Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

New Edits

First of all, its not even a reliable source. It was written in the Soviet Union in 1988 in Baku. "Academics" who wrote during those times are not reliable sources, because a) no free speech, everything had to go by the Soviet agenda, b) the soviets encouraged historical revisionism in all their captured territories (also heavily in Central Asia), and c) they encouraged anti Iranian propaganda and historical revisionism in order to set up a communist state in Northern Iran. Also, this Naila person does not even cite her own sources. Academics who write articles and books cite their sources, they dont just make claims. These claims do not even look factual at all, and look very much made up.

Lets look at this persons claims: Al-Kufi - which Al-Kufi is this person talking about? Not specific enough, one sign of a fallacy (there have been many Al-Kufi's). Also, I did an internet search on Al-Jarrah ibn Abdullah al Hakim and came up with nothing. One Abdullah Al-Jarrah came up, yet he was a conquerer in 639. This is obviously historical revisionism, which was and still is very common among "academics" in the R. of Azerbaijan who try very hard to give their country's name some sort of legitimacy.Khosrow II 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are sources in the original book. I can provide them if that satisfies you. No academic, especially in oriental studies of the Medieval Ages, that can be disputed by many specialists in this field, would sign her/his name under a forgery or fabrication, if those things were not written in the original sources. Moreover, there was Perestroika already in place since 1985 and the central/local government would not put a pressure on academic to "write" this or that. But since I am sure of what I am claiming, I accept your comments. I will provide the text with original sources for your convinience. --Ulvi I. 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Many times they did in the Soviet Union and in nations like Azerbaijan SSR. It even happens today in Turkey and the R. of Azerbaijan. There are several historians and academics in top positions of Azerbaijan SSR who made up a lot of baseless things. They are not reliable sources.Khosrow II 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, one of the sources you provided contradicts itself, so I took it out.Khosrow II 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to the removal of my sentence "In the meantime, there exists important medieval Arab and other sources indicating that the territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also referred as Azerbaijan from ancient times." and replacing it with "also". It is placed there for reason, to counterbalance with the prevous statement/paragraph that claims that Azerbaijan is only referred to the North of Iran.

Regarding the contradicting paragraph, then I have to add after your mentioning of Yagut Al-Hamavi that there is contradiction is his work. While describing that Arran is North of the Araxes and that Barda is in Arran, prior to that, mentioning Azerbaijan, the author claims that Azerbaijan is from Barda to Erzinjan. Thus we cannot fully accept this source as claiming only your POV.

P.S. Actually, situation with science in Iran from the times of Ahmed Kesrevi was not different from the Soviets either. --Ulvi I. 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In regards to that sentence of your I took out. Its only one refernces, and saying "important" is POV. Also, saying "meantime" is not grammatically correct in this context. Thats why I took that sentence out.

Regarding your second paragraph, I dont quite understand what your trying to say.

And no, Iran was not like Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Kasravi. Infact, Kasravi's work was so good that it was even accepted by western scholars.

Also, I ask you again, show me the exact source you got your quote from regarding the Samanid scholar, I still dont believe it. This is the third time I am having to ask you this.Khosrow II 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will put it a different way, not mentioning "important". Regarding the second paragpraph you will understand what I am saying when I add it there. The Samanid scholar source is mentioned in the reference section. I do not understand you, when twice earlier you have asked me to show the source? It is there.

Kasravi misinterpreted the original source. The Medieval authors were talking about two willages in Iranian Azerbaijan, when Kasravi not being a historian himself fabricated that hsitorical language to entire Azerbaijan. If the Mongols or the Seljuks had the capacity of changing the ethnicity of entire "great Pahlavi speaking nation", then I wonder why they left the Farsis, Kurds, Talish or the Tats in the region and did not Turkify them? How better your ancestors were from the Pahlavi speaking "Azari"s? --Ulvi I. 07:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I want the exact source. If you have the book, scan the page and show it to me. I have already shown a source similar to this to be false (a fabrication), and I want to make sure that this isnt one.

Regarding Kasravi, you are wrong. His research was praised and accepted in the west. Read the Kasravi article. Also, the Mongols have nothing to do with Turkic or Turkic langauges, so they had no impact, however, the Seljuks settled heavily in the regions of Anatolia and the Caucasus, and over time, the language shifted. However, even Ottoman travelers such as Celebi attest to the fact that the origional Persian dialect of the Azeri's was still spoken in Azerbaijan up till the 17th century.Khosrow II 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request exact source

I want to request to exact sources for this statement: However, the boundaries of the historical Azerbaijan like those of many other ancient regions were fluid and they periodically included parts (such as Nakhichevan or Mughan).

Two sources are given, but they are very vague, and I have read the book of one of them and cant find it (I may not have looked thoroughly enough). Can someone give me the exact quotes where the scholars said this and from what part of their book.Khosrow II 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From Iranica:

AZERBAIJAN (AÚdòarbay[e]èan), region of northwestern Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and the Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828).

From antiquity until the time of the Arab conquest the name of this country, an independent principality or province first under the Sasanians, then of the caliphate, was thus perceived as that of a political circumscription whose frontiers were always changing as a result of political occurrences. However, the heart of the area was always the mountainous country to the east of lake Urmia (Rezμa@÷^ya). The ancient summer capital was located there at Ganzaca (Ganzak) (Strabo, loc. cit.), the present-day Takòt-e Solayman. At the time of the Arab conquest, the (summer) capital was located at Ardabil. In the third century B.C., Atropatene had probably extended toward the north to the Pontic regions Phasia and Colchis (Markwart, op. cit., p. 108) but normally its boundaries were limited by the basin of the Araxes. In the Middle Ages, Masudi (Moru@è I, p. 100.18) indicates that Azerbaijan extended to the north of the river. To the northeast, the soil basins of Mogan (the plain to the south of the Araxes) were included in Azerbaijan by Masudi and by Ebn K¨ordadòbeh, but were excluded by other geographers. Vart¯a@n on the Araxes was the farthest locality attached to Azerbaijan to the northeast, according to Ebn al-Faqih (p. 286). In the third century of our era, the western frontier bordering Armenia was moved by the union of the cantons of “Persian Armenia” with Azerbaijan to the west of the lake (Markwart, op. cit., pp. 109-10) and was subsequently localized in the mountainous countries between the two lakes Urmia and Van. To the south Azerbaijan extended at one period to Sisar, present day Sanandaè. Subsequently, its main eastern boundary was situated at the bed of the Safid-rud, which separated it from the province of Ôebal and then at the mountain chain of the western Alborz which separated it from the humid, forested regions of Gilan.

Thus, at the time of the early Arab geographers, Azerbaijan consisted essentially of a northwestern fragment of the high interior Iranian plateau within limits that did not differ much from the frontiers of present-day Iran and that, in any case, from the side of the lowlands of the Transcaucasia, scarcely exceeded the bed of the Araxes. The imprecise and sometimes contradictory information given by Yaqut in the beginning of the 7th/13th century, occasionally extends Azerbaijan to the west to Erzinjan (Arzanèa@n). On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Mogan, all of the province of Arran, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed. [1] Grandmaster 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying that for political reasons (such as governor changes), whole territories would go under one name at periods of time through out history. However, Yagut Al-Hamavi clearly differentiates between Arran and the real Azerbaijan. The territory as a whole was just called Azerbaijan for political reasons of the time. Armenia and Georgia were also sometimes grouped in the vast territory political territories of Azerbaijan through out history also, however, Azerbaijan, Shirvan, Arran, Georgia, and Armenia are all later mentioned as their own seperate regions in several works, all forming a large administrative territory. Do not distort sources please.Khosrow II 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your distortion

GM, stop your distortion of facts regarding this quote: However, there is a contradiction in Yagut Al-Hamavi's work. While he mentions that the region north of the Araxes River is called Arran and there are towns such as Gandza, Shamkur and Barda in Arran (all North-West of modern Azerbaijan Republic), earlier in the article "Azerbaijan" Hamavi writes that Azerbaijan is a large territory between Barda (North-West of Azerbaijan Republic) in the East and Erzindjan (East of modern Turkey) in the West:

Quote: “Boundaries of Azerbaijan lies from Barda in the East to Erzindjan in the West”.

As we have made clear already, at some periods through history, large territories were bunched together as one and administered together. Armenia, Arran, Shirvan, Azerbaijan, and parts of Georgia were all sometimes combined into one large administrative province, and Azerbaijan being the most important, contributed its name. Al Hamavi makes clear that the territory of Azerbaijan at that time was that large, but clearly states that the different regions within the large territory. Its like the Western United States in the 1800's, that went by names such as the "North Western Territories" but then were split down into regions. Stop your distortion, there is no contradiction in what Hamavi says.

Hamavi's quote supports the idea that at times many regions were grouped together into one large province, which is already in the article. However, the other part of his quote goes to show that even within the large territory, the regions still hold their seperate names. Stop your distortion, you have to take facts for what they are.Khosrow II 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote Iranica again, and I can quote Hamavi as well:

The imprecise and sometimes contradictory information given by Yaqut in the beginning of the 7th/13th century, occasionally extends Azerbaijan to the west to Erzinjan (Arzanjan). On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Mogan, all of the province of Arran, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed.

Hamavi says that the boundaries of Arran include Ganja, Barda and Baylakan, and then says that Azerbaijan extends from Barda to Erzinjan. So his information is contradictory, but he indeed says that the border of Azerbaijan was the river of Kura and it included the whole of Arran. So it is you who distorts the sources. Note the last line: indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed. So as you can see, the North was also called Azerbaijan, contrary to your claims. Grandmaster 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the regions to the North were still called Arran as well as their other names, just as Yaqut and Iranica both state. Can you find one map showing your claim? Can you find one quote that confirms your claim (That mentions the region to the north as Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan only)? Can you tell me why Rasulzadeh himself apologized for the name him and his party chose for their new nation? Can you tell my why sources even as late as 1911 even mention Azerbaijan as only the province of Iran? The majority of historical sources do no support you, and the ones that do mention Azerbaijan's boundaries as being extended, also do not support you, for they also clearly indicate the name of the different regions within the territoy. Also, Armenia was also sometimes grouped in the territory of Azerbaijan, so by your logic, should Armenia also be able to change its name to Azerbaijan tomorrow on that basis? Good night, I'll talk to you tomorrow.Khosrow II 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt Rasulzade ever apologized for that. Most probably he was misquoted, as he was never quoted in full. In any case, I inserted a direct quote from Iranica to the article, that should solve the problem. Grandmaster 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot distort facts GM. You obviously dont know or dont want to know about the truth. If you do indepth research, you will understand what Iranica means. So Rasulzadeh's letter is a fake? Also, interesting how you didnt comment on the other questions I posed to you.Khosrow II 21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I'm starting to wonder if every Azerbaijan article should be protected against you guys. Knock it off with the edit warring. Let me know when you've discussed your differences and reached a compromise and I'll unprotect the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if GM listens to reason, doesnt reject facts outright, and stops his disruptive editing, there wouldnt be any problems. The Azerbaijan article, the List of Azerbaijanis article, and currently this one, are protected due to his stubborness. You know that for the past several weeks I have tried my best to prevent stuff like this.Khosrow II 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good observaton Sarah, I guess it is fate of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis to be left with these people. If a pan-Iranist refuses to agree even with his own sources - the Encyclopedia Iranica, then it should worry every reasonable person about the common sence of the people like Khosrow II. The truth is in the sources provided here, Kosrow II, it is you who should open your eyes larger. --Ulvi I. 07:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Khosrow, please explain your recent vandalism with removal of two following quotes:

“

”

“

The territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also referred as Azerbaijan by another mediaeval author, the Samanids chronicler Abu Ali Muhammad Ibn-i Muhammad Ibn-i Ubaidullah-i Bal'ami, the translator of At-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) also writes that Azerbaijan’s borders start from Hamadan (Iran) and end in Darband (Modern Russia, North of Azerbaijan Republic) of the Khazars. He adds that whatever is in the middle is called Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan’s original/primary border starts in Hamadan and passing through Abhar and Zanjan, end in Darband of the Khazars. All of the cities in the middle of these [two] are in Azerbaijan. Abu Alimuhammad ibne Muhammad Bal’ami; Tarikhnaame Tabari, Volume 1, Tehran 1366 (1987), Xabare gushaadane Azerbaijan ve Darbande Khazaran (The news of conquer of Azerbaijan and Darband), page 529.</ref>

”

Also you removed the following edit that was agreed between me and Ali:

Why did you remove the quote from Iranica? It is pure vandalism that has no justification. It is because of your actions that the articles about Azerbaijan got protected. And why you remove other peoples edits without consensus on the talk page? Grandmaster 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

GM, whats with all the false accusations now? I did not delete the Tabari quote, it is still in the article. Here is another one of your distortions, which I will be very happy to inform Sarah about.

"or all of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. Some historical sources mentioned the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic as part of Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan. This would especially be the case if a single ruler had control over the whole area." I took out this quote because it was repetitive. Two Paragraphs above it mentions the several names that Cacausus "Azerbaijan" went by throughout history:

The region north of that, which constitutes the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan, went by many names, including Arran, Albania, Georgia, Armenia, and Shirvan.

And as I have said before, you are trying to distort the Hamavi and Iranica texts.Khosrow II 14:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot take out of the article sections that were added by consensus without agreement of other users. It is not my "distortion", that part was written together with Ali. And no, it is not repetitive, it says a completely different thing. The quote that you removed said that the notion of Azerbaijan included the territory of modern republic of Azerbaijan, and that was true especially when the territories on the north and south had the same ruler. This is a clear attempt to distort the facts and remove the information which was included by consensus. And how can I distort Hamavi by providing a direct quote from the source, without adding or removing anything from it? Does your claim make any sense at all? Grandmaster 07:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That one little sentence is that important to you? I will explain to you how it is repetitive: It is already mentioned what other names the region of present day R. of Azerbaijan was called, yes? And it is also mentioned that the boundary of Iraninan Azerbaijan was sometimes changing to include parts of the R. of Azerbaijan, yes? Exactly, thats why I removed that one repetitive sentence at the end.

And I would like to receive a clear answer, how I distort Hamavi by adding a direct quote from Iranica:

“

”

Please explain why the above quote was removed by you. Grandmaster 07:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Clear answer: You and Ali (which I also confirmed) already distinguished the fact that sometimes, for political and administrative reasons, Arran, Shirvan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and parts of Georgia were sometimes grouped into one large province/territory, that took the name Azerbaijan (I assume because Azerbaijan was the most important out of the others). Yaqut's quote is obvious, all one has to do is read it for what it is. He distinguishes the territory of Azerbaijan, and also distinguishes the different regions within that Azerbaijan. Simple as that, and that is why Hamavi's name has been in the list of some of the medieval scholars who distinguish the different regions. You are cleverly trying to isolate these quotes and distort them. Yaqut, who clearly distinguishes the different regions as well as a large provincial province, is also one person, what do you have to say regarding the overwhelming majority of other texts that dont even mention the Caucasus as part of Azerbaijan? Now why dont you answer my questions GM?Khosrow II 15:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don’t try to avoid the answer. You have no problem quoting Iranica in other sections of the article, why you removed a direct quote from the source in this section? Clearly you try to suppress the facts that don’t suit your POV. The quote clearly shows that Arran was part of Azerbaijan. Bigger regions had their own subregions, like Karabakh was part of Arran, and Arran was part of Azerbaijan. That’s why Hamavi describes Arran and Azerbaijan as separate regions, and then says that the boundaries of Azerbaijan included Arran. Yes, from time to time Azerbaijan extended to north and included the whole territory of modern Azerbaijan republic, and that’s the fact you are trying to suppress by removing the quotes and lines agreed on by other editors from the article. Grandmaster 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh really, Im trying to suppress facts that dont support my POV, then how do you explain why I left the quote from Tabari's book in the article? Regarding the rest of your post, I have answered that time and time again.Khosrow II 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES

From now on, I will cite original sources that claim the territories of modern Azerbaijan Republic was called Azerbaijan since 7-8th centuries BC onwards and that naming the official Republic in 1918 as Azerbaijan had nothing to do with the “Stalins” to come in 6 years (?!) and his “hidden agendas”, and definitely, M. E. Resulzade, the founder of that state had no “mistake” to apologize for. Azerbaijan, just like today was a vast territory from Iranian Hamadan to Russian Derbend.

These sources of course do not matter for those who do not care and did not need’em from the beginning. They will pursue their agenda even if they have to deny everything and everyone. For them major rule is - if several authors repeat the same thing hundreds of time (i.e. Barda, Beylakan, Bab al-Abvab (Derbend) IS IN Azerbaijan), it is either by accident, the fact that entire world was called Azerbaijan in those days, or due to their stupidity. In the matter of fact, they did not mean it. If you want to find out exactly what they meant, ask Khosrow II.

AL-KUFI, Arab chronicler, 9th century AD

“Part VII, page 320

[Khalif] Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz invited to himself a person whose name was Abd al-Aziz ibn Khatim, wrote an assignment for him and appointed him the ruler of Azerbaijan.

Says [the author]: Abd al-Aziz ibn Khatim departed to Azerbaijan. After this [khalif] Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz got news about some of his deeds. He sent a person there that replaced Abd al-Aziz ibn Khatim. [Khalif] appointed instead of him, Adiyya ibn Adiyya al-Kindi. Al-Adiyya departed to Azerbaijan and established his headquarter in Beylakan*. Its residents were suffering from thirst and Adiyya built a canal for them, with which water appeared. This canal is called until our days nothing but “Adiyya’s canal”.

Says [the author]: Adiyya ibn Adiyya remained the ruler of Azerbaijan for more than 10 months. Then [khalif] Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz replaced him and assigned instead of him al-Kharisa ibn Amr at-Taiy.

Says [the author]: Al-Kharis ibn Amr departed to the country of Azerbaijan and established his headquarters in Barda**. ^[1] Al-Kufi, Abu Muhammad Ahmed Ibn A’sam. The book of conquers. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Kufi/frametext1.htm

Part VIII, page 29

The story about intrusion of al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah al-Khakami to the country of Azerbaijan and what happened with him in the [country] of the Khazars.

Says [the author]: [Khalif] Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik invited al-Jarrah ibn Abdullah al-Khakami and entrrsuted to him his assignment, allocated to him large army and ordered to him to depart to Azerbaijan . Says [the author]: And al-Jarrah ibn Abdullah in the command of abundant army soon entered Azerbaijan.

The Khazars heard about this and started to run away until the point when they reached Bab al-Abvab***.

Says [the author]: Al-Jarrah with the Muslims was advancing [following them], until he reached Barda, where he stayed for few days so that his army and horses get some rest. Later he stepped out of Barda, crossing the river of al-Kur and moved in the direction of Bab al-Abvab. He followed this direction until he reached a river called Rubas, which flows in two farsaks from the city of al-Bab.

He got settled here and sent the chasers to the rulers of the mountains. Soon, [rulers] of all regions started to visit him (page 30). When al-Jarrah decided to enter to the side of the Khazars, the latter left the town of al-Bab and hid in their own country.” ^[2] Al-Kufi, Abu Muhammad Ahmed Ibn A’sam. The book of conquers. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Kufi/frametext1.htm

NOTES:

Beylakan is a city and district in the South of modern Azerbaijan Republic (Northern Azerbaijan),
- Barda is a city and district in the North-West of modern Azerbaijan Republic (Northern Azerbaijan)
  - Bab al-Abvab is the Arabic name of Derbend, the city densely populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis until today in the Dagestan Autonomous Republic of the Russian Federation, the North of modern Azerbaijan Republic (Northern Azerbaijan).

--Ulvi I. 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is truly getting ridiculous. OK, lets start:

No, the territory of present day R. of Azerbaijan was never called Azerbaijan, it always went by the names of Arran or Albania or Shirvan, or Armenia, etc... However, at some points in history, Shirvan, Arran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (Iran), were grouped into one province for political and administrative reasons, however, even so, each other clearly distinguishes the different regions. and answer this question: Armenia was also sometimes grouped into the administrative territory of Azerbaijan, so tomorrow can Armenia change its name to Azerbaijan too?

Also, Rasulzadeh did have everything to apologize for. In his letter he clearly mentions that he should have chosen the name Albania and not Azerbaijan (which means that even he knew the truth) and he also said later that he would do everything in his power to prevent discontent amongst Iranians. Khiabani, the religious leader of Iranian Azerbaijan at that time, changed the name of the province of Azerbaijan to Azadistan for two reasons: 1) to protest the name change of the territory to the north, and 2) to encourage democracy throughout Iran (Azadistan= Land of the Free).

And also, your comment about Stalin is laughable. When the Bolsheviks reconquered the Cacuasus, they kept the name Azerbaijan for the newly established republic so that they could claim northern Iran and set up another communist governmnet. Unclassified Soveit documents show how the Stalin himself ordered the formation of propaganda units and the ordering of the creation of secessionist movements in Iran in order to set up communist states. The first time ever the terms north and south Azerbaijan were used was in the 1940's by soviet propagandist papers in the R. of Azerbaijan. After WWII, the Soviets attempted to implement their plan, and created an independent (ofcourse it was dependent on the USSR though) state in Iranian Azerbaijan with a communist government, which later collapsed once the Soviets were forced to leave. Again, I will remind you that unclassified Soviet documents have shown all of this.

And no, Azerbaijan, the region, was only the name used for Iranian Azerbaijan. Never has the term Azerbaijan been solely used for the name of the territory of the R. of Azerbaijan.

Yes, I agree, people should only believe in facts, so once again, I will pose these questions to you, when you are ready to respond to them, do so, but do not distort facts again:

Can you find one map showing your claim?
Can you find one quote that confirms your claim (That mentions the region to the north as Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan only)?
Can you tell me why Rasulzadeh himself apologized for the name him and his party chose for their new nation?
Can you tell my why sources even as late as 1911 even mention Azerbaijan as only the province of Iran?
The majority of historical sources do no support you, and the ones that do mention Azerbaijan's boundaries as being extended, also do not support you, for they also clearly indicate the name of the different regions within the territoy. How do you explain this?
Also, Armenia was also sometimes grouped in the territory of Azerbaijan, so by your logic, should Armenia also be able to change its name to Azerbaijan tomorrow on that basis?

You are clinging onto one or two sources that you found, and are distorting them heavily, into making them be what you want them to be, even though they are not. Its really funny, it was GM himself who said that the term Azerbaijan was extended only as part of an administrative unit, and now suddenly both of you are denying this.

REGARDING THE SOURCE ULVI IS TRYING TO USE: AT THE HOME PAGE OF THAT SOURCE, THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS: We require the help in recognition of sources. Help us!! This brings into question the reliability of the source, and something very important that Ulvi conveniently left out. This source is unreliable, therefore cannot be used at all anyway, but I will respond to these possible fabrications anyway.

Regarding your Al-Kufi quote: He mentions Barda, and you assume that the whole territory of the present day Azerbaijan R. was called Azerbaijan? Also, Barda may very well have been a part of Armenia at that time. LOL, also, look at what your "reliable" source says: AL-KUFI, Arab chronicler, 9th century BC. That would mean he lived 800 years before Christ was born, and several hundred years before the name Atropatene was even ever mentioned. Also, if your source means "AD", that still brings the reliability of it in question, because most if not all of the chorniclers of that time only mentioned one Azerbaijan, it was the 800's, 100-200 years before Turkic peoples even got to the region. I dont ever recall hearing about a singly geographer or traveler of the 800's ever mention such a thing? The provinces of the Caliphate werent even as Al-Kufi says (if indeed Al-Kufi said this, which I highly doubt)... This quote may actually be a fabrication... considering the website itself is unreliable.

Regarding the story of al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah al-Khakami: A huge distortion on your part. It says that al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah al-Khakami invaded Azerbaijan. When the Khazars heard of this, the fled to Darband. Then al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah al-Khakami advanced at took Barda, and then went to Darband. No where does it say that Barda was a part of Azerbaijan, no where does it say that Darband was a part of Azerbaijan, and no where does it every say that the present day territory of the R. of Azerbaijan was called Azerbaijan. Also, if you know anything about the history of the Khazar's, you would know that the Khazars only got as far as the Caucasus, they never entered Azerbaijan. This source even shows that clearly. It says once Azerbaijan invaded and the Khazars heard about this, they fled to Darband. The Khazars moved into the Cacuasus after the collapsed of Sassanid Iran.

If you keep distorting quotes and facts and get bring up information from unreliable sources, I will have to go to the admins about your propaganda and distortion push.Khosrow II 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG, this is getting ridiculous. The same source you posted Ulvi, says this: And beginnings Salman ibn Rabi'a. To destroy those who showed animosities to its army, and to win all cities and fortresses which came across to it in a way, and, having cleared [from the enemy] the country, it has reached up to Bajlakana, that in the country Arran. Later on, it also says that the Arab army conquered Barda (also a part of Arran at the time). Here's more: After that it and its associates have turned back and moved until were forwarded through the river is scarlet-hens (Hen). They have approached to the grounds of Shirvan and have camped. Then they have invited the lord of Shirvan which has concluded with them an armistice on conditions of payment to it contributions. Then from Shirvan it has directed further, yet has not reached SHabrana and Muscat. After that it has directed ambassadors to lords of mountains (muluk it is scarlet-n??iàë) and has invited them to arrive to it. Later on it says: ';'After that it has moved in a direction to city is scarlet-woman (Derbend). At that time there there was hakan, a lord hazar, in the chapter more than a 300-thousand army of atheists (kuffar). So far, I have not found that quote that you mentioned, and since the first few paragraphs already mention the conquering of Arran, Darband, and Shirvan, I assume that you have fabricated a quote.

Ulvi, if you continue your disruptive behaviour, I will have no choice but to report you.

By the way, thanks for telling me of ABU MUHAMMAD AHMAD IBN A'SAM, another person I can add to the list once the article is unlocked.Khosrow II 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Obveously, "BC" was a technical mistake, it should hev read eihter AC or AD (I corrected it already. Regarding the map, do not hurry, I have an answer for that. Armenia and Azerbaijan was separate and its borders only in certain regions were overlapping. Actually it was the opposite, the Arabs united entire Azerbaijan (especially the North) under Armeniyya administrative unit, not vise-versa.

If the source says "certain Arab governer went to Azerbaijan and got settled in Barda, Beylakan, it means one thing - these towns were in Azerbaijan. If they were in Arran, Shirvan, Armenia (which is also possible on time and division principle), it could have said, "he went to Arran, Shirvan and Armenia and got settled in Barda, Beylakan and etc. subsequently" Obveosly, as much as it is today, Shirvan, Arran and even certain parts of modern Armenia was part of larger Azerbaijan (as main name of this geography). Moreover, it clearly states that Bab-al-Abvab was different from the country of Khazars and "that Khazars retreated to their own country." i.e. there was clear distinction between the country of Khazars and Azerbaijan. Do not worry about my knowledge of the Khazars.

Regarding the credibility, bring any source that shows the opposite of what Al-Kufi says or reliable critics of Al-Kufi's work, for example, again YOUR OWN, Encyclopedia Iranica. I guess you have to check the facts and read more, before reporting on me. You will be losing position in any case, trust me.

--Ulvi I. 09:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you did not discuss any of the points, that tells you something doesnt it? Also, Arabs never "united" the different regions. All Arabic sources distinguish the different regions. And you are still trying to distort information and you still have not answered my questions. This debate is over, you have nothing else to contribute as it seems.Khosrow II 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this article is locked again unfortunately. I checked Bal'ami today and he mentions Azerbaijan and Arran as separate (the part about Fereydoon dividing the lands and giving them to his sons). I have the Persian quote scanned, but I could not yet find the quote by GM. I'll do a more thourough check although my edition of Ba'lami is different. But there are some authors as I said that mention Arran as part of Armenia or Azerbaijan. This was the case when a single ruled the area, for example Baladhuri and Ibn Wazih Yaqubi' for example consider Arran(Albania) as part of Armenia.. And some other author (I think it was Ibn Hawqal?) considered Arran as part of Azerbaijan? Sometimes the information is also contradictory in a book when it comes to denoting boundary of geographical areas. Overall though Albania (arran) and Atropatekan of pre-Islamic times were always separate and all pre-Islamic sources agree upon that. In the Islamic time although the majority of sources consider Arran and Azerbaijan and Armenia as separate, there are few sources that mention Arran as part of Armenia or Azerbaijan. But this is definitely not the general concensus. This again was mostly done when a single ruler ruled the area.. just like Persia could designate Egypt because Achaemenids ruled Egypt from Persia. But yet Persia is separate from Egypt. Or it could be that someone from say far eastern Khorasan or Egypt was not familiar with the general geographical area. I recommend when quoting Arabic or Persian texts, if possible, to bring the actual texts instead of second hand translations. This way things are made more clear. I recommend going back the version I had: [2] and then adding a new source once it is verified. Other than that I can not help resolving this issue. --alidoostzadeh 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember that not even Arran was the name of the whole region of present day R. of Azerbaijan. Arran was just one of the regions (there was also Shirvan for instance).Khosrow II 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ali. I’m glad you are back. I agree, let’s restore the version that you suggest, but I also want to include the Iranica quote about Hamavi in the article, [3] as it is from a reliable source to which you referred yourself in this article. Also, I would appreciate if you kept being involved in this article, I think we can resolve our differences by joint efforts as we’ve done before.

To Khosrow: Karabakh was part of Arran, still it a distinct region with its own history and boundaries. If Arran and Shirvan had their own distinct names and boundaries, it does not mean that they were not parts of a larger region. Grandmaster 06:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding my questions? Why are you avoiding the direct quotes I brought up from the source Ulvi used by the very same people Ulvi names? As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, as both of you are deliberately ignoring posts. I am more than willing to discuss this issue, but its not really a discussion when you two arent cooperating (disruption, ignoring posts, failure to address comments, etc...).Khosrow II 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khosrow II, To be honest, I do not know about GM, but I do not want to waist my time answering to your unjustified accusations. For example, one of your so-called "questions" was accusations against me, for "fabricating the quote". If you can read the end of the text of the source I brought, you can easily read the top, where it says exactly what I translated and posted it there and you know that. I have answered to all of your questions with one sentence: Arran, Shirvan and sometimes Sunik was considered by Arabs as part of Azerbaijan, as much as Shiraz, Isfahan is considered part of Fars (Iran). It is not my fault, dear, and I did not ask them to do so. This the reality whether you want to accept it or not. I wish it was called Azerbaijan since 1918 as you claim or 9th century BC, from the times of Medea. But I have not seen any source that claims the latter. I only cite the ones I see. Is it my fault? Would not it be better, if you showed the same agression against those Arab croniclers, because they are the "faulty side"? Swear and attack them as much as you want, they are the ones who did this, not us.

And may I ask you who are these all childish games for? Why do you always delete the separattion I add between the sources and discussions? It can make our work much easier if we behave like adults. I am 30, I do not know how old you are. Also please, do not even think about the issue being closed. The issue is not closed, because we have just opened it. Thank you for your kind attention. My best wishes go to you. --Ulvi I. 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that long paragraph is your excuse for not wanting to answer me directly, then fine, dont participate, because ignoring posts on purpose is disruption anyways, and its not useful. Also, I intended my post to be under yours directly, do not judge where I want my posts to be.Khosrow II 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion club. We are discussing edits to the article. You can ask thousands questions, but I don’t have as much time on my hands as some people do. So far I have not received the answer to my question about the edit to the article. The question is why the direct quote from Iranica about Hamavi was removed from the article. You claim that by quoting the source I somehow distort it, how is that possible? Grandmaster 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have received it, its your decision of ignoring posts that is hindering the discussion. Also, thanks for admitting that you arent interested in discussing the topic in order to come to a conclusion. As I said again, if you are not here to cooperate and discuss the issue, then please save us all some time. This is called disruption GM.Khosrow II 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No Khosrow. The talk page is for discussion of edits, and not general stuff. You try to deviate the discussion from the real issues. The edits that I made were deleted by you, and I want to know why. In particular, why was removed this quote from Iranica:

“

”

And why was removed the following section, which was agreed between me and Ali and which Ali proposed to restore:

So far I have not received a valid reason for deletion of that information from the article. Grandmaster 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Every statement I have made in this talk page is about the history of the name Azerbaijan and its usage. GM, the writing is here for everyone to read, are you really going to try and distort this now too, in hopes that someone doesnt take the time to read the above discussion? I have answered you several times, but you ignore what I write. Re-read the above.Khosrow II 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that you cannot delete quotes from reputable sources from the article? I have not received any good reason for deletion of the quote from Iranica. Grandmaster 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that very well, but you cannot distort information either. If I was randomly trying to suppress information or delete sourced information that I do not like, tell me why I kept the Tabari quote? You still have not answered that. Your blind and unjustified accusations just show how desperate you are getting.Khosrow II 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, why do you remove the Iranica quote? I suggest we revert the article to the version proposed by Ali and add Iranica quote, and finish with it. I see no point in continuing this dispute any longer. It took too much time already. What do you think? Grandmaster 08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I, as you are being very disruptive, you are ignoring other peoples posts, not contributing anything to the discussion, and not responding to the discussion at hand. The article is fine as it is, and you have not brought up any real good argument for it to be otherwise. However, what will get added is the further historical sources that Ulvi brought up, which again, attest to the territorial differences of the two regions.Khosrow II 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So you reject restoring the version that Ali suggested? And you reject inclusion of the quote from Iranica? I provided many of the sources included in the article, including those that you deleted just because you did not like them. The Iranica quote should be in the article, and there’s no way you can avoid it. The rules don't allow deletion of verifiable info. Grandmaster 06:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iranica quote is good. But do you have Bal'ami's quote in Persian. I have access to his book through library but I have some of his online quotes where he clearly distinguishes Aran from Azerbaijan.

فريدون به زندگانى خويش جهان [ملك] را ميان فرزندان خود به سه قسمت كرد: ترك و خزران و ... طوج [تور] را داد و او را فغفور نام كرد; زمين عراقين... پارس و سند و... همه ايرج را داد... ولايت او بدو باز خواندى ايران‏شهر; زمين مغرب و روم و سقلاب و آذربايگان و اران و كرج تماميت مرسلم را داد و او را قيصر نام كرد. (16)

Translation (And Fereydoon gave: the West and Rome and Slavic lands and Azarbaijan and Aran (Albania) and Karaj to Salm (Sarm in Avesta which some have connected to Sarmatians

Also his book is supposed to be a translation of Tabari's in Persian. IN the original Arabic, Tabari has actually grouped the caucus with other names but has not mentioned it as part of Azerbaijan as far as I know in any volume. --alidoostzadeh 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ali. What we do here is add to the article all the information from authoritative sources. As anyone can see, the issue is not so simple, so if you have any other authoritative sources and quotes, please add them to the article. But the first quote from Iranica refers to Yaqut al Hamavi, and both Iranica articles that I quote say that the name of Arran drops out of use in the 13th century and from that time onward the area is considered part of Azerbaijan. Both articles are written by authoritative western scholars. Grandmaster 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gm. What line does it say that the name Arran drops out of use in the 13th cenury? As far as I know the are sources from the 14th century which clearly mention Arran. Also other titles use Shervan and Ghafghaaz..etc. All the european maps as well do not mention Azerbaijan in the caucus and use Shervan, and other names. Arran is also mentioned in at least one 16th century work. --alidoostzadeh 11:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, the last line of the article by C.E. Bosworth says: The old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.) [4]

The name of Shirvan was used later, until the state of Shirvanshahs was conquered by Ismail I Safavi, but the article by Bosworth deals with Arran only. Grandmaster 12:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the name Shirvan was used with Arran also. And the name Arran as separate entity is used in the Safavid manuscript 'Alam Araay Abbassi. Boseworth is saying that the current name has dropped out of use and the fotunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan. Else the name is common in the Mongol era and Safavid era ('Alam Araayeh Abbassi being probably the most important Safavid era history book). .--alidoostzadeh 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here the full context of the quote: The influx of Oghuz and other Türkmens was accentuated by the Mongol invasions. Barda'a had never revived fully after the Rus sacking, and is little mentioned in the sources. It seems to have been replaced as the capital of Arran by Baylaqan, but this was in turn sacked by the Mongols en route for Shervan and Darband in spring 1221 (Ôovayn^, tr. Boyle, I, pp. 148-49); after this, Ganja (q.v.), the later Elizavetopol and now Kirovabd, rose to prominence, the southern part of Arran now becoming known as Qarabag (q.v.). The old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.)

It is clear that he refers to the time when Ganja rose to prominence, while Barda and Baylaqan declined, and the southern part of Arran became known as Qarabag. So it is 13th century. Please do not remove quotes from the article, instead, add yours. Grandmaster 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The last line does not follow the previous lines. It is just the last line of the article and the current state of the name Arran. It does not say it dropped out of use in the 13th century. And I have brought sources already where Arran has not dropped out of use. For example the Safavid book 'Alam Araay Abbasi, thus your interpretation that it dropped out of use is incorrect. I think the best way to resolve it is to start with The influx of Oghuz... and then the user can decide on the interpretation. best. --alidoostzadeh 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. I think that it cannot be related to modern times, as the quote deals with the 13th century. I think the quote should be in the article, but we can provide the larger context for it. So I’m fine with your last edit. Take care. Grandmaster 12:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add that Azerbaijan in 1991 only brought up one letter that had a vague reference to justify their name at the UN.Azerbaijani 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Musavat

The current section about Musavat was discussed in much detail between me and Ali and was finally agreed. Musavat was a party of Azeri nationalists, originally their ideology was not quite clear, they had mixed such contradicting ideas as pan-Turkism, pan-Islamism and socialism, but by 1918 Musavat became an Azeri nationalist party. I cited my sources with regard to that, and they are scholarly sources.

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

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

Muslim and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia, speaking an Indo-European language of its own, declared independence two days after Georgia did. Reds had seized the oil city of Baku in March, a coup in which 3,000 Muslims died. For a short time a Bolshevik-Left Menshevik government was in power, but its leader fled and was killed. The SR's, taking over, invited the British General Dunsterville to stop the Turks from taking over. It was too late; they took Baku on September 15, 1918. The nationalist-socialist Mussavat party allied itself with Turkey, but soon quarreled with the occupiers. After the armistice, the British General Thomson landed in Baku, and soon recognized a government headed by Fathali Khan-Khoisky, a former liberal Duma deputy.

Donald W. Treadgold, Herbert J. Ellison. Twentieth Century Russia. ISBN: 0813336724

Grandmaster 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no difference, I have brought up two sources and I can bring up more. This is not about consensus, its about facts. See khoikhoi's comments regarding Safi Al-Din, sourced information is acceptable.Azerbaijani 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User Azerbaijani is trying to block the referenced material

Azerbaijani, you have no right to remove sourced information. Below is the information which will remain and will be reposted everywhere related to Azerbaijan. Removing quoted information is undemocratic and immoral. There is nothing "pan-Turkic" in references I provided, and Dr. Kazemzadeh is Iranian. (1) After defeating "Aq Qoyunlu leaders Alvand and Murad, the former at Sharur (which is now a town in western part of Nakhchivan, Republic of Azerbaijan) in 1501, and the latter near Hamadan in 1503, Shah Ismail Safavi was crowned Shah of Adharbayjan (Azerbaijan) in July 1501 at Tabriz (Tapper, Richard. Shahsevan in Safavid Persia, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 2. (1974), pp. 321-354) 2) With the collapse of Tsarist Russia in 1917, three major nations of the Caucasus – Armenians, Georgians and Azeris – came together to form the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic in February 1918. The federation dissolved when Georgia declared its independence on May 26. With this break up, the Azerbaijani fraction of the Transcaucasian Sejm (parliament) in Tiflis, led by the Musavat Party of Turkic Democratic Federalists proclaimed the independent Republic of Azerbaijan on the night of May 27, 1918 (Kazemzadeh, Firuz. The Struggle for Transcaucasia (1917-1921). With an introduction by Michael Karpovich. Pp. xv, 356, map. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951). The Republic of Azerbaijan was later recognized by the Persian government and exchanges at ministerial level happened in 1919 between Azerbaijan and Persia in Tehran, Baku and Paris (Kazemzadeh, Firuz. The Struggle for Transcaucasia (1917-1921). With an introduction by Michael Karpovich. Pp. xv, 356, map. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951. ) Atabek 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not blocking anything. Secondly, you are confused. This quote is irrelevant to the article. Please state what this quote has to do with the article! This quote belongs in the History of Azerbaijan article, not the history of the NAME Azerbaijan. What dont you understand about this? Your quote is not a historical reference to Azerbaijan, it was written in 1974! Also, what you just proposed to do is called spamming. Please read Wikipedia rules before you edit, spamming is not an acceptable form of editing. Also, I never claimed your source was pan Turkic, where did I ever say that?

For the last time, and read this carefully, this article is about the history of the NAME Azerbaijan. Anything about the history of Azerbaijan (the region) should go in the History of Azerbaijan article properly. There is a right and wrong place for everything, please make sure that the information you add is correctly placed in the right article! I will personally add your quotes into the History of Azerbaijan article, so you have no excuse to spam and no excuse to call me out like the way you just did!Azerbaijani 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried including the information in the History of Azerbaijan article, and I noticed two things:

After defeating "Aq Qoyunlu leaders Alvand and Murad, the former at Sharur (which is now a town in western part of Nakhchivan, Republic of Azerbaijan) in 1501, and the latter near Hamadan in 1503, Shah Ismail Safavi was crowned Shah of Adharbayjan (Azerbaijan) in July 1501 at Tabriz (Tapper, Richard. Shahsevan in Safavid Persia, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 2. (1974), pp. 321-354) 2) - This is already in the article History of Azerbaijan

and

The Republic of Azerbaijan was later recognized by the Persian government and exchanges at ministerial level happened in 1919 between Azerbaijan and Persia in Tehran, Baku and Paris (Kazemzadeh, Firuz. The Struggle for Transcaucasia (1917-1921). With an introduction by Michael Karpovich. Pp. xv, 356, map. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951. ) - I'm not sure exactly how to place this, as no where else in the section are other countries recognizing the new nation mentioned...So I'm not sure if it will be a useless addition or not.Azerbaijani 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani just like you put irrelevant material on Rasulzadeh or the Musavat party, you should also add both of the latter quotes on History of the name Azerbaijan page. Name of Azerbaijan as independent Republic has the same relevance to the origins of the name Azerbaijan as does the fact that Shah Ismail used it to proclaim himself a Shah of it. So if you think that's irrelevant, you should also remove your quotes. Khoikhoi and others, please, address this issue with your opinion. Thanks. Atabek 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Information about Rasulzadeh and the Musavat party are already in the article...?? And they are very relevant, because it was Rasulzadeh along with the Musavat party that gave their nation the name Azerbaijan, so it is very relevant to the history of the name Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

and

Azerbaijani, your text "The name of the new state drew protests from some Iranians, who suspected that it was chosen with the purposes of detaching the Azerbaijan province from Iran, even though the proclamation of independence of Azerbaijan Republic limited the territory of the new state to the areas north of the Araxes river." has no citation or reference, it's a product of your imagination. This is complete and illegitimate historical revisionism and one sided propaganda. Remove it, NOW! Atabek 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not put that in there, and it is sourced! Read things more carefully! Do you not understand that we cannot put a source after every sentence when the source is the same, it would get repetitive! Read the long long long discussion above, a lot of what is in this article is from agreement.Azerbaijani 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then provide the quote at the end of sentences you wrote, indicating exactly which publication they appear in. Namely, I want you to source the publication that says: "The name of the new state drew protests from some Iranians, who suspected that it was chosen with the purposes of detaching the Azerbaijan province from Iran, even though the proclamation of independence of Azerbaijan Republic limited the territory of the new state to the areas north of the Araxes river.". SOURCE IT, HERE!!! If it's something you invented by stereotypical dreams, then say so. But stop this racist behaviour, we are here to write a fair version of history, not the version only you want to see. And put back the quote of Kazemzadeh, which indicates that Persia did recognize Republic of Azerbaijan in 1919. This dispute will be endless, until you learn to respect all sources and quotes. Atabek 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani - besides strong belief you need to have proper sources. Discussion page is good place to prove what you assert.--Dacy69 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We had a huge discussion on User Khoikhoi's page, see the history. Also, I did not put that in. That was a compromise between Grandmaster, Alidoostzadeh, and Khosrow II I believe. See the talk page above. You guys are acting as if this is the first time this article has been talked about! Also, there is nothing wrong with that quote, as it is saying that Iranian scholars protested name. Some of these include Khiabani and Kasravi. Also, check my contributions, I have been putting sources all over the place in several places regarding Atabeks "citation needed" tags, which he puts almost everywhere, in the most needless and irrelevant places.Azerbaijani 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed all the compromises achieved so far. The part on Musavat was a compromise, as there are sources stating that it was Azerbaijani nationalist party. You added claims that they were pan-Turkist with references to non-academic sources. Goltz is a journalist and not historian. He can be used as source about the developments in Azerbaijan that he witnessed in early 1990s, but not about historical events and personalities. So either you respect earlier compromises, or we will have to go thru all the discussions all over again. Grandmaster 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprized that people who know Russian, Arabic or Persian, would debate or ignore the fact that "Azerbaijan" was a toponym that extended north of the Araxes river well before 1918. Let me add a few other instances to what has already been provided by several users above:

1) Article “Atropatena” in Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1970, by Dr. Z.I.Yampol’sky: “In the beginning of 2 century BC, [Atropatena] included territories of Naxcivan town (on Araxes river)” (in original Russian: “В начале 2 в. до н.э. А. [Атропатена – прим. А.Б.] включала также территорию г. Нахичевань (на р. Аракс)”).

2) Academician Igrar Aliyev (himself an ethnic Talish, who until his death a few years ago was the most powerful and influential historian in Azerbaijan, and what some, especially Pan-Turkists, consider as being pan-Iranist), who repeatedly wrote the same, for example:

I) “Thus, Atropates had power/control essentially over the entire territory of South, and substantial (if not all) part of territory of North Azerbaijan” (History of Azerbaijan, Chapter X, editor: Igrar Aliyev, Baku: Elm, 1995).

II) “Atropatena – is the Greek name of the kingdom, which was established in the last quarter of IV century BC on the territory of South Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan, and on a certain part of North Azerbaijan, and which existed here about three and a half centuries.” (“Study of history of Atropatena”, Baku: Azerneshr, 1989, p. 3). He repeats virtually the same on page 5 of the same book: “Atropatena, or Media Minor, located in the North-Western part of Iranian plateau, mainly encompassed the territory of South Azerbaijan and Iranian Kurdistan, and in certain periods – part of south regions of Soviet Azerbaijan, perhaps even some other Transcaucasian regions”. Both scanned pages available upon request.

3) Russian historian V.M.Sisoyev, “Introductory study of history of Azerbaijan”, 1925: “[t]he Arab geographers of IX-X century A.D. by the name of Azerbaijan meant the entire South Azerbaijan [Iranian Azerbaijan], as well as just the south-eastern part of Northern [Azerbaijan] till the city Berda’a (Barda) and till Kura river in the North…” (in original Russian: “…у арабских географов IX-X в. по Р.Х. под именем Азербайджана разумелся как весь южный Азербайджан, так и только самая юго-восточная часть северного до города Берда'а (Барды) и до р. Куры на севере...”).

4) Despite having ruled vast territories, the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan, had their country called exactly that – the Atabek Azerbaijan State of Ildeniz (Ildegoz). Their powerbase (See: Encyclopædia Iranica, "Atabakan-e Adarbayjan" Saljuq rulers of Azerbaijan, 12th–13th, K.Luther, pp. 890-894) was always Naxcivan – which is technically part of Arran, but as Great Soviet Encyclopedia correct said it, and as Iranica shows as well, was nevertheless considered very much as Azerbaijan. In addition, the most important city of that state was Ganja, whilst the capital initially was Barda (at later times, in 13th century, the capital did switch to either Tabriz or Ardabil).

5) In the abovecited article by Richard Tapper “Shahsevan in Sefevid Persia”, BSOAS, University of London, Vol 37, No 2 (1974), pp. 321-354 (where majority of sources are from before 1918, and spelling of toponyms is old-style) on both its map on page 325, and throughout the article, repeatedly refers to Mughan region and even sometimes Shirvan’s city of Shemakha as “north-east Adharbayjan”. At the same time, Qarabagh and most of Shirvan is not generally identified in such a way, and the toponym Aran is not displayed on the map or used at all.

6) We should also not forget, for example, the famous writer Firudin bey Kocharly, who published his “Literature of Azerbaijani Turks” in 1908, or the Russian Imperial census of 1897, and other archival documents, which listed “Aderbeijani Tatars”. Similarly, the Russian encyclopedia of 19th century, Brokgauz and Efron, had an article on “Azerbaijani Tatars” who being the largest of the peoples in Transcaucasia, lived in Elizavetpol, Baku, Irevan and Tiflis gubernias of the Russian Empire (in original Russian: Малый энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона, 1899-1904: Азербайджанские татары, мугалы многочисленнейшее из закавказск. племен, живут в губ. Елизаветпольск., Бакинск., Ереванск. и Тифлисской, 1139 т., частью оседлые, частью перекочевыв. со стадами в горы и обратно.).

7) There are several more references from Arabic sources such as Yagubi, Yakut al-Khamavi, etc. I include some of the online references for Russian-speakers:

Ягуби называет Арран “Верхний Азербайджан ” (Азербайджан ал-улья, Ягуби. “Булдан”, с.271).

