Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)

Archives
Untitled Archive 1 Archive 2

last edit - POV pushing

Last edit is clearly POV pushing, and at least contradict references which in this sentence. A lot of discussion held here. Any new edit should be discussed thoroughly before edit made.--Dacy69 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Now it reflects both points of view, I hope with reference # 1,2 for one sdie and reference # 3,4 for another.--Dacy69 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

history

I updated some info on recent history--Dacy69 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

it was not updating, it was blatant pushing by a handpicked of obscure sources, I revert until you at least show consensus for it. --Pejman47 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is reliable sources and well-known facts. what you are doing is blatant vandalism.--Dacy69 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, stop spamming articles, this issue has been addressed already in its proper article.Hajji Piruz 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been three references removed from the article. Can you please, provide:

1. detailed reason for reverting

2. detailed reason for claiming "obscure sources"

3. reference to the "proper article" in Wikipedia, where "this issue has been addressed already".

Thanks. Atabek 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• please see the Talk:Iran-Azerbaijan relations( ---> POV section) about the cartoon . --Alborz Fallah 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Claim on that page was that information is irrelevant to foreign relations. here it is about domestic policy. It perfectly suits. That's it. Indeed, sources which I used on this page was used on that page - Iran-Azerbaijan relations and stiill on that page. So, you just in tandem try to remove sourced information. Multiple sources which introduced here will be approved by any third party mediator.--Dacy69 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding Amnesty International source - Its reliability is not under question.--Dacy69 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejman, you are blindly reverting wothout any reasonable discussion--Dacy69 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you said you are going to only insert the amnesty international sources and mentioned it in your edit summery, but then you just reinserted your obscure sources. I ask you to think about your edits. --Pejman47 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you said that it is obscure sources. I added Amnesty International to support it. You blindly deleted it. Now I am opening request for comments case. Next - I will have to draw attention of admins to your actions if you were persistent in deleleting multiple sourced information.--Dacy69 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Unfortunately most of facts about Azerbaijan history and current situation intentionally has been mixed with fault information. I am the PhD student and my studies shows that the only confidential source about Azerbaijan history is the book of Prof. Cavad Heyat entitled "Iran Turklerin Aski Tarixi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.64.45 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute regarding update on the recent history of Iranian Azerbaijan - events of May 2006 and others involving riots supressed by police caused by cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper insulting Azerbaijani identity. Edit [1] was supported by multiple and reputable sources, including Amnesty International. Editors user:Pejman47 and --User:Alborz Fallah without reasanoble arguments blindly delete edits.--Dacy69 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to comments below "A - The first two sources and Cristian Science Monitor are not international sources" (???) What it means? Pls. see Wikipedia guidance on sources. We need NPOV sources and non-obscure one which is the case with CSM and other references. As far Amnesty International - I introduced it because Pejman47 questioned sources on its notability. Amnesty International confirms which other sources reports.--Dacy69 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Editors Involved

A - The first two source of information , [2] and The Christian Science Monitor are not international sources.

B- The Amnesty International USA 's Annual Report , is not related to "History" section of Iranian Azerbaijan as we don't see such a report Amnesty on Azerbaijan on history section of Azerbaijan or any other country in Wikipedia:Israel , USAand etc--Alborz Fallah 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Third Party

Dacy69 is trying to spam several articles with the same information. This information is already mentioned in the proper articles. It has nothing to do with the Iranian region of Azerbaijan or its history. This isnt the proper place for the information Dacy69 wants to insert. Again, this information has already been inserted in the proper articles already and has absolutely nothing to do with Iranian Azerbaijan or the history of Iranian Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have some decency. You are involved in many dispute on similar topic and still commenting as third party. You are making comments on editor rather than on subject matter. I'll take note. Ok. Now about the subject. Then you have not explained where this information is covered and why the description of important recent historical event should not be in the article.--Dacy69 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Amnesty International info was removed. Please provide a good reason for deletion of sourced info. Grandmaster 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alborz, this is an article about a geographical region, don't insert irrelevant and poorly sourced "Human Rights reports" into the article. Otherwise, there would be no end to it, and next we would have a section with "Human Rights reports" about the conditions of Talysh, Tatars and Kurds on Azerbaijan Republic article. Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. AlexanderPar 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And the same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can not spam Wikipedia articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Text inserted is not about human rights per se. It is about recent historical events. Secondly, it is based on multiple sources, Amnesty Inetrnational is one of them. But editors, like pejman and Alborz, remove all of them.--Dacy69 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the same event pops up in a number of articles it shows that we need a separate article about the event. Controversy over Anti-Azerbaijani cartoons or something. Then all the articles could use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article or even the link in the See also section. Any takers? Alex Bakharev 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in two or three articles already.Hajji Piruz 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked this idea. Issue might be covered exactly in many articles. Invasion in Iraq is mentioned thousand times. Still, my edit was not only about cartoon issue but other events in 2007. For now, I will work on the article on cartoons and then we can make proper edit here.--Dacy69 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Bakharev, I think this article is absolute necessity to reflect the historical events. Since events did happen in past, they're quite relevant to history section, and withholding of them, especially provided sourced information does not make sense at all.

Regarding AlexanderPar's comment, I welcome him to refer to the State Department as well as CoE and PACE reports on conditions of minorities in Azerbaijan. For comparison, those conditions aren't nearly as abysmal as they're in Iran. Thanks. Atabek 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the article: Iran Cartoon Controversy.Hajji Piruz 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You have created article with name which distort the nature event and plus you filled it with unsourced POV information. therefore, I think now we should resolve this whole issue here.--Dacy69 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary

As per advise of third party a new article created Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. Further it was advised to use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article.--Dacy69 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you are not entitled to "summarize" the debate which you were part of it on your behalf!, let other non-involved do it and see if there will be any consensus or not. --Pejman47 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

