Talk:Azerbaijan

.

Northern Iran

Since a huge number of Iranian population are Azeri (Including me!) and those people are genetically related to other Iranic Peoples, I think the term "Northern Iran" is both historically and logically more accurate.

according to many histories azerbaijan people are a mixture between proto turkish people like scythians and huns and later turkish people like khazars and seljuks and later during mongol invasion some uighor turkish tribes immigrated to the area, the north and south azerbaijan has been a turkic accomodated area for at least 3500 years, geneticaly azeri people are so close to people of turkey, common turkic looks is white skinned and colored eyes with hairs varying between black to pure blond, this is while persians of iran are brown and semitic, genetics of turkic people are also very similar to many east european nations because of massive cuman, kipchak, bulgar, khazar and other turkic tribes immigrations to the east europe countries, this is while persians have the closest genetic traits to Arabic and semitic people, based on the historical facts it is quite wrong to consider azerbaijan an iranian area, the only known government in azerbaijan were local khanats, later during the safavid dynasty of iran (which were also a turkic clan) ottoman empire captured azerbaijan, but the area remained under khanat feudal systems until russian empire and qajar dynasty of iran commensed some claims over the area and at last a war begun between qajars and russians over deviding the lands, after many years of war they agreed to put the arax river as the border line, since then north azerbaijan was under russian and later soviet rule and south azerbaijan occupied by iran, nowaday north azerbaijan has gained its independence but south azerbaijan is still under iran's cruelty. the population of azeri turks in iran are at least estimated to be about 20 million souls, this must not be the source of mistake about considering persians as whites, those are iranian azeri turks, persians are a brown semitic people. also this is a very accurate map about the azeri accomodated areas in iran: http://www.joshuaproject.net/profiles/maps/m18859_ir.pdf more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seljuq_Empire http://southaz.blogspot.com/2010/07/irans-multi-cultural-and-multi-ethnic.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural-Altaic_languages http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/genetics-iranians-least-similar-europeans-or-other-near-easterners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qizilbash http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21326/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Azerbaijan#Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanid_race http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tomyris.html

Ateshgah of Baku

I added several sources to support the text. The origin of the historic site is very much disputed. That must be neutrality reflected in the article. Both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Also next time be careful what you undo, you also removed other examples as Yanar Day, etc. Thats not an acceptable way to revert things and it suggest a drive-by-edit from Xashaiar and Kurdo. And I think possible off-Wiki coordination. Neftchi (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't make BS accusations, I have had this page on my watch-list for years now. It's not disputed by sources that count, namely reliable academic sources which claim otherwise and it it is Wikipedia policy that academic works should have prominence. The POV you are pushing is already covered in a NPOV fashion, so you have nothing to worry about. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats correct: In the main article of Ateshgah, it is explained with scholarly sources that "there is no evidence that ateshgah has to do with zorostrianism" and the only reason for the Zorostrian misrepresentation is "fire > Ancient Iranian religion". This is explained and as kudo said dont worry. Xashaiar (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all Kurdo, be civil in your language. Second even with the sources you have no reason to remove the examples of Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug, Novruz, etc. You need to restore that information.

In fact, thanks for bringing those up. Those things "Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug" have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Please see their articles which once I have time will correct them. Also Nowrus is SECULAR and has nothing to do with RELIGION but is cultural which is covered in the culture article. Xashaiar (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I removed some OR, not supported by academic sources, from Khinalug article.
• Ramana did not say anything about Zorostrians!
• Yanar Dag is "an ancient and visually stunning natural gas fire"! I am very impatient to know its relation with Zorostrians!

Thank you. Xashaiar (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nefthci, you're not going to get anywhere with synthesizing sources and presenting popular myths as scholarly facts. Abide by the relevant Wikipedia policies, or expect the worst consequences. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo this is your last warning. Be civil and dont make any personal attacks and threats, they are not acceptable in Wikipedia. I havent reverted anything, it was a different user. Neftchi (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay I had time to look. Looks like the dipusted statement is this: "There are many Zoroaster related sites such as the Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug or ceremonies like Nowruz, and along with Manichean. In Baku there is the Ateshgah, whose origin is disputed between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism"

Here are my suggestions on the ZOroastrian issue (without any bias but simply based on scientific fact that is known to be the best my knowledge), but I do not plan to edit here.. What is important though is to use 3rd party RS sources:

• First Manichaeism needs to be removed as it is a different religion than Zoroastrianism, and really nothing to do with this article.
• On Nowruz..Although it was a Zoroastrian celebration in the early Islamic era, the Turkic speaking peoples of Central Asia learned it from Iranian Muslims. Muslim kings like the Buyids and even the Arab Abbassids already celebrated it. The Samanids celebrated it , then it went from Samanids to Turkish speaking Ghaznavids and Saljuqids.. So I do not think it came down from Zoroastrians directly but rather it went from Zoroastrian Iranians to Iranian Muslims and then from Iranian Muslims to Turkish Muslims of Central Asia. However, since at one time there was a large Iranian speaking population in the Caucasus who celebrated the Nowruz, then the Turkish Muslim and Iranian Muslim traditions probably mixed in together.
• The Ateshgah I believe is a Hindu temple based on a recent thesis on Zoroastrian temples. As I mentioned, Zoroastrian temples do not use Sanskrit/Hindi (which are sacred for Hinduism). However, since some popular (not specialist) sources relate it to Zoroastrianism, it should be in a separate article. Unless something is 100% firmly Zoroastrian, it should not be related to Zoroastrianism.
• The other two sites I am not sure (I have not done research on it), but it needs really expert 3rd opinion source to confirm that it is Zoroastrian. Else it should not be in the article based on mere hypothesis.
• Zoroastrianism is not practed in the Azerbaijan republic, it was a major religion at one time during the Sassanid era. So it should not be in the religion section rather in the history section. Just like the Caucasian Albanians who practiced some form of paganism that should be part of the history section. Religion section should contain the modern compositions of religion, but the history section can state at one time, ZOroastrianism was prevalent (during the Sassanid era). Today there is no Zoroastrianis in the Caucasus, so it is not the best place to put it. It should not be in the religion section.
• In the history section it says: " During this period, Zoroastrianism spread in the Caucasus and Atropatene.". That is correct, it should just be emphasized that the Sassanids specially had the major role in establishing Zororastrianism in the area. Large Iranian colonies were established during the Sassanid era (toponyms like Baku, Darband, Ganja, Bailikan, Paytakran, Sharvan..etc. are Sassanid origin). So couple of sentences about the spread of Zoroastrianism in the area during the Sassanid era is useful. But a more extensive article on Zoroastrianism in the Caucasus needs to be written. All these things can be discussed logically in a calm atmosphere.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well at least that should be reflected in the main article of Atashgah. Neftchi (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.103.91.52, 26 June 2011

In ancient and early medieval times, eastern Transcaucasia was populated by Iranian speakers, nomadic Turkic tribes, Kurds, and the Caucasian Albanians, who converted to Christianity in the 4th century and came under the cultural influence of the Armenians. After Arab incursions in the 7th century, Islamic polities were established under local rulers called shāhanshāhs. The Seljuq invasions in the 11th century changed the composition of the local population and resulted in the linguistic dominance of Oghuz Turkic languages. But, unlike the Ottoman Turks who came to dominate Anatolia, the Caucasian Muslims of Azerbaijan in the early 16th century became Shīʿite, rather than Sunni, Muslims, and they continued to develop under Persian social and cultural influence. Persian-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran.

Russian suzeraintyAfter a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestān (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmānchāy; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçıvan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran. Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century. As Baku became the major source of oil for Russia, tens of thousands of Iranian, Armenian, and Russian workers streamed to the Abşeron Peninsula in search of employment, and Russian economic and political influence could be felt in both parts of Azerbaijan. As the source of employment and the home of the nascent Azerbaijani intelligentsia and revolutionary movement, Baku radiated its influence in Iranian Azerbaijan as well as north of the Aras (Araz) River. No specifically Azerbaijani state existed before 1918, and, rather than seeing themselves as part of a continuous national tradition, like the Georgians and Armenians, the Muslims of Transcaucasia saw themselves as part of the larger Muslim world, the ummah. They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. Only in the Soviet period did it become the official and widely accepted name for this people.

