Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive 5

This part is poorly written. 99% of population is muslim? Since when? In the given source there is no indication of overall muslim population. The fact is most people in Azerb. are irreligious and this has been confirmed by the Gallup poll twice. Of course there other sources that claim muslim percentage up to 93%, nevertheless numbers are very inconsistent. We should analyze the sources, investigate their research/polling methods and do meaningful edits. Unible (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt seem to be correct indeed. I will try to find a more reliable source. Neftchi (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan VIII IX.jpg is a hand made map from the Buniyatov book that may be considered unreliable itself . Combining Muriel Atkin's idea on Safavi Azerbaijan with 18th century (after Safavi) borders seems to be questionable . Plus that in the map itself in the north of Aras river it is written Aran , and in the south (only in south ) it is written Azerbaijan . That means two distinct geographical entities .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No response?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I didnt see this section, it was sandwiched between other bigger discussions. So I overlooked it, no hard feelings I hope. Anyway I dont exactly understand what you are trying to say. What do you want to do, remove the map? Because the map is sourced and not self-researched or self made. As for Aran and Azerbaijan, they are not different geographical entities, they are not from different continents or whatsoever. I think what you want to say is different political entities? As for the flag of SANAM, I removed the flag but kept a sentence on it. See the Flag of Azerbaijan article. I think its a fair solution? Neftchi (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I forgot to say on the author. Academician Buniyatov is not the author of the map, the map was drawn and described by Prof. N. Velikhanova. Academician Buniyatov was the editor of the book and author of the preface, and had nothing to do with the map drawing. Neftchi (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I did a good faith edit and replaced the map with a better version, backed with more reliable sources. Neftchi (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I added several sources to support the text. The origin of the historic site is very much disputed. That must be neutrality reflected in the article. Both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Also next time be careful what you undo, you also removed other examples as Yanar Day, etc. Thats not an acceptable way to revert things and it suggest a drive-by-edit from Xashaiar and Kurdo. And I think possible off-Wiki coordination. Neftchi (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't make BS accusations, I have had this page on my watch-list for years now. It's not disputed by sources that count, namely reliable academic sources which claim otherwise and it it is Wikipedia policy that academic works should have prominence. The POV you are pushing is already covered in a NPOV fashion, so you have nothing to worry about. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats correct: In the main article of Ateshgah, it is explained with scholarly sources that "there is no evidence that ateshgah has to do with zorostrianism" and the only reason for the Zorostrian misrepresentation is "fire > Ancient Iranian religion". This is explained and as kudo said dont worry. Xashaiar (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all Kurdo, be civil in your language. Second even with the sources you have no reason to remove the examples of Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug, Novruz, etc. You need to restore that information.

In fact, thanks for bringing those up. Those things "Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug" have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Please see their articles which once I have time will correct them. Also Nowrus is SECULAR and has nothing to do with RELIGION but is cultural which is covered in the culture article. Xashaiar (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I removed some OR, not supported by academic sources, from Khinalug article.
• Ramana did not say anything about Zorostrians!
• Yanar Dag is "an ancient and visually stunning natural gas fire"! I am very impatient to know its relation with Zorostrians!

Thank you. Xashaiar (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nefthci, you're not going to get anywhere with synthesizing sources and presenting popular myths as scholarly facts. Abide by the relevant Wikipedia policies, or expect the worst consequences. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo this is your last warning. Be civil and dont make any personal attacks and threats, they are not acceptable in Wikipedia. I havent reverted anything, it was a different user. Neftchi (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay I had time to look. Looks like the dipusted statement is this:"There are many Zoroaster related sites such as the Yanar Dag, Ramana, Khinalug or ceremonies like Nowruz, and along with Manichean. In Baku there is the Ateshgah, whose origin is disputed between Hinduism^[1] and Zoroastrianism"

Here are my suggestions on the ZOroastrian issue (without any bias but simply based on scientific fact that is known to be the best my knowledge), but I do not plan to edit here.. What is important though is to use 3rd party RS sources:

• First Manichaeism needs to be removed as it is a different religion than Zoroastrianism, and really nothing to do with this article.
• On Nowruz..Although it was a Zoroastrian celebration in the early Islamic era, the Turkic speaking peoples of Central Asia learned it from Iranian Muslims. Muslim kings like the Buyids and even the Arab Abbassids already celebrated it. The Samanids celebrated it , then it went from Samanids to Turkish speaking Ghaznavids and Saljuqids.. So I do not think it came down from Zoroastrians directly but rather it went from Zoroastrian Iranians to Iranian Muslims and then from Iranian Muslims to Turkish Muslims of Central Asia. However, since at one time there was a large Iranian speaking population in the Caucasus who celebrated the Nowruz, then the Turkish Muslim and Iranian Muslim traditions probably mixed in together.
• The Ateshgah I believe is a Hindu temple based on a recent thesis on Zoroastrian temples. As I mentioned, Zoroastrian temples do not use Sanskrit/Hindi (which are sacred for Hinduism). However, since some popular (not specialist) sources relate it to Zoroastrianism, it should be in a separate article. Unless something is 100% firmly Zoroastrian, it should not be related to Zoroastrianism.
• The other two sites I am not sure (I have not done research on it), but it needs really expert 3rd opinion source to confirm that it is Zoroastrian. Else it should not be in the article based on mere hypothesis.
• Zoroastrianism is not practed in the Azerbaijan republic, it was a major religion at one time during the Sassanid era. So it should not be in the religion section rather in the history section. Just like the Caucasian Albanians who practiced some form of paganism that should be part of the history section. Religion section should contain the modern compositions of religion, but the history section can state at one time, ZOroastrianism was prevalent (during the Sassanid era). Today there is no Zoroastrianis in the Caucasus, so it is not the best place to put it. It should not be in the religion section.
• In the history section it says: " During this period, Zoroastrianism spread in the Caucasus and Atropatene.". That is correct, it should just be emphasized that the Sassanids specially had the major role in establishing Zororastrianism in the area. Large Iranian colonies were established during the Sassanid era (toponyms like Baku, Darband, Ganja, Bailikan, Paytakran, Sharvan..etc. are Sassanid origin). So couple of sentences about the spread of Zoroastrianism in the area during the Sassanid era is useful. But a more extensive article on Zoroastrianism in the Caucasus needs to be written. All these things can be discussed logically in a calm atmosphere.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well at least that should be reflected in the main article of Atashgah. Neftchi (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In ancient and early medieval times, eastern Transcaucasia was populated by Iranian speakers, nomadic Turkic tribes, Kurds, and the Caucasian Albanians, who converted to Christianity in the 4th century and came under the cultural influence of the Armenians. After Arab incursions in the 7th century, Islamic polities were established under local rulers called shāhanshāhs. The Seljuq invasions in the 11th century changed the composition of the local population and resulted in the linguistic dominance of Oghuz Turkic languages. But, unlike the Ottoman Turks who came to dominate Anatolia, the Caucasian Muslims of Azerbaijan in the early 16th century became Shīʿite, rather than Sunni, Muslims, and they continued to develop under Persian social and cultural influence. Persian-ruled khanates in Shirvan (Şamaxı), Baku, Ganja (Gäncä), Karabakh, and Yerevan dominated this frontier of Ṣafavid Iran.

