowledge as you did above, how else should one interpret it? Please be more judicious in your commentary. Qualified apology accepted. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you say that you are familiar with the region and its history, I accept that. About being selective, I might be a little bit selective. However, I think my selection is a little bit more relevant than yours. I think the similarity between Azerbaijan and Macedonia is much more that the similarity between Azerbaijan and New York (I hope you don't consider it as an incivil attack). Bidabadi 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Better phrasing, so no offence perceived. I've provided a varied selection to demonstrate different approaches, so relevance is a matter or perspective. Basically: usage of simply Azerbaijan to refer to the republic prevails, with unambiguous modifiers used for other entities (and as for the greater region, as above (Azerbaijan (region))), vis-à-vis Macedonia ... which in its simplest form is commonly and ambiguously used for various entities. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was already mentioned that the rules require using the most common meaning. It is obvious that the most common meaning of the word Azerbaijan is the independent state. Also see how many articles link to independent Azerbaijan and how many to Iranian region. The change entails a lot of work on redirecting the links, etc. Grandmaster 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but details can get lost in ... text. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you say about this: [5] (from the 1911 version of Britannica). Doesn't it justify having a disambiguation page under the title Azerbaijan? Bidabadi 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that article from old Britannica somehow prove that the most common meaning nowadays is not the independent Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a historical reference (as above) to Iranian Azerbaijan (actually within 'Persia') and it should be enhanced or treated within that context. My more current edition of Encyclopædia Britannica (and I was blessed to have been provided with the print version a few years back) indicates the republic and discretely details the two Iranian provinces. I've also reflected these in the DAB and alternate spellings too.E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this: http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9011538 Bidabadi 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As above; I believe this is accommodated for in Iranian Azerbaijan, with the two titular Iranian provinces, and the DAB. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is under the title Azerbaijan and is about Iranian Azerbaijan. So, even if we only consider the current version of Britannica, it shows the necessity of having a disambiguation page under the title Azerbaijan. Bidabadi 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There are others things to consider, as already stated above, for reasons to not do so – namely, common usage. Actually, this might beg for retitling Iranian Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (Iran) or even Azarbaijan (Iran) (as per the rendition of the province articles in Wp). And I don't think I can comment any further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Although I prefer having a disambiguation page under the title Azerbaijan, I don't continue the discussion (It's been already too long). So, please implement your proposal. Bidabadi 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are really considering to change Azerbaijan into Azerbaijan Republic then we should make to double standards for Iran either. We should then also change Iran into Islamic Republic of Iran. By the way the Azerbaijai regions in Iran are knowns as East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan in general its called South-Azerbaijan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baku87 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 April 2006.

Actually, I've already added all of these to Azerbaijan (disambiguation). :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, by the way. Thanks. Looks like you have not missed anything. Grandmaster 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

AZERIS ARE NOT TURKS

I am an Azeri and I am not a Turk I am an Iranian. 75%-80% of the worlds Azeris live in Iran and the majority consider themselves Iranians. Many Iranian clerics are Azeris, including the Suprmeme Leader. Much of the militaries commanders are Azeris including a vast spectrum of civil servants and government workers. Professor Mossadegh the nationalist Prime Minister of Iran was an Azeri and a proud Iranian nationalist. The list goes on and on. The people in Iran who fight pan-Turkism are mostly Azeris and Azeris are the strongest defenders of Iranian unity. The Reoublic of Azerbaijan has only been divided from Iran for about 170 years. Remember that. 69.196.139.250 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not "Farsi"s, but we are sure as hell Iranian. Iran has been run by Azeris in the past 500 years, if not more. Khamenei, Pahlavis, Qajars, Safavids, all were originally Azeri Iranians.

And exactly who, pray tell, is a "Farsi"? SouthernComfort 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We should ask User:Diyako, the soul inventor of this term! :) --Zereshk 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an Azeri too and I have never ever considered myslef a Turk. The Republic of Azerbaijan was a part of Iran and it will become a part of Iran again. MOst the people here who pretend to be Azeris are actually from Turkey trying to spread their Turkush propganada. Real Azeris are Iranians!!!!!72.57.230.179 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Azerbaijan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B An interesting start with comprehensive coverage of subject. Implement properly formatted citations, see WP:CITET. Article should contain at least 25 referenced citations. Remove px sizing and left placement tags from image thumbnails to improve readability. Bring external links in compliance with WP:EL. Apply WP:LEAD guideline. Find an accurate population figure and cite the source.

Last edited at 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)