News-type stuff should go to Wikinews, not Wikipedia. The cartoon controversy does not have enough lasting importance and significance to be included in the history section.AlexanderPar 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You both acting as meatpuppets. You have not even participated in discussion and making reverts. Summary is fine. It reflects third party opinion. I quote it again "If the same event pops up in a number of articles it shows that we need a separate article about the event. Controversy over Anti-Azerbaijani cartoons or something. Then all the articles could use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article or even the link in the See also section."--Dacy69 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not agree with that we can resort to Arbitration since I see no further point in mediation. You keep reverting.--Dacy69 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you have a very very strong POV in this issue and even don't try to hide it at all. I will not accept "you" summarizing this RfC, ask an admin like Alex or Khoikhoi to do that, I will be OK with that. --Pejman47 19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, stop threatening people with Wiki retaliation, Pejman, he also threatened retaliation if I insisted on having a picture in the cartoon article.Hajji Piruz 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't mislead people. You are inserting unrelated picture with your own POV comment. I offer to insert picture of demonstration which is of prime improtance. This is called 'balance'. And pls. use relevant talkpage, don't spread it here.--Dacy69 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, please refrain from making baseless accusations, my views are mine, and mine alone. History section is for historical events, not every strike or demonstration that has taken place in a region. AlexanderPar 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen you around during the discussion. You just quickly came after edit and Pejman revert. History section should reflect important events. I see we can't agree on its importance. But third party mediator clearly stated his view - I quoted it above. So, you don't agree with that either. So, I propose Arbitration, and for some reason Hajji Piruz call it retaliation. ?...--Dacy69 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dacy, do you think the history page of Azerbaijan republic needs a new section about the human right reports about Talesh and/or Kurds or about the Nardaran clashes?! I can't understand what's the reason to place all of these recent events on this history page? More than that , your idea about doubting "degree of integration of Azerbaijanis in Iranian society" is not a part of your source (Karl Rahder's) text- Although that source itself is a personal view! -and adding your personal point of view to the text is out of editorial ethics! Please keep your false idea of comparing Iranian Azeri relations to other Iranians to Azeri-Russian relations for yourself! We (Iranian Azeri's) don't think alike you.YULDASH: MONI KI YAZDON TARXDAN HESH DAXLI VAR?--Alborz Fallah 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alborz, regarding your comment to Dacy69. I do think human rights are a global issue which should be reflected on Wiki pages, regardless of country. And if you believe there is an abuse of ethnic rights of Kurds, Talysh or others in Republic of Azerbaijan, despite Council of Europe, UN, State Department, or PACE reports to the contrary, you're welcome to present those. Also, according to your comment, we should discard every single source from any article, and in fact, just blank the pages, because every word contains author's personal point. Also, in the literary Azerbaijani language your comment above is written as: "Yoldash, bunlari ki yazdin, hech tarixe daxli var"? or even more properly "Yoldash, yazdighinin hech tarixe aidiyyeti var mi?". I believe the difference should convince you enough, as Iranian Azeri, that there is an ongoing eradication of literary Azerbaijani language in Iran, and this has nothing to do with politics. Atabek 13:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears I need to discuss it again! Comparison does not necessarily means that I'm about to do so. That means when it is unacceptable to use inappropriate data here, that is the same everywhere, but both you and Dacy take it as I want to use human right problems in Az Republic as retaliation!
about literary Azerbaijani language , although that is not relevant to the discussion , that's a new language(in written form) and it's written literature is not so sophisticated , then I prefer not to pay so much tribute to that . --Alborz Fallah 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do whatever you feel appropriate on other pages. I just take note your comment about HR in Rep. of Azerbaijan - this is clearly battlegorund approach and definitely will be taken into account. I put no personal view here. All is sourced.And you don't speak for people. here there is not room for political statement.--Dacy69 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But YOU are the person who inserts his personal view in the Karl Rahder's article! Please show me where is this sentence "degree of integration of Azerbaijanis in Iranian society" in the text ?! and please don't misinterpret about that "battleground" idea! that was only a comparison for you to get the idea (not to use humanright articles in history section ). --Alborz Fallah 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

old source

Atabek please use modern references or put it in a history section on 1916 (world war I when Iran was invaded by Ottomons/Russians) and theere was a lot of anarchy in Iran. Right now there has been much migration into and out of Azerbaijan and major Persian/Azeri cities have Persian/Azeri populations but the ethnic composition is taken care of under people and says the same thing as the 1916 source. But given that the country was in anarchy in 1914-1922..the use of the word "nominal" makes sense in the context of that period (and of course not under composition of people). Right now though, there is nothing "nominal" about Azerbaijan as a region of Iran given the same anarchy does not exist and there is a central government. Actually from the begining of the 20th century, the subsequent Russian/English/Ottomon invasions, and Ottomon/Russian invasions between 1910-1922.., there was a lot of anarchy. But 1916 sources are obsolete with regards to contemporary events. For examples the countries name is not "Persia" anymore but "Iran". Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the book was published actually in 2000 with contributions of Ara Sarafian. But of course, since the old quote of Arnold J. Toynbee applies to historical context of Azerbaijan, it could be moved to history section, can't it? I think a quote pertaining to demographic history of Iranian Azerbaijan from such a prominent historian would be relevant on this page. Atabek 11:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I think the demographic says the same thing although even in that section an up to date source should be used or else someone might use say 1000 A.D. or something which is historical. But the context of Ottomon/Russian interference needs its own subsection in the history section or an article in the long run..--alidoostzadeh 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian Azarbaijan ?

The term "Persian Azarbaijan" listed in this article, has not been used by any relaiable source. The google search yilds 218 results in the web, but at close look at these links it is clear that most of these are the copies for the Wikiperdia. --Mehrdad 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

check google books.[3][4] most of them valid academic sources. I would say the article is more historical. I took out the borders section since it is not an official region and since there is no definite border for what constitutes "Azerbaijan" in Iran and authors /politicians of all sorts might define it definitely. It is in the geography section already. (One guy I know thinks it is east azerbaijan province and another guy on the internet thinks it is half of Iran). --alidoostzadeh 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali, Thanks for pointing to the Google book search, there result is sure different and much more academic. So let’s accept that term Persian Azerbaijan has indeed been used, in rare occasion, when the Anglo American world referred to Iran as Persia.

As for the borders of Azerbaijan I believe it is quite odd to deny that Azerbaijan borders with Turkey, regardless of any parts of history in last 6 or seven century.

Incidentally one of the links from your suggested search result the Diplomatic History of Persia, 1917-1923: Anglo-Russian Power Politics in Iran - Page 244 by Nasrollah Saifpour Fatemi, describe the border as " Azerbaijan, the northwest province of Persia, lies snug against the Turkish and Russian borders." . Considering the time frame of the books subject being 1917-1923 there is no mention of Iraq.

I could not help to notice that you've added "historical" in the top sentence of the article [5]. Many including me would like to know, what makes you to assume this article is about historical Azerbaijan? . If so then the section under the heading of "geography: would be meaning less, as we have to deal with the changing political geography for different historical times! This article is as much about present Azerbaijan region within Iran as it is about historical, and geographical Azerbaijan, with its ethnopolitical and geopolitical distinctions. Please refer to the text under the heading as geography. --Mehrdad 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. But I would like to point out that it is not rare occasion. Persian Azerbaijan gets more hits than "south Azerbaijan" in academic books. Many sources in google book actually dispute that latter name but never-mind, that issue has its own article. There are books from 2006 in google books thats use the term Persian Azerbaijan and Britannica 2005 uses it[6]. But we do not have a region named Persian Azerbaijan/Iranian Azerbaijan on the world map as an official region. Thus its boundaries are not certain and are vague (much like Kurdistan is a term used in Academia but its boundaries are vague). As per borders, since there is no official region named Azerbaijan, then borders are not relevant with this regard. In 1917-1923 there was a province named Azerbaijan just like there was a province named Arak (which is the historical Arak-e-Ajam not to be confused with modern Arak) and we can mention that in its history section. Thus defining boundaries for non-official region is emotional and more in the territory of OR. If we are using an ethnic criteria then this map might be legitimate as well [7] (note I do not consider these ethnics maps legitimate but I am saying that in Encyclopedia we can not define a border for a non-official region based on ethnic criteria) or this source[8]. Also there are other groups in Iranian Azerbaijan but less so than Kurds and Azeris. Thus the issue is much like Khorasan which is a historical region but if we are talking about modern day politics, then it is south, Razavi and north Khorasan. There is no Khorasan bordering Afghanistan. It is these provinces currently bordering Afghanistan. If it is a geographical region, in all actuality, majority of historical sources distinguish between Zanjan and historical Azerbaijan proper (West, East, Ardabil) (See Ibn Hawqal, Fotuh al-Buldan and etc.). For example Britannica 2005 does not include Zanjan in "Iranian Azerbaijan". But if we are talking about ethnic regions and naming areas where Azerbaijanis live, then there are many non-Turkic speakers live in Azerbaijan(even today and if we are to include West Azerbaijan which recent maps show heavily Kurdish) and also there are Armenians, Talysh, Persian/Tats, Assyrians and etc and there are many Azerbaijanis in Tehran (more so than Tabriz or even Baku or any other city in the world). The issue is complicated (if you are defining a modern ethnic region) but for Wikipedia it should not be. The article "Iranian Azeris" deals with ethnic Azeris and thus we should not duplicate two articles in Wikipedia as per clear Wikipedia Guidelines. But the name Aturpatakan (Azerbaijan)/Azerbaijan pre-dates the ethnonym "Azerbaijani" by about 2200 years and thus deserve a separate article (I do not mean ancient "Azari" which was the pre-Turkic language and has been sourced in 8th-16th century) as a historical region within Iran. There needs to be an article on the historical region (covering Babak, Rustam Farrokh, Atropatene, Ilkhanids, Rawwadid, Turkmens all the way down to the modern era) and one on Iranian Azerbaijani people. Thus the article Iranian Azeris should deal with ethnic Azeris(as it does currently) and there should be an article on the history of Iranian Azerbaijan. There is a need for a history article on Iranian Azerbaijan which is this article since there is an an article on ethnic Iranian Azeris. As per borders (geography) in its current form, I am inclined to put what Britannica says since it seems to be a non-political source. But I'll await feedback since it is not an important issue. More important is to have an article on the history of Iranian Azerbaijan from the ancient era till the modern era.(Much like the Encyclopedia of Islam entry on Azerbaijan) --alidoostzadeh 15:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Nothing About Conflicts?!

I saw that articles about Iranian Kurdistan or Turkish Kurdistan also include texts about conflicts that those regions have witnessed with the central government. These are some serious issues. Why nothing about the 2006 protests have been written? Many things could have been written but it seems that some Iranians try extremely hard to censor these important issues. I am not a Wiki editor so please excuse me for not knowing much aboiut how things are done or edited. I just noticed that this article had this serious short-come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.137.83 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I noticed too. I am wiki editor but most of the time my adding things are censored. However, I will continue my effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.200.145 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Epic of Köroğlu

In the event that someone is familiar with the history of the above-mentioned epic, it would be relevant to introduce some appropriate details into the pertinent Wikipedia entry (i.e. here: "Epic of Köroğlu"). The river Aras is central to this epic, and as the following remarkably beautiful stage production shows, the libretto is in Persian.

A short section of a stage production of Köroğlu, an opera by Uzeyir Hajibeyov, YouTube: [9] (10 min 55 sec).

With kind regards, --BF 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC).

Uzeyir and Koor-Oghlou epics

Till the 1950s. Koroghlu epics existed as oral dastan tradition and narrated by the Ashoogs (tanbour players). In 1950s Samad Vurghoun, a poet and ashoog wrote it down for the first time. Of course, earlier, in 1930s Uzeyir Hajibayov set down a libretto using this epic. But those are variouse genres. Uzeyir was in close touch with Mir Jafar Baghirov, who transfered to him Stalin's orders and wishs. Uzeyir received an order to create specific "Azerbaijani" cultur, differing it from Iranian cultur. Stalin (who did friendship with Mammad Amin Rasoulzadeh once), was about creating pretext for his passions on Irani Azerbaijan. So on, Uzeyir was forced to ignore the Iranian background in local culture and wrote manuals describing how to convert the Persian music into the " Azerbaijan" music. However he knew that there is not any sort of Azerbaijani music being apart from Iranian. Koroghlu epic has plenty of versions. I have forgotten the name of te book (the manual), but I think that is available and findable. Koroghlu epics seems to be about a straggle of a Kurdish or Zaza people against the Seljuk or Ottoman governors. Some sort of epics narrated also amongst the Kurds, Afgans and Turkmens. Compare with Dastan-e Dada Qorqoud. Ashoogs (naggals) mixed the turkic stori with the classical Greek-Byzantine miths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkankipcak (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Samed Vourghoun's prose version of Koroghlu (exist film) mentioned Darband (which???) but not the Aras river. The prose book " Koroghlou" is available in Az.Pepublic. Koroghlu epic is is a collection of variouse stories. That is fiction that faced changes and developed, but not reliable source to research the Anatolian antropology. The main mistake is that Koroghlu percepted as hero-ashoog. That is misunderstood. Narrators were ashoogs and poets and Koroghlou's speech were narrated being accompanied with tanbour. That does not mean that he was a poet and musician himself. --Arkankipcak (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Koroghlu

Traditionally Uzeir Hajibayov used Iranian Radif music to create his operas or other music pieces. You can visit Parissa's web page to compare Uzeyir,s Laayla va Majnoun music with old Iranian tasnifs. Koroghlu opera was produced by Uzeir's imagination and is a fiction. Koroghlu epic is also a fiction. Hard to dig out. Agree with Arkankipcak. --Faikpro (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Azari or Azerbaijani?

Azari-iranian,azerbaijani-turkic nation. --Azturkk (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Azerbaijani is proper name for citizens of republic of Azerbaijan. The terms Azeri is more accurate for Iranians since they have been called by that name in ancient times up to this day. It implies continuity of history of Azeri people in Iran and shows their legitimate ownership over that part of the country (rather than being descendands of some foreign immigrants)--74.12.107.105 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Application of Flag and Maps

The English version of this article is edited and maintained very well, however its related versions in other languages, especially in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Russian and Azerbaijani include Flags and Maps of so called “SOUTH AZERBIJAN”.

The flag and the maps are explicitly violation of Iran’s territorial integrity, science the Flag is just a flag of separatist group and not “Persian Azerbaijan” and the Map is just similar to separatist group territorial clams over Iranian territories.

So, I would appreciate if you take some action about the application of vague Flag and Maps in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, and Russian and Azeri versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza824 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Iranian Azarbaijan

Date: June 10, 2009

Subject: Comments on Iranian Azarbaijan

This comment is on the discussion which is focusing on the appropriate spelling of the name of provinces located in the northwestern part of Iran, namely, East and West “Azarbaijan.” Perhaps I am entering the discussion in the middle or some of the issues may have been addressed. However, I feel that there are issues that must be reconsidered before finalizing the spelling of the name.

1. If the issue is “a” versus “e” as it appears in “Azarbaijan” and “Azerbaijan”, respectively, the correct spelling of the name for the Iranian provinces has always been with “a”, “Azarbaijan” not “Azerbaijan”. The locals and the government use the spelling with “a”. If you find any spelling in the literature with “e” referring to the Iranian provinces, it is because of misconception of the English speaking population, writers, or media. If you ask any native Iranian to write or pronounce “Azar”, you will see the spelling with “a” and you will hear the pronunciation with “a” not “e”. See the references cited below. Please note that we have no “Azarbayjan”, the “bay” word is erroneous; it is either “Azarbaijan” or “Azarbyjan”, preferably the former. It is significant to note that these four references clearly and definitely attempt to differentiate and separate the Iranian Azarbaijan provinces from the Republic of Azerbaijan (also see the rationale in comment #2).

2. Obviously, the Iranian Azarbaijanis have some similarity with the Republic of Azerbaijan. However, we are Iranians and belong to the Iranian nation. Our culture, traditions, formal language, history, and many aspects of our social life are primarily based on and have rooted connection to the fabric of Iranian nation. The Turky language that is spoken in the Iranian Azarbaijan is influenced significantly by the Persian (Farsi) words and it is only learned in the frame work of a family structure. That is to say that there is no formal teaching or leaning of Turky language in any institutional form (not at least so far) and the formal language is Persian (Farsi) which is widely taught in schools and used in the institutional settings. Therefore, any notion that Iranians must accept or spell Azarbaijan with “e”, in the same manner as the Republic of Azerbaijan, based on the English literature or western choosing has no basis and it is false.

3. In reference to the discussion material, naming Iranian provinces as “South Azerbaijan” is absolutely misleading, erroneous, confusing, and insult to the Iranian nation. Without a doubt it will be protested by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

4. Has the Wikipedia made any attempts to consult with the Islamic Republic of Iran? The spelling issue or misconception will not go away unless the Wikipedia consults with the local entities. For example, consider the provincial capital of West Azarbaijan. Before the Islamic revolution it was called “Rezaieh” and after the revolution the Islamic Republic of Iran changed the name to “Orumiyeh.” There are significant discussions and arguments that claim the name should be spelled as “Urmia”. The government has decided to keep the spelling of “Orumiyeh” and thus many documents and maps, government or otherwise, utilizes this spelling today. Unfortunately, if you search one of these names in the literature or online, you will find variety of spelling such as “Urmia”, “Orumia”, “Urumia”, “Orumih”, “Urumiyeh”, and so on. So, the argument goes on and so is the confusion.

In conclusion, I think the Wikipedia initiative of researching for an appropriate spelling is commendable and it is the right thing to do in providing accurate information to the public as much as possible. However, I do not believe that the Wikipedia should solely rely on the Western/English literature, documents, any other country, or the media in coming up to a logical conclusion. Some of the names, spellings, and geographical segmentations are created and conceived by the colonialists without any respect and participation of the local people and entities. For example, consider the label of “Middle East”, which has caused unnecessary pain and complications for many immigrants coming to the US. We are Iranians first and our continent is Asia; we should not be labeled as the Middle Easterners.

I hope that this discussion is helpful and will be considered in choosing the right spelling as discussed above. Yashajan (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.artarena.force9.co.uk/map_p.htm http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=16179 http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/iran_map.htm http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

I strongly agree. The spelling for azAris from Iran has always been with an "a", why is everyone deciding to spell it with an "e" all of a sudden? Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misprints

The section "Modern period" is full of misprints. 132.66.235.56 (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question with regard to Kurdish language to Pournick.

Pournick why did you delete the Kurdish name? Kurdish is largely spoken in West Azerbaijan and is in fact next to Azeri and Talysh is another language native to Iranian Azerbaijan. Exclusion of Kurds based on ethnic and religious grounds is called discrimination and is very racist. Why did you do that?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is in my talk page regardsPournick (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ardabil

The Ardabil link in Geography is wrong - it links to the city, as opposed to the province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.117.61 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Azerbaijan (Iran) → Azerbaijan — The name Azerbaijan belongs to the Iranian region. We have the article History of the name Azerbaijan in which the detailed aspects of the name Azerbaijan are explained. If more information is needed, I am ready to discuss in more details. Aliwiki (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Regardless of the history and the background of the name, the primary meaning of Azerbaijan today is obviously the Republic of Azerbaijan, not the Iranian region. If you google "Azerbaijan", you will find that almost all results relate to the country, not the region. Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The Celestial City (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. There are two entities, with same name. One is a region and one is a country. Obviously Google gives more result for a country rather than a region. To have a better idea, see results for Macedonia which has a similar situation.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that we call the two articles on present Macedonian political entities Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece). Why should this be different? Azerbaijan "belongs" to both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Macedonia, there is an ongoing naming dispute as to what the country should be called. Many countries and international organisations, including the United Nations and European Union, follow the Greek position in referring to the country exclusively as the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The same is not the case with Azerbaijan, where the country is, as far as I know, universally recognised under that name. Please note I have no personal opinion on this matter, I simply believe that we should follow reliable sources rather than judge the matter ourselves. The Celestial City (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To Pmanderso: The difference is that the Republic of Macedonia is part of the historical Macedonia region (See here); But Republic of Azerbaijan is part of historical regions of Arran, and Shirvan, not part of historical region of Azerbaijan.

To The Celestial City, I didn't accuse you to any personal opinion and if you understood anything about this in my previous comment, it's my duty to apologize. Similar to the Macedonia naming dispute, we have the article History of the name Azerbaijan which is strongly supported by over 60 reliable Academic references. That Macedonia's case suffers a political conflict between Greece and the Republic, but there isn't political conflict between Iran and the republic of Azerbaijan is not what I am seeking in this move proposal. I didn't propose to move the country to Republic of Azerbaijan, Former republic... or similar names. My proposal is to have 1.Azerbaijan and 2. Azerbaijan (country).--Aliwiki (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose deleting the country article and replacing it with this article is wrong. Why do you want to delete the country article? The country exists. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review the discussion before making such comment. There is no deletion.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This IP has less than 100 edits

• • Comment you have not even proposed to move the country article, therefore you want to delete it. Where have you said you wanted to rename the country article in your rationale? 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The country is a primary meaning of the word, the province is very obscure for the general reader outside of Iran. There's no ongoing naming dispute or anything like that. And if the word Azerbaijan would lead to the article about province, it would be very confusing, as the vast majority of those who search for Azerbaijan search for the country, not Iranian region. Plus, this was discussed by the community a number of times, see archives. It should be the way it is now. Grandmaster 09:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: The country of Macedonia is also a primary meaning. Or a better example could be China; People's Republic of China is the primary meaning and the Republic of China is the secondary.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a claim that the Republic of Azerbaijan should not be called Azerbaijan, since it is not historically Azeri. This is the same claim the Greeks make about the Republic of Macedonia, and it should not be the basis of article titles in either case; we title on the basis of what geographic entities actually are called (in English). So I would oppose this even if I believed the underlying claim, but I do not: Baku was considered to lie in (Russian) Azerbaijan in the nineteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The Republic of Azerbaijan is an independent republic. No doubt the adjacent Iranian province is the part of anceint Azerbaijan that the Russians did not conquer in the 19th century. The article under discussion might possibly be renamed Azerbaijan (Iranian Province) or Azerbaijan, Iran, but it would be wholly inappropriate to allow Iranian expansionism to claim the primary name for its region. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment--Nowadays for ordinary reader of English Wikipedia , word Azerbaijan points mainly to the country and not the Iranian Province ; but I'm asking what about all historical texts that has been used in Wikipedia that use the name Azerbaijan - that only mean the Iranian province and not the Arran/Shirvan (new AZ republic ) region - ?Without disambiguation , understanding the historical texts will be impossible . For comment of PMAnderson , "we title on the basis of what geographic entities actually are called (in English)" ; the example of Georgia is a good one : 90% of English-language readers only know it as a U.S. state but other historical and non-historical usages of that name makes us NOT TO USE the dominant English-language reader's understanding as the main article , and to use a disambiguation page .So same as Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) , I think it is reasonable to use Azerbaijan (country) and Azerbaijan (Iran) without redirection of Azerbaijan to country , but to disambiguation page --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your idea is good. But I don't know is there any way to change the request or not, or should we start a new request on the current disambiguation page. I will ask an admin about this.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Azerbaijan (Iran) in Azerbaijani language

The name of "Azerbaijan (Iran)" in "Azerbaijani language" is ""Cənubi Azərbaycan" / گونئی آزربایجان.

Attentin to "Cənubi Azərbaycan" and "گونئی آزربایجان" --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The official name in Farsi was added (آذربایجان). The name in Azerbaicani language iz not "آذربایجان". It is "گونئی آزربایجان / Cənubi Azərbaycan".--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some secessionist and/or ultra nationalistic movement suggested using South Azerbaijan -with a new form of using ز instead ذ - but it is not neither mainstream idea nor dominant . If you want to show that form is correct , please cite a source (not the web!) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1- You deleted the both of "گونئی آزربایجان / Cənubi Azərbaycan". You shoul show refrence for "mainstream idea" in Azerbaijani language that use "آذربایجان" for "Azerbaijan (Iran)".

2- Both of ""گونئی آزربایجان" " and "گونئی آذربایجان" used in Ərəbic script, that used in Soth Azerbaijan. And we can use both of them in thise article.

3- "گونئی آزربایجان / گونئی آذربایجان" is used a lat of Soth Azerbaijanı web:

"GünAz TV" (Güney Azərbaycan Televiziası), "GAMOH" (Güney Azərbaycan Milli Oyanış Hərəkatı), GAİP (Güney Azərbaycan İstsqlal Partıyası), Güney Azərbaycan Öyrənci Hərəkatı , GAQP (Güney Azərbaycan Qurtuluş Patiyası), SANANEWS (Soth Azerbaijan News Agency),... --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Other sourses for "گونئی آزربایجان / Güney Azərbaycan":

1- Books that use "Güney Azerbaycan"

2- Güney Azərbaycan

3- Güney Azerbaycan

And you don't show any refrence for "mainstream idea" in Azerbaijani language that use "آذربایجان" for "Azerbaijan (Iran)". --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The name used is for the languages spoken within Iran, which is the South Azeri dialect written in the modified Arabic alphabet. Thus, it is inconsequential how the language/alphabet of another country uses such a term. For example, if the term Iran was used different in say the Persian of Afghanistan, it is inconsequential for an article on Iran. In Iran no one writes: "Güney" with such an alphabet in the Azeri publications there (say newspapers). Because first of all, they use the modified Arabic alphabet and second, it is politically charged. Second, the same region (a good portion of it like all of Western Azerbaijan) is called by Kurdish nationalists as "Eastern Kurdistan". For example, in the Northern Federal region of Kurdish Iraq, they use East Kurdistan for all of West Azerbaijan with their own alphabet. However, this does not mean we put "Eastern Kurdistan" in say the article West Azerbaijan for Kurdish language or here. Thus what matters is mainstream and official publications within Iranian Azerbaijan, and even the term "Güney" is not used that much as the word "Jonub" is used for "South" more often then "Güney". Also, please do not edit war, given the fact that your block was just lifted by adding controversial items. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1- We talks about the name of "Azerbaijan (Iran)" in Azerbaijani languge. You can talk about ather article in himself talk page.

2- I shown many refrence that uesed "گونئی آزربايجان / Güney Azərbaycan" in Azerbaijani language but you don't show any refrence for "آذربايجان". Azerbaijani language and Farsi are different languges.

3- Both of Latin and Arabic scripts used in South Azerbaijan.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Response:

• The name is about local languages in the country of Iran which is the South Azeri language, which uses Arabic alphabet and orthography. In Iran, no book or newspapers is published in the orthography you have used. Local names are used from local languages. And you have yet to establish that the name you have proposed is common in Iran. It is not, because officially the name is Azerbaijan and local newspapers/books use Azerbaijan or similar to Ostan-e Azerbaijan, and not Guney.
• The references you brought have nothing to do with Iran which is the concern of the article. Because local names in a country must come from texts from that country, not outside the country.
• The name is about local languages which is the South Azeri language, which uses Arabic alphabet, different phonetics and orthography. The local language spoken in Iran, not in any other 3rd country which is of no concern (hence your google books results coming outside of Iran have no relavence).
• The term "South Azerbaijan" is a modern invention which did not exist prior to the USSR and many sources have considered it nonneutral. Only fringe and not main stream sources in Iran (which is what is important relative to this article) might use it. For example, Shahriyaar always has used Qafqaaz for Caucasus Azerbaijan, and "Azerbaijan" (not Guney Azerbaijan) for Iran. Your idea is the same as writing in Persian: "Azerbaijan-e Tarixi o Asli" (the real and historic Azerbaijan) in Persian, just because some sources use such a term (E. Reza, Varjavand, etc.). Or writing "Eastern Kurdistan" for parts of the region because Kurdish sources in Iraq use it.
• Note you also said that Jews/Europeans make history for Iran and Turks have 7000 years history... this is not the way to edit wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1- We talk about the "Azerbaijan (Iran)" in the "Azerbaijani language".

2- Both of Latin and Arabic alphabet are used in "Azerbaijani language" and in South Azerbaijan.

3- Azerbaijani people are one people who live in several countries and "Azerbaijani language" is common language in South and North Azerbaijan. And they have common wikipedia. [10]

4- Sources mentioned earlier, show that "Güney Azərbaycan / گونئی آزربایجان" used in South Azerbaijan.

5- Use the term "South Azerbaijan" in Iran can be heavy consequences. For example Reza Baraheni to use the term "قاپدی قاشدی /Minibus" in one of his works to be imprisoned. Following the publication of "Kasravi and Azeri hypothesis" (Dr.Sediq)large charges to Dr.Sediq is entered.Here is Iran

Also, many people for apply to teach in their mother tongue in schools are in prisons. "Said Metinpur" and see [11]

6- I think the resources are enough rational and you do not have any source for your say--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Again you just repeated the same thing.

• Point 1 and 2: Many sources mention in Persian that Azerbaijan is the real Azerbaijan, but one uses official names. The Azerbaijani language in Iran is South Azeri and is overwhelmingly written in Arabic script. It has its own phonetics, vocabulary and etc. One does not use Australian English for articles in America.
• Point 3: That is irrelavent, since common wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia.
• Point 4: Again the official and common name used in Iran is Azerbaijan. You are bringing a fringe name.
• Point 5: Reza Beraheni was imprisoned for political activities, not because of usage of term. Also that still does not establish any currency, just because Reza Beraheni used it. Also he did not, as Reza Beraheni has written all his work in Persian, and what Reza Beraheni names it, is not the official or common usage. In each country, one puts the official and common usage name.
• Point 6: The resources you brought were some weblogs and some sources from the republic of Azerbaijan. Nothing relavent to this article. The name you proposed is not used in Iran, because in Iran, the Azeri script is written in Arabic alphabet. Shahriyar who wrote in Azeri (unlike Beraheni) differntiates between Azerbaijan and Qafqaaz.. He has many poets about "Azerbaijan". So again, in Iran, one uses the Azeri language in Iran written in Arabic script. Just like in America, one does not use Australian English. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

1- Reza Baraheni to use the term "قاپدی قاشدی /Minibus" in one of his works to be imprisoned."در اتاق تمشیت پای مرا کابل می‌زدند…از من بازجویی دسته‌جمعی کردند و مدام به من می‌گفتند که تو چون کلمه قاپدی- قاچدی را که مردم تبریز روی مینی‌بوس گذاشته بودند، در این مقاله به کاربرده‌ای «پس تو می‌خواهی…پیشه‌وری بشوی!»…" هم‌میهن غزئتی: گفت و گو با رضا براهنی؛نویسندگی سرنوشتِ من است2 - ادامه گفتگو با رضا براهنی گفت‌وگوی اختصاصی هم‌میهن با دکتر رضا براهنی- نویسنده، شاعر و منتقد[ http://www.savalansesi.com/2009/12/blog-post_31.html]. Then in that time Shahriyar couldn't use "South Azerbaijan".

2- This websites "GünAz TV" (Güney Azərbaycan Televiziası), "GAMOH" (Güney Azərbaycan Milli Oyanış Hərəkatı), GAİP (Güney Azərbaycan İstsqlal Partıyası), Güney Azərbaycan Öyrənci Hərəkatı , GAQP (Güney Azərbaycan Qurtuluş Patiyası), SANANEWS (Soth Azerbaijan News Agency),... are writen by South Azerbaijanes people. Not North Azerbaijanes.

3- "Varliq" the famous South Azerbaini magnazine use both of Latin and Arabic sript.

4- Shahriyar lived in several years ago but we lives in NOW. And we should use recent sources.

5- Persian government is forced other nations to use Farsi. In the government of "Azerbaijan People's Government" Azerbaijani language was official in South Azerbaijan. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox : WP:SOAPBOX. Reza Baraheni is a known ethno-centric leftist writer that have especial points of views . All of the websites that you mentioned are propaganda websites that are Baku based and they reflect the opinion of extremist separatist groups that are not known to be the majority . Varliq in Iranian Azarbaijan was a magazine that had a strong ties with Pan Turkic circles , so it is not surprising in using a script that is acceptable to them . About one part of Iranian nation forcing other parts to use a language , that is a false information and I think continuing such manner may cause a second edit block for you . Saq Olasan , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You sey "Reza Baraheni is a known ethno-centric leftist writer..." and "Varliq in Iranian Azarbaijan was a magazine that had a strong ties with Pan Turkic circles...". It's again WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. Please write about subject not about others. You should show source about your clime. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA#WHATIS , mentioning political views of Baraheni and Varliq is not a personal attack and is not against civility , and many may consider that political views as their positive points , but using the POV of especial groups in Wikipedia as the majority or main stream view is not acceptable . By itself , being Leftist and / or separatist does not have positive or negative meaning , but that means they can't be considered as referencing source . I can express my opinion about the other sources and that is not prohibited.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To Ebrahimi Amir:

• Please note the rules of Wikipedia, WP:NPA is about users and not about criticsm of unreliable authors (describing their unreliability is not a personal attack).
• First the website you showed about Berahani is in Persian not latin Alphabet script, and it is weblog. So it is not a usable source and it does not have your latin alphabet. Weblogs are not usable sources.
• Second Braheani (I did not see where he used the latin alphabet with that term) does not set the standard for Wikipedia. See WP:RS and WP:OR.
• Third I have seen online editions of Varliq and they are not in Latin script. Also Varliq is a magazine and a fringe soucre, but you need to show an exact article in Latins script (with your spelling) that they use the term. You have failted to do so, but even if you do, it is a fringe source WP:FRINGE.
• Fourth standard academic texts clearly state that Arabic alphabet is used in Iran, not "both". If Latin/Cyrilic is used it is 1% relative to 99%, so it has no weight in Wikipedia. Fact is in Iran related articles, it is not used and the dialect in Iran is South Azeri which uses Arabic script. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism.
• Pishevari's government is 1 year tenure and they did not use Latin alphabet either.
• Shahriyar is still more popular than fringe sources, and you have no source he was forced.
• The standard in Iran is Arabic alphabet and thats it. Any other alphabet is not used by majority of Iranians and has no place in Wikipedia artcles about Iran,
• One can criticize viewpoints of authors, and Alborz is totally right about Berhanei/Varligh are fringe and not reliable separatis sources.
• Please stop pushing fringe weblogs/websites with no academic value. You need reliable sources not weblogs. Also Wikipedia maintains neutrality..else Just because Parviz Varjavand calls it "Azerbaijan-e Vaghei, Azerbaijan-e Tarixi" (the latter term being used in Persian a lot), it does not mean it should be there in Persian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To Khodabandeh14 and Alborz Fallah:

It seems you're looking for a biased point.

1-We talk about South Azerbaijan name in Azerbaijani languge. You say that Shahriyar used Qafqaz for North Azerbaijan! But you should show reference that Shahriyar or other South Azerbaijani autors used/use "آذربایجان" for South Azerbaijan. Notice that "آذربایجان" is used for great Azerbaijan (South and North Azerbaijan toghether).

2- Others accuse the "Pan" being without any evidence is a type of attack.

3- Reference shown that; Reza Baraheni to use the term "قاپدی قاشدی /Minibus" in one of his works to be imprisoned.

4- "Varliq" used latin script:" Аrsak : Tutarlı Cavab, Dоktоr Cavanşir Vəkilоv p.104" & “Koroğlu” Eposunun Poеtik Dili, X. B. Bəşirli, filologiya Elmləri Namzədi P.106" & Şirvаndа Аşiq Sənəti, Ağalar Mirzə p.113" (Varliq n.136) "Sərf və Nəhv Bir-birindən Ayrı Deyil, İbrahim Rafraf p.106" (n.130) and...

That showes both of Arabic and Latin script are used in South Azerbaijan.

5- Professor Zehtabi used "جنوبی آذربایجاندا تاریخ علمینه بیرباخیش" in "ایران تورکلرینین اسکی تاریخی" book (Volume I - p.14)

6- Pishevari's government did not use Latin alphabet either because Pishevari's government was in 1946 and Latin script was used 1990 decade.

7-I mentioned several related sources for my clime, but you don't show any source for your claim. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• First again, it seems you do not understand Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia uses common names used in the country and the common alphabet used in the country. If Latin alphabet was chosen for the language in the republic of Azerbaijan (which is considered a different dialect and macro-language than South Azeri) in 1990, then it has no bearing on Iran. So there is no discussion here as we are talking about Iran, which not in 1990, but never has chosen the latin alphabet.
• Jamie Stokes, "Encyclopaedia of the Peoples of Africa and Middle East, Volume 1", Infobase Publishing, 2009. pg 79 "Although Russian- influenced Azeris have used both the Cyrillic and the Roman alphabets, in Iran the Azeri language has always been written in a version of the Arabic script."
• Several minor letters in Varliq do not count per WP:weight.
• Accusation of pan is not an attack it is statement about the biase of the source.
• Zehtabi who considers Elamites, Sumerians and Medes as Turks is an unscholarly source and I invite you to try to change the articles such as Elamites, Sumerians and Medes with his psuedo-scientific theories so that admins become aware.
• Well if Latin got accepted in 1990, it never got accepted in Iran which is what this article is about.
• Your references are websites/weblogs which have no weight in Wikipedia.. Shahriyar which you mentioned never wrote "Guney Azerbaijan" in Latin or in Persian or Turkish or any other language. And yes when he references Azerbaijan, he references historical Azerbaijan. You can search the word Qafqaz and Azerbaijan.. For example his poem about Ferqeh:

روز جانبازيست اي بيچاره آذربايجان سرتو باشي در ميان هرجا كه آمد پاي جان اي بلاگردان ايران سينه زخمي به پيش تير باران بلا باز از تو مي جويد نشان So he is calling Azerbaijan as the head of Iran, but the Caucasus did not belong to Iran at all..

• However, Wikipedia does not work but what Beraheni, Shahriyar, Varliq or some websites use. Wikipedia works with standard and official terms used in the country.
• Your WP:OR on why Shahriyar did not write "South" or "North", has no weight in Wikipedia. The fact is that he never used "Guney".. but he has used Qafqaz as opposed to Azerbaijan. Most importantly, as shown by netural sources, Arabic alphabet is used in Iran for the South Azeri dialect, so if a country since 1990 has used Latin alphabet, it does not really have any relationship to Iran. Maybe tommorow they will choose Cyrillic or Arabic or etc., but this article is about Iran and how the scripts in Iran are used.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1- Yes! Wikipedia uses "Non-neutral but common names" WP:POVTITLE. And common names is used in common places. I show "گونئی آزربایجان / جنوبی آزربايجان / Güney Azərbaycan" is used in South Azerbaijan commonly. But you can't show it.

2- Azerbaijani people have common languge, culture, ethnic identity and... . Change Azerbaijani languge to the Latin alphabet has led to used this script in South Azerbaijan.

3-You use poetry of Shahriyar is Farsi not Azerbaijani.

4- The term "South Azerbaijan" also used in Farsi source. For example "كثرت قومي و هويت ملي ايرانيان" Professor Zea Sadr (Tehran,2008, p.38)

5- Varliq, Zehtabi ... are reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

6- Please see WP:ORIGINAL and show reliable sources that show mainstream idea in Azerbaijani language that use "آذربایجان" for "Azerbaijan (Iran)". --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Again, you have no proof that is the common name. That is why you are violating WP:POVTITLE.. just couple of weblogs which has no academic value.
• Part two of your talk is slogan. But linguistically, the dialects/languages of Iran is called Southern Azeri written in Arabic script.
• Ziya Sadr is an exile in Toronto, and again, his article is in Farsi (same reason you criticize Shahryar).
• Show me a text from 100 years with the word "Guney Azerbaijan" in Latin alphabet.. of course you cannot.
• Zehtabi is definitely not WP:RELIABLE as he claims the Medes, Urartu, Parthians as Turks. Reliable means people that have serious Western academic credentials. These are nationalistic sources as are Varliq. We can put somewhere in the article that "nationalist irredentist sources call it X in Azeri".
• WP:OR is what you have been violating and you need to show that mainstream in Azerbaijani language in Iran uses "Latin Alphabet" which you failed. I brought sources that states clearly that Arabic alphabet is used in Iran. You did not bring any source that states that non-Arabic alphabet is used frequently in Iran. I brought sources that state that Azerbaijani language in Iran has its own pecularities and linguists even use "South Azeri" for it, you again failed to bring academic sources.
• The weblogs you brought lack WP:WEIGHT and unless you provide academic sources, where-as the sources I brought even clearly state "Latin Alphabet" is not used in Iran and Iranian Azerbaijan. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You claim that sources are used by my aren't academic sources but they are.

Pay attention to the issues discussed and see WP:ORIGINAL so show reliable sources that show mainstream idea in Azerbaijani language that use "آذربایجان" for "Azerbaijan (Iran)". --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stop misuing policy you do not understand. I actually bring reliable sources for my assertions (see below), while WP:OR means quoting websites/weblogs and fringe sources (e.g. Zehtabi who is not taken seriously by academicians). You are the one that is changing the article, thus you need real sources. Yes Zehtabi is not an academic source as you can see, no one considers the Medes or Parthians to be Turks except nonsense sources like Zehtabi which you are pushing. It falls under WP:FRINGE. Also no where did you show anything in Varliq using "Guney Azerbaijan" in Latin alphabet, and you need to bring the actual issue, but Varliq is WP:FRINGE. SHahriyar would be more mainstream as he is not political, and again you failed to prove he used such a term.
• On Arabic script, again we do not care if some country outside of Iran adopted a script for their language since 1990 as we are talking about South Azeri dialect which is distinguished. Tajikistan might use Cyrilic but we do not put Cyrilic in an article on Tehran. The names are supposed to reflect the local names and spellings from the country, not outside of it.
  • Jamie Stokes, "Encyclopaedia of the Peoples of Africa and Middle East, Volume 1", Infobase Publishing, 2009. pg 79 "Although Russian- influenced Azeris have used both the Cyrillic and the Roman alphabets, in Iran the Azeri language has always been written in a version of the Arabic script." (we don't care if some guy decides to publish a secret article in latin, has always should be taken as overwhelming majority, making any other spelling irrelavent).
  • "People of Western Asia, Volume 3", Marshall Cavendish, 2006. pg 124. Quote: "Iranian Azeris speak a Southern version of the Azeri language, which belongs to the Turkic family. They write in the Arabic script, while the northerners use Roman (European) letters"
• So both of these sources rules out any latin alphabet which is not used in Iran and according to you was started in 1990!

• On the controversial and political name..Besides Shahriyar who has never used "Jonubi,Guney..", there are many Iranian Azeris that

have criticized the name Azerbaijan for the Caucasus. These include Ahmad Kasravi who has been praised as a esteemed and erudite historian by scholars such as Minorsky. More importantly, I provide two sources that the names are controversial (which means they need to be explained), and also the neutral name is more common in Iran by everyone):

• • Michael P. Croissant, "The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications", Praeger/Greenwood, 1998. excerpt from pg 61: "During the Soviet-era historical revisionism and myth-building intended to denounce imperialism, the notion of a "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan was created and propogated throughout USSR. It was charged that the "two Azerbaijanis" once united were separated artificially by conspiracy between imperial Russia and Iran".
  • Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia ’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001. Excerpt from pg 24: "Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as 'Southern Azerbaijan', with demands for liberation and, eventually, for 're'-unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direction, as in 1945-46 etc. The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union."
• As these sources state, such a terms were created by nationalists and Soviet historical revisionionsm. There is already a sentence devoted to it in the beginning of the article as well. Such a term did not exist prior to the Soviet era and consequently, this needs to be mentioned.
• Mainstream sources in Iran use official names as separatist type names are not used in Iran. It is simple as that. You are making an extraordinary claim and you need extraodinary sources per Wikipedia. Weblogs will not do. Furthermore, you are the one that is trying to make a change, so you need to get a concensus, but concensus cannot be achieved by using fringe weblogs and a fringe author Zehtabi. On the other hand, what is commonly and officially used in Iran (in state broadcast) is what matters here the most. Unless you bring sources that your name is the most common name (not by weblogs but actual WP:RS sources that state such a point), one will have to by default go to the official name. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources to DNA studies

I replace the links to two non-working sources on the page with a fact tag. Also the entire sentence claiming that Azerbaijanis (an entire ethnic group) have the same DNA as Iranians is a rather gross generalization, void of proper research facts, scholarship, and falling under WP:OR or WP:POV. Atabəy (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the links.The sentence can be changed , but the research and interview claims that there is a close relationship between all populations inside Iranian plateau . But overall , I agree with you about the difficulties of presenting a scientific research in popular terms . What alternative sentence is your suggestion ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AlborzFallah, thank you for fixing the first link. But the second one is clearly not a WP:RS reference. So I kindly ask you to remove it, or we can go further as to why it is not. It's essentially a claim made by an Iranian student association. If you have a link to original Cambridge study making such conclusion, please, provide it. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the sentence have to be removed or the second link , that is an interview with Dr.Bonab ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the second link should be removed. The first one can stay as it is an article, but wording should be changed. How can you say that entire nation has the same DNA as some other nation? Atabəy (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is right . No one can never say such a thing ! From scientific point of view that is nonsense . In all scientific studies with normal distribution curve (Gauwith ssian distribution) , an standard element of 2 standard deviation is considered to interpret the overall view . The correct sentence can be something such as "Genetic perceptive of Iranian Azeri's resembles with other populations of Iranian plateau ". The interview is not using the scientific terminology , it is providing a simplified view for ordinary reader .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Still the interview is not WP:RS. If there was such Cambridge study making the claim about the genetic makeup, why not provide the direct link to that study instead of recitation in a non-neutral source? Atabəy (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Cambridge study is the first address ([12]), and it did not said the same thing that is the claim . The second address - which is an interview with the researcher of the first document - claims that the first one means the claim , although in rough and unscientific tongue . I agree about changing the sentence , what is your suggestion ?

The abstract of the Cambridge study (in non medical and popular terms) is that the genetic composition of the population of Iran , in all regions of the country , is largely the same ; the only exception is the Capital city of Tehran that is more changed (because of huge immigration from rural to urban regions). That was against the expectation of the studying group , because they first thought that the population may not be homogenous and they gave weight to the factor of immigration more than the real results so the result was not what they expected.

In the interview , Dr.Bonab puts emphasis on other surface of the study ( that is not mentioned directly in the Cambridge paper ) that the homogeneity of the population is in a high degree (and Dr Bonab interpret it as the result of the prehistoric movements of the human population , because his works with Dr Mallox mainly is focused on these topics ).

Anyway , again I agree about the point that we may not include it in the article as present sentence. What is the alternative ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

There are more than one theory concerning the etymology of the word; Azerbaijan. One of which is the that 'Azer' means fire and 'Azerbaijan' the land of fire, which should be added in to the article.

Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a ... By Tadeusz Swietochowski

Azerbaijan: A Political History By Suha Bolukbasi Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well , we had a long history of debate over this topic . The detailed discussion has it's own article that is :Name of Azerbaijan. But still that article is a summary itself , and the original sophisticated article is here : Name of Azerbaijan/workpage. I think if you want to add information , first check it out if it is not mentioned in one of those articles that I mentioned . Thank you ,--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan

South Azerbaijan is another common name of Azerbaijan (Iran), it should be noted in article.

• Rural transition in Azerbaijan by Zvi Lerman, David J. Sedik - Page 11:A Brief History of South Azerbaijan
• Azerbaijan: a quest for identity : a short history by Charles van der Leeuw - Page 94
• Azerbaijan Since Independence- by Svante E. Cornell Page 41
• Iran's political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities- by Keith Crane, Rollie Lal, Jeffrey Martini Page 54

--Orartu (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)