Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:22, 6 January 2006

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

Template:Azerbaijan

An event mentioned in this article is an August 30 selected anniversary.

Let me tell you the reality. Unexceptionally all the peoples of the Middle East are ethnically well mixed. Just like in Turkey or Azerbaijan, you can not find any ethnic unity in Iran as well, even in the very Persian regions, both culturally and physically. So the only way to separate societies from each other is the language. Turks and Azeris speak Turkish with different dialects, and the Persians speak Farsi. So Turks and Azeris are on one side, Persians on the other. And it has nothing to do with Panturkism.

I hope it was explicable enough...:)

who is talking about name? this is about history of nation.

It really doesn't matter what Iranians think about Azerbaijan or consider Azeris to be. I am an Azeri, I have Azeri citizenship and gurantee you that the 91% Azeris in Azebaijan ALL consider themselves and their language Turkish. It's a simple fact, no one will deny it. And no one relates themselves to Iranians, this is only seen through the internet by Iranian propaganda whatever its intentions are. Azeris from Iran whatever they are, are not considered or regarded as Azeris in the republic of Azerbaijan either and hardly look like us. Most of them are treated as foreigners. We have nothing in common. They're WAY too religious and basically persianised in culture. Most of them guard their sisters like a baby does with his toys. I personally was shocked when I visited Tabriz and Tehran and I could not understand their language either. Whatever it was, it wasn't the same Turkish we spoke in Naxcivan, it had so much farsi in it I could hardly understand any of it. I don't even think it can be regarded as Turkish. Culturally I found none of our foods to be similar in the least bit, or much else either. There seemed to be more in common with other un-related peoples to us like the Chechens then this supposed brethen to us in Iran. I think most of them have probably mixed with Persians or Kurds or something cause they are nothing like us.

Edit war

What has the name Azerbaijan have to do with the Azerbaijan Turks? Azerbaijan is just the name
of the place, just like Anatolia, which is a Greek name. However, Azeris are Turks from the
Oguz branch just like people of Turkey. They have founded numerous Turkish states, and it is 

well known that a lot of Oguz Turks from Anatolia immigrated to Azerbaijan especially during the reign of Sah Ismail in the 16th century because they see it as a country more adherent to Turk traditions than Ottomans. The people of Azerbaijan are the ones that are claiming they are Turks, they know their heritage and certainly will not bend over to the dumb brainwashing of the Persian state trying to twist history to avoid an ethnic conflict already rising against the oppression of the Turkish culture in the Persia. Surely, your Islamic state which tries to hold together people of different ethnicity on the basis of religion is fearing this to happen. The rest of the things were not even worthy of mention, culture and clothes Persian? yes, sure buddy, dream on. BTW, Nevruz is celebrated in the whole Turkish world and probably in many other cultures as the spring festival, it is funny how weak your claims are.

Pan-turanists (turks) are trying to deny Azeri people their Persian heritage. Turks from Turkey are making up false claims and lies about Azeri people. It really annoys me when people try to say that Azeribaijan is not Persian. Here are the facts:

Azerbaijan is a Persian word meaning land of fire, (reffering to the the ancient Iranian religion of Zoroaster).

Azerbaijan was a province of Iran and settled by Iranians thousands of years before the turks ever left mongolia and outer china.

Azeri people are racially, ethnically Iranian. They are caucasoids of the Iranian branch. Not central asian ural-altaic turks...Simply, they look like Persians not mongolians..or people from central asia.

Azeri culture is Persian. They celebrate ancient Iranian holidays like now rooz, char shambeh suri, etc...Their cuisine is Persian, their traditional costumes are Iranian...(original turks were a nomadic horse breeding people and had no similiarites culturally to the present day "turks" of azerbaijan or turkey. Azeri music is definatly Persian, (instruments, etc...)

40% of the Azeri langauge is Farsi (Persian).

Even their names are Persian.

The only land to have ever been named Azerbaijan is the current Iranian province, The fake republic of Azerbaijan was actually 3 different Iranian provences when Russia invaded and seperated them from Iran.