Выдержка из книги Йакута аль-Хамави с http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus/Jakut/text.htm

Quote: “Границы Азербайджана тянутся от Барды на востоке до Арзинджана на западе. На севере он граничит с областями Дейлем, Гилян и Таром.”

See also: История Ширвана и Аль-Баба, http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/rus13/Sirvan_Derbend/pred.htm

There are of course many more references – but again, in light of so many references, all from different periods, it clearly shows that the geographic concept of Azerbaijan, the toponym of Azerbaijan, the political concept of Azerbaijan was known to include lands north of Araxes from BC’s.

Finally, I have a real problem with the way V.V.Bartol’d was mistranslated and misquoted. To begin with, the citation reference appears to be wrong or incomplete. Secondly, it is misquoted as there is no indication that it is a sentence fragment – i.e., taken not just out of context, but ripped from a sentences without any mandatory selective citation indications such as “…” or “[ ]”. Third, when the quote reads in its entirety, together with the question of the unidentified student in Nov-Dec 1924 at Baku State University, and answer of Barthol’d, it can be understood in a variety of ways – including validating the name Azerbaijan for lands north of Araxes river. I have the original Russian quote, with fuller context, and let all the Russian-speakers judge whether or not the quote was mistranslated. Because of this, the second quote of Barthol’d translated by someone into English in the “History of the name Azerbaijan” Wiki page, is probably mistranslated and misquoted as well.

Here’s the current mistranslated and misquoted fragment:

“The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one." Somewhere else in this same volume, Barthold wrote: "Wherever and whenever a name should be required with which one can refer to the whole region of the Azerbaijan Republic, one can use Aran”[23]

Here’s the original in Russian:

"Под Азербайджаном часто подразумевают персидский Азербайджан, по ту сторону Аракса, с главным городом Тебризом. Имеем ли мы право называть себя Азербайджаном в этом отношении, были ли мы Азербайджаном или это есть Ширван?".

Ответ Бартольдa: "Ширван никогда не употреблялся в том смысле, чтобы он охватывал территорию теперешней Азербайджанской республики. Ширван - это небольшая часть с главным городом Шемахой, а такие города, как Гянджа и др., никогда в состав Ширвана не входили, и если нужно было бы придумать термин для всех областей, которые объединяет сейчас Азербайджанская республика, то скорее всего можно было бы принять название Арран, но термин Азербайджан избран потому, что, когда устанавливалась Азербайджанская республика, предполагалось, что персидский и этот Азербайджан составят одно целое, так как по составу населения они имеют очень большое сходство. На этом основании было принято название Азербайджан , но, конечно, теперь, когда слово Азербайджан употребляется в двух смыслах - в качестве персидского Азербайджана и особой республики, приходится путаться и спрашивать, какой Азербайджан имеется в виду: Азербайджан персидский или этот Азербайджан " (В. В. Бартольд. Сочинения. T.II, ч.I, Москва, 1963, с.703 ).”

He validates his opinion, that Arran is just a region between Kura and Araxes rivers, once more in a different volume of his massive publication: В. В. Бартольд (Арран, — Сочинения, т. III, стр. 334— 335) отмечает, что А. — арабское название древней Албании, и указывает, что арабские авторы, в частности Якут, в границы А. включали только область между Ширваном и Азербайджаном. А. входил во владения Хулагидов и часто подвергался вторжениям ханов Золотой орды.

Part of the problem could be that this “Collected Works” was published decades after his death, and represented a collection of his research written in the span of several decades as well. Obviously, people can change their opinions, and historians are no different.

I suggest that not only all of the above sources become part of the article, but the mistranslated, misused and abused quotes of academician Bartol'd be immediately clarified or withdrawn until proof is provided. --AdilBaguirov 07:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Havent you heard of the Soviet historical revisionism campaign? The Soviets purposely reinvented many parts of history to a) get rid of Iran's historical ties to the region, and b) make it seem as though Azerbaijan was two regions seperated by Iran and Russia, and that they should be reunited again. There are documents attesting to this, thats why all your sources are in Russian from the USSR era. Anyway, regarding Barthold, his quote is clear as day, and he clearly says that Albania should be the name of the Azerbaijan SSR, and that Azerbaijan was the adopted name for Azerbaijan SSR for the purposes of claiming parts of Iran.Azerbaijani 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can fool me?

This quote:

Has nothing to do with the quote in the article. What the above quote says is basically this: Azerbaijan is often the term for Persian Azerbaijan, but for the area north of the Araxes, what should be used. Barthold goes on to say that Shirvan should not be the only term used, citing Ganja and Arran were also used. He goes on to say that when people say Azerbaijan, do they mean Persian Azerbaijan or this Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan SSR).

Do not play games with me, I am not a fool. Its pretty evident why you yourself did not provide the English translate. That quote that you posted in Russian is not the same Barthold quote.Azerbaijani 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- I should save this as an example of your poor comprehension, as well as extreme accusational and confrontation style, when even after provided by EXACT wording, you manage to accuse me of "playing games" and attempting to "fool" you. Weird. It seems you fell victim of your own misquoting and manipulations -- I've outlined everything in details as to how mishandled, misquoted and misudnerstood Bartold's quote is. See above once more for that. However, I want to address your baseless and unfortunate accusation against me of attempting to fool and otherwise be untruthful -- an accusation I take very seriously. You claim that the poorly translated English quote of Barthold is not the same as the fuller quote in original Russian? I will point out that you are once more incorrect:

ORIGINAL FULL QUOTE IN RUSSIAN: "Ширван никогда не употреблялся в том смысле, чтобы он охватывал территорию теперешней Азербайджанской республики. Ширван - это небольшая часть с главным городом Шемахой, а такие города, как Гянджа и др., никогда в состав Ширвана не входили, и если нужно было бы придумать термин для всех областей, которые объединяет сейчас Азербайджанская республика, то скорее всего можно было бы принять название Арран, но термин Азербайджан избран потому, что, когда устанавливалась Азербайджанская республика, предполагалось, что персидский и этот Азербайджан составят одно целое, так как по составу населения они имеют очень большое сходство. На этом основании было принято название Азербайджан , но, конечно, теперь, когда слово Азербайджан употребляется в двух смыслах - в качестве персидского Азербайджана и особой республики, приходится путаться и спрашивать, какой Азербайджан имеется в виду: Азербайджан персидский или этот Азербайджан " (В. В. Бартольд. Сочинения. T.II, ч.I, Москва, 1963, с.703 ).”

MISQUOTED AND MISTRANSLATED ENGLISH QUOTE: “The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one."

Note the text in bold -- that's the original Russian quote that was ripped out of context, mishandled, and mistranslated. --AdilBaguirov 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to M.E.Rasulzadeh

There is a real problem with this statement: "Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of Musavat party and, according to Thomas Goltz, a pan-Turk[20], who lived in exile after the Soviet invasion and occupation of Azerbaijan Republic, later admitted a mistake in choosing the name Azerbaijan for the state. Rasulzade admitted in an article that he wrote that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan). Also, in a letter to Seyyed Hassan Taqizadeh, an important Iranian intellectual of the early 20th century, Rasulzade declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians".[21]"

The problem is, that it is clearly taken out of context and leads us to believe smth, which Rasulzadeh did not say or meant.

Here's the fuller quote, with context, from prof. Touraj Atabaki's book, page 25:

"Adopting the name of Azerbaijan for the area of southern and eastern Transcaucasia soon caused concern in Iran and Azerbaijan [presumably, by "Azerbaijan" Atabaki means only South Azerbaijan - the Azerbaijan in Iran -- A.B.]. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, the founder of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Transcaucasia, understood -- during these early days -- the territory of this new Azerbaijan to consist of "the Baku and Elisavetpol gubernias, the southern districts of the Tiflis and Yerevan gubernias, and the country of Zakatal". [endnote 58] Later, when the republic had been toppled by the Bolsheviks and Rasulzadeh had been forced to seek asylum abroad, he admitted that this choice of a name for the new republic had been a mistake. In an article which he wrote on the history of the short-lived Republic of Azerbaijan, Rasulzadeh acknowledges that: "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)." [endnote 59] Moreover, in a letter to Taqizadeh, he declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians". [endnote 60] However, if the Republic of Azerbaijan, was the name adopted by the Muslim Musavatists, when the bolsheviks established their rule over the region, they did not hesitate to retain the same name. On 28 April 1920, the government of Musavatists was overthrown b ythe revolutionary Bolsheviks, and an independent Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan was proclaimed. [endnote 61]"

So, what do we get from this fuller quote? First of, Touraj Atabaki is an Iranian nationalist, and is somewhat partial and sensitive -- he also appears to have a favorable view of Reza Shah, which for a book published in Europe and US in the year 2000, is rather revealing of whom his loyalties are to.

Second, and most importantly, despite discussing such an important and contentious point as naming of a whole country and nation, Prof. Atabaki cites only one source -- both endnotes 59 and 60 are referring to a 1966 book by R.Ramazani -- and he quotes very briefly, with those quotes being clearly taken out of context and misunderstood.

For example, in order to understand what is meant by the offer to do "whatever is in his [?! Rasulzadeh wrote about himself from a position of third-person?! Hard to believe! So here we already have a case of mistranslation or liberal quotation - A.B.] power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians", we absolutely must have the context.

1) Did Rasulzadeh offer any solutions to choose from? 2) When did he do so, which are the dates, that Atabaki conveniently ignores? 3) Also, what POWER did Rasulzadeh have if he was never a president (this post didn't even exist in ADR), Prime-Minister, minister or judge in ADR? He was only Musavat party chairman -- and the Azerbaijani Parliament had several numerous fractions and parties, including Dashnaks, Mensheviks, etc. Indeed, this was one intellectual (Rasulzadeh) writing to another intellectual (Taqizadeh). 4) Moreover, was this quote even relevant to the name of "Azerbaijan" -- or was it just a normal diplomatic note between two old friends, who wanted to normalize or improve relations between their countries, and thus had some, however limited, tools at their disposal -- like writing letters to someone, and other acts, commonly referred to as "lobbying"? However, once more, Rasulzadeh had no real tools or power to achieve much -- he lacked an official position. The reason we know more about him than other ADR officials is because many of the later were either executed by Bolsheviks or killed by Armenians, whilst Rasulzadeh lived to a pretty old age in Ankara, and dedicated much of his time to write books and articles about Azerbaijan -- for example, his 1951 book entitled "Azerbaijani poet Nizami".

Forgive me, but for lack of context and basic details like dates, which prof. Atabaki for some reason did not supply, I argue that the quote should be removed altogether due to it being misleading, inconclusive and out of context.

The very same concerns are emanating from the former quote, "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)". Well, of course Caucasian Albania was different from (South) Azerbaijan! Caucasian Albania is a generally accepted name by which the North Azerbaijan went from IV century BC until VII century AD, albeit at times lands north of Araxes river were included into the geographic and political notion of Azerbaijan. However, since the fall of Caucasian Albania to Arabs in 705 AD, and it being generally named by Arabs as "Arran" (which is a derivative of "Albania" - "Aluank" - "Alpan", although the name of mythical king Aran, founder of Caucasian Albania, is featured prominently in local mythology), although Aran was mostly used only towards the lands between Kura and Araxes river (that is, not including Shirvan, some Mughan, Talish and North Daghestan). In fact, already then the semi-independent Shirvanshah's appeared, and thus, could not have been covered by the "Aran" concept. As multiple medieval and later sources prove, the name "Azerbaijan" applied well north of Araxes river (e.g., see academician Iqrar Aliyev, prof. Yampolsky, Dr. Sisoyev, Great soviet Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Iranica, and a host of Arab and other scholars). Moreover, even today the people of Azerbaijan call the very same territories of Azerbaijan as "Aran", "Mughan", "Shirvan", etc. In other words, people's memory has retained the original meanings of all these limited geographic concepts, and as in case of Aran, it is always limited to the right bank of Kura river.

Hence, by this quote, what is obvious is Rasulzadeh's brief explanation of ancient history of his nation and country, and that for longest times it was not the name of Azerbaijan, but Caucasian Albania that was prevalent. However, after the demise of Albania, everything started to change, most notably in 12th-13th centuries, when a powerful Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildezids (Ildegoz) was founded and whose powerbase was in Naxcivan (north of Araxes), with capital being in Barda and Naxcivan, and an additional residence in Ganja -- all north of Araxes. It's possible that Rasulzadeh might have not know many of these facts -- he was not a specialist on ancient history. However, what is obvious, is that even from the modest, incomplete, out-of-context quotes that prof. Atabaki supplies, we cannot reach the conclusion which some Wikipedia editors want us to believe, namely, that "Azerbaijan" in regards to the lands north of Araxes is an "artificial" concept, that is not in line with history, and that the land should be called "Aran".

Thus, I argue that this quote too should be removed altogether due to it being misleading, inconclusive and out of context. --AdilBaguirov 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No POV. You cannot assume that he did not know of those facts. Thats OR. Your argument is invalid.Azerbaijani 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the whole context of the quote should be presented to have it includedin the article. It looks like the lines were deliberately taken out of the large text to support a certain view. So if the whole text or relevant paragraph is available in any language, it should be presented. Another good source to support Atabaki might be good as well as a cross-reference. Grandmaster 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you taking about? The quote is in the article as it is exactly written in Atabaki's book.Azerbaijani 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are missing the point and don't fully comprehend all the facts outlined above. Nor do you seem to have any stops and any idea what it means to do OR and being POV. It is contrary to Wikipedia's policy to take quotes out of context and manipulate them to support a certain view. Both quotes given by Atabaki simply do not support what you and Atabaki imply -- it seems like wishful thinking, or rather, "leading". If Atabaki (and other scholars) would have had a solid quote, they would have brought it to our mutual satisfaction -- we all want only facts. However, instead the context is provided -- lead -- by Atabaki, and two quotes, taken out of context, are thrown into that context, to lead to a preferred conclusion. That's wrong and unacceptable. Once more, all the details have been provided above. --AdilBaguirov 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the above arguments against the Atabaki quotes in their present shape and form:

1) The Atabaki quotes lack dates -- this is unacceptable and contrary to citation requirements. It is a basic requirement that date should be given when did Rasulzade write anything. At least the year, although month and day would give the full citation.

2) The Atabaki quotes appear to be out of context and misleading. Prof. Atabaki leads Rasulzade's quotes to make his own conclusions -- nowhere does Rasulzade mention he regrets the choice of naming of his nation (?!) and he never did it officially anywhere in his speeches or publications. This is discussed in more details above. This raises serious questions about the validity of the quotes in the context of Wikipedia's page on Rasulzade and elsewhere.

3) Neither Atabaki, nor the Wiki page clearly state who Taqizadeh was, nor that Rasulzadeh had no power to adopt or change name of a nation. This brings about the importance of the date of letters even more.

Now, to clarify many of the moments and show how wrong much of the information already present on the Wikipedia page and advocated for by user:Azerbaijani, here are several scholarly quotes dealing with the period and persons which I collected:

I) On Taqizadeh:

"The radicals, meanwhile, were demoralized and leaderless. Taqizadeh, Haydar Khan, and Rasulzadeh had been forced into exile [by 1914 from Iran]." Ervand Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, 1982, p. 110.

"The prominent left-wing delegate from Azarbaijan, Sayyid Hasan Taqizadeh, then helped form the influential Democrat Party, a coalition of liberals and social democrats, which gained a minority representation of between twenty and thirty delegates in the Second Majlis, out of 111 delegates." John Foran (ed.), A Century of Revolution: Social movements in Iran, University of Minnesota Press, 1994, p. 36.

The relevance of this quote is that both Rasulzade and Taqizadeh were Azerbaijani, both were intellectuals and party activists, both were important, yet both lacked top authority and real power. In other words, even if Atabaki's conclusion, based on incomplete and undated quotes is correct, it is essential to note that 1) nowhere did Rasulzade voice such thought in public and officially, and 2) that he and Taqizade's were either politically unimportant or lacked any real authority, power and position to speak for their nation or change anything.

II) On Rasulzade's and Musavat(ists) orientation -- whether Pan-Turkist, Pan-Turkic, Pan-Islamist, Pan-Slavic, or Pan-Iranian or Pan-Persian:

"All this was much to the anger of the Mussavat ministers, even though it was rumoured that Hajjinsky had the tacit support of Rasulzadeh who cherished bad memories of both Iran and Turkey."(Charles van der Leeuw, Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, p. 121. This quote describes the formation of the last cabinet of ADR, on December 22, 1919.

"The Ottoman authorities removed a few political figures from the Azerbaijani scene, among them Rasulzada, by inviting them for prolonged visits to Turkey. Ottoman interference strengthened the tendencies toward Azerbaijani nationalism whithin the political elite. Azerbaijan's relations with Turkey would henceforth be tainted with uneasiness bordering on distrust, and Pan-Turkism would gradually be reduced from a political program to a cultural doctrine". Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 71.

"The 1931 suppression of the emigre publications coincided with Rasulzada's expulsion from Turkey, and some saw it all as the result of caving in to the Soviet pressure. In reality, the reason went deep into the complex relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan, a love story with its ups and downs amidst stormy episodes. Tensions had been growing toward the end of the decade, and by 1930, they had reached a boiling point. In reply to Turkish criticism that the Musavat was neglecting the cause of Turkic unity, Rasulzada published a pamphlet titled O Pantiurkizme v sviazii s kavkazskoi problemoi (Pan-Turkism with regard to the caucasian problem). Among the references to the experience of the 1918 Ottoman occupation, he firmly stated his view: Pan-Turkism was a cultural movement rather that [sic!] a political program." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 130.

"For the Azeris, notably Rasulzada and his associates, the Polish connection was a welcome circumstance after the expulsion from Turkey. Amin bay took up residence in Warsaw, where he found a group of Azeri students and officers on contract with the Polish army. Here he found also his Polish wife." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 132.

“Musavat had announced its birth [October 1911] with a manifesto that -- despite the radical past of its authors -- ignored social issues. Moreover, the party that would eventually be the main force of Azeri nationalism couched its first proclamation entirely in terms of the 'umma consciousness by appealing to Pan-Islamic rather than Pan-Turkic sentiments. Recalling that "the noble people of Islam had once reached with one hand to Peking...and with other built at the far end of Europe the Alhambra palace," the manifesto deplored the Islamic world's current weakness. In 1912 the Musavat put forward the program of political action that recalled for the unity of all Muslims, regardless of nationality or sectarian affiliation, restoration of the lost independence of Muslim countries, and moral and material assistance to Muslim peoples struggling for the preservation of their independence." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 52.

As you can see, it is very hard to put a convenient "label" on Rasulzade -- he changed affiliations often, like many politicians, was a Hummet leader first, and then, only in 1913 joined Musavat, which at first was Pan-Islamic, then Pan-Iranian, then Pan-Turkic (I argue that Pan-Turkist and Pan-Turkic are different for the reasons I've already stated), and again Pan-Iranian, then Pan-Turkic -- but all the time remaining true to only one Pan -- Pan-Azerbaijanist. As you clearly see, he was banned and exiled from Turkey in the 1930s and 1940s, and even before that, had a dislike to Ottoman and later Turkish policies. Likewise, he was no fan of Iranian central government, shah. Likewise with Russia -- although Musavat before 1917 did see itself as an autonomous part of reformed Russia. Anyhow, as is clear from Prof. Swietochowski, and as I said yesterday, "Pan-Turkism was a cultural movement rather than a political program (Rasulzade's admission)".

III) On the name Azerbaijan for ADR:

"Although the proclamation [of ADR] restricted its claim to the territory north of the Araxes, the use of the name Azerbaijan would soon bring objections from Iran. In Tehran, suspicions were aroused that the Republic of Azerbaijan served as an Ottoman device for detaching the Tabriz province from Iran. Likewise, the national revolutionary Jangali movement in Gilan, while welcoming the independence of every Muslim land as a "source of joy," asked in its newspaper if the choice of the name Azerbaijan implied the new republic's desire to join Iran. If so, they said, it should be stated clearly, otherwise Iranians would be opposed to calling that republic Azerbaijan. Consequently, to allay Iranian fears, the Azerbaijani government would accommodatingly use the term Caucasian Azerbaijan in its documents for circulation abroad." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 69.

This quote shows the MAXIMUM extent of ADR's concession (and thus Rasulzade's, as he and Musavat were at the peak of their authority, however limited) to "please" Iran/Persia was to call Azerbaijan as "Caucasian Azerbaijan" -- which is consistent with what some Russian scholars called it before anyway, and consistent with more modern description of North Azerbaijan vs. South Azerbaijan. Hence, the quote above strengthens my position that Atabaki's quote is misinterpreted and out of context. It also shows that neither Swietochowski -- a top scholar in the field -- nor others I've looked for, have made anything as Atabaki's assessment.

IV) On Iranian claims to ADR and subsequent official recognition of ADR by Iran (actually, Persia, or, dowlat-e Qajar):

“In Paris, the Azerbaijani delegation has done a great job on the question of relations with Iran. As is known, after the founding of ADR, Iran has made territorial claims to Azerbaijan, demanding it to be unified with Iranian state. After the adoption, in London on August 19, 1919, of the British-Iranian Treaty, Iran has relinquished is territorial claims to Azerbaijan. On November 1, 1919, in Paris, Azerbaijan and Iran have reached an agreement on established of diplomatic relations between them. Signing of this agreement was a big success of the Azerbaijani diplomacy on the international arena, which solidified the status of Azerbaijan as an independent state.” Igrar Aliyev (ed.), “History of Azerbaijan”, Part IV “Azerbaijan in modern times”, Chapter XXIII, “Founding of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic”, sub-title: “Azerbaijan on international arena. Paris Peace Conference”, Baku: Elm Publishing House of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, 1995 (in Russian). http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/historical23.html

The original citation in Russian: ИСТОРИЯ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА, (ред.Играр Алиев, изд."ЕЛМ", 1995г.), Раздел IV. Азербайджан в новое время, Глава XXIII, ПРОВОЗГЛАШЕНИЕ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ. Азербайджан на международной арене. Парижская мирная конференция. http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/historical23.html “В Париже азербайджанской делегацией была проведена большая работа по вопросу об отношении с Ираном. Как известно, после образования АДР Иран выдвигал территориальные притязания к Азербайджану, требуя присоединения его к Иранскому государству. После заключения в Лондоне 19 августа 1919 г. англо-иранского договора Иран отказался от территориальных притязаний к Азербайджану. 1 ноября 1919 г. в Париже между Азербайджаном и Ираном был заключен договор о признании независимости Азербайджана и было достигнуто соглашение об установлении дипломатических отношений между ними. Подписание этого договора явилось большим успехом азербайджанской дипломатии на международной арене, закрепляло статус Азербайджана как независимого государства.”

Another book by the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (see its full citation, link and original text in Russian below), also cites several archival documents about the signing of a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed on March 20, 1920, between Azerbaijan and Iran, and opening of respective embassies. Simultaneously, agreements on customs, trade, postal-telegraph and consular relations was also signed. A short while later, the embassy of ADR was opened in Tehran and Consulate General was opened in Tabriz.

The original citation in Russian: Азербайджанская Демократическая Республика (1918-1920), ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ КОМИССИЯ ПО ПРОВЕДЕНИЮ 80-й ГОДОВЩИНЫ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ. ИНСТИТУТ ИСТОРИИ АН АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА им. А. А. БАКИХАНОВА, http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap045-6.php "20 марта 1920 года между Азербайджаном и Ираном был подписан договор о мире и дружбе, по которому иранское правительство признавало де-юре независимость Азербайджана. Стороны принимали на себя обязательства по созданию и укреплению дружественных и экономических отношений, а также по открытию азербайджанского посольства в Тегеране и иранского - в Баку31. Кроме того, в тот же день между Азербайджаном и Ираном были подписаны соглашения о таможне, торговле, почтово-телеграфных и консульских отношениях32. Спустя некоторое время в Тегеране было открыто посольство Азербайджана, а в Тебризе начало действовать генеральное консульство Азербайджана33."

This quotes' are simply a reminder that Iran had territorial claims to ADR, but later relinquished them and fully recognized ADR under its name.

