Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)

Things that can be confirmed

FWIW, I have a couple of rather old atlases and can confirm that the term "Azerbaijan" in the early twentieth century referred to a region in modern-day Iran, south of the Aras; these sources corroborate the 1911 EB.

The region later known as the Azerbaijani SSR and more recently the Republic of Azerbaijan was at that time part of what was called Transcaucasia, which was under Russian control.

Maury's New Complete Geography (1906)
depicts this in the map facing page 136, and in the text on 149 says this: "Transcaucasia, formerly Georgia, lies on the south side of the Caucasus Mountains... The people... belong to the Tatar (tah'tar) race... Tiflis is the capital and chief city. The region about Baku is famous for its wells of petroleum..." This clearly includes what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as what is now Georgia, and probably also Armenia; the border between Transcaucasia and Persia on the map appears to be very close to the same shape as the northern border of Iran in my late-cold-war-era 6th ed. National Geographic Atlas of the World, and in the same position relative to Tabriz.

Additionally, the New Ecclectic Series Complete Geography (1896) shows Caucasia, a region belonging to Russia, in the same location as Maury's shows Transcaucasia. This atlas however does not have sufficient detail of Persia to show the region then known as Azerbaijan; for that we have to go with what Maury's and the Britannica tell us, in the absense of another source from that era.

Unfortunately, I do not have an atlas from the 1920s, which would be very useful for resolving at least one point of dispute. I do however have a dictionary with maps from the early fourties (which shows Poland dividing East Prussia from the rest of Germany), and this shows Azerbaijan as part of the USSR, east of Armenia, in roughly the present location of the Republic of Azerbaijan (though borders between the SSRs are not drawn in on this map), showing the state of affairs between WWI and WWII. This is from Webster's Complete Reference Dictionary and Encyclopedia, The Publisher's Guild, NY, The World Publishing Company, 1944.

If someone has maps, or, better, a detailed atlas, from the 1920s, that would help to nail down _when_ the term 'Azerbaijan' began to refer to the region north of the Aras. Why may be harder to establish, but let's start with what should be straightforward and go from there.

And please stop calling people Persian Chauvenists and Pan-Turkists; it helps nothing.

--Jonadab the Unsightly One

The fact is as my learned friend above has mentioned Southern/Iranian Azerbaijan should simply be Azerbaijan based on historical grounds. Azerbaijan SSR was a soviet contruct and it has no more right to refer to Azerbaijan as South Azerbaijan than people in New England have a right to refer to England as East England or Novo Scotian to Scotland as East Scotland. I think the argument here are rather silly. The implication is that the twenty million or so Azerbaijanis in Iran who are pillars of a strong country and central to the great Iranian culture should accept the suzerainty of four million people living in a small, weak and rather undistinguished country whose history does not extend beyonf twenty years. It should be the reverse. Those people in the caucauses who identify themselves as Azerbaijanis should join the mainstream of their cultural identity and enter the brotherhood of the Iranian nations. As the heirs to the Median culture, Azerbaijanis are one of the principle groups of the Aryans and the racist comments made about them by random contributors shows an ignorance when distinguishing language and culture.

Google results

"South Azerbaijan" - 862 results "Southern Azerbaijan" - 4,240 results

"Iranian Azerbaijan" - 5,020 results "Iranian Azarbaijan" - 227 results

As seen from above, "Iranian Azerbaijan" and "Southern Azerbaijan" are the most commonly used names for the area. Thus, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, the entry should be in "Iranian Azerbaijan". --Tabib 14:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Try with "Azerbaijan-Iran" in google. You find 18,300 results with this one. I think, it is some more dann 4240 by "Southen Aterbaijan" .... PS: I dont find the number of Google results clever for comparing but i repect it when another one do it, and the above argument is for answer to this Problem......17.6.05 141.2.37.83

please, do not disrupt Wikipedia and follow naming conventions as well as Wikipedia norms of behavior. "Azerbaijan-Iran" is simply the combination of two words, names of countries, whereas 'Iranian Azerbaijan' and 'Southern Azerbaijan' are actually the most widely used references used for most of the northwestern part of Iran. I ask other editors to intervene if necessary because, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a new senseless and artificial dispute here. --Tabib 15:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "South Azerbaijan". This term is extremely offensive to all Persian people as it is only used by a very small group of terrorist seperatists. The only land to have ever been named Azerbaijan is the current Iranian province. When Russia took the Caucauses from Iran in 1813, the Russians decided to name the 3 previous Persian provinces "azerbaijan" in hopes of further expantion into Iranian territory. Please remove this article as it is innaccurate and the content is false.

• • newer results : south azerbaijan 164,000,000 southern azerbaijan 56,400,000, it's true that it's offensive cause persians wanna think that whatever they saw in persian empire's map is true, in that case greece and egypt should be persia too, after islam how Iran was being kept?

the fact is iran became a country since 80 years ago, before that iran was a country with 4 main lands, and states in them, well persian theory is old which genetic refuses being azeris as even indo-europeans

Why the title should be at Southern Azerbaijan

"Southern Azerbaijan"/"South Azerbaijan" is much more common than "Iranian Azerbaijan". Most people refer to it as the first two names. --Hottentot

Page moved at request of Hottentot: had been listed on WP:RM for three weeks, unopposed. -- Francs2000 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Population and name of "Iranian Azerbaijan"

• The population of Iranian Azerbaijan is less than 8 million. The area is only some 7% of the total territory of Iran and consists of less than 10% of the Iranian population. So, the REAL population number should be something arround 6 or 7 millions, NOT 28 millions. That's totally wrong! Source: Encyclopaedia of the Orient

• • That information on Encyclopaedia of the Orient is 30 years old, you can go on Iran's page which is 15 years old and guess what can be the truth right now

• The name "South Azerbaijan" is politically motivated, has no historical basis, and is usually used by Turkish nationalists and fanatics. As you can see in the following map: Abbasid Caliphate, the nation "Azerbaijan" has never been a part of the region known as "Azerbaijan". There is no such thing as "North or South Azerbaijan".

• • • Interesting argument, using this map. According to this map and many other documents, there was never ever a real country or state called Iran till the Safavids coming to power. Iran and Turan were mythical lands in Shahnameh.

• • "Iranian Azerbaijan" has more than 17,000 google-hits: [1]
  • "South Azerbaijan" has not even 1000 google-hits: [2]

• • Using google to decide on this matter is a waste of time - There is absolutely no reason why this article should be called South or Southern Azerbaijan, This article should be merged with the current article Azarbaijan, the region in Iran. This problem is probably created by one or more nationalists from Azerbaijan who are trying to claim a land that has been part of Iran for centuries. --Kash 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • People of Azerbaijan do not call themselves anything beside Azari or Iranian. --Kash 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • People of south azerbaijan I don't know why but they are going to forget persia because they have found an older history, well, if you had something in mind could go on google and see it's a little more than a 1000! and the population is a little more than 8 million, don't keep your line going, perspolis doesn't even have a roof, why don't you jus do a genetic test, then how come persians doesn't have green eyes just like their indian or europian brothers? well I guess you need to make yourself up to date, or if you are thinking abouth Persian empire why don't you say that egypt and greece were part of Iran??

MERGE

I have merged the two articles Iranian Azerbaijan, and Azarbaijan. Make sure to keep the distinction in mind, that on Wikipedia, Azarbaijan refers to the country, whereas Azerbaijan refers to the region. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Azeris: What's in a Name

Excuse me, but I am half Azeri, and we refer to ourselves as Turks, and Azeris as well. Yes we are Iranian Azeris, but that does not make us Persian...the only thing that makes ME Persian of course is my Persian mother. My father is Azeri, and I will defend his Azeri heritage against Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism, even though I am 50 percent Persian. Yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin dilimiz. Biz torkuz ve tork qalacagiq.

Qardaş men de Turk'um lakin Wikipedia'da, bir çox Fars şövenistleri var. Azerbaycan ve Türk milleti haqqında her mevzuda sataşırlar ve Azeriler Farsi millet deyirler. Meraqda qalmayasan, bir gün milletimiz bir olacaq, buna imanını yitirmeyesen. Tanrı Türk'ü Korusun! İstanbullu qardaşın. Orhanoglu 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

who are Persians? And where are they living?

I have lived in Iran several years, but I never hear someone said "I am Persian”. They introduced themselves as tehrani, shomali, esfahani,

Why are you deleting the intro without notice? El_C 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

South Azerbaijan

The title of this article is Iranian Azerbaijan but thats not the correct name, the UN official accepted the name South Azerbaijan a few years ago. Official there is no such thing as Iranian Azerbaijan its supposed to be South Azerbaijan. Can I have permission to edit this?

Baku87 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Sorry, but calling it South Azerbaijan wouldn't be neutral. Iranian Azerbaijan is simply a geographical name, while South Azerbaijan is political. By calling it that you would imply that the region should break apart from Iran and become part of Azerbaijan, that's why the term is used by separatists. --Khoikhoi 02:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

There should be a balance among the external links. Now, all of them are toward one Point-Of-View. Bidabadi 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is to have:

• 3-4 links to Governorships of the provinces which are inside the region
• 2 links to websites (or webpages) which emphasise on the Iranian identity of Iranian Azarbaijan.
• 2 links to websites (or webpages) which emphasise on the Turkic aspects of the culture (such as Azerbaijani language).

Bidabadi 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

any opinion? Bidabadi 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection to this proposal? Bidabadi 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Azarbaijan is a region inside Iran. For the spelling, we use the official spelling which is used in websites such as http://www.ostan-as.gov.ir/english/ (East Azarbaijan Province). Bidabadi 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make any changes yet please, I'm going to consult some other Iranian editors. --Khoikhoi 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there isn't any objection. So, we should ask the administrators to move the page (or make it possible to move the page). Bidabadi 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Zereshk about it, and he said we can use both spellings. [3] I don't think it's necessary to move the page. --Khoikhoi 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

OK. I added some stuff. It should alleviate some concerns, I hope--Zereshk 01:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Southern Azerbaijan in the lead is not an also called

It clearly mislead the reader into believing that it is the South of Azerbaijan, which is simply wrong. Beside, it is only Azeris that call it that way. also Grandmater, I won't consider that you are doing this on purpouses this time. But before claiming that it gives that much result on google, you should first check the results and concord with what you are claiming.

Southern Azerbaijan results also contains google hits which includes the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, this coppeled with Azeris websites as well as unrelated sites which contains the text ' Azerbaijan' in the same phrase and the term 'Southern.'

Also, Azerbaijan in the form it has been presented is a VERY RECENT term, the second paragraph was simply wrong, call it what was called at that time, but it was not spelled 'Azerbaijan.' Fad (ix) 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, it's still a name that is used by Azeri nationalists who hope to see the incorporation of Iranian Azerbaijan into Azerbaijan. I don't think anyone is confused here. --Khoikhoi 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An also called is used for a notable term, not what some group of people refers too. Maybe we should edit the Holocaust and also add the term Holohoax, because some neonazi who denies the Holocaust call it such? The term Southern Azerbaijan has a place in the article, but is simply not an 'also called.' What would happen if I added 'Western Armenia' as an also-called for the entry about Anatolia? The term Western Armenia is much more used and not only by Armenians, even included in history books after the Republic of Turkey was founded.

BTW, the second paragraph in its form is simply wrong, there was no spelled 'Azerbaijan'... try finding any history book of that period claiming what it is claimed there. In a prior discussion I have requested to an Azeris this, I had recieved no answers. Wikipedia can not just make up things, names(when they exist for that period) are not projected from what is called now to the period that is covered. Fad (ix) 18:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care that much about the removal of the second paragraph, but I know that "South/Southern Azerbaijan" is definitely notable. Azeri nationalists (or ultranationalists, if you will) do not refer to the region as "Iranian Azerbaijan". Virtually all the Azeri independence movements in Iran refer to it as "South/Southern Azerbaijan". It is definitely worth mentioning. --Khoikhoi 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, for most historian Azerbaijan by its name never existed other than the current republic of Azerbaijan, and also called implies that it is more than Azeris nationalist term. Fad (ix) 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one simple fact. South Azerbaijan gets 162,000,000 hits in Google, while Iranian Azerbaijan only 142,000,000. It is not only Azeri nationalists who use that name, it is quite popular with people around the world. According to the naming conventions, the article should be titled South Azerbaijan. I’m not insisting on that, because I don’t want to stir up nationalistic feelings, but the name of South Azerbaijan should definitely be included in the article according to Wikipedia rules. Grandmaster 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you even read what I write? Google hits doesn't say much when one uses terms like 'South Azerbaijan' or what have you? South Azerbaijan is also the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, or the term South could be in the same paragraph as the term Azerbaijan but yet those are included in googles hit. And you very well know it but still use that as evidence. A peoples claim over a land can not be an also called in an encyclopedic article. We all have seen all the conflicts that has generated over Kurdistan articles, but it might be OK for Kurdistan, because there is no country by that name, there is no need for desumbiguation. But the Republic of Azerbaijan DO EXIST! And South Azerbaijan for the VERY LARGE MAJORITY in this planet Earth IS the south of the republic of Azerbaijan. If you live in the US, go ask anyone in the street about what is the South of Azerbaijan. What you are requesting is to present a word which suggest that a pieces of Iran is part of the republic of Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The rules require to use common names of persons and things, and terms North and South Azerbaijan are used not only by Azeri nationalists. There is a simple fact that the region is also called South Azerbaijan. You can’t say that it is not called so. The article should reflect that. And see an example that the term is not used by Azeri nationalists only, see Columbia encyclopedia:

Azerbaijan remained entirely in the possession of the shahs until the northern part was ceded to Russia in the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmanchai (1828). The remainder was organized as a province of Persia; in 1938 the province was divided into two parts. In 1941, Soviet troops occupied Iranian Azerbaijan; they were withdrawn (May, 1946) after a Soviet-supported, autonomous local government had been created. Iranian troops occupied the region in Nov., 1946, and the autonomous movement was suppressed. [4] Grandmaster 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, read the policies again, you present a supposed encyclopedic article from an encyclopedia which has a history of letting a concerned party to write the text, and that it uses the term Azerbaijan even when reffering to the Uratian period clearly shows that the authors article is far from being encyclopedic. Britannica 1911, present Azerbaijan as a land of 32,000 sq. km insteed of the current republics 86,600 sq km, it doesn' talk of anything else about any South, West, East. The republic of Azerbaijan exist, and there are no historc words of that period claiming what you claim, Britannica being one example, Britannicas reported Azerbaijan is even smaller than the current republic of Azerbaijan. South of a republic, is South of a republic. You can't impose a term which is not notable in the English world, and this is English Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rectification, Britannica uses sq. m., this is either a mistake(during the vectorisation of the scan) for km, or mi... if it is miles, the convertion would bring it to 82,880 sq. km, still smaller than the current republic. Fad (ix) 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of notability of the term, it has nothing to do with history. It is a fact that South Azerbaijan is a popular name for the region nowadays. I checked first 100 hits for South Azerbaijan from google, of them only 2 were referring to the southern part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the rest were about Iranian Azerbaijan. In Russia, for example the most popular term is South Azerbaijan. Even Russian section of Radio Liberty uses the term South Azerbaijan. [5] It is a notable term and should be mentioned as such in the lead. Grandmaster 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, MOST of the hits on google have NOTHING to do with what you claim. Go on to the few hundreds hits later and see what you find. The term is not only not notable beyond Azerbaijani separatists, but also it doesn't concord with name conventions, there is an entire page covering misleading names and such things are not encouraged in Wikipedia. By requesting this you are simply showing your hypocrasy. You requested the removal of the term enclave for Karabakh, which was used widely including by the CIA factsheet and the very large majority of newspaper articles, records, documents etc. And now, you want the inclusion of a term which is only notable in Azeri publication. Your double standard is only affecting your credibility here Grandmaster. Why should I not also include in Karabakh entry 'also called the republic of Nagorno Karabakh' ? Would you accept that? Afteral it is notable among Armenians. The fact is, that South Azerbaijan for the very large majority of people is the South of the republic of Azerbaijan, that you like it or not. Fad (ix) 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what most of the hits on google refer to? Did you check them all? The term is not notable just in Azeri publications. I showed you that Columbia encyclopedia uses the term northern part of Azerbaijan with regard to the territory of Azerbaijan republic, I showed you that Russian version of radio liberty uses the term South Azerbaijan. And Karabakh has nothing to do with this. In fact, the article about NK says that it is called by Armenians the republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and it has no international recognition. I don’t know what happened to you and you suddenly started showing so much interest in this issue and claiming that South Azerbaijan is South of Republic Azerbaijan for most people without giving a single proof. How do you know what the term means for most people? Grandmaster 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For hell sake, you don't even try to comprehend anything. The Columbia Encyclopedia also use the term Azerbaijan for the period of Urartu. It has a history of letting people that have interest to push their POV writting those articles, but unlike Universalis they aren't even honest enough to provide the author of their articles. AND YES!!! I DID GO ON PAGES BY PAGES ON THE HITS ON GOOGLE, GO ON AFTER THE FIRST HUNDREDS OF HITS AND SEE HOW MANY DO YOU FIND THAT ARE EVEN RELATED TO THAT? Look here Grandmaster, I have no interest to continue on that, from all the discussions we had you had no inclination to stop for a while TO try understandING what others are saying. The naming convention in Wikipedia is a guideline, and I DO NOT MAKE THE RULES, this is what is written ON ITS FIRST LINE. Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page. [6] I have told you to read the policy in various occasions and this didn't changed a single thing, you will go on with what you have in your mind and have since now not a single time tried understanding what others are trying to make you understand. And I repeat, if you want to use your own standards at least don't impose it to be used in one direction. You were the one going on fighting to get the term enclave deleted from the entry on Karabakh while the majority of sources call it that, but here you try to impose an independantist movements name and you even make use of dishonest tactics as to claim it has some notability beyond those nationalist circles. I repeat this for the last time. SOUTH AZERBAIJAN REFERS TO THE SOUTH OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN FOR THE VERY, VERY, VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLES. ACCORDING TO THE GUILDLINES ON NAMING CONVENTIONS THIS TERM SHOULD BE EXCLUDED, BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS AND IS MISLEADING. I never said that this term has no place in the article, BUT IT IS NOT, NOT AN ALSO KNOWN. CLAIMING IT IS ALSO CALLED OR ALSO KNOWN IS SIMPLY POV PUSHING. Now write whatever you want, I do not want to waste my time repeating myself all over again. I will not take part in a revert war, introduce your POV for all I care. Fad (ix) 20:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Again, not a single proof that South Azerbaijan refers to South of Republic of Azerbaijan for most or many people. And I actually don’t find it to be correct that the name of South Azerbaijan is used primarily by Azerbaijani nationalists. In fact, it is the only term used in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the term Iranian Azerbaijan is not commonly used. It does not mean that people of independent Azerbaijan lay claims on Iranian Azerbaijan, it is just a name that’s always been used there. According to the current version of the article, all people of independent Azerbaijan are Azerbaijani nationalists. To me it does not sound right. Grandmaster 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can start with http://www.questia.com/, and search 'South Azerbaijan' and see how many results you will obtain. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ yield no relevent result, neither http://www.jstor.org/search/ Search if you find any relevent articles there. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/, I had no result for the Sage Full-text Collections. The ISI database yield no result. While those yield no result for South Azerbaijan, most do for 'Western Armenia' and 'Western Armenian' yields millions of results on google. But I know that adding Western Armenian to Anatolia is not a good thing to do, because it is misleading and against the guidline. The guidline specifically covers the uses of words that are misleaing in their nature. That the independence movement is more important now, doesn't change the fact that for nearly all non-Azeris people, South Azerbaijan means the South of the republic of Azerbaijan. I do not make the rules, that this was there before before an anonymous user deleted it doesn't change the fact that this term is not an also known, because the very large majority of people don't know that place as South Azerbijan, and that as if that was not enough that term is in contradiction with the guidlines because Azerbaijan is a republic and its South is it's South. That term has a place in that article, by saying something such 'Azeris often refer to that locality as 'South' or 'Southern' Azerbaijan, but to say that it is an also known is simply wrong, it simply conflict with another existing place, which is the South of the republic. Also, that term was not there first, it was introduced there by Tabib, who also requested the term 'Khojali genocide' as an also called in the lead of the article in Khojali massacre, and he claimed that just because Azeris claim so or that it yields result on google it should stay. The term 'holohoax' yield more result than South Azerbaijan, according to those standards the Holocaust entry should also contain something to the effect 'holohoax.' We have guidlines for a reason, and it is for the quality of the articles, if every national group was to write things the way they would want, Wikipedia will just fall apart. Fad (ix) 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, you have not provided a single proof that for the most people South Azerbaijan means south of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now see the following text from the US Library of Congress:

1813

Treaty of Gulistan officially divides Azerbaijan into Russian (northern) and Persian (southern) spheres. [7]

This proves that the term is used not only by Azeris and the region is “also known as”. End of story. Stop pushing your POV into this article. Grandmaster 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pushing my POV? How am I doing this? And why should I care there? Do you think that by returning my accusation against you against me you will have a point? That every significant databases from internet(which contains reputable journals like those in oxford databases) doesn't even yeild any result IS enough to not present something as an also known. As for the library of congress, read it a second time, more particularly the part about Armenia. The Treaty's concencerned territories had little to do with what Azeris nationalist call Southern and Northern Azerbaijan. Also the library of congress does have documentations contradicting even this text which doesn't yet support you. Maybe you should take a look at their articles on Armenia and Karabakh too, using it I can creat an article about far East Armenia and say it is also know as the republic of Azerbaijan.

I am simply here to say that your claim is POV pushing, that you answer the same for me doesn't mean much, when I myself have more supported your position in the Safavid article and that there is no any reason for me to POV push. And the most laughable part is that you want evidences to prove that South Azerbaijan refer for most people the South of Azerbaijan. Are you KIDDING ME????? What is the South of France, the South of Canada, the South of US, the South of Germany, the South of Austria, the South of Russia, the South of Japan, the South of China, the South of Congo, the South of Lebanon, the South of Syria etc..., for most people? Answer, and PROVE ME!!!???

I apply no double standard as you do, if I have double standards just provide one example, you have deleted Karabakh Enclave, which gives much much more results, and even if it is included in various reputable very notable publications..., you did it according to your original research about the definition of enclave to justify the deletion of a word that is used in the most notable sources, and now you want to include a word that has no any notability beyond Azeri nationalist circles. Go read how entries about Kurdistan mains have been sliced neutralised beyond needed, even if there is no country of the name Kurdistan which would lead people to believe that such geographic characterisations are part of Kurdistan.

Obviously you are pushing your POV, and I doubt that any neutral users would deny it. When Azeris claim something it becomes notable enought, when somethings notability is not limited to nationalist cicles when it doesn't satisfy you it has no place in Wikipedia. This is called POV pushing and you are a POV pusher. Now, call me POV pusher for all I care, but that you refuse to adhere to the guidline is an indication of who is the POV pusher. Fad (ix) 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m really tired of you. It does not matter if the information in LoC document is right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that the term is used, which is the point here. If you are not happy with inclusion of the term, start an RfC and ask community’s opinion. Grandmaster 19:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry, be tired, you should have known I don't like POV pushers. I have few things to do now, but when I have free time next week, I should maybe re-add the term enclave and creat an article about far Eastern Armenia and call it also known as the republic of Azerbaijan. Afteral, the library of congress support it. Oh yeh, I should also maybe add for the Anatolia article, 'Western Armenia' because afteral it gives millions of links on google, or add idiotic terms like 'Holohoax' in the Holocaust article. You are contributing for months yet still doesn't comprehend the basics. So again, be tired. As for community opinion, there is no question that you won't obtain the support needed if I place a RfC, the problem here is that by suggesting this you even think that the community might support such an obviously against the guideline act. Kurdistan articles had a clear opposition for much less than that. Fad (ix) 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are sure that I won’t get community support then just start an RfC instead of wasting people’s time. That’s what I call POV pushing, denying a widely accepted term without giving any valid reason. Grandmaster 04:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)