Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)/Archive 1

message: None of you guys are making valid arguments. The number of searches on Google or the belief that most people refer to the region by Southern Azerbaijan are not valid, relevant or even correct facts regarding your argument.
Klymen 02:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Southern Azerbaijan Argument 

message: * The population of Iranian Azerbaijan is less than 8 million. The area is only some 7% of the total territory of Iran and consists of less than 10% of the Iranian population. So, the REAL population number should be something arround 6 or 7 millions, NOT 28 millions. That's totally wrong! Source: Encyclopaedia of the Orient
** That information on Encyclopaedia of the Orient is 30 years old, you can go on Iran's page which is 15 years old and guess what can be the truth right now
* The name "South Azerbaijan" is politically motivated, has no historical basis, and is usually used by Turkish nationalists and fanatics. As you can see in the following map: Abbasid Caliphate, the nation "Azerbaijan" has never been a part of the region known as "Azerbaijan". There is no such thing as "North or South Azerbaijan". 
*** Interesting argument, using this map. According to this map and many other documents, there was never ever a real country or state  called Iran till the Safavids coming to power. Iran and Turan were mythical lands in Shahnameh.
 
** "Iranian Azerbaijan" has more than 17,000 google-hits:  
** "South Azerbaijan" has not even 1000 google-hits: 
** Using google to decide on this matter is a waste of time - There is absolutely no reason why this article should be called South or Southern Azerbaijan, This article should be merged with the current article Azarbaijan, the region in Iran. This problem is probably created by one or more nationalists from Azerbaijan who are trying to claim a land that has been part of Iran for centuries.  --Kash 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population and name of "Iranian Azerbaijan" 

message: I have merged the two articles Iranian Azerbaijan, and Azarbaijan. Make sure to keep the distinction in mind, that on Wikipedia, Azarbaijan refers to the country, whereas Azerbaijan refers to the region. --  Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGE

message: Excuse me, but I am half Azeri, and we refer to ourselves as Turks, and Azeris as well.  Yes we are Iranian Azeris, but that does not make us Persian...the only thing that makes ME Persian of course is my Persian mother.  My father is Azeri, and I will defend his Azeri heritage against Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism, even though I am 50 percent Persian.  Yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin dilimiz.  Biz torkuz ve tork qalacagiq.
:Qardaş men de Turk'um lakin Wikipedia'da, bir çox Fars şövenistleri var. Azerbaycan ve Türk milleti haqqında her mevzuda sataşırlar ve Azeriler Farsi millet deyirler. Meraqda qalmayasan, bir gün milletimiz bir olacaq, buna imanını yitirmeyesen. Tanrı Türk'ü Korusun! İstanbullu qardaşın. Orhanoglu 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeris: What's in a Name 

message: I have lived in Iran several years, but I never hear someone said "I am Persian”. They introduced themselves as tehrani, shomali, esfahani,
:Why are you deleting the intro without notice? El_C 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: who are Persians? And where are they living?

message: The title of this article is Iranian Azerbaijan but thats not the correct name, the UN official accepted the name South Azerbaijan a few years ago. Official there is no such thing as Iranian Azerbaijan its supposed to be South Azerbaijan. Can I have permission to edit this?
Baku87 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but calling it South Azerbaijan wouldn't be neutral. Iranian Azerbaijan is simply a geographical name, while South Azerbaijan is political. By calling it that you would imply that the region should break apart from Iran and become part of Azerbaijan, that's why the term is used by separatists. --Khoikhoi 02:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Azerbaijan 

message: Azarbaijan is a region inside Iran. For the spelling, we use the official spelling which is used in websites such as http://www.ostan-as.gov.ir/english/ (East Azarbaijan Province).   Bidabadi 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make any changes yet please, I'm going to consult some other Iranian editors. --Khoikhoi 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there isn't any objection. So, we should ask the administrators to move the page (or make it possible to move the page).   Bidabadi 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Zereshk about it, and he said we can use both spellings.  I don't think it's necessary to move the page. --Khoikhoi 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: OK. I added some stuff. It should alleviate some concerns, I hope--Zereshk 01:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Azeri are ethnically Turkish. Look here: [...however, the radical anti- Azerbaijan policy made by the Tehran regimes is still being faced the internal pressure of the Azerbaijani Turks.] from: http://www.gamoh.org/en/guney_eng.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.227.201.90 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 April 2006.
:They're not ethnically Turkish, yes they are a Turkic people (although this is disputed) but they are a separate ethnic group from the Turks of Turkey. —Khoikhoi 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: I don't know who placed it there, but the last edit was from Grandmaster so I guess he endorsed it. I guess the case has resolved. Fad (ix) 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit OK

