Find any other equivalent. You guys have changed the entire subject. The fact of the matter is that you can not call ethnic groups prior to 1919 as Azerbaijani; there was no such defined identity. Why are there articles on the Dutchy? The Dutchy were more defined as a group than were the Turkic peoples living in those lands… why not plain German? And again, Parishan is using Russian and Soviet propaganda material, which maintained such a position, including for the Turks living in Armenia, to stop Turkey's expansionism… they had Turks in Nakhichevan and those in Armenia rather to adhere to an Azerbaijani identity than Turkish. But prior to the Soviet rules, those people were not identifying themselves, neither were they identified as such. I am wondering how much more can Parishan provide other than Soviet-Russian historiography which was known to be tainted when covering ethnic groups and ethno genesis, turning ethnic groups into groups that all originated from the identities forming the Union, some sort of Self-Sufficient system. This process already started during the end of the Russian Empire, Roy writes: In Azerbaijan for a brief period (the governorate of Vorontsov in the 1850s, and that of Goltsyn from 1896 to 1905), the Russians encouraged the development of an Azeri identity in order to weaken links with Iran and Turkey (The New Central Asia The Creation of Nations by Olivier Roy I.B.Tauris, (2000) p.56)

During the process, many different groups were pushed into being identified as ethnically Azerbaijani, including Kurds, who haven't until recently when groups wanted their independence requested their identity to be changed: In 1988 some 10,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan returned their Azeri identity papers to Moscow with the explicit request that their identity be changed from Azeri to Kurd. (A Modern History of the Kurds by David McDowall, I.B.Tauris (2004), p.493)

And to use Parishan’s opening, it is funny how Parishan is requesting sources for those quotes, Ulvi were you not a participant on the arbitration enforcement? How many sources were used? Parishan has probably missed references like this: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19)

Here, another quote missed by Parishan: In Contrast with the Armenians, the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. In fact, the very name "Azerbaijani" was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars or something else.  (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 56.) 

Do I need to provide what was provided and include also newer ones? I like Eupator’s request RFC about this article, and a it’s a good idea of requesting the same for several other articles. Ulvi, your English language justification makes no sense; you could have changed for Turkic people instead of making an inaccurate move. -