198.81.26.74/K1: Please refrain from reverting each other's versions of the article wholesale. It is apparent that you have issues with the content of each other's versions; why not resolve them here, instead? It will save everyone a lot of hassle. Thank you. -- Grunt (talk) 00:55, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

It is a good suggestion, however resolving the conflict assumes substantiation of version/claims by facts. To begin with I would like someone presents facts that there was a state called Azerbaijan before 1918. - TT

Grunt, I can see that we have a bunch of real competent admins here in wikipedia. You and another admin are locking the pages of this guy's version of lies and deceptions and invite me to resolve the problem with him? Can you read and understand plain english? I responded to your comments on the Talk:South Azerbaijan page the other day, and explained that this moron with a random IP and no histoty of constructive work in wikipedia changes the pages with a CLEAR political agenda, and DOES NOT engage in any dialog. He puts out flat out lies, he is not even a registered contributor, and his rubbish get to overridde my work with over a year of active, accurate and useful contributions to Misplaced Pages. On page Nezami he writes Nezami has works in Turkish. So in the discussion area I tell him why don't you then just name his "Turkish works" in the article? (mind you, there is NONE) He does not respond. So we revert the article to the version that is CORRECT, and he immediately reverts back to his version. The same bullshit is going on a a bunch of pages, ALL OF WHICH are related to one cause: Pan-Turkism. He has today created a new completely false article Persian Chauvinisim in conjunction with his other contaminations of the neighbourhood -- thanks to admins like you who encourage abuse of the open nature of Misplaced Pages. This moron's IP should have been blocked a long time ago after a couple of warnings when his abuse and malintentions became apparent. --K1 09:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read m:The wrong version or Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars ever, did you? - David Gerard 23:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The state of Iran was formed on the basis of 1 thing: To take every neighbour's history and "Persianize" it to make the Persians feel better about themsleves. Shame on those who don't accept other's history it is truely a sad case of feeling low about yourself. -198.81.26.106 23:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for Iranians to falsify their history. It is rich and well documented. Unlike Azerbaijani history which is 99% falsified. After all the topic shall be named "History of the territories occupied by Azerbaijan" rather than "History of Azerbaijan".

As far as I'm concerned both of you have equally valid (invalid?) points of view here; we are going to have to accept that fact and attempt to create a version of this article that properly represents both points of view. Clearly two points of view exist; otherwise there wouldn't be enough material to create two versions of the article, would they? If we can just calm down enough to accept that fact, perhaps we'll be able to resolve this whole mess... -- Grunt (talk) 01:35, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Interesting how all the people fighting so passionately for what they write about Azerbaijan are from Iran... All I can read is Iran this, Persia that. I wouldn't be surprised if the admin is some sort of Iranian descent. Is this not supposed to be Azerbaijan's history? As opposed to the glorious Persian history? I hope the brainless admins try searching up some websites made in Azerbaijan to ban these incompetent fools.

I as an Azerbaijani condamn the Grey Wolf pan-Turkist attempt to fabricate a falsified and distorted history for our land. Its as clear as day that we were a part of Persia before being captured by the Russians. You escape reality just to feel good and bring more misery for the people of Caucasus. Get off of my history and go back to your camps in Ankara.

Some material from the Persian Encyclopedia

I did some translations from the 1966 Persian Encyclopedia. It is available at Talk:History of Azerbaijan#From my Persian Encyclopedia. Roozbeh 02:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the yelling at the top

The controversiality notice is supposed to go on the talk page, and that red notice is nothing but an abomination. If someone is constantly vandalizing the page, either work it out somehow or ban them, don't cater to them by screwing up the whole page because of them. --Joy 12:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I realise this. I'm just trying to discourage people from making edits which might provoke more edit warring. -- Grunt (talk) 17:42, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

my changes

I hope my changes aren't, you know, offensive, but I noticed a few POV problems, and a lot of unlinked words... ugen64 20:57, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Misplaced Pages link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Azerbaijan article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Azerbaijan}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, I think this should be deleted:

"Historians, anthropologists and scientists agree that it is in this land that the earlieGarden of Eden once existed."

What?

Tabib's edit

Simply great. It has my full support Refdoc 21:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but it is far from "simply great". For example, in the history section is jumps from "IV c. BC" all the way to the Islamic era, without a single mention of the large gap in between. It also does not mention the fact that the name "Azerbaijan" was used only after the end of World War I, although it does mention the formation of it after WW-I. Also it does not mention at all that it used to be called Arran and that "Azarbaijan" has always historically been to the south of the Aras river.

The history section under Azerbaijan page is not intended to give full historical account but simply highlight the major events. From this perspective, I think the history section under Azerbaijan page is quite ok. You are welcome to discuss the historical issues and controversies in the History of Azerbaijan talkpage and after that make your contributions to the relevant page.--Tabib 10:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is a tendency here on Misplaced Pages that "opposing parties" take over separate pages and expand them, defending them against revert wars and developing them in separate directions. All this has happened in the past in the Azer|Azar-baijan|beycan|beijan complex of pages over and over again. There were "Turkish" pages and "Iranian" pages and others too Very few encyclopaedic pages though. Tabib has - by culling this page to the bone - created a good encyclopaedic page which could last and now allows the disputes to concetrate on one page - the historical page e.g. I do agree on one count - the bit about the "name shift" should be menitioned, preferably in a a way that does not inflame over and again the revert wars. Refdoc 10:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just added some historical info to the article. I was engaged with that region during my university studies for a couple of years.

Thanks,

Syaoshant

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point . Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected: Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

earliest states in Azerbaijan

I just found an English language website at the Azerbaijani Embassy in Romania with an amazing article that goes into immense detail about Ancient states in what is now Azerbaijan

(perhaps contradicting the article's statement:)

The first state to emerge in the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan was Caucasian Albania. It was established in the 4th century BC

Among the ancient states mentioned in this article, that is quite scholarly if not perfectly grammatical, are:

(apparently known from Assyrian and Urartian records)

c. 1000-800 BC: Zamua, Nikdiary (Mekdiary), Allabriya, Karalla Gilzan Messi, Andija, Zikirta Ninni, Shurdira, Kharruna, Simesi, Ulmania, Adau, Kharmasa, Sangibuti, Pulua

c. 850-800 BC: Mannae (mentioned in article I think)

http://www.azembassy.ro/English/pr01.htm

Wow there is a lot of new info for me there, I should have a field day researching this stuff for a while... Any of it sound familiar? --Codex Sinaiticus 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Keystone in all Azeri "histories" is a postulate that everything, which has ever happened on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan, is related, and directly linked to Azerbaijan and Azeries. This is nonsense unless Azerbaijani scientists present solid data proving the concept. Just one remark - how would you respect an Egyptian scientist who would claim that Arabs are ancestors of Nubian and pharaohs? Or Turks are ancestors of Romans? With smile, right? But why you do not smile when Azeris make similar claims? The truth is - there were no state or monarchy, which was Azerbaijani. First state with that name was created only in 1918. People started to be called Azerbaijanis only by 1938. Before they are identified themselves as Tats, Tallish, Lezgi, or even simply as Muslims. TT

interwiki

If you are a sysop, please add the interwiki ] to the list of interwikis. I am to create the relevant article in a few minutes. Thanks in advance. Caesarion 15:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to user "El C": Sources for the relevant ASSERTIONS are inherent in the local HISTORY!

