Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 2

message: This article is obviously constantly vandalised by Armenians. They are pretending to be Iranians but they are Armenians and admins should not allow Armenian propaganda. This article is nothing but Armenian propaganda and misinformation. Azerbijan IS NOT as written here. The continuous Armenian vandalism shows what their civilisation is all about. They have created many account and pretend to be from Iran. Look at the economy of Armenia and it will be clear instead of workinh to make their country better they are paying people to spread misinformation. 80.97.82.93 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article constantly vandalised by Armenians, paid or non-paid 

message: Hi,
I'd just like to state that the poor bunch of Pan-Persians foaming at the mouth are making total fool's of themselves.
As an Azeri Turk in diaspora thanks to the opressive Iranian regime I can openly state that my language is Turkish, I am a Turk, yet also an Iranian as in citizen.   The reason I say this is because Iran does not recognise my language, provide's no education in my language, we are made to feel that as Turks we are not Iranians as to be Iranian you must speak Persian and abide by the Persian rules and culture.
For this reason I do not regard myself as an "equal" Iranian, me and millions like me are not allowed to speak the language of the people who ruled this land for 1000 years which is a real shame.
Turks have been in the region for over 2000 years, open your history books and read it, it is documented as far back to 500 BC.
The Khazar's and their ancestor's settled in the region in 100 AD, so the claim of no Turks being in the region prior to the Selcuks is a common Persian lie.
To see for yourselves about the linguistic state in Iran here is an objective source.
For Iran
Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish
Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani
Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).
Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
That;s almost 30 million Native Turkish speakers in Iran.
If there are any here who still try to deny we are Turks then tell us this in our own language, let's debate this in Turkish which is our language, oh but you can't can you because you are not Azeri, Qaskay or Turkmen.
It would be alot better if you could just accept the realities, we are not Persian, don't speak Persian, Azeri Turks of Iran are Iranian citizens, Azeri Turks of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijan citizen's and luckily have their beautiful language as the National one, they teach our fabulous language in schools, its the language of the state, of media, of national identity, there they can be what they are and speak their mind about who they are.
Shamefully this isn't the case in my country, even more disgracefull is when these Persian's start foaming at the mouth calling anyone who say's they are a Turk an agent from Turkey.
Please, stop the paranoia, were living inside Iran, not in Turkey, if you carry on fooling yourself otherwise very soon South Azerbaijan will be joining the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran will have been destroyed by the Persians.
I have visited the Republic of Azerbaijan many time's, it make's me so proud and happy to see my nation living our and speaking our beautiful language, to see them proud and open about who they are, a place where being a Turk is a beatiful thing, hopefully one day the same will be said for Iran.
Azerbaycan ölmedi
Özlüyünden dönmeyib
Azerbaycan oyaqdır
Varlığına dayaqdır 
Ana dilim ölen deyil
Özge dile çönen deyil'''
Tabriz_han
it just shows , that my figures were  right ,i said 20-22 millions azeris  and eight to nine millions kurds but that souce seems to be pretty  well 
it would mean , that today thre are about 25 millions azeris and 8 millions kurds in iran, considering population growth 
kurdish dialects 
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
Hawrami [hac] 22,948 in Iran 
Kurdish, Central [ckb] 3,250,000 in Iran
Kurdish, Northern [kmr] 350,000 in Iran 
Kurdish, Southern [sdh] 3,000,000 in Iran (2000 Fattah). 
Laki [lki] 1,000,000 (2002 Fattah).
*Guys, Ethnologue figures are wrong, their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 millions more than the population of Iran (that also includes 3-4 millions Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out! see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran   Kiumars 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want to know what Azeri's are ask Azeri's for the answer will be obviously what we and that is Azeri Turks 

message: It has scientifically been established through genetics that Azaris are Turcophone (or Turkic speaking) Iranians. I have no problem in anyone saying that I am a Turkic person due to my langauge, but ethnically I am an Iranian. The majority of Azaris also view themselves as Iranians. Language is not the factor that defines a race or ethnic group. 72.57.230.179
::Cite the study, its authors, when was done, who funded, who published -- there is not such credible scientific studies and it is generally easy to distinguish most ethnic Azerbaijanis from most ethnic Persians, for example. Often, there are anthropological differences, although I've never dwelled into details of such research. Of course, this doesn't mean that ethnic Azerbaijanis don't have Caucasian, Iranian, Semitic and other lineage, but then all ethnic Persians and other Iranians have also Turkic, Caucasian, Semitic and other lineages too. --AdilBaguirov 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually Azaris are Iranian

message: The Azerbaijan page lacked references and quotes from the authoritative English-language sources, and the following were added: CIA World Factbook's succinct description, the 4 UN Security Council resolutions, the PACE resolution and the OIC resolution, along with the US Presidential Determination. All these are extremely important and reflect the independent, unbiased, non-partisan POV and indeed, in case of UN SC, are legally binding as become international law. All these detailed references and quotes must stay in the page and should not be removed. --AdilBaguirov 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent, unbiased determination by the world community re: NK conflict 

message: If someone is able, please gather and provide here a list of all official government websites and remove spam from this page. Thanks. Azarian 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official websites

