Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Religion

I just noticed something - under religion there are 0.002% Catholics. Looking at the estimated population of 8.676 million, that works out to be around 175 Catholics in the whole of Azerbaijan. And about 350 Prodestants total. That sounds a bit wrong. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.1.120 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Sources_in_different_languages

Note that the language of the above-linked policy appears familiar. Don't ask me to explain why you oughtn't mix tenses, how to comprehend written words or other primary school subjects. I charge for lessons. —Graphik (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eurasia?

I thought it was in Asia, not that anything is wrong with that, but why not say that.

Well, the country is mostly Asian, for the fact it is a muslim country, plus it is really a transcontinental country. Same goes for Turkey. Norum (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Women Suffrage Photo

Recently I uploaded a photo of a statue revering to women suffrage in Azerbaijan but the description was changed and women suffrage was removed, why? This is a statue about women suffrage and equality not merely a ornamental figure. The statue was build by the french in early 20th century on top of a building in Inner city of Baku, it depicts a women above chains unveiled, free and the chains of repression. I changed it to suffrage again, any feedback on this are welcome Baku87 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Independence

Shouldnt the infobox independence also include Azerbaijan Democratic Republic? Baku87 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think yes. brandспойт 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for Shia/Sunni numbers

"85% are Shia and 15% Sunni" is not in the State Department profile link. Where are these numbers from?-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

misinterpretation and misquote of Britanica by....

Brandmeister accused me of distorting Britanica. he sys that the Caucasian Khanates were independent. lets say what his own source says: Brittanica: 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.

File:File:Map az.gif

Historical Azerbaijan territories

History » Russian suzerainty After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestān (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay . Actually, I was very generous to them. cheers.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

just a reminder since some people here are at chosing politically non neutral sensetive stuff I have even provided you by NEW! and even Turkish and evennnnnRussian sources. Ok? Do not try to re-write histroy for the sake of nationalism: what is today the republic of Azerbaijan was de jure Iranian territory. No need to play with words.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the argument is about, but on naming issue, we decided to have a separate article on that called history of the name Azerbaijan.. Even swietchowski agrees the name Azerbaijan was seldom used for Caucasian Albania. But that is another issue. What matters is that based on agreement, any discussion of sensitive terms and their validity needs to be in that article. Else there are lots of sources (Barthold, and others) that mention other viewpoints and it is best to not WP:FORK and simply mention both viewpoints in those two articles. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that certain editors try by selective usuage and misinterpretation, and placing out of context of certain sources, to erode the Iranian legacy of the republic of Azerbaijan. These efforts will be fruitless, because the history is written already for so long.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But that discussion is really not something I have expertise in, as I am more interested in medieval and ancient history. I just wanted to emphasize that we decided to use the term Iranian Azerbaijan and republic of Azerbaijan. For example Bert Franger states: "In the case of Azerbaijan , there is another irrational assault on sober treatment of history to be witnessed: its denomination. The borders of historical Azerbaijan crossed the Araxcs to the north only in the case of the territory of Nakhichevan . Prior to 1918, even Lenkoran and Astara were perceived as belonging not to Azerbaijan proper but to Talysh, an area closely linked to the Caspian territory of Gilan . Since antiquity, Azerbaijan has been considered as the region centered around Tabriz , Ardabil, Maraghch, Orumiych and Zanjan in today's (and also in historical) Iran . The homonym republic consists of a number of political areas traditionally called Arran . Shirvan, Sheki, Ganjeh and so on. They never belonged to historical Azer­baijan , which dates back to post-Achaemcnid, Alexandrian 'Media Atropatene'. Azerbaijan gained extreme importance under (and after) the Mongol Ilkhanids of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when it was regarded as the heartland of Iran. "... And I rather not enter such quotes, but leave them for one article. Else almost every article can be bugged by such stuff which is not healthy. But the current way as supported by admins was the best way this issue is minimized. Swietchowski himself (who seems to be present in gatherings of politically pan-Turkists interest groups) also mentions the name Azerbaijan was seldom used for the country and the country was known as Albania and Arran.. So to take the sensitivities of both sides to account, Khanates of Caucaus should mentioned as Khanates of Caucasian Azerbaijan, or Khanates of Eastern Transoxiana.. Terms "South " and "North" Azerbaijan are 20th century politically made terms (did not exist in the Qajar era) and are as valid as calling the country of Azerbaijan as Eastern Armenia, or Northern Iran or Souther Lezginistan or Northern Talyshistan or etc. The issue obviously will not be agreed on by both sides, but based on administration inputs, we decided that a consensus (despite the fact that we have secondary authors who are the only ones allowed to interpret are relatively clear including Barthold, Diakonov, Fragner, Fowkes, etc.), should be using what is now internationally recognized terms (Iranian Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan republic). International names should be respected in this case. Else more than 1/3 of what their ethno-nationalists call "South Azerbaijan" is actually called by Kurdish groups as "Eastern Kurdistan", but one should use UN conventions. And there are Arabic/Persian sources mentioning all of Arran/Sherwan as part of Armenia say, or many poets have called Arran/Sherwan as part of Iran and the best policy to use names that do not cause controversy and nationalist namings are not going to be agreed by all. Best is to mention Khanates of Eastern Transoxiana , or Khanates of Caucasia (since some of these were in actually Armenia) or Khanates in the territory of republic of Azerbaijan..etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Iranian sources do not mention Arran and Shirvan as part of Armenia. I am aware of a certain document that a governor in Derbend reports to Hay shah (an Armenian King), but even in that case that Armenian king was subordinated to the Iranian Shahanshah. The territory was part of Iran in a way or other, depending on the political context of the time, until Russians occupied it. There is no nationalism in it on my part, it is just history. To say that republic of Azerbaijan is an Iranian country makes as much sense as to say Norway is a Scandinavian country.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant old Islamic sources. For example "Armenia is divided into three parts. The first part encompasses QaliQala, Khilat, Shimshat and the territories in between them. The second part contains Jurzan, Tiflis and the city of Bab Al-lan. And the third part encompasses Barda which is the chief city in Aran, Bailakan and Darband." (Abul Fida). Obviously one cannot cherry pick, but has to look at how the naming was done from the begining till the 19th century. In the pre-Islamic era, Albania/Armenia/Atropatene were relatively defined well. In the post-Islamic era, Azerbaijan is generally considered separate from Armenia/Albania but once in a while portion of the Caucasus that is really Albania (Sherwan/Arran) is called Armenia or Azerbaijan. But these are very minority sources which have internal contradictions and usually has to do with rulers ruling an area. Anyhow, since there is differing point of views, one minimizes conflict by stating the differing views in one article as we did (thanks to admin intervention) and the rest of the stuff should use UN terms and terms acceptable to both sides.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine that both Armenians and Republic of Azerbaijanis have their agendas, but history is clear. We do not need misinterpretation. Talking about terminology I think there is an ambiguity in the terminology of Azerbaijan. While the main link to Azerbaijan directs to the Republic of Azerbaijan, its historical usage refers to the Historic Azerbaijan = Iranian Azerbaijan. there should be done something about this problem.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Historic Azerbaijan is a term which applies to geographic territory inhabited by Azerbaijani people today. So by this definition, Azerbaijan link will get divided into North (Republic of) Azerbaijan and South (Iranian) Azerbaijan, which will be a true reflection of reality as of the time of Wikipedia. Your definition of "historic" designed to propagate limited view the reality of which ended some 300-400 years ago, isn't quite useful for Wikipedia as encyclopedia in 21st century. If we use your logic, we should go back to refer to Iran as only Fars province. Actually, I am not even sure why you waste some much time relentlessly in trying to separate definition of Azerbaijan North from South. It's useless, there is a recognized sovereign nation, Azerbaijan, and no one is ever going to change this definition, just due to some irredentist view on Wikipedia. There is also part of Azerbaijani nation living in Iranian Azerbaijan. May as well accept this as a fact, and move on to spend your time making more useful and constructive contributions than removing ISO-recognized Latin transliteration of Azeri language :). Atabəy (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry I have no time to reapeat things which are already discussed and well sourced in wikipedia. in short. Historic Azerbaijan= Iranian Azerbaijan--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

so getting others land by war is admired and of course after all this years of ussr propaganda offenser will take the face of saver historical memory is earased poor memoriless society.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.23.115 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No Sports?

For a fairly comprehensive article, this is the only country article I've come across on Wikipedia that doesn't have a Sports and Recreation section; I also couldn't find it in the separate culture article. I know that sports exist in Azerbaijan, I'm watching their football team play Wales right now. Someone want to write it up? Greg Salter (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 8 has the article Azerbaijan–Spain relations to decide of the article should be restored or deleted from Wikipedia. If you have an interest in Spanish matters, please join the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point, perhaps we could together work on the article Sports in Azerbaijan ? Baku87 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Petroglyphs of Qobustan

I recently uploaded a higher quality photo of the Petroglyphs of Qobustan, see here. It's the same image as the current one, only better quality. RetlawSnellac (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good photo, I replaced it. Baku87 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

factual error

In the section Azerbaijan#Folk art, I see the paragraph

Over the ancient history the Azerbaijan the Azeris have created a rich and distinctive culture, a major part of which is decorative and applied art. This form of art rooted in hoary antiquity is represented by a wide range of handicrafts, such as chasing, jeweler, engraving in metal, carving in wood, stone and bone, carpet-making, lasing, pattern weaving and printing, knitting and embroidery. Each of these types of decorative art, evidence of the and endowments of the Azerbaijan nation, is very much in favor here. Many interesting facts pertaining to the development of arts and crafts in Azerbaijan were reported by numerous merchants, travelers and diplomats who had visited these places at different times.

I guess everybody agrees that this is non-sense and based on certain non-existence notions. Especially I am concerned about this funny sentence "Over the ancient history the Azerbaijan the Azeris have created a rich and distinctive culture,.." This gives the false impressions. I propose changing to

After the Turkification of the region and change in the spoken language of some portion of the people, the folk cultur of current Azeris of Republic of Azerbaijan is a combination of Iranian ancient rooted culture with some influence of former USSR. A major part of culture of Azerbaijan is decorative and applied art. This form of art is represented by a wide range of handicrafts, such as chasing, jeweler, engraving in metal, carving in wood, stone and bone, carpet-making, lasing, pattern weaving and printing, knitting and embroidery. Each of these types of decorative art is very much in favor here. Many interesting facts pertaining to the development of arts and crafts in Azerbaijan were reported by numerous merchants, travelers and diplomats who had visited these places at different times.

I changed only those parts that were clearly wrong.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You proposal is POV and OR. Not acceptable. Grandmaster 08:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to make sense, right? Why the original quote is not OR and POV? I am surprised you called my proposal "POV and OR", as you know I, and everybody else, can source my proposal very easily. But I am only concerned about accuracy. I am entitled to delete unsourced and wrong statements. One does not need source to dispute "Over the ancient history the Azerbaijan the Azeris have created.." Which ancient history? Turkification happened recently, so what is that "has been created"? So I will go on with deletion of certain "very wrong" statements.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

800 years is not recently. Recently would be 10 years ago, not centuries ago. Grandmaster 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The context being ancient history, a process that started 1200-300 AD and took many centuries and lives is indeed recent. Ancient history is associated, let's say, with Greeks and alike. --Xashaiar (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of Azerbaijan

It appears that in the current version, this article is missing a map of Azerbaijan. I think that's something fairly important and should be added. I expected to find one anyway. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there have been objections to having one that shows the borders of Nagorno Karabakh because any modern map of Azerbaijan would have to show those borders to be accurate. It's silly, but to be expected on an entry about Azerbaijan. I have just removed a fake map from the article that purported to show the "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic introduced by Azerbaijani goverment in Paris Peace Conference, 1919". This map, and variations on it, had been under discussion on the talk page of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article here [1]. Though discussion is still ongoing, the general agreement is that this map does NOT show what Azerbaijan claimed at the Paris Peace Conference, and nor does it accurately show the actual territory under the control of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. To quote from a NY Times article from October 19, 1919, "The young republic declares, in an elaborate statement prepared by its delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, that its natural boundaries extend all the way across the Caucasus to Batum on the Black Sea". Meowy 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses: Office of Public Information, is not a "third party source" concerning JWs. Would it be possible to find another source for that paragraph? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good point, I searched around a bit but couldnt find any objective source to confirm the statements. Neftchi (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the plight of a minor religious group in Azerbaijan will attract much attention on the world scene. Graphik (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section should be further divided into headline according to the historical era's. Neftchi (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Irreligion

According to the recent (2007-2008) Gallup Poll, Azerbaijan is the 7th irreligious country in the world with 74% of respondents indicating the importance of religion in their life little or none. This data should be added to religion section. Source and other info can be found in wiki Irreligion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article now say 50% when a quick google search consistantly gives the number 74%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.143.25 (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Vehicular languages

I looked in both the given sources ([2] & [3]) and none say anything about Russian being a vehicular language in Azerbaijan, the articles are about Russian language developments in Azerbaijan and regarding the Slavic University in Baku, its also a news site nothing official, therefore I removed it. Neftchi (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, I suggest you look better : the ambassador of Azerbaijan to Russia stated that "the Russian language has been a language uniting Eurasia". Azerbaijan is located in Eurasia, so Russian is a vehicular language there to him. Plus, a vehicular language is a common language between people who don't have the same native language but it doesn't have to be official. For instance, no official source indicates that English is the language of the United states. Now I'm putting my edit back and it would be very nice from you to let me know before reverting againMitch1981 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to reach consensus before adding something so controversial as this, again I note this is a news-article nothing official and like you said its according to him, thus a personal opinion. Besides that "Russian language has been a language uniting Eurasia" refers to the states of Euroasia and in this aspect yes Russian is a vehicular languages for Former Soviet-States amongst each other but not inside Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ... I think an ambassador of Azerbaijan is an authority on this matter. Again, there's no official source indicating that English is the language of the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia.