"Hairsplitting" should not be utilized as a means of distraction from obvious lack of KNOWLEDGE! The Assertions were made building on well-founded Information! (not by myself, though). Your apparent reference to Gogol characters and the sockpuppet page are entirely uncalled for. If you had any knowledge with respect to the local history, you would not approach me in this trivial manner, let allone call my contribution "vandalism". --Bagration-Mukhransky 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is I *don't* know about the local history, which is why I am reverting the uncited material, one that is very similar to the one contributed by the anonymous ip. To my knowledge, I have only reverted vandalism in this article —mostly, much more crude, and which mostly seems to come either from Azeri (aggrendizing) or Armenian (diminishing) nationalists— and have not contributed to it in any appreciable way. If it is well founded, then there should be no issue with validating the addition through propper citation of sources. But policy states that the burden of proof falls on the submitter. I'm going to consider any additional uncited reverts as vandalism and have warned Bagration-Mukhransky that this will lead him being blocked. I hope he will listen to reason. El_C 09:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My experience with Armenia has been similar as well, except naturally, with Azeri nationalists in this case diminishing and Armenian ones aggrandizing. Which is to be expected. Once Tabib is around, I'm confident that he'll be able to clear this latest incident up. El_C 11:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is surely NOT in the interest of WIKIPEDIA! I find it highly questionable indeed, that self-righteous "deputy sheriffs", despite of their obvious and admitted lack of relevant knowledge, feel free to wildly revert sensible edits and confront people in the known with snotty (if not cocky) argumentation. How can edits be termed "vandalism" by a person entirely ignorant of their contents??) On top of that openly teaming up with Individuals, with whom they seem to accord , for some reason. And what, prey tell me, is wrong with anonymous ips, posting sensible info?? As long as such conduct is tolerated by the responsible people on this platform, Misplaced Pages will remain unreliable and misleading, to a considerable extent. --Bagration-Mukhransky 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking that a source be provided for this "well-founded" claims – what's the big deal? El_C 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absurd claim on historical ethnic demoghraphics

I think I should intervene here to express my support to User:El C for reverting vandal Rovoam's spurious edits as well as for his legitimate point in his communication with User:Bagration-Mukhransky about citing sources first before making any substantial edits.

From history logs I have noticed that there was a brief mutual reverting between User:El C and User:Bagration-Mukhransky (e.g. ).

I want to state right away that the edits that Bagration-Mukhransky supported are totally false. I do not question this user's good faith, but I think it is necessary for you and all editors to know that this absurd claim that allegedly "the Azeri Turks" comprised only "around 30%" of the population of Azerbaijan, whereas Talysh minority ostensibly constituted 60% (?!) is simply absurd. (Btw, today Talysh number around 50-70,000 in present-day Azerbaijan and are the fastest growing population group in Azerbaijan). This absurd and stupid claim was first introduced by vandal Rovoam in Azerbaijanis as a part of his massive and wide-range vandalism which covered more than thirty (!) Azerbaijan and Turkey-related WP entries. He is still introducing same vandalisms in that entry, in many other Azerbaijan-related entries and even such unrelated entry as Ottoman Turks (e.g. ) or Ottoman Empire (e.g. )

As I said, I do not want to question Bagration-Mukhransky's good faith in his edits, but those spurious edits come from vandal and everyone should bear this in mind. I have also expressed similar concerns in Talk:Azeri, where Rovoam introduced same vandal edits. Hope, my message was helpful for you to understand the situation. I call you all to join me and many other editors in common struggle against Rovoam. For additional info, look at regular disclaimers.--Tabib 15:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Term "Azerbaijan" was first introduced in 1918. There were no state with that name in history prior to 1918. Using the term to period in history preceeding 1918 is a nonsence. Moreover, 'Azerbaijani people' is a term for Turks, Lezgi, Tats and other ethnic groups which were assimilated under soviet rule in Azerbaijan. Turks, or Azeri (Turks who lived in Persian northern province of Azerbaijan) constituted ca 30% of the population of the republic of Azerbaijan in 1918. The term "Azeri" became wide spread only by 1938. Thus, refering to people in the region az Azeri for period preceeding 1918 is a nonsence. For example there is absolutely no proof that ancient Caucasian Albania or Manna had anything to do with Azerbaijan.

Main reason for these history falsifications is an attempt to create new "older" history for newly born state and substantiate territorial claims.

Azerbayjan was not inhabited by TURCS prior to Seljuq migration to this area!

Interesting to note that nothing seems to have changed around here! The same old bickering on account of nationalist POV wherever user Tabib Husseynov gets involved (or some uneducated but passionate helpers at his side??) People around here act like ignorant medeaval chronies , running after innocent people , burning them as witches, though now they term them VANDALS (my own - previous - account was blocked on such ludicrous grounds.....) --Luba Gerasimova 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. While indeed, I am thoroughly uneducated, I am nonetheless well-meaning, and I hope that is how I am percieved (I have no particularly strong view on Azeri history). From this position, then, I hold the opinion that referencing claims about the origin of the name is, in the interests of stability, a desirable practice, esp. when these are seemingly more related to an historical overview and ethnography rather than etymology. I remain, as always, open to persuasion. And, again, I thank you for your note. El_C 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El C, and all other editors, the "user" above "Luba Gerasimova" is a banned vandal and sockpuppeteer Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova. Pls, disregard all his edits and comments. For details, pls, see, ArbCom Final decision on this vandal.--Tabib 11:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani literature cleanup