message: Where is this bull about 25 million Iranian Azeris coming from?  Azeris constitute one-fourth of Iran's population...Iran's population is 70 million...25 million would only be accurate if Iran's population were 100 million, in which case one-fourth or 25 percent would be just that, 25 million.  Do the math again...also, Azerbaijan Republic is not 8 million Azeris it is six and half million, because one and a half million Talish are not ethnic Azeris (I am even going as far as counting Lezgins as ethnic Azeris, which they are not)...Azerbaijan Republic has had one agenda since its foundation...to take over northern IRAN which it still refers to as "South Azerbaijan" as if it were a southern province of Azerbaijan Republic, and stir up ethnic strife in Iran.  Iran's policy of supporting Armenia and keeping Azerbaijan Republic weak is right on the money...you don't let your sworn enemy get an inch.  IRAN is with you ARMENIA!  Long live Hayistan!  Long live independent Talish-Mughan Republic!  Long live Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/Armenia!  Aliyev, you will see Tabriz the same day you see Stepanakert (Xankendi as you call it)...NEVER!
*My good friend, It is not Aliyev’s plan it is America’s plan. America fears that Northern Azeris may want to join Iran (the mother land) and they have been working hard on several plans in the last 10 years but as you can see Iran is still Iran and is getting stronger everyday with the help of all Iranians (Azeri and Fars and Kurds and the other 75 languages apparently spoken in Iran according to Ethnologue!). Iran was not build in a day and will not be destroyed in a day.   Kiumars 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To all the provocateurs: according to the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences' most recent estimate (2004), Azerbaijanis constitute up to 28% of Iranian population or, as they also mention, according to other calculations about 1/3 of the population. This does not include other Turkic peoples that are scattered in the south and north-east of the country, which is another 3-4%. Hence, 25 million is actually a reasonable estimate. --AdilBaguirov 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Iran is a extremist country who funds world wide terrorist organisations, who on earth would want to be part of such destruction. Baku87 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures of Iranian Azeris 

message: Does anybody actually know the proven oil reserves of Azerbaijan? I have come across figures from 589 million bbl (CIA Factbook) to some who claim 30-40 billion bbl! If it is only 589 million bbl it will run out in a few years! Does anybody actually know? Kiumars 08:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. And Azerbaijani oil will not run out for 30 years. Meanwhile, no one has ever claimed 30-40 billion bbl -- President Aliyev always states the figure of 6-7 bbl. --AdilBaguirov 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: BP and the president Azerbaijan have stated that with the opening of BTC which will transfer about a million barrels a day, and that they except th~e BTC to last for at least 30 years. If you do the math it basicly means Azerbaijan has about 10,9 billion oil in reserce Baku87 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil Reserves

message: This section says: 
The name they chose for their new nation was Azerbaijan ... in hopes of claiming north western Iran.
Is there any proof of that, other than publications of some Iranian authors, who have obvious bias in this issue? Also the text of this new section is very far from NPOV rules and presents the issue in typical propaganda fashion. According to the rules, we present only the facts without taking any sides. So I attached the tag, which should remain, until the problem is corrected. Grandmaster 05:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, if you look into the main page, if you actually read it before you put it pu for deletion, you will see the quotes of several people who all say it was for political reasons to claim northern iran. the pan turkist movement that started at the begining of WWI had these intentions. infact, the ottomans invaded russia,thinking that they could defeat russia and get to central asia and united all the turkic peoples. Khosrow II 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well abdulnr, its not my fault that you have never read a source regarding it, but the source is listed in the main article, have you even read it? I am taking off the tag until you come up with the exact problem, not a general statement.Khosrow II 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I gotta agree with Abdulnr thats just way to POV. Baku87 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" tag 

message: I don't think that "Land of the Eternal Fire" is a motto as much as it is a nickname.  A motto would be more like a phrase or a short list of words meant formally to describe the general motivation or intention of an entity (in this case a specfic country).  Take the mottos of the United States ("In God We Trust"), the Czech Republic ("Truth prevails!"), or Turkey ("Peace at Home, Peace in the World") for example.  By comparison, "Land of the Eternal Fire" is merely a literal meaning of a word ("Azerbaijan") and does not describe the general motivation or intention of the Republic of Azerbaijan.  I'm removing it until somebody can find an actual motto for the country (if one even exists). -- Clevelander 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they misunderstood the concept of motto when they accepted it, but thats the official motto of Azerbaijan, I can understand your point Clevelander, maybe its not really approriate to be a motto but it is the motto of the country, ask any other Azeri they will confirm it. We cant just make up a motto ourselfs for Azerbaijan. So best thing right now is just to put it back up, as it is the official motto of the country. Baku87 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but additionally there are no Azerbaijani government sources that confirm this to be the country's official motto. It has been taken off and will stay off.  -- Clevelander 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Land of the Eternal Fire

message: Could someone add IPA pronunciation to the lead? I'm not familiar with the subject:) --Brand спойт 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current "IPA pronunciation" shown, "[a-trO-p&-'tE-nE]", is certainly _not_ IPA. It shouldn't be too hard to fix a correct phonemic pronunciation, if it's only clearified whether the intention is to make one of the English or the Azeri name. /The Phoenix 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I also doubted. --Brand спойт 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: There's no need to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with POV interpretations of the history. Khosrow has already been warned by admins that this is not acceptable, still he continues to push his POV. There's enough of information about the name in Etymology section, with a link to a more detailed article, no need to consume so much space in this article by nationalistic nonsence. Grandmaster 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as long as we have an article on the history of the name "Azerbaijan," then we're fine.  We don't need a section on the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" on every article relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 09:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. Khosrow II was even warned by the admin that this is not acceptable,  but still he continues to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive and POV section. Grandmaster 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not spam, its a summarized sourced section leading to a main article, just as the Azerbaijan page links to otehr articles while also having summaries. This is not spamming.Khosrow II 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name 

message: Are we ready to unprotect this page yet? There hasn't been much discussion for awhile... —Khoikhoi 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should.  Again, I don't see the point in arguing over the name "Azerbaijan" and inserting the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" section on every single page relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is not settled yet, it is being discussed else where. If this article gets unlocked, GM will just start another revert/edit war.Khosrow II 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: The theory that the name Azerbaijan has anything to do with Turkic is historical revisionism. Firstly, it does not explain why the term Azarbaijan, Azarpadegan, and Atropatene were used, thousands of years (Atropatene, Azarpadegan) and centuries (Azarbaijan) before the Turkic peoples even got there? Historical revisionism, ordered during the time of the Soviets (direct orders from Stalin), to do several things: a)making sure the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran, b) rewrite the history of the territory and the newly formed republic. Secondly, the Az people the Turkic theory is referring to is a pure lie. There was only one Az people in the Near East/Eurasia, a people that had nothing to do with the region. Also, the name Azerbaijani was only invented in the 1890's by the Russians to distinguish Turkic peoples of Iranic descent from other Turkic peoples. Again, this does not explain the "Az" people reference. This theory is pure historical revisionism. I'm taking it out. Furthermore, the name Azerbaijan is the Turkified version of Azarbaijan, because the Turkic languages cannot prounce Azar, therefore, again, this shows that there is no way the name Azerbaijan was original.Khosrow II 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are these stories written? In your nationalistic, the one and the only source iranica encyclopedia(?) or fairy tales from Andersen? 
You say the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran
There are 23,5 millions Azeri Turks in Iran. These peoples have the same language, culture and ethnicity with Azerbaijan. --Karcha 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the R. of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran. The history of the R. of Azerbaijan begins in 1918 to present. The Caucasus's history is definetly tied with Irans. Arran, Shirvan, Ganja, etc... were part of Iran for thousands of years before Russia invaded. What are you talking about?Khosrow II 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical revisionist theory

message: Suggest someone run down the blank for the Georgia (country) map, and colorize for this state. See :Image:Europe location GEO.png, Actually cropping that to right side is even better thought. Don't need Western Europe, just the Balkans. Best regards // <B>Fra</B>nkB 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: I noticed that there are political arguments here rather than other things and from reading the article it can be seen that it has been politicised in the text. Let's look at the following text:
With the collapse of Tsarist Russia in 1917, the Musavat ("Equality") Turkic Federalist Party, which had pan Turkic elements within it, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state, which they named Azerbaijan. According to some sources, the name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim north western Iran.[4][5] The Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union.[6][7] Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".[8]
The references of this paragraph are from 1) a letter of Aremania to the UN in which the writer has some claims. Is this a source when writing an article about Azerbaijan?? To refer to a letter from a representative of a waring nation?? The other two sources are from a book and an article from Atabaki Touraj and other from N. Kawyani. These cannot be taken as reliable source becasue books and article, opposed to reliable and accepted scientific or scholarly institutions can have the sole purpose of politics. I am not against citing from them but in a neutral way, noit as declaratively as above: "which had pan Turkic elements within it" or "Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians"." The reader understands that these are proved facts but they are not reliable so the texting of the article must be changed to be more neutral. Whoever reads this article clearly understands that the name Azerbaijan is wrong! Bm79 04:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG FAULTS IN THE ARTICLE 

message: Involved parties, please let's have a debate and solve the problem in a civilised manner. The article, as it suggest, is too mcuh politicising. We should offer different points of view in the article if the name is that important, in an impartial manner. At this moment the article is too much POV, politicised. This damages the article's credibility. We should solve the problem and remove the "neutrality dispute" tag. We are supposed to be civilised people, right? We are talking about Iran's old and strong civilisation, right? Then we shall be able to discuss one simple artile. Iranians and zerbijanis have a long history of brotherhood and separating them from each other is not correct, so let's unite and find a common ground to write a good article. Is it possible? It is ture that there is a Republic of Azerbaijan at this moment, but Iranians and those from the republic of Azerbijan shall also behave like civilised people rather than quarreling. Politics have devided us, but we can still be united. I invite my fellow people from th OLD great IRAN to come together and talk about the issues they do not agree aupo. I am sure we can find common ground. Thanks and looking forward. I am sure neither the Iranians nor the Azeris of the Republic are in bad faith but we (they) fail to cool down a bit. Khahesh mikonam sohbat bokonim dar yek majmae samimane ve motamadden! Lutfen bir semimiyetli ve medeniyetli toplanma'da danishaq! :) Bm79 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that all that stuff about the name should be moved to the article about the name, otherwise what’s the point of its existence? The etymology section should not repeat the history section, which it does now. The declaration of Azerbaijan’s independence is currently described twice, in two different sections. It should not be so. I think that it is enough to leave a link to the History of the name Azerbaijan in the etymology section, rather than duplicate the history section with Iranian POV interpretations. Grandmaster 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your personal opinion. It has been greatly shortened. You do not have an excuse anymore.Azerbaijani 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to be written by opponents of the state of Azerbaijan. It is just a political pamphlet. Poor, very poor. 85.186.230.115 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the name Azerbaijan 

message: There is no reason to revert my edit that describes Atropates as a Persian.  I sourced this to a page at livius.org that describes him as a Persian nobleman.  I don't know why it is thought that by being satrap in Media makes him ethnically Median.  See .  I don't know where the idea that he was "Iranian" comes from, unless Iranian peoples in general are meant.  If so, the Persian description is only more specific.  Nareklm describes the edit as "inaccurate"; please explain.  The Behnam 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They usually mix up Iranian and Persian because its basically the same or known as the same thing do you have any other references stating that he is "Persian"? Nareklm 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they tend to mix them up, but I saw this source as giving it more specifically.  I'll take a look for repeats of that notion.  Are you still against having it in place of "Iranian", which could mean "Median" or "Persian" in this situation? Right now we have one fairly reliable source(livius.org) stating him as Persian, while none(that I can tell) stating him as an actual Mede.  If it had simply called him a "Persian satrap", I would be more doubtful since it could be referring to employment as satrap under Persian empire.  But it states him as a "Persian nobleman".  Tell me if there is some reason to doubt the identification.  Have you seen something identifying him with a different Iranian group?  Of course, nothing will happen until protection ends, but it is good to get it worked out.  Thanks  The Behnam 07:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There appears to be some controversy over his specific ethnicity.   seems the primary source for those that say he is "Median", while a few other things say he is a "Persian satrap and general", which is ambiguous.  This source says that he is Persian(just search atropates).  Tell me if you find something.  The Behnam 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I have thought of a solution.  Just call him a "satrap of Media," not mentioning exactly which type of Iranian he was ethnically.  It doesn't really matter that much to this article, so it is best to avoid the dispute between Persian or Median.  They were nearly the same at that point anyway.  The Behnam 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atropates

message: All the sources in the disputed part of etymology section are not reliable. One of them is called Letter dated 30 April 2001 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations . How this can be considered a reliable source? By the same token I can make edits to the article about Armenia using as reference letters of Azerbaijani government to UNO. The other 2 sources are nationalistic Iranian Faroukh and Reza, both extremely biased and prejudiced anti-Azerbaijani sources. How about citing neutral sources to support the claims made in that section? Grandmaster 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is like describing the USA using only Marxist and Islamist sources.  People who support the use of these sources need to explain why they should be used, because they do not appear reliable.  Armenia is the closest Azerbaijan has to an enemy, while the other sources are from irredentist Iranians who happen to include Azerbaijan as part of their imagined Iranian super-state.  It is in the interests of both of these groups to deem Azerbaijan as a somehow illegitimate state.  Considering this is the page for that entire nation, it is understandable that people find use of these sources objectionable and demeaning, if not downright offensive.  I suggest that such views only be expressed in the article devoted to the naming controversy, and that the section here only have a short, neutral statement simply explaining the proposed meanings for the name.  There should be no mention of pan-Turkists and attempts to claim northwestern Iran, as placing emphasis on allegations is not usually appropriate for general articles about a nation.  While it seems that defenders of these sources are taking a break while the page is locked as this unacceptable version, I hope that they are honorable enough to be open to discussion.  The Behnam 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how this article has been accepted. I have noticed that there are many people who are constantly changing the articles about Azerbaijan and have no interest in discussion. It is visible that these articles have no intention of giving useful information about the country Azerbaijan but rather to give the impression that the country Azerbaijan if illegitimate. As long as Azerbaijan exists what is the point of an encyclopedia proving or not whether the country's name is from this or that or whether the country is legitimate or not? And of course the sources mentioned are absolutely unreliable. Roazir 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to prove that these sources are not reliable, since you are the one making the accusations. Whats wrong with a document submitted to the United Nations? You cannot claim that a source is not reliable due to nationality. Both Dr. Farrokh and Dr. Atabki are respected historians who work for Western Universities. Dr. Farrokh himself is half Iranian Azerbaijani. Neither of them are nationalists. Both, as far as I know, are against the current regime and neither of them have any goals of an Iranian super state, but rather protecting Iranian history from Pan Turkist attacks. Dr. Farrokh himself, in his online book, clearly says that he has nothing against Turks, nor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He even goes as far as to call them brothers and sisters. However, when it comes to history, he is a specialist and when it comes to the name of Azerbaijan and the country in the Caucasus, they merely state the facts. Again, you have to prove that the sources are not reliable with evidence. Remember, the only reason that sources from the government of Azerbaijan are unacceptable is because the government openly supports historical revisionism. In 1988, the then president claimed that Armenia was a fictitious state created on Azerbaijani land. The president of Azerbaijani's website claims many non-Azerbaijani's to be Azerbaijani. Infact, I have even heard that the embassies of Azerbaijan (I forgot which one, but I'll try to find it) claim that Zoroastrianism was originally a Turkish religion. So far, none of you have brought any evidence, all you have pulled out was the race card, and a sources reliability is not based on race or nationality. Please dont waste any of our time if the race issue is the only thing you can bring up.Azerbaijani 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The section has already been shortened considerably several times due to requests by Grandmaster and others as evident by the history. There is nothing controversial about this, its about the history of the name of Azerbaijan and how it applies to the country, it in no way is saying that the country is illegitimate, it merely questions the name used for it.Azerbaijani 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is based on unreliable sources, therefore it should be removed. Grandmaster 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot dictate to me what is and what is not reliable. You havent proven anything in regards to these sources not being reliable, so I dont even know why you are still insisting.Azerbaijani 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources again 

message: Hello! The page Azerbaijan has been blocked/protected from the edit. It's impossible to edit it. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.10.181 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request page unprotection here: WP:RFPP. --Grandmaster 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is a dispute.Azerbaijani 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected! 

message: Here is one Grandmaster, now you have no excuse:
The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected (for Arran anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran
Source: Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.Â  
I will post more as I find them.Azerbaijani 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just one source, that contradicts others. You still cannot present it as a fact, but only as opinion of this person. That's why I suggest to keep it all in the article about the history of the name as Ali suggested. Grandmaster 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. You do not get to dictate anything, you have been proven wrong and I have even fulfilled your request of a third party source from a well known and respected Soviet historian, who acknowledges Soviet actions regarding the name Azerbaijan. This is getting beyond the point of ridiculousness.Azerbaijani 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember WP:CIVIL.  Try a constructive response if you want to help improve the article.  Thanks!  The Behnam 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was elaborating just as you made this comment, so no, Wow, was not my only statement.Azerbaijani 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! lol sorry about that.  The Behnam 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Adil's comment on this here: . And also, you version of the quote says nothing about Soviets having anything to do with the name. It implies that it was selected so that Azerbaijani people in the North and South could unite by their own will in one state. Still, it is an opinion of one person (if the quote is correct) and cannot be presented as fact. Grandmaster 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandmaster, this is getting ridiculous. First of all, what do Adil's comments have to do with anythign? secondly, no, the quote is as it is, do not put your spin on things. It says The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected. Let me make that more clear, it says that the name Azerbaijan was chosen for Soviet Azerbaijan on the assumption that Irans territory would become one with it eventually, and that was why the name was selected. This is clear, and it shows the Soviet intentions.Azerbaijani 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it does not say that the Soviets chose the name. Check Adil's post, he provides the actual quote in Russian, it does not say Soviet Azerbaijan, it says Azerbaijan republic. The actual context is very different from your version. Grandmaster 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its from 1963, how could he have possibly been talking about the Azerbaijan republic? He is obviously talking about the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I checked out that Barthold quote that Adil posted, and it has nothing to do with this one, Barthold is taking about something completely different! Infact, he even reinstates his suspicious as to the name Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan SSR.Azerbaijani 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote is from 1925. You still don't have clear understanding of its context. Grandmaster 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More reason for it to be Azerbaijan SSR that hes talking about.Azerbaijani 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Member "Azerbaijani" (strangely given himself the name Azerbaijani) does not follow civility and I am surprised he has not been blocked. Roazir 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The according to some sources was there because Grandmaster was saying the sources were not neutral. I presented a third party reliable source. If you want to argue against that, then you would be the one with the POV. I merely added a source. If you want to say "some sources", you could literally say that in every single Wikipedia article. How about we go around and put "according to some sources" all over Wikipedia? Its funny that you should accuse me of not trying to improve the encyclopaedia when I am the only one adding sources to it. I dont know why your here, but certainly, if you going to attack me for adding a solid source into this article, then I'm not the one you should be talking about.Azerbaijani 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "some sources" comment was added because of the highly disputed content and applicability of the sentence, which appears to be giving undue weight to a fringe view.  There are still issues with your sources, even the Barthold one, so I don't think you should act unilaterally.  Grandmaster is not the only one who found the sources, and the section as a whole, contentious.  Just because you insist that your sources are perfectly acceptable does not make them so.  A bunch of users here find them problematic, and you have simply ignored or dodged concerns raised.  I am here to improve the article by seeking neutrality; the questions is: why are you here, "Azerbaijani?"  The Behnam 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not justify Azerbaijani edit warring, but I don't see how deleting sources and forcing others in, justify the deletion of sources itself. Both Adil and Grandmaster are using this pretext to do just the same thing. The information about the Pan-Turanist ideology and the plan of union is not a fringe and is not only relevent but even a must to include in this article. Fad (ix) 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This conflict could be avoided here by simply relegating the topic to the page devoted to the topic.  As the main page for this nation, it should probably just say what Azerbaijan is believed to mean, and mention that a controversy exists over the choice of name, but link to the main article for that topic.  The details of views shouldn't be included, as this has led to a conflict over whether or not one view is getting too much weight.  On the real article for the topic, people can mention the arguments and counterarguments.  Then all of this mess would be left for that page, and the neutrality conflict can be avoided.  Why preserve a conflict that can be avoided?  The Behnam 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same can be said for the culture section, or the demographics section, or the history section, etc..., how about the whole article just be the first paragraph? No double standards please.Azerbaijani 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I’m kind of surprised to hear that from Fadix. As if he did not remove sourced information and reverted all of my edit on Paytakaran. The problem is not with information, but with sources it is based on. A question for Fadix: do you think that you can present as fact info, based on the opinion of the embassy of Armenia? If so, is it OK if I will include information in the article about Armenia providing embassy of Azerbaijan as reference? Grandmaster 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit with your accusations, you know why I deleted them. As for your question, of course not, my point was only on the Pan-Turanism stuff, which is documented. I have no interest to contribute to this article, I ended up here only because I was wondering on what this guy with the alias 'Azerbaijani' was contributing in and followed his contributions. Fad (ix) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Pan-Turanism stuff" (?), in the geo-political and military terms implied by Fadix and Azerbaijani, is not supported by scholars, in fact, most note that any Pan-Turkic tendencies were purely cultural, linguistic and humanitarian in nature, and that Pan-Islamism played a far greater role in Musavat Party, and that was even admitted by the founders of ADR as "neo-Islamism". Similarly, Socialist agenda was extremely high, and indeed, there was even cooperation with Bolsheviks one way or another, even some ADR founders and Musavat members became Communist later -- or were Hummet party members before creation of Musavat in 1911. Meanwhile, for some time now there is a term "Azerbaijani nationalism", and Rasulzade, Musavat, ADR, etc., should be viewed primarily through that prism -- like all Armenian or Ossetian nationalist policies viewed as such, and not "Pan-Christian". So the historic events are not as simplistic as Fadix and user "Azerbaijani" would want us to believe. --AdilBaguirov 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party sources

message: User Eupator is unilaterally removing several fully cited sources, whilst adding back poorly cited one's, and does all this without participating in the extensive discussions on the Talk pages of this and other articles, such as History of the name of Azerbaijan, and Mamed Emin Rasulzade. This continuing vandalism ought to stop. --AdilBaguirov 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the edit, telling him to use the talk page.  Hence he is a given a chance.  If he continues unilateral, disruptive, provocative, vandalish edits then action will inevitably have to be taken against him.  The Behnam 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, because it started to get ridiculous -- just because Eupator has a axe to grind doesn't give him a right to just revert page with fully cited references, whilst inserting poorly cited, translated and clearly disputed one's. --AdilBaguirov 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of the page 

message: To stop this endless discussion with Azerbaijani, who obviously is not going to agree on anything, I would like to propose changing the contentious paragraph titled "Etymology and usage" to the following:
::With the collapse of Russian Empire in 1917, a group of Azerbaijani intellectuals, former members of Transcaucasian Seim as well as Musavat ("Equality") Turkic Democratic Federalist Party, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 and proclaimed the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan. In 1920, Bolsheviks conquered the Caucasus, at which time Azerbaijan became a Soviet Socialist Republic. The references to these are pretty much everyone, ranging from M. Smith to F. Kazemzade and many others.
I think all contentious POV and sources thereof from iranchamber.com or from self-proclaimed scholar-"expert on Azerbaijan" Kaveh Farrokh in Rozaneh(?!) magazine should be moved to "History of the name Azerbaijan" page and discussed there. Main Azerbaijan page is no place to discuss either the contentious claims on either side or the nature of political party in Azerbaijan, not mentioning that Musavat already has a dedicated page. I guess if we agree, we should vote and present our objections, all, except Azerbaijani for now, as his position is clear. Thanks. Atabek 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That mentions nothing about the usage of the name... Again, you obviously still have not read Wikipedia's NPOV, NOR, NPA, etc.. policies, your sock has been banned, you are in no position to be attacking others.Azerbaijani 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cited no real sources that support your view. The only real source is Barthold, but 1 source is not enough and according to the rules the minority view cannot be given an undue weight. Grandmaster 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources may not be in line with your POV, but they meet the verifiability requirements. I am amazed that you complain about the neutrality of User:Azerbaijani's sources and then you yourself use azerbembassy.org as source to support your own POV. --Mardavich 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mardavich, please, take your personal POV against Grandmaster somewhere else. The references provided below in ADR section should be sufficient for you. If you want to know more about the history, I suggest reading scholars such as Swietochowski, Smith, Kazemzadeh, and not those from amateur webpage. The azembassy link is provided, because it contains the source text, not because the source is made by azembassy. Atabek 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the rational and logical thing to do and has been supported also by Ali Doostzadeh "It is just best that all these data are gathered in one spot so other threads which had many problems in the past will not dwell on this issue. --alidoostzadeh 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting? 

message: OK, here are a few archival and academic references to add about the Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkic/Pan-Turkism/Pan-Turanism labels that are being recklessly inserted by user Azerbaijani. I will let the sources speak for themselves. All translations from Russian are mine.
First, we should also not forget the role of the "Ittihad" party, the officially Pan-Islamist in ADR, which was in opposition to Musavat, and helped Bolshevik's to invade and occupy Azerbaijan, leading to the demise of ADR.
"However, all of this had nothing in common with the notorious Pan-Islamism, in which the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement have been accused of for decades by some unfaithful researchers. Islamic solidarity the leaders of our national movement understood only as collaboration and mutual assistance in joint struggle for common goals -- national liberation of Muslim nations from colonialism of the European powers." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 5.
The authors of a 1931 book about the Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turkic labels noted: "[i]n the documents signed by Tsarist Minister of Internal Affairs Stolypin, in official decisions of "special councils", in large-volume cases at the gendarmerie [police], in one word, in all cases, when in former Russian empire one was dealing with a movement (agrarian, national-liberation, revolutionary, etc.) of Turkic-Tatar peoples in Russia, one generic prescription and standard form of definition was ready -- Pan-Islamism". Source: A.Arsharuni, Kh.Gabidullin. Sketches of Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism in Russia. (In Russian). Moscow: 1931, p. 3.
"This is testified by the actions of some representatives of the clergy after the February revolution [Second Russian in 1917] against "Musavat" and even declaring the party as enemy of Islam. Speaking on this occassion at the I Convention of "Musavat" in October 1917, M.E.Rasulzade stated: "A person, when entering a mosque, should forget politics, the party, the idea, and pray only to God. Moreover, the clergy should not interfere ["zanimatsya"] in politics, and in political struggle the mosque should remain neutral". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing Central State Archive of Modern History of the Republic of Azerbaijan, f. 894, op. 10, ed.khr. 60, p. 12.
Here's another Rasulzade quote: "The historical experience had shown, that from one side, giving birth to the theocratic-clerical-reactionary movement, and from another side, preventing the appearance of national ideology in Muslim world, the Pan-Islamism is preventing the awakening of national identity of these nations, delays their progress, and, with this, interferes with their becoming independent nations. That is why, in all Muslim countries, the process of awakening of national identity should be strengthened, because the root of all progress, as well as the foundation of national independence, is only the existence of national "I"." Source: Azerbaijan and Russia: the societies and states. D.E.Furman (ed.), in Russian, Moscow: Letniy Sad (Academician Andrey Sakharov Foundation), 2001. URL: http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_009.htm
In his own book, Rasulzade differentiated between "romantic Pan-Turanism" -- whose aim is creation of a unified Turkic state -- and simply "Turkism" or Pan-Turanism, which was a cultural, linguistic and humanitarian concept, not geo-political or military. (see: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 7).
And as Rasulzade noted, "Azerbaijani political figures, in particular, members of Musavat, stood in opposition to the romantic Pan-Turanism, which was an utopia, that did not have any real basis." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 71.
He further noted: "Romantic, political Pan-Turanism is no more, there is only "Turkism", which aims to achieve only real and, in particular, -- national goals". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 79.
"In the opinion of M.E.Rasulzade, the idea of "romantic Pan-Turanism" have preserved its value only in the field of cultural issues, in the struggle for preservation of cultural heritage of Turkic people. Therefore, by declining both Pan-Islamism, and Pan-Turkism, the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement aimed for the creation of an independent national-political ideology, which would reflect the originality ["samobitnost'"] of the Azerbaijani nation, in which its interrelations with other Turkic nations would have been formulated too. They aimed to build relations between Turkic nations not on the basis of tribal affinity, but on the basis of the interests of each nation." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 8.
""Pan-Turkism" or "Pan-Turanism" was ostensibly a movement by Turks to establish hegemony over the world, or at least Eurasia. In fact, this "Pan" movement has no historical ideological precedent among Turks and has been documented to be a creation of the Westerners. Around the time of the occupation of Tashkent by Russian troops in 1865, the doctrine called or "Pan-Turkism" appeared in a work by Hungarian Orientalist Arminius Vambery. The premise of this notion was that since the overwhelming majority of the Central Asians spoke (and still speak) dialects of Turkish, share the same historical origins and history, "they could form a political entity stretching from the Altai Mountains in Eastern Asia to the Bosphorus," where the capital of the Ottoman Empire was located.89 This pseudo-doctrine was then attributed to the Turks themselves, and the Russians and Europeans claimed it was a revival of Chinggiz Khan's conquests, a threat not only to Russia, but the whole of Western civilization.90 In this tactic, attributing aggressive designs to the target, seemed to justify any action against Central Asia, a new "crusade" in the name of "self-defense."
After the Germans joined the Great Game, to undermine British control in Central Asia, Germans manipulated both "Pan- Turkism" and "Pan-Islamism."91 The Pan-Islamic Movement was an anti-colonial political movement of the late 19th century, and must be distinguished from the "orthodox" Islamic unity of all believers, the umma. Jamal Ad-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) established the movement in its political form, striving to achieve the political unity of Muslims to fight against colonialism and the colonial powers. It was popular among Indian Muslims and in north Africa. However, the movement also served the colonial powers well. Painted as a reverse-Crusade --without necessarily using the terminology, but through graphic allusions-- the Colonial powers could mobilize both Western public opinion and secret international alliances to fight the "emerging threat." The Germans, after the death of al-Afghani, sought to make that threat as real as possible for the British in India.92 The manipulation of both "Pan"s would not die with the old century."
Source: H.B.Paksoy, "Nationality or religion?" AACAR Bulletin (Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research), Vol.VIII no.2, Fall 1995, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/128.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADR - Rasulzade = Azerbaijani ideology, not Pan-Turkic or Pan-Islamic 

message: User:Azerbaijani and User:Mardavich like to say that there actually isn't a majority consensus on this page, but I believe they are mistaken.  The conensus is against the article version that they support.  From what I can tell, this is the breakdown (not counting anons, not looking at archive 1):
*Against Disputed Section: User:abdulnr,User:Baku87,User:AdilBaguirov,User:Grandmaster,User:Clevelander,User:Elnurso,User:ali doostzadeh,User:Dacy69,User:Bm79,User:The Behnam,User:Roazir,User:Francis Tyers,User:Atabek,User:Tengri,User:Ulvi I..
*Supportive of Disputed Section: User:Khosrow II,User:Azerbaijani,User:Pejman47, User:Mardavich .
Though Azerbaijani thinks that the users opposed to his version of the article are really just one or two people , this has only been proven in the case of Tengri.  Pejman47 has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Azerbaijani .  In any case, the current appearance is strongly in favor of the group against the disputed section.  By the way, if I have inaccurately characterized you, or forgotten you, in the above, please make the change.  Please give your thoughts on this.  The Behnam 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not how you achieve consensus, this is not a vote or a poll. --Mardavich 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh and please don't make sock-puppet accusations against established users such as Pejman47. If you suspect a established user of being a sock, you have to file a request for user check, you don't just make accusations like that. Such accusations are harmful and considered personal attacks per WP:NPA. --Mardavich 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there already have been plenty of arguments put out, even if Azerbaijani chooses not to recognize this.  I'm just trying to sum up who stands where, and it seems that the majority of the involved favor the 'Against' arguments.  By the way, I was just summarizing accusations of 'sockpuppet', not making the accusation myself, so please read more carefully and avoid ill-considered accusations.  I cannot help but note how unfortunate it is that you are not willing to compromise.  The Behnam 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, wikipedia is not a democracy, majority means nothing, especially when half the people who favor the 'Against' arguments have less than 50 or 100 edits. Oh and "summarizing accusations" is no excuse to repeat slander and accusations. --Mardavich 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, I am willing to compromise, I was the first one to try and reach a compromise that's acceptable to both sides.   I am for summarizing the paragraph, but against removing it altogether. --Mardavich 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already noted, but you apparently did not grasp, this note is merely to show that the "Against" view is considered most sound by the editors here. I am not saying that people did not present arguments; this has happened, but at this point, a few certain editors are ignoring and refusing to acknowledge the other side, hiding instead behind trivial accusations of NPA and AGF violations. There is even one who gravely misinterprets a summary of other peoples' accusations as 'slander'. My guess is that these people have run out of effective arguments, and are now resorting to asymmetrical tactics. Hey, if this thing is meaningless, why does it bother you so? In any case, your accusation that I am repeating slander and accusations is ill-considered; I am merely summarizing what has been said, as this is of importance to the list I provided. I am amused by the double standard applied when you only point out Pejman, even while I bring up a massive accusation that at least a half-dozen users are sockpuppets for the other side of the dispute. In any case, saying that I am repeating slander is false. I am glad that you have been willing to compromise before, but I hope that you will see that there will be no end to this dispute until the issue is rid of altogether. The Behnam 05:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen "Behnam" or whatever your name is, NPA and AGF violations are no trivial matters. You don't make or repeat sockpuppet accusations against established users such as Pejman, do you understand that? And there is no "double standard", read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#When_questions_arise, users with less than 100 edits are generally considered to be sock-puppets. --Mardavich 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really questioning my name, or are you just trying to be rude? Are you just trying to be rude, or does it come naturally to you? Stop these accusations; by citing that Pejman "was accused" doesn't mean that 'I' am accusing him.  Your logic behind accusing me simply does not follow.  Stop harassing me, and try focusing on the real problems here.  The Behnam 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't act coy and pretend you don't know what it is I am really questioning. I am done talking to you about this. --Mardavich 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for conceding to me.  It is refreshing to see someone back off when he is wrong.  The Behnam 07:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe the new user (it is kind of odd to see all these new users in edit wars) who said: One more thing for the antagonisers, some Persians and some Armenians! .. this sort of language does not help.  I have never seen an Iranian Azerbaijani actually say such a thing and I believe this new person is probably an old user.   Why not name the people that are antagonisers according him?  Most or all are Azerbaijanis.  I think it is best to discuss the article in a civilized manner.  I think both users Atabek and Azerbaijani are actually wrong since they are discussing the nature of the Musavite party in this article.  Both have good sources that can be used in a Musavite related article (without deletion of one or another) and push of POV.  There is a lot of aggressive users and user Azerbaijani is only one of them.  There is absolutely no reason to ban such a user.  I think the best compromise is to put the musavite stuff in its own article.  The history of the name of Azerbaijan is another article.  The reason the history of the name Azerbaijan was created was exactly for this reason so that other articles would not be cluttered.  After the current dispute in Safavids is done (user Atabek should have actually made comments on the discussion page since the concensus on Safavid article was reached after much compromise when this user was not registered and despite my respect for this user, I think starting edit war on that article when previous concensus was reached by many many users was not helpful), I am going to work on that article.  On the current discussion I do not see Francis, Clevandar and many others name.  --alidoostzadeh 06:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify about those users, I took the views expressed on the entire page into account.  Those users expressed views against the Musavat mentions, and other disputed content, so they fit into the "Against" category.  So you also promote the relegation of the disputed content to article created for that very purpose? That is good.  At what point will anything get done? The people supporting the disputed content are definitely a minority; how long do must everyone else tolerate their reverts before their editing can be considered disruptive and be halted? How can a page progress if here are a few die-hard reverters? I hope people agree to the relegation instead of having this drag on forever.  The Behnam 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I am out of this discussion, since I can not take sides with some of the writings here either. I do not think personal attacks are warranted as they simply degenerate any useful discussion.  Do you agree that the first step is to stop the personal attacks?    As per the r.v. war , what I noticed was that both sides were including their viewpoint on the nature of mussavite. (who started first or last is one issue but it is fact that both sides are putting their viewpoint on mussavites).  Thus I made the suggestion (not demand) that the discussion takes place in the relavent articles (mussavites, history of the name Azerbaijan).  That was my suggestion.  But to actually threaten to ban the users is something I do not support.  I think it is reasonable that both sides of the arguments on mussavites and the history of the name Azerbaijan take their viewpoint to the relavent articles.  But I do not think personal attack, and threatening of banning is the right way to proceed.  --alidoostzadeh 07:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are out, or do you support simply not talking about Musavat here?  I thought the latter of you.  So, if the discussion were removed from the article, what do you think should be done if users on either side continue to re-add the content? Thanks for help.  The Behnam 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support having the political and philosophical nature of Mussavites in their own article.  But banning users is too extreme of measure.  Similarly the issue of naming of Azerbaijan (which is locked right now, but that one will be easily resolved simply by adding historical sources).  Indeed, I have tried to make reasonable compromises in some other wikipedia entries so everyone is happy in the end.  But at the same time I do not think the current atmosphere created right now (specially with additional racist statements) is a conducive one.  Thus I can not really support any list where some of the users on that list make blatant racist statements.  Also calling others vandals and suck-puppets when there are clearly not is not helpful (do you agree?).  So my first suggestion is to have constructive diplomatic behavior without personal attacks and ethnic labeling.  This way I think all the users will easily be convinced.  Without such a necessary step, nothing else usually is solved.  --alidoostzadeh 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest letting Ali edit the article (it seems  that he doens't have a POV in this topic)  I will agree with the version of Ali. But it must be accepted as a lasting compromise (that is: if some months later, the other party comes and puts their POV about "mussavites" in article, the stroy will be restarted) and I am not Sockpuppet of anybody! So, I support unlocking the page and letting Ali edit it (only Ali!); and I support his version--Pejman47 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that some links suffice. and erased my user name from the above list. But I hope, in future no one from the other party comes with a new "historical revisionism". --Pejman47 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have presented a possible version of section below.  Your comments are invited.  The Behnam 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is no talk of musavat and the naming aside from the Atropatena etymology, I am willing to revert any additions, though I cannot see why people would make the change after a compromise is reached.  If you look at some of the discussions from about even the Azeri users agreed to not mention it, though at the side they tried to mention it in their own way, which was disappointing.  In any case, just don't talk about the reasons for the naming and there should be no real problem with this article.  The Behnam 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a real compromise acceptable to all, there would no need for "enforcement" by you or anyone else, we are all adults here. --Mardavich 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? We will see.  The Behnam 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am stasfied with the current version  as long it's not significantly changed. --Mardavich 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Analysis