Besides, I don't see where the real problem is : if you check "social networks" such as facebook, skype, etc. you'll see that most Azeris know Russian. If we were talking about the Baltic States or Georgia which have a very negative opinion of Russia (and its language), I would understand. But, in the case of Azerbaijan ...Mitch1981 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would you compare the Baltic states, Georgia and Azerbaijan with each other, unless you imply that Azerbaijan is under the influence of Russia. Just because Azerbaijan is political neutral with both NATO aswell as Russia doesnt mean Azerbaijan is less an independent country, Azerbaijan has its own language, culture and history. Besides Facebook is not an argument but I will play along for good faith; the Azerbaijani users in facebook are mostly from the capital Baku and its the only place in Azerbaijan where they still speak Russian, so this doesnt mean anything, just regonizes the fact that Russian language is not a vehicular language in Azerbaijan. Also about your source, I say it again the ambassador of Azerbaijan said: "Russian language has been a language uniting Eurasia" this clearly refers to the states of Eurasia, meaning Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Azeris talk in Russian with each other. If you were to regonize this source you would also have to add it to every eurasian country article as that is exacly what the article says, adding it only to the Azerbaijan article is POV. So you should do much better research about Azerbaijan and its people before making any changes to this article. I recall you were banned for 24 hours couple days ago for your edit-wars in this very article and yet are again pushing. My main concern is that adding the Russian vehicular language is simply wrong and I want an honest presentation of the real situation in Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is NOT a democracy

Some of the statements in this article are just rootless. Azerbaijan is NO WHERE close to being a democracy. It is runned by a life time president and before that his father. I request that the sentence implying Azerbaijan being democratic to be removed. --74.12.111.91 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

First be so kind in the future to talk first then edit. Second etymology means history of a word and the description explains this, there is no mentioning of "meaning" and if you dont know what eternal means you should look it up before changing. Neftchi (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those famous cases that the editor does not know what he/she is talking about: 1. your edit is wrong: Azarbaijan does not have the etymology " Land of the Eternal Fire". The reasons are

1. Your use of the term "etymology" is wrong. Please see its article.
2. You should have used "the name Azarbaijan can be translated through its historical root in Old Persian (preserving probably a Median form) as "relating to the holder by fire"." Even this has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism.
3. This "fire" hence "zoroasterian" association is such a bizarre relationship which I do not know what to say about.

2. What is that "eternal fire" and why there should be any "eternity in a hindu (or anything else) template"? Xashaiar (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Black January + POGROMS

Mentioning Black January without making any reference to the pogrom of Armenians in Baku (immediately preceding and necessitating the intervention of the Soviet troops) makes as much sense as discussing the origin of smoke without any reference to fire. There's quite an informative article in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku_Pogrom.

Considering the scale and the heavy consequences of the event, it has to be mentioned in the paragraph regarding the Black January and Karabakh movement to restore historic truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakar (talk • contribs) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and the world

Azerbaijan might seem so far from the world but I think it is particularly close in its relationship to the world at large. I want to contribute to this page with a file that relates to that concept should it ever be needed. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth azerbaijan.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Azerbaijan

Pronunciation

Doesn't British English pronounce the name differently --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To Xashaiar

How can you say that Azerbaijan has nothing to do with fire? Azer= Atur is the Pahlevi word for the holy fire. Azerbaijan has an ancient legacy of Zoroastrianism and the governor Azerbad = Atropat fought against Alexander. It is true that he was from south of the river Aras, but still when the Transcaucasian Albanians chose the name Azerbaijan for their country (by good or bad faith doesnt matter) they have inherited the etymology.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Babakexorramdin, Xashaiar you made major changes in the article without even consulting anyone or reaching a consensus, therefore I changed back to Babakexorramdin edition of Atesgah temple until an agreement is reached. Also your argument that Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism or Fire is groundless; It is well known that the etymology of Azerbaijan comes from its Zoroaster history as it means Land of the Eternal Fire. Neftchi (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is well known" ....ahhh, so that excuses you from producing any evidence to back up your claim? And you are misusing the word etymology, unless you mean it to be "folk etymology". Meowy 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the matter in Talk:Azerbaijan#Etymology. I have no idea why Babkexorramdin and Neftchi are introducing false info and revert my edit. If you do not care about accuracy and only non-sense stuff (caption) that may "look interesting" makes you think that you are right, so go ahead. But do not say that xashaiar you are wrong...(Babkxorramding do you know what wp:synth and wp:or and wp:rs tell you? they tell you do not say anything that reliable sources do not say so, do not say things that you obtain by doing original research,...). Xashaiar (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am babakexorramdinG you are XashaiarG :)) with all due respect you are wrong. Azer really means the holy fire in the Zoroastrian culture and its relationasship with Atropat and Atur[ptakan is already mentioned in the article about the real Azerbaijan = the Iranian Azerbaijan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Under Parthian rule, Atropatene became Aturpatakan which drifted into Adarbaygan and then to Adarbayjan. Neftchi (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

that's pure invention, Atropatene is a Latin-Greek flavior and style, Atropatakan is Eastern Indo-European flavior (akan), Parthian probably in this case. It's not a drifting at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Atropatene is the same as Aturpatakan. Atropatene is the European name based on its Greek version. It was only called to the south of the river Aras.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right as explained in its article that the name/word "Azarbaijan" has nothing to do with "upper the Aras". Also the entire linguistic discussion about "Atropatugan"->Azarbaijan is a purely indo-european matter and has again nothing to do with the new language of the region. In any case the etymology and the connection with Zoroastrianism is just folk materials and not supported by any RS. Xashaiar (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan as a democracy

"Azerbaijan was the first successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world."

This is an absurdly false statement. Azerbaijan went from being part of the Soviet Union to being a corrupt dictatorship ruled by the Alijev family. It has never been a democracy, and no reputable democracy monitoring group says that it is. As for secularism, Egypt has been a secular republic since 1952. The references given are to two books, but no actual quotation from these books is given, so who knows what they actually say? I intend deleting this sentence and replacing it with a sourced statement that Azerbaijan is not a democracy. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 was the first successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world. Is this clear up your confusion? Gulmammad | ^talk 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really dont understand whats so confusing for you, "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 was the first successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world.", please read this article on the Azerbaijani sate of 1918-1920, which indeed was the first democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world. This statement is not about current Azerbaijan but about the previous Azerbaijani state, again this is a time BEFORE the Soviet Union. So next time before you make edits and changes make sure its not your personal opinion but based on historical facts. Neftchi (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true, the democratic Idel-Ural State (established on Nov. 12, 1917) preceded the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As it can be seen here, XrAi is ethnic Armenian so this is not a surprise. We already dealt with this problem befor, the Idel-Ural State lacks any sources and the sentence reads first successful attempt, I hope this clears everything up. Neftchi (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So I am an ethnic Armenian and so my argument is of no use. clap, clap, clap... The Idel-Ural has sources all over google book and elsewhere and was as successful as AzDR was. Both were dissolved so successful is as limited in one or the other.

• Fully agree with Intelligent Mr Toad. It is not a democracy. Statement is absurd. ^Izzedine 23:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am removing it all together, does not make sense. First Azerbaijan commonly refers to the current republic, different than the entity of the 1918. Second, how was it successful when the Bolshevics sucessfully dissolved it? Third, two other Muslim republics were established (Crimean and Idel-Ural) preceding the AzDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And from where did Proger come from? Neftchi, if you are using two accounts you should tell that. If edits can be undone without any justification, everyone can undone someone else edit with inacurate info. That's not nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, STOP undoing changes!!! This is the article about Azerbaijan republic, not the one declared in 1918 with no delimitated borders and which was dissolved by the Bolsheviks..., the wording is misleading, anyone reading that sentence and who does not know the subject will believe it's the same Azerbaijan. Besides, Crimean and Idel-Ural both preceded it by date. Regarding Azerbaijani Khanates, that's simply anacronism, because Azerbaijan pre-1918 mostly relate to the South of Arax, and such an identity as Azerbaijani is a modern happening for the majority of sources. Those are mostly either qualified as Iranian Khanates or the Khanates of the Caucasus. The other change which I reverted, this was clever, you knew this change would have been colateral damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

XrAi stop your edit-war, you must use talk and reach consensus before changing anything. All you do is edit without any talk. If you dont agree with ADR being the first, you can join the talk on that issue in the ADR discussion page, but this is not the right place. Neftchi (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Concensus concerns taste based changes, not obviously innacurate info removal. But you obviously did not read carefully enough my above points because you are supporting my change when you write: If you dont agree with ADR being the first, you can join the talk on that issue in the ADR discussion page, but this is not the right place. My point was that even if the info was to be accurate the sentence was not. ADR and the current republic of Azerbaijan are not the same thing, the sentence in the lead and it's wording makes it clearly misleading and IMO innacurate. The info is here and in the ADR context. I don't know if we are both reading the same thing but Azerbaijan, a nation with a majority Turkic[5][6] and Shi‘ite Muslim[7] population, is a secular and unitary republic. Azerbaijan was the first successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic in the Muslim world.[8][9] reads as if the current republic of Azerbaijan was the first. That entire lead concerns the republic and that sentence there is innapopriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 01:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ADR was the preceding Azerbaijani state, the same is written in the Armenia article:

The Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its religion[9] in the early years of the 4th century (the traditional date is 301).[10] (written in the beginning of the Armenia article)

Do you want to remove this sentence from the Armenian article aswell? Neftchi (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

When was independence?

The infobox says independence was declared in 1990. But the text says, "On 18 October 1991, the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan adopted a Declaration of Independence". I think this is a confusion over the renaming of the SSR to Republic of Azerbaijan in 1990, but it was still, I think? very much part of the Soviet Union. Please clarify. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The declaration of sovereignty was made already on September 23, 1989, but the political independence from Moscow was obtained on October 18, 1991 (apart from ADR). Brand[t] 10:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Major cities template

The "major cities" section doesn't display the top 20 cities as indicated, but shows only 10 cities and skips every other one (1st, 3rd, etc). I'm not sure how to fix this so I thought I would let the regular editors know about it. 168.233.254.6 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

maps and other issues

this article has some major issues. the map in russian is not good since it is in russian and shows the khanates as "azerbaijani" states. there have been no "azerijanis" back then and these entities in no way were "azerbaijani." the bridge pic is nationalist POV. the karabakh passage misrepresents status and the nature of the dispute. Homered (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Who told you there were no Azerbaijanis back then? Parishan (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

81.17.90.146 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked Baku's coordinates a bit. I hope that addresses your concern. Deor (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NK

If NK is to be in the lead, then it is worth noting that the region is majority-Armenian populated, for background behind their declaration of independence. - Francis Tyers · 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

women's suffrage

under heading Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in the paragraph starting "among the important accomplishments of parliament..." edit it to give more realistic comparison on development of women's suffrage ie reflect fact that New Zealand acheived women's suffrage in 1893 over twenty years before Azerbaijan, NZ was the first country in modern times to do so source wikipedia page titled "women's suffrage in New Zealand" I suggest edit it to read "...to grant women the vote however New Zealand had already granted women suffrage in 1893." Thus comparison is made with another first which seems more straightforward.Seasurfsunwind (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require especially convincing references - something this claim for the Azerbaijan DR does not have. Meowy 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

We have in the article an image of an old stone bridge with the caption "Bridge of Separation - Ayrılıq Körpüsü[citation needed] in Azerbaijani, on the Azerbaijan-Iran border.[citation needed] The two treaties of Gulistan and Turkemenchay divided the Azerbaijani people". This bridge is clearly far older than the the treaty, so that cannot be its original name - at most it is a late label, and so a reference should be given. Also, it is obviously not actually on the Azerbaijan-Iran border. The Arax is a wide river, not a tiny stream, so it is not located on the Arax. If it were along the border with south-eastern Azerbaijan there would be border fences and watchtowers - this was once the Soviet Union's front-line with an ally of the West. Meowy 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani art

I think it would be good if someone involved with Azerbaijan-related articles took a look at Azerbaijani art and determined what should be done with it, i.e. salvage it by adding content, moving content to the Culture of Azerbaijan article, etc. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Flora

It seems that the section covering the azerbaijan flora is a copy of [4]. Can someone confirm this or add a proper citation? The number of more than 4500 higher plants is made up of thin air without a citation. --Evnu (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the copyvio material, and added a citation for what was left. Marek.69 ^talk 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Major cities

I might be mistaken but isn't Baku the largest city in Azerbaijan and Sumgait the 3rd largest? They are not shown on the top of the list in the section Major cities. Moreover, the article on Sumgait says the population is 357,900 while the article about second largest city Ganja says its population is 313,000. The site World Gazetteer used as a source for this section of Azerbaijan article might have errors. For some reason, it shows Baku's population as 1,202,258 when it is likely to have topped off 2 million. I am not sure what census is used here. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Azari language

In fact, the Azari language, spoken in northwestern Iran, eastern Turkey and in the newly established country of Azarbaijan (historically known, as Aran, then the provincial region of Iran), situated in a region in the Caucuses which was an integral part of the broader Iranian territory until the late 18th century, when it was turned over to and annexed by the Russian Tsars according to two hegemonic treaties imposed on IRAN, bears Iranian linguistic influence and almost an identical culture. Again, etymologically speaking, languages in this region, namely, the Persian, Azari Persian, Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian, Arabic , Kurdish, etc. have each exchanged influences to varying degrees from Altaic, Persian, Armenian, Arabic, Greek, Roman, Indic, Latin, and Slavic origins and vice versa.

Etymologically speaking, some scholars believe the origin of Azari dialect spoken in east Anatolia, northwest Iran and Aran then the Iranian province located north of the Araxes River in the caucuses , is traced back to Avesta, the holly book of the Persian Zoroastrians. There are nearly five hundred Old Pahlavi root words still used in this Azari dialect, much more in any other dialects of modern Persian language spoken in a vast region by 150 millions. The Azari language has been enriched with tens of thousands of middle and modern Persian words, in much the same manner that Persian has been enriched with considerable Azari, Turkish and Arabic words. Amongst all the civilizations stretching from China to Eastern Europe, Iran has generated some of the richest Persian poetry and literature unrivalled by most nations. The masterpieces and treatises by Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Rumi, Hafiz, and Sa'adi to name a few, have not only preserved the Iranian cultures, but they have also influenced other adjacent languages and cultures in the Indus valley, central Asia and the Caucuses, Asia Minor, the Persian Gulf region and the Arabian Peninsula.

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/mar/1145.html

David N. Rahn, PhD (New York -January 2010) http://webpage.pace.edu/dnabirahni/index.htm

Also see:

The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of (re-)Islamization from the 11th through the 15th Century, by Speros Vryonis, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No map of Azerbaijan

This entry is incomplete without a map of Azerbaijan. Just imagine an encyclopedia entry about a country without the map of that country. And no, a tiny orange spot without any marked city or any natural features is not a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.166.123 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I was coming here to make. There is not one map in the article that shows the country in any meaningful way. We have a couple of locator maps, good for those who don't know if it's in Eurasia or Oceanasia, and an incomplete maps from way in the past, but nothing current. What gives? HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the map in Administrative section. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First line of the article

The first sentence of the article to me means there are six independent Turkic states in the Caucasus region of Eurasia and one of them is Azerbaijan. This is confusing since there is only one independent Turkic state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia which is Azerbaijan. Gulmammad | ^talk 02:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Vanadlism?

Proger, pls refrain from anachronism, Azerbaijan did not exist in that time. It is unscientific to use the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Also it might be good to read what is vandalism before calling so an edit you somehow disagree with. --Vacio (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the erroneously placed sentence periods (fullstops) from all those image captions that are not grammatically complete sentences. Thank you. --87.79.173.166 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Celestra (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been completely specific. If you cannot determine on your own which captions are grammatically complete English sentences and which are not, I kindly suggest you leave it to someone else. Request reinstated. --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The template reads: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I'm delisting this request again; however, feel free to reinstate it, provided you specifically describe what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are idiots. I have put forward an entirely unambiguous request. Idiots. Ok then, leave the article in its state. Did I mention both of you are huge idiots? --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain, let me read your message again to make sure... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The editsemiprotected template is merely a way to have an autoconfirmed volunteer make the actual edits to a semiprotected article that a non-autoconfirmed user would be able to make were the article not protected. You need to be willing to spend the time to detail the change to use this template. Alternatively, you are welcome to leave general suggestions for your fellow editors. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look, pal. You don't need to reply any more. You have already failed my personal Turing test. --78.34.250.9 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When I see someone act in a manner which can be attributed to either ignorance or maliciousness, I give them the benefit of the doubt and try to enlighten them. This applies to your last statement as well. I'm still not sure which is the root problem here, but I've already wasted more time on this than your lofty pursuit of improved caption punctuation is worth. Celestra (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what's going on here is that some people are frustrated by the grammar overall in the article and headings--this is clearly not written or proofread by a native English speaker. The grammar is stilted and at times incomprehensible (the grave under the stadium, for instance). It reads like a word-for-word (literal) translation from another language (Russian comes to mind).

Wrong citation from Tadeusz Swietochowski !!

Under title "Modern era" , it has been written :

The brief and successful Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan, in which the shah's claims to some of the Khanates of the Caucasus were dismissed by Russia on the ground that they had been de facto independent long before their Russian occupation.

The reference of the sentence seems to be Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920, 2004, p. 5. ; but in fact the reference sentence is not the above one and is as follows :

The brief and successful Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan,singned the same year.The treaty's provisions concerning Azerbaijan ratified the status quo resulting from the Russian military presence, and Fath Ali Shah renounced his sovereignty over the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent.The shah's claims to the northern Azerbaijani khanates were dismissed on the ground that they had been independent long before their occupation by Russia.

Comparing the book with the sentence of the text , we can see that the whole war was not brief and the war continued for several years , but the "campaign of 1812" was successful for Russians (wrong view out of a whole background ) , and more important than that , the Shah's claims about the northern Azerbaijani khanates , ( Means Daghestan , Chechen and like so ) was not covered in the Treaty of Gulistan , because indeed they have been independent for a long time - only northern khanates , and not the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent .

Overall I think we must delete the sentence because it does not add any information to the text .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should divide the problem:

1. Were the khanates de-facto independent before the Russian occupation? - Swietochowski confirms it. If there are other opinions we should mention them too.
2. Does using Swietochowski as a source give us wrong view out of a whole background of The Treaty of Gulistan? - The text contains information about the two Russo-Persian Wars so the background coverage does nor mislead readers. Of course you can add more information about the background. Amount of adding is limited only by the topic of the whole article.
3. Does the text add any information to the text - Yes it does:about Gulistan Treaty and about the khanates' status. But there are some repeatings so the section must be modified. Let's do it.
4. About coverage of Gulistan Treaty look here. I see no contradiction with what Swietochowski writes.--Quantum666 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• When we cite from a source , we may not include our understanding in the name of the original writer .The writer did not used it and the formulation de-facto , de-jure is a new one , I don't think it can give us a good view of that historical era . If we cite the exact paragraph of Swietochowski , he says "[In Russian view] Some of northern khanates where independent before their occupation by Russia." And by far , that is not the meaning used in the present text (present Wikipedia) . It not only gives weight to Russian political excuse for occupation , but also expands that to other geographical Khanates . How can we cite a sentence from a source and conclude the de-facto independence of some Khanates when among them at least four Khanates (Baku Khanate , Nakhjavan Khanate , Iravan Khanate and Ganja Khanate ) where fighting alongside the Fath ali shah , and Ibrahim Khan and Khan of Talesh where swinging between Russia and Persia ?
  

In brief :

1. The formulation de-facto , de-jure is not in the source and may not be used .
2. Swietochowski as a source can be used , but a text has meaning on the context . This incomplete sentence misleads the reader. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Do you have sources about de-jure/de-facto status of the khanates? If so let's see them.
2. As I have already said: "you can add more information about the background. Amount of adding is limited only by the topic of the whole article." and "there are some repeatings so the section must be modified. Let's do it." Please tell me what do you want to change/add and we will discuss it. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to Wikipedia "unless proven else" is not the policy of this encyclopedia . That's wrong to first add "de-jure/de-facto" sentence and then after that searching for a source to exclude it . I think if there is no direct source using de-facto/ de-jure formulation , we may not add it by ourselves . I suggest omission of the sentence OR using the exact sentence of the source . I mean this one : The Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan,singed the same year.The treaty's provisions concerning Azerbaijan ratified the status quo resulting from the Russian military presence, and Fath Ali Shah renounced his sovereignty over the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you suggest removing this: The shah's claims to the northern Azerbaijani khanates were dismissed on the ground that they had been independent long before their occupation by Russia.? I object to ignoring this information. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well , this single sentence out of context is ambiguous . Who dismissed the claim ? Occupying Russia . Northern Azerbaijani khanates ? What does it means ? Does it mean Daghestan ?In the book itself ,the sentence is from another source (Akty sobrannye Kavkazskuiu,ArkheograficheskuiuKommissieiu,Vol.5,no.377:Sumbatzade,Mekhtiev,Prisoedinenie,pp.38-39) and Swietochowski writes about the Russians political usage of the word "independence" in this manner : First and only talking of Russians about Azerbaijani independence , albeit in the past tense . Then is it correct to use this sentence without any discussion in the article ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He says what he says. I see no ambiguity in his words and it is not out of context. As I have already said if you have any RS to doubt Swietochowski let's see. But for now I see no need to remove Swietochowski. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well , do you see any need to use the exact sentence of Swietochowski (Without de-facto/ de-jure , and with Northern Azerbaijani khanates ?)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The section must be modified. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

But before we make changes I must see the source. At the moment I don't have access to the book. Do you? I would appreciate if you helped me. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which page do you want? I can send page 5 to your email if it is sufficient .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The page 5 is enough. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Long time , no comment ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot about it. I think we should rewrite the section according to History of Azerbaijan#Khanates of Late 18th – Early 19th centuries summarizing its content. I need a few more days to look through the sources and to prepare my variant. However you can suggest your variant here and I will add my changes. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that , but I think that section itself needs review ( please look at [5] ).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Byb3, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the introduction should it not be mentioned that Azerbaijan is landlocked? It is part of the landlocked countries category but it is not mentioned in the introduction.

Byb3 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please make a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Map of Muslim Khanates

I think that its very annoying that users Proger and PPerviz keep reverting my modification of the above-mentioned map ignoring my arguments both in the edit summary and in this discussion page. I think its furthermore completely unacceptable that those users mark their edit as a "minor edit", as "reverting vandalism" or leave an edit summary in Azerbaijani language. I appeal to those users to respect WP rules and to use the discussion page if they don't agree with my edits. I repeat once more my arguments: map 1 is not good for this article, it's made by an Azeri user apparently based on a third party source, but its comparison with modern political borders is artificial and suggestive, moreover the language of the map is Russian. Secondly a caption as "Azerbaijani khanates" is historically incorrect. Those khanates were neither politically nor ethnically Azerbajiani. --vacio 07:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The map is sourced, see file's page. Twilightchill t 12:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nowrooz is originally from Iran

It is interesting that Nowrooz is mentioned here as a azari celebrating, while it is originally from Iran and all of azarbayjan has Iranian culture as it belonged to Iran and was seprated by russia by force!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.4.123 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Locator map

File:Europe location AZE.png isn't intended as a locator map of Azerbaijan. It is intended to illustrate which portion of Azerbaijan is in Europe. As such, it may have applications at European states or at transcontinental country, but it is hardly useful as a generic locator map in this article's infobox. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

The main map should reflect that Nagorno Karabakh is a de facto independent region, that doesn't fall under Jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno Karabakh portion should have a different shade of colour or be marked with border. Look at Serbia's map for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe-Serbia.svg Mov25 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a major difference between Kosovo and the NKR: no one has had the sack to recognize the NKR. So the situations are not equivalent. --Golbez (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at Moldova's map, look closely and you see its breakaway state is shaded. If that is so, than Moldova's map should be change. Or if not, Azerbaijan's. Consistency is golden.Mov25 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

I would put this map, because Azerbaijan having political and territorial disputes with Armenia about Nagorno-Karabakh. So many countries like China, India, Pakistan, Venezuela, Serbia, Georgia, also have dispute territories, BUT on the maps of thats countries, dispute territories are mark. At the same time, me and some users also talking about Georgian map. Georgian user by nationality, don't want put map where mark Abkhazia and South Ossetia, because on the Azerbaijani map which put right now, not mark Nagorno-Karabakh. I change that, BUT Azerbaijani user by nationality don't want put map with dispute territories!

Guys, it's really funny.

Chinese users haven't say NO to map where mark Taiwan
Indian and Pakistani users haven't say NO to maps (India/Pakistan) where mark dispute Jammu and Kashmir
Russian users haven't say NO to map in Russian wiki, where Kuril Islands mark like dispute by Japan.

So u try hide on maps of your countries dispute territories, but people know about that in all. And that like u or not, but this maps with dispute territories will be put on pages about of your countries.

Azerbaijan and Georgia, is NOT special countries! It's countries with people, like in other countries, so it's wrong so you two mark its if compare with others.

EGroup (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anywhere a global discussion on this? --vacio 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong so u Azerbaijani users hide it, like afraid show political problems in your country, or like elevate your country to the rest of World. On the map must be shown dispute territories so people have to know where is it. Maybe it's funny but some people don't know geography in generally, and they may think so Nagorno-Karabakh to north from Baku, or to west, to south, or maybe it's in Baku.

Yes, we have know global discussion, but I think it's not for longer. EGroup (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As you was told on Georgia talk, a general rule about such territories is needed. --Proger (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

EGroup has made a post here. If anyone wants to follow this up, I suggest they take discussion there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We cannot have a "general rule" on this, because each case is unique and needs to be treated on its own merit. It's a careful deliberation of both the de facto and the de jure status of these territories.

As far as I understand, this is probably closest to the case of Transnistria, and so I would support that however we treat this, the two cases should be treated more or less consistently.

Note, btw, how the Moldavia infobox has no locator map, but an overview map of Moldavia. I am not a big fan of locator maps, and I used to prefer infoboxes that show a simple overview map. These locator maps basically tell the reader "we assume that you are a clueless American high school student, so we'll begin by showing you where on the globe you can find the country you just looked up." Our readers on average aren't really that stupid or uninformed, and I assume that these famous locator maps do very little towards improving the value of our articles. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ah yes, so the article on the modern Republic is at Moldova, and it does have a locator map. So much the worse for me and my preferences. This locator map even makes an effort at displaying Transnistria in light green, and fails completely, the light green literally not even showing up a s a single pixel in the thumbnail, which shows two things,

• the futility of drawing locator maps for small countries that show them on a map of the entire globe (why not break down and locate Moldova on a map of the solar system?)
• the futility of trying to heap details on political disputes on thumbnailed locator maps (why not break down and show the location of each individual secessionist in each country as a small moving dot, commuting to work each morning?)

and in addition how the two problems exacerbate each other if they happen to coincide in a single map. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes. Added sources, merged lose sentences, removed images as they were sandwiching the text, merged the subheadlines of modern era into one. Also removed repeating Guba mass graves and unrelated text. Neftchi (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Khanates map

As a good faith change, I replaced the Azerbaijani khanates map with a compleet version. The current map didnt show all of the Azerbaijani khanates. I also added a source backing the change. Neftchi (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Map (again)

Given that other similar countries are enacting this format in map, Azerbaijan must also. Meaning, it must show the Nagorno-Karabkah region in light green and the rest of Az. in the dark green. This will show that NKR is not under the control of the Az. Government and is de-facto independent but not de-jure. Check the Georgia, Serbia, and Moldova maps for how this format has been implemented. I recommend this be done quickly for Azerbaijan as well. MosMusy (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Had you bothered to check out the talkpage, you would have seen that we have already discussed this. Every country is a different, separatist states in Serbia, Georgia, etc are recognized by at least one UN country. That doesnt apply to NK. Besides the map is wrong, Naxcivan is not even shown. So your POV pushing is unacceptable. Neftchi (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What? So recognition by one UN country makes it appropriate to show the territory? First off, the reason that this territory is being shown, is not because of recognition, but because the territory is not under the control of the Azeri government, it is de-facto independent. Thus it should be shown in an appropriate manner. Plus, Moldova shows its breakaway territory, and its territory is not recognised by any UN country. Not showing Karabakh is POV pushing as it goes against an accepted format in Wikipedia. MosMusy (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Again the map does not even show Nakhchivan, this map is wrong. we have already reached a consensus on the map, including from 3rd parties. It was brought forward three times. I told you this yet you continue to insist on it. Neftchi (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, this is hardly an unbearable insistence by MosMusy. There's no strong consensus for anything anywhere. Anyway, Nakhchivan is an easily fixable issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: MosMusy is a sock of Mov25 and he tried to push his POV map earlier. Here is the investigation. He worked his way from Moldova's and neighboring Georgia's map and map to here. Every country is different, Azerbaijan is not Moldova nor is it Georgia. The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbajian over Karabakh is recognized by every country in the world. Neftchi (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears instead that Mov25 is/was a sock of MosMusy. Anyway, as long as there's no more stopping that's fine. And when did he do anything on Moldova? (who's territorial integrity etc etc is just as recognised) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what he did to Moldova or other countries. Let Moldova editors correct it or go correct the Moldova page. Azerbaijan’s territorial intergrity and whole territory is recognized by the world as shown in the map. Look at every map from CIA, UN, other international organizations. All have one map with no separatism country in it. So, Wikipedia bases everything on reliable sources. Neftchi, thank you for what you provided (the sockpuppet case):   Can the person who makes so many nationalism edits (look at the links in the sockpuppet investigation case) be accepted as good faith editor? It is obviously for inserting POV maps and texts. The map is basing on the sources by all international community and there should be no shades, no other colors. Dighapet (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. You do realise of course that all those organisations you mention do not follow the WP:NPOV policy, which is one of the pillars of wikipedia. They play politics, we should not. We have reliable sources that Azerbaijan has no control over most of the claimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, so sourcing is not an issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but read again my comment. I AM commenting on content. And do you know how funny your comment sounds?! You say international organizations like UN, OSCE, EU and CIA "play politics" and you as a Wikipedia editor does not play politics? :-) please. Also Azerbaijan is not friendly with every country and not every country depends on Azerbaijan to "play politics" but still all recognize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The territory is recognized territory of Azerbaijan. That's it and it must be shown like that. Dighapet (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not meant to play politics. Hence WP:NPOV. And yes, you commented on content, but you also said that it was great someone provided a sockpuppet case. It was not, such things are irrelevant unless the user is banned or under some sort of editing restriction; Mosmusy is not. The friendliness of Azerbaijan is again completely irrelevant, as is other countries recognition of Azerbaijan. Far be it from me to make sweeping statements like "That's it and it must be shown like that", but if I did I'd say something like "Azerbaijan does not control the territory. That's it, and it must be shown like that". Of course, that would also be wrong, as it would require completely removing it from the green, the NKR POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The current map of Azerbaijan is misleading, as it portrays Azerbaijan as having control over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno Karabakh is de-facto independent and thus it deserves to be highlighted within Azerbaijan's borders as every other country has followed this suit. This is a consensus reached at Wikipedia, and all we are doing is applying it where it is needed. A map needs to portray to current reality of the region and country, having Karabakh not highlighted shows that Azeri Government has that territory under its control, which is not true. (and stop making personal attacks against me, rather focus on the content on hand). Note: I never pushed this change for Georgia or Moldova maps. MosMusy (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, my note of status of Azerbaijan's friendliness is relevant. You said international organizations "play politics". ok, I understand America can play politics, Turkey can play politics, Georgia can play politics because of Azerbaijani oil, but what about Vanuatu? Kenya? Zimbabwe? Uruguay? Any country which is not dependent on Azerbaijan. Why are they not recognizing. That's why your note is irrelevant. What is controlled by Karabakh Armenians or Armenian Republic is not relevant. Where is the proof they control what is colored? Did you personally go an measure every meter of Karabakh? Or are you basing your note on some maps produced by Armenian agencies, Azeri agencies and others? Why are they more reliable than the international organizations or presidents and parliaments of countries? Wikipedia is based on sources. All sources say it is Azerbaijan. MosMusy, I do not make personal attacks. I see the sockpuppet report and it shows your actions, your attacks on strikes, not mine. Dighapet (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, your argument does not hold. If we go with your logic, we must replace the map of the United States with one indicating Republic of Lakotah. How about replacing the map of Spain with shaded areas of Basque Country (greater region)? how about replacing the map of Iraq with one where Kurdistan is missing or is shaded? Or what about Turkish Cyprus in Cyprus? The list goes on and on. Do you get the point? Neftchi (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, you cannot compare Republic of Lakotah with Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and doing so is silly. Second, Lakotah is under the full control of US. Same with Basque being under Spain's control, even though there are people who don't want that there, it still doesn't take away from the fact that Basque is fully under Spain's control. Azerbaijan doesn't control Nagorno-Karabakh and certain surrounding regions, and it never has since the end of the Karabakh war. Why else does Azerbaijan constantly threaten to take back the territory by force? If they are under control of it they would not have to make those threats. This region is de-facto independent. The map should show that clearly. A map is not a POV, but a unbiased reference of the region at hand. Showing that Azerbaijan covering Karabakh is not factually correct, as at the present time this region is not under Azerbaijan's control. That's all it is showing, it is still showing it within Azerbaijan's borders (de-jure), the only difference being a lighter shade of green which shows the de-facto independent nature of the region.. If Cyprus map doesn't show it, it will as well since this is being applied to all main maps in wikipedia. MosMusy (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Any country can play politics. Vanuatu as much as any other country. We have sources saying it is not under the control of Azerbaijan. So "All sources say it is Azerbaijan" is completely untrue. As for my logic, it holds. The republic of Lakotah has no actual control over the territory it claims. Spain exerts control over the Basque area. Neither the government of the Basque area nor the government of Kurdistan has declared independence anyway. Turkish Cyprus in Cyprus would make sense though, as they have declared independence, and Cyprus has no control over that territory. Do you get the point? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a major difference between NKR and the examples you gave. No one has recognized NKR. And it says so by many sources in the text. Every nation, country, organisation and institution recognizes NK as an integral part of Azerbaijan. So the situations are not equivalent. This is just another attempt by MosMusy to vandalize this article, he has a long history of vandalism. For example here (1) he replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan and wrote about humiliating defeat for Azerbaijan and Armenian freedom fighters. In this (2) example he again replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan with Armenia's flag and coat of arms. And he did it again here (3), in fact he vandalized the page after an admin corrected it and even wrote "ARMENIA FOREVER" as a new headline. And again (4) he added Armenian power and vandalized the page. So this is just another attempt, I only wanted to bring this forward so all cards are on the table. Neftchi (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't give any of those examples, you did. Don't turn this around. In fact, I've given no examples, but stuck to Azerbaijan and NKR. Once again, you're simply attacking an editor without focusing on the issue. MosMusy's previous actions were simply stupid, and highly regrettable, but he appears to have reformed for now, and I for one will WP:AGF until they go on another vandalism spree. This suggestion they have made is not at all vandalism, saying it is only makes your argument weak. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis,, what you say is POV pushing. What control are you talking about? I am repeating again. This is a recognized territory of Azerbaijan and nobody recognized NKR any time in the past. Do you understand what it means? Do you even look at yourself from the side? You’re saying “all international organizations like UN, OSCE, EU and others and all governments of the world do not recognize NKR and only recognize Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and I, Chipmunkdavis recognize it and therefore the map should be changed”. I’m sorry but it does not work this way. That’s the purpose of governments not recognizing separatism in Azerbaijan because they want to see one map and they see one map of Azerbaijan, integral as one. Eveyrhing about NKR separatist state is decsribed in the article already. There is no need to exaggerate. And Neftchi is right bringing examples of vandalism by MosMusy. He’s not attacking anyone, he’s showing the activity of a person who has previously vandalized this page under different names and continues even today. Dighapet (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Um...control. I look at myself from the side. Again, the recognition is why I am suggesting it remains green in some way. I don't recognise the NKR. I'm not arguing that point, that's a straw man argument. It's not exaggerating to say that Azerbaijan doesn't control the area; they don't. As for the MosMusy stuff, I'm going to ask that you retract the "vandalized this page...and continues even today" statement unless you can provide me an instance recently where he has engaged in WP:VANDALISM, or you will be in violation of WP:NPA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean retract? Retract what? Recently not recently, this person vandalized the page and yea I will say again, he vandalized the page many times and it was shown in the reports with diffs by Neftchi. What you and I recognize or not recognize is not important. We use sources by neutral international organizations and the world community. We can't stick to what separatism government wants to push thru. Dighapet (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You say MosMusy continues to vandalise. That is quite a personal attack, and as they are not, I suggest you withdraw it. Saying they did is one thing, saying they still are is another. Anyway, you have yet to provide a neutral international organisation. Every single one you have mentioned is a political organisation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, MosMusy was involved in earlier talks on this matter. So he very well knows consensus must be reached before any edits. Yet he made edits anyway. This shows this actions still have continued recently. And dont play games, you call the UN a biased organisation? Ironically this shows your own bias. In fact the UN has many times confirmed the Azerbaijani territorial integrity and sovereignty over Karabakh. They even adopted several resolutions on this matter. Have you even bothered to read the lead of this article? because its all right there. Neftchi (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, another thing is that you just called MosMusy's action "stupid" - this is also a personal attack and incivilized language. So I think you should just stick to the subject. Neftchi (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I say he vandalised the page and continues the same behavior, which means he continues to insert POV, first he inserted coat of arms and Armenian flags and nationalistic comments, then he wanted to change map of Azerbaijan as Mov25 and after he was blocked he again continues same behavior. What do you mean I have to provide neutral organization? I have provided enough but will provide again for people that insist. Look at every source I provide here and review the maps: Transparency International, World Bank, United Nations, International Telecommunication Union, International Organization for Migration, UN Refugee Agency, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, International Committee of Red Cross, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Central Intelligence Agency Factbook, U.S. Department of State, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UN GA Profile, Commonwealth Indepedent States Organization and many many more which can be found if you have time to review all organization websites. I hope this will solve all your problems with map. Dighapet (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@Neftchi Socking is a stupid thing to do. I'm calling a spade a spade. So is vandalism. That's not a personal attack. @Dighapet Vandalism is not the same as inserting information you see as POV. Yes they did all this blablabla, but now they're not. And by neutral, well, let's just start with non-political shall we? And yes, for the first time you've done that. Somehow you included the most obviously non-neutral sources in your list, such as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office for goodness sake, but hey, you've included Transparency International, so that's one arguably neutral source. Here's a map from the economist, if you must see one which separates Nagorno-Karabakh (this time with dots though). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To highlight Nagorno-Karabakh/the NKR as a region and entity which Azerbaijan has not effectively exercised control over for twenty years now is apparently something too extreme for some people to concede and accept. That's why many in Azerbaijan still cling on to the fantasy that the Republic of Armenia somehow "invaded" Nagorno-Karabakh and why in the national narrative the struggle of the native Armenian population, who did the bulk of the fighting, of the region is conveniently forgotten. The comments above are just some very humorous examples of how some people, twenty years on, have refused to face reality. That, of course, doesn't stop them from denigrating the NKR and politicizing this issue on Wikipedia. To see it now displayed on a map on Wikipedia, on the article on Azerbaijan no less, only serves to confirm that reality. I for one support such a map and not just on this article but the ones on the Republic of Georgia and Cyprus as well. Do we really have to indulge in such inane arguments just because a fringe group refuses to accept what everyone else already knows to be true?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to open a discussion regarding my reputation on Wikipedia feel free to do so, but this is not the place. Rather than trying to shift the argument to the previous actions of an editor (some of which were several years ago) and going in to character assassinations (which are against Wikipedia rules), how about everyone here focuses on the issue at hand. Look there is no requirement for Karabakh to be recognised in order for it to be shown. All that the territory has to be is not under the control of Azerbaijan Government. De-facto independent. No one here is talking about Azerbaijan's territorial integrity because the map will still show Azerbaijan within its accepted borders. Moldova for example shows the region of Transnistria but it is not recognised by any other country. I really don't understand what's the big deal. Is Karabakh currently under the full control of Azerbaijan's Government? No. It is under the control of a de-facto independent Government and this reality should be shown in the map. Again, this is being applied to any country that has such a territory, that is break-away and not under its control. Maps are supposed to be unbiased indicators of the reality of the given country, and showing a map with all of Azerbaijan the same colour ignores the historical reality of the region. So really I don't understand the problem here, unless you have evidence that this region is under the firm control of the Azeri government, then it's pretty clear that the alternative map should be used. MosMusy (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshal again? Really? Your propaganda is getting old. I find it typical how always forgets that the majority of the native population of Karabakh was forced to flee their homes. How Russian and Armenian troops massacred hundreds of civilians and conquered Karabakh in a bloody war. How isolated and dependent Armenia has become on Russia. But its oke, because Marshal thinks so. Fortunally there still are realistic people such as former president of Armenia . Who has come to regret his actions in Karabakh and has put the blame for the conflict on Armenians from Karabakh. @MosMusy You only need to look at Marshal and see his politically motivated aspirations. Neftchi (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look Neftchi, let's not change the subject, this discussion is not about the Karabakh War, who killed whom, etc. If you want to discuss that then open up a different discussion, this discussion is solely about making this map change which is becoming customary for all other countries with such a situation. You think the Serbs, Georgians, Moldovans like it a lot? Probably not, but them liking it or not, shouldn't affect historical accuracy and the truth of a map. Again, all this shows is that Karabakh is currently not under the control of the Azeri government. That's all it shows. It doesn't show it as being independent or anything against your territorial integrity, it only shows that this region is not under the jurisdiction of Azeri Government. It's pretty simple. MosMusy (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mos I did not start the discussion on Karabakh War. Everybody can see Marshall started this discussion, so you should not make false accusations towards me. Back to the subject, first there is no "historical accuracy and the truth" in maps. Thats POV pushing, it has nothing to do with history nor it there any truth or falsehood. Be accurate in your statements and refrain from personal interpretation. In the lead it is mentioned that Karabakh is not under the control of Azerbaijan. Also you contradict yourself. You said "To highlight Nagorno-Karabakh/the NKR as a region". Yet the map you show us does not highlight it. There is a major difference between NK, NKR and the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh. So again be accurate. You are also in violation by warning on Chipmunkdavis talkpage on "nationalistic opposition ". This kind of language is unacceptable. Neftchi (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maps of countries are supposed to convey the realities of the countries in question so the viewer can get an unbiased view of the country in question. There needs to be an accurate representation of the region in question. The reason that this map is highlighting Nagorno-Karabakh + buffer regions is because those regions are not under the control of the Azeri Government. If you read my reasoning again which I have given numerous times, you will understand that this map is supposed to show the area of the country which is not under the formal control of that country's government. This is going off-topic again, but the reason for my concern regarding nationalistic opposition is the ignoring of the fact that these territories are not under the control of Azeri Government, and a desire to make an exception for Azerbaijan while the other countries enact this change in their maps. MosMusy (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MosMusy, I must tell you that your POV pushing on this page should end immediately. Your only argument here is because Moldova has a breakaway region colored in lighter color. I repeat, if that is the case with Moldova, then Moldova's map needs to be changed to be in line with dozens of legitimate maps of countries around the world. I can ask you many questions one after another as to why certain maps of certain countries are not "shaded" based on your argument. Why is Iraq's map not shaded with Kurdistan or other more or less breakaway regions? After all they are not directly controlled by the government but by rebel authorities. Why is Afghanistan's Tora Bora in the White Mountains of Afghanistan is not shaded just because there is a rebel or a de-facto Taliban government? How about the Tamil Tigers who have been in de-facto control of regions of Sri Lanka? Do you think we should light-color it as well? Or maybe, we should also light-color certain areas of Colombia where drug cartels de-facto control the vast regions of the country? What about Somalia and Somaliland? Should we wrongfully color Somalia? Sudan? How many more do you want? It is time you stop your POV-pushing and assume good faith. Neftchi (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is time you stop your POV-pushing and assume good faith." Hopefully we will all do that. Anyway, to answer the above, Kurdistan does not claim independence, neither do any other regions in Iraq. Ditto with Afghanistan, Colombia, and Sudan. The Tamil Tigers have been destroyed, with the territory now under the control of the Sri Lankan government. Somalia however, should, by the arguments given above. Does that clarify the argument? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurdistan does not claim independence? Really it doesn't? I thought thousands of killed and the existence of PKK was for that purpose. All media from the whole world have to be mistaken if they think Kurdistan wants independence or autonomous independence. In any any case, the rebel government controls Kurdistan and it controlled it for 20 years without Saddam's rule there, when Saddam was the leader of Iraq. Please check facts. In Afghanistan, Taliban claims power and control some tribal areas althoug rest of our world doesn't recognize them. In Colombia, rebels claim power and in some area there is no rule by central government. That's why America sent billions of dollars to help central government fight them. Sudan, no? Wow, it is necessary for you to study politics. You must become familiar with Southern Sudan issue and then come to speak here. Same with Somalia. Tamil Tigers was not destroyed. They laid their arms like Irish Republican Army. World recognizes legal grounds, not rebel powers. Dighapet (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The PKK comes from Turkey, not Iraq, and currently lacks independent control over the area. The Rebel government in Iraq at no point declared independence. Neither has the Taliban. Neither has the FARC. Southern Sudan has not declared independence, it will in July (so they say). Somaliland has declared independence. The Tamil Tigers were destroyed, in a massive military movement by Sri Lanka, which was declared over in 2009 by both sides with Tamil defeat. Please check facts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)