Talk:Azerbaijan (toponym)

Discussion
I was thinking, should a section be added which also discusses the significant historical and cultural differences between Azerbaijan and Aran. The people of the Republic of "Azerbaijan" were always referred to as Caucasian Tatars, which basically means Turkic-speaking Caucasians. Migboy123 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not know that 'always' means the peiod of the Russian Empire. Thank you. 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Abutalub (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The statement "The region in the north of the Aras River, which is today called the Republic of Azerbaijan, had not been included within the geographical boundaries of Azerbaijan until 1918" is simply not true. I added the section from 17th century Chardin's work which goes into detail about the borders of the province and even its etymology, etc. However, it is reverted. I wonder why? Isn't he as reliable as any other historic source quoted in here? Many wiki article cites Chardin's book, so how come it's a problem in here? Zülfü E.Fərəcli (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Zulfu
 * As I said before, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, as well as WP:UNDUE. That other articles cites Chardin's work is irrelevant and in another context. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chardin's statement was absolutely relevant and within context. 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to say that the 17 th century's Chardin received a bribe from Azerbaijan and can not be considered as independent? Whom should I trust? You or the historical document? 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Aran?
Isn't Aran with two rr's? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/*-SIM_0736 The article "Arrān" says: "'By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān.'"

If it is an reliable source, then add the correct text in the appropriate section. V.N.Ali;--12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

== Jean Chardin into Persia and the East Indies : the first volume, containing the author's voyage from Paris to Ispahan : to which is added, the coronation of this present king of Persia, Solyman the Third ==

Jean Chardin's book from 1686 clearly states borders of the territory called Azerbaijan. "The region in the north of the Aras River, which is today called the Republic of Azerbaijan, had not been included within the geographical boundaries of Azerbaijan until 1918. Historians and geographers usually referred to the region north of the Aras River as Aran."

Provided source is not unreliable and referring to the primary source supported by valid references. This already enough to claim that some historically Azerbaijan referred only to the south of the Aras River by some sources, but other sources referred to it as both south and north of the Aras River.

Moreover, another source(https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/*-SIM_0736) also confirms what Jean Chardin wrote: "By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Can --HistoryofIran provide valid justification on why crucial part of the information, which confirmed with the primary sources, should be missing from the article? This dispute definitely should be escalated further.
 * Wikipedia is written using reliable, secondary sources (per WP:RS). Chardin is a WP:PRIMARY source, written in the 17th century. You are deliberately trying to shove this primary source into this article in order to nullify and weaken the WP:SECONDARY sources (i.e. WP:RSPRIMARY). This constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I am well aware that there is a long-standing campaign going on at "certain" YouTube, FaceBook and Reddit subsections in order to overhaul Wikipedia according to certain state-funded negationist nonsense (Historical_negationism, Media freedom in Azerbaijan, Human rights in Azerbaijan). It will never succeed, however, as long as free academic writing exists in this world. Consider this a final warning. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Enc. of Islam source also doesn't cover what you are trying to add. Being "absorbed into" the OG Azerbaijan doesn't equal to "there was a region of Azerbaijan to the north of the Aras River". - LouisAragon (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hoax. Wikipedia can also use the primary sources such as historical evidence. I would ratherr trust the 17th century Chardin than you. 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comments on the media freedom are irrelevant. And I am not sure that the 17th century Chardin received bribe from the Azerbaijani Qizilbash state in order to write what he wrote. 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Free academic writing does not imply fake historical statements. 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is especially ridiculous how a (pro-)Iranian user, teaches us democracy here 213.172.93.89 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no bribe Chardin literally says in the next page (350) that Azerbaijan and Shirvan were divided and are separate entities. I recommend you read the book that you have linked. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

LouisAragon Please stop. Your approach sound biased, aggressive and hatred to me. You jumping straight into accusations which are your personal opinion, not justified and neither helping us to reach the consensus. Therefore hereby I informing you that I do not accept your warning. For sure you can ignore discussion and just use your power to restrict/block my account, but I want to remind you that it will be considered as abuse of the power and I will follow up it with responsible parties.

Now back to the topic:

1. WP:RSPRIMARY Jean Chardin stated: Azerbaijan, province of Persia, borders to the East upon the Caspian Sea, and Hyrcania; to the South upon the province of Parthians; to the West upon the River Araxes, and Upper Armenia, and to the North upon Dagestan. (https://archive.org/details/travelsofsirjohn00char/page/348)

2. WP:SECONDARYEncyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_0736) states: ''The Arrān is usually applied in Islamic times to the district in Transcaucasia between the Kur (Kura) and Aras (Araks) Rivers. In pre-Islamic times, however, the term was used for all of eastern Transcaucasia (present Soviet Azerbaijan), i.e. Classical Albania (cf. article “Albania” in Pauly-Wissowa). By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān.''

Both WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources which I provided clearly state borders of territory called Azerbaijan at some point of the time and confirms that in Early Modern Era territories North of the Araks River were also called Azerbaijan. Moreover, the sources provide information in an precise form that leaves no room for an ambiguous understanding of what is written.

Obviously, history is not an exact science. It is expected that different sources (both primary and secondary) may have contradictions. However, let's treat each other with respect and continue discussion. With all respect to the sources already reflected in the article, I suggest including information from the sources cited above in the article together with existing ones. Thus, the article will be more versatile and will include information from all reliable sources. Now the article is one-sided and not complete.

Dear LouisAragon and HistoryofIran please provide valid justification of why you consider above sources not valid or liable, and why it should not be reflected in the article, or lets reach consensus that they will be included into the article and agree on the way HOW they will be included and illustrated in the article.

p.s. I want to apologize if I did something incorrectly. It is my first time in the Wikipedia as editor and I never had such experience before. So I alwsays ready to hear your advises (may be I edidtet article wrongly or wording was not correct? I do not know.
 * Pretty rich of you accusing someone of being biased, when you outright removed information supported by multiple high quality sources because it didn't fit your view, instead adding a primary source as well as your own commentary to it . If you continue to disregard WP:RS and WP:UNDUE (and other guidelines) then you will be reported to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's funny I actually checked out that linked Chardin source and just one page later there's this passage here (on page 350):
 * 'Now what  we  have  already  said  shows  us  the  Errors  of  those who  have  written, that  Azer-beyan  is  the Northern  Part  of Syria, and  that  the  word  of  Azer-beyan  is  deriv’d  from  Ardoebigara, which  was  the  Capital  City  of  the  Country.  The  Persians divide  it  into  three  parts  Azerbeyan,  Shirvan ,  and  Shamalei. Strabo  divides  it  only  into  two  parts,  the  greater  and  the  lesser  : but  as  for  Ptolomie  and  other  modern  Geographers, they  make  no division  of  it  at  all.'
 * Here saying that Azerbaijan, Shirvan, and "Shamalei" are three separate entities. That's the problem with WP:PRIMARY sources, they often contradict themselves from one page to the next. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Article does not reflect full picture.
Below statement on the article is does not reflect full picture.

Article states: '' The region in the north of the Aras River, which is today called the Republic of Azerbaijan, had not been included within the geographical boundaries of Azerbaijan until 1918. ''

Statement claims that "The region in the north of the Aras River had not been included within the geographical boundaries of Azerbaijan until 1918." However there both WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources which confirms that Early Modern Era toponym Azerbaijan used to call territories both south and north of the Aras River.

For example: 1. WP:RSPRIMARY Jean Chardin stated: Azerbaijan, province of Persia, borders to the East upon the Caspian Sea, and Hyrcania; to the South upon the province of Parthians; to the West upon the River Araxes, and Upper Armenia, and to the North upon Dagestan. (https://archive.org/details/travelsofsirjohn00char/page/348)

2. WP:SECONDARY Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_0736) states: ''The Arrān is usually applied in Islamic times to the district in Transcaucasia between the Kur (Kura) and Aras (Araks) Rivers. In pre-Islamic times, however, the term was used for all of eastern Transcaucasia (present Soviet Azerbaijan), i.e. Classical Albania (cf. article “Albania” in Pauly-Wissowa). By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān.''