Russian suzeraintyAfter a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestān (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmānchāy; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçıvan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran. Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century. As Baku became the major source of oil for Russia, tens of thousands of Iranian, Armenian, and Russian workers streamed to the Abşeron Peninsula in search of employment, and Russian economic and political influence could be felt in both parts of Azerbaijan. As the source of employment and the home of the nascent Azerbaijani intelligentsia and revolutionary movement, Baku radiated its influence in Iranian Azerbaijan as well as north of the Aras (Araz) River. No specifically Azerbaijani state existed before 1918, and, rather than seeing themselves as part of a continuous national tradition, like the Georgians and Armenians, the Muslims of Transcaucasia saw themselves as part of the larger Muslim world, the ummah. They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. Only in the Soviet period did it become the official and widely accepted name for this people.

Incorporation into the Russian Empire provided a new outlet for educated Azerbaijanis, some of whom turned from their religious upbringing to a more secular outlook. Prominent among the early scholars and publicists who began the study of the Azerbaijani language were ʿAbbās Qolī Āghā Bāqıkhānlı (Bakikhanov), who wrote poetry as well as histories of the region, and Mīrzā Fatḥ ʿAlī Ākhūndzādeh (Akhundov), author of the first Azerbaijani plays. Though eventually these figures would be incorporated into a national narrative as predecessors of the Turkic revival, a variety of conflicting impulses stimulated early Azerbaijani intellectuals—loyalty to the tsarist empire, the continuing influence of Persian culture, and a longing for Western learning. Although no single coherent ideology or movement characterized the Azerbaijani intelligentsia, by 1905 a growing number of writers and journalists adopted the program of the nationalist intellectual ʿAlī Bay Huseynzadeh: “Turkify, Islamicize, Europeanize” (“Turklashtirmak, Islamlashtirmak, Avrupalashtirmak”).

The town of Baku, which by 1901 produced more than half of the world’s output of petroleum, was complexly segregated, with Russians and Armenians in the central part of the town and Muslims clustered in distinct districts. As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918. A hierarchy of skills, education, and wages placed Muslims on the bottom and Christians at the top. By virtue of a quota on non-Christian representation and a system of suffrage based on property holdings, the Baku city duma (legislative council) remained in the hands of wealthy Armenians and Russians. Azerbaijanis remained on the fringe of the labour movement and were indifferent to or ignorant of the aspirations of both their socialist and nationalist intellectuals. None of the small parties and political groups that arose after 1905 commanded much of a following beyond the intelligentsia, though Musavat (“Equality”), founded in 1911 and led by Mehmed Emin Rasulzadeh, proved most enduring. Anxiety about the Armenian “threat,” a perception of their own distance from and hostility to this privileged element within their midst, and a feeling that Azerbaijanis were connected in important ways to other Muslims, particularly Turks, became part of an Azerbaijani sense of self.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46781/Azerbaijan88.103.91.52 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not certain what you would like changed here. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that in this section, where it discusses the birth of the oil industry as occurring at the start of the "19th century" ie the "1800's", contextually it should actually read the "20th century". Any quick reference of the history of the global oil industry itself will demonstrate that the beginning of the 1800's is too early in this context. thanks 70.48.216.86 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying, I fixed it. Neftchi (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has way too many headlines. It creates difficulty to navigate through the entire article. For this reason I think that several headlines should be merged into one.

• I think that the Modern and Republic era headlines should be merged as "Modern era". If you look at the previous history headline "Antiquity" and "Feudal era" they show a clear historic line. Therefore the republic era falls under modern era.
• Also the Cuisine headline is rather short, shortest in the article, it cant stand on its own unless its expanded. Neftchi (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

some pro-turkish users don't accept the independence and international recognition of nagorno-karabakh republic, i suggest them to stop vandalism and revert their own edits. Captain armenia (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Russia is a UN member state, that recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia which recognise NKR in turn, your reverts are poor and you follow only the UN side of view, you must follow all side of views before making any edits, there is also a big difference between micronations and sovereign states with limited recognition, please follow List of states with limited recognition for all your answers. Captain armenia (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view must be reflected. Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto country that is internationally unrecognized by any internationally recognized country including Armenia and the United Nations. And the 3 countries the user mentions that recognize it, are also de facto countries that are internationally unrecognized by the United Nations: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. I am not pro anything which the user automatically accused me of, due to my reversal of his addition of POV material. The user misunderstands the topic by confusing this with the difference between "micronations and list of states with limited recognition" and which is clearly not about the former and about this topic. Importantly this is not about taking sides, it is about following NPOV policy of Wikipedia, which the user unfortunately has violated multiple times as he does not take a subjective neutral line. Van de Kemp (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusing me of vandalism and taking sides is unjust and totally false and threatening me and other users with a block for reverting your edition for POV reasons and without taking this to the talk page, is also unacceptable. Resorting to edit warring and worse without any justification and in violation of Wikipedia procedures, by putting me and other users for no violation on Noticeboards without previously taking it to the talk page, is malpractice. Fortunately you have taken this to the talk page which is the positive and constructive way to do – even if there is no agreement. I reverted the edition (and other users after me) because it was not objective and not following Wikipedia guidelines. The definition of international recognition and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (or any other similar cases) are not my inventions. What is stated about the de-facto status of Nagorno-Karabakh is according to the definition of diplomatic recognition according to international law and not according to the points of view of Armenia and Azerbaijan (which are highly contentious anyway) and Wikipedia users. Menikure (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Because both sides are true in their way i've created a provisional version which is good for both sides, i think. We will continue edit wars tommorow :D Captain armenia (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the word "nation" used in the previous versions is incredibly unencyclopedic. Captain armenia (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threatening of fellow Wikipedia members is against Wiki rules. Also accusing neutral users to be "pro-Turkish" is not only a POV statement but also against Wiki regulations. You even accused another user for vandalizing this article, whilest it was you who introduced the edits. This shows your unreasonable approach. The fact of the matter is that Nagorno-Karabakh has no international recognition, not even from the occupant country Armenia. The fact that you are pushing the so called "independence and international recognition" of NKR into this article proofs that you are merely POV pushing. You also tried to push your view in List of sovereign states where you gave a POV source. These changes are unacceptable. Furthermore on 25th September you made 4 reversions to the Azerbaijan article alone. [1], [2], [3], [4]. During these reverts you did not bother to engage in dialogue to reach consensus. Thereby you have violated the three-revert rule which is followed by an immediate block. So consider this your final warning. I undid your latest edit because you did not bring it up in the discussion before nor was a consensus reached on this change. Neftchi (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You also vandalized Menikure userpage, see here. Neftchi (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that, in the history section, the article says "Albania" instead of "Azerbaijan." That's all!24.91.192.114 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See Caucasian Albanians, where this is explained. 'Albania' (and variation -ns) appears four times in the text and once in the references; all are correct, and are not linked to the modern nation 'Albania'. Dru of Id (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"The country was among the birthplaces of mankind."

Which means what exactly? Religious/historical beliefs aside, this is very confusing.

"Located at the heart of ancient civilizations."

Fragment! Consider revising! I guess this should just be stuck together with the previous sentence.

Please could someone do something with this! I don't have the knowledge to know what to correct.Thanks, OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole intro is junk, very POV and not in real English. Sounds like it was written by someone from Azerbaijan's Board of Tourism or something. This level of quality is totally unacceptable in an important article like this. LRT24 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds like it was written by an Azerbaijani travel agent whose command of English was sketchy. Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The following passage in the main article is factually out of context/sequence and seems to be a disguised anti-Armenian attack: 'In 2007, during the construction of a stadium, constructors discovered the Guba mass grave. Studies by Azerbaijani and foreign scientists have confirmed the human remains found there to be of local residents of various nationalities, including Jews and Lezgins who were killed in the 1918 massacre carried out by Armenians.[62] To date, the remains of 600 people have been found, including about 50 children and 100 women.[63]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.34.105 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As the term Azerbaijan needs disambiguation in many occasions . I think moving the present page to Republic of Azerbaijan is reasonable .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea and matches to Wikipedia policies. Similar pages such as Georgia or Macedonia have similar situation.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While Georgia (US) is a full-functioning administrative entity, Azerbaijan (Iran) is nothing but a historical region with unclear borders and little current significance. As for Macedonia, its being a historical region is compensated by its enormous historical role as an ancestral land of the greatest and most influencial ancient civilization. It all comes down to significance of the topic. We see that with Luxembourg vs. Luxembourg (Belgium), where the name of Luxembourg the country does not require specification. Parishan (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

During World War II, Azerbaijan played a crucial role in the strategic energy policy of Soviet Union, with most of the Soviet Union's oil on the Eastern Front being supplied by Baku.

1) The Soviet Union only had one front in WWII. "Eastern Front" is a term from the German point of view. From the Soviet point of view, it was simply the front — not to mention that it was in the west, not east, viewed from Moscow.

2) "Strategic energy policy" is a highfalutin bureaucratic phrase devoid of real meaning. The underlying reality was that most of the Soviet Union's petroleum came from the oilfields of Azerbaijan, through Baku.

Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

yes good edit. BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have locator maps that appear to be devised for visitors from outer space? How about just a simple map of the region, with type large enough to be read at a glance? This is what a locator map is. (I speak as an ex-newspaper editor.) Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

i think you are wise man, i also dont like this space map. surely people are not this uneducated. but this is a very standard map and is applied to almost all countries. so what can do about it? BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit war to whether add or remove maps. I see that user Yerevanci discussed his map above. I don't know if the maps added by Aliwiki are good, but if there are objections against them, I think it's a good idea to discuss them here. --vacio 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vacio Aliwiki added 3 maps of the same subject and all 3 maps are highly controversial. Your opinion of "good" maps is POV and do not correspond with the good criteria of this article. Mursel (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Those maps put by Aliwiki are POV maps of a random man. Moreover, the legend of the maps are written in Arabic scripts which makes them understandable only for a certain group of people. They are totally inappropriate for the article! --KHE'O (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am agree, this is vandalism attack because he know good this is not neutraal BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you please.

'mankind' is exclusive and sexist. I used to see 'humankind' used all the time...now, not so much; people have reverted to using 'mankind' more often and I, for one, don't think its cool. js. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.10.181 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently user Yerevanci has been waging an edit-war on this page, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. User Yerevanci attempted implement several POV changes, with his map, which was with error and had misleading legend. He was notified on the invalidity of the map [10]. First of all. what is the source of this map? Second, ethnic Armenians live in Nagorno-Karabakh, the regions surrounding NK are unpopulated or sparsely populated. Yet this fact is not reflected in this map, in fact the opposite is depicted. Third, in order to prevent a edit-war, an ethnic map of Armenia should also be introduced into the Armenia article. I have restored the previous picture, until a consensus can be reached on this issue. Mursel (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, first the source is clearly written here. Second, after your notification, I changed the map now it does show Talysh people and the surrounding area of NK is shown as sparsely Armenian-inhabited area. Third, I think it would have been great, but the ethnic composition of Armenia is 98% Armenian and there are only 2 ethnic minorities (Yezidisi and Russians) that exceed 10,000 and there are only about 20 Yezidi-inhabited villages and that's it. If you wanna make a map with just showing one color, go ahead, do it. In my opinion, there's no need for that.--Yerevanci (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but there is clear POV adjustments on your part. Sparsely populated regions are supposed to be grey colored, as it says in the legend. Also the source uses neutral colors for the ethnic groups, please stick to the neutral coloring and not red and green for Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Given your previous attempts to introduce ethnic groups in Azerbaijan as active separatist movements it is best to stick close to the original source. Mursel (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sparsely populated regions are supposed to be grey colored, as it says in the legend"

They are, there do you see any other color labeled as "sparsely populated"??

"Given your previous attempts to introduce ethnic groups in Azerbaijan as active separatist movements it is best to stick close to the original source."

Well, if you think that Nagorno-Karabakh isn't an active separatist movement, then that's your problem. It is DE FACTO united with Armenia and the official borders have no power over the will of people. --Yerevanci (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No they are not portrayed grey, they are drawn with stripes of red and grey. If the map and legend are to be accurate, they should be fully grey. And you attempted to introduce other ethnic groups, aside Armenian, as active seperatist groups. That proofs your POV attitude on this subject. Mursel (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here look at this map. This is the one that my map is based on. Carefully look at the areas you say should be completely gey. They are labeled as sparsely populated, but with small yellow bars which mean that Armenians do live there, but not as comapct as in fully yellow areas. I don't see any reason why you get nervious on this subject. I, personally, am a supporter of the truth. As you can see in Azerbaijanis in Armenia article, I actually took my time and created a map, which shows Azeri-inhabited areas in Armenia in 1926 and now you say that I'm a promoter of falsifaying facts and showing that passive separatist movemnts are active?? Yes, the Lezgian separatist movement is active. It's a fact. The problem is you don't wanna see what you don't like. I'll advice you look a better look at yourself first. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No Yerevanci, you failed to provide any sources for your claims that Lezgi and Talysh separatist movement are active in Azerbaijan. The fact that you still try to introduce it as an active separatist factor indicates your falsification attempts. Thats why Im carefully reviewing this map. Your legend differs from the source, yours mentions that sparsely populated areas should be depicted in the color grey. Another point I made earlier, and you ignored, is the usage of colors. I suggest you edit your map to reflect the colors used by the source. Mursel (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My efforts to show the Lezgi and Talyh movements as active CLEARLY do not have any association with this question. The legend now CORRESPONDS to the map and please do not bring up this question again. Please, asnwer to my question, is the issue with colors the only problem?? If yes, I'll change them.--Yerevanci (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What is so difficult to understand? Your map does not correspond with the legend, read carefully what you wrote! Just pushing your POV map isnt the solution. And there is also no reason to remove the picture of the Azerbaijani girl. Mursel (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific, Mursel? What is exactly POV? The map seems accurate in any aspect to me. --vacio 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please specify e.g. colors, names, etc.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Morning, I have personally only a problem with this map. An ethnic map describes ethnicity, not density of population. In other words, the areas around Nagorno-Karabakh should be showed either as uninhabited (if deserted) or inhabited by Armenians (also if the density of population there is very low), but not dashed. Of course, appropriate dashing should be used if other ethnic groups live there. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the map may also show the regions with Kurdish population. Maybe this map can be of help : [11] . See also Lachin#Kurds--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

map does not show reality. density is good argument. regions around nk are unpopulated. so why colouring them? this is pov because athour is armenian background. BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It follows a source. Have you got a source saying they are unpopulated? CMD (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me is not if the map follows the source or not, but if it makes sense or not. If the only requirement for the map is being a faithful copy of the original, then it is enough to compare the two maps, and the story is finished. After what I read, I have a suspicion: maybe this territory before the war had a mixed population, and after the war only the Armenians remained there. Then the author of the original map used this representation to suggest this fact. Alex2006 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was probably some ethnic cleansing on both sides, but the map should show the situation as it currently stands. CMD (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, if it is so, it should show the dashed territories as fully Armenian. Also on Caucasus don't live much people, but there is no grey dashing there. Alex2006 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

the light dens areas was populated by azeri people not armenian, after ethnic cleasing of karabakh only armenians living there. about 1 million azeris leave karabakh by 1994. this map showing true fact of ethnic peoples now. and this map are used in many articles. BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, yes I am Armenian, and please do not make racist/chauvinist statements like this is pov because athour is armenian background. Second, I used this map (http://www.iriston.com/books/cuciev_-_etno_atlas/maps/map37.jpg) from an Ossetian author (neutral in my opinion) named A. Tsutsiyev's (А. Цуциев) book called Atlas of Ethnoplitical History of the Caucasus (АТЛАС ЭТНОПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ КАВКАЗА), published in 2007, in Moscow ((in Russian) http://www.iriston.com/books/cuciev_-_etno_atlas/cuciev_etno-polit_map.htm). I wanted to comment some of the statements made by you guys. As I understood, most of you are not familiar with the history of this region. The areas around Karabakh were inhabited by Azerbaijanis and Kurds, but during the Karabakh War (1992-1994) they left the region and it practically became uninhabited, but since then few thousand Armenians have settled there, also no Azeris or Kurds live in that areas, as no Armenians live in Azerbaijan, so what do you suggest?? I think that dashing makes sense in this case. --Yerevanci (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which confirm my previous suspicion. :-) I think that there are (at least) four ways to solve it:

• Dashing the discussed regions with Azeri and Kurd colors, and write that the map records the situation prior to 1992. But this implies that possibly other regions in the map should be restored to its previous colors;
• Painting the discussed region with Armenian color;
• Painting the discussed region as uninhabited;
• Leaving the dashing as it is (or introducing a new color), but explaining in the legend what you wrote above (ethnically cleansed because of this and that, and now sparsely populated by Armenians).

Last but not least, a remark about your first sentence: personally I think that Wikipedians can be divided only in two categories: intellectually honest people and the others. :-) And honesty and nationality are totally uncorrelated properties. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any problem with dashing. I mean its not even a big deal, because the mix of "unpopulated/sparsely inhabited" and the color that indicates Armenians (red) is obviously the mediate between them, which I understand as "sparsely populated by Armenians". Or another option, as you already suggested, is coloring the discussed area with another color, e.g. light red, and put a caption that it is sparsely populated by Armenians. What do you think??

I totally agree with your last statement. But I take it easy, because the more you swear, the more you spread hatred, the more we are going to hate each other, which is not going to get us anywhere. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the introduction of another color would be a good idea, since each color is associated with an ethnos. But I agree with you, the dashing is not a big problem (In Italian we say, one wants to look for one hair in the egg :-) ) I think that the main issue is to understand if the original map is factually accurate and unbiased. If none objects in this direction, I think that it should go in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So, do you think that one week is a good time to wait for any complains about this map or should I now add it to the article?? By the way, that Italian saying is a good one :)--Yerevanci (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One week is enough for a change, although if it is reverted discussion should continue. Before you do though, I'd suggest removing the title of the map. For a start, why is it "Ethnopolitical"? But mainly, the caption should describe the image, the image doesn't need to describe itself. CMD (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in Italian we have a lot of nice proverbs. :-) For me one week should be ok. About reverting, I am not sure. Here we have is a discussion, everyone is welcome to join it. As soon as a consensus is reached, the map should be placed on the article. If someone does not agree later, the discussion can be opened again, but the map should stay where it is, otherwise with this tactics it is possible to block an edit forever... Bu maybe Wikipedia has a rule about that. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't understand why this article was categorized as "landlocked"? Azerbaijan is a country near Caspian Sea. --85.102.76.162 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)The Caspian sea is actually a salt lake: it does not communicate with any ocean, or with any sea communicating with an Ocean. Alex2006 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this statement in the lead is sourced is irrelevant: it's completely devoid of any factual content. What does "birthplace of mankind" mean? Is it referring to human fossils? Or mythology? And which ancient civilizations was the region "at the heart of"? You need some sort of factual claim for the source to verify in the first place, and I simply don't see one. As pointed out back in January, it reads like tourist brochure nonsense not encyclopaedic content. joe•roe^t•c 10:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The page in the related reference is not indicated and it's hard to paraphrase that sentence without comparing. I've temporarily removed that and another sentences as they actually repeat the info before and after them, making the lead look like a whitewashed tourist guide. Brandmeister^talk 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the name, there's an article called Name of Azerbaijan (linked in this article), all the details should go there. Here it is suffice to add a couple of brief lines. The name is not the most important thing about the country of Azerbaijan. Also, Iranica is not the best source to use in this particular case, because it contains contradictory info. Inter alia, it contains the following statement:

Thus, at the time of the early Arab geographers, Azerbaijan consisted essentially of a northwestern fragment of the high interior Iranian plateau within limits that did not differ much from the frontiers of present-day Iran and that, in any case, from the side of the lowlands of the Transcaucasia, scarcely exceeded the bed of the Araxes. The imprecise and sometimes contradictory information given by Yāqūt in the beginning of the 7th/13th century, occasionally extends Azerbaijan to the west to Erzinjan (Arzanjān). On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Moḡān, all of the province of Arrān, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed. [12]

As you can see, it contradicts the info found elsewhere in the same source that the name was given to the region only in 1918. Also, littering the article with quotes is not acceptable, see WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. The recent edits to the article are a good example of the overuse of the quotes. Grandmaster 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

here we have Encyclopædia Britannica :

No specifically Azerbaijani state existed before 1918, and, rather than seeing themselves as part of a continuous national tradition, like the Georgians and Armenians, the Muslims of Transcaucasia saw themselves as part of the larger Muslim world, the ummah. They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. Only in the Soviet period did it become the official and widely accepted name for this people.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46781/Azerbaijan/44298/Russian-suzerainty

--Espiral (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is about the ethnonym Azerbaijani, not the name of the country. Also, Enayatollah Reza is not a reliable source. He is a nationalist Iranian author, not a third party source. I think we have discussed all of this before, yet you are reinserting the content that has no consensus. Grandmaster 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Enayatollah Reza is historian scholar and he got his PH.D from one of USSR university`s . he is Professor and work for Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia and he is head of geography of group . he`s works are academic

In addition Enayatollah Reza and britannica i have other academic source that say until 1918 the name of territory wasn`t azerbaijan--Espiral (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition 3 volume of english translate of Encyclopaedia Islamica is published by E J Brill that means this encyclopedia is Tertiary source --Espiral (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You can read in the same Iranica that the name extended to North since the 13th century A.D. So it is not like an established fact what Reza and others claim. Plus there are many primary sources using the name of Azerbaijan to refer to the lands north of Araks. For example, Sir John Chardin, a traveller from France who visited the Middle East at the end of the 17th century described Azerbaijan as follows:

Keith Abbot, British Consular General in Persia, wrote in the Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan in 1863:

We have a whole page with quotes about the name, here: Name of Azerbaijan/workpage. Admins decided that this issue needs to have a separate article called Name of Azerbaijan without any direct quotes, and it should be linked to this one. This is what is done. And this is the general article about Azerbaijan. Name is a very minor issue, and there's no point in dedicating large sections of the article to minor issues. If you want to work on name issue, please take it to the special article. I see no point in starting another long debate on issues that were settled in the past. Grandmaster 10:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Azeri government have some problems regarding human rights, and the last elections were regarded as a sham? ([[13]],[[14]], [[15]]). Reading the article, this is hardly mentioned, aside from the brief statement that '[a]lthough Azerbaijan has held several elections since regaining its independence and it has many of the formal institutions of democracy, it remains classified as "not free" (on border with "partly free") in Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2009 survey' and the link to the page Human Rights in Azerbaijan. In addition, the (admittedly claim) in the introduction that 'Azerbaijan remains as one of the most liberal majority-Muslim nations' seems to run counter to the Human Rights article and the sources I've cited; and the soruces don't seem to meet the highest standards of academic rigour - they're two online travel guides.

In general, reading the article, Azerbaijan comes across as a beacon of freedom and democracy in a despotic region (although the article never directly says this); and, whilst it may well be one of the best countries in the region, it is certainly not the paragon of virtue it is portrayed as. I didn't want to make any changes before I checked that I hadn't got the wrong end of the stick here.

Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Given all the coverage, this article obviously needs a Human Rights section listing all the abuses. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Funny how any mention of human rights has vanished from the article during the eurovision contest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.193.119 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added in a section under politics: at the moment it's only a couple of lines long, but I'm hopping that wiki magic will mean it's filled out collectively.Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems wiki magic failed you. This really needs to be rectified. I'll see what I can do, but I can't do it alone. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, some update the population data for the country

As of January 1, 2012, Azerbaijan has a population of 9,235,100

Reference link: http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/AP_/AP_1.shtml and http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/AP_/1_1.xls

Daugvapils (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

ref name="Day.az">"Турецкие тележурналисты посетили массовое захоронение в Губе". Day.az. Retrieved 17 October 2010. (in Russian)</ref> The claim that this massacre was carried out by the Armenians is not backed up by any valid sourse, but a local Azeri newspaper that obviously has its reasons for spreading hate towards the Armenians. Please come up with more proof, if you can, before spreading such vicious rumors. It is not professional. Thank You.

Ggaddar (Ggaddar (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)).

We should use the same criteria as for Georgia, Serbia, Cyprus and Moldova, highlighted in different colour the territories that are not under state control. Regards. MauriManya (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the two etymology sections be one section stating that there are two competing etymological theories, rather than two sections "Etymology" and "Alternate etymology"? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Also this might be of your interest. George Spurlin (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh is not under Azeri control and the goverment of Azerbaijan has no ability to administer the region. A new map should highlight the region not controlled by Azerbaijan goverment like the map of Moldova and Georgia. This should be done quickly.Findblogging (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please write the title again using small letters, as is the convention. (BTW we should also quickly save WP from nationalist POV pushers.) --E4024 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The independent country of Nagorno Karabakh is still shown in the current map of Azerbaijan. As the talkpage of Azerbaijan site discusses there should be a new map showing the real territory that goverment of Azerbaijan administers and has a legitimise to exercise its power.

There should be a map like Georgia (country) that currently excludes with a light colour South Ossetia and Abkhazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsrArmen (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh clearly has a special status, but as a matter of international law it isn't an independent country, it is still part of Azerbaijan. No one should expect Wikipedia to adopt political positions which promote something different from what the reliable sources say. Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the Talk page archives, and I don't see a past consensus on this. Is there a specific and clear policy which indicates when we use the light colour for "not under national administration", and when we do not? Is it a matter of the degree of international recognition of the breakaway state, and if so what is the threshhold that it must reach before being coloured? Abkhazia and South Ossettia both have a handful of UN-recognised countries which recognise them, while Nagorno-Karabakh has only non-UN countries which recognize them (including Abkhazia and South Ossettia), but I haven't yet seen a policy which explicitly states that's the mapping distinction. I'm not yet taking a side on the issue since I'm not familiar with Wikipedia map standards, but I given the apparent recent interest, it would be good to nail down specifically what the rules are on this to either fix the map, or get a clear declaration of exactly what the rules are for colouring breakaway areas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an ironclad rule on the issue, but here's how the discussion went at : Talk:Georgia (country): Which infobox map to use for Georgia (country)?. This may be helpful in seeing how those folks reached their current conclusion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note particularly the following appeals to precedent used in the Georgia discussion: MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It may very possibly be the case that the Azerbaijan map ought to be updated. These things are not as tightly coordinated as one might expect or want, and so we can't always read too much into the fact that something is, or is not, being done in some other article. To compare the treatment of disputed regions in the location maps in other articles:

*The article on Moldova shows the disputed region of Transnistria in light green.

*The article on Morocco shows the disputed Western Sahara via stripes.

*The article on Serbia uses light green for Kosovo (which, despite a much higher level of international recognition, remains "officially" part of Serbia).

*The article on Argentina shows the Falkland Islands in light green in its location map, even though Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands is largely rejected internationally.

*The article on Cyprus shows the entire island (including the disputed Northern Cyprus region) in a single colour.

*The article on Spain does not acknowledge Spain's unrecognized claim to Gibraltar at all in its location map.

I don't see any particular reason. we don't need to use the light colour for "not under national administration" due to the following reasons (these reasons also shows difference of this case from the ones listed above):

• None of the countries recognized independence of so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (even Armenia hasn't recognized it yet after several discussions held in state level, all of them has been rejected);
• All the countries in the world (except Armenia) accept that so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are created in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan;
• This territories are not under control of ethnic minority, it is under control of neighboring state.Konullu (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You raise some good points, but I offer in counterpoint:

• Transnistria is shown in light green on Moldova, but is not recognised by any UN country, only by uncrecognised states (including NK). So same as NK on that issue
• I'm certainly not disputing that NK is in territory officially recognised as Azerbaijani by the vast majority of the world; that's why the proposal is light green, not graying it out as though it were not part of Azerbaijan at all. The proposal is specifically to shade it to indicate "definitely considered part of Azerbaijan, but not administered by Baku."
• So far as "under control of a neighbouring state"; clearly that's a controversial issue. I will note, in reply, that that's exactly what the Georgians say about Abkhazia and South Ossettia, that they're not independent but are Russian-occupied Georgia. So I don't see the claim that NK is an Armenian puppet-state as being unique on this issue.
• Fundamentally, the NK is definitely within the recognised boundaries of Azerbaijan, but is administered by an unrecognised self-identified state, so I think the light greening would be the best way to recognise this. Not showing it at all on the map would seem to be avoiding the issue. I initially came to this argument taking no particular side, and actually somewhat favouring not showing NK since I though there might be a threshold of international recognition required. It turns out that there is no official WP policy on contested areas on maps, and that by precedent we show contested areas on some other articles, so for now I'm moving my !vote to showing NK light-green. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• That strikes me as very sensible. Such problems have been around on the world's maps for a long time and a pragmatic solution is always called for. Moonraker (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@MV: Mr Vanitas if you had followed the international literature on this part of the world you would easily have seen that N-K is being run from Yerevan. (For easy reference, even doing smt so simple as following News.am daily gives enough clues.) Don't have that much time? Then read the WP article on the monetary unit of that occupied territory. How was it called: Drum, Dram, Drama? Best. --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I'm unfamiliar with N-K's currency, and I'm well aware its flag is rather loaded in imagery, but as a counterpoint note the currency of South Ossettia: |currency = Russian ruble (RUB). Abkhazia technically has the aspar, but also uses the Russian ruble. So again I'm not seeing how N-K using the Armenian currency makes the difference. Fundamentally, the light-green bit on the map is administered by Stepanakert rather than Baku. They're not internationally recognised, and I make no comment on the rightness/wrongness of the conflict there, but I do think that the map should recognise that N-K is de jure Azeribaijani and de facto independent, exactly as is stated in the text of the second paragraph of the lede. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've invited input from WP:WikiProject Maps and WP:WikiProject Countries as neutral bodies of geography editors.

I partly agree with the proposal. Nagorno Karabakh, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, is not under the control of the government in Baku, and the map should show this. Anything else is simply misleading. However, the Azerbaijan situation is further complicated by the fact that much of the area around Nagorno Karabakh is also not under Baku's control, but is not officially part of Nagorno Karabakh either, and this also needs to be shown (perhaps dark and light green stripes?). Otherwise, the map would imply that these areas are an integral part of Nagorno Karabakh. The key to the map needs, obviously, to include a carefully worded neutral description of the two areas' situation. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia? --E4024 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The Council of Europe is a political body and is not, therefore, required to use neutral language. At Wikipedia we do not have that luxury. I would suggest something on the lines of "Location of Azerbaijan shown in green. The area under the control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is shown in light green. Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh are shaded." That wording uses the exact phrases that have been adopted at the articles on those entities. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Skinsmoke: Certainly you do not visit frequently articles related to Cyprus... --E4024 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're using the wording "area under the control of X" then that accounts for the bits Nagorno-Karabakh controls that weren't part of the original autonomous area (which we do have an article on), as it's dealing with control rather than integration. Probably also worth clarifying that Nagorno-Karabakh is a breakaway state. "The area under the control of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic..." or something. CMD (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I try to avoid Cyprus and Greece articles if I can (unless I'm feeling particularly brave)! Wouldn't necessarily disagree with CMD's suggestion, other than to say I think we do need to distinguish between the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which some would (and do) argue had a legitimate case for independence, and those surrounding areas that are occupied, and were never given the chance to express a preference. It also avoids us having to express an opinion on whether those areas are under the control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, or of Armenia, which appears to be disputed depending on what position you hold on the whole mess. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how about "Area outside of the control of Azerbaijan in light green", which would avoid the Armenia/NKR dispute completely? Explanation can be left to the article. CMD (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Area not under the control of the Azerbaijani government? Not sure why, but it somehow seems a little more neutral. Not an issue I'd waste too much sleep over though. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I lean towards not using another word if I don't have to, and I would tend to read the added word "government" as implying some sort of rival Azerbaijani government controlled the rest. That could just be me though, and I agree it's not something to worry too much about. CMD (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So let's wait a couple of days and see what other opinions there are. Somehow I can't really believe it could be that easy to reach a consensus! And I'm very aware it's late at night/early in the morning in the Caucasus. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week now; any objections to replacing the current infobox globe with the above shaded version, with the caption Area outside of the control of Azerbaijan in light green ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Made the change. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days. It seems we have a consensus, and that the change is stable. Well done! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also been away from this article lately. You should better change that for "Azerbaijani territories under Armenian occupation" as they are considered by almost all the world, except Armenian nationalists anywhere... --E4024 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The caption I used (which was suggested above) seems a good compromise in terms of being general. I fear that getting into specifics in a simple caption would risk too much controversy. Fundamentally, the issue with the map is that the light green bits are dejure in Azerbaijan but aren't under the control of the Baku government. All the other bits are pretty incidental to that basic mapping fact, and are better discussed at length in the actual text. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The article's previous versions claimed the presence of a "Special Envoy" of the EU in Azerbaijan. I have no idea if in the past there has been one, but at present there is no "Special Envoy" of the EU in the country. The only EU envoy is the EU Representative in Baku, the same common "representative" (with the title of "ambassador") that the EU has in many countries not members of the EU; Azerbaijan is just one of them. There is no difference between the EU Missions to Baku or to Washington DC in this sense. On the other hand, the "Council of Europe" (CoE), to which Azerbaijan is a member, maintains a "Special Representative of the Secretary General" in Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, just as it does so in several other countries in the vicinity of Azerbaijan. If in the articles of all these countries we are going to mention the presence of a "Special Representative of the Secretary General" of the CoE, I will have no objections to do the same here, in Azerbaijan article. Redundant explaining this, but for clarity I repeat: I removed the "Special Envoy of the EU" words from the lead because no such "Special Envoy" exists... --E4024 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the "Diplomatic List" of Azerbaijan, edition 2011. --E4024 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an allegation that is factually wrong. The reference to this so-called massacre should be deleted because the source is of questionable value and is the expression of an opinion by an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkavafian (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, The Armenians do not kill, ever! The former President of the Turkish History Association, Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halaçoğlu stated here, in this documentary film, that the names of 529,000 (529 thousand) Moslem Ottomans (Turks, Kurds, Azeris) are one by one registered in the Turkish archives concerning the Armenian Revolt: 1894-1920. The Republic of Turkey of Atatürk preferred not to look back and opened a new chapter in Turkish history and did not teach us about the said revolt. We (my generation) only heard of it when the ASALA terrorists began killing Turkish diplomats in the 70s. We grew up with the slogan "Peace at home peace abroad", while others raised hatred in the small hearts of their children and grandchildren in the diaspora. You may perhaps consider writing at least one article about those 529 thousand human beings (PBUT) killed by Armenian nationalists in the Ottoman Empire, as there are so many articles about the dead Armenians (PBUT) here... --E4024 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The GINI Index in Azerbaijan was reported at 33.7 in 2008 by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ^[2] and The World Bank ^[3]. There is no reliable data on the GINI Index after 2008 and the source applied is inadequate at the very least due to the fact that it is not a statistical agency but a magazine and the information presented differs too greatly from the official estimates. Also, GINI Index in Sweden which is known to be the lowest in the world is reported at 23.0 ^[4]. Therefore, I believe it is highly doubtful for the GINI Index in Azerbaijan to be reported at 16.8 as the article suggests because such difference between the levels of the year 2008 and 2010 is impossible and also because such level of the index simply does not make any sense since no other country in the world is anywhere near that level.

OLOLATOR (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)OLOLATOR

I STRONGLY support the point of view that Gini coefficient of 16.8 is completely unrealistic and should be changed back to 33.7 as per 2008 statistics!

90.191.181.41 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to this problem again because nothing has been done to correct the mistake decribed above.

OLOLATOR

On one of the images, Dmitry Medvedev is inaccurately listed as the "Russian President" when he is in fact the Russian Prime Minister. Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.101.51 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, is correct. At that time (2008) he was president. Alex2006 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

according to cia factbook 16% of iran's populations are azeris not 24% or a quarter mentioned in the articleGoodwikilover (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

the language map is totally inaccurate. there are at least 3 million azeri speaking people in and around tehran and the majority of west azerbaijan speaks azeri. i suggest it should be removed until it is replaced by a more accurate map.

if there are no objections i will remove the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.95.2 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

((spirits)) → ((Distilled beverage|spirits)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.99.229 (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The GINI Index of 16.8 which is given in the article is absolutely unrealistic. There is no reliable data on the subject later than the year 2008, and according to The World Bank ^[5] the GINI Index in Azerbaijan in 2008 was 33.7. The implied improvement from 33.7 to 16.8 (surpassing Sweden, which is considered to have the lowest reported GINI Index of 23) in 2 years is impossible, therefore I propose that the GINI Index should be changed back to 33.7 as per 2008 statistics.

OLOLATOR (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)OLOLATOR

I'd request a cleaner sentence under the tourism section:

The country was a well-known tourist spot in the 1980s, yet, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Nagorno-Karabakh War during the 1990s, damaged the tourist industry and the image of Azerbaijan as a tourist destination.

Changed to:

The country was a well-known tourist spot in the 1980s. However, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Nagorno-Karabakh War during the 1990s, damaged the tourist industry and the image of Azerbaijan as a tourist destination.

DHarrisStateFan (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Brandmeister^talk 10:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't reinsert the images that allude to the link between modern Azerbaijani Turks and Medians or "Caucasian Albanians." Zimmarod (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

AzerbayjanCountry lying south of the Caucasus and east of theRepublic of Armenia.The present Independent Republic of Azerbayjanis the northern part of the Turkish-speaking regionwhich also includes north-western Iran. The capitalof the southern part of Azerbayjan is Tabriz whilstthe capital of the Independent Republic is Baku. TheIndependent Republic of Azerbayjan received itsname from the Turkish invasion of 1918 althoughhistorically it may be identified with the Albaniaof classical writers. The country lies to the south ofthe Caucasus and to the east of the Republic ofArmenia. More than half of the country ismountainous, though the eastern coastal stripbordering the Caspian Sea is relatively flat. Fromthe twelfth century at least Baku has been knownfor its natural oil wells which are also the basis ofits modern economy. Turkish became the mainlanguage of the country after the Seljuk invasionsof the eleventh century. Most of the population isMuslim although there are a small number ofZoroastrians with their own fire-temple.Unlike much of Central Asia and IranAzerbayjan has its own well-developed, dressedstonemasonry tradition. This can be seen in thetombs, madrassas and mosques of Azerbayjanwhich have façades carved in relief in a stylereminiscent of Seljuk Anatolia. One of the bestexamples of this stone-working tradition is thepalace of the Shirvan Shas in Baku which hasmonolithic stone columns with austere geometriccapitals. Baked brick was also used throughoutAzerbayjan, though predominantly in south (nowwestern Iran). One of the most elegant examples ofSeljuk brickwork is found in the Gunbad-i-Surkhat Maragha which was built in 1146. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.1.63 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the useful and cited section "Etymology" was removed and deleted by the User:Chipmunkdavis in this revision?! That section was an accepted revision and because of that the whole article Name of Azerbaijan redirected to it. I don't see any valid reason for this mass removal of sourced content. Please, User:Chipmunkdavis and User:Brandmeister discuss that. --Zyma (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how that was caught up in all of that. Reinserted, assuming no objections. CMD (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. But please review your edits before and after saving. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)