Thus, once more -- Atabaki's quotes must be removed since they contain neither the dates, nor the full citation, nor are consistent with any other findings, nor with any public and official speeches of Rasulzade. If one persists on keeping them -- then 1) dates MUST be provided, 2) position of authority of both Rasulzade and Taqizade must be provided, and 3) I will include then my quotes as well, which will clarify everything. More on Barthold to follow. --AdilBaguirov 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

reorganize for clarity

I think we should rewrite the article: a) pre-Islamic sources (Strabo, Joseph Flavius, Arian...etc.)

b) after Islamic sources (most source consider Albania/Arran as a separate entity than Azerbaijan or Armenia). But some sources have considered it part of Armenia (Ibn Wazih Yaqubi) and Azerbaijan.

c) opinion of modern scholars (alphabetical order) (Probably starts with Alioff).

d) discussions on the nature of the Mussavite party should be kept in its relavent page and not here.

e) It is true that the borders between three regions of Azerbaijan, Albania and Armenia were fluid, but over all they are considered separate regions in all pre-Islamic sources and most post-Islamic sources.(Ibn Khurdadbih, Ibn Feqiyah, Ibn Hawqal for example puts tabriz in Armenia! [5], Estakhri, ..). Thus these borders were somewhat fluid, but three distinct entities are listed. Even during the Qajar era, many books call the area Shervan+Qarabagh and mention it separate. And there exists good amount of sources from Safavid era as well. But it is also true to the proximity of Azerbaijan and Albania(later on Shervan/Qarabagh) and Armenia, different border regions have changed by geographers and their demarcations are not exact. Thus once all or decent amount of the sources are directly quoted, the picture should becomes clear.

f) The quote from Dr. Atabaki actually exists in the original Persian. It is from the exchange of letters between Taqizadeh and Rasulzadeh. Prof. Atabaki is not an Iranian ultranationalist, and he actually has called many times for more minority rights. He is a full Professor(not just somone affiliated loosely) at a reputable Western University (Leiden University). [6] and teaches University level courses there. Of course we can not expect him to provide a full article of the source in his book so he references like many other articles he has referenced. He has referenced the source (which has the letters of exchange between Taqizadeh and Rasulzadeh). In wikipedia quoting from non-deceased full professor specializing in topic at a major Western University holding an academic chair can not really be considered 'OR'. If the full Professor is wrong, he can be criticized in a peer-reviewed journal on the matter of concern. g) Thanks to Adil for brining that quote. Maybe it will clear the matter up. I did a google translation on the quotes Adil brought , since I do not speak Russian. [7]

"... the term Azerbaijan elected because, when applied Azerbaijan republic, anticipated that the Persian and the Azerbaijan is a whole ... On that basis, it was the name of Azerbaijan, but, of course, now that when the word Azerbaijan is used in two senses, as a Persian Azerbaijan, and particularly the Republic stand for and ask Azerbaijan what is meant, Azerbaijan Persian or the Azerbaijan ... "(" write ", II, and I with. 703). based on this article: [8]

[9] Ответ : "Ширван никогда не употреблялся в том смысле, чтобы он охватывал территорию теперешней Азербайджанской республики. Ширван - это небольшая часть с главным городом Шемахой, а такие города, как Гянджа и др., никогда в состав Ширвана не входили, и если нужно было бы придумать термин для всех областей, которые объединяет сейчас Азербайджанская республика, то скорее всего можно было бы принять название Арран, но термин Азербайджан избран потому, что, когда устанавливалась Азербайджанская республика, предполагалось, что персидский и этот Азербайджан составят одно целое, так как по составу населения они имеют очень большое сходство. На этом основании было принято название Азербайджан..."(В. В. Бартольд. Сочинения. T.II, ч.I, Москва, 1963, с.703 ). Answer : "Shirwan never used in the sense to cover current territory of the republic. Shirwan is a small part of the main city Shemahoi, and the cities as a highway, etc., never in the Shirvan not included, and if it would be necessary to invent the term for all areas that now unites the Azerbaijan Republic, it is more likely to be taken as Arran, but Azerbaijan term of the fact that, when applied Azerbaijan republic, anticipated that the Persian and the Azerbaijan is a single whole, as on the composition of the population, they are very similar. On that basis, it was the name of Azerbaijan ... "VV Bartold. write. T. II, C.i, Moscow, 1963, s.703).

Of course if Barthold has made a contradictory statement somewhere, it is as valid as well. --alidoostzadeh 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

--alidoostzadeh 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything sounds good except your letter D opinion. A bit of information about the Musavat party provides motive regarding one of the drastic events within the history of the name Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do not think it is related since the article's name is history of the name Azerbaijan. If we get into Musavat party then there are various opinions and the issue does not concentrate on the article. My personal opinions seems to think that Rasul-zadehafter his stay in Turkey gravitated towards pan-turkism which was the political current of Turkey. Indeed before his stay/exile to Turkey, Rasulzadeh published an Iranian newspaper (or wrote for one?) called Iran-e-Ma, if my memory serves me right and was interested in democratic Iran. I do not know enough about him to make a judgement really, and I think the current article should just stick to the classical sources. --alidoostzadeh 02:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Musavat party, not Rasulzadeh. It seems very relevant to me, because that shows a possible motive for the usage of name for the Caucasus in the 20th century, so it has to do with the history of the name and its usage. By the way, I dont know what translator you used, but your translation is highly inaccurate. Adil's quote has nothing to do with what Barthold said about why the name Azerbaijan was kept by the Soviets. Infact, that quote of Ardil's just has Barthold discussing what names were used for the area north of the Aras river. I will post the translate soon.Azerbaijani 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But the composition of the government of Mussavites can be discussed in that other article since the discussion then can revolve around the political nature of Mussavites. Also I did a google translation from the quote of Barthold. It seems the google translator gave: if it would be necessary to invent the term for all areas that now unites the Azerbaijan Republic, it is more likely to be taken as Arran, but Azerbaijan term of the fact that, when applied Azerbaijan republic, anticipated that the Persian and the Azerbaijan is a single whole, as on the composition of the population, they are very similar. On that basis, it was the name of Azerbaijan . It seems we are all in general agreement that originally Atoorpaatekaan was different than Albania/Armenia although sometimes Albania was subserviant to its neighboring states. For example Sassanids controlled Albania and Armenia through Atoorpaatekaan although both regions were considered to be part of Aniran (un-Iranic) instead of Iran (Iranic). The borders between these three states could have been fluid and for example some sources might mention part of Armenia as Atrapatekan and part of Albania as Armenia and part of Atrapatekan as Armenia..In pre-Islamic time that was the case as the Kaabah Zardosht also shows. It seems the major disagreement is after the 12/13th century to 20th century. With regards to this, I guess any classical sourced item is acceptable. Looking into Safavid sources, the major one being 'Alem Araay Abbassi, it seems Arran was still in use and considered distinct region from Azerbaijan. Also I did not find any source for this: There are also alternative opinions that the term is a slight Turkification of Azarbaijan, in turn an Arabicized version of the original Persian name Āzarābādagān, made up of āzar+ābadag+ān (āzar=fire; ābādag=cultivated area; ān=suffix of pluralization); that it traditionally means "the land of eternal flames" or "the land of fire", which probably implies Zoroastrian fire temples in this land.. --alidoostzadeh 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I dont know why your translation is different, but the quote Adil posted in Russian comes out something like this:

Azerbaijan often meant the Persian Azerbaijan, on that part of Araks, with the main city of Tabriz. Whether we have right to name [our] Azerbaijan in this respect, whether there were we Azerbaijan or it is Shirvan?

Answer Бартольдa: " Shirvan was never used in that sense that it covered territory of present Azerbaijan republic. Shirvan is a small part with the main city of Shemakha, and such cities as Gandzha, etc., never in structure of Shirvan entered and if it would be necessary to think up the term for all areas which the Azerbaijan republic most likely it would be possible to accept the name Arran, but unites now the term Azerbaijan is selected because when it was established Azerbaijan On this basis the name Azerbaijan, but, certainly, now when a word Azerbaijan is used in two senses - as the Persian Azerbaijan and special republic was accepted, necessary to be confused and ask, what Azerbaijan means: Azerbaijan the Persian or this Azerbaijan "

It may not be the best translation in the world, but its different than what your getting. However, this does not change the fact that Barthold clearly states that the name Azerbaijan was kept by the Soviets in order for one day Iranian Azerbaijan joining Azerbaijan SSR (and thus the Soviet Union).Azerbaijani 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviets are not even mentioned. Grandmaster 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it seems like my exhaustive post above was misread or otherwise not fully understood. The problem with Bartol’d’s quotes, once again, is two-pronged:

1) First, they are not well cited – in other words, the citation used is unacceptable. For example, despite having THREE (3) quotes, it gives only TWO (2) partial citations. Despite me having searched all of Bartol’d’s quotes using three (3) top Russian searching engines, I’ve found only one. The reason for such poor citation on Wikipedia is because the ideologically motivated editors simply took the Barthold’s attributed quotes from an October 1997 interview with an Iranian historian Dr. Enayatollah Reza published in a monthly newspaper Kahkeshan (#53) in Iran (http://www.geocities.com/aryannews/aran.htm). Thus, not only was this quote from a secondary source, but the Wiki editor(s) even left the whole wording of that Iranian historian intact, left it inside the quote, whilst not giving any reference to the newspaper. This is AGAINST rules of citation, you MUST give full reference, that you got this mistranslated, misquoted and out-of-context quote not from Bartol’d’s book directly, and didn’t translate it from Russian yourself, but from an Iranian newspaper interviewing an pan-Iranian historian (he is clear about his personal opinions), in which he tries to make his case about “Arran” vs. “Azerbaijan”. Moreover, it means that all Bartol’d’s quotes were first translated from Russian into Farsi, and only then into English – all this in a newspaper, not journal or book.

Note the way two quotes are currently presented in Wikipedia – and have been for some time, without, for some reason, raising any eyebrows, which shows either lack of interest in accurate, fair and objective presentation of facts, or total absence of rudimentary academic experience on the part of some:

In other words, in this citation fragment there are TWO different quotes, presented by an Iranian historian Reza, from different pages, but only one citation, and even that is incomplete! Moreover, I was unable to find the second quote anywhere, yet found a DIVERGING quote of Bartol’d from the same edition (“Arran”. Collected Works, Vol 3, pp. 334-335, as cited in http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus7/Montekorvino/topo.phtml?id=521), in which he validates his opinion, that Arran is just a region between Kura and Araxes rivers, and thus, once again, CONTRADICTS the quote which Iranian historian Reza attributes to Bartol’d.

2) Second problem is that the quote is out of context, it is a sentence fragment. I have provided the full context of the only quote I was able to find and verify. I provided it in full in Russian, and deliberately didn’t provide my translation, to see the reaction. Needless to say, I was not surprised that one person jumped at me, accused me of every sin possible – “playing games” with him (?), “lying” (!!!???), and otherwise of doing smth – anything -- wrong. Well, I will provide my translation now, and we will not just compare it, but make sure we all understand the context. The answer of Bartol’d, can be understood in a variety of ways – including validating the name Azerbaijan for lands north of Araxes river. Here’s once again, the current mistranslated and misquoted fragment (I removed the second quote that went right after it not to confuse the reader):

I) “The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one." [23]

II) Here’s the original in Russian: ANSWER OF BARTHOLD TO A BAKU STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT QUESTION IN LATE 1924: "Ширван никогда не употреблялся в том смысле, чтобы он охватывал территорию теперешней Азербайджанской республики. Ширван - это небольшая часть с главным городом Шемахой, а такие города, как Гянджа и др., никогда в состав Ширвана не входили, и если нужно было бы придумать термин для всех областей, которые объединяет сейчас Азербайджанская республика, то скорее всего можно было бы принять название Арран, но термин Азербайджан избран потому, что, когда устанавливалась Азербайджанская республика, предполагалось, что персидский и этот Азербайджан составят одно целое, так как по составу населения они имеют очень большое сходство. На этом основании было принято название Азербайджан , но, конечно, теперь, когда слово Азербайджан употребляется в двух смыслах - в качестве персидского Азербайджана и особой республики, приходится путаться и спрашивать, какой Азербайджан имеется в виду: Азербайджан персидский или этот Азербайджан " (В. В. Бартольд. Сочинения. T.II, ч.I, Москва, 1963, с.703).”

III) My translation: ANSWER OF BARTOL’D TO A BAKU STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT QUESTION IN LATE 1924: “Shirvan was never used in the meaning to encompass the territory of modern Azerbaijani Republic. Shirvan – is a small part with a main city of Shemakha, whilst such cities as Ganja and others, have never been part of Shirvan, and if there was a necessity of come up with a term for all regions, which are now unified by Azerbaijani Republic, then most likely the name Arran could be accepted, but the term Azerbaijan was chosen because, when Azerbaijani Republic was being established, it was thought, that Persian and this Azerbaijan will make-up a single unified entity, since by population composition they have very big resemblance. On this reason the name Azerbaijan was accepted, but of course, today, when the word Azerbaijan is used in two meanings – as Persian Azerbaijan and a unique republic, one gets confused and has to ask, which Azerbaijan is meant: Persian Azerbaijan or this Azerbaijan.” So, what difference does the context provide? 1) To begin with, he acknowledges that there is a historic region of Shirvan, as part of Azerbaijan, but it cannot be used since the concept of Shirvan never encompassed the entire territory of the country.

2) Then he claims that Ganja and other cities of Azerbaijan were never part of Shirvan, which, of course, should not be taken literally, as Shirvanshah’s did occupy Ganja in 12-13th centuries, but Bartol’d is right that temporary occupation does not tantamount to being part of.

3) Despite in Volume II acknowledging that Arran is primarily understood as the region between Kura and Araxes rivers, here he says that “most likely” the name Arran “could be accepted”, which still proves, that in his opinion, even Arran is not a good choice, but it is much better than Shirvan, or Daghestan, or Mughan, or Naxcivan, to represent the whole nation.

4) Repeated usage of the word “Persian” Azerbaijan – note that it differs with present-day descriptions by Iranian and other scholars as “Iranian” Azerbaijan. Reason of course being that the official name of Iran until 1935 was Persia or rather, by the name of the dynasty that ruled the land.

5) Then of course is the most important – if the logic behind naming Azerbaijan Republic as such is to appeal to others living south of Araxes, traditionally better known as being land of Azerbaijan, and considering that it would be the North Azerbaijan that would be making the South Azerbaijan as its part, not the other way around (since Russians, or Soviets, were to be the masterminds), then why all this sensitivity, and not call everything Arran? Or Atropatena? Or Media? Or better, and more consistent with Soviet naming, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Arran and Azerbaijan? Note that in 1924 Azerbaijan SSR was part of Transcaucasian SFSR (1922-1936), a special federative republic consisting of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, which in turn was part of USSR (also formed in 1922). Abkhazia was a separate Republic, as were many other territories, which later were either merged or divided from other lands. So we see there were no reservations about creating multiple quasi-federative structures and otherwise make territorial changes under the Soviets.

Thus, when Bartol’d acknowledges not just a “very big resemblance” of the Azerbaijani population across the Araxes, but that both Azerbaijan’s were, supposedly, to become a single part, he thus approves the name Azerbaijan as the one making most sense, that is more or less correct from all standpoints, that would appeal to a maximum number of people. After all, Soviets could not have called Azerbaijan as such, against the wishes of the people, but be overly sensitive about the opinions of the Azerbaijanis in Iran. After all, Iran was a weak state, completely dominated by foreign powers, whilst Bolsheviks and Communism were on the roll, seen as liberating and best for working class people (which was 98% of Iranian population probably).

And of course the main reason Azerbaijan was called that was because it was called so officially since 1918, and in line with historic evidence (one such contemporary source, from 1925, by Russian historian Sysoyev, I already posted). Here’s another one, from an Azerbaijani scholar from Iran, Professor Gholam-Reza Sabri-Tabrizi, which too should be added: http://www.tribun.com/Aktuel/Akt114.htm

“The name “Arran” belongs only to a region of north Azerbaijan where Ganja and Barda cities are also located. To back their argument, both Dr. Javad Heyat and Professor Zehtabi cite evidence from the Balami History which was written in 1060. Samanit Minister Abu-Ali Mohammad Balami writes: “It is said that Omar ibn Kattab wrote a letter to Naim saying that Samak ibn Harsini be sent to Azerbaijan. He had sent there Ismat ibn Fargad and Abdullah. Ajam or “fire worshippers” were there. The word “Azer” means “atesh” (fire) in the Pahlavi language. Because of this the place is called Azerbaijan – originally the Ajam worshipped fire there. Its border stars from Hamadan, Ahbar and Zanjan, and ends at Darband of Khazar (Caspian). All cities between these borders are called Azerbaijan… All these existing lands belonged to Turks’ (Вalami History edited by Javad Mashkur, Tehran 1958). The Burhan Gatey Dictionary, which was written in 1662 by Hussein Tabrizi in India, refers to “Arran ” as part of Azerbaijan “where Ganja and Barda are located” (Burhan Gatey p.42)”

Thus, in line with the sound proposal of Ali that we should mention clearly that there are enough historic sources showing that geographic and political concept of Azerbaijan extended north of Araxes well before 1918, we should do that if we are to keep Bartol’d’s quote. Additionally, full citation of his quote is needed. Also, of the three quotes, only one can be verified – the other two cannot be. Likewise, I posted several sources about Persia having territorial claims to ADR but relinquishing them and fully recognizing ADR by 1920, and that the maximum compromise that ADR did was calling itself “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in its foreign correspondence.

Likewise, I believe I fully addressed the Atabaki quotes. I should only note that I never said he was ultra-nationalist – just Iranian nationalist. Also, his professorship is not at stake here – no one doubts his credentials and intelligence per se, but that his quotes are unacceptable even on the grounds of being clearly out of context and undated, is enough. But here’s what another fellow Iranian, and just like Atabaki of Azerbaijani origin, Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh, has to say about him in his paper “A Look at Hegemony, Racism, and Center-Periphery Relations in Contemporary Iran”, presented in a seminar on Race and Racism, University of Toronto:

“Atabaki, on the other hand, promises an 'unconventional, non-partisan and balanced account' of the movement (PP. vii-viii). His account serves to support Persian nationalistic ideology, emphasizing the centralized authority and denying the right of various nationalities for self-determination. Quoting a dead Persian historian around the turn of the second millennium, Atabaki confesses that although he despises the Azerbaijani movement, “nevertheless, in writing this history I will avoid presenting any statement which might seem fanatical or vindictive, and thus the reader will not find fault with me” (P. 6). By way of an anti-colonial discursive framework we learn that there is no such thing as self-confessed impartiality, non-partisanship, and indifference; that “discursive practices are never neutral or apolitical” (Dei, 1999:403); and that historical accounts and narratives “are shaped and socially conditioned by particular interests, histories, desires and politics” (Dei, 1999:403). Atabaki’s self-professed ‘impartial politics’ goes so far as removing the name of “Azerbaijan” from Northern Azeri Republic and replacing it with “Arran”, a designation manufactured by such racists as Ahmad Kasravi (1938), M. Afshar (1921) and others. He bravely ventures to deny the common history, language, culture, religion, tradition, norms and values between a people living on northern and southern banks of the Araz River. It seems that in his view, championship of the dominant Persian ideology is tantamount to impartiality and non-partisanship!” --AdilBaguirov 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many people have doctorate including you, me and perhaps many editors. But Professor Atabaki is a full Professor and has many books and article in a major university. Thus he can not be compared with Asgharzadeh (his political views well known) who also has praised a psuedohistorian by the name poorpiraar(who lacks a diploma) and who claims that Achaemenids did not exist after Darius I and the were no Sassanid, Parthian dynasties and these were created by jews. Thus Asgharzadeh is not historically sound and falls in the category of historical revisionism. He also has claimed Arabs gave the name Azerbaijan! Either way, his opinion does not matter, since he is not a full professor(not even professor) with publications in a major western university. But the stuff Asgharzadeh attributes to Atabaki are never said in his book. Indeed Atabaki talks about how Rezashah favored some provinces (mainly north and central) over some others. He also claims Ferqeh had some initial support as well and actually if you read the Amazon review[10], you will note an Iranian user by the name Cyrus has derided the book. This actually proves that he is reliable (since he is hated by both pan-turks and the guy who wrote under the name Cyrus (living in America but 100% Iranian). Another Iranian guy called him a Turkish agent. Thus Atabaki is valid by any wikipedia standard (since he is a Full Professor with many many publications in peer-reviewed journals) although one can easily find the source his refers to since the letters of Taqizadeh and Rasulzadeh as well known. For the Barthold quote, if that is the exact quote, then we should have the best translation possible in the article. But the interpretation of his quote is left to the reader. It seems the above translation does not differ too much from what Dr. Reza has said as whole in the aspect that the name Aran was more appropriate but Azerbaijan was elected. The other site called tribun is not reliable because it is political site. But it also distorts Ba'lami. I have Ba'lami's history right now in Persian where all the words with regards to Azerbaijan are indexed and ba'lami claims that during the time of Kiyanids, Afarsiyab the Turanid invaded Azerbaijan, but no where does he say all these lands belonged to Turks, but "Bedast Turk oftaad" (came/fell in the hands of Turks). Note Afarsiyab and Kiyanids are mythical characters in the Avesta but during the Islamic times, Turanid and Turks became associated with each other although the original Turanids based on all etymological names were Iranic. Indeed even modern Persian, their names Afrasiyab, Peshang, Ashkabus, Piran..have clear etymology. In ba'lami's story, a mythical yemense king by the name of Ra'esh after conquering parts of India, China and Iraq, comes alongside the Iranian king, Bahmanand helps him defeat Afrasiyab (Tabari mentions this as well) although Ibn Maskawayah gives the name Manuchihr for the king. In another mythological story, Ba'lami gives Azerbaijan to Rome to the mythical character Salm ( But there also is a direct statement from Ba'lami separating Azerbaijan and Arran into two units as well when talking about Fereydoon). The Burhan' Qate' under the word "Aras" says: The river that flows between Azerbaijan and Arran. Thus if (Professor of where?) Sabri's statements from Bal'ami and Burhan Qate' are correct (one part of his quote from Ba'lami is not correct and he might be quoting Zehtabi), both of these authors have also statements that separate Aran from Azerbaijan and that is why I have suggested all classical sources be listed even if contradictory. This way the article becomes objective. . But it is sad to see Professor. Sabri quote someone like Zehtabi who believed that Elamites, Sumerians, Medes, Manneans, Parthians..were Turks and even misquoted Diakonoff in the book of Medes. That is another story. But either the site www.tribun.com has misquoted him, or he quoted Zehtabi (who did not have scholarly credentials) or has done bad service. I have done research on this topic myself through reading back and forth articles and debates. About 100% of classical sources before Islam consider Albania and Atrapatekan as separate and although the borders between Armenia, Albania and Atrapatekan were somewhat fluid, the three regions were considered distinct. I have not seen a source that is otherwise with regards to Atrapatekan and Albania before Islam. Ethnicially they were distinct as well at that time, since one was Armenian, the other Albanian and the other Pahlavi speaking during Sassanid times and Median Speaking during the Medes. Although Iranic influence was strong in Albania (Javanshir) and Armenia (10-15% of the language). After Islam, we need to specify the period. The overwhelming majority of sources of classical Islamic texts I have seen again consider Azerbaijan as separate from Armenia and Arran, but there are some sources that mention Arran as part of Armenia(Ibn Wazih Yaqubi,Baladhuri) and Azerbaijan (the quote from Ba'lami about the length of Azerbaijan). The sources that usually mention them in one area, sometimes talk about a single ruler. After the Seljuqid and then the rise of safavids specially, turkification took place and thus we have the modern ethnic Azerbaijanis. Without going to details of this process, which is not relavent in this article, I suggest we list all the sources and then clear picture comes about. If there are contradictory quotes from one scholar, then it should be mentioned as well. What would be interesting is to look at is maps from Qajar, Safavid and Czarist Russian empire prepared by both Europeans and the empires themselves. (In this area research is lacking). But it is clear in 1911 Brtiannica they were separate entity. Suprisingly the great Russian pre-Soviet Encyclopedia called the Azerbaijani Turkic speakers as Azerbaijani Tatars (saying they are iranian by race) , but has put Azerbaijan as the ancient atrapatekan and considers it below Aras. The main discussion is when did the major historical works start to mention the name of Azerbaijan for a region of the caucus. Definitely not during the pre-Islamic times. I do not think VII is likely either, since a major work of Safavid empire, 'Alam Araayeh Abbasi' does not consider Arran and Qarabagh as Azerbaijan. It seems scant amount of sources did?, but the major change was after the formation of Azerbaijan republic in 1918. Of course if this statement is wrong, then listing all the sources should clarify the correctness of this position and personally I am not accepting either Reza's thesis or the likes of Sabri who do not quote the parts in Ba'lami/Burhan Qat'i not favorable to their thesis. (note Reza quotes the part that agrees with Arran being separate from Azerbaijan in Burhan Qati' and Sabri quotes the other part. Again on Burhan-e-Qate' Reza quotes the part that he agrees with (under Aras) and Sabri the other part. Thus by having an article where many sources are listed, a clear picture can be drawn without any political bias. --alidoostzadeh 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali, thanks, but we are getting off tangent here. I appreciate your comments on all those historians, but this page is not about them -- it simply shows the multitude of opinions, and those people, despite their shortcomings and lesser qualifications, nevertheless are above some others, such as some users here. But the crux of the matter is not the credibility of any one scholar or Ph.D., but rather the validity of using any particular sources, and even more importantly, how they are presented. If the quote is poorly cited/sourced, or is not very relevant, it doesn't matter even if you are Nobel prize winner. This page, like other encyclopedia pages, is not a dump for all kinds of information. This is an encyclopedia and needs to be succinct, to the point and fair. I don't think any Azerbaijani objects to the fact that the concept "Azerbaijan" was generally known to be south of Araxes. Instead, what is needed, and has been done by you, for example, is recognition that it did also extend north of Araxes well before 1918. The fact that Atropatena (Azerbaijan) existed since IV century BC, and had bunch of Albans and other inhabitants of Caucasian Albania, fight in its army under the command of Atropates, and scholarly sources that simply cannot be even thought of as pro-Turkic (such as in case of Igrar Aliyev, of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which did not even have an article on "Turkic", but had an article on "Pan-Turkism" -- one of Stalin's favorite accusations before one was executed or Gulag'ed), instead those sources are pro-Iranian, showing Atropatena thus did extend north of Araxes at times, which I think seals the debate. Since those ancient times the concept of Azerbaijan extended way past Araxes. At the same time of course the concept of Albania/Alpan/Aluank/Arran existed too, and was at time part of the supra-concept, Azerbaijan, and sometimes of Arminya, and sometimes just independent of them. However, there is no question that "Azerbaijan" sometimes encompassed "Arran", and all other lands north of Araxes -- whilst "Arran" never encompassed "Azerbaijan". It was a one-way street.

Once again, I've addressed more than my fair share with all the above postings, and made very fair propositions. The user Azerbaijani has been unconstructive and silent, and indeed, doesn't know the subject at hand very well, even mistakens Rasulzade's name.

Meanwhile, specifically on Ali's posting -- if the letters exchange between Rasulzade and Taqizade, and "admission" by Rasulzade, is well-known, could you please post them, or at least point in the direction (Atabaki cites a 1966 book, long since out of print)? Because I am convinced Atabaki is leading and making unsubstantiated conclusions. In such aspects, every word matters. Sorry, but no matter whether you are a full professor or assistant professor or just a lecturer -- you must be able to cite properly, that is provide dates. How hard is that? Is it unreasonable to ask? Of course not! And if making such conclusions -- then why not provide longer, fuller sentences, to show the "regret" of "sorry feelings" of Rasulzade. Likewise, it is unreasonable for any Wiki editor to just rip this further out of context and post it, without clarifying the date, or who this Taqizade is, and that those personal letters are not official and/or public, and are thus less relevant. Sorry, but here were are, citing Bartol'd and Rasulzade, who despite being great individuals, indeed, titans for some, are nevertheless not responsible for the name "Azerbaijan". The people of Azerbaijan chose this name and accepted it. The ADR was founded by 26 "founding fathers" -- some were Azerbajani Turks, some were Kurds, Tats and Talish, some were of a clear Caucasian Albanian ancestry, etc., and all were from different parties, backgrounds, regions, etc. It is preposterous to even make a claim that someone like Rasulzade had much to do with this, and certainly in case of Bartol'd, he had zero influence for both ADR and later, for Azerbajan SSR's name. What is also important about the fuller quote and better translation I provided is that it shows that Bartol'd was at times unsure, at times contradictory, and did not mean it to be presented like this. His other two attributed quotes cannot even be found, and considering the evident poor citation and poor translation, among other things, they cannot be reputably used in an encyclopedia.

Finally, you mention "the great Russian pre-Soviet Encyclopedia called the Azerbaijani Turkic speakers as Azerbaijani Tatars (saying they are iranian by race) , but has put Azerbaijan as the ancient atrapatekan and considers it below Aras." I think you've been somewhat misinformed -- which is again casualty of the fact that some, typically anti-Azerbaijanis, mistranslate and misinterpret it. First off, you refer to the Russian encyclopedia of Brokgauz and Efron (there is an B&E Encyclopedia, and there is a Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary). Secondly, you are indeed correct that in all their editions, they had an entry on "Azerbaijani Tatars" and that was about the North Azerbaijanis. Russians called all Turkic people as "Tatars" by a special order of the tsar in 1828. Meanwhile, both dictionary and encyclopedia also had an entry on "Azerbaijan", but that was indeed on South or Iranian Azerbaijan only. However, this too is mistreated by the current Wikipedia page -- of course in 1890-1908, with North or Caucasian Azerbaijan being firmly part of Russian Empire, and Iran having stable northern borders since 1828, the encyclopedia would write that Azerbaijan is only what's part of Iran -- especially since it writes about contemporary, not historic, times (although the same article has a historic section in the bottom of the article). Meanwhile, the dictionary, for example, makes strange mistakes: it says that "Azerbaijan -- north province of Persia, which is an Alpic elevation between Persia and Iran (???!!!), in the middle of which there is a large lake Urmiya (!). ("Адербайджан — северная область Персии, представляющая альпийскую возвышенность между Персией и Ираном, среди которой большое озеро Урмия") [11] However, nowhere does it say that Azerbaijani Tatars are "Iranian by race" -- neither editions state that. Where did you read that? It is contrary to everything the editions state.

By the way, in addition to Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary/Encyclopedia, which since 1890 mentiones the "Azerbaijani Tatars", there is an even earlier reference, from 25 August 1860, in a letter of famous Russian orientalist Berzhe to P.I.Keppen, published in Sankt-Peterburgskii filial Instituta vostokovedeniia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk (SPbFIV RAN, formerly LO IVAN), St. Petersburg, f. 6, op. 1, d. 33b, ll. 9-12, as cited in Austin Lee Jersild, "From Savagery to Citizenship: Caucasian Mountaneers and Muslims in the Russian Empire", in "Russia's Orient. Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917." Daniel R. Brower and Edward J. Lazzerini, ed., Indiana University Press, 2001, p. 114. Prof. Berzhe apparently referred to the famous Azerbaijani journalist, Hasan Melikov-Zardabi (1837-1907). Of course, having so many "Azerbaijani Tatars" -- no less than one million in those times -- living in "Arran", and not "Azerbaijan", is strange, if not obnoxious, but whatever. --AdilBaguirov 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adil, check the archives. First. I found the translation from GM (as well a google translation): And the same encyclopedia says in the article Turko-Tatars: Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. Численность их 1168025 д.; около 40 тыс. их в Персии. Translation: Azerbaijani tatars, Turks by language, Iranians by race, occupy most of South and South-East Transcaucasia, and almost all of Russian Armenia. Their number is 1168025, and about 40 000 live in Persia. (the number in Persia is probably a typo). And under Azerbaijan in the same Encyclopedia: Azerbeijan, or Aderbeijan — fire land; 'Atrupatkan' in Pahlavi and 'Aderbadekan' in Armenian, is the north-westernmost province and the richest trade and industrial region of Persia. It borders Persian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam (Media) to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia (Southern Transcaucasia), from which it is separated by the Aras River, to the north, Russian province of Tashil to the east and Persian province of Gilan near the Caspian sea. This is very much like Encyclopedia of 1911 in Britannica. As per the article, any historical source from classics is valid. But also multiple/single quotes iarevalid as are any scholars (Aliyev, Atabaki, Barthold) as they are Full professors recognized in their field and well published. Specially if they are a living scholar, then what they are saying is current. I'll see if I can find Atabaki's quote in full if I go to Iran, but the source is not too obscure since letters of exchange between Rasulzadeh and the Iranian Azerbaijani scholar Taqizadeh are well known in Iran, but probably have not been translated from Persian in the republic of Azerbaijan. I do not expect Atabaki to provide a full translations of many of these letter. The thing is though in Wikipedia we can not exclude quoting from scholars recognized in their field unless it has been refuted by another scholar in a scholarly journal. Asking for more details is good and I'll try to obtain more details within this regard. --alidoostzadeh 12:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ali! This is very weird -- I indeed found that reference which was probably published around 1899, but that info is not repeated in several other articles and editions! Consider the: 1) short article 'Azerbaijani Tatars' in the "Small encyclopedia dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (1890-1907) (actual year of the edition is unknown) [12] (it might not work as a link), which says nothing of this sort, or the 2) very comprehensive article "Caucasian region" from the "Encyclopedia dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron" (that's the 8th edition, which appears to have been published around 1898), which describes everything at length, and they classify "Aderbaijani Tatars" as "Mongoloid Race". Then in what appears to be one of the last edition of B&E (1905-1907), in the article "Erivan Guberniya" [13], against simply mentions, repeatedly, "Tatars (Azerbaijani)". Note that in total, in 2 articles it spells "Aderbaijani", whilst in the other two as "Azerbaijani". Meanwhile, in one article it labels Azerbaijanis as "Iranian by race", in one labels as "Mongoloid race" (like all other Turkic peoples), and in two other article says nothing about race, just the ethnicity name. Those articles are typically racist and along with very valuable info contain many mistakes, like what you correctly identified about "40,000 in Persia", or mine about Azerbaijan being between Persia and Iran (?!). My initial thought would be that by "Iranian race" the writer would simply hint at the fact that Azerbaijanis at traditionally associated with, and view as their homeland, Iranian Plateau. Moreover, very often all those from Iranian empire were simply called "Persians" -- this is true of even Azerbaijani chroniclers of 19th century. All shahs were called "Persian shah" or "Persian prince" even in Qajar times. In other words, simply denoting the citizenship or nationality, not ethnic background, as it's much harder. Also, all those articles in B&E have different authors -- the one you provided I can't figure out by initials, whilst the comprehensive article appears to have been written by Vladimir Minorsky, a top-expert of course. In any case, I am glad to have re-read all those articles, as they will be needed in Wikipedia. --AdilBaguirov 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. Specially the spelling part. The spelling of Aderbaijani, actually that is closer to the historical pronunciation since in Arabic, Persian and Azerbaijani and Ottoman and etc. it is written آذربایجان. Note the word ذ is pronounced more as d in Arabic as well as Pahlavi. In some Persian speaking regions like that of Afghanistan, it is still pronounced correctly. Just like Q and Gh and V and W…Tehrani Persian is more simplified. Anyways to make a long story short, the ذ in Azerbaijan is close to d than to z and I think the recent pronunciation change from Ader to Azer is recent phenomenon. BTW I am interested to see which article labels azerbaijani mongloid by race since that is actually ridiculous just looking at the typical mongol , kazakh .. and then looking at Azerbaijani. I am thinking that another meaning for race here could be origin, which again would be wrong in this case. About Azerbaijan being between Persia and Iran in the dictionary, that is indeed weird and could be either a typo in the dictionary or typo in computerization. The encyclopedic article does not seem to have this mistake [14]. About the term Tatar, I have seen British sources use it too for the Azerbaijani portion of Iran’s population and this seems to have been a more linguistic designation. For example Lord Cruzon in his statistics of Irans 6 million population during the Qajar era, claims that there are 1 million tatars by which he means mainly Azerbaijanis. That is I do not think the term was exclusive to Russian use.

Looks like the main disagreement is the quote of Atabaki and also Barthold. First thing to see, is if users can find the other quotes of Barthold that is in the Enayatollah Reza article in their direct Russian format that has not been translated from Russian to Persian then from Persian to English. But one of the quotes in Adil’s translation is not that different from that particular quote of Reza. The main point is to see if the other quotes are from what source and are they from the same book and etc? So the first step is to get all the quotes with valid translations. And if some do not exist, then excise them from the article. This way there won’t be any r.v. about deletion of the quotes.

For Dr. Atabaki he has used Russian, English, Turkish, Azeri, Persian..sources. It is much harder to track down each source, although nevertheless citing him is valid Wikipedia procedure. At the same time, since a friendly request was made (although at first I was surprised to see some sort of black ops on Dr. Atabaki who is called in one place a Pan-Turkish agent (Amazon) and another one he is called Persian Chauvinist (Asgharzadeh)) Such statements does not really help the discussion). But I’ll do my best to see if I can find the full letters or at least a large portion of for curiosities sake. From what I gathered so far, these letters were written almost at the end of the life-time of Rasul-Zadeh. Thus I think everyone should be satisfied with regards to these letters till the article is unlocked. I might be going to university of Chicago this month and so there is good probability I can find it. This way revert wars that has occurred with regards to this source will end.

Note I think as everyone should think, that the people of Azerbaijan republic have the right to be proud to be called Azerbaijanis connecting them to at least a 2300 name and they are indeed heirs to this history alongside the rest of people who share the same heritage. But the issue in this article is merely historical (up to I guess the proclamation of the Azerbaijani republic) now and the name Azerbaijan republic is accepted by the UN and thus respected. Thus anything after 1920’s in this article with regards to politics is not really relavent. The name Azerbaijan (what area did it encompass historically, when was it named, its etymology) and when it came to be applied for Albania is interesting topic and whether it was gradual or abrupt or something between and what there any political intentions for (some sources say the name was chosen so that it might rejoin Iran (Jahanshahlou Afshar)) or against Iran. Surprisingly the name Azerbaijan is one of the names which has a very clear etymology (like Esfahan) and Khorasan, but some other regions in Iran like Kerman do not have it.

With keeping personal interpretations to the minimum and citing sources that academic (and not from political sites), then the article should be unlocked. Thus two tasks that remain is to get all the quotes attributed to Barthold in the original Russian (this one is necessary for the user Azerbaijani) and to get more detail on the Atabaki quote (although not necessary for user Azerbaijani, but I think people should try to find it and I am sure Adil and GM are interested to see the opinion of the founder of their republic and his letters to Taqizadeh). Also I suggested to have opinions of classical texts in chronological order. Azerbaijani, Adil, GM what is your opinion? --alidoostzadeh 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, thanks, I was only able to quickly skim through your post, let me return later to it. Also, I've ordered the 1966 Ramazani book to which Dr. Atabaki refers, once I get it in early February, will be able to say more about its context, etc. Of course, if you get it before me, pls keep informed. Meanwhile, of course we are all interested in the facts, no matter what they are. The objection to the present state of the page is not to the presented quote in principle, but to the fact that 1) the quote was poorly quoted (since I went back to the source, we fixed that); 2) it is undated (we will be able to find the exact date only after will get the 1966 Ramazani book), which is a big omission on the part of Atabaki, 3) whatever the limited context that Atabaki provided, such as that that was a personal private letter from Rasulzade to Taqizadeh, was nowhere to be found in the Wikipedia, instead, it is presented as an "article" of Rasulzade. 4) Finally, the other facts that I presented, have not been presented before hand (which is OK, there is a first time for everything), but on a different page user "Azerbaijani" tried to remove all those fully cited references and include his poorly cited one's. That's of course not right.

Although my principle objection is rooted in the belief, that the quote has been taken out of context and misinterpreted -- I've explained what Rasulzade could have meant, and am very interested to see the original letters. There is nothing original about his "Albania" vs. "Azerbaijan" quote -- any Azerbaijani historian would write the same depending on the historic timeframe and context. All this attribution of some regret to Rasulzade somewhat contradicts all other evidence at hand, although its possible he felt that Azerbaijani cause was abandoned by Turkey or the West, and pinned some hopes with Iran (especially if the letter exhange was in 1940s). We will see once we get the full letters, and of course, there are plenty of other sources I've presented that give a different perspective.

What I propose is that we agree on a version of the wording here, and then once the page gets unlocked, we implement it. As I said, let me read more of your post later, and return again with comments, if any. --AdilBaguirov 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the article of B&E you cite, also doesn't mention the "Iranian race" of Azerbaijanis. Instead, it says: "Народонаселение А., около 1000000, состоит к западу от озера из курдов, в остальных частях страны оно турецкого происхождения; господствующий язык тоже турецкий, персидский ограничивается городами;" "Population of Azerbeidzhan [or Aderbeidzhan, the article gives both spelling -- plus Russians don't have the "j" letter, so everything is replaced with "dzh"], about 1 million, consists on the West of the lake of Kurds, in other parts of the country it is of Turkic [actually, says Turkish, the difference gradations might have not yet gained popularity] origin; dominating language is also Turkish, with Persian being limited only to cities;"

Meanwhile, here's the Mongoloid reference: "Б. Монгольская раса. a) Тюркские народы: 1) адербейджанские татары, 2) турки, 3) туркмены (таракяма), 4) карапапахи, 5) ногайцы, 6) кумыки, 7) карачаевцы, 8) трухмены, 9) горцы Нальчикского округа (балкарцы, чегемцы и т. п.). б) Монгольский народ: калмыки. в) Финский народ: эсты." It's after midway of the article, just before the first graphic table that appears [15]. It was typical for 19th century to call Turkic people of being of Mongoloid race. In fact, even in USSR we studied in schools that there are only three races -- Europeoid, Mongoloid and Africanoid, and of course most Asians, and especially those with slanted eyes, would be "Mongoloid". In US schools, it is typically 5 races, adding Native Americans and Pacific Islanders as separate races. --AdilBaguirov 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adil, there is a book and some articles by Ramazani in Atabaki. So he could be referring to an article and not a book. I'll try to look at Atabaki again when I visit university and perhaps find the Ramazani articles. I believe he is referencing Professor Ramazani of Virgina University. I am trying to get actually the original Persian though and its context. I am short on time right now too, will read more tonight. I have the original two Persian statements of Rasulzadeh. But I do not have full paragraph and the date of the letters. These are interesting details that I believe readers of this entry are interested in. --alidoostzadeh 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Adil, On the Atabaki quote, I checked his book again today since I had written notes a while back. The quote is actually from Chapter 1 in a Persian magazine, with dates, year and etc.(Esfand 25 , 1302 (83 years ago actually), equivalent to 15th of March, 1924. I believe I have access to it, and should bring it soon (hopefully within a week-month). Adil you might want to return that Ramazani book or cancel your order ASAP although the other book has interesting stuff, but actually I mistook Chapter 2 of Atabaki references for Chapter 1 references where he directly quotes the letter and not through second hand sources. --alidoostzadeh 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Inscription of Shapur I (241-272 AD) (from his inscription on Ka'bah of Zoroaster):

"I am the ruler of Eran-shahr and hold these kingdoms: Persia (Fars), Pahlaw (Parthia), Khuzestan, Mesan, Asorestan (Assyria), Nodsiragan (Adiabene), Arabestan (Arabia), Adurbadagan (Azerbaijan), Armenia, Wiruzan (Geogris), Segan, Alan (Albania), Balasagan, up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania, and all of the mountain chain of Padishkhwar (Pareshwar), Media, Wurgan (Gurgan), Marg (Merv), Harew (Herat) and all of Abarshahr, Kerman, Sagastan (Sistan), Turan, Makran, Paradan (Paradene), Hindestan (India), Kushanshahr up to Pashkabur (Peshwar) and up to Kash (Kashgar), Sugd (Sogdiana) and to the mountains of Chachestan (Tashkent), and on the other side of the sea, Mazun (Oman)."

As you can see from the bolded terms, Azerbaijan and Albania are considered two seperate entities during the Sassanid Era. This quote should be added as one of the pre-Islamic sources (along with Strabo and the others...).Azerbaijani 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

good that this source is brought -- first off, the "Alan" is not Albania -- it is Alania, or present-day Ossetia. Whoever inserted "(Albania)" was wrong. Secondly, we see no mention of "Iran", instead, Shapur I declares himself the ruler of an empire that includes Persia and Media. So should we then claim that Iran did not exist before as a political or geographic enity? Third, it seems like Adurbadagan (Azerbaijan) is meant precisely the way we mean it, that is both North and South Azerbaijan, since Shapur mentions Adurbadagan and Media separately. Thank you user Azerbaijani, finally something constructive and valuable, and worthy of your nickname. Please also indicate the source of this quote. --AdilBaguirov 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, may I once again point out that Point of View and Original Research are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Again, you have made another POV and OR post which does nothing for the debate. Secondly, you claim that Iran is not mentioned, when clearly, at the very beginning, Shapur I says "I am ruler of Eran-Shahr" which is Iran. Thirdly, I believe that Alan being mentioned as Albania was a mistake also, but regardless, Albania is mentioned again here: "up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania". Again, no POV or OR Adil. The source of the quote is Shapur's inscription is Ka'bah of Zoroaster. Also, Here is what Dr. Frye exactly says (one of the foremost scholars of Iranian history, are you going to say that he isnt reliable either?):

The extent of Shapur's hegemony in the east, on the whole, is now known from his inscription. From Shapur's inscription KZ we see that most of Transcaucasia was included in his empire, and from the inscription of Kartir at the same site we learn 'the land of Armenia, Georgia, Albania and Balasagan, up to the Gate of the Albanians, Shapur the king of kings with his horse(s) and men pillaged, bumed and devastated'.

Azerbaijani 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source that needs to be added, from Encyclopaedia Iranica:

In pre-Islamic times, Arra@n formed the heart of the province of Caucasian Albania (to be distinguished of course from the Balkan Albania), which in fact embraced all eastern Transcaucasia, i.e. Arra@n here was a wider concept than that of post-Islamic Arra@n, and corresponded grosso modo with the modern Azerbaijan SSR.Azerbaijani 02:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adil actually Shapur uses Eran-shahr (Iran) (see first line of Azerbaijani's quote) in the inscription. See also Professor Mckenzie(expert in Pahlavi) in Iranica. [16]. User Azerbaijani is right here, Alan (Arran) is actually Albania in this translation. In Pahlavi R and L are written the same way. Also see here: Albania appears among the Sasanian provinces listed in the trilingual inscription of Shapur at Naqsh-e Rostam (Parthian version, 1.2; Greek version, 1.3; see A. Maricq, Classica et Orientalia, Paris, 1965, p. 47).[17]. Azerbaijani, it would be good to provide the links for Iranica quote. --alidoostzadeh 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali for clearing that up, also that quote from Richard N. Frye helped a bit too. Also, I am going to bring up even more quotes from Iranica.Azerbaijani 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More quotes from Iranica:

The H®odu@d al-¿a@lam, (tr. Minorsky pp. 142-45, commentary pp. 396-403), considers Azerbaijan, Arra@n, and Armenia as the pleasantest of all the Islamic lands. It is also interesting that Ebn H®awqal (pp. 349, 356, tr. pp. 342, 348) speaks of “the two Arra@ns,” apparently meaning Arra@n proper to the south of the Kur and also Servan to its north.

Here we see that Azerbaijan and Arran are mentioned seperately and that Arran and Servan (shirvan) were grouped into one by Ebn Hawqal.Azerbaijani 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why the above quotes were not mentioned in the article but the last line The old name Arra@n drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.) was... A bit of selective quoting perhaps?Azerbaijani 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, thanks for the quote but link would be good too. By the way here is what Ibn Hawqal says about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Arran. [18]. Also you did not read my suggestion on ending the lock of the article. I think for the Russian quotes of Barthold exact quotes and source (pg number..) are needed. That one I think should be more easily obtainable and at least one of the issues we will resolved. By the way Ibn Hawqal refers to Lezkan.. I wonder if these are Lezgis? Interestingly he says: have established a race of people to gaurd it. It is good that you are working with sources and thats what this article needs (with maps also from Qajar Safavid Tczarist empire) in order to figure out the nature of the name change (political or apolitical? anti-Iranian? pro-Iranian?). The Russian Encyclopedia uses Adherbaijani tatar but at the same time considers azerbaijan below the Aras. It is just best that all these data are gathered in one spot so other threads which had many problems in the past will not dwell on this issue. --alidoostzadeh 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have been using sources the whole time (check my edits, everything I add or talk about is sourced). Also, I have many maps that I can post, and I will soon (I have dozens available). Lastly, the term Azerbaijani was invented as a linguistic term to distinguish all the people who spoke the same dialect of Oghuz Turkic, and those who were Iranian culturally or ethnically. Since many of these people lived in Azerbaijan (Iran) the term Azerbaijani was adopted. The Russian Encyclopaedia says that Azerbaijan is below the Aras, you are correct, but the speakers of what it considers the Azerbaijani dialect, also lived in Arran, Shirvan, Ganja, etc... (infact, many Iranians and Azeri's from Iran immigrated to those regions during the 1800's and early 1900's). Think of the term as you think of English. England is in Britain, not Australia or the USA or Canada, however, they are English speakers.Azerbaijani 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I know.. I am just saying for the barthold quote, its needs to reference it with the page. Also I am saying that all sources needs to be included (see my proposal). take care, tommorow is Ashura so I'll check this entry on wednesday. --alidoostzadeh 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, at the time, in 19th century, Russian sources that myself and Ali have cited and looked at, showed only 1 million Azerbaijanis in Iran or less. Meanwhile, the number of Azerbaijanis in the Russian Empire was at or over 1 million. So there was no reason for Russians to call Azerbaijanis as such just because the majority lived south of Araxes. Even though there must have been more Azerbaijanis living south of Araxes, the statistics in Iran was in poor shape, and hence the number of Azerbaijanis would be lower. --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bartol'd quotes' problem is many fold, see my extensive comments - it's not just translation, but the fact that there are essentially 3 different quotes, but only 2 citations with page numbers, and only one quote checks out, the rest I could not find. Bartol'd should be available in most large universities - even though its in Russian, anyone should be able to locate the volume number and page number that user Azerbaijani cites, and scan the page, so that we can check it, and see the context, and translate it correctly. But again, I discuss the problem with the quote in more details above. --AdilBaguirov 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, what is this "debate" about? Bunch of well-sourced facts were already presented, and there is absolutely nothing that can hide them. Once more, in addition to such sources as academician Igrar Aliyev, Dr. Yampolsky, Dr. Sisoyev, and the fact that Atabek state of Azerbaijan in 12-13 centuries was called that, there are also Yagubi's reference to Arran as "Upper Azerbaijan" (Azerbaijan al-ulya, Yagubi, "Buldan" publishing house (in russian), p. 271) and Yaqut al-Hamawi mentions both Arran and Azerbaijan, and in case of the latter says its borders extended to Barda [19]. The whole designation of Azerbaijanis as "Azerbaijani Tatars" since at least mid-19th century by Russian orientalists, as opposed to "Arrani Tatars", is an additional proof. So the Wikipedia page has to reflect the fact that the name Azerbaijan was fluid and that it included lands north of Araxes well before 1918.

Secondly, most of what you, Babak, present here is the same as what I've been saying, that is "Azerbaijan" was mostly understood to be south of Araxes, and there is no debate on that. But just like Persia-Iran, USA-America, Russia-USSR, the situation with Arran-Azerbaijan is not much different -- despite existing since times immemorial, the name Arran was limited to north-central South Caucasus, whilst Azerbaijan extended itself at times north of Araxes till Barda and Ganja and Naxcivan. Azerbaijan was a wider, a supra-concept, whilst Arran was not.

The only objections are to your misquotations, misinterpretations and irrelevant postings.

Third, if the first quote of Shapur you posted is correct, then yes, others must have made a mistake in its interpretation -- because Media (Medes) is basically the same as Atropatena, just bigger. Moreover, there is also Balasagan -- which could be meant in Kyrgizstan, or could be meant (more probable according to the context) the historic province in Azerbaijan, on the coast of Caspian. So what, are you going to claim that Azerbaijan was just some small piece of territory, that was somewhere between Albania (or "Alan") and Media, and without access to the Caspian sea, courtesy of "Balasagan"? Interesting.

In any case, there is no Arran, and no Shirvan or Mughan or other smaller regions' names in the shapur inscription. The reason is because they are included in the concept of Azerbaijan.

Despite what you claim, "Albania" is not "mentioned again" -- there is a difference between "Alan" (the present-day Ossetia) and "Gates of Albania". Aside from the fact that there is no reason for Shapur to spell Alan and Gates of Albania (as opposed to Alania) differently, the latter is the northern border of Caucasian Albania, that is in Daghestan, Derbent (which Arabs also called Bab-al-Abvab, Gate of Gates).

Also, let's note the full quote from Frye that you cite: "The extent of Shapur's hegemony in the east, on the whole, is now known from his inscription. From Shapur's inscription KZ we see that most of Transcaucasia was included in his empire, and from the inscription of Kartir at the same site we learn 'the land of Armenia, Georgia, Albania and Balasagan, up to the Gate of the Albanians, Shapur the king of kings with his horse(s) and men pillaged, bumed and devastated'. This indicates that Shapur did not inherit these lands from his father but had to conquer them, and for Kartir these are lands of non-Iran (Aniran) . Shapur re-created the Achaemenid empire and the Persians again ruled over non-Iranians." Source: Richard Frye. The Heritage of Persia. HEIRS OF THE ACHAEMENIDS. Ardashir and the Cycle of History.

What is so interesting about this quote? It's that Shapur admits that Caucasus did not belong to Iran, that he had to pilage it and devastated it (and was very proud of that -- hardly a trait of a compatriot) and that Caucasus was inhabited by non-Aryans.

As Britannica has an interesting note: "In contrast to his father, who claimed to be “king of kings of Iran” (shahanshah iran), Shapur I assumed the title “king of kings of Iran and non-Iran” (shahanshah iran ud aniran)" [20]

This should be included in one of the pages too, by the way, showing such a startling admission by shah Shapur. --AdilBaguirov 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Adil it is true, the caucus was mainly Armenian/Albanian before the Sassanids except for Parthian households who ruled their. Also Shapur considered only overwhelming Zoroastrian territories as Iran and probably did not consider Iranian christians as proper Iranian. That is why the area was called Aniran (non-Iran) whereas Atrapatekan is part of Iran. I checked the Sassanid inscriptions (Mackenzie) and the translations mentioned Albania as mentioned here: [21]. Aluan/Ardan/Aran are three ways they are read it. Aluan (not Alan) is actually another way to say Albania according to this as well: [22]. The term ’Αλβανία ~ Ałowank` probably reflects a form *aluan [23]. Several JSTOR links mention it as well. Also Media could refer to say Hamadan (the capital of Media) or Kordestan province in Iran. That is the way Sassanids divided their provinces and Balaskan, Media, Albania and Atrapatekan are mentioned as different provinces. Shapur/Sassanids did not control Kyrghizstan and Balashgan/Balaskan is the region in caucus[24](note the article mentions it with regards to the trilingual inscription of Shapur) and not Balasaghun. It is mentioned here as well: [25]. In Zoroastrian literature and possibly in Sasanian political thought as well, the term has also a markedly religious connotation. An aner person is not merely non-Iranian, but specifically non-Zoroastrian; and aner designates also worshipers of the dews (“demons”) or adherents of other religions (see Denkard, p. 147). Arabs and Turks are called aner, as are Muslims generally, the latter in a veiled manner.. --alidoostzadeh 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ADR - Rasulzade = Azerbaijani ideology, not Pan-Turkic or Pan-Islamic

OK, here are a few archival and academic references to add about the Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkic/Pan-Turkism/Pan-Turanism labels that are being recklessly inserted by user Azerbaijani. I will let the sources speak for themselves. All translations from Russian are mine.

First, we should also not forget the role of the "Ittihad" party, the officially Pan-Islamist in ADR, which was in opposition to Musavat, and helped Bolshevik's to invade and occupy Azerbaijan, leading to the demise of ADR.

"However, all of this had nothing in common with the notorious Pan-Islamism, in which the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement have been accused of for decades by some unfaithful researchers. Islamic solidarity the leaders of our national movement understood only as collaboration and mutual assistance in joint struggle for common goals -- national liberation of Muslim nations from colonialism of the European powers." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 5.

The authors of a 1931 book about the Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turkic labels noted: "[i]n the documents signed by Tsarist Minister of Internal Affairs Stolypin, in official decisions of "special councils", in large-volume cases at the gendarmerie [police], in one word, in all cases, when in former Russian empire one was dealing with a movement (agrarian, national-liberation, revolutionary, etc.) of Turkic-Tatar peoples in Russia, one generic prescription and standard form of definition was ready -- Pan-Islamism". Source: A.Arsharuni, Kh.Gabidullin. Sketches of Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism in Russia. (In Russian). Moscow: 1931, p. 3.

"This is testified by the actions of some representatives of the clergy after the February revolution [Second Russian in 1917] against "Musavat" and even declaring the party as enemy of Islam. Speaking on this occassion at the I Convention of "Musavat" in October 1917, M.E.Rasulzade stated: "A person, when entering a mosque, should forget politics, the party, the idea, and pray only to God. Moreover, the clergy should not interfere ["zanimatsya"] in politics, and in political struggle the mosque should remain neutral". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing Central State Archive of Modern History of the Republic of Azerbaijan, f. 894, op. 10, ed.khr. 60, p. 12.

Here's another Rasulzade quote: "The historical experience had shown, that from one side, giving birth to the theocratic-clerical-reactionary movement, and from another side, preventing the appearance of national ideology in Muslim world, the Pan-Islamism is preventing the awakening of national identity of these nations, delays their progress, and, with this, interferes with their becoming independent nations. That is why, in all Muslim countries, the process of awakening of national identity should be strengthened, because the root of all progress, as well as the foundation of national independence, is only the existence of national "I"." Source: Azerbaijan and Russia: the societies and states. D.E.Furman (ed.), in Russian, Moscow: Letniy Sad (Academician Andrey Sakharov Foundation), 2001. URL: http://www.sakharov-center.ru/publications/azrus/az_009.htm

In his own book, Rasulzade differentiated between "romantic Pan-Turanism" -- whose aim is creation of a unified Turkic state -- and simply "Turkism" or Pan-Turanism, which was a cultural, linguistic and humanitarian concept, not geo-political or military. (see: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 7).

And as Rasulzade noted, "Azerbaijani political figures, in particular, members of Musavat, stood in opposition to the romantic Pan-Turanism, which was an utopia, that did not have any real basis." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 71.

He further noted: "Romantic, political Pan-Turanism is no more, there is only "Turkism", which aims to achieve only real and, in particular, -- national goals". Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 6, citing M.E.Rasulzade's article "About Pan-Turanism", Oxford, 1985, p. 79.

"In the opinion of M.E.Rasulzade, the idea of "romantic Pan-Turanism" have preserved its value only in the field of cultural issues, in the struggle for preservation of cultural heritage of Turkic people. Therefore, by declining both Pan-Islamism, and Pan-Turkism, the leaders of Azerbaijani national movement aimed for the creation of an independent national-political ideology, which would reflect the originality ["samobitnost'"] of the Azerbaijani nation, in which its interrelations with other Turkic nations would have been formulated too. They aimed to build relations between Turkic nations not on the basis of tribal affinity, but on the basis of the interests of each nation." Source: A. Balayev. Azerbaijani National Movement: from "Musavat" to the Popular Front. / Institute of History, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. In Russian. Baku: Elm, 1992, p. 8.

""Pan-Turkism" or "Pan-Turanism" was ostensibly a movement by Turks to establish hegemony over the world, or at least Eurasia. In fact, this "Pan" movement has no historical ideological precedent among Turks and has been documented to be a creation of the Westerners. Around the time of the occupation of Tashkent by Russian troops in 1865, the doctrine called or "Pan-Turkism" appeared in a work by Hungarian Orientalist Arminius Vambery. The premise of this notion was that since the overwhelming majority of the Central Asians spoke (and still speak) dialects of Turkish, share the same historical origins and history, "they could form a political entity stretching from the Altai Mountains in Eastern Asia to the Bosphorus," where the capital of the Ottoman Empire was located.89 This pseudo-doctrine was then attributed to the Turks themselves, and the Russians and Europeans claimed it was a revival of Chinggiz Khan's conquests, a threat not only to Russia, but the whole of Western civilization.90 In this tactic, attributing aggressive designs to the target, seemed to justify any action against Central Asia, a new "crusade" in the name of "self-defense."

After the Germans joined the Great Game, to undermine British control in Central Asia, Germans manipulated both "Pan- Turkism" and "Pan-Islamism."91 The Pan-Islamic Movement was an anti-colonial political movement of the late 19th century, and must be distinguished from the "orthodox" Islamic unity of all believers, the umma. Jamal Ad-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) established the movement in its political form, striving to achieve the political unity of Muslims to fight against colonialism and the colonial powers. It was popular among Indian Muslims and in north Africa. However, the movement also served the colonial powers well. Painted as a reverse-Crusade --without necessarily using the terminology, but through graphic allusions-- the Colonial powers could mobilize both Western public opinion and secret international alliances to fight the "emerging threat." The Germans, after the death of al-Afghani, sought to make that threat as real as possible for the British in India.92 The manipulation of both "Pan"s would not die with the old century."

Source: H.B.Paksoy, "Nationality or religion?" AACAR Bulletin (Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research), Vol.VIII no.2, Fall 1995, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/53/128.html --AdilBaguirov 02:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is original research Adil, how many times do I have to tell you to read Wikipedia rules? Also, you cannot infer from your original research that the work of all the others I have cited are incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the Musavat party was indeed pan Islamist and pan Turkic, even user Atabek (I believe) admitted it.Azerbaijani 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is original research? Since when is quoting Rasulzade himself and scholars and top experts on the problem -- "original research"? OR is your very liberal, to put it mildly, interpretations. --AdilBaguirov 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Why did you tell me you were familiar with Wikipedia policies when now you admit that you are not?Azerbaijani 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what's OR -- and that's why I asked you to show me what exactly in my post is OR. You failed to do that, and only showed me right -- all I cite is a reliable and published fact, much of it is possible to find on the Internet. So nothing in my post qualifies for OR. Meanwhile, you should preoccupy yourself with Bartol'd's quotes, and Atabaki's (although the latter is being investigated by Ali, who I trust would do a more successful job in properly citing it, and verifying the context). --AdilBaguirov 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you are presenting your own theories, arguments, concepts, and statements, based on assumptions you are making of facts due to your own POV, and trying to present it as a reasonable argument. That is original research, and almost all your posts are like that.Azerbaijani 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the OR concept, and projecting your own image onto others -- that is, in the view of many, you are an aggressive and ideologically motivated editor, who is pushing his POV everywhere. --AdilBaguirov 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of information Adil. I briefly read it. We'll read it soon. --alidoostzadeh 04:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, no problem. Also, note that I have the copy of the Balayev book's in my permanent possession, so can always scan those pages that I cite from his book. --AdilBaguirov 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I did some research on my own on Rasulzadeh and I believe at times he was more Iranian, times more into just Azerbaijani statehood and sometimes into pan-turkism. So it seems hard to put a label for a complex situation. --alidoostzadeh 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Overall, he was an Azerbaijani nationalist, and gravitated between West and East, but unlike some of his colleagues, including very prominent Pan-Turkists, never really North. --AdilBaguirov 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Median Atropates

As in the Azerbaijan article, I again suggest that "Iranian Median satrap" be replaced with "satrap of Media" because sources did not agree on whether or not he was a Persian or a Median. And of course, "Iranian Median" is redundant since Median implies Iranian. Also, stating "Iranian" without something like 'peoples' afterward suggests that he was part of an actual country called "Iran," which of course is very anachronistic. 'Peoples' cannot be added appropriately, so I suggest that the article simply use "satrap of Media." The Behnam 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian simply implies that the governor was of Iranic origin, not whether he was Persian or Median.Azerbaijani 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that was the meaning intended, but the phrase is odd-sounding. Perhaps "Iranic" should be used, if anything at all. "Iranian" really does seem anachronistic. In any case, the current article uses "Median," even though this is not certain. I brought this up previously at Azerbaijan; the conclusion was to say "The name Azerbaijan itself is thought to be derived from Atropates,^[3] the Satrap (governor) of Media in the Achaemenid empire". Before this, "Iranian Median" was used at that page as well. Basically, I am just trying to update this page along the same lines. "Iranian Median satrap" is a vague mouthful anyway; I don't see why this particular improvement is resisted initially. I hope that you remember the previous discussion on this now, though if you want to read it again, I think it is scattered throughout one of the archived talk pages for Azerbaijan. The Behnam 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

toning down paragraph about Rasulzade

I have seen nothing yet that underscores Rasulzade backflip on the choice of name; the 1924 private only says that he appreciated that the naming caused discontent in the Iranian public, and that he would do what he could to address that discontent.

The sentence that said he saw that "Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan)" was unsourced, but moreover it implied more than it stated, which is OR. I dont mind if this is re-introduced with a source, provided that new text does not imply more than the source, and doesnt attribute to Rasulzade any opinions that should be attributed to the author of the source. John Vandenberg 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmenianJoe says in his revert summary that what I removed ".. is directly taken from Atabaki.." If the entire paragraph is a direct quote from Atabaki then it needs to be put in quotes and attributed to Atabaki. I removed the parts that are Atabaki's interpretation, both on the translation of Rasulzade's letter and its meaning, because his opinions have not been accepted by other critical historical works that I have seen. I dont mind if the text was reintroduced carefully with opinions carefully attributed, but where Atabaki is making a very bold claim (that Rasulzade did a backflip), we need multiple qualified sources in order for it to be accepted as fact, or we need to say that it is merely the opinion of Atabaki. John Vandenberg 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmenianJoe is going around and reverting pages, trying to bait people to violate their parole. Most probably that account belongs to someone we know. As for Atabaki, we have the letter of Rasulzade, and it does not say what Atabaki attributes to it. We should quote the letter directly, if it is the basis of this claim. Grandmaster 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

grandmaster, you take this site too seriously. john, if you need more sources, then find more sources, removing the whole thing doesn't look rigt, it's cited.

This is a place for serious people. We have the orginal letter, and it does not say what this Iranian author attributes to it. Any suggestions? Grandmaster 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you have the original letter?Azerbaijani 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, why then wikipedia talk pages exist? this atabeki quote and the same satetment were heavily discussed on Mammed Amin Rasulzade page between John, Grandmaster, Azerbaijani and Adil[26], every side provided their arguments and their sources, they even got the pages from Atabaki book and at the end after going very deep into this issue, they come to a conclusion [27]. and after all these ordeals, someone, who before NEVER participated in these discussions, never contributed into that Rasulzade article comes and inserts that quote back into text, this time into another one, what should we do? i also may not like certain events and certain people and certain persons, but do i go and spoil their pages on wikipedia? you can say that because of war that was between our nations, the people are still angry, but I am also Azerbaijani and my country was in war with armenia, but have you seen me inserting something into armenia pages? instead it was me called panturkist, and it is azerbaijani pages still attacked. is our intention to improve or distort wikipedia content? Signed Elsanaturk 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, every side did not bring their arguments. I have been busy these past couple weeks and have not been able to discuss. I said I will bring up evidence later, so stop making up false "compromises".Azerbaijani 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were so busy that you couldn't bring your arguments to such vital issue to you? why then you didn't told this during the discussion and didn't objected when John editied that page? or you just couldn't find evidences while Adil prooved that Atabaki source is not only relevant, but also your well-known famous Einstein Atabaki, a true scholar deresving the throne of happened to be an ordinary ordinary ordinary ordinary ordinary liar who deliberately distorted Rasulzade's qoute in order to push his POV? What i see is a clear plot between you and ArmenianJoe. You waited until Adil was banned and then came inserted that quote again, because you know adil cann't participate in discussion and can't bring his arguments that destroyed your sponsored Pov? I am interested, why you didn't come up with your new discussion when Adil still could contribute? Besides your absurd point, that you want to "proove" that Azerbaijan is not our country's name as some of your compatriots which still use Arran to refer to us as if they are blind and couldn't read UN's and other international documents in which we have our name to be eternally, it is immoral to wait for adil to be banned and then come up, oh, messieurs, you know, I have forgotton to present my arguments. Les Absents ont toujours tort, they say in the civilized world, those absents are always wrong. Signed by User:Elsanaturk from Azerbaijan, North of Kura River, which always was Azerbaijan and always will remain like that despite even God would want otherwise. Elsanaturk 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, you have destroyed the rest of your credibility here on Wikipedia. All I have to do now, in a debate, is show users this comment of yours and no one will take you seriously. I dont know why you would make such a public comment that everyone is able to read. Anyway, I will present my evidence to John whenever I feel like it, and secondly, I did not add the information, look on the Rasulzade article, is it there? LOL!Azerbaijani 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And to your notice, I did not participate and i am not going to participate in this debate, because I am not such an expert to this issue, and i don't like people who without lack of proper knowledge goes here and there by inserting POV into any article that he/she finds. I cannot descend into this level, and coming to my credibility, i have certain principles and I am not hiding them in order to show myself neutral to third party, what i do is to improve Wikipedia coverage of Azerbaijani articles, AND I AM NOT SITTING IN IRAN AND DISTORTING AZERBAIJANI ARTICLES as you do, and coming to the point, about which credibility do you talk if the only think that you do is edit each article so that they become object of dispute? I even did not participated in any disputes on Azeri-Armenian related articles, in order to avoid the suspicion that I can be partisan. what is to be done on Wikipedia is to improve its content but not various-puppeting in a plot to distort other countries related articles so that to implement your imperial dreams which are and were only the dreams. can you ever make a good thing and contribute something positive to wikipedia that it would not create dispute? LOL, I didn't said you added something to rasulzade page i said that it was discussed on rasulzade page. read carefully Azerbaijani(sic!), and my best wishes to you. bizim elde bir mesel var, deyir qozbeli qebir duzelder, ona gore de men sene daha hech ne demirem, ozun bilen meslehetdi. and as i see you liked my previous comments, so i think you can also like my this one and i strongly appreciate to report me on civility, or something various, but remember that sometimes you must also know that that there is something called morality, for which wikipedia forgot to make an appropriate page. best, signed by User:Elsanaturk, from Azerbaijan, North of Kura River, which always was Azerbaijan and always will remain like that despite even God would want otherwise.

ArmenianJoe failed to present his arguments in support of inclusion of Atabaki quote. Plus, he has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring, so we definitely will not hear of him in the next couple of days. Grandmaster 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that quote, because Adil Bagirov fully and clearly showed that, that quote is nothing but a Pov of Atabaki. please see extensive discussions at Mammed Amin Rasulzade talk page. Ban of Adil baghirov does not mean that you can abuse and misuse his absence. and also that quote was added by a user who never discussed the issue. Elsanaturk 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see our dear Einstein Atabaki-ye Amsterdami is back? interesting which pan-racist and nazi reverted this page without explanation and without signing in(i think civility does not refer to anonymous disruptive IPs if morality does not refer even to account-holding users)? oh, I greatly suspect that this was done by a user who is on a revert parole, and in order to avoid that, just used anonymous ip! dear, you absolutely keep that in accordance with the wikipedia rules, but are they in accordance with Wikipedia:Morality? do you really think that i am going to be provoked and violate my revert parole? Yaziq insan, jusqu'où vous allez descendre? --Elsanaturk 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

neutrality tag

I put neutrality tag to this article, because

it cites such biased sources as kasravi, farrokh, atabaki and dr. Reza(?-who is he-a dentist?)

Farrokh's work that is cited here speaks on his behalf:Panturanianism takes aim at azerbaijan so how you can then judge that he is unbiased. and his that pseudo-book is written with clear political motives [28] so how we can site the work which clearly states its political motives?

dr Reza, says: "Some accuse me of viewing the Mossavatis through the eyes of the Bolsheviks. The future will make everything clear and those who seek to deceive will be exposed to the nation. The final judgment will be made by men of reason, not by some ignorant fanatics."[29]. anyone who would read that article and this wiki article can see that they are almost identical! so this article happens to be a POV and OR of Dr Reza the dentist

and besides all this proved pan-iranian povs fo atabaki, farrokh, kasravi there isn't any azerbaijani source and all neutral sources that we present are deleted, so please do not remove neutrality tags with anon ips and sock accounts, but improve article! Ateshi - Baghavan 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

how dilletante this Dr Reza is! "Aliyov, a historian from Soviet azerbaijan" - which Aliyov is this? in Azerbaijan there isn't a surname called Aliyov, but instead there is Aliyev and half of Azerbaijan has such surname! and which aliyov does this dr reza mention? our next-door salesman neighbour? or President? our former president? or our president before our former president? we have million of aliyev surnames and hundreds of such historians, unless you specify which "Aliyov" is he, i'll remove it.Ateshi - Baghavan 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I put OR tag to this article because, this article is adopted from Dr Reza's work which is ORAteshi - Baghavan 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You dont have any credibility left on Wikipedia, so I dont see what you think is going to happen? You have made racist remarks, insulting remarks, and have exposed your bias here on Wikipedia...Would you like me to bring up your very own comments? Don think that by changing the appearance of your name you can make people forget that you are Elsanaturk.Azerbaijani 18:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed my name lol! I changed my signature! I think I shouldn't ask your permission to do so! Ateshi - Baghavan 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully, my exact words were: "changing the appearance of your name" Furthermore, I never said you can or cannot do that, I simply said that by doing this, you wont make people forget that you are still the same Elsanaturk.

Furthermore, the OR tag is unjustified, as you are saying that because you think Dr. Reza's book is OR, that the tag should be up there, that is completely ridiculous. You are using a circular argument.Azerbaijani 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I call you to discuss the issue, not my signature change, user:azerbaijani Ateshi - Baghavan 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I put here Dr Reza's interview in order to show that how this wiki article is derived from that text

Historically speaking, the territory in the Caucasus that lies to the north of the Aras river, was never called Azerbaijan until the year 1918. Giving it this name created difficulties in the first half of the 20th century and in the succeeding years, and these cannot be ignored. History, as well as the works of ancient geographers and Islamic writers bear witness to the fact that the land to the north of the Aras River, which is now known as Azerbaijan, was known before as Albania (Alban). Classical writers, such as Strabon and others, called this region Albania, Armenian, or Alvanak (Aghvanak), while Iranians called it Aran. Aliyov, a historian in the former Soviet Azerbaijan, in his article "Sources Relating the Ancient History of Caucasus's Albania", wrote that in the Parthian era, the eastern part of the Caucasus was called "Ardan". Greek materials referred to this place as "Albania". Barthold, the famous Soviet scholar, believed that in the Islamic era and, according to Arabic sources, this name has taken the forms of "Al-ran" or "Aran", which probably is a transformation of the ancient Parthian name "Ardan".

There is no reason to doubt that Aran was separate from Azarbaijan and that the Aras River constituted the northern border of Azarbaijan, and Aran had never been called Azerbaijan. The academician Barthold most clearly mentioned the Aras River as lying between Azarbaijan and Aran or the ancient Albania (Collected Works, Volume 7, Moscow, 1971, page 123).

Prior to the invention of the name Azerbaijan to designate Aran and Shirvan, Tzarist Russian sources recognized only one Azarbaijan, the true Azarbaijan. The first volume of the Russian Encyclopedia (pages 212 and 213), which was published in St. Petersburg some 102 years ago (in 1890), stated: "Azarbaijan, which was 'Aturpatekan' in Pahlavi and 'Azarbadekan' in Armenian, is the rich industrial northern province of Iran. It borders Iranian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia and the Southern Caucasus to the north. Its border is marked by the Aras River". Had the name Azerbaijan been used for the land to the north of the Aras, undoubtedly, this encyclopedia would have used the name "Russian Azerbaijan" just as it had used the designations "Turkish Kurdistan", "Iranian Kurdistan", "Turkish Armenia", or "Russian Armenia". It can easily be seen that only one Azarbaijan existed and that was the Iranian Azarbaijan.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution and the ensuing turmoil in the Russian empire, Turkish politicians of the time became intent on establishing a puppet state in the Caucasus. In 1911, a party named "Mossavat" (Equality) was founded in Baku, which was supported by the Ottoman Turks. It held a joint congress with Turkey's Party of Federalists in 1917. In this congress, the two parties united and called themselves the "Democratic Party of Turkish Mossavat Federalists". Their goal was to unite Turkish-speaking people under the umbrella of Turkey.

The Mossavatis set up a government on 27 May 1918, and called the area the "Azerbaijan Republic". Their capital initially was Gandjeh, but after the occupation of Baku by the Turkish army under the command of Noori Pasha on 15 September 1918, the capital was transferred to Baku and their government was consolidated through the support of the Turkish army. They ruled Aran and Shirvan, calling these areas collectively as the Azerbaijan Republic for two years. This situation continued until 28 April 1920, at which date the Bolsheviks attacked Baku and declared the area as a Soviet republic. The Soviets persisted in using the invented name, calling this territory the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan".

Barthold disclosed the reason for choosing to apply such a name. In page 782 of the second volume of his Collected Works, he noted: "The name 'Azerbaijan' was adopted because it was presumed that through the establishment of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Iranian Azarbaijan and the Azerbaijan Republic will eventually become one." As can be seen, the name 'Azerbaijan' was used with a specific goal that became manifest at a later period. Somewhere else in this same volume, Barthold wrote: "Wherever and whenever a name should be required with which one can refer to the whole region of the Azerbaijan Republic, one can use Aran" (page 703).

From the very beginning, the use of the name "Azerbaijan" for Aran met with the protests of Iranian patriots, including Sheik Mohammad Khiabani and his comrades. But since this naming had been carried out, the Democrats siding with Khiabani decided to change the name of Iran's Azarbaijan to "Azadistan" (land of freedom). This fact was clearly stated in Kasravi's book titled "The Unknown Kings", where he expressed surprise at the use of the name Azerbaijan to refer to Aran, writing: "Why are our Arani brothers destroying their national history and their past at the onset of their national life? This itself is an enormous loss and there is no other example of such a strange deed in history" (second printing, page 265).

After foreign forces entered Iran in Shahrivar 1320 (August 1941), under the tutelage of the Red Army, a party was established in Tabriz called "The Party of Azerbaijan". It was mostly run by immigrants from the Caucasus and the executors of Soviet policy, especially the cronies of Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the secretary of the central committee of the Communist Party of the Caucasus. At first, the leaders of this party clandestinely advocated the separation of Azarbaijan (from Iran). The excuse they used to carry out their aims was the prevalent use of the Turkish language in this area, which was actually forced upon the people of this region centuries ago, again through the immigration of Turks.

Kasravi wrote: "Their secret aim was separation from Iran" (Nameh-e Parcham, 2 June 1943). Three and a half years later, on 4 September 1945, Caucasian agents created another party named the "Democratic Party of Azerbaijan", which ostensibly advocated adherence to the Constitution and the establishment of provincial and state councils. Its real goal, however, was unification with the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. The instigators of this idea for unification invented the names of "South and North Azerbaijan", whereas the land to the north of the Aras River had another name as mentioned earlier.

The leaders of the Democratic Party, who purportedly advocated the establishment of provincial and state councils, openly spoke about their secret aims following their escape from Iran and after finding refuge on the other side of the Aras. A message printed in the 'Azerbaijan' newspaper, which was the official organ of the Democratic Party, explicitly stated: "The people of South Azerbaijan, which is an indivisible part of North Azerbaijan, like all the peoples of the world, have their hopes fixed on the great people and the state of the Soviet Union" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 213, Baku, 23 December 1950). In another telegram to Mir-Dja'far Bagherov, the chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, these officials wrote: "Three whole years have passed since the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party that leads the struggle toward national liberation and the emancipation of the southern part of our motherland Azerbaijan, which has been suffering in the black hands of Persian chauvinists" ('Azerbaijan' newspaper, no. 81, Baku, 8 September 1948).

Following these actions, the terms "North Azerbaijan" and "South Azerbaijan" were skillfully manipulated into books and into translations from Turkish and Russian in order to inculcate this idea into the minds of readers. Some, knowingly or unknowingly, aided in propagating this idea. For instance, these unreasonable terms were included in history and geography textbooks and some of our translators repeated them. This practice has progressed to such an extent that a number of our local newspapers, without paying the least attention and consideration, have used these wrong and damaging terms, even in their recent issues, despite the fact that it is very easy to refute this be aware of the reality.

The author of the book "Corners of Iranian History" wrote: "The unification of North Azerbaijan with Russia played a progressive role and the only government that helped the people of the Caucasus against Iran and the Ottomans was Russia" (see pages 44, 192, 224). Did this reflect the real situation? How then can one explain the resistance of the people of that land in the past and the uprisings of Muslims, including the one led by Sheik Shamel in Daghestan, as well as the present reaction of the Caucasian and Central Asian people, and the Islamic movements in these republics? In many pages of this book, we find the terms North and South Azerbaijan.

These propagandists have been trying to pretend that Azerbaijan is a divided land and that it should be united someday. During the previous years, unification was to be realized with Soviet power. Today, the propaganda has taken another form, with American propagandists having involved Turkey and introduced it as a model. They use the wrong term "Azeri" in referring to the people and the land of Aran. The people of Aran should be called "Arani" as "Azeri" is a term that should be used only for the people of Azarbaijan. There is no link between the title "Azeri" and the people of Aran. And neither is "Azeri" the language of the people of Azarbaijan nor that of Aran. "Azeri" is one of the Iranian dialects, such as Kurdish, Lurish, Gillish, Mazandarani, Balouchi, Bakhtiari, and others. There is no relation between the old Azeri language and Turkish. There still exist in Azarbaijan groups of people living in the mountains speaking the Azeri dialect. The language spoken by the people of Aran is not Azeri nor is it ancient Arani. Rather, it is one of the Turkish dialects that has been mixed with local languages.

In the case of Azarbaijan and Aran, there are some who try to call Aran "Azerbaijan". This is a gross mistake. While the rulers of Azarbaijan ruled over Aran during certain epochs, Azarbaijan is a separate entity from Aran. At times, the rulers of Tabaristan ruled over Gilan and those of Gilan, such as the Buyids, ruled over Tabaristan; yet, Tabaristan and Gilan were separate and are considered separate lands now, even though they are adjacent. No one has ever denied the fact that Aran was under the rule of Iran and belonged to it, but taking the two as the same and using the damaging and wrong term of "North Azerbaijan" is a wrong approach.

I do not understand why some refer only to what they are interested in and ignore most of the well-known writings. Bal'ami's work has long been revered as a Persian work, but, he was a translator of the Tarikh-e Tabari. The point that was noted in the Tarikh-e Bal'ami does not exist in the Tarikh-e Tabari (see Tarikh-e Tabari, Volume 5, page 1979, translated by Abolghassem Payandeh). But one should know that on geographical matters, the views of geographers are preferred. I do not wish to mention all such sources, but to clarify the situation of Azarbaijan and Aran, in the 10th and 11th century, which happens to be the time of Bal'ami, one can see the works of Ibn-e Khordad-beh who was the head of the 'Barid' (postal service) of Djebal (Media), and of Ibn-e Rosteh and many others, provided one is really seeking the truth and is not trying to verify one's own wishes and illusions.

Fanaticism is a sign of stupidity. Some accuse me of viewing the Mossavatis through the eyes of the Bolsheviks. The future will make everything clear and those who seek to deceive will be exposed to the nation. The final judgment will be made by men of reason, not by some ignorant fanatics.

I have not written anything regarding my beloved native land, Gilan; yet, I have dedicated a large part of my life to the study of Azarbaijan. This shows how much affection I feel for the people of Azarbaijan. When during my diaspora I was living in the mouth of the dragon, I did not ignore this sacred duty. My affection for the people of Azarbaijan cost me dearly during my migration. I had to suffer many deprivations. The separatists made my life and that of my family very difficult. I endured all these hardships for the sake of my country, of which Azarbaijan is a part.

Now that an independent republic has been established in the land of Aran, it would have been appropriate if it would stop abusing the name of Azarbaijan and would use its true historical name. Currently, Iran's enemies are unfortunately exploiting the existence of this misnomer by propagating false and misleading information. One example is Radio Liberty, which is run from Munich. It carries out its activities from a budget it receives from the US Congress and its broadcasts show the sinister goals that it seeks against the integrity of our country. You can also find similar things in the propaganda of some other countries. It is bizarre that a number of neighboring republics deviate from being sincere and honest, imagining the Iranian people as being ignorant of the facts. This is not so, as we do see and consider everything.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has proudly carried out its religious and neighborly duties toward the newly independent states bordering it. Even in the initial moments when its neighbors regained their sovereignty, Iran ignored the issue of name and some of their unjust behaviors, hoping that with the passage of time, its brothers and neighbors will pay due consideration and take notice of the facts. The Islamic Republic of Iran could make its recognition of the newly independent republics subject to certain conditions; however, in observing its religious and neighborly obligations, it did not choose to do so in order to enable the emerging states to achieve stability. The steps taken by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote economic cooperation proves this fact. Now it is appropriate for our Aranian brothers to take these factors into consideration and choose a path that will lead to strengthening the ties of friendship. [30] Ateshi - Baghavan 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OR tag

I really didn't get why it is tagged as OR. Can the one who put that explain it here?--Pejman47 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

if you deleted neutrality and or tags then you should also delete or quotes from atabaki, kasravi, farrokh and dr reza as you see all of them are iranians and they represent only one view, otherwise the other views are not represented that is why neutrality and or

and also, why are you kidding me? you deleted also neutrality tag, but wrote as if you deleted only or

please, do not revert tags before approproate discussion is hold in this talk page. I expressed my concerns here and haven't got the answer yet. Ateshi - Baghavan 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before the sources are biased: Farrokh who admits his work's plotical motives, Atabaki's quote was proved to be fake in Rasulzade talk page by user Adil baghirov, kasravi's name speaks everything and that mysterious dr Reza who's OR is used to write this article

second, no azerbaijani sources are present

third as i said before this article is somehow copy of Dr Reza's text, that i provided above.

so, if you remove those tags, then you should remove those quotes, if you restore those tags then you can restore that quotes, as i mentioned in this section and above, the reliability of the sources are poor, i delete proven pov quotes and can restore them only after you restore neutrality tag Ateshi - Baghavan 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to bring sources for your unsourced POV!, and do not delete the sourced sentences, that act has a name "blatant vandalism". If you have any problem with Dr. Reza or Kasravi or etc, and think they are "politically motivated" discuss it on their articles. --Pejman47 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

for showing my good will, I will restore the "POV" tag for a couple of days. Please read Ali's comment and try to make a natural article. Take care. --Pejman47 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

My suggestion is simply to list primary historical sources. I personally am not going to be involved in this article at this time and have for whatever reason lost interest for now. But virtually all primary sources are available in Arabic and Persian on the internet and anyone can with knowledge of one or the other or two can find them. What a study of primary sources shows is that Arran/Albania and Shervan were considered by most sources as seperate (before the Safavid era) but sometimes they were put in as Armenia or Azerbaijan. Eventually between the Safavid times to Qajar times, Arran started losing its historical name to Karabagh, Shervan..(although it is still mentioned in few Safavid and Qajar sources) and the boundaries of what Qajars and Safavids considered "Azerbaijan" were somewhat fluid and sometimes it was Aras other times it was different. One Qajar source for example considers Ganja as part of Azerbaijan but at the same time considers Baku as part of Shiravanat(Shirvan). Another considers the Aras as boundary. At the same time, pre-Islamic sources clearly differentiate between the two and there is no doubt Albania and Atrapatekan were two different states all together during Achaemenide to the Islamic era. Again primary Greek and Middle Persian sources are available as well translated into English. The topic should not be a political one but a historical one discussing etymology, fluid boundary and etc. Anyhow, I urge both sides to calm down. --alidoostzadeh 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to object to primary sources, and my only concerns are citations from Atabaki(which Adil proved that it is POV), Kasravi, Dr Reza and Kaveh Farrokh. Leaving everything aside, no one can deny that these sources are partisan and biased. and in this delicate issue, which do not have any consensus between azeri and iranian users, these sources cannot be used as reliable. just look at the name of them: "Panturanianism takes aim at Azerbaijan" and author remotely admits its political sides, while another remotely admits he views mossavatists with the eyes of bolshevicks. so we have two solution: either remove all pov sources, or I am going to bring ALL Azerbaijani sources to insert to this article. currently, this article represents only Iranian point of view and has nothing from other side. so balance is absent. Ateshi - Baghavan 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Adil has available both citations of Atabaki. I am guessing Kasravi, Dr. Reza and Dr. Farrokh are quoting some primary sources. Probably the best way to resolve the issue is to remove their commentaries, quote primary sources (and primary sources that might contradict them as well or that might contradict within itself) (if they are fully referenced (that is fully quoted) and also page number and etc.) and leave the commentaries for Swietochowski and other Western born scholars. The article is currently too cluttered. My previous suggestion was: 1) Make a Pre-Islamic section and quote Pre-Islamic sources without commentary 2) Quote Post-Islamic time without commentary (maybe up to 1918 references). 3) Comments by couple of western scholars and sources like Britannica, Iranica (Boseworth was one example), Encylopedia of Islam... 4) Leave out any Iranian, Azeri authors sources which might poison the atmosphere here. As I mentioned, I have no interest currently to make edits here but the suggestions have been made so that there is a healthy atmosphere here. Anyways, the historical fact of the matter is what I just stated (without any political bias) and I might one day write an article outside of wiki on it, but I think the framework I suggest should fix up the article and note it includes primary sources and western scholars. So basically 1) etymology 2) pre-Islamic 3) post-Islamic 4) some comments by some western sources (couple of them are here) and that's it. Of course this is my suggestion and I am not interested in this article right now but I think it is a suggestion which will defuse the current setting.--alidoostzadeh 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani removed without consensus on talk the quote from Iranica with regard to Yaqut. It should be restored back. Whether anyone likes it or not, he said what he said, and the primary source should be included in the article. As for Rasulzade, I have not seen so far the primary sources Atabaki refers to, except Ayandeh article, which does not say what Atabaki attributes to it. I think it should not be in the article, unless it is supported by any reliable third party source. Grandmaster 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also it is very strange how this article attracts trolls and socks, all of whom revert in support of Azerbaijani. Btw, ArmenianJoe has been blocked indefinitely. Grandmaster 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I somehow agree with your suggestions in your second comment and coming to the primary sources that is quoted by Farrokh, Atabaki, Dr. Reza and etc, they must be verified before being added to this article, because there are some distortions in their interpretations by above mentioned people, as we can see from bartold quote which is slightly translated differently from original and also there are many unclear places there, for example Reza speaking about "ALiyov", you know, we have maybe up to million Aliyevs in Azerbaijan and many historians with that surname, so which Aliyev does reza quote, it is something like for example I 'll say there is a Ivanov in Russia or Karlson in Sweden which wrote that Sasanids were a kurdish dynasty, and as you know there are hundreds of ivanovs and karlsons there. also the fact about Azerbaijan newspaper which is taken from Dr Reza's article, is also to be vlarified. Coming to the Farrokh book, just look at this[31] where he remotely acknowledges political motives of that book. and he is specialist in languages more than history of Azerbaijan and you can find quiet many factual errors in his "panturanianism". so, we should improve this article section by section or quote by quote, and as a framework I can agree on your suggestion in the second comment. let's wait other user's opinion. for example we can begin with origin of the name section in the article by leaving there only first two passages, and moving info cited from reza after clarification, as you said by removing their comments, moving that info to appropriate sections. but we need a citation for the second passage on that section (Origin of the name). and also we should edit intro in order to avoid repetition (about atropatene) and coming to the atabaki quote, the best thing is to refer to Ayandeh article, where the original of the letter is published in order to avoid any interpretations.Ateshi - Baghavan 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys(Gm, Atheshi-Baghavan) you make some valid points but let me claify. About Prof. Atabaki there are two sources he cites. One is about Rasulzadeh saying he will do all he can.. (this is in the ayandeh magazine actually) the other is in much harder to get source. Now Prof. Atabaki is a reliable scholar and full Professor in a western university (which takes time to reach from postdoc which is not worth much to assistant professor which is still not worth much to associate which is okay to full..). But I do see one small issue with his statement. It has to do with context (just like the Boseworth statement we discussed). Going back to Atabaki, of course it is clear Albania is different than Azerbaijan, but was Rasulzadeh talking about pre-Islamic, post-Islamic, both. That aspect of Professor Atabaki's quote since it is one line as some users said might deserve more clarification So lets keep the dispute tag for now. Despite not wanting to involve myself in edits here, I believe I have no choice since I can make this article good enough for everyone and bring it up to a scholarly and mainly apolitical standard so it will stop becoming a source of edit wars. I will make some edits on Friday all from primary sources (Ibn Khurdadbih, Ibn Feqiyeh, Bal'ami , Ibn Hawqal, ..etc.), reshape the article (better secitioning), make it NPOV and I will remove professor Atabaki, Reza, Farrokh, Soviet scholars. So I'll fix the article up this weekend and for now lets just leave the dispute tag. --alidoostzadeh 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I prefer that you remain involved here, please. I hope you will also address the quote from Iranica, deleted by Azerbaijani. We cannot remove Yaqut from the article, good or bad, it is one of the most important primary sources. As for Atabaki, it is impossible to pass a judgement until we see the primary source, i.e. Rasulzade. Grandmaster 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First I will quote Yaqut and then will include that as well since it is from Iranica. USSR(see the book stalinism by fitgerald)/Iranian scholars and Prof. Atabaki (I consider him a western source) I'll leave it out.--alidoostzadeh 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranica does not use Yaqut as a statement of fact, to the contrary, it says that Yaqut gives contrary information... Also, I agree with Ali, we should use primary sources only, I'm willing to help you re-rewrite the article.

Lets have one section containing the primary sources from the pre-Islamic era, and one section containing the primary sources from the post Islamic era, and then one section containing the sources from the 19th century to the present, how about that?Azerbaijani 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to write the sources chronologically. But a break between pre-Islam and post-Islam is not bad idea and I had proposed it before. Some of these sources are indeed contradictory (Borhan qate' for example or Yaqubi for example puts parts of Arran as part of Azerbaijan in one part and then puts it as part oArmenia in another part)....some of the sources are more clear. Some of the source even diverge more. For example in Ibn Hawqal puts parts of Iraq become Azerbaijan, Tabriz becomes part of Armenia, and Tiblis (capital of Georgia) becomes part of Arran (Albania) (of course all three were probably ruled by Abbassid Arabs or rulers who were under Arabs). Anyways I am going to list good amount of sources and then write a small three sentence or so NPOV comment in the end., The main issue for me is to make this article acceptable to everyone (of course by including verifiable sources as well and that has priority) and to really end the edit wars this article attracts once in a while. The main reason for this article besides it's scientific value is to make sure all those former articles hit by the naming disputes (there was 5 of them before) just refer to this article. --alidoostzadeh 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you had proposed it before, and it was a really good idea. Do you think we should add in information that is contradictory and clearly wrong, such as the ones you mentioned? I mean, not all medieval scholars should be given the same weight. For example, most of Sigmund Freud's theories have been rejected by scholars, so although he was an important figure, his works do not hold as much weight then others of his time whose theories are generally accepted, get what I mean?

We should use reliable and accurate primary sources only.Azerbaijani 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well a primary source in wikipedia is one that is a classic source. It is almost 100% impossible to judge which primary source should be mentioned and which shouldn't be. So the only solution seems to be to list the ones that are available no matter what viewpoint they support. One might consider from Zanjan to Darband as Azerbaijan, another might consider Tabriz as capital of Armenia, another might consider Tiblis as part of Albania and another might consider Mughan, Azerbaijan, Media, Albania, Balaskan.. as seperate provinces. It is important to list them all and that is the best to list all we know and this can actually help scholars. For example Hamdullah Mustawafi seems to consider Mughan (below As), Arran, Shervan and Azerbaijan as seperate lands but he puts Nakhchivan as part of Azerbaijan. It's not really up to anyone in wikipedia or for that matter I would say any regional scholar (Iran,USSR(and of course now Azerbaijan,Armenia,Georgia)) to make a judgement on which sources are correct and which are wrong. Specially since I do not think any western historian has studied all of them together and there is really no solution other than listing them. This is really the best way to finish this minor irritant that has been lasting in wikipedia for about 2 years it seems. --alidoostzadeh

Yea, ok, sounds good. Do you want to compile the sources here before inserting them into the article? We can also use modern sources to and include them in a modern sources section, and include primary sources from the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries.Azerbaijani 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps would be good to have in the article as well. I can probably find plenty of medieval maps that we could use.Azerbaijani 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we can start putting the sources in chronological order here before we mess up the article. Lets get everything prepared first. The only section that needs work is the "Historical Azerbaijan" section, the rest of the article seems to be fine.Azerbaijani 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best approach is to create a user stub to compile any sources you might have. The talk page should mainly be used for further discussion in my opinion. Also I think most part of the articles need a rewrite. --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, how do I do that?Azerbaijani 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like how you would archive.. On your discussion page type what is in between the quotes: "/sourcesgeography" . And then cut & paste your material there. --alidoostzadeh 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here I think I made one for you: [32]. Please put your sources there since the talk page should be more for discussion in resolving this minor dispute (hopefully quickly). I put what you wrote in there. --alidoostzadeh 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yaqut contradiction

I found the contradiction in Yaqut. In one passage he says Azerbaijan and Arran are divided between the Aras river. In another passage he says Azerbaijan extends from barda' to the east (in caucus) to Arzanjan to the west (in modern turkey). So I will list both passages.. I ask everyone for their patience while I collect more quotes. --alidoostzadeh 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work!Azerbaijani 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yaqut’s text in full is available here in Russian: [33]

First he says in his description of Azerbaijan that its boundaries stretch from Barda to Arzinjan.

Границы Азербайджана тянутся от Барды на востоке до Арзинджана на западе. На севере он граничит с областями Дейлем, Гилян и Таром. Это — обширная страна.

But in description of Arran he says that the river of Aras flows between Arran and Azerbaijan, and includes Barda in Arran, along with Ganja and Baylakan.

АРРАН — неарабское название обширной области со многими городами, в числе которых Джанза, а народ ее называет Ганджа, Барда, Шамкур и Байла-кан. Между Азербайджаном и Арраном протекает река под названием Аррас (Аракc). Все, что находится западнее и севернее этой реки, относится к Аррану, а что находится восточнее ее, к Азербайджану.

In description of Barda he says that the city is located in the most remote part of Azerbaijan:

БАРДА — город в самой дальней части Азербайджана, построен из жженого кирпича и известняка и находится на равнине.

He also includes Nakhichevan as part of Azerbaijan.

Grandmaster 10:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I think its evident that we cannot use this mans information. We cant have several quotes all from the same person and all of which contradict each other, its unencyclopaedic. I'm sure we can find better sources than Yaqut (although his description of Aras being between Arran and Azerbaijan is the most credible, as it is also supported by other scholars of the medieval era).Azerbaijani 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is important to show contradictions as well since that is factual. I will list about a dozen or so sources and some of them do contradict each other (Burhan Qati') for example. It is not up to editors to sort out which Yaqut quote is correct or not and if one wants to reach the truth of something, then we need to leave intrepretations aside. I will as I said bring the list hopefully by friday or saturday. I am just double checking and will be busy this week till Friday. --alidoostzadeh 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali, this is an encyclopaedia. We should not put information that contradicts itself. We should not add any information from a source as unreliable as Yaqut. There are many scholars that said many outrageous things (Freud for example), but you dont see some of those outrageous claims in an encyclopaedic article do you?

Yaquts information is contradictory and unreliable, to avoid any disputes, to avoid any POV, to avoid any NPOV, to avoid any misinterpretation, we should only include reliable information within this article, and not use unreliable and contradictory information such as Yaquts.Azerbaijani 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If a historical source contradicts itself, then it should be brought forth of course. That is the best way to avoid any POV. Yaqut is a classical source as is say Ibn Nadeem or Herodotus. We are listing various sources about boundaries of Azerbaijan and also Arran/Armenia.. If we are going to pick and choose which classical source not to list and which to list, then we are doing people a disfavor and that is actually how edit wars start. You can really rationalize anything these days and everyone will rationalize their POV. The best way to avoid this for this specific article is to list the contradictions within a sources even if it contradicts each other unless scholars have settled the issue. I have found Frye contradicting Minorsky in this case even. --alidoostzadeh 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you dont put contradicting information in an Encyclopaedia. I have no objection to putting historical accounts in the article, my objects are to unreliable sources. Not all classical scholars are reliable, especially when they contradict themselves. We should use only sources that are reliable, no matter what they say. My objections are not about what Yaqut is saying, it is about the fact that he is unreliable and Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopaedia.Azerbaijani 00:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yaqut is not necessarily an unreliable source. Sometimes a historian or traveller writes what he hears and he could be given contradictory accounts by different people of his own time. If a modern scholar writes something contradictory, that is one thing. But a classical source is special, since it will never be re-created again. An Encyclopedia should in my opinion definitely mention that a historical account is contradictory. In my opinion people have the right to know that a historic account has a contradictory information. What would be dishonest, from a moral point of view is of course when a person takes the account he likes and does not mention the other account within the source. Unfortunately I have seen this quite often in Wikipedia and too many modern books and articles. If a scholar can't find something or makes an innocent mistake, that is one thing and many scholars have made any innocent mistake. But if they have seen it and do not mention it, thats just wrong. Lots of classic historic books (I am disassociating modern books from classic historic books like Tabari or Herodotus) have contradictory accounts and actually making reader's aware of their contradiction is giving good information. --alidoostzadeh 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should not pick and choose what to put into the article, therefore, I believe all of Yaqut's statements should be thrown out, because it just doesnt make sense to me to present a scholar that contradicts himself. As Grandmaster points out, when talking about Arran he says one thing, when talking about Azerbaijan he says one thing, etc...Also, we cant have the article be a bunch of quotes, so we need to figure out a way to write all of this up.Azerbaijani 04:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yaqut is a historical source, and we cannot suppress the info. If it is contradictory, we can mention that, but we cannot simply dismiss one of the most important primary sources. It is up to the reader to judge whether it is reliable or not, our task is just to present the info. Such source as Iranica, which is an encyclopedic source, written by the experts, also mentions Yaqut, and does not discard him. Neither should we. Grandmaster 05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If Iranica mentions Yaqut and mentions he has contradictory statement..then it is fine. --alidoostzadeh 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says Yaqut is unreliable and contradictory. Also, being a historical sources does not make a person reliable. Just imagine what it would be like if people used Herodotus as a source for everything ancient (as they do here on Wikipedia)...Can you just imagine how ridiculous that would be? All you have to do is read an article like the Battle of Thermopylae or Greco-Persian wars to see how ridiculous it is to use historical sources that are inaccurate by modern standards.Azerbaijani 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point. Iranica says Yaqut has contradictory statements. We are listing them and also mentioning that Yaqut has contradictory statements. He is a historical source and if it was not for Yaqut's, Tabari's, Herodotus's ..we would have no data at all. --alidoostzadeh 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should keep Yaqut in.Azerbaijani 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay glad to hear that.--alidoostzadeh 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

busy

Guys I'll be busy during the week but I'll work it on friday. (enshallah the article will be NPOV soon). Just keep the dispute tag. I removed the atabaki quote and thomas goltz quote since it does not have too much to do with a history article. --alidoostzadeh 03:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

British source about Azerbaijan

I was drawn to this dispute by user:Azerbaijani who argued on another page that there is not term Azerbaijan applied to its northern part untill 1918 and there is no term Russian Azerbaijan.

The following quotation should end this and many other disputes. It is British source of 1863 (!!!). It is searchable from JSTOR.

Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan By Keith E. Abbott, Esq., H.M. Consul-General in Persia. [Communicated by the Foreign Office.] Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 8, No. 6. (1863 - 1864), pp.275-279.

THE country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia, the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole, which may be roughly stated to cover an area of about 80,000 square miles, or about the size of Great Britain; 50,000 square miles are therefore about the extent of the division belonging to Russia, and 30,000 of that which remains to Persia.

The Russian division is bounded on the north and north-east by the mountains of Caucasus, extending to the vicinity of Bakou on the Caspian. On the west it has the provinces of Imeritia, Mingrelia, Gooriel, and Ahkhiska (now belonging to Russia); on the east it has the Caspian Sea, and on the south the boundary is marked by the course of the River Arrass (Araxes) to near the 46 th parallel of longitude, thence by a conventional line across the plains of Moghan to the district of Talish, and by the small stream of Astura which flows to the Caspian through the latter country. In this area are contained the following territorial divisions: - Georgia or Goorjistan, comprising Kakhetty, Kartaliny, Somekhetty, Kasakh; the Mohammedan countries of Eriwan, Nakhshewan, Karabagh, Ghenja, Shirwan, Shekky, Shamachy, Bakou, Koobeh, Salian and a portion of Talish...

The population of Russian Azerbaijan consists of mixed races... The country included in these boundaries and, perhaps a large part, if not all, of Russian Azerbaijan recognized as Medea Atropotena in ancient geography.--Dacy69 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, unless you can credibly dispute 1863 article of Royal Geographical Society and written by British Consul to Persia by citing amateur Kasravi or Atabaki writing 50-100 years later, we shall proceed with reflecting the reality brought above by Dacy in the article. Thanks. Atabek 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good source by Dacy69 and I'll put it in my list. Atabak, Kasravi was definitely not an amatuer. He is cited by Minorsky as a great historian. Atabaki is a good scholar as well and full Professor. You don't become full Professor by being an amatuer. On Atabaki's source, since we don't have it we can not judge. But perhaps Rasulzadeh was talking about pre-Safavid times or something. Kasravi also relies basically on Arab and Persian chronicles for the most part and perhaps Sassanid inscriptions. That is the timeline needs to be taken into consideration. Anyways, we need to keep cool ere as I have emphasized to Azerbaijani, so we can fix this article like the Safavids without taking forever. So I request users do not get personal at all. On this issue we have variety of classical sources. Dacy69's source is good and we simply need to list sources without personal opinions and hopefully finish up this article. Although the author of that source is not historian, but he uses the term "Russian Azerbaijan" and "Persian Azerbaijan" so that part is good and interesting. The part about Media Atropatene he seems to be guessing and so that part I'll probably disregard since he is not a historian although that part is really not factual. --alidoostzadeh 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I think our opinions regarding Kasravi are immaterial. I do call him amateur, because he was not a historian, but a poet with often radical views. He was a good journalist, but not a historian.

Regardless of that, the fact is that 1864 was before Kasravi and Minorsky, and the article was written by Consul General to Persia who evidenced factual disposition in the region. I don't dispute that Atabaki is a professor, it's not hard to get tenure writing about the history of remote regions in Europe or USA. But unfortunately many scholars from the region try to pervert the history using their biased personal opinions and views. I believe British Consul General would be a more trusted source in this regard than either Kasravi or Atabaki.

Indeed, even Atabaki's blackmail against the founders of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is baseless. Because on the Versailles conference, the first republic was presented as the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan (specifically spelling out to stand aside from Iranian Azerbaijan). But most importantly, the article by Abbott completely demolishes the claim by several Iranian "scholars" and politicians that Azerbaijan to North was never called as such prior to establishment of republic in 1918. The fact of article in 1863 alone is sufficient for this defeat.

Aside from that, I agree that all sources need to be listed and studied with clear understanding of reality on the ground rather than times of Sassanids or Achaemenids. After all, there was no definition Iran known prior to Achaemenids, it does not mean we should go back to those other definitions calling the country now.Atabek 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek of course sources should be listed. The thing is that the sources are just mixed up and that is why we are listing them. For example check european maps of Iran[34][35](Shirvan is listed above Azerbaijan) and somehave the caucus Azerbaijan listed as Georgia, Shirvan, Armenia as well.. William Jones for example (1773) states:AZARBIGIAN*, or Media, ARRAN or Atropatia, and ARMENA, or Armenia, are considered by some Eastern Geographers as One Province or Kingdom, and we may, therefore, describe them together.. On the other hand dacy69's source indicates that 5/8 of Azerbaijan was in the hand of Russia and Georgia is part of Azerbaijan and there were the Mohammadan countries of Nakhchiwan, Shirwan and etc. Or it says: perhaps a large part, if not all, of Russian Azerbaijan recognized as Medea Atropotena. Which is not really factual for the old days. I am not going to make a judgement on the source in the main article and just list it, but the source is relatively in my opinion complements William Jones's statement. Since it considers Georgia, Armenia as part of Azerbaijan although it is not written by historian. mMch like some of the other sources which have conflicting views. Or Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 or the Russian Encyclopedia of 1890 lists Azerbaijan below Aras but those are other sources. My opinion is simply that from the time of Safavid and Qajar who were very important in Azerbaijan, slowly the historical name Azerbaijan got bigger and sometimes included the caucus region because of administrative purposes. Also because of administrative purporses sometimes Armenia, Arran, Azerbaijan got bigger. For example one Qajar source lists Azerbaijan different than the caucus. Another though lists Baku as part of the province of Shirwaanat but Ganja as part of Azerbaijan. My position has always been that the three regions of armenia, arran, azerbaijan overlaped although we can identity their bulk territory. But I am not going to put any of my or any Iranian or soviet opinions and just stick with mainly classical sources. Anyways the matter is not political and covers history from atropatene till the foundation of the republic and I am not going to discuss Kasravi/Atabaki any further. I do not think some Iranian scholar as far as I know claimed the caucus was never called Azerbaijan and I believe their opinions is similar to Encyclopedia of Islam here[36] and William Jones. That is why Abul Fida (7th Islamic century) says:The three lands of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Arran are considered one and experts know the difference between these. I believe the some scholars have said for the most part, Azerbaijan has historically between the territory below Aras although whenever there was a single ruler of all three territories, the name Azerbaijan extended since it was the most important region of the three. This is what Swietochowski seems to say. Anyways I think it is a silly dispute and that is why I am transforming this to mainly a history article. I am not here to get into any arguments with regards to different users opinions on political matter and as you say opinions on Kasravi or Atabaki is immaterial since we are going with historic sources and just listing them for the benefits of readers and making it about a 95% history article. I am just going to list different sources and thanks for agreeing with this matter and hope we can make a good article out of what is now an article in poor shape. --alidoostzadeh 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, we will not be just listing them, but quoting in short paragraphs. I understand and appreciate your 7th B.C. to A.D. findings about namings of Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Arran, etc. What various historians called the region at different stages in history is immaterial here. Yet the fact of citing Azerbaijan north of Araxes by a third party (British Consul) in a Western publication some 50 years before 1918, shall be mentioned to end any kind of baseless accusations, such as: 1) Azerbaijan was named this way by "pan-Turkists", 2) Azerbaijan was given name by Bolsheviks to later occupy Iran, 3) Azerbaijan was used in 1918 for the first time, etc. Enough of these misrepresentations. Atabek 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I have the source and quoted it already in my worksheet. Of course what various historians called the region at different stages in history is very relevant to this article since this is a history article. But this comment is off topic but nevertheless I felt like mentioning it since I do not agree with your conclusion necessarily (although I do not reject it completely). But overall historians go with consensus. For example if 5% of the sources say something and 95% say another, usually the 95% are taken more seriously. For example dozens of sources mention all of the caucus as Armenia, Georgia , Shirvan, Arran or there are variety of maps and etc. Of course if you want more sources like this, then it would be good as well.. if you look at Golestan, Torkemnchay..Azerbaijan is not mentioned. The british consular was trying to write history description (evident from him mistakenly mentioning that Atropatene contained most of Russian Azerbaijan and then he equates Russian Azerbaijan with territories of modern republics of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan which I doubt Georgians or Russians or others considered Tiflis to be part of Russian Azebraijan) and unless if there are more sources like this (I am not ruling it out but I have seen 10+ maps of Persia from that era and all over them are consistent about Azerbaijan below Aras), I wouldn't reach your conclusion. Of course if there are more sources like this, then also I would like to see them and I might be inclined towards your conclusion but in JSTOR I did a search at least and so far that was the only one. Although that particular source not mentioning any references, puts Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan (all of the caucus) as Azerbaijan which does not have precedence in eastern histography and does not correspond to western maps of Persia before/during Qajar which I have seen, nevertheless I am mentioning various sources to keep this article from NPOV but reaching conclusions based on sources unless academically validated is also not useful for the article although for talk page it makes good discussion if all users keep calm, which unfortunately is not the case. But as a general rule, historians look at the overwhelming majority of the sources and in some sources armenia, arran, azerbaijan have been mixed to reach a conclusion. On how Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 by the ADR there are three-four viewpoints I have seen. --alidoostzadeh 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, what are you ranting about now? I was the one that requested Dacy to bring a source such as this forward. I find it quite interesting how you decide to show up at certain times (as in to make attacks). If you are not part of the debate, do not come in making attacks and POV comments, instead of constructive ones. You dont even know the basis for the discussion between Dacy and I.Azerbaijani 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, you don't know own the article, so it would not hurt to exercise some WP:NPA. As I said provide counter arguments to the 1864 article, instead of this absolutely useless comment above. Atabek 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan has historically between the territory below Aras although whenever there was a single ruler of all three territories, the name Azerbaijan extended since it was the most important region of the three.

Ali makes a very very good point here. This is true, for example, in the case of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, who ruled over Arran and Azerbaijan, but are given the name Atabegs of Azerbaijan simply because Azerbaijan dwarfed their other territories.Azerbaijani 06:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find the article Dacy69 quoted at JSTOR under this link: [37] Grandmaster 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it already. You have to take into account that the man who wrote this was not a historian as Ali pointed out already. This guys eve includes Georgia as part of Azerbaijan, which is a first as far as I know (has anyone else ever made such a mistake?). He also misrepresents the region of ancient Atropatene. In a historical debate, people usually go with the majority of sources, because those the one or two sources which go against general consensus are usually flawed.

Let me show everyone here Wikipedia's policies on such issues:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

I hope this makes things clearly for everyone.Azerbaijani 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, interesting so milliondollarbabies.com, Atabaki, Kasravi, Armenian scholars are somehow unbiased and non-POV, and British Consul writing on absolutely non-Britain related Iran and Azerbaijan for Royal Geographic Society is POV :) Sure, nice try, the article will be incorporated into the body of text as one of the sources. Enough of unencyclopedic POV edits about history and identity of Azerbaijani people. Atabek 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I never said this source was POV or baised, I never said any such thing. I merely posted Wikipedia's policies. Cant handle it Atabek? Why dont you try reading the rules of Wikipedia for yourself. I also suggest that you calm down, take a deep breath, discuss the issue instead of the users.Azerbaijani 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, first you argued that it does not exist - I mean Russian Azerbaijan before 1918 and a term Azerbaijan aplied to only its southern part. Now you are trying to prove that this source is insignificant. This source is reliable and significant as British source affiliated to foreign Service. There might be other sources. The notion of Azerbaijan (as applied to north) is not born out of nothing. Russian named Azerbaijan in terms of territory under their control. And after all, Wikipedia should accomodate all views. You should quote further the NPOV page: "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page. " I hope this makes things clearly for everyone.--Dacy69 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I knew then, the term Russian Azerbaijan had never been used, and I asked you to bring up a source, and you did, and now its settled.

Again, I am not trying to prove that this source is insignificant, I am showing you Wikipedia's own policies on such matters. Also, the source is hardly reliable, read Ali's comment above.

Again, you have yet to bring any source which says that the Russians called their Caucasian territories Azerbaijan (your source was British, right?).

Also, Dacy, I have asked you this before, and I'm asking you again, do not take things out of context on purpose. Wikipedia's policies does say that all views have to be shown, I never said it didnt, but it says that non-reliable or information that goes against consensus should not be given the same amount of attention or detail as reliable and consensus information.

Read the policy for yourself (I didnt right the policy, so if you want to yell at someone, yell at the person who made these rules): [38] Wikipedia on Undo Weight: [39]

Again, this source will be mentioned in the article (I never said it wasnt going to be mentioned), but it cannot be given in the same amount of detail or the same amount of information as everything else.

Dacy and Atabek, you guys need to calm down, take a deep breadth, read everyone else's comments carefully, familiarize yourselves with the NPOV policy, and then make constructive comments.

I did not write Wikipedia's rules and policies, dont blame me because the rules and policies did not work in your favor this time, its just that these are the rules. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." I'm sorry, this is non-negotiable. Grandmaster himself knows undo-weight and he has used undo-weight himself and I'm sure that even he understands that the article has to be written to conform with NPOV.

So please read this carefully: All sources and viewpoints will be placed in this article, including this British source, but the minority view points will not get the same attention, detail, or placement as the majority view.

Hope this clears things up.Azerbaijani 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither I wrote that policy. And I am perfectly calm and never yelled at anyone (generally this expression is not applicable here). It seems someone tried to assert something with much more determination. I am just saying that as per Wikipedia rules, opposing views should be represented. And it is not tiny view. You agree that the views should be represented. Then, I believe we are close to settle this dispute with cold mind and calmness. And I don't argue whose view should go first. We will sort out it in good faith.--Dacy69 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read everything I said? Yes, all the views will be shown in this article, dont worry about that, but the minority view will not be given the same length, prominence, detail, etc... as the majority view. If we really want to make this article NPOV, all of us have to agree to follow the NPOV guidelines. I'm willing to, but it seems as though you and Atabek need convincing in order to follow WIkipedia's policies, which brings into question, do you guys really want to make this article NPOV? I think you guys do, so why are you two trying to argue against Wikipedia's NPOV policy? If anything, the minority view should be given 1 to 2 paragraphs:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.Azerbaijani 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then , ok. We will need to elaborate how much this or that view are majority or minority. But for now I would perhaps rest for weekend untill Monday.--Dacy69 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty clear what the majority and minority views are (most of which also contradict each other).Azerbaijani 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply think we should just mention various sources pre-Islamic, Islamic and Modern and etc. This is an article with the title history of the name Azerbaijan. So historical references are welcome. My opinion is that from the Safavid era onward , the caucus became increasingly associated with Azerbaijan (nothing ethnic about it really but mainly admistrative since the adoption of ethnonym Azerbaijani is well after the Safavids and Azerbaijan was the most important province of early Safavids and also Qajars) (same with Armenia/Arran whichare mentioned in different sources which was a mixed ethnic and religious region and thus these two geographic designations should not in my opinion have any sort of ethnic intrepretation which is absurd) slowly although this was yet the minority point of view until 1918. But I am not going to put my opinion or any opinions here based on sources unless they are scholarly opinions. Listing the sources is the best way to have an NPOV article. Even if the classical sources contradict each other. In matters of geography, with adjacent territories that have existed near each other more than 2000+ years (atropatene, armenia, arran..) you are bound to get some contradictions and overlap and there is really no other possibility and it would be amazing if for 2000 years there was no overlap in various sources although the bulk of territories for the most part seem clear in the classical sources. That is why in a history article, I am mentioning historical sources and some of them, you might not like and some of them the Azeri republic nationalists will not like perhaps, some sources a Georgian nationalist will not like (for example the source that Tiblis is part of Aran or even dacy69's source) perhaps, and some sources armenian nationalist might not like (like Yaqut mentioning Arzanjan as part of Azerbaijan) and personally I do not have an interest except to fix this article in order to end the artificial disputes and the best approach which no one really can disagree with unless they have scholarly western unbiased sources commenting on the classical sources, is to simply list them and quote them as I have been doing. With this approach it seems GM agrees with it also and I do not have a problem either. This way no one can object and delete anything and make it personal or political. I reluctantly got involved in this article recently, but now I am determined to fix it. Of course it would be good if dacy69 finds more sources like that since they are not as strong as Britannica 1911 and I have seen about 10+ western maps of Persia from that era. But still I think the source should be listed and quoted since it is interesting source nevertheless even if it may be a minority source or even a single source of its kind and I urge people to introduce sources even if it goes against their own personal pov's. Drawing conclusions about the various sources will be left to heavy weight western scholars which are seen as more neutral. Ultimately any Iranian, Azeri, Georgian, Armenian etc. ultranationalists (as opposed to positive nationalism like George Washington) will sometimes have to face some truths they do not like because ultranationalism needs lies to justify its irrational and unhuman behavior.--alidoostzadeh 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ali, everything will be mentioned in the article with regards to NPOV. Nothing is going to be kept out.Azerbaijani 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

etymology

I fixed the etymology section up with better sources and better transliteration. Interestingly enough, Ferdowsi and Nezami Ganjavi use Azar-Abad-Gan which probably was the Persian version directly from Pahlavi. "Azerbaijan" is the Arabized version of either Azar-Abad-Gan or the Pahlavi version. --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I also have created this section here on my talk page: [40] and will be editing it within the next week or so or hopefully less time. Any classic sources (with Arabic/Persian original) will be appreciated and I will try to provide the original Arabic/Persian. Thanks and I hope this article turns into an informative article.--alidoostzadeh 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW GM I believe brought an article from the 1890 Russian Encyclopedia that called the inhabitants of the caucus as "Azeri Tatars". This could be a useful source since the 1890 encyclopedia recognizes Azerbaijan below Aras but at the same time uses "Azeri" as part of the ethnonym of caucasian Muslims. --alidoostzadeh 03:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was on Irevan? --alidoostzadeh 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The source cited by Dacy69 is indeed very important, it comes from British Foreign Office and shows that the terms Russian Azerbaijan and Persian Azerbaijan were used long before 20th century. We should cite this source in the article. As for Azerbaijani Tatars and Aderbeijans, the terms were used by Russian scholars before 20th century, the links to relevant articles are included in the text of our article. Grandmaster 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed it here: [41]. As you can see I am listing many sources without any bias in hope to make a good informative article. If you know any other sources let me know.. also what section does Yaqut mention Nakhchivan?--alidoostzadeh 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russian edition says:

VIII, 273 and 307

НАХДЖУВАН, или как некоторые произносят Накджуван, — городок в [32] крайних пределах Азербайджана, о котором мы еще будем говорить.

Nakhjuvan, or as some pronounce it Nakjuvan - a town in the remote parts of Azerbaijan, which we will discuss further.

But it is not mentioned anywhere else. Grandmaster 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks..--alidoostzadeh 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of the same Turkic dialect that the Turkic speakers in the Caucasus and Northern Iran spoke:

some scholars (Yadrintsev, Kharuzin, Shantr) suggested to change the terminology of some Turko-Tatar people, who somatically don’t have much in common with Turks, for instance, to call Aderbaijani Tatars (Iranians by race) Aderbaijans. (from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary).

I mean, its the same thing, for example, in the German speaking parts of Italy, the people there still speak German and have German culture and are thus still referred to as Germans or Deutsch, although they are Italian. Cultural, linguistic, and ethnic similarities dont have borders. This is reasonable, as Azerbaijan (Iran) has always had the larger population of Azeri's than the Caucasus.

Also, may I add that the term Russian Azerbaijan was not used long before the 20th century, as the one source Dacy found was form the 1860's, and again, it should be emphasized that, although significant and should be mentioned in the article, it is only one source.Azerbaijani 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But in addition to that, the borders of Iranian Azerbaijan were not stable, and some ancient geographers included in Azerbaijan territories south of Araks, such as Mugan or Nakhichevan, or even Barda, in case of Yaqut. Grandmaster 06:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Nakhichevan is a very small territory and its very close to Azerbaijan, its inconsequential.Azerbaijani 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting abou GM's quote from Efron Encyclopedia is that it was Russians that called the Turcophone speakers of the region Azerbaijanis. Some political groups claim that this was not the case, but actually the above source mentions otherwise. So I guess we all learn some interesting facts. Anyways I urge everyone to be calm and have respect for others (which is respecting yourself). Also a slight correction, Mughan is below the river Aras. Basically Belasuvar, Saylan,MahmudAbad, Lenkoran and what is below the Aras till Ardabil is called Mughan.--alidoostzadeh 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives