Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Azeri This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
WikiProject Iran Azerbaijan (Iran) is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijan (Iran) article.
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Recent edit by Tajik

With regard to the recent edit by Tajik, I checked the sources he mentioned, i.e. the articles about Arran by Bosworth in Iranica and Iran Chamber Society, and they say nothing about the term South Azerbaijan being politically motivated. In fact, they say nothing about the term South Azerbaijan, because those articles don’t even mention it. See for yourself: [1] [2]

The same with the very interesting article by Svante Cornell, called Iranian Azerbaijan: A Brewing Hotspot. It does not say anything about the term South Azerbaijan being politically motivated. In fact, it uses the term throughout the article. For some reason Tajik named both articles, but forgot to provide internet links, so that other editors could check them. I revert Tajik’s changes, if he feels that it is not justified, he can provide the quotes that state that the term South Azerbaijan is politically motivated. I support Tombseye’s opinion that there’s no need to state if a certain term is criticized or not, it should simply be included as one of the alternative names. Grandmaster 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"... 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 ..." - Quote from Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.
"... Albania (present Republic of Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (the original Azerbaijan in Iran) ..." - Azeri-Turkish scholar Ramazani, in Blucher, W.V., Zeitenwende, Persian Translation: Safar-nameh-e-Blucher, Tehran, Khwarami, 1984, p.115
Tajik 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What does your source say about the term South Azerbaijan? That is the question here, not the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan. And why the term South Azerbaijan is used by such publications as Iranica, which are not motivated by Azerbaijani nationalism? Grandmaster 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The term southern Azerbaijan is not in any classical historical books. It is a term invented since 1946 by some political sources. The true Azarbaijan has always been below the Aras river according to historical Persian and Arabic sources. It is like calling KArabagh as West Armenia. It is not accurate either from UN perspective. Furthermore, the term is not recognized by the UN (like east germany and west germany). I didn't see the term Southern Azerbaijan in the article you mentioned [3]. Indeed this article has differentiated between Arran and Azarbaijan.
If you bring the sentence, I would appreciate it. Since I would like to examine it in more detail. BTW many many ancient sources have regarded the current republic of Azerbaijan as either Arran or even part of Armenia.
Indeed I have at least 5 readily available sources from classical Arabic/Persian texts that consider the current republic of Azerbaijan as part of Armenia. Iranian Azarbaijan has always been called either Azarbaijan in the historical text or Azarbaijan of Iran. It is not an independent political entity to have a name chosen by some separatist groups or articles that may back such an agenda. Also the population of the Iranian provinces that are Azarbaijan is about 7 million:
http://www.statoids.com/uir.html . Note this is not the same as number of Azarbaijanis in IRan.
Geographical entities that are named should be terms that are recognized by the UN as well. Also groups that have separatist agenda are not recognized as neutral sources. Remember the NOR (No original research) and the sites mentioned by one of the users, are totally sites with no academic value. There could be another article about separatism, but this article is not it. Also of course there could be articles about Talysh or Armenian or Lezgi separatism in the current republic of Azerbaijan as well. So separatist sources are not main-stream and they do not hold sufficient credibility to be cited in this article. If requested I can email the current editor of the Encyclopedia of Iranica about the academic validity of this term via email.
But the term is not definitely historical and if anything, it was coined in the last century for political reasons. So that should be mentioned as well. Azarbaijan of Iran is completely part of Iran and the UN does not recognize a term such as Southern Azarbaijan. Else anyone can create a separatist webpage on the internet and then claim a part of another country by the separatist name. A good example is atzlan or something in the USA, where some mexican nationalists have attempted to call a portion of the US. But this is not recognized by the UN and so the territorial integrity of the US needs to be respected. Similar issue here. Also the name "southern Azerbaijan" can not be termed as nationalistcly motivated but separatist motivated. Since its currently part of Iran and hence the Iranian nation as a nation primarily is defined by geographical boundaries in the political sense and nationalism has to do with politics.
--Ali doostzadeh 23:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don’t really understand why some of our fellow editors from Iran make such a big deal of the term South Azerbaijan. If this term is separatist, why is it mentioned in Iranica more than once? Moreover, you can come across this term in some Iranian sources that come out against separatism in Iran. See an example here, it’s not an academic source, just some person expressing his opinion, but it shows that Iranian people use the term in a colloquial speech. I think that the term should be mentioned as an alternative name without any mention that it is nationalist or separatist, according to the naming conventions. It is used not only by separatist organizations, but by other sources as well. As for its historic value, it’s not really relevant. The fact is that there are two Azerbaijans as of now, one in the north and one in the south, so for convenience some sources differentiate between north and south. I don’t know why some people try to attach some political meaning to this name. As for the article about Arran, it never mentions the name of South Azerbaijan in any context, as I pointed out above, while some people claimed that this article considered the term to be nationalistic motivated. Grandmaster 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The term is not UN recognized. Is it no historical. Even if some people use it by mistake it does not make it legitimate. AS per Iranica, the editor also agrees that the name South Azerbaijan is made up and has no historical value. --Ali doostzadeh 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is used in criticism of seperatist political words in other sources, not for anything else. --K a s h Talk | email 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I would not say so. He says: Of course, Tabriz, the capital of South Azarbaijan is decidedly Persian, as is Baku, the capital of the north (Bad-koobeh, wind-blown). It’s not criticism, he just refers to the area by that name. Grandmaster 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That is not an academic source. --K a s h Talk | email 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was. Read my posting above. Grandmaster 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Then there is no reason to put it as an alternative term --K a s h Talk | email 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? The term is used by various sources. Grandmaster 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Which sources? The non academic websites where anyone can publish something? Wikipedia should not be used to promote any political agenda. "Various sources" should be academic, verifiable, reliable and use the term mentioned as an alternative term to Azarbaijan of Iran or they should not be noted --K a s h Talk | email 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen Iranica? It uses the term, and it is an academic source. Grandmaster 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? I thought you said "various sources"? and can you please quote to me how it uses the term? --K a s h Talk | email 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Iranica:
In North (Soviet) Azerbaijan the Latin alphabet was introduced in 1925…. In South (Iranian) Azerbaijan the Arabic alphabet is still used … [4] See page 246 Grandmaster 11:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I suggest we remove the term and if you insist this single academic page where it mentions the word possibly once is your source, bring on the mediation. --K a s h Talk | email 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It’s not the only source, and you can’t remove the alternative names from the article. For example, the article by Svante Cornell, to which Tajik was referring, also uses the term Southern Azerbaijan:
The politically motivated Azeris are torn between those desiring mainly increased rights within the Iranian state; those seeking political autonomy within Iran; those seeking the creation of an independent state; those seeking unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan; and those seeking a confederation embracing Turkey and both Northern and Southern Azerbaijan. [5]
Also, since it is a name, the sources don’t have to be academic only. If the name is used by people, it should be included, and you can see that it is used even by Iranians. Grandmaster 12:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
An alternative name should be notable. With those sources, I suggest first thing that should be done is add "Northern Azarbaijan" as an alternative name to Azerbaijan the country. --K a s h Talk | email 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is possible to add that it is also sometimes referred to as Northern Azerbaijan, but countries don’t have alternative names. Only the internationally accepted one. And the name of South Azerbaijan is notable, run a google search and see for yourself. Grandmaster 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Google search isn't the best tool to use here as the term may refer to the Democratic Republic of South Azerbaijan. Only reliable sources count. --K a s h Talk | email 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Again the name is not common relative to Azarbaijan for Iran. The UN has not recognized such a term. For example we had East Germany and West Germany which was recognized by the UN. Or North Korea or South Korea. Or in the US South Dakota and North Dakota. One or two authors won't change this fact. The fact is any naming convention should either have historical sources and/or be part of the current UN convention. Else one can also call that area of the US(Arizona,Texas..) Atzlan. Or call Karabagh , West Armenia (which is wrong and Karabagh is part of Azerbaijan as it is affirmed by the UN). For example we know Kurdish nationalist call 1/3 of Turkey as Western Kurdistan. In fact somebody might decide to call all the world Mexico. I will try to contact the editors at Iranica where the word Southern Azerbaijan is used. But I didn't find your article yet. The one by Prof. Boseworth didn't uses this term. Also pages referring to a separatist group or the ambassor of the republic of Azerbaijan to Iran can not be used as academic sources. Remember Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool.

--Ali doostzadeh 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

why are we letting one person Grandmaster who's from the republic of azarbaijan push his POV? we should just end this now Rugsnotbombs 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally do not see any reason why not to include an alternative name. UN is not an international notary it is a political organization. Why people trying to keep politics away, want to refer to an explicitly political organization? Other than that, even if we accept that it is only certain separatists using the term, it does not create a reason for exlusion of the term, on contrary it creates a reason to spesifically mention it as it proves that the term is in use. If it is proven that only and only people with separatist intenitons use this term, then that should be included as such. Otherwise, if there are neutral sources using it too, then it should be mentioned as an alternative name in a neutral manner. --TimBits 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article about a formal province, it’s an article about a geographic region. Officially Iran has provinces of East and West Azerbaijan and others. They have their officially recognized name, but Iranian or South Azerbaijan is just a geographic term, such terms don’t need an official recognition. For example, UN did not recognize the terms Arran and Shirvan, but we have articles about them nonetheless. So it’s not a valid argument. And see the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it has both the official name of Karabakh and unofficial of Artsakh. Of course, the official name goes first, others follow as alternatives. It’s not that I’m happy with that, but that’s the way it’s done here. As for Svante Cornell article, he’s a western scholar, and not an Azerbaijani separatist. You may agree or disagree with his position, but the fact is that he uses the term, and so do even Iranian sources, both academic and non-academic. It’s just a matter of convenience, for many people it’s easier to refer to both regions as North and South, since they have the same name. Plus South Azerbaijan gets more than 32 000 hits on google, according to the rules the term should be mentioned. And you can check that most of the hits are about the region in Iran. Grandmaster 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Azerbaijan and Persian Ultra Nationalists

The terms , names and titles are there to serve a purpose, and any term can be said to be political or advocating a certain view, but since it is being used has to be acknowledged.

The South Azerbaijan has born out of necessity to describe a region in Iran whos inhabitants are largely ethnic Azerbaijanis, and historically was under one one administration called "Ayalet i Azerbaijan" (ایالت آذربایجان). Since the recent changes to the administrative divisions the extends of this region is not readily shown on the official maps of the Iran, but never the less the ethnic boundaries are relatively clear.

The term South Azerbaijan indicates the close ethnic kinship with the Azerbaijani inhabitants of this region in Iran with those of in Republic of Azerbaijan. This is a cause for sensitivity of those Persian/Fars ultra nationalists, whose respects for Iranian borders exceed in respecting the Iranian people and accepting the facts on the ground.

This term is widely used in academic as well as in popular media, and I belive Wikipedia need to have an entry for this term. Mehrdad 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdadd jaan, anyone can claim whatever they want, but in this encyclopedia you have to provide evidence for your claims. You see, Uber Ultra Omega Nationalist Azeris, have to remember that Azari is the second ethnic group in Iran and Azeris, originally Medes, created the first native empire of Iran and the whole Azarbaijan region was part of Iran until Russian imperial powers seperated it. The bond between Azaris are Persians are so very much tight in Iran, that these Ultra Nationalist Azeris can only dream on with their seperatist wishes.
Please provide evidence for your claims of the term being "widely used" in academic and popular media (!). Thanks, --K a s h Talk | email 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Kash, a quick search in the web will provide you with plenty of examples.
Here are some of those:

Mehrdad 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdad, A bunch of blogs and letters to websites are not evidence for anything. Big list of links are not scary neither. You should familiarise yourself with WP:V. Just don't make big claims for yourself, blogs are not "popular media" --K a s h Talk | email 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Some more for you, Kash. See Asia Times, the source is quite sympathetic to Iran. It says: Meanwhile, Iranian or "southern" Azerbaijan developed on a massively different historical trajectory. [6]
Here’s an article by David Nissman, he uses the term throughout the text. [7] Grandmaster 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sympathetic to Iran? Don't flatter yourself. That link is not credible, seems like a personal webpage to me. Perhaps you would like to understand what an academic, reliable source is? WP:V, and see Jimbo's comment on the matter [8]: "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia...it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute" --K a s h Talk | email 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice try at discrediting the sources, but Asia Times is a well known regional newspaper. As for David Nissman, he’s quite academic and is the author of the book called "The Soviet Union and the Iranian Azerbaijan: The Use of Nationalism for Political Penetration." Available at Amazon.com here Grandmaster 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice try yourself mate. Newspapers are not reliable academic sources. No matter how well known they are, and if you like David Nissman, get his book and quote the usage. --K a s h Talk | email 10:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. The articles are OK, plus you don’t need academic sources for a title. Google search is enough. Grandmaster 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Linking this issue to a cetain group, namely Persians is not appropriate here. It's not directly related to Persians or even Persian nationalism. So, let's keep finger-pointing out. Other than that, if Azerbaijani People choose to live as Iranian citizens it is because of their allegiance to their country, not their perceived bond with another ethic group in the country. --TimBits 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azarbaijan ( I refuse to call it Iranian Azarbaijan) should be Called Old Azarbaijan

How about calling the reall, historical Azarbaijan 'Old Azarbaijan?' This is more apporiate and the trend is already starting in Iran and Eurasia.

The following is the reason why the area in question can not be called South Azarbaijan, especially because of a vocal and militant minority;

"... 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 ..." - Quote from Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.
"... Albania (present Republic of Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (the original Azerbaijan in Iran) ..." - Azeri-Turkish scholar Ramazani, in Blucher, W.V., Zeitenwende, Persian Translation: Safar-nameh-e-Blucher, Tehran, Khwarami, 1984, p.115


Therefore esablishing the fact that (Iranian) Azarbaijan is in historical fact 'Azarbaijan proper' we can safely realize that there is no south or north Azarbaijan. Any referance is informal venacular terminology and terminal 'ad libb'. This is not original research either, but transparent use of information and verification. If I have documantation verifying that SUBJECT is RED and user:X says/claims/edits that SUBJECT is BLUE (which is falicous) and even possibly finds on a more complicated scenerio or basis non-neutral or non-acadmic verification saying SUBJECT is BLUE it does not mean SUBJECT is BLUE. Then user:X demands I find verification saying SUBJECT is NOT BLUE. This DEMANDING OF OTHER EDITORS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, WHICH IS NOT AN ACADMIC PROCESS AND NON-SCIENTIFIC IN NATURE is a dead end and tactically used for rheotoric. HOw can editors prove SUBJECT IS NOT BLUE OR SUBJECT IS NOT YELLOW? When all acticles say SUBJECT is RED and would never even talk about other colours becuase simple SUBJECT IS RED. These PROBLEMS are compounded becuase user:Grandmaster has a bad habbit of asking other editors to prove a NEGATIVE. What is there to say/verify that SUBJECT is NOT BLUE. It is as if I claimed Japanese were Iranian/Iranic and I said they have to be 'because there is no verification saying they are not Iranian!' This is a generic problem not just for ethnic articles but for all WIkipedia that must be reviewed, analyzed, a addressed, and remedied by us all through the stipulation of certain regulations that are broadly accepted and easy to understand and follow.

Anyone have any questions, comments or concerns please contact me!

72.57.230.179

[edit] Even Baraheni calls it "Iranian Azarbaijan"

Reza Baraheni is today perhaps one of the, if not the most famous and heavyweight Azeris of Iran. This is what he says:

  • البته هستند كساني كه پس از رويت اين بلاها تزريق جدايي طلبي مي كنند. اصلا چه كسي گفته است كه ايران متعلق به ديگري است تا تو از آن جداي شوي؟ بزرگ ترين شهر آذري نشين جهان تهران است، با بيش از نيمي از جمعيت كل اين پايتخت، كه محصور به شهرهاي آذري نشين است، بزرگترينش شهري به جمعيت چند ميليوني كرج، و واقع بين اگر باشيم بايد بگوييم كه تهران و اطرافش، به رغم داشتن ميليونها فارسي زبان، در دنيا، پس از استانبول و اطرافش، بزرگ ترين شهر ترك نشين جهان است،
"Of course there are those that after seeing all these tensions (in Iranian Azerbaijan) inject ideas of secessionism of Azeris from Iran. My question to them is: What other group does Iran belong to that has made you want to secede from Iran? Tehran is the world's largest Azeri city, with half the population being Azeri. And it is surrounded by Azeri cities as well, the largest being the multi million population city of Karaj. And if we even want to be realistic, we can even say that Tehran and its metropolitan area, despite its large Persian population, constitutes the world's largest Turkic city, after Istanbul."
    • yeah, Turks who are not allowed to read and write in turkish! and they need to speak persian, and this applies to their children too, so no more turks...!
  • حوزه آذربايجان ,غرض سراسر آذربايجان است، هم آنچه جدا شده و شمالي خوانده شده و هم آذربايجان ايران
"...The region of Azarbaijan, meaning all of Azarbaijan, both the part that separated off and is called "north", and the Iranian Azarbaijan..."

Source: [9]


Iranian Azerbaijan is therefore correct. No ands, ifs, or buts. Yasashir Iran.--Zereshk 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

    • We know better than anybody else what to call our lands, so take off the perspolis pictures from your pages please since you have no right to even discuss here...persians... (hey zereshk i C U confused typing turkish lol it's ok, don't get excited)
I agree with name Azarbaijan (Iran) is really confusing, especcially for people who dont know a thing about Azerbaijan, this would only be annoying to read. I think we should change it into Iranian Azerbaijan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baku87 (talk • contribs).
Yes, it should be moved to Iranian Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We're on English wikipedia and we should use the most common form in English, at least that's our policy, which is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.
It's not hard to see that Azerbaijan is a much more common form, when speaking about the Iranian region.
Or, if you trust printed books more:
bogdan 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The above user only said use the term Iranian Azarbaijan, notice he used Azarbaijan and not Azerbaijan. Azarbaijan is also used in English and is the proper way of spelling it when refering to the region within Iran. 69.196.164.190

[edit] Final line

I have no time reading all discussions and articles and stuff, so non azer - turks out of south-azerbaijan please... We got what we deserved from trusting to persians so it's good to have some respect, but this time we know who to trust lol. so let's just get separated while we keep our peace between

    • I mean what is really bodering persians here? you got your land and people and so do I.

persians don't like to accept us as "turks" which doesn't mean anything, you know better than anybody else what you are, so i think they got a problem with the land, i guess they can't get the persian-empire map out of their head, so if it's based on that we should wait for egypt and greece too lol but the thing is "Iran" till early 20th century was being called "countries of Iran" which azerbaijan was one of these countries, independence like others, my dear Iran is not a single unit that you wanna force one language and culture to it, it's been a land based on "Confederalism" not even "federalism" so it's more can be united as a "Union". Otherwise if persians kill themselves or we kill ourselves it's IMPOSSIBLE for us to be persians. I mean what is wrong with this? persians do not know many things about history of Iran, they should open their eyes before it gets late, they need to stop thinking about the persian empire, what? they think that everybody was persian at that time? all those lands?!! if everybody was aryan or persian how come they couldn't do anything when Alexander came to these lands?

Bro.. Don't live in your dreams, you need to learn this: When Turks got the right to determine what to call persian lands, Persians will get the right to name azerbaijan as they want. This applies to all nations

[edit] Ethnic status in Iran: NPOV & Sources

This section suffers from a lack of cites and also poor style. Many sentences assess claims, such as '..no incidation...' & '...undermines...'. WP shouldn't be deciding how reasonable a claim is one way or the other, just reporting them. Additionally, the para that starts 'In contract to the claims...' seems like total Original Research and has no sources. Remember, WP isn't here to determine the status of Azaris in Iran, but merely to report what others have said about it. Ashmoo 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move this page to Azarbaijan or Iranian Azarbaijan

The current title is incorrect and misleading. it suggests that the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan are one entity seperated. They are not, they have always been to different regions, and infact, the R of Azerbaijan shouldnt even be called azerbaijan.Khosrow II 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly disagree. This article is quite informative related with the Azeri (Turkic Speaking) people of iran and the region. There are similar issues as in the case of Macedonia. E104421 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck is "Persian Azarbaijan"?

Can someone please tell what the heck "Persian Azarbaijan" (in the first line) means. There is no relationship, per se, between Persians and Azarbaijan. We have to edit this non-sense ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.104.63 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2006.

Iran was formerly known to the west as Persia. Therefore, Persian Azerbaijan is basically Iranian Azerbaijan, but with the Western term for Iran.Khosrow II 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 1- Racial issues

This article is biased because there is a passage in article which suggests azerbaijanis are of arian ancistary and thus it suggest azeris can't be regarded as having a distinc idendity from persians. this part should be deleted, because:

1. Idendity is not based on Race. This racial discussions reminds me of Nazi regime. why should an article about a geographical location contain racial theories. for instance see the Catalonia article. although catalans probably have the same racial traits as Castillians, this article does not contain any discussion regarding racial simmilarities and there is no doubt that Catalans are distinct from Castillians.

2. The research mentioned in the article is only a private research on a limmited group of individuals. The results of the research do not have any official status. Indeed there may exict many conflicting research results. so Please do not include the results of this research in the article unless you can show that the results are universally accepted and you unless you can cite credible neutral(non-Iranian) websites which refer to the results of this research.

3. Even if we accept that there is a genetic proximity between persians and azeris this does not mean that Azeris are simmillar to persians. This means Azeris and persians have billateral simillarities. Well the frequency of intermarrigaes between Iranians of different ethnicities (especialy Persians and Azeris)has created a common genetic pool. Indeed in Tehran, the capital of Iran which once was a mainly persian town, you can hardly find any person without Azeri blood in her veins.

4. If you insist on including statements about Racial traits of Azeris all rival theories should be included. For Rival theoris see Azerbaijani_people article.--Faucon7 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 2- Lingual and cultural issues

Culture is the main base of idendity. In this Article cultural distinctness of Azerbaijanis is not underlined. It should be underlined that the language of this region is Azerbaijani, a TURKIC language. any introduction to the Iranian azerbaijan without a reference to the language issue will be incomplete. It should be underlined that while Azerbaijanis are the largest ethnic group in Iran ( according to ethnologe.org), Azerbaijani people can not use their right to be educated in Azerbaijani languge. Indeed Azerbaijanis may be the largest group in the world whose language does not enjoy an official status. Although the current constitution of Iran allows (and not necessates) the education in local languages but it should be born in mind that:

1. this provision is a dead letter . All the activities by azerbaijani activist and human rights advocates have not resulted in a change till now. The Azerbaijani Language is not used in schools now. A new wave of idendity awareness has encourages some young Azerbaijanis to educate themselves in Azerbaijani Language via unofficial means.

2. Even if complied with, This provision of the constitution is far from satisfactory. If you say the Canadian model, where both French and English are co-official all over the country, is a too ambitious one, The spanish model accordin to which the local languages such as Catalan language, Basque language, Galician language, etc. are co-offical with the Spanish language (castillian) in their respective regions, should be an ideal model for Iran.

Apart from the issue of the language other cultural distincnesses of Azerbaijanis should be outlined as well. I agrre that all Iranian have cultural simillarities but the differences should be outlined as well.

also there should be a reference to idendity awareness movements in Azerbaijan including the recent protestations in 2006.--Faucon7 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-assimiliation bias and inaccuracies in the current version of the article 3- This article is a stub

This article is incomplete. It's introduction to the culture of Azerbaijan is very short and unsatisfactory, there is no introduction to the economy of Azerbaijan, it lacks maps and images, famous people section etc. --Faucon7 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO POV PROPOGANDA!

Why does the article introduction say that the region is also called "south Azarbaijan?" Only a few Azari nationalists from the ex. soviet republic use that false term. No one in Iran or the rest of the world has ever used that name. It is highly offensive to Iranians and is simply inncorrect. The current provences of Iran are the only land to have ever been called, Azarbaijan! The "country" of azarbaijan was historically 3 seperate provances of Iran, (Persia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.66.84 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 December 2006.

Actually, most people in the Republic of Azerbaijan refer to it as "South Azerbaijan", not just "a few Azeri nationalists". As for the fact that it's offensive to Iranians, see Wikipedia is not censored. The fact is that the term is still notable, and therefore belongs in the intro. Khoikhoi 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are a very bad liar, I know for a fact that most people in the republic of azarbaijan do NOT call the Iranian provences, "south azarbaijan". I have been to the "republic" many times. There is no evidence for your propoganda. This is an encyclopedia not a political platform! You dont have the authority to threaten people or block anyone because of your own personal opinions.

Actually, I do, and I would appreciate if you didn't make personal attacks towards me. Khoikhoi 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"actually I do"....this is going to be sent to the person who made the mistake of giving you moderator privilages.

[edit] This article is completely joke

It's just nothing more than Persian chauvanist propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueEyedCat (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Prove it. this is all your opinion, but do you see the references and sources? Where are you from, are you Iranian? If not, why do you speak of Persian chauvanism? What I see is people trying to seperate us from a nation that we have been a part of for thousands of years!Azerbaijani 14:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/z/e/Talk%7EAzerbaijan_%28Iran%29_a395.html"