Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

From Dr. Atabaki's book[1] available here: [2] pg 25:

pt 1

begin:

Federative Republic quicklycame to light and co-operation soon broke down".55 That same day, the Transcaucasian Assembly met in order to dissolve the ephemeral Federative Republic. Immediately thereafter, the Georgian National Council proclaimed an independent Georgian Republic and, within two days, the Armenians had followed suit and declared their own independent Republic. Meanwhile, on 27 May, the Muslim National Council met in Tiflis and "resolved to declare the independence of Azerbaijan^ a republic that was to encompass southern and eastern Transcaucasia".56 On the following day, "the governing body of the Transcaucasian Tatars, now Azerbaijan, selected Ganja (later renamed Kirovabad) as the republic's temporary capital".57 Adopting the name of Azerbaijan for the area of southern and eastern Transcaucasia soon caused concern in Iran and Azerbaijan. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, the founder of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Transcaucasia, understood - during these early days - the territory of this new Azerbaijan to consist of "the Baku and Elisavetpol gubernias, the southern districts of the Tiflis and Yerevan gubemias, and the country of Zakatal".58 Later, when the republic had been toppled by the Bolsheviks and Rasulzadeh had been forced to see asylum abroad, he admitted that this choice of a name for the new republic had been a mistake. In an article which he wrote on the history of the short-lived Republic of Azerbaijan, Rasulzadeh acknowledges that: "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)."59 Moreover, in a letter to Taqizadeh, he declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".60 However, if the Republic of Azerbaijan, was the name adopted by the Muslim Musavatists, when the Bolsheviks established their rule over the region, they did not hesitate to retain the same name. On 28 April 1920, the government of Musavatists was overthrown by the revolutionary Bolsheviks, and an independent Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan was proclaimed.61 By adopting the Soviet nationality's policy of building a series of nation-states and state-nations on the territory of the old Russian Empire, an Azerbaijani nation was defined. With their own distinctive language, they became the inhabitants of a region in the south Caucasus, later known as the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan.62

end:

--Ali doostzadeh 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for posting, even more evidence to add to the pile about this controversy.Khosrow II 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I should note that all these “controversial” claims come only from the researchers of Iranian origin. I don’t see any neutral third party source taking the same position as the Iranian authors you guys refer to. Here’s what I found in another source:

Historians debate the ethnic-linguistic composition of the areas north and south of the Araz River and the historical borders of Azerbaijan before the major waves of Turkic migration in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Many Azerbaijani sources claim that much of the population was Turkic, or of other non-Persian origin; Persian sources generally maintain that prior to the tenth century the people were predominantly Persian. This debate has been confounded by supporters of various ideologies – Iranian nationalism, Turkism, and Azerbaijani nationalism – who have attempted to manipulate historical materials to justify or deny the Azerbaijanis' "right" to certain identities, or courses of action, and as a basis for the claim that those living in the north and those living in Iran are not the same nation. In addition, many researchers base their claims on the works of the historian Ahmad Kasravi, whose ideological convictions and political goals tainted his research on Azerbaijan. Some researchers have attempted to dismiss the idea that the populations on both sides of the Araz belong to the same people, claiming that the area north of the Araz River was not part of the historical territory of what has been called for many centuries "Azerbaijan," and that the people inhabiting this area are not part of the same people as those in Iranian Azerbaijan. In the pre-Islamic period the area in the north was known as Albania or Caucasian Albania, and after the Islamic conquest (639-643) as Arran. However, whether Arran was a separate entity from Azerbaijan or a subentity, it seems that they often interacted culturally as one region. In addition, at least since the Muslim conquest, the areas were administered together within most of the various empires that ruled the area, and were subject to similar influences until the division of the territory in 1828. Finally, territorial borders in the region were quite fluid, especially before the establishment of the Safavid regime in 1501.

Brenda Shaffer. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity.

Grandmaster 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have proof that there was a controversy, so shouldn't the intro be in the past tense? —Khoikhoi 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


obviously the controversy still exists and is as strong as ever. look how much we're talking about it. Khosrow II 04:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it should be clarified that the only people that dispute the name "Azerbaijan" for the country are Iranians. It's not some worldwide crisis. —Khoikhoi 04:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
the controversy involves Azerbaijani's as well, whether they like it or not. no where in the article is the reader mislead to believe this is some catastrophic crisis. This is a controversial issue to the people who it is about, and this single name change back in 1918 has caused many many problems today.Khosrow II 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course they've involved, but are they the one who dispute the name "Azerbaijan" for their country? —Khoikhoi 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
unfortunatly, the people had no choice. a certain pan turk party took it upon itself to create lots of trouble in the region for later generations. but still, i dont get your point.Khosrow II 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. Do you agree that this article should be moved to History of the name Azerbaijan? —Khoikhoi 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
well, as of now the current name seems ok, because as we are finding out more and more with our discussion, it is a controversial issue. and controversial does not have to mean a big crisis or anything. the word controversial is being used here by its definition, something that causes controversy, and this certainly does.Khosrow II 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. Historically areas on both side of Araks constituted a single political, economic and cultural entity, populated by Azerbaijanis. Area to the north of Araks was also called Azerbaijan from time to time, especially when both south and north had a single governor. An example is the state of Atabeks of Azerbaijan, their capital was in Nakhichevan, to the north of Araks. It is also of interest that some of Musavat leaders were Iranian Azeris, such as Fatali Khan Khoyski, the prime minister of independent Azerbaijan, his grandfather was the hereditary ruler (khan) of Khoy. So Iranian Azeris also have something to do with the name choice. Also another interesting fact I read about in the book by Tadeusz Swietochowski: in order to avoid Bolshevik occupation Azerbaijan republic was seriously considering the possibility of creating a confederation with Iran, and some politicians from the two countries even signed an agreement on that. Both countries would have had equal rights in confederation, but it did not work somehow. It shows that Iran was not seriously protesting the name, otherwise it would not agree to confederation with Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran was not interested because there was political upheavel at the time during 1918-1920 (world war II) and some parts of NW was occupied. So there was really no Iranian administration at the time and basically Iranian intellectuals like Khiyabani even changed the name of Iran's Azerbaijani province to Azadistan to protest the name change. Also at that time about 1-2% of literate, but Iranian intellectuals did protest the name for example Khiyabani, Taqizadeh and Kasravi were all Iranian Azerbaijanis who protested. Also it is not true that history both sides of Araxes constitued a single political, economic and cultural entity at all times. Before Islam that was not the case. And after Islam too, only with the formation of Azerbaijani Turkic speaking ethnic group, did such an account slowly arise due to linguistic unity which probably only started during the Safavid era and still the provinces in North of Aras were called Ganjah, Talesh, Shirvanaat and sometimes they might be administered from the province of Azerbaijan. Most Islamic sources separete Azerbaijan from Arran although sometimes they group Armenia, Azerbaijan and Arran to the same entity because it might have had one political ruler (like during the time of Atabegs). According to Tadeusz Swietochowski: 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. . So in a historical sense Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania were two different territories and due to political considerations in the last century, their names have merged. --Ali doostzadeh 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Full quote from the same source:

Azerbaijan is the name of the land populated today by the Azeri Turks, the people who inhabit the region stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. 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.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683 Grandmaster 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with Brenda Shaffer that Azerbaijan and the areas on the North (Arran, Shirvan, Mugan and Nakhichevan) were a single political entity since the time of Muslim conquest. I think we can both agree that the areas were part of the same province of the caliphate and had the same governor, and at later times were also parts of the same administrative units within various states. Only in ancient times Caucasian Albania and Athropatena were for the most part separate entities. In general the historians don’t separate the history of Caucasus Azeris from the history of Azerbaijan province until the Russian conquest. And since the Seljuq times those two were a single entity with the same population. And it is also of note that Iran never officially protested the name, neither back in 1918, nor in 1991, even though some individuals did. So there’s no reason to present the issue as a “controversy” and blow things out of proportion. The problem exists only in minds of some people, who have their own vision of the things. This can be mentioned in a couple of lines in the article about Azerbaijan and History of Azerbaijan, but I see no reason for existence of such a POV article, full of ungrounded allegations. It will definitely not contribute to improvement of relations between Azeri and Persian communities. Grandmaster 07:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ali, you are amazing at finding information! Anyway, whats the source for the quote, we can add it to the article as further evidence. And Grandmaster, if you read that authors book, then did you miss the quote Ali just posted? Also, Ali is right. By the end of WWI, the Qajars had no control over anything. They didnt even care, thats how bad a ruler they were. They were powerless.Khosrow II 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow the information is taken from: [3] first line. But I do suggest we remove other topics not related to the topic at hand from the article. Historical revionism is of course a major issue I found out in the education system of the former USSR countries. Specially where ever there is ethnic rivarlies you are bound to get unsubstantiated claims. Also add the Iranica quoted about Azadistan if you have time. --Ali doostzadeh 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


well, we can rewrite those later, but i think they should stay in the article. as per the rest of your comment, ok, i will, but after the soccer game today. (iran vs. syria)Khosrow II 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What time is the game? I'll try to find out. About the other comments, I think they warrant a separate article if you think it is necessary. I think we should basically concentrate on the naming change or else that part of the article if expanded can eat up this article. Also I do not see any reason for that part of the article as long Azerbaijanis of the caucus acknowledge they have Iranian heritage which they say they do. So only the geographical naming argument makes sense to me. --Ali doostzadeh 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
im very sorry, i didnt read this message before. the game started at 9:30 central US time. its showing it now on IRIB2. Well, the way I see it, the historical revisionism has to do with the name change. without the name change there would be none of the historical revisionism that we see today.Khosrow II 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
who is Tadeusz Swietochowski exactly? is he an azerbaijani scholar or is he russian?Khosrow II 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where he is from, the name sounds Polish perhaps of Jewish background? I don't think he is Russian and definitely not Iranian. I believe he is a Professor at a US university[4] and also he has written a new book [5], which I am in the process of looking at. He has numerous books and pulications on the caucus, Iran, Azerbaijan.. --Ali doostzadeh 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Also like I said I think the article should strictly focus on the subject.. other sorts of plagarism should be dealt with separate article although it seems plagarism is normal in some of the USSR republics. --Ali doostzadeh 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what should we call it? Something like: Historical Revisionism by the Republic of Azerbaijan?Khosrow II 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an article on pan-turkist historical revisionism. But that would take a good amount of effort to make. Also we must be careful to distinguish between state historical revisionism and actual people doing historical revisionism (which pretty much exists in every country). From what I gather, Turkey's state institution does not teach Ataturk's sun theory and other discredited theories anymore. I am not sure about the republic of Azerbaijan although it seems to me they do not deny they have Iranian heritage and so if they claim some figures, I guess it is fine since they are shared although at that time the language of the area was not Turkic. But it does become troubling when I see sites like this: [6]. Such blatant falsification of history is very upsetting if it is thought in academic institutes. At the same time we must remember the Azerbaijani nation-sate formation is new and so it will try to attempt to build an identity using resources of Iranian culture, whereas if they affirmed they were Iranians already, there would not be such a need for hyperbole nationalism. Either way I think we should try to foster good will for now and that is why I think the article should focus on the subject matter which is an important fact. Historically Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan are two different territories. Sometimes a ruler from Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan might have ruled over Caucasian Albania, but there is definitely two different geographical entities. Also it is interesting that the name "Azeri" came about for certain ethnic group after the USSR. Azeri historically as you know is just a dialect of middle Persian as well. --Ali doostzadeh 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, the Azeri government sponsers and promotes the historical revisionism. An Azeri from the Republic once wrote a letter to Iranian.com (you may have read it) where he states that all through out his child hood they were taught that Babak was Azeri and fought against the Persian chauvanists. The Republic of Azerbaijan is in many ways worse than the government of Turkey is when it comes to historical revisionism. As you see here, it seems as though Grandmaster himself did not even know how his nation got the name Azerbaijan in the first place.Khosrow II 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

pt 2

The article is full of unsourced POV claims. Example: The name change of the region also changed the name of its inhabitants, now also known as Azeri's.

You will be surprised to know that Russian Brochauz and Yefron encyclopedia referred to Azeris as Azerbaijani Tatars. Check it for yourself, or ask any Russian speaker to help you. Before the Russian revolution Russians called all Turkic people Tatars, and Azerbaijanis were called Caucasus or Azerbaijani Tatars. Brochauz, which was the most authoritative Russian encyclopedia, referred to Azeris only as Azerbaijani Tatars. See also an interesting part from the Brochauz article Turko-Tatars:

Некоторые ученые (Ядринцев, Харузин, Шантр) предлагали видоизменить терминологию некоторых Т.-татарских народностей, которые в соматологическом отношении мало имеют общего с тюрками, назвав, напр., адербайджанских татар (по типу — иранцев) адербайджанами, алтайских татар (скорее финнов, чем тюрков) — алтайцами и т. д.; но это пока не привилось, тем более, что по историко-этническим судьбам тюркского племени язык является главнейшим расовым его признаком; иначе пришлось бы исключить из его состава и турок-османов, часть туркменов и многие другие народности.

Translation:

Some scholars (Yadrintsev, Kharuzin, Shantr) suggested to change the terminology of some Turko-Tatar people, who somatically don’t have much in common with Turks, for instance, to call Aderbaijani Tatars (Iranians by type) Aderbaijans, Altaic Tatars (rather Finnish, than Turks) – Altaiyans, etc, but for the moment it has not been accepted, especially considering that due to historical-ethnic destiny of the Turkic tribe the language is its main racial feature, otherwise Osman Turks, part of Turkmens and many other peoples would have to be excluded from it as well. [7]

This book was published in 1897. So the name Azerbaijanis doesn’t have much to do with the name of the country, Azeri people were called Azerbaijanis in various forms before Azerbaijan gained independence. Grandmaster 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

About Kasravi, who is mentioned in the article:

Ahmad Kasravi, who has been described as the most controversial of modern Iranian thinkers, saw as his chief concern the transformation of a disunited Iran into what he hoped would be an integrated Iran at whatever the cost. He wrote his magisterial work, Tarikh-i Hijdah Saleh-i Azarbaijan (Eighteen years of history of Azarbaijan), to prove that the fate of Azerbaijan lay with the rest of Iran. He believed that Iran owed its backwardness to multidimensional disunity, and among the forces working for this condition were linguistic differences, which he considered as harmful as tribal loyalties. Kasravi's concern with the lack of linguistic unity began at the early stage of the constitutional movement, when the shah had attempted to fragment the reformist forces by playing up the differences between Persian- and Turkic-speaking liberals, and this concern grew stronger when the Ottomans tried to awaken separatist sentiments in Tabriz. In the mid 1920s, as Shah Reza was preparing for his assimilation campaign, Kasravi wrote a pamphlet titled Zaban-i Azari ya zaban-i bastani Azarbaijan (The Azari language; or, the ancient language of Azarbaijan), a venture into historical linguistics. Azari, the original language of Azarbaijan, had been closely related to Persian, and the influx of Turkic words began only with the Seljuk invasion. Therefore, the argument went, Turki was a foreign tongue imposed by conquerors, and the true national language of Azerbaijan was Azari, which survived only in geographical names and among inhabitants of a few remote villages. The belief in the intrinsically Iranian character of the Azeris, as well as in the need for national integration on the basis of Persian, was the essence of what became known as Kasravism (Kasraviyya).

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Along with his own strong Iranian identity, Kasravi's unwavering commitment to eradicate any subidentities to Iranian identity calls into question his ability to conduct objective research on Azerbaijan. As Ernest Renan wrote: "Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation" (Renan, "What is A Nation?" p. 145). Kasravi himself claimed that historical materials on the origins of the Azerbaijanis in Iran were often manipulated to suit interested parties' needs in the political polemics raging in the area. (See Ahmed Kasravi, al-'Irfan, Tishrin I, 1922, pp. 121-123, Evan Siegal translation).

Brenda Shaffer. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity.

Now, how can this person be a reliable reference? He was the one who advocated complete assimilation of Azeri people and other ethnic minorities of Iran, and this policy was implemented by shahs’s regime and its successors. Grandmaster 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting quote:

Iranian reactions to the "one Azerbaijan" campaign were primarily restatements of views reaching all the way back to Kasravi: The territory of present-day Azerbaijan has been historically different from Albania and Arran; the name Azerbaijan for the land north of the Araxes was given by the Ottoman invaders and taken over by the Bolsheviks; the language spoken in Azerbaijan is not the original language of the Iranian population; Azerbaijan has always been part and parcel of Iranian national movements; and talk about the problem of Azerbaijan is merely a product of imperialist intrigues.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Grandmaster 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


In all of those they are talking about IRANIAN AZERBAIJAN! Especially your Russian sources!


First quote:
  • Some scholars (Yadrintsev, Kharuzin, Shantr) suggested to change the terminology of some Turko-Tatar people, who somatically don’t have much in common with Turks, for instance, to call Aderbaijani Tatars (Iranians by type) Aderbaijans, Altaic Tatars (rather Finnish, than Turks) – Altaiyans, etc, but for the moment it has not been accepted, especially considering that due to historical-ethnic destiny of the Turkic tribe the language is its main racial feature, otherwise Osman Turks, part of Turkmens and many other peoples would have to be excluded from it as well. [8]

--No one is saying that Azari's are not linguistically a Turkic people today, therefore its not surprising for the Russians to call them Tartars. Secondly, thanks for providing more evidence for this article, as this source sepecifically is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan only, there is no other mention of another Azerbaijan. Azeri has everything to do with the country. The only Azeri's at that time were IRANIAN AZERI'S! People to the north were not called Azeri's until the pan-Turkists changed the name.

Your quotes on Kasravi:

--Kasravi's work has been proven by Western scholars too, its not only a "Kasravi theory". Western scholars all have come to the conclusion that the are was Turkified, and historical evidence supported everything Kasravi and now Western scholars are saying about the pre-Turkified Azari's.

Last quote:

Iranian reactions to the "one Azerbaijan" campaign were primarily restatements of views reaching all the way back to Kasravi: The territory of present-day Azerbaijan has been historically different from Albania and Arran; the name Azerbaijan for the land north of the Araxes was given by the Ottoman invaders and taken over by the Bolsheviks; the language spoken in Azerbaijan is not the original language of the Iranian population; Azerbaijan has always been part and parcel of Iranian national movements; and talk about the problem of Azerbaijan is merely a product of imperialist intrigues.

