Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 18 May 2011

Azerbaijan is currently a Places good article nominee. Nominated by Neftchi (talk) at 09:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

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.

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)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• 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