Talk:Azerbaijan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:54, 28 January 2007 editThe Behnam (talk \| contribs)6,824 edits →Repeated POV Vandalism by "Azerbaijani": Nothing personal...← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:22, 11 January 2025 edit undoWaited2seconds (talk \| contribs)123 edits →The combination of the name Azerbaijan: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=y}}
	{{WikiProject_Azerbaijan}}
	{{WP:Countries\|class=B}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{Article history
	{{WPCD}}
			\|action1=PR
	{{V0.5\|class=B\|category=Geography}}
			\|action1date=13:40, 1 October 2009
	''An event mentioned in this article is an ]''.
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Azerbaijan/archive1
	<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
			\|action1result=reviewed
	{\| class="infobox" width="315px"
			\|action1oldid=317269735
	\|-
	! align="center" \| ]<br />]
	----
	\|-
	\|
	# ]
	# <!--]-->
	#
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

			\|action2=GAN
	__TOC__
			\|action2date=10:23, 21 May 2011
			\|action2link=Talk:Azerbaijan/GA1
			\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=430169170

			\|action3=PR
			\|action3date=17:40, 24 May 2011
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Azerbaijan/archive2
			\|action3result=reviewed
			\|action3oldid=430704542

			\|topic=geography
	== Article constantly vandalised by Armenians, paid or non-paid ==
			\|currentstatus=GA
	This article is obviously constantly vandalised by Armenians. They are pretending to be Iranians but they are Armenians and admins should not allow Armenian propaganda. This article is nothing but Armenian propaganda and misinformation. Azerbijan IS NOT as written here. The continuous Armenian vandalism shows what their civilisation is all about. They have created many account and pretend to be from Iran. Look at the economy of Armenia and it will be clear instead of workinh to make their country better they are paying people to spread misinformation. ] 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd1date=2004-08-30\|otd1oldid=9035668
			\|otd2date=2005-05-28\|otd2oldid=16335227
			\|otd3date=2006-05-28\|otd3oldid=55529469
			\|otd4date=2007-05-28\|otd4oldid=134183296
			\|otd5date=2008-05-28\|otd5oldid=215501615
			\|otd6date=2009-05-28\|otd6oldid=292814842
			\|otd7date=2010-05-28\|otd7oldid=364748428
			\|otd8date=2011-05-28\|otd8oldid=431307890
			\|otd9date=2011-10-18\|otd9oldid=456212553
			\|otd10date=2012-05-28\|otd10oldid=494712040
			\|otd11date=2013-05-28\|otd11oldid=557155783
			\|otd12date=2014-05-28\|otd12oldid=610528631
			\|otd13date=2014-10-18\|otd13oldid=629963872
			\|otd14date=2015-05-28\|otd14oldid=664382444
			\|otd15date=2015-10-18\|otd15oldid=686002215
			\|otd16date=2016-05-28\|otd16oldid=722138201
			\|otd17date=2016-10-18\|otd17oldid=744977618
			\|otd18date=2017-10-18\|otd18oldid=805912872
			\|otd19date=2018-10-18\|otd19oldid=864652987
			\|otd20date=2019-10-18\|otd20oldid=921877237
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Azerbaijan\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Countries}}
			{{WikiProject Asia\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Caucasia\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Western Asia\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Eastern Europe\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Artsakh\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Anthropology\|oral-tradition=yes}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-a\|style=long}}

			{{Top 25 Report\|Sep 27 2020}}
	== Lets clarify/define our subject matters, as it is used in English. ==

			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	*'''Azerbaijan''' is the name of an independent country as well as the name of the northern part of Iran. Both are mostly populated by Azeri Turks! But also include minorities like Georgians, Lezgins, Kurds, Talishs and Armenians .
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 8
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			__TOC__
	*'''Iran''' is a country with many ethnic groups as well (Including Arabs, Kurds, Persians/Fars and , Turks ...)

	*'''Persian''' is the English name for ethnic group whose native name is '''Fars''' in Iran.

	*The terms Persian (Fars) or Turk or Arab, are refereing to an ethnic group, based on language only(not race or citizentiop ). Ethnicity is based on language, which defines the identity, culture etc.

	*'''Turkish''' (when not speaking of language)is a refrence for any citizen of Turkey, also name of Language and ethnic group mainly in Turkey.

	*'''Turk''' is a broader name for people that live in todays Turkey, Azerbaijan, and northern part of Iran!
	*'''Iranian''' is who ever who is citizen of Iran.

	So you can say:
	:*I am '''an Azeri'''/Azerbaijani, because I am a citizen of Azerbaijan or from northern part of Iran , and
	:*I am '''a Turk ''' in refrence to my language and ethnicity, but
	:*I am '''not Turkish''' as I am not citizen of Turkey.
	:*I am '''an Iranian''' as I am citizen of Iran.

	-So an Azerbaijani can be an Iranian when it comes to citizentip . So you can say: '''X is an Iranian-Azeri.'''

	-Or an Afghani can be Persian but not Iranian when we talk of ethnicity. So you can say: '''Y is a Afghani-Persian'''.

	If you have different definitions of these terms and references please define them.
	] 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks for clearing that out Mehrdadd, good post ] 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

	---------

	::''Ethnicity is based on language, which defines the identity, culture etc.''

	::Oh really? So i guess the seljuks, Safavids, Qajar's, Mughals, etc... were all persians. hooray for us. thanks for your logic, but next time, stick to facts, and keep your opinions to yourself.] 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

	== If you want to know what Azeri's are ask Azeri's for the answer will be obviously what we and that is Azeri Turks ==


	Hi,

	I'd just like to state that the poor bunch of Pan-Persians foaming at the mouth are making total fool's of themselves.

	As an Azeri Turk in diaspora thanks to the opressive Iranian regime I can openly state that my language is Turkish, I am a Turk, yet also an Iranian as in citizen. The reason I say this is because Iran does not recognise my language, provide's no education in my language, we are made to feel that as Turks we are not Iranians as to be Iranian you must speak Persian and abide by the Persian rules and culture.

	For this reason I do not regard myself as an "equal" Iranian, me and millions like me are not allowed to speak the language of the people who ruled this land for 1000 years which is a real shame.

	Turks have been in the region for over 2000 years, open your history books and read it, it is documented as far back to 500 BC.

	The Khazar's and their ancestor's settled in the region in 100 AD, so the claim of no Turks being in the region prior to the Selcuks is a common Persian lie.

	To see for yourselves about the linguistic state in Iran here is an objective source.


	'''For Iran'''

	Azerbaijani, South 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.

	Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani


	Khorasani Turkish 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).

	Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

	Qashqa'i 1,500,000 (1997).

	Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

	Turkmen 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).

	Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian

	http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran


	That;s almost 30 million Native Turkish speakers in Iran.

	If there are any here who still try to deny we are Turks then tell us this in our own language, let's debate this in Turkish which is our language, oh but you can't can you because you are not Azeri, Qaskay or Turkmen.

	It would be alot better if you could just accept the realities, we are not Persian, don't speak Persian, Azeri Turks of Iran are Iranian citizens, Azeri Turks of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijan citizen's and luckily have their beautiful language as the National one, they teach our fabulous language in schools, its the language of the state, of media, of national identity, there they can be what they are and speak their mind about who they are.

	Shamefully this isn't the case in my country, even more disgracefull is when these Persian's start foaming at the mouth calling anyone who say's they are a Turk an agent from Turkey.

	Please, stop the paranoia, were living inside Iran, not in Turkey, if you carry on fooling yourself otherwise very soon South Azerbaijan will be joining the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran will have been destroyed by the Persians.

	I have visited the Republic of Azerbaijan many time's, it make's me so proud and happy to see my nation living our and speaking our beautiful language, to see them proud and open about who they are, a place where being a Turk is a beatiful thing, hopefully one day the same will be said for Iran.

	'''Azerbaycan ölmedi
	Özlüyünden dönmeyib
	Azerbaycan oyaqdır
	Varlığına dayaqdır
	Ana dilim ölen deyil
	Özge dile çönen deyil'''

	]


	it just shows , that my figures were right ,i said 20-22 millions azeris and eight to nine millions kurds but that souce seems to be pretty well
	it would mean , that today thre are about 25 millions azeris and 8 millions kurds in iran, considering population growth
	kurdish dialects
	http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
	Hawrami 22,948 in Iran
	Kurdish, Central 3,250,000 in Iran
	Kurdish, Northern 350,000 in Iran
	Kurdish, Southern 3,000,000 in Iran (2000 Fattah).
	Laki 1,000,000 (2002 Fattah).

	*'''Guys, Ethnologue figures are wrong''', their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 millions more than the population of Iran (that also includes 3-4 millions Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out! see this http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran ] 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


	I'm really sorry to read these oponions,what are you talking about? we are all Iranian/persian. have you forgotten that lots of goveners in the past and even now are turks(safavi dynasty, qajar dynasty and ...) but we all speak Persian in order to comminiucate, why are you trying to follow divid and control policy by Britain, they just try to make our country smaller and then control us widely. Please stop this racist policy and accept that we as an kurd,Lur,pars,Turk,Arab and even Afgan are all a nation IRANIAN/PERSIAN
	] 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Actually Azaris are Iranian==

	'''It has scientifically been established through genetics that Azaris are Turcophone (or Turkic speaking) Iranians. I have no problem in anyone saying that I am a Turkic person due to my langauge, but ethnically I am an Iranian. The majority of Azaris also view themselves as Iranians. Language is not the factor that defines a race or ethnic group.''' ]

	::Cite the study, its authors, when was done, who funded, who published -- there is not such credible scientific studies and it is generally easy to distinguish most ethnic Azerbaijanis from most ethnic Persians, for example. Often, there are anthropological differences, although I've never dwelled into details of such research. Of course, this doesn't mean that ethnic Azerbaijanis don't have Caucasian, Iranian, Semitic and other lineage, but then all ethnic Persians and other Iranians have also Turkic, Caucasian, Semitic and other lineages too. --] 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	Let us speak about scientific facts to be consistent. Nex time when you claim something please be specific and give us the name, number, date and page numbers of the scientific journal. Or else you are funny. You may not like Turks. But you should not lie. Apart from Iran rest of the world says that Azeris are mostly of Turkish origin. Nowadays Iran has an Southern Azerbaijan problem and trying to claim that Azeris are Iranian. But this will not work. You can not meet scientific facts with emotional claims. In Azerbaijan there are of course dark coloured citizens resemble Iranians. But they are not majority.

	**I don't know if you are azeri or no, but me as an azeri no more know myself iranian...Iran as i remember was: "countries of Iran" till 90 years ago till it became one centralized country which south-azerbaijan was part of this union, but tanx no more, I've had enough.
	I don't care about race, we are a diffrent nation.

	== Independent, unbiased determination by the world community re: NK conflict ==

	The Azerbaijan page lacked references and quotes from the authoritative English-language sources, and the following were added: CIA World Factbook's succinct description, the 4 UN Security Council resolutions, the PACE resolution and the OIC resolution, along with the US Presidential Determination. All these are extremely important and reflect the independent, unbiased, non-partisan POV and indeed, in case of UN SC, are legally binding as become international law. All these detailed references and quotes must stay in the page and should not be removed. --] 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	== To those who dedicated their meaningless lives aginst us Turks ==
	==Turk== is an ethnic name for people who inhabit in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Northern part of todays Iran, Southeast of Georgia, Northeast of todays Iraq (Kerkuk) and Northern Cyprus!
	Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan! There are minorities living in that country too:
	==Lezgins== - 45.000 to 65.000!
	==Ingeloys(ethnic georgians,but muslim from religion)== - 25.000 to 35.000!
	==Talishs== - 55.000 to 75.000! Not million and a half!
	==Kurds== - 25.000 to 35.000!
	==Armenians(Karabakh included)== - 200.000!
	==Russians== - 35.000!
	==Others== - 45.000!
	If you add all the top numbers it is not even a half a million!!
	The rest 8.000.000 are Azeri Turks!
	==Iran== - Total population is 76.500.000.
	==Persians== - 32.000.000!Surprised, go check both Russian and English sources! Not Iranian !
	==Lours== - 1.000.000!
	==Balujis== - 3.500.000!
	==Azeri Turks== - 29.000.000!
	==Avshar Turks== - 1.500.000!
	==Turkmens== - 2.750.000!
	==Other turkic speaking tribes== - 750.000!
	==Kurds== - 4.000.000!
	==Afgans== - 1.000.000!
	==Arabs== - 500.000
	==Others== - Armanians, Jews, Talishs - 500.000
	If you add these numbers up according the linquistic origin this what is comming up :
	Turkic speaking people ( Azeri Turks, Turkmens, Avshars etc...) - 34.000.000!
	Persian speaking people ( Persians and Lours ) - 33.000.000
	Afgans - 1.000.000
	Kurds - 4.000.000
	Balujis - 3.500.000
	Others ( Armenians, Jews, Talishs )- 500.000
	These are the statistics. Now tell me:
	Why should the official language of Iran should be Persian?
	Why Turks can not learn their native language in schools in Iran?
	Why Kurds can not learn their native language in Iran?
	Ozqan Bakhish

	==Official websites==
	If someone is able, please gather and provide here a list of all official government websites and remove spam from this page. Thanks. ] 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Figures of Iranian Azeris ==

	Where is this bull about 25 million Iranian Azeris coming from? Azeris constitute one-fourth of Iran's population...Iran's population is 70 million...25 million would only be accurate if Iran's population were 100 million, in which case one-fourth or 25 percent would be just that, 25 million. Do the math again...also, Azerbaijan Republic is not 8 million Azeris it is six and half million, because one and a half million Talish are not ethnic Azeris (I am even going as far as counting Lezgins as ethnic Azeris, which they are not)...Azerbaijan Republic has had one agenda since its foundation...to take over northern IRAN which it still refers to as "South Azerbaijan" as if it were a southern province of Azerbaijan Republic, and stir up ethnic strife in Iran. Iran's policy of supporting Armenia and keeping Azerbaijan Republic weak is right on the money...you don't let your sworn enemy get an inch. IRAN is with you ARMENIA! Long live Hayistan! Long live independent Talish-Mughan Republic! Long live Nagorno-Karabakh Republic/Armenia! Aliyev, you will see Tabriz the same day you see Stepanakert (Xankendi as you call it)...NEVER!

	*My good friend, It is not Aliyev’s plan it is America’s plan. America fears that Northern Azeris may want to join Iran (the mother land) and they have been working hard on several plans in the last 10 years but as you can see Iran is still Iran and is getting stronger everyday with the help of all Iranians (Azeri and Fars and Kurds and the other 75 languages apparently spoken in Iran according to Ethnologue!). Iran was not build in a day and will not be destroyed in a day. ] 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Ethnologue figures are wrong''', their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 million more than the population of Iran (that also includes 3-4 million Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out! see this http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran ] 08:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

	::To all the provocateurs: according to the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences' most recent estimate (2004), Azerbaijanis constitute up to 28% of Iranian population or, as they also mention, according to other calculations about 1/3 of the population. This does not include other Turkic peoples that are scattered in the south and north-east of the country, which is another 3-4%. Hence, 25 million is actually a reasonable estimate. --] 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	**Iran's not getting stronger, they put the highest pressures on their own people, + 2/3 of turks who live in iran are out of south-azerbaijan, because of the centralizing and persanising plans -which they use really nasty methods-, they had to move which some of these can not even speak turkish, coz they are persianized in one word, and this is what made us to think about ourselves, we lost almost half of our people in Iran, and that's enough, I'm no more an iranian, we fighted for iran for centeries more than anybody else, we ruled the country for centeries and kept it strong till now, we did what others didn't do it, and oh i forgot to say it they did something: they call us donkeys! and they come to my city and kill 25000 people, just in my city, haha, history won't forget anything, we lost half-million people from my land to fight with saddam to keep the country, and we are not even allowed to have a school! we need to be proud of being persian! being persianized! being proud of Cyrus and Darius who were capturing the world by people's blood, no respect, am i not a human?

	:Iran is a extremist country who funds world wide terrorist organisations, who on earth would want to be part of such destruction. ] 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	==Oil Reserves==
	Does anybody actually know the proven oil reserves of Azerbaijan? I have come across figures from 589 million bbl (CIA Factbook) to some who claim 30-40 billion bbl! If it is only 589 million bbl it will run out in a few years! Does anybody actually know? ] 08:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I know. And Azerbaijani oil will not run out for 30 years. Meanwhile, no one has ever claimed 30-40 billion bbl -- President Aliyev always states the figure of 6-7 bbl. --] 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	Officially booked reserves are now about 7 billion barrels (Similar to Angola) of oil and 40 Tcf of gas. 30-40 billion barrels were claimed in early 90s during the hype. CIA factook refers to SOCAR operated field only. ] 00:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

	:BP and the president Azerbaijan have stated that with the opening of BTC which will transfer about a million barrels a day, and that they except th~e BTC to last for at least 30 years. If you do the math it basicly means Azerbaijan has about 10,9 billion oil in reserce ] 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	== "Controversy" tag ==

	This section says:

	''The name they chose for their new nation was Azerbaijan ... in hopes of claiming north western Iran''.

	Is there any proof of that, other than publications of some Iranian authors, who have obvious bias in this issue? Also the text of this new section is very far from NPOV rules and presents the issue in typical propaganda fashion. According to the rules, we present only the facts without taking any sides. So I attached the tag, which should remain, until the problem is corrected. ] 05:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


	:yes, if you look into the main page, if you actually read it before you put it pu for deletion, you will see the quotes of several people who all say it was for political reasons to claim northern iran. the pan turkist movement that started at the begining of WWI had these intentions. infact, the ottomans invaded russia,thinking that they could defeat russia and get to central asia and united all the turkic peoples. ] 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


	Khosrow - this is ridiculous, as is your above statement. I have not read a single source that state this fact from Rasulzadeh and other founders of republic. Of course, Iranian authors accuse them of doing so without any proof ] 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

	Actually after reading this it is even more POV than I thought in tone. This section should be re-worded. E.G - where does "Pan-Turanist Musavatist" party come from...?

	::Well abdulnr, its not my fault that you have never read a source regarding it, but the source is listed in the main article, have you even read it? I am taking off the tag until you come up with the exact problem, not a general statement.] 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I gotta agree with Abdulnr thats just way to POV. ] 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	==Land of the Eternal Fire==
	I don't think that "Land of the Eternal Fire" is a motto as much as it is a nickname. A motto would be more like a phrase or a short list of words meant formally to describe the general motivation or intention of an entity (in this case a specfic country). Take the mottos of the ] ("In God We Trust"), the ] ("Truth prevails!"), or ] ("Peace at Home, Peace in the World") for example. By comparison, "Land of the Eternal Fire" is merely a literal meaning of a word ("Azerbaijan") and does not describe the general motivation or intention of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I'm removing it until somebody can find an actual motto for the country (if one even exists). -- ] 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Maybe they misunderstood the concept of motto when they accepted it, but thats the official motto of Azerbaijan, I can understand your point Clevelander, maybe its not really approriate to be a motto but it is the motto of the country, ask any other Azeri they will confirm it. We cant just make up a motto ourselfs for Azerbaijan. So best thing right now is just to put it back up, as it is the official motto of the country. ] 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, but additionally there are no Azerbaijani government sources that confirm this to be the country's official motto. It has been taken off and will stay off. -- ] 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

	== IPA ==

	Could someone add IPA pronunciation to the lead? I'm not familiar with the subject:) --] ] 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

	:The current "IPA pronunciation" shown, "", is certainly _not_ IPA. It shouldn't be too hard to fix a correct phonemic pronunciation, if it's only clearified whether the intention is to make one of the English or the Azeri name. /] 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, I also doubted. --] ] 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

	== The name ==

	There's no need to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with POV interpretations of the history. Khosrow has already been warned by admins that this is not acceptable, still he continues to push his POV. There's enough of information about the name in Etymology section, with a link to a more detailed article, no need to consume so much space in this article by nationalistic nonsence. ] 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
	:I think that as long as we have an article on the history of the name "Azerbaijan," then we're fine. We don't need a section on the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" on every article relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- ] 09:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

	:: Absolutely. ] was even warned by the admin that this is not acceptable, but still he continues to spam the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive and POV section. ] 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::Its not spam, its a summarized sourced section leading to a main article, just as the Azerbaijan page links to otehr articles while also having summaries. This is not spamming.] 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Unprotection? ==

	Are we ready to unprotect this page yet? There hasn't been much discussion for awhile... —<tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
	:I think we should. Again, I don't see the point in arguing over the name "Azerbaijan" and inserting the "Azerbaijan naming controversy" section on every single page relating to the Republic of Azerbaijan. -- ] 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
	::No, the issue is not settled yet, it is being discussed else where. If this article gets unlocked, GM will just start another revert/edit war.] 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Picture of Baku ==

	There is a photograph in the body of the article, with the explanation "The National Bank (right) behind the Fountains Square in Baku". But there is a confusion. What is depicted on the picture is NOT the Fountain Square. The Fountain Square is located in the very center of Baku, and the closest bank building to that square is the International Bank of Azerbaijan, which is a blue building. I guess who ever "self-made" that picture got really confused over the places in Baku

	==Historical revisionist theory==
	The theory that the name Azerbaijan has anything to do with Turkic is historical revisionism. Firstly, it does not explain why the term Azarbaijan, Azarpadegan, and Atropatene were used, thousands of years (Atropatene, Azarpadegan) and centuries (Azarbaijan) before the Turkic peoples even got there? Historical revisionism, ordered during the time of the Soviets (direct orders from Stalin), to do several things: a)making sure the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran, b) rewrite the history of the territory and the newly formed republic. Secondly, the Az people the Turkic theory is referring to is a pure lie. There was only one Az people in the Near East/Eurasia, a people that had nothing to do with the region. Also, the name Azerbaijani was only invented in the 1890's by the Russians to distinguish Turkic peoples of Iranic descent from other Turkic peoples. Again, this does not explain the "Az" people reference. This theory is pure historical revisionism. I'm taking it out. Furthermore, the name Azerbaijan is the Turkified version of Azarbaijan, because the Turkic languages cannot prounce Azar, therefore, again, this shows that there is no way the name Azerbaijan was original.] 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Where are these stories written? In your nationalistic, the one and the only source iranica encyclopedia(?) or fairy tales from Andersen?
	You say ''the history of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran''
	There are 23,5 millions Azeri Turks in Iran. These peoples have the same language, culture and ethnicity with Azerbaijan. --] 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::The history of the R. of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iran. The history of the R. of Azerbaijan begins in 1918 to present. The Caucasus's history is definetly tied with Irans. Arran, Shirvan, Ganja, etc... were part of Iran for thousands of years before Russia invaded. What are you talking about?] 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	== New Map ==

	Suggest someone run down the blank for the ] map, and colorize for this state. See ], Actually cropping that to right side is even better thought. Don't need Western Europe, just the Balkans. Best regards // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	*I think that's actually a great idea. I wish I had checked this talk page before reverting the map to the old one. Your suggestion seems to be a compromise that should make everyone happy -- a higher resolution, detailed map without any unnecessary political connotations. I'll try to get to work on your suggestion with Photoshop later tonight. Thanks. ] 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

	*Holidays, etc. unfortunately had me too busy to get to this as quickly as I had expected, but the map is uploaded now and I'm about to add it to the article. ] 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Conflict regarding the o--] 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)rigins and legitimacy of Azerbaijan's name ==

	1. I added a new sentence saying that the Republic was called Azerbaijan before, paraphrasing the sentence coming before it. 2. I removed two paragraphs. First of them (that the Bolsheviks kept the name because they wanted iran) refer to an obscure pan-Iranian web page and an ideologically motivated article, which cannot be neutral and is not. This is against the rules of Misplaced Pages. And the second one, claiming that Resulzade was regretting the choice of the name, is very selective. He was a politician and could have said something like that at one point. Yet he devoted his entire life to Azerbaijan, both in name and substance. The organizations he created in exile, the periodicals he published, all of them bear the name of Azerbaijan, mainly referring to today’s Republic of Azerbaijan. It was a misinformation to insert such a paragraph. And instead of adding pages from Resulzade’s life, I thought a better idea would be to remove it. Since coming out of context, that paragraph’s only aim is to further the claim of the person who inserted it to the page, that Azerbaijan is a fake/political name chosen for the Republic. Thanks. ] 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Read Misplaced Pages rules. POV is not allowed. And its funny, you even tried DISTORTING A QUOTE!]