--What does this prove? The only thing it says is that Iranians accept Kasravi's research, nothing less, nothing more.Khosrow II 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

some comments: 1) Brenda Schaffer's book on Kasravi and Iran has been totally discredited in this article: [9]. I do not have time to post all that lengthy article but one look it is clear that there is a lot of false and made-up statements in her book as shown by Prof. Siegel. Her whole book was written with an anti-Iranian agenda and most of her research(do a google search) is on the Iranian nuclear program and she can't even read Kasravi's book. Professor Siegel's review shows many false claims made-up by Schaffer and until those false claims are answered one by one by Schaffer, her book is of no academic value. Note Professor Siegel is a specialist on Iran and Azerbaijan and can read Persian as well as Azerbaijani unlike Shaffer. Prof. Siegel concluded: Brethren and Borders is a highly political book on an emotional subject which needs careful, dispassionate analysis. Its chapters on the historical background is full of inaccuracies. Its chapters on current events and trends include a few interesting observations which don’t appear in the literature, but most of it is readily available elsewhere. 2) Kasravi has been highly praised by Vladimir Minorsky and Roger Savory and Richard Frye for his scholarly work whereas no one really has praised Shaffer's work. That the caucus and Azerbaijan were two historical lands is well known in historiography. All the pre-Islamic sources differentiate the two regions. Virtually almost all post-Islamic sources distinguish the two regions as well and only few sources mention all of the caucus as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Arran.. because a single ruler could have ruled the land and this is a reference to actually a political entity ruling the land and not geographical divisions which always existed. As per the difference between Azerbaijan and Albania, Barthold says: The name Azerbaijan was chosen for Albania for political reasons. So it has nothing to do with Kasravi per se. 3) The Russian source if correct mentions Azerbaijani tatars (Iranian type) and the word Iranian type makes it ambiguous in that it probably means Iranian Azerbaijan. Also we are talking about geographics. In English literature of the time, the people from the Azerbaijan province of Iran were called Tatars as well and then geographical designation (not ethnic designation) was given to the term sometimes as Azerbaijani Tatars to differentiate from Caucasian tatars and other tatars ( a general term sometimes used for all Turkic speakers). Note Tatar here is the ethnic name used by orientalist and the adjective Azerbaijani is just added to designate geography. In Iran at that time, the term used was Turk simply because Azerbaijanis spoke a Turkish language although it has become clear today that the native component in Azerbaijanis outweighs any Turkic component of the Turkification era. Although some ancient sources mention Ajam Azeri and Azeri language, these are reference to the Iranian language of the region. The Russian Encyclopedia for example did not mention any part of the Caucus as Azerbaijan. Also Tadeusz Swietochowski does not disclaim Kasravi's claim but himself adds: 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.. Kasravi was just amongst the first historian to point out the obvious and Barthold did the same as well. Also Kasravi's scholarship is very reputable when Minorsky, Savory, Frye and others quote it. There are academics well known in the field. I am not sure why mentioning the fact that historically Azerbaijan(Atoorpaatekaan of Media) and Caucasian Albania were two different lands should generate debate. Also the fact that the designation Azerbaijani is new does not mean that it is false, since Azerbaijanis are natives of the land and genetically are very close to Armenians, other Iranians, Georgians and other people's of the region. --Ali doostzadeh 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shaffer’s critic Evan Seigal appears to be the same person, who translated Kasravi’s books, mentioned by Shaffer. I’m not going to comment on the book of Shaffer in general, but the particular quote above is absolutely correct and is supported by Swietochowski, who is a very reputable American scholar. They both say that Kasravi was calling for complete assimilation of Azeri people in Iran and eradication of their language. This policy was put into practice by shah’s regime, which is also described in much detail. Swietochowski also says that Kasravi had a strong bias in Azerbaijan issue, I have more quotes from his book.

As for the article in Russian encyclopedia, it is actually about Azeris in the territory of modern republic of Azerbaijan and other areas of Caucasus, the article deals with Russian “Turko-Tatars”, and Azeris are included in the group of Caucasian Tatars. And articles about Caucasian provinces of Russia in the same encyclopedia call Azeris “Azerbaijani Tatars”.

Article about Baku:

Между населением преобладают две народности: — 1) азербайджанские татары, совершенно неправильно называемые персами. Они мусульмане шиитского толка и подражают персианам во многом, но их язык тюрко-татарский.

Translation:

Two people dominate in the population – 1) Azerbaijani Tatars, who are absolutely incorrectly called Persians. They are similar to Persians in many ways (can even be translated “they imitate Persians”), but their language is Turko-Tatar. [10]

In fact, Europeans used to call the whole population of Persia/Iran regardless of ethnicity Persians. Russians were no exception, but when they took the region over, they started differentiate between actual Persians and people of other ethnicities.

Yelezavetpol (Ganja) governance article also says that majority of population are Azerbaijani Tatars. [11] The same with articles about Nakhichevan, Erivan and other locations in Caucasus. So it is clear that Azerbaijani Tatars was a reference to the people of Caucasus, and not Iranian Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the name was protested by many Russian scholars. Who are those “many”? Is there anyone else in addition to Bartold? Grandmaster 05:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Swietochowski, the quote from his book is as follows:

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.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

He says: its northern part was known at times as C. Albania and Arran. Grandmaster 10:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


You are really good at misconstrewing what people are saying. It says the north Part of Azerbaijan. Every region has a northern part. Texas has a northern part, The UAE has a northern part, Antarctica has a northern part. What this is saying is that parts of northern Iranian Azerbaijan were sometimes referred to as Arran or Albania (probably in some maps), referring to the region north of Azerbaijan. You are getting really ridiculous. EVERYTHING HAS A NORTH AND SOUTH, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE. What you are attempting to do is historical revisionism. You are trying to misconstrew simple words to suit your own needs, no matter how you twist things, the truth is still evident. In simple terms, this means the north part of IRANIAN AZERBAIJAN was sometimes groups with the region to the north, Albania/Arran.Khosrow II 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear GM you are attacking the messenger. Prof. Seigel has shown that Shaffer actually forges material and you attack Siegel by saying he translated some of Kasravi's work. So what if he did? As for Kasravi he is quoted by many scholars inlcuding Minorsky, Frye and Savory. These are the top notch scholars in the field. Shaffer on the other hand forges her material and that is why she can't answer the critics of her book. Also it has nothing to do with Kasravi as Barthold confirmed what Kasravi said and the name change was political. So did Rasulzadeh who agrees that Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan are two different historical geographical entities. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica only mentions one Azerbaijan and that is below the Aras river. So if Kasravi repeats the same thing, it does not make his statement false and character assassination of Kasravi won't make a difference on the matter, since each statement of his is independent of others. As per the quote from Tadeuz Swietochowski, it confirms the historical facts. Caucasian Albania/Arran historically was different from Azerbaijan and in the context of the book and that is the point. Also since Azerbaijan is the standard nomenclature for the caucus repulic now, he uses the term freely but clearly mentions historically at times it was different names and the two names are Caucasian Albania in pre-Islamic time and Arran in post-Islamic times. But now it is Azerbaijan and this article deals with the issue of the name change which according to Barthold was political in reason. Caucasian Alabnia and the Median Atropatekan were different entities in historic times. For example Moses of Chosen and Moses Kalankaytuk mention them as seprate entities. As per the term Azerbaijan tatars, many Azerbaijanis from Iran went to Arran/Cacausian Albania during the oil boom and the reference could be to them. Note the term Azerbaijan here is the geographical location and the term Tatar is the ethnic location. Here is the babelfish altavista translation of the arrticle: K s from the pier on the shore of sea is located so NAZ. The black city, where petroleum plants are concentrated. Its name occurred from the thick black smoke, which separates with the heating by the petroleum residue. Before smoke was still more thickly, since not there were convenient adaptations for combusting the remainders. In all in Baku in 1888 it was obtained to 49,5 mln. poods of kerosene and other lamp oils from the oil and 2,5 million poods of the lubricating oils, to production of which and fuel- was used by 173 mln. poods of crude oil. In 1888 are exported by railroad into Batum of lamp oils of 29,5 mln. poods (in 1887 only of 18 millions) and by sea 20 mln. poods; the neftyannykh remainders sea exported in 1888 to 50, and in 1889 of approximately 60 mln. poods. The petroleum industry and trade have the preceding value for b., but furthermore here flourish other branches of trade. Because of convenience in its harbor and the fact that here the central point of Caspian steam navigation, b. is the store-house point of the Transcaucasian and Persian goods, which go in vnutrenniya of province Poccii and partly abroad through the Black sea, cotton, rice, silk, the fault, dry fruits, nut tree, fish, and also Russian dry-goods goods, iron articles and sugar, that go hence into the different cities of Transcaucasia and Persii. Relations with the mouths of the Volga and by Persian ports are very animated. Between the population two national character predominate: - 1) Azerbaijan Tatars, completely incorrectly called by (as) Persians. They the Moslems of Shiite sense imitate to persianam in many respects, but their language Turko-Tatar. They compose the mass of unskilled workers, but between them are numerous merchants and owners of petroleum trades, and 2) the Armenians, in hands of whom the large part of the trade and many petroleum trades. Russians not so there are many as Armenians and Tatars, but it is more than in other cities of Transcaucasia, except Tiflis, and besides not some servicemen and officials, but are owners and used on the petroleum trades, best masterovye, izvoshchiki (last exclusively Molokans). I know the translation is not perfect, but it sas Azerbaijan Tatars (mistakenly called Persians), so these were laborers and workers from Persia working in ports. Relations with the mouths of the Volga and by Persian ports are very animated. Note the site has also a map: [12] as well and note it the name tatar is mentioned as an ethnicity again and not Azerbaijani: the southern part of lenkoranskogo u. live taty - people of Iranian tribe, Shiite sect. Armenians deal with agriculture and horticulture in Shemakha u., and then live in the cities, where in their hands entire trade is concentrated. The mass of the population of province comprise Tatars, Moslem confessions, moreover shiahs it is more than Sunnites. Between them are very developed the robberies, which help the high class of Tatars, beki and agalary, generously allotted by rights in by the earth into prince Vorontsov's namestnichestvo."" So the name Azerbaijani as a name of ethnic group specially above the araexes is a new phenomenon (although more correct in my viewpoint) both in oriental literature (Russian included) and also Middle Eastern literature. --Ali doostzadeh 17:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm affraid you are wrong here, Ali. Azerbaijani Tatars is a reference to the Azeri population in general, not just those who came from Persia. Otherwise how could they be majority of population in all major areas of the modern territory of the Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan? According to the same encyclopedia the same Azerbaijani Tatars were the majority of population in Ganja, Nakhichevan, Erivan, etc. And the same encyclopedia says in the article Turko-Tatars:
Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. Численность их 1168025 д.; около 40 тыс. их в Персии.
Translation:
Azerbaijani tatars, Turks by language, Iranians by race, occupy most of South and South-East Transcaucasia, and almost all of Russian Armenia. Their number is 1168025, and about 40 000 live in Persia.
Now the Persian number is obviously incorrect, but the Russian numbers are correct, because Russia carried out population census and had precise statistics of its population.
The same article says that some Russian scholars suggested calling Azerbaijani Tatars Azerbaijans. Grandmaster 04:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


GM, was that the Russian Encyclopaedia that you got that from? Can I have the source? Its funny, you deny that Azari's are Iranics who speak a Turkic langauge yet the source you are using to try to contradict us says that Azerbaijani's are Turks by langauge and Iranians by race. You cannot have it both ways.Khosrow II 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It always surprised me how confused some people in Iran are. I don’t know if it is a result of state propaganda or something else. There are so many people there that think that if Azerbaijanis have the same racial features as Persians, then they are the same people. They are not, because Azeris speak their own Turkic language, which makes them a completely different ethnicity. Check any reputable encyclopedia and you’ll see that Azeris are included with Turkic and not Iranian people. Even the old Russian Brochauz encyclopedia mentions Azeris as one of “Turko-Tatar” people. So while Azeris have a lot in common with Persian people, they are a distinct ethnicity on their own right, and it is a well known fact in scientific world. Grandmaster 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it always surprises me how you cant or dont want to see whats right in from of you. The very same source you used says:Azerbaijani tatars, Turks by language,Iranians by race. How it is impossible for you to urderstand this is amazing to me.Khosrow II 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
People can be of different race, but the ethnicity is defined by language, and not race. As you may know, Turkic people belong to different races, but have one feature that unites them into a certain group: language. That’s why racially different Anatolian Turks and Azeris belong to the same ethnic group as Kazakh and Uygur people. Grandmaster 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
stop making up lies and stop believing lies. LANGUAGE DOES NOT DEFINE ETHNICITY, it defines linguistic group. For example, Hazaras speak Persian, yet they are of Mongolian origion, and ARE NOT IRANIC. Read the Wiki article on them. Only Turkish historians use langauge to define ethnicity because they have nothing else to use. DNA evidence has already proven them wrong, so they are holding on to the last shred that they have. Stop making up things just because you dont want to believe the truth. I cannot believe that you just said langauge defines ethnicity, well, then, I must be Anglo-Saxon!Khosrow II 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Khazaras are Iranian people. Azeris are Turkic people. Read Britannica article, it says that Azeris are Turkic people, and the definition is based on the language. Grandmaster 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, check any encyclopaedia, it will tell you that Hazaras are a Mongolic people who speak an Iranic language, just like the Wiki article itself does. Yes, Azeri's are Turks only by language, but not ethnically. Nowhere does Britannic say that Azeri's are ethnic Turks, it just says they are Turkic, just like the Turks from Turkey, who arent ethnically Turkic either.Khosrow II 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear GM I would like to see the online link for the Encyclopedia and also the date as well , so I can do a google altavista translation. The last quote we discussed talked about people working multi-national ports and people working between Persian ports and Volga and that is why it was important to have the translation of the whole paragraph. Note that in Russian censuses, sometimes they have mentioned Persians (not Tats, Talysh) and these Persians are indeed really Azerbaijanis of Iran who were mistakenly called Persians whereas they were Azerbaijani speakers from Iran(sometimes called Azerbaijan Tatars) according to sources. During the oil boom, large number of Iranian Azerbaijanis emigrated to the Caucas republic and I think this is one reason Shi'ites are majority now. Now if you can give link to the new source it would be illuminating since I cut & pasted the statement and I saw only a link to a discussion form. The main point is that historically Caucasian Albania was different from the republic of Azerbaijan and there should be an article that deals with the name. Although I personally do believe both Caucasian Albanians and Caucasian Azerbaijanis and also Iranian Azerbaijans have Iranian heritage as well and I do believe if there are statements that some people find offensive, it should be removed. Also I believe Iranian and Azerbaijani (from the republic) should work together in improving wikipedia enteries where joint heritage is there. This was shown on some others article where there was good concensus reached. The main point of the article is just the difference between Azerbaijan and Albania and why the name change. On issues like shared heritage (even Zoroastrianism), the republic of Azerbaijan has an obligation to say these were Iranians and not Turkish. But that is another issue. Another source I have read was that the name was changed to Azerbaijan in order so that Russians do not reconquer the area and they wanted to be close to Iran although Iran was at chaos at the time. I even brought a quote from Rasulzadeh that the name change was political and you already know that there was a barthold quote. --Ali doostzadeh 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ali, the quote is from the article Turco-Tatars from Brockhauz and Yefron Encyclopedia, I provided the link in my first quote from that article. Here it is again: [13]
Also, I never heard of “Russian encyclopedia”, the only reputable encyclopedia of pre-Soviet Russia was the one I quote. As for the Azerbaijani Tatars, living in Baku, it is clearly a reference to the local Azeri people and not only those who came from Iran. The article says that Azerbaijani Tatars and Armenians prevail in population. There was no such massive immigration from Iran to make Iranian Azeris the majority of Muslim population in Baku, plus Iranian citizens did not own any lands in Baku, as they were not Russian citizens. Also, there were no Persian immigrants in the population of Ganja, Nakhichevan, Erivan, Karabakh, etc, and the majority of population there were also Azerbaijani Tatars. And the article Turco-Tatars clearly says that Azerbaijani Tatars lived both in Russia and Persia, being the largest ethnicity of South Caucasus. Plus, the same article says that some Russian scholars suggested calling Azerbaijani Tatars Azerbaijans. The above information clearly shows that the current ethnonym existed in a different form at least in imperial Russia and the change of ethnonym was suggested by Russian scholars back then. This completely disproves Khosrow’s claims. And it was no surprise that when people called Azerbaijani Tatars by Russians decided to create their own state, they chose the name related to the name they were known by in the Russian empire. Also I received no answer who were those many Russian scholars, protesting the name? One is not many.
Now with regard to this article, I think we can resolve the dispute to mutual satisfaction. In my opinion, Khoikhoi’s suggestion makes sense. We can change the article title to something like History of the name Azerbaijan, or something like that. And the article should be cleaned of any unsourced and POV claims, in its current form in is very offensive and anti-Azerbaijani. We have a positive experience of resolving disputes in the past, I’m sure we can resolve the problem with this one as well, if both sides demonstrate good will. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear GM, the first thing we need is a date for the link. Since some of the links are obviously after 1918, case in point: [c]. I did a translation and the statement according to the Altavista translator is: Tatars aderbaydzhanskiye, Turks on the language, on the race Iranians, occupy the large part of south and SE. Transcaucasia, almost entire Russian Armenia. Number of their 1168025 d.; about 40 thousand of them in Persii.. Now does the term aderbayzhansike mean Azarbaijani in Russian? (just wondering). Somehow the whole sentence seems wrong since how could there be 40 thousand in Persia? and 1 million Caucus. It makes me suspect that there was some typos in the sentence. Also would you have the link for the article on the Caucus and Azerbaijan? The article also says: Some scientists (Yadrintsev, Kharuzin, Shantr) proposed to modify the terminology of some T.- Tatar national character, which in somatologicheskom sense little have general with the Turks, after naming, for example, the aderbaydzhanskikh Tatars (according to the type - Iranians) aderbaydzhanami, the Altai Tatars (faster Finns, than Turks... Note this is change in terminology by Russian scholars and does not suggest at all that the people in the caucus called themselves Azerbaijanis. Even if some Russian scholars proposed to use the name Azerbaijani Tatar to differentiate from what they called other tatars, this still suggest that the ethnic name is very new and was not self identification as the Russian themselves proposed the name change. Also this does not show that the area of the caucus was called Azerbaijan during Russian times as well, since the above links suggest that in the caucus, there was no region called Azerbaijan and perhaps due to the language affinity between Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasian Azerbaijani Turkic speakers, the term Azerbaijani Tatar started to gain favor since the bulk of the Caucasian tatars spoke the same language. I have the Golestan-Turkmenchay treaty in Persian and there is no mention of Azerbaijan being partitioned as some historians in the caucasian republic of Azerbaijan currently and wrongly suggest. What they should write is that territory of Iran was annexed. Also what is the date of your source? I think any POV should be removed if it is not factual, but there is no doubt that there is heavy historical revisionism in the Azerbaijani republic as well as some other USSR states, else how can one explain the writings of the embassy where Zoroastrianism is called Turkish?? Also it is true that large number of Azerbaijanis from iran moved into the Caucus in the Qajar era (just like large number of Armenians moved after 1915).. The Russian Encyclopedia I am referring to is Entisklopedicheskii slovar published around 1890. As per name change, I have nothing against a name change that no everyone finds acceptable. I would though change it to History of the name Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani or History of the ethnonym and geographical name Azerbaijan and then a more comprehensive article can be written. Since we are talking both geographical name and ethnic name. --Ali doostzadeh 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You are referring to the same encyclopedic dictionary that I refer to. Азербайджанский means Azerbaijani, and this encyclopedia calls Azerbaijanis "Azerbaijani Tatars". The statistics for Persia are wrong, as the article about Persia says that the government of Persia does not conduct population censuses. The statistics for Russia are based on the results of the official population census, so I don’t think it even counted Persian citizens. Brockhaus and Yefron Encyclopedic Dictionary was published in 86 volumes back in 1890—1907, and is available online at the Russian website that I quoted. As a matter of fact, this encyclopedia refers to Azeris as Azerbaijani Tatars, and says that some Russian scholars think that they should be called not Azerbaijani Tatars, but Azerbaijans. As for the article about Azerbaijan, it indeed refers to the province of Persia. See this article called Azerbeijan: [14]
As you can see, while the article Azerbeijan in this Russian encyclopedia is about the Persian province, the Azeri people are called Azerbaijani Tatars. So the ethnonym predated the name of the country. Somehow the sources you took your quotes from omitted certain facts. As for the name of the article, I think we should deal with the ethnonym in the article about Azerbaijani people, and this one should be mostly about the history of the geographic name of Azerbaijan, while the ethnonym could be briefly mentioned as well. What do you think?
As for revisionism, there’s certain element of that in Iran as well, I mean all the attempts to present Azeris as Iranian people, etc. I think we should stick to verifiable facts only, without any POV interpretations, or such POVs should be properly attributed. No unsourced information should be included, and preference should be given to third party sources wherever possible. Grandmaster 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and information. I think there is two issues here: geography and ethnonym. As it says in the babelfish translator from the link you provided: or Aderbeydzhan - fiery earth; on the the pel'viyskom Of atrup in tk in n, in the the Armenian Of aderbadek in n, the very northwestern province and the richest commercial and industrial region Of persii, borders in the south by Persian Kurdistan (province Of ardilan) and Iraq -Adjmi (mussel), in the West with Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish Armenia, on the north on Russian Armenia (South Transcaucasia), from which it is isolated. So it refers to the caucus as Caucasian Armenia and Azerbaijan is the NW Persia. So this same link also confirms that the area was not called Azerbaijan at the time.[15]. So this actually shows the area of the caucus was transcaucasian Armenia (which is also a wrong name

But as per the sentence: Tatars aderbaydzhanskiye, Turks on the language, on the race Iranians, occupy the large part of south and SE. Transcaucasia, almost entire Russian Armenia. Number of their 1168025 d.; about 40 thousand of them in Persii.''. Even if the author did not have access to such a census from from Iran (actually there exist one from 1880 from Russian and British sources), he would have known that the population of Turkish speaking Iranians is much higher than 40 thousand.

As you said the 40,000 in Persian is wrong, but I am wondering if the sentence has been garbled up due to misprint. If the 40,000 in Persia is a misprint, then the sentence is suspect for other misprints. It is not clear if this is the exact reproduction or a slightly edited re-edited reproduction? In terms of geography though, it shows that Khosrow's opinion is correct and in terms of ethno-name, assuming the sentence is correct, it shows that the Russian scholars started adopting the term Aderbaijani Tatars for the Turkic speaking people of Caucas. I believe the reason they adoped this ethno-name is due to the fact that either the language spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan is the same as Caucus or two there was a large number of Iranian immigrants to the Caucus when the Russians took over and since many of these people were from iranian Azerbaijan, the ethnonym Azerbaijani Tatar started to take root amongst Russians. But this definitely was not the name that the group used for itself. I would assume their nationality was asked , they would call themselves Muslims and Iranians even though they were separated from Iran and their language Turki. Also a large number of Iranians (from Iran proper I mean) did migrate to the Caucus during the oil boom. I think to get more information we need to look at other enteries like Caucasia, Irevan, Baku, Ganjah and etc and to see the term used to describe the population. In the end I think we are confusing two issues here: Geographical naming and ethnonym. Assuming that the sentence is not a misprint, it seems like the Russians started using the term Aderbaijani Tatar for Turkic speaking Caucasians and then the ethnic group itself tookup that name and in the end they declared their republic in 1918.
Also I need to make a correction, the Iranian government does not say that Azerbaijans are Turkicized Iranians (which seems correct historically as you can see the 1890 russian encyclopedia mentions that they are Persian by culture and Iranian race and only Turkic by language). Indeed the Iranian government uses the term Azerbaijani Turks and Azerbaijanis. But it seems the former USSR republic have big issues when it comes to historical revisionism if they call Zoroastrianism as a Turkish religion. Also I agree with changing the name in order to not be offensive to anyone. Probably history of the name Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani or something where we can discuss both the geography and also when the ethnonym Azerbaijan was adopted. --Ali doostzadeh 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from the concise version of the same encyclopedia, which was published a few years later. It has a short article on Azerbaijani Tatars, which says that they live in Yelizavetpol, Baku, Erivan and Tiflis governorates, and their number is 1139 thousand. It also says that they are fanatical and prone to robbery. [16] This encyclopedia is sometimes funny to read, it is full of racist remarks towards other ethnicities (including Persians, btw), but that was typical for the time. But anyway, I think it is beyond any doubt that this particular source referred to Azeris as Azerbaijani Tatars, and it was the most authoritative Russian encyclopedia for its time.

I already quoted the article for Ganja, but see also the article for Erivan:

Население Э. (17345 мужчин и 11688 женщин) слагается из русских — 2 %, армян — 48 % и адербейджанских татар — 49 %; остальные — грузины, евреи и проч.

The population of Erivan (17345 males and 11688 females) consists of Russians – 2%, Armenians – 48%, and Aderbeijan Tatars – 49%, the rest – Georgians, Jews, etc. [17]

The same with Nakhichevan, the article on this region says that Aderbeijan Tatars were the majority of population - 56,95%. [18]

Now, as for the name of the country, I think we can say that the area north of Araks was called Azerbaijan at certain times, specifically when both north and south had the same ruler. An example is the state of Atabeys of Azerbaijan, which had its capital in Nakhichevan, but was called the state of Atabeys of Azerbaijan (Atabakan-e Adarbayjan). Also I agree that Azeri people themselves did not call themselves Azerbaijanis before the Russian rule, even now the elder people, when they want to know someone’s ethnicity, ask if he's Muslim. For them Muslim and Azeri is the same thing. Religious feelings dominated over nationalism at that time. So I suggest we move the article now to the History of the name Azerbaijan. As for ethnonym, let’s see how article develops, if the issue takes prominent space in it, we’ll add it to the title, but I personally think that the ethnonym should be discussed in more detail in the Azerbaijani people article. Grandmaster 05:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Atabakan-e Azarbaijan does not mean that their whole area of rule was called Azarbaijan. Just that Azarbaijan was their biggest province. Much like Atabakan-Lorestan or Atabaketaan-Kerman or Atabekan-Fars. I still haven't figured out if the Russian Encyclopedia was reprinted with some minor editions or not. I email a friend of mine who knows Russian and he said to me that: I have checked several sites in Russian which have Brokgauz and Eufron Encylopedia. None of the versions contained any article regarding Azerbaijani Tatars. Indeed his version on the same biased racist source said: Масса населения губернии составляют татары, мусульманского исповедания, причем шиитов более, чем суннитов. Между ними очень развиты разбои, которым помогают высшее сословие татар, беки и агалары, щедро наделенные правами в землями в наместничество князя Воронцова.. Note the word Azerbaijani Tatar is absent and just the word Tatar is present. Can you check with the actual site for the reprint and version? Is it the exact replica or has there been minor edits? The only place he found Azerbaijani Tatar was in reference to workers working in ports from Volga to Persia (the Baku entery I believe) and these were the people mistaken for Persians and could easily be migrant workers. So I think there needs to be a check with the actual unedited original version. But it seems the Encyclopedia considers the territory of the modern caucus as transcaucasian Armenia and not Azerbaijan. (this can be checked as well with the original version). That is I think Khosrow's point, that the name Azerbaijand did not denote that area and the ethnonym Azerbaijani is relatively new. Either way there are a good amount of sources that mention the area as Georgia, Armenia..but the main name in history for that region has been Caucasian Albania,Arran/Sherwan. I have no problem with a name change that is not offensive to anyone, but since Khosrow created this entery, I will discuss it with him. --Ali doostzadeh 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not appear to be a misprint, the article mentions Azerbaijani Tatars within the group of Caucasian Tatars. Also have you checked the articles for Ganja, Erivan, Nakhichevan, etc? Each one of them mentions Azerbaijani Tatars as the majority of population. And check this link to concise Brochauz, it has a short article on Azerbaijani Tatars. Grandmaster 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I’m surprised that your friend did not find any reference to Azerbaijani Tatars. I provided so many links to various articles from that encyclopedia, each one of them mentions Azerbaijani or Aderbeijani Tatars. Please forward those links to him. And the article you quoted also refers to Azerbaijani Tatars as the major ethnicity of Baku. Of course they could not be migrants from Persia, because in that case the number of migrant would have exceeded the number of Russian citizens. Grandmaster 11:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It was just there is disrepency between the two wordins as one mentions Azerbaijani tatars and the other mentions tatars. The link was from another website, I am wondering if there is re-edition of text with minor edits. Also it is true that large number of Azerbaijanis from Iran migrated to Baku during the Russian controlled era to work in the ports. For example both Sabir and Akhoundzadeh are two emigrants. Why else would the Encyclopedia confuse Persians with Azerbaijan Tatars? And why would Azerbaijan be considered below the Aras river? I think we need to be sure the source is not a reprint with minor editions.

Here is the long link for the disrepency: [[19]]

As you can see this one mentions tatar and the other site mentions Azerbaijani Tatar. Something seems wrong here..--Ali doostzadeh 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Also as per immigrants the population of Baku was not large then, so it is reasonable to think a large portion of the population were immigrants from Iranian Azerbaijan. The reason I make this conjecture is that in the Encyclopedia Azerbaijan is called below the Aras river also they are mistaken for Persians whereas Persia was separate territory then. Although perhaps due to similar language, the term Azerbaijani tatar was used by the scholars for above the Aras river. --Ali doostzadeh 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article first mentions Azerbaijani Tatars, and later in the text calls them simply Tatars, maybe just to save printing space. And population of Baku at the time of oil boom sharply increased from 30 000 to more than 200 000. The biggest ethnic group according to Brochauz were Azerbaijani Tatars. Moreover, many of them owned lands and oil wells, something Iranian immigrants could not do. Grandmaster 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense that there is printing space just for one word azerbaijani. Specially on a webpage. I think there is a disrepency between two different print editions. I still believe that the term Azerbaijan Tatar in the Baku article is actually referring to the large number of immigrants who came from Iranian Azerbaijan. That is why they are mistaken to be Persians and also that is why Azerbaijan in this Encyclopedia is considered below Aras.. But I will have to do more checking to see if there are two print editions or because of the similarity of language between iranian Azerbaijan and the caucus, did the Russians chose this name. It would be good to have the article turko-tatar from that site as well. Here is another site that also does not have the term Azerbaijani when it comes to that racist statement. [20] --Ali doostzadeh 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is another site also that has the full encyclopedia [21] and does not use Aderbaijani when it comes to that misguided statement. I think actually this is the correct version. --Ali doostzadeh 12:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reference is the same article from Brochauz. It shows that it is not a printing mistake, the article indeed says that Azerbaijani Tatars along with Armenians are the most numerous ethnicities in Baku. And don’t forget that the online edition is the replica of the print edition, which tended to save space by abbreviating words, sometimes simply using the capital letter of the repeated word. And also, as I said, not only the article on Baku, but articles on all other locations in the territory of modern Azerbaijan mention Azerbaijani Tatars as majority of population. Grandmaster 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Both of your new links provide exactly the same text: Между населением преобладают две народности: - 1) азербайджанские татары, совершенно неправильно называемые персами. Они мусульмане шиитского толка и подражают персам во многом, но их язык тюрко-татарский. Они составляют массу чернорабочих, но между ними немало купцов и владельцев нефтяных промыслов [22] Grandmaster 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here’s the link to the book by Vasily Velichko, Russian journalist and writer. [23] This person was the editor of the largest newspaper of Caucasus, called “Kavkaz”. He has a whole chapter in his book about Caucasian people, called "Azerbaijani Tatars". He also sometimes calls them Azerbaijanis in the text. This book was published before the Russian revolution. Grandmaster 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually in this link [[24]] is there an article for Azerbaian Tatars or even the Turco-Tatars. I don't believe this site, which is a main site actually deletes words. I still think the azerbaijan Tatars in Baku are referencing migrants from Iran because Azerbaijan in the same Encyclopedia is below the Aras river. --Ali doostzadeh 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How could Iranian immigrants be the majority of population in Baku? How could they own lands and oil wells? And also, how about population of Ganja, Erivan, Nakhichevan, Karabakh, Azerbaijani Tatars were also majority in those regions, and there was no immigration from Iran to those areas, on the contrary, many Muslim people emigrated to Iran after the Russian conquest. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This link [25] is actually a mirror of the same website as the one I took my quotes from. [26] It just offers less articles than the other one, but they both belong to the library of the Vologda city in Russia. [27] Your link does not even have an article on Azerbaijan, it provides just some selected articles from Brokhaus.
Brokhaus also has an article on Turks: [28]
It says:
В гео- и этнографическом отношении Т. делят на следующие 3 группы.
III. Западную, в которую входят: туркоманы или туркмены (см.); кавказские татары (см. Т. татары); Т. иранского типа — адербейджаны персидские и кавказские; Т. средиземного типа — османы (см. Турки) и крымские татары (см. Т.-татары).
My translation:
Turks are divided into following 3 groups by geo- and ethnographic characteristics:
III. Western, which includes: Turcomans or Turkmens (see); Caucasus Tatars (see Turko-Tatars); Iranian type Turks – Persian and Caucasian Aderbeijans; Mediterranean type Turks – Osmans (See Turks) and Crimean Tatars (see Turko-Tatars). Grandmaster 06:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right. It seems the name Aderbaijani-Tatar was started to be in use by Russian scholars before 1918. Although the name Azerbaijan was not used for the caucus till 1918 during Russian era. BTW I still believe we should change the name of the article to history of naming of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan, so it is not offensive to anyone. --Ali doostzadeh 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the article to a more neutral title. I will also make some edits to it, and you tell me what you think. I think what we should do is to replace the “controversy” section in Azerbaijani people article with the information on the history of ethnonym, which appears to first emerge in various forms in the Russian empire. I will include that information here first. Grandmaster 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree.. I think this is a becoming a good article and hopefully it will be accurate from all aspects without nationalistic biased so that everyone can use it.. In the end there is nothing better than the truth. The stuff about Nizami and Babak and etc.. should be removed in my opinion. The article should concentrate on these topics: 1)root of the word Azerbaijan 2) historical name of Azerbaijan both Iran and the Arranian Caucus 3) The ethnonym Azeri in the old days (like Azeri language) and also the ethnonym Azerbaijan now. In this way we can have an article that actually teaches correct information and it is useful for everyone. --Ali doostzadeh 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree. We should keep only factually accurate and verifiable info without any POV interpretations. I suggest we completely remove the section called "Confusion and Historical Revisionism". It is POV and does not add much to the article. Grandmaster 06:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Brokhauz article on Azerbaijan says that it borders Russian province of Tashil to the east. Do you have any idea what Tashil could be? Is it Talysh or something else? Grandmaster 07:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe another site has the correct pronounciation? But it seems Talysh is correct since Azarbaijan province borders Gilan and also some Talysh areas of the republic of Azerbaijan. [29]. --Ali doostzadeh 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should concentrate on the name of Azerbaijan and ethnonym Azerbaijan.. historical revisionism if necessary should be another article. But about the article on Azerbaijan, is this the one you are referring to: [30]. It says Azerbaijan is the NW province of Persia bordering the provinces of Ardalan and 'araq-e-Ajam and in the west it borders Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish Armenia and on the North it borders Russian Armenia (Southern Transcaucasia). Perhaps you mean another article? --Ali doostzadeh 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is that article. It also says: на востоке с русской областью Ташил и персидской провинции Гилан у Каспийского моря ([it borders] Russian province of Tashil to the east and Persian province of Gilan near the Caspian sea). I think Tashil is corrupted Talysh. Grandmaster 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep you seem right..[[31]]. The highest point in Iran (Azarbaijan-e-Sharghi province) seems to border some of the Talysh regions. --Ali doostzadeh 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kasravi again

Back to Kasravi again, his bias towards Azerbaijan is noted not only by Shaffer, but also by Tadeusz Swietochowski, to whom this article refers:

The rebels, who made clear their partiality for the republican form of government, gave a new name to the province, Azadistan (Land of Freedom). The choice of the name was interpreted not only as a rebuff to Teheran but also as a rebuff to the Baku regime and a way of keeping a safe distance from it. Kasravi explained the origin of this name, not without a characteristic tone of bias:

“After the break up of the Russian empire, there emerged in Baku and its environs a small Turkic-speaking Caucasian republic which called itself the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the old books, the name of this region was "Arran," but the name has long fallen into disuse. The hope and ambition of that republic was to unite one day with Azerbaijan and for this reason it chose the name of Azerbaijan for itself and its territory. The (Iranian) Azerbaijanis who had no desire for such unification, nor a wish to turn away from Iran, felt much annoyed with that appropriation of the name. But as this name had become accepted, many would say: it would be better if we assumed a different name for our province. In such a manner the name "Azadistan" was coined.”

Another Iranian Azerbaijani author, Ali Azari, offers a simpler explanation for the name Azadistan: it commemorated the sacrifices that Azerbaijan had suffered in the struggles during the Constitutional Revolution.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

So this person appears to be extremely nationalistic, and while quoting him the article should also mention that scholars find his opinion to be biased. Grandmaster 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also a shame that none of the articles about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people mentions attempts of Persianization of Azeri people by Reza shah. If we talk about revisionism in Azerbaijan and Turkey, why nothing is said about certain events in Iranian history? Quote from the same book:

The steps that the Teheran regime took in the 1930s with the aim of Persianization of the Azeris and other minorities appeared to take a leaf from the writings of the reformist-minded intellectuals in the previous decade. In the quest of imposing national homogeneity on the country where half of the population consisted of ethnic minorities, the Pahlavi regime issued in quick succession bans on the use of Azeri on the premises of schools, in theatrical performances, religious ceremonies, and, finally, in the publication of books. Azeri was reduced to the status of a language that only could be spoken and hardly ever written. As the Persianization campaign gained momentum, it drew inspiration from the revivalist spirit of Zoroastrian national glories. There followed even more invasive official practices, such as changing Turkic-sounding geographic names and interference with giving children names other than Persian ones. Grandmaster 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually both republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey have done much worst to their minorities (Kurds, Talysh, Armenians..) whereas in Iran the proponents of Persianizations were mainly Azerbaijanis themselves (Kasravi, Khiyabai, Afshar, Arrani, Taqizadeh..). Either way the modern era nationalism in all three countries are unfortunate. But as your quote again suggests the geographical name of the caucus was not historically Azerbaijan. I think that is the main point of the article and the name change was political. --Ali doostzadeh 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another quote from the same source:
For all the built-in pitfalls in Russian administrative reforms, it was also apparent that these reforms had enhanced the internal consolidation of Azerbaijan in at least two important respects: the dismantling of the khanates weakened deeply rooted local particularisms, and the formation of the two gubermias of Eastern Transcaucasia resulted in a territorial block that the "Shirvanis" or "Arranis" would regard as the core of their homeland. Even the term Azerbaijan, although seldom used for the territory north of Araxes, began to appear in the works of European scholars or journalists. Administrative integration was in turn reinforced by economic and social changes that came, albeit at a slower pace, in the wake of the conquest.
As you can see, the term Azerbaijan was used for the territory north of Araks, albeit seldom. Grandmaster 10:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Caucasian Albania has been called Georgia, Armenia and sometimes Azerbaijan but these are very few sources as you mentioned and usually contains part and not whole territory of modern republic of Azerbaijan. For example the EB 1911 and Russian Encyclopedia both mention it below the Aras river. --Ali doostzadeh 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don’t insist that it was always called Azerbaijan, neither does Swietochowski. He says that the name Azerbaijan was seldom used for that area, and I think we can agree on that. For the most part it was known under the names of Albania, then Arran, and then Arran was used only for the area between Kura and Araks, and this territory was known as Arran and Shirvan, and then Russia made it two governorates: Yelizavetpol and Baku. But the point is that Azerbaijan also was used sometimes to denote this area, which should be mentioned in the article. Grandmaster 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course any sourced information should be mentioned. The area as I mentioned is seldomly called Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia mainly when a single ruler from these states extended its territory over it. In pre-Islamic times though I haven't seen any source mentioning Caucasian Albania as part of Azerbaijan. But in post Islamic times, there is some sources and one of them says:I have counted Armenia, Azerbaijan and Arran as one territory since they are ruled by a single ruler.--Ali doostzadeh 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I also think that the name Azerbaijan was sometimes applied to north of Araks in Islamic times. But in any case, I think that we should change the wording of the article to say that the name Azerbaijan was seldom used for the area north of Araks, refering to professor Swietochowski. Grandmaster 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure we should definitely look at all possibilities. Do you have reference from which historical text?
We can refer to Swietochowski, as we already have done before. He is a reputable US scholar. Grandmaster 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I removed the following line:

Although many Russian scholars protested against changing the name from Arran to Azerbaijan, citing that the name change was politically motivated, the Bolsheviks, who had taken power in Russia, re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union.

First of all, there was only one Russian scholar, who did not protest, but thought that Arran would be a more appropriate name for the country. So we cannot say that many Russian scholars protested. Second, why Bolsheviks should have changed the name of the country they conquered? They did not do anything like that in any other occupied state, they just added words Soviet Socialist to the names of occupied territories. So this claim is ridiculous. Grandmaster 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, your edits were ridiculous, so I reverted. I kept the name change for the article and I also kept your segment on Azerbaijani people, but the rest of it is fine the way it is. I will also be taking about the part about historical revisionism by the state of the R. of Azerbaijan, because me and Ali are going to focus another article on that.Khosrow II 14:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ali. I think it is time for us to decide. Either we work on the article together, discussing edits and removing any POVs from the article, or we leave the article to POV warriors like Khosrow, and it becomes a POV battleground. I don’t find his behavior to be acceptable at all, he simply removed all my edits, which were well referenced, without any valid explanation, and restored all the POV interpretations he included in the article. It cannot go on like this, we have a positive experience in resolving disputes in the past, and I expected this article to be the one that provides only factual and well-sourced information for readers. However, it appears that some people see this article as just an opportunity to spread anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. I think we should not let such people prevail. Grandmaster 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnonym

I completely rewrote this section and added some of the references we’ve been discussing.

Here’s another interesting document, called Alphabetical list of people, living in the Russian empire, published in 1895 by the Russian government (Алфавитный список народов, обитающих в Российской Империи. СПб., 1895). [32]

Most of the Turkic people included as Tatars, and among them:

4) Кавказские или Адербейджанские татары - магометане частью шиитского, частью суннитского толка - губернии Бакинская, Эриванская, Елизаветпольская, Тифлисская, Дербентский округ Дагестанской области и Закатальский округ - 1,139,659 (1886);

Translation:

4) Caucasus or Aderbeijani Tatars – partially Shia and partially Sunni Mohammedans, Baku, Erivan, Yelizavetpol, Tiflis governorates, Derbent district of Dagestan oblast and Zakatala district - 1,139,659 (1886);

This is an authoritative website, which belongs to the department of demographic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and it even provides a scan of the document.

Also I found a Western source using the term Azerbaijani Tatars in 1901:

It does not, of course, follow that such tribes may not be mainly Iranian in blood, as the Turkish-speaking Azerbaijani Tatars have been shown to be, but the persistence of foreign languages among tribal communities is not a factor to be neglected.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland [33] Grandmaster 09:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This last source seems to be referring to Azerbaijanis of Iran. Also this source confirms your viewpoint that the actual ethnonym was adopted during the USSR era[34]. Good work btw. --Ali doostzadeh 11:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the ethnonym Azerbaijani was officially accepted in the 1930s, but before that it was used at least in Russian empire in the form of Azerbaijani/Aderbeijani Tatars and Aderbeijans. It is hard to tell whether the British source refers to Iranian or Russian Azeris, as the word Tatar was mainly used in Russia. I don’t have a full access to that source to pass my final judgment, therefore I will not include it in the article. What do you think of the current version of the ethnonym section? Is it acceptable? Grandmaster 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That one is talking about Persia not Russia. No work on Persia has been so well illustrated. It is the travel diary of Major Skyes throughout Iran. --Ali doostzadeh 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can thank Grandmaster for finding some old texts which refer to the Azeri's as being Iranians with a Turkic language. Anyway, good research, but are we still talking about whether the term Azerbaijani was used to refer to people in what is not R. of Azerbaijan or whether the term Azerbaijani Tartar was used?Khosrow II 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully when we put all the sources together we can figure it out. Everyone made good points to clear things up and I was suprised that Russian scholars used the term Aderbaijani Tatars just like I am sure GM was suprised that Aderbaijan in the same source is below the aras river. I am very sure as the sources say that the term Azerbaijani was not used as an ethnicity by the people themselves on either side of the Aras river. Also Azerbaijan historically (and also in the Russian sources as well EB) is Iranian Azerbaijan.. but very few (and I stress few) times, some governments would control caucasian Albania(Arran&Sherwan) and the would be referred to as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, But the term Azerbaijani Tatar seems to have started being used in order to distinguish from other tatars(turkic speakers) by Russian sources and they seem to have used the term Caucasian Azerbaijanis and Persian Azerbaijanis, probably choosing the name Azerbaijani due to the fact that the majority Shi'i Turkic speakers where from this province. I think what we need to do is just delve into the sources so the truth becomes evident and actually it does a big favor for everyone since correct information is provided. --Ali doostzadeh 03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. As Mr. Swietochowski said, the term Azerbaijan was seldom used for the area north of Araz. For the most part it was applied to the Iranian province of that name. But it was used from time to time to denote the area to the North as well, especially when both areas had the same governor. As for the ethnonym, I think it was Russians who first used the term Azerbaijani Tatars to distinguish Turks of their Caucasian provinces from other Turkic people of Russia, most of whom they called Tatars. I also think that the reason Russians used the term Azerbaijani was that the majority of Azeris lived in Azerbaijan province of Iran. And I think that one of the reasons for the name “Azerbaijan” being selected for the independent country was that the people who made majority of the population were called Azerbaijani Tatars or Aderbeijans by Russians. It is logical that Azerbaijans or Aderbeijans live in Azerbaijan. But I could not find any source saying so about the name of the country, and since it is my original research, I cannot include it in the article. Grandmaster 09:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt matter what you think was behind the naming of Azerbaijan, what matters are the facts, and I have put in cited facts as to why the name change occured, even from political parties in the Republic, and none of it had to do with history or what the Russians SOMETIMES referred to the Caucasians Turkic speakers.Khosrow II 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khosrow also look at this link: [35]. What we all need to do(You, me, GM..) is just put all sources from everywhere and then hopefully there will be an informative article on the subject. --Ali doostzadeh 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also here is another link: [[36]]. Also GM provided some good links as well. I think what is most important is that the truth never be sacrified for POV.

I suggest we replace the “Controversy” section in Azerbaijani people with the paragraph on ethnonym from this article. It is more neutral and better sourced and has more relevance to that article. What do you think? Grandmaster 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. First, did anyone actually read the Barthold quote in the original source or it is taken from somewhere else? It would be nice to see it in the language of the original. Second, the article says that Khiabani protested the name of Azerbaijan, but do we have any quote from Khiabani himself to attest to that? Swietochowski says that some interpreted the name was a way to keep safe distance from Baku, that Kasravi said Azadistan was chosen in protest, while another source said it was chosen to commemorate the sacrifices Azerbaijan suffered in the struggles. Swietochowski also notes “a characteristic tone of bias” of Kasravi. I think until we have a quote from Khiabani we cannot claim that he took a certain position on this issue, while the quotes from Kasravi leave no doubts about his position. Grandmaster 07:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Barthold source is: Barthold, V.V., Sochineniaa, Tom II, chast I, Moskva, izdatelstvo, Vostochnoi literary, 1963, str. 703. I have found 5 maps and also about 10 Russian scholars who also admit Arran and Azerbaijan were two different territories. As per Kasravi and Azadistan, the information is mentioned by several other authors like Eval Siegal, Iranica, Touraj Atabaki and etc. Kasravi and Khiyabani were generally opponents but they were both against pan-turkists and the Shaikhs revolt against Ottomans in 1918 and their jailing on him was due to their attempted grab of Tabriz. I agree that we should also make this article concentrate on the historical name of Azerbaijan and the ethnonym Azerbaijan. But I'll wait to see what Khosrow says as well and try to persuade him. --Ali doostzadeh 09:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


just a book for later reference

1) Fowkes, Ben, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave , 2002) pg 30: In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Sovier Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan(or Shirwan) and Derbent

--alidoostzadeh 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Try to define & refine what the dispute is about in a clear and concise manner is my advise to the contesting parties. Someone familliar with the above discussion should devise beter sections/subsections. Surprising there was no TOC on this talk page; the discussion is quite lengthy! El_C 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could mediate here. The problem is that we agree in general on the facts, but a certain user tries to include his POV interpretations of the facts, which is not acceptable. Grandmaster 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try, but I need the various components of the dispute presented in a more comprehensible format. El_C 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You just protected a vandalized page. GM is inserting his POV over cited facts. Please atleast protect the correct version of the article.Khosrow II 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
See m:The Wrong Version. —Khoikhoi 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to add the two quotes from the two books I mentioned myself and I am wondering what the problem is..Either way our main concern should be to write a factual article on the historical name of Azerbaijan. It seems from the latest history difference that both Khosrow and Grandmaster deleted some quotes. Even for example it could be mentioned that Caucasian Albania according to some sources is mentioned as part of Georgia and Armenia. There is no doubt that the original Azerbaijan is below the Aras river and the name is of Zoroastrian roots. At the same time, seldomly a local ruler would be known by his greatest land. For example the word Roman Empire and Rome is a good example. Rome was just a city but slowly it became known as the whole empire. So do we consider for example Africa as having the name Rome? it is both correct and incorrect I guess.

Here is what was removed by GM:

Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski writes: -

“ 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.[1] ”

Here is what removed by Khosrow: -- According to professor Tadeusz Swietochowski, "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". According to the same source, the term Azerbaijan was seldom used for the territory north of Araxes. [2] --

Note they are both from the same scholar and so they both deserve to remain on the page without any exception whatsover. So to favor one quote over another does not make sence and actually they are both correct in my opinion.

Also I agree there is some POV here. For example this one from Khosrow : Although many Russian scholars protested against changing the name from Arran to Azerbaijan, citing that the name change was politically motivated. Actually Khosrow jan, Russian scholars did not protest. They just mentioned that Arran and Azerbaijan are historically different and some of them said the name change was politically motivated( I have the name of at least 5 Russian scholars with relavent quotes). But to protest in Stalinstic era means death.

Also here is another difference: Khosrow: Historically the turkic speakers of Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasus called themselves or were referred to by others as Turks and religious identification prevailed over ethnic identification. GM: Historically the Turkic people of Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasus called themselves or were referred to by others as Turks and religious identification prevailed over ethnic identification.

Now this gets into the debate of the whole Azeri Iranian vs Azeri Turk etc.. which has been done many times. I would go with Turkic speaker simply because many Azerbaijanis consider themselves Iranian ethnicity with Turkic language (Even the Russian Encyclopedia points this out). And we all 100% agree that Azerbaijanis are Turkic speakers. So lets leave the disagreement part out.

Now Khosrow and GM should compromise on the begining statement and I think that should end the problem. If they can not Khoikhoi and me can help. I would say there is some controversy, but we should mention by whom. It is mainly Iranian scholars and Iranian nationalists (perhaps one day Iranian government but right now that is not the case). Has the issue caused confusion? Confusion for whom? Scholars know their history well and could differentiate between caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan. How about for lay people? Well we can say many people are not aware that there is difference between Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania in histo-geoghraphical references. --alidoostzadeh 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali, you are mistaken, nothing was removed, they were just placed in different places (moved around). Also, Im sorry I had forgotten to add the two quotes you recommended earlier, I have been busy.Khosrow II 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Well here is the last edit of yours: [37] and here is the last edit of GM: [38].
Now you can see both of the quotes I mentioned were removed by both of you. Ironically they were from the same scholar. The solution is of course that both statements are to remain. GM removed the quote from Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski and also you did the same. GM removed the source Historical Background Vol. 3, Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 02-28-1996 and you removed the source: Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN 0231070683 --alidoostzadeh 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What is disputed about what either Prof. Swietochowski or the Colliers Encyclopedia say, and how are these related, if at all? I gotta start somewhere! El_C 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure.. But the article from Colliers Encyclopedia is also written by Prof. Swietochowski. I am not sure why both readers removed a quote from the same professor. The other dispute is probably the first two sentences and few minor things. --alidoostzadeh 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The plot thickens! Stick around, Ali, you're needed here. El_C 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that I provided a full quote from the book by professor Swietochowski, called Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN 0231070683. The quote that was originally included in the article is a shortened version of the same paragraph, taken from a short article, available online here: [39] I think we should go with the full quote from the book, as it is better and more detailed source by the same author, rather than include shortened citations. For some reason Khosrow removes the full quote and inserts the shortened version of it. What the difference does it make? Professor says that the name of Azerbaijan was seldom used to denote the territories north of Araks (which means that the areas north of Araks were sometimes referred to as Azerbaijan), while Khosrow includes in the article the statement that areas north of Araks were never called Azerbaijan.
Now, Khosrow also replaces the neutral intro with claims that there’s some “controversy”, surrounding the name of Azerbaijan republic. In fact, there’s no controversy whatsoever, the name of Azerbaijan republic is internationally accepted and recognized by everyone, including Iran, for more than 80 years. Only some Iranian nationalists publish the articles, claiming that Azerbaijan should not be called so, and it in fact has more to do with the internal Iranian problems, rather than existence of an actual problem. Some people in Iran fear that the numerous Azerbaijani minority might wish to follow the suit of their Northern brethren and claim independence, so the purpose of those Iranian scholars is to persuade Iranian Azeris that they are not the same people as the Azeris in the North. But the scholarly accepted view of course is that Azeris on both sides of Araks are the same people. Therefore with all due respect I cannot agree with the proposal by Ali to say “Turkic speakers” instead of “Turkic people”. People on both sides of Araks are the same ethnicity, no matter what other or even some of them think.
Another issue is that Khosrow removes my translation of Brokhauz quote and includes inaccurate one he copied from an Iranian website. I don’t know why he does that, I’m a native Russian speaker and can do a better job at translating than the source he took his quote from. If anyone doubts accuracy of my translation, we can ask other Russian speakers to verify it.
And lastly, Khosrow provides his highly POV version of the history of establishment of Azerbaijan Republic in 1918, which contradicts what notable scholars say about those events. I suspect that Khosrow might not be familiar with NPOV rules of wiki, which don’t allow to include any personal views into the article.
Also, I appreciate efforts of Ali to create a balanced and POV-free version of the article, I think we have an understanding with him that we should include only well known facts and views and not POV interpretations of them. Grandmaster 09:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing is that I provided a full quote from the book by professor Swietochowski, called Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN 0231070683. The quote that was originally included in the article is a shortened version of the same paragraph, taken from a short article, available online here: [40] I think we should go with the full quote from the book, as it is better and more detailed source by the same author, rather than include shortened citations. For some reason Khosrow removes the full quote and inserts the shortened version of it. What the difference does it make? Professor says that the name of Azerbaijan was seldom used to denote the territories north of Araks (which means that the areas north of Araks were sometimes referred to as Azerbaijan), while Khosrow includes in the article the statement that areas north of Araks were never called Azerbaijan.
Show me the exact quote where the author says so. All you added into the article is "According to the same source, the term Azerbaijan was seldom used for the territory north of Araxes."
  • Now, Khosrow also replaces the neutral intro with claims that there’s some “controversy”, surrounding the name of Azerbaijan republic.
If there is no controversy than why are we discussing this issue so much? What constitutes a controversy? A controversy, according to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, is a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views [41]. By the very definition, this is a controversy. Now that I have provided the definition, I hope that you can stop your POV push.
  • In fact, there’s no controversy whatsoever, the name of Azerbaijan republic is internationally accepted and recognized by everyone, including Iran, for more than 80 years.
So then please tell me why the Macedonia issue is so "controversial". Macedonia is also accepted by Greece, and it is also internationally recognized, so whats the problem there? I remember when you had put the article up for deletion, and you kept saying that this situation was nothing like the Macedonia situation. So please tell me, how is this not like the Macedonia situation? Do Greeks have a right to be upset but Iranians don't?
  • Only some Iranian nationalists publish the articles, claiming that Azerbaijan should not be called so, and it in fact has more to do with the internal Iranian problems, rather than existence of an actual problem. Some people in Iran fear that the numerous Azerbaijani minority might wish to follow the suit of their Northern brethren and claim independence, so the purpose of those Iranian scholars is to persuade Iranian Azeris that they are not the same people as the Azeris in the North. But the scholarly accepted view of course is that Azeris on both sides of Araks are the same people. Therefore with all due respect I cannot agree with the proposal by Ali to say “Turkic speakers” instead of “Turkic people”. People on both sides of Araks are the same ethnicity, no matter what other or even some of them think.
Again, let me use the Macedonia/Greece example. By your logic, the Greek government is run by nationalists who are trying to brainwash the people to make it look like that the Macedonians in the Republic are not the same people as the the Macedonians in Greece. Also, by your logic, the Greek government is afraid that Greek Macedonia will seperate. Well let me enlighten you:
The Macedonians in the republic are not Greek, they are Slavic. The "Azeri's" in the R. of Azerbaijan are not Iranics, they are Cacausian (as DNA testing has shown). The Azari's in Iran, are Iranic (as DNA testing has shown). Therefore, they are not the same people. The education you have gotten in your schools in the Azerbaijan Republic are administered by the very same government that says Zoroastrianism is a Turkish religion!
The scholarly view has been confused due to the fact that pan Turkists named their Caucasian republic to Azerbaijan. This was their goal, to make everyone believe that there has always been "two Azerbaijan's" and that "Azerbaijani's have been seperated by Iranian and Russian imperial ambitions, which is all false. Thanks to recent DNA testing, I hope the scholarly view will change, and the historical revisionism started in 1918 and continuing to this day will one day stop.
The term Turkic speaker applies here very well, because neither of the two "Azari's" are Turks ethnically, only linguistically, threfore they are Turkic speakers.
Another issue is that Khosrow removes my translation of Brokhauz quote and includes inaccurate one he copied from an Iranian website. I don’t know why he does that, I’m a native Russian speaker and can do a better job at translating than the source he took his quote from. If anyone doubts accuracy of my translation, we can ask other Russian speakers to verify it.
What quote are you talking about, I'm looking at the changes right now and I see no quote that I deleted, all I see is that you have moved around the quotes into places of your liking. You just added onto the quote a bit, however, it did not affect anything much, just more geographical discription. Also, why did you take out this quote by Barthold: As can be seen, the name 'Azerbaijan' was used with a specific goal that became manifest at a later period. ALong with other little, however major, edits. Stop your POV push.
And lastly, Khosrow provides his highly POV version of the history of establishment of Azerbaijan Republic in 1918, which contradicts what notable scholars say about those events. I suspect that Khosrow might not be familiar with NPOV rules of wiki, which don’t allow to include any personal views into the article.
I know the NPOV rules very well, but do you? Please tell us what the accepted view is of the Musavat party? From what I have read, it was Pan Islamists-Turkist, and then shifted from becoming completely pan-Turkists, with the vision of uniting all Turkic speakers. Everything I added there is cited, is what you added cited? No, so therefore, whose information is POV, mine or yours? This is laughable. Your version is the POV version.
Also, on anther note, it amazes me how GrandMaster refuses to accept the facts on issues regarding the ethnicity of Azari's and the nameing of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Regarding the naming of the republic: 1) I have shown a quote from the founder of the state, admitting his mistake in choosing the name, and that he should have chosen Albania, and that he were sorry for causing Iranians discontent amongst Iranians. 2) References to political parties within the Republic of Azerbaijan in the 1940's openly exposing their intentions of seperating the real Azerbaijan from Iran. 3)Quotes from several scholars regarding the naming issue, and more. Regarding the Azari people: 1)References which Grandmaster himself brought up in this article to try to defend the naming of Azerbaijan R. also said that Azari's were Iranian by race. 2) DNA testing. 3) Historical accounts.
Grandmaster refuses to accept all of these facts, so who is the POV pusher? I, who is posting cited facts, or GM, who chooses to believe what he wants to believe, even though his own sources contradict him.Khosrow II 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


First step is probably to get rid of disputes that are not related to the article. I think theories about Azerbaijanis origin (both Iranian Azerbaijan and Caucasian Azerbaijan) should be left out of the article. The main theme of the article is geography and ethnonym, not anything else. That is issues dealing with etymology, geography and ethnonym should be included. Issues dealing with actual ethnic debates should simply not be in article . For example wether Azerbaijanis today are medes or turks or caucasian albanians or all three is not up for debate. Just a side point we are dealing with complicated historical events that should not be part of true, it is true that Medes and Caucasian Albanians were two different people, the Caucasic speaking nation of Arran, which was only iranianized in speech at the time of the Arab caliphs. Then under successive Turkic dynasties like Seljuqs, Mongols, Qara-qoyunlu, Safavids and then Qajars, there was turkification brought to the area. This issue though thankfully is not for this article except the use of the term Turkic people or Turkic speaker or Turcophones or Turkified in Speech... About Musavat party, GM has the right to ask for quotes about pan-turkism and Khosrow should just look at [42] and will easily find more than enough materials. I checked the quotes from Tadeusz Swietochowski. Actually the Collier Encyclopedia has slight modifications (1996) and book is from 1995. Both articles were written from the same author, so both should be included since they are from diffenet publications. So the only issue seems to me to be the two begining sentences and I think we should just concentrate on that. Perhaps Khoikhoi can give a suggestion here. --alidoostzadeh 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to interrupt the debate —I'm inclined in having Ali take the lead as mediator— but I did want to note that if the "founder of the state, admitt[ed] his mistake in choosing the name," that can definitely be explored in the article, it's not an insignificant factoid! El_C 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1_C thanks,but I do not want to mediate simply because I am very busy right now, but I will be glad to help and try to help everyone reach objective conclusions. Although by mediating, you will learn a good deal from history so it is beneficial. Here are things that are not related to the article: a) Azerbaijanis of Caucus are the same genetically as Iran, since this is not the issue. The issue is history of the name of Azerbaijan, its geographical name and then finaly very briefly on the recent naming of the turcophones of Iran and the caucus as Azerbaijanis. (Before that the ethnonym Azerbaijani has been used in a 10th century A.D. source to refer to Persian Azerbaijanis, but this was before the turkification of the area).

Here is a basic brief: a) the name Azerbaijan about 2300 years ago comes from Atropat and he called his land Atrapatekan (in Pahlavi and Armenian) and then it became Arabo-modern-Persianized to Azerbaijan/Azar-abadegan. (this part everyone agrees with). b) historically caucasian Albania(Arran and Sherwan and sometimes just Arran) and Azerbaijan were two different territories but very few sources mention caucasian Albania as part of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and etc.. This was usually for administrative reasons. That is why both quotes from Tadeusz Swietochowski should be there(and they are both written by him) since they clarify the issue further. c) The naming of modern Turkic speakers of Azerbaijani ethnically seems to have been started by Russians. They started to called all speakers of Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic as Azerbaijani Tatars to distinguish them from other tatars (Turkic speakers) of central Asia, Anatolia and etc.. since according to these sources these tatars were Iranian by race, just like the modern Turks of Anatolia were called Mediaterianian(sorry for the bad spell) tatars. d) Finally the quote from the founder Rasul zadeh affirms that Azerbaijan and Arran were historically different territories. Since it is a valid quote it should be there.

I think the main point of contention is just the first two sentences. I would like to see both users offer their statements for the first two sentences and then hopefully with your help, Khoikhoi and me, we can resolve it and let this be a scholarly issue. Personally I do not believe modern politics should be involved in the issue and actually everyone here helped bring informative quotes. Khosrow started the article and GM brought some very interesting material from the 1890-1906 Encyclopedia. So I think the article is actually very educational and that is the way it should be. --alidoostzadeh 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali, so long as you keep writing these miniessays, you make "mediating" rather easy. Thanks for that, I enjoyed reading it; very educating. El_C 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so we have come to an agreement. Both quotes will be added, the Musavat party is indeed Pan Turk as per all the sources Ali provided, and this is a controversy by the very definition of the word controversy. So revert it back to my version (just due to the fact that editing will be easier, since all we have to do is add in an extra quote), and we can add both quotes to that, and we can stop this bickering.Khosrow II 13:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting quote, BY THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE R. OF AZERBAIJAN!: “The creation of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in the Northern Azerbaijan on some of Azerbaijani lands in 1918-1921, and its restoration…in 1991, does not mean that the Azerbaijan national liberation movement is over. … The new stage will end with the creation and or restoration of a united Azerbaijani statehood. … Already [in Iran] there are active organizations, whose sole purpose is the state independence of the Azeri Turks.”(peech at the V Congress [Kurultai] of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, 30-31 January 1998 delivered in Turkey)
How much longer is GM going to deny everything. I think I have shown the GM is acting with POV rather than objectiveness.Khosrow II 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Another quote by Professor Zia Boniyadov (former academic of the Oriental Studies Institute of Soviet Azerbaijan). Professor Boniyadov noted that much of the historical claims of pan-Turanian ideology against Iranian Azerbaijan (i.e. “division” of “Greater Azerbaijan” by Iran and Russia) have their academic roots in the Stalinist era of the former Soviet Union[xi]. Boniyadov has noted that much of the claims for Iran’s destruction are: "…Stalinist policies and expansionist…those who now pursue such policies in the name of ‘culture’…are simply the followers of Bagherov and Heidar Aliev and Stalin…”(Matini, Jalal, “Azerbaijan Koja Ast?”, 1989, Iranshenasi, I(3), p.447.) Strangely, this professor was murder in the R. of Azerbaijan in 1997, the murderer was never found.
Perhaps someone did not like what this man was saying?Khosrow II 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should remain the way it is now, as Khosrow’s version is POV. The article is called History of the name Azerbaijan, and the intro should explain what the name of Azerbaijan is. And my version explains that “Azerbaijan is the name, shared by the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan”. As for controversy, there’s no real controversy over the name of Azerbaijan, and Macedonia is a different case. Iran never ever officially protested the name, neither in 1918, nor in 1991, while Greece does officially protest the name of Macedonia. Big difference. An opinion of a few Iranian writers cannot be presented as a controversy, no need to blow things out of proportion. We can present the views of those people in the article, like we do, but everything should be in real perspective.

With regard to Rasulzade, the Iranian scholar Atabaki claims that he “admitted mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state and in an article he later wrote admitted that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) is different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Also, in a letter to Seyyed Hassan Taqizadeh an important Iranian intellectual of the early 20th century, Rasulzade declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".

So the two lines taken from the Rasulzade article are: 1) Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) is different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). 2. Rasulzade declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".

Neither of the two quotes says that the name was chosen mistakenly. I would really like to see the whole text of Rasulzade’s article to be able to pass a judgment on what he indeed says, as the quotes appear to be taken out of the context. The way it is now, we should present this as a view of Dr.Atabaki, same way as we did present the views of professor Swietochowski. It should contain a line “According to Dr. Atabaki…”

As for Musavat, it indeed initially supported pan-islamist and pan-turkist ideas, but by the time Azerbaijan gained independence it was promoting the idea of Azeri nationalism and western style democratic government. Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was the first democratic republic in the Muslim world. I checked the sources Ali provided on Musavat, and one of them says:

In Azerbaijan, the Musavat Party commanded overwhelming support among local Muslims during 1917-1920 by promoting a vague but appealing platform that mixed Marxist social reformism with an ill-defined nationalism directed against Russian imperial domination, but more specifically against the domination of regional economic and political life by the Armenian and Russian commercial and working classes of the oil city of Baku. The leader of the Musavat had been in the forefront of opposition to the Tatar program of extraterritorial autonomy for Russia's Muslims and in favor of outright federalism at the Muslim Congress of May 1917. What actually constituted the framework for the national identity of Azerbaijani Muslims was left unclear. There had for many decades been a debate between advocates of a literary language based on local dialects and supporters of Gasprinsky's pan-Turkic lingua franca. Some Musavat leaders had a history of active pan-Turkism with an orientation toward Istanbul, and the party essentially welcomed the advance of Ottoman troops into the region with open arms in 1918. It was the actual experience of occupation by the Ottoman military, which violated its professions of fraternal amity by pursuing politically repressive policies, that led to the definitive alienation of the Musavat from pan-Turkism and its unambiguous turn toward an avowedly Azerbaijani nationalism.

Aviel Roshwald. Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, the Middle East and Russia, 1914-1923

So saying Musavat was pan-turkist is not correct, some of its leaders indeed supported pan-turkist ideas and the party in general at certain periods indeed inclined towards pan-turkist views, but overall it was rather a nationalist party that claimed independence for Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote from professor Swietochowski that I’ve already provided above and which Khosrow missed:

For all the built-in pitfalls in Russian administrative reforms, it was also apparent that these reforms had enhanced the internal consolidation of Azerbaijan in at least two important respects: the dismantling of the khanates weakened deeply rooted local particularisms, and the formation of the two gubernias of Eastern Transcaucasia resulted in a territorial block that the "Shirvanis" or "Arranis" would regard as the core of their homeland. Even the term Azerbaijan, although seldom used for the territory north of Araxes, began to appear in the works of European scholars or journalists. Administrative integration was in turn reinforced by economic and social changes that came, albeit at a slower pace, in the wake of the conquest.

As one can see from the above, the term Azerbaijan was used for the territory north of Araxes, albeit seldom. Grandmaster 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


GM, you cannot run away from this forever, you article is blatantly POV.

  • It is a controversy by the very definition of the word controversy, which I provided. Whether the government of Iran protests the name or not, it is a controversy. My introduction should stay, as it is neutral. You introduction wants to run away from that fact.
  • Rasulzade's remarks are crystal clear. Remember that it was you who was trying to misconstrew quotes in this discussion before, now you are trying to misconstrew this. Rasulzade clearly says that he made a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan, that the real name for the area should have been Albania, and that he wanted to do everything in his power to remedy discontent amongst Iranians, which implies that Iranians were discontent with the name change! You are not being neutral here, and I am 100% sure everyone can see that you are trying to push your POV!
  • During the creation of Caucasian "Azerbaijan", the Musavat Party was pan Turkists, just like you admitted, so the comment stays, because THEY WERE PAN TURKIST at the time.
  • Regarding the quote you added, I already said that I agree to keep it within the article. Are you even reading the discussion? Furthurmore, I brought up two more quotes as to the reasons for the naming of "Azerbaijan".
  • Now lets see, I have agreed to keep GM's paragraph on the Azerbaijani people section of this article, and I have agreed to keep GM's other quote. Now who is trying to make this article better and who isnt? Obviously I am the only one willing to accept facts for what they are and try to make this article better by including them. Now its GM's turn to compromise! Its amazing how you are trying to do everything you can to misconstrew simple facts. EL_C, I hope I have shown GM's POV clearly enough for you so that you will revert the article back to the way I had it.
  • Here is what I propose:
Revert the article back to the way I had it, and include GM's extra quote. Then GM should have nothing to complain about, becuase that is the only thing he wanted to add anyway.Khosrow II 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Run search on "Azerbaijan name controversy" on google and see what you get. Only this article in wikipedia and its mirror sites. We cannot give an undue weight to some veiws and present them as if there's indeed some controversy. Check the rules. What we can do instead is provide the opinions as opnions, but not facts, as you did. Preference should be given to quotes, and not personal interpretations, therefore my version is more compliant with NPOV rules. It consists mostly of quotes and does not contain any POV interpretations. Grandmaster 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

OK, let's resolve our disputes in parts, starting form the intro. What problems does anyone have with the current wording that reads:

Azerbaijan is the name, shared by the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan.

In my opnion, it is neutral and NPOV and contains only factual information. Grandmaster 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop creating more than one section pertaining to the same discussion. We are talking about all these issues on the above section, and I have already objected to this, obviously you arent even reading what anyone else has to say.Khosrow II 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

with the first statement, I think we should keep it as nuetral possible. Perhaps we can say the Azerbaijan is now the name, shared by the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan but many historical sources have called the republic of Azerbaijan as Albania and different from Azerbaijan. This article deals with the historical naming of Azerbaijan. Or something like that. This way it is factual statement with no point of view.

I do not see any reason why both quotes from Swietochowski should not be there. Indeed scholars can make mistake, or sometimes there is apparent mistake, but when looked more deeply they complement each other. The readers then can make their own judgment on that issue to see which quote is correct.

About Musavat, it is true some of its leaders were pan-turkists. Does that make the whole party initially pan-turkist? More research needs to be done. So Khosrow could add that some of whose leaders which had a history of active pan-turkism which is referenced now. Of course Rasulzadeh the main founder was pan-turkist initially as the sources say.

The quote from Dr. Atabaki is not from him but it is from Rasulzade’s letter to Taghizadeh and so to claim that Dr. Atabaki made it up is not correct. The letters of Rasulzadeh are referenced in it. The book by Dr. Atabaki is referenced and the actual Persian quotes from Rasulzadeh to Taqizadeh can be found as well if one does a google search in Persian. The fact that Rasulzadeh said Albania is different from Azerbaijan itself shows that the name was not correct. Dr. Atabaki provides his source and it is in the letters and corresponds between Rasulzadeh and Taqizadeh. I think we can double reference here and provide the external source of Dr. Atabaki as well. Then I can even write the actual Persian quote if necessary. Here is what Rasulzadeh said to Taqizaade that Dr. Atabaki is referring to: “Albania az Azarbaijan motefaavet ast” (Albania is different from Azerbaijan) and then “anjaam har kaari keh az naakhoshnoodi bishtar bein Iranian jelogiri konad” (whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians).

Other than that, I think everything else is fine. --alidoostzadeh 21:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


What is fine? This is a clear pro-Iranian article in its tone and purpose. Maybe admins should look at its one-sidedness. The aim of the article is to prove that Northern and Southern Azerbaijanis are different people with different history, which is totally not true. South Azerbaijan has as much (if not even more) in common with the republic of Azerbaijan as with historically with Iran.

Look at the facts, everything is cited, NOTHING IS MADE UP. Also, the last thing we need right now is an Anon user who doesnt know the extent of this discussion. If you were here from the begining it would have been better, but since you just came into the discussion, its best you stay out of it unless you read everything that is written on this page and get an understanding of whats going on. Thanks.Khosrow II 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As far I see the name is about geographical designation.. There is not a mention of Azerbaijani people except the ethnonym part and that is one sentence where there is difference about Turkic, Turcophone or something like that which can be dealt with later. An article exists on Azerbaijani people already. the names Azerbaijan and Albania predate the formation of Turkic speakers of the region and so the article is not about ethnic groups. It is about etymology, geographical designation and finally slightly on the ethnonym. --alidoostzadeh 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the rules we should write only what authoritative sources do. The title of the article implies that we are discussing the history of the name of Azerbaijan. So we should explain what that name is. Hence the first line:

Azerbaijan is the name, shared by the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan.

As for the background info, I think professor Swietochowski described it the best, I don’t know if we can do any better:

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.

But since that quote is included in the article, I don’t think it is worth repeating it. I think the best is to keep the intro as simple as possible. We can add the following line:

Historically the boundaries of the region of Azerbaijan were unstable and sometimes included the neighboring areas that also went under different names, such as Albania or Arran.

I checked the text of Hamdollah Mostowfi (Qazvini), 14th century historian, which is mentioned in the text, and he indeed mentions Azerbaijan, Shirvan, Arran and Mughan as separate provinces, but it is interesting that Nakhchivan is mentioned as part of Azerbaijan province, which consisted of nine tumans, and one of them was Nakhchivan, despite being located on the other side of Araks. So the boundaries of Azerbaijan were indeed unstable.

But we can also leave everything out of the intro and deal with it in the main text of the article, because the less we add from ourselves is the better, preference should be given to citing sources. We can limit the intro to one line and also add that the article below deals with the history of the name of the region. Why arguing over the introduction? It is better to describe all the issues in the main text. Grandmaster 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Compromise

Ok, so from the discussion, here is what I think the compromise should be:

Basically, all GM added to his version was an extra quote, and he changed the beginging and some other things. So I say we revert the article back to my version, which includes all the facts (Yes, facts, everything I added was cited, and I again proved everything in this discussion here) that GM took out to push his POV, and we insert the quote GM wants in there also. Thats fair, both sides can then agree.Khosrow II 22:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we are all progressing. Here is another suggestion. I think we can take GM's sentence and add that historically the republic of Azerbaijan in most sources was called Caucasian Albania although some sources have considered it part of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.(Which is a factual statement). It is a good thing that most of the article is just sourced references. Other than the first sentence, the only other problem I see is the dispute over the word Turkic or Turcophone. In this case we can mention (Turkic people according to some and Turcophone according to others) or something like that. As per Musavat, its main founder was pan-turkist.. but we can according to the above source and say some of whose founding members were pan-turkist at one time or another... or something to the effect. Again having an objective and factual article on this account is helpful since it comes up in other articles and it is just good to have one article that discusses it so that constant edit wars are stopped.. --alidoostzadeh 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can call Azeri people Turkophones. It is the opinion of some Iranian scholars that is not shared by the majority of scientific world. Check sources as Britannica, for example. According to the rules the view of minority cannot be given equal weight with the view of majority, so Azeris should be referred to as Turkic people, like all the authoritative sources do. Please check this: [43] I know Khosrow will start talking about genetics, but Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages, and Azeris do speak a Turkic language. Otherwise, I think the article in its current form is quite OK, it provides quotes from reliable sources without any POV interpretations. As for Musavat, the party in general cannot be called pan-Turkist, as it was struggling to create an independent Azerbaijani state and not Great Turan. But some of its leaders indeed were supporting pan-Turkist ideas, people like Ahmed bey Agayev, for example. But that does not make the whole party pan-Turkist. Grandmaster 07:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of the musavatis were pan-turkists.. not all. Also about Azerbaijani people, we are also mentioning minority opinions here as well. For example Arran was seldomly part of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and etc.. This is a minority of sources.. So we should also give weight to minority opinions on Azerbaijani. I looked through google books and the term turkic people is ambigious and I have found many sources mentioning it.. I think perhaps we can drop it and say the current people referred to as Azerbaijanis were... --alidoostzadeh 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GM, I cant believe you are still trying to pass off your version as POV free. Infact, your version is your POV not factual. I have shown you the definition of the word controversy, I have cited all my sources for everything I added, and I even disproved you several times in this discussion. I have already compromised, so now its your turn.Khosrow II 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkic people are those who speak Turkic languages. And such authoritative sources as Britannica refer to Azeris as Turkic people. So does wikipedia in its articles, as we go with the prevailing scientific view. Now, with regard to north of Araks being seldom referred by the name of Azerbaijan, we cite an authoritative source, proposed by yourselves. Also, parts of modern Azerbaijan republic were parts of Azerbaijan province, and Swietochowski appears to be right when he said that “Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history”. I mentioned above that Hamdollah Mostowfi mentions Nakhichevan as one of 9 tumans of Azerbaijan, I also checked Ibn Khordadbeh, and he mentions Mughan as part of Azerbaijan, while Arran according to him was a separate province. As you can see, Azerbaijan’s boundaries were unstable. Sometimes, when Azerbaijan and areas north of Araks (Arran and Shirvan) had the same ruler, the whole territory was referred to as Azerbaijan. But for the most part Azerbaijan was the name of the current Iranian province. As for compromise, I always support the reasonable compromise, and I always support the idea that we should provide the factual information, whether we like it or not. I never tried to suppress any factual info, kept all your sources and even provided the sources that supported your position, as for example the article on Azerbaijan from Brokhauz. But I think we should include in the article only factual information and no personal comments. “Controversy” is a POV interpretation. Khosrow’s interpretation of the history of creation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is POV as well. I kept all the factual quotes in the article, and removed POV interpretations, and that’s the way the article should stay. Only facts, and let the reader judge. I hope Ali will support my position, and we can move on. Grandmaster 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ibn Khurdadbih and Mostowofi though mention Arran as different from Azerbaija, although in their borders they do make confusion. This is not just a matter of Azerbaijan's boundary, but Armenia, Arran (for example Ibn Haqwal considers Tiblis to be part of Arran), Persia's, Iran's, Khorasan's, Fars,.. boundaries were always fluctuating. I agree that we should provide factual statements. As per the north of Aras being seldomly called Azerbaijan this is true also. But it is also true that it was also called Georgia (for example the European maps) and Armenia (I know two Islamic sources off my head). As per Turkic people, the article in Wikipedia is a mess so far. Also some books now claim Azerbaijanis to be Caucasian Albanians who became turkified and others say variety of things. That is why I decided to reword the statement and say the current Azerbaijani people...So there is no need to argue over this and the arguments about Turkic/Turkic speaker/non-Turkic speaker is not relavent to the topic and should be part of the Azerbaijani people topic. As per the term controversy, I guess that is a POV (like any controversy is) but that was the Iranain POV like those of Kasravi, Taqizade and according to some sources Khiyabani (Iranica, Evan Siegel..). I think it is accurate to say there was a controversy in some Iranian circles. Which defines the POV and the controversy without making it seem like it was a world wide controversy (which it was not of course). --alidoostzadeh 06:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think it is reasonable approach. We can say that some Iranian sources dispute the accuracy of application of the name of Azerbaijan to the modern Azerbaijan Republic. On the other hand, it does not look too scientific to me. Normally the intro just briefly describes the general topic of the article and the text itself provides all existing views. Since the title is the History of the name Azerbaijan, we should say that Azerbaijan is the name of independent republic and Iranian province and the article below deals with its history and various views on it. If you can come up with better wording, please do. As for Azerbaijani people, the prevalent view is that Azeris are Turkic people because they speak a Turkic language. But to put an end to the dispute I suggest the following wording:
Historically Azerbaijani people called themselves or were referred to by others as Turks and religious identification prevailed over ethnic identification.
Thus we don’t use the words like Turkic people or Turkophones. Grandmaster 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected

OK, I made the article neutral and fair. I included what GM wanted, reworded other things, and reformatted the article a bit. I hope GM can stop his POV push now and not create another revert war.Khosrow II 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How come the following intro is neutral:

The histoy of the name Azerbaijan is a controversial[3] issue regarding the naming of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The controversy has caused confusion regarding several topics, including Iranian Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani People, and the history of the region.

What is neutral about it? The article is about the history of the name Azerbaijan. The intro shhould explain what that name is. Controversy exists only in minds of some Iranian nationalists, while in fact the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan is unternationally accepted and recognized by all the states and international organozations, including Iran. You cannot present your POV as a fact. Grandmaster 05:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Buniatov quote is most probably a fake. It should come from a more reputable source, primary one preferably. And "Present-day Politics" section is a pure POV and anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. it has nothing to do with the history of the name Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition of the word controversy. Also, the politics of today has everything to do with the name change back in 1918. You are trying to push your POV, and that isnt going to work on wikipedia.Khosrow II 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not good enough. Actually, it is totally unacecptable. You do not answer the question of whether it is controversial today beyond a few limited fringe circles by adding a ref to the dictionary definition of controversy (!) That has to be one of the most unscholarly self-referencing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I have reverted the protected article to last version by Grandmaster and ask that you be more responsive, topical, and substantive on areas pertaining to original research. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So you are now supporting GM's POV push? Have you even read what has been written here? GM has done this before, his tactic is to simply not reply and push his POV continuously till he gets what he wants. He has done this on another article before. .He never addressed any of the facts I put before him on this discussion! I even researched and found new references! I compromised several time with him on this article, infact, half of the article on my version has his suggestion in it. I have contacted the admin who previously protected this page.Khosrow II 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's about the lead. Please reread my comment and respond to it substantively. El_C 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If the lead is the only problem then why did you revert the whole article? Administrators can edit protected articles, so all you had to do was change the intro till we discussed it here. So please, do that right now, and change the intro so we can discuss it. I will discuss the intro after you have done this request of mine (reverting the article back to last version by me, and then simply changing the inro).Khosrow II 00:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are not responding to the charge that you are gaming the system via self-reference. I have the discretion to invoke WP:IAR, and I am doing so now. Again, please be responsive and attend to the pressing items above. El_C 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just told you, you can keep the intro the way it is now but at the same time reverting the rest of the article (which is not what the new dispute is about) back to last version by me, and then we will discuss the intro. Also, I was not aware of what "gaming the system" was until just now. Also, using a vocabulary word by the very meaning of its definition is not against the rules. I can use the word controversy by its very defintion, and that is what I did, nothing more, nothing less.Khosrow II 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please answer the question of whether the name is controversial today beyond a few limited fringe circles, citing sources. The only thing I want to see bellow this line is an attempt to answer this question. El_C 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
By the definition of controversy, which means something that is disputed, then yes, if a group of historians and scholars (Iranian, Azeri, and Western!) dispute it, then it is a controversy. Khosrow II 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you verify that this "controvery" isn't limited to small fringes within the shcolarship? El_C 00:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you are the accuser, its your job to prove me wrong, not the other way around. Also, I will discuss this further once you fulfill my request. Please, I have done what you asked, so fulfill my request.Khosrow II 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:CITE, the burden of proof in on the persn making the claim. If it's controversial beyond small fringes, it should be easy to find sources depicting this controversy with the magnitude which your lead implies it bears. El_C 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, revert article to last version by me and just change the intro. We can keep GM's intro, until I find more sources. So unprotect the article.Khosrow II 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already unprotected it early once at your request and you broke the truce with that astounding lead. Unless you have anything to offer content-wise, I'd like to hear what Ali thinks about the two versions. I am open to reverting to last version by Ali if he advises me to do so. El_C 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not. At that point, GM was disputing more than just the intro. We resolved those issues, and I simply added more info. Now we have settled the intro. It was GM who started the revert war, all he had to do was come here and discuss the intro, yet he decided to revert the article to the version of his POV rather than the version we came to a conclusion on in the discussion.
Unprotect the article now, so I can revert and then change the intro.Khosrow II 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop WikiLawyering and take a 24-hour break from this topic, Khosrow II. El_C 06:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the entery got locked again LOL. I think GM's introduction is okay and probably the [[44]] is good version to revert to. We can say the name change generated some controversy amongst some Iranian group which is factual statement. But to just say it is controversial is probably too strong of a language. --alidoostzadeh 06:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If Khosrow II dosen't understand what it is he did wrong, which he dosen't yet appear to, we have a serious problem here. El_C 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I already agreed to the change. What are you talking about? Also, it should be reverted to this version: [45] because I had updated it with more information and added a new section which I was working on before it got protected. Then, once reverted to this version, we can change the introduction, till I have more sources to back up my claim.Khosrow II 13:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about using a ref in an intellectually dishonest way. I'm talking about instead of wikifying controversy (or at least having it linked from Wiktionary as controversy), then adding a ref about this controversy, you add a ref to the dictionary definition of controversy itself per se, which does nothing to suggest there is such controversy on this particular issue and only insults our readers' intelligence. Truly inexplicable. But regardless of this policy violation, I still want you to take a 24-hr break from this entry as I feel you are being unproductive. El_C 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Your right, I should have but I didnt realize it then. Usually, it doesnt cross my mind to inter wiki link such a common word, you know. Thats why I didnt.Khosrow II 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not particularly pertinent; the ref needed to point to a study which verifies this controversy. You treated Grandmaster with contempt when he asked for this and you pointed him to the dictionary ref. El_C 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I gave him the definition of the word, and by the very definition, the word does apply. What dont you understand about that? I cant make myself any clearer. The fact is that the word "controversial" is a vocabulary word, and by its definition it worked in that context. What do you want from me? I already agreed to the current intro, so you can unprotect the page or atleast fulfill the request I made.Khosrow II 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No. He didn't ask for definition of the word, he asked for a study on this particular controversy. El_C 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont think your picking up what im putting down. I used a vocabulary word as a part of a sentence where it made sense. And again, I already said fine to GM's intro, so whats the hold up? Unprotect the article so we can keep on adding to it.Khosrow II 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow this went long.. But I think Khosrow agreed to GM's last edit and lets move on from there. --alidoostzadeh 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow II is not making any sense. It's like I claim there was a martian war in 1838 and to prove this happned I cite a ref to the dictionary definition of the word "war." Too absurd. Yes, please continue to sort out whatever outstanding issues. When both parties agree on a final compromise, the page will be unprotected. El_C 04:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you? I AGREE TO CHANGE THE INTRODUCTION! Is that clear enough for you? What else do I have to say? Should I make my font bigger? I have agreed, which means that the opposing side has just come over to the agreeing side, which means you can unprotect the article, because the intro will not be changed. Please dont take this the wrong way, but I'm begining to feel as if you may be getting some pleasure out of this, I dont know how, but thats what I'm thinking. Maybe its the sense of power and control over something? I dont see why you keep pushing this, its over, I have agreed, and you are being very abusive. Unprotect the article, thanks.Khosrow II 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being abusive, I think you are being highly tendencious. It dosen't matter that you now agree with the GM's intro, other parts of the article could still be disputed in light of whatever other additions/changes (which I have not read), so there will be no unprotection until GM expresses confidence that a solid and long-lasting compromise has been reached. El_C 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You are free to read the changes. I just added more information and more sources. Also, GM does not dispute anything else, h already posted what he disputed, and that was the intro.Khosrow II 05:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If I knew that "he does not dispute anything else" I would have unprotected the article. Otherwise, I'm inclined to await his return. El_C 05:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work.. the way I see it right now, there is no edit wars since Khosrow agreed with the last edit by GM. --alidoostzadeh 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
GM wont even respond because he wants this POV version to remain protected. EL_C, its time you unprotected.Khosrow II 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Buniatov quote

As far as I can see in addition to restoring his POV statements Khosrow only added one new reference, which appears to be a fake. It is taken from an obscure Iranian source, and clearly contradicts well-known position of professor Buniatov. My quote is taken from Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN 0817991816, which is a reputable scholarly source:

In a historical geography of Azerbaijan written in the mid 1980s, academician Ziya M. Buniatov, director of the Oriental Institute of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences and an internationally known scholar, maintained,
The idea of Azerbaijan ... is correctly used with respect to the territories of Northern and Southern Azerbaijan beginning with the 6th century [B.C.E.] ... According to Arabic and Persian sources ... from the 8th century, both Northern and Southern Azerbaijan were understood by the name Azerbaijan.'

As you can see from above, the actual position of Dr. Buniatov completely contradicts to what is ascribed to him by Khosrow’s source, so we cannot rely on it unless we have a cross-reference from some reliable source. Grandmaster 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The part on modern politics of Azerbaijan is POV and has no relevance to the article on the name of Azerbaijan, and thus has no place here. Grandmaster 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read khosrow's quote on buniatov, but actually the quote is not about Azerbaijan or Arran. Also Buniatov does not seem like a reliable scholar since the name Azerbaijan did not exist in 6th century 6.B.C and about 40 sources have separated Albania from Atoorpatekan in pre-Islamic times whereas there is not a single source found so far that mentions them as the same area. I looked at the amazon detail on book ialso: In 1990, two centuries of harsh domination culminated in Black January, when Soviet Troops opened fire on the civilian population of Baku. The following year, Azebaijan declared its independence and began rebuilding its political and economic system. Former Communists and opposition leaders continue to struggle for dominance. Audrey L. Alstadt makes use of both Russian-language and Azerbaijani Turkish-language newspapers, journals, and scholarly publications. Much of this material has never been used in any other Western studies. Altstadt's original research adds the Azerbaijani perspective on the two-century relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan. She identifies key issues and actors and documents a pattern of continual struggle against colonial rule from the initial conquest to the political movements of the late twentieth century. Russian domination has encompassed more than the military, political, and economic spheres. There have also been harsh restrictions on cultural expression, including killing leading intellectuals and falsifying historical facts. However, Azerbaijani Turks continue to thwart Russian control by protecting their rich and ancient heritage through native-language education and the arts. As Alstadt writes, "The Azerbaijani Turks used the antiquity of their history language, and literature as a weapon of self-defense, as proof they need no tutelage in self-government, economic management, education or literature."[46].
The Buniatov quote is just criticizing the histography of the Stalinistic era and is not relavent to the discussion. --alidoostzadeh 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The Bunaitov quote is showing the Soviet involvement in this historical revisionism. That is why it is relevant.
Also, GM, your claims amaze me. My POV version? I even went back and added sources to back up my claims. I added a source about the Musavat party being Pan Turkist, and I added the genetic testing that has been done in the Azerbaijani People section. I even started that new section, which is not completely finished. I was going to make it better and more neutral but the article got protected before I could. Your version is POV, you are trying to keep cited facts from getting into this article. Everytime we come to a conclusion about something, you come up with a new dispute, and you refuse to compromise unless it benefits you. And now, for some reason, you have EL_C on your side. If this isnt the most bias discussion I've ever had, then I dont know what was.Khosrow II 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop misusing this talk page, if you want to issue appeals, do so elsewhere. Answer the question of how the abvove is relevant to the name Azerbaijan, as the other two editors are asking you to do. El_C 20:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I am positive that you are 100% in support of GM. You did not even bother to read the discussion. I clearly stated:
The Bunaitov quote is showing the Soviet involvement in this historical revisionism. That is why it is relevant. Khosrow II 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in whom you think I supprot or in your various other bad faith assumptions. I did read that one line answer — how does that relate to history of the name Azerbaijan? El_C 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me explain this to you as breifly as I can, because evidently you dont know enough about the subject (Ali and GM do, that is why my one line answer seemed to be enough for me). When the Bolsheviks added "Azerbaijan" into Russia in 1920, they chose to keep the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of one day claiming Iranian Azerbaijan, and add it into the Soviet Union. They started a propaganda campaign to demonize Iran and Turkey (Turkey because they were afraid of Turkish nationalism and pan Turkism, Iran because they wanted to take north-western Iran). After WWII, the Soviets did what they were waiting so long ago. The Soviets declared Iranian Azerbaijan independed from Iran, set up a communist party there, and there were also talks of "uniting" the "two" Azerbaijans into the Soviet Union. Under US and UK pressure, the Soviets withdrew from norther Iran, and Iranian Azerbaijan once again came under Iranian control.
Up until 1991, this propaganda continued (The Shah was pro western and anti communism, and after the revolution, the mullahs in Iran were against both the west and the atheist USSR, which gave the Soviets a reason to keep up their propaganda campaign). Now, the quote by Buniatov is key here, because it addresses the Soviet support to the name change and continual usage of the name change and its propaganda war against Iran. That is why it belongs, because the government of Azerbaijan SSR is not solely to blame here, but the government of the entire USSR. I hope this clears things up for you.Khosrow II 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That dosen't respond to how this is relevance to the name. El_C 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi I think Khosrow is saying that the USSR developed a lot of false history and Bunaitov (who is a product of this stalinistic history anyways and is probably not more reliable) .. I think the Bunaitov quote is more relavent in another discussion and at least is not directly relavent. --alidoostzadeh 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
EL_C, this is about the history of the name Azerbaijan, therefore, anything related to the name change, and its subsequent affects, belongs in this article. That is why I had just began work on the political affects of the name change before it got protected.
Also, either tonight or tomorrow, I will write about every issue within this article, so that GM can no longer "filibuster" as he is doing now (notice how everytime one dispute is settled, he comes up with another one afterward to keep the article protected. For example, instead of siting all of his concerns, he keeps bringing them up seperately in seperate cases. Its a good tactic actually, one that I have learned from.) Anyway, I will be addressing everything that I added in full detail, so that no one can dispute the "factuality" of them.Khosrow II 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, I think the title should be change to "The history of the Name of the Republic of Azerbaijan", not just Azerbaijan, as it currently is.Khosrow II 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Since Ali objects to the quote as well, and since I respect his opinion a lot, I concede this too. I also believe now that this quote will serve a better purpose in another article.Khosrow II 22:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, fine, let's move on. I also think that Buniatov quote is absolutely irrelevant to the article. The reason that I try to resolve each dispute separately is that it is a better way of sorting things out, rather than dumping everything together and create a mess where you cannot get a proper answer to the questions. Grandmaster 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
With regard to your quote on Musavat being pan-Turkist I must note that Great Soviet Encyclopedia is a good source, but not when it comes to the anti-communist organizations like Musavat. Of course, for Soviets Musavat were bourgeois nationalists, pan-Turkists, pan-islamists, the party of beys and khans, who terrorized proletariat of Azerbaijan. I provided a source on Musavat above, it was rather an Azerbaijani nationalistic party, who had a goal of creating an independent Azerbaijani state, than a party who aimed to create a Great Turan. Great Turan was never declared party’s goal, even though some of the party leaders supported unification of Azerbaijan with Turkey. But that does not make the whole party pan-Turkist. So POV interpretations should be left out, it is enough to mention Musavat as a leading party of Azerbaijan in 1918. Also note that the Azerbaijani government was not led by Musavatists, but rather by independent politicians such as Fatali Khan Khoyski and Alimardan Topchubashev. Grandmaster 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
According to this source which we discussed, some members of the musavat party were active in pan-turkist cause[47][48]. So to call the whole party as pan-turkistis wrong but some of its members were pan-turkists at one time or another. Probably the soviet encyclopedia exaggerated greatly, but the above reference seems neutral.[49]. --alidoostzadeh 12:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's OK. Some Musavat leaders indeed supported pan-Turkist before the Russian revolution, but even Rasulzade himself was an Azerbaijani nationalist by the time Azerbaijan gained independence. He was not supporting the idea of unification with Turkey anymore. But as you noted it does not make the whole party pan-Turkist. We can add that some of Musavat leaders were known as supporters of pan-Turkist ideas in the past. I don't know what does it really add to this article, but it is verifiable information that can be included. Grandmaster 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so lets get this article un-protected...Khosrow II 23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not until we agree on changes to be made to the article. The article currently says: With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported pan-Turkist ideas in the past, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state.

Let’s edit this line as follows, if it is really necessary to mention pan-Turkism in the article:

With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported pan-Turkist ideas in the past, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state. Grandmaster 05:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I am glad everything is progressing.. Yashasin doostlar..Zende baad doostaan. Now as per the sentence we should make it correspond to [50].. --alidoostzadeh 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the text from Roshwald:
Some Musavat leaders had a history of active pan-Turkism with an orientation toward Istanbul, and the party essentially welcomed the advance of Ottoman troops into the region with open arms in 1918. It was the actual experience of occupation by the Ottoman military, which violated its professions of fraternal amity by pursuing politically repressive policies, that led to the definitive alienation of the Musavat from pan-Turkism and its unambiguous turn toward an avowedly Azerbaijani nationalism.
If you feel that my above proposal can be improved, please propose your version. But also note that Musavat is normally referred to as a nationalist party, so we cannot overemphasize any pan-Turkist affiliations. In the end, their goal was not Great Turan, but independent Azerbaijan. See for example:
Muslim and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia, speaking an Indo-European language of its own, declared independence two days after Georgia did. Reds had seized the oil city of Baku in March, a coup in which 3,000 Muslims died. For a short time a Bolshevik-Left Menshevik government was in power, but its leader fled and was killed. The SR's, taking over, invited the British General Dunsterville to stop the Turks from taking over. It was too late; they took Baku on September 15, 1918. The nationalist-socialist Mussavat party allied itself with Turkey, but soon quarreled with the occupiers. After the armistice, the British General Thomson landed in Baku, and soon recognized a government headed by Fathali Khan-Khoisky, a former liberal Duma deputy.
Donald W. Treadgold, Herbert J. Ellison. Twentieth Century Russia. ISBN: 0813336724
Grandmaster 11:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
GM, your version makes no sense at all. We should say that the TMP had Pan Turkist Elements within it. That makes more sense.Khosrow II 03:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems some members of the Musavat were pan-turkists before the ottoman invasion of 1918. So I think the correct statement is: With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some of whose leaders of who formerly supported pan-Turkist ideas before the Ottoman invasion of trans-caucasia, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state'. BTW is there any connection between the current Musavat party and that of 1918-1920 or is it just a name? It probably is just a name. --alidoostzadeh 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of does not make much sense, as independence was proclaimed before the Ottomans marched into the Caucasus and it was the government of Azerbaijan who invited them, because Baku was under the control of Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, who were virtually exterminating the Muslim population. Only the Ottoman invasion saved the Muslims from complete annihilation. So at the time everybody was welcoming the Ottomans, but when Nuri pasha tried to interfere into the state affairs, it led to a disagreement. I think it would be correct to put it the following way, as pan-Turkism in this particular case means that some Musavat leaders wanted North Azerbaijan to become part of Turkey:

With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the idea of unification with Turkey, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state.

There were other politicians, who supported the ideas of unification with Iran or Russia (members of parties such as Ittihad or socialists/communists, respectively), as they did not believe that Azerbaijan could survive as an independent state, but the vast majority was supporting the independence of the country.

As for modern Musavat, it only shares the same name with the old one, but it is a completely different organization. They actually have the right to use that name after unification with the exiled Musavat, but that organization existed only in name, but not in practice. Grandmaster 10:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we really need to use the word pan-Turkism, we can say that:

With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the pan-Turkist ideas, but the main goal of which was national independence and democratic reforms, met in Tbilisi on May 28, 1918 to create their own state. Grandmaster 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the Ottoman left though after the proclamation of the state.. But this sounds good as per your suggestion: With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the idea of unification with Turkey, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state.. I hope Khosrow agrees as well..--alidoostzadeh 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Ottoman army withdrew after the Ottoman empire was defeated in the World War I, and was replaced by British. British and later the allies recognized de-facto all 3 new Caucasus states. But that’s a different story. I think we should add this part about general goals of Musavat as well:
With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the idea of unification with Turkey, but the main goal of which was national independence and democratic reforms, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state. Grandmaster 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with ali's version of the line: With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the idea of unification with Turkey, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state. GM, what you want to add belongs in the page specifically about the Musavat party. Also, it make the sentence too long and wordy. The reason pan Turkism belongs here is becasue it is a possible motive for the naming of the nation, and is most likely true.
Also, Pan Turkism does not mean only a union with Turkey, it means the union of all turkic speaking peoples. The pan Turkic elements within the Musavat party chose the name Azerbaijan so that they could claim northern Iran.Khosrow II 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that’s the point. Musavat and its leaders never called for unification of all Turkic people, some of them just advocated the union with Turkey. But they were not in majority, so in the end Azerbaijan declared independence, and not the union. Anyway, I think this line is OK. As for the ideas behind the name selection, we cannot add our personal views on that. Only references. Any other disputes? Grandmaster 10:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yokh, Chox Mamnoon.. Mubarak Olsun. Congratulations to everyone. I hope now all the various Azerbaijani related articles do not repeat the same thing and this article is a good reference point with a fairly neutral point of view. Personally I think more needs to be done to develop some of the Azerbaijani articles, specially on Shirvanshahs, Ashura in Azerbaijan, .. But this one was a tough one and it seems to have hopefully concluded. --alidoostzadeh 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


So Gm also agrees on Ali's version of the sentence. Can we now get this thread unlocked so we can make these changes?Khosrow II 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit disputes over?

I want to confirm that the edit disputes are really over and that nobody will return to edit-warring after the article's unprotection. If this is the case please all involved parties sign or reply below, and then I will unprotect the article. --WinHunter (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its over.Khosrow II 14:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is over as well. --alidoostzadeh 08:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If Khosrow agrees not to revert the article to the older versions and add the changes we agreed upon, I consider the dispute to be resolved. Grandmaster 09:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am unprotecting this article but be warned that any returning to edit-warring may result in blocking for 3RR / disruption. Please continue to use this talk page after this article is unprotected. --WinHunter (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems that the edit war waged by Khosrow is not over. He still keeps on adding highly POV statements and false quotes. The quote of Heydar Aliyev is fake, he never ever attended any Popular Front meetings, as they were an opposition party and always were at odds with his government. I’m sure that Khosrow never read that speech and just took the quote from some Iranian nationalistic source. Plus, modern politics have nothing to do with the history of the name of the region, and the name of Azerbaijan is shared by both independent republic and Iranian region. Also, genetic tests have nothing to do with the ethnonym. I’m afraid I will have to ask for re-protection of the page. Grandmaster 07:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The speech is online. You can read it yourself.Khosrow II 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Second of all, I want to know why GM took out all the edits that WE AGREED UPON AFTER HOURS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS TALK PAGE? Also, why did you take out the political section part? I changed Heidar Aliev, you were right, I read it wrong, got things confused. The former president was Abulfazl Elchibey. I said that is to be expanded.Khosrow II 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
We never agreed on any of your chenges. What the present day politics have to do with the name of Azerbaijan? Absolutely nothing. The same about genetics, it is absolutely unrelated. And stop moving the page without agreement on talk, the article is about the name in general and only one section is about the name of the independent republic. Grandmaster 05:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you being serious? This is really getting insane! Here, I will explain everything below.Khosrow II 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected #3 (Please use History of the name Azerbaijan/temp for the time being)

Appearently the edit disputes is not yet over? I have protected the page again and created a temp page for involved parties to edit in (History of the name Azerbaijan/temp). When an agreed upon version is created there, I'll move that back and unprotect the article. If no agreed upon version can come up I'd suggest the involved parties to follow the steps listed in WP:DR. --WinHunter (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

not again... It is true the article is not about Aliyev and genetics.. It is about ethnonym. I think we should stick upon what we agreed although the quote from Elchibey is probably true and he did make such remarks, that should be for another article. (of course he is the main reason for sour relationship between the two countries).--alidoostzadeh 09:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what is agreed (I did not read the whole discussion above), all I know is that the edit war resumes again as soon as the page is unprotected, even after reassurance from users that the edit dispute is over. So this time I would like to see the agreement in terms of a "final product" in a temp page until I consider unprotecting the article. --WinHunter (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there's an agreement between the users except one person, who keeps on adding irrelevant info and POV comments to the article. Until that person changes his attitude I see no end for this dispute. I hope Ali can try to persuade him to reconsider his approach and stop trying to use this article as a soapbox for nationalistic propaganda. If Khosrow wants to create an article about conflicts between Azeri and Persian nationalists, he's free to do so in a separate article, but such an article should also contain an info on Persianization campaigns in Iran, which contributed a lot to separatist trends in Azeri community in Iran. Grandmaster 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I will not back down anymore. Non of my edits were irrelevant or incorrect. Read below.Khosrow II 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GM POV Push, Gaming the System, and The Edits I made

I spent hours of my time debating on this talk page. I gave GM everything he wanted. I made all the concessions, and then at the end of the day, GM refuses to accept any of the changes that he asked for in the first place. As I have been saying all along, he wanted his POV version. He never wanted a compromise. If he did, he wouldnt have taken out the compromise changes we made! He does not want the truth to be told on Wikipedia.

Here are my changes.

  • The federation dissolved when Georgia declared its independence on May 26. With this break up, the fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament) led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, which had pan-Turkist elements within it, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state.

This makes sense. The only difference between this version and Ali's version is that this version is not as wordy. The english language is not like French or Persian. Its a language that gets right to the point. I have taken advanced english courses and I have always been told that the more concise your sentence, the more professional and adequate it is. Compare my version to this monster of a sentence:

With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament), led by Turkish Democratic Musavat Party, some leaders of which supported at the time the idea of unification with Turkey, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state..

There is no difference except for the fact that my version is more concise and to the point. I dont see the big deal about this and why GM refuses to have proper literary rules of the English language applied.

  • According to Dr. Touraj Atabaki, Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, who lived in exile after the Soviet invasion and occupation of Azerbaijan Republic, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state.

Another change I made was to take the According to Dr. Touraj Atabaki out. That makes no sense at all. Thats like me saying this: According to Jon Stewart, George W. Bush said mission accomplished. Does that make any sense? Again, I was applying English literary rules. Simple as that. Im not sure what GM's English comprehension level is (howver it seems good by the way he types), but even in his own language this probably wont make any sense. So whats the problem with this change I made GM?

  • However, DNA testing has shown the people from the republic and Iranian Azerbaijan to be ethnically different, with Azerbaijani's from the republic being mainly Caucasian[4], and Iranian Azeri's being closer to other Iranic peoples (such as Persians, Kurds, etc...).[5]

Ah, now here are where things get really interesting. GM insists that the DNA tests that PROVE that the Azeri's from the republic are indeed not ethnically the same as the Azari's in Iran, is "not relevant information. I put this under the Azerbaijani People section of this article, and GM keeps taking it out. Why GM? Why dont you want people to know the truth? How is this not relevant to Azerbaijani people? I even sourced it!

  • Present-day Politics Section

GM keeps taking out the politics section of this page. Why GM? As far as I know, the politics of today are directly effected by what happened in 1918. Why dont you want this political section here? Must we create a new article for everythign you consider "irrelevant". This section is to be expanded, but for some reason you dont want it to be. I wonder....

  • Moving the page to "The history of the Name of the Republic of Azerbaijan"

Last I checked, this article is about the Republic of Azerbaijan's name, not the Name of Iranian Azerbaijan and the R. of Azerbaijan. So does GM want people to be confused on purpose? Whats wrong with this title, give me one good reason.Khosrow II 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, I’m really tired of your POV push and nationalistic propaganda. I’m about to refer your behavior to mediation by third parties. Answering your points.
1. The version that was included in the article is the one agreed on the talk page. Yours was not.
2. Why do we present the opnion of professor Swietochowski by mentioning his name, and don't do the same to Dr. Atabaki? No double standarts here.
3. DNA has nothing to do with the name of Azerbaijan. It belongs to the article on Azerbaijani people. Ali also agrees with that.
4. Present day politics are also irrelevant and have nothing to do with the name. Plus it is highly POV. This article is not a soapbox for your propaganda.
5. The article is about the name of Azerbaijan in general, and not only about the name of Azerbaijan republic. Therefore, it should remain at present title. Grandmaster 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree about 3,4... and the title is okay. But the Professor Atabaki quote is not according to him, but actual source that is referenced in the article and the original Persian exists. The Professor Swietchowski is directly from him without any referenced material behind it. alidoostzadeh 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that Atabaki took the quote out of actual context, ans since I'm not able to check the primary source, I think it is necessary to mention his name in the article. It would be really interesting for me to check the actual Rasulzade article. Grandmaster 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The quote above there is in Persian. The letters are in Persian exchanged between Taqizadeh and Rasulzadeh so you would not be able to read them unfortunately. Dr. Touraj Atabaki is an Iranian Azerbaijani but at the same time he is reputable Western Academician[51] and not connected to any government organization. He has edited articles for the Encyclopedia of Islam as well. He is a Full Professor of University of Amesertam[52]. I am not sure what part of the quote you have doubts about since I brought it in Persian. He has worked with Academics of the republic of Azerbaijan as well[53] --alidoostzadeh 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please GM, I encourage you to bring a third party in here to decide who is right and who is wrong, because as Ali and I have consistently proven you wrong on several points, I think this is a clear cut case. Thanks Ali for clearing up that quote thing for GM. Who is the POV pusher now GM?Khosrow II 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You are, Khosrow. You were proven wrong on 4 points out of 5. And you still got the nerve to accuse others of POV push. As for Atabaki, we can remove his name from the article, if you wish. Just out of curiosity, could Ali please translate the paragraph of the letter where Rasulzade says that he’s eager to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians"? What that line was a reference to? Grandmaster 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khosrow. I still believe DNA has no relavance to this article. As per present politics, I believe this should be in an another article and aliyev and ilchibeig and ..are not relavent. The title is good too and informative. As per the quote of Rasulzadeh which GM asked for: «آلبانيا (جمهوري آذربايجان)‌از آذربايجان (آذربايجان ايران) متفاوت است»8، از اين گذشته او در نامه‌اي به سيد حسن تقي‌زاده اشتياق خود را براي «انجام هر كاري كه از ناخشنودي بيشتر بين ايرانيان جلوگيري كند» بيان داشت.9 . Here it is: "Anjaam-e Har Kaari keh az Na-Khoshnoodi-ye Bishtar bein Iranian jelogiri konad" which translates exactly to " Whatever I can do to avoid further discontent among Iranians". and the other one is " Albania az Azarbaijan motefaavet ast" (Albania is different from Azarbaijan). --alidoostzadeh 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all GM, this article is about how the R. of "Azerbaijan" got its name, not Iranian Azerbaijan, the real and only Azerbaijan. Secondly, DNA testing which proves that Azeri's across the border for the most part are not related to Azeri's in Iran is not relevant to this article? Are you kidding me? One of the foundations of this pan Turkish historical revisionism was that Azeri's on both sides were the same people, this has been proven wrong. Lastly, its is very much relevant for us to discuss after affects of the name change. If you want, I can start another article, but whats the point? And how is the section POV when its not even finished, and when its going to be based on facts and facts alone? Also, I want to know how all of this has affected your own pre conceived notion of the history of the R. of Azerbaijan and what you have been taught in school. This is a personal question that I am just curious about, because it seems as though all of this was new to you, you can reply on my talk page if you wish.Khosrow II 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow, as you can see, there’s no consensus on your additions, so they will have to be kept out of the article, since they have no relevance to the topic. And people on both sides of Araks are the same people, speaking the same language. It has not been proven wrong, but it is irrelevant to the topic. The article is not about how the Republic of Azerbaijan got its name, it is about the name of Azerbaijan in general. So the title remains at its present version. End of story. Also, this discussion did not affect my understanding of the history of Azerbaijan, I’m well familiar with all the facts. I think both sides learned something new, which is not bad at all. As for my question to Ali, I see no problem in removing the name of Atabaki from the article, but my question was a little different. Could you please quote the line before the one you cited? What did Rasulzade say that phrase in reference to? Did he say “We made a mistake in choosing the name for our country, and I will do whatever I can to avoid further discontent among Iranians”, or what exactly was that? What was the full context of that line? Just a curiosity, since I have no access to the primary source. Grandmaster 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
GM, as you can see, its turns out there is consensus on atleast one of my edits, the name Atabaki. Also, the people in Iranian Azerbaijan and the R. of Azerbaijan are not the same people, genetics has proven it and history has proven it. They only speak the same language, but that does not make them the same people. And how would you know what this article is about? I created it and it was intended to be about the R. of Azerbaijan. If you want to make another article about the name Azerbaijan in general, be my guest, but the purpose of this article was the name of the R. of Azerbaijan, nothing else. You are cleverly trying to once again link Iranian Azerbaijan and the R. of Azerbaijan. The political section is very relevant, and it will stay as long as I have anything to say about it. You can have this article locked indefinetly, but just because you say the political section shouldnt be there doesnt make it so. It is relevant and I will put it in again. Also, if you claim that you knew about all of this earlier, why did you want this article deleted initially, as well as the Iranian theory regarding Azerbaijani's page? Why do you insist on having the history of Iranian Azerbaijan and the R. of Azerbaijan, two completely different things, together on the same page? Why do you insist on blurring the lines between two seperate entities? Maybe you have an agenda, Im not sure, but your actions on Wikipedia are not the actions of a person who claims to know about the real history of his nation and region.Khosrow II 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Azeri people in Azerbaijan and Iran are the same people and genetics don’t mean a thing. As long as people on both sides of Araks speak the same language, share the same culture and history, they are the same people, and that’s what authoritative sources say. Check Britannica. Don’t try to pass your POV as a fact. The article is protected only because of your POV push and edits without any consensus on the talk. The only issue where you have support from others is Atabaki, and I think we can resolve that one as well. I’m just waiting on Ali’s response. Otherwise, please keep your POV out of the article. Grandmaster 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am so glad you brought the culture and history issue up. So, you say their culture is the same, I agree, you say their history is the same, I agree, but that wouldnt make them Turkic would it, it would make them Iranic, right? This is by your logic. Besides their Turkified language, most other aspects of Azeri's (from the republic), especially cultural, are Iranic. As for Iranian Azerbaijani's, everything about them besides their Turkified language is Iranic. I am so glad you brought this up, you just contradicted yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that these people are Turkic linguistically and linguistically only. However, no, they are not the same people; your country men are mostly of Caucasian descent, while mine are mostly of Iranic descent.
Furthermore, I'm glad you also brought up the sources like Brittanica. For example, on Brittanica, it says Azeri's are a Turkic people, while it also says that the Hazara's are a Mongolian people. Now lets see, Azeri's dont look like ethnic Turks, who have Mongoloid features, dont have the same culture as ethnic Turks or even "Turks" from Turkey, nor d they have a history with ethnic Turks, other than the fact that they were Turkified by them. The only thing about Azeri's that makes them Turkic is their langauge. Now lets see about Hazaras. The Hazaras speak Persian today, they practice Iranian culture, and they have shared their history with Iranians also (since the time of the Mongol invasio). However, they have Mongoloid features. Now lets see, why does Brittanica claim both these people to not be Iranic, when clearly, by the very definition Brittanica says that Azeri's are Turkic, Hazara's must be Iranic, right? This is a double standard that will soon change. Things as ludicrous as this can never last, double standards can never last, and Turkish historical revisionism, which has been at work for 90 years, and has influenced sources such as Brittanica to a small extent, can never last.Khosrow II 15:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to accept the facts, even if you don’t like them. Ethnicity is based on the language in the first place, and not race. Your claim that Turkic people should be Mongoloid is baseless. Turks of Turkey are not Mongoloid, yet they are Turkic people. So are Turkmen, Gagauz, etc. Britannica is a renowned scholarly source, and it says:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijani in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran. [54]

All authoritative sources say the same thing about Azeris. If ethnicity was based on racial features, then Alexander Pushkin would be not Russian, but Ethiopian. But he is the greatest Russian poet. So please keep your personal beliefs out of Wikipedia articles, we only report what authoritative sources say. Grandmaster 12:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Authoritive sources change as new facts come out. For example, it was previously thought that Mongolians and Turkic peoples were related, but that is no longer accepted. And are you sure you want to say that ethnicity is based on language? Then I guess the Hazaras are not Mongols but Iranics, and I guess the Seljuks were Turks by Persians... And yes, all historians agree that ethnic Turks are Mongoloid, and the Turks west of Central Asia are Turkified and only Turkic linguistically. I'm showing you the double standard here with the Hazara example. Why are Hazaras not considered Iranic then if ethnicity is based on language? Sources such as Brittanica have been influenced by 80 years of Pan Turkish propaganda. Notice what the 11th edition Brittanica says about Azerbaijan and the people and then read what the modern Brittanica says. As things have changed before, they will change again.Khosrow II 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss it when it changes, for the moment Britannica is the way it is. The article on Azerbaijan is written by an ethnic Armenian, how come he is influenced by "Pan-Turkish propaganda"? And modern Britannica supersedes the old one, the rules don’t recommend to rely on the old edition. I’m not familiar with Khazara issue, and could not find any article on them, but it is an issue, unrelated to Azerbaijani people. And it is not only Britannica, I can cite many authoritative source, in fact, I have not seen any reliable source claiming that Azeris in the two countries are not the same people. Check Swietochowski, for example. He says the same as Britannica. Grandmaster 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Many people who are not experts in the history of the region or the history of Iran or even the history of the R. of Azerbaijan, have been affected by 80 years of pan Turkish propaganda. To be honest, I didnt even know the truth till a few months ago, and I'm sure you didnt know the truth till I created this article.Khosrow II 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with pan-turkism, what is important is how people want to identify themselves as, you have no right to tell people you are not X, you are Y!!.. If people want to consider themselves as something, they therefore are, please stop this Nazi-style ethnic litmus test.. By the same logic, I can also say that u should remove your i am proud to be american tag from your user page.. How are you american?? Do you speak Cherokee?? :))) So, get over it my boy, if they want to consider themselves as whatever, that's what it counts.. Don't forget that this is an encyclopaedia kozie, and not a blog to let off steam about the humiliations that Iran has suffered in the last twentyfive years.. Better bring in the sources.. You are absolutely not in the position to call Brittanica as being influenced by pan-turkism.. Maybe it is you who is influenced by pan-iranism.. Brittanica is one of the most reliable encyclopaedias out there, and nobody, especially not someone of your position, has the right to call it unscientific.. what? u have published a Encyc Khosica that is globally accepted as being more authoritative?? Don't make me laugh dude.. Please stop this fascism as well, everyone has the right to call themselves and identify with any identity they want, claiming otherwise is simply fascism, you don't think so?? :))) Baristarim 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot contribute anything useful to this debate, then dont make long speeches. I have told you this before. This makes things harder for the people who actually care about making articles better.Khosrow II 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim has a very good point. He's absolutely right. Claiming that Britannica and its Armenian editors like Suny are influenced by pan-Turkism is ridiculous. Grandmaster 07:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The history in general is influenced by pan Turkist ideals. For example, German today is still blamed for WWI because of allied propaganda in the early 20th century, when infact Germany did not start WWI. When somethings are insisted upon for 80 to 90 years, somethings stick. The same with pan Turkism. They, and later with the Soviet backing of some of their agenda's, were able to create this myth that "two" Azerbaijans constituted one entity for its entire history, that the people on the opposites sides of the border are the same people, etc... It wont stick for long. The beauty about Wikipedia is that we can take into considerations facts and opinions that editors of some major reliable sources do not. For example, if that editor of Brittanica read this talk page and the article, with all the evidence within it, dont you think he would change his mind? I sure as hell do.Khosrow II 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course he would not. Azeris in Iran and Azerbaijan are the same people, and no one takes seriously official Iranian propaganda. We stick only to scientifically proven facts and refer to authoritative sources here. Grandmaster 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think the Iranian government propagates any sort of idea. Also it seems that the article is unlocked. I hope genetic stuff is not reinserted again. --alidoostzadeh 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That’s the impression I get after discussions with some Iranian contributors. Some of them insist that Azeris in two countries are not the same people, while all international encyclopedias say they are the same. I think that might be because this is what they told by official mass media. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, let's keep the article focused on topic and factually accurate. Grandmaster 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think they mean that Albania and Media are different.. there was linguistic unity brought though with the Seljuqs and later on Safavids when Turkic spread. But as far as I know the Iranian government does not propagate anything with this regard since it is a religious government. Anyways like you said the article is not about origin of Azeris and just the ethnonym Azerbaijan. --alidoostzadeh 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course he would not. Azeris in Iran and Azerbaijan are the same people, and no one takes seriously official Iranian propaganda. We stick only to scientifically proven facts and refer to authoritative sources here.

Then why do you ignore both? Neither Cambridge nor history is controlled by Iran.Khosrow II 02:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

My suggestion is that all disputed parties put up their version in the discussion page here. --alidoostzadeh 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Kasravi

It is alleged that Kasravi advocated the ban of Azerbaijani language by GM, but the following article contradicts that claim

So we conclude what we wanted to say at this point, but we must make one comment before we finish: Azerbaijani Turkish is lacking in sufficient books and magazines, and this is the reason her children are not accustomed to reading Turkish and prefer to read in Persian. The books and magazines from the Caucasus are a remedy for this lack and fill this void, and many of these, in all manner and class, have been imported in recent years, and there is not a library in Tabriz which does not have a large quantity of books from the Caucasus; indeed, in the year 1334 [1916], a library belonging to a Caucasian was devoted to these publications, and there was neither a Persian nor an Arabic book to be found among them. As we have said, Caucasian Turkish is not very different from Azerbaijani Turkish, and it is not difficult for the people here to read the former. The reading of Turkish has advanced these past years and is still on the rise every day, and perhaps this is the dawning of a literary renaissance of the Turks of Iran which will put an end to the time of poor TurkishÂ’s humiliation and degradation and the drawing close of the days when her sons will give her proper recognition and refrain from being ungrateful to her and not giving her what she is due.[55]. Also I have not seen a pg number with this regard. It must be said that Ali Azeri has praised Kasravi's work.--alidoostzadeh 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from Swietochowski:
Likewise, the idea of linguistic assimilation was espoused by a leading intellectual of Azarbaijan, Ahmad Kasravi, who has been described as the most controversial of modern Iranian thinkers, saw as his chief concern the transformation of a disunited Iran into what he hoped would be an integrated Iran at whatever the cost. He wrote his magisterial work, Tarikh-i Hijdah Saleh-i Azarbaijan (Eighteen years of history of Azarbaijan), to prove that the fate of Azerbaijan lay with the rest of Iran. He believed that Iran owed its backwardness to multidimensional disunity, and among the forces working for this condition were linguistic differences, which he considered as harmful as tribal loyalties. Kasravi's concern with the lack of linguistic unity began at the early stage of the constitutional movement, when the shah had attempted to fragment the reformist forces by playing up the differences between Persian- and Turkic-speaking liberals, and this concern grew stronger when the Ottomans tried to awaken separatist sentiments in Tabriz. In the mid 1920s, as Shah Reza was preparing for his assimilation campaign, Kasravi wrote a pamphlet titled Zaban-i Azari ya zaban-i bastani Azarbaijan (The Azari language; or, the ancient language of Azarbaijan), a venture into historical linguistics. Azari, the original language of Azarbaijan, had been closely related to Persian, and the influx of Turkic words began only with the Seljuk invasion. Therefore, the argument went, Turki was a foreign tongue imposed by conquerors, and the true national language of Azerbaijan was Azari, which survived only in geographical names and among inhabitants of a few remote villages. The belief in the intrinsically Iranian character of the Azeris, as well as in the need for national integration on the basis of Persian, was the essence of what became known as Kasravism (Kasraviyya).
The second quote supports the Encyclopedia of Islam, discussed at Azerbaijani people.
If Pishevari's movement capitalized on Azerbaijani resentments that had accumulated during the years of Reza Shah's attempts at Persianization, Teheran's reactions to efforts at upgrading the status of the Azeri language could only inflame these feelings. Historian Ervand Abrahamian, in a review of typical comments from the capital's newspapers, offers insight into the psychological dimension of the language issue on the Iranian side: "Whereas we are ashamed of Turkish as a disgraced stigma of the humiliation Iran suffered under the barbarian invaders, we are proud of Persian as our rich literary language that has contributed generously to world civilization." This statement appeared in the Teheran newspaper Ettela'at in an article entitled "Azerbaijan Is the Center of Iranian Patriotism." A series of articles in the same newspaper on "The Turkish Language of Azerbaijan" ended with a question that conveyed the flavor of the debate: "Who would exchange the cultured and world-famous literature of Ferdowsi, Sa'adi, and Hafiz for the uncouth and unknown babble of the Turkish plunderers?" Another newspaper (Kushesh) argued that “Persian must continue as the sole language of instruction throughout the public schools because Turkish was only an “unfortunate deposit” left by the savage Mongols as they crossed Iran, plundering, destroying, and devastating the Middle East.” Kasravi, the indefatigable crusader for Azerbaijan's integration with Iran, denounced the Tabriz Democrats for their claims that Azeris were a distinct nation and pointed to the crucial dangers to the unity of the state: “If similar claims are advanced by the other linguistic minorities – especially Armenians, Assyrians, Arabs, Gilanis, and Mazanderanis – nothing will be left of Iran”. This was one of Kasravi's last political pronouncements – he would soon be assassinated by a religious fanatic for heresy. Grandmaster 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So according to those two sources Kasravi advocated Linguistic homogenization, or as the article says: need for national integration on the basis of Persian but the article says: the latter was known for advocating the ban of Azerbaijani language in Iran and complete assimilation of Azerbaijanis to Persian people. This contradicts an article from Kasravi himself. No where has Kasravi said ban the Azerbaijani language, since he himself spoke it when in Tabriz! So the word ban and assimilation is not supported by the sources but what is suported is: need for national integration on the basis of Persian . --alidoostzadeh 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the author says it pretty clear: The idea of linguistic assimilation was espoused by a leading intellectual of Azarbaijan, Ahmad Kasravi. Grandmaster 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So the latter supported linguistic assimilation. It does not say by banning of other languages. Indeed he advocated it by appeal and arguments. --alidoostzadeh 09:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the ban on Azeri language part should be removed. But assimilation is supported by evidence. Grandmaster 09:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I put it back the assimilation back. --alidoostzadeh 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)