Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:23, 21 May 2011

Azerbaijan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 21, 2011.

.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:FAOLPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2006, May 28, 2007, May 28, 2008, May 28, 2009, and May 28, 2010.

Azerbaijan received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Guys, it's really funny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nowrooz is originally from Iran

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

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.

Locator map

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

Map

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

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

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

New Map

Hello all, this map is the most appropriate map as it shows Azerbaijan in the centre of the map. There is a movement slowly in Misplaced Pages to make all country maps in this style. All countries of Caucasus will follow this style. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Azneutmap.PNG

Mov25 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I will place the new map that shows Azerbaijan in centre. The other Caucasian countries are following suits. If you have any glaring objections make yourself heard and we can discuss it. Mov25 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What other "movements" are you talking about? You give no argument at all to change the map like this and you must reach consensus before making a major change like this.Neftchi (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also stop vandalizing this page with your edits Neftchi (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe he is speaking about keeping consistency on wikipedia. The countries of the South Cacasus are in the same geographic region and therefore it only seems proper that they maps should reflect the region better rather than attemping to show them as part of Europe. Which as you can see, puts Azerbaijan in the far bottom right corner.--Moosh88 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At least four editors have done reverts over the past 10 days, including me, to return to an old locator map with the country-in-question somewhere near the center, not on the extreme edge as prefered by twice-banned (in part for violating WP:SOCK User: ComtesseDeMingrelie (he/she has recently blanked his/her user talk page). If other editors prefer a different map, make that suggestion here; However, please note that you will find that unless it has the country-in-question somewhere near the middle, it will not meet acceptance nor meet the wide consensus of WP editors regarding country locator maps.DLinth (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User: ComtesseDeMingrelie has wasted a lot of man hours around here, and we really need to learn to be less forgiving and lenient in such cases. If somebody clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, we can just tell them to go away. We are still held to apply and assume good faith with people who struggle with making a useful encyclopedic suggestion, but people who are clearly just gaming the system aren't worth our time. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The current (orthographic projection) map is the best and most neutral version. Its also the standard map on other countries. So lets just stick with that one and be done with the discussion. Neftchi (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; the current (orthographic projection) map has the key ingredients....the country-in-question somewhere near the middle, and it's not a map of Europe...i.e., not a barely-disguised attempt WP:DUCK to say that Azer. is "in Europe" DLinth (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Except Azerbaijan is not coloured on the world view map. I don't understand what the issue people had with the previous map, you really have to see the whole world to point out Azerbaijan? MosMusy (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the inset is good enough at showing the country in color. I agree with your second point regarding scale, but the inset helps on that, and after so much past contention before reaching consensus on this map, shouldn't everyone hesitate before changing it (again)? (as User: Neftchi says above. ) Consensus is clear that the locator map must have the country somewhat near the middle, meaning, for Caucasus countries, it cannot be a map of Europe (or a map of Asia)...the current map is ok on that. DLinth (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The information panel map is confusing. The zoomed inset is placed in the top right hand corner of the field and coincidentally has maritime borders similar to those of Eastern Russia, so Azerbaijan appears to slot perfectly into Russia's Pacific Coast where Vladivostok is. Perhaps a smaller inset could be placed nearby, so as not to create confusion as to the actual location of Azerbaijan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgctobin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes

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

Khanates map

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

Map (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Top-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• B-Class Iran articles
• Top-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
• Old requests for peer review
• Requests for peer review