Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Article constantly vandalised by Armenians, paid or non-paid 2 Lets clarify/define our subject matters, as it is used in English. 3 If you want to know what Azeri's are ask Azeri's for the answer will be obviously what we and that is Azeri Turks 4 Actually Azaris are Iranian 5 Independent, unbiased determination by the world community re: NK conflict 6 Official websites 7 Figures of Iranian Azeris 8 Oil Reserves 9 "Controversy" tag 10 Land of the Eternal Fire 11 IPA 12 The name 13 Unprotection? 14 Picture of Baku 15 Historical revisionist theory 16 New Map 17 Conflict regarding the o--alidoostzadeh 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)rigins and legitimacy of Azerbaijan's name 18 BIG FAULTS IN THE ARTICLE 19 About the name Azerbaijan 20 Atropates 21 Sources again 22 Request for Comment: Azerbaijan 23 Protected! 24 Third party sources 25 Vandalism of the page 26 Repeated POV Vandalism by "Azerbaijani" 27 "The name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim north western Iran." 28 Voting? 29 ADR - Rasulzade = Azerbaijani ideology, not Pan-Turkic or Pan-Islamic 30 Removal of sourced information without consensus 31 Block Azerbaijani 32 Consensus Analysis

Article constantly vandalised by Armenians, paid or non-paid

This article is obviously constantly vandalised by Armenians. They are pretending to be Iranians but they are Armenians and admins should not allow Armenian propaganda. This article is nothing but Armenian propaganda and misinformation. Azerbijan IS NOT as written here. The continuous Armenian vandalism shows what their civilisation is all about. They have created many account and pretend to be from Iran. Look at the economy of Armenia and it will be clear instead of workinh to make their country better they are paying people to spread misinformation. 80.97.82.93 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets clarify/define our subject matters, as it is used in English.

• Azerbaijan is the name of an independent country as well as the name of the northern part of Iran. Both are mostly populated by Azeri Turks! But also include minorities like Georgians, Lezgins, Kurds, Talishs and Armenians .

• Iran is a country with many ethnic groups as well (Including Arabs, Kurds, Persians/Fars and , Turks ...)

• Persian is the English name for ethnic group whose native name is Fars in Iran.

• The terms Persian (Fars) or Turk or Arab, are refereing to an ethnic group, based on language only(not race or citizentiop ). Ethnicity is based on language, which defines the identity, culture etc.

• Turkish (when not speaking of language)is a refrence for any citizen of Turkey, also name of Language and ethnic group mainly in Turkey.

• Turk is a broader name for people that live in todays Turkey, Azerbaijan, and northern part of Iran!
• Iranian is who ever who is citizen of Iran.

So you can say:

• I am an Azeri/Azerbaijani, because I am a citizen of Azerbaijan or from northern part of Iran , and
• I am a Turk in refrence to my language and ethnicity, but
• I am not Turkish as I am not citizen of Turkey.
• I am an Iranian as I am citizen of Iran.

-So an Azerbaijani can be an Iranian when it comes to citizentip . So you can say: X is an Iranian-Azeri.

-Or an Afghani can be Persian but not Iranian when we talk of ethnicity. So you can say: Y is a Afghani-Persian.

If you have different definitions of these terms and references please define them. Mehrdad 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that out Mehrdadd, good post Baku87 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

---

Ethnicity is based on language, which defines the identity, culture etc.

Oh really? So i guess the seljuks, Safavids, Qajar's, Mughals, etc... were all persians. hooray for us. thanks for your logic, but next time, stick to facts, and keep your opinions to yourself.Khosrow II 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know what Azeri's are ask Azeri's for the answer will be obviously what we and that is Azeri Turks

Hi,

I'd just like to state that the poor bunch of Pan-Persians foaming at the mouth are making total fool's of themselves.

As an Azeri Turk in diaspora thanks to the opressive Iranian regime I can openly state that my language is Turkish, I am a Turk, yet also an Iranian as in citizen. The reason I say this is because Iran does not recognise my language, provide's no education in my language, we are made to feel that as Turks we are not Iranians as to be Iranian you must speak Persian and abide by the Persian rules and culture.

For this reason I do not regard myself as an "equal" Iranian, me and millions like me are not allowed to speak the language of the people who ruled this land for 1000 years which is a real shame.

Turks have been in the region for over 2000 years, open your history books and read it, it is documented as far back to 500 BC.

The Khazar's and their ancestor's settled in the region in 100 AD, so the claim of no Turks being in the region prior to the Selcuks is a common Persian lie.

To see for yourselves about the linguistic state in Iran here is an objective source.

For Iran

Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran

That;s almost 30 million Native Turkish speakers in Iran.

If there are any here who still try to deny we are Turks then tell us this in our own language, let's debate this in Turkish which is our language, oh but you can't can you because you are not Azeri, Qaskay or Turkmen.

It would be alot better if you could just accept the realities, we are not Persian, don't speak Persian, Azeri Turks of Iran are Iranian citizens, Azeri Turks of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijan citizen's and luckily have their beautiful language as the National one, they teach our fabulous language in schools, its the language of the state, of media, of national identity, there they can be what they are and speak their mind about who they are.

Shamefully this isn't the case in my country, even more disgracefull is when these Persian's start foaming at the mouth calling anyone who say's they are a Turk an agent from Turkey.

Please, stop the paranoia, were living inside Iran, not in Turkey, if you carry on fooling yourself otherwise very soon South Azerbaijan will be joining the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran will have been destroyed by the Persians.

I have visited the Republic of Azerbaijan many time's, it make's me so proud and happy to see my nation living our and speaking our beautiful language, to see them proud and open about who they are, a place where being a Turk is a beatiful thing, hopefully one day the same will be said for Iran.

Azerbaycan ölmedi Özlüyünden dönmeyib Azerbaycan oyaqdır Varlığına dayaqdır Ana dilim ölen deyil Özge dile çönen deyil

Tabriz_han

it just shows , that my figures were right ,i said 20-22 millions azeris and eight to nine millions kurds but that souce seems to be pretty well it would mean , that today thre are about 25 millions azeris and 8 millions kurds in iran, considering population growth kurdish dialects http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran Hawrami [hac] 22,948 in Iran Kurdish, Central [ckb] 3,250,000 in Iran Kurdish, Northern [kmr] 350,000 in Iran Kurdish, Southern [sdh] 3,000,000 in Iran (2000 Fattah). Laki [lki] 1,000,000 (2002 Fattah).

• Guys, Ethnologue figures are wrong, their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 millions more than the population of Iran (that also includes 3-4 millions Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out! see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran Kiumars 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to read these oponions,what are you talking about? we are all Iranian/persian. have you forgotten that lots of goveners in the past and even now are turks(safavi dynasty, qajar dynasty and ...) but we all speak Persian in order to comminiucate, why are you trying to follow divid and control policy by Britain, they just try to make our country smaller and then control us widely. Please stop this racist policy and accept that we as an kurd,Lur,pars,Turk,Arab and even Afgan are all a nation IRANIAN/PERSIAN 213.207.238.78 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Azaris are Iranian

It has scientifically been established through genetics that Azaris are Turcophone (or Turkic speaking) Iranians. I have no problem in anyone saying that I am a Turkic person due to my langauge, but ethnically I am an Iranian. The majority of Azaris also view themselves as Iranians. Language is not the factor that defines a race or ethnic group. 72.57.230.179

Cite the study, its authors, when was done, who funded, who published -- there is not such credible scientific studies and it is generally easy to distinguish most ethnic Azerbaijanis from most ethnic Persians, for example. Often, there are anthropological differences, although I've never dwelled into details of such research. Of course, this doesn't mean that ethnic Azerbaijanis don't have Caucasian, Iranian, Semitic and other lineage, but then all ethnic Persians and other Iranians have also Turkic, Caucasian, Semitic and other lineages too. --AdilBaguirov 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us speak about scientific facts to be consistent. Nex time when you claim something please be specific and give us the name, number, date and page numbers of the scientific journal. Or else you are funny. You may not like Turks. But you should not lie. Apart from Iran rest of the world says that Azeris are mostly of Turkish origin. Nowadays Iran has an Southern Azerbaijan problem and trying to claim that Azeris are Iranian. But this will not work. You can not meet scientific facts with emotional claims. In Azerbaijan there are of course dark coloured citizens resemble Iranians. But they are not majority.

• • I don't know if you are azeri or no, but me as an azeri no more know myself iranian...Iran as i remember was: "countries of Iran" till 90 years ago till it became one centralized country which south-azerbaijan was part of this union, but tanx no more, I've had enough.

I don't care about race, we are a diffrent nation.

Independent, unbiased determination by the world community re: NK conflict

The Azerbaijan page lacked references and quotes from the authoritative English-language sources, and the following were added: CIA World Factbook's succinct description, the 4 UN Security Council resolutions, the PACE resolution and the OIC resolution, along with the US Presidential Determination. All these are extremely important and reflect the independent, unbiased, non-partisan POV and indeed, in case of UN SC, are legally binding as become international law. All these detailed references and quotes must stay in the page and should not be removed. --AdilBaguirov 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== To those who dedicated their meaningless lives aginst us Turks ==

==Turk== is an ethnic name for people who inhabit in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Northern part of todays Iran, Southeast of Georgia, Northeast of todays Iraq (Kerkuk) and Northern Cyprus!

Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan! There are minorities living in that country too:
==Lezgins== - 45.000 to 65.000!
==Ingeloys(ethnic georgians,but muslim from religion)== - 25.000 to 35.000!
==Talishs== - 55.000 to 75.000! Not million and a half!
==Kurds== - 25.000 to 35.000!
==Armenians(Karabakh included)== - 200.000!
==Russians== - 35.000!
==Others== - 45.000!
    If you add all the top numbers it is not even a half a million!!
The rest 8.000.000 are Azeri Turks!
==Iran== - Total population is 76.500.000.
==Persians== - 32.000.000!Surprised, go check both Russian and English sources! Not Iranian !
==Lours== - 1.000.000!
==Balujis== - 3.500.000!
==Azeri Turks== - 29.000.000!
==Avshar Turks== - 1.500.000!
==Turkmens== - 2.750.000!
==Other turkic speaking tribes== - 750.000!
==Kurds== - 4.000.000!
==Afgans== - 1.000.000!
==Arabs== - 500.000
==Others== - Armanians, Jews, Talishs - 500.000
If you add these numbers up according the linquistic origin this what is comming up :
Turkic speaking people ( Azeri Turks, Turkmens, Avshars etc...) - 34.000.000!
Persian speaking people ( Persians and Lours ) - 33.000.000
Afgans - 1.000.000
Kurds - 4.000.000
Balujis - 3.500.000
Others ( Armenians, Jews, Talishs )- 500.000
  These are the statistics. Now tell me:
 Why should the official language of Iran should be Persian?
 Why Turks can not learn their native language in schools in Iran?
 Why Kurds can not learn their native language in Iran?
                     Ozqan Bakhish

Official websites

If someone is able, please gather and provide here a list of all official government websites and remove spam from this page. Thanks. Azarian 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Figures of Iranian Azeris

Where is this bull about 25 million Iranian Azeris coming from? Azeris constitute one-fourth of Iran's population...Iran's population is 70 million...25 million would only be accurate if Iran's population were 100 million, in which case one-fourth or 25 percent would be just that, 25 million. Do the math again...also, Azerbaijan Republic is not 8 million Azeris it is six and half million, because one and a half million Talish are not ethnic Azeris (I am even going as far as counting Lezgins as ethnic Azeris, which they are not)...Azerbaijan Republic has had one agenda since its foundation...to take over northern IRAN which it still refers to as "South Azerbaijan" as if it were a southern province of Azerbaijan Republic, and stir up ethnic strife in Iran. Iran's policy of supporting Armenia and keeping Azerbaijan Republic weak is right on the money...you don't let your sworn enemy get an inch. IRAN is with you ARMENIA! Long live Hayistan! Long live independent Talish-Mughan Republic! Long live Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/Armenia! Aliyev, you will see Tabriz the same day you see Stepanakert (Xankendi as you call it)...NEVER!

• My good friend, It is not Aliyev’s plan it is America’s plan. America fears that Northern Azeris may want to join Iran (the mother land) and they have been working hard on several plans in the last 10 years but as you can see Iran is still Iran and is getting stronger everyday with the help of all Iranians (Azeri and Fars and Kurds and the other 75 languages apparently spoken in Iran according to Ethnologue!). Iran was not build in a day and will not be destroyed in a day. Kiumars 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ethnologue figures are wrong, their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 million more than the population of Iran (that also includes 3-4 million Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out! see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran Kiumars 08:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To all the provocateurs: according to the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences' most recent estimate (2004), Azerbaijanis constitute up to 28% of Iranian population or, as they also mention, according to other calculations about 1/3 of the population. This does not include other Turkic peoples that are scattered in the south and north-east of the country, which is another 3-4%. Hence, 25 million is actually a reasonable estimate. --AdilBaguirov 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Iran's not getting stronger, they put the highest pressures on their own people, + 2/3 of turks who live in iran are out of south-azerbaijan, because of the centralizing and persanising plans -which they use really nasty methods-, they had to move which some of these can not even speak turkish, coz they are persianized in one word, and this is what made us to think about ourselves, we lost almost half of our people in Iran, and that's enough, I'm no more an iranian, we fighted for iran for centeries more than anybody else, we ruled the country for centeries and kept it strong till now, we did what others didn't do it, and oh i forgot to say it they did something: they call us donkeys! and they come to my city and kill 25000 people, just in my city, haha, history won't forget anything, we lost half-million people from my land to fight with saddam to keep the country, and we are not even allowed to have a school! we need to be proud of being persian! being persianized! being proud of Cyrus and Darius who were capturing the world by people's blood, no respect, am i not a human?