Hi all, I have been tasked with cleaning up the Azerbaijani literature article as part of my involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Cleanup Taskforce. I am interested in literature in general but confess I have no specific knowledge of Azerbaijani literature, so I wanted to leave a message here on this talk page to see if anyone is interested in helping to improve the article. Thanks for your attention. · Katefan0 15:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why this page is protected

High time to stop this nonsensical stalking of editors by certain Azeri (Baku) pundits, who peddle pov, and agressively call for persecution of any sensible editors, questioning this pov User:Benito Juarez (sockpuppet) 01:01, June 25, 2005text attribution by --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

If you have a close look at the previous discussion, this article (along with many others about azerbaijan) has been an important target of vandal(s), and as far as I can see, none of the contributers is against editing "with proper citatons". 24.63.45.168 03:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add a link toward the io wiki (same name as in english).

Maybe we should be more lenient

...--Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

That's funny. ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 00:28 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disclaimer

Dear editors, please, be aware that previously banned vandal sockpuppets are actively posting abusive and spurious messages to various talkpages, where I have been active in the past (e.g. this talkpage, Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk, Talk:Caucasus, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, Talk:Artsakh etc.). Their sole aim is to attack me, create a confusion and an environment of animosity, and eventually, disrupt Misplaced Pages. I ask you to disregard all their spurious posts and if certain that certain post is by a vandal sockpuppet, simply delete them.

For additional information on recently created sockpuppets and their concerted 'campaign' against me, please, see, my requests for clarification to the ArbCom, which has already solved the issue by effectively blocking the known sockpuppets. See, request followed by second appeal. I ask editors to check the "birthdate" and contribution log" of any new "user" that suddently emerges and advances spurious allegations and attacks. Thus you can spot the vandal more easily . --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Dariush (talk • contribs) made a sockpuppet edit here. It has now been removed.

• Just wanted to point out, that this "Dariush" guy sounds to me like he might really be an anti-Iranian agent who is deliberately trying to stir up trouble by "threatening" an invasion of Azerbaijan... Without naming names, there are agencies in the world who stoop to such methods of impersonating their enemies in order to destabilise a region... so be aware, and don't be fooled! Codex Sinaiticus 01:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a heaven for propaganda?

Dear readers,

All topics in Misplaced Pages encyclopedia regarding Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are bombarded with Azeri propaganda. If you would like to learn anything about Armeian history or Armenians, please use other sources, not Misplaced Pages. The reason for this is simple, there is an anti-Armenian hysteria in present day Azerbaijan and Misplaced Pages is a heaven for them to try to change anything Armenian to reflect their hateful point of view.

Just one example. It is hard to find a place on this planet where azeris did not mark with their lie about "20% occupied territories and 1,000,000 refugees. Here is the truth (based on "Black garden" by Van der Vaal and Statistical Reference book, published in Azerbaijan, Azgosizdat, Baku, 1979)

Below are regions of Azerbaijan under Armenian conrol (area/population). Total terrotiry orf Azerbaijan is 86,600 sq km.

Keljbadzhar - 1,936 sq. kм/50,600 Lachin - 1,835 sq. kм/59,900 Gubatly - 802 sq. km/ 30,300 Dzhebrail - 1,050 sq km/ 51,600 Zangelan - 707 sq km/ 33,900 Agdam - 1,094 sq. km /158,000 Fizuli - 1,386 sq km/ 100,000

================

Total population: around 400,000

In addition, armenian forces control only 35% and 25% of Agdam and Fizuli regions, which make 383 and 347 sq km, respectively.

Bottom line is - Karabach, which was "occupied" by Armenians for thousands of years, makes ca 8% of Azeri territory; territories outside Karabach, which are under Armenian control make only 4.9%. Total - 12.9%. In addition, two regions of Karabakh are still under Azerbaijani control (Shaumian and Mardakert). Thus, Azeri territory under Armenian control is only 4.9%, or five times less than claimed by official azeri propaganda.

It is also obvious that there were no 1,000,000 people lived in the regions. Max. number of displaced Azeri cannot be more than 400,000, which is close to a number of Armenians fled Azerbaijan after pogroms in Sumgayt and Baku in 1988 and 1990, respectively.

Thus, all Azeri talks about "20% of occupied territories and 1 million displaced people" is nothing but a big lie.

...................................................................

The word Azerbaycan is a acient Avestian word for Land of the Eternal Flames. Azerbaycan has always had its own culture, dont mix it with Persians or Iranians. We were part of Persia but Azeri remained a different culture untill this day. The word Azerbaycan means in acient Avesta language; Land of the Eternal Flame. That comes from Zerdost religion. But Zerdost religion was also started somewere in Medes Empire. We are Turkish but also Persians. We have great history with Persia, and later on with Turkish.

Azerbaycan has always had its own culture, dont mix it with Persians or Iranians. We were part of Persia but Azeri remained a different culture untill this day. The word Azerbaycan means in acient Avesta language; Land of the Eternal Flame. That comes from Zerdost religion. But Zerdost religion was also started somewere in Medes Empire. We are Turkish but also Persians. We have great history with Persia, and later on with Turkish.

REAL STORY

Iran = Azeri not in refurse, 51& of current Iran are all Azeri and live in North Iran also called South Azerbaycan. Azerbaycan is a Avestian word which means Land of the Eternal Flame. Avestian language was started in Azerbaycan territory in Medes Empire! This is referring to ancient relgion -> Zorastrianism.

Iran is a new name and is no longer the country of Persian but Azeri, Kurds and Persians! Thats why they changed the name from Persis to Iran.

Reply: Iran is not a new name, the Sassanid period it was called Aryanshahr, Time of Darius it was called Aryanam, Iran is derived from Ir (short for Aryan) and An (place of) the Shah then made Iran the official name because the west continued the greek way of Calling it Persia. Iran is not New and only 25-30% of 70 milliuon people are Azeris and then only 20% have Turkish blood. So before you call them Turks or anything else do some research about them. Even the name of the Place is Persian! Medes and Persians are the same race, the tribes split and were related both ethnically and linguistically! --Aryan Khadem 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

AZERBAYCAN

Azeri people are mix of tons of other cultures and people. We were Maoi people at first then we were the Medes Empire. And we were considered as the first Iranians (not Persians). Later Turks came, we were mixed again. Later Russians, Brithes etc, so as you see Azeri people are a mix of a lot of different cultures!

-Maoi?? who are they, and by the way Medes and Persians are the same Race, both Iranic, spoke the same language and shared the same culture. To say that Medes are not Persians is false they are one and the same. If you want more source to prove this am happy to give them! --Aryan Khadem 12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Propaganda

On the Armenian page for Saint Mesrop Mashtots, it is listed that he was the inventor of the historic Albanian or old Azerbaijani alphabet. Since when was Mashtots the inventor of this alphabet? On the same page, it says that Mashtots was the inventor of the Ethipian alphabet too, which is hilarious.

My Contribution deleted why???

The name of Azarbaijan has been one of the most renowned geographical names of Iran since 2000 years ago. Azar is the same as "Ashur" which means fire. In Pahlavi inscriptions, Azarbaijan has been mentioned as 'Oturpatekan', while it has been mentioned Azarbayegan and Azarpadegan in Persian writings. It is Azarabadegan in Shahnameh and Arabs knew it as Azarbijan or Adarbijan.

With regard to the emergence of Azarbaijan, the writing by Strabo, the famous Greek geographer seems to be the most important of all writings.

When the rule of Achaemenid dynasty came to an end, Alexander from Macedonia conquered Iran. A warrior called Otupart rose in Azarbayegan and prevented that land, which was part of the Median empire and was known as 'Lesser Mede' to be captures by Greek warriors. The land was thereafter called Oturpatekan.

Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri pundit, opined that Oturpat was made up of Otur, meaning Azar or fire and Pat, which was later corroded to Paad and Baad, which meant guard.

