Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	History of the name Azerbaijan 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 article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-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 article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives
*Archive 1 Archive 2

1 reworked
2 summary
3 Please respect the agreement
4 Swietochowski
5 Iranian Satrap?
6 anon
7 Rewrite Etymology and usage

[edit] reworked

The article has been reworked.. Basically, ever since I recutantly got involved (seeing it as my responsibility to get rid of artificial tensions)..I made the article NPOV as possible, removed both Iranian and USSR sources and brought sources that are easily accessible. GM, I would appreciate it if you can insert that part about Nakhchivan and Yaqut. Anyone else that has any old source, is welcome to add them. There is minimal statement from me and every sentence is basically sourced. Also I removed the non-construcive diologues between some users to the previous archives. --alidoostzadeh 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, this article would be great with maps. I'll upload some maps for this article (it will also make the article much more appealing). Infact, lets have a whole section just with maps in it.Azerbaijani 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I got involved again (reluctantly) in the article mainly to end the more than 1 year old dispute and also various POV forks which were popping in different articles..not to make it pretty but you are free to make it nicer if you find some reliable maps. Basically, the article has a good mechanism, since primary historical sources can be added by anyone, in it various sections. That is why, for example, I added your source and dacy69's source and added Yaqut's different satements from GM (except the Nakhchivan one which I did not find since Yaqut's book is 5 volumes and GM can add that one). The article is free of NPOV and it is a history article but briefly touches upon the more modern issue from NPOV perspective (Swietchowski) and other perspectives are welcome if they are from established scholars and sourced. At the same time, I think the Islamic section, although not extensive, is probably one of the most useful for any scholar of ancient history, since for many of the sources, I have provided the original Arabic or Persian alongside the English translation (and this took time) and I have included various sources without any bias. --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the article is great, but its not very appealing. A Map section will provide visuals. I'll search for some maps.Azerbaijani 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't like maps too much since as opposed to ext, we can not list all the maps.. I guess one ancient map from say Al-Muqadassi would not be too bad..--alidoostzadeh 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading the quotes, it came to me that an average Joe wont know what some of where or what some of these place names are.

I think we should follow this example and place, in parenthesis, the modern spelling of some of these places so as to avoid confusion and let the reader know exactly where and what these quotes are talking about. Something like this:

The list of provinces given in the inscription of Ka'be-ye Zardusht defines the extent of the empire under Shapur, in clockwise geographic enumeration: (1) Persis (Fars), (2) Parthia, (3) Susiana (Khuzestan), (4) Maishan (Mesene), (5) Asuristan (southern Mesopotamia), (6) Adiabene, (7) Arabistan (northern Mesopotamia), (8) Atropatene (Azerbaijan), (9) Armenia, (10) Iberia (Georgia), (11) Machelonia, (12) Albania (eastern Caucasus), (13) Balasagan up to the Caucasus Mountains and the Gate of Albania (also known as Gate of the Alans), (14) Patishkhwagar (all of the Elburz Mountains), (15) Media, (16) Hyrcania (Gorgan), (17) Margiana (Merv), (18) Aria, (19) Abarshahr, (20) Carmania (Kerman), (21) Sakastan (Sistan), (22) Turan, (23) Mokran (Makran), (24) Paratan (Paradene), (25) India (probably restricted to the Indus River delta area), (26) Kushanshahr, until as far as Peshawar and until Kashgar and (the borders of) Sogdiana and Tashkent, and (27), on the farther side of the sea, Mazun (Oman).

Azerbaijani 15:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you are going to further wikify it, please note that some of these authors have a wikipedia entry[1][2][3][4]...About the transliterations of the names, if there was an English source available (even a classic one) I have kept it as such. Else I have tried to be consistent with Minorsky.--alidoostzadeh 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will Wikify accordingly.Azerbaijani 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on collection of info, but I think this article became now a collection of quotes. I think we should briefly summarize the major points of view, to make clear that some sources limit the boundaries of historical Azerbaijan to south of Araxes, and others extend it to the North of it. Grandmaster 07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but you are thinking of the article as a controversy article which it is not anymore and 95% of it is a history article and only the modern history part really gives a slight summary about any differing POV's. I think the quotes are good because it is not only the boundary within Araxes but also different cities, lakes, rivers and towns are mentioned which gives a better geographical description and also they show chronologically how the boundary was varying and how the three regions: Aran,Armenia, Azerbaijan had been considered as one by some scholars (Ibn Hawqal and Abul' Fida mention this). Since the article's title is not about controversy (and I supported that move) and it is just a history article (the title). That is the article has been taken out of the argument mode. Only the last section (Azerbaijan as the name of independent republic) gives a summary from Swietchowski but other opinions from scholarly western historians/academics are welcome that contradict his viewpoint. Basically, the historical quotes is all we have and there was about 10 more which I had..(Ibn Fiqiyeh, Monjem Bashi, Ibn Khurdadbeh...) If you have any scholarly source summarizing, then feel free to insert it in the modern part, since I touched upon the issue briefly from Swietchowski and other point's of view, contradicting or agreeing are welcome. As you can see, the best way to get rid of the argumentative mode of the previous article which regeretably created unwanted comments was to make this a history article as it is now and the title suggest. But there is small room for the political part. The issue is not about Aras only,.. that is only a minor part and covered. Its about historic regions(for example Azerbaijan being considered part of Fahla or Azerbaijan sometimes reaching near tigris or other times including Beylakan and other times not, or other times including Nakhchivan or other times not), that now have the name Azerbaijan which overlapped and sometimes were shrunk and sometimes were larger and sometimes were Azerbaijan sometimes were called by different names and about their cities and also people. Also given that some of the sources are contradictory (Yaqut, Yaqubi) for example, it is hard, given the experience of users here, to make a summary. Overall the mechanism set here allows for contradictory quotes from historical materials as well scholars (minus Iranian/Soviet which I took out due to either bias or user's requesting it) and really leaves no room for people fighting in the talk page and basically adheres to NPOV by allowing any unbiased POV that are from scholarly sources and relevant to the material and also not politically tainted (Iranian or Soviets who coined the term south azerbaijan). For me it, doesn't matter either way if Azerbaijan was the whole caucus and all of Iran or just a smaller area or sometimes all three as long as an objective western scholar with academic repute and relevant to the context mentions this and it is sourced or a historical source like those in the article mentions it. It is just a historic name and really did not have ethnic designation until very very recently and so I look at the article as a history article, showed that what are territories under this name sometimes had different names and sometimes didn't..but the article cover modern history as well..given the name's more than 2000 years old, it's mostly a historic article. Also I think the quote by Boseworth is not true, since Aran has been used in Ilkhanid and Safavid era..although less. Basically :he old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan. is really not about the 12th century but it is discussing the modern era. See Hamdollah Mostowfi for example who used the term as a geographical area and was an Ilkhanid administrator which supports my intrepretation of Boseworth. But it is good for the independent repubc section. --alidoostzadeh 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

moved Boseworth to the independent republic section. --alidoostzadeh 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

actually moved it back to where it was..it seems his quote describes three lines with different periods. Anyways it should be okay but if there are more quotes like these from modern scholar that is hard to place in a section, we can create an assessment by modern scholars section. --alidoostzadeh 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

so I created a section for modern scholars and this makes it nicely fit into the current mechanism. --alidoostzadeh 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You did a lengthy job but the article now is unreadable. It is not encyclopedic style rather just compendium of quotes which has nothing common with Wikipedia. Instead of long line of quotes we should narrate different opinions with supporting quotes. That will make the article more comprehendable.--Dacy69 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but actually it has both and other users did not agree that it is unreadable. Also I am not sure what you mean by different opinions? As I mentioned the article is not political and it is a history article. Different opinions with regards to what matters (villages, towns, mountains, rivers, lakes, boundaries covered) are varied by different authors. Currently the article has opinions of modern scholars (Boseworth, Swietchowski, Planhol..all three very well known) in the assessment of modern scholars section and I didn't bother with Fowkes or Croissant for example. Boseworth, and Swietchowski seem to be giving a summary on boundaries. It also has quotes from historical texts which describes mountains, cities,lakes and rivers which the ancient term Azerbaijan encompassed or now it encompasses and which are almost impossible to summarize , since the description itself although varying, gives a summary. So they complement each other. Historical references are very valid for encyclopedia and for wikipedia. They can be fully quoted and are considered primary sources. If they are to be summarized, they should be done by a scholarly sources or specialist in the field of history who knows the languages (Arabic, Persian..etc.) as wikipedia guidelines states (see below). Or else users will simply put their own opinions on what is minority or majority or etc or not mention what they think is unecessary details. That approach has not worked ever since the article was created and so a new approach to this article more true to the name of the article was neeeded. The current approach is both encyclopedic and also has a lists of primary sources and has maximized the opinions of primary and secondary sources and minimized the opinions of wikipedia users who will not agree (evidence: lock up of the page multiple times, rude behavior..). Having historical references complement modern assessments is even more encyclopedic and if some other articles do not have it, it is because either the area they are discussing does not have a continous name for 2300 years or they do not have access to the necessary languages or source. In the case of Yaqut's contradictory quotes, we had a specialist source summarizing his opinion on Azerbaijan's boundaries and this complements the historical quote. For others, we might not have a specialist who comments on that authors opinion on the boundary of the region. Also as per your opinion that we should narrate different opinions with supporting quotes, there have been previous disagreements on what Boseworth's opinion is, or other opinions are and so it was decided by me and GM that Boseworth for example should be quoted fully. So sometimes users did not even agree on the intrepretation of the quotes of modern scholars which is possible. Account's of travellers in the region give invaluable information for users, and with the exception of Yaqut's account, we do not have a summary and in the case of Yaqut it was agreed that all of his quotes should be put there. So his case is the only one that we can summarize really, but there is nothing in wiki guidelines that says he should not be quoted in full. His quote can be put in the reference section fully quoted, but there is no valid reason not to put it in the main article to give readers a primary source. To summarize: I am going by wiki guideline on original research: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. With the exception of Yaqut, we have no other that pertains to this issue.

Also: An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians. and finally: Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. And in this case we have only the opinions of Boseworth and Swietchowski who are relevant to the context, as they are well published historians. We might be able to summarize their opinions, but in this case there are only two opinions and users did not agree exactly on what Boseworth is saying. And so the primary sources basically complement the opinions of scholars and I have listed your source as well (some users wanted it quoted and others did not and it is the second or first longest quote in the article), which goes in with what Swietchowski was saying during the Russian reform. There are much longer articles in wikipedia, and if there is need, the fonts for the primary sources can be made smaller.. Nevertheless, I have put some of the quotes in the reference section without summarizing them , but just mentioning that author x traveled and gives a description of the region. But given that this article was locked too many times, stricter wiki guidelines have been followed and basically the scholars and sources and scholars summarizing the sources are mentioned without anyone's input with regards to the history sections. Including myself. I have already given my opinion, but other users had different opinions and since no opinion of any wiki user here is scholarly, it is best to go with the specialist.--alidoostzadeh 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to make the reader aware that my long comment above was to give a summary of why the article was locked up previously for those that joined wikipedia more recently, and thus why many users chose a better method and as I mentioned Dacy69's quote is the second longest quote in the article and I have no problem with it and even though other users wanted it to be minimized because it might be a minority POV, I went with users that wanted it to be fully mentioned. Also I think I have been fair and I removed Atabaki, Farrokh, Reza and have formatted the article in a way that hopefully there won't be any future edit wars since there are disagreements between scholars and primary sources. Also primary sources are actually welcome in an encyclopedia(and current list is nothing for a region with a name that goes 2300 years) and also since the intrepretation of words of some scholars were not agreed upon by users, they are quoted verbatim without any intrepretation. I believe the article is done and it adheres with wikipedia policies of no original research and etc..as I have described above and I do not want to write another long message. The article can certainly use nicer formatting in terms of graphics, but everything is sourced and primary sources and secondary sources of scholars are quoted without user intrepretations..--alidoostzadeh 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the full Yaqut quote was provided by either Grandmaster or Ali. Why was the Iranica quote placed with the Islamic medieval era quotes? Besides, the agreement was to list the sources, not interpretations. If the full Yaqut quotes are not in there, some one should put the full Yaqut description of the Arran boundary, and Azerbaijan boundary. I have translated the relevant text that Grandmaster had previously put on the talk page, in Russian, and it looks to me like its already been quoted in the article.Azerbaijani 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica is a good source. It basically comments that at the time of Yaqut the meaning of Azerbaijan was slowly changing and actually it is interesting how Yaqut gives a different.... we agreed on western sources not soviet/iranian sources. But I put Professor. Xavier De Planhol's quote in the modern assessment section, since it is better place there than the historical section.. --alidoostzadeh 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that there would be no interpretation of sources put in, but just the exact quotations. We should just put in everything Yaqut says and leave it to the read for them to decide. Lets put in what Yaqut has to say exactly, and that will make things clear. The Iranica quote seems very strange in the middle of the rest of the actual medieval quotes.Azerbaijani 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, you transferred to the Modern scholars section, that makes more sense.Azerbaijani 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I added another source from the 17th century to the Islamic Era section. It states that Azerbaijan was an entity that bordered Dagestan on the north, Parthia on the south, Armenia on the west, and the Caspian Sea and Hyrcania on the east. Parishan 06:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] summary

Some users (including some Iranian users) think/thought this is about Aran/Azerbaijan and Aras argument.,,. it is not and that is why I removed Iranian sources also. But since they wanted a summary wih regards to what sources say on this manner, I just quoted Professor. Swietchowski (sp?) and that is basically a summary with regards to that matter which is not the main focus of the article (hence different quotes describing valleys, cities, distances, rivers, lakes,mountains..covered) but a consequence. Any other summaries can also be inserted. It seems anyone that claims all of caucus was never called Azerbaijan, Georgia , Armenia, Aran or etc. is wrong. But for the most part historians have been consistent. There is absolutely nothing about bogus nationalism. Armenia/Aran for example had mainly Muslim rulers (mainly Arabs, then Kurds, Daylamites, then Seljuqs, Atabeks,..) and many of these places simply were administrative borders of an empire with many different groups living in them and etc. There is no POV in this article and basically the article's focus is not political and it has a mechanism where variety of opinions are quoted. I can bring 10's of other opinions but I think the article is good enough and the Islamic section spanning 9 centuries or so has been shortened to about a page on my wide screen computer (probably two pages on a normal computer). Relative to the modern section (spanning 2-3 centuries) this is actually short. By the way the etymology of Azerbaijan(land that is protected by the fire) and then name Azeri (of fire) are some of the coolest names I have seen. I don't think I can find a cooler meaning for a place than "land protected by fire". I would put it has the coolest name, but that would be a POV. :)

I am done here and I do not see any reason for any dispute. There was one objection about a lack of summary, which I brought swietchowski. The article is relatively short for a 2300 year old name and for example the poet Hafez has a longer article :). Professors Atabaki, Reza, Farrokh and etc.. were removed, the quote brought by dacy69 is also the longest quote and was quoted fully as per the request of some users, and also variety of opinions were given about the geography of region I think some users should really get rid of their old perspective about this article being political in nature(it might have been before I removed those sources that cared about below and above Aras and politics) and look at the wider picture of a region with ancient names and ancient cities (some of which are mentioned but no longer in existent). I hope the article remains NPOV and basically there is no room for any opinion of users in this article, so it shouldn't have a problem. --alidoostzadeh 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems now NPOV and at least contains many information but still lacks comprehendable explanation because of the opposition of one or two editor. That's bad for Wiki. But I join to your point in the last sentence --Dacy69 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agreed not to put any interpretation into the article, besides, if we consider putting interpretation into the article then we would have to deal with undo-weight and wording and what to put in, what not to put in, etc...it would become a mess. Right now, the sources compiled and the analysis by the scholars makes the article very NPOV and acceptable.Azerbaijani 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK now. But it could be further improved, I just don't now how. Basically, the way it is now it is just left to the reader to judge, which is OK and compliant with NPOV rules. I'm just thinking that some short summary of positions would not hurt either, i.e. while some sources differentiate between Arran and Azerbaijan, others consider historical Azerbaijan to include the territories north of Araks as well, or something to that effect. But it should be based on consensus, of course. Grandmaster 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys sorry for the long message, but I am very glad that there is a consensus that the article is NPOV. And it is because the sources are just quoted without intrepretation. Given the contradictionary POV of some sources (Yaqut, Yaqubi..) and also why just Aras (why not Tigris or Hamadan or Nakhchivan or something)...anyone can rationalize anything for their POV and that is why the article should absolutely remain free of it. We have had sources that call north of Aras different things at different timesline and also the area of southern Aras has had contraction and expansions sometimes even including hamadan, but 90% of the time not . Basically Dr. Swietchowski gives a good summary and of course (from the time of Media till today) and also mentions boundaries. hat got this article in trouble in the first place was that different users did not agree on any sort of consensus or timeline and were putting their own POV, which is 100% against wiki rules. Even some scholars do not agree on different sources (or maybe intrepreted that way) or timelines, but the word "some", "most", "many", "minor", "few" by wiki users is not acceptable for this article, since one bad precedence leads to other.. Actually it is against wiki rule for this article itself, since that would constitute by all accounts, original research. Intrepretation of primary sources is left to the judgement of secondary sources (hence the Yaqut quote) as stated by OR principle. That is the reason the article is NPOV. By simply following wikipedia guidelines that primary sources are not to be intrepreted by users, but by secondary sources (in this case scholars of high calibers and professr) and also getting rid of sources that originated from USSR/Iran since the name there is more political. But you guys (Azerbaijani, Dacy69 and GM...) are welcome to get a consensus, but in the end wikipedia mentions that primary sources are to be intrepreted by secondary sources, if other users disagree with your consensus (and I do not care), they can easily remove it by the wikipedia princinple of NOR which I quote here: An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians. I believe the article is done. --alidoostzadeh 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what you are suggesting is undo-weight. Why would you want to create a dispute? The article is fine the way it is, and I had posted all the Wikipedia rules regarding NPOV and undo-weight previously, which are "non-negotiable and absolute". When there is no need for a dispute, why create it? Besides, everything is already summarized in the quotes Ali provided by the scholars. The article is excellent at this point, and we all agree its NPOV, so lets just put a fork in it.Azerbaijani 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay that is what I mean exactly that there won't be a consensus, give the level of language here sometimes. But furthermore consensus of wikipedia users is not worthy for wikipedia entry when it comes to intrepretation of primary sources: An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.. --alidoostzadeh 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But does anyone dispute that the sources on the boundaries of historical Azerbaijan are contradictory? I think it is quite obvious. Azerbaijani, I don’t see how it is an undue weight, I suggest you read what it is again, you got even the name of it wrong. As for Swietochowski, I think it is OK as an intro, I just don’t understand why it is repeated twice with reference to 2 different sources, while it is an opinion of 1 person. Grandmaster 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we attempted to change the article so that there would be no more disputes. Everyone agreed that we would only list primary sources, and only have scholars interpret them, while using no Iranian or Azeri websites. All of a sudden you guys want to put in your own interpretations? Primary sources should only be interpreted by secondary scholarly sources not by wikipedians.

In order to end all disputes, we must not interpret anything ourselves. Ali did an amazing job with this article, and I think it is very NPOV. Although by Wikipedia policies Ali and I were not obligated to give the minority view much attention, we decided that we would quote the primary sources that said Azerbaijan extended to the Caucasus so that there would be no more disputes.

Please uphold your side of the agreement as Ali and I did ours. Thanks.Azerbaijani 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect the agreement

Guys, we agreed to use sources prior to 1918 to write this article so that no POV would be involved. We also agreed that no Azeri or Iranian sources would be used. Dacy added a link to an Azeri website containing modern made maps of Azerbaijan, which gets me worried because this is in direct contradiction to what we all agreed upon here. Everyone agrees its NPOV, and this move by Dacy really gets me worried that another edit war is going to start.

Dacy, please respect the agreement we all made together. If you have any maps made prior to 1918, please feel free to add them. Guys, no Azeri sources, no Iranian sources, and no sources after 1918. If we follow these simply rules, which we all agreed upon, this article will stay NPOV and there wont be any more controversy and we can all move on. These are the reasons why I reverted your edits. Thanks.Azerbaijani 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well maps should be drawn by primary/secondary reference sources or be a historical map. Some of those maps seemed informative but others seemed sort of POV.. (calling Iranian Azerbaijanis diaspora is really POV since they are in their own country). --alidoostzadeh 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should only use primary sources. Besides, they were from an Azeri website, which violates the agreement (I can also bring information from plenty of Iranian sites, and then this whole dispute will start all over again). Lets end this agreement by all upholding the agreement we made.Azerbaijani 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, read some parts of the history section of that website that Dacy is trying to use, its full of POV and historical revisionism. Dacy, please do not start this entire dispute all over again.Azerbaijani 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes we did agree, no Iranian/Azeri/Soviet sources and only reliable non-political western ones.. so if dacy69 can find these maps in a reliable western source or classical historical source it would be perfectly okay (map of caucasian albania, atropatene was very good actually). (of course by referece and citation and period). Although maps of ethnic distribution in Iran should be put in demography of Iran article. but if not, then it should not be included. Anyways I am not going to look after this article more than this and if any users sees POV and there are disputes, they should simply get admins involved and follow wikipedia principle of NOR and etc. Other Iranian users like Pejman, Behmod seem to be semi-involved and other azeri users like elsan hasn't wrote anything for a while and seems semi-involved. I hope this article, which is NPOV does not get into edit wars. thanks to everyone for making the current version work.[5] --alidoostzadeh 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If everyone respects the agreement, there shouldnt be a problem. Besides, I have clearly outlined Wikipedia rules on NPOV and undo-weight, which, as the founder of Wikipedia himself says "are absolute and non-negotiable". So there shouldnt be a problem.Azerbaijani 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with putting up Swietochowski reference at the top of the page, while listing all others below. Why is one reference more important than all others? Move it down to references from 19, 20th centuries and leave the first two sentences in introduction, which describe what the article is about. Atabek 11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I moved him to the section with the other scholars. Hope we can now move on and here wont be any more disputes.Azerbaijani 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swietochowski

This quote:

Is not a repetition of anything. It is from 1996, while the other one is from 1995. This quote address the modern day Republic of Azerbaijan, and is not talking about Azerbaijan in a historical context like the other quote. That is why I put it in the Azerbaijan as the name of an independent republic section.

There is a clear difference between the two quote:

As a political or administrative unit, and indeed as a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran. From the time of ancient Media and the Achaemenid Kingdom, Azerbaijan usually shared its history with Iran.

This one is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan's boundaries in a historical context, while the one above is talking about the relationship between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the historical Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan) and whether the name applies to it.

I hope this clears things up.Azerbaijani 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 quotes from the same author:

I don't see that second quote adds any information that is not contained in the first one. It is repetitive and redundant. Grandmaster 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The two quotes are completely different. One is talking about the Republic of Azerbaijan directly, and the other is talking about the Iranian region of Azerbaijan in a historical context.

We had an agreement and all I see here is you guys trying to go back on it. First Dacy tries to use an Azeri source, and now you take it upon yourself to interpret and remove sources you do not like. These two quotes are from to different sources, from two different years, and are about two different things. One is about the Republic of Azerbaijan, the other is about the Iranian region of Azerbaijan. It is not up to you guys to decide which one should stay and which one should go. I find it strange that Parishan decided to remove the one specifically talking about the Republic of Azerbaijan and leave the other one. Did you flip a coin or something to decide?

You guys are violating the agreement.

Besides, if these two sources are the same, then how about we reinsert the one about the Republic of Azerbaijan, and remove the one that is currently in the article. I mean, if its all the same to you guys, then it wouldnt matter will it? Do you agree or not? If you agree, then everything will be fine, if you disagree, then it that would imply that there is more to this whole thing than just "repitition". So the ball is in your court, what do you guys want to do. I have so far kept my part of the agreement. We can go back to the way it was before, have both of them, or, since its all the same to you guys, take out the one currently in the article and replace it with the one Parishan took out.Azerbaijani 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote from a large book by Swietochowski prevails over the short article in an encyclopedia. The latter has space limitation and was shortened to fit the format of the publication. Those 2 quotes are identical, the second one adds no new information. Both say that the territory of North Azerbaijan “was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran". And that “From the time of ancient Media and the Achaemenid Kingdom, Azerbaijan usually shared its history with Iran”. I don’t see how the second quote from the same author adds any new information. And we never had an agreement on inclusion of the second quote from Swietochowski. If you can find another quote from him that says something completely different, feel free to add it. But adding absolutely identical quotes just because one said “North part of Azerbaijan", and the other “What is now Azerbaijan republic” is not acceptable, as it is not informative and says nothing that already is not included in the article. Grandmaster 05:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you are violating the agreement. We agreed that all sources should be mentioned. These are two different quotes, you are not to judge which one whould go in the article over another. If these quotes are the same, then whats the difference to you? These are two different quotes from two different sources. A) We agreed that all sources would go into the article, B) we agreed that we would not interpret any of the quotes, and C) We agreed that the article was NPOV. These are two completely different quotes.

I have respected my part of the agreement and you guys have not. Its pretty obvious whats going on here. You guys obvioulsy do not like the analysis that Seitochowski is giving here, and have even gone as far as to drag Parishan into this dispute simply to remove it. Parishan, you are now involved in the whole Arbcom dispute if its ever reopened.Azerbaijani 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, these are not different quotes. It's the exact same thing to a point where whole phrases match entirely. Parishan 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats your POV. A) These quotes are talking about TWO different things (one is talking about the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the other is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan), B) These are from two different time periods and two different sources, and C) you are violating the agreement.

Parishan, its pretty obvious you reverted here as a meat puppet, and reverting a quote that you guys obviously do not like.

Besides, if these two quotes were the same, you guys would not be trying so hard to keep one of them out. If they are the same, it wouldnt really matter to you guys would it, but they're not the same, and you guys know it.

Again Parishan, how did you decide which one to remove anyway? Did you just flip a coin or did you purposely pick out the one you liked the least? What I find amusing is that its pretty obvious whats going on here, and you guys are all trying to play it off as these being the same quote, when obviously there not if you guys picked out the one that is least please to be taken out.Azerbaijani 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. I think I was pretty clear when I explained my reasoning on your talkpage yesterday: "The reason why I chose the first quote over the second is because the first one is more detailed and informative and comes directly from a notable source related to the region rather than from a short encyclopædic article." Parishan 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are absolutely identical. We agreed that all sources are to be included, and we included Swietochowski. We took the quote from a large (289 page) and very detailed book over a short article. Both quotes are about the same area, but one calls it “north part of Azerbaijan”, the other “what is now the Azerbaijan Republic”. Second quote adds no new info, it repeats verbatim what the first one says. I don’t see how its inclusion helps to improve the quality of this article. If it was adding some new info, I would not be objecting to its inclusion, but repeating the same thing twice is not helpful at all. Grandmaster 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to apply for an RFC, but first I'm working on getting a third party opinion.Azerbaijani 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Azerbaijani, Parishan added above the quote from Chardin about Azerbaijan "bordering Dagestan on the North". And that's 17th century, so some 200 years before the British Consul's paper, and further tarnishing "North was never called Azerbaijan before 1918" POV. So given all that, why are you still dividing Azerbaijan into the Republic and the Iranian Azerbaijan and calling it two different things? Aren't we still done on this topic, or how many more references have to be brought to close this topic. Atabek 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, LOL, yes he did, what does that make, 2 to 3 sources now (besides, how many of them contradict themselves or have immense geographical mistakes)? Do you not realize that there are literally hundreds of quotes and sources that have not been put into the article saying the opposite? Everyone agrees that on occasions some western geographers or even some Muslim scholars would include parts of the Caucasians regions as part of Azerbaijan. Heck, Armenia and Georgia have also sometimes been included, including a good chunk of Eastern Turkey. The point here is not, however, whether the name Azerbaijan was used sometimes for the north of the Araxes territories, but what the regular and consistent borders of Azerbaijan were throughout history, which was below the Araxes.

Also, there are many sources that would include all of the territories of the modern Republic of Azerbaijan as part of Armenia or Georgia. If sources like that were brought up, would that justify Armenia's control of Nagorno-Karabakh? The answer does not lie it was a minority view says, the answer lies in what the majority say.Azerbaijani 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, the answer lies with credible information not with "what the majority say". If you remember, there is more than sufficient evidence to generalize that Safavids, for example, were ethnically Turkish dynasty, nevertheless, we took months to investigate all references, look at some of their Kurdish origins, establish the Persian cultural connection, etc. So let's not generalize. The fact is that modern North Azerbaijan and South Azerbaijan, despite 200 years of separation, share the same ethnic Turkic identity and language, and there is no ground to blindly claim that one was different from the other geographically, in title or in references. That's not going to change the fact that people on both sides of Araxes call themselves Azerbaijani Turks, speak the same language, have the same tradition and religious identity. This could not happen in one day or even in 1 century.Atabek 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To compliment my comment above, lets also examine the quote Parishan added (which I will have to verify myself):

Media, which formerly ruled all Asia with an imperial dominion, at present makes but one part of a province, though the largest in the Persian empire, called Azerbeyan or Asapaican. It borders on the east upon the Caspian Sea and Hyrcania, on the south upon Parthia, on the west upon Araxes and the Upper Armenia, of which Assyria is a part, and on the north on Dagestan, which is that mountanious country that borders upon the Muscovite Cossacks, and part of Mount Taurus. The Persians affirm, that the name of Azerbeyan implies, the country of fire, by reason of the famous temple of fire which was there erected, where was kept that fire which the fire-worshippers hold to be a god. Nimrod is said first to have brought in this worship, and there is a certain sect called Guebres which still maintain it.

It says that Azerbaijan borders the Caspian on the East and the Araxes on the West, how is that possible? Thats mistake number one.

It also says that it borders Parthia on the south, Parthia, in the 1700's? Parthia was the region of Upper Khorasan. Thats mistake number two.

It also says that Assyria is a part of Upper Armenia. That depends on where geographers defined Upper and Lower Armenia (or Greater and Lesser Armenia respectively). Obviously, this geographer contends that Armenia is very large.

A person reading this would get kind of confused dont you think? Is this talking about ancient Media or Azerbaijan, or how the Araxes and the Caspian could form an East West boundary...

As you can see Atabek, the sources that do define Azerbaijan above the Araxes usually make a lot of mistakes. Now, this is most likely because the geography of the 1700's was not very developed (as the maps of the time show), and a European traveler would have an extremely hard time describing a foreign region.

So Atabek, beware which sources you choose to believe over others (especially ones in the minority) because you can be sure that the same exact quotes exist which would say the same things about Armenia, or Georgia, or Arran, or Daghestan or whatever...We can discuss this issue in length via e-mail if you like, but this isnt the appropriate place for this as this is not a forum.

I have no problems with quotes such as these whats so ever.Azerbaijani 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you want to choose the opinion of "majority", when your opinion is a clear minority on this talk page. The author's reference to Araxes as bounding Azerbaijan in the West is not surprising, as river Araxes does go in South-Western direction toward Nakhchivan. Your so called "majority" (read, POV) references also make a fundamental mistake calling North Azerbaijan as Arran, because Arran is a historical region of central and western North Azerbaijan. The eastern part of historical North Azerbaijan is Shirvan, the south-eastern part is Mughan-Talysh, the south-western part is Nakhchivan and Iravan. I don't know why you keep referencing Armenia, what does it have to do with your attempt to limit Azerbaijan by river Araxes in the North. The historical Armenia was not a territory in Caucasus but in Armenian highlands in Eastern Anatolia. Another perfect example is the 1863 article by British Consul General to Persia to Royal Geographic Society. Do you think you're more qualified 150 years later, to make a claim that north of Araxes was not Azerbaijan prior to 1918? :) Atabek 12:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, look around, I'm debating with you, Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Parishan, ofcourse its going to seem like my opinion is the minority view in here. Talk about bias debating, lol. Anyway, my view is not in the minority. And no, Arran, Shirvan, Daghestan, Erivan, Georgia, Armenia, etc... have never been united as one region, unless ofcourse they were made part of an empire. They were never regions of Azerbaijan, or the "Northern part of Azerbaijan" as you say. This is not a forum, if you want to debate this with me do it via e-mail, I'd be happy to talk about all of this.Azerbaijani 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I got the impression that it said 1700's, not 17th century (which is why I moved it down). Also, are we putting this in order according to publication date or the time of the account?Azerbaijani 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is bordering Araxes a mistake? If you look at the map, as soon as Araxes passes through Nakhchivan, it makes a turn to the northwest along the modern borderline between Armenia and Turkey, and continues to flow almost veritically before making its way into Turkey. That's where Azerbaijan's western border stretched according to Chardin. Upper Armenia was also situated in that region, and it roughly corresponded to the modern province of Erzincan, Turkey. One could not get anymore clear than that.

Parthia in the 17th century makes perfect sense to me - the country did not exist at the time, of course, but the historical notion was always present, just like in the modern times we refer to Cappadocia, Kurdistan, Thrace, or Pontos. So that's not a mistake either. There is no point in attacking a perfectly accurate, neutral and informative source. Parishan 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I never had any objections to having the source in the article. This isnt a forum. I said use e-mail if you still want to discuss this. Did you site the source properly? Why are there two titles present?Azerbaijani 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that since Chardin visited the region in the 17th century, his account belongs to that section. Plus, I'm not sure whether the quote comes from the book he published in 1686 or the one published in 1811. Grandmaster 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the citation, it says John Pinkerton was the editor of a 1811 collection of works entitled Voyages and Travels in All Parts of the World, of which Sir John Chardin's translated work (itself published for the first time between 1686 and 1711 in French) is a part. Parishan 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, you have to put the name of the exact book you got the quote from, because thats the one you extracted it from. Take out all the unnecessary details on the reference.

Also, I'll move the Pliny quote to the pre-Islamic section.Azerbaijani 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the maps was labled incorrectly so I fixed it. Georgia is shown as the entire Caucasus so I put that in. Azerbaijan isnt specifically mentioned, although Tabriz, Ardabil, Urmia, etc.. are clearly shown.Azerbaijani 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, I got the quote from the same book I cited. The one printed in 1811. Parishan 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, than that should be your reference.Azerbaijani 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is. Parishan 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We agreed not to interpret any of the sources. You guys think they are the same, I do not, therefore, if its the same to you guys, then whats the difference of having it in if I say that its not the same? I reinserted, and if you guys really do feel that its the same, than it wouldnt make a difference to you guys would it, because I say its different, and since its sourced, you guys shouldnt be taking it out anyway.Azerbaijani 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Satrap?

By the way, the introduction says Atropates - "Iranian Satrap". First of all, Atropates was made a satrap by Alexander the Great, and there is no information on his origin or ethnicity. So I think this generalizing POV needs some clarification, research and adjustment. Atabek 06:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is tons of information. There are sources which call him Persian, sources which call him Mede. So instead of choosing between the two, its simpler to put Iranian (as in Iranian peoples).Azerbaijani 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If he was a Median satrap of Alexander the Great, we should say so. Please, provide "tons of information" for analysis and discussion and correction. Atabek 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did some research the majority of the sources say he was Persian. I will reference them, but I'll only put two or three, because we dont want like 15 references...Azerbaijani 13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I sourced it and changed it to say that he was a Persian satrap.Azerbaijani 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you should present your research. Median is not Persian in first place, it was Median. Secondly, you also still haven't explained why the article should have two sources from Swietochowski repeated in the article. Until you come into terms with providing those, we should go back to a non-POV version by Grandmaster.Atabek 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

More info Atropates--Alborz Fallah 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, what are you talking about, all those sources said he was Persian. Did you blindly revert? The Swietochowski quote is not a repitition (you cant take it out based on your POV). Your interpretations is that it is a repitition, even though its from a different source, different time period, and in a different context. Besides, lets assume they are the same, how is it hurting anything (it certainly isnt)? Why did you also remove other sourced information and edits which have nothing to do with your comments?Azerbaijani 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani", why don't you calm down your anger a bit, Swietochowski excerpt taken out of context and repeated twice is part of the same tiring POV. Now, I also have to ask about the reasoning of this quote:

"Aras: the name of a famous river which flows past Teflis and forms a boundary between Azerbaijan and Iran. Aran: It is a province from/of (Persian: از ) Azerbaijan, Barda' and Ganja are parts of its territory"

The fellow who wrote this in 17th century (as published in 1965), obviously had no idea or knowledge of geography that river Araxes does not flow through Tbilisi (Tiflis), Kura does. So is it even worth mentioning this material in encyclopedia? Atabek 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We decided to include all the source. Also, I fixed that quote, its not supposed to say Iran, its supposed to say Aran, as Ali confirmed to me. Thanks for bringing the quote to my attention, I thought it was weird that it says Azerbaijan and Iran, after asking Ali (via e-mail) he confirmed that he made a mistake in translating the Persian when he initially inserted the quote. Here is the reply he sent me:

Yep that is typo. Aran and Iran are spelled the same almost in Persian and in English there is only an A and I difference. That is why I brought the original Persian and Arabic for all quotes. Also the extant manuscript has tiblis, my guess (although 100% not sure) is that the original was tabriz or something else. Scribal error probably did this..nevertheless it is an interesting historical source since the author was from Azerbaijan originally and then traveled and lived his life in Mughal India. Thanks for the inquiry. Ali.Azerbaijani 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Swietochowski quote is repetitive. It does not add any useful info that already is not there. Grandmaster 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not repititve, as it is from two different sources from two different time periods, and is in a completely different context. Also, even if it is repetitive in your opinion, than it would really matter if its in the article or not if someone else disagrees with you on its meaning, then does it?Azerbaijani 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I may add, Swietochowski himself even says that Atropates was Persian:

What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. According to the most widely accepted etymology, the name "Azerbaijan" is derived from Atropates, the name of a Persian satrap of the late fourth century b.c. Another theory traces the origin of the name to the Persian word azar ("fire"') - hence Azerbaijan, "the Land of Fire", because of Zoroastrian temples, with their fires fueled by plentiful supplies of oil. Azerbaijani 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited say Atropates was Persian, infact, most sources do. I changed it to reflect that.Hajji Piruz 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the description of the second map, which clearly shows the regions seperated by the Aras river.Hajji Piruz 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anon

I rv'ed anon. This issue was discussed many times and for a while settled.--Dacy69 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ok someone did during my attempt.

[edit] Rewrite Etymology and usage

The title of the whole article is "History of the name Azerbaijan". Then i think omitting the main body of etymology and make it so brife seems to be uncorrect . --Alborz Fallah 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

and apparently reinserted all the original research that was there previously. rv'ing. If you want to discuss it, fine. But then discuss it, and don't make things up and don't "reformulate" citations when the actual statements behind those citations bother you. -- Fullstop 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: you may also wish to comment on my remarks here.

pps: Do you know what the word "Etymology" means? Don't get me wrong. I'm just asking because English is not your native language (which is in general ok too, but may be a problem if we're editing at cross-purposes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstop (talk • contribs) 19:03, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Check the Iranica online edition about etymology (derivation of a word)[[6] . Quote:"The name of the country is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates (Strabo 11.523)" Check the Encyclopedia of Islam under Adharbayjan for the other article. In the Encyclopedia of Islam it says: (Quote: "The province was called after the general Atropates ("protected by the fire")). Atropatakan if you know Pahlavi and modern persian means the land of Atropates. Hence literaly the "Land protected by the fire". The encyclopedia of Islam is available as a research tool in many universities. If you have further problems, I can send you the whole article through e-mail. As per the Avesta, the Iranica article on Atropates says: " Av. Atrapata". Hence that is why the Avesta text is brought as well. See also: id=xIBXIllZXZwC&pg=PA92&dq=atropates+fire+old+persian&sig=HbrC0UUATL5bJH31JChCyy6CP_Q. Since the name Azerbaijan is derived from Atropat, citing the Avesta version of this name (see the first line in Atropates) alongside the Old Persian is helpful. Also, the name does mean "the land protected by the fire", "gan"/"kan" means place even in modern persian. Golpayegan for example. Anyways I think everything is sourced right now to the greatest detail. If you have a problem with a particular sentence please let me know. alidoostzadeh 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The study of (the origins of) proper names is "onomatology" not "etymology". Anyhow, addressing what you just said:

>>"The name of the country is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates (Strabo 11.523)"
- did you actually *read* to the end of the paragraph or did you simply copy that half sentence because of what you think it said? This is what you overlooked: "From the name of this man comes the Greek forms (Atropatene, Atropatios Me@dia [Strabo, loc. cit.]" Notice that there is no "Azerbaijan" in that sentence. Note also "The medieval Arab geographers were already giving it different meanings, deriving it from the personal name Adarbador forging popular etymologies like “fire temple” or “guardian of the fire”"
  Actually, I'm a little surprised that you of all people (who I know knows better) would try to smuggle synthesis past me.
>>"As per the Avesta, the Iranica article on Atropates says: " Av. Atrapata"
- No, the Iranica does not say that! What the EIr does say is: ATROPATES (Āturpāt, lit. "protected by the fire," cf. Av. Atərəpāta), the satrap of Media ...
  Also, you are making a direct connection between Azerbaijan and Atropates, which the Iranica does not do! Secondarily, you are making up the connection between cf. Atərəpāta and Atrapata" which is not even the same word! Further, cf means confere "compare" or "see also", it does not mean "same as"! Then, whoever added that snippet from avesta.org is using a primary source (!) for "Atrapata" (!) even though neither the EIr tells you that there is a connection, nor does it cite a source in the Avesta. This is OR on multiple levels.
  Further, do you know when that particular verse was written? Are you aware that all place names in the Avesta are in eastern Greater Iran? And that not even Media is mentioned, leave alone Atropatios Media?
>>Since the name Azerbaijan is derived from Atropat
- The name Azerbaijan does not derive from Atropat. You are making up that connection! Even at the end of the toponymic/onomastic chain, the name of the place is Atropatene, not Atropat and not Atropates. While Atropates lent his name to Atropatene, he did not lend his name to Azerbaijan. Or to put it another way: Already Middle Iranian Aturpatakan does not reflect Atropates' name, so how could its direct descendant Azerbaijan suddenly have a meaning that its immediate ancestor does not? Azerbaijan/Aturpatakan is *just* a name, just like "America" is just a name (named after Amerigo Vespucci). They do not mean anything.
>>Also, the name does mean "the land protected by the fire", "gan"/"kan" means place even in modern persian.
- Actually it does not "the land protected by the fire" and you are making up that translation (again OR). Even *if* "gan"/"kan" actually meant "land", which it does not, it is you who is saying "Azerbaijan means 'the land protected by the fire'" (again OR). Either way, you are employing original research because no reliable source ever said "Azerbaijan means 'the land protected by the fire'" Indeed, as the Iranica said: "forged popular etymology."
Then, there is that supposed connection between Adurbad-i Maraspandan and Atropates, which you got from livius.
- Livius is incorrect in this case. Atropates lived 700 years before Adurbad Maraspandan, and Adurbad Maraspandan has nothing to do with Atropatene or Atropatakan or Azerbaijan either.

To summarize: That the statements you are making are wrong is one matter, to actually "cite" sources which do not support what is being stated is insidious. I'm quite surprised that you of all people would try to defend such a practice. I had so far assumed your writing was reliable.

-- Fullstop 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I don't personally have an interest in Azerbaijan. That itself should tell you quite a lot.

Thanks for the response. I did not quote Livius as you can see. Please re-read the Iranica entry under Azerbaijan: "The name of the country (This is the Azerbaijan entry in Iranica) is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates (Strabo 11.523) who was retained by Alexander in the government of western Media and preserved it under his successors, thus founding a principality which maintained itself in a state of independence or at least semi-independence until the second century B.C., and was only definitively reunited with the Persian empire under the Sasanian king of kings ˆa@pu@r I along with Armenia (cf. Markwart, EÚra@nÞahr, pp. 111-12). From the name of this man comes the Greek forms (Atropatene, Atropatios Me@dia [Strabo, loc. cit.], Tropatene [Ptolemy 6.2], the Armenian form Atrpatakan (Movse@s Xorenac¿i, cf. Markwart. EÚra@nÞahr, pp. 108-14), the Middle Persian form AÚturpa@taka@n (cf. Schwarz, Iran, p. 960), the New Persian forms AÚdòarba@yèa@n and AÚdòarba@yga@n." (Hope you have the right font). So ultimately the name is derived Atropates. Here is what Encyclopedia of Islam under Azerbaijan says: "called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan,Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf). Note Minorsky makes a connection with Adharbad. Encyclopedia of Iranica as you say says c.f. Atərəpāta. If it is not the same word, why would Iranica say compare to Atərəpāta. It does not mean that this Atərəpāta is the same as Atropates. Just the name here. Same with Adharbad.I am not making up the connection and if we have differing views on what Iranica says, then we can quote it in full. The current entry does not say "land protected by the fire", but that is what it means anyhow if you know Pahlavi. Kan/Gan is a place holder, Atoorpat+Kan. Diakonoff states this in his book the Medes but I did not even have that in the entry. The name Azerbaijan is derived from Atropates does not mean that it is one step process. I am not making up any chain. Atropates inspirtes the place name->Aturpatkan->Adhurbadagan->Adharabadegan->Azerbaijan. So it is direct descendant through several chains. Etymology in the broadest sense means the root of the word. Doing away with the technicality, Adhurbad, that is the Middle Persian form of Atropat (however you want to spell it) is attested in Dehkhoda's dictionary. It is not the same Atropates, but just an attestation of this name in a form of Middle Persian. Also the Avesta form is just an attestation of the same name, but in another Iranian (eastern Iranian I agree) language. There is no connection between Adhurbad Mahraspandan and Atropat except the name Adhurbad and Atropat. "Land protected by the Fire" is not the forged popular etymology. Iranica says "Gaurdian of the fire" or "Fire temple" is the forged popular etymology. And indeed that is the case as Encyclopedia Islam says Atropates ("protected by the fire"). So ultimately the name of the province comes from Atropates (Minorsky, Encyclopedia of Islam) and Iranica since Āturpātākān comes from Atropat. Anyways I am not going to argue over this silly thing, I did not quote Livius. I am not sure what portion you have a problem with, but this is the only part of the article that has not had problem so far and if there is need, we can just say Enyclopedia Islam says:"blah blah" and Encyclopedia Iranica says "blah blah" and that should end it. "Protected by the Fire" (Atropat) (Encyclopedia of Islam) and the name ultimately having to do with Atropat (both EI's)... that is what should be in the paragraph and right now I feel it is. Also the Avesta form and variant middle Persian form does not mean that it is the same character. It shows that it was a popular name at that time. --alidoostzadeh 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

>>The name of the country (This is the Azerbaijan entry in Iranica) is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates
Indeed. So it is. The name of the country Azerbaijan derives from the name of Atropates. Atropates is Greek. It does not mean "protector of fire". It does not mean anything at all. The Greeks "translated" the OP name into their own language. They did not translate the meaning of the name.
Thus, Atropatene has no meaning other than "(country of) Atropates." And toponomically, it is from Atropatene that Azerbaijan ultimately derives. Onomastically, you could even take it to Atropates, but no further.
>>"Land protected by the Fire" is not the forged popular etymology.
Thats what you say. If you think so, then you should be able to provide a reliable source that tells me exactly that. But you can't. Neither the EIr nor the EI will tell you that Azerbaijan means "X". Neither of those sources even tell you what the Middle Iranian predecessors of "Azerbaijan" mean.
Whatever you think "X" is, as you amply demonstrate with your "A means B, thus Y means X", it is original research.
The basic problem is that you think some Iranian language predecessor of "Azerbaijan" - e.g. Aturpatakan - already meant something. It doesn't. The Parthians (and later the Persians) only had the name "Atropatene", so they "pronounced" it as "Aturpatakan". There was no older genuine Iranian name. The Greek "Atropatene" is all they had. The Seleucids spoke Greek, and Atropates - when he became satrap of the region - was doing so under Greek command. The region didn't have a name before the Greeks gave it the name "Atropatene". And "Atropatene" (or even "Atropates") doesn't mean anything.
Re: Atərəpāta and Adurbad cruft. NONE of this is pertinent to the etymology of Azerbaijan:
- >>Note Minorsky makes a connection with Adharbad
  Where is he supposed to be doing that?
- >>If it is not the same word, why would Iranica say compare to Atərəpāta.
  Do. not. synthesize!
- >>I am not making up the connection.
  *sigh* Did you or did you not add their names in a section on Azerbaijan? That is YOUR connection, noone else's. Neither Atərəpāta nor Adurbad is connected to Azerbaijan or to Atropatene or to Atropates. Thats entirely your own construction.
- >>Doing away with the technicality, Adhurbad, that is the Middle Persian form of Atropat
  I don't know what you mean by "Atropat." There is no word "Atropat" pertinent to this discussion.
  In any case, Adurbad is a native Middle Persian theophoric in its own right. It is not a "form" of anything other than two Middle Persian words. But, as I said, Adurbad is altogether not relevant.
- >>It is not the same Atropates, but just an attestation of this name in a form of Middle Persian.
  Again, original original research. But even if it is, so what?
- >>Also the Avesta form and variant middle Persian form does not mean that it is the same character.
  Correct, they do not refer to Atropates. Not only was "quoted" Avesta verse composed before Atropates' time, and Adurbad lived many centuries after Atropates, they also have absolutely nothing to do with Atropatene or Atropatakan or Azerbaijan. So,... why are they even mentioned?
- >>I did not quote Livius
  So, fine, you "quoted" Zaehner. Its still completely out of context.
>>this is the only part of the article that has not had problem so far
- either nobody before checked your sources, or nobody cared.
- the concept of no original research is an alien one here. The rest of the article is also riddled with original research. You cannot use primary sources to make a point. Period.
>>and if there is need, we can just say Enyclopedia Islam says:"blah blah" and Encyclopedia Iranica says "blah blah" and that should end it.
Like this:
The name 'Azerbaijan' is a continuation of Early New Persian 'Adarbayjan', 'Adarbaygan', which in turn derive from Middle Persian and Parthian 'Aturpatakan'. Middle Iranian 'Aturpatakan' is in turn a derivative of Greek 'Atropatene', which is an abbreviated form of 'Atropatios Media'. This region, which was originally a part of Media but following the Partition of Babylon became a separate Seleucid province, was named after Atropates, the first governor (satrap) of the newly created entity.
Although 'Adarbaygan' is simply a phonetic development of 'Atropatene', by the 7th century "medieval Arab geographers were already giving it different meanings, deriving it from the personal name Adarbador forging popular etymologies, like 'fire temple' or 'guardian of the fire' (from adar, 'fire' and baykan, 'guardian')."^[1] The Encyclopedia of Islam likewise notes ....
If you insist on forcing a translation of 'Atropates', the only remotely "legitimate" way to do so would be like this:
Although Atropates, the governor after whom the province is named, was an Achaemenid nobleman and hence actually had an Old Persian name (Aturpat "protected by fire"), the Greek "translation" as 'Atropates' did not preserve that meaning, and hence the later derivatives do not either.
Thats it. And none of that Adurbad/Avesta coatracking if you don't mind. -- Fullstop 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you doing OR. The Greek "translation" as 'Atropates' did not preserve that meaning. Does anyone of the sources say that?The name Aturpatakan is not a deravitive of Atropatene. No where does the source say that. Aturpatakan means the land of Atropat. Atropatene is the Greek version, but Aturpatakan does not come from Atropatene. Minorsky: "The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ādhurbādh b. Bīwarasf)." So Adharbadh is the Middle Persian pronounciation of Atropat. And of course it means the same thing. Given the Middle Persian was also Adharbadgan, then it is obvious the meaning of the name was held. Anyways I think to end this problem, we have to quote Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam fully. I disagree that Aturpatkan is a deravative of Atropatene. That is simply OR and follows no phonetic or linguistic laws. When Iranica says:"The name of the country (This is the Azerbaijan entry in Iranica) is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates". It does not mean that the name is from Atropates per-se but from Atropat. Atropates is just the popular western usage of Atropat/Aturpat. Kan/Gan are suffixes with a natural meaning in Pahlavi and Persian. Golpayegan, Ardakan (place of Arda)..are examples. Going from Old Persian->Greek->Middle Persian does not make sense. It is Old Persian->Middle Persian. Atropatene does not make Aturpatakan. --alidoostzadeh 05:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I checked Diakonoff (history of the Medes). He says Aturpatakan is the oldest form and "Kan" is a suffix denoting place. Thus we have Anahit and Anahtaka and Friyapati and Friyapaatikaan. (pg 541, Karmiz Keshavaraz translantion). So Aturpatakan does not come from Atropatene as you claim. I suggest you revise your suggestion to make this fact known. --alidoostzadeh 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

>>I believe you doing OR. The Greek "translation" as 'Atropates' did not preserve that meaning.

That is why I separated it from the rest and put the word "legitimate" in scare quotes. That the phrase got you thinking is more than I hoped for.

>>Okay I checked Diakonoff (history of the Medes) ... "He says Aturpatakan is the oldest form"

You have the whole while been harping on how Azerbaijan comes from Atropates (4th century BCE) and now you are telling me it comes from the Medes (7th century BCE). Do you seriously expect me to believe you anymore?

>>So Adharbadh is the Middle Persian pronounciation of Atropat.

I don't know why you keep saying "Atropat". None of your sources use it. It is not Greek form. It is not Old Iranian either.
What is "So..."? There is no "So..." The preceding sentence does not say anything about Adharbadh being the Middle Persian "pronounciation" of Atropat (sic).
What is this cruft about Adurbad (and Avesta)? There is no historical person Adurbad who has anything to do with Azerbaijan. Why do you keep repeating it? Even iff the word 'Azerbaijan' had something to do with fire, what is the basis of the absurd insistence that ever instance of "fire" has something to do with Zoroastrianism?

>>Going from Old Persian->Greek->Middle Persian does not make sense.

Perhaps you need to consider that the starting point of that chain occurs later.

>>It is Old Persian->Middle Persian.

Atropatene did not exist until Seleucid times. You *know* this. *All* your sources tell you this, but still you still claim "It is Old Persian->Middle Persian". Is this some kind of nationalism thing? Why does it matter if 'Azerbaijan' is based on a Seleucid name/satrapy? So what if the Seleucids created a new satrapy? What is the problem with that?

Is there some latent need to have to have a meaning for "Azerbaijan"? Lots of proper names - in all languages - do not preserve a literal meaning. But so what? Most satrapy names do not literally "mean" anything. Why do you insist that Azerbaijan is different?

I find it odd that you continue to do original research in your responses and you continue to maintain what is blatant OR in the article. You've proven that you can recognize OR, and you know I will catch it. Why on earth do you keep doing it? Are you trying to convince me that your theories are correct? Even if they were correct/convincing, do you think they will no longer be OR?

As far as you should be concerned, there is *no* meaning for Azerbaijan. You have no sources that tell you "Azerbaijan means X" thus you cannot in any way or form lead someone to conclude that "Azerbaijan means X". Period. But that is what you are doing all the time. You *know* it is original research. But you are also misleading people, and that is something above all policies that you should always guard against. Live up to your name.

-- Fullstop 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not understading me. For example take point one. You said: "You have the whole while been harping on how Azerbaijan comes from Atropates (4th century BCE) and now you are telling me it comes from the Medes (7th century BCE). Do you... ". I said Diakonoff in the book "history of the Medes". The book of Medes, is a comprehensive and famous book (500 pages+) and does not just cover Medes. It covers both pre-Mede and post-Mede era as well. He has a section on the etymology of Aturpatakan and he says it is the oldest form of the name is Aturpatakan and Kan is a suffix which means place. So Aturpatakan which is the root of the word and not Atropatene (the Greek form of Aturpatakan) means the place of Aturpat. This is not OR. Kan/Gan are suffixes used even in modern Persian and Diakonoff takes it from an Old Iranian view. So Aturpatakan (place of Aturpat). Aturpat literally (protected by the fire). Adarbaad (the last middle Persian version of the form) means exaclty the same Or for example saying Aturpatakan is derived from Atropatene was OR. And old Persian did exist during the Seleucid and the transition to Middle Persian was post-Achaemenid phenomenon. Anyways I think I am going to just quote the Encyclopedia of Islam and the two others, since it seems there is a varying intrepretation on the etymology. You might have some different viewpoints (which I respect). All the best. Ushta te. --alidoostzadeh 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source (including Diakonoff) explicitely says "Azerbaijan means X" or "Aturpatakan means X". This is all that counts. You are synthesizing if/when you say some source is saying that.
All your "A means B therefore C means D" is original research. Whether its "true" or not does not make any difference. Its still original research.
same with the completely fake connection to Zoroastrianism via Adurbad and the Avesta.

-- Fullstop 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The connection to Zoroastrianism is explicit (Pur-Davud a major scholar on Zoroastrianism has two page article and mentions the Avesta name). It does not take a linguist to figure out that if Kan/Gan means place then Aturpatkan in its true meaning means the place of Aturpat. I am not going to get into debate on the issue and it's connection with Zoroastrianism. So the livius stuff was removed. Also I am not sure why you removed the Zoroastrianism tag from Darius I article.. but I don't want to know either. All the best. --alidoostzadeh 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you did not address points #1 and #2 but instead continue the "if ... then" original research. It. is. not. legitimate.

>>It does not take a linguist to figure out ...

Actually, it does "take" a reliable source to "figure out" anything that you may choose to say on Wikipedia.

>>The connection to Zoroastrianism is explicit (Pur-Davud a major scholar on Zoroastrianism ...

Then you will have to *quote* Ibrahim Pur-Davud (who was not a "major scholar of Zoroastrianism" as you suppose but an accomplished poet and poetry translator). You will have to simultaneously ensure that you are not mistakingly inserting a quotation from his translations. He is not of course a reliable source (as Zaehner would have been if you hadn't faked it), but that is another matter altogether.

>>"I am not going to get into debate on the issue"

You've been doing it so far, why are you stopping now?

>>but I don't want to know either

Then whats your point?

-- Fullstop 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pur Davud is a well known scholar of Zoroastrianism and his poetry comes in second relative to this. Javad Mashkur who is another expert has also shown the name means the land of Atropat with the kan/gan suffix meaning place/land. I think the article is fixed now with this regard, but claiming that Atropatene evolved to Aturpatakan was original research. I believe from your recent edits, you want to de-emphasize some terms that have to do with Zoroastrianism. For example Darius the Great's inscriptions and those of Xerxes (in general OP) are the only inscriptions we have that mention Ahura Mazda, Mithra, Anahita and etc during the Achaemenid era (besides the Elamite ones). The inscriptions are used to study Mazdaism but you removed the Zoroastrian template from Darius the Great where-as if you do a google book search "Zoroastrianism" and "Darius", you will get many links showing the template is pertinent. And you accuse me in this article of :"completely fake connection to Zoroastrianism via Adurbad and the Avesta" where-as the etymology of the name "protected by the fire" is clearly related to Zoroastrianism and variant of this name appear in the Yasht and Pahlavi literature. Adhurgoshnasp, Adhurbadagan, Adhurbad are all Middle Persian terms that have strong connections with Behdini. As you noted, Zaehner uses Aturpat for Atuprat Mahrspandan (of course it is not the same Aturpat of Aturpatakan! But it is just an instance that the name was highly popular). And you also saw the "cf" with the Avesta Yasht. So I did not make the connection but wanted to show the attestation of this name in Yasht(Iranica c.f...) and Pahlavi literature (Zaehnar taking Aturpat as equivalent to Adhurbad/Azarbad). In light of this though, I do not have too muchtime for this circular discussion and so I just inserted the academic sources. --alidoostzadeh 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

>>I believe from your recent edits, you want to de-emphasize some terms that have to do with Zoroastrianism

you are quite at liberty to believe what you want. No connection to reality necessary.

>>For example Darius the Great's inscriptions and those of Xerxes (in general OP) are the only inscriptions we have that mention Ahura Mazda, Mithra, Anahita and etc during the Achaemenid era (besides the Elamite ones).

ha ha ha ha ha ha. But your effort at trying to pass off ignorance as expertise are quite admirable.

>>where-as the etymology of the name "protected by the fire" is clearly related to Zoroastrianism

perhaps you think every reference to "fire" implies a connection to Zoroastrianism? Interesting hypothesis, but again, not correct.

>>and variant of this name appear in the Yasht

"fascinating" as Spock would say. Chinese also has a variant of the name, 近義詞炮火, so I suppose Adurbad was a mandarin.

>>Adhurgoshnasp, Adhurbadagan, Adhurbad are all Middle Persian terms that have strong connections with Behdini

I'd have thought that must be because Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Sassanids.

>>And you also saw the "cf" with the Avesta Yasht

There is no "'cf' with the Avesta Yasht".

-- Fullstop 22:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another reference [7] (Aatarepaata) was his Persian name which means protector of the fire. This is the same variant as the Yasht. And in the end Aturpat is used as Azarbad by Zaehner. I'll let you connect the dots since I do not have time for "ha ha ha ha ha"s.--alidoostzadeh 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Justi's reconstruction of the OP form of Atropates generally accepted (which is all that your latest grope is saying),

the newest reference provided still does not support your assertion that the name "Azerbaijan" derives from the "Persian language" name of the man Atropates.
nor does that latest reference say "[t]his is the same variant as the Yasht" or anything of the kind.

>>I'll let you connect the dots since I do not have time for "ha ha ha ha ha"s.

Another fascinating non-sequitur.

Apropos "connect the dots":

I cannot join non-existent dots.
Jedi Master says not allowed is joining dots.

-- Fullstop 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The newest reference proves the Avesta form of the name, which I claimed previously. I also proved using Zaehner that Azarbad and Aturpat are the same with minor sound shifts. Here is also a Parsi scholar. [[8]], which says the same thing I had before"The word Azerbaijan comes from Atarepata". That was part of the article before and with Justi we can reconstruct the OP form from the Avesta form. Your statement that Aturpatakan (later Azerbaijan) comes from Atropatene is not correct and does not follow any linguistic laws. But Kan/Gan as a suffix added to Atarepata is natural and is a suffix. Ultimately the name is connected to Atropat but it is through OP form of the Persian name not the Greekified form of the Persian name. The Parsi scholar says: "the word Azerbaijan comes from Atarepata"(take the OP/Avesta form,, it is basically the same). --alidoostzadeh 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you're evidently incapable of citing a source without corrupting it, let me help you a little:

The word Âzerbaijân comes frome Atarêpâta (<Av. ...>) in the Avesta (<cv>) where the word seems to be the name of one of the members of King Gushtasp's family.

Is this your present position? Are you now telling me Azerbaijan is named after a mythological figure who lived 3000 years ago in Bactria? Not a satrap as you've been saying all along?

>>The Parsi scholar says: "the word Azerbaijan comes from Atarepata"(take the OP/Avesta form,, it is basically the same)

Your OR/SYN of the actual quotation (highlighted above for everyone's reading pleasure) is both outrageous and outrageously obvious. How many sources has that been now that you've so badly OR'd? Eight? Nine? Tell me, do you still feel shame when you cobble things like that together, or have you done it so often that your conscience has been silenced altogether?

-- Fullstop 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would watch my tone or else next time I will report you to the admin. Given the fact that the new arbcomm injunction takes Azerbaijan/Iran related articles into account and requires a certain level respect and civility, I am just being responsible and warning you. As per your intrepretation, no where does the source talk about a mythological figure. It says "The word Âzerbaijân comes frome Atarêpâta". We already looked at the OP form from Justi Âtarepâta (which is the same). So he is not talking about Bactria or even the same character of Bactria. But he is talking about the root of the word. That is why he is saying The word comes from Atarêpâta. The key word is the use of the word "word". Thus you are intrepreting it and adding OR to it. There have been many people with the name Atarêpâta. He is not saying it comes from the same character as Avesta but the same word. Here is a scholarly source about the addition of the suffix kan[9][10] to get Aturpatakan. The greek form Atropatene (itself related to the Persian Atarêpâta) does not transform to Âturpatakân by any sound laws and there is no OR to it. But Aturpat+kan is natural and I will ask a Hardvard Professor soon if it needs to be cleared up. --alidoostzadeh 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're threatening me? You're pumping a policy violation and then have the cheek to threaten me when I call you on it? Boy, you've got cojones.

>>As per your intrepretation, no where does the source talk about a mythological figure

What exactly do you think Modi is talking about? What do you think the Avesta is? A history book?

Never mind. Its not relevant anyway because what I say is not the subject of discussion. To make it clear: Its your OR, in article space, that is the subject of discussion.

>>It says "The word Âzerbaijân comes frome Atarêpâta". <= note that period? Its yours.

No, it does not. You are cherry picking the source to have it say what you want it to say.

You are intentionally ignoring the crucial "in the Avesta ... etc." By doing that you are intentionally making it relevant to your satrap, which is the connection to Azerbaijan that you want to cite for but which Modi does not say.

>>We already looked at the OP form from Justi Âtarepâta (which is the same)

No, it is not "the same." Your source does not tell you that Justi speaks of an Avestan equivalent of OP Âtarepâta. This is your own interpretation.

>>So he is not talking about Bactria or even the same character of Bactria

Who is "he?" Justi reconstructs the OP form of Greek "Atropates." Modi is talking about someone in Kavi Vistaspa's family.

>>But he is talking about the root of the word. That is why he is saying 'The word comes from Atarêpâta'.

Nobody is talking about the root of any word. Do you perhaps not know what a "root" is? Do you know anything about morphology? Do you know what a "compound" is? And no, again, he is not saying 'The word comes from Atarêpâta'. But I've already addressed that above.

>>The key word is the use of the word "word".

The key word of what is the use of the word "word."?

>>Thus you are intrepreting it and adding OR to it.

I haven't interpreted anything, and I wish you wouldn't either. And yes, you are constantly interpreting and constantly analyzing your sources and constantly cherry picking.

That is all original research. That is WRONG. You have no source that in plain English tells you that Azerbaijan derives from OP. You've "deduced" that connection yourself.

What's worse, you're constantly trying to justify that your interpretation is correct (again that "but Aturpat+kan is natural" stuff). It doesn't matter if your interpretation is correct! Even if it were correct, it would still be your interpretation, and hence OR.

>>I will ask a Hardvard Professor soon

First, while you're there pop in to Skaervoe's office and remind him that he still owes me a bottle. And if you're in the library, don't sit in the chair with my name on it. It probably still has chewing gum stuck to the right leg.

Secondly, it will *still* be OR.

-- Fullstop 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I am telling you to watch your behavior or else I will report you to the admin. It is a warning about wikipedia policty not a personal threat. You are making OR on the Parsi Scholar. He is saying same "word" not same character but somehow you extended to Vishtaspa and Bactria. He does not say it is the same character but the same word. He is saying: "The word comes from Atarêpâta..". That is not OR. He is not talking about a particular character of Avesta being the Satrap, he is saying the name comes from Atarêpâta. Second there is no OR in the fact that Âtarepâta of OP is a cognate of Avesta Atarêpâta. Both compounds in the word are the same and of the same root. And I brought a German source [11][12](which you should be able to understand better than me since you have German listed as a language) which connects it with the placeholder akan and thus it is not my OR either. Purdavud has already been mentioned as well Javad Mashkur and Diakonoff. The suffix akan in Aturpatakan is a place-holder. Currently there is no OR on the page and despite your attempt to remove the Encyclopedia of Islam article (since it had etymological meaning by Minorsky and instead of trying to fix the reference, you tried to delete it), there is no OR. What is OR is:" Modi is talking about someone in Kavi Vistaspa's family."(that is your intrepretation as you say but he is talking about the word Azerbaijan and then mentions the root of this word is also found in the Avesta as well). But the fact of the matter is that there is a "bowl underneath the bowl", and there has to be a reason that somehow everytime something related to Zoroastrianism is mentioned, you remove it. For example Darius I article where his OP inscriptions gives us an overview of how AhuraMazda and Druj were perceived by the ancient Persians and it has 100% relationship with the general study of Zoroastrianism. I am not going to waste my time with this more since I am a serious person and I'll ask Skjærvø in due time. And no getting it from top Iranist like Skjærvø is not OR by wikipedia policy. Your/my intrepretation would be OR. But I believe the issue with this edit is more related to your intrepretation of Z's message rather than scientific reasoning. --alidoostzadeh 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

>>I am telling you to watch your behavior or else I will report you to the admin.

So you are threatening me. How sweet. I didn't know you cared.

>>He is saying same "word" not same character

nope. He's not saying same word, he's not saying same character. He is saying something very precise, which you repeatedly choose to ignore.

>>but somehow you extended to Vishtaspa and Bactria.

You have absolutely no clue who King Gushtasp is, do you?

>>He does not say it is the same character but the same word.

he does not say that either.

>>He is saying: "The word comes from Atarêpâta..".

nope, he is not saying that.

>>That is not OR.

if you do not cite correctly, your citation is invalid, and it is OR.

>>He is not talking about a particular character of Avesta.

yes, actually he is. He is talking about a very particular character in the Avesta. The family member of Gushtasp.

Here is the text again: The word Âzerbaijân comes frome Atarêpâta (<Avestan letters>) in the Avesta (<chapter:verse>) where the word seems to be the name of one of the members of King Gushtasp's family.

>>What is OR is:" Modi is talking about someone in Kavi Vistaspa's family."

Nope. That is not OR. See quotation directly above.

>>despite your attempt to remove the Encyclopedia of Islam article (since it had etymological meaning by Minorsky and instead of trying to fix the reference, you tried to delete it)

I did no such thing. Diff or it never happened.

>>there is no OR

There is OR in the second sentence. There is OR in your "select" quotation of the EIr. There is OR in your interpretation of primary sources.

>>there has to be a reason that somehow everytime something related to Zoroastrianism is mentioned, you remove it.

I'm sure you're going to dish up some fabulous OR to explain what you think I think.

>>For example Darius I article where his OP inscriptions gives us an overview of how AhuraMazda and Dorooj were perceived by the ancient Persians and it has 100% relationship with the general study of Zoroastrianism.

Thank you for proving my point. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't make silly statements like that.

>>I am not going to waste my time with this

Well, if you bothered to learn how to cite correctly, you'd have saved plenty of time.

>>since I am a serious person

You sure fooled me.

>>And no getting it from top Iranist like Skjærvø is not OR by wikipedia policy.

Actually, it violates two WP policies. a) You are establishing a new cit. source, hence WP:OR. b) Its not verifiable, hence WP:V.

>>But I believe the issue is more related to your intrepretation of Z's message

Whatever. You evidently do a lot of "believing" anyway.

>>rather than scientific reasoning

Does this "scientific" "reasoning" include your OR? Or is it the OR?

-- Fullstop 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] reworked

[edit] summary

[edit] Please respect the agreement

[edit] Swietochowski

[edit] Iranian Satrap?

[edit] anon

[edit] Rewrite Etymology and usage

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search