Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)/Archive 2

message: This article is written by Gladiator Armenians. It is a joke! Armenian government is paying individuals to valndalise articles about Azerbaijan. This is an Armenian vandalism. Someof them pretend to be Azerbaijanis. Armenians will not succeed separating Azeris and Persians and time will show that their uncivilised manners, war-mongering, and state terrorism, together with iranian governments' state terrorism will lead nowhere. 80.97.82.93 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian article 

message: This section suffers from a lack of cites and also poor style. Many sentences assess claims, such as '..no incidation...' & '...undermines...'. WP shouldn't be deciding how reasonable a claim is one way or the other, just reporting them. 
Additionally, the para that starts 'In contract to the claims...' seems like total Original Research and has no sources. 
Remember, WP isn't here to determine the status of Azaris in Iran, but merely to report what others have said about it.
Ashmoo 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic status in Iran: NPOV & Sources

message: The current title is incorrect and misleading. it suggests that the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan are one entity seperated. They are not, they have always been to different regions, and infact, the R of Azerbaijan shouldnt even be called azerbaijan.Khosrow II 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly disagree. This article is quite informative related with the Azeri (Turkic Speaking) people of iran and the region. There are similar issues as in the case of Macedonia. E104421 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this page to Azarbaijan or Iranian Azarbaijan 

message: Can someone please tell what the heck "Persian Azarbaijan" (in the first line) means. There is no relationship, per se, between Persians and Azarbaijan. We have to edit this non-sense ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.104.63 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2006.
:Iran was formerly known to the west as Persia. Therefore, Persian Azerbaijan is basically Iranian Azerbaijan, but with the Western term for Iran.Khosrow II 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is "Persian Azarbaijan"? 

message: This article is biased because there is a passage in article which suggests azerbaijanis are of arian ancistary and thus it suggest azeris can't be regarded as having a distinc idendity from persians. this part should be deleted, because:
1. Idendity is not based on Race. This racial discussions reminds me of Nazi regime. why should an article about a geographical location contain racial theories. for instance see the Catalonia article. although catalans probably have the same racial traits as Castillians, this article does not contain any discussion regarding racial simmilarities and there is no doubt that Catalans are distinct from Castillians.
 
2. The research mentioned in the article is only a private research on a limmited group of individuals. The results of the research do not have any official status. Indeed there may exict many conflicting research results. so Please do not include the results of this research in the article unless you can show that the results are universally accepted and you unless you can cite credible neutral(non-Iranian) websites which refer to the results of this research.
3. Even if we accept that there is a genetic proximity between persians and azeris this does not mean that Azeris are simmillar to persians. This means Azeris and persians have billateral simillarities. Well the frequency of intermarrigaes between Iranians of different ethnicities (especialy Persians and Azeris)has created a common genetic pool. Indeed in Tehran, the capital of Iran which once was a mainly persian town, you can hardly find any person without Azeri blood in her veins.
  
4. If you insist on including statements about Racial traits of Azeris all rival theories should be included. For Rival theoris see Azerbaijani_people article.--Faucon7 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 1- Racial issues 

message: Culture is the main base of idendity.  In this Article cultural distinctness of Azerbaijanis is not underlined. It should be underlined that the language of this region is Azerbaijani, a TURKIC language. any introduction to the Iranian azerbaijan without a reference to the language issue will be incomplete. It should be underlined that while Azerbaijanis are the largest ethnic group in Iran ( according to ethnologe.org), Azerbaijani people can not use their right to be educated in Azerbaijani languge. Indeed Azerbaijanis may be the largest group in the world whose language does not enjoy an official status. Although the current constitution of Iran allows (and not necessates) the education in local languages but it should be born in mind that:
1. this provision is a dead letter . All the activities by azerbaijani activist and human rights advocates have not resulted in a change till now. The Azerbaijani Language is not used in schools now. A new wave of idendity awareness has encourages some young Azerbaijanis to educate themselves in Azerbaijani Language via unofficial means.
2. Even if complied with, This provision of the constitution is far from satisfactory. If you say the Canadian model, where both French and English are co-official all over the country, is a too ambitious one, The spanish model accordin to which the local languages such as Catalan language, Basque language, Galician language, etc. are co-offical with the Spanish language (castillian) in their respective regions, should be an ideal model for Iran.
Apart from the issue of the language other cultural distincnesses of Azerbaijanis should be outlined as well. I agrre that all Iranian have cultural simillarities but the differences should be outlined as well.
also there should be a reference to idendity awareness movements in Azerbaijan including the recent protestations in 2006.--Faucon7 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 2-  Lingual and cultural issues 

message: This article is incomplete. It's introduction to the culture of Azerbaijan is very short and unsatisfactory, there is no introduction to the economy of Azerbaijan, it lacks maps and images, famous people section etc. --Faucon7 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 3- This article is a stub 

message: Why does the article introduction say that the region is also called "south Azarbaijan?" Only a few Azari nationalists from the ex. soviet republic use that false term. No one in Iran or the rest of the world has ever used that name. It is highly offensive to Iranians and is simply inncorrect. The current provences of Iran are the only land to have ever been called, Azarbaijan! The "country" of azarbaijan was historically 3 seperate provances of Iran, (Persia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.66.84 (talk • contribs).
:Actually, most people in the Republic of Azerbaijan refer to it as "South Azerbaijan", not just "a few Azeri nationalists". As for the fact that it's offensive to Iranians, see Wikipedia is not censored. The fact is that the term is still notable, and therefore belongs in the intro. Khoikhoi 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do, and I would appreciate if you didn't make personal attacks towards me. Khoikhoi 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NO POV PROPOGANDA!

message: This article is full of flaws. Tajik (his name being Tajik is also an indication of his Aryan-Persian orientation) has intentionally altered reality so that it creates a sense of "Persianized Azerbaijan". First of all there is no mention of Iranian Azerbaijan (or Southern Azerbaijan) as having any separate identity, no mention about their relations to Iran's history, especially to the Safavid and the Qajar, both being strongly related to the Azerbaijani people and also being Azerbaijanis, no mention about their own separate history or identity, and there is extremely little written, intentionally altered, about Azerbaijan and its Turkic origions.
No matter how Tajik would like to believe that Azerbaijan as a whole, and especially Iranian Azerbaijan in particular, is nothing and has never been nothing but one and a simple province of Persia that is either his lack of knowledge or his desire for exaggerating A Persianised Iran or Iran's Persian origins or past, ethnically speaking.
And regarding northern Azerbaijan, southern Azerbaijan, Arran etc it's not right to judge, but to report the fact as they are. Arran has been mentioned in some writings as being a land somewhere about the present-day Azerbaijan. Also Moghan is a land that has been mostly given to the republic of Azerbaijan and the rest is in present-day Iranian Azerbaijan. If the citizens of the republic of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis and they consider themselves to be Azerbaijanis then it's none of third parties' business to tell them that they have got it wrong, which they haven't. There is also a region inside the reublic of Azerbaijan called Arran and they can decide whenever they want to change its name. Iran's Persian chauvinism after the Pahlavis led to Iranian Azerbaijan being split into separate provinces especially to create weakness and an illusion of smallness. And it has worked to some extent. Why haven't all these very important issues been mentioned in the article? These things have affected the people of Azerbaijan's identity greatly. Another fact has been an intentional policy of discrimination against the promotion of Azerbaijan's language and culture so that as many Azerbaijanis as possible become Persianised. This has worked to a great extent as well. Another Iranian post-Pahlavi policy has been to invest as little as possible in Azerbaijani territorries, and therefore Azerbaijanis looking for jobs migrated heavily to moslty Persian areas such as Tehran and its surrounding towns and cities and also other areas of Iran. This policy of weakening Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan) has also worked to a great extent. Why hasn't the article mentioned any? It's clear that the editor is strongly biased. And the problem with the phrase "South Azerbaijan" being politically motivated is absurd and completely wrong because it is simple logic that as long as Azerbaijanis want to know from which part of the fences they come from they need to say either from north or south. It's just about differentiation. Now that there is independent state of Azerbaijan it is "politically motivated" to say that the name of the state should not be Azerbaijan. Iranian Azerbaijanis do not mind having the republic of Azerbaijan be called as it is. There are strong bonds between the two sides of the fences and there is also a growing sense of nationalism in both sides too. Why none of these have been mentioned??? The article is biased and very poor. --Bm79 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand what POV is? You talk of facts at the beginning but the rest of your post is inaccurate POV. Your not one to talk. The FACTS are what is in the article, deal with it.Azerbaijani 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article, biased, without essential facts! 

message: Let me paste one phrase from this "source" (reference numer 3) to make the point about the name Arran:
"And neither is "Azeri" the language of the people of Azarbaijan nor that of Aran. "Azeri" is one of the Iranian dialects, such as Kurdish, Lurish, Gillish, Mazandarani, Balouchi, Bakhtiari, and others."
This person who has written all those stuff, has just blatently put Azeri (Azeri is a new term, the people of Azerbaijan have always spoken AZERBAIJANI TURKIC) beside Kurdish, Luri etc to make the reader understand that the people of Azerbaijan speak some sort of a dialect of Farsi. I am surprised he didn't include Arabic there.
And reference number 4 is much worse than number 3. These sources are pure nonesense and mockery of science. I don't understand WHY, for God sake, proper Persians (the Fars) are so much keen to explain to US, Azerbaijanis, who we are? Just go do your own business!!! Why do you feel the need to re-write history and tell us who we are??? OK, we are part of Iran, but that's it. We have a lot of common traditions. This doesn't mean anything else. Azerbaijan has a language of its own, which is very similar to Turkish ans is the same in the republic of Azerbaijan and South Azerbaijan. There are dialects of Azerbaijani both inside Iranian Azerbaijan and also the republic of Azerbaijan as there dialects of Farsi in Isfahan, Shiraz and Mashad. Before forgetting let me paste this from reference numer 4, which is just absurd and whoever put this as a reference was either biased or completely unaware of the facts:
"Elchibey also failed to mention that Ismail was in fact Kurdish, and was an adherent of the ancient Sufi cults of western and northern Persia... Ismail also claimed to be descendant of the royal House of the Sassanian Empire." 
My God, are these two guys who have written some absolutely hillarious stuff on the web your sources??? Just get real for God sake!! These people are intentionally manipulating history to make it all "Persian" in its ethnic sense. The Turks of Turkey did similar things in Turkey by giving some complete nonesense to the Turks to arouse nationalism, but that was more than 80 years ago. Enoguh is enough! Bm79 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bm79, when you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make these changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. We're all here (well, most of us) to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources. Simply fix the article and cite your sources, and hopefully this article can be improved. Cheers, Khoikhoi 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to learn soon ;) I've had my account for a long time but never wrote anything until I saw this terribly distorted and poor article. I will try.Bm79 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please take a look at the references given in the article! Such pure rubbish!!! 

message: Before the Pahlavi regime there was a united Azerbaijan in Iran, but today there is no such entity whatsoever in Iran. There are provinces that are populated mainly by Azerbaijanis and there are other areas within other provinces (not majority Azerbaijani populated) that are populated by Azerbaijanis.
Who can write "Azarbaijan has an area of 176,512 square kilometers and a population of about 10 million (estimates vary)." while there is no Azerbaijan to measure???? This article has arbitrarily given numbers (precise numbers such as 176,512) that have nothing to do with anything. They are just guessworks. Begore the Pahlavi today's Qazvin was part of Azerbaijan and some other parts that have been cut have been given to other provinces that are not mostly Azerbaijani. I tried to edit the article but they were all reversed. Please back your writings with proof. All that is written here is POV gibberish. Azerbaijanis in Iran are more than 25% (more likely to be about a third of the population) of Iran's population and that is at least 17,5 million (more likely 22-25 million), from whom of course a large part live in Tehran and other cities that are not majority Azerbaijani, but as long as there is no such thing as Azerbaijan in Iran it is incorrect to give numbers, and it is also incorrect to make boundaries. The Iranian regime has divided Azerbaijan into smaller provinces in order to disunite the people and there is no Azerbaijan as such left in IRAN. Please review the article!!! Bm79 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Azerbaijan is an area, not a province! There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean, the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another. Now you are not only trying to take our land but take away our rightful name too? Stop with your POV edits all over the place!Azerbaijani 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not deny that there is Azerbaijan in Iran, and my edits wouldn't have denied that. But there is no limit, no boundaries to this area. How can you measure the largness, or the population of an area?? The area must be an accepted fact. Where does that area start and where does it end? There is no refernce to it. So we can delete any reference to surface and population. You are telling about my POV? Let me cite this "There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean, the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another." I am from Iranian Azerbaijan, so I cannot take anybody else's land, but I do not like seeing other put "fictitious" boundaries around my homeland. It is just about correctness, nothing else. Bm79 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about you didnt deny... You clearly said that there is no Azerbaijan! Do not edit the article with your POV again. The article is SOURCED and ACCURATE. There are no fictitious boundaries for Azerbaijan, because ultimatly it is part of Iran and will remain so. Where Azeri's live and where Azerbaijan has been located historically are TWO different things! And my statement about the republic is not POV, it is fact, if you knew anything about your own peoples history, or about the history of your country, Iran, like I do, then you would know the truth and not be so easily sucked in to propaganda.Azerbaijani 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually a detailed population provincial analysis has been carried in Iran.  In the Qajar era there was about 4 to 5 provinces in Iran but now there is 30 the most recent being North Khorasan, South Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan.  The population of predominant Azeri speaking in Iran can be ascertained from the provincial analysis. .  I am not source what the definition of Azerbaijan in Iran is actually, but if we are counting majority Azeri-speaking provinces then it is East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan.  West Azerbaijan or parts of it can be added as well.  If someone can count the square meters on this map , then that might be accurate.  --alidoostzadeh 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is NO AZERBAIJAN as a separate entity in Iran. This is false to say that there is a defined region or province in Iran called Azerbaijan because there isn't. I don't care about political statments that Azerbaijan is or will be or else from Iran or alike. Those do not have their place here. The article cannot have a source because I do not see anywhere in Iran any region that is officially called Azerbaijan. There was Azerbaijan during the Qajar that was made smaller pieces. I do not know what that Azerbaijan looked like. I would appreciate if someone found a reliable map. At this moment in time there is NO entity called Azerbaijan in Iran that can be measured. And if would like to add East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, Ardebil and Zanjan to make up Azerbaijan then we are being subjective because, as I said, there is no Azerbaijan as a clear territory in any official way. So we cannot add up provinces and call them Azerbaijan. Astara for example is in Gilan ans is mostly Azerbaijani. In West Azerbaijan there are large towns that are majority Kurd. And there are large areas within Hamedan and Qazvin that are majority Azerbaijani. Who is the writer of this article to define ONE CLEAR entity called Azerbaijan??? It is POV. Please edit, revise... Bm79 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, your beating a dead horse! See the articles such as Turkish Kurdistan... THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A PROVINCE! Why do you not understand this? This article is about historical Azerbaijan (not the fake Azerbaijan in the Caucasus). Its a general article, its not meant to be about a province, just as the Turkish Kurdistan article is not meant to be about a Kurdistan province in Turkey. Do you understand now or do you need further explanation?Azerbaijani 04:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at Turkish Kurdistan and you will not see exact data about how large the area is and what is the population. The republic of Azerbaijan is an established country and the name is Azerbaijan, recognised by the whole world and you are saying that it is fake? OK, history went this, came that etc, but the fact of the matter is that there is people of Azerbaijan and that this people of Azerbaijan live mainly in north-western Iran (no exact official data exists) and the republic of Azerbaijan. The exact data must be removed from the article so it is consistent with available factual data Bm79 04:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHATEVER NAME THEY WISH. That is what the pan Turkists did for the Republic of Azerbaijan and they were allowed to do that because everyone else was busy with WWI and its aftermath and the when the Soviets took the new country they kept the name as a means to an end (the end being turning Iran communist). In 1991, the UN asked the former Azerbaijan SSR to present evidence for the name of their country, and all they did was bring ONE VAGUE letter. Iran at that time had just come out of the war, was enemies with basically everyone, and didnt even bother to put up any type of resistance, because, well, the mullahs didnt care at all! The people are not the same. Tell me, if I start calling myself a Frenchman, does that make me an ethnic French man?Azerbaijani 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a part of this "article" of yours, or whoever wrote it: "Azarbaijan hails from a rich culture from Azari traditions." Have you ever heard of someone saying "My country (whatever name) hails from a poor culture from my country's traditions?" Have you ever heard someone saying their country is poor in culture or tradition or that their country, or region, is ugly? This article is a joke. It presents very few facts and the facts that are there are incorrect, because the size that is given is the size of four Iranian provinces that are mostly populated by Azerbaijanis but there is no Azerbaijan as a defined area in Iran. So we can write the facts as they are instead of inveting stuff. We can write that "there is no clear definition of an area, adminitrative district, province or territory named Azerbaijan in Iran. But there are mostly Azerbaijani populated provinces that prior to the Pahlavi consituted mostly what was known as Azerbaijan." This would be much more objective, or if someone else can come up with a better phrasing then that would be better. If you do not like that the republic of Azerbaijan is called Azerbaija, then again that is you issue. That part of Iran was cut off Iran about 200 years ago (more than 190 years ago) and at those times there were Kahantes in north-western iran and every relatively small area had a Kahanate. There was no Armenia for example, but some Khanates. Beside this, you are not a Frenshman, probably a mixed Azeri-Persian teenager or who knows. I don't care, but I doubt you have lived in Azerbaijan. I have lived in Azerbaijan and I know how things were when I lived there and all my relatives are Azerbaijanis, or mixed with Persians. And Iranian Azerbaijanis consider those in the republic of Azerbaijan as their and vice-versa. Bm79 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THIS IS THE LAST TIME I AM SAYING THIS, WIKIPEDIA HAS A NPOV POLICY. I just do not understand why you dont get this. Maybe someone should clarify to you what POV is.Azerbaijani 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to see a UN document in which they asked Azerbaijan "to present evidence for the name of their country". The UN archives are available online, so please quote the original source, and not Iranian nationalistic authors. Grandmaster 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such thing az Azerbaijan in IRAN 

message: Bm79, are you an unemployed teenager? If not, don't waste your time trying to edit anything. It's not worth it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable source, it is meant to be an alternative source. Readers know that Wikipedia is a continuously evoloving, not scientific, source of information and they are free to look for more information to find what they are looking for. 
As long as everybody is able to edit, you never know whether the editor is 12-15-18 year-old stubborn teenager or an informed scholar from a Western country. And because of this there are no scholars doing editing here. This is the realm of the 'unemployed teenagers' as I would call. Young people start to learn a few things and they think they are right about those things and they do not tolerate anyboy disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them they will call you names and they will insult you. This makes Wikipedia full of teenagers who are emotionally attached to some articles they think are correct and if you touch those articles they will insult you and of course immediately they will change the edits. These youngsters usually have nothing to do, guys without girlfriends, without a job and often with personal and social problems. And these problems are reflected on the fact they spend all day on the Internet.
Regarding this article I can say that I agree with Bm79. I am from Romania and I know a few friends ehere who are from Iranian Azerbaijan. That was why I was interested about Azerbaijan and I talked to them about these things. As far as I have got to know, after researching a lot, I could not find any reliable Western, or even Iranian, academic or official source to say anything about any Azerbaijan in Iran as any province, official area or alike. As far as I have understood Iranian Azerbaijan is just like Turkish Kurdistan. It is unknown how big it is and what is its population. So, it seems to be that writing exact data about Iranian Azerbaijan is inaccurate. More clarification is needed. And the article gives me the sense that it is not unbiased and it focuses too little on Azerbaijan as such and too much on proving the links between Azerbaijan and Iran, or Persians. I didn't need these political issues to read. I wanted to know about Iranian Azerbaijan as such.
grumpy tennagers, if you feel the need to insult me, go ahead and shoot. I don't respons, I never edit on Wikipedia, and I don't mind insults. Claudiusorin 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot create another account Bm79.Azerbaijani 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably what you usually do. Stick to your computer, it's good for you. Good luck!Bm79 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unemployed teenager, human bugs of Wikipedia 

message: These are phrases from Columbia Encyclopedia I would like to refer to the this article and make relevant changes. In case anyone has any opposition please discuss! I think some parts of the article have been originally taken from the same source, though some parts omitted. 
According to Columbia Encyclopedia:
"The majority of the people of Azerbaijan are Turkic-speaking Azeris, who are Shiite Muslims. There are also Armenians, Kurds, Jews, and Persians."
From the sentence above "Turkic-speaking" has been removed.
"The Seljuk Turks dominated the region in the 11th and 12th cent., and the Mongols under Hulagu Khan established (13th cent.) their capital at Maragheh. After being conquered by Timur in the 14th cent., Tabriz became an important provincial capital of the Timurid empire. It was out of Ardebil that the Safavid dynasty arose (c.1500) to renew the state of Persia. There was fierce fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Persia for Azerbaijan. After brief Ottoman control, Abbas I, shah of Persia, regained control of the region in 1603."
And "Persianized" has been added before Seljuk, which is not the same as written at the Columbia Encyclopedia. "Ancient Artvilla" has been added, which also does not exist in the original source. 
And follows "Azerbaijan remained entirely in the possession of the shahs until the northern part was ceded to Russia in the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmanchai (1828). The remainder was organized as a province of Persia; in 1938 the province was divided into two parts. In 1941, Soviet troops occupied Iranian Azerbaijan; they were withdrawn (May, 1946) after a Soviet-supported, autonomous local government had been created. Iranian troops occupied the region in Nov., 1946, and the autonomous movement was suppressed." in which it is clearly mentioned that Azerbaijan also included the area (northern Azerbaijan) that was ceded to Russia. What was ORGANIZED as a province of Persia. Please make note that prior to this Azerbaijan was a united "region" (not organized province) that included northern territories that were ceded to Russia. After that there was created an organized Azerbaijan PROVINCE in Iran, which does not exist today any more.
However the source also says that "Azerbaijanä′′ zĕrbījän′ , ă′′ zər–, Iran. Azarbayejan, region, c.34,280 sq mi (88,785 sq km), NW Iran, divided into the provinces of East Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 3,325,540), West Azerbaijan (1996 pop. 2,496,320), and Ardabil (1996 pop. 1,168,011). The chief cities include Tabriz (the capital of East Azerbaijan), Urmia (the capital of West Azerbaijan), Ardebil (the capital of Ardabil), Maragheh, and Khoy (Khvoy). The region is bounded in the N by Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan (from which it is separated by the Aras River) and in the W by Turkey and Iraq." According to this source "Azerbaijan, the region" is made up of three provinces, West and East Azerbaijan and Ardebil. The editor of this article has, again, put "Zanjan" there and changed the text. I propose that as long as there is no clear-cut official, Iranian or internationl, boundaries or limits for Azerbaijan in Iran we leave the size and the population as being unspecified. 
I would like to know whether it is OK to edit. Please check the source by yourselves! Bm79 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Columbia Encyclopedia 

message: I would like to discuss about the size and the population. If we are going to accept Columbia Encyclopedia, which was the original text from which excerpts were taken out, cut, added on, and parts re-written, then we shall put the text as it is written in the original source. That source does not mention Zanjan. I think we either need to write as the original source or keep the size and the population unspecified because as long as there is no source to prove and size or population for a region we cannot make up numbers. As I know it is important to have reliable sources rather than what we, or others, think is true. All Iranians know that Azeri population live far beyond the four provinces that are mentioned in the article, but Kurds are a large proportion of the population of West Azardaijan, so those areas that are majority Kurdish in West Azardaijan may be considered, as a region, Iranian Kurdistan rather than Azerbaijan. But if we are speaking about provinces, then there is no province as Azerbaijan. Please give objective arguments so we can improve the article. Thank you! Bm79 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size and population! 

message: This article needs changes, not accusations. If this member Azerbaijani believes that I am someone else that is his problem but stop accusing and reversing and bring arguments. I verified the sources and they are valid. I look at the source, Encyclopedia Columbia, and saw that the data I changed to were more accurate. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, please bring arguments. I am no other member, and stop personal attacks! Scorpionf007 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation instead of changes 

message: This is a dispute about the texts in this article, Azerbaijan (Iran).
I discovered where this article had been copied from, Encyclopedia Columbia, and have written my findings above. I invited anyone to discuss changes after that but no-one replied. Then proceeded to edit. After proceeding to edit the edits were reversed. The original text, from Columbia, has not been copied directly but after being changed, about which I have written above (the title "Columbia Encyclopedia"). It seems that there are editors who do not like what Encyclopedia Columbia has written but they do not bring arguments. I am new here so I may make mistakes and I need some assistance too. My edits have not been successful and I do not have any member who disagrees to talk to in a civilised and argumentative way. There is a link in which there is clear citation from Columbia (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/AzerbjIrn) and the same text can also be found at the link mentioned in the article (http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/AzerbjIrn.html) and looking at this source, Columbia Encyclopedia, it is just stunningly clear what parts have been changed intentionally. It is unmistakably clear that the text of this article has been taken from this source (Columbia Encyclopedia) though drastically altered, which is in violation of the property rights of the original source. I would appreciate if someone impartial could help out. Thank you! Bm79 03:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This apparently goes back to October 2005, when  created the Azarbaijan article. In January 2006, the content was merged into this article. I've posted something about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Very old copyvio. Khoikhoi 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to deal with this we're going to have to - I know it's a mess - roll back almost a year of edits, back to January 2006 before the offending material was merged in, and then start re-adding any non-copyvio sections which have been added since. I'll do this now, and leave those familiar with the page to polish it. Shimgray | talk | 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Mainly had to cut the history and provinces/cities sections - both will need recreated from scratch. We can use the Columbia material as a source, but we can't copy-and-paste its text. Shimgray | talk | 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not an expert at Wikipedia, but can I start? I can take that as a source and write it in an original sense if that is OK. Bm79 04:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, should be fine. Use it as a framework to work from, but don't use their words, and then note them as the source. Shimgray | talk | 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do my best, but if you've got time, later on, take a look and see the result because I am quite new, and as the altered version had shown there are individuals who are quite intent on keeping things a bit different. Thanks :) Bm79 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Azerbaijan (Iran) 

message: My fellow Iranians, please be more open and discuss changges before doing them. I had no-one to talk to about the dubious content and I had to do hard work to find out that the content was a copy-right violation. After re-writing the article it didn't take more than a few minutes that someone came and changed the article back to somewhere about where it was when it was a copy/vio. Me fellow Iranians are very keen in emphasising and highlighting two things about Azerbaijan: 1) that it is as Persian (opposed to Turkic) as possible, 2) that there has never been anything called Azerbaijan to the north of the present-day Azerbaijan. Believe me that I have no love or special interest in proving my opinion. This website is supposed to be an open-source unbiased and SOURCED encyclopedia. So we need to have some proof when writing something. And we cannot use words such as "liberation" or "ugly" or "beautiful" or "incorrect" as been affirmative or infirmative. We need to bring RELIABLE proof when we write something and when the proof is not reliable then mention opposing suggestions so that the reader decides. I am an Iranian myself if anyone is curious and if you are really really curious ask me whatever you want in Fasiye khodemun!! But let's not make fun of us and write'edit objectively and unbiasedly without nationalistic feelings! Discuss changes before making them please. Thanks! Bm79 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future edits

message: Please do not remove this part. It is so important that it was mentioned in Encyclopedia Columbia even if the source was short and there was no mention of Arran there. I am asking editors not to politicise this (and other) articles but unfortunately, little use. If there are political views we shall write all involved views, not just one. And I am trying to dicuss changes but I am not finding counterparts to talk to!? Bm79 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  == Removal of the part related to the north of Azerbaijan == 

message: Surly the right spelling should be Azarbaijan! Kiumars 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the international spelling of the name Azerbaijan, which can be found in Iranica and many other places. Why change it to Azarbaijan? Roazir 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong! It is spelled both with “a” and “e”, Iranian Azaris accent uses “a” and the Rep Azeris use “e”! And as this article is about the Iranian Azarbaijan it must be spelled with “a”! Kiumars 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for welcoming me! Are there reliable sources for that? I know northern Azerbaijanis, and I am Azerbaijani from Iran, and I am quite sure that all Azerbaijanis pronounce "Azarbaydjan" (with "a" as per "aroosak" in Persian or Farsi). I believe it is only about English writing. The spelling on both sides of the border is identical. However Turks from Turkey do not have the "a" (like in aroosak) Azerbaijanis have and they pronounce it differently. Roazir 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roazir 20:26, 13 February 2007; the article explains the different spelling at the beginning of the article. By the way, there are 4 “a”s in Azarbaijan; and 3 of them sound like “a” in “aroosak” then how come only one of them is replaced with “e”? See the “a” after “b” and the “a” after “j”. They should spell it Azerbejen or even Ezerbejen then!     Kiumars 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I know, referring to my own native language, and all the sources available, is that both Azerbaijanis from the republic and from Iran pronounce the word Azerbaijan exactly identical, something like Azarbaydjan. However, due to various reasons, the International community has adopted the word Azerbaijan (probably becasue of Soviet or even some Iranian or Turkish writings). I don't see any valid reason to make a differentiation. Maybe some Iranian, or Iranian sources, prefer to call Iranian Azerbaijan "Azarbaijan" but I cannot really comprehend why. In Azerbaijani Turkic langauge there is a (like in mah) and there is ə (like in aroosak). Roazir 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roazir 14:26, 14 February 2007; I just Googled for Azarbaijan and had over 286,000 results, including: encyclopedias, iranchamber, Farhangsara, Universities, Restaurants, Shops, etc, etc. The references to Azerbaijan seem to be all pointing to the Rep. Of Azerbaijan WebPages/sources. By the way, this article is about Iranian Azarbaijan not how some people (in this case the Azaris) pronounce “Ze” or “Che” or “Ghaf”, over all I can safely say that the vast majority of the Iranians (that is all non-Azaris, including Fars, Kurds, Lurs, Gilak, etc) pronounce it Azarbaijan so it should be Azarbaijan to reflect the most common pronunciation. Don’t you agree? After all we would not change the spelling of other Iranian names just because Esfahanis pronounce them differently in their beautiful accent! Do we? Have you seen any of Arhame Saddar’s theatres? If we follow his charming accent we have to rewrite the whole dictionary! Kiumars 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's agree on one thing: THE CORRECT PRONOUNCIATION is NOT Azerbaijan (it is Azarbaydjan) for the word "Azerbaijan". The word has only been agreed upon in ENGLISH. The people of the republic of Azerbaijan write like this: Azərbaycan (which reads exactly as the Azerbijanis in Iran do). The results that come up on Google are consistent to Iranian sources that have used AZARBAIJAN spelling for a very long time (before there wa the independent state of Azerbaijan) but they are often related to the provinces of West Azarbaijan and East Azarbaijan. So long as the English Encyclopedia goes it is appropriate to use sources that are in accordance with the English-speaking world. Do you have reliable and neutral sources that write "Azarbaijan" referring to Iranian areas populated with Azerbaijanis people? And so long as we, from the region, also know very well that Azerbaijan or Azrabiajn is all the same thing why to make one Azerbaijan and the other Azarbaijan? English-speaking people call one Azerbaijan and the other Iranian Azerbaijan. I don't see why we would disagree with that. Azerbaijan or Azarbaijan is the same thing anyway. I don't live in Iran. I left Iran a very long time ago. Roazir 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Roazir]] 17:26, 14 February 2007; No, that cannot be right! Let’s see; let’s break it to syllables Azarbaydjan = A.zar.bay.djan, can you see the problem? “bay” does not sound right! Any English speaking person reading that would pronounce it like the English word Bay! All Iranian scholars abroad spell it Azarbaijan, I already gave you a few names like iranchamber and Farhangsara! Kiumars 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the article is called Azerbaijan (Iran)?

message: I notice an edit war over the inclusion of a response to the Iranian theory.  It is only fair to include the opposing side's view as well, so the inclusion should be permitted.  Neutrality & proper weight is important, of course, so both sides should be represented as claims.  No side should be portrayed as "the truth" while the other side is simply "a claim," because the issue is definitely not so clear cut.  So, include the opposing view, and simply neutralize the wording.  Same thing for the current view, the 'Iranian theory'.  If both sides are presented neutrally there should be no problem here.  The Behnam 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur. Khoikhoi's persistent reversions are also replacing such -er- novel spellings as "equpiments" and "dinstinct". Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The introduction has nothing to do with ananian theory. The sources Pmanderson is using are being misinterpreted, or he is making use of sources written in this century. He might as well use a UN map to justify his claim... it makes no sense. Also, the term South Azerbaijan is only 60-70 years old. If these two regions were indeed one, there would be atleast one text after the Russian take over of the Caucasus that referred to Iranian Azerbaijan as "South Azerbaijan".Azerbaijani 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the best way to resolve such an issue which has appeared in many articles related to the word Azerbaijan is simply to put the controversial stuff in history of the name Azerbaijan.  For example there is no need to put in main Azerbaijan  that a good deal of sources consider it Arran or even some consider it Armenia.  Likewise the name Souther Azerbaijan is not official name. [].  It is like putting Ibn Wazih Yaqubi or Ibn Fiqiyeh considered the territory of modern day Azerbaijan as part of Armenia.   I think the article should start with:  Azerbaijan in Iran is a non-official name which encompasses East Azerbaijan, Ardabil..etc.  for the history and geographical boundaries of this name see [history of the name azerbaijan article].. pretty much like the article with Azerbaijan republic.  The issue is much more complicated than insertion of one or two POV forks.   --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a relegation to the appropriate page as well, similar to our decision at Azerbaijan.  However, if any of the views are included here, it is only fair to include both.  If you think that the issue isn't necessary to mention on this page, it is best to keep all of the controversy at the 'history of the name Azerbaijan' page.  Of course, both sides should received fair representation on that page as well, but as far as this page goes, it is acceptable that the controversial views be left elsewhere.  The Behnam 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I totally agree.  This is what we did long time with the republic of Azerbaijan page when there was that Arran/Azerbaijan issue and it seems to have gotten rid of all the edit wars.  And again we did this in the case of Rasulzadeh (which was not an interest of mine, but I did not see the purpose of having debate about him in multiple pages) as well again since now the Azerbaijan republic page is not being vandalized and at least the debate is kept in one article where both sides can give their view.  So I think editors need to reach concensus with this regard.  Adding for example Azerbaijan republic is part of Armenia due to some historical sources or using the term Southern Azerbaijan which was created in the last century and was politically motivated according to some sources or etc.. is really just one POV.  There are other POVs.  In fact there are many many POVs.  Just like Artsakh for example is not official in the republic of Azerbaijan.  It is similar issue here, and instead of discussing the region, people will be copying and pasting everything they like (not dislike) from  into whatever suits their need which is the last thing that is needed and I think responsible wikipedians need to minimize conflicts and edit wars.  Thus I think the suggestion is the best to minimize conflicts about an issue that should be discussed in one article only.  --alidoostzadeh 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim & claim to the contrary 

message: There is a complicated article (which needs more work) in wiki called history of the name Azerbaijan [].  A while back there was lots of edit warring between some users (I was not part of it) in the article of republic of Azerbaijan   about geographical boundaries and etc.  Not only in that article, but in many many other articles.  Thus it was suggested to move it all to the history of the name Azerbaijan.  Again in the Azerbaijan republic article, there was debate about the nature of Musvat party and thus it was suggested that the debate be moved in the article which was created for that purpose.  Pouring the same debate in multiple articles just exacberates r.v. wars and also is totally unnecessary when there is a special purpose article created for the same reason.  Thus it looks like the user Behnam agreed with my proposal to move the debate here:[].  I'll await other suggestions and that is what needs to be done.  --alidoostzadeh 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the fact that Grandmaster and several other users agreed to the exact same compromise on the Republic of Azerbaijan article, they are probably also in support of this. I also support this proposal, again, because it was done on the Republic of Azerbaijan article.Azerbaijani 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay good.  Behnam also supports it.  I see no reason why the same issue should be discussed in multiple articles when there is one specific article devoted to the topic.  That is what happened with the republic of Azerbaijan article as you mention and so this seems like the natural way to proceed.  The multiple number of sources which can easily number to a hundred about Arran, Azerbaijan, Armenia..etc. is not the objective of this article.  --alidoostzadeh 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like the article was locked.  I do not mind the current edition.  The rest belongs to the other mentioned article.  --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also worth looking at by all users: .  --alidoostzadeh 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the name Azerbaijan 

message: I wanted to see this article progress and report on the true Azerbaijan of Iran and it's people, rather then get stuck over stupid arguments, like whether it should be spelt as "Azarbaijan" or "Azerbaijan". When you look up "Azerbaijan" in the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition[], you will not only find an entry about the Republic of Azerbaijan but also one of the region of Iran (and its spelled "Azerbaijan):
"A historical region in present-day northwest Iran and Azerbaijan. It was settled by the Medes before the 8th century B.C. and later became a province of the Persian Empire. It became a separate kingdom after the death of Alexander the Great, but the region was much disputed and eventually conquered by Arabs (7th century), Turks (10th century), and Mongols (13th century). Persia controlled the region after 1603."
Both Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan are used to refer to this region and both should be mentioned however "Azerbaijan" (Iranian Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan of Iran) is the most common way of spelling when it comes to academic writing. So it should be the one we use throughout the article.
I see the phrase "The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who are the Turkified descendants of ethnic Iranians". And I feel bad. only one; Irano-centric, POV is stated here and with no source. The study that follows (if it's meant to be the source) doesn't prove turkification since Azerbaijani-turks and Anatolian-turks are from two different turkic-peoples. Just like Turkmens, Kazakhs, and the rest. However these Turkic-peoples identity (in regards to being turk) is not being attacked like those of Azerbaijani-turks from iran. It should be noted that this Turkification theory is also the one that the education system in Iran is trying to sell to its people. Again, not that this perspective shouldn't be mentioned, but that other significant perspecitves (with reliable sources) should also be expressed.
Further many ancestors of Turkish people (from Turkey) today adopted being "Turk". So comparing the DNA of Azeris and Turks of Turkey is, in many cases, pointless and non-conclusive..
I quote Who are The Turks by Justin McCarthy and Carolyn McCarthy (a book about the Turks of Turkey)[]:
"Greeks, Kurds, Armenian, and others shared the land, and many of them adopted the Turkish language, and converted to Islam (forced conversians were almost unknown), and became "Turks themselves. Because the Turks had no concept of "race" that would exlude anyone, they accepted those who whished to be Turks as Turks. The Turkish people were thus made up of the descendants of the Turks of Central Asia and those who had become Turks."
Here is another source in support of an alternative perspective:
Genetic Structure of Iranian-Speaking Populations from Azerbaijan Inferred from the Frequencies of Immunological and Biochemical Gene Markers:[]
"the genetic structure of the populations examined with the other Iranian-speaking populations (Persians and Kurds from Iran, Ossetins, and Tajiks) and Azerbaijanis showed that Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan were more close to Azerbaijanis, than to Iranian-speaking populations inhabiting other world regions"
As you can see there are sources that supported alternative views. However the editors of this page have decided to mention a "turkification" of Iranian Azeris, and in doing so alternative perspective of this proportion and significants should be added. Otherwise the article remains one-sided (POV).  I think it's more important to focus on things like our culture, famous Azeri people,  history, current events, and so on. But as mentioned before this article is "a joke" in its corrent state. After the article is fair and balanced it should be open to the people. Both sides regarding Turkification should be expressed and sourced. --- Farzinf 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is another study in regards to comparing Azeri and Turkish DNA. Again, I don't want to push one perspective. I want to have both perspectives expressed.: [] --- Farzinf 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if the turkification theory is being thought in Iranian school.. where?  Although turkification theory is mentioned by lots of scholars..for example Golden and Iranica and Britannica and arguably the number of Turks entering Azerbaijan was small or else Azeris would be more like.  Note this article: .  Although not from an official government website and the site just collects articles, I believe I have seen this or similar mentioned in actual textbook or official website.  Personally I think all these opinions about origin should go to Azerbaijani people and Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis and similar articles.  What is the use of covering the same information in multiple articles? I fully believe the article should be locked until there is full concensus about all the issues.  Thus it might take months or it can take a day, but this way is better.  --alidoostzadeh 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "or else Azeris would be more like." What do you mean by this? Regarding Iran's education system I will try to find a source asap. And the article at http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/iranian_ethnic_groups.php mentions both theories of the origins of Iranian Azerbaijanis. Yet both are not stated in this article making it..P.O.V.! anyhow the user Azerbaijani considers the Turkification theory as fact. He said "It's not POV, it is supported by a Cambridge University study." Studies don't always result in conclusive non-debatable facts.And when there's legitimate sourced contrarian information it shouldn't be censored like this! --- Farzinf 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All major encyclopaedia's agree that Azeri's were Turkified. Keep your original research out of this.Azerbaijani 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Farzinf ..I meant look like turkemens.  Since Turkemens speak a pure Oghuz dialect with vowel harmony and 18 vowels .  As per the current article.. I think lots of is covered else where.  There is no need to discuss similar topics in multiple articles.. That is really a general wiki rule.  --alidoostzadeh 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates  over minor issues have caused this article to be blocked 

message: As I noted on the latest reverters talk pages, further reverts on this page will lead to blocks. You must use this talk page to discuss your disagreements. Restarting the same edit war after weeks of protection and no discussion here only serves to show that you are unreasonable, and that protection won't help you resolve the conflict. Consider this the warning. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll start discussion about my bit.  The Behnam 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: As I previously discussed at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)#Azari v. Azeri Proposal, the English language uses "Azer-" not "Azar-", so "Azer-" is the spelling that should be used in this article.  I see it is part of edit wars and I can only conclude that this is some really trivial nationalistic point, but there is no fighting with the fact that the English language uses "Azer-".  As it is incontestably more proper than "Azar-" there is no reason to use "Azar-" here except in the titles of sources that use "Azar-".
Anyway, I'd like to see if we can establish consensus on this spelling once and for all so that we don't have to edit war further on the matter.  The previous discussion seemed to die with User:Kiumars but I think it is time to reach a resolution. Please tell me where you all stand.  The way I see it, this not only conforms with English language standards but also prevents unnecessarily offending Azeri editors and readers, while in no way detracting from article.  I think it is best that we agree on "Azer-" and stick to it.  The Behnam 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Iranian region and "Azar-" is the most common and official Iranian spelling which is also common in English, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. This is all a matter of opinion, there is no "proper" English form for a name or word that's not English to begin with. There are hundreds of academic books in English that use the term "Azarbaijan" . If published academics use it in English, you're in no position to call it "improper". --Mardavich 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think both names are fine and can be mentioned.  Ferdowsi and Nezami call it آذرآبادگان (Azar-Abaadegaan in their poetry).  Perhaps the variety of pronounciations should be mentioned.  --alidoostzadeh 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but they used Persian language.  In English, the proper term is "Azer-"; Farzin even showed an Iranian university that respected this English standard.  And I believe that our previous 'Google comparison' brought in way more results for "Azer-" so its sort of a moot point on your part.  Also, did you notice this in your search, "Did you mean: Azerbaijan"? Hmm.  The Behnam 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as mention goes, I believe it should go in parentheses in the beginning as the 'Persian version', so to speak.  The Behnam 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Google search result is not a basis, as I'm sure all of you have heard of the "French victories" Google search (which used to say "did you mean French defeats").Azerbaijani 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Azarbaijan is not just the Persian form, it's also used by Iranian Azeris, and it's also common in English. As I illustrated earlier, there are at least 578 books in English that use the term "Azarbaijan", that fact alone refutes any arguments you may have that the term is "not proper" or "not standard" in English. Published authors don’t use "improper" terms. --Mardavich 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True since the word is not English.  My suggestion though was more for having the older pronounciations as well like the oldest modern Persian form آذرآبادگان --alidoostzadeh 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is becoming a repeat of the previous discussion.  Next I should mention how English dictionaries have "Azeri" but not "Azari" and all that jazz.  Since this is English WP, let's favor the most prevalent (in dictionaries for that matter) usage, "Azer-", while simply mentioning "Azar-" for the parenthetical Persian note at the top and for historical/etymology mention.  You all should consider the fact that Azeri people show up here offended by the Azar usage too, so going to with the actual English words isn't a bad idea to prevent that as well.  The Behnam 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mardavich is Azeri himself.  Even Persian or English dialects might pronounce words differently.  But I had a different comment altogether.  My perspective was that we should also have the archaic Persian version of آذرآبادگان somewhere in the begining of the article as well.  Since this form is used in classical Persian literature.  --alidoostzadeh 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that should be mentioned, perhaps as part of the etymology I mentioned.  While it is clear that some aren't offended here, there have been others.  I see no reason to stick with a usage that not is is not English but also has caused controversy when we can simply go with the English word.  The Behnam 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is becoming a repeat of the previous discussion because you keep repeating yourself instead of listening to others. There is no "actual English word" for a word that's not English. The usuage "Azer" might be more prevalent when refering to the country of Azerbaijan, but this article is about an Iranian region whose official name is "Azarbaijan" which is also commonly used in English. And why are you speaking on behalf of Azeri people, I am Azeri and I am not offended by the name Azarbaijan, I support it. --Mardavich 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However I agree that references to the country of Azerbaijan and the language in the article should be changed to "Azer-". The Iranian region though can be called Azarbaijan for reasons I provided above. --Mardavich 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't "speak on their behalf", I just mention a trend I have observed.  Anyway, "Azar" is not an actual part of the English language while "Azer" is.  I think I may seek outside opinions.  You know, from outside of the 'Middle East" box.  The Behnam 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "Azar is not an actual part of the English language", then why are there so many academic papers and books in English that use the term? --Mardavich 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These "so many" books are probably using it for specialized contexts.  I consider English dictionaries a good source for what words are in English or not.  This article is for the general English Wikipedia so it is best to use actual English.  So, why have you been so particular on keeping "Azar" anyway?  The Behnam 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are these "specialized contexts" you're speaking of? Please cite an example. As far the results show, the books are using the term as the name of the region, and not in any particular context. I'm particular on keeping "Azar" because that's the correct native name. --Mardavich 06:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mardavich, this is English Wikipedia.  We use the English names, not the native names.  Sorry.  The Behnam 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but in this case, the the native transliteration is also common in English, it generates 361,000 results on google , and 578 results on google books. --Mardavich 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned in the previous discussion, you can find completely foreign words written in English script, like "mikonam", though I admit that it is sometimes used in English.  But we have already run this comparison before; "Azer-" type words get way more hits.  Again, let's stick to English words, such as those found in English dictionaries.  Thanks.  The Behnam 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a big argument.  Looks like the current solution is not bad since it repeats itself several times when a new term comes in till etymology and usage when it sticks with azerbaijan. My suggestion was to also add آذرآبادگان per classical literature.  I am taking a wiki break till monday but I hope you guys reach an agreement and everyone looks at that. --alidoostzadeh 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, the word originally has its root in Old Iranian/Persian and not English or Azerbaijani, and it is more commonly pronounced as Azarbaijan in Iran. --Mardavich 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to mention under etymology.  The Behnam 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason Abseron doesn't compare is because there is not English version of the word.  But "Azer-" words are actually found in  the English language so they should be king in pertinent articles.  It is good that you don't think it is a big deal but unfortunately other users do, for vague reasons.  I don't think it should be a big deal to change in article in English Wikipedia to use the actual English spelling of certain words.  Thanks for being polite.  The Behnam 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just thought I'd put my two cents in, I dont really want to get involved in this, but may I ask which users are offended by the term Azarbaijan? It doesnt matter what they think because they must keep a neutral point of view, and if we are to take your word for it, they are not doing that, and are complaining about the usage for personal reasons, correct?Azerbaijani 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim to establish consensus on English language standard 

message: There has not been any consensus yet.  But Bourtounian (some portions in Safavid era), Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan article (which does not define borders), Tirumid Persia is not B.C. times.  Furthermore, what the argument was that the name “Southern Azerbaijan” is a new name.  Only Yaqubi so far has been mentioned something close upper/lower azerbaijan and he puts Maragheh at the center of upper Azerbaijan which does not correspond really to today’s convention.  Yaqubi also mentions Arran as part of Armenia twice in other passages which I have brought already.  Furthermore, one should note that there is an extensive article dealing with the Arran, Azerbaijan  borders which were fluid.  By the principle of : [], that section needs to removed.  Admitingly the boundary between Arran/Shervan, Armenia, Azerbaijan were fluid but for example Britannica 1911, 8 maps I have and 1890 Russian encyclopedia do not consider them the same.  The argument though is that the name "South Azerbaijan" to designate Iran's Azerbaijan is not historical name, it was a product of the last century.  If the argument is wrong or right, it should be in its own article.  Also if we are going B.C. it is the name Atropatekan or some derivative of that.  But the only reference is from soviet encyclopedia which itself should quote a primary source and even in that source, Nakhchivan is a small territory and one can not consider present day Iranian Azerbaijan as "South" Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan as "north" Azerbaijan.  Also DNA/origin stuff has its own article and needs to be moved to there.  Also the sentence: The majority of the people of Azarbaijan are Azaris people who were originally of Caucasian ethnic stock, but were later Iranified and Turkified.  Assuming true, Iranified happened from at least Scythian/Mede times up to the Seljuqs.  This makes it seem like the chronological order was the same which is not true.  Frye/Tapper mention Turkification of Iranian population in Iranica and Shahsevan.    We need to make sure the chronological order is taken into account.  Also about Manna language we do not simply know enough to classify it right now as caucasian although weather Manna kingdom extended to all of Iranian Azerbaijan is questionable.   --alidoostzadeh 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Frye quote of Adil in full as well as added Britannica.  Also I removed the POV fork with regards to the naming issue.  None of the sources mentioned said there was a designation by the entity "South Azerbaijan".  None of them mentioned B.C. either with the possible exception of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia which is not considered a neutral source in many wikipedia threads and google searches.  But assuming Nakhchivan as part of Atropatene (would like to see primary source), I doubt it was designated Northern Atropatene.  There needs primary sources.  But regardless for Atropatene and B.C. era there needs to be a primary source.  According to this secondary source Atropatene was separatd by Armenia with the river aras. .  Anyways as I have repeated that section has its own article.  I also propose removing the origin and DNA section to the relevant articles which there exists already.  Note I am being neutral here since my own POV would support putting DNA stuff but I see no reason when it is repeated in Azerbaijani people and this article is more about a historic region. --alidoostzadeh 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I was able to get the Encyclopedia of Islam article on Azarbaijan.  I think it is best to follow Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam and make this an academic article.  With regards to some issues like 1) Pishevari 2) DNA..etc. 3) detailed origins of Azeri people 4) historical borders of Azerbaijan.. there exists specific articles.  So one can refer to those articles which is in reality following wiki policy.  --alidoostzadeh 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Hamadan from the list since Hamadan city is Persian speaking.  The next three big cities are also not Turkic speaking: Malayer, Nahavand, Towiskaran.  But there are Azeri speakers in Razan/Bahar/Kabudar-ahang but then again there are Azeris in Tehran as well.  Also the article by Nassib Nassibli is not NPOV and he is an Azeri ambassador and not full Professor or academic.  He is talking about oil pipeline and modern politics.  The fact is there is no boundaries for Azerbaijan in Iran since it is not an official region.  But this designation has has had fluctuating borders throughout time but for now since it is not official, the general conception is that it refers to NW Iran.  Nassibli says pretty much the same:is in North-West Iran.--alidoostzadeh 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also left the North Azerbaijan designation (although gets very little hits compared to the republic of azerbaijan or azerbaijan in general), but added Western Kurdistan (Eastern part of Turkey) and Southern Kurdistan (Northern Iraq).--alidoostzadeh 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment again

message: This page needs a map.It would be more helpful.A lingusitic map may be.
::Hi please sign
::Here are three: [] [][]--alidoostzadeh 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The geography and provinces section overlap greatly.  I believe they should be merged.  --alidoostzadeh 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A MAP IS REQURİED 

message: The information here suggests that Iranian Azeris cluster with Persians, yet the article on Azerbaijani people suggests that Azeris cluster closely with other Caucasian groups rather than Iranian-speakers. Certainly there are going to be genetic differences between Azeris in Iran and Azeris in Azerbaijan, so perhaps that should be taken into account at the main article. Atashparast 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes and no. Iranian Azeri's cluster with other Iranic peoples, while Azeri's in the Republic of Azerbaijan cluster with other Caucasians. This makes sense, because the Medes settled in Iranian Azerbaijan, while the Caucasus was always predominantly Caucasian. Therefore, when the region was Turkified, the Caucasian speakers became Turkic speakers, and the Iranic speakers became Turkic speakers (it took several centuries for this to happen). Then, the term Azerbaijani started coming into use in the 19th century I believe. Your right, the Azerbaijani people article has a lot of problems and they will be fixed soon hopefully.Azerbaijani 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problem with the Azerbaijani people article is that it does not differentiate between the Azeris of Iran and the Azeris of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Whether this is a result of nationalistic editing or what have you, I don't know, but such a generalization is inappropriate. Though they speak the same languages, they are apparently not the same people. This is also evident in the fact that Iranian Azeris look distinctly different from Azeris in the Republic. Thus, to generalize both groups in a single article is akin to merging the article on Tajiks with Persians - both speak the same language, but are ethnically distinct from one another. I will such issues to others to sort out as most of the sources that I am compiling are mostly concerned with linguistic and ethnic demography, but these are my recommendations. Atashparast 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys this article is about Azerbaijan region within Iran.  Azeri people (See the article Azerbaijani people), Kurdish people(See the article Azerbaijani Kurds) and etc. has its own article.  This is an article about a non-official historic geographic region and its history.--alidoostzadeh 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Azerbaijani people (at least the genetics section) mostly relates to Azeris of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is the point I was making above. The information in this article contradicts the information in that one. Atashparast 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still the place for the proper edit since this article is about a region.  You can put your information there.  Since this article is about a region inhabited by various groups of people, the DNA stuff about a particular group should be  be moved to a more appropriate article.  --alidoostzadeh 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the information per your suggestion. Atashparast 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you removed too much information in some places but I have restored some of it... My suggestion was just a suggestion although it was up to other users as well.  But it seems more appropriate that genetics should be discussed somewhere else.  --alidoostzadeh 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a quote from Akbar Aghajanian's article in International Journal of Middle East Studies to reflect the population of East Azarbayjan in geography section. Thanks. Atabek 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is from 1983. Could you not find anything more recent?Azerbaijani 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the source is out-dated but the demographic data is correct.  Specially since Ardabil a recent province was a portion of East Azerbaijan.  Also the word which is use in this article is "Azerbaijani" since for average wikipedia reader "Turk" means people of Turkey.  I'll keep the data about demographics since there is no dispute on it but it should be under the "people section" not geography.  Qashqai's for the most part speak a dialect very similar to Azeri but I am not sure if they are grouped as Azeri's or not.  Iranica  has a more recent article on Qashqai I believe which shows it is confederacy of mainly Turkic speaking tribes ( along smaller number of Luri/Kurdish/Arab speaking tribes.  But the article is about a region Azerbaijan since there is an article on azeris in Iran .  If we mention Qashqais, Kurds, ..leaving outside of Azerbaijan it is sort off topic.--alidoostzadeh 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ali, this is ridiculous, and clearly POV. What do you mean the source is out-dated? Azerbaijani keeps inserting his outdated POV all over the pages related to Azerbaijan and now the 1983 article in Journal of Mideastern Studies is somehow outdated? Please, discuss your edits before removing the reference. Atabek 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "outdated POV" have I ever put anywhere (please show me diff's, if you cant, then stop attacking other users)? Attacks like this will only further damage the reputation you have on Wikipedia.Azerbaijani 20:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, I was asking Ali, not you. The fact that you inserted POV material earlier from milliondollarbabies and other amateur websites to justify your unencyclopedic points are already known on pages like Musavat, History of the name Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Atabek 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant out-dated in terms of geographics.  For example East Azerbaijan is now East Azerbaijan and Ardabil.  Zanjan was also split between Qazvin (mainly Persian speaking) and Zanjan (Mainly Azerbaijani speaking).  So I kept the data in there, but removed the source since it was really out-dated with regards to geographics.  Its not about the date for example, since a 2000 sources describing Khorasan province would be outdated since now we have North,Razavi and South Khorasan.  --alidoostzadeh 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, show me diff's. Milliondollarbabies was a source, and would you believe it if I told you that some IP address was the owner of the article your using? No, so I dont see how you can use that as an argument. I suggest you calm down Atabek and read what other people are writing.Azerbaijani 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics