Hi ! In your edit [1] you said :the name Azerbaijan has been applied to Republic of Azerbaijan much earlier than 20th century as the article below clearly proves, thus its incorrect to restore the "since the 20th century" intro.
Can you please discuss it more ? I mean most of the article shows that the historic name of the regions north of the Arass river has been Arran , Shirvan and etc. The name Azerbaijan tended to show the south Arass region and in 1918 with the independence of Northern regions , the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic used the name to separate itself from the Russian empire (See section Azerbaijan as the name of an independent republic). -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Chardin is talking about historical Median empire with rough equation to Safavid province.That can't be used to prove the northern Arax parts are named as Azerbaijan , because the political divisions of Safavid empire has not been exactly the same one of historical geography . The importance of the main political part determined the name of the whole province : that means the Fars included all south part of Iran , Azerbaijan included all north-west part , Khorasan all the east . In time of Chardin , there has been no place name of Parthia or Assyria . That means he was talking roughly about the historical and ancient empires that has been inside the Safavid Iran .-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Alborz, what the outlined scholars said makes perfect sense when reading their quotes, instead of trying to interpret them. The quotes say very obvious and clear things, based on which it is obvious that the name of Azerbaijan included lands of the current republic long before 20th century. -- Agasalim ( talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
To ask the third party about what exactly? Can you clearly state what you object to? You have at least 10 sources, probably more, all listed on the article itself, which clearly say that the name Azerbaijan encompassed lands north and south of Araxes river for many centuries. I did not write these sources, nor did I place them in the article - they've been there for years. So the intro was revised to properly recognize that fact. It is not an interpretation or opinion - it says it very clearly, black on white. We can certainly involve an administrator as a third party opinion, but it's not clear why create so much fuss and waste people's time on such trivial and nonessential things that are clearly spelled out and shown, and are not really open to interpretation. -- Agasalim ( talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi ! In your edit [1] you said :the name Azerbaijan has been applied to Republic of Azerbaijan much earlier than 20th century as the article below clearly proves, thus its incorrect to restore the "since the 20th century" intro.
Can you please discuss it more ? I mean most of the article shows that the historic name of the regions north of the Arass river has been Arran , Shirvan and etc. The name Azerbaijan tended to show the south Arass region and in 1918 with the independence of Northern regions , the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic used the name to separate itself from the Russian empire (See section Azerbaijan as the name of an independent republic). -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Chardin is talking about historical Median empire with rough equation to Safavid province.That can't be used to prove the northern Arax parts are named as Azerbaijan , because the political divisions of Safavid empire has not been exactly the same one of historical geography . The importance of the main political part determined the name of the whole province : that means the Fars included all south part of Iran , Azerbaijan included all north-west part , Khorasan all the east . In time of Chardin , there has been no place name of Parthia or Assyria . That means he was talking roughly about the historical and ancient empires that has been inside the Safavid Iran .-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Alborz, what the outlined scholars said makes perfect sense when reading their quotes, instead of trying to interpret them. The quotes say very obvious and clear things, based on which it is obvious that the name of Azerbaijan included lands of the current republic long before 20th century. -- Agasalim ( talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
To ask the third party about what exactly? Can you clearly state what you object to? You have at least 10 sources, probably more, all listed on the article itself, which clearly say that the name Azerbaijan encompassed lands north and south of Araxes river for many centuries. I did not write these sources, nor did I place them in the article - they've been there for years. So the intro was revised to properly recognize that fact. It is not an interpretation or opinion - it says it very clearly, black on white. We can certainly involve an administrator as a third party opinion, but it's not clear why create so much fuss and waste people's time on such trivial and nonessential things that are clearly spelled out and shown, and are not really open to interpretation. -- Agasalim ( talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)