Iran is a extremist country who funds world wide terrorist organisations, who on earth would want to be part of such destruction. Baku87 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil Reserves

Does anybody actually know the proven oil reserves of Azerbaijan? I have come across figures from 589 million bbl (CIA Factbook) to some who claim 30-40 billion bbl! If it is only 589 million bbl it will run out in a few years! Does anybody actually know? Kiumars 08:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. And Azerbaijani oil will not run out for 30 years. Meanwhile, no one has ever claimed 30-40 billion bbl -- President Aliyev always states the figure of 6-7 bbl. --AdilBaguirov 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Officially booked reserves are now about 7 billion barrels (Similar to Angola) of oil and 40 Tcf of gas. 30-40 billion barrels were claimed in early 90s during the hype. CIA factook refers to SOCAR operated field only. abdulnr 00:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BP and the president Azerbaijan have stated that with the opening of BTC which will transfer about a million barrels a day, and that they except th~e BTC to last for at least 30 years. If you do the math it basicly means Azerbaijan has about 10,9 billion oil in reserce Baku87 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" tag

This section says:

The name they chose for their new nation was Azerbaijan ... in hopes of claiming north western Iran.

Is there any proof of that, other than publications of some Iranian authors, who have obvious bias in this issue? Also the text of this new section is very far from NPOV rules and presents the issue in typical propaganda fashion. According to the rules, we present only the facts without taking any sides. So I attached the tag, which should remain, until the problem is corrected. Grandmaster 05:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, if you look into the main page, if you actually read it before you put it pu for deletion, you will see the quotes of several people who all say it was for political reasons to claim northern iran. the pan turkist movement that started at the begining of WWI had these intentions. infact, the ottomans invaded russia,thinking that they could defeat russia and get to central asia and united all the turkic peoples. Khosrow II 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow - this is ridiculous, as is your above statement. I have not read a single source that state this fact from Rasulzadeh and other founders of republic. Of course, Iranian authors accuse them of doing so without any proof abdulnr 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually after reading this it is even more POV than I thought in tone. This section should be re-worded. E.G - where does "Pan-Turanist Musavatist" party come from...?

Well abdulnr, its not my fault that you have never read a source regarding it, but the source is listed in the main article, have you even read it? I am taking off the tag until you come up with the exact problem, not a general statement.Khosrow II 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Abdulnr thats just way to POV. Baku87 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Land of the Eternal Fire

I don't think that "Land of the Eternal Fire" is a motto as much as it is a nickname. A motto would be more like a phrase or a short list of words meant formally to describe the general motivation or intention of an entity (in this case a specfic country). Take the mottos of the United States ("In God We Trust"), the Czech Republic ("Truth prevails!"), or Turkey ("Peace at Home, Peace in the World") for example. By comparison, "Land of the Eternal Fire" is merely a literal meaning of a word ("Azerbaijan") and does not describe the general motivation or intention of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I'm removing it until somebody can find an actual motto for the country (if one even exists). -- Clevelander 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they misunderstood the concept of motto when they accepted it, but thats the official motto of Azerbaijan, I can understand your point Clevelander, maybe its not really approriate to be a motto but it is the motto of the country, ask any other Azeri they will confirm it. We cant just make up a motto ourselfs for Azerbaijan. So best thing right now is just to put it back up, as it is the official motto of the country. Baku87 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but additionally there are no Azerbaijani government sources that confirm this to be the country's official motto. It has been taken off and will stay off. -- Clevelander 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA

Could someone add IPA pronunciation to the lead? I'm not familiar with the subject:) --Brand спойт 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The current "IPA pronunciation" shown, "[a-trO-p&-'tE-nE]", is certainly _not_ IPA. It shouldn't be too hard to fix a correct phonemic pronunciation, if it's only clearified whether the intention is to make one of the English or the Azeri name. /The Phoenix 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I also doubted. --Brand спойт 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The name

There's no need to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with POV interpretations of the history. Khosrow has already been warned by admins that this is not acceptable, still he continues to push his POV. There's enough of information about the name in Etymology section, with a link to a more detailed article, no need to consume so much space in this article by nationalistic nonsence. Grandmaster 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that as long as we have an article on the history of the name "Azerbaijan," then we're fine. We don't need a section on the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" on every article relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 09:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Khosrow II was even warned by the admin that this is not acceptable, [1] but still he continues to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive and POV section. Grandmaster 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not spam, its a summarized sourced section leading to a main article, just as the Azerbaijan page links to otehr articles while also having summaries. This is not spamming.Khosrow II 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Are we ready to unprotect this page yet? There hasn't been much discussion for awhile... —Khoikhoi 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. Again, I don't see the point in arguing over the name "Azerbaijan" and inserting the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" section on every single page relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is not settled yet, it is being discussed else where. If this article gets unlocked, GM will just start another revert/edit war.Khosrow II 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Baku

There is a photograph in the body of the article, with the explanation "The National Bank (right) behind the Fountains Square in Baku". But there is a confusion. What is depicted on the picture is NOT the Fountain Square. The Fountain Square is located in the very center of Baku, and the closest bank building to that square is the International Bank of Azerbaijan, which is a blue building. I guess who ever "self-made" that picture got really confused over the places in Baku

Historical revisionist theory

The theory that the name Azerbaijan has anything to do with Turkic is historical revisionism. Firstly, it does not explain why the term Azarbaijan, Azarpadegan, and Atropatene were used, thousands of years (Atropatene, Azarpadegan) and centuries (Azarbaijan) before the Turkic peoples even got there? Historical revisionism, ordered during the time of the Soviets (direct orders from Stalin), to do several things: a)making sure the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran, b) rewrite the history of the territory and the newly formed republic. Secondly, the Az people the Turkic theory is referring to is a pure lie. There was only one Az people in the Near East/Eurasia, a people that had nothing to do with the region. Also, the name Azerbaijani was only invented in the 1890's by the Russians to distinguish Turkic peoples of Iranic descent from other Turkic peoples. Again, this does not explain the "Az" people reference. This theory is pure historical revisionism. I'm taking it out. Furthermore, the name Azerbaijan is the Turkified version of Azarbaijan, because the Turkic languages cannot prounce Azar, therefore, again, this shows that there is no way the name Azerbaijan was original.Khosrow II 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are these stories written? In your nationalistic, the one and the only source iranica encyclopedia(?) or fairy tales from Andersen?

You say the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran There are 23,5 millions Azeri Turks in Iran. These peoples have the same language, culture and ethnicity with Azerbaijan. --Karcha 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The history of the R. of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran. The history of the R. of Azerbaijan begins in 1918 to present. The Caucasus's history is definetly tied with Irans. Arran, Shirvan, Ganja, etc... were part of Iran for thousands of years before Russia invaded. What are you talking about?Khosrow II 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

New Map

Suggest someone run down the blank for the Georgia (country) map, and colorize for this state. See Image:Europe location GEO.png, Actually cropping that to right side is even better thought. Don't need Western Europe, just the Balkans. Best regards // FrankB 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's actually a great idea. I wish I had checked this talk page before reverting the map to the old one. Your suggestion seems to be a compromise that should make everyone happy -- a higher resolution, detailed map without any unnecessary political connotations. I'll try to get to work on your suggestion with Photoshop later tonight. Thanks. Adlerschloß 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Holidays, etc. unfortunately had me too busy to get to this as quickly as I had expected, but the map is uploaded now and I'm about to add it to the article. Adlerschloß 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict regarding the o--alidoostzadeh 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)rigins and legitimacy of Azerbaijan's name

1. I added a new sentence saying that the Republic was called Azerbaijan before, paraphrasing the sentence coming before it. 2. I removed two paragraphs. First of them (that the Bolsheviks kept the name because they wanted iran) refer to an obscure pan-Iranian web page and an ideologically motivated article, which cannot be neutral and is not. This is against the rules of Wikipedia. And the second one, claiming that Resulzade was regretting the choice of the name, is very selective. He was a politician and could have said something like that at one point. Yet he devoted his entire life to Azerbaijan, both in name and substance. The organizations he created in exile, the periodicals he published, all of them bear the name of Azerbaijan, mainly referring to today’s Republic of Azerbaijan. It was a misinformation to insert such a paragraph. And instead of adding pages from Resulzade’s life, I thought a better idea would be to remove it. Since coming out of context, that paragraph’s only aim is to further the claim of the person who inserted it to the page, that Azerbaijan is a fake/political name chosen for the Republic. Thanks. Elnurso 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia rules. POV is not allowed. And its funny, you even tried DISTORTING A QUOTE!Azerbaijani

Yes, read Wikipedia rules; misinformation, specifically that which comes due to bias, is vandalism. As to the quote, the change didn't make it wrong. It just changed it so that it cannot be used to make an ideological point. Good luck. Elnurso 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT SOURCED INFORMATION IS? Stop your POV editing!Azerbaijani 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Probably I published more scientific pieces than you did. Do you know what "unreliable source" and "selective citation out of context" are? Of course you do, it is just the ideology that makes you overlook them. Unfortunate. And yes, if you are not tired of disseminating misinformation how can I be tired of correcting it? Thanks. Elnurso 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot include a section based solely on Iranian nationalistic sources and claim neutrality. The bias of sources called "Pan-Turanianism Takes Aim at Azerbaijan: A Geopolitical Agenda" screams from their titles. Please mind WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts are facts. DO NOT DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE IT. There is something suspicious going on because as I see, it has been there a long time and you havent done such a thing. Maybe you and Elnurso are the same person and you accidentally logged in with the wrong account? IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN I WILL REPORT YOU. If you notice, there is already a tag up. Do not delete this again!Azerbaijani 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The info in that section is not based on reliable sources. All the sources used are Iranian, i.e. they have obvious bias. I removed it before, but it was readded by some Iranian users. Please use neutral sources to support your claims. Grandmaster 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag is already up! Read your talk page. I may take this into arbitration and you know as well as I do that you will not be able to hold out with your reason. Sources are sources, and you evident racism is despicable. A tag is already up, you have no justification for your action. I will make sure the correct action is taken against you if you continue.Azerbaijani 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind Wikipedia:Civility. Accusing others of racism for no obvious reason is not gonna help you. Second, sources should be reliable, and those used in this section are not. So you are welcome to try any dispute resolution procedures, I'm willing to cooperate, as I've done before. Grandmaster 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know about civility, and its obvious that you have some bias against Iranian sources... I dont know whether that is out of racism or if you just do not like what you are reading. What are you talking about these sources are not reliable? BOTH ARE PROFESSORS AT WESTERN UNIVERSITIES. Kaveh Farrokh is a very well known historian and has even appeared on teh history channel. There is no way you can hold up your case that these sources are not reliable. I think you should mind wikipedia's rules against disruptive editing and vandalism!

These are professional historians you are talking about. If these sources are not reliable, then please tell me what are reliable sources! You have not even proved that these sources are unreliable, who says you get to decide what is reliable and what is not? THERE IS ALREADY A DISPUTE TAG AT THE TOP OF THE SECTION, SO YOU HAVE NO CASE.Azerbaijani 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also we can try dispute resolution. Grandmaster 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion you should stop removing sourced information, and instead present the information in a way that both points of view can be seen. --Rayis 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Atabaki is very reliable source and the Persian text of correspondence between Rasul zadeh and Taqi zadeh exists. But I suggest the naming issue should just refer to the History of the name of Azerbaijan. --alidoostzadeh 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this page about the history of and modern Azerbaijan. There is page in Wiki called 'History of the name Azerbaijan" where the section under discussion should be moved. Then, the NPOV, reliability of sources can be discussed there.

I agree with Ali. I think that the name is not the most important issue about Azerbaijan. It is enough to provide a link to the History of the name of Azerbaijan article in the etimology section, where everyone can refer for more details about the name. That article reflects all existing views on the issue, which is impossible to fit in the format of this article, which provides only brief overview of the country. Grandmaster 11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pan-Iranians,

One does not have to have a high level of IQ to see how selective you are in your choices of information from the pages of history and how you paraphrase them to fit the ultimate goal of yours: that the Republic of Azerbaijan is a fake entity. I really do not care even if we got the name 50 years ago, Resulzade was aplogizing for it, etc. What matters for us, people living in that land, is the well being of the people there, that is it. I am extremely amused by the fact that, Iranians, forgetting about putting their house into order, failing to create a decent society in such a culturally and economically rich area, ending up with one of the most ridiculously heart-breaking societal and political institutions in the entire world, still spend time and money to spoil other people's day by attacking their identity. Every identity emerged at one point in time. Every name emerged at one point in time. America? France? Turkey? Coming to the fore 1000 years ago or 100 years ago; why should that matter? Mind your own business guys.

And the point is that you do not have good faith. You have a political agenda in negating today's republic. That is, listen carefully please, you are not removing someting that in anyway touches Iran or falsifies anything any normal Iranian cares about, rather, you are ADDING things to this webpage to claim that Republic of Azerbaijan is fake in name and of course, by the same token, substance.

I will check Tadeusz Swietochowski's quote, i do not have the book with me now. So I leave it untouched. But please do not remove my citation from Velikhanli; I can send the book's copy or the translation thereof if you want to. And hey, I don't know Grandmaster, probably he is just a decent fellow guy. And our presence here is spontaneous; this is our country. That is very different from your artificially organized interventions. And that is why our natural determination will overwhelm any kind of fake stubbornness on your side. Thanks. Elnurso 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Save your time about the Tadeusz Swietochowski quote, your friend Grandmaster put that in there I believe. Facts are facts, both of you continuously take out facts and bring up horrible reasons for them. I know they teach you different where you come from, neither of you can dispute the facts. So I suggest you stop removing such information just because it is not to your liking.Azerbaijani 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed me who provided the quote from Swietochowski in response to claims of some of our Iranian friends that the territory north of Araks was never called Azerbaijan. Swietochowski says that the northern part of Azerbaijan was known at times (i.e. not always) as Albania and Arran, but it is one geographic area, stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. I think he’s absolutely right. Grandmaster 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why dont you revert Elnurso when he rewrites the quote? Why do you wait for me to do it? Its as if both of you are working together to trap me in some way here. But atleast thanks for telling this guy the truth so he'll stop is blanking!Azerbaijani 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see he adds his own quote in addition to mine, but you remove it without any explanation. Grandmaster 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster,

Honestly I did paraphrase the sentence that is referenced to Swietochowski ragrding the name before. I didn't and still do not know whether it was an exact quote; that was one reason (please let me know if it is, i do not have the book with me right now). And secondly, the unprovoked spoilers created such a semantic context around the quotation that it looks as if it supports their irrelevant argument. But please keep an eye on it so that they do not play with the exact prhase. Take care and nice to talk to you. Elnurso 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, but it does not support their point whatsoever. In fact, it shows that north of Araks was called Azerbaijan as well, while at certain periods in history it was called Albania or Arran/Shirvan. Grandmaster 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity folks, this is an article about "Azerbaijan" which, whether some like it or not, is a recognised established sovereign state. This is not a forum for debating politics. So why are so many Iranians writing and editing Azerbaijan anyway?! I am Iranian myself and this is the first time I came across this article and I just noticed it is so obvious that the article has been edited by Iranians, but Iranians shouldn't be editing "Iranian Azerbaijan"? Besides, in the early 19th century many countries did not exist that exist now, and countries obviously, for obvious reasons chose a name that usually reflected the nationality of that country, not what that area had been called hundreds or thousands years ago. When Russians conquered north of the Aras there was nor province or administrative area called Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was established as a province of Iran AFTER the wars with Russia. The reason for naming an area withing Iran Azerbaijan at that time was the ethnic mix of that area, i.e. Turks, so they chose an old name, Azerbaijan, which had never been clearly defined but it had historically been referred to somewhere between Lake Urmia and the Caspian sea. So, neither Iranian Azerbaijan nor the republic of Azerbaijan are exactly what historic Azerbaijan was, because there are no data avalailable to say exactl where historic Azerbaijan started and ended. Historic Azerbaijan may have not included the current provinces of West Azarbaijan and Zanjan that are mostly Azeri populated!!! 85.186.230.115 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada was created 200 years ago - fictional name, version of aboriginal area's name. So, what? Iran itself had different names - Persia, Parphia, Sassanid, etc. Should we start a battle on the page Iran about its name? And I mentioned above - this page about history and modern Azerbaijan. There is separate page -"History of name Azerbaijan" where all section should be moved. I don't mind to discuss various version there, and somehoe accomodate them.--Dacy69 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BIG FAULTS IN THE ARTICLE

I noticed that there are political arguments here rather than other things and from reading the article it can be seen that it has been politicised in the text. Let's look at the following text:

With the collapse of Tsarist Russia in 1917, the Musavat ("Equality") Turkic Federalist Party, which had pan Turkic elements within it, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state, which they named Azerbaijan. According to some sources, the name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim north western Iran.[4][5] The Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union.[6][7] Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".[8]

The references of this paragraph are from 1) a letter of Aremania to the UN in which the writer has some claims. Is this a source when writing an article about Azerbaijan?? To refer to a letter from a representative of a waring nation?? The other two sources are from a book and an article from Atabaki Touraj and other from N. Kawyani. These cannot be taken as reliable source becasue books and article, opposed to reliable and accepted scientific or scholarly institutions can have the sole purpose of politics. I am not against citing from them but in a neutral way, noit as declaratively as above: "which had pan Turkic elements within it" or "Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians"." The reader understands that these are proved facts but they are not reliable so the texting of the article must be changed to be more neutral. Whoever reads this article clearly understands that the name Azerbaijan is wrong! Bm79 04:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

About the name Azerbaijan

Involved parties, please let's have a debate and solve the problem in a civilised manner. The article, as it suggest, is too mcuh politicising. We should offer different points of view in the article if the name is that important, in an impartial manner. At this moment the article is too much POV, politicised. This damages the article's credibility. We should solve the problem and remove the "neutrality dispute" tag. We are supposed to be civilised people, right? We are talking about Iran's old and strong civilisation, right? Then we shall be able to discuss one simple artile. Iranians and zerbijanis have a long history of brotherhood and separating them from each other is not correct, so let's unite and find a common ground to write a good article. Is it possible? It is ture that there is a Republic of Azerbaijan at this moment, but Iranians and those from the republic of Azerbijan shall also behave like civilised people rather than quarreling. Politics have devided us, but we can still be united. I invite my fellow people from th OLD great IRAN to come together and talk about the issues they do not agree aupo. I am sure we can find common ground. Thanks and looking forward. I am sure neither the Iranians nor the Azeris of the Republic are in bad faith but we (they) fail to cool down a bit. Khahesh mikonam sohbat bokonim dar yek majmae samimane ve motamadden! Lutfen bir semimiyetli ve medeniyetli toplanma'da danishaq! :) Bm79 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that all that stuff about the name should be moved to the article about the name, otherwise what’s the point of its existence? The etymology section should not repeat the history section, which it does now. The declaration of Azerbaijan’s independence is currently described twice, in two different sections. It should not be so. I think that it is enough to leave a link to the History of the name Azerbaijan in the etymology section, rather than duplicate the history section with Iranian POV interpretations. Grandmaster 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats your personal opinion. It has been greatly shortened. You do not have an excuse anymore.Azerbaijani 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be written by opponents of the state of Azerbaijan. It is just a political pamphlet. Poor, very poor. 85.186.230.115 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Atropates

There is no reason to revert my edit that describes Atropates as a Persian. I sourced this to a page at livius.org that describes him as a Persian nobleman. I don't know why it is thought that by being satrap in Media makes him ethnically Median. See [2]. I don't know where the idea that he was "Iranian" comes from, unless Iranian peoples in general are meant. If so, the Persian description is only more specific. Nareklm describes the edit as "inaccurate"; please explain. The Behnam 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They usually mix up Iranian and Persian because its basically the same or known as the same thing do you have any other references stating that he is "Persian"? Nareklm 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I know they tend to mix them up, but I saw this source as giving it more specifically. I'll take a look for repeats of that notion. Are you still against having it in place of "Iranian", which could mean "Median" or "Persian" in this situation? Right now we have one fairly reliable source(livius.org) stating him as Persian, while none(that I can tell) stating him as an actual Mede. If it had simply called him a "Persian satrap", I would be more doubtful since it could be referring to employment as satrap under Persian empire. But it states him as a "Persian nobleman". Tell me if there is some reason to doubt the identification. Have you seen something identifying him with a different Iranian group? Of course, nothing will happen until protection ends, but it is good to get it worked out. Thanks The Behnam 07:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some controversy over his specific ethnicity. [3] seems the primary source for those that say he is "Median", while a few other things say he is a "Persian satrap and general", which is ambiguous. This[4] source says that he is Persian(just search atropates). Tell me if you find something. The Behnam 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have thought of a solution. Just call him a "satrap of Media," not mentioning exactly which type of Iranian he was ethnically. It doesn't really matter that much to this article, so it is best to avoid the dispute between Persian or Median. They were nearly the same at that point anyway. The Behnam 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources again

All the sources in the disputed part of etymology section are not reliable. One of them is called Letter dated 30 April 2001 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations [5]. How this can be considered a reliable source? By the same token I can make edits to the article about Armenia using as reference letters of Azerbaijani government to UNO. The other 2 sources are nationalistic Iranian Faroukh and Reza, both extremely biased and prejudiced anti-Azerbaijani sources. How about citing neutral sources to support the claims made in that section? Grandmaster 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is like describing the USA using only Marxist and Islamist sources. People who support the use of these sources need to explain why they should be used, because they do not appear reliable. Armenia is the closest Azerbaijan has to an enemy, while the other sources are from irredentist Iranians who happen to include Azerbaijan as part of their imagined Iranian super-state. It is in the interests of both of these groups to deem Azerbaijan as a somehow illegitimate state. Considering this is the page for that entire nation, it is understandable that people find use of these sources objectionable and demeaning, if not downright offensive. I suggest that such views only be expressed in the article devoted to the naming controversy, and that the section here only have a short, neutral statement simply explaining the proposed meanings for the name. There should be no mention of pan-Turkists and attempts to claim northwestern Iran, as placing emphasis on allegations is not usually appropriate for general articles about a nation. While it seems that defenders of these sources are taking a break while the page is locked as this unacceptable version, I hope that they are honorable enough to be open to discussion. The Behnam 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how this article has been accepted. I have noticed that there are many people who are constantly changing the articles about Azerbaijan and have no interest in discussion. It is visible that these articles have no intention of giving useful information about the country Azerbaijan but rather to give the impression that the country Azerbaijan if illegitimate. As long as Azerbaijan exists what is the point of an encyclopedia proving or not whether the country's name is from this or that or whether the country is legitimate or not? And of course the sources mentioned are absolutely unreliable. Roazir 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to prove that these sources are not reliable, since you are the one making the accusations. Whats wrong with a document submitted to the United Nations? You cannot claim that a source is not reliable due to nationality. Both Dr. Farrokh and Dr. Atabki are respected historians who work for Western Universities. Dr. Farrokh himself is half Iranian Azerbaijani. Neither of them are nationalists. Both, as far as I know, are against the current regime and neither of them have any goals of an Iranian super state, but rather protecting Iranian history from Pan Turkist attacks. Dr. Farrokh himself, in his online book, clearly says that he has nothing against Turks, nor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He even goes as far as to call them brothers and sisters. However, when it comes to history, he is a specialist and when it comes to the name of Azerbaijan and the country in the Caucasus, they merely state the facts. Again, you have to prove that the sources are not reliable with evidence. Remember, the only reason that sources from the government of Azerbaijan are unacceptable is because the government openly supports historical revisionism. In 1988, the then president claimed that Armenia was a fictitious state created on Azerbaijani land. The president of Azerbaijani's website claims many non-Azerbaijani's to be Azerbaijani. Infact, I have even heard that the embassies of Azerbaijan (I forgot which one, but I'll try to find it) claim that Zoroastrianism was originally a Turkish religion. So far, none of you have brought any evidence, all you have pulled out was the race card, and a sources reliability is not based on race or nationality. Please dont waste any of our time if the race issue is the only thing you can bring up.Azerbaijani 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as the UN document goes, it had nothing to do with the fact that the representative for Armenia is ethnically Armenian. The problem is that the document is arguing in Armenia's favor about a conflict between the two countries, and part of this is arguing that Azerbaijan is somehow an illegitimate state. Have you read that document? It is no innocent work of scholarship; this document is just another part of their war. It is most unfair to rely so heavily upon the words of the enemy in describing a nation.

So, be careful before you accuse people of pulling "the race card".

Pan-Turkists have said some stupid things. While I am sure they would count as unreliable sources, this doesn't matter here, as they are not being used. I don't see what is so 'defensive' about the claim that the name Azerbaijan was chosen to claim northwestern Iran, but it is certainly controversial, in that citizens of the country find this description disagreeable. Considering that this is the main page for the entire nation, and that these views are not only controversial, but are also essentially fringe views in a fringe debate, I think it is more reasonable to not mention such things on this page. Perhaps on the page about the naming controversy the pan-Turkist and Iran 'defender' views can battle it out, but there is no good reason to mention it here. The fact that only certain sides receive representation only makes this worse.

I think it would be best to simply not mention controversial matter here, as this would probably be able to remove the neutrality tag much faster than any possible integration of opposing views for what is essentially a trivial debate in comparison to the description of the country as a whole. I hope you consider this proposal, as I think it would greatly reduce edit warring and disputes on this page. The Behnam 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section has already been shortened considerably several times due to requests by Grandmaster and others as evident by the history. There is nothing controversial about this, its about the history of the name of Azerbaijan and how it applies to the country, it in no way is saying that the country is illegitimate, it merely questions the name used for it.Azerbaijani 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is based on unreliable sources, therefore it should be removed. Grandmaster 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot dictate to me what is and what is not reliable. You havent proven anything in regards to these sources not being reliable, so I dont even know why you are still insisting.Azerbaijani 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Azerbaijan

This is a dispute about the content of this article.

I see there are serious problems with this article and some interests that are not allowing this article be other than what they see fit. Please, some unbiased editors, do some serious editing! Maybe, just maybe, there are enemies of the state Azerbaijan who are absolutely determined on putting their view on this page.

First of all the article mentions some sources who question the name "Azerbaijan". The name is officially accepted by the UN. If there are disputes about the name that should be mentioned somewhere else, at some other article about the name, or the controversy around it, having an open place in which both sides of the story are told. What is the point of questioning the name of a country at the main article about that country? This is obviously not written by Azerbaijanis or unbiased editors.

Second, there are clearly and openly sources from, pay attention here, ARMENIA and IRAN who are mentioned in the article. Armenia has, agaist international law, occupied 16% or so of Azerbaijani territory. Iran has a very large area named Azerbaijan too and nationalist Iranians and Iranian authorities are not friendly toward Azerbaijan becasue they fear separatism in Iranian Azerbaijan. How can the article about Azerbaijan contain sources from Armenia and Iran? This is absurd. As someone else above mentioned then we can write about the USA using Marxist or Islamist, eventually Iranian sources who will question democracy and everything else in the US.

And the use of the phrase "pan-Turkist" in the article is also strange becasue Azerbaijan is a Turkic country so what is the point? If Pan-Turkism is mentioned as being something evil, then again the sources of the phrase must be viewed, whether they are biased or not. Roazir 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope it will be the last time you bring Iran along Armenia as enemy of republic of Azerbaijan! at least see the Nagorno-Karabakh War and see the mediation and help of Iran along turkey to Azerbaijan. Don't forget that some of us see republic of Azerbaijan, part of our country that was annexed to Russia about 200 years ago, no anything else that you imagine.--Pejman47 12:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Iranist views like Pejman47 's are precisely the sort that threaten the neutrality of this article. Of course those certain Iranian academics call Azerbaijani people "brothers and sisters"! They believe that they are supposed to be Iranian, and that they would be had not the incompetent Shahs lost the land. I don't disagree, but as far as this article goes, the pan-Iranist view shouldn't receive as much emphasis as it does. I think the best solution is to relegate the discussion entirely to the article that is devoted to the discussion; that way, there will be no conflict on the main article for the nation. The Behnam 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read what Wikipedia has to say about NPOV. So far, it seems I'm the only one that knows about this policy. As I explained above, its about the history of the name Azerbaijan and it is correctly placed in the section about the name. Also, it links to the main article where more information is presented (you fail to realize that this small section with a few sources is so because certain users pushed for it to be like this). Also, this in no way questions the legitimacy of any nation, but rather the name choices.Azerbaijani 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please read NPOV policy and also that about reliable sources. Armenian and Iranian sources have evident bias and cannot be used as a proof. Grandmaster 06:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting here briefly as I don't have much time. The sources in the name section at least are utter bunk. "milliondollarbabies.com" o___O Something like "According to Iranians Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and the Dr. Enayatollah Reza, the Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union [8][9]." might be acceptable, but for assertions like this you really need one or more impartial academic publications stating it. e.g. Books or journal articles. Iranians, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish sources should probably be excluded, and where they are included, all sides of the debate should be represented. That is, "According to X, Y, but according to A, B". - Francis Tyers · 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, but I also think that the article about the country is not the best place to discuss this. I support Ali's proposal to provide a link in this article to History of the name Azerbaijan, where the issue is discussed in much detail. Grandmaster 11:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that these facts are not theories invented by Dr. Farrokh and Dr. Atabaki (Both of whom are professionals and respected members of the scholarly community), they are based on substantial evidence, such as the founder of the ADR himself admitting that it was a mistake to name the nation he founded Azerbaijan. There are many other historians that agree with them (I will try and get their names). Grandmaster, you cannot keep saying it does not belong here because it is right under the section about the name and it is a very significant part of the history of the Azerbaijan Republic. It links to the main article which elaborates more on the issue.Azerbaijani 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The name issue is very minor and not the most important information about the country. And try referring to neutral sources, which have no interest in distorting the facts. Those you refer to are not neutral. Grandmaster 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove it, you still have not brought up any evidence to support your claim. Also, the length of the information in there is very very short, so I dont see why you are blowing up out of proportion. Also, you say that the name of a nation is a minor issue? Really? Then why the big fuss over it Grandmaster? The information there is very short.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azerbaijani (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Information is based on unreliable sources. You've been told that by many people. Either find unbiased sources to support your claims or remove it from the article. Grandmaster 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, no one has said that but you and some user who I suspect has been banned and has registered under another name. Also, you have not shown that these sources are biased or unreliable in any way. Until you do, do you think by whining about it you'll get what you want. I'm all ready, please bring up your evidence, if you are so sure about yourself you must have some sort of information on these sources and historians, so please share them with all of us.Azerbaijani 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A variety of users have explained why they consider the sources unreliable. You have either ignored their points, or built straw men (such as the "race card"). You should really try giving a close read to the arguments presented on this page, and try addressing them properly. Thanks! The Behnam 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no users have brought up any piece of evidence to prove that these sources are unreliable. I am challenging you find one piece of evidence that any user on this whole talk page has brought up regarding these sources. You will find that an impossible task as no one has brought up one single piece of evidence supporting their claims that these sources are a) unreliable, b) non neutral, c) biased, d) based on nationalism, or e) anti Azerbaijani. I will copy paste the entire text that I left on User Francis's talk page regarding this issue:

Francis. Let me bring to your attention that Grandmaster has systematically tried to sabotage that section with continuous complaints. First it was too long, too wordy, not worded right, etc.. etc... (just look at the history of the article) and all his demands have been met and he keeps coming up with new ones. Now he wants to completely take it out of the article. May I remind you that the information is in the correct place, has been significantly reduced, and has the sources it has because it is not the main article (if you click on the main article, you will see more information). Dr. Atabaki and Dr. Farrokh are two well known and well respected historians who both work for western universities. Neither are nationalists, and Dr. Kaveh Farrokh himself is half Azerbaijani (from Iran) half Ossetian and he was born in Greece! Neither of them support any ideals based on nationalism. Everything they say are based on facts (you can read there books, everything is referenced). Again, these are very respected historians in the field of Iranian history.

Secondly, documents from the Republic of Azerbaijan cannot be compared to those of Armenia or any other nation. The government of the Republic of Azerbaijan supports and is active in historical revisionism. The Azerbaijani "historians", "academics", and even the government, claim some fantastic things, such as Napoleon was a Turk, that Turks have been living in the Middle East for 8 thousand years, and that Zoroastrianism was a Turkic religion, among many many other things. The Azerbaijani president in 1988 even claimed that the nation of Armenia is a "fictitious nation founded on Azerbaijani land". This is ridiculous, as there are maps showing Armenia from the time of the ancient Greeks and Babylonians! Infact, it is the other way around, as Azerbaijan has never been the name for the land of the present day Republic of Azerbaijan. The founder of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (which was established in 1918), admitted that he was mistaken in choosing the name Azerbaijan for his new nation.

The section is small and insignificant and Grandmaster is trying to blow it out of proportion because I assume he doesnt want anyone trying to find information about the Republic of Azerbaijan to know about this huge part of the countries history. This in no way is questioning the legitimacy of the nation, but rather diving into the history of the name and why it was chosen for the country. Notice that the information I am trying to keep in that section is very small, the majority is a quote that Grandmaster himself insists on having in there, instead of in the main article.

Also, I would like Grandmaster to point out these "many" users that say it should be just the link? So far, it has just been you, Alidoostzadeh, and several users who just registered in order to participate in an edit war and who have since been blocked.

Regarding this statement of yours:

"According to Iranians Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and the Dr. Enayatollah Reza, the Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union [8][9]."

I can bring you two Soviet documents that attest to this, both of them were dispatched before the Soviets actually put their plan into effect and separated Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran in 1946. They describe how the Soviets would send agents into Iran to distort the Azeri's perception of their relation with Azerbaijan SSR, to start propaganda infiltrations to Iran, etc... The Soviets were also the first to introduce the term "Southern Azerbaijan" (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan, which is infact the only area legitimately using the term Azerbaijan, even today), which was part of their campaign of rewriting the history of the Cacuasus to remove Iran's ties with the region. So the statement "According to Iranians Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and the Dr. Enayatollah Reza" is incorrect, because this is not their theory, this is fact.Azerbaijani 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please respond.

Also, let me bring to your attention that it was User Mardavich that made the section shorter based on compromise with me and Grandmaster (Grandmaster was the one that originally wanted it shorter). So what happened Grandmaster, it was you yourself that wanted the section the way it is now!Azerbaijani 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, in response to your "challenge", I suggest that you look at my statements regarding the UN document from the Armenian Representative arguing Armenia's side in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Simply put, it is a very biased source to use, but I suggest that you try to read my more extensive discussion from above. Do you really need me to re-paste my previous arguments? Are you unable to simply read them from above? I think you did, but you apparently ignored them. You brush off the problematic UN document with, "Whats wrong with a document submitted to the United Nations?". I had just described what was wrong with it, but you instead acted as if the very fact that it was submitted at the UN makes it a reliable, unbiased source. There is absolutely no logic whatsoever behind such a generalized treatment. The content and the purpose, in addition to its context and scholarly quality, determine its reliability. The document is an argument against Azerbaijan, and the author is the representative of Armenia, the main enemy of Azerbaijan. I have brought forth these ideas previously, but you failed to address them. The Behnam 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You actually brought up no evidence, but rather POV. The part of that document that I used was about the name and the intention of the people that brought it up. Regardless, Grandmaster is trying to get rid of the section as a whole, and that is unacceptable, and he is also bringing into question the reliability of historians. What about the Soviet documents I mentioned, are they baised too? The fact of the matter is that whining will not get anything done. Either bring up substantial evidence, or stop wasting all of our time, we can be doing more productive things.Azerbaijani 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your response to me is rather unintelligible, but from what I think I'm seeing, you are again avoiding discussion and distorting my position. Considering the nature, purpose, and context of the document, can it be considered a fair and reliable source regarding Azerbaijan? I have already presented my arguments, but you continue avoid them. In this instance, you try to dismiss them as "POV" versus evidence. How that is, you do not explain.

Anyway, if this is a personal dispute between you and Grandmaster, take it elsewhere. I am disputing the reliability of the sources used, and I propose that the topic be avoided entirely on this page as a solution that avoids taking a position. It is rather silly that rather than respond to me appropriately, you continue spouting against Grandmaster, regardless of whether or not he responds. In any case, respond to me when you respond to me, and leave your responses to Grandmaster for his statements. Thanks again! The Behnam 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If everything on Wikipedia was removed because one person disputes it then there would be no Wikipedia in the first place, so no, the section will not be removed becasue of one user who is making POV claims without evidence and whose complaints have all already been met anyway. Regarding the Armenian letter, yes, Armenia can use history in a letter about a disputed territory, and what Grandmaster was saying was that Iranian sources were unacceptable (again, his POV) so I brought up an Armenian source. The Armenian letter is in regards to Karabagh, and nothing they said in the portion I quoted was incorrect, all it says is that the name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim Northern Iran, and as you can clearly see, it says "according to some sources". Again, Grandmaster is blowing all of this up just so he can have the section removed entirely. That won't happen.Azerbaijani 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just me, there are many people objecting to this, including third-party editors, and you have support only of some Iranian users. There are rules about realiability of sources, and acording to them the infrormation not suported by reliable sources should be removed. So once again, please provide unbiased sources to support your claims. Grandmaster 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove that by Wikipedia standards that these sources are baised. Grandmaster, I'm not going to just take your word for it, you have to show it. Also, which users do you speak of? How many times do I have to ask for you to prove your claims before you actually prove them? I'm waiting, and I'm sure everyone else is waiting. You criticizing well known and well respected historians is a huge claim, and you have to be able to prove that fantastic claim!Azerbaijani 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Azerbaijani is committed to ignoring our arguments, claiming instead that we haven't posited any. I am tired of restating my objections in various ways only to receive non-responses from Azerbaijani. Hopefully, the RFC will bring in some people to stop this charade and let us neutralize the article. The Behnam 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I havent ignored anything, its you two that are ignoring me. I have continually asked for you to bring up your evidence regarding your claims, neither of you have done so. The only thing you guy shave been saying is your POV, and that is not acceptable.Azerbaijani 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Check what Francis said about your sources. They are utter bunk. Grandmaster 06:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And also check Wikipedia:Verifiability: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.

Now please show me your reliable, third-party published sources to support your claims. So far you provided none. Grandmaster 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have brought up no evidence to prove that these sources are unreliable in the first place, that is what you have to do first. You are the one bringing up these claims, so you are the one that has the burden of proving yourself. Prove these sources are unreliable.Azerbaijani 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I already did. These sources are not third party and have bias towards Azerbaijan. You should quote third party sources (i.e. non-Iranian and non-Armenian) as required by the rules. Grandmaster 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown that these sources are baised in any way, therefore, you have not proven anything. You claim is baseless, and you still have not addressed the fact that Dr. Farrokh is himself half Azeri!Azerbaijani 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. How an official representative of Armenia, state that occupies 20% of Azerbaijani territory, be a neutral source about Azerbaijan? And Farrokh is an Iranian nationalist, he’s ethnicity is irrelevant, his article is anti-Azerbaijani pamphlet. Moreover, other third-party users told you that your sources are bunk. Grandmaster 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Azerbaijani, I am throughly fed up with these kinds of attempts to forge the history. --Pejman47 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article. Grandmaster 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has the problems mentioned above. Some unbiased admins or editors please take appropriate action! The discussions have been going on for long enough on this talk section and I think reasonable unbiased admins/editors can make up their own mind. Roazir 14:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected!

Hello! The page Azerbaijan has been blocked/protected from the edit. It's impossible to edit it. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.10.181 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

You can request page unprotection here: WP:RFPP. --Grandmaster 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute.Azerbaijani 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to define terms and develop the article as objectively as we can

On 25 April 2006 Mehrdad offered definitions concerning this article and asked to redefine terms if anybody has different view for these terms. I would like to make some changes in Mehrdad's definitions and ask all active users, especiallyAzerbaijani and Grandmaster to accept this list or offer their variants. I think agreed list of definitions should be included into the article.

Azerbaijan (1) (Historical Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan) historical name of the territory in Nothern Iran. [If anybody has sources (not opinions please) proving that the name Azerbaijan was used also for the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan until 1918, please give the reference; otherwise]: After 1918, when the People Republic of Azerbaijan (Azəbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyəti) was established, some people use the terms Southern Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan for this territory and the term Northern Azerbaijan (and Soviet Azerbaijan during the Soviet period) for the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Others think that this usage violates the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the historical Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan (2) (Republic of Azerbaijan) official short name of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to avoid any cofusion let's use the full name of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Ostan-e Azarbayjan-e Sharqi, Ostan-e Azarbayjan-e Qarbi official provinces in the Islamic Republic of Iran located in the part of the historical Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani language a Turkic language, mother language of the majority both in the historical (Iranian) Azerbaijan and the Republic of Azerbaijan. [full claasification...]

Azerbaijani people people living in the Northern Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Some scientists think that the Azerbaijani people speaking Azerbaijani language, are different from the other Turkic speaking people genetically, claiming that the former are mostly of the Iranian (in the meaning 2) origin[cites...].

Iranian (1) concerning / of the Islamic Republic of Iran [in this meaning all citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran are Iranians by definition]

Iranian (2) see Iranian peoples

Waiting for your comments.Nizami.Abdulazimov 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Third party sources

Here is one Grandmaster, now you have no excuse:

The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected (for Arran anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran

Source: Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.Â

I will post more as I find them.Azerbaijani 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is just one source, that contradicts others. You still cannot present it as a fact, but only as opinion of this person. That's why I suggest to keep it all in the article about the history of the name as Ali suggested. Grandmaster 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You do not get to dictate anything, you have been proven wrong and I have even fulfilled your request of a third party source from a well known and respected Soviet historian, who acknowledges Soviet actions regarding the name Azerbaijan. This is getting beyond the point of ridiculousness.Azerbaijani 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL. Try a constructive response if you want to help improve the article. Thanks! The Behnam 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was elaborating just as you made this comment, so no, Wow, was not my only statement.Azerbaijani 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! lol sorry about that. The Behnam 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See Adil's comment on this here: [6]. And also, you version of the quote says nothing about Soviets having anything to do with the name. It implies that it was selected so that Azerbaijani people in the North and South could unite by their own will in one state. Still, it is an opinion of one person (if the quote is correct) and cannot be presented as fact. Grandmaster 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, this is getting ridiculous. First of all, what do Adil's comments have to do with anythign? secondly, no, the quote is as it is, do not put your spin on things. It says The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected. Let me make that more clear, it says that the name Azerbaijan was chosen for Soviet Azerbaijan on the assumption that Irans territory would become one with it eventually, and that was why the name was selected. This is clear, and it shows the Soviet intentions.Azerbaijani 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not say that the Soviets chose the name. Check Adil's post, he provides the actual quote in Russian, it does not say Soviet Azerbaijan, it says Azerbaijan republic. The actual context is very different from your version. Grandmaster 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Its from 1963, how could he have possibly been talking about the Azerbaijan republic? He is obviously talking about the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I checked out that Barthold quote that Adil posted, and it has nothing to do with this one, Barthold is taking about something completely different! Infact, he even reinstates his suspicious as to the name Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan SSR.Azerbaijani 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is from 1925. You still don't have clear understanding of its context. Grandmaster 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More reason for it to be Azerbaijan SSR that hes talking about.Azerbaijani 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Member "Azerbaijani" (strangely given himself the name Azerbaijani) does not follow civility and I am surprised he has not been blocked. Roazir 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of surprise regarding Azerbaijani not being blocked, this edit [7] seem aimed at provocation. He acted unilaterally, counter to the entire discussion here that was supposed to resolve the issue, and even removed the "according to some sources" note that made the POV assertions seem a little milder. This "some sources" note is an entirely factual statement too, and quite generous considering the weak/non-existence defense of his sources that he has put up. To those who have capability to do such things, I recommend action be taken posthaste. We should not tolerate users who are not trying to improve the encyclopedia by working within the community guidelines. The Behnam 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The according to some sources was there because Grandmaster was saying the sources were not neutral. I presented a third party reliable source. If you want to argue against that, then you would be the one with the POV. I merely added a source. If you want to say "some sources", you could literally say that in every single Wikipedia article. How about we go around and put "according to some sources" all over Wikipedia? Its funny that you should accuse me of not trying to improve the encyclopaedia when I am the only one adding sources to it. I dont know why your here, but certainly, if you going to attack me for adding a solid source into this article, then I'm not the one you should be talking about.Azerbaijani 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The "some sources" comment was added because of the highly disputed content and applicability of the sentence, which appears to be giving undue weight to a fringe view. There are still issues with your sources, even the Barthold one, so I don't think you should act unilaterally. Grandmaster is not the only one who found the sources, and the section as a whole, contentious. Just because you insist that your sources are perfectly acceptable does not make them so. A bunch of users here find them problematic, and you have simply ignored or dodged concerns raised. I am here to improve the article by seeking neutrality; the questions is: why are you here, "Azerbaijani?" The Behnam 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not justify Azerbaijani edit warring, but I don't see how deleting sources and forcing others in, justify the deletion of sources itself. Both Adil and Grandmaster are using this pretext to do just the same thing. The information about the Pan-Turanist ideology and the plan of union is not a fringe and is not only relevent but even a must to include in this article. Fad (ix) 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This conflict could be avoided here by simply relegating the topic to the page devoted to the topic. As the main page for this nation, it should probably just say what Azerbaijan is believed to mean, and mention that a controversy exists over the choice of name, but link to the main article for that topic. The details of views shouldn't be included, as this has led to a conflict over whether or not one view is getting too much weight. On the real article for the topic, people can mention the arguments and counterarguments. Then all of this mess would be left for that page, and the neutrality conflict can be avoided. Why preserve a conflict that can be avoided? The Behnam 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said for the culture section, or the demographics section, or the history section, etc..., how about the whole article just be the first paragraph? No double standards please.Azerbaijani 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m kind of surprised to hear that from Fadix. As if he did not remove sourced information and reverted all of my edit on Paytakaran. The problem is not with information, but with sources it is based on. A question for Fadix: do you think that you can present as fact info, based on the opinion of the embassy of Armenia? If so, is it OK if I will include information in the article about Armenia providing embassy of Azerbaijan as reference? Grandmaster 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit with your accusations, you know why I deleted them. As for your question, of course not, my point was only on the Pan-Turanism stuff, which is documented. I have no interest to contribute to this article, I ended up here only because I was wondering on what this guy with the alias 'Azerbaijani' was contributing in and followed his contributions. Fad (ix) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Pan-Turanism stuff" (?), in the geo-political and military terms implied by Fadix and Azerbaijani, is not supported by scholars, in fact, most note that any Pan-Turkic tendencies were purely cultural, linguistic and humanitarian in nature, and that Pan-Islamism played a far greater role in Musavat Party, and that was even admitted by the founders of ADR as "neo-Islamism". Similarly, Socialist agenda was extremely high, and indeed, there was even cooperation with Bolsheviks one way or another, even some ADR founders and Musavat members became Communist later -- or were Hummet party members before creation of Musavat in 1911. Meanwhile, for some time now there is a term "Azerbaijani nationalism", and Rasulzade, Musavat, ADR, etc., should be viewed primarily through that prism -- like all Armenian or Ossetian nationalist policies viewed as such, and not "Pan-Christian". So the historic events are not as simplistic as Fadix and user "Azerbaijani" would want us to believe. --AdilBaguirov 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the page

User Eupator is unilaterally removing several fully cited sources, whilst adding back poorly cited one's, and does all this without participating in the extensive discussions on the Talk pages of this and other articles, such as History of the name of Azerbaijan, and Mamed Emin Rasulzade. This continuing vandalism ought to stop. --AdilBaguirov 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, telling him to use the talk page. Hence he is a given a chance. If he continues unilateral, disruptive, provocative, vandalish edits then action will inevitably have to be taken against him. The Behnam 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, because it started to get ridiculous -- just because Eupator has a axe to grind doesn't give him a right to just revert page with fully cited references, whilst inserting poorly cited, translated and clearly disputed one's. --AdilBaguirov 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated POV Vandalism by "Azerbaijani"

"Azerbaijani", can you stop removing quotes to Tadeusz Swietochowski, a third-party scholar, and reinserting your own from Kaveh Farrokh or those from milliondollarbabies website. Further attempts will be reported to admins, third party arbitration with a request for locking of the page.

Also a note for you, I see you go out of your way trying to relentlessly prove that Musavat was pan-Turkic party. Yes it was, it's been announced as such by the founding fathers of this party almost 100 years ago, as the name of the party was Musavat Party of Turkic Federalists (meaning they wanted federalism in Russia in general, not necessariliy that of only Turkic peoples). Majority of Musavat leaders were inspired by the ideas of Alibey Huseynzade, Ahmed-bey Aghayev, and Ziya Gokalp, as they defined an independent non-religious national identity, which best described Caucasian Muslims. And the best one was, Azerbaijani Turks, because those spoke Turkic-language and the identity they had was the same as that of Iranian Azeri Turks just south of river Araxes, with many of whom they shared family ties.

So it's rather incomprehensible why are you trying to reinvent a wheel and present this as unknown fact, in every single page about Azerbaijan. You're actually making a compliment to Musavat leadership and to all truely Azerbaijani people in general. Atabek 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You POV and OR assertions are getting tirings. Firstly, the length of that section was a compromise version, secondly, referenced information was removed. Furthermore, Swietochowski's opinion is represented in the article. Secondly, Wikipedia is a place where all facts are presented. Not everyone knows who or what the Musavat party is, that is why the information is said. That is the definition of an encyclopaedia. Thanks for admitting it was pan Turkist, so stop removing that information from the article! Also, I added two more sources, you cant complain anymore.Azerbaijani 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Which encyclopedia? The references your included to defining Musavat as pan-Turkic are from milliondollarbabies.com written by some freelancer and from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/az%7Dmus.html which is a amateur flag collection website. The definition of Musavat Turkic Federalist party was stated in a number of scholarly references, which you don't ever read or know, including Swietochowski, Firuz Kazemzade, and Musavat's own newspaper "Achik Soz". In fact you started using this title "Turkic Federalist Party", after myself and few others added official quotes to it on several websites. And there is nothing to "admit" here. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples, and there is nothing wrong in being pan-yourself. It's rather incomrehensible though what you're trying to prove with taking name "Azerbaijani". Atabek 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you not seen the large amount of sources I added?Azerbaijani 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

about "there is nothing wrong in being pan-yourself", didn't you know that Pan-X implies "racism" and "territorial claim" and etc to other lands?!!--Pejman47 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, indeed pan-Iranian means laying claims on territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I agree with that fully, and it's part of the ideology of Iranian state under any regime. Also, pan-Iranian emanates from the origin of the name Iran, which is "Aryanama", mystical land of original "white race". In Western world, the ideology was bit modified and became official ideology of the Nazi regime. So thank you for bringing up the issue, as it directly refers to pan-Iranism and its factual practice in World War II. It's not surprising in this regard, that Iran currently is the only country in the world to deny Holocaust, thus support Nazi purge of Jews during World War II, there is ideological basis for this.

Pan-Turanism (pan-Turkism) however is a mystical ideology which refers to linguistic and cultural unity of Turkic peoples from Eastern Europe to wall of China. It has never been implemented politically, neither such attempt was made, or could be made or aspired to be made by the state of size of Azerbaijan. Thanks. Atabek 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from Atabek's anti-Iranian diatribe that he doesn't really understand pan-Iranism. Apparently, he believes that Nazism was a modified version of an originally Iranian "white race" theory. Such ignorance is disgusting. Pan-Iranism doesn't have the racial purity, ubermensch, Atlantis, root race, destruction of semitic peoples, and other nutty ideas that characterized the German intellectual conclusions leading up to Nazism. Pan-Iranism aims to unify culturally or ethnically Iranian peoples, as well as a sort of "old empire" irredentism. I don't know what you mean by "mystical." While "mystical" may characterize Nazi beliefs, it doesn't seem to for pan-Iranism, and perhaps even pan-Turkism. Perhaps you mean "unrealistic?" In any case, thanks for revealing your blatant anti-Iranian views; it helps to know that sort of thing when users make questionable edits. Ex:"How does that edit improve the article? Oh, I see, it is because of his strong POV on the issue, not because he seeks to improve the article." Perhaps you should disavow from editing here; your POV may be an obstacle to neutrality. The Behnam 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, the main point in this discussion is not my POV of my own country, which is a subject of this page, but objectivity of the references I provided. Up to now, the references saying anything positive about Turkic-Azerbaijani connection are viciously removed by the Iranian user Azerbaijani, exactly for the same opposite POV - anti-Azerbaijani-Turkic-pro-Iranian diatribe. I think this hostility which is needless between Iranian and Azerbaijani people in Wikipedia would lessen if each of us learned to respect others country, and its right to exist and define its own ideology and destiny independently. Yes, Musavat was pan-Turkic, now what? I provide valid scholarly references even confirming its name, yet Azerbaijani replaces it with milliondollarbabies.

I am sorry to having to link Iranism to Nazism (I wasn't the one organizing Holocaust conferences, Iranian president Ahmadinejad was), but in reality, trying to defame and take part of our Turkic connection away, attempting to portray pan-Turkic orientation of Musavat in negative light, seeing this as inferior yet non-existent danger to Iran, you only highlight the very much racist POV existing on Iranian side. Despite your anti-Turkic diatribes and viewing Azerbaijan as enemy, Azerbaijani Turks always respected Iranian culture, and immensely contributed to building what's now the country of Iran. And this is your respect to our culture, origin and independent country?

Similarly, what user Azerbaijani fails to understand that Musavat played a fundamental role in achieving independence of our nation from Russia (NOT Iran). It did so, along with scores of Azerbaijanis and Ottoman Turks who spilled blood for it on the battlefields. In this light, what ideology Musavat had is immaterial to the reality of Azerbaijan. And instead of highlighting pan-Islamic nature of Musavat, Iranian user Azerbaijani should be more concerned with the nature of regime that rules Iran, with which Musavat party or people of Republic of Azerbaijan had nothing to do.

Hope we will achieve some objectivity, consensus and cooperation, if Iranian user Azerbaijani puts away his POV and permits all references on Azerbaijani sites to be displayed and stops this terror of reference purging based on his biased single-sided view of history. This is not the first site that he is trying to abuse, other Wikipedia links are History of the name Azerbaijan and Safavid Dynasty. What does all this hatred contribute to constructive and friendly approach? Regards. Atabek 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about. In case you didn't notice, I too oppose "Azerbaijani"'s edits! I and others have been trying to persuade him to keep his poorly-sourced, controversial statements off of the page, but he has become only more unilateral and provocative. It has almost reached the point where disciplinary action ought to be taken. I don't advocate placing only the Azerbaijani view either; the problem should be avoided entirely by simply mentioning the etymology, and then stating that the controversy exists, but not elaborating the views. That way, the neutrality dispute does not have to exist on the nation's main page, which should only include basic, brief, and non-contentious facts about the nation. In sum, the details about the naming reasons have no place in this article.

Also, as a side note, I don't think Ahmadinejad's conference is an example of Nazi doctrine, but rather typical post-Israel Islamist rant. Ahmadinejad's government doesn't represent the Pan-Iranist parties or views anyway. In all, I think you are mistaken in treating Nazism and Pan-Iranism interchangably or implying a strong relationship between the two. Anyway, what do you think of the proposal to simply not mention the details of the controversy on this page, Atabek? The Behnam 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, the information about the founding of the Musavat party belongs on the main article. That is what the main articles are for, this is just a brief summarization of events. That is what Wikilinking does, it links subjects to the main article, if you notice you can click on Musavat, which takes you to the main article where it further expands solely on the parties foundation.Azerbaijani 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, the information about the claimed nature of Musavat party (pan Turkist, pan Islamist) then also belongs to Musavat page, not to Azerbaijan page. Also the name of the party is Turkic DEMOCRATIC Party of Federalists "Musavat" (or as spelled in Russian, "Tyurskaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya Federalistov "Musavat"). The party's name was defined in Russian spelling, so follow the convention. You're selectively removing some references, that to the nature of Musavat party and adding intendedly biased quotes from other sources. For fairness, Kazemzadeh and M.D.Guseinov quotes must be included. Also, you have removed several quotes from Behnam's recent version. The problem has been reported to administrators for immediate attention. You have no right to make single-sided modifications removing scholarly references without consensus with all editors of the page. Atabek 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the part about pan Turkism and pan Islamism shows context and motive, which has to do with the summary. Basic information about the subject specifically belongs in its main page. Notice how this summary does not include many of the things that are included in the main article about the history of the name Azerbaijan. Its the same thing, we have main articles for a reason. Be reasonable, this really is not that big a deal, you are starting and edit war over nothing.Azerbaijani 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, as I said, if other references to Musavat are removed, then pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism "stuff" should not be there either. You're selectively including one quote and removing the other. If we have main article about Musavat, which defines pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic orientation of it, no need to include it on Azerbaijan page. Alternatively, if you choose to include it, then be kind and include all of the info on Musavat. Atabek 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that that summary is about things related to the history of the name Azerbaijan! When or who founded the Musavat party belongs in the main article which is about the Musavat party! The pan Turkist and pan Islamic references provide context and motive, and are not irrelevant to the section.Azerbaijani 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the history of name Azerbaijan is related to nature of Musavat, then all relevant references to nature of Musavat shall be included and not just summaries. And stop using "!" and "you don't seem to understand" in conversations, you're supposed to come up to consensus on this page, and so far we have no consensus until you agree to respect all scholarly references as opposed to amateur coin collection websites. Namely, Musavat page has sufficient evidence of the nature of this party, which you deem to defend. Atabek 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then you might as well bring everything from the Musavat page over here. Do you not understand what main articles are for? I have explained it many many times. The reason I say that you dont seem to understand is because you still do not know what main articles are for. Also, how are you going to tell me about consensus when you are the one going against consensus and making edits without regard as to whats going on in this talk page. Its also amusing how you are still criticizing the 6 sources, even though 4 of them are from books! Also "!" is part of English literature, you cannot dictate what I can and cannot use when I type.Azerbaijani 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, you may wish to continue using (!) as much as you want. It is hopeless, and you MUST achieve consensus with everyone on this page. So my suggestion is we remove everything pertaining to nature of Musavat from this page, and leave only the title "Turkic Democratic Party of Federalists Musavat", and let the interested user click on the link and read about the nature of Musavat on Musavat page. Otherwise, the fact that "Musavat" was pan-Turkic or pan-Islamic has no relevance in judging Azerbaijan. Otherwise, let's include the nature of all other parties such as Hummat and Bolsheviks here. Atabek 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to read WP:NPA and stop calling other users' edits vandalism.Azerbaijani 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. Nothing personal really. If anything, it is a helpful tip to change editing habits.  :) The Behnam 06:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this user Azerbaijani has been bothering some of my contributions too. The referenced material that I put on Musavat page immediately got his irked POV with highlighting "pan-Turkic" and "pan-Islamist", while I already included references in my article anyway. I would like to commend Behnam for his objectivity and tolerance, but I see now some Azeris are being completely thrown off by hostility and witch hunt of this Iranian user Azerbaijani. I have to say that in my first few days here, I suprisingly see more cooperation, consensus and understanding from even some radical Armenian users, than I do from this fella Azerbaijani. And the most fascinating part is that with his clear POV and obvious stubbornness, no one knows what he really wants from Republic of Azerbaijan, and behaves as if he has no other issue in the entire Wikipedia. I call all Iranians and Azerbaijanis to cooperate for consensus and objectivity of history. Let's put personal POV desires aside, respect each other. Let's remember that this is not a political forum, border division headquarters, frontline, or identity-imposing DNA experiments. People grow and be proud as who they're, and if you attempt to tell them they're not who they're, you will only get their disrespect and disgust. Tengri 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here needs to read about Wikipedia POV and Wikipedia OR, because nothing I have done is either POV or OR, because its all cited.Azerbaijani 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You use biased and/or obscure sources that do not qualify under WP:RS, and give undue weight to these sources. In this way, your edits are POV, because they give undue weight to certain POV "sources." How many times do we need to tell you this before you will acknowledge that people find your sources problematic? The Behnam 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Vandal Azerbaijani has posted a note on WP:BP accusing 6 people of being sockpuppets of the same person. I think this guy, who is really obsessed thinking that if there is an opposing view to his, it must be only a single one, shall be taught a lesson by administrators for his constant POV, as indicated clearly by notes on this page. As a result my friend Tengri who used my computer about a week ago, was accused of being myself without any legitimate proof on hand. The incident is being addressed with Wikipedia admins as well as with Khoikhoi in particular for admin's ignorance of the concerns raised about the vandal yet quick blocking of users based on Azerbaijani's request.

Behnam, thanks for your understanding, I am glad to see that there are Iranians with whom we can cooperate and coordinate our work. But until we resolve the problem of scholarship enemy vandal Azerbaijani, I don't see how can we work together peacefully. Atabek 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not obsessed thinking anything myself, but I think likewise about you. While I agree that Azerbaijani has been aggressive and edit warring, you on the other hand should be indefinitely blocked from here. You have lied and still lie, it is obvious and doesn’t take much effort to know that Tengri and you are the same user. I knew this from the beginning, passed my own merging test which revealed this. Are you trying to insult the intelligence of the members here? You have claimed Khoikhoi that you used his computer(Tengri) and have claimed now and on the checkusers page that it was the otherway around. Please don’t dig the whole more than it already is. Do you want to know why I ended up here; I have lied when I have answered Grandmaster that it is when I followed the user Azerbaijani, I was actually investigating on you. The problem has always been that Tengri has been created minutes after the block Grandmaster had received and I have to admit I for a moment started doubting, but appears that Khoikhoi requested the test. There is no doubt that Dacy69 and Adil are the same user. What is left now is indeed to know if the two par users (total of 4) are the same and if Tabib is involved. Since he left on Jan 17, few days before the other user appear and made the changes on March article the way Tabib always wished. The interesting is that both Adil and Tabib work with Azerbaijani political parties and are recognized friends. In due time I will reveal the result of my investigations. I have simply enough of socks, which support eachothers and edit war this way to escape 3RR. Having said that, I leave this talkpage, don’t expect to be answered, as I don’t want to disturb it. Anyway, I will soon release the results of my tests. Fad (ix) 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, thank you for highlighted confession :) The Wikipedia is not for investigations, it's for contributions based on verifiable references. If I or Tengri bring up the quotes, you should bring counter quotes argue and come to consensus. Otherwise, if you, like Azerbaijani start a witch hunt using Khoikhoi, trying to cut down every opinion that does not fit yours, this does not contribute in any way to balanced truth. If two different people have similar opinion, it does not mean, they're sockpuppets or same people, it means they share views. You're welcome to release the results of your tests wherever you like, but you already make me laugh claiming Dacy69 and Adil as the same user :) Good luck, "Hercule Poirot". Atabek 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered Adil in his talk page. But I will highlight here, that using socks for 3RR and voting is serious issue, and my investigation has nothing to do with opinions, I don't have any interest on this article, I referred to the pan-turanism stuff to see how you and Adil will be answering me. Something of note though, Adil answered the Pan Turanist thing on 4:01, followed 4:16 the other answer, and finally on 4:35 your answer. No comment here, but isen't it amazing that all those who I think are Adil sock, all appear to answer in the same given time frame, vote in the same interval of time, and all know French? Is suspect that the only way the link has been made between the two login was because you forgot using your open proxies. I am not accusing here, but simply suggesting. Anyway, I am really done this time. Fad (ix) 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you're not coming back :) I don't see the weight of your argument, Adil replied at 4:01, I replied at 4:35, so what? You often join Nareklm and few others in consecutive edit wards, should I claim now you're the same user? This is absolutely insane, and it highlights only one point: if you or Azerbaijani are unable to fight with references and proofs, so lower yourselves into attempting to try to prove that someone is someone else's sockpuppet. I can't explain your "investigations" otherwise, as most of the edits are not a matter of voting, those are far more important. Atabek 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, don't overheat yourself in the hollow pursuit, your witch hunt against me (I'd be interested to find out which political party do I allegedly work for, among other weird allegations) is nothing new, and very typical of you and your friends, who, unlike myself and Tabib, hide behind virtual identities. Meanwhile, as stated, I am not afraid of putting my name forward, because I stand for my words and laugh at my junior opponents. Please continue your "investigations" and present them ASAP. If you want, I can give you my fingerprint to aid in your "investigations", and I am sure others harrassed by you and your types would gladly give you their fingerprint. --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little nuts. Everybody just keep the sockpuppetry discussion away from here, and let's try to resolve the content issue. I propose a compromise where the details of the controversy are not mentioned on the nation's main page, since the details are contentious and inevitably lead to a neutrality tag. Besides, the controversy isn't the most significant thing about the nation, so it shouldn't receive so much coverage, regardless of the contentious material. Any objections or thoughts on this proposal? The Behnam 06:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, thanks for the voice of reason. As I mentioned in one of my comments above. The only meaningful solution is to remove pan-Turkist and pan-Islamist "tags" from Musavat's name as it already says Musavat Turkic Federalist Party, and let the user judge Musavat separately by reading Musavat page. Also Musavat's name should be updated to include the name Democratic, which was the official name per two references that I included and Azerbaijani kept removing. Atabek 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the call by The Behnam and Atabek, indeed, as there are several articles/pages that are related, the info that has less to do with Azerbaijan per se should be removed. The name is derived from 2,300 year old Atropatena, which extended north of Araxes, and that's a fact supported by many, many scholars and chroniclers, all those quotes were already posted. Also, why would all Azerbaijanis in the north of Araxes be called "Azerbaijani Tatars" and "Azerbaijani Turks" since at least mid-19th century? This means that everyone knew that the geographic and political concept of "Azerbaijan" was not limited to south of Araxes, but extended to parts of Naxci, Arran and Mughan/Talish/Shirvan (i.e., north of Araxes). Denying this is futiless. From 3 sources presented by user Azerbaijani, 2 are invalidated immediately on the basis of being unsuitable for an encyclopedia, whilst the Bartol'd quote had been analysed and re-translated by me in the Talk page of the History of the name of Azerbaijan in great details. It's context is different, and Dr. Bartol'd was not speaking in definitive terms. --AdilBaguirov 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is to just state the undisputed etymology, Atropatena, and then mention that a controversy exists over the choice of name, link to its main page, but do not include details from this controversy. The nation's main page shouldn't have neutrality disputes, and this one in particular is unnecessary. In any case, we have to wait for the others to respond to the proposal before it can be moved another step forward. The Behnam 18:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think that there’s any controversy regarding the name of Azerbaijan. The name has never been officially protested by any country, and Iran recognized independent Azerbaijan both in 1918 and now. It’s just some people who try to create non-existent dispute about the name. I agree that the name info should be described in a special article created for that purpose and this one should only be linked to that article. It’s been suggested to do so by many people, including Ali Doostzade. Grandmaster 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So would you agree that only the obvious and undisputed Atropatena etymology should be detailed here? I'm trying to see where consensus lies on my proposal. The Behnam 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the history of the name Azerbaijan is not only about its etymology. Taking out that well referenced section would show a double standard.Azerbaijani 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. The info on the origin of the name should suffice, and the link to the article about he name should provide the more detailed info. This issue is being given an undue weight. [8] Grandmaster 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the main articles is not solely about the etymology, therefore having a little bit more summarizing the main article is more beneficial and matches all the other sections on the article. Infact, I think many of the current sections need to be shortened significantly, wouldnt you agree? The first section is very short and concise and gets straight to the point, no double standards.Azerbaijani 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a concise survey of opinion regarding my proposal to see where consensus lies. You don't need to repeat your first post for this matter. And I'd like to remind you that the proposed removal isn't simply shortness for shortness's sake, but rather because the material is highly contentious, and doesn't need to present itself here anyway. The details in the other sections are fine because they are not disputed. The Behnam 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The content here is not up for dispute, as it is very effectively been referenced, the proposal is to simple remove information, and that is a double standard.Azerbaijani 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Numerous people here, including myself, have found your sources to quite inappropriate for this page, whether you choose to acknowledge this or not. How "well" you reference them does not matter if they aren't acceptable in the first place. Do not be a WikiPotter; you can't have things your way all of the time, especially when there is a strong consensus against your sources and approach. Your combative dealings with us have not helped the situation at all; you have to cooperate for improvement, not force it. This is WP, not "User:Azerbaijani's World Encyclopedia." Get used to it. The Behnam 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which sources are we talking about here? The sources from professional historians who work in Western Universities, or the several books used as sources, or the Barthold quote? Please be specific, which of these is inappropriate? You hit it right on the dot when you said you cannot have everything your way, exactly, you guys cannot, and referenced material is referenced material. I have continuously reminded all of you to see Wikipedia's policies of POV and OR. None of the sources used have been debunked in any way except through POV. I'm not the one asking things to be my way, its the other way around actually, its you guys who want things to be your way, and to get rid of sourced referenced material from credible sources.Azerbaijani 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my idea is to simply mention controversial material elsewhere, in case you did not realize this by now. Criticism of you sources is scattered throughout this page; considering that you are well able to read, I think you should if you missed them previously. I am tired of telling you to read our arguments; stop ignoring these things. Anyway, I recommend you go for my compromise, but if you decide to keep with this, I am afraid that consensus authorization may soon stop this for you. It's not like your material is being eliminated, but rather relocated to a location more appropriate for the controversy. The nation's main article is improved greatly by not including inflammatory fringe views, that, in light of the nation as a whole, don't deserve attention here in the first place. I hope you understand and consider the merits of my approach. The Behnam 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"The name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim north western Iran."

This is what the article claims. It is a very very strong assertion. The sources are 1) a letter from the representative of Armenia to the UN! What?? Is this serious? 2) A kind of a political blog, written by an Iranian nationalist! Getting more interesting. 3) A probable Soviet quote.

Let's clear the issue about the name. The teritory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, prior to be taken from Iran, was a combination of semi-independent Khanates (Xanliq as they say in Azerbaijan), who were mostly populated by Azerbaijani Turks, as are (and were) other Khanates in the south of Aras. After the northern Khanates were conquered by Russia in 1815 and 1825 the southern Khanates were made into a province they called Azerbaijan by the Qajar leadership of Iran. So, it is true that the name Azerbaijan was given officially to the south of Aras by the Qajar, but we must keep in mind that there was no official province or state called Azerbaijan anyway before the Russian conquest of Qafqaz (the Caucasus) from Iran. There used to be some sort of an Azerbaijan, the name of a territory, sometimes a state, before or during the Islamic conquest of Iran. This article, due to strenuous efforts of Iranian nationalists and probably Armenians, has become a political joke and propaganda. The sources given are just some jokes. If some sources say the above mentioned phrase then it is much more appropriate to write "Some sources claim that the name "Azerbaijan" was chosen for this and that..." But the sources are simply biased. Can someone go to the article about Armenia and insert blogs and Azerbaijani letters as sources??!! If so, people need to do it. If not, who are the admins who are deciding which country's articles can be mocked or not??? Roazir 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? See Wikipedia NOR and NPOV.Azerbaijani 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess as long as Wikipedia admins tolerate your arguments over and over on this discussion page against 4-5 other voices at a time. If you would follow those rules yourself then the nature of Musavat party would be irrelevant on Azerbaijan page. Because the ideology of this party did not become the defining ideology of the state: Republic of Azerbaijan.

And your argument about Azerbaijan being called this way to proclaim part of Iran is as irrational as saying United States of America was called this way in order to lay territorial claims on all neighboring countries on the American continent. I hope some time you will finally understand the weaknesses of your points and leave our country, with which you have nothing in common, alone. Atabek 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting?

To stop this endless discussion with Azerbaijani, who obviously is not going to agree on anything, I would like to propose changing the contentious paragraph titled "Etymology and usage" to the following:

With the collapse of Russian Empire in 1917, a group of Azerbaijani intellectuals, former members of Transcaucasian Seim as well as Musavat ("Equality") Turkic Democratic Federalist Party, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 and proclaimed the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan. In 1920, Bolsheviks conquered the Caucasus, at which time Azerbaijan became a Soviet Socialist Republic. The references to these are pretty much everyone, ranging from M. Smith to F. Kazemzade and many others.

I think all contentious POV and sources thereof from iranchamber.com or from self-proclaimed scholar-"expert on Azerbaijan" Kaveh Farrokh in Rozaneh(?!) magazine should be moved to "History of the name Azerbaijan" page and discussed there. Main Azerbaijan page is no place to discuss either the contentious claims on either side or the nature of political party in Azerbaijan, not mentioning that Musavat already has a dedicated page. I guess if we agree, we should vote and present our objections, all, except Azerbaijani for now, as his position is clear. Thanks. Atabek 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That mentions nothing about the usage of the name... Again, you obviously still have not read Wikipedia's NPOV, NOR, NPA, etc.. policies, your sock has been banned, you are in no position to be attacking others.Azerbaijani 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You cited no real sources that support your view. The only real source is Barthold, but 1 source is not enough and according to the rules the minority view cannot be given an undue weight. Grandmaster 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources may not be in line with your POV, but they meet the verifiability requirements. I am amazed that you complain about the neutrality of User:Azerbaijani's sources and then you yourself use azerbembassy.org as source to support your own POV. --Mardavich 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, please, take your personal POV against Grandmaster somewhere else. The references provided below in ADR section should be sufficient for you. If you want to know more about the history, I suggest reading scholars such as Swietochowski, Smith, Kazemzadeh, and not those from amateur webpage. The azembassy link is provided, because it contains the source text, not because the source is made by azembassy. Atabek 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What Atabek says, makes sense, let's move all those "discussions" into "History of the name Azerbaijan" where we will have a lot to improve too.--Ulvi I. 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the rational and logical thing to do and has been supported also by Ali Doostzadeh "It is just best that all these data are gathered in one spot so other threads which had many problems in the past will not dwell on this issue. --alidoostzadeh 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" [9] Also, once more, the Bartol'd quotes' problem is many fold, see my extensive comments - it's not just translation, but the fact that there are essentially 3 different quotes, but only 2 citations with page numbers, and only one quote checks out, the rest I could not find. The thing is, user Azerbaijani never read or seen the original quote in Bartol'd, he is only repeating what some Iranian websites state, specifically, an interview in Persian with an Iranian researcher, which means that Bartol'd quote got translated from Russian into Farsi and only then into English, and stripped of proper references, page numbers, and context. Bartol'd should be available in most large universities - even though its in Russian, anyone should be able to locate the volume number and page number that user Azerbaijani cites, and scan the page, so that we can check it, and see the context, and translate it correctly. But again, I discuss the problem with the quote in more details above. I am not against including the one quote by Bartol'd that has been verified, but only my translation should be used, not the one done by the Iranian newspaper that's not even from the original, but from a secondary translation. --AdilBaguirov 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Atabek's view - it is relevant to dicuss the name of Azerbaijan on appropriate page. This page is about history of the country--Dacy69 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ADR - Rasulzade = Azerbaijani ideology, not Pan-Turkic or Pan-Islamic

OK, here are a few archival and academic references to add about the Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkic/Pan-Turkism/Pan-Turanism labels that are being recklessly inserted by user Azerbaijani. I will let the sources speak for themselves. All translations from Russian are mine.

First, we should also not forget the role of the "Ittihad" party, the officially Pan-Islamist in ADR, which was in opposition to Musavat, and helped Bolshevik's to invade and occupy Azerbaijan, leading to the demise of ADR.

"However, all of this had nothing in common with the notorious Pan-Islamism, in which the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement have been accused of for decades by some unfaithful researchers. Islamic solidarity the leaders of our national movement understood only as collaboration and mutual assistance in joint struggle for common goals -- national liberation of Muslim nations from colonialism of the European powers." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 5.

The authors of a 1931 book about the Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turkic labels noted: "[i]n the documents signed by Tsarist Minister of Internal Affairs Stolypin, in official decisions of "special councils", in large-volume cases at the gendarmerie [police], in one word, in all cases, when in former Russian empire one was dealing with a movement (agrarian, national-liberation, revolutionary, etc.) of Turkic-Tatar peoples in Russia, one generic prescription and standard form of definition was ready -- Pan-Islamism". Source: A.Arsharuni, Kh.Gabidullin. Sketches of Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism in Russia. (In Russian). Moscow: 1931, p. 3.

"This is testified by the actions of some representatives of the clergy after the February revolution [Second Russian in 1917] against "Musavat" and even declaring the party as enemy of Islam. Speaking on this occassion at the I Convention of "Musavat" in October 1917, M.E.Rasulzade stated: "A person, when entering a mosque, should forget politics, the party, the idea, and pray only to God. Moreover, the clergy should not interfere ["zanimatsya"] in politics, and in political struggle the mosque should remain neutral". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing Central State Archive of Modern History of the Republic of Azerbaijan, f. 894, op. 10, ed.khr. 60, p. 12.

Here's another Rasulzade quote: "The historical experience had shown, that from one side, giving birth to the theocratic-clerical-reactionary movement, and from another side, preventing the appearance of national ideology in Muslim world, the Pan-Islamism is preventing the awakening of national identity of these nations, delays their progress, and, with this, interferes with their becoming independent nations. That is why, in all Muslim countries, the process of awakening of national identity should be strengthened, because the root of all progress, as well as the foundation of national independence, is only the existence of national "I"." Source: Azerbaijan and Russia: the societies and states. D.E.Furman (ed.), in Russian, Moscow: Letniy Sad (Academician Andrey Sakharov Foundation), 2001. URL: http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_009.htm

In his own book, Rasulzade differentiated between "romantic Pan-Turanism" -- whose aim is creation of a unified Turkic state -- and simply "Turkism" or Pan-Turanism, which was a cultural, linguistic and humanitarian concept, not geo-political or military. (see: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 7).

And as Rasulzade noted, "Azerbaijani political figures, in particular, members of Musavat, stood in opposition to the romantic Pan-Turanism, which was an utopia, that did not have any real basis." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 71.

He further noted: "Romantic, political Pan-Turanism is no more, there is only "Turkism", which aims to achieve only real and, in particular, -- national goals". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 79.

"In the opinion of M.E.Rasulzade, the idea of "romantic Pan-Turanism" have preserved its value only in the field of cultural issues, in the struggle for preservation of cultural heritage of Turkic people. Therefore, by declining both Pan-Islamism, and Pan-Turkism, the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement aimed for the creation of an independent national-political ideology, which would reflect the originality ["samobitnost'"] of the Azerbaijani nation, in which its interrelations with other Turkic nations would have been formulated too. They aimed to build relations between Turkic nations not on the basis of tribal affinity, but on the basis of the interests of each nation." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 8.

""Pan-Turkism" or "Pan-Turanism" was ostensibly a movement by Turks to establish hegemony over the world, or at least Eurasia. In fact, this "Pan" movement has no historical ideological precedent among Turks and has been documented to be a creation of the Westerners. Around the time of the occupation of Tashkent by Russian troops in 1865, the doctrine called or "Pan-Turkism" appeared in a work by Hungarian Orientalist Arminius Vambery. The premise of this notion was that since the overwhelming majority of the Central Asians spoke (and still speak) dialects of Turkish, share the same historical origins and history, "they could form a political entity stretching from the Altai Mountains in Eastern Asia to the Bosphorus," where the capital of the Ottoman Empire was located.89 This pseudo-doctrine was then attributed to the Turks themselves, and the Russians and Europeans claimed it was a revival of Chinggiz Khan's conquests, a threat not only to Russia, but the whole of Western civilization.90 In this tactic, attributing aggressive designs to the target, seemed to justify any action against Central Asia, a new "crusade" in the name of "self-defense."

After the Germans joined the Great Game, to undermine British control in Central Asia, Germans manipulated both "Pan- Turkism" and "Pan-Islamism."91 The Pan-Islamic Movement was an anti-colonial political movement of the late 19th century, and must be distinguished from the "orthodox" Islamic unity of all believers, the umma. Jamal Ad-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) established the movement in its political form, striving to achieve the political unity of Muslims to fight against colonialism and the colonial powers. It was popular among Indian Muslims and in north Africa. However, the movement also served the colonial powers well. Painted as a reverse-Crusade --without necessarily using the terminology, but through graphic allusions-- the Colonial powers could mobilize both Western public opinion and secret international alliances to fight the "emerging threat." The Germans, after the death of al-Afghani, sought to make that threat as real as possible for the British in India.92 The manipulation of both "Pan"s would not die with the old century."

Source: H.B.Paksoy, "Nationality or religion?" AACAR Bulletin (Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research), Vol.VIII no.2, Fall 1995, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/128.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Removal of sourced information without consensus

Apparently, while I was away, several users took it upon themselves to make decisions on behalf of everyone, which included deleting sourced information and moving a whole section. This is unacceptable.Azerbaijani 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing that the Azerbaijani embassy is used as a source when the Azerbaijani government claims that Zoroastrianism is an ancient Turkic religion among many other things...while Professors, historians, and authors are considered unreliable...Azerbaijani 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you, this annoying conflict will be resolved if you go with the compromise option that just stops details after Atropatena in the etymology section. They don't need to Azeribaijan embassy source for Atropatena, so it definitely will not be present in my proposed version. You see, if you are going to include sources that they have heavily disputed, they'll probably use disputable sources as well. If they haven't been able to stop you, you probably will not be able to stop them either. So, I think that stopping after Atropatena is the best solution to a conflict that, under current trends, has no end in sight. The Behnam 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told you several times that they have not presented any evidence debunking any of the sources, many of which are third party sources! They cannot use original research and point of view and claim that they have debunked a source. I can bring you up the exact pages where the Azerbaijani government actually falsifies history, thus their government sources cannot be used at all. Where is there evidence debunking my sources? They never posted any. Here is a page, for example, which claims this (remember, this is the government of Azerbaijan saying these things!): [10] (The Azerbaijani Embassy in Italy)

The most ancient Azerbaijani States maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Shumer and Akkad, were part of the overall region of the Mesopotamian civilization and were ruled by the dynasties of Turkic origin. The Turkic-speaking peoples that inhabited the territory of Azerbaijan from the ancient times were fire-worshippers and professed one of the world's oldest religions - Zoroastrianism. The name of the state originates from the present-day form of the Turkic word combination meaning “land, noblemen who keep the fire”.

Really funny stuff, and infact, if you keep reading, you'll see even more hilarious stuff!Azerbaijani 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is incredibly stupid "history", though it actually could be used if we were addressing the Azerbaijani government's views, but that is aside from the point. My point is that its best not to get into the matter here, on the nation's main page, since there is nothing about this(aside from Atropatena) that hasn't been disputed. Whether you acknowledge it or not, I'm telling you, people here have addressed your sources, and they will keep acting as if they did even if you don't see it. Also, they claim that they are merely quoting a source posted at the Azerbaijani government website. You should probably then respond to the content instead of trying to write it off because it is from the Azeri government. Honestly, I think you are better off seeking compromise, but its up to you. This isn't going anywhere positive. Anyway, I have schoolwork, so I won't respond for a time, but anyway keep things cool-headed here and search for a workable resolution that satisfies both parties, if possible. The Behnam 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no one has addressed the sources at all. Grandmaster just accused two professors of being unreliable, without posting evidence, and then left for awhile. User Adil continuously has made POV and OR comments, making assumptions based on facts that have nothing to do with other facts. This is not basis for disputing a source.Azerbaijani 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The information to the nature of Musavat party is provided on Musavat page in full. Will be more added to it from various sources. The quote you brought above is not included on Wikipedia page, so I don't understand what your argument is? The sources you brought are clearly biased, as Kaveh Farrokh is clearly an Iranian nationalist and has very little to do with serious research on Azerbaijan. At least not to the extent of resources that your removed, such as Firuz Kazemzadeh, M. G. Smith, Mirza Davud Guseinov. Rozaneh Magazine is not Oxford University Press, neither it is archived newspaper of 1920s. Milliondollarbabies numismat site is even more laughable reference, and insult to intelligence of Wiki users. I brought the segment shown above, in fact Adil's edit contained even more on Etymology of name Azerbaijan. So no one understands what you want. If you think this dispute is about just accepting your point of view and moving on, you're fundamentally wrong. Atabek 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what user Azerbaijani wants, and what is the relevance of some quote from some embassy site and how this all relates to this page and this discussion, as no one ever raised any of those questions. Let's stick to Musavat - Rasulzade - ADR - Atropatena/Azerbaijan extending north of Araxes. On all of this, myself and others have presented overwhelmingly more well-sourced and reliable references and quotes, hence the scholarly portion of the debate is complete. Meanwhile, user Azerbaijani has been unable to verify anything about the Bartol'd or Atabaki quotes, so that we had to call AliDoostzadeh to help him, which he will with Atabaki quotes perhaps in a week time -- but Bartol'd is still user Azerbaijani's responsibility. I have been able to verify only one of the three presented Bartol'd quotes, and provided the fuller context and improved translation, so one quote is OK to use in the "History of the name Azerbaijan" page, but not the other two quotes attributed to Bartol'd and undoubtedly misquoted and taken out of context. Meanwhile, it is disturbing that user Azerbaijani takes out well-sourced and fully-reference and appropriate quotes and sources that were added by myself and other users, such as Atabek. That's unacceptable and in complete contradiction to Wiki rules. --AdilBaguirov 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, can you all please stop attacking each other and being uncivil? You are not particularly helping Wikipedia by arguing over user conduct. Why not concentrate on the actual article this discussion page is for discussing? Template:Emot Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415 > I see that you are not an admin, but isn't it also the Wikipedia community's duty to keep an eye on articles so that they are as close to accuracy as possible? For God'a sake this is an article about a country!! And one or a handful of non-Azerbaijani users are vandalising the article. It is not about attacking each other. I am actually quite new but what I read in the article (which is about the Republic of Azerbaijan, and I am an Azerbaijani from Iran) was clearly edited in a way to question the legitimacy of the name of Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani people's identity, and also the history of the country, so that it looks like a joke! And some users are absolutely intent on mocking this article, and others about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis and one of them (the most vocal and most impotant one) is none but the above-mentioned user. Roazir 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Analysis

User:Azerbaijani and User:Mardavich like to say that there actually isn't a majority consensus on this page, but I believe they are mistaken. The conensus is against the article version that they support. From what I can tell, this is the breakdown (not counting anons, not looking at archive 1):

• Against Disputed Section: User:abdulnr,User:Baku87,User:AdilBaguirov,User:Grandmaster,User:Clevelander,User:Elnurso,User:ali doostzadeh,User:Dacy69,User:Bm79,User:The Behnam,User:Roazir,User:Francis Tyers,User:Atabek,User:Tengri,User:Ulvi I..
• Supportive of Disputed Section: User:Khosrow II,User:Azerbaijani,User:Pejman47, User:Mardavich .

Though Azerbaijani thinks that the users opposed to his version of the article are really just one or two people [12], this has only been proven in the case of Tengri. Pejman47 has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Azerbaijani [13]. In any case, the current appearance is strongly in favor of the group against the disputed section. By the way, if I have inaccurately characterized you, or forgotten you, in the above, please make the change. Please give your thoughts on this. The Behnam 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not how you achieve consensus, this is not a vote or a poll. --Mardavich 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please don't make sock-puppet accusations against established users such as Pejman47. If you suspect a established user of being a sock, you have to file a request for user check, you don't just make accusations like that. Such accusations are harmful and considered personal attacks per WP:NPA. --Mardavich 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there already have been plenty of arguments put out, even if Azerbaijani chooses not to recognize this. I'm just trying to sum up who stands where, and it seems that the majority of the involved favor the 'Against' arguments. By the way, I was just summarizing accusations of 'sockpuppet', not making the accusation myself, so please read more carefully and avoid ill-considered accusations. I cannot help but note how unfortunate it is that you are not willing to compromise. The Behnam 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia is not a democracy, majority means nothing, especially when half the people who favor the 'Against' arguments have less than 50 or 100 edits. Oh and "summarizing accusations" is no excuse to repeat slander and accusations. --Mardavich 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am willing to compromise, I was the first one to try and reach a compromise that's acceptable to both sides. [14] [15] I am for summarizing the paragraph, but against removing it altogether. --Mardavich 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I already noted, but you apparently did not grasp, this note is merely to show that the "Against" view is considered most sound by the editors here. I am not saying that people did not present arguments; this has happened, but at this point, a few certain editors are ignoring and refusing to acknowledge the other side, hiding instead behind trivial accusations of NPA and AGF violations. There is even one who gravely misinterprets a summary of other peoples' accusations as 'slander'. My guess is that these people have run out of effective arguments, and are now resorting to asymmetrical tactics. Hey, if this thing is meaningless, why does it bother you so? In any case, your accusation that I am repeating slander and accusations is ill-considered; I am merely summarizing what has been said, as this is of importance to the list I provided. I am amused by the double standard applied when you only point out Pejman, even while I bring up a massive accusation that at least a half-dozen users are sockpuppets for the other side of the dispute. In any case, saying that I am repeating slander is false. I am glad that you have been willing to compromise before, but I hope that you will see that there will be no end to this dispute until the issue is rid of altogether. The Behnam 05:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen "Behnam" or whatever your name is, NPA and AGF violations are no trivial matters. You don't make or repeat sockpuppet accusations against established users such as Pejman, do you understand that? And there is no "double standard", read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#When_questions_arise, users with less than 100 edits are generally considered to be sock-puppets. --Mardavich 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you really questioning my name, or are you just trying to be rude? Are you just trying to be rude, or does it come naturally to you? Stop these accusations; by citing that Pejman "was accused" doesn't mean that 'I' am accusing him. Your logic behind accusing me simply does not follow. Stop harassing me, and try focusing on the real problems here. The Behnam 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't act coy and pretend you don't know what it is I am really questioning. I am done talking to you about this. --Mardavich 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding to me. It is refreshing to see someone back off when he is wrong. The Behnam 07:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the new user (it is kind of odd to see all these new users in edit wars) who said: One more thing for the antagonisers, some Persians and some Armenians! .. this sort of language does not help. I have never seen an Iranian Azerbaijani actually say such a thing and I believe this new person is probably an old user. Why not name the people that are antagonisers according him? Most or all are Azerbaijanis. I think it is best to discuss the article in a civilized manner. I think both users Atabek and Azerbaijani are actually wrong since they are discussing the nature of the Musavite party in this article. Both have good sources that can be used in a Musavite related article (without deletion of one or another) and push of POV. There is a lot of aggressive users and user Azerbaijani is only one of them. There is absolutely no reason to ban such a user. I think the best compromise is to put the musavite stuff in its own article. The history of the name of Azerbaijan is another article. The reason the history of the name Azerbaijan was created was exactly for this reason so that other articles would not be cluttered. After the current dispute in Safavids is done (user Atabek should have actually made comments on the discussion page since the concensus on Safavid article was reached after much compromise when this user was not registered and despite my respect for this user, I think starting edit war on that article when previous concensus was reached by many many users was not helpful), I am going to work on that article. On the current discussion I do not see Francis, Clevandar and many others name. --alidoostzadeh 06:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify about those users, I took the views expressed on the entire page into account. Those users expressed views against the Musavat mentions, and other disputed content, so they fit into the "Against" category. So you also promote the relegation of the disputed content to article created for that very purpose? That is good. At what point will anything get done? The people supporting the disputed content are definitely a minority; how long do must everyone else tolerate their reverts before their editing can be considered disruptive and be halted? How can a page progress if here are a few die-hard reverters? I hope people agree to the relegation instead of having this drag on forever. The Behnam 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I am out of this discussion, since I can not take sides with some of the writings here either. I do not think personal attacks are warranted as they simply degenerate any useful discussion. Do you agree that the first step is to stop the personal attacks? As per the r.v. war , what I noticed was that both sides were including their viewpoint on the nature of mussavite. (who started first or last is one issue but it is fact that both sides are putting their viewpoint on mussavites). Thus I made the suggestion (not demand) that the discussion takes place in the relavent articles (mussavites, history of the name Azerbaijan). That was my suggestion. But to actually threaten to ban the users is something I do not support. I think it is reasonable that both sides of the arguments on mussavites and the history of the name Azerbaijan take their viewpoint to the relavent articles. But I do not think personal attack, and threatening of banning is the right way to proceed. --alidoostzadeh 07:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are out, or do you support simply not talking about Musavat here? I thought the latter of you. So, if the discussion were removed from the article, what do you think should be done if users on either side continue to re-add the content? Thanks for help. The Behnam 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I support having the political and philosophical nature of Mussavites in their own article. But banning users is too extreme of measure. Similarly the issue of naming of Azerbaijan (which is locked right now, but that one will be easily resolved simply by adding historical sources). Indeed, I have tried to make reasonable compromises in some other wikipedia entries so everyone is happy in the end. But at the same time I do not think the current atmosphere created right now (specially with additional racist statements) is a conducive one. Thus I can not really support any list where some of the users on that list make blatant racist statements. Also calling others vandals and suck-puppets when there are clearly not is not helpful (do you agree?). So my first suggestion is to have constructive diplomatic behavior without personal attacks and ethnic labeling. This way I think all the users will easily be convinced. Without such a necessary step, nothing else usually is solved. --alidoostzadeh 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting Ali edit the article (it seems that he doens't have a POV in this topic) I will agree with the version of Ali. But it must be accepted as a lasting compromise (that is: if some months later, the other party comes and puts their POV about "mussavites" in article, the stroy will be restarted) and I am not Sockpuppet of anybody! So, I support unlocking the page and letting Ali edit it (only Ali!); and I support his version--Pejman47 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some links suffice. and erased my user name from the above list. But I hope, in future no one from the other party comes with a new "historical revisionism". --Pejman47 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented a possible version of section below. Your comments are invited. The Behnam 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no talk of musavat and the naming aside from the Atropatena etymology, I am willing to revert any additions, though I cannot see why people would make the change after a compromise is reached. If you look at some of the discussions from about even the Azeri users agreed to not mention it, though at the side they tried to mention it in their own way, which was disappointing. In any case, just don't talk about the reasons for the naming and there should be no real problem with this article. The Behnam 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a real compromise acceptable to all, there would no need for "enforcement" by you or anyone else, we are all adults here. --Mardavich 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? We will see. The Behnam 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an Azeri from Iran, like some of other users. I saw problems with the nature of this article. It is poor on information, rich in controversy. And from what I read on this talk page I do not understand WHY non-Azerbaijanis are so keen on editing this article? Just a curiosity. I am also from Iran and I think it is best that Azerbaijan citizens write this article USING BALANCED AND UNBIASED sources, not Azerbaijani, Iranian, Aremniana, Russian or Turkish sources. This is my suggestion, becasue Azerbaijan is a country just in the middle of many powers and conflicting ideologies. 193.239.195.125 13:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am stasfied with the current version [16] as long it's not significantly changed. --Mardavich 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)