Why was this deleted, actually I explain the name in linguistic detail, so again why does it keep getting deleted??? I am only contributing to the history of the So called Republic of Azerbaijan!

--Aryan Khadem 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no Evidence or proof of any AZ people why is it even in the article? I thought this is a site for knowledge since my article of Turanism is considered disputed etc why is this page not the same?? I can present more evidence to the blocking out of Persian history to this place, and its false name Azerbaijan, invention of the Russians. But I will like this topic to be contrevesal and disputed and a warning put up.

--Aryan Khadem 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Another problem I have is when I go to search and Type Azerbaijan it comes to the Republic of Azerbaijan there should be 2 links either the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Province of Azerbaijan in Iran. not just one link to this disputed name and area. That way we can avoid the arguements and debates and have two differernt pages one for the Republic of Azerbaijan and one for the Province of Azerbaijan!

--Aryan Khadem 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "Azerbaijan," (originally — Aturpatagan in Parthian or Atrpatakan in Old Armenian) is also a confusing term. It never represented a single political or ethnic unit before 1918, being solely a geographic concept, for centuries designating an ancient northern province of today's Iran. Only in the last decade of 1800s, Azeri nationalist intellectuals came up with a controversial idea to hijack the term "Azerbaijan" in order to give a single name to the lands of the present-day Azerbaijani Republic, located to the north of the "original" Azerbaijan. Ironically, if anyone should be rightfully called "Azerbaijani" at that time, they should not have been the proto-Azeri Turkic tribal infiltrators from the sandy plains of Eastern Caspian, but the aboriginal population of present-day "Azerbaijan," i.e. Armenians, Udins, Talishes, Lezgins, Budughs, Tats, etc. All would later become victims of the Azeri policy of forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing. http://www.cilicia.com/Plagiarism.htm

Azarbaijan The name of Azarbaijan has been one of the most renowned geographical names of Iran since 2000 years ago. Azar is the same as "Ashur" which means fire. In Pahlavi inscriptions, Azarbaijan has been mentioned as 'Oturpatekan', while it has been mentioned Azarbayegan and Azarpadegan in Persian writings. It is Azarabadegan in Shah Nameh and Arabs knew it as Azarbijan or Adarbijan.

With regard to the emergence of Azarbaijan, the writing by Strabo, the famous Greek geographer seems to be the most important of all writings.

When the rule of Achaemenid dynasty came to an end, Alexander from Macedonia conquered Iran. A worrier called Otupart rose in Azarbayegan and prevented that land, which was part of the Median empire and was known as 'Lesser Mede' to be captures by Greek worriers. The land was thereafter called Oturpatekan.

Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri pundit, opined that Oturpat was made up of Otur, meaning Azar or fire and Pat, which was later corroded to Paad and Baad, which meant guard.

In June 1918, the dignitaries of Mosavat (equality) Party, established a government in Caucasus and called it Azerbaijan following suit with policies of Turks. At that time, the naming gave rise to controversies and some even went as far as announcing that, "As if Azerbaijan is a land, which has been divided in two parts; one part lying to the north of Aras river and the other part lying to the south."

The disputes became so hectic that Azarbayegan proper was called 'Southern Azerbaijan' while Aran and Shiravan were called northern Azerbaijan to deceive the Iranian youth.

Mosavat Party whose real name was 'Mosavat Islamic Democratic Party' was established in 1911 in Baku with the goal of unifying Turks in Asia Minor.

Mosavat Party followed the policies of Pan-Turkists and advocated unity of all Turk-speaking people. http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/language_azeri_people_pan_turkism.php

Please add my input I have given references to them. --Aryan Khadem 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

West Azarbaijan is Kurdish?

Some pushy pro-Kurdish PKK editors have taken over the West Azarbaijan page claiming the Kurds are a majority there and that cities like Urmia are "70% Kurdish and 30% Azeri". (a totally absurd claim. Azarb.com even says Urmia is 90% Azeri).

I'm tired of fighting ignoramuses.

Perhaps some of you can help us there: Talk:West Azarbaijan--Zereshk 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Why is m edits about Azeri Genocide erased?

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics