Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 3

message: The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS! 
:: I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179 
::The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS! 
::I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179
:I think we should just have a vote between Googoosh and Parvin, if we could have proof about the ethnicy of Shirin that would be great Baku87 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iranian Azaris are about 80% of the Azari Population This SHould Reflect in the picture Selections

message: There is alot of false claims in this article.. I have already dealt with the so called quote of Mu'awiyah and I will bring it here again to show its invalidity.
he quote from the book of Al-tijan is indeed one of the biggest lies made up by Pan-turkist historians. Indeed the quote is about an ancient Yemenese mythical warrior named Ra’esh. In the book Tajarob al-Umam by ibn Maskawayah, Ra’esh helps the legendary king Manuchehr defeat the legendary Turanian king Afrasiyaab. Indeed the quote has nothing to do with Turkish settlements and the quote refers to the Turanians occupying Azerbaijan and then the mythical Ra’esh the Yemenese king coming to the aid of the Iranian king and repelling Afrasiyab. Weired stories like these were made up by Shu'abiyyah movements. Some claimed that Zoroaster was Abraham and claimed Zoroastrianism was practiced from Sudan to China. Such stories and myths are not taken seriously in light of the fact that all geographers and travellers to Azerbaijan and Arran have mentioned the languages of the area before the Seljuqids. BTW, today (within the last 20 years) the Turanians are not considered Turkic by the majority of scholars. Also as you can see the quote is totally mythical a Indeed this is what happens when people do not read the whole page and just cut out one line out! In that book al-tijan it says Azerbaijan was in the “hand” of Turks (legendary mythical Afrasiyab) and this shows that they were occupying it(and not aboriginals) until Ra’esh the mythical Yemenese king came and forced them out with the help of Manuchehr! Here is the Persian translation of the whole story from Tabari.
Some of the yemenese myths go as far as saying that the yemenese king took over India, Rome, Persia.. All these have to do with the counter Persian nationalism (Sh'uabbiya) and are part of Arab myths some which were mixed with Persian myths (Manuchehr and Afrasiyab mixed in with Ra'esh). Kitab al-tijan fi muluk Himyar (The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar) is taken as a mythology book and the stories there about Ra'esh and his battles with various people are part of Arab folklore and not history. What is clear is that are many stories in Ctesias,Herodotus, Tabari and etc. which are not take seriously by all scholars. For example Tabari attributes Zoroastrianism to the mythical figure of Jamshid. Another time another Arab author considers Abraham a descendant of Zoroaster. Many stories convluted by the Shu'abbiyah were made up and it is up to modern historians to examine their veracity.
I have available a more detailed article in Persian on this manner of convulted history. Sufficient to say that any geographer and historian that has described the language of the area, has never mentioned Turkic until the Seljuqids. (with the exception of Khazaras who were mainly held off at Darband). Also the Turkic slaves taken from Central Asia and used in the caliphs army does not mean Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan. Neither does the Turkic commander under Arab Caliphs (Bugha, Ashnaas, ..) who were sent from Iraq to quell the Babak Khorramdin (Iranian) Mazdakite revolt. And all scholars agree Azarbaijan was part of Iranian Mede, Achaemenid, then Parthian, then Sassanid and Turks never had this area on their hand and the mythical characters of Ra'esh and Afrasiyaab and Manuchehr.. are folklore and myth. Much like the pre-Sassanid portion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, where Rustam is a mythical character. In that time myths and history were convoluted. 
Also the Khazars were kept at bay at darband and the few incursions were beaten back by the Sassanids and later on Ummayyads and Arabs, until they were destroyed by Russians and so they were not part of the ethnic component. As per Huns, they did not have a presence in the caucus except for some minor incursion that has been dealt with in the Cambridge history of Iran.  Also any group of nomadic people in history would be called huns.  The fact of the matter is that the current language of the republic of Azerbaijan is Oghuz Turkic which was brought with the Seljuqid invasion.  To show tha Turks are new to the area, the best proof is that there isn't a single manuscript in Turkish from the area prior to the Ilkhanid era.  The name Azerbaijan does not occur once in any old manuscript.  All the ancient cities have non-Turkic names.  Herodotus and none of the ancient historians mentioned Turks in the area.  Again the Attila Hun empire and the huns (who by the way were not Oghuz speakers) did  major damage to the Roman empire and perhaps for a small interval invaded parts of Iran (although probably not Iranian Azarbaijan), but this exursion did not change the demographics of the region.  And all the quotes we have from the begining of Islam to the Seljuqids (about 4-5 travellers+) mention the language of the area as Arranian, Armenian, Persian and Arabic.
--Ali doostzadeh 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it needs major rewrite --K a s h  Talk | email 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lot of false claims 

message: User:72.57.230.179 has inserted some arbitrary changes on the ground that a consensus had been reached. Reading the talk page, and judging by the reactions, it remains a mistery when this consensus. I'm not middle-eastern and hardly ever edit in this area, but I must here say that since no real consensus appears to have been reached, that the situation  must be brought backed to the previous edits. I invite all editors to give their best to search a solution to the present difficulties this article is having; but what is clear the solution does not consists in attempting to force past one version without previous consensus, in the hope of forcing it in.--Aldux 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that was inserted into the intro was copied from the article Iranian peoples. That article had problems similar to the ones this one has. Some Iranian users insisted that Azerbaijani people are not Turkic people as all major academic sources say, but that they are Iranian people, even though they don’t speak an Iranian language. That paragraph was included into that article in an attempt to please those users, and it was not a good solution, as it turns out. But since there’s no effective system to stop POV edits in Wikipedia, the compromise with factual accuracy had to be made. Such position of certain users is a reflection of the official Iranian propaganda, which tries to make Azerbaijani people of Iran believe that they are not Turkic and are Iranians to prevent separatism in Iranian Azerbaijan and eventually assimilate them with Persian people. But Wikipedia is about reflecting the facts and not state sponsored propaganda. Tombseye made a good attempt to incorporate that statement into the relevant section of this article as well, but his edit was reverted without any valid explanation by the anonymous user, who’s been making unsubstantiated edits to this article for quite a while. Grandmaster 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that this is an encyclopedia in which we have to present information that can be proven and not what we 'believe'. It's irrelevant as to what you or I believe, while what is important is what we can prove. Being Iranian by nationality and culture doesn't erase the linguistic affiliation of the Azeris, which, objectively needs to be raised along with the possibility that the Azeris have other origins, such as either a partial Turkic one and a Caucasian one. Simply focusing on one theory and claiming it to be absolute truth is simply contrary to how wikipedia works since you can't prove that all or most Azeris are simply former Iranians, which is itself simply a reference to the many Iranian peoples who aren't necessarily Persians or formerly Persian speaking I should say. What's more there is a historic cultural fluidity between Turkic and Iranic peoples as they have lived in the same region and historically overlapped quite often. All of that aside however, subsuming a group makes zero sense in terms of an informative encyclopedia. I have Encyclopedia Americana which describes the Azeris myriad origins as does Encyclopedia Britannica and several others. They nearly all relate to the varied origins of the Azeris, so what's the problem with presenting that here? We have a responsibility to be fair and at least try to be objective. If you feel that you can't be objective or compromise, then perhaps you should take a break and let those of us who can work out some compromise move forward. Tombseye 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before the propagation of the Turkic language which started around the Seljuqid era, the history below the Aras river and above the Aras river are very different with two different people.  Indeed Iranian Azarbaijan was Iranian speaking where as the caucasian one, had some Iranian elements , but it had a large number of caucasian speakers (Armenians, Albanians..) as well. When it comes to talking about origins, these two regions have had a different history and this should be mentioned.  Another fact that should be mentioned is that the name Azarbaijan is clearly Iranian and such a name does not exist in any ancient Turkic documents.  Indeed it has a clear Avestani root.  This is agreed upon by scholars.  Indeed the Pahlavi version of the name Atoorpaatekaan still exists in some of the languages of the area.  --Ali doostzadeh 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree although saying very different is a bit of an overstatement as neighboring groups, even divided by a river aren't necessarily without some fluidity. And what mean is Median speaking as at that point we can be more specific than Iranian speaking. As for the name of Azerbaijan, sure we can mention that briefly, but it's not really relevant all that much if the name is Iranian or not as we're talking about the people. I didn't go into the origins of the name Afghan other than what was relevant in Pashtun people for example. We should start with the Median ruler Atropates as the most common theory links him to the name of the province followed by other more hypothetical theories that can't be proven. This is also the case with Origins of the name Afghanistan for example as there are multiple theories, but really only the verifiable ones are generally stated, while the etymology is discussed in either a history article, an article on the name itself or on the country page. You also have to ask yourself (not just you, but everyone) what the point is to this bickering as the real point should be to write a good article. All this energy wasted on debating could be spent turning this article into a feature article instead of arguing about Iranian the Azeris are since we may never really know to what extent the Azeris are of Iranian stock as that in and of itself is difficult to ascertain given the many new theories emerging about the Kurds, Persians, Pashtuns etc. We need to work on the Azeri article in terms of their culture and social conditions and flesh out the article, which is something I'll set upon doing tomorrow. Tombseye 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary changes

message: Okay, I've been reading a lot of what's been said here and I just wanted to put this out there. How about I re-write the article in a way similar to Pashtun people or even Iranian peoples? One is a featured article and the other is on its way and I have many friends here who are both Persian and Azeri and I believe we worked out a compromise with Iranian peoples for example. I'd be willing to do the same and consider the various factors including the differences between the regions north and south and the various influences and other factors. The thing is that I'll be doing it academically and I'll ask the advice of some of the people whom I have a history of working with such as Kash, GM, Mani, Abdulnr, Tajik, and of course Khoikhoi and various other folks such as Zereshk who has done some good work on Greater Iran that I've seen. I'm in both the Azeri and Iran wikiprojects and I'm planning to work on the Persians next anyway. If people are cool with the idea, I'd be willing to redo the article and make it a lot more in compliance with encyclopedic standards. We could also agree that all statements placed in the article will have citations that are reputable since this is such a controversial topic as well. Just an idea as I was asked to help fix this article so I wanted to make sure everyone is okay with it. Thanks. Tombseye 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea. Grandmaster 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, sounds good! :) --K a s h  Talk | email 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just an idea as to how to approach this article

message: (Moved to /Arguments page) —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holes in the Article, Shariatmadari 

message: Thank you Tombseye. I like the new format of article.--behmod talk 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm still in the middle of fixing things though, but hopefully, within a week I'm going to try to get it in as a featured article. No point in writing an article otherwise, right? :)  Tombseye 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: I check out the source of ethnic related gorups and the site says as following:
The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture
The text says related to Persian culture which is true but it doesnt say anything about related to Persian ethnicy. And in the Persian people article it doesnt mention that Persians are related to Azeris. So why is Persian added in the ethnic groups or is this perhaps a group based on culture? If so then I think we should add Russia or Eastern Europe along with it? Baku87 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Baku. Please don't make a big deal about the inclusion of the Persians as a related group. There is a lot historic intermarriage (the dynasties of the Safavids for example) and there are references of continued interaction in this section: . The interaction with Persians is much older than that of the Russians etc. and the fact that most Azeris live in Iran makes a big difference. I think I've shown that I am willing to write the Azeris in a fair light and so I'm asking if you can please drop this contentious issue so that the article can be improved overall and possibly make it as a featured article. Thanks. Tombseye 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but 30% of Azerbaijanis in the Republic are Sunni - and nearly all Azerbaijanis in Turkey (who number over 2 million, not the small estimate given on the page) - and the rest of Shia's are mostly nominally so. There are of course ethnic Azerbaijanis of some other religions, like Bahai, Zoroastrian and Christian. Similarly, if Armenians are not identified as Christian people of Persian culture -- despite having a border with Iran, living in Iran for centuries and being Indo-European, Aryan, with an Indo-European language -- then why should Azerbaijanis? Moreover, while the majority of Azerbaijanis live in Iran indeed, at the same time, in the age of nation-states, when one thinks of a nation, they think of its country, and hence, I think that despite population disproportion, the weight of the Republic is very important and IMHO, prevailing. 80% of Ireland in its time immigrated to the USA, and are still a large, unassimilated, "Irish-American" ethnic group. Another group lives in UK. Yet we do not look at USA or UK when we look at the Ireland page. Can we make the wording a little smoother and less cliche? --AdilBaguirov 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But amongst the 30% that is Sunni, there is higher proportion of Lezgis, Kurds and other people.  I think Shi'ism is ingrained with the mainstream Azerbaijani literature/culture and it is safe to say 85% of Azarbaijanis are as much Shi'ites as Armenians are as much as Christians.  
The Azerbaijanis of Turkey as far as I know are predominantely Shi'ite, but if you have any reference let me know.  The Azarbaijanis of Iran are overwhelmingly Shiites (over 90% at least) and I don't think there is any Zoroastrian or Christians (unless recent converts within the last 20 years which would not number more than say 30,000 at most).   --Ali doostzadeh 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's only so much this article can contain as if it's too long and mired in details and arguments and counter-arguments it will not be able to make it as a Featured article. I am trying to incorporate as much as possible (and I have worked mostly with Grandmaster and Ali so as to have to diverse opinions) as well as doing my own research and I think we've come up with a fair article that covers all the bases. Neutrality and academic references are used to give the Azeris a fair depiction. As of now I am going to add the women's section and then try to simplify the wording and shorten it a bit so that I can nominate it as a featured article by tomorrow. Tombseye 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tombseye I didnt mean to start a point here, I was curious, checked it out and I noticed it. Anyways this is isnt worth debating here, as you suggested Im dropping this. Baku87 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Baku, I appreciate it. Tombseye 23:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, all citizens of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis, and thus we cannot separate into various ethnic groups. What any one Azerbaijani person does affects all others as well. However, to go along with the opinion, then among the Shiite's there are a lot of Talish and Tats, and in fact most Kurds. It is true that many Azerbaijanis in Turkey are Shiite, Alevi, but the whole thing is that the balance started to change with Shah Ismail (many Sunnis had to run to Turkey to save their lives) and continued until Russian conquest, which too preferred Shiites over Sunni (hence, huge diaspora of Sunnis from Caucasus, including Azerbaijanis, in Turkey. Precise numbers I don't know. I definitely do not think that religion is deeply ingrained in modern popular literature, cinema, music, or arts of Azerbaijan (and I obviously do not count few mentioninings of "Allah" or its derivatives as religious). Unlike for example Iranian or Turkish films, or scholarship, which is fixated on religion, Azerbaijani films (the one's in intl, competitions at least) do not bother with the whole "religious exploration" stuff, are clearly secular. Also, what I said is that when someone says "Azerbaijani" (or "Irish"), you immediately think of Azerbaijan Republic (or Republic of Ireland), and not Iran (or USA). Hence, with the existence of a modern nation-state it doesn't matter what proportion lives anywhere -- it is the Republic of Azerbaijan (AR) that is the face and representation of all Azerbaijanis in the world, much like China represents all Chinese and Ireland of Irish. Thus, it should be kept in mind and taken into account fully, and AR should get more time/space as being more representative. Perhaps this point can be better taken into account in the next version, after the article is featured. --AdilBaguirov 06:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related ethnic groups 

message: Note in this topic, I am not debating (everything is not a debate), but I am trying to ascertain some facts or clear them up.  For example we saw that Strabo did not mention any Turkic tribes or Khazars did not attack around 200 A.D.   So I am trying to assess the veracity of all statements with regards to the Turkic origin theory.  For example Mr. Baguirov who mentioned some useful facts, also mentioned: Kalankatly and others also makes clear that from VI century Gabala was inhabited by Sabirs/Savirs, Khazars, Bulgars, Barsils (Kalankatly, Book II, 4).  But actually in Book two Chp 4 it says: After these events, the land of Albania was captured by the Khazars and churches and gospels destroyed by fire.  In the second year of Xosrov, king of kings, when they established the begining of the Armenia era, the throne of Albanian patriachate was transferred from the two of Cholay to the captical Partaw on account of the marauding incursions of the enemies of the cross of christ.  So there is difference between inhabited and captured and also in Book three it clearly mentions Ganja was a city build during the Islamic era.  
I already have done research on the Iranian origin theory and much of it is already in the Azeri article of Iranica.  Now I was able to get a hold of the book by Movisi Kalankatuacwoy which I will refer to as MK.  The translation of MK has an index and I look through where ever there was mentions of Huns, Khazars and etc.  One interesting side fact is again confirmed by Islamic sources and that is the city of Ganjak was build during Islamic times.  But going back to the issue,  I looked for examples of Turkic settlements and thus far I have not been able to find anything and indeed to the north of Caucasian Albania and Armenia, laid the Khazars and Huns.  These groups sometimes fought the Sassanids and Romans, but I did not see any reference in that book for them settling in the area.  What I am tring to emphasize is the difference between settlements and actual military expeditions.  Indeed various hordes of Iranic tribes like Alans, or Ural and Altaic tribes, and Romans and even Russians might have penetrated these areas, but they were not settled.  Also if we take MK's book as a reference, Iranian influence specially through the Parthians was very strong (one good proof of this is that 15% of Armenian is composed of Pahlavi).  
But to support this thesis, I was able to get a hold of An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden.  This Book is probably the most up to date and comprehensive book published on the history of Turkic people.  On pg 385 and 386 he talks about Azeris and I quote: Turkic peneration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath.  Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements.  These most certainly occured with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century.  The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times.  Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (Peter Golden comments: more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol(Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid).  In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan(Arran, the Mugan steppe).  In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran(derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran.  This marked the final stage of Turkicization.  Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia.  The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people.  Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors. (pg 386)  
Also in the same book he talks about the Sabirs.  On pg 104, Prof. Golden says: Sabir origins are equally obscure.  And also on pg 105: We shall not consider at this time, ..the Sawrdyh (awardiyah) of Al-Baladuri and Al-Masudi, who are probably to be connected to the Hungarians or Hungarian-related group, Savard, as Marquart and Nemeth have suggested and also same pg: Sabir origins and ethno-linguiistic affiliations, aswe have seen, are uncertain and then furthermore he says the bulks of Sabirs were absorbed by Avars and then later on Khazars.  I am not trying to have a debate here, but I am pointing out that Islamic Geographers who have described the language of the area from Islam all the way to coming of Oghuz tribes have not mentioned Turkic as a language spoken in the area or widely heared language.  I hope the information on pg 386 of Peter Golden's book can be incorporated in the article.  My opinion is that any Wikipedia article about the origin of Turkic speaking groups should not be written without consulting this book. --Ali doostzadeh 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I looked at Golden's book as well and I concur as I read much the same. I think the current version is fine as it sticks to the academic views. I further clarified the wording so as to make clear when turkification is likely to have taken place. Thanks. Tombseye 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I actually found a way to incorporate the Peter Golden reference in the Turkic theory section. This should end the matter I hope. Thanks Ali. Tombseye 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golden's book is good, but majority of scholars consider all those tribes I've named as Turkic at least with highest degree of veracity. On Sabir's we don't have to go too far -- see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabir Also, let's not forget that the Sabir is quite popular among the Azerbaijani Turks. All other tribes I've named were not from MK, but other, mostly modern, books/sources. As I've stated many time, much of Turkology is either in Turkic languages, or in Russian -- the only other language that united a lot of Turkic people and due to enourmous intellectual potential of USSR, assured massive amount of research and scholarship published. I am not really very enthusiastic about translating bunch of passages and references, it's easier for me to scan online some of those pages. Hence, MK does write about Turkic people, and that's what was the question. While you are very correct, that there is a difference between "inhabited" and "captured", the passage you quoted -- "the throne of Albanian patriachate was transferred from the two of Cholay to the captical Partaw on account of the marauding incursions of the enemies of the cross of christ" -- is fairly clear: if they had to transfer the seat of the Catholicos of Albanians to a safer city in the middle of the country, protected by a river and mountains, it means the other was sacked, occupied, etc. And as recent history teaches us, if you lose control, other move in and start settling, having children, etc. By the way, ethnonym "chol" is Turkic, and is found in Dede Korkut, and was named so because of the Oghuz Chol tribes that settled there early on. Hence, once again, even MK shows that Turkic people definitely inhabited Caucasian Albania (and he, being a good Christian, divided everyone into Christian and "enemies of Christ", not into Caucasian or Turkic, Alban or Oghuz, Alban or Chol, etc). But there are also many references to Turks in various Armenian chroniclers -- maybe Favstos Byzand can be found as well in an academic edition in English? I can help with chapter numbers to locate references to Turkic people. --AdilBaguirov 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there is not much indication of heavy settlement of Turkic tribes before the Oghuz according to most of the sources I've read as well (listed in the article). I think we need to stick with mainstream verifiable academic sources in order to give this article credibility. Otherwise, people will tear it apart under scrutiny and not allow it to make it as a featured article, which is really one of the main reasons why I am writing the article in addition to my interest in the region and requests by Grandmaster, Abdulnr, Kash, and Khoikhoi to fix the article. Tombseye 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:   Next to Tombseye's comment, I just wanted to point out some comments for Mr. Baguirov.  The Saabir that is popular amongst Muslims actually comes from the arabic S (saad as opposed to sin) and its root is the word patience (Sabr).  A Saabir (with Arabic saad) means someone that is patient.  The latin based Azeri-Turkish does not differentiate between the two s sounds and indeed the pronounciation of the two s are the same in both Persian and Turkish.  On the other point, what the majority of scholars say is important (if indeed we have read what all scholars have to say! and then do the math to find the majority), but what is more relavent is what the most updated materials (Brittanica, Golden's book and etc.) have to say.  A Wikipedia article also is not necessarily even reliable although that should be the goal.  There is a good amount of Turkology materials in German and English and the materials are relatively up to date. Note the difference between occupation and settlement.  Also similar sounding words does not mean similar roots.  For example Azar and Khazar sound similar, but it doesn't mean they are etymologically related.  So such an ethnonym as Cholay is not the same as Chol.  The city is also called Choray by MK as well and is mentioned in Roman, Persian, Khazar.. hands many times.  Also when we say Persian or Khazar or Roman we must remember that these empires used a lot of mercenaries.  For example Persian empire used Arabs.  Romans used lots of Germanic people.  Khazars used many Alans.  So any hypothesis needs to be proven.  Now as per the occupation mentioned, I never doubted that the Khazars sometimes made incursions into Caucasian Albania (and this was about the end of the Sassanid era), but they were usually beaten back.  Occupation also does not mean settlement, and for example Germans occupied France during WWII or the Achaemenids controlled Egypt for more than 200+ years.  I think for now the statements of Prof. Golden and Britannica and Iranica and the other Professor from Columbia University are accurate and if there was Turkish presence (and I do not mean the Khazar incursions) below Darband from the Islamic era, it would be very minimal and these groups assimilated into the local population.  Some other good reason would be that the earliest manuscript of Turkic from the area is after the Seljuqid era (and only settled people living in large cities would produce literary texts), the many Muslim Geographers that have travelled to the area do not mention Turkic as a language spoken in the area and major cities, and also some of the poems of Qatran Tabrizi shows that Turks where foreign to the area and the area was controlled by Iranians (Kurds, Daylamites) Arabs (who became Iranified) and Christian groups some with Parthian royalty like Albanians, Armenians, Georgians prior to the Seljuqids.  --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mr. Baguirov wrote:  there are also many references to Turks in various Armenian chroniclers -- maybe Favstos Byzand can be found as well in an academic edition in English? I can help with chapter numbers to locate references to Turkic people..  Since I already made a large effort and obtained MK and checked for references to Turkish settlements and so far I did not find anything, I am willing to do the research.   I have access to an English translation of a certain Pawstos Buzandis , History of Armenians.  (I think it is the same author), and I am willing to check any reported reference to Turkish settlements for the sake of my own curiosity.  Also Moses of Khoren is available in English as well.  --Ali doostzadeh 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're okay as is. If you want to do research be my guest though, but I think as far as the article's concerned we have probably too much material and it's going to have to be shortened, which is something I am in the process of completing. Thanks for all your help though. Tombseye 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I won't add more materials.  I think we do have materials from the most recent and updated references. take care --Ali doostzadeh 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pawstos Buzandis is the same person -- but which edition is it, is it academic? Same with Movses of Khorene - if it's based on Emin's version, then throw it out. The best editions are obviously either in Armenian or in Russian. Other Armenian, as well as Georgian (e.g., Leonti Mroveli) chroniclers also mention Turkic people in the Caucasus. On a side note -- neither Golden, nor Britannica, nor many others are the most recent. The most recent is the research of perhaps #1 authority on Caucasian Albanian history, prof. F.Mamedova, whose 800-page book I have in front of me and was just published in 2005. The also has three other books out from her life-long research of this matter (she speaks/knows Pahlavi, Grabar, modern Armenian, as well as English, Russian, Azerbaijani and some nominal understanding of a few Caucasian languages), and several high-quality maps, in which she has reconstructed the borders of C.Albania (her maps from 15 years ago are also very good, but new ones are in color and just better produced). I've checked my memory and notes that I've used to write in here with her book, and everything coincided, I can supply all the page numbers, together with scanned pages, if necessary, as well as any references that she uses. Similarly, I have two other books, published in 2004 (1st edition in 1997), a 222-page book by prof. G.Mamedova (that's similar last names, and both are women) and another book by the same author published in 2002 but more on architecture of C.Albania -- however it has a full section in English, which is nice. Anyways, their research is much better not only because they have full access to all Russian-language research in addition of English-language one (and some German and Italian, as there too there are some strong scholars), but they can actually visit all the sites, speak to some of the direct descendants like the Udis. Just recently, after almost 200 years of abolition, the Albanian Apostolic Autocephalous Church was restored and this is a big and great news for all of Azerbaijan. Thus, going by only outdated, rigid and not complete sources written by authors who have never been to Gabala, to Kish, to Barda, to Derbent, to Mingechavir, to Gazakh, and other places that occupy special place in C.Albania's history, is hardly a good practice. --AdilBaguirov 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well I support Azerbaijanis taking pride in their Iranian and Caucasian heritage.  That is why I am trying to also compromise on the Nizami page (see my message) and I want everyone to be proud, while accurate information is kept.  As per Moses of Khoren, it is from the famous edition by Robert W. Thomson, Harvard University Press, London, England, 1978.  As per Pawstos Buzandis History of the Armenians / it is translated by Robert Bedrosian, 1985, New York.  I believe these are sufficient and very recent editions.  As for Prof. Mamedova, with all due  respect to domestic scholars, I usually do not trust domestic scholars of countries when they write about their own history.  This applies equally well to Iranians, Indians and etc.  I make an exception for scholars that are well cited by other academics like Professor Ighrar Aliyev.  .   Prof. Golden is a well known academic:  and I would take his word simply because he is not a domestic scholar and also he has wide range of publications.  --Ali doostzadeh 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the Nizami page in the last week or so, will do so soon. While I agree in terms of standards of scholarship, at the same time such "unsexy" topics as Caucasian Albania are not really generating a lot of funding opportunities and grants for the Western scholars. Plus language barrier. Thus it's sometimes easier to pretend they don't see and keep on reciting the old, proven stuff. Meanwhile, prof. Mamedova had to go through a lot of hurdles and criticism, both academic and not, to publish her book. Although that's not the most important -- for our purposes, she, who actually firmly establishes primacy of Caucasian ethno-national element in C.Albania, only reports, fully referencing, all the Turkic references - or Iranian or Caucasian for that matter. Hence, she has no bias and horse in the race, whilst her work is the most complete on the history of her country's that specific era. What she cares about is the history of the people - and she was the driving force behind re-establishing of the Albanian Church, as thanks in major part to her efforts, she gave history back to the people. --AdilBaguirov 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Some new materials 

message: I will also do some copyediting to shorten the article a bit and fix the references section, so that it is more accessible to readers. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I believe we have worked out all of the problems and controversies surrounding this article in the past. We've given equal time to various theories and origins, and I've listed 67 notes (a record for me as that's more than any article I've written or helped written!) to support the positions the article takes. It is my hope that we can delist this article as a controversial one and move on to better things. As Ali correctly pointed out, no article is perfect and wikipedia is prone to vandalism and edits that often are more nationalistic than factual or even referenced, but I think we've managed to show that this doesn't have to be the case. At any rate, I hope this article can make it as a featured article once I'm done with the copyediting phase. Thanks. Tombseye 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is done as per writing phase

message: Okay Azeris is now a FA candidate. Hopefully, it'll make it. I'd like to thank all the folks who helped with the article, including people on this discussion page. I'm glad we could work out some neutral views on the divisive origin theories. Let's make wikipedia a place where people with age old rivalries can come to compromise. Cheers! Tombseye 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Azerbaijani people]] is now a featured article candidate 

message: It's come to my attention that a picture collage could have copyright issues since it would entail manipulated pictures. I suggest that we choose some prominent Azeris and just put their pictures throughout the article instead and place a symbol of the Azeris (just as the Tamils article does) in the infobox. That way there won't be any copyright questions. OR we could place a few individual pictures side by side and resize them until they are in the same formation. Tombseye 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this emblem representing fire in the place of the collage that we can't use: . It's both an Azeri emblem AND the Iranians can't not like it as it is from Zoroastrian times so it should be okay with everyone. What do people think? Tombseye 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to suggest that aswell, fire is the symbol of all Azeri people in fact the word Azeri means fire. But Im not sure how the Iranian Azeris would think about using Azerbaijan Republic emblem. Baku87 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture collage will have copyright problems

message: Is there a reason for this article being at Azerbaijani people and not at Azeri people, or even better, at Azeris. The people qualifier, is normally only used when the people need to be disambiguated from the language, e.g. English people vs English language, and Italian people vs Italian language. In other cases, one word titles are (or should be) used, e.g. Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks; it saves space. If you do a google test, you'll see that Azeris, is more common than Azerbaijanis. --Telex 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could go that way. I saw the trend though going in the direction of adding people to every group's name so that's probably why it is what it is. I'm okay with either one, but good observation. Tombseye 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another problem though. If you check the native names, it seems that Azerbaijanis (Azərbaycanlılar) is more common than Azeris (Azərilər). Personally, I prefer Azeris, as it is not centred around the state (Azerbaijan). I think this is important in this case, as most ethnic Azeris/Azerbaijanis, live outside Azerbaijan. Additionally, "Azerbaijani" could apply to any inhabitant of Azerbaijan, unlike Azeri, which applies to the specific ethnic group. See a similar example: Bosnians (any inhabitant of Bosnia) vs Bosniaks (the ethnic group). Moreover, Wikipedia policy seems to be in favour of naming entities after their most common English name, as in East Timor (not Timor-Leste, which is what the state's government uses in English). --Telex 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another reason I favour "Azeris", is that we know how to spell that in the Arabic alphabet used by the Azeris in Iran. --Telex 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean the Persian alphabet? --K a s h  Talk | email 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name is Azerbaijani(s), and that should be used instead of Azeris. Same as "Azerbaijani language" and not "Azeri language" as sometimes spelled. The latter is used mostly out of convenience -- it's shorter. But the Constitution of Azerbaijan clearly says Azerbaijani for both people and language. Recently, a special letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also circulated, which specified the same -- that it's Azerbaijani, not Azeri. However, since "Azeri" is also widespread, it should be included in the subhead or otherwise in the text. This all relates to the section below, "Cyrillic name", which also spells, in Azerbaijani Cyrillic alphabet, "Azeris", instead of "Azerbaijanis". --AdilBaguirov 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're sure then good (the Azerbaijani Google test turns up more results for Azərbaycanlılar than Azərilər). How about renaming it to Azerbaijanis? It's a shorter title, and for the reasons I stated above. --Telex 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I found out how to spell Azərbaycanlılar in the Arabic/Persian alphabet here. --Telex 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool deal. It's the little aesthetics that make the article look better so good job guys! Tombseye 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it makes perfect sense to simply state "Azerbaijanis". Just as "English", "Russian", "French", "Italian", "German", etc., for both people/ethnos and language. --AdilBaguirov 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that the "people" qualifier is needed only when the people need to be disambiguated from the language, as in English people vs English language. There is no term in that case which could refer only to the people (excluding the politically incorrect Englishmen). On the other hand, we have Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romanians, Arabs etc, as their titles are unambiguous. The split comes when we have Italian people instead of Italians and Russian people instead of Russians. It seems to me that the title depends on what the editors think is more appropriate. --Telex 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: There is "Азәриләр" in the table. It's apparently the name used in Cyrillic Azeri in the Azerbaijan SSR. I suggest to put it somewhere else, may be in the lead section. --Brand спойт 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic name? 

message: "Caucasian Albanians briefly established a kingdom that barely lasted a century, as Armenian invaders took control from 99-66 CE. They were followed by the Romans, who dominated Azerbaijan until 224 CE"
The above sentence it incorrect and should be changed. First of all, the "Armenian" reference I am sure refers to the Tigranes II Great's alleged conquests of Caucasian Albania (C.A.). Well, to begin with, he ruled from 95 to 66/65 BC, that's only 30 years. Seconly, he obviously didn't have much to rule in 95 BC when he ascended the throne. He subjected Atropatene and Media only by 85 BC, for example, and started losing much very quickly to Romans. Thirdly, according to some Armenian chroniclers, he made Caucasian Albania, a vassal state -- and to others, he incorporated some lands of C.A. into his empire. None of this is correct and I've got very details debunks of all those allegations. Indeed, scholarly sources and encyclopedia's mention NOTHING about conquest of C.Albania, as it is an early misconception by some, mostly Armenian, writers. Finally, Tigranes was not even ethnic Armenian -- he was Parthian, as was his whole dynasty of Artaxiads (as was the next royal dynasty of Armenia, Arsacids)! They were a branch of the Parthian Artaxiads of Iran, and have also, for continuity purposes, claimed to be of Iranian heritage, as descendants of the Eruandid dynasty.
Secondly, Romans did NOT dominate Azerbaijan at all -- where is that info from? Romans fought several battles with C.A., and it was a Pyrhic victory, with both sides losing huge numbers of soldiers. Once again, C.A. was not conquered. Indeed, the king of C.A. didn't even appear in Rome -- unlike Tigranes II and other kings of Armenia, who became vassals at different times of Rome, Byzantium, Parthia and Persia/Iran. 
Caucasian Albanian kingdom was established since IV-III century BC and existed until 705 AD century, and then while part of caliphate, several attempts were made to re-establish the kingdom, and it did, albeit partially, in IX and X centuries, as well as small principalities later. --AdilBaguirov 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History section fixed. Thanks. Tombseye 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please tell me when you want to make changes to the article as your changes were badly written (no offense as I realize you're not a native speaker) and redundant as Prince Javanshir is discussed one line after you added him. There's no need to add more as the article is already too long and no one is going to want to read more details. You'd be better off writing an article on Javanshir as there is currently none. Thanks. Tombseye 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and indeed I was tired. But the page in its current form, as I've said before, is incorrect in that section, and omits very important details. Here's the paragraph I had, which can be shortened: 
Caucasian Albanians are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of Azerbaijan. Early  invaders included the Scythians who arrived in the ninth century BCE. Azerbaijan - US Library of Congress Country Studies (retrieved 07 June 2006) A century after the Scythians, the Medes came to dominate the area to the south of the Aras.p. 38 The Medes forged a vast empire between 900-700 BCE, which was overthrown by the Achaemenids around 600 BCE. The Achaemenids, in turn, were defeated by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE as the Median satrap Atropates was allowed to remain in power. Following the decline of the Seleucids, in Persia, Caucasian Albanians established a kingdom, which was interrupted 224 CE until six century CE during which the Sassanids made it a nominally vassal state.p. 38 Caucasian Albania has officially adopted Christianity as its official religion in 313 CE UN document, HRI/CORE/1/Add.117, 27 February 2002 "Concerning on Christianization of Caucasus's nations" by Zurab Kananchev and would remain a Christian nation until the eighth century. Voices of the Ancients: Heyerdahl Intrigued by Rare Caucasus Albanian Text by Dr. Zaza Alexidze - Azerbaijan International, Summer 2002 (retrieved 07 June 2006) In the seventh century, the king of Caucasian Albania, Jevanshir, was killed in a court plot and the country was soon overrun by invading Muslim Arabs, starting in 642 CE and finishing in 705 CE. Iran - "Islamic Conquest," US Library of Congress Country Studies (retrieved 07 June 2006)
 Chronology of Azerbaijan History, (retrieved 15 June 2006)
The text still have errors -- for example, C.Albania was not established "following the decline of Seleucids" -- it existed already in Alexander the Great times!   My inclusion were dealing with two things: specify the year of adoption of Christianity, a very important fact, and two, clarify the wording and dates about Arab conquest, as well as alleged and disproven conquest by the Parthian Tigranes II Great. He obviously didn't, as even POV maps do not show territory left of Kura river as part of "Greater Armenia" (which means at the very minimum -- if we go along with those biased maps -- that no more than half of C.Albania was occupied). Meanwhile, C.Albania still retained all its lands, as even Strabo doesn't mention C.Albania among the conquests of Tigranes -- only Atropatena, that's it. Plus, Tigrane's activity was from 85BC to 69BC -- not from the already incorrect 99BC until 66BC. --AdilBaguirov 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasian Albania - never under Armenian, never under Roman control 

message: I just want to remind folks that adding more details about little things is not a winning recipe for a featured article. Most featured articles simply give overviews on things and then point to bigger articles with details. In many cases citations are what people will read if they want to know more about something. There are a lot of sub-articles that could be developed instead. This article is probably the longest of the ethnic group articles now AND doesn't need more (especially when it's badly written) unless it has something to do specifically with the Azeris. Otherwise, this article will fall apart and read badly and the average person (who is not Azeri or Iranian) will grow uninterested and stop reading. So please bring up changes here first. This is a request in the hopes that we don't suddenly see this article devolve into chaos. Thanks. Tombseye 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes a Featured Article

message: Not to make it harder for Tombseye, but I thought this data is important.  Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab (an Iranian Azarbaijani ) did his PhD in Cambridge University.  Here is the older homepage where he is mentioned as a student of the following Professor: .  In a recent article, see the Persian text   , the doctor and his group member in Cambridge have done extensive DNA testing in Iran. (the first of its kind).  Here is an important result from the text which I think should be mentioned:
براساس تحقيقات پژوهشگر ايراني ژنتيك پزشكي و جمعيتي دانشگاه «كمبريج» كه با كمك و نظارت گروهي از برجسته ترين محققان اين رشته انجام شده، جمعيت هاي ايراني كه با زبان‌هاي غير از گروه هندو-اروپائي تكلم مي‌كنند به ويژه جمعيت آذري زبان ساكن در فلات ايران ريشه ژنتيكي مشتركي با اقوام ترك زبان ساكن در كشور تركيه و اروپاي شرقي ندارند و بر عكس «شاخص‌هاي تمايز ژنتيكي» آنها (مانند FSt) با ساير گروه‌هاي ساكن در فلات ايران به ويژه فارسي زبانان نزديك به صفر است كه نشانگر ريشه ژنتيكي مشترك آنها در اعماق تاريخ ايران است. 
Based on the research of Dr. Bonab and the Cambrigde university genetic team where he received his PhD (so it is not just any research but actual PhD thesis was based on these results). The study was done on the indo-european and non Indo-European speaking groups of Iran.  Specially the large non- indo-european speaking Azerbaijanis.  The study found that the Azerbaijanis of Iran do not have a similar FSt and other genetic markers as those of Anatolian Turks and Turkic speakers of Europe.  But on the other hand, their genetic Fst and other genetic traits is very identical to the Persian speakers of Iran.  
The above data should be incorporated in the genetic section of the text.  --Ali doostzadeh 05:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali, this is an unproven and unclear result - first, because it does not prove anything about Azerbaijanis per se (i.e., north and south), and second because there are often very contradictory results from studies seemingly using same recognized methods (e.g., see , , ). This is hard science and we should treat it as such. Until the study of Dr. Bonab is fully published for review, it is not correct to jump into premature conclusions. --AdilBaguirov 05:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dr. Bonab's research has been done in conjunction with Cambridge University and it is the most exentsive genetic study of Iranian groups. I do not see anything wrong with stating the result.  I can email the Cambridge University team to verify the facts more if it is necessary.  The articles you cited are not DNA studies.  Also it is not necessary to have genetic studies of all the region although in the more extensive report that will come out, I am sure Dr. Bonab has done testing beyond the Aras river of Iran as well.  But for now, the above results are solid and backed by the research of Cambridge University.  Here is the picture of Dr. Bonab in Cambridge University.    --Ali doostzadeh 05:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reports I brought were on medical studies indeed, the effects of which are better known than the DNA studies. Secondly, we need to give far more background info -- like is provided on the DNA studies that are linked already to the article. Thirdly, are Persian-speakers in Iran as close to Tajiks in Tajikistan or other Persian-speakers outside of Iran, closer to each other or to people in their respective countries? I think the answer is pretty obvious, unless the ethnic (or linguistic) groups under study is very small and lives in mountains or on an island). Fourth, since it's scientific studies, then specific, hard numbers should be used -- i.e., if various defined groups are different, then by how much, is the difference/divergence by 1% and within margin of error, or 90%? Finally, the article already has excessive emphasis of various DNA studies -- this is truly excessive, unprecedented and bordering on racism. Adding more is smth of an obscession which in the end doesn't prove much. --AdilBaguirov 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DNA and medical effects are two different things.  DNA is the ultimate marker and is 100% accurate whereas medical studies are trial and errors.  The background info is in the article I mentioned, I will contact Cambridge University soon to get more materials.  I would probably say geographical distance determiness genetic approximity more than language.  So Persian speakers of say Khorasan near Mash-had are probably closer to Persian speakers of Herat.  And Persian speakers of say Qazvin or Hamadan or closer to the Turkic or Kurdic speakers of that area.  This was shown in a recent study with Azerbaijanis and Armenian of caucus as well, where Azerbaijanis of caucus were much more closer to Armenians than Anatolian Turkic speakers.   DNA is mostly a deterministic science since the actual gene is not statistical.  But the margin of error can be do to sampling a large population.    But what is important is that amongst the samples themselves, there is no margin of error.  Or to say it accurately, if 50 of group X and 50 of group Y were examined, we can say that within these 100 samples, there is no error.  I do not think DNA studies have anything to do with racism and indeed they will provide many interesting new facts about history of different groups.  Of course like any science they can be used for bad purpose (create weapons to target specific genes which is racist), but that is not the goal I hope.  But when discussing matters of origin, they are getting more spot-light every day. --Ali doostzadeh 06:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genetic evidence has always consistently supported the Iranian orignis, that is why those who promote the Turkic view argue that ethnicity should be decided by language; in which case we are all Anglo-Saxons! 69.196.164.190 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Genetic Data 

message: As far as I know, the Iranian government refuses to publish statistics on ethnicity. The only "official" information I found (which is rather a semi-official one) is a text from the Iranian embassy in Germany  which claims that Azeris are 20% of the population (13.8m). 
Tājik 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian government and statistics 

message: thumb|right|Samad Behrangi
I have uploaded this pic of the popular Iranian Azari author, if it is needed feel free to use it. --K a s h  Talk | email 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, will place him somewhere. Tombseye 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too happy with the ancient period part, it talks about christianity and "Muslim" arabs but doesn't say much about the fact that Medes, Achamenids and Sassanids were all prominently Zoroastrians --K a s h  Talk | email 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added brief mention of Zoroastrianism in ancient section. There is no need to discuss it further as it is covered in other parts of the article (Iranian theory) AND the links provided explain how each dynasty was Zoroastrian anyway. The article's too long and wikilinks are what provide details. There's too much to cover to please everyone as the article is simply too long at this point. Tombseye 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of Samad, I would have put Sattar Khan.  But either way, the article is very informative and although there is never an article where everyone can be happy 100%, I think this article has done a good job overall.  --Ali doostzadeh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think Sattar Khan or Baghir Khan are more famous and definitely merit to be mentioned more than Samad Behrandi. Also, the population of Azerbaijan Republic should be adjusted - the official figure is 8,436.4 milllion for 2006 - source: State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan  --AdilBaguirov 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sattar Khan's picture is on the page actually. Thanks for the population stats. I will change them right away. Tombseye 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samad