Proposal: Provided WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources should be considered. Statement should be rephrased as "The region in the north of the Aras River had not been included within the geographical boundaries of Azerbaijan until Early Modern Era."

Moreover, this will change whole philosophy of the Article which is build on the idea that territories north of Aras River never called Azerbaijan and was changed only in 1918, where in reality there are sources proving opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Grand master  and Kevo327, would you mind to provide your neutral point of view on this dispute? Thanks in advance! --Abrvagl (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My view is to read this from the very book that you've linked. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Balance
, the article currently does not reflect the full picture. I've seen the claim about the toponym's application solely to the south of the Aras popping up among some authors. But it's lopsided and the words like “solely”, “exclusively”, "only" etc. make it inaccurate. A number of third-party secondary, primary and tertiary sources in fact contain a robust evidence that before 1918 the toponym Azerbaijan sometimes also applied to the north of the Aras. This appears to be done by its extension to the north in some pre-1918 foreign sources. Per WP:BALANCE "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". Pan-Turkic agenda appear to be just one facet of this story (and a later one) rather than being the only factor. Brandmeistertalk  06:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Except what you did was not WP:BALANCE, and those were hardly reputable sources, using mostly primary and Soviet sources. Moreover, you make these claims appear even less serious when we have maps of even Georgia and Daghestan being called "Azerbaijan", showing once more we should follow secondary sources, i.e. WP:RS. What you did was essentially WP:OR, cherrypicking a bunch of primary sources that agreed with you and then added them in the article to make a conclusion. You also changed the sourced mention that the region was "usually called Arran" to "also called Arran", two completely different meanings and which you didn't even mention in your changes, making it even harder to maintain WP:GF. Sure, we can mention that the term also rarely referred to lands above the Aras river, but that should be through WP:RS, not a bunch of cherry-picked primary sources. And it should definitely not get more weight than its genuine historical counterpart.


 * Let's go through this again with actual WP:RS:


 * "The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris


 * " In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer.


 * "The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.


 * "The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.


 * "The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter


 * "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris.


 * "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press


 * "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica


 * "Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1)


 * "As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan." -- p. xvi. Bournoutian, George (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.
 * Again, the claims that "Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre-modern period" is contradicted both by pre-1918 scholar sources and post-1918 scholar sources. While it's true that the area was commonly called Arran, Shirvan or Caucasian Albania before 1918, actually they were not the only names. The entry "Azerbaijan" in Encyclopædia Iranica that we ourselves cite in the article says:
 * "...in certain passages, he (Yaqut al-Hamawi) annexes to it (Azerbaijan), in addition to the steppes of Moḡān, all of the province of Arrān, 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."
 * Same is stated e.g. by another scholar, Muriel Atkin:
 * "In Safavi times, Azerbaijan was applied to all the Muslim-ruled khanates of the eastern Caucasus as well as to the area south of the Aras River..."
 * All this is corroborated by pre-1918, that is pre-Azerbaijani and pre-Soviet sources:
 * "The Turkish borders, having encompassed the entire area between the Kura and the Araks, that is, the entire Adirbijan, and more... stretch in a straight line to Kermanshah."
 * "If Aga-Magomet-khan wants to achieve recognition of his shah title, then it is necessary, firstly, that he cease his actions in the areas adjacent to the Caspian Sea and against the lords who are subjects to our authority, namely... the khans of Derbent, Baku, Talysh, also Shusha and others, residing in Aderbeijan..."
 * "The local position of the Ganja Fortress commands all Adribeijan."
 * "...the Ganja Fortress, considered the best in all of Azerbaijan, fell after an hour and a half of the assault."
 * Some third-party maps (e.g. by John Thomson, 1817 or by John Pinkerton, 1818) also extend the label "Azerbaijan" to southern parts of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 40th parallel north. The problem I see here is that some scholars may be biased in this issue or, which is less likely but still possible, unaware of the pre-1918 mentions of the toponym north of the Aras. This is where WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL should step in. Brandmeistertalk  12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and nearing the realm of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Again, I am not against the inclusion that the term also referred to the north of the Aras, but it has to be done neutrally and in line with our rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd propose adding either a paragraph or a separate section/subsection about the application to the north of the Aras before 1918. Per MOS:INTRO, this entails at least one sentence in the lead about occasional extension to the north. Brandmeistertalk  14:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, the word we're looking for is "rare" and not "occasional." I'll see if I can find more WP:RS about it later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In secondary or tertiary sources I found and counted seventeen pre-1918 authors that extend the toponym above Aras - either to the southern part of the present Republic of Azerbaijan or further (including three map makers). Iranica's Xavier de Planhol, who is cited in the article, says that since Yaqut al-Hamawi "the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed", without noting rarity. So I'd opt for "occasional". Brandmeistertalk  13:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is not a contest on who can find most primary sources to reach x conclusion. That's not our job, that's the job of historians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * De Planhol and Muriel Atkin quoted above, as well as Encyclopædia Metropolitana, p. 67 clearly suggest non-trivial usages to the north of the Aras. This fits into occasional usage. Brandmeistertalk  16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think you're listening. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm listening as best as possible and think those three sources address your concern, but I can elaborate further, if needed. Brandmeistertalk  17:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopædia Metropolitana is from 1845... and also claims that the term was also used for Gilan, Daylam, Mazandaran and Tabaristan (for some Mazandaran and Tabaristan reason are depicted as two different regions here... another why we should rely on actual WP:RS). Neither De Planhol nor Aktin states that it was "occasionally" used, that is your own conclusion (WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR comes to mind again). In fact, the multiple and actual WP:RS I posted up above shows a different story. With all due respect, I am starting to get tired of having constantly to remind you of our rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are showcasing the usage of the toponym before the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, then naturally pre-1918 sources would also be used. Besides, Encyclopædia Metropolitana is in English which has wider outreach than foreign-language sources. As for De Planhol and Atkin, there's no requirement to use exactly the given word, verbatim. Per WP:PARAPHRASE, "editors should generally summarize source material in their own words".
 * As for RS showing a different story, you previously agreed that you're "not against the inclusion that the term also referred to the north of the Aras" in a neutral way. I think now it's time to agree on whether it would be a paragraph, a section or subsection. Brandmeistertalk  21:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make Metropolitana WP:RS. And sure, WP:PARAPHRASE would work if you actually summarized said sourced material; You're not, you're making own conclusion out of what you've read (WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). And yes I did agree to it, but I did not agree to you disregarding/misrepresenting the rules of this site. I don't know how to paraphrase this without sounding arrogant or patronizing, so please don't take it as such; I think you should let me take care of it, as I'm much more acquainted with the WP:RS regarding this, the history of this topic, and creating/expanding articles (User:HistoryofIran/Azerbaijan (toponym)). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopaedia Metropolitana contained many treatises by English scholars and authorities of the first half of the 19th century and encyclopedias is a textbook example of WP:TERTIARY. If you still think it's unreliable, WP:RSN is the way. I've been around here for 18 years and the wider picture looks clear: there appears to be a scholar disagreement about the toponym's pre-1918 usage north of the Aras. On one hand we have authors that you quoted, on the other hand we have others like De Planhol and Atkin who explicitly tackle the usage north of Aras. And as long as we cite Iranica's "Azerbaijan" article by De Planhol, we can't cite it selectively by presenting just one side of the issue. So WP:BALANCE and cherry picking are issues to be resolved. But thanks for removing Bournoutian's quotefarm anyway. Brandmeistertalk  07:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Galichian's competence
Galichian is not a historian. Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)