Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Lead section

I propose the following instead of the current one. The existing lead is less informative and poorly written with puffery expressions. I tried with the best of my ability to abide by the rules of MOS:LEAD. I also request from skilled contributors to help with more succinct and concise wordings. Thank you all in advance.

Azerbaijan (/ˌæzərbaɪˈdʒɑːn/ ^ⓘ AZ-ər-by-JAHN; Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan), officially the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan Respublikası) is the largest country in the Caucasus region located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Known for its wealthy crude oil and natural gas reserves, Azerbaijan is bounded by the Caspian Sea to the east, Russia to the north, Georgia to the northwest, Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. The exclave of Nakhchivan is bounded by Armenia to the north and east, Iran to the south and west, while having a short borderline with Turkey to the northwest.

§2

At 86.6 thousand square kilometers (33.436 thousand sq mi) in total and around 9.4 million people, Azerbaijan, with its strategic geopolitical location, has been at the crossroads of several civilizations over the centuries. Known to have the majority of the climate zones, the country is home to rich and diverse fauna and flora, which is also reflected in the richness of the national cuisine.

§3

The location of human and pre-human habitation that dates back two million years, remnants of Azerbaijan's history include Bronze Age petroglyphs and medieval structures. In modern times, it was the first Muslim-majority country to have operas, theater, and plays. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) also, established on May 28, 1918, was the first secular Muslim-majority country build on the principles of western style democracy with a constitution that granted equal rights to all citizens, including the voting right for women. That entity, however, existed only for 23 months as it was invaded and incorporated into the Soviet Union by the Red Army under the name Azerbaijan SSR. At the verge of the Soviet Union's collaps, ethnic strife in Nagorno-Karabakh and Moscow's indifference to the conflict resulted in calls for independence and secession, which culminated in Black January. Subsequently, the ADR's flag was restored as the state flag and, following that, the modern Republic of Azerbaijan emerged as a successor to Azerbaijan SSR on October 18, 1991.

§4

The early years of independence were overshadowed by the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia. By the time of the ceasefire agreement in 1994, Armenia occupied and expelled over half million people from up to 16 percent of the Azerbaijani territory, which included Nagorno-Karabakh, its surrounding territories and the enclaves of Karki, Yukhary Askipara, Barkhudarly, and Sofulu. Concerning that, four UNSC resolutionscalling on Armenian forces to withdraw from the occupied territories, yet to be implemented. As such, Azerbaijan remains to have one of the highest number of refugee and internally displaced people per capita in the world. Despite that, relative to the other Eastern European and CIS states, it has reached high levels of human development, economic development, literacy rate, as well as a low rate of unemployment, and intentional homicide. With diverse musical traditions, the country also won the 56th annual Eurovision Song Contest and recently launched its first telecommunication satellite. Azerbaijan has increasing global significance in counter terrorism efforts and as a provider of energy security for Europe, as well as its recent non-permanent membership of the UNSC.

§5

Today, being one of the six independent Turkic states and a unitary constitutional republic, Azerbaijan has diplomatic relations with 176 countries and holds permanent memberships in 48 international organizations. The constitution of the country does not declare an official religion, and all major political forces are secular nationalist, but the majority of people and some opposition movements adhere to Shia Islam. The Constitution recognizes the language rights of diverse ethnic minorities of the country, which include the State's responsibility to ensure the development of the minority languages, their rights to use, to be raised in, to get an education, and to engage in creative activities in their native languages. It further states that, no one can be deprived of the right to use their native language. By joining the European Convention on Human Rights Azerbaijan also abolished the capital punishment in 1998 replacing it with life imprisonment in 2001, and legalized the same-sex sexual activity in 2000. The households headed by such couples, however, yet to be eligible for the same legal protections available to heterosexual couples.

Gulmammad | ^talk 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Gulmammad | ^talk 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a lot worse. Putting things that aren't even remotely connected in the same sentence (e.g. "Famous for its wealthy crude oil and natural gas reserves, Azerbaijan is bounded by ..."), general peacocking (e.g "strategic geo-political", "it prides itself for ..."), etc. — Lfdder (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please list all the places that need improvement and suggest alternatives? Rejecting the whole thing based on the argument you brought is not really helpful. Lets be WP:BOLD. "It prides itself" is softer than sharply stating "It is" when in reality I could use the latter as it is supported by sources. I look forward to your further suggestions. Thank you, Gulmammad | ^talk 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is poorly written. There are many grammatical mistakes and awkward wording. I presume the writer(s) is/are not native English speakers. In a general introduction to the country, it does not seem appropriate to give so much attention to homosexual rights/attitudes. This may be a side issue but it does not serve as a way to speak generally about the country. Briangammill (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Briangammill. Your comments are noted and will be taken into account in the next revision. Could you please elaborate more on "There are many grammatical mistakes and awkward wording"? I'd like to know specifically what needs to be fixed. If possible, please mention all the issues. Regards, Gulmammad | ^talk 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What should be done is the restoration of the older introduction and only changing to a new one once it has actually been agreed to on the talk page. I see you still have left out any link to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. CMD (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, putting gay agenda in the lead is POV and Azerbaijanis would certainly find it insulting.--Kohelet (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please consider discussing your lead-related edits on here before moving them to the article. User CMD: as I've mentioned in your talk page, the subject of this article is Azerbaijan not NKR. The lead has a lengthy paragraph about NKR War and the infobox has a link to NKR. Also, lets not forget that this article is watched by 314 users and if they have objections, they can present them here. Thank you. Gulmammad | ^talk 20:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The proposed lead is quite long in terms of WP:LEAD and contains excessive details, particularly it repeats the data on population and area, already provided in the infobox. On the other hand, it doesn't highlight the fact that Azerbaijan is one of the founding members of GUAM, CIS and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Having compared both versions (the previous and the currently existing one), I'd rather opt for the previous one, which showcases a better summary style. Brandmeister^talk 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I completely agree that the current version of the lead might not be the best but at the same time we should avoid reverting it back to its several months past version. That version was in so many ways outdated and had irrelevant information too. What we should be doing is to improve the current version by taking into account other people's changes as well. I hope this suggestion is not off putting and you will continue improving the article. Gulmammad | ^talk 21:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically this was the lead when the article was promoted to the good article status (much like the previous lead version). Since the current lead rather breaches WP:GACR (particularly criteria 1, 3 and 5) and has a slight advertisement tone, I propose to retain the previous lead until the proposed version becomes ripe enough and ready for replacement. Many excessive details, like those about Constitution or LGBT issues, may go to the relevant sections of the article rather than lead. Brandmeister^talk 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Brandmeister, I see you have reverted to some older version again. Here is the problem with that version: Many things have changed since the article was promoted to the good article status. For example, the current version states that, '"Azerbaijan has diplomatic relations with 158 countries and holds membership in 38 international organizations,"' citing a source of 2007 but in reality '"Azerbaijan has diplomatic relations with 176 countries and holds permanent memberships in 48 international organizations."' Worse yet, a whole paragraph is filled with the names of international organizations which is completely irrelevant. Also, the current version lacks these recent significant achievements: '"relative to the other Eastern European and CIS states, it has reached high levels of human development, economic development, literacy rate, as well as a low rate of unemployment, and intentional homicide. [...] the country also won the 56th annual Eurovision Song Contest and recently launched its first telecommunication satellite. Azerbaijan has increasing global significance in counter terrorism efforts and as a provider of energy security for Europe, as well as its recent non-permanent membership of the UNSC."' We could perhaps improve the wordings of the mentioned facts but I believe they should not be left out. LGBT and minority rights related information is also, in my opinion, relevant. Below is the lead I propose and underneath let us discuss the improvements.

§1

Azerbaijan (/ˌæzərbaɪˈdʒɑːn/ ^ⓘ AZ-ər-by-JAHN;Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan), officially the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan Respublikası), is the largest country in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Known for its wealth of crude oil and natural gas reserves, Azerbaijan is bounded by the Caspian Sea to the east, Russia to the north, Georgia to the northwest, Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. The exclave of Nakhchivan is bounded by Armenia to the north and east, Iran to the south and west, while having a short borderline with Turkey to the northwest.

§2

Azerbaijan, with its strategic geopolitical location, has been at the crossroads of several civilizations over the centuries. Known to have the majority of the climate zones, the country is home to rich and diverse fauna and flora, which are also reflected in the richness of the national cuisine.

§3

The location of human and pre-human habitation that dates back two million years, remnants of Azerbaijan's history include Bronze Age petroglyphs and medieval structures. In modern times, it was the first Muslim-majority country to have operas, theater, and plays. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) also established on May 28, 1918, was the first secular Muslim-majority country built on the principles of a western style democracy with a constitution that granted equal rights to all citizens, including voting right for women. That entity, however, existed only for 23 months as it was invaded and incorporated into the Soviet Union by the Red Army under the name Azerbaijan SSR. At the verge of the Soviet Union's collapse, ethnic strife in Nagorno-Karabakh and Moscow's indifference to the conflict resulted in calls for independence and secession, which culminated in Black January. Subsequently, the ADR's flag was restored as the state flag and, following that, the modern Republic of Azerbaijan emerged as a successor to Azerbaijan SSR on October 18, 1991.

§4

The early years of independence were overshadowed by the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia. By the time of the ceasefire agreement in 1994, Armenia occupied and expelled over half million people from up to 14 percent of the Azerbaijani territory, which included Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding territories and the enclaves of Karki, Yukhary Askipara, Barkhudarly, and Sofulu. Concerning that, four UNSC resolutions calling on Armenian forces to withdraw from the occupied territories, yet to be implemented. As such, Azerbaijan remains to have one of the highest number of refugee and internally displaced people per capita in the world. Despite that, relative to the other Eastern European and CIS states, it has reached high levels of human development, economic development, literacy rate, as well as a low rate of unemployment, and intentional homicide. With diverse musical traditions, the country also won the 56th annual Eurovision Song Contest and recently launched its first telecommunication satellite. Azerbaijan has increasing global significance in counter-terrorism efforts and as a provider of energy security for Europe, as well as its recent non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.

§5

Today, being one of the six independent Turkic states and aunitary constitutional republic, Azerbaijan has diplomatic relations with 176 countries and holds permanent memberships in 48 international organizations. The constitution of the country does not identify an official religion, and all major political forces are secular nationalist, but the majority of people and some opposition movements adhere to Shia Islam. The Constitution recognizes the language rights of diverse ethnic minorities of the country, which include the State's responsibility to ensure the development of the minority languages, their rights to be used, as well as the rights of ethnic minorities to be raised in their distinct culture, to get an education, and to engage in creative activities in their native languages. By joining the European Convention on Human Rights Azerbaijan also abolished capital punishment in 1998 replacing it with life imprisonment in 2001. Gulmammad | ^talk 21:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed from §2 At 86.6 thousand square kilometers (33.436 thousand sq mi) in total and a population of around 9.4 million, from §5 legalized the same-sex sexual activity in 2000. The households headed by such couples, however, are not yet eligible for the same legal protections available to heterosexual couples. and It further states that no one can be deprived of the right to use his native language.

Some obsolete data, as you have mentioned, should be updated, like diplomatic relations. I also support the inclusion of "relative to the other Eastern European and CIS states, it has reached high levels of human development, economic development, literacy rate, as well as a low rate of unemployment, and intentional homicide" to the current lead. But I agree with Briangammill in that LGBT issues are redundant in the lead and the rest should be agreed before inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

All the issues raised here have been addressed. If you have any further comments/suggestions, please present them here. Otherwise I will go ahead and move this lead to the article. Thank you. Gulmammad | ^talk 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

They have not been addressed. No-one else has agreed this WP:Puffery lead is a good idea; in fact, they see it as worse than what is currently there. Again, make specific suggestions on what you want to change in the current lead, it'll probably get you further. CMD (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

CMD: Let others who were part of this discussion talk on their own behalf. I have made all the changes they requested. Unless you have specific suggestions (such as 'X' should be changed to 'Y'), I shall take your attempt as simple trying to inhibit the process of improving the article. Thank you and happy editing. Gulmammad | ^talk 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Others talked on their own behalf above ^ . Asking me to offer specific suggestions on your lead when you have refused to do so for the current lead, is quite wp:pot. As it stands, the wp:burden is on you, who wants to change the lead from the stable version, to convince others that your lead is an improvement. This has so far not been done. CMD (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As Brandmeister point out above, the proposed lead is not only less concise (I object to the removal of "at the crossroads of Asia/Europe") but has an unfortunate "advertising tone" that is not a good WP fit (for ex., all in one lead: "most significant", "increasing significance", "sensitive location", "strategic...location", "keys to the rich energetic...increasing...", "rich" and "richest" in the same sentence," "also won...Eurovision" (in the lead?...in the history section? really?), "in a country called Azerbaijan." Too much hyperbole. DLinth (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DLind: None of the list of phrases as you present above appear in the lead and the rest is in accordance with MOS:LEAD (please check the lead therein). CMD, unless you are going to tell me what exactly should be changed rather than throwing vague expressions around, your stand is invalid. I update the lead. If you have suggestions, we can discuss them further before adding to the lead. Gulmammad | ^talk 15:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The current version still has some problems. The previous lead had four distinct paragraphs about the country's outline, history, international relations and internal development. Now it's a kind of mishmash, featuring various topics mixed in five paragraphs. Also, "Moscow's indifference to the conflict" brings some neutrality problems - it might or might not be so, but it's not the best wording and place for it. I think we can resolve the issue by considering what should be added to the previous version, not by completely rewriting it. Brandmeister^talk 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What should be changed is that you should stop this insistence on bloating the lead with puffery like "strategic geopolitical location", "rich and diverse", fluff like winning eurovision, and avoiding direct mention of the NKR. Propose changes to the current concise lead, like you keep asking everyone else to do with yours. CMD (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

CMD, it seems that you have nothing but hate towards the subject of this article. All of the phrases that make you unhappy ("strategic geopolitical location", "rich and diverse", "winning eurovision") are cited properly and none of them is insignificant, especially winning eurovison. Only Armenians would despise it or see as insignificant because they never won a eurvision competition. Yours is the story of the fox and the grapes. And your attempt of including what you call NKR in the lead is baseless. Unless you have something constructive to say, don't interfere. I have no obligation of lubricating well-cited facts just to make them smooth for you. Gulmammad | ^talk 05:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A claim to the higher ground based on hate is extremely tenuous if in the same breath you decide to go bash Armenia. Just because something can be cited doesn't mean it should be included. It's not just me anyway, every other editor here has disagreed with your version. See WP:Consensus. CMD (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Urek Meniashvili's reinsertion of Median and Eliseus pictures, Guba grave nonsense and other issues

I repeat for the second time - please don't reinsert the images that allude to the link between modern Azerbaijani Turks and Medians or "Caucasian Albanians." This is edit war and will be dealt accordingly. I also deleted the controversial map pf Azerbaijan since it is a fringe opinion not replicated anywhere else (see this map for a more common perception on regional geography); furthermore, I think this is doctored evidence. The Guba mass grave section is about a nationalist POV that is not supported by any sources whatsoever; the mentioned sources are either irrelevant or POV. Zimmarod (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Azerbaijan" on the map "Russia at the Caucasus"

According Wikipedia:Consensus "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus". Please, don't use this map before editors reach agreement by editing.

About map. As we see, region Azerbailan is a part of Russian Empire, but not Persia. It's nonsense, because in 19th century this name means region in Persia and sometimes (after 1880-x) for Iranian Azerbaijan and modern Azerbaijan, but never only for modern Azerbaijan. Divot (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually this issue was discussed already in Russian Wikipedia. Administrator concluded that the image could be kept in the article. Second time also[1]. --Interfase (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Divot, as you did in Russian Wikipedia, you are continuing to make some original conclusions according to this map. There are enough sources saying that the term Azerbaijan was used also for the territories showing on this map. --Interfase (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And what about errors on the map? Russian Wikipedia is not reliable source. Divot (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Once more. In 19th century this name means region in Persia and sometimes (after 1880-x) for Iranian Azerbaijan and modern Azerbaijan, but never only for modern Azerbaijan. Divot (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"never only for modern Azerbaijan" - who says that? By the way the part of the term is in Southern Azerbaijan. But you cannot interpreted this map yourself and say that there is some error. Look, I don't have any time to make the same discussion with you with the same arguments. It was already discussed in Russian Wikipedia. I think that you prefer to go against consensus (wherever it's reached). This is destructive action. SO I reported you. --Interfase (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

""never only for modern Azerbaijan" - who says that?" - for example Robert H. Hewsen map. Divot (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And? This is not an argument. This map doesn't show us that the term "Azerbaijan" was not never used for the lands in the north of Araks. --Interfase (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This map shows us that the term "Azerbaijan" means Iranian Azerbaijan. Maybe with moderm Azerbaijan too, but Iranian Azerbaijan indispensable Divot (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this map shows us that Hewsen used the term to describe the certain region for the certain part of the history. --Interfase (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Iranica: AZERBAIJAN i. Geography: "characterized by volcanic constructions—along the “volcanic cicatrix” that follows the internal ridge of the Zagros and marks its contact with the central Iranian plateau". Divot (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. According to this article: "On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Moḡān, all of the province of Arrān, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed." --Interfase (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed" don't means "replace to the north". Divot (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

But we can see that it was used for the north. If some other lands wasn't mentioned around the term on the map you cannot say that there is some error as well as there are no sources claiming that the term wasn't used for these territories. So your opinion and your conclusions are not reliable. --Interfase (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the sense in this discussion. You can call the mediator. Divot (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Listen, we already had discussed this issue with the mediator in Russian Wikipedia. You know that the decision of mediator was to keep the image. You came here with the same arguments and want to start everything again. This is a destructive action. --Interfase (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In Russian Wikipedia administrator referred to english good article with this map ("Более того, она находится в том же разделе и в ХС англовики, нейтральности которой я доверяю больше, чем данному диалогу"). Now you refer to the Administrator's decision in Russian Wiki? Charmant. Call mediator ))). Divot (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In Russian Wikipedia administrator delete this map: "Чудесная история с добавлением в англовику и ссылкой на мое решение. Убираю.". Divot (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked George Bournoutian about this map, here's his answer:

The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia.

All Russian sources (see Akty etc. do not use Azerbijan for anywhere except the Iranian northwestern province. Either the map is a fake or it is totally wrong-- just because a map has a designation does not make it right. The Arabs have for years refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arab Gulf--

That does not make it right.

Divot (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The map is wrong and unprecedented. Mistakes do happen now and did happen in the past. There are various dubious images and propaganda and other POV texts about "Guba mass grave" which I deleted. The article is in poor shape and should be re-edited in its entirety. Hablabar (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hmains. I removed the "referenced" text because it is not referenced properly. References are not relevant. Please consult WP:NPOV to see what is proper referencing and NPOV sourcing. Hablabar (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The arguments of Bournoutian are not logical. The font for Persia on the same map is also different, that does not mean that the term is wrong. And British consul to Persia also placed Azerbaijan on both sides of Araks: [2] If it is a mistake, don't you think there are too many such mistakes in historical sources? Grandmaster 23:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"don't you think there are too many such mistakes in historical sources?" - We don't think, but Azerbaijani historians think so. Divot (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. "British consul to Persia also placed Azerbaijan on both sides of Araks" - but this map placed Azerbaijan only on one side of Araks. Divot (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "Azerbijan" is actually written across the border line. Grandmaster 23:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. On this 'historical' map Ardabil and Tabriz are not included in Azerbaijan region.

BTW, British consul to Persia and your map - primary sources. According Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources".

However, I have no reason five time to explain the same things, call moderator. Divot (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't changed my mind. Divot's arguments are not reliable. He claims that the map is wrong. But it is just his own opinion. There are a lot of sources saying that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the northern part of Araks river. In the map we can see it clearly. Divot refers to Bournoutians words, but they are not published in reliable sources. The arguments of Bournoutian are not logical and not reliable. So there are no any proofs that the map is wrong. Divot and other users want to remove this map just because they don't like it. This issue needs solution.--Interfase (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maps

I, to an extent, agree with Gransmater that maps alone cannot be references but I found that notion stated explicitly nowhere. Perhaps I didnt look at a right place. But anyway that does not apply the the recent revert by Gransmaster since in Hewsen atlas and in Redgate maps come with accompanying commentary, and I included that language into references. As to Albania, yes Hewsen uses Albania but also Arran and Aghuank, and mentions the marzpanate period as well. Hablabar (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see maps being mentioned anywhere as reliable sources in WP:RS. Plus, personal interpretation of maps is an WP:OR anyway, so any references to maps should go. Maps can only be used to illustrate the text of the article. As for Hewsen's text accompanying the maps, he clearly talks about Caucasian Albania as a state there, in particular with a reference to Artsakh, and does the same in a more detailed work "Ethno-history". I see no mention of a marzpanate or whatever in either of the works. In particular, in his atlas Hewsen dedicated a special text to explain what Artsakh was (on p. 102), and there he mentions only Albania, and no marzpanate.

Arc'ax was lost to Albania in 387, while Sawdk' remained as one of the districts of Siwnik. Under Albanian rule, Arc'ax, while often referred to, does not appear to have been a recognized political entity, and, beginning with the ninth century, when our sources become more explicit, we find it composed of a number of small political units. For example, a Siwnid principality called Xac'en in the center and an Aransahikid one called Miws Haband 'the Other Haband' (later Dizak) in the south. The Arc'ax of the ASX also contains the principality of Kolt', and it is not impossible that the princes of Kolt' were its original owners, although at the lime of the cession of these lands to Albania in the period 363-387, Kolt' and Arc'ax are spoken of as separate entities. At present, then, we have no idea what the Arc'ax of the ASX is meant represent: an Armenian principality, an Albanian jurisdiction, or a rough lumping together of territories by the author who did not understand the nature of Arc'ax to begin with.

I don't think that you can twist the references like this, removing Albania and replacing it with some "marzpanate". Please refer only to published texts, and provide quotes at talk before inclusion, so that we could verify them. I will do the same. Grandmaster 15:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Map for the section Name of Azerbaijan

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" (not "Atropathena" of "Adargaigan") is described. Here we can see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well. --Interfase (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The map is wrong. See '"Azerbaijan" on the map "Russia at the Caucasus"' section. Divot (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You still didn't show any sources saying that this map is wrong. --Interfase (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.". Divot (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And? Where is common sense? I just see your non reliable opinion saying that "the map is wrong". Without any serious arguments. --Interfase (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Once more, see '"Azerbaijan" on the map "Russia at the Caucasus"' section. Divot (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New Section Name Azerbaijan

This new section by Interfase is based squarely on WP:CHERRY where hand-picked sources, some of the dubious, are called to support an old nationalist claim about an Azerbaijan that supposedly stretched across Iran into the Caucasus. The controversial map lobbied by Interfase before and discussed by User:Divot served the same purpose. Please consult WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE before any further edits and discuss this section thoroughly in TP. Hablabar (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, because this is WP:VANDALISM. The section is based on reliable sources showing the usage of the term in the history. If you have something to add do it. --Interfase (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not just a matter of reliable sources, as Interfase argues. First, the newly added passage "name of Azerbaijan" is totally irrelevant and redundant, for previous section titled "etymology" does by definition mean the origin of the name and there is no need for another section. Second, the sources of the newly added passage are in fact selective and confusing and there is no need for such a detailed historical review here. And finally, Interfase definitely cannot accuse those who revert his edits of vandalism, because it is his edit that tries to disrupt the integrity of the article and not the revert of it; and the revert in this case obviously does not qualify as vandalism the way it is defined in WP.Roses&guns (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this revert is a typical act of vandalism. You removed the significant information about the history of the term "Azerbaijan" and its usage in the history with a lot of reliable sources. This is very useful information about Azerbaijan and shows that how in the history "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands of the region. --Interfase (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please inspect what vandalism is not. This is not vandalism. Your sources are one sided per WP:CHERRY and possibly misquoted. The entire paragraph is a POV overkill. Hablabar (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Safarov

The case of Ramil Safarov is entirely left out of the article, while it has been an outstanding international case involving Azerbaijan - it has been extensively publicized in the media and addressed by most of the major international organizations. It needs to be included either as a separate section or within the section "Foreign relations of Azerbaijan".Roses&guns (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a general article about the country. We do not include every criminal incident in a general article. Grandmaster 21:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster. We cannot write everything related to the country in the general article about the country. There are specific articles in Wikipedia where specific topics could be mentioned. --Interfase (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Brandmeister, you removed the sourced information that I added, writing "problems" as an explanation to your action; please properly explain why you reverted my edit.Roses&guns (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles should not be an indiscriminate collection of info per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, that is not everything that is verifiable should be included in a particular article. The additions should be also checked against WP:NPOV criteria, especially when an article is a good one (as in this case). The allegations of "hate-speech and derogatory public statements" against Armenians or that the "image of Armenians as enemies is cultivated on the state level" may be placed in the dedicated article, not this one. Brandmeister^talk 17:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/baku-tbilisi-kars/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Northern Iran

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

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

Persians are "brown Semetic people"?? Persians are an Indo-European people. Having lived in Iran most of my life, I can say that Azeris in Iran are indistinguishable from the rest of Persian population. Most of them have swarthy to light olive skin. I've never seen a "pure blonde" Azeri because it's uncommon. As a matter of fact, fair complexion and flaxen hair is more common, in my opinion, among Persians from places like Gilan or the Bakhtiari Province, as well among Kurds.

The term "Azerbaijan" is itself of Persian origin, it has always been an integral part of Iran until its detachment by the Russians. It had a degree of autonomy at times, but the same is true with every other region of Iran. Not only the Safavid monarchs but also the rulers of Qajar dynasty of Iran were of Azeri heritage, yet they considered themselves Iranian. Azeris are an Iranian people who were linguistically-Turkified. Many Iranian traditions have still endured in present-day Azerbaijan Republic (like Nowruz the Persian New Year, etc.). Grinevitski (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Map Update

The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

History - Republic time

Just another dubious "protected" and "good" article - it would help and give some credibility to explain exactly and specifically why.

The demonstrated participation of western oil companies (i.e. BP) and governments (i.e. British) in the 1993 coup should at least be mentioned, or things like this was the first place that Margaret Thatcher and her oil-friends visited after her term in office.

http://asbarez.com/42401/bp-accused-of-backing-arms-for-oil-coup-says-sunday-times/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.14.168 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it protected? There were Azeris on both sides in WW2 and I would like to mention Azeri SS Volunteer Formations but am not able to edit. 98.101.227.58 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

HDR is incorrect

Azerbaijan ranks 82nd in the 2013 hdr report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.9.181 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of Azerbaijan (Karabakh)

Since the Karabakh region is not under Azerbaijan's control (and has never been under Republic of Azerbaijan's control) I propose the main map of Azerbaijan to have Karabakh highlighted in different colour, just like in the current map of Georgia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Georgia_%28orthographic_projection_with_inset%29.svg/550px-Georgia_%28orthographic_projection_with_inset%29.svg.png

MosMusy (talk)

In that respect, since NK isn't recognized by any country (inc not by Armenia) the de-jure country (Azerbaijan) should also be highlighted in the NK map. You cant just push de-facto, de-jure must also be applied in maps. I suggest making one map for both NK and Azerbaijan. Mursel (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

However, maps on Wikipedia always use dark green to show de facto controlled territory, and light green for de jure claimed territory. Therefore the current NK map is fine. User:OBCPO1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

By that logic the map used in the Nagorno-Karabakh page should depict the remainder of Azerbaijan in de-jure dark green colors. So either the Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh pages both use the same maps or not. Also no concession was reached on this subject, so you cant just edit something without agreement. Mursel (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The country map should show uncontrolled territories as well, as it used to be before, and as in the case of other countries (e.g., Georgia, Pakistan, Ukraine, etc.). What is the reason for an exception here? Cyber-Policeman (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Language

I'm interested in the following sentence:

"Some of these languages are very small communities while others are more vital."

I wonder whether this is worded in the best possible way.

1) "Some...languages are very small communities" -- Does that make sense? Shouldn't it be:

"Some of these language communities are very small"?

2) Is "vital" the opposite of "very small"?

3) Also, earlier in that paragraph is the following sentence:

"The large Armenian-speaking population of Nagorno-Karabakh is no longer under government control."

This sentence is kind of "out of the blue". It doesn't logically follow the sentence before it nor go with what's after it. What does being under government control or not have to do with languages in Azerbaijan?

@Kwamikagami: What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You make a valid point. The sentences dont make any sense and should be adjusted. I agree with your suggestion that the sentence should be changed to - "Some of these language communities are very small." and then remove the portion of the Armenian speaking population, as it has nothing to do with the language section. Mursel (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re (1), I re-arranged the words in the sentence.

Re (2) I still think "vital" is not opposite to "small". I know what was meant by "vital" -- that the languages are flourishing and there are more speakers of them -- but maybe there is a better word to contrast with "small" (or change "small" to something else).

Re (3) I removed the entire sentence, but if Armenian is spoken in Azerbaijan, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in that paragraph? CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest to rearrange the section as the following: The official language is Azerbaijani, which is spoken by approximately 92% of the population as a mother language. It belongs to the Turkic language family. Russian and English play significant roles as second or third languages of education and communication. (this sentence mentioned the second and third languages of the country, so it should immediately after the official language. Also I would place Russian before English because more people speak Russian than English) There are a dozen other languages spoken natively in the country. Avar, Armenian, Budukh, Georgian, Juhuri, Khinalug, Kryts, Lezgian, Rutul, Talysh, Tat, Tsakhur and Udi are all spoken by minorities. Some of these language communities are very small but their numbers are increasing. Armenian is mostly spoken in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. (I would add the Armenian language with all the other languages, why should it be excluded, plus I rearranged the languages in alphabetical order as this gives makes it easier to read these unfamiliar languages and its more objective) Mursel (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD if you agree with my proposal I could correct the section. Let me know your thoughts. Mursel (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mursel. I've been busy. Also, I was trying to avoid getting involved in any argument over content. Your revision is definitely better than what was there. I think your arrangement is quite logical. I'd like to suggest "as a mother tongue" instead of "as a mother language". "Mother tongue" is the more common phrase. But if you prefer "mother language", then that's fine, too. I agree with you that Armenian should be mentioned with the other languages. Regarding the order of the languages, the only thing I can think of is that perhaps they were arranged in groups of related languages, but I can't make that determination. Feel free to make the needed changes. CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Country map

The logic by user:Mursel is weak. (1) The user says: "Also no concession was reached on this subject, so you cant just edit something without agreement." But this is the same user who changed the map on July 14. (2) The user says: "since NK isn't recognized by any country (inc not by Armenia) the de-jure country (Azerbaijan) should also be highlighted in the NK map." Are you saying that wiki highlights uncontrolled territories only when they are not recognized by a UN member state? What about, for example, Transnistria (File:Location_Moldova_Europe.png)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber-Policeman (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have blocked Cyber-Policeman for 24 hours under the sanctions mentioned at the top of this page. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-Policeman the NK-POV map was put forward without discussion by user MosMusy (a user who openly admits supporting the secessionist movements in NK). You should understand that this is a sensitive subject for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. So MosMusy should have discussed the map before putting it online, that is the procotol. All I did was undo the POV pushing. So I would appreciate it if you would discuss this issue before further editing.

My argument is that (1) both NK and Azerbaijan should use the same map or (2) both NK and Azerbaijan should use seperate maps. The logic here is to reach a compromise that appeals to both sides. Obviously you can not just chose to display the de-facto territories and neglect the de-jure territories, that would be biased. If we are to display the de-facto NK status within the map of Azerbaijan; then we should also display the de-jure status of NK within Azerbaijan. Hence my proposal. Mursel (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mursel,

1.You say “..the NK-POV map was put forward without discussion by user MosMusy.” This is misleading information. Here is the chronology of map changes in the last two years:

10 November 2012 (Change to light green/dark green format) ‎ MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs)‎ . . (161,692 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (Change primary map to "Azerbaijan with Nagorno Karabakh region.svg" per Talk page) (undo | thank)

22 February 2014‎ (Removing light green NK region) Monarhh (talk | contribs)‎ . . (162,336 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (undo | thank)

26 February 2014 (Change to light green/dark green format) ‎ Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (164,461 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Rv unexplained change removing information on control from map) (undo | thank)

24 June 2014‎ (Removing light green NK region) Mursel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,755 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (mistake by me, fixed it. For more information see talk) (undo | thank)

9 July 2014‎ (Change to light green/dark green format) OBCPO1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (166,151 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (undo | thank)

14 July 2014‎ ‎ (Removing light green NK region) Mursel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (166,524 bytes) (+245)‎ . . (Some minor changes, inc, correcting sentence (see meaning of the word heritage), change of map (see talk) and added relevant pic to history) (undo | thank)

This means that the map of Azerbaijan was shown in light green/dark green colors for more than 95% of time since November 2012 based on discussion on the talk page. Therefore, all the changes back to one color representation are in violation of the same policy that you refer to. WIKI ADMINISTRATORS should have noticed this.

2. You say that MosMusy is “a user who openly admits supporting the secessionist movements in NK.” How is this related to the issue? Some support the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and call it self-determination; others, like yourself, call it a secessionist movement (isn’t it an admittance of a position too?).

3. What is the relation of the map of Azerbaijan on Azerbaijan wiki site to the separate wiki page about NK? If you have constructive ideas about changes on the NK page, I think you should put your thoughts on the corresponding talk page. To me, the situation is very simple. On wiki, across all countries, uncontrolled areas are shown in light green, and it has been the case with Azerbaijan too until your recent interferences.

Cyber-Policeman (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-Policeman, the fact remains that no concession was ever reached. Please show me proof that an agreement reached in regards to the POV-map, elsewise you are just cherry-picking. Also can you be a bit more constructive here? More than half your post has nothing to do with my arguments. You also havent responded to my proposal.

Anyway I looked through your comparisons with other secessionist republics. In the Transnistria map the remainder of Moldova is highlighted in a darker shade. This gives the impression that Transnistria is de-jure part of Moldova. In both the Abkhazia map and the South Ossetia map - the remainder of Georgia is also highlighted in a darker shade. Again this is all done to highlight the de-jure status of these regions. Yet when we look at the Nagorno-Karabakh map the remainder of Azerbaijan is simply outside the box, thus no indication is given that this territory is part of de-jure Azerbaijan. My question is why isnt the remainder of Azerbaijan highlighted as was in the case of Moldova and Georgia? So there is obviously a mistake in your reasoning. Hence I return to my proposal. Either (1) both NK and Azerbaijan start using the same map or (2) both NK and Azerbaijan keep using seperate maps. Mursel (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mursel, cherry-picking is when one only considers a very narrow set of events. I provided you with almost a 2-year chronology of this coloring issue, which shows that the long-term status quo was a 2-color map. However, I think we are getting to the core of the problem instead of referring so someone else's feelings about NK status. Yes, I mentioned before too that examples of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria are totally fine. I do not have any relation to the creation of the NKR map. If it were like the one of the other 3 partially recognized/unrecognized countries, I'd see no problem with it. Please go and make your suggestion there. To me showing Azerbaijan map on the main Azerbaijan wiki page conditional on how its uncontrolled region is depicted on the other wiki page is unreasonable. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet you failed to provide proof that a consensus was ever reached. Read the regulations at WP:Consensus. Furthermore I explained very thoroughly why the map-related situation with Moldova and Georgia is not the same as in Azerbaijan. The maps of NK and Azerbaijan run parallel, you cant just push a POV map on Azerbaijan and neglect to edit the map of NK. Mursel (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I provided all the necessary info. There was previous consensus on the topic (2-color map) that lasted for almost 1.5 years. The new consensus (one-color map) was never really reached. You push for a starting point based on the one-color map consensus is misleading. Azerbaijan and NKR maps were running ok before your reversions. Again, you are welcome to edit the NKR map. This would seem more appropriate rather than twisting the consensus opinion on the map of Azerbaijan. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I ask you for the third time, where is the proof of the "consensus" that was reached? Unless you can provide evidence that such a consensus was reached, I would advice you to refrain from misleading statements and try to reach consensus now. So far all you have done is provide comparison countries, which I debunked immediately are incorrect. Do you have any other arguments? Mursel (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your position is similar to that by someone who is looking at a blank piece of paper and demands everyone to prove that it is blank. You yourself didn't prove that a new consensus on a one-color map was ever reached.Cyber-Policeman (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, Alessandro57 and Alex2006 both warned and explained to you that a consensus is required. And Dougweller even blocked you for it. I explained the rules to you, engaged in discussion and even debunked your arguments and comparisons. In wake of this new reality you have made no response to the real issue here. Instead you talk about way past issues. Mursel (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Contiguous or non-contiguous

Looking at the map, the enclave of Nakhchivan is clearly not contiguous with the rest of the country. This is why I corrected the introduction section that states that Azerbaijan is a contiguous transcontinental country into …is a non-contiguous…. However my edit was reverted without explanation (or maybe one, but I cannot access history from my tablet). Shouldn't we keep my version? JR Bouvier (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. Please see this: List of transcontinental countries. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, the new way of linking (with contiguous being part of the link) also helps. JR Bouvier (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Drug trafficking information about Azerbaijan

User Kutsuit has removed my information about drug trafficking through Azerbaijan with references without properly discussing the issue on this talk page. The references are supportive of my statement.

1. For example, the official US Department of State describes Azerbaijan as "a significant transit country for heroin and other narcotics, as it is situated along major drug trafficking routes from Afghanistan and Iran to Europe and Russia. Drug use and cultivation exist on a relatively small scale in Azerbaijan and are less significant problems. Due to Azerbaijan’s location along major drug smuggling corridors, up to 11 metric tons (MT) of heroin is estimated to transit Azerbaijan every year, much of it entering through the southern border with Iran. Azerbaijan may be an increasingly favored transit country for drugs over Georgia and Turkey, which have both strengthened their border control procedures in recent years." (see http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2013/vol1/204048.htm)

2. If you say that "the information ... is not relevant for the introduction section," then you should first suggest a more appropriate place for it instead of removing it.

Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the decision by Kutsuit. Drug trafficking in the introduction section? What were you thinking? Mursel (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-Policeman, please discuss the subject, not the person. Also, please try not to give any particular subject undue weight in the article. Lastly, please try to establish a consensus. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm totally fine if drug trafficking information is moved to another place on the same page. This information is related to corruption information with an easy link to it, but, again, you could move it down. Please suggest a new place. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First off all, dont treat the edit-button as your personal notepad. If you knew that mentioned the given information in the introduction section wasnt proper, why did you post it anyways? I can see that you're new to Wikipedia, so I suggest that you take time and learn the regulations before pushing that button.

As for the content, drug trafficking happens in every country, there are no exceptions. A country page is meant to give general information. Drug trafficking in Azerbaijan isnt noteable enough for it to be mentioned, even your sources mentions that its "relatively small scale". So why do you think this is relevant to the page? Mursel (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-policeman, given that the content you added is being disputed right now, please try to establish a consensus before adding the information related to drug trafficking to the article again. Once consensus can be established, please add it to the appropriate place instead of the introduction section. Also, I advise that you make sure you don't give any particular subject undue weight in the article; meaning, please try not to magnify a particular subject as you've already done with your other edits lately. Happy editing! :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mursel, please stop getting personal. Drug trafficking is usually a bigger problem in more corrupt countries. There were notes about corruption in Azerbaijan in the intro, and this is why I placed drug trafficking information there. But it can be in a different place too – so far no alternative place was suggested. Yes, drug trafficking, just as corruption, occurs everywhere. But, some countries have just more of it. This is why it was mentioned. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mursel, I also saying that drug trafficking is on a "relatively small scale" by neglecting my other reference about the seizure in Georgia of three tonnes of liquid heroin from Azerbaijan is very strange to say the least. [3] Cyber-Policeman (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The drug trafficking first goes trough Iran, next its either Azerbaijan or Armenia, followed by Georgia and Russia. Yet none of the other country articles have any mentioning of drug trafficking, but you feel that Azerbaijan should be an exception. Mursel (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The US State Department clearly says which countries are more conductive to drug trafficking. The recent case supports their statements. Do you think that information on wiki across all countries must be exactly the same? For example, information about corruption occupies an important place on Azerbaijan page, but is almost non-existent in Georgia. So, had the drug trafficking information through Azerbaijan been seen as a small issue, I would not have thought of adding it to the page. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking again, this is becoming rather typical. The case you provided is really about drug trafficking in Georgia and Azerbaijan. So why have you failed to add this to the Georgia article? The fact remains that drug trafficking in Azerbaijan or Georgia isnt noteable enough for it to be mentioned in the country's article, plus I dont see where it could be placed. Mursel (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, don't you see a difference? Georgians were able to catch this huge heroin shipment that came from Azerbaijan – great job on their side. What did Azerbaijan do? This is the difference. In any case, this is just an example and is not stand-alone evidence.Cyber-Policeman (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that drug trafficking is happening in the entire region, yet you only want to mention it in the Azerbaijan article. Mursel (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One usually mentions things are are more prevalent in a given country. Cyber-Policeman (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

The two final sentences of the introduction should be shortened and merged into one. At present it looks like we have a strong POV against Azerbaijan. Do we? It must not be forgotten that the accusations of corruption are not against the country but a certain government. Governments come and go but the countries are there. On the other hand, I doubt that "the government" made a change in the presidential term; there is something called "parliament" in Azerbaijan. I hope someone makes these changes, I am too lazy these summer days to move in. (36 degrees C) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The final parts of the introduction are weird indeed. So I share your concerns. I made some adjustments.

For example the sentence that "the country is widely regarded as among the most corrupt in the world." The high level of corruption is undeniable, but where does it say that its among the most corrupt? According to the given sources, corruption in Azerbaijan is on par with its neighbors - Russia and Iran. So I adjusted this sentence. Also the corruption is most notably spread in the public service, so I made sure to mention that.

My next change was the removal of the low-rate of intentional homicide, it seemed out of place and made little to no sense.

I also changed the sentence on the referendum and the parliament. Next I mentioned that its the ruling party, YAP, that is accused of authoritarianism and human rights abuses.

I think these changes give a more objective and accurate portrayal of the country. Mursel (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Map

Since the map with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic depicted in light green was removed due to an absence of a consensus I decided to start one. I definitely think that this article should use the map with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic depicted in light green as that is how breakaway regions are depicted on the maps of Serbia (Kosovo), Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), Moldova (Transnistria), Cyprus (Northern Cyprus) and China (Taiwan). A map with Nagorno-Karabakh Republic depicted in light green is also the only NPOV choice as the current map shows a POV of Azerbaijan. --KronosLine (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Representation issue

Being familiar with possible, er, critical reaction, I'll try to make it as clear and politically correct as possible. Thanks for your kind attention.

Where is this coming from, in the second paragraph, "Azerbaijan has an ancient and historic cultural heritage"? Before I visited the page, I'd been thinking discussions would have already solved that part of the "dilemma". I'm not going to school any respectful editors here, but simply ask a one or two questions. Do you think that Azerbaijani cultural heritage is anyhow in comparison, say, with Italian culture in respect to their historical roots or origin. Why that example? Well, we know that Italy (and apparently so many other countries' names) was not initially recorded as the name of this fine-bordered country's territory now, and/but there's no debate about its coverage today (the same for the most of the others). And my second question is: do you think it is appropriate to start a story like this, "The United States has ancient cultural heritage, mostly notable in cinematography, jazz and skyscraper construction". So, it is one thing that the Earth itself (and as the matter of the fact, its regions, let them be Caucasus, Great Britain, Americas...) is a place for Bronze Age, ancient, medieval or something civilizations and history; and completely another when culture and history are being referred to a country or to a nation.

So, I suggest that sentences and lines of this kind be rechecked and edited in factual way, e.g. the given line may be "Azerbaijan's cultural heritage is mostly notable..etc, etc" or even "Ancient and historic cultural heritage is present in Azerbaijan...etc etc"; the same be implemented for the rest. 46.241.151.191 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

Sports

Main article: Sport in Azerbaijan

Shakhriyar Mamedyarov was the 2013 World Rapid Chess and two-time European Team Chess champion.

70.65.124.210 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

азербайджанцы все сукины сыны сосите вашу мать сосите и вы и ваш хреновый президент алиев хренович

46.162.235.7 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as your request, assuming that is what it is, is not in English.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this, in English, in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

46.162.235.7 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)