Incorporation into the Russian Empire provided a new outlet for educated Azerbaijanis, some of whom turned from their religious upbringing to a more secular outlook. Prominent among the early scholars and publicists who began the study of the Azerbaijani language were ʿAbbās Qolī Āghā Bāqıkhānlı (Bakikhanov), who wrote poetry as well as histories of the region, and Mīrzā Fatḥ ʿAlī Ākhūndzādeh (Akhundov), author of the first Azerbaijani plays. Though eventually these figures would be incorporated into a national narrative as predecessors of the Turkic revival, a variety of conflicting impulses stimulated early Azerbaijani intellectuals—loyalty to the tsarist empire, the continuing influence of Persian culture, and a longing for Western learning. Although no single coherent ideology or movement characterized the Azerbaijani intelligentsia, by 1905 a growing number of writers and journalists adopted the program of the nationalist intellectual ʿAlī Bay Huseynzadeh: “Turkify, Islamicize, Europeanize” (“Turklashtirmak, Islamlashtirmak, Avrupalashtirmak”).

The town of Baku, which by 1901 produced more than half of the world’s output of petroleum, was complexly segregated, with Russians and Armenians in the central part of the town and Muslims clustered in distinct districts. As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918. A hierarchy of skills, education, and wages placed Muslims on the bottom and Christians at the top. By virtue of a quota on non-Christian representation and a system of suffrage based on property holdings, the Baku city duma (legislative council) remained in the hands of wealthy Armenians and Russians. Azerbaijanis remained on the fringe of the labour movement and were indifferent to or ignorant of the aspirations of both their socialist and nationalist intellectuals. None of the small parties and political groups that arose after 1905 commanded much of a following beyond the intelligentsia, though Musavat (“Equality”), founded in 1911 and led by Mehmed Emin Rasulzadeh, proved most enduring. Anxiety about the Armenian “threat,” a perception of their own distance from and hostility to this privileged element within their midst, and a feeling that Azerbaijanis were connected in important ways to other Muslims, particularly Turks, became part of an Azerbaijani sense of self.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46781/Azerbaijan 88.103.91.52 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm not certain what you would like changed here. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cinematography section

It appears to me that in this section, where it discusses the birth of the oil industry as occurring at the start of the "19th century" ie the "1800's", contextually it should actually read the "20th century". Any quick reference of the history of the global oil industry itself will demonstrate that the beginning of the 1800's is too early in this context. thanks 70.48.216.86 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying, I fixed it. Neftchi (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging of headlines

This article has way too many headlines. It creates difficulty to navigate through the entire article. For this reason I think that several headlines should be merged into one.

• I think that the Modern and Republic era headlines should be merged as "Modern era". If you look at the previous history headline "Antiquity" and "Feudal era" they show a clear historic line. Therefore the republic era falls under modern era.
• Also the Cuisine headline is rather short, shortest in the article, it cant stand on its own unless its expanded. Neftchi (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Nagorno-Karabakh related reverts

some pro-turkish users don't accept the independence and international recognition of nagorno-karabakh republic, i suggest them to stop vandalism and revert their own edits. Captain armenia (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Russia is a UN member state, that recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia which recognise NKR in turn, your reverts are poor and you follow only the UN side of view, you must follow all side of views before making any edits, there is also a big difference between micronations and sovereign states with limited recognition, please follow List of states with limited recognition for all your answers. Captain armenia (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view must be reflected. Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto country that is internationally unrecognized by any internationally recognized country including Armenia and the United Nations. And the 3 countries the user mentions that recognize it, are also de facto countries that are internationally unrecognized by the United Nations: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. I am not pro anything which the user automatically accused me of, due to my reversal of his addition of POV material. The user misunderstands the topic by confusing this with the difference between "micronations and list of states with limited recognition" and which is clearly not about the former and about this topic. Importantly this is not about taking sides, it is about following NPOV policy of Wikipedia, which the user unfortunately has violated multiple times as he does not take a subjective neutral line. Van de Kemp (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)