	Yes, read Misplaced Pages rules; misinformation, specifically that which comes due to bias, is vandalism. As to the quote, the change didn't make it wrong. It just changed it so that it cannot be used to make an ideological point. Good luck. ] 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	:DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT SOURCED INFORMATION IS? Stop your POV editing!] 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	Yes, I do. Probably I published more scientific pieces than you did. Do you know what "unreliable source" and "selective citation out of context" are? Of course you do, it is just the ideology that makes you overlook them. Unfortunate. And yes, if you are not tired of disseminating misinformation how can I be tired of correcting it? Thanks. ] 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	: You cannot include a section based solely on Iranian nationalistic sources and claim neutrality. The bias of sources called "Pan-Turanianism Takes Aim at Azerbaijan: A Geopolitical Agenda" screams from their titles. Please mind ]. ] 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Facts are facts. DO NOT DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE IT. There is something suspicious going on because as I see, it has been there a long time and you havent done such a thing. Maybe you and Elnurso are the same person and you accidentally logged in with the wrong account? IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN I WILL REPORT YOU. If you notice, there is already a tag up. Do not delete this again!] 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: The info in that section is not based on reliable sources. All the sources used are Iranian, i.e. they have obvious bias. I removed it before, but it was readded by some Iranian users. Please use neutral sources to support your claims. ] 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::A tag is already up! Read your talk page. I may take this into arbitration and you know as well as I do that you will not be able to hold out with your reason. Sources are sources, and you evident racism is despicable. A tag is already up, you have no justification for your action. I will make sure the correct action is taken against you if you continue.] 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::: First of all, mind ]. Accusing others of racism for no obvious reason is not gonna help you. Second, sources should be reliable, and those used in this section are not. So you are welcome to try any dispute resolution procedures, I'm willing to cooperate, as I've done before. ] 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I know about civility, and its obvious that you have some bias against Iranian sources... I dont know whether that is out of racism or if you just do not like what you are reading. What are you talking about these sources are not reliable? BOTH ARE PROFESSORS AT WESTERN UNIVERSITIES. Kaveh Farrokh is a very well known historian and has even appeared on teh history channel. There is no way you can hold up your case that these sources are not reliable. I think you should mind wikipedia's rules against disruptive editing and vandalism!

	::::::These are professional historians you are talking about. If these sources are not reliable, then please tell me what are reliable sources! You have not even proved that these sources are unreliable, who says you get to decide what is reliable and what is not? THERE IS ALREADY A DISPUTE TAG AT THE TOP OF THE SECTION, SO YOU HAVE NO CASE.] 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::: I suggest you check ]. Also we can try dispute resolution. ] 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: In my opinion you should stop removing sourced information, and instead present the information in a way that both points of view can be seen. --] 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::: Atabaki is very reliable source and the Persian text of correspondence between Rasul zadeh and Taqi zadeh exists. But I suggest the naming issue should just refer to the ''History of the name of Azerbaijan''. --] 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

	First of all, this page about the history of and modern Azerbaijan. There is page in Wiki called 'History of the name Azerbaijan" where the section under discussion should be moved. Then, the NPOV, reliability of sources can be discussed there.

	: I agree with Ali. I think that the name is not the most important issue about Azerbaijan. It is enough to provide a link to the ''History of the name of Azerbaijan'' article in the etimology section, where everyone can refer for more details about the name. That article reflects all existing views on the issue, which is impossible to fit in the format of this article, which provides only brief overview of the country. ] 11:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

	Dear Pan-Iranians,

	One does not have to have a high level of IQ to see how selective you are in your choices of information from the pages of history and how you paraphrase them to fit the ultimate goal of yours: that the Republic of Azerbaijan is a fake entity. I really do not care even if we got the name 50 years ago, Resulzade was aplogizing for it, etc. What matters for us, people living in that land, is the well being of the people there, that is it. I am extremely amused by the fact that, Iranians, forgetting about putting their house into order, failing to create a decent society in such a culturally and economically rich area, ending up with one of the most ridiculously heart-breaking societal and political institutions in the entire world, still spend time and money to spoil other people's day by attacking their identity. Every identity emerged at one point in time. Every name emerged at one point in time. America? France? Turkey? Coming to the fore 1000 years ago or 100 years ago; why should that matter? Mind your own business guys.

	And the point is that you do not have good faith. You have a political agenda in negating today's republic. That is, listen carefully please, you are not removing someting that in anyway touches Iran or falsifies anything any normal Iranian cares about, rather, you are ADDING things to this webpage to claim that Republic of Azerbaijan is fake in name and of course, by the same token, substance.

	I will check Tadeusz Swietochowski's quote, i do not have the book with me now. So I leave it untouched. But please do not remove my citation from Velikhanli; I can send the book's copy or the translation thereof if you want to. And hey, I don't know Grandmaster, probably he is just a decent fellow guy. And our presence here is spontaneous; this is our country. That is very different from your artificially organized interventions. And that is why our natural determination will overwhelm any kind of fake stubbornness on your side. Thanks. ] 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Save your time about the Tadeusz Swietochowski quote, your friend Grandmaster put that in there I believe. Facts are facts, both of you continuously take out facts and bring up horrible reasons for them. I know they teach you different where you come from, neither of you can dispute the facts. So I suggest you stop removing such information just because it is not to your liking.] 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: It was indeed me who provided the quote from Swietochowski in response to claims of some of our Iranian friends that the territory north of Araks was never called Azerbaijan. Swietochowski says that the ''northern part of Azerbaijan'' was known at times (i.e. not always) as Albania and Arran, but it is one geographic area, stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. I think he’s absolutely right. ] 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Exactly, so why dont you revert Elnurso when he rewrites the quote? Why do you wait for me to do it? Its as if both of you are working together to trap me in some way here. But atleast thanks for telling this guy the truth so he'll stop is blanking!] 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::: As far as I can see he adds his own quote in addition to mine, but you remove it without any explanation. ] 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

	Grandmaster,

	Honestly I did paraphrase the sentence that is referenced to Swietochowski ragrding the name before. I didn't and still do not know whether it was an exact quote; that was one reason (please let me know if it is, i do not have the book with me right now). And secondly, the unprovoked spoilers created such a semantic context around the quotation that it looks as if it supports their irrelevant argument. But please keep an eye on it so that they do not play with the exact prhase. Take care and nice to talk to you. ] 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

	: The quote is accurate, but it does not support their point whatsoever. In fact, it shows that north of Araks was called Azerbaijan as well, while at certain periods in history it was called Albania or Arran/Shirvan. ] 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

	Just out of curiosity folks, this is an article about "Azerbaijan" which, whether some like it or not, is a recognised established sovereign state. This is not a forum for debating politics. So why are so many Iranians writing and editing Azerbaijan anyway?! I am Iranian myself and this is the first time I came across this article and I just noticed it is so obvious that the article has been edited by Iranians, but Iranians shouldn't be editing "Iranian Azerbaijan"?
	Besides, in the early 19th century many countries did not exist that exist now, and countries obviously, for obvious reasons chose a name that usually reflected the nationality of that country, not what that area had been called hundreds or thousands years ago.
	When Russians conquered north of the Aras there was nor province or administrative area called Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was established as a province of Iran AFTER the wars with Russia. The reason for naming an area withing Iran Azerbaijan at that time was the ethnic mix of that area, i.e. Turks, so they chose an old name, Azerbaijan, which had never been clearly defined but it had historically been referred to somewhere between Lake Urmia and the Caspian sea. So, neither Iranian Azerbaijan nor the republic of Azerbaijan are exactly what historic Azerbaijan was, because there are no data avalailable to say exactl where historic Azerbaijan started and ended. Historic Azerbaijan may have not included the current provinces of West Azarbaijan and Zanjan that are mostly Azeri populated!!! ] 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

	Canada was created 200 years ago - fictional name, version of aboriginal area's name. So, what? Iran itself had different names - Persia, Parphia, Sassanid, etc. Should we start a battle on the page Iran about its name? And I mentioned above - this page about history and modern Azerbaijan. There is separate page -"History of name Azerbaijan" where all section should be moved. I don't mind to discuss various version there, and somehoe accomodate them.--] 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

	== BIG FAULTS IN THE ARTICLE ==
	I noticed that there are political arguments here rather than other things and from reading the article it can be seen that it has been politicised in the text. Let's look at the following text:

	With the collapse of Tsarist Russia in 1917, the Musavat ("Equality") Turkic Federalist Party, which had pan Turkic elements within it, met in Tbilisi on May 27, 1918 to create their own state, which they named Azerbaijan. According to some sources, the name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim north western Iran. The Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union. Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".

	The references of this paragraph are from 1) a letter of Aremania to the UN in which the writer has some claims. Is this a source when writing an article about Azerbaijan?? To refer to a letter from a representative of a waring nation?? The other two sources are from a book and an article from Atabaki Touraj and other from N. Kawyani. These cannot be taken as reliable source becasue books and article, opposed to reliable and accepted scientific or scholarly institutions can have the sole purpose of politics. I am not against citing from them but in a neutral way, noit as declaratively as above: "which had pan Turkic elements within it" or "Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state, saying that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Rasulzade Also declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians"." The reader understands that these are proved facts but they are not reliable so the texting of the article must be changed to be more neutral. Whoever reads this article clearly understands that the name Azerbaijan is wrong! Bm79 04:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

	== About the name Azerbaijan ==
	Involved parties, please let's have a debate and solve the problem in a civilised manner. The article, as it suggest, is too mcuh politicising. We should offer different points of view in the article if the name is that important, in an impartial manner. At this moment the article is too much POV, politicised. This damages the article's credibility. We should solve the problem and remove the "neutrality dispute" tag. We are supposed to be civilised people, right? We are talking about Iran's old and strong civilisation, right? Then we shall be able to discuss one simple artile. Iranians and zerbijanis have a long history of brotherhood and separating them from each other is not correct, so let's unite and find a common ground to write a good article. Is it possible? It is ture that there is a Republic of Azerbaijan at this moment, but Iranians and those from the republic of Azerbijan shall also behave like civilised people rather than quarreling. Politics have devided us, but we can still be united. I invite my fellow people from th OLD great IRAN to come together and talk about the issues they do not agree aupo. I am sure we can find common ground. Thanks and looking forward. I am sure neither the Iranians nor the Azeris of the Republic are in bad faith but we (they) fail to cool down a bit. Khahesh mikonam sohbat bokonim dar yek majmae samimane ve motamadden! Lutfen bir semimiyetli ve medeniyetli toplanma'da danishaq! :) Bm79 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

	: My personal opinion is that all that stuff about the name should be moved to the article about the name, otherwise what’s the point of its existence? The etymology section should not repeat the history section, which it does now. The declaration of Azerbaijan’s independence is currently described twice, in two different sections. It should not be so. I think that it is enough to leave a link to the History of the name Azerbaijan in the etymology section, rather than duplicate the history section with Iranian POV interpretations. ] 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Thats your personal opinion. It has been greatly shortened. You do not have an excuse anymore.] 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::This article seems to be written by opponents of the state of Azerbaijan. It is just a political pamphlet. Poor, very poor. ] 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Atropates==
	There is no reason to revert my edit that describes Atropates as a Persian. I sourced this to a page at livius.org that describes him as a Persian nobleman. I don't know why it is thought that by being satrap in Media makes him ethnically Median. See . I don't know where the idea that he was "Iranian" comes from, unless Iranian peoples in general are meant. If so, the Persian description is only more specific. Nareklm describes the edit as "inaccurate"; please explain. ] 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	:They usually mix up Iranian and Persian because its basically the same or known as the same thing do you have any other references stating that he is "Persian"? ] 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I know they tend to mix them up, but I saw this source as giving it more specifically. I'll take a look for repeats of that notion. Are you still against having it in place of "Iranian", which could mean "Median" or "Persian" in this situation? Right now we have one fairly reliable source(livius.org) stating him as Persian, while none(that I can tell) stating him as an actual Mede. If it had simply called him a "Persian satrap", I would be more doubtful since it could be referring to employment as satrap under Persian empire. But it states him as a "Persian nobleman". Tell me if there is some reason to doubt the identification. Have you seen something identifying him with a different Iranian group? Of course, nothing will happen until protection ends, but it is good to get it worked out. Thanks ] 07:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	::There appears to be some controversy over his specific ethnicity. seems the primary source for those that say he is "Median", while a few other things say he is a "Persian satrap and general", which is ambiguous. This source says that he is Persian(just search atropates). Tell me if you find something. ] 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Sources again ==

	All the sources in the disputed part of etymology section are not reliable. One of them is called ''Letter dated 30 April 2001 from the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations'' . How this can be considered a reliable source? By the same token I can make edits to the article about Armenia using as reference letters of Azerbaijani government to UNO. The other 2 sources are nationalistic Iranian Faroukh and Reza, both extremely biased and prejudiced anti-Azerbaijani sources. How about citing neutral sources to support the claims made in that section? ] 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:This is like describing the ] using only ] and ] sources. People who support the use of these sources need to explain why they should be used, because they do not appear reliable. Armenia is the closest Azerbaijan has to an enemy, while the other sources are from irredentist Iranians who happen to include Azerbaijan as part of their imagined Iranian super-state. It is in the interests of both of these groups to deem Azerbaijan as a somehow illegitimate state. Considering this is the page for that entire nation, it is understandable that people find use of these sources objectionable and demeaning, if not downright offensive. I suggest that such views only be expressed in the article devoted to the naming controversy, and that the section here only have a short, neutral statement simply explaining the proposed meanings for the name. There should be no mention of pan-Turkists and attempts to claim northwestern Iran, as placing emphasis on allegations is not usually appropriate for general articles about a nation. While it seems that defenders of these sources are taking a break while the page is locked as this unacceptable version, I hope that they are honorable enough to be open to discussion. ] 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I wonder how this article has been accepted. I have noticed that there are many people who are constantly changing the articles about Azerbaijan and have no interest in discussion. It is visible that these articles have no intention of giving useful information about the country Azerbaijan but rather to give the impression that the country Azerbaijan if illegitimate. As long as Azerbaijan exists what is the point of an encyclopedia proving or not whether the country's name is from this or that or whether the country is legitimate or not? And of course the sources mentioned are absolutely unreliable. ] 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::You have to prove that these sources are not reliable, since you are the one making the accusations. Whats wrong with a document submitted to the United Nations? You cannot claim that a source is not reliable due to nationality. Both Dr. Farrokh and Dr. Atabki are respected historians who work for Western Universities. Dr. Farrokh himself is half Iranian Azerbaijani. Neither of them are nationalists. Both, as far as I know, are against the current regime and neither of them have any goals of an Iranian super state, but rather protecting Iranian history from Pan Turkist attacks. Dr. Farrokh himself, in his online book, clearly says that he has nothing against Turks, nor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He even goes as far as to call them brothers and sisters. However, when it comes to history, he is a specialist and when it comes to the name of Azerbaijan and the country in the Caucasus, they merely state the facts. '''Again, you have to prove that the sources are not reliable with evidence'''. Remember, the only reason that sources from the government of Azerbaijan are unacceptable is because the government openly supports historical revisionism. In 1988, the then president claimed that Armenia was a fictitious state created on Azerbaijani land. The president of Azerbaijani's website claims many non-Azerbaijani's to be Azerbaijani. Infact, I have even heard that the embassies of Azerbaijan (I forgot which one, but I'll try to find it) claim that Zoroastrianism was originally a Turkish religion. '''So far, none of you have brought any evidence, all you have pulled out was the race card, and a sources reliability is not based on race or nationality'''. Please dont waste any of our time if the race issue is the only thing you can bring up.] 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	As far as the UN document goes, it had nothing to do with the fact that the representative for Armenia is ethnically Armenian. The problem is that the document is arguing in Armenia's favor about a conflict between the two countries, and part of this is arguing that Azerbaijan is somehow an illegitimate state. Have you read that document? It is no innocent work of scholarship; this document is just another part of their war. It is most unfair to rely so heavily upon the words of the enemy in describing a nation.

	'''So, be careful before you accuse people of pulling "the race card".'''

	Pan-Turkists have said some stupid things. While I am sure they would count as unreliable sources, this doesn't matter here, as they are not being used. I don't see what is so 'defensive' about the claim that the name Azerbaijan was chosen to claim northwestern Iran, but it is certainly controversial, in that citizens of the country find this description disagreeable. Considering that this is the main page for the entire nation, and that these views are not only controversial, but are also essentially fringe views in a fringe debate, I think it is more reasonable to not mention such things on this page. Perhaps on the page about the naming controversy the pan-Turkist and Iran 'defender' views can battle it out, but there is no good reason to mention it here. The fact that only certain sides receive representation only makes this worse.

	I think it would be best to simply not mention controversial matter here, as this would probably be able to remove the neutrality tag much faster than any possible integration of opposing views for what is essentially a trivial debate in comparison to the description of the country as a whole. I hope you consider this proposal, as I think it would greatly reduce edit warring and disputes on this page. ] 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	::The section has already been shortened considerably several times due to requests by Grandmaster and others as evident by the history. There is nothing controversial about this, its about the history of the name of Azerbaijan and how it applies to the country, it in no way is saying that the country is illegitimate, it merely questions the name used for it.] 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: It is based on unreliable sources, therefore it should be removed. ] 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::You cannot dictate to me what is and what is not reliable. You havent proven anything in regards to these sources not being reliable, so I dont even know why you are still insisting.] 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Request for Comment: Azerbaijan ==
	This is a dispute about the content of this article.

	I see there are serious problems with this article and some interests that are not allowing this article be other than what they see fit. Please, some unbiased editors, do some serious editing! Maybe, just maybe, there are enemies of the state Azerbaijan who are absolutely determined on putting their view on this page.

	First of all the article mentions some sources who question the name "Azerbaijan". The name is officially accepted by the UN. If there are disputes about the name that should be mentioned somewhere else, at some other article about the name, or the controversy around it, having an open place in which both sides of the story are told. What is the point of questioning the name of a country at the main article about that country? This is obviously not written by Azerbaijanis or unbiased editors.

	Second, there are clearly and openly sources from, pay attention here, ARMENIA and IRAN who are mentioned in the article. Armenia has, agaist international law, occupied 16% or so of Azerbaijani territory. Iran has a very large area named Azerbaijan too and nationalist Iranians and Iranian authorities are not friendly toward Azerbaijan becasue they fear separatism in Iranian Azerbaijan. How can the article about Azerbaijan contain sources from Armenia and Iran? This is absurd. As someone else above mentioned then we can write about the USA using Marxist or Islamist, eventually Iranian sources who will question democracy and everything else in the US.

	And the use of the phrase "pan-Turkist" in the article is also strange becasue Azerbaijan is a Turkic country so what is the point? If Pan-Turkism is mentioned as being something evil, then again the sources of the phrase must be viewed, whether they are biased or not. ] 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	::: I hope it will be the last time you bring Iran along Armenia as enemy of republic of Azerbaijan! at least see the ] and see the mediation and help of Iran along turkey to Azerbaijan. Don't forget that some of us see republic of Azerbaijan, part of our country that was annexed to Russia about 200 years ago, no anything else that you imagine.--] 12:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Pan-Iranist views like Pejman47 's are precisely the sort that threaten the neutrality of this article. Of course those certain Iranian academics call Azerbaijani people "brothers and sisters"! They believe that they are supposed to be Iranian, and that they would be had not the incompetent Shahs lost the land. I don't disagree, but as far as this article goes, the pan-Iranist view shouldn't receive as much emphasis as it does. I think the best solution is to relegate the discussion entirely to the article that is devoted to the discussion; that way, there will be no conflict on the main article for the nation. ] 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Please read what Misplaced Pages has to say about NPOV. So far, it seems I'm the only one that knows about this policy. As I explained above, its about the history of the name Azerbaijan and it is correctly placed in the section about the name. Also, it links to the main article where more information is presented (you fail to realize that this small section with a few sources is so because certain users pushed for it to be like this). Also, this in no way questions the legitimacy of any nation, but rather the name choices.] 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: Indeed, please read NPOV policy and also that about reliable sources. Armenian and Iranian sources have evident bias and cannot be used as a proof. ] 06:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	I'm commenting here briefly as I don't have much time. The sources in the name section at least are utter bunk. "milliondollarbabies.com" o___O Something like "According to Iranians Dr. ] and the Dr. ], the Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union ." might be acceptable, but for assertions like this you really need one or more impartial academic publications stating it. e.g. Books or journal articles. Iranians, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish sources should probably be excluded, and where they are included, ''all'' sides of the debate should be represented. That is, "According to X, Y, but according to A, B". - ] ] 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	: I fully agree with that, but I also think that the article about the country is not the best place to discuss this. I support Ali's proposal to provide a link in this article to ], where the issue is discussed in much detail. ] 11:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	::The problem is that these facts are not theories invented by Dr. Farrokh and Dr. Atabaki ('''Both of whom are professionals and respected members of the scholarly community'''), they are based on substantial evidence, such as the '''founder of the ADR himself admitting that it was a mistake to name the nation he founded Azerbaijan'''. There are many other historians that agree with them (I will try and get their names). Grandmaster, you cannot keep saying it does not belong here because it is right under the section about the name and it is a '''very significant part of the history of the Azerbaijan Republic'''. It links to the main article which elaborates more on the issue.] 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: The name issue is very minor and not the most important information about the country. And try referring to neutral sources, which have no interest in distorting the facts. Those you refer to are not neutral. ] 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Prove it, you still have not brought up any evidence to support your claim. Also, the length of the information in there is very very short, so I dont see why you are blowing up out of proportion. Also, you say that the name of a nation is a minor issue? Really? Then why the big fuss over it Grandmaster? The information there is very short.~~ <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	::::: Information is based on unreliable sources. You've been told that by many people. Either find unbiased sources to support your claims or remove it from the article. ] 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::No, actually, no one has said that but you and some user who I suspect has been banned and has registered under another name. Also, you have not shown that these sources are biased or unreliable in any way. Until you do, do you think by whining about it you'll get what you want. I'm all ready, please bring up your evidence, if you are so sure about yourself you must have some sort of information on these sources and historians, so please share them with all of us.] 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::A variety of users have explained why they consider the sources unreliable. You have either ignored their points, or built straw men (such as the "race card"). You should really try giving a close read to the arguments presented on this page, and try addressing them properly. Thanks! ] 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Actually, '''no''' users have brought up any piece of evidence to prove that these sources are unreliable. '''I am challenging you find one piece of evidence that any user on this whole talk page has brought up regarding these sources'''. You will find that an impossible task as no one has brought up one single piece of evidence supporting their claims that these sources are a) unreliable, b) non neutral, c) biased, d) based on nationalism, or e) anti Azerbaijani. I will copy paste the entire text that I left on User Francis's talk page regarding this issue:

	::::::::''Francis. Let me bring to your attention that Grandmaster has systematically tried to sabotage that section with continuous complaints. First it was too long, too wordy, not worded right, etc.. etc... (just look at the history of the article) and all his demands have been met and he keeps coming up with new ones. Now he wants to completely take it out of the article. May I remind you that the information is in the correct place, has been significantly reduced, and has the sources it has because it is not the main article (if you click on the main article, you will see more information). Dr. Atabaki and Dr. Farrokh are two well known and well respected historians who both work for western universities. Neither are nationalists, and '''Dr. ] himself is half Azerbaijani (from Iran) half Ossetian and he was born in Greece'''! Neither of them support any ideals based on nationalism. Everything they say are based on facts (you can read there books, everything is referenced). '''Again, these are very respected historians in the field of Iranian history'''.

	::::::::Secondly, documents from the Republic of Azerbaijan cannot be compared to those of Armenia or any other nation. '''The government of the Republic of Azerbaijan supports and is active in historical revisionism'''. The Azerbaijani "historians", "academics", and even the government, claim some fantastic things, such as Napoleon was a Turk, that Turks have been living in the Middle East for 8 thousand years, and that ] was a Turkic religion, among many many other things. The Azerbaijani president in 1988 even claimed that the nation of Armenia is a "fictitious nation founded on Azerbaijani land". This is ridiculous, as there are maps showing Armenia from the time of the ancient Greeks and Babylonians! Infact, it is the other way around, as Azerbaijan has '''never''' been the name for the land of the present day Republic of Azerbaijan. '''The founder of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (which was established in 1918), admitted that he was mistaken in choosing the name Azerbaijan for his new nation'''.

	::::::::The section is small and insignificant and Grandmaster is trying to blow it out of proportion because I assume he doesnt want anyone trying to find information about the Republic of Azerbaijan to know about this huge part of the countries history. This in no way is questioning the legitimacy of the nation, but rather diving into the history of the name and why it was chosen for the country. Notice that the information I am trying to keep in that section is very small, the majority is a quote that Grandmaster himself insists on having in there, instead of in the main article.

	::::::::Also, I would like Grandmaster to point out these "many" users that say it should be just the link? So far, it has just been you, Alidoostzadeh, and several users who just registered in order to participate in an edit war and who have since been blocked.

	::::::::Regarding this statement of yours:

	::::::::''"According to Iranians Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and the Dr. Enayatollah Reza, the Bolsheviks re-conquered the Caucasus and kept the name Azerbaijan, in hopes of later adding north western Iran into the Soviet Union ."''

	::::::::I can bring you two Soviet documents that attest to this, both of them were dispatched before the Soviets actually put their plan into effect and separated Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran in 1946. They describe how the Soviets would send agents into Iran to distort the Azeri's perception of their relation with Azerbaijan SSR, to start propaganda infiltrations to Iran, etc... The Soviets were also the first to introduce the term "Southern Azerbaijan" (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan, which is infact the only area legitimately using the term Azerbaijan, even today), which was part of their campaign of rewriting the history of the Cacuasus to remove Iran's ties with the region. So the statement "''According to Iranians Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and the Dr. Enayatollah Reza''" is incorrect, because '''this is not their theory, this is fact'''.] 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)''

	::::::::Please respond.

	::::::::'''Also, let me bring to your attention that it was User Mardavich that made the section shorter based on compromise with me and Grandmaster (Grandmaster was the one that originally wanted it shorter). So what happened Grandmaster, it was you yourself that wanted the section the way it is now!'''] 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::Um, in response to your "challenge", I suggest that you look at my statements regarding the UN document from the Armenian Representative arguing Armenia's side in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Simply put, it is a very biased source to use, but I suggest that you try to read my more extensive discussion from above. '''Do you really need me to re-paste my previous arguments? Are you unable to simply read them from above?''' I think you did, but you apparently ignored them. You brush off the problematic UN document with, "Whats wrong with a document submitted to the United Nations?". I had just described what was wrong with it, but you instead acted as if the very fact that it was submitted at the UN makes it a reliable, unbiased source. There is absolutely no logic whatsoever behind such a generalized treatment. The ''content'' and the ''purpose'', in addition to its context and scholarly quality, determine its reliability. The document is an argument against Azerbaijan, and the author is the representative of Armenia, the main enemy of Azerbaijan. I have brought forth these ideas previously, but you failed to address them. ] 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::You actually brought up no evidence, but rather POV. The part of that document that I used was about the name and the intention of the people that brought it up. Regardless, Grandmaster is trying to get rid of the section as a whole, and that is unacceptable, and he is also bringing into question the reliability of historians. What about the Soviet documents I mentioned, are they baised too? The fact of the matter is that whining will not get anything done. Either bring up substantial evidence, or stop wasting all of our time, we can be doing more productive things.] 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::::Well, your response to ''me'' is rather unintelligible, but from what I think I'm seeing, you are again avoiding discussion and distorting my position. Considering the nature, purpose, and context of the document, can it be considered a fair and reliable source regarding Azerbaijan? I have already presented my arguments, but you continue avoid them. In this instance, you try to dismiss them as "POV" versus evidence. How that is, you do not explain.
	:::::::::::Anyway, if this is a personal dispute between you and Grandmaster, take it elsewhere. I am disputing the reliability of the sources used, and I propose that the topic be avoided entirely on this page as a solution that avoids taking a position. It is rather silly that rather than respond to me appropriately, you continue spouting against Grandmaster, regardless of whether or not he responds. In any case, respond to ''me'' when you respond to ''me'', and leave your responses to Grandmaster for his statements. Thanks again! ] 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::::If everything on Misplaced Pages was removed because one person disputes it then there would be no Misplaced Pages in the first place, so no, the section will not be removed becasue of one user who is making POV claims without evidence and whose complaints have all already been met anyway. Regarding the Armenian letter, yes, Armenia can use history in a letter about a disputed territory, and what Grandmaster was saying was that Iranian sources were unacceptable (again, his POV) so I brought up an Armenian source. The Armenian letter is in regards to Karabagh, and nothing they said in the portion I quoted was incorrect, all it says is that the name Azerbaijan was adopted in order to claim Northern Iran, and as you can clearly see, it says "according to some sources". Again, Grandmaster is blowing all of this up just so he can have the section removed entirely. That won't happen.] 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: It is not just me, there are many people objecting to this, including third-party editors, and you have support only of some Iranian users. There are rules about realiability of sources, and acording to them the infrormation not suported by reliable sources should be removed. So once again, please provide unbiased sources to support your claims. ] 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Prove that by Misplaced Pages standards that these sources are baised. Grandmaster, I'm not going to just take your word for it, '''you have to show it'''. Also, which users do you speak of? '''How many times do I have to ask for you to prove your claims before you actually prove them? I'm waiting, and I'm sure everyone else is waiting. You criticizing well known and well respected historians is a huge claim, and you have to be able to prove that fantastic claim!'''] 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::It appears that Azerbaijani is committed to ignoring our arguments, claiming instead that we haven't posited any. I am tired of restating my objections in various ways only to receive non-responses from Azerbaijani. Hopefully, the RFC will bring in some people to stop this charade and let us neutralize the article. ] 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::I havent ignored anything, its you two that are ignoring me. I have continually asked for you to bring up your evidence regarding your claims, '''neither of you have done so'''. The only thing you guy shave been saying is your POV, and that is '''not acceptable'''.] 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::: Check what Francis said about your sources. They are utter bunk. ] 06:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::: And also check ]: ''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources''.

	::::::::::::::::: Now please show me your <u>reliable, third-party published sources</u> to support your claims. So far you provided none. ] 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::::::You have brought up no evidence to prove that these sources are unreliable in the first place, '''that is what you have to do first'''. You are the one bringing up these claims, so you are the one that has the burden of proving yourself. Prove these sources are unreliable.] 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::: I already did. These sources are not third party and have bias towards Azerbaijan. You should quote third party sources (i.e. non-Iranian and non-Armenian) as required by the rules. ] 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::'''You have not shown that these sources are baised in any way, therefore, you have not proven anything. You claim is baseless, and you still have not addressed the fact that Dr. Farrokh is himself half Azeri!'''] 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::: I did. How an official representative of Armenia, state that occupies 20% of Azerbaijani territory, be a neutral source about Azerbaijan? And Farrokh is an Iranian nationalist, he’s ethnicity is irrelevant, his article is anti-Azerbaijani pamphlet. Moreover, other third-party users told you that your sources are bunk. ] 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:: I agree with Azerbaijani, I am throughly fed up with these kinds of attempts to forge the history. --] 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article. ] 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::The article has the problems mentioned above. Some unbiased admins or editors please take appropriate action! The discussions have been going on for long enough on this talk section and I think reasonable unbiased admins/editors can make up their own mind. ] 14:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Protected! ==

	'''Hello! The page ] has been blocked/protected from the edit. It's impossible to edit it. Why?''' <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 13:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

	: You can request page unprotection here: ]. --] 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Because there is a dispute.] 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	'''Let's try to define terms and develop the article as objectively as we can'''

	On 25 April 2006 Mehrdad offered definitions concerning this article and asked to redefine terms if anybody has different view for these terms. I would like to make some changes in Mehrdad's definitions and ask all active users, especially] and ] to accept this list or offer their variants. I think agreed list of definitions should be included into the article.

			== Not calling it a dictatorship is ridiculous ==
	'''Azerbaijan (1)''' (Historical Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan) historical name of the territory in Nothern Iran. '''': After 1918, when the People Republic of Azerbaijan (Azəbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyəti) was established, some people use the terms Southern Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan for this territory and the term Northern Azerbaijan (and Soviet Azerbaijan during the Soviet period) for the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Others think that this usage violates the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the historical Azerbaijan.

			The previous discussion about listing it as a dictatorship lists a point about Russia not being listed as a dictatorship. Well now that has changed, and Misplaced Pages has agreed Russia is under an authoritarian dictatorship. I guess the war changed their minds. So why not Azerbaijan, who itself is committing an aggressive conflict which amounts to ethnic genocide against Armenians? You can find sources clearly agreeing it is a dictatorship. Here are a few: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/azerbaijans-aliyev-is-a-strategic-liability-not-an-asset/, https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/, https://evnreport.com/politics/the-dictator-has-no-clothes-aliyevs-regime-and-its-declining-oil-revenues/. Freedom House basically defines it as a dictatorship without strictly saying the dirty word: https://freedomhouse.org/country/azerbaijan. We must put the truth on here. ] (]) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
	'''Azerbaijan (2)''' (Republic of Azerbaijan) official short name of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to avoid any cofusion let's use the full name of the Republic of Azerbaijan
			:The article's lead already mentions "authoritarian leadership under the leadership of both Heydar Aliyev and his son Ilham Aliyev". While a strong case for the authoritarian nature of current Azerbaijani government can be made, going into further details would violate ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
			:{{re\|Golden}} The concern in the discussion you cited appears to be that news articles were used which didn't call it a dictatorship. Thus I cited an academic source, a in ''Global Politics and Strategy'', which directly calls it a hereditary dictatorship akin to the Kim dynasty. ] (]) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
			::Lack of sources isn't a concern. Infoboxes reflect {{tq\|the official form of government, not what outside observers (no matter whether rightly or wrongly) think it is}}, as stated by a participant in that discussion. For further clarification on the usage of the parameter, please refer to the ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
			:::I disagree with that editor and the template documentation makes no such claim. Large-scale discussions on pages like ] and ] have supported my interpretation of the purpose of the infobox. Misplaced Pages articles follow reliable, secondary sources in all cases. This infobox, as with all others, summarizes the body content that is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sources are the only concern on Misplaced Pages. Semi-presidential republic is the official line, but it is false as considered by academics due to election fraud, suppression of the opposition, and hereditary succession. I have referred to the template documentation; all it says for that parameter is <code><nowiki>\|government_type = <!--Wikilinked if link exists--></nowiki></code>, so it does not support your assertion. You are required by Misplaced Pages policy to make your argument based on reliable, secondary sources. ] (]) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
			::::There should be consistency throughout all articles. If nations like Russia and North Korea are listed as dictatorships, then this article needs to be included in the same category. After all, it's simple to find sources that characterize Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. I stress again, though, that consistency is essential, and ''all'' other nation articles whose constitutional systems of governance are inconsistent with ''de jure'' should also receive the necessary adjustments. And there are many of such. - ] (]) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
			:::::When it comes to the infobox, the government should be as it is, "Unitary semi-presidential republic". The authoritarian nature is already included in the ]. Sham elections are there, but in North Korea even sham elections are not conducted, as its leader is unelected by principle. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::North Korea conducts elections a couple of times each decade, and North Korea is led by the elected leader of its ruling political party. ] (]) 09:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::The NK elections are internal rather than ], as pretended in some post-Soviet ]. Also, if I'm not mistaken, both Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un became leaders by hereditary proclamation rather than internal party elections. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::The elections are by direct popular vote for the legislature. Kim Jong Un won an internal party election in 2012, a few months after his father's death. ] (]) 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::The point is that NK's most important office, the ] (equivalent to president in post-Soviet states), is not elected through direct popular vote in principle. Changing that is much less likely and harder than transforming sham elections of a president elsewhere into fair and transparent. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::Neither is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that's not a point of inconsistency regarding the treatment of one pseudodemocracy or another. ] (]) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That's a red herring. Anyway, for the purpose of infobox there are ] issues when adding "dictatorship" to certain countries. The country infobox template had ] earlier and it appears that in some cases it's better to stick just to country's constitution, leaving details to article's body. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::::We as editors cannot cite a primary source like a country's constitution or our own interpretations of one. We are bound by our policies to follow what political scientists say. NPOV means neutral with respect to what the political scientists say, it does not mean including the regime's point of view. I would check out ] and the many similar conversations in the archives. ] (]) 13:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Major reference works, such as '']'', ''Oxford Guide to Countries of the World'' or ''Britannica'', list constitutionally defined government models in country profiles (which are equivalents of our country infoboxes). I'm not a fan of current power abuse in Azerbaijan or Russia, but per ] a country infobox should be succinct. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::::It is a direct address to the point that was made, the opposite of a red herring. LouisAragon brought up an important point about consistency, and the apparent difference about sham elections applies to both examples LouisAragon raised, as well as this article. ] (]) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::When it comes to infobox, I oppose per my rationale above, <s>elsewhere in the article I'm ok with LouisAragon's proposal.</s> ]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::LouisAragon has not proposed anything for unstated other parts of the article, they referred directly to the infoboxes at ] and ]. ] (]) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Ok, my oppose for Azerbaijan stands then. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I agree that there are sufficient citations to use dictatorship, especially compared to other country articles that are currently named as dictatorships. ] (]) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I have not reached EC status, and I agree that other countries under similar conditions have been classified as authoritarian dictatorships. ] (]) 04:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
			:This article is about a country. Before imposing your personal view to this article, please proove that your sources are independent and reliable organisations. I recall international NGOs reporting Armenia's ethnic-cleansing activities in Karabakh in 1990s when Russian forces cooperated with Armenian proxies in Khojaly operation. But Armenia is still enjoying the white list. ] (]) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Aq Qoyunlu Qara Qoyunlu ==
	'''Ostan-e Azarbayjan-e Sharqi, Ostan-e Azarbayjan-e Qarbi''' official provinces in the Islamic Republic of Iran located in the part of the historical Azerbaijan

			According to the German Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer, it is very strange that the word "Turkman" still confuses Ag Goyunlu and Gara Goyunlu Turkmens. The word Turkman actually means "nomadic Oghuz"Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu "Turkmen" are Azerbaijanis anyway. ] (]) 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	'''Azerbaijani language''' a Turkic language, mother language of the majority both in the historical (Iranian) Azerbaijan and the Republic of Azerbaijan. ''''

			:Some scientists call them Turkoman while others Turkmen. No difference, as both phrases refer to post-islamic Oghuz peoples, like modern Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen.
	'''Azerbaijani people''' people living in the Northern Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Some scientists think that the Azerbaijani people speaking Azerbaijani language, are different from the other Turkic speaking people genetically, claiming that the former are mostly of the Iranian (in the meaning 2) origin''''.
			:Ak-koyunlu, Kara-koyunlu, Kayi, Kinik, Bayandur and many other names refer to Turkic tribes. ] (]) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024 ==
	'''Iranian (1)''' concerning / of the Islamic Republic of Iran ''''

			{{Edit extended-protected\|Azerbaijan\|answered=yes}}
	'''Iranian (2)''' see ]
			Description: This page contains a spelling mistake, where it writes "... UAV'S/unmanned aerial vehicle..".
			Point of Error: UAV'S/unmanned aerial vehicle
			Correction Suggestion: UAVs / unmanned aerial vehicles ] (]) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ⸺(])] 02:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

			== The combination of the name Azerbaijan ==
	Waiting for your comments.] 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

			Origin of the name Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan):
	==Third party sources==
			By summarizing the opinions of different people given below, the origin of the name of Azerbaijan is as follows:
	Here is one Grandmaster, now you have '''no''' excuse:
			Az - As (from the ancient tribes of the Turks)
			Er - Er (gentleman)
			Bye-bye (big)
			Jan-Gan (one of the Turkish place suffixes)
			In general, it means the living place of the brave and great Az

			The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to different people:
	''The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected (for Arran anytime when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran''

	Source: Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official. See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi Literary, p.217, 1963.Â

			_The name and origin of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan) according to "Mir Ali Seydev"
	I will post more as I find them.] 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	: It is just one source, that contradicts others. You still cannot present it as a fact, but only as opinion of this person. That's why I suggest to keep it all in the article about the history of the name as Ali suggested. ] 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

			Mir Ali Sayedov, a great Turkish scientist, considers the name of Azerbaijan to be related to mythological and religious factors and distinguishes and justifies this word.
	::Wow. You do not get to dictate anything, you have been proven wrong and I have even fulfilled your request of a third party source from a well known and respected Soviet historian, who acknowledges Soviet actions regarding the name Azerbaijan. This is getting beyond the point of ridiculousness.] 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
			Az: good intention, profit, benefit, and also the name of one of the great tribes of Turks, whose name is mentioned in the inscriptions of the Orkhon Plain, even some believe that the name of the continent of Asia is derived from the name of this tribe that was scattered in most of its parts. is The word Az is preserved in the name of an ancient village called "Has" or "As" belonging to 4 thousand years ago.
	:::Please remember ]. Try a constructive response if you want to help improve the article. Thanks! ] 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
			Ar: Man, human being, young man. This word is seen at the end of Turk clan names. Tatar (Tat man. Non-Muslim here), Khazar, Qajar, Magyar
	:::I was elaborating just as you made this comment, so no, Wow, was not my only statement.] 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
			In ancient Turkish, the suffix (ar) was attached to the end of the name and assigned a person to it. The same suffix that is equivalent to (li) or (lu) in modern Turkish.
	::::Oh! lol sorry about that. ] 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
			Az is also the name of the people who lived in present-day Azerbaijan and eastern Turkey and ruled there. The word comes from +ar (Azar) or today's "Azer".
			The combination of the two words Az and Ar means "Azar" meaning a well-intentioned man and figuratively meaning a blessed tribe. This word continues to exist in another way in the name of the historical river of the Azerbaijan region, "Araz". In the rural areas of Ahar, this word is pronounced "Araz".
			Bai: The word Bai in Turkish language means big, rich, owner, lord, mighty, rich, powerful, powerful, wealthy, ruler, wise, etc.
			Gan (Qan): father, khan, king, lord and similar meanings
			The Turkic suffix "jan", "-ghan-", "-ghan-", "-gan-", "-kahn-" indicates places, places and geographical locations. For example, in the case of Chalagan (the name of an island in Lake Urmia), it means the place of residence of the Chala clan. Some other examples of the use of this suffix: Varzeghan, Gogan, Gorgan, Taleghan, Zangan (modern Zanjan), Sirjan, Kamijan, etc., which this suffix has changed to J
			Saidef means this word in its general sense as "blessed wealthy father". Most of Turk researchers agree with this theory, and every day they get a lot of evidence to prove this claim.

	::::: See Adil's comment on this here: . And also, you version of the quote says nothing about Soviets having anything to do with the name. It implies that it was selected so that Azerbaijani people in the North and South could unite by their own will in one state. Still, it is an opinion of one person (if the quote is correct) and cannot be presented as fact. ] 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Grandmaster, this is getting ridiculous. First of all, what do Adil's comments have to do with anythign? secondly, no, the quote is as it is, do not put your spin on things. It says '''''The name Azerbaijan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic would lead to that entity Iranian to become one, this is the reason why the name Azerbaijan was selected'''''. Let me make that more clear, it says that the name Azerbaijan was chosen for Soviet Azerbaijan on the assumption that Irans territory would become one with it eventually, and that was why the name was selected. '''This is clear, and it shows the Soviet intentions.'''] 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: No, it does not say that the Soviets chose the name. Check Adil's post, he provides the actual quote in Russian, it does not say Soviet Azerbaijan, it says Azerbaijan republic. The actual context is very different from your version. ] 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Its from 1963, how could he have possibly been talking about the Azerbaijan republic? He is obviously talking about the Soviet Socialist '''Republic''' of Azerbaijan.] 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::LOL, I checked out that Barthold quote that Adil posted, and it has nothing to do with this one, Barthold is taking about something completely different! Infact, he even reinstates his suspicious as to the name Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan SSR.] 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::: The quote is from 1925. You still don't have clear understanding of its context. ] 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::More reason for it to be Azerbaijan SSR that hes talking about.] 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

			_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to "Ismail Hadi"
	:::::::::::Member "Azerbaijani" (strangely given himself the name Azerbaijani) does not follow civility and I am surprised he has not been blocked. ] 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	Speaking of surprise regarding Azerbaijani not being blocked, this edit seem aimed at provocation. He acted unilaterally, counter to the entire discussion here that was supposed to resolve the issue, and even removed the "according to some sources" note that made the POV assertions seem a little milder. This "some sources" note is an entirely factual statement too, and quite generous considering the weak/non-existence defense of his sources that he has put up. To those who have capability to do such things, I recommend action be taken posthaste. We should not tolerate users who are not trying to improve the encyclopedia by working within the community guidelines. ] 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

			Az/AS+R+By+Jan
	::The according to some sources was there because Grandmaster was saying the sources were not neutral. I presented a third party reliable source. If you want to argue against that, then you would be the one with the POV. I merely added a source. If you want to say "some sources", you could literally say that in every single Misplaced Pages article. How about we go around and put "according to some sources" all over Misplaced Pages? Its funny that you should accuse me of not trying to improve the encyclopaedia when I am the only one adding sources to it. I dont know why your here, but certainly, if you going to attack me for adding a solid source into this article, then I'm not the one you should be talking about.] 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
			Az/As: It is the name of a people who lived all over Asia, and probably the name of the continent of Asia is also derived from the name of this people.
	:::The "some sources" comment was added because of the highly disputed content and applicability of the sentence, which appears to be giving undue weight to a fringe view. There are still issues with your sources, even the Barthold one, so I don't think you should act unilaterally. Grandmaster is not the only one who found the sources, and the section as a whole, contentious. Just because you insist that your sources are perfectly acceptable does not make them so. A bunch of users here find them problematic, and you have simply ignored or dodged concerns raised. I am here to improve the article by seeking neutrality; the questions is: why are ''you'' here, "Azerbaijani?" ] 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
			Ar: It means brave person or person
	::::I will not justify Azerbaijani edit warring, but I don't see how deleting sources and forcing others in, justify the deletion of sources itself. Both Adil and Grandmaster are using this pretext to do just the same thing. The information about the Pan-Turanist ideology and the plan of union is not a fringe and is not only relevent but even a must to include in this article. ] ] 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
			The name of Aras River (Araz) is also composed of two words Ar+Az
	:::::This conflict could be avoided here by simply relegating the topic to the page devoted to the topic. As the main page for this nation, it should probably just say what Azerbaijan is believed to mean, and mention that a controversy exists over the choice of name, but link to the main article for that topic. The details of views shouldn't be included, as this has led to a conflict over whether or not one view is getting too much weight. On the real article for the topic, people can mention the arguments and counterarguments. Then all of this mess would be left for that page, and the neutrality conflict can be avoided. Why preserve a conflict that can be avoided? ] 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
			Bai: Amir, Ghani, Sharif
			Jan: a place suffix that can be seen in the names of cities such as Baylakhan, Gogan, and Zanjan (Zangan).
			Therefore, the meaning of the word "Azerbaijan" is: the habitat of the As, the home of the noble people of As, the habitat of the As people.

	== Vandalism of the page ==

			_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to Professor "Zahtabi"
	User Eupator is unilaterally removing several fully cited sources, whilst adding back poorly cited one's, and does all this without participating in the extensive discussions on the Talk pages of this and other articles, such as History of the name of Azerbaijan, and Mamed Emin Rasulzade. This continuing vandalism ought to stop. --] 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I reverted the edit, telling him to use the talk page. Hence he is a given a chance. If he continues unilateral, disruptive, provocative, vandalish edits then action will inevitably have to be taken against him. ] 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks, because it started to get ridiculous -- just because Eupator has a axe to grind doesn't give him a right to just revert page with fully cited references, whilst inserting poorly cited, translated and clearly disputed one's. --] 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Repeated POV Vandalism by "Azerbaijani" ==
	"Azerbaijani", can you stop removing quotes to Tadeusz Swietochowski, a third-party scholar, and reinserting your own from Kaveh Farrokh or those from milliondollarbabies website. Further attempts will be reported to admins, third party arbitration with a request for locking of the page.

			The word "Azerbaijan" is "Atropateena" in Greek, "Atropatekan" in Armenian, and "Azerbaygan" in Persian.
	Also a note for you, I see you go out of your way trying to relentlessly prove that Musavat was pan-Turkic party. Yes it was, it's been announced as such by the founding fathers of this party almost 100 years ago, as the name of the party was Musavat Party of Turkic Federalists (meaning they wanted federalism in Russia in general, not necessariliy that of only Turkic peoples). Majority of Musavat leaders were inspired by the ideas of Alibey Huseynzade, Ahmed-bey Aghayev, and Ziya Gokalp, as they defined an independent non-religious national identity, which best described Caucasian Muslims. And the best one was, Azerbaijani Turks, because those spoke Turkic-language and the identity they had was the same as that of Iranian Azeri Turks just south of river Araxes, with many of whom they shared family ties.
			Atropat was the name of one of the famous generals of Azerbaijan. According to Professor Zahtabi, the word "atropate" can be broken down in the following way
			At (Od) + Ver-er (hero, brave) + Pot (protector) (here fire protector)
			Atropateen: (Land of the Fire Guardians)
			So the root of the word "Atropathan" is as follows:
			Od + Er + Pat + An (plural suffix borrowed from Turkish to Persian and Armenian): It means the land of fire protectors. After the conquest of the Arabs, Atropaten has become "Azerbaijan".

	So it's rather incomprehensible why are you trying to reinvent a wheel and present this as unknown fact, in every single page about Azerbaijan. You're actually making a compliment to Musavat leadership and to all truely Azerbaijani people in general. ] 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

			_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to professor "Parviz Yakani Zare"
	:You POV and OR assertions are getting tirings. Firstly, the length of that section was a compromise version, secondly, referenced information was removed. Furthermore, Swietochowski's opinion is represented in the article. Secondly, Misplaced Pages is a place where all facts are presented. Not everyone knows who or what the Musavat party is, that is why the information is said. That is the definition of an encyclopaedia. Thanks for admitting it was pan Turkist, so stop removing that information from the article! Also, I added two more sources, you cant complain anymore.] 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Which encyclopedia? The references your included to defining Musavat as pan-Turkic are from milliondollarbabies.com written by some freelancer and from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/az%7Dmus.html which is a amateur flag collection website. The definition of Musavat Turkic Federalist party was stated in a number of scholarly references, which you don't ever read or know, including Swietochowski, Firuz Kazemzade, and Musavat's own newspaper "Achik Soz". In fact you started using this title "Turkic Federalist Party", after myself and few others added official quotes to it on several websites. And there is nothing to "admit" here. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples, and there is nothing wrong in being pan-yourself. It's rather incomrehensible though what you're trying to prove with taking name "Azerbaijani". ] 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			Professor Parviz Yakani Zare, a well-known historian, says the following about the name of Azerbaijan: The word Azerbaijan originally comes from "Hazar Baygan" composed of "Haaz+Ar+Bay+Gan or Arabized Qan means John".
	:::Have you not seen the large amount of sources I added?] 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
			"Haaz or Haas" is the name of a tribe of ancient Turks and it is mentioned as "Orkhon Yeni Sei" in the old writings. Some researchers, including "Barthold", consider it probable that the Haaz are related to the "Turuk" tribes, who are introduced by Assyrian inscriptions from 1400 BC as the inhabitants around Urmi Lake. Also, Haaz in Turkish means Ughur and good intention
			"R" is of Turkish origin and means human. This word is attached to other words as a suffix and creates the name of tribes. Such as: (Avar-Khazar or Khazar-Magyar or Magyar-Qajar or Qajar and...). Hazar means a people and a tribe, which later became "Azer" with slight changes in Persian and Arabic. Because the person Zarathustra (in Turkish means the one who fully understands) and his mother "Daghdo" (in Turkish means the one who gives birth) and their god "Ahar Majda" (in Turkish means the highest and highest human spirit) belong to the culture and people of Turks. have been in the region and according to the sanctity of fire in Zoroastrian religion, later this word was known to be related to fire among the Persians, which is not very true, although the sun and fire are very respected in the Turkan Sakha rituals. And they were known as the saviors of mankind, because it was with the help of light and fire that the Turks were able to burn the iron barrier that Zulqarnain had built against them and enter this world.
			"Bay" or "Bay" or "Big, Beyk" means rich, wealthy, chief, tribe, ruler, etc. On the other hand, "Baymaq" in Turkish means development and progress.
			"Gan" in the Turkish language has changed to "Qan" (and in the Arabic language to John) by accepting phonetic changes and has many meanings such as father, Khaqan, etc., and "Qan" in Turkish is a passive sign with emphasis and exaggeration. It is (Chalishkhan) and Baiqan means development of Yaf ] (]) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

			:And what do you propose to change or add exactly? ] (]) 08:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	:about "there is nothing wrong in being pan-yourself", didn't you know that Pan-X implies "racism" and "territorial claim" and etc to other lands?!!--] 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
			:I didn’t expect you to write an article here, tbh. Anyways I’m not reading allat maybe simplify anytime ] (]) 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Well, yes, indeed pan-Iranian means laying claims on territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I agree with that fully, and it's part of the ideology of Iranian state under any regime. Also, pan-Iranian emanates from the origin of the name Iran, which is "Aryanama", mystical land of original "white race". In Western world, the ideology was bit modified and became official ideology of the Nazi regime. So thank you for bringing up the issue, as it directly refers to pan-Iranism and its factual practice in World War II. It's not surprising in this regard, that Iran currently is the only country in the world to deny Holocaust, thus support Nazi purge of Jews during World War II, there is ideological basis for this.
	::Pan-Turanism (pan-Turkism) however is a mystical ideology which refers to linguistic and cultural unity of Turkic peoples from Eastern Europe to wall of China. It has never been implemented politically, neither such attempt was made, or could be made or aspired to be made by the state of size of Azerbaijan. Thanks. ] 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::It is clear from Atabek's anti-Iranian diatribe that he doesn't really understand pan-Iranism. Apparently, he believes that Nazism was a modified version of an originally Iranian "white race" theory. Such ignorance is disgusting. Pan-Iranism doesn't have the racial purity, ubermensch, Atlantis, root race, destruction of semitic peoples, and other nutty ideas that characterized the German intellectual conclusions leading up to Nazism. Pan-Iranism aims to unify culturally or ethnically Iranian peoples, as well as a sort of "old empire" irredentism. I don't know what you mean by "mystical." While "mystical" may characterize Nazi beliefs, it doesn't seem to for pan-Iranism, and perhaps even pan-Turkism. Perhaps you mean "unrealistic?" In any case, thanks for revealing your blatant anti-Iranian views; it helps to know that sort of thing when users make questionable edits. Ex:"How does that edit improve the article? Oh, I see, it is because of his strong POV on the issue, not because he seeks to improve the article." Perhaps you should disavow from editing here; your POV may be an obstacle to neutrality. ] 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::'''Behnam, the main point in this discussion is not my POV of my own country, which is a subject of this page, but objectivity of the references I provided. Up to now, the references saying anything positive about Turkic-Azerbaijani connection are viciously removed by the Iranian user ], exactly for the same opposite POV - anti-Azerbaijani-Turkic-pro-Iranian diatribe. I think this hostility which is needless between Iranian and Azerbaijani people in Misplaced Pages would lessen if each of us learned to respect others country, and its right to exist and define its own ideology and destiny independently. Yes, Musavat was pan-Turkic, now what? I provide valid scholarly references even confirming its name, yet Azerbaijani replaces it with milliondollarbabies.'''
	::::'''I am sorry to having to link Iranism to Nazism (I wasn't the one organizing Holocaust conferences, Iranian president Ahmadinejad was), but in reality, trying to defame and take part of our Turkic connection away, attempting to portray pan-Turkic orientation of Musavat in negative light, seeing this as inferior yet non-existent danger to Iran, you only highlight the very much racist POV existing on Iranian side. Despite your anti-Turkic diatribes and viewing Azerbaijan as enemy, Azerbaijani Turks always respected Iranian culture, and immensely contributed to building what's now the country of Iran. And this is your respect to our culture, origin and independent country?'''
	::::'''Similarly, what user ] fails to understand that Musavat played a fundamental role in achieving independence of our nation from Russia (NOT Iran). It did so, along with scores of Azerbaijanis and Ottoman Turks who spilled blood for it on the battlefields. In this light, what ideology Musavat had is immaterial to the reality of Azerbaijan. And instead of highlighting pan-Islamic nature of Musavat, Iranian user ] should be more concerned with the nature of regime that rules Iran, with which Musavat party or people of Republic of Azerbaijan had nothing to do.'''
	::::'''Hope we will achieve some objectivity, consensus and cooperation, if Iranian user ] puts away his POV and permits all references on Azerbaijani sites to be displayed and stops this terror of reference purging based on his biased single-sided view of history. This is not the first site that he is trying to abuse, other Misplaced Pages links are ] and ]. What does all this hatred contribute to constructive and friendly approach? Regards. '''] 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I know what you are talking about. In case you didn't notice, I too oppose "Azerbaijani"'s edits! I and others have been trying to persuade him to keep his poorly-sourced, controversial statements off of the page, but he has become only more unilateral and provocative. It has almost reached the point where disciplinary action ought to be taken. I don't advocate placing only the Azerbaijani view either; the problem should be avoided entirely by simply mentioning the etymology, and then stating that the controversy exists, but not elaborating the views. That way, the neutrality dispute does not have to exist on the nation's main page, which should only include basic, brief, and non-contentious facts about the nation. In sum, the details about the naming reasons have no place in this article.
	:::::::Also, as a side note, I don't think Ahmadinejad's conference is an example of Nazi doctrine, but rather typical post-Israel Islamist rant. Ahmadinejad's government doesn't represent the Pan-Iranist parties or views anyway. In all, I think you are mistaken in treating Nazism and Pan-Iranism interchangably or implying a strong relationship between the two. Anyway, what do you think of the proposal to simply not mention the details of the controversy on this page, Atabek? ] 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Religion in Azerbaijan ==
	:::::Atabek, the information about the founding of the Musavat party belongs on the main article. That is what the main articles are for, this is just a brief summarization of events. That is what Wikilinking does, it links subjects to the main article, if you notice you can click on ], which takes you to the main article where it further expands solely on the parties foundation.] 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			The ] and ] pages have quite contradictory claims. I think to make a proper claim, these two have to be adjusted, as well as the statistics on this page.
	:::::Azerbaijani, the information about the claimed nature of Musavat party (pan Turkist, pan Islamist) then also belongs to Musavat page, not to Azerbaijan page. Also the name of the party is Turkic DEMOCRATIC Party of Federalists "Musavat" (or as spelled in Russian, "Tyurskaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya Federalistov "Musavat"). The party's name was defined in Russian spelling, so follow the convention. You're selectively removing some references, that to the nature of Musavat party and adding intendedly biased quotes from other sources. For fairness, Kazemzadeh and M.D.Guseinov quotes must be included. Also, you have removed several quotes from Behnam's recent version. The problem has been reported to administrators for immediate attention. You have no right to make single-sided modifications removing scholarly references without consensus with all editors of the page. ] 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::No, the part about pan Turkism and pan Islamism shows context and motive, which has to do with the summary. Basic information about the subject specifically belongs in its main page. '''Notice how this summary does not include many of the things that are included in the main article about the history of the name Azerbaijan.''' Its the same thing, we have main articles for a reason. Be reasonable, this really is not that big a deal, you are starting and edit war over nothing.] 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Azerbaijani, as I said, if other references to Musavat are removed, then pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism "stuff" should not be there either. You're selectively including one quote and removing the other. If we have main article about Musavat, which defines pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic orientation of it, no need to include it on Azerbaijan page. Alternatively, if you choose to include it, then be kind and include all of the info on Musavat. ] 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::You do not seem to understand that that summary is about things related to the history of the name Azerbaijan! When or who founded the Musavat party belongs in the main article which is about the Musavat party! The pan Turkist and pan Islamic references provide context and motive, and are not irrelevant to the section.] 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, if the history of name Azerbaijan is related to nature of Musavat, then all relevant references to nature of Musavat shall be included and not just summaries. And stop using "!" and "you don't seem to understand" in conversations, you're supposed to come up to consensus on this page, and so far we have '''no consensus''' until you agree to respect all scholarly references as opposed to amateur coin collection websites. Namely, Musavat page has sufficient evidence of the nature of this party, which you deem to defend. ] 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well then you might as well bring everything from the Musavat page over here. Do you not understand what main articles are for? I have explained it many many times. The reason I say that you dont seem to understand is because you still do not know what main articles are for. Also, how are you going to tell me about consensus when you are the one going against consensus and making edits without regard as to whats going on in this talk page. Its also amusing how you are still criticizing the 6 sources, even though 4 of them are from books! Also "!" is part of English literature, you cannot dictate what I can and cannot use when I type.] 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::Azerbaijani, you may wish to continue using (!) as much as you want. It is hopeless, and you MUST achieve consensus with everyone on this page. So my suggestion is we remove everything pertaining to nature of Musavat from this page, and leave only the title "Turkic Democratic Party of Federalists Musavat", and let the interested user click on the link and read about the nature of Musavat on Musavat page. Otherwise, the fact that "Musavat" was pan-Turkic or pan-Islamic has no relevance in judging Azerbaijan. Otherwise, let's include the nature of all other parties such as Hummat and Bolsheviks here. ] 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			From my understanding: although culturally muslim, the large population doesn't believe in religion or practice. Hence, the religion section has to be altered. ] (]) 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Both of you need to read ] and stop calling other users' edits vandalism.] 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I call them as I see them. Nothing personal really. If anything, it is a helpful tip to change editing habits. :) ] 06:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:22, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Azerbaijan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 1, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
May 21, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
May 24, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 30, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2006, May 28, 2007, May 28, 2008, May 28, 2009, May 28, 2010, May 28, 2011, October 18, 2011, May 28, 2012, May 28, 2013, May 28, 2014, October 18, 2014, May 28, 2015, October 18, 2015, May 28, 2016, October 18, 2016, October 18, 2017, October 18, 2018, and October 18, 2019.
Current status: Good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Azerbaijan Top‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Asia Top‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

Western Asia Top‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eastern Europe (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe

Artsakh Mid‑importance

	Azerbaijan is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

September 27 to October 3, 2020

Not calling it a dictatorship is ridiculous

The previous discussion about listing it as a dictatorship lists a point about Russia not being listed as a dictatorship. Well now that has changed, and Misplaced Pages has agreed Russia is under an authoritarian dictatorship. I guess the war changed their minds. So why not Azerbaijan, who itself is committing an aggressive conflict which amounts to ethnic genocide against Armenians? You can find sources clearly agreeing it is a dictatorship. Here are a few: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/azerbaijans-aliyev-is-a-strategic-liability-not-an-asset/, https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/, https://evnreport.com/politics/the-dictator-has-no-clothes-aliyevs-regime-and-its-declining-oil-revenues/. Freedom House basically defines it as a dictatorship without strictly saying the dirty word: https://freedomhouse.org/country/azerbaijan. We must put the truth on here. Evil Narwhal (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The article's lead already mentions "authoritarian leadership under the leadership of both Heydar Aliyev and his son Ilham Aliyev". While a strong case for the authoritarian nature of current Azerbaijani government can be made, going into further details would violate WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Brandmeister 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Golden: The concern in the discussion you cited appears to be that news articles were used which didn't call it a dictatorship. Thus I cited an academic source, a journal article in Global Politics and Strategy, which directly calls it a hereditary dictatorship akin to the Kim dynasty. 25stargeneral (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of sources isn't a concern. Infoboxes reflect the official form of government, not what outside observers (no matter whether rightly or wrongly) think it is, as stated by a participant in that discussion. For further clarification on the usage of the parameter, please refer to the the template's documentation. — Golden 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that editor and the template documentation makes no such claim. Large-scale discussions on pages like Talk:Russia and Talk:North Korea have supported my interpretation of the purpose of the infobox. Misplaced Pages articles follow reliable, secondary sources in all cases. This infobox, as with all others, summarizes the body content that is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sources are the only concern on Misplaced Pages. Semi-presidential republic is the official line, but it is false as considered by academics due to election fraud, suppression of the opposition, and hereditary succession. I have referred to the template documentation; all it says for that parameter is |government_type = , so it does not support your assertion. You are required by Misplaced Pages policy to make your argument based on reliable, secondary sources. 25stargeneral (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There should be consistency throughout all articles. If nations like Russia and North Korea are listed as dictatorships, then this article needs to be included in the same category. After all, it's simple to find sources that characterize Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. I stress again, though, that consistency is essential, and all other nation articles whose constitutional systems of governance are inconsistent with de jure should also receive the necessary adjustments. And there are many of such. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to the infobox, the government should be as it is, "Unitary semi-presidential republic". The authoritarian nature is already included in the government and politics section. Sham elections are there, but in North Korea even sham elections are not conducted, as its leader is unelected by principle. Brandmeister 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

North Korea conducts elections a couple of times each decade, and North Korea is led by the elected leader of its ruling political party. CMD (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The NK elections are internal rather than direct, by popular vote, as pretended in some post-Soviet pseudodemocracies. Also, if I'm not mistaken, both Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un became leaders by hereditary proclamation rather than internal party elections. Brandmeister 09:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The elections are by direct popular vote for the legislature. Kim Jong Un won an internal party election in 2012, a few months after his father's death. CMD (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that NK's most important office, the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea (equivalent to president in post-Soviet states), is not elected through direct popular vote in principle. Changing that is much less likely and harder than transforming sham elections of a president elsewhere into fair and transparent. Brandmeister 12:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that's not a point of inconsistency regarding the treatment of one pseudodemocracy or another. CMD (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Anyway, for the purpose of infobox there are WP:NPOV issues when adding "dictatorship" to certain countries. The country infobox template had a related discussion earlier and it appears that in some cases it's better to stick just to country's constitution, leaving details to article's body. Brandmeister 13:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We as editors cannot cite a primary source like a country's constitution or our own interpretations of one. We are bound by our policies to follow what political scientists say. NPOV means neutral with respect to what the political scientists say, it does not mean including the regime's point of view. I would check out Talk:Russia#Constitutional form of government or de facto system of government and the many similar conversations in the archives. 25stargeneral (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Major reference works, such as The World Factbook, Oxford Guide to Countries of the World or Britannica, list constitutionally defined government models in country profiles (which are equivalents of our country infoboxes). I'm not a fan of current power abuse in Azerbaijan or Russia, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE a country infobox should be succinct. Brandmeister 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a direct address to the point that was made, the opposite of a red herring. LouisAragon brought up an important point about consistency, and the apparent difference about sham elections applies to both examples LouisAragon raised, as well as this article. CMD (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to infobox, I oppose per my rationale above, ~~elsewhere in the article I'm ok with LouisAragon's proposal.~~ Brandmeister 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

LouisAragon has not proposed anything for unstated other parts of the article, they referred directly to the infoboxes at Russia and North Korea. CMD (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, my oppose for Azerbaijan stands then. Brandmeister 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are sufficient citations to use dictatorship, especially compared to other country articles that are currently named as dictatorships. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not reached EC status, and I agree that other countries under similar conditions have been classified as authoritarian dictatorships. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a country. Before imposing your personal view to this article, please proove that your sources are independent and reliable organisations. I recall international NGOs reporting Armenia's ethnic-cleansing activities in Karabakh in 1990s when Russian forces cooperated with Armenian proxies in Khojaly operation. But Armenia is still enjoying the white list. Iron Archer (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Aq Qoyunlu Qara Qoyunlu

According to the German Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer, it is very strange that the word "Turkman" still confuses Ag Goyunlu and Gara Goyunlu Turkmens. The word Turkman actually means "nomadic Oghuz"Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu "Turkmen" are Azerbaijanis anyway. 5.191.113.222 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Some scientists call them Turkoman while others Turkmen. No difference, as both phrases refer to post-islamic Oghuz peoples, like modern Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen.

Ak-koyunlu, Kara-koyunlu, Kayi, Kinik, Bayandur and many other names refer to Turkic tribes. Iron Archer (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description: This page contains a spelling mistake, where it writes "... UAV'S/unmanned aerial vehicle..". Point of Error: UAV'S/unmanned aerial vehicle Correction Suggestion: UAVs / unmanned aerial vehicles Farial Mahmod (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Done ⸺(Random)staplers 02:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The combination of the name Azerbaijan

Origin of the name Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan): By summarizing the opinions of different people given below, the origin of the name of Azerbaijan is as follows: Az - As (from the ancient tribes of the Turks) Er - Er (gentleman) Bye-bye (big) Jan-Gan (one of the Turkish place suffixes) In general, it means the living place of the brave and great Az

The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to different people:

_The name and origin of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan) according to "Mir Ali Seydev"

Mir Ali Sayedov, a great Turkish scientist, considers the name of Azerbaijan to be related to mythological and religious factors and distinguishes and justifies this word. Az: good intention, profit, benefit, and also the name of one of the great tribes of Turks, whose name is mentioned in the inscriptions of the Orkhon Plain, even some believe that the name of the continent of Asia is derived from the name of this tribe that was scattered in most of its parts. is The word Az is preserved in the name of an ancient village called "Has" or "As" belonging to 4 thousand years ago. Ar: Man, human being, young man. This word is seen at the end of Turk clan names. Tatar (Tat man. Non-Muslim here), Khazar, Qajar, Magyar In ancient Turkish, the suffix (ar) was attached to the end of the name and assigned a person to it. The same suffix that is equivalent to (li) or (lu) in modern Turkish. Az is also the name of the people who lived in present-day Azerbaijan and eastern Turkey and ruled there. The word comes from +ar (Azar) or today's "Azer". The combination of the two words Az and Ar means "Azar" meaning a well-intentioned man and figuratively meaning a blessed tribe. This word continues to exist in another way in the name of the historical river of the Azerbaijan region, "Araz". In the rural areas of Ahar, this word is pronounced "Araz". Bai: The word Bai in Turkish language means big, rich, owner, lord, mighty, rich, powerful, powerful, wealthy, ruler, wise, etc. Gan (Qan): father, khan, king, lord and similar meanings The Turkic suffix "jan", "-ghan-", "-ghan-", "-gan-", "-kahn-" indicates places, places and geographical locations. For example, in the case of Chalagan (the name of an island in Lake Urmia), it means the place of residence of the Chala clan. Some other examples of the use of this suffix: Varzeghan, Gogan, Gorgan, Taleghan, Zangan (modern Zanjan), Sirjan, Kamijan, etc., which this suffix has changed to J Saidef means this word in its general sense as "blessed wealthy father". Most of Turk researchers agree with this theory, and every day they get a lot of evidence to prove this claim.

_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to "Ismail Hadi"

Az/AS+R+By+Jan Az/As: It is the name of a people who lived all over Asia, and probably the name of the continent of Asia is also derived from the name of this people. Ar: It means brave person or person The name of Aras River (Araz) is also composed of two words Ar+Az Bai: Amir, Ghani, Sharif Jan: a place suffix that can be seen in the names of cities such as Baylakhan, Gogan, and Zanjan (Zangan). Therefore, the meaning of the word "Azerbaijan" is: the habitat of the As, the home of the noble people of As, the habitat of the As people.

_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to Professor "Zahtabi"

The word "Azerbaijan" is "Atropateena" in Greek, "Atropatekan" in Armenian, and "Azerbaygan" in Persian. Atropat was the name of one of the famous generals of Azerbaijan. According to Professor Zahtabi, the word "atropate" can be broken down in the following way At (Od) + Ver-er (hero, brave) + Pot (protector) (here fire protector) Atropateen: (Land of the Fire Guardians) So the root of the word "Atropathan" is as follows: Od + Er + Pat + An (plural suffix borrowed from Turkish to Persian and Armenian): It means the land of fire protectors. After the conquest of the Arabs, Atropaten has become "Azerbaijan".

_The name and origin of Azerbaijan according to professor "Parviz Yakani Zare"

Professor Parviz Yakani Zare, a well-known historian, says the following about the name of Azerbaijan: The word Azerbaijan originally comes from "Hazar Baygan" composed of "Haaz+Ar+Bay+Gan or Arabized Qan means John". "Haaz or Haas" is the name of a tribe of ancient Turks and it is mentioned as "Orkhon Yeni Sei" in the old writings. Some researchers, including "Barthold", consider it probable that the Haaz are related to the "Turuk" tribes, who are introduced by Assyrian inscriptions from 1400 BC as the inhabitants around Urmi Lake. Also, Haaz in Turkish means Ughur and good intention "R" is of Turkish origin and means human. This word is attached to other words as a suffix and creates the name of tribes. Such as: (Avar-Khazar or Khazar-Magyar or Magyar-Qajar or Qajar and...). Hazar means a people and a tribe, which later became "Azer" with slight changes in Persian and Arabic. Because the person Zarathustra (in Turkish means the one who fully understands) and his mother "Daghdo" (in Turkish means the one who gives birth) and their god "Ahar Majda" (in Turkish means the highest and highest human spirit) belong to the culture and people of Turks. have been in the region and according to the sanctity of fire in Zoroastrian religion, later this word was known to be related to fire among the Persians, which is not very true, although the sun and fire are very respected in the Turkan Sakha rituals. And they were known as the saviors of mankind, because it was with the help of light and fire that the Turks were able to burn the iron barrier that Zulqarnain had built against them and enter this world. "Bay" or "Bay" or "Big, Beyk" means rich, wealthy, chief, tribe, ruler, etc. On the other hand, "Baymaq" in Turkish means development and progress. "Gan" in the Turkish language has changed to "Qan" (and in the Arabic language to John) by accepting phonetic changes and has many meanings such as father, Khaqan, etc., and "Qan" in Turkish is a passive sign with emphasis and exaggeration. It is (Chalishkhan) and Baiqan means development of Yaf Yashar faimi (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And what do you propose to change or add exactly? Mellk (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t expect you to write an article here, tbh. Anyways I’m not reading allat maybe simplify anytime Waited2seconds (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Religion in Azerbaijan

The religion in Azerbaijan and irreligion in Azerbaijan pages have quite contradictory claims. I think to make a proper claim, these two have to be adjusted, as well as the statistics on this page.

From my understanding: although culturally muslim, the large population doesn't believe in religion or practice. Hence, the religion section has to be altered. DeliberationDemocracy (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: