User talk:Agasalim

Name Azerbaijan ...

Hi ! In your edit [1] you said :the name Azerbaijan has been applied to Republic of Azerbaijan much earlier than 20th century as the article below clearly proves, thus its incorrect to restore the "since the 20th century" intro.

Can you please discuss it more ? I mean most of the article shows that the historic name of the regions north of the Arass river has been Arran , Shirvan and etc. The name Azerbaijan tended to show the south Arass region and in 1918 with the independence of Northern regions , the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic used the name to separate itself from the Russian empire (See section Azerbaijan as the name of an independent republic). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you, I answered on your talk page. --Agasalim (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For Naxjavan , in Hamdollah Mostowfi era , it was only a city and not a province (or autonomous republic) , and it was a town in the bank of river Arass , so it can't be used as a proof to name the whole region north of Arass as Azerbaijan .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've responded on your page. --Agasalim (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been a very long debate in the talk page of that article and prolongation of text with so many references is a side effect of that heavy debates . The overall result was to used present sentence in opening . But if you are new , I can repeat the dialogue . You said "Also, all it takes is one-two cities north of river Araxes, such as Nakhichevan or Muqan, to show that the concept of Azerbaijan included lands of the Azerbaijan Republic and of Iran from historic times." In talking about ancient geography , it is impossible to use mathematical level of correctness : that means because the medieval geographers did not had the modern maps , using Reductio ad absurdum technique is not a good way to prove a historical concept.

Chardin is talking about historical Median empire with rough equation to Safavid province.That can't be used to prove the northern Arax parts are named as Azerbaijan , because the political divisions of Safavid empire has not been exactly the same one of historical geography . The importance of the main political part determined the name of the whole province : that means the Fars included all south part of Iran , Azerbaijan included all north-west part , Khorasan all the east . In time of Chardin , there has been no place name of Parthia or Assyria . That means he was talking roughly about the historical and ancient empires that has been inside the Safavid Iran .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For Abbot , his text is a political one , and not geographical.He was simply viewing the picture in this light that the whole northern region of Araxes has been a part of Persian Azerbaijan province and Russians took it . more than that , Medea Atropotena is an ancient and historical name , that is not essentially the same as Azerbaijan , as you know the Kurd nationalists tend to consider it as Kurdistan and not Azerbaijan.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Bosworth talks about the name Arran in current time , and he is not talking about the historical geography of the name Azerbaijan. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Muriel Atkin : It seemed clearer to me to use Azerbaijan only for the southern part of the province that has remained under Iranian control.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bourtounian: The use of the term "Azerbaijan" requires clarification, as well. Although Azerbaijan was a geographical entity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the term was only used to identify the province in northwestern Persia. The Safavids, at one time, for revenue purposes, included some of the lands north of the Arax River as part of the province of Azerbaijan. This practice gradually fell out of use after the fall of the Safavids. To Mirza Jamal and Mirza Adigozal Beg, as well as other eighteenth and nineteenth-century authors, Azerbaijan referred to the region located south of the Arax River.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

De Planhol:he conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alborz, what the outlined scholars said makes perfect sense when reading their quotes, instead of trying to interpret them. The quotes say very obvious and clear things, based on which it is obvious that the name of Azerbaijan included lands of the current republic long before 20th century. --Agasalim (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think in asking the third party opinion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To ask the third party about what exactly? Can you clearly state what you object to? You have at least 10 sources, probably more, all listed on the article itself, which clearly say that the name Azerbaijan encompassed lands north and south of Araxes river for many centuries. I did not write these sources, nor did I place them in the article - they've been there for years. So the intro was revised to properly recognize that fact. It is not an interpretation or opinion - it says it very clearly, black on white. We can certainly involve an administrator as a third party opinion, but it's not clear why create so much fuss and waste people's time on such trivial and nonessential things that are clearly spelled out and shown, and are not really open to interpretation. --Agasalim (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Third party opinion because my understanding of the text maybe different from yours . I think if some other one give us a help that would be of value . That is routine in Wikipedia ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed in any way. I don't know how you can understand the text differently when it is written and has been interpreted the same way all along in the talk page of the article as well as its meaning. --Agasalim (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)