Talk:Azerbaijan

Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of May 7, 2024

What's new?

Article alerts

Did you know

• 29 Jul 2024 – Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PersusjCP (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 05 Aug 2024 – Manchukuo Government (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Remsense (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)

Categories for discussion

• 08 Aug 2024 – Category:History of the Middle East by country (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Sakakami (t · c); see discussion
• 08 Aug 2024 – Category:Middle Eastern countries (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Sakakami (t · c); see discussion
• 20 Jul 2024 – Category:People with multiple nationality (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 11 Aug 2024 – List of countries by Military Strength Index (talk · edit · hist) →Military#Capability development was RfDed by Pppery (t · c); see discussion
• 09 Aug 2024 – Occupied Korea (talk · edit · hist) →Korea under Japanese rule was RfDed by Goszei (t · c); see discussion
• 06 Aug 2024 – Powhattan conferderacy (talk · edit · hist) →Tsenacommacah was RfDed by Cogsan (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 17 Jul 2024 – Sultanate of Bijapur (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Flemmish Nietzsche (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Apr 2024 – First Republic of Armenia (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Olympian (t · c); start discussion
• 06 Mar 2024 – Rai dynasty (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by TrangaBellam (t · c); see discussion

Featured article reviews

• 30 Oct 2023 – Byzantine Empire (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by SandyGeorgia (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 29 Jul 2024 – Taiwan (talk · edit · hist) RfC by ZeehanLin (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Requested moves

• 11 Aug 2024 – Marinid Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Marinid sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Aug 2024 – Bahmani Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Bahmani sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Aug 2024 – Ahmadnagar Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Ahmadnagar sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Aug 2024 – Bengal Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Bengal sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Aug 2024 – Mamluk Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Mamluk sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c); see discussion
• 07 Aug 2024 – Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Pratihara dynasty by Raged Pratihar (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Aug 2024 – Palestinian territories (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Occupied Palestinian Territory by Selfstudier (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Jul 2024 – Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Austro-Hungarian Bosnia and Herzegovina by AVNOJ1989 (t · c); see discussion
• 20 Jul 2024 – Berar Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) move request to Berar sultanate by Dicklyon (t · c) was moved to Berar sultanate (talk · edit · hist) by ToadetteEdit (t · c) on 09 Aug 2024; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 06 May 2024 – General Command of the Armed Forces of South Russia (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Armed Forces of South Russia by Nederlandse Leeuw (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Feb 2024 – Spanish East Indies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Captaincy General of the Philippines by Mr. Information1409 (t · c); see discussion
• 16 Feb 2024 – Sierra Leone (1961–1971) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Sierra Leone by Snow Lion Fenian (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 09 Aug 2024 – Pannonian Avars (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Kepler-1229b (t · c); see discussion
• 09 Aug 2024 – Western Qin (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Kepler-1229b (t · c); see discussion
• 02 Jun 2024 – Special administrative regions of China (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 61.244.64.116 (t · c); see discussion
• 31 Dec 2023 – Schengen Area (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Super Dromaeosaurus (t · c); see discussion
• 02 Jan 2023 – Prince-Bishopric of Lübeck (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Srnec (t · c); see discussion
• 02 May 2021 – Vargas Era (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by FredModulars (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Apr 2021 – Jamaica (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Goszei (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

• 04 Aug 2024 – Draft:Sons of Liberty flag (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Caner~nowiki (t · c)
• 29 Jul 2024 – Draft:Kingdom of Kashmir (1754–1762) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Iwaqarhashmi (t · c)
• 23 Jul 2024 – Draft:Nawayath Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by FakeInfoDetector (t · c)
• 19 May 2024 – Draft:Republic of Taiwan Provisional Government (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c)
• undated – Draft:Vahika (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

Navigation

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Subpages

• List of all subpages of this page.

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

See also: WP:Lead section

Opening paragraphs

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section.

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article.

Example: . Canada and Japan as below .

Y A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.

N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Y Japan is a highly developed country and a great power, with one of the largest economies by nominal GDP. Japan has renounced its right to declare war, though it maintains a self-defense force that ranks as one of the world's strongest militaries. A global leader in the automotive, robotics, and electronics industries, the country has made significant contributions to science and technology, and is one of the world's largest exporters and importers. It is part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions.

N Japan is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations (since 1956), the OECD, and the Group of Seven. Although it has renounced its right to declare war, the country maintains Self-Defense Forces that rank as 10th for military expenditure by country, After World War II, Japan experienced record growth in an economic miracle, becoming the second-largest economy in the world by 1990. As of 2021, the country's economy is the third-largest by nominal GDP, the fourth-largest by PPP and ranked "very high" on the Human Development Index.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

• The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
• The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
• A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
• A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
• Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
• The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
• The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
• The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
• If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
• Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
• Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
• GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
• HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
• Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
• Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
• National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
• Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
• Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.

Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

• Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
• History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
• Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
• Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available. The CIA World Factbook Maps can be used as a basis for the map, but plenty of other sources are available.
• Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
• Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
• Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
• Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
• See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s)).
• References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
• External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Size

Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size

Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

• Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
• Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
• Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,936 words) "readable prose size"
• Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
• Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
• East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8152 words) "readable prose size"
• Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9092 words) "readable prose size"
• New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9761 words) "readable prose size"
• Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9178 words) "readable prose size"

Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

== Politics ==
{{main|Politics of the Netherlands}}

Charts

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraphs, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

• Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors. (To help mitigate these, see Help:Cite errors)
• Excerpts break the link between article code and article output.
• Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page.
• Transcluded text may cause repeated links or have different varieties of English and date formats than the target page.
• Transclusions may not reflect protection levels, resulting in transcluded text perhaps having a different level of protection than the target page. See Cascading protection
• {{excerpt}} and related templates may require using <noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained.
• Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for "section heading" changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. (To help mitigate this, see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS)
• Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

• Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
• Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Related WikiProjects

• WikiProject Former countries
• WikiProject Micronations
• WikiProject Limited recognition

Popular pages

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages

Template:V0.5 An event mentioned in this article is an August 30 selected anniversary.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Etymology and usage

Main article: History of the name Azerbaijan

There are several hypotheses regarding the origins of the name "Azerbaijan." The most common theory is that Azerbaijan was eponymously named after Atropates or Atarepata, a satrap(governor) of Media, who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene. Atropates' name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."

There are also alternative opinions that the term is a slight Turkification of Azarbaijan, in turn an Arabicized version of the original Persian name Âzarâbâdagân, made up of âzar+âbadag+ân (âzar=fire; âbâdag=cultivated area; ân=suffix of pluralization); that it traditionally means "the land of eternal flames" or "the land of fire", which probably implies Zoroastrian fire temples in this land.

According to Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski, Azerbaijan is the name of the region stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea to the Iranian plateau. As a political or administrative unit and a geographic notion, Azerbaijan's boundaries were changing throughout history. Its northern part, on the left bank of the Araxes River, was known at times under different names – Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and, subsequently, Arran.

However beginning from the 13th century A.D. the name of Azerbaijan became applied to the territories north of Araxes river.

• Please note that someone seems to has defaced this page. Please have a look at the photo `beth.jpg` for the current president. Jesselong 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is my idea for what the section should look like. Doesn't mention modern republic's reason for the name, doesn't mention the Musavat, but links to the relevant Wikipedia article. The Behnam 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• This doesn't look acceptable to me, especially the last sentence, but I'll reserve my final judgment until after I've heard what User:Azerbaijani has to say about the issue. --Mardavich 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it is not acceptable? Is it because it uses Kaveh Farrokh? The Behnam 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too short, why don't we expand the last sentence to include a short line regarding the modern Republic's decision to adopt the name Azerbaijan by saying "According to some sources...But according to the other sources...". What do you think? --Mardavich 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If we divided it into clear sides without elaborating on one or the other too much, if may be acceptable. Paste your idea underneath this so I can give a better response. The problem currently is because the "illegitimate" view was receiving much more weight on this page, even though this is the main page for the whole nation. Understandably, this caused a lot of Azeris to be offended, and then came all of the conflict here. The Behnam 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Iranica, which is a reputable and neutral source, we have the following:

"Azerbaijan (Adarbay[e]jan), region of north-western Iran, divided between the present-day territories of Iran and Soviet Union since the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Torkamanchay (1828)."

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc

So, as the above clearly states, Azerbaijan is indeed according to a neutral source an area belonging to north and south of the Aras river, which was divided by the two treaties among which the last one is mentioned in this particular instance. There are also other places at Iranica where there are references about "greater Azerbaijan" when they talk about Iranian and the independent Azerbaijan. However the sources mentioned in this article are from Armenian and Iranian sources and I read those sources. They have no desire to hide their prejudice toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. According to Wikipedia rules sources should be "verifiable" and "neutral". However, no matter how much we try some members have no intention of doinbg anything but distorting issues.

About some "conflicts" about the name Azerbaijan it is obvious that some parties and sources dispute the name of an independent and recognised country by the UN. That is their business. But neutral sources, whether it is the UN or it is Iranica recognise both independent Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan as being Azerbaijan. Don't forget that there was no Azerbaijan clearly defined prior to the establishment of the province of Azerbaijan in Iran by the Qajar. And this was AFTER northern Azerbaijan was ceded to Tsarist Russia. I found this on the article about Iranian Azerbaijan (again mocked by user Azerbaijani and a few others) where the source, correctly, was another Western one, Columbia Encyclopedia. So if there are also some local (Iranian, Armenian or Soviet sources) who dispute the name, or if some individual, Resulzade for example, are told to have said that Azerbaijan is different from Iranian Azerbaijan then all this should be made into a separate article. Roazir 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, someone had written than I am an old user. I wish I was because if I knew how to do all the things around here I would have done a lot of editing and I would have reported user Azerbaijani to the admins. I will learn if I will have time. Please, those older users, edit and remove nonesense material that are offending to the citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I am from Iran and it is shameful for me that my Fars compatriots are doing harm to articles about Azerbaijan. Roazir 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the above link doesn't work try this:

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=/home1/iranica/articles/v3_articles/azerbaijan/geography&OptStrLogFile=/home/iranica/public_html/logs/pdfdownload.html

Unfortunately I am quite sure users such as "Azerbaijani" will come and say that this is all POV, or they will probably disappear for a while, then after the article had been corrected, remove everything and say that it is vndalism, POV etc!!! Roazir 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 wrote me that he agrees with the proposed changes. I don't know exactly how and what to do. The above, as I have written are from Western renowned sources. They are not perfect but they are scholarly sources, without political bias. We should not put texts that have biased sources, such as the ones from Armenia and Iran. These texts are making this article look like a political pamphlet. Please read the above sources and bring arguments against them but please use neutral sources. This is the Wikipedia rule as far as I know. One of the sources is the Armenian envoy to the UN, right? That source is just a joke. Did an IRANIAN put that source on? Pure pity for an Iranian (Azerbaijani or Fars) to do that. Such a pity. To quote a source from a waring nation!! The other source is an Iranian named Farokh who DOES NOT HIDE his prejudice toward the issue. His writing IS NOT scholarly. It is an article. We cannot use this quote for this article becasue this article is about the COUNTRY Azerbaijan. I don't know how to unlock. Would someone more experienced do it? And I don't know when user:Azerbaijani or someone like that will appear and start calling what we have done VANDALISM or POV. Then we should do our best to get him blocked. Roazir 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets not be selective about quoting Iranica. the final episodes consisted mainly of stabilization and integration, such as the organization of the large confederation of the ˆa@hsevan, evolving between the highlands of Azerbaijan (notably the huge massif of Savala@n) during summer and the lower lands of the Araxes and Transcaucasus in winter. The annexation of the latter by Russia with the treaty of Torkamana@y, in 1828 fixed the political borders of the Iranian state, in an artificial manner, by dividing the Azeri ethnic group but without really affecting the profound unity of a common cultural space, marked by the Shi¿ite affiliation and the resonance of Iranian civilization.[1]

As per the user Behnam's quote, I disagree, it should be shorter. I think this is sufficient [2]: The name Azerbaijan itself is thought to be derived from Atropates, an Iranian Median satrap (governor), who ruled a region found in modern Iranian Azarbaijan called Atropatene.[1] Atropates name is believed to be derived from the Old Persian roots meaning "protected by fire."[2] The name is also mentioned in the Avestan Frawardin Yasht: âterepâtahe ashaonô fravashîm ýazamaide which translates literally to: We worship the Fravashi of the holy Atare-pata. [3]. For the history, etymology and designation of the name of Azerbaijan see[3]. If there is any proof that there is any Turkification of the term Azerbaijan, then relavent linguistic scholarly references should be brought as well and added to the etymology section of this article for that particular sentence. The thing is we want to keep the naming of that section too a minimal, thus quoting the same scholar(Tadeusz Swietochowski) who wrote: What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. might also be a POV push. I think just keep it as minimal as possible.

On the mussavites, the same thing..they established a government and etc.. And then we refer to the relavent Mussavite article where the nature of their government is discussed. --alidoostzadeh 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am supportive of the current version [4] as long it's not significantly changed. --Mardavich 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay excellent. I believe Pejman is also. And most likely is the user Azerbaijani who will probably put his sources in the Mussavite article. Thus the dispute is finished and we should ask for a full unlock. --alidoostzadeh 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for working this out. One minor thing; should we say "Iranian Median", "Persian", or "satrap of Media"? I think the third is best because it avoids the conflict between sources over exactly which type of Iranian he was; see the discussion further up on this page for links. I don't see the importance of his ethnicity here anyway, so I think that simply mentioning that he was a satrap of Media avoids the unnecessary ethnicity source conflict. The Behnam 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian Median" is the best accurate description, as both Persians and Medians were Iranian. Iranian here is a significant linguistic and geographical designation, it shouldn't be omitted. --Mardavich 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Iranian satrap of Media"? If you take a look at the Atropates section of this talk page, there isn't consensus between the sources as to whether or not he was Median or Persian. So, if we don't know, say "Iranian", and if we do know, just say either "Median" or "Persian" since they imply Iranian ethnicity and hence saying "Iranian" would be redundant. By the way, "Iranian Median" sounds terrible in English regardless of whether or not it is true. The Behnam 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Strabo says the Medes and Persian language are the same. I looked at Iranica [5] and they just he was a Satrap of Media of the Achaemenid empire. Probably that is all we know. Someone might want to add reference to this Iranica article as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iranian satrap of Media" is fine with me, since he was either Persian or Median and the term Iranian is a significant linguistic and geographical designation here. --Mardavich 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there TWO Medians to specify whether it is the Iranian one or the non-Iranian one? Just trying to be informative and neutral it does not blend well with neutrality to write "Iranian" Median unless there is also another Median. For example when you say IRANIAN Azerbaijan it is correct becasue you say so in order not to have confusion with northern Azerbaijan. It is funny that WE, the Iranians, are writing the article about the Republic of Azerbijan. It is not very nice of us but we are probably numerically superior. Roazir 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are right there is only one Median. About writing about the republic of Azerbaijan, I think Iranians are involved in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, republic of Azerbaijan mainly due to the fact that they feel attachment to these lands. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the wording as of this post [6]. The Behnam 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys I think the current wording is accurate although someone might want to word it slightly differently. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "Mussavite"? Is it Musavat? There are people who are asking (begging) for discussion there and I am not much aware of Musavat but it would be nice to talk before putting tags or editing. Roazir 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL I guess a combination of Arabic pronounciation and English. Musavat article is here: [7]. There was disputes about their nature, but it was agreed by everyone that anything about the political philosophy of Musavat be moved there. That is a discussion actually that I am not interested in since I have found many different sources from Rasulzadeh being pro-Iran, then anti-Iran and to sort everything out is something I do not have time for and that government is long gone. --alidoostzadeh 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful and necessary to mention that here, in the talk page, that the people of Azerbaijan are not PAN-TURKIST as many Iranians think and loath about. Pan-Turkist means different things but it essentially links the identity of Azerbaijan primarily with Turkey, rather than the Azerbaijanis in Iran and the Iranian culture and heritage. The Republic of Azerbaijan from its inception has been relatively pro-Turkey becasue Turkey was, and still is, the only powrful country in the region that offered serious support to Azerbaijan. Let's remind that Iran's Islamic regime gave economic aid to Christian Armenia during the Armenian campaign against Azerbaijan while Turkey has a blockade on Armenia even now due to its aggression toward Azerbaijani territory. And in 1918 when the Republic of Azerbaijan was established Iran was in a civil war and in a deep internal chaos, so Azerbaijan found its only refuge to survival in the Ottoman Turkey of the time that was just starting to become a Turkish nationalistic state. And finally let's not forget that although Azerbaijanis in Iran are powerful and influential they do not have some very important human rights respected by the Iranian regime, such as their own specific culture and language. So, Iranians shall not view Azerbaijan in a negative way becasue it has been Iran's fault too. But Azerbaijanis are different from Turks in Turkey and this difference is a deeply-rooted difference that has been the main cause of their historic union with Persians. Roazir 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can work on this subject in the main article for the topic. We are really trying to avoid problems on the nation's main page. Believe me, you don't want to reintroduce the topic here, because this will inevitably lead to the edit wars that recently subsided. Simply not discussing has proven to be the most effective method of maintaining neutrality on this page, and it would be a shame to lose it. The Behnam 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but I wanted to remind the Iranians that most of what they think, is not founded and they should be more friendly to Azerbaijanis in the Republic. Roazir 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with the republic of Azerbaijan is that there is a lot of negative news about Iran which I believe actually that Turkey is planting and perhaps some grey wolf groups or who knows what. These groups are definitely not the representative of the people of Azerbaijan. The people there are our kin and even I have Azeri relatives (great aunt). I think a better idea is to make an Iran-republic of Azerbaijancooperation board since lots of topics are in common (Shervanshah , Safavids, Qajars, Aras, Mugham, Akhunzadeh..). A book that is going to be the hot topic for sometime is the Safina Tabrizi. [8]. The book is from Tabriz and thus the people of the republic of Azerbaijan who are also culturally part of the Iranian world should also do research and write about it. I do not think in the last 100 yers a more important manuscript has been found from the area. Also I disagree with human rights and Azerbaijan in Iran, because now there are Azerbaijani language courses in universities and summer, as well as there is government backed TV, newspaper, music and etc. Even programs from Azerbaijani and Kurdistani provinces are on sattelite and can be seen by everyone. [9]. I am not sure what the situation of minorities is in republic of Azerbaijan, but I believe Iran is better than Turkey with this regard. There has been attempts to incite some groups in Iran at least from the time of the USSR. In Azerbaijanis it won't work since they are organic part of Iran. I hope for better relationship between what-ever governments are in place in both countries and right now actually the situation has improved relative to the time when ilchibay was in power. Anyways these are issues I am interested in and willing to discuss with anyone (specially the republic of Azerbaijan) but since it is not related to topic at hand, I'll stop here. I am glad that compromise was reached at least in this important topic since this is the first google link and it is important that people of the republic of Azerbaijan are also not offended as you said. --alidoostzadeh 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, our main problem with negative perception of Iran has nothing to do with Turkey. The negative perception of Iran in Azerbaijan is mostly due to radical Shia religious movements incited in the Republic by the Iranian state. In fact, I don't understand why you blindly blame Turkey without having facts at hand. This country by itself goes through deep identity transformation, and issues of Grey Wolves and other ultra-nationalism were left in 1970s. It's appalling to see educated Iranians still living with perceptions and stereotypes of 16th century though.

Instead of quite visible jealousy of Turkish influence in Azerbaijan, or trying to denigrate Turkic identity, and emphasize Iranian connection, you should think of more peaceful and respectful solutions, more of a balance. We carry no goals of dividing Iran in Azerbaijan. But we also expect respect towards our statehood and people, and especially ceasing unpaid services to the known enemies of our country, from Iranians. Believe me, these issues again have nothing to do with Turkey or Turkish people. Atabek 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. Actually the MHP party is strong in Turkey (even at least 5% of the vote in a country of 70 million is significant but they have more that) and believe me there is rivarly between Turkey, Russia and Iran governments with regards to Azerbaijan. Turkey's government will push pan-turkism and Iran's government will push pan-Shi'ism and Russia will use its economic and military influence. All these aside (and they are all wrong in my opinion), I do not think we can equate government with people. That is why I said Turkey and I did not say people of Turkey whom I have no problems with. Thus the average Iranian harbors no ill will towards the average Turk from Turkey or the average Azerbaijani republic citizen. I believe the feelings are mutual there. Also I am not aware of what you mean by unpaid services. I also do not think the rivarly between Armenian government and Azerbaijani government means that we should not have relationship with both countries and do our best to make a peaceful settlement. Indeed Russia will look out for Armenia and Turkey for the republic of Azerbaijan, but Iran as a country that has both Armenians and Azerbaijanis with strong national Iranian identity. I am not happy with the geopolitical situation of the region as I am sure you are not either, but I can gaurantee you that average Iranians have nothing against the average person from the republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey. I hope the feeling in those countries are the same. --alidoostzadeh 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, Iran, in case it was a normal and relatively democratic country, would have sided with Azerbaijan, not Armenia. It is offensive for all Azerbaijanis, from all countries, that Iran helped Armenia (economically, not militarily) and has good relations with Armenia. Armenia was and is an aggressor (occuppying Azerbaijani land) and 25% of Iranians are Azerbaijanis. There are at most 200.000 Armenians living in Iran so the comparison is not relevant. I hope that the attitude is ONLY the government and not the Fars people, and I really think so. Maybe those who are acting as if they were from Iran or Iranian Azerbaijan and editing Azerbaijani (people as a whole or the republic) articles in an offensive and misinformative manner are NOT actually Iranians. I hope so. Roazir 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roazir Jan. I think Iran was neutral and Iran also has economic ties with the republic of Azerbaijan. I think Iran's responsibility is to really bring lasting peace and give humanitarian aid to both sides. I know there is less Armenians than Azerbaijanis in Iran, both are Iranians first. Thus Iran must actually try to make sure the conflict does not spill over in its own borders (which so far thankfully it hasn't) and also it must try to bring peace. I did a google search and found this article [10]. Although it is on an Armenian website, it seems to be from an Azerbaijani republic newspaper (Zekarlo), Baku. These sort of newspapers seem to publish false information unfortunately from demographics to everything else urging ethnic agitation. The newspaper though makes one logical point. There is another question - why did the Tehran regime and radical Shi'is prefer to support not Shi'i Azerbaijan, but Christian Armenia? This question, as it were, is completely clear. The point is that Christian Armenia has never laid territorial claims to Iran.. That is why I said we should not allow politics to get in the way of friendship between Iranian people and the people of republic of Azerbaijan. I think the Azerbaijani government (not people) is not innocent when it comes to dealing with Iran either and their preception of both countries with respect to each other is wrong. Iran's Azerbaijan is integral. Even the the newspaper claims there are 8 million Azerbaijans million out of 12 million people in Tehran. (which is not true but assume it is they should then ask are the 8 million Azerbaijanis or 2-3 million or whatever going to leave Tehran since this is larger than the population of the republic of Azerbaijan or Baku). Anytime there is a conflict 99% of time both sides are at fault. Thus the mistakes by various governments should not reflect upon the preception of the people of two countries upon each other. Well that is all I am going to discuss. believe I got my point across that the average citizens with no ties to either of those governments should try to be understanding. I'll be glad to discuss this topic further via e-mail with anyone. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was rather amused to find a link to my website, Million Dollar Babies, embroiled in some virtual turf war on Wikipedia. But I was also bemused and insulted by some of the childish ranting that passes for rational discussion on your forum - probably why I (and others) try to assiduously avoid using any information posted to your site. If any of you took the time to view the material on my site - and I'm doubting that few have - then you would realize that the offending text is intended to be my summary of Events and Causes of the chaos that provided the background noise to historical periods of Hyperinflation. These summaries are all from information that I have gleaned from NON-WIKIPEDIA sources, and condensed to present viewers with a sense of zeitgeist while viewing my collection.

None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious. However, it is not "utter bunk" as stated by Francis Tyers · 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Nor is it "Milliondollarbabies numismat site is even more laughable reference, and insult to intelligence of Wiki users." As proposed by Atabek 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC). ( actually, I take this as a compliment… as "spellchecking" seems to be an insult to the intelligence of most Wikipedians ).

The only rational voice in the crowd seems to be Grandmaster, who stated that, "And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article."

Well… no, I am not an Azerbaijani Historian (and would not care to be after seeing the disparaging comments offhandedly posted here), but I have researched my material and stand by it. Now if you boys find you are having trouble with some Wiki-troll linking to my website - and can find some free time between your squabbles - then I would gladly write up a little ".htaccess" file to block my offending material from your playground. That is… if you have the brains and/or guts to NOTIFY ME FIRST, instead of assuming that your opinions are the only ones that matter in the world.

Alan Kaim

Dear Alan, I am sorry that my statement made you feel insulted about your work on the website. My criticism was not directed at the essence of your work but at the context in which some Wiki-trolls (as you mentioned above) used it as a historical reference. The problem still exists because your page: http://www.milliondollarbabies.com/Azerbaijan1e.htm, which became a matter of fierce debate, firstly, does not have any references, and secondly, seems mostly irrelevant to issues of inflation or finance. So there is a room for misinterpretation and usage for irrelevant purposes, as it was clearly used, and not by myself.

I also apologize for spelling errors, which are usually due to amount of writing and speed with which I and many other users type to express our positions. If you would still like to scrutinize my knowledge of English, I welcome that challenge in private. Regards.Atabek 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly sorry for any offensive statements. We have managed to find a solution to the problem that satisfies both parties. Obviously, there was a rather heated discussion, and I apologize for any disparaging remarks about your website. The basic problem was that your website, focusing on hyperinflation, wasn't the best choice as a source for the information that we were looking for. The academic sources that you used in creating your website would probably be more appropriate here. You put it best, "None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious." About the spell checking... aside from the articles themselves, spelling isn't important on discussion pages like this one as long as the idea is communicated effectively. And as far as trolling goes, the problem has passed, and hopefully will not resurface on this page. Thanks for the feedback. The Behnam 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "Since R1a1 is linked to IE originators it make sense look for ethymlogy at spurce of largest this gen concentraion. The polish word 'żar' - red hot fire or 'yaży' rdiation of 'zar'. The word 'zar' is conotated as fire 'zar' or sun 'zar. In polish "A zer baijan" will mean "a fire/firce or sun hot warioor" since baijan mean warior ." ???? I am also curious to know about 70% Shia. Are there data for this? Roazir 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it; in fact I am considering doing it myself. Some new account went to bunch of articles adding supposed genetic and linguistic information that relates Polish people to Iranian peoples. From what I could tell, none of the information was substantiated, so I think it should be removed from all pages it was added to. The Behnam 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. The Behnam 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam,

Thank you for your explanation and kind words. My best wishes in the Sisyphean task before you.

Alan Kaim

Hi Alan. My sincere apologies if some comments by some users sounded offensive, the problem was that certain people used your website as a reference to back up very strong claims. Those comments were directed not as much at you, as much as they were directed to those who did not even try to make their own research of facts and sources outside of Internet. Without any disrespect to the hard work you’ve done to create your very interesting articles and website, we have the rules that require using published academic sources, which some people don’t realize or don’t want to realize. I would very much encourage you to be involved in the study of the history of Azerbaijan and the region in general and would appreciate your input in any of the articles about our region. Regards, Grandmaster 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Roazir, the 70% Shia for republic of Azerbaijan is a common estimate, see for example the US Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745.pdf --AdilBaguirov 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I often thought almost all Azerbaijanis were Shia. For example in Iran almost all Azerbaijanis and all Persians are Shia. Almost all means probably more than 98%. So, about 70% of the republic of Azerbaijan are Sunni. Well, I have known that most Azerbaijani citizens are very secular and often hardly know about Shia-Sunni. Are the 30% Sunni newly-turned Sunnis or they have historically been Sunni? Roazir 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern regions of Azerbaijan are largely Sunni. It historically has been like that. Central and southern areas are overwhelmingly Shia. However, Azerbaijani people are mostly secular and don’t care about religious differences, so for the most part Sunni – Shia denomination is nominal. Grandmaster 10:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that out! As you can see, we the Azerbaijanis in Iran, worked to fix the problems that existed in this article. We are all Azerbaijanis, no matter from the south of the Aras or the north. Roazir 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, bro. It is indeed so. Grandmaster 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Conducted a review and left points

Talk:Azerbaijan/Comments Alan.ca 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Very useful comments. I think the suggestions should be implemented. Grandmaster 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:49 (UTC)

Azeri Wikitravel/Data Transfer to Wikitravel

Greetings,

I am looking for people to work on the Azeri Wikitravel Language expedition, but have been unable to find anyone to help with it as of yet. If anyone is intersted, please visit the langage expedition page at http://wikitravel.org/shared/Azeri_Wikitravel_Expedition. Also, I am intersted in finding partners in transferring pertinant data from wikipedia to the wikitravel Azerbaijan page. Thanks a lot for everyone's help on this project!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jowa58 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hoax

Someone added a link to a hoax article, which I removed. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossarian Rustamova. Grandmaster 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

s/administrative subdivisions/raion/

Raion isn't the normal english terminology for these divisions of state. See the Raion page. Use of localised or common terminology is preferred in the language appropriate to whatever version of the wikipedia that language is written for. Jeff Carr 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article gives an alternative spelling, which is rayon. That's way it's spelled in French (from where it came to English) as well. Parishan 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The name is raion, therefore, we use it... it is a valid subnational entity. As you can see from THIS PAGE, the formal English usage IS Raion.Rarelibra 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection by an admin

This page seems like a very good candidate for semi-protection to edits only by established registered users. This page appears in many arbcon disputes and for some reason draws in mostly vandals. Almost all edits in the last 3 months have been vandalism. Jeff Carr 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

§

§ Wow, this is a cool sign.

History Section

I made some changes according to the agreement on the "History of Azerbaijan" article. Sorry for accidentally putting "History of the name Azerbaijan" in the edit summary, I meant to say "History of Azerbaijan".Azerbaijani 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Landlocked

Someone removed the landlocked category saying that Azerbaijan is <not> landlocked. That is not correct. Looking over at Landlocked, the term is defined as a country that has no direct access to sea or ocean. Agreed, Azerbaijan borders the Caspian Sea, but looking over at that page, we see that it is only the largest lake on Earth, definitely not a sea. Therefore, Azerbaijan does not border any true sea or ocean, therefore it is landlocked. byeee 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no land on Azerbaijan's east border, so it isn't landlocked :) The current version of the Landlocked article uses unquoted theorization, which is a verbalism IMO: "The Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea are sometimes considered to be lakes. If that is taken to be true..." The article indeed is labeled as missing citations and/or footnotes. --Brand спойт 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This is not as clear-cut as stated. Per Byee above, a number of sources/references indicate that Azerbaijan is landlocked -- e.g., [11] - p.2. Depending on definition, while the country proper may or may not be landlocked (and it might be prudent to exclude any such notations, if its ambiguous or contentious), its exclave Naxçıvan definitely is. :) Quizimodo 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently the Wiktionary defines sea as "a large body of salty water and Wikipedia also as a large, usually saline, lake that lacks a natural outlet, such as the Caspian Sea". The fact whether the Caspian Sea is a sea is disputable indeed. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary explains the term "a landlocked country" as being enclosed or nearly enclosed by land. Webster's 1913 Dictionary also describes the landlocked adjective as inclosed, or nearly inclosed, by land. MSN Encarta Dictionary defines landlocked as surrounded by land: closed in completely or almost completely by land.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary in particular defines sea as a salty water which covers a large part of the surface of the Earth, or a large area of salty water, smaller than an ocean, which is partly or completely surrounded by land. Thus the dictionary's entry for landlocked ("enclosed by the land of other countries and having no sea coast") is also valid. The appropriate edits have been made in the landlocked country article. --Brand спойт 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect info

I am removing incorrect, inaccurate information about Azerbaijan as thsi issue was discussed on page History of the name Azerbaijan.--Dacy69 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan

Guys, see the conclusion on the main article for the history. The history of Azerbaijan should only correspond to its territory. I took out the statement about the Mannaens, who lived in what is today northern Iran.Azerbaijani 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I largely rewrote the History section based on History of Azerbaijan article. I think we can remove the tags now. Grandmaster 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

14%

De Waal's book does not state that Armenian forces presently control 20% or 16% of Azerbaijan's territory. Rather he cites 13.62%, rounded to 14%.

From pg 240 of De Waal's Black Garden:

They [the Armenians] had achieved this basically by conquering the entire southwest corner of Azerbaijan, an area that–including Nagorny Karabakh–comprises almost 14 percent of Azerbaijan's officially recognized territory.

From pg 286 of the same book:

The Armenians fully occupy five of the seven "occupied territories" outside of Nagorny Karabakh. They are Kelbajar (1,936 km²), Lachin (1,835 km²), Kubatly (802 km²), Jebrail (1,050 km²), and Zangelan (707 km²). They also occupy 77 percent or 842 km² of the 1,094 km² Aghdam region (this figure was given by the head of the Aghdam region, Gara Sariev, at the front line on 19 May 2001) and approximately one-third (judging by maps) or 462 km² of the 1,386 km² of Fizuli region. The Armenians also occupy two former village enclaves of approximately 75 km² in the Nakhichevan and Kazakh regions. (For their part, the Azerbaijanis occupy one former Armenian enclave of about 50 km²)

This means that the combined area of Azerbaijan under Armenian control is approximately 11,797 km² or 4,555 square miles. Azerbaijan's total area is 86,600 km². So the occupied zone is in fact 13.62 percent of Azerbaijan–still a large figure, but way short of President Aliev's repeated claim.

Hence the reason for my revert. -- Aivazovsky 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See CIA World factbook:

Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan [12] Grandmaster 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great, but do they cite where or how they came up with that percentage? De Waal does and thus he is a more credible source in this regard. -- Aivazovsky 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't need to, it is a reliable source, and we need to cite all existing figures. Grandmaster 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we shall cite both. -- Aivazovsky 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We should say "by various estimates between 14% and 16%", etc. Grandmaster 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Controlled vs. occupied

Aivazovsky, page 286 from De Waal's book says "Armenians fully occupy....". So why do you replace the word occupy in the article text with "controlled"? Atabek 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added link reference to U.N. Security Council resolutions from 1993 in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh and precise wording used in "Black Garden". Atabek 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on edit: Azerbaijan does not border Chechnya, but only Daghestan Autonomous Republic of Russia. Atabek 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite what De Waal says, we agreed to use the term "controlled" as opposed to "occupied" early on the Nagorno-Karabakh talk page as it was less POV. -- Aivazovsky 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not only De Waal but four U.N. Security Council Resolutions, which you removed. We shall use the internationally accepted wording rather than indulging in discussion of what's considered a POV or not. Atabek 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, this is Wikipedia, not the UN. I would avoid using the term "controlled" unless you ran it by a Wikipedia admin who has experience with the Armenian-Azeri conflict (someone like Khoikhoi or Golbez). -- Aivazovsky 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, the UN is international body, of which both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members. I don't see why you reverted GM the article removing the UN resolutions, which are relevant facts. Atabek 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:WTA does not have any reference to claim that the word "occupy" should be avoided. The facts on the ground are: 1) NK and 7 surrounding districts are internationally recognized parts of Azerbaijan; 2) NK and 7 surrounding districts were forcefully occupied by armed Armenian formations (from the Republic of Armenia), ethnically cleansing entire Azeri population in the process; 3) There are 4 UN resolutions calling for "immediate withdrawal and cessation of occupation". So no POV pushing is acceptable, Aivazovsky, the UN resolutions directly referring to NK, Azerbaijan and Armenia should be included in the introduction to the article. Atabek 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all UN documents can be easily quoted by using : " ". It is just my opinion. --Pejman47 16:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone explain to me why there is such a dispute over these UN resolution? I added them back, because you can't ignore and omit the Security Council resolutions. Ateshi - Baghavan 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) and also can you explain me the reason why they are removed? they aren't fake and i do not know any other authority higher than UN. if someone is suspicious and believes that there weren't such resolutions, i can email them to him/her. Ateshi - Baghavan 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a big disagreement between Armenian and Azerbaijani users on whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions are in fact, occupied by the Republic of Armenia. Armenians say that occupation is too strong a word since Armenians were living in the region prior to when hostilities, therefore, negating the definition that they are "occupying" the land when in fact they control it. Azerbaijan sees the entire region as full scale military occupation by the Republic of Armenia, regardless of the de facto status of the NKR which is ruled by Karabakhtsi Armenians.

So, Armenians disagree with the word "occupation" and therefore third party users recommended and have since enforced that the best word to go by is "control". --MarshallBagramyan 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand we are talking about mentioning the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Then, we should use a term "occupation" as this is language of those resolutions. If we generally give description of the situation, like on page Nagorno-Karabakh War, we can use some other term like "controlled". We can put quotation marks to match citation with the text of UNSC resolutions.--Dacy69 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we cannot use the word occupation, but you cannot remove a direct quote from a source, which have been properly attributed. The quote should remain. Grandmaster 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the quote for a few reasons (aside from the fact that I think Karabakh should be granted its desire for separation from Azerbaijan). First, the UN is quite political, as is the word occupied - which already shows a POV as to who *should* control the land. Second, nobody is disputing that Karabakh and the occupied territories are recognized by to be a part of Azerbaijan, we all know they are recognized to be so, that they de-facto are not, the situation on the ground and in the negotiations. So why don't we mention ALL those situations if we are going to mention one, so as to make the entire subject clear? Finally, the entire phrase "the withdrawal of occupying forces from occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic" is clear as mud. Who are the occupying forces? Armenians of course... but from where? Are the ones who are from Karabakh occupying forces? What is the definition of occupied areas? Those parts outside of Karabakh, or including Karabakh? Are Karabakh Armenians who live in Karabakh occupying forces? I am not going to get involved in this argument at this point, I just wanted to share these thoughts for now and hopefully show that the quote, by itself is not helpful, clear or NPOV. --RaffiKojian 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is OK to quote the UN SC resolutions. We are not assuming a position about the conflict or UN SC resolutions, we just inform the reader what they say. The resolutions could be good or bad, but their existence is a fact, and there’s nothing wrong with inclusion of factual info. Grandmaster 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced information is being removed by some anon IP. I would suggest registering and discussing the edits on the talk page instead. Atabek 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, what can we do in order to get rid of these vandalisms? recently User:Egeydude spoiled the page and one anon Ip wrote that Azerbaijan is Monarchy? can someone ask for semi-protection? I reverted latest vandalism, but this is only temporary cure. Ateshi - Baghavan 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic names

As per Minorsky: The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Alovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran)

I added in the historic names of the territory.Hajji Piruz 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move to Azerbaijan (country)

As per the Georgia (country) article (named so to avoid confusion with Georgia (U.S. state)), I think it would be best to move this article to Azerbaijan (country), so as not to be confused with Azerbaijan (Iran). Note that the Iranian Azerbaijan article already has Iran in parenthesis, the only logical thing is to move this page to Azerbaijan (country).Hajji Piruz 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this was discussed, Azerbaijan should refer to the name of the country, and Azerbaijan (Iran) should refer to Iranian region. The consensus was to keep it at that. The state of Georgia is different from region of Azerbaijan in Iran, Iran does not have a province called Azerbaijan, Iranian region is split to a number of provinces, and the prevailing use in English language is a reference to the country, not the region in Iran. What you propose is made when there are more than one administrative units with the same name, which is not the case here. See old discussions in the archives. Grandmaster 07:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The name Azerbaijan is used for country. As far as I know there is no indication anywhere that Iran has a province called Azerbaijan. Ehud 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)