Wikipedia

Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 7

< Talk:Azerbaijan
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Þjarkur in topic Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

August 30, 1991 – Declaration of Independence
Azerbaijan declared its intention to once again become an independent nation.
October 18, 1991 - Independence Day
Since 1991, this has been the national day of celebration of the country’s independence.
August 30, 1991 – Declaration of Independence 202.40.137.199 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be already covered in first paragraph of the section "Republic era". Stickee (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)



many sources from old newspapers
https://www.google.com/search?q=azerbaijan%20independence%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers&gws_rd=ssl

Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Aug 31, 1991
Republic Of Azerbaijan Declares Independence
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19910831&id=6bkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=43sEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6858,6335758
Times Daily - Aug 31, 1991
Azerbaijan Declares Independence
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19910829&id=YHNhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZccEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1098,4627186
Daily News - Aug 30, 1991
Azerbaijan Is Eighth Republic To Declare Independence
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19910830&id=Lt0hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k0cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4586,6339947
The Prescott Courier - Aug 30, 1991
Azerbaijan 8th Soviet Republic To Declare Independence
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19910830&id=haVhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fYEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3200,4767572
The Fort Scott Tribune - Aug 30, 1991
Azerbaijan Is Eighth To Secede From Soviet Union
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1906&dat=19910830&id=YPcfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bQEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1866,5561289
The Times-News - Aug 31, 1991
Eighth Republic Declares Independence
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19910831&id=3u0eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bCQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1936,7311146

1st:Lithuania-11 March 1990
2nd:Georgia-April 9, 1991
3rd:Latvia-21 August 1991
4th:Estonia-20 August 1991
5th:Ukraine-24 August 1991
6th:Belarus-25 August 1991
7th:Moldova-27 August 1991
8th:Azerbaijan-30 August 1991

more,
Embassy of Azerbaijan to the USA
On August 30, 1991, Azerbaijan’s Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and on October 18, 1991, the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan was approved.
http://www.azembassy.us/azerbaijan/history.html

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sing! 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

please include August 30 independence declaration event in right-sided table, "formation" part

  Done I have added the date of the declaration, since this seems a reasonable request. If consensus rules that it is overloading the infobox, of course, consensus will prevail. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"won the forth place" might be better expressed as "placed fourth"66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done - although I used "came fourth" - Arjayay (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Under the "Religion" section, I would add that Azerbaijan does not fully support religious freedom, as is evidenced from the International Religious Freedom Report for 2011, United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. It would appear that certain Muslim and Christian groups are being persecuted. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/192997.pdf Wangofree (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Its debatable as to whether this is notable enough to be in the main article. It is well covered in Religion in Azerbaijan and Freedom of religion in Azerbaijan. -- haminoon (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  Not done for now: Haminoon, I think we should link to Freedom_of_religion_in_Azerbaijan#Restrictions_on_religious_freedom with Wangofree's cite. Would that work for you? It seems that this article is incongruous with the other in that regard. It would cause the articles to contradict otherwise. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes that would be good. -- haminoon (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


The "traditional Azerbaijani" costume and instrument picture is NOT Azerbaijani tradition - it is either Georgian or North Caucasian - Circassian/Chechen/Abkhaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.1.43 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The map in the main template does not include Karabakh (NKR) in light green. Other countries' articles with disputed territories have the distinctive light green layer. 46.241.153.135 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cession treaties

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

@LouisAragon: I'd recommend to discuss first before further removal of sourced info. That "those treaties meant nothing" is a personal opinion. Also, two sentences had mangled grammar: "As another direct result of Qajar Iran's irrevocable forced ceding of its Caucasian territories to Russia in the 19th century, which thus included the territory of the modern-day Azerbaijan Republic..." and "The area to the North of the river Aras, among which the territory of the contemporary republic of Azerbaijan were Iranian territory until they were occupied by Russia". Brandmeistertalk 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister:, discuss what precisely? The fact that you simply copy/paste a completely in Russian written source on the English Wikipedia to change the content of a section? And then ask people, through reversion, to discuss your edit? The "mangled grammar" is another thing that can be fixed, but with your edit, it distorted the precise meaning of the sentence. (As the point is that there was no such thing as an entity as "Azerbaijan" during that time).
No one denies that those khans signed cession treaties, but de facto, they meant nothing as Qajar Iran and Imperial Russia were still at war (Russo-Persian War (1804-1813) and Russo-Persian War (1826-1828)). I don't see what purpose it has to mention those treaties to a general countries' article. If you can bring a good point regarding that, we can perhaps reach a consensus.
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not copy/paste, but a translation of relevant parts from an online reliable source in accordance with WP:NONENG. We simply can't copy/paste Russian texts here. Those treaties clarify the situation, meaning that some khanates were ceded to Russia by their respective khans (as in Treaty of Kurakchay) and not directly by Iran. Besides, in some cases it were khanate troops who fought with Russians, such as during the Battle of Ganja. As for grammar, I don't see distortions, but if you have better suggestions, I'm open. Brandmeistertalk 21:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
But what usage does it have, when a de facto status quo was only reached through the Treaty of Gulistan of 1813 and the Treaty of Turkmenchay of 1828 which ended both Russo-Persian wars and now only proved official cession? The Kurekchay treaty didn't mean Russia had full control over Karabakh or something, or anything near it. The treaties furthermore didn't end the wars and nor did it stop the frontier from changing every year. Nor did Persia recognize any of the treaties those khans made during the war. The wars are known as Russo-Persian or Russo-Iranian wars, not Russo-Khanate wars. Mentioning those treaties are, in my opinion, looking at the historical facts and the article in question, simply undue weight. They make a much better fit to articles such as Karabakh khanate, History of Azerbaijan, and such.
Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: the fact that the khan of Ganja, of Qajar extraction himself, solely used his own troops in the Battle of Ganja (1804) because the main Persian forces didn't arrive in time,[1] ain't really the best argument.
Khans' cession treaties, specifically those of Baku Khanate (1801) and Shirvan khanate (1805), chronologically preceded Treaty of Gulistan. Treaty of Gulistan formalized cession on Iranian behalf, while Russia also received cessions on behalf of local khanate authorities themselves. So I don't think that mention is undue weight, it just a statement of fact. Brandmeistertalk 22:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The khans had no authority. The Persian shah was obliged to recognize the sovereignty of the tsar over Georgia, Mingrelia, Abkhazia, Ganja, Qarābāḡ, Qobba, Darband, Baku, Dāḡestān, Šakki, and other territories (Article 3) from the Treaty of Gulistan. As you can see the shah was the one who gave the territory to Russia, not the khans. The treaty of Turkmenchay aslo does not mention any khans, it just talks about how Persia transferred the territory to Russia.Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur. The treaties had simply de facto no usage in the game between the two empires, which I told above as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a personal opinion. Khanates had their own divans and councils, minted their own coinage, conducted trade, used different weight measurement units, etc. The mention of their cession treaties doesn't breach any wikipolicy whatsoever. Brandmeistertalk 11:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You try to label historical, established facts as "PoV" in order to kill the discussion. It's sourced that the khans had no authority in this matter. No khans were mentioned in the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties which ceded the region to Russia. Furthermore, it's not the first time you try to reduce the importance of information related to Azerbaijan-Iran historical ties, which are intimately intertwined. You did the same thing here where you deleted a perfectly accessible link. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Donbuli, Abd-al Razagh. Gholam-hussain Sadri Afshar (ed.). Maaser al Sultaniyeh (in Persian) (2nd ed.). Tehran: Ibn Sina. p. 109. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you add protection template for this article please? TheFame08 (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done Sarah-Jane (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sarahj2107: Thank you. TheFame08 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please change ((Charles King (author)|King, Charles)) to ((Charles King (professor of international affairs)|King, Charles)) 73.214.30.202 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Karabakh War in intro section / Feudal era large edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

LouisAragon, you said "You made a large scale change to the article's body, while none of the changes were any improvement. Bring your concerns to the talk page please." Hmains: you said: "no explanation for changes in numbers; no agreement on talk page to change the area for political reasons".

My edit #1: "In September 1991, the Armenian majority [11] of disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous region declared its secession from Azerbaijan Republic to create a separate state as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.[12]"

Nagorno Karabakh Republic's government page has postings of the relevant articles, and you will notice upon reading that the question that's put to vote is clear "Согласны ли Вы, чтобы провозглашенная Нагорно-Карабахская Республика была независимым государством, самостоятельно определяющим формы сотрудничества с другими государствами и сообществами?" Do you agree that Nagorno Karabakh Republic should be an independent state, which freely determines forms of its cooperation with other states and communities... This is not a re-affirmation. This is a declaration. "Re-affirm" implies that it has done so already before. No such declarations have been made previously. 1988 document is "О ХОДАТАЙСТВЕ ПЕРЕД ВЕРХОВНЫМИ СОВЕТАМИ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ССР И АРМЯНСКОЙ ССР О ПЕРЕДАЧЕ НКАО ИЗ СОСТАВА АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ССР В СОСТАВ АРМЯНСКОЙ ССР" "A Request" to the supreme soviets of Azerbaijan and Armenia to transfer NKAO from Azerbaijan to Armenia. Therefore, it is not a declaration of independence and thus 1991 referendum doesn't reaffirm it. So secession is the correct word here. Teh term "re-affirm" is politically charged, as insinuates prior declarations of independence and possibly even reference to hostilities in 1920s during which no affirmations were made by either side.

My question: should we have a Nagorno Karabakh dispute as second paragraph of the article about Republic of Azerbaijan. Canada article doesn't reference Quebec referendum until article 2.5... and theirs was in 1995, much more recent. Ireland article references referendum in 2.2, and Ireland in this case is analogous to NKR itself, not even Azerbaijan. So what's the rationale for NKR being the second to geographic description of the country. Karabakh war references rightly belong in the Modern Area section. .


Edit #2: "Ensuing hostilities between Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Nagorno-Karabakh eventually led to full-scale war[13] ending with ceasefire agreement in 1994 and Azerbaijan loosing control over the region and seven adjacent districts outside it. These territories controlled by de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan[14] until a final solution to status of the Nagorno-Karabakh is found through negotiations facilitated by the OSCE.[15][16][17][18]"

This too is factual. Nagorno Karabakh Republic does NOT claim all of the territories captured in 1994 as part of NKR... this has been declared and is not disputed, therefore "The region and seven adjacent districts outside it became de facto independent since the ending of the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994" is factually incorrect, since only the territory of NKR is de facto independent since those are the territories covered by the original referendum and are expressly stated as boundaries on NKR.

Edit #3. The pre-Turkic population that lived on the territory of modern Republic of Azerbaijan likely spoke several Indo-European and Caucasian language. Language of Caucasian Albanian tribes, which dominated the territory of present day Azerbaijan republic has been lost. However Armenian linguist Koryun, in his "Life of Mashtots" describes it as distinctly different from authors own (Armenian) and therefore likely of Caucasian origin[49]. Modern day Udi, spoken in Nij village, Qabala district of Azerbaijan is believed to be the descendant of Caucasian Albanian[50]. Old Azari languagewhich, unlike Turkic Azeri language, belongs to Indo-Iranian group of languages. Tati dialects presently spoken in North Eastern regions of Republic of Azerbaijan and Dagestan region of Russia, are believed to be a remnant of Azari.[51][52] Armenian[53][54][55][56][57] and Georgian were likely spoken in western regions[58][59] as well as Talysh in the southeast.

Current language puts Armenian as #1 language spoken in pre-Turkic Azerbaijan. This is not accurate. Since Albania controlled most of the present-day Azerbaijan (undisputed and reflected in works of Strabo, Plutarch as well as Koryun and Movses Kh. (last 2 Armenian sources), its language deserves first mention, followed by Old Azari (requires no debate). Boundaries of Armenia and Albania are notoriously difficult to establish since we have to rely on manuscript of a 5th century Armenian monk who was more concerned with Christianity and God than borders. Therefore listing Armenian language as #1 is a misrepresentation of known facts and can only be politically motivated. Let's watch this space.

Edit #3: Uzun Hassan of Ak Koyunlu eventually defeated Kara Koyunlu in 1467 establishing tribal federation which ruled over present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, Eastern Turkey, part of Iran, and northern Iraq[61]. After his death in 1478, and following internal strife, Uzun Hassan's grandson, Ismail I, having inherited leadership of Safavi order from his father, Shaykh Junayd, and with support of Oghuz Turkic-speaking Qizilbash clans of Azerbaijan and Anatolia [62], declared himself Shah of Azerbaijan,[63] in 1501 choosing Tabriz as his capital and Shah of Iran in 1502 thereby establishing the Safavid Dynasty. According to some historians, Safavis were of Azeri Turkic origin [64], while others believe the Ismail's paternal lineage comes from 'indigenous Iranian stock' which adopted Azeri upon arrival in Azerbaijan. Shah Ismail I and some other Safavi Shahs composed poems in their native Azeri.

Current version discusses post-Timurid period but indicates that Shirvanshahs "returned" and maintained a high degree of autonomy as local rulers and vassals from 861 until 1539. This period covers Caliphate conquests, Seljuk empire, Mongol and Timur-bec's extermination of Shirvan, Mugan and Karabakh population. I can cite original sources, such as Tabari, Zafarname etc. More importantly, Safavi dynasty is a crucial milestone in Azerbaijan's history. 1501 marks the first time the territory of present day Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (along with other parts of former Persian empire) after 900 years of foreign rule are free of foreign domination. This is also the first time a man declares himself Shah of Azerbaijan, not as vassal, but as an independent kingdom. This man also is Turkic/Azeri speaking. This is what needs to be conveyed. Frankly I am surprised at the push back since the paragraph in question reads like bad prose and encapsulates several unrelated facts. I think we should welcome an improvement here. One paragraph covers 1000 years, and you have 3 lines dedicated to conversion to shia islam. in 2016 this is relevant among Iraqis but most Azeris will take a few seconds to recall which they are. I'll come back with addition edits on the talk page.

Welcome opinions, but Karabakh War as #2 topic and Armenian as #1 language is what's politically motivated. Amamedli (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Tons of undue weight 2) the added content is absolutely no improvement compared to the previous revision (quality wise). I'm sure most others will agree with me. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I am looking for a debate, not a vote. Since when is history determined by majority vote? I am sure others will offer an explanation of their view Amamedli (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

in re "Nagorno Karabakh Republic does NOT claim all of the territories captured in 1994 as part of NKR" - This might have been true in 1992, but the NKR has administered those territories for 20 years, and appears to claim them, as per references like the 2005 census, page 46. Note the whole of the controlled area is divided into regions that aren't specifically commensurate with the borders of the NKAO, with the referendum area that is not controlled by the NKR labelled as "under enemy control". In other words, the NKR appears to claim the referendum area plus the region behind the 1994 Line of Control. I imagine that any peace talks will operate on those borders, and not the referendum area. Also, the NKAO referendum and Quebec referendum are not at all analogous, and you seem disingenuous for suggesting that a failed referendum that was followed by no change is the same as a successful referendum that was followed by a devastating and isolating war. --Golbez (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
fair enough, checked the census data and nkr does claim some of the western regions under census. Sure, there is massive difference between those referenda .... I am saying other territorial conflicts are not placed so prominently on country articles, it simply isn't the second thing you say about Azerbaijan. Even Argentina article says it "claim sovereignty over Malvinas". That's it. Disingenuous or not (uncalled for). Thanks for feedback Amamedli (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

LouiseAragon, can you elaborate on your reaction? I think "tons" and "absolutely" are inconclusive arguments. thanks Amamedli (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Asia?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Azerbaijan is in Northwest Asia, why does it say everywhere that it is Southwest? — Music1201 talk 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Southwest. World Factbook, numerous other sources.DLinth (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

History of territory's name

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everybody. the name of this country before Musavat party was arran & shervan. but Musavat (with panturkish ideology) change this territory's name to azarbaijan for political reasoning. hence i want to edit this article as you saw it. --Dastan47 (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Corruption in public service

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

My well sourced single sentence edit was twice reverted with ambiguous explanations.

First at all, I want to say that the information I changed was outdated with its referenced reports being both 4 and 5 years old.

Second, in my edit I referenced the latest 2016 report by OECD. It is in fact a report, not a plan as said in the revert message. The execute summary of it clearly says: "This report analyses progress made by Azerbaijan in carrying out anti-corruption reforms and implementing recommendations of the IAP since the adoption of the Third Monitoring Round report in 2013. "

Third, the referenced report by OECD doesn't contradict my changes. Here are the relevant lines from it:

The report praises Azerbaijan for advancing Azerbaijani Service and Assessment Network (ASAN) centres, which has contributed to eliminating the conditions that are conducive to corruption when delivering various administrative services to the public. As one stop shops, ASAN centres have limited administration discretion and significantly improved interface between government and citizens in providing services. The business environment has improved due to the simplification of licensing procedures, fee reduction and the ongoing expansion of ASAN, as well as the introduction of some services being offered regardless of residential registration. Azerbaijan has been downgraded in Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and made inactive in Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative. In order to remedy this Azerbaijan must address the core issue of ensuring enabling environment for civil society participation.

Fourth, there are other reports by the relevant organizations that can backup my edit. For example, the recent EU Business Climate Survey Azerbaijan 2016 report says:

Moreover, particularly welcome is the provision of services related to the issuing of business licenses by ASAN services (Azerbaijan Service and Assessment Network), given that they are countrywide known for eliminating bribery and corruption in the provision of public services.

and

Looking ahead, streamlining taxes and customs procedures and liberalizing tariffs would further stimulate investment and thus raise the prospects for capital inflows. In this context, providing transparency will play a key role and “ASAN” services, which have eliminated corruption and removed bureaucracy in public service delivery, can act as instructive models amidst institutional reforms.

Considering all the above I find it somewhat surprising that my edit was reverted. Boaqua (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get any sufficient explanations in a week. I'm going to restore my edit. Boaqua (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Azeristan

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a country for azeri people Sehguraby (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

revert

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

revert due to deletion of cited text; probable POV editing; whitewashing; mischaracterization of reliable sources. Each change needs to be justified by the editor doing the deletion. Hmains (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming territory

Latest comment: 6 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

First at all, who is F. Akhmedova the historian? and where he is working and which publisher has published his assay ? i have a certain prove of using arran to this territory in medieval era. --Dandamayev (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Two things here. First, don't know why "In an attempt to resolve this issue, the ADR government referred to the republic as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" in much of its foreign correspondence" was deleted. Secondly, "Thus, until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly-independent state Azerbaijan, the designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" is essentially a repetition of the previous sentence, so it's redundant. Also, we don't normally put Template:Further in the midst of a text. Brandmeistertalk 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I don't see anything "redundant" about the original revision. What I do see though, is bothersome WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your part. You clearly attempted to remove reliably sourced content. Specifically, content/quotes which disprove the fringe stuff the government of the Azerbaijan Republic usually states. Its evident you tried to remove it along with the quotes and important links, and to replace it with WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE material (such as about the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan", and the stuff from "F. Akhmedova".[1][2]). LouisAragon (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That section already says that the word "Azerbaijan" previously referred to the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran, so why we repeat in the subsequent sentence that "the designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan"? As for the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" part, it's neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:FRINGE and comes from scholar Brenda Shaffer. It's an important clarification in the naming issue mentioned in that section. Brandmeistertalk 20:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Iran also officially refers to itself as the "Islamic Republic of Iran", yet everyone simply continues to refer to it as "Iran". The "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", which lasted a mere two years before being dissolved, might have referred to itself as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" -- everyone basically continued to refer to it simply as "Azerbaijan".
The usage of the word "Azerbaijan" by the Az. Republic is extremely controversial for two things; a) for the fact they copy-pasted it from an Iranian region 2) for the fact they try to show it as if the area to the north of the Aras was known as "Azerbaijan" prior to 1918, i.e. prior to the so-called copy-paste act. That's why Shaffer (a non-neutral author[3], NB) is pure WP:UNDUE weight.
The WP:FRINGE / non-WP:RS material written by "F. Akhmedova", which you tried to insert (while conveniently removing quotes + sources + links about Caucasian Albania, etc.), shows once more that your edits were completely disruptive. Even though both me and User:Dandamayev raised this up above, on two separate occassions, you refrained from answering. Jeez, I wonder why! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Its always the same story with User:Brandmeister. First, he makes his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits (on WP:AA2 articles). Then, people call him out for those edits. Thereafter, he starts talking about apples and oranges in order to cover the disruptive part of those same edits and to completely divert people from the created mess. Textbook example of someone jumping the gun due to extensive WP:CRUSH abuse on low-profile articles.
- LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as AA2 is invoked, in line with its principles, I'm always ready to discuss the disagreements, being also the initiator of an RfC that you knew. Now, "The usage of the word "Azerbaijan" by the Az. Republic is extremely controversial" is a classic case of WP:IMPARTIAL requiring a balanced view. It's not merely "how everyone continues to call" something - Iran's article mentions its full name "Islamic Republic of Iran", similarly it's very reasonable to mention the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan when describing the naming conflict. For that matter I agree to replace Akhmedova with Shaffer. Note that I didn't include the former when adding Shaffer. Brandmeistertalk 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I wonder where's "PoV material" when even your cited sources confirm what I clarified. Continous reverting with "No consensus was reached" when you did not respond to the talk proposal is unfortunate and unproductive, at least. I'm still open for an agreed impartial wording instead of the current POV. Brandmeistertalk 11:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "I'm always ready to discuss (...)"
As long as the intentions are loaded with WP:TENDENTIOUS, its completely irrelevant whether someone wants to discuss matters or not.
  • "(...) is a classic case of WP:IMPARTIAL requiring a balanced view."
Tons of sources literally state that the adoption of the name "Azerbaijan" by the Musavat's was very much politically loaded. And yes, indeed controversial. Why are you disregarding them? Again, I request you to tread with more caution -- this is WP:AA2 territory;
  • - ''(...) the Baku and Elisavetpol guberniias, declared their independence (to 1920), and, despite Iranian protests, took the name of Azerbaijan (as noted, the same designation as the historical region in northwestern Iran) (...) -- Bournoutian, George A. (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. p. xviii
  • - "On May 27, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as [Transcaucasian] Tatar, which they rightfully considered to be a Russian colonial definition.... Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoptation of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim." -- Yilmaz, Harun (2015). National Identities in Soviet Historiography: The Rise of Nations Under Stalin. Routledge. p. 21.
  • - "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." -- Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris. p. 60.
  • - "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." -- Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356
  • - "In the post Islamic sense, Arran and Shirvan are often distinguished, while in the pre-Islamic era, Arran or the western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (northwestern Iran) was reinterpreted as "South Azerbaijan" in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern-day northwestern Iran." -- Fragner, B.G. (2001). Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia. I.B. Tauris and Company.
  • "For that matter I agree to replace Akhmedova with Shaffer."
So Brandmeister finally agrees that his addition of "F. Akhmedova" was WP:TENDENTIOUS.
Shaffer is not a neutral author.[4] A better, more neutral source needs to be found, then we can re-add the information about Caucasian Azerbaijan (while keeping WP:DUE in mind, of course). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and THIS was really not a smart move. You still hadn't reached a consensus, yet you just re-inserted and changed (once again), a large part of the content. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as [Transcaucasian] Tatar, which they rightfully considered to be a Russian colonial definition (emphasis mine). And from Barthold, whom you also quote in the section: 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. So instead of "for political reasons", let's clarify.
As for Shaffer, see WP:BIASED, even though she's a reliable Western scholar. Otherwise I might argue that Rezvani, for example, is biased because he's an involved partisan author, just like Bagrat Ulubabyan, who was criticized. What matters is the fact-checked impartial tone from reliable sources. So let's stick to specific facts, without opinionated rewordings. Brandmeistertalk 12:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Brenda Shaffer is working for azeri Company and has benefit in anti-Iranian Proxy war between Iran_Israel war. she has been Criticized by Touraj Atabaki and Other scholars. we have Strong Evidence witch says this territory was named Arran and Shervan before 1918. --Dandamayev (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "For political reasons " is better wording , because the reasons for Stalin - After reoccupying ADR - and Musavatis were not the same . Brenda Shaffer is not Neutral , but anyway her exact wording in the book is : In an attempt to allay Iranian apprehension, the government referred to the new republic as the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan , and this is not equal to In an attempt to resolve this issue, the ADR government referred to the republic as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan . I think the first sentence is more negative than the second one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What Shaffer writes is confirmed e.g. by Svante E. Cornell: ...fears of offending Iran prompted Baku to refer to the nascent republic as "Caucasian Azerbaijan". So it's not about claimed bias, but facts. The problem with "for political reasons" is that it's WP:VAGUE and non-neutral. Can we agree on something like: "In 1918, the government of Musavat adopted the name "Azerbaijan" for the new Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, wanting to unite its population and Persian Azerbaijanis, even though the name "Azerbaijan" had been used previously to refer to the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran. In an attempt to allay Iranian concerns, the ADR government referred to the new republic as the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan in its foreign correspondence"? Plain facts per cited sources and Iran's reaction is included. Brandmeistertalk 10:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The reasons for Musavatis in general ( and Mammad Amin Rasulzadeh in particular ) - as he himself wrote in Persian language newspapers of that time - was rather unifying with Iran (excluding the monarchy ) , but reasons for Soviets in keeping the name that Musavatis invented was cessationist and irredentist for Iranian Azerbaijan and hence they also coined the term "Southern Azerbaijan " that sure has political charge and no historical background . Shaffer herself despite her political agenda mentions that in the beginning of her book . So I think clarification about ADR may hide the Soviets reasons for keeping the name . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dandamayev: We can't just add such controversial tags like "Pan-Turkism" on a country article's name section and get away with it. Same goes for adding the image of that official protesting letter. Even though there is nothing wrong with it, and that it's quite informative and related, it would attract edit wars and it should rather be avoided. Don't you think?
@Brandmeister: I don't understand the term "previously" here. It's literally suggesting that the "adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran" was "previously" called Azerbaijan, which is just wrong and confusing. That's actually why I agree with keeping that other sentence that contains the term "exclusively", as it clarifies the basic point of all those listed sources. I hear your point regarding the repeated contents. They should definitely be merged together.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with adding that, as a response to the Iranian protests, the term "Caucasian" was used in some official documents for some time, if this would be supported by a reliable, unbiased source other than the controversial Brenda Shaffer.
At this point, what needs to be done is a general copy edit that would make the section neutral and less confusing.
—Rye-96 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rye-96: Yes, a neutral copyediting for the repetition and other contentious stuff is very much welcomed, basically that's the point of this thread. Also, to clarify, it's more about ethno-linguistic unity rather than perceived "political reasons" or territorial claim: formerly Iranian inhabitants of the southern lands, known as Azari (possibly the descendants of the ancient Medes), have also turkicized (Atabaki, 1993, p. 9 10; Ale-Osfur, 2006, p. 17-20), so the populations to the north and south of the Cyrus River apparently shared certain cultural and later also political features. Brandmeistertalk 22:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Please refrain from continuous reverting already to override the discussion. If you have concerns, post them here instead of jumping the gun. Again, the "politically motivated" part is a classic WP:NPOV breach which is not supported by the cited sources - neither of the two says it was "politically motivated". If you don't have any ideas for this, let's drop that part and shake hands. Brandmeistertalk 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You didn't reach any consensus with anyone on this page. 4 people so far have expressed their legitimate concerns vis-a-vis your edits. Yet, you just went ahead once more, and made more POV additions to the article, in violation of WP:CON.[5]. Why are you so keen on edit-warring on AA2 articles, I wonder? It's not the first time this happens. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The overwhelming number of sources clearly illustrate that the name change (from "Arran/Shirvan" into "Azerbaijan") was politically loaded and controversial. You're cherry picking words from Barthold's quote in order to whitewash the rest of the sources and quotes.
  • "(...) the Baku and Elisavetpol guberniias, declared their independence (to 1920), and, despite Iranian protests, took the name of Azerbaijan (as noted, the same designation as the historical region in northwestern Iran) (...)" -- Bournoutian, George A. (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. p. 18.
  • "In the post Islamic sense, Arran and Shirvan are often distinguished, while in the pre-Islamic era, Arran or the western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (northwestern Iran) was reinterpreted as "South Azerbaijan" in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern-day northwestern Iran." -- Fragner, B.G. (2001). Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia. I.B. Tauris and Company. pp. 13–32.
  • "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the current Azeri historians have not only continued to use the terms "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan, but also assert that the present-day Armenian Republic was a part of northern Azerbaijan. In their fury over what they view as the "Armenian occupation" of Nagorno-Karabakh [which incidentally was an autonomous Armenian region within Soviet Azerbaijan], Azeri politicians and historians deny any historic Armenian presence in the South Caucasus and add that all Armenian architectural monuments located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan are not Armenian but [Caucasian] Albanian." -- Bournoutian, George A. (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. p. xviii
  • ""Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian, as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it as a single state that has been separated into "northern" and "southern" sectors and which will be united in the future."" -- Bournoutian, George A. (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. p. xv - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
"What Shaffer writes is confirmed e.g. by Svante E. Cornell (...)"
Substituting an author who's considered to be a herald of Azerbaijani state doctrine with another one that even doubts the Armenian Genocide as well.[6] Splendid choice. Another very neutral *ahem* source for the AA2 topic area.
I stand by what I originally said, per WP:RS, WP:VER and DUE; "For political reasons" is the most neutral wording. Seems Alborz Fallah and Dandamayev agree with me as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it's not the author, but facts. Though I understand - as you provided no evidence whatsoever that Shaffer or Cornell are wrong, you resort to "pro-Azeri" and genocide stuff. And once again, per WP:IMPARTIAL: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Stating that it was "politically motivated" is a POV which intentionally obfuscates the factual background that has been described. The bolded Fragner's quote is irrelevant, as it explicitly refers to the later Soviet era, i.e. after ADR. I'd also fact-check Fragner, as he seems to make far-reaching claims.
User Rye-96 above has already agreed with NPOV concerns. But I see there's still no consensus on how to deal with that part of the section, so I will likely remove that particular part. Brandmeistertalk 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: Would you please explain "ethno-linguistic unity"?.. As far as I'm concerned, a generic mention of the fact that the name change was controversial and politically motivated, which is supported by the given sources, is just neutral and quite relevant. And in what part of the discussion did we agree to remove the sourced part regarding the Iranian protests?..
—Rye-96 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rye-96: You wrote above: At this point, what needs to be done is a general copy edit that would make the section neutral and less confusing (emphasis mine). So I'm baffled with your insistence on keeping the part that conflicts WP:NPOV. I'd clarify further: In the ADR's proclamation the Azerbaijani National Council stated: The Azerbaijani Democratic Republic is determined to establish friendly relations with all, especially with the neighbouring nations and states. So the insistence on "politically motivated" is contentious. The Azerbaijan article has been a relatively stable WP:GA until that undiscussed part has been added several days ago. So until the acceptable solution let's keep that out of the article. Brandmeistertalk 12:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, that could be reworded into something like: "On that basis Iran protested the newly adopted country name". Brandmeistertalk 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: Well, a general copy edit that would make the section neutral and less confusing is what I tried to do here. I wasn't suggesting that we completely remove sourced and relevant material while a discussion is happening. I'm sorry if my wording was confusing.
As far as I'm concerned, the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic stating that it is determined to establish friendly relations with all, especially with the neighbouring nations and states doesn't really change anything regarding the political nature of the decision, and neither does a supposed ethno-linguistic unification. And yes, Iran having protested the newly adopted country name is actually a sourced and relevant portion of the content that was removed through your reverts. So we already agree that, noticeably.
—Rye-96 (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I can say "politically motivated" does not have negative meaning per se , and in the sentence it is used to show the lack of historical background of the new name. To be determined to establish friendly relations with all, especially with the neighbouring nations and states , is political in nature although it intends to be Good political reason . Anyway as I said before , changing the name in history has two important parts : changing and keeping the change . The political motivations for change in the ADR era may be of good political motivations but USSR reasons for keeping it were sure different . If Brandmeister thinks politically motivation is not NPOV , Can we use political reasons ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I would rather go with the current wording agreed with Rye-96. If we introduce politics, we should explain the whole picture (ADR's stance as well, not merely Iranian view). Brandmeistertalk 10:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology part lacks alternatives and additional info

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Atropates#Legacy: The region that encompassed Atropates' kingdom come to be known to the Greeks as "Media Atropatene" after Atropates, and eventually simply "Atropatene". The Arsacids called it 'Aturpatakan' in Parthian, as did also the Sassanids who eventually succeeded them. Eventually Middle Iranian 'Aturpatakan' became 'Azerbaijan', whence, according to one etymological theory,[8][9] the modern nation of Azerbaijan and the Iranian province of Azerbaijan (which province is largely contiguous with the borders of ancient Atropatene) got their names;[10] another theory traces the etymology from the ancient Persian words "Āzar" (Persian: آذر‎), meaning Fire, and "Pāyegān" (Persian: پایگان‎) meaning Guardian/Protector (Āzar Pāyegān = "Guardians of Fire") (Persian: آذر پایگان‎), with Āzar Pāyegān later becoming corrupted to 'Azerbaijan' under the dominance of Arabic and the circumstances thereby imposed by that language's lack of facility in producing or pronouncing "G / P / ZH / CH".94.176.92.56 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain, and add links, explaining reference to "Husein's world"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reference to Husein's world in the following part of the introductory text goes without explanation or further reference:

"the country has been seen to be one of most religious countries in the Husein's world, with 53% stating religion has little to no importance in their lives"

A citation of where this figure comes from should be provided (it appears that reference [222], [GALLUP – What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common – data accessed on 19 August 2014], is a news item related to the Gallup survey, but it is not the original source, and the news item itself does not contain the 53% figure). An explanation (hyperlink to another Wikipedia page), explaining the reference to "Husein's world" would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.65.143 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Jews in Azerbaijan

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yes, I am completely upset with some people who administrate Wikipedia.

Why? Because you do not do your work as serious academics would do.

You even don't study all the sources and articles Wikipedia provides to specific themes.

And you also seem not to be able to do simple math.

0,1% of the last census (2009) from a total population of 8,922,400 is = 8,922

But the official census of 2009 even writes 9,100 jews.

https://www.stat.gov.az/source/demoqraphy/ap/

That is the official website of the government.

Why no higher estimate in the year 2018 from my part? Because most of the Jews who stayed in Azerbaijan after the 1990's are older people who do no longer reproduce themselves. But even if they would the "Total fertility rate" there is a little below 2.1, what means no growth even in the last 10 years.

Concerning the rest that I wrote, about the mountain Jews of Quba, just read the article of Wikipedia about it, and that is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qırmızı_Qəsəbə

Most of the younger Jews have already left the SU/Russia in the last decades, that is simply a fact:

https://www.haaretz.com/st/c/prod/eng/25yrs_russ_img/

Of 3 to 3,5 Million only 0,8 to 1 Million still live in the former SU. That is why all figures concerning Azerbaijan speaking of 30.000 to 35.000 Jews are wrong, even older sources, and therefore have to, should be changed in all articles that have something to do with that.

But I'm not the idiot who is willing to fight with a dozen of Wikipedia authors who think they always know better.

End of transmission, I'm done with Wikipedia. You only rob my precious time.84.118.28.207 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't read everything you said, but I need to comment on your math. 9,100 / 8,922,400 * 100 = 0.10199, which is effectively 0.1%, so what are you complaining about? — [ kentronhayastan ] 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Map and caption

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Anita escobar, Wikaviani, Vsmith, and anyone else interested: I've reverted the map and caption to its previous status quo version, which has been relatively stable for several months, while discussion takes place about what, if anything, to do about it. Please discuss issues with the map and its caption here, and get consensus before making any further changes to it, and avoid the need for page protection, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems I stumbled into a dispute as I was mostly just fixing image sizes etc and had no concern regarding the map. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Vsmith, no problem, I also stumbled into it, chasing a banned editor. And I also don't really have an opinion either way about the map. Just to be clear, the edit that changed to the map and caption without Artsakh was first made by said banned editor, which people maybe weren't aware of. If the change is to be accepted permanently, I would want to see a strong consensus for it by multiple people here, as edits by banned users are normally, you know, banned...
One other thing, the first edit by Anita escobar, that Wikaviani reverted, was actually reverting what I think was a problematic edit by an IP two days earlier (see my revert of the same edit) to the status quo version - a version that Wikaviani has himself reverted to in the past - so perhaps there's more common ground than it might seem at the moment?
Anita escobar is very new here, and has already made some helpful edits. Looking at the edit history in this article, I can imagine that the intent wasn't necessarily to revert all those edits of Vsmith and others, but just to make the "undo" work for that one edit. The edits by the banned user complicated things for everyone... I can see there's some legitimate frustration here. There's no excuse for edit warring (on anyone's part) or SHOUTING, but maybe we can all be a little more forgiving to each other than usual? --IamNotU (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey IamNotU and Vsmith, i also stumbled into it, but that was not intentionally at all, i just wanted to revert some unexplained and unsourced edit by Anita Escobar, nothing less, nothing more. Also, i asked Escobar to stop edit warring and to gain consensus on the talk. My aim was not to include again any content from a blocked sock. My appologies, i should have taken a look at the editing history of the page first. Take care everybody.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Wikaviani, I think it’s fairly obvious why I kept reverting the map back. You gave no explanation either. You changed the map without any explanations. I didn’t feel like I have to explain because it’s simple - Artsakh is not under the control of the Republic of Azerbaijan, so I felt that it’s unfair to not include the disputed country. Well, either way, what’s past is past. Have a nice day/night. Anita escobar (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anita escobar, thanks for participating in the discussion, and for your comments! Wikaviani did indeed make a mistake when he reverted your first edit, for which he has apologized above. His mistake is understandable though. The article has a history of people changing things based on their own viewpoints rather than on what reliable sources say. Someone had done that a couple of days earlier, and nobody noticed. When you changed it back to the way it used to be, you did it as a normal edit rather than a revert. So it looked like you were changing things, instead of fixing them.
At that point it would have been best for you to stop editing and ask for an explanation on the talk page, which is what Wikaviani rightly requested that you do. The edit summary comments are not the right place for back-and-forth discussions. There's no rush when editing Wikipedia. In most cases it's better to leave wrong information in the article for a short time until it's agreed what to do. Repeatedly making the same edit is edit warring, which is not acceptable even if you're right, and will lead to being blocked from editing. That's what WP:BRD says: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." It's not a requirement to follow BRD, but it's a kind of "golden rule" that helps avoid disruption.
Everyone makes mistakes - I neglected to restore the footnote that goes with the caption, which I've just fixed - but it seems now we're all in agreement, so I'm happy about that, and thanks again everyone for your patience in sorting it out. --IamNotU (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Anita escobar: Thank you for your message, i think IamNotU gave a precise perspective about my reverts, i don't have anything more to add about this. I wish you a great rest of your day. Happy editing.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

GDP per capita is above 8000 in his article

In fact, it is just 4,438 194.135.171.16 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. The figure in the article is sourced; if it's out of date, please provide a reliable source and it can be updated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Landlocked?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first sentence of the article says Azerbaijan is "a landlocked country". The second sentence says it is "bounded by the Caspian Sea to the east". If it has sea to one side of it, as indeed the map shows, how can it be described as "landlocked"? -- Alarics (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Per Landlocked country its definition also includes closed seas, which is the Caspian Sea. Personally, however, I dislike such a broad definition, as it becomes misleading. Brandmeistertalk 18:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Name of the country

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@Brandmeisterdo you have any good reason why you reverted my edit? To you have any source to prove it's not true?Amir El Mander (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brandmeister
The statement "what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan was never called Azerbaijan" is incorrect, see for instance Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Our section Azerbaijan#Name explains that quite well. Brandmeistertalk 21:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, it can be changed to "what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan was never called Azerbaijan before 1918". Azerbaijan#Name is not very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir El Mander (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The territory of every country was called something different before a given timeframe. Likewise, one can say "what is now the Republic of France was never called France before 800". So that's meaningless. Brandmeistertalk 14:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
And it should be mentioned they started to call their country France since 800. It's Wikipedia's job after all. Amir El Mander (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
In the Name section we already state that "The name Azerbaijan was first adopted for the area of the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan [...] when the independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was established". No need to repeat that. Brandmeistertalk 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spotted a spelling error at Köppen-Geiger climate classification map for Azerbaidjan on geography section.

Should be Azerbaijan.

Thanks

  Done – Þjarkur (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Changes to infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I added additional information to the infobox's "Established" section. Caucasian Albania is considered one of the first civilized states to be formed in *AZERBAIJAN*, as a territory. Furthermore, I added the Seljuk invasions and the subsequent Turkification process, which is crucial to the topic, as it shows why Azerbaijan's population is mostly Turkic-speaking. And finally, I added the major medieval Turkic states in Azerbaijan. I omitted the Safavid, Afshar, Qajar Empires, because they are generally accepted as part of the Iranian heritage. But I also added the Khanates period, which is also crucial, as it was shown in the papers of "Azerbaijani History" Paris Peace Conference (link to the PDF of the papers). So, I don't think there is anything wrong in the edit, but if you have any negative opinions, please discuss it here before reverting the edit. Thanks. --► Sincerely:A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 14:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania is by no means one of the first civilized states formed in Azerbaijan, many states predate it, like Mannea, Urartu, etc ... This would be a ridiculous claim to try to link Azerbaijan with these states from antiquity. Keep in mind that the Azerbaijani ethnos was only completed by the end of the 16th century. Going to revert back. If you disagree, just remmember that the ONUS is on you since you're the one trying to change long standing content, thus, you're the one needing to gain consensus before such changes.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed the Caucasian Albania part. It is meaningless to shorten Azerbaijan's history to 1918. --► Sincerely:A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't play the strawman please, where did i say that Azerbaijani history should be shortened to its history from 1918 ? I said don't try to link some old states, especially the ones before the 16th century to "Azerbaijan" since this is meaningless. Please refrain from such WP:NOTHERE edits, i believe that you're able to do a better job here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
These additions are violations of WP:OR. Imagine putting the League of Corinth in the infobox of Greece, Scythia in the infobox of Russia, Elam in the infobox of Iran, Indo-European migrations in the infobox of Spain or Indus Valley Civilization in the infobox of Pakistan. These examples are all part of the same irredentist narrative. Prior to 1918, there was no entity to the north of the Aras River with the name "Azerbaijan". This is a no-brainer verified by thousands of WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "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. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia." -- Enc. Iranica. AZERBAIJAN, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205-257[7] -- LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, there was no state named "Azerbaijan" north of Aras prior to 1918 and we should not try to link any middle age state to the Azerbaijani ethnos either.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Azerbaijan for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Azerbaijan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Azerbaijan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

“Schirevan” or “Medie” on the map of the first half of the 18th century

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3738~430074

What is the reason for canceling the illustration? V.N.Ali (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been a series of unexplained changes recently by IPs from Canada, 198.91.153.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 162.247.120.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, including Dawnseeker2000 and HistoryofIran. I'm asking the IP editor to explain their changes, since WP:CONSENSUS is required on Wikipedia, and not to keep repeating the same edits without discussion, see WP:EDITWARRING. Also, HistoryofIran, would you mind explaining why you reverted their edits here: [8], since "rv" is not a very informative edit summary. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Rayons vs raions (see also the talk page for Baku)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are we sure that it is correct to refer to the administrative divisions of Azerbaijan (as a whole) as "rayons", and the subdivisions of Baku as "raions"? The plural for both (according to the Wikipedia articles for Baku and Azerbaijan) in Azerbaijani is "rayonlar", and in most other countries, "rayon" and "raion" are merely two different ways to spell the same word. ZFT (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Axerbaijan

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Axerbaijan is an alternate spelling that should be included. The fact that is is edited out is censorship. Kyrgyzstan includes multiple alternative spellings. Can the mad edits stop? BrendanKennedy (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not look like an alternative spelling. Neither Google nor books know it. Brandmeistertalk 17:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement added to Azerbaijan country profile in Wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I do believe that below statement shouldn't be in country profile. This has already been captured under Contemporary History section. I removed it, however it was continuously reverted back by similar IP addresses. I give this people information that their point is valid and it is already covered in article, however no constructive resolution was achieved as they rejected to discuss.

"In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian Wars all of what is today Azerbaijan was ceded from Persia to the Russian Empire".

Hence, I am asking administrators to review and delete this statement.

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

188.158.73.89 (talk)

My friend, you several several times reverted my deletion of "In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian Wars all of what is today Azerbaijan was ceded from Persia to the Russian Empire". My justification is that this information is part of Azerbaijan history and covered in Contemporary History section in a very detailed way. Information is irrelevant to be included in general information section which is country profile.

Looking for your justification why do you think we should keep it under General Country profile rather than agree that the information already mentioned in detailed way under Contemporary History section.

Regrads,

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2020

I do believe that below statement shouldn't be in country profile. This has already been captured under Contemporary History section in detailes. This is POV sentence added by some users.

"In the aftermath of the Russo-Persian Wars all of what is today Azerbaijan was ceded from Persia to the Russian Empire". Mirhasanov (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(MSGJ,

You mentioned an important point regarding establishing consensus. I tried to talk IPs continuosly reverting it back but they didn't want to discuss it under Talk tab. Looking for your guidance what to do next in order to remove that sentence as I already mentioned this information has been described under Contemporary History part (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan#Contemporary_history) in a very detailed way.

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


Please also see my messages to that IP asking him/her to participate in discussion rather than continuously reverting it back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.158.73.89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have removed that sentence, and we'll see if they want to join the discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(MSGJ,

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the "demonym" parameter in the infobox, it says "Azerbaijani". However, the alternate term "Azeri" should also be shown. —  Melofors  TC  01:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

|demonym=
  • Azerbaijani
  • Azeri

—  Melofors  TC  19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Gents,

I have an objection. Azerbaijanis don't call themselves as Azeri.

Mirhasanov (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic minority languages

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Ethnic minority languages in infobox is to big.Peacetowikied (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All of Azerbaijani referring Azerbaijani Turkish should be changed to Azerbaijani Turkish. There is no such language and nationality called Azerbaijani, Azeri or Azeri Turkish. They're all Azerbaijani Turkish. Evemdo08 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for reasons that I think are obvious to you. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive_7&oldid=1142753317"