Misplaced Pages

Talk:Azerbaijan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:46, 21 February 2018 editLouisAragon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers71,872 editsm →Renaming territory← Previous edit Revision as of 00:50, 21 February 2018 edit undoBrandmeister (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,026 edits →Renaming territory: reNext edit →
Line 159: Line 159:
::::::::Substituting an author who's considered to be a herald of Azerbaijani state doctrine with another one that even doubts the Armenian Genocide as well. Splendid choice. Another very neutral *ahem* source for the AA2 topic area. ::::::::Substituting an author who's considered to be a herald of Azerbaijani state doctrine with another one that even doubts the Armenian Genocide as well. Splendid choice. Another very neutral *ahem* source for the AA2 topic area.
::::::::I stand by what I originally said, per ], ] and ]; "For political reasons" is the most neutral wording. Seems {{u|Alborz Fallah}} and {{u|Dandamayev}} agree with me as well. - ] (]) 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) ::::::::I stand by what I originally said, per ], ] and ]; "For political reasons" is the most neutral wording. Seems {{u|Alborz Fallah}} and {{u|Dandamayev}} agree with me as well. - ] (]) 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Once again, it's not the author, but facts. Though I understand - as you provided no evidence whatsoever that Shaffer or Cornell are wrong, you resort to "pro-Azeri" and genocide stuff. And once again, per ]: ''Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view''. Stating that it was "politically motivated" is a POV which intentionally obfuscates the factual background that has been described. The bolded Fragner's quote is irrelevant, as it explicitly refers to the later Soviet era, i.e. after ADR. I'd also fact-check Fragner, as he seems to make far-reaching claims.
:::::::::User Rye-96 above has already agreed with NPOV concerns. But I see there's still no consensus on how to deal with that part of the section, so I will likely remove that particular part. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:50, 21 February 2018

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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 
Good articleAzerbaijan 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 21, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

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.
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis 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:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIran Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconAsia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCaucasia (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEastern Europe (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArtsakh Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 18 dates. August 30, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2006, May 28, 2007, May 28, 2008, May 28, 2009, May 28, 2010, May 28, 2011, October 18, 2011, May 28, 2012, May 28, 2013, May 28, 2014, October 18, 2014, May 28, 2015, October 18, 2015, May 28, 2016, October 18, 2016, and October 18, 2017

revert

revert due to deletion of cited text; probable POV editing; whitewashing; mischaracterization of reliable sources. Each change needs to be justified by the editor doing the deletion. Hmains (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming territory

First at all, who is F. Akhmedova the historian? and where he is working and which publisher has published his assay ? i have a certain prove of using arran to this territory in medieval era. --Dandamayev (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Two things here. First, don't know why "In an attempt to resolve this issue, the ADR government referred to the republic as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" in much of its foreign correspondence" was deleted. Secondly, "Thus, until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly-independent state Azerbaijan, the designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" is essentially a repetition of the previous sentence, so it's redundant. Also, we don't normally put Template:Further in the midst of a text. Brandmeister 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I don't see anything "redundant" about the original revision. What I do see though, is bothersome WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your part. You clearly attempted to remove reliably sourced content. Specifically, content/quotes which disprove the fringe stuff the government of the Azerbaijan Republic usually states. Its evident you tried to remove it along with the quotes and important links, and to replace it with WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE material (such as about the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan", and the stuff from "F. Akhmedova".). LouisAragon (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That section already says that the word "Azerbaijan" previously referred to the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran, so why we repeat in the subsequent sentence that "the designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan"? As for the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" part, it's neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:FRINGE and comes from scholar Brenda Shaffer. It's an important clarification in the naming issue mentioned in that section. Brandmeister 20:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Iran also officially refers to itself as the "Islamic Republic of Iran", yet everyone simply continues to refer to it as "Iran". The "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", which lasted a mere two years before being dissolved, might have referred to itself as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan" -- everyone basically continued to refer to it simply as "Azerbaijan".
The usage of the word "Azerbaijan" by the Az. Republic is extremely controversial for two things; a) for the fact they copy-pasted it from an Iranian region 2) for the fact they try to show it as if the area to the north of the Aras was known as "Azerbaijan" prior to 1918, i.e. prior to the so-called copy-paste act. That's why Shaffer (a non-neutral author, NB) is pure WP:UNDUE weight.
The WP:FRINGE / non-WP:RS material written by "F. Akhmedova", which you tried to insert (while conveniently removing quotes + sources + links about Caucasian Albania, etc.), shows once more that your edits were completely disruptive. Even though both me and User:Dandamayev raised this up above, on two separate occassions, you refrained from answering. Jeez, I wonder why! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Its always the same story with User:Brandmeister. First, he makes his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits (on WP:AA2 articles). Then, people call him out for those edits. Thereafter, he starts talking about apples and oranges in order to cover the disruptive part of those same edits and to completely divert people from the created mess. Textbook example of someone jumping the gun due to extensive WP:CRUSH abuse on low-profile articles.
- LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as AA2 is invoked, in line with its principles, I'm always ready to discuss the disagreements, being also the initiator of an RfC that you knew. Now, "The usage of the word "Azerbaijan" by the Az. Republic is extremely controversial" is a classic case of WP:IMPARTIAL requiring a balanced view. It's not merely "how everyone continues to call" something - Iran's article mentions its full name "Islamic Republic of Iran", similarly it's very reasonable to mention the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan when describing the naming conflict. For that matter I agree to replace Akhmedova with Shaffer. Note that I didn't include the former when adding Shaffer. Brandmeister 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I wonder where's "PoV material" when even your cited sources confirm what I clarified. Continous reverting with "No consensus was reached" when you did not respond to the talk proposal is unfortunate and unproductive, at least. I'm still open for an agreed impartial wording instead of the current POV. Brandmeister 11:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "I'm always ready to discuss (...)"
As long as the intentions are loaded with WP:TENDENTIOUS, its completely irrelevant whether someone wants to discuss matters or not.
  • "(...) is a classic case of WP:IMPARTIAL requiring a balanced view."
Tons of sources literally state that the adoption of the name "Azerbaijan" by the Musavat's was very much politically loaded. And yes, indeed controversial. Why are you disregarding them? Again, I request you to tread with more caution -- this is WP:AA2 territory;
  • - ''(...) the Baku and Elisavetpol guberniias, declared their independence (to 1920), and, despite Iranian protests, took the name of Azerbaijan (as noted, the same designation as the historical region in northwestern Iran) (...) -- Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. xviii
  • - "On May 27, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightfully considered to be a Russian colonial definition.... Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoptation of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim." -- Yilmaz, Harun (2015). National Identities in Soviet Historiography: The Rise of Nations Under Stalin. Routledge. p. 21.
  • - "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." -- Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris. p. 60.
  • - "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." -- Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356
  • - "In the post Islamic sense, Arran and Shirvan are often distinguished, while in the pre-Islamic era, Arran or the western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (northwestern Iran) was reinterpreted as "South Azerbaijan" in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern-day northwestern Iran." -- Fragner, B.G. (2001). Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia. I.B. Tauris and Company.
  • "For that matter I agree to replace Akhmedova with Shaffer."
So Brandmeister finally agrees that his addition of "F. Akhmedova" was WP:TENDENTIOUS.
Shaffer is not a neutral author. A better, more neutral source needs to be found, then we can re-add the information about Caucasian Azerbaijan (while keeping WP:DUE in mind, of course). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and THIS was really not a smart move. You still hadn't reached a consensus, yet you just re-inserted and changed (once again), a large part of the content. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightfully considered to be a Russian colonial definition (emphasis mine). And from Barthold, whom you also quote in the section: The term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. So instead of "for political reasons", let's clarify.
As for Shaffer, see WP:BIASED, even though she's a reliable Western scholar. Otherwise I might argue that Rezvani, for example, is biased because he's an involved partisan author, just like Bagrat Ulubabyan, who was criticized. What matters is the fact-checked impartial tone from reliable sources. So let's stick to specific facts, without opinionated rewordings. Brandmeister 12:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Brenda Shaffer is working for azeri Company and has benefit in anti-Iranian Proxy war between Iran_Israel war. she has been Criticized by Touraj Atabaki and Other scholars. we have Strong Evidence witch says this territory was named Arran and Shervan before 1918. --Dandamayev (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "For political reasons " is better wording , because the reasons for Stalin - After reoccupying ADR - and Musavatis were not the same . Brenda Shaffer is not Neutral , but anyway her exact wording in the book is : In an attempt to allay Iranian apprehension, the government referred to the new republic as the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan , and this is not equal to In an attempt to resolve this issue, the ADR government referred to the republic as the "Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan . I think the first sentence is more negative than the second one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What Shaffer writes is confirmed e.g. by Svante E. Cornell: ...fears of offending Iran prompted Baku to refer to the nascent republic as "Caucasian Azerbaijan". So it's not about claimed bias, but facts. The problem with "for political reasons" is that it's WP:VAGUE and non-neutral. Can we agree on something like: "In 1918, the government of Musavat adopted the name "Azerbaijan" for the new Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, wanting to unite its population and Persian Azerbaijanis, even though the name "Azerbaijan" had been used previously to refer to the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran. In an attempt to allay Iranian concerns, the ADR government referred to the new republic as the Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan in its foreign correspondence"? Plain facts per cited sources and Iran's reaction is included. Brandmeister 10:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The reasons for Musavatis in general ( and Mammad Amin Rasulzadeh in particular ) - as he himself wrote in Persian language newspapers of that time - was rather unifying with Iran (excluding the monarchy ) , but reasons for Soviets in keeping the name that Musavatis invented was cessationist and irredentist for Iranian Azerbaijan and hence they also coined the term "Southern Azerbaijan " that sure has political charge and no historical background . Shaffer herself despite her political agenda mentions that in the beginning of her book . So I think clarification about ADR may hide the Soviets reasons for keeping the name . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dandamayev: We can't just add such controversial tags like "Pan-Turkism" on a country article's name section and get away with it. Same goes for adding the image of that official protesting letter. Even though there is nothing wrong with it, and that it's quite informative and related, it would attract edit wars and it should rather be avoided. Don't you think?
@Brandmeister: I don't understand the term "previously" here. It's literally suggesting that the "adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran" was "previously" called Azerbaijan, which is just wrong and confusing. That's actually why I agree with keeping that other sentence that contains the term "exclusively", as it clarifies the basic point of all those listed sources. I hear your point regarding the repeated contents. They should definitely be merged together.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with adding that, as a response to the Iranian protests, the term "Caucasian" was used in some official documents for some time, if this would be supported by a reliable, unbiased source other than the controversial Brenda Shaffer.
At this point, what needs to be done is a general copy edit that would make the section neutral and less confusing.
—Rye-96 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rye-96: Yes, a neutral copyediting for the repetition and other contentious stuff is very much welcomed, basically that's the point of this thread. Also, to clarify, it's more about ethno-linguistic unity rather than perceived "political reasons" or territorial claim: formerly Iranian inhabitants of the southern lands, known as Azari (possibly the descendants of the ancient Medes), have also turkicized (Atabaki, 1993, p. 9 10; Ale-Osfur, 2006, p. 17-20), so the populations to the north and south of the Cyrus River apparently shared certain cultural and later also political features. Brandmeister 22:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Please refrain from continuous reverting already to override the discussion. If you have concerns, post them here instead of jumping the gun. Again, the "politically motivated" part is a classic WP:NPOV breach which is not supported by the cited sources - neither of the two says it was "politically motivated". If you don't have any ideas for this, let's drop that part and shake hands. Brandmeister 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You didn't reach any consensus with anyone on this page. 4 people so far have expressed their legitimate concerns vis-a-vis your edits. Yet, you just went ahead once more, and made more POV additions to the article, in violation of WP:CON.. Why are you so keen on edit-warring on AA2 articles, I wonder? It's not the first time this happens. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The overwhelming number of sources clearly illustrate that the name change (from "Arran/Shirvan" into "Azerbaijan") was politically loaded and controversial. You're cherry picking words from Barthold's quote in order to whitewash the rest of the sources and quotes.
  • "(...) the Baku and Elisavetpol guberniias, declared their independence (to 1920), and, despite Iranian protests, took the name of Azerbaijan (as noted, the same designation as the historical region in northwestern Iran) (...)" -- Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. 18.
  • "In the post Islamic sense, Arran and Shirvan are often distinguished, while in the pre-Islamic era, Arran or the western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (northwestern Iran) was reinterpreted as "South Azerbaijan" in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern-day northwestern Iran." -- Fragner, B.G. (2001). Soviet Nationalism: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia. I.B. Tauris and Company. pp. 13–32.
  • "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the current Azeri historians have not only continued to use the terms "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan, but also assert that the present-day Armenian Republic was a part of northern Azerbaijan. In their fury over what they view as the "Armenian occupation" of Nagorno-Karabakh , Azeri politicians and historians deny any historic Armenian presence in the South Caucasus and add that all Armenian architectural monuments located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan are not Armenian but Albanian." -- Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. xviii
  • ""Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian, as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it as a single state that has been separated into "northern" and "southern" sectors and which will be united in the future."" -- Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. xv - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
"What Shaffer writes is confirmed e.g. by Svante E. Cornell (...)"
Substituting an author who's considered to be a herald of Azerbaijani state doctrine with another one that even doubts the Armenian Genocide as well. Splendid choice. Another very neutral *ahem* source for the AA2 topic area.
I stand by what I originally said, per WP:RS, WP:VER and DUE; "For political reasons" is the most neutral wording. Seems Alborz Fallah and Dandamayev agree with me as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it's not the author, but facts. Though I understand - as you provided no evidence whatsoever that Shaffer or Cornell are wrong, you resort to "pro-Azeri" and genocide stuff. And once again, per WP:IMPARTIAL: Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Stating that it was "politically motivated" is a POV which intentionally obfuscates the factual background that has been described. The bolded Fragner's quote is irrelevant, as it explicitly refers to the later Soviet era, i.e. after ADR. I'd also fact-check Fragner, as he seems to make far-reaching claims.
User Rye-96 above has already agreed with NPOV concerns. But I see there's still no consensus on how to deal with that part of the section, so I will likely remove that particular part. Brandmeister 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Categories: