Talk:Azerbaijan–Iran relations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:05, 13 June 2007

Iran Start‑class Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Unassessed

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV

Articles contain some one-sided opinion and POV which should be removed. Historical context poorly written.--Dacy69 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats POV? Everything is sourced...From neutral sources.Hajji Piruz 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dacy. It is irrelevant which country the territory of modern Azerbaijan belonged to. What matters is who lived there. India also belonged to Britain. So what? Does it mean the territory is historically Anglo-Saxon? I think the historical context must be rewritten and the reference to Iran must be removed. Batabat 11:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We have talked about the Azerbaijan issue. I've talked about it with Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek. Maybe, if you guys are so insistent on the few sources, you guys should add that some sources say Armenian land extended all the way to the Caspian sea in the NK article or other disputed territorial articles. Why are you guys editing with this double standard?Hajji Piruz 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should spill one dispute over many pages. Secondly, some statements are one-sided anyway, for example about culture and needs 1) proper references 2) more balanced approach 3) inclusion other views on the issue.--Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Iran-Azerbaijan relations, not anything else Dacy69.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then first of all issue about name has nothing to do here--Dacy69 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about the name issue. I put in information about the relations between the two nations in 1918...Are you trying to say that Iran and Azerbaijan did not have relations in 1918?Hajji Piruz 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the name of Republic of Azerbaijan. quiet controversial and you mention that it had repurcussion in Iran and the same time you are removing cartoon issue which had reopurcussion in Azerbaijan. Don;t then accuse other poeple in double standards--Dacy69 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon issue, started by an Azeri (ironically), has nothing to do with the political relations between these two COUNTRIES. The naming issue was a political relation that the two nations had in 1918. I merely quoted Swietochowski so that there wouldnt be any controversy.Hajji Piruz 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon issue, much more than name issue in 1918 was implications between TWO COUNTRIES. You can check a number of articles in internet. It was mentioned many times.--Dacy69 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon's issue, was a problem that still needs debate. Considering the cartoonist's picture "designed to insult Azeri identity" is a prototype of such "Articles [that] contain some one-sided opinion and POV " that you have mentioned before. The real story is that the Persian slang has many loan words from Azeri-Turkish. I'm an Azeri-Iranian myself and know many of such words , like Qarashmish (chaotic in Persian), Yer be Yer ( even ; as in "we are even" ) and so on ... The expression " Namana" ,that is used in Persian Slang, is used when a person is encountered with a surprising task and want to reject it , something like "What did you said ?!" (Plus surprise and rejection) .The cartoonist himself was Azeri and almost all of his cartoons have such slang expressions. Changing the government from reformist to conservative , the potential for revolt was high and the reformists forces in the government help the revolt in the cover "insult to the Azeri ethnic"... So that's more complex than considering it a mere ethnic conflict, and that can't be mentioned here.... Sagh Olasan --Alborz Fallah 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue should not be completely omitted from the article. We strive for providing objective information in Wikipedia, and the restriction of information about the protests which did happen is not quite encyclopedic, regardless of our interpretation of them. So, I think the protest shall be mentioned and references to their interpretation by any side shall also be brought. Upon discussion, we can incorporate those in the article. Atabek 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Representing links can fulfil that need:the user himself can understand the NPOV out of them.No need to add our and /or certain media explanation in the main body of the text.YASHA!--Alborz Fallah 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a government or news agency, in order to provide some information and withhold other. Protests were a fact, and they numbered millions. So that should be presented for fairness. Interpretation of them should be left out for reader to judge. Atabek 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz, Wikipedia is based on sources. WE don't make any interpretation out of the cartoon events. I cited reference. That's it. It should stay. All your observation of cartoon issue might be interesting but it also might be your own opinion or OR. So, the event is well-known and referenced. It had repurcussion in both countries. Thus, it should be in the article.--Dacy69 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern relations

I added some info on modern period and I believe two links in references are dead and should be removed. I put info on events which had implications for the relations. --Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADR-Iran

I added couple more references on diplomatic and governmental exchanges between ADR and Qajar court. Atabek 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that all Iranian Azeris objected to the words of Azerbaijani president is unsubstantiated. The reference is made only to Iranian officials. Grandmaster 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :Whats POV? Everything is sourced...From neutral sources.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
+I agree with Dacy. It is irrelevant which country the territory of modern Azerbaijan belonged to. What matters is who lived there. India also belonged to Britain. So what? Does it mean the territory is historically Anglo-Saxon? I think the historical context must be rewritten and the reference to Iran must be removed. Batabat 11:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 ::We have talked about the Azerbaijan issue. I've talked about it with Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek. Maybe, if you guys are so insistent on the few sources, you guys should add that some sources say Armenian land extended all the way to the Caspian sea in the NK article or other disputed territorial articles. Why are you guys editing with this double standard?[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)