Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:42, 16 June 2005

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.

Template:Azerbaijan

An event mentioned in this article is an August 30 selected anniversary.

Edit war

198.81.26.74/K1: Please refrain from reverting each other's versions of the article wholesale. It is apparent that you have issues with the content of each other's versions; why not resolve them here, instead? It will save everyone a lot of hassle. Thank you. -- Grunt (talk) 00:55, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Grunt, I can see that we have a bunch of real competent admins here in wikipedia. You and another admin are locking the pages of this guy's version of lies and deceptions and invite me to resolve the problem with him? Can you read and understand plain english? I responded to your comments on the Talk:South Azerbaijan page the other day, and explained that this moron with a random IP and no histoty of constructive work in wikipedia changes the pages with a CLEAR political agenda, and DOES NOT engage in any dialog. He puts out flat out lies, he is not even a registered contributor, and his rubbish get to overridde my work with over a year of active, accurate and useful contributions to Misplaced Pages. On page Nezami he writes Nezami has works in Turkish. So in the discussion area I tell him why don't you then just name his "Turkish works" in the article? (mind you, there is NONE) He does not respond. So we revert the article to the version that is CORRECT, and he immediately reverts back to his version. The same bullshit is going on a a bunch of pages, ALL OF WHICH are related to one cause: Pan-Turkism. He has today created a new completely false article Persian Chauvinisim in conjunction with his other contaminations of the neighbourhood -- thanks to admins like you who encourage abuse of the open nature of Misplaced Pages. This moron's IP should have been blocked a long time ago after a couple of warnings when his abuse and malintentions became apparent. --K1 09:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read m:The wrong version or Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars ever, did you? - David Gerard 23:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The state of Iran was formed on the basis of 1 thing: To take every neighbour's history and "Persianize" it to make the Persians feel better about themsleves. Shame on those who don't accept other's history it is truely a sad case of feeling low about yourself. -198.81.26.106 23:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned both of you have equally valid (invalid?) points of view here; we are going to have to accept that fact and attempt to create a version of this article that properly represents both points of view. Clearly two points of view exist; otherwise there wouldn't be enough material to create two versions of the article, would they? If we can just calm down enough to accept that fact, perhaps we'll be able to resolve this whole mess... -- Grunt (talk) 01:35, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Interesting how all the people fighting so passionately for what they write about Azerbaijan are from Iran... All I can read is Iran this, Persia that. I wouldn't be surprised if the admin is some sort of Iranian descent. Is this not supposed to be Azerbaijan's history? As opposed to the glorious Persian history? I hope the brainless admins try searching up some websites made in Azerbaijan to ban these incompetent fools.

I as an Azerbaijani condamn the Grey Wolf pan-Turkist attempt to fabricate a falsified and distorted history for our land. Its as clear as day that we were a part of Persia before being captured by the Russians. You escape reality just to feel good and bring more misery for the people of Caucasus. Get off of my history and go back to your camps in Ankara.

Some material from the Persian Encyclopedia

I did some translations from the 1966 Persian Encyclopedia. It is available at Talk:History of Azerbaijan#From my Persian Encyclopedia. Roozbeh 02:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the yelling at the top

The controversiality notice is supposed to go on the talk page, and that red notice is nothing but an abomination. If someone is constantly vandalizing the page, either work it out somehow or ban them, don't cater to them by screwing up the whole page because of them. --Joy 12:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I realise this. I'm just trying to discourage people from making edits which might provoke more edit warring. -- Grunt (talk) 17:42, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

my changes

I hope my changes aren't, you know, offensive, but I noticed a few POV problems, and a lot of unlinked words... ugen64 20:57, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Misplaced Pages link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Azerbaijan article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Azerbaijan}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, I think this should be deleted:

"Historians, anthropologists and scientists agree that it is in this land that the earlieGarden of Eden once existed."

What?

Tabib's edit

Simply great. It has my full support Refdoc 21:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but it is far from "simply great". For example, in the history section is jumps from "IV c. BC" all the way to the Islamic era, without a single mention of the large gap in between. It also does not mention the fact that the name "Azerbaijan" was used only after the end of World War I, although it does mention the formation of it after WW-I. Also it does not mention at all that it used to be called Arran and that "Azarbaijan" has always historically been to the south of the Aras river.

The history section under Azerbaijan page is not intended to give full historical account but simply highlight the major events. From this perspective, I think the history section under Azerbaijan page is quite ok. You are welcome to discuss the historical issues and controversies in the History of Azerbaijan talkpage and after that make your contributions to the relevant page.--Tabib 10:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is a tendency here on Misplaced Pages that "opposing parties" take over separate pages and expand them, defending them against revert wars and developing them in separate directions. All this has happened in the past in the Azer|Azar-baijan|beycan|beijan complex of pages over and over again. There were "Turkish" pages and "Iranian" pages and others too Very few encyclopaedic pages though. Tabib has - by culling this page to the bone - created a good encyclopaedic page which could last and now allows the disputes to concetrate on one page - the historical page e.g. I do agree on one count - the bit about the "name shift" should be menitioned, preferably in a a way that does not inflame over and again the revert wars. Refdoc 10:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just added some historical info to the article. I was engaged with that region during my university studies for a couple of years.

Thanks,

Syaoshant

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point . Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected: Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

earliest states in Azerbaijan

I just found an English language website at the Azerbaijani Embassy in Romania with an amazing article that goes into immense detail about Ancient states in what is now Azerbaijan

(perhaps contradicting the article's statement:)

The first state to emerge in the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan was Caucasian Albania. It was established in the 4th century BC

Among the ancient states mentioned in this article, that is quite scholarly if not perfectly grammatical, are:

(apparently known from Assyrian and Urartian records)

c. 1000-800 BC: Zamua, Nikdiary (Mekdiary), Allabriya, Karalla Gilzan Messi, Andija, Zikirta Ninni, Shurdira, Kharruna, Simesi, Ulmania, Adau, Kharmasa, Sangibuti, Pulua

c. 850-800 BC: Mannae (mentioned in article I think)

http://www.azembassy.ro/English/pr01.htm

Wow there is a lot of new info for me there, I should have a field day researching this stuff for a while... Any of it sound familiar? --Codex Sinaiticus 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

interwiki

If you are a sysop, please add the interwiki ] to the list of interwikis. I am to create the relevant article in a few minutes. Thanks in advance. Caesarion 15:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to user "El C": Sources for the relevant ASSERTIONS are inherent in the local HISTORY!

"Hairsplitting" should not be utilized as a means of distraction from obvious lack of KNOWLEDGE! The Assertions were made building on well-founded Information! (not by myself, though). Your apparent reference to Gogol characters and the sockpuppet page are entirely uncalled for. If you had any knowledge with respect to the local history, you would not approach me in this trivial manner, let allone call my contribution "vandalism". --Bagration-Mukhransky 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is I *don't* know about the local history, which is why I am reverting the uncited material, one that is very similar to the one contributed by the anonymous ip. To my knowledge, I have only reverted vandalism in this article —mostly, much more crude, and which mostly seems to come either from Azeri (aggrendizing) or Armenian (diminishing) nationalists— and have not contributed to it in any appreciable way. If it is well founded, then there should be no issue with validating the addition through propper citation of sources. But policy states that the burden of proof falls on the submitter. I'm going to consider any additional uncited reverts as vandalism and have warned Bagration-Mukhransky that this will lead him being blocked. I hope he will listen to reason. El_C 09:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My experience with Armenia has been similar as well, except naturally, with Azeri nationalists in this case diminishing and Armenian ones aggrandizing. Which is to be expected. Once Tabib is around, I'm confident that he'll be able to clear this latest incident up. El_C 11:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is surely NOT in the interest of WIKIPEDIA! I find it highly questionable indeed, that self-righteous "deputy sheriffs", despite of their obvious and admitted lack of relevant knowledge, feel free to wildly revert sensible edits and confront people in the known with snotty (if not cocky) argumentation. How can edits be termed "vandalism" by a person entirely ignorant of their contents??) On top of that openly teaming up with Individuals, with whom they seem to accord , for some reason. And what, prey tell me, is wrong with anonymous ips, posting sensible info?? As long as such conduct is tolerated by the responsible people on this platform, Misplaced Pages will remain unreliable and misleading, to a considerable extent. --Bagration-Mukhransky 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking that a source be provided for this "well-founded" claims – what's the big deal? El_C 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absurd claim on historical ethnic demoghraphics

I think I should intervene here to express my support to User:El C for reverting vandal Rovoam's spurious edits as well as for his legitimate point in his communication with User:Bagration-Mukhransky about citing sources first before making any substantial edits.

From history logs I have noticed that there was a brief mutual reverting between User:El C and User:Bagration-Mukhransky (e.g. ).

I want to state right away that the edits that Bagration-Mukhransky supported are totally false. I do not question this user's good faith, but I think it is necessary for you and all editors to know that this absurd claim that allegedly "the Azeri Turks" comprised only "around 30%" of the population of Azerbaijan, whereas Talysh minority ostensibly constituted 60% (?!) is simply absurd. (Btw, today Talysh number around 50-70,000 in present-day Azerbaijan and are the fastest growing population group in Azerbaijan). This absurd and stupid claim was first introduced by vandal Rovoam in Azerbaijanis as a part of his massive and wide-range vandalism which covered more than thirty (!) Azerbaijan and Turkey-related WP entries. He is still introducing same vandalisms in that entry, in many other Azerbaijan-related entries and even such unrelated entry as Ottoman Turks (e.g. ) or Ottoman Empire (e.g. )

As I said, I do not want to question Bagration-Mukhransky's good faith in his edits, but those spurious edits come from vandal and everyone should bear this in mind. I have also expressed similar concerns in Talk:Azeri, where Rovoam introduced same vandal edits. Hope, my message was helpful for you to understand the situation. I call you all to join me and many other editors in common struggle against Rovoam. For additional info, look at regular disclaimers.--Tabib 15:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Azerbayjan was not inhabited by TURCS prior to Seljuq migration to this area!

Interesting to note that nothing seems to have changed around here! The same old bickering on account of nationalist POV wherever user Tabib Husseynov gets involved (or some uneducated but passionate helpers at his side??) People around here act like ignorant medeaval chronies , running after innocent people , burning them as witches, though now they term them VANDALS (my own - previous - account was blocked on such ludicrous grounds.....) --Luba Gerasimova 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. While indeed, I am thoroughly uneducated, I am nonetheless well-meaning, and I hope that is how I am percieved (I have no particularly strong view on Azeri history). From this position, then, I hold the opinion that referencing claims about the origin of the name is, in the interests of stability, a desirable practice, esp. when these are seemingly more related to an historical overview and ethnography rather than etymology. I remain, as always, open to persuasion. And, again, I thank you for your note. El_C 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics