Talk:Azerbaijan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Azerbaijan, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia, a WikiProject related to the countries of Western Asia.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Azerbaijan is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 30 selected anniversary.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] Etymology and usage

Main article: History of the name Azerbaijan

There are several hypotheses regarding the origins of the name "Azerbaijan." The most common theory is that Azerbaijan was eponymously named after Atropates or Atarepata, a satrap(governor) of Media, who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene.^[1] Atropates' name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."^[2]

There are also alternative opinions that the term is a slight Turkification of Azarbaijan, in turn an Arabicized version of the original Persian name Âzarâbâdagân, made up of âzar+âbadag+ân (âzar=fire; âbâdag=cultivated area; ân=suffix of pluralization); that it traditionally means "the land of eternal flames" or "the land of fire", which probably implies Zoroastrian fire temples in this land.

According to Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski, Azerbaijan is the name of the region stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. As a political or administrative unit and a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran.^[3]

However beginning from the 13th century A.D. the name of Azerbaijan became applied to the territories north of Araxes river.^[4][5]

• Please note that someone seems to has defaced this page. Please have a look at the photo `beth.jpg` for the current president. Jesselong 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is my idea for what the section should look like. Doesn't mention modern republic's reason for the name, doesn't mention the Musavat, but links to the relevant Wikipedia article. The Behnam 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• This doesn't look acceptable to me, especially the last sentence, but I'll reserve my final judgment until after I've heard what User:Azerbaijani has to say about the issue. --Mardavich 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it is not acceptable? Is it because it uses Kaveh Farrokh? The Behnam 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too short, why don't we expand the last sentence to include a short line regarding the modern Republic's decision to adopt the name Azerbaijan by saying "According to some sources...But according to the other sources...". What do you think? --Mardavich 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If we divided it into clear sides without elaborating on one or the other too much, if may be acceptable. Paste your idea underneath this so I can give a better response. The problem currently is because the "illegitimate" view was receiving much more weight on this page, even though this is the main page for the whole nation. Understandably, this caused a lot of Azeris to be offended, and then came all of the conflict here. The Behnam 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Iranica, which is a reputable and neutral source, we have the following:

"Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828)."

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc

So, as the above clearly states, Azerbaijan is indeed according to a neutral source an area belonging to north and south of the Aras river, which was divided by the two treaties among which the last one is mentioned in this particular instance. There are also other places at Iranica where there are references about "greater Azerbaijan" when they talk about Iranian and the independent Azerbaijan. However the sources mentioned in this article are from Armenian and Iranian sources and I read those sources. They have no desire to hide their prejudice toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. According to Wikipedia rules sources should be "verifiable" and "neutral". However, no matter how much we try some members have no intention of doinbg anything but distorting issues.

About some "conflicts" about the name Azerbaijan it is obvious that some parties and sources dispute the name of an independent and recognised country by the UN. That is their business. But neutral sources, whether it is the UN or it is Iranica recognise both independent Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan as being Azerbaijan. Don't forget that there was no Azerbaijan clearly defined prior to the establishment of the province of Azerbaijan in Iran by the Qajar. And this was AFTER northern Azerbaijan was ceded to Tsarist Russia. I found this on the article about Iranian Azerbaijan (again mocked by user Azerbaijani and a few others) where the source, correctly, was another Western one, Columbia Encyclopedia. So if there are also some local (Iranian, Armenian or Soviet sources) who dispute the name, or if some individual, Resulzade for example, are told to have said that Azerbaijan is different from Iranian Azerbaijan then all this should be made into a separate article. Roazir 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, someone had written than I am an old user. I wish I was because if I knew how to do all the things around here I would have done a lot of editing and I would have reported user Azerbaijani to the admins. I will learn if I will have time. Please, those older users, edit and remove nonesense material that are offending to the citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I am from Iran and it is shameful for me that my Fars compatriots are doing harm to articles about Azerbaijan. Roazir 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the above link doesn't work try this:

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v3_articles/azerbaijan/geography&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html

Unfortunately I am quite sure users such as "Azerbaijani" will come and say that this is all POV, or they will probably disappear for a while, then after the article had been corrected, remove everything and say that it is vndalism, POV etc!!! Roazir 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 wrote me that he agrees with the proposed changes. I don't know exactly how and what to do. The above, as I have written are from Western renowned sources. They are not perfect but they are scholarly sources, without political bias. We should not put texts that have biased sources, such as the ones from Armenia and Iran. These texts are making this article look like a political pamphlet. Please read the above sources and bring arguments against them but please use neutral sources. This is the Wikipedia rule as far as I know. One of the sources is the Armenian envoy to the UN, right? That source is just a joke. Did an IRANIAN put that source on? Pure pity for an Iranian (Azerbaijani or Fars) to do that. Such a pity. To quote a source from a waring nation!! The other source is an Iranian named Farokh who DOES NOT HIDE his prejudice toward the issue. His writing IS NOT scholarly. It is an article. We cannot use this quote for this article becasue this article is about the COUNTRY Azerbaijan. I don't know how to unlock. Would someone more experienced do it? And I don't know when user:Azerbaijani or someone like that will appear and start calling what we have done VANDALISM or POV. Then we should do our best to get him blocked. Roazir 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets not be selective about quoting Iranica. the final episodes consisted mainly of stabilization and integration, such as the organization of the large confederation of the ˆa@hsevan, evolving between the highlands of Azerbaijan (notably the huge massif of Savala@n) during summer and the lower lands of the Araxes and Transcaucasus in winter. The annexation of the latter by Russia with the treaty of Torkamana@y, in 1828 fixed the political borders of the Iranian state, in an artificial manner, by dividing the Azeri ethnic group but without really affecting the profound unity of a common cultural space, marked by the Shi¿ite affiliation and the resonance of Iranian civilization.[1]

As per the user Behnam's quote, I disagree, it should be shorter. I think this is sufficient [2]: The name Azerbaijan itself is thought to be derived from Atropates, an Iranian Median satrap (governor), who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene.[1] Atropates name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."[2] The name is also mentioned in the Avestan Frawardin Yasht: âterepâtahe ashaonô fravashîm ýazamaide which translates literally to: We worship the Fravashi of the holy Atare-pata. [3]. For the history, etymology and designation of the name of Azerbaijan see[3]. If there is any proof that there is any Turkification of the term Azerbaijan, then relavent linguistic scholarly references should be brought as well and added to the etymology section of this article for that particular sentence. The thing is we want to keep the naming of that section too a minimal, thus quoting the same scholar(Tadeusz Swietochowski) who wrote: What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. might also be a POV push. I think just keep it as minimal as possible.

On the mussavites, the same thing..they established a government and etc.. And then we refer to the relavent Mussavite article where the nature of their government is discussed. --alidoostzadeh 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Okay excellent. I believe Pejman is also. And most likely is the user Azerbaijani who will probably put his sources in the Mussavite article. Thus the dispute is finished and we should ask for a full unlock. --alidoostzadeh 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for working this out. One minor thing; should we say "Iranian Median", "Persian", or "satrap of Media"? I think the third is best because it avoids the conflict between sources over exactly which type of Iranian he was; see the discussion further up on this page for links. I don't see the importance of his ethnicity here anyway, so I think that simply mentioning that he was a satrap of Media avoids the unnecessary ethnicity source conflict. The Behnam 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian Median" is the best accurate description, as both Persians and Medians were Iranian. Iranian here is a significant linguistic and geographical designation, it shouldn't be omitted. --Mardavich 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Iranian satrap of Media"? If you take a look at the Atropates section of this talk page, there isn't consensus between the sources as to whether or not he was Median or Persian. So, if we don't know, say "Iranian", and if we do know, just say either "Median" or "Persian" since they imply Iranian ethnicity and hence saying "Iranian" would be redundant. By the way, "Iranian Median" sounds terrible in English regardless of whether or not it is true. The Behnam 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Strabo says the Medes and Persian language are the same. I looked at Iranica [5] and they just he was a Satrap of Media of the Achaemenid empire. Probably that is all we know. Someone might want to add reference to this Iranica article as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian satrap of Media" is fine with me, since he was either Persian or Median and the term Iranian is a significant linguistic and geographical designation here. --Mardavich 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there TWO Medians to specify whether it is the Iranian one or the non-Iranian one? Just trying to be informative and neutral it does not blend well with neutrality to write "Iranian" Median unless there is also another Median. For example when you say IRANIAN Azerbaijan it is correct becasue you say so in order not to have confusion with northern Azerbaijan. It is funny that WE, the Iranians, are writing the article about the Republic of Azerbijan. It is not very nice of us but we are probably numerically superior. Roazir 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are right there is only one Median. About writing about the republic of Azerbaijan, I think Iranians are involved in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, republic of Azerbaijan mainly due to the fact that they feel attachment to these lands. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the wording as of this post [6]. The Behnam 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys I think the current wording is accurate although someone might want to word it slightly differently. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "Mussavite"? Is it Musavat? There are people who are asking (begging) for discussion there and I am not much aware of Musavat but it would be nice to talk before putting tags or editing. Roazir 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL I guess a combination of Arabic pronounciation and English. Musavat article is here: [7]. There was disputes about their nature, but it was agreed by everyone that anything about the political philosophy of Musavat be moved there. That is a discussion actually that I am not interested in since I have found many different sources from Rasulzadeh being pro-Iran, then anti-Iran and to sort everything out is something I do not have time for and that government is long gone. --alidoostzadeh 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful and necessary to mention that here, in the talk page, that the people of Azerbaijan are not PAN-TURKIST as many Iranians think and loath about. Pan-Turkist means different things but it essentially links the identity of Azerbaijan primarily with Turkey, rather than the Azerbaijanis in Iran and the Iranian culture and heritage. The Republic of Azerbaijan from its inception has been relatively pro-Turkey becasue Turkey was, and still is, the only powrful country in the region that offered serious support to Azerbaijan. Let's remind that Iran's Islamic regime gave economic aid to Christian Armenia during the Armenian campaign against Azerbaijan while Turkey has a blockade on Armenia even now due to its aggression toward Azerbaijani territory. And in 1918 when the Republic of Azerbaijan was established Iran was in a civil war and in a deep internal chaos, so Azerbaijan found its only refuge to survival in the Ottoman Turkey of the time that was just starting to become a Turkish nationalistic state. And finally let's not forget that although Azerbaijanis in Iran are powerful and influential they do not have some very important human rights respected by the Iranian regime, such as their own specific culture and language. So, Iranians shall not view Azerbaijan in a negative way becasue it has been Iran's fault too. But Azerbaijanis are different from Turks in Turkey and this difference is a deeply-rooted difference that has been the main cause of their historic union with Persians. Roazir 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can work on this subject in the main article for the topic. We are really trying to avoid problems on the nation's main page. Believe me, you don't want to reintroduce the topic here, because this will inevitably lead to the edit wars that recently subsided. Simply not discussing has proven to be the most effective method of maintaining neutrality on this page, and it would be a shame to lose it. The Behnam 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but I wanted to remind the Iranians that most of what they think, is not founded and they should be more friendly to Azerbaijanis in the Republic. Roazir 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with the republic of Azerbaijan is that there is a lot of negative news about Iran which I believe actually that Turkey is planting and perhaps some grey wolf groups or who knows what. These groups are definitely not the representative of the people of Azerbaijan. The people there are our kin and even I have Azeri relatives (great aunt). I think a better idea is to make an Iran-republic of Azerbaijancooperation board since lots of topics are in common (Shervanshah , Safavids, Qajars, Aras, Mugham, Akhunzadeh..). A book that is going to be the hot topic for sometime is the Safina Tabrizi. [8]. The book is from Tabriz and thus the people of the republic of Azerbaijan who are also culturally part of the Iranian world should also do research and write about it. I do not think in the last 100 yers a more important manuscript has been found from the area. Also I disagree with human rights and Azerbaijan in Iran, because now there are Azerbaijani language courses in universities and summer, as well as there is government backed TV, newspaper, music and etc. Even programs from Azerbaijani and Kurdistani provinces are on sattelite and can be seen by everyone. [9]. I am not sure what the situation of minorities is in republic of Azerbaijan, but I believe Iran is better than Turkey with this regard. There has been attempts to incite some groups in Iran at least from the time of the USSR. In Azerbaijanis it won't work since they are organic part of Iran. I hope for better relationship between what-ever governments are in place in both countries and right now actually the situation has improved relative to the time when ilchibay was in power. Anyways these are issues I am interested in and willing to discuss with anyone (specially the republic of Azerbaijan) but since it is not related to topic at hand, I'll stop here. I am glad that compromise was reached at least in this important topic since this is the first google link and it is important that people of the republic of Azerbaijan are also not offended as you said. --alidoostzadeh 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, our main problem with negative perception of Iran has nothing to do with Turkey. The negative perception of Iran in Azerbaijan is mostly due to radical Shia religious movements incited in the Republic by the Iranian state. In fact, I don't understand why you blindly blame Turkey without having facts at hand. This country by itself goes through deep identity transformation, and issues of Grey Wolves and other ultra-nationalism were left in 1970s. It's appalling to see educated Iranians still living with perceptions and stereotypes of 16th century though.

Instead of quite visible jealousy of Turkish influence in Azerbaijan, or trying to denigrate Turkic identity, and emphasize Iranian connection, you should think of more peaceful and respectful solutions, more of a balance. We carry no goals of dividing Iran in Azerbaijan. But we also expect respect towards our statehood and people, and especially ceasing unpaid services to the known enemies of our country, from Iranians. Believe me, these issues again have nothing to do with Turkey or Turkish people. Atabek 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. Actually the MHP party is strong in Turkey (even at least 5% of the vote in a country of 70 million is significant but they have more that) and believe me there is rivarly between Turkey, Russia and Iran governments with regards to Azerbaijan. Turkey's government will push pan-turkism and Iran's government will push pan-Shi'ism and Russia will use its economic and military influence. All these aside (and they are all wrong in my opinion), I do not think we can equate government with people. That is why I said Turkey and I did not say people of Turkey whom I have no problems with. Thus the average Iranian harbors no ill will towards the average Turk from Turkey or the average Azerbaijani republic citizen. I believe the feelings are mutual there. Also I am not aware of what you mean by unpaid services. I also do not think the rivarly between Armenian government and Azerbaijani government means that we should not have relationship with both countries and do our best to make a peaceful settlement. Indeed Russia will look out for Armenia and Turkey for the republic of Azerbaijan, but Iran as a country that has both Armenians and Azerbaijanis with strong national Iranian identity. I am not happy with the geopolitical situation of the region as I am sure you are not either, but I can gaurantee you that average Iranians have nothing against the average person from the republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey. I hope the feeling in those countries are the same. --alidoostzadeh 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, Iran, in case it was a normal and relatively democratic country, would have sided with Azerbaijan, not Armenia. It is offensive for all Azerbaijanis, from all countries, that Iran helped Armenia (economically, not militarily) and has good relations with Armenia. Armenia was and is an aggressor (occuppying Azerbaijani land) and 25% of Iranians are Azerbaijanis. There are at most 200.000 Armenians living in Iran so the comparison is not relevant. I hope that the attitude is ONLY the government and not the Fars people, and I really think so. Maybe those who are acting as if they were from Iran or Iranian Azerbaijan and editing Azerbaijani (people as a whole or the republic) articles in an offensive and misinformative manner are NOT actually Iranians. I hope so. Roazir 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roazir Jan. I think Iran was neutral and Iran also has economic ties with the republic of Azerbaijan. I think Iran's responsibility is to really bring lasting peace and give humanitarian aid to both sides. I know there is less Armenians than Azerbaijanis in Iran, both are Iranians first. Thus Iran must actually try to make sure the conflict does not spill over in its own borders (which so far thankfully it hasn't) and also it must try to bring peace. I did a google search and found this article [10]. Although it is on an Armenian website, it seems to be from an Azerbaijani republic newspaper (Zekarlo), Baku. These sort of newspapers seem to publish false information unfortunately from demographics to everything else urging ethnic agitation. The newspaper though makes one logical point. There is another question - why did the Tehran regime and radical Shi'is prefer to support not Shi'i Azerbaijan, but Christian Armenia? This question, as it were, is completely clear. The point is that Christian Armenia has never laid territorial claims to Iran.. That is why I said we should not allow politics to get in the way of friendship between Iranian people and the people of republic of Azerbaijan. I think the Azerbaijani government (not people) is not innocent when it comes to dealing with Iran either and their preception of both countries with respect to each other is wrong. Iran's Azerbaijan is integral. Even the the newspaper claims there are 8 million Azerbaijans million out of 12 million people in Tehran. (which is not true but assume it is they should then ask are the 8 million Azerbaijanis or 2-3 million or whatever going to leave Tehran since this is larger than the population of the republic of Azerbaijan or Baku). Anytime there is a conflict 99% of time both sides are at fault. Thus the mistakes by various governments should not reflect upon the preception of the people of two countries upon each other. Well that is all I am going to discuss. believe I got my point across that the average citizens with no ties to either of those governments should try to be understanding. I'll be glad to discuss this topic further via e-mail with anyone. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was rather amused to find a link to my website, Million Dollar Babies, embroiled in some virtual turf war on Wikipedia. But I was also bemused and insulted by some of the childish ranting that passes for rational discussion on your forum - probably why I (and others) try to assiduously avoid using any information posted to your site. If any of you took the time to view the material on my site - and I'm doubting that few have - then you would realize that the offending text is intended to be my summary of Events and Causes of the chaos that provided the background noise to historical periods of Hyperinflation. These summaries are all from information that I have gleaned from NON-WIKIPEDIA sources, and condensed to present viewers with a sense of zeitgeist while viewing my collection.

None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious. However, it is not "utter bunk" as stated by Francis Tyers · 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Nor is it "Milliondollarbabies numismat site is even more laughable reference, and insult to intelligence of Wiki users." As proposed by Atabek 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC). ( actually, I take this as a compliment… as "spellchecking" seems to be an insult to the intelligence of most Wikipedians ).

The only rational voice in the crowd seems to be Grandmaster, who stated that, "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."

Well… no, I am not an Azerbaijani Historian (and would not care to be after seeing the disparaging comments offhandedly posted here), but I have researched my material and stand by it. Now if you boys find you are having trouble with some Wiki-troll linking to my website - and can find some free time between your squabbles - then I would gladly write up a little ".htaccess" file to block my offending material from your playground. That is… if you have the brains and/or guts to NOTIFY ME FIRST, instead of assuming that your opinions are the only ones that matter in the world.

Alan Kaim

Dear Alan, I am sorry that my statement made you feel insulted about your work on the website. My criticism was not directed at the essence of your work but at the context in which some Wiki-trolls (as you mentioned above) used it as a historical reference. The problem still exists because your page: http://www.milliondollarbabies.com/Azerbaijan1e.htm, which became a matter of fierce debate, firstly, does not have any references, and secondly, seems mostly irrelevant to issues of inflation or finance. So there is a room for misinterpretation and usage for irrelevant purposes, as it was clearly used, and not by myself.

I also apologize for spelling errors, which are usually due to amount of writing and speed with which I and many other users type to express our positions. If you would still like to scrutinize my knowledge of English, I welcome that challenge in private. Regards.Atabek 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly sorry for any offensive statements. We have managed to find a solution to the problem that satisfies both parties. Obviously, there was a rather heated discussion, and I apologize for any disparaging remarks about your website. The basic problem was that your website, focusing on hyperinflation, wasn't the best choice as a source for the information that we were looking for. The academic sources that you used in creating your website would probably be more appropriate here. You put it best, "None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious." About the spell checking... aside from the articles themselves, spelling isn't important on discussion pages like this one as long as the idea is communicated effectively. And as far as trolling goes, the problem has passed, and hopefully will not resurface on this page. Thanks for the feedback. The Behnam 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "Since R1a1 is linked to IE originators it make sense look for ethymlogy at spurce of largest this gen concentraion. The polish word 'żar' - red hot fire or 'yaży' rdiation of 'zar'. The word 'zar' is conotated as fire 'zar' or sun 'zar. In polish "A zer baijan" will mean "a fire/firce or sun hot warioor" since baijan mean warior ." ???? I am also curious to know about 70% Shia. Are there data for this? Roazir 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it; in fact I am considering doing it myself. Some new account went to bunch of articles adding supposed genetic and linguistic information that relates Polish people to Iranian peoples. From what I could tell, none of the information was substantiated, so I think it should be removed from all pages it was added to. The Behnam 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. The Behnam 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam,

Thank you for your explanation and kind words. My best wishes in the Sisyphean task before you.

Alan Kaim

Hi Alan. My sincere apologies if some comments by some users sounded offensive, the problem was that certain people used your website as a reference to back up very strong claims. Those comments were directed not as much at you, as much as they were directed to those who did not even try to make their own research of facts and sources outside of Internet. Without any disrespect to the hard work you’ve done to create your very interesting articles and website, we have the rules that require using published academic sources, which some people don’t realize or don’t want to realize. I would very much encourage you to be involved in the study of the history of Azerbaijan and the region in general and would appreciate your input in any of the articles about our region. Regards, Grandmaster 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Roazir, the 70% Shia for republic of Azerbaijan is a common estimate, see for example the US Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745.pdf --AdilBaguirov 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I often thought almost all Azerbaijanis were Shia. For example in Iran almost all Azerbaijanis and all Persians are Shia. Almost all means probably more than 98%. So, about 70% of the republic of Azerbaijan are Sunni. Well, I have known that most Azerbaijani citizens are very secular and often hardly know about Shia-Sunni. Are the 30% Sunni newly-turned Sunnis or they have historically been Sunni? Roazir 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern regions of Azerbaijan are largely Sunni. It historically has been like that. Central and southern areas are overwhelmingly Shia. However, Azerbaijani people are mostly secular and don’t care about religious differences, so for the most part Sunni – Shia denomination is nominal. Grandmaster 10:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that out! As you can see, we the Azerbaijanis in Iran, worked to fix the problems that existed in this article. We are all Azerbaijanis, no matter from the south of the Aras or the north. Roazir 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, bro. It is indeed so. Grandmaster 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conducted a review and left points

Talk:Azerbaijan/Comments Alan.ca 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Very useful comments. I think the suggestions should be implemented. Grandmaster 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] Azeri Wikitravel/Data Transfer to Wikitravel

Greetings,

I am looking for people to work on the Azeri Wikitravel Language expedition, but have been unable to find anyone to help with it as of yet. If anyone is intersted, please visit the langage expedition page at http://wikitravel.org/shared/Azeri_Wikitravel_Expedition. Also, I am intersted in finding partners in transferring pertinant data from wikipedia to the wikitravel Azerbaijan page. Thanks a lot for everyone's help on this project!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jowa58 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hoax

Someone added a link to a hoax article, which I removed. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossarian Rustamova. Grandmaster 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)