Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Azerbaijan Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep the article. --  Denelson83  08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Azerbaijan Controversy

POV title and content. No credible sources provided. Two sources provided as reference [1] [2] both have strong bias and represent Iranian nationalistic views. Grandmaster 10:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • At best, merge a sentence or two on the dispute (such as is) to the article on the country. Even then, it's hardly the Great Macedonia Argument, so it mightn't even warrant that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The issue was mentioned briefly in the article about Azerbaijan, but apparently User:Khosrow II was not happy with that, so he inserted a paragraph called “Controversy” in a number of articles about Azerbaijan, including Azerbaijan, Arran, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, as if that is the most important info about Azerbaijan. And now this article. In fact, Iranian government never ever officially protested the name of Azerbaijan, only some Iranian nationalistic figures do. So there’s no reason for existence of such a POV article, especially considering that it lacks credible references. The veiwpoint of some Iranians can be briefly mentioned in the article about the country, but not in every article about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
stop blowing this out of proportion. only three articles contain a short section about the controversy, that is it, and they all link back here, where the reader can get more information. Why are you trying to hold back information? would you rather prefer that each of those small sections became as big as this? that wouldnt make any sense at all. that is why this has its own article, its too much information to just "summarize". Khosrow II 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole “controversy” deserves just a brief mention in the article about the country of Azerbaijan, but it does not need a whole section in every Azerbaijan related article, and it definitely does not need such a POV article. As a matter of fact, the country exists under that name since 1918, and it was recognized by Iran back then and now. I see no controversy at all. Grandmaster 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No one said that the country called Azerbaijan does not exist today or it is not recognized by the whole world including Iran. But what does that have to do with the fact that the name change happened back in 1918? It is a historical fact and should be mentioned and it is detailed enough to require its own section if not its own page. If "controversy" is all you have problem with the call for a title change and not delete.Gol 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please show me "every" article its in. Its only in three articles and those sections are short and summarized, stop blowing this out of proportion in an attempt to mislead the voters. I seriously believe you are purposely trying to mislead the voters here, because you know better than anyone that only three articles have sections on the controversy, and those are: Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, and History of Azerbaijan. Stop trying to manipulate the users please. You have no real reason for wanting to delete this article other than trying to block information for the readers of Wikipedia. I dont know what you have been taught in Azerbaijan or what you want to believe, but this is the reality, something that apparently you didnt know about till i created this article. I have come to a compromise with you before regarding the Azerbaijani people article, and now I'm asking you to come to a compromise with me. Everything in this article is factual and necessary. The articles that link to it are linked to it for a reason, because the context is necessary. You have no real solid good reason for wanting to delete this article.Khosrow II 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention Arran and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and I'm sure the list will keep on growing. I'm not trying to block anything, I think we can mention in one of the articles that some Iranian scholars (but not politicians) have problems with the name of independent Azerbaijan, but it should not be blown out of proportion and presented as some international dispute. Grandmaster 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake, I left out two, but seriously, do only 5 articles make up all of the articles about Azerbaijan? Honestly, be realistic, 5 articles doesnt even make a dent, and thats as far as the "list" will grow. No other articles need the context. No where in the article does it suggest that this is an international dispute, although it is, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of problems in the region today because of this name change. The article is in no way blown out of proportion, if you think it is, please provide the lines of text that you believe are "blowing it out of proportion".Khosrow II 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But why all those 5 need a special section dedicated to this "controversy" (which exists only in minds of some Iranian nationalists)? I think it is enough to mention the "controversy" in the article about Azerbaijan, that's the way it's been before and I never tried to remove it. If some folks in Iran have problems with the name, let's mention it, but no need to present it as some international confrontation. It should be put in correct perspective. Grandmaster 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why shouldnt those 5 need attention? Two of them are about the state of Azerbaijan (the present and the one in 1918 and later), one is concerning the people (the name change affected the name of the people, which causes much confusion about the ethnic origin, because its really two different ethnic groups with the same name now), the other is about one of the names of the region before it was changed to something else, and the last one is about the history of Azerbaijan, and correct me if I'm wrong, but changing the name to Azerbaijan is a big part of AZERBAIJAN's history. Again, you are just repeating yourself, without getting to the actual problem, you just want this article gone, its that simple.Khosrow II 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Who are those 2 different ethnic groups with the same name? If you talk about Azerbaijanis, they are the same people both in Iran and Azerbaijan. Some nationalistic circles in Iran feel very insecure, because they afraid that one day the Azeri minority in Iran may wish to claim independence, following the suit of their ethnic brethren on the other side of Araks. That’s the real reason for the “controversy” that some Iranian nationalists try to present as something indeed real. But somehow you failed to mention this aspect in your article. I see no reason for spamming many articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive information. This issue should be merged into the article about Azerbaijan and presented in a neutral fashion. All other articles should be cleaned from the POV “controversy” sections, which consume the space that could be dedicated to indeed useful info. The only other exception could be the History of Azerbaijan article, where we can also mention this "controversy". Grandmaster 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you are getting too emotional. No, "north" Azari's and "south" Azari's are not the same people. "North" Azari's are most likely a Caucasian people, while "South" Azari's are most likely an Iranic people. Infact, the name of the region, Arran, is a version of the name Albania, and the people were referred to as Arrani's by Iranians and Arabs, this alone shows that Azari's and Arrani's are not the same people. Our discussion here has just shown how controversial this topic really is, so now the title will stay the way it is hopefully.Khosrow II 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There’s no reason for existence of a POV article like this. There’s no controversy to begin with. Iran never officially protested the name, neither back in 1918, nor in 1991. Even the case of a real controversy over the name of Macedonia was presented in a section of the article Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia. In our case, claims of some Iranian nationalists don’t warrant an article with such a POV title and content. Grandmaster 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the Azerbaijani people, both in Iranian and independent Azerbaijan, they are the same Turkic people (not Iranian, Caucasian or any other). They have mixed ethnic origin, but speak the same language and share the same culture. See Britannica article:
Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [3] Grandmaster 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
They are not of the same ethnic group. Genetic testing has shown this. Genetic testing has put "north Azeri's" with Caucasians, and has put "south Azeri's" with Iranics. They are only linguistically Turkic, not ethnically. And for your information, Canada and the USA share a common language, but that doesn't mean that Canada can change its name to the USA and join America. Also, using the same example, the present-day Azeri langauge is also not that drastically different from Turkish (Turkey), so are you also going to say that Turks and Azeri's are the same people too, because ethnically, Turks from Turkey are descendents of Anatolians people (Greeks, Armenians, Romans, Iranics, other Indo-Europeans). This article is detailed, sourced, and necessary, and it seems as the majority of the consensus is for a keep. You are the one with the POV. And that Britannica article is a direct consequence of the unjustifiable name change of the Caucasus region to Azerbaijan, and currently, me and Ali are thinking about creating another detailed article about the consequences of that name change and the confusion it has caused the scholarly community.Khosrow II 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Genetics don’t mean a thing. They only prove origins of people, but they don’t define who they are. Language does. Azeris speak the same language and share the same culture and are the same people. Open any authoritative encyclopedia and you’ll see that. Check the quote from Britannica above, for instance. It is one of the most authoritative sources, and is written by the best specialists. You are just promoting Iranian official propaganda here, which did not change much since the times of Iranian shah regime. In order to suppress ethnic identity of Azeri people in Iran and assimilate them with Persians the official propaganda tries to persuade Iranian Azeris that they are nothing but turkified Persians. Grandmaster 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. there are way too many articles about the Azerbaijan apparent controversy. We have not bothered to right many articles about controversies existing in Iranian studies.. why such haste here. This does not serve any scientific or educational value and I argue strongly for deletion. abdulnr 12:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This issue is very important, and it is the root cause of many of the problems in the region today. The controversy over the name Azerbaijan is historical and reality. This article is necessary, especially to put the Azerbaijan and azerbaijani people articles in context. Everyone has a right to know that the name Azerbaijan in regards to the region north of Iran is historical revisionism started by a Pan Turk party in 1918, and that historically, Azeri's, and Azerbaijan only have to do with Iran, not the Caucasus. This article should not be merged because it provides a lot of information. And to Abdulnr: This is the only article on this controversy, I dont know which other articles you are referring to.Khosrow II 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is one of the leading scholars in Iranian history. Also, these allegations are not new and made up, like Grandmaster is suggesting, but have been going on for over 80 years. This is a controversy, so the title is not POV. Also, I added the controversy to ever section where it was needed, such as Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijan, and History of Azerbaijan, where it is all relevant. This article goes into more detail, that is why I had to create it. The small section before was not accurate. Now I have those sections linking to this main article.Khosrow II 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is no such controversy, except some wishful thinking after the Greece/Macedonia dispute. --TimBits 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This controversy has been going on for 80 years. Any historian or scholar with knowledge on this history of the region will tell you that the name change to Azerbaijan is very controversial and politically motivated. If it suits you guys better, we can change the title to something else. This has nothing to do with the Greece/Macedonia dispute.Khosrow II 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Azerbaijan... No good reason for a separate article and I just don't see enough here to really establish there is a "controversy", other than the fact that the whole realm of Azerbaijan topics is a POV breeding ground. I just don't see any valid reason to fork this out.--Isotope23 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People need to know how a territory that was known by a different name until the 20th century all of a sudden became to be known as Azerbaijan on top of the real Azerbaijan. It's better to have a separate main article than having to repeat the same information in various articles.--Eupator 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No the reason for deletion is that the article tries to create a vision that the Azerbaijan Republic came to be called as such in an overnight political decision. It is not that way. Almost all the countries in the world cover an area that is different than the original core of the country. Russia or Canada for example. The word Canada originally applied to a settlement in mondern Quebec City. Today, Canada covers almost 10 million sq. km. area. The same thing here. Azerbaijan originally referred to the area that is only the part of todays Iranian Azerbaijan. Eventually, it spread to refer to the whole Azerbaijani speaking areas. The most important thing is that it did not happen overnight in 1918. What happened in 1918 is that the name Azerbaijan was used as a name of a country for the first time. Now, this so-called controversy is a modern attempt, especially by those encouraged by the Macedonia affair. But, unfortunately for them it's not the identical situation here. Here is ethnical, lingustic and cultural uniformity between the Republic and the Iranian Azerbaijan. --TimBits 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, your analogy is completely irrelevant to this case. You cannot produce a single primary source that calls the region of Republic of Az.-Azerbaijan prior to 1918. Are you saying that wherever Azerbaijani speakers live, that's where Azerbaijan is? Cultural geography ?--Eupator 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it happened in this particular situation. You cannot produce a single primary source that calls the region of Republic of Az.-Azerbaijan prior to 1918. This looks like a challenge, because if met, it will necessitate the reversal of your vote. --TimBits 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What was so special about that particular situation? That particular situation is what this article is explaining! This is the whole bloody point. Of course it is a challenge, one which can't be met reasonably.--Eupator 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Every situation is special and has its unique circumstances. What was so special about that situation is that in this case the area that Azerbaijani speakers live came to be called Azerbaijan. It may or may not be the case in other such situations. And about the challenge, I will meet it reasonably if the definition of reson won't change after that. We'll see how straightforward you are, buddy. :) --TimBits 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well pal, that's just borderline gibberish. Once again, the purpose of this article is to explain how as you put it various regions in the Eastern Transcaucasus "came to be called Azerbaijan". Lucky for us the definition of reason is not a variable.--Eupator 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
TimBits, you are completely mistake. Never did the term Azerbaijan grow to ecompass the regions north of Iran's Caucasus border. You will not be able to find one single map before the 1900's that shows the region called Azerbaijan. The only region ever called Azerbaijan is Iranian Azerbaijan. And yes, the name change did happen overnight. In 1918, the pan-Turkish Musavat Party met in Tiblisi and decided on the name change. It literally was an over night name change.Khosrow II 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no ground for coming to an understanding with you in this matter. I have explained the situatin and there is nothing I can do when someone plainly says 'no it's not that way'. If there is any use, then I too will repeat that the name Azerbaijan came to be applied to a larger area gradually. It never heppened overnight. Anyway, my reasoning is to help those who are not familiar with the situation. --TimBits 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
TimBits, I am a reasonable person, I have come to many compromises and agreements over several articles. Your argument is just baseless and not based on any evidence.
Everyone check the new quotes I added, from a russian scholar, iranian scholar, and the russian encyclopaedia. I have added more sources and actual quotes.[4]Khosrow II 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. The area of modern Republic of Azerbaijan was known as Arran. So, the analogy with Canada and Russia is irrelevant.--TigranTheGreat 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to obviate the relevancy of the analogy. It is relevant as one can not say that the Pacific areas of Canada can not be called Canada, because it has its own name- British Columbia. --TimBits 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to History of the name Azerbaijan. I agree with Eupator that people should know about this, but I also agree that there isn't really a "controversy", so the current title is therefore misleading. —Khoikhoi 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That is something I can agree with. It sounds reasonable enough, and also, Grandmaster also suggested it, and hes the one who put the article up for deletion, so I think this is a good enough compromise that we can all agree on.
It works for me too, it depends how it will be written. Current article is POV and unacceptable, so it would be more like creating a new article rather than renaming it. --TimBits 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What parts of the article seem POV to you? You must first tell us what you have a problem with before we can come to any sort of conclusion.Khosrow II 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just one example:
The politically motivated name change created confusion regarding many aspects of the region, including the history and people. The newly created Republic of Azerbaijan, also sometimes called "North Azerbaijan", attempted to integrate itself into the history of Iranian Azerbaijan by implementing a policy of historical revisionism.
The article is ful of unsourced POV phrases like this. Clearly Iranian nationalistic propaganda. Grandmaster 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica also says there is one Azerbaijan[5]. There was actually a big controversy in Iran at that time(and now alittle bit less after 90 years), which is documented in Dr. Touraj Atabaki's book. Even Rasulzadeh (the founder of the republic) in the end in one his letter to Taqizadeh (one of the great Iranian Azerbaijani intellectuals) discussed this issue and says it was a mistake and Albania was separate from Azerbaijan. Also Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani renamed Iranian Azerbaijan to Azadistan to protest this change. So the information is not definitely a POV. But I do agree that we should not have 4-5 articles dealing with the same issue and one article should suffice. Maybe this can be that article or perhas there is already another article? --Ali doostzadeh 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There are no other articles. The articles they are reffering to are the ones that are linked to this.Khosrow II 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Also see this: [6]. Pg 178 it shows that the Iranian revolutionary Shaikh Mahmud Khiyabani in protest to the name change, renamed Irans Azerbaijan province as Azadistan. --Ali doostzadeh 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Also see the talk page[7] where I have quoted From Dr. Atabaki's book where he quotes other references. --Ali doostzadeh 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And also 1911 EB on Caucasia [8] and Azerbaijan [9]. --Ali doostzadeh 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Strongly agree with Ali doostzadeh. Iranian Azerbaijan is a Persian/Arabic variation of Atropatena, which never included Caucasian Albania. In fact, the modern area of the Republic of Azerbaijan was better known as Arran. In fact, that was the name that was being considered to be applied to the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918--yet for controversial and political reasons, the name Azerbaijan was chosen.--TigranTheGreat 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agree with Eupator. There's only one historic Azarbaijan, and it's definitely not what is today called the "Republic of Azerbaijan." Hakob 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BigHaz, Isotope23, and Martinp23. --HResearcher 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Just looking at this page you can see there is a controversy. This seems like the right place to have an article on it. --Daniel Olsen 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BigHaz, Isotope23, and Martinp23.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep The best evidence for the name change of Arran to Azerbaijan is found in the treaties of Golestan and Turkenchay, in which Persia acknowledged the sovereignty of Russia over what is now the republic of Azerbaijan. Arash the Bowman 09:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but what does this have to do with Albania? It is about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepThis article is about an important issue and a historical fact. If anyone detects POV or unverified information, then they should try to correct it instead of asking for the whole thing to be deleted. Also, it does not sound reasonable to delete it because there are other articles that PARTIALLY mention this issue. I think it is detailed enough to need its own page. Gol 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content of the article as it is now is POV and even offensive. Some controversy does exist, but it is overinflated here.--Kober 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Per Arash the Bowman and Gol and TigranTheGreat. That area of the world is extremely interesting with many fractured groups. It is clear from the above that there is a controvery. Let the article improve over time. Mattisse(talk) 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - The whole argument is based on contemporary Iranian (Persian) propaganda. It's laughable that such kind of idiotic (sorry, but have to say it..) things take place in here. We should not allow POV pushing under the guise of such artificial "controversies". The Iranian interpretation and claims should be mentioned in Azerbaijan or rather History of Azerbaijan entry. I second Kober in opinion that the naming and the presentation is not only POV, but also is offending. --Tabib 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


You wish it was POV and propaganda, but its not. We have sourced infromation from pre-1918, and from the 1940's down. HOW DOES THAT MAKE IT CONTEMPORARY IRANIAN PROPAGANDA? Was the Russian Encyclopaedia written by Iranians? Was the 1911 Encyclopaedia written by Iranians? Was Barthold an Iranian? I dont know what you have been taught in your schools that makes you believe this is all propaganda, but this is reality, its the reality that they dont teach in Turkey and the R. of Azerbaijan. We have sourced information from even sourced R. of Azerbaijani news papers of the 1940/50's. Have you even read the article, maybe you should, you'll learn something.
If you think you can disprove any of the information there, please feel free to do so, but I know you wont be able too, because whats in the article is already the truth. Do not call it POV and propaganda unless you can prove that it is POV and propaganda.Khosrow II 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep This article touches upon major issues of Azerbaijani identity and should be kept, if possible expanded. Furthermore, although I cannot claim that it does not contain POV or incaccuracies, many facts stated are perfectly correct. e.g. use of the name of Azerbaijan to denote northern Iran. Some issues, however, such as failure to mention the naming of the territory in the Safavid empire or claims that the people of northern Iran (so called South Azerbaijan) and modern-day Azerbaijan are different ethnicities is clearly POV and should be removed. Thus, the article should be cleaned up a bit and supplied with more citations, but not deleted.mikakasumov 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The different ethnicities of the "two" Azerbaijani people are sourced. They are from genetic testing, which show "north Azeri's" clustering more with Caucasian people, and Iranian Azeri's clustering more with other Iranics.Khosrow II 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khosrow, I definitely support the content of the article since it is factual and there is no greater name in the early 20th century when it comes to Turkic studies than Barthold. Historically Caucasian Albania and Atoorpaatekaan were two different entities and the name Azerbaijan and ethnic name Azerbaijani are both recent for the caucasian republic of Azerbaijan. But I think perhaps in order not to insult anyone we can get rid of the word republic and change it to name of Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan republic controversy or Name of Azerbaijani republic controversy. This way maybe others will be satisfied as well. Also other materials related to pan-turkist plagarism must be investigated (both in Turkey) and Azerbaijani republic and history books need to be read to make sure these are state historian policies and not normal revionists which are found in every country. Unfortunately I was disheartened by the following link:[10] and I am wondering if this is the material thought as history in the textbooks of the Azerbaijani republic and what is the use in claiming that Zoroastrianism and Sumerians and Akkadians were Turkish?? BTW check out some more old maps: [11] [12] --Ali doostzadeh 19:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This map is really interesting: [13] It has labled lots of the parts of Iranian Azerbaijan as Acem, which in Turkish means Persian. Proof that the Iranian Azari's were infact Iranics before Turkified? Also Ali, the Azeri embassay website is proof that the Azeri government is committing historical revisionism, and supports it.Khosrow II 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khusraw, I think the overlaps are natural. Actually Acem here is just Araq-e-Ajam province. Also check out this map: [14].. nice Caspian sea.. LOL. --Ali doostzadeh 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What does the Caspian have to do with anything? I think your trying to say that old maps are not very accurate, and you are right to an extent. Ajam aslo means Persian, in arabic. Anyway, this is getting off topic, LOL.Khosrow II 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Back to the topic though, so far every antique Western map I have looked at has called virtually all of the current Azerbaijani republic as either Shervan, Georgia and etc.. --Ali doostzadeh 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
TimBits said he was going to find one, but so far I guess he can't find one, so I guess he has to change his vote from delete to keep, right? LOL.Khosrow II 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well even assuming he does find such a map with blurred boundaries (since old maps have made lots of errors as well) (so far I have not seen any old map not distinguishing Azerbaijan from Caucasia), it doesn't change the fact that virtually the majority of old maps clearly distinguish the historical Azerbaijan from Caucasian Albania.. Caucasian Albania though was often conquered. For example, to view Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania as historically the same is as absurd as saying that since some of the maps we found show Caucasian Albania as part of Georgia(which you found quite a few and I found some too) or because some ancient historians consider Caucasian Albania as part of greater Armenia, then Caucasian Albania is part of Georgia/Armenia and should have the name Souther Georgia or Eastern Armenia (Ibn Wazih Ya'qubi and Baladhuri have mentioned this as part of Armenia, but this again does not correspond to majority of classical sources). Some sources have called all of caucus as Georgia or Armenia , but most have separated caucasian Albania from these two areas. --Ali doostzadeh 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Eupator. --Mardavich 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Nickieee 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It doesnt make any sense why this article is called controversy, there are over 20 million Azeris in Iran but no controversy on that? This is nothing but a anti-Azeri article Baku87 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You obviously havent read what this is about, or else you would have understood why there is a controversy and the relation between the "two" Azerbaijan's.Khosrow II 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and maybe name change - there is no reason why this article should be deleted. However, I think that the name of the article is confusing. Tājik 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, but work on the article for improvement. Add to it. And maybe change the title. Khosravaan khod daanand.--Zereshk 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.