message: Since the above comments make a clear majority for the prevalent English name Azerbaijan, this page should be moved there. Other comments in the above section should be counted, and are clearly intended to express opinion on this issue.
* The accuracy and validity of this comment and reopening is challenged.  First, a consensus scant days ago supported the recent move to Azarbaijan (Iran).  In addition, the reopening is based on the somewhat faulty premise that the current title is not English, which various sources contradict.  Moreover, as all things are not equal, the tally below is somewhat misleading: it glazes over users who actually supported moves to x Azerbaijan not Azxrbaijan (Iran) (e.g., including anon and another, suggesting South(ern) Azerbaijan or status quo Iranian Azerbaijan), thereby indicating (if anything) near-parity ... which is yet insufficient to forego prior consensus.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mh. It seems there's no consensus for this change, is there? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's absolutely no consensus. Grandmaster 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: there's no consensus for the second move: the tally above, given (re-)interpretations this or that way and as already stated, is not necessarily agreeable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Re-correction: There was no consesus for any of the moves. Neither the first or the second. The only difference was that the move was hastened and went ahead in the first one, even without a consesus. So, I hope there will be a consensus on the third move, but considering that there has been two recent votes, I would say that it is wise to wait for some time for that one. --TimBits  13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, as before.  In any event, hope springs eternal and three times a lady. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you are still here? :) Well, whatever it takes, but the deed will be done. --TimBits  15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Azerbaijan

message: #E Pluribus Anthony
#Southern Comfort
#Khoikhoi
#Houshyar
#ManiF
#Bidabadi
#Klymen supported move to Azarbaijan (Iran); no statement on spelling.
#Tombseye supported move to Azarbaijan (Iran); no statement on spelling.
#Kash supports the correct Azarbaijan spelling.
#George McFly
# 72.57.230.179
:Mh. It seems there's no consensus for this change, is there? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's absolutely no consensus. Grandmaster 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: there's no consensus for the second move: the tally above, given (re-)interpretations this or that way and as already stated, is not necessarily agreeable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-correction: There was no consesus for any of the moves. Neither the first or the second. The only difference was that the move was hastened and went ahead in the first one, even without a consesus. So, I hope there will be a consensus on the third move, but considering that there has been two recent votes, I would say that it is wise to wait for some time for that one. --TimBits  13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, as before.  In any event, hope springs eternal and three times a lady. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you are still here? :) Well, whatever it takes, but the deed will be done. --TimBits  15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Azarbaijan

message: Does anyone have a good picture from azarbaijan, please upload and put it on the article, it needs to be prettier than the "azarbaijan country" article, so it can attract people into reading this prior to that. lol just kidding, but this is a very important article.--Darkred 06:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The term south azerbaijan is mainly used by azeri nationalists as can be seen in CAMOH's home page and those of other separatist groups. Even if Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term, it does not change the fact that this term is loaded. The neutral term is Iranian azerbaijan since the area is a province of Iran. This must be clear to any reader of the article.
So Grandmaster, please stop your endless reverting of the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.23.206 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 May 2006.
: The term South Azerbaijan is used by various sources, not just CAMOH. Iranian Azerbaijan could be more correct and appropriate, but it does not change the fact that South Azerbaijan is also sometimes used by reputable sources. For the same token you can claim that the term Aryans is politically loaded, because it was used by Nazis. Grandmaster 11:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [No Title] 

message: *South Azerbaijan (Iran) is a more descriptive title for this article. The fact that a term has been also used by this or that group is irrelevant, and point less to argue over it. The agenda behind changing the titles ot this article are very much politically driven. I understand the concern of our pan-farsist friends, as they feel threatened by any term or name that shows the relation between Azeri the inhabitants of the north and south of Araz river. The push for the change of the article from Iranian Azerbaijan to Azarbaijan (Iran) follows the same trend. To me it shows the desperation of few out of touch people to hold into old grandpa stories. It is a sad case of not understanding that it is not the Wikipedia that makes the facts, but other way around. Denying the fact that there is a strong bond between Azerbaijanis in the south and north not only would not solve any problem it is just a case of heads being in sand. Wikipedia should be reflecting the facts on the ground not on some small minority who can influence this free encyclopedia.  Mehrdad 04:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Dear Mehrdad, first of all the term "pan-farsist" is a very strange term that you are using here. Who did you infact had in mind when you made such an accusation? I had never heard of it and It is quite hilarious! In any case, the whole argument is just funny. The Azarbaijan in Iran, is part of Iran, nevermind the ethnicity of the people. The term "south Azerbaijan" however is a POV. Thanks for your suggestion though, -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Dear Kash, Pan Fars-farsist/panfarsist is a term to defines those who promote and would like to impose control of Farsi people over the rest of the Iranian population. In effect they are the grandchildren of Pan-Iranists and they carry the same ideology of supremacy of Arian race etc, but due to crumbling state of  pure race theories of last century, these ones are too shy to shout as loud as the grandpas. I know you may find strange but these people see the world via prism of race! Hope it was helpful. Thank you for showing interest. Mehrdad 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mehrdad, it seems that a Google search shows that it is mainly Turkic websites which use this term, perhaps a case of Neologism especially as it is with the term "Farsi people" -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Azerbaijan (Iran) 

message: I can not find any disputes over the accuracy of the article, dispute seems to be about the title. So I will remove that. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is over whether it should be called Azarbaijan or Azerbaijan. As you can see, at least 11 people dispute the current title, hence the tag. Grandmaster 05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the dispute tag. But my reason is different. As I've pointed out earlier, all the external links are toward one POV. See my proposal . Bidabadi 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Since we are very divided on the issue of the term southern azarbaijan, i thought we could follow the naming dispute on the Persian Gulf page. Since it is not an official name of the region, i don't think it should be included at the top, but since many feel that the name is relevant, maybe the new edit will appease all. we can even reword the naming dispute section, let me know what you think. thanks Rugsnotbombs 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Tons of pages list the unoffical names at the top. See Gdańsk for example. The city hasn't been part of Germany since WWII and there are hardly any Germans living there. —Khoikhoi 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wikipedia's standard on naming issues is not to hide the alternate names near the bottom of the page, so no one can see them. —Khoikhoi 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not hiding the name, i was just following the example of the Persian Gulf page. you can move the naming dispute to the top if you'd like. But we shouldn't be renaming territories of another country. If other people like to call it southern azarbaijan, that's fine, but i don't think it should be mentioned in the article at all, let alone along with it's official name. so this to me is a compromise, to include a disputed name in the article and title it as such. i believe it's less confusing this way, and gives people a better perspective. and note that nothing was removed from the article, it still says the same thing, just shuffled around. i'm curous to what others think, so please be patient as we haven't tried this yet. Rugsnotbombs 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing is that there’s no formal naming dispute. There’s no dispute at all, except here. The name of South Azerbaijan is also used in academic sources, so therefore it’s notable enough to be mentioned. I don’t think that sources like Iranica pursued any political agenda by using it. So mentioning that this name is also sometimes used would be helpful, because some people may encounter it in some source and think “Where is that?” Grandmaster 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Dispute 

message: Instead of endless debates over various issues, I think it is a good idea to have a paragraph, similar to the first paragraph of Britannica article  (for the beginning of the page). The first paragraph of the article in Columbia Encyclopedia  is also very similar to the article in Britannica. I don't see any reason for us to be different.
Is there any objection?   Bidabadi 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could you please explain more? Why the current first paragraph is fine and the the first paragraphs of the articles in Britannica and Columbia (which are quite similar) are not fine?Bidabadi 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said the paragraphs at EB & Columbia are not fine. I said that there's no reason to change the paragraph at this article, as it is the result of a compromise after various edit wars. Furthermore, just because "South Azerbaijan" offends some people like Dariush4444, doesn't mean we have to censor it. —Khoikhoi 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: looks good to me, we should adibe by standards. and if both those pedia's are similar, then we should do the same and stop people from pushing thier POV Rugsnotbombs 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is OK the way it is now. I did not see any desire on part of certain editors to follow the standards of Columbia and Britannica in articles such as Safavids and Kizilbash, so why should we here? Keep it as it is. Grandmaster 06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of liking or disliking. It's about trying to follow an acceptable academic standard. Could you please give me a reason for your objection to their format? In this page, we are talking about Azarbaijan (the region in Iran). To discuss about Safavids, go to its talk page and raise the issue there. Bidabadi 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, there are no specific rules requiring to abide by the standards of other encyclopedias. I don’t see how the current lead does not follow academic standards. What are you specifically not happy with? Grandmaster 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no specific rule about that. However, when the first paragraphs of the articles in the two major encyclopedias are quite similar and the first paragraph of this article is very different from them, it's a good indication of a strong POV and the necessity of its modification.Bidabadi 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. As I understand, your only problem is the inclusion of the name of South Azerbaijan, which you don't like for some reason. But in this case we have our own Wiki rules, which allow for inclusion of alternative names. Grandmaster 09:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for The First Paragraph

message: This is just ridiculous. This region does not have a flag. Please stop adding this to the article. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The region does have a flag, but not official. Nagorno-Karabakh and other unregonized regions also use unofficial flags and yet they are all displayed in wikipedia, so why make a double standard on this region? Stop your vandalism or I will report you, if I see you making a redirect on the flag to another flag or upload another flag I will report you for vandalism. Baku87 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent country, so of course it has a flag. The region Azarbaijan however is 100% in Iran. Also, it would be one thing if most of Iranian Azeris used the flag, but they don't. The majority of people that do want to separate from Iran and join Azerbaijan. Therefore, see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (for example, a place for propaganda or advocacy) Although Kash shouldn't have vandalized your image, the flag just shouldn't be at this article. —Khoikhoi 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag