| Revision as of 16:58, 25 January 2024 editItislikethat (talk | contribs)6 edits →Typo found: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 25 January 2024 edit undoMellk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,123 edits →Typo found: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| The territory of what is now the modern Republic of "Azerbijan" ] (]) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | The territory of what is now the modern Republic of "Azerbijan" ] (]) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Corrected, thanks. It looks like it was from edit on 10 January. ] (]) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:14, 25 January 2024
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | 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. |
 | Azerbaijan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | 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. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Not calling it a dictatorship is ridiculous
The previous discussion about listing it as a dictatorship lists a point about Russia not being listed as a dictatorship. Well now that has changed, and Misplaced Pages has agreed Russia is under an authoritarian dictatorship. I guess the war changed their minds. So why not Azerbaijan, who itself is committing an aggressive conflict which amounts to ethnic genocide against Armenians? You can find sources clearly agreeing it is a dictatorship. Here are a few: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/azerbaijans-aliyev-is-a-strategic-liability-not-an-asset/, https://hyperallergic.com/615519/artwashing-a-dictatorship/, https://evnreport.com/politics/the-dictator-has-no-clothes-aliyevs-regime-and-its-declining-oil-revenues/. Freedom House basically defines it as a dictatorship without strictly saying the dirty word: https://freedomhouse.org/country/azerbaijan. We must put the truth on here. Evil Narwhal (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article's lead already mentions "authoritarian leadership under the leadership of both Heydar Aliyev and his son Ilham Aliyev". While a strong case for the authoritarian nature of current Azerbaijani government can be made, going into further details would violate WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Brandmeister 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Golden: The concern in the discussion you cited appears to be that news articles were used which didn't call it a dictatorship. Thus I cited an academic source, a journal article in Global Politics and Strategy, which directly calls it a hereditary dictatorship akin to the Kim dynasty. 25stargeneral (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lack of sources isn't a concern. Infoboxes reflect
the official form of government, not what outside observers (no matter whether rightly or wrongly) think it is
, as stated by a participant in that discussion. For further clarification on the usage of the parameter, please refer to the the template's documentation. — Golden 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)- I disagree with that editor and the template documentation makes no such claim. Large-scale discussions on pages like Talk:Russia and Talk:North Korea have supported my interpretation of the purpose of the infobox. Misplaced Pages articles follow reliable, secondary sources in all cases. This infobox, as with all others, summarizes the body content that is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sources are the only concern on Misplaced Pages. Semi-presidential republic is the official line, but it is false as considered by academics due to election fraud, suppression of the opposition, and hereditary succession. I have referred to the template documentation; all it says for that parameter is
|government_type = <!--Wikilinked if link exists-->, so it does not support your assertion. You are required by Misplaced Pages policy to make your argument based on reliable, secondary sources. 25stargeneral (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)- There should be consistency throughout all articles. If nations like Russia and North Korea are listed as dictatorships, then this article needs to be included in the same category. After all, it's simple to find sources that characterize Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. I stress again, though, that consistency is essential, and all other nation articles whose constitutional systems of governance are inconsistent with de jure should also receive the necessary adjustments. And there are many of such. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- When it comes to the infobox, the government should be as it is, "Unitary semi-presidential republic". The authoritarian nature is already included in the government and politics section. Sham elections are there, but in North Korea even sham elections are not conducted, as its leader is unelected by principle. Brandmeister 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- North Korea conducts elections a couple of times each decade, and North Korea is led by the elected leader of its ruling political party. CMD (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The NK elections are internal rather than direct, by popular vote, as pretended in some post-Soviet pseudodemocracies. Also, if I'm not mistaken, both Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un became leaders by hereditary proclamation rather than internal party elections. Brandmeister 09:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The elections are by direct popular vote for the legislature. Kim Jong Un won an internal party election in 2012, a few months after his father's death. CMD (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that NK's most important office, the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea (equivalent to president in post-Soviet states), is not elected through direct popular vote in principle. Changing that is much less likely and harder than transforming sham elections of a president elsewhere into fair and transparent. Brandmeister 12:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Neither is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that's not a point of inconsistency regarding the treatment of one pseudodemocracy or another. CMD (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's a red herring. Anyway, for the purpose of infobox there are WP:NPOV issues when adding "dictatorship" to certain countries. The country infobox template had a related discussion earlier and it appears that in some cases it's better to stick just to country's constitution, leaving details to article's body. Brandmeister 13:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- We as editors cannot cite a primary source like a country's constitution or our own interpretations of one. We are bound by our policies to follow what political scientists say. NPOV means neutral with respect to what the political scientists say, it does not mean including the regime's point of view. I would check out Talk:Russia#Constitutional form of government or de facto system of government and the many similar conversations in the archives. 25stargeneral (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Major reference works, such as The World Factbook, Oxford Guide to Countries of the World or Britannica, list constitutionally defined government models in country profiles (which are equivalents of our country infoboxes). I'm not a fan of current power abuse in Azerbaijan or Russia, but per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE a country infobox should be succinct. Brandmeister 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is a direct address to the point that was made, the opposite of a red herring. LouisAragon brought up an important point about consistency, and the apparent difference about sham elections applies to both examples LouisAragon raised, as well as this article. CMD (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- When it comes to infobox, I oppose per my rationale above,
elsewhere in the article I'm ok with LouisAragon's proposal.Brandmeister 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)- LouisAragon has not proposed anything for unstated other parts of the article, they referred directly to the infoboxes at Russia and North Korea. CMD (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, my oppose for Azerbaijan stands then. Brandmeister 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- LouisAragon has not proposed anything for unstated other parts of the article, they referred directly to the infoboxes at Russia and North Korea. CMD (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that there are sufficient citations to use dictatorship, especially compared to other country articles that are currently named as dictatorships. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- When it comes to infobox, I oppose per my rationale above,
- We as editors cannot cite a primary source like a country's constitution or our own interpretations of one. We are bound by our policies to follow what political scientists say. NPOV means neutral with respect to what the political scientists say, it does not mean including the regime's point of view. I would check out Talk:Russia#Constitutional form of government or de facto system of government and the many similar conversations in the archives. 25stargeneral (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's a red herring. Anyway, for the purpose of infobox there are WP:NPOV issues when adding "dictatorship" to certain countries. The country infobox template had a related discussion earlier and it appears that in some cases it's better to stick just to country's constitution, leaving details to article's body. Brandmeister 13:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Neither is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that's not a point of inconsistency regarding the treatment of one pseudodemocracy or another. CMD (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that NK's most important office, the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea (equivalent to president in post-Soviet states), is not elected through direct popular vote in principle. Changing that is much less likely and harder than transforming sham elections of a president elsewhere into fair and transparent. Brandmeister 12:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The elections are by direct popular vote for the legislature. Kim Jong Un won an internal party election in 2012, a few months after his father's death. CMD (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The NK elections are internal rather than direct, by popular vote, as pretended in some post-Soviet pseudodemocracies. Also, if I'm not mistaken, both Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un became leaders by hereditary proclamation rather than internal party elections. Brandmeister 09:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- North Korea conducts elections a couple of times each decade, and North Korea is led by the elected leader of its ruling political party. CMD (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- When it comes to the infobox, the government should be as it is, "Unitary semi-presidential republic". The authoritarian nature is already included in the government and politics section. Sham elections are there, but in North Korea even sham elections are not conducted, as its leader is unelected by principle. Brandmeister 08:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- There should be consistency throughout all articles. If nations like Russia and North Korea are listed as dictatorships, then this article needs to be included in the same category. After all, it's simple to find sources that characterize Azerbaijan as a dictatorship. I stress again, though, that consistency is essential, and all other nation articles whose constitutional systems of governance are inconsistent with de jure should also receive the necessary adjustments. And there are many of such. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that editor and the template documentation makes no such claim. Large-scale discussions on pages like Talk:Russia and Talk:North Korea have supported my interpretation of the purpose of the infobox. Misplaced Pages articles follow reliable, secondary sources in all cases. This infobox, as with all others, summarizes the body content that is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sources are the only concern on Misplaced Pages. Semi-presidential republic is the official line, but it is false as considered by academics due to election fraud, suppression of the opposition, and hereditary succession. I have referred to the template documentation; all it says for that parameter is
- Lack of sources isn't a concern. Infoboxes reflect
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023 (flag update)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The flag of Azerbaijan needs to be updated. It currently displays 2013 shade of the flag, but it needs to feature the updated version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Flag_of_Azerbaijan(2019-Present).png
.png){kind=link}
In 2013, the Pantone colour scheme was approved, but in 2019 it was revoked, so the flag returned to pre-2013 shade. I've updated it on the page for the flag itself. While the reference is in Azerbaijani, it is from the Ministry of Justice website. If you scroll down, you can see Article 9.2 stricken with the addendum, revoking the Pantone colour-code scheme. Hamidlinski (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done Beshogur (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamidlinski: Can you increase the flag quality, maybe making a svg version? Beshogur (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is already a .svg version in the database, you could use:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Flag_of_Azerbaijan_(2004%E2%80%932013).svg
- Hamidlinski (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can you change the description? Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's not my upload, my upload was only the .png version. I don't seem to have permission to update Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg or edit the description of the current flag svg file I shared. I also see Yue reverted the edit stating update svg file, but I don't have the skill to do so. Could you help, please?
- Hamidlinski (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a clue either. Beshogur (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamidilinski: this still uses the "old colors"? Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Beshogur yes, this section of the website hasn't been updated in a while. I contacted the press service, and they told me that it is a very low priority for them right now. The 2019 reference to the repeal of the Pantone colour scheme is the most up-to-date version.
- @Yue, since you mentioned it, could you please update the Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg file? We don't know how. Hamidlinski (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamidlinski: I self-reverted for now until the main file is updated. Should take less than a day. Yue🌙 19:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- In this source it shows the old colors. The colours of the emblem doesn't match either. Should we return to this one? Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Toghrul R: thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. @Hamidlinski the current flag colors are regulated by the law adopted in 2018 and it's still valid. Where does 2019 law come from? If you read the law carefully, you'll see that 2013 amendment (not 2019 law) revoked the 2004 law. So, we have four flags (in terms of law lifespan): 1991-2004, 2004-2013, 2013-2018 and 2018-present. The flag colors were correct. @Beshogur no, the CoA in the article is also correct and was adapted to the law. Even president.az is using it and the section was updated two months ago :) Please check out the CoA on Commons and the file history — Toghrul R (t) 03:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Toghrul R You are partially correct about the flag timeline. However, the 2019 is not the law, it is a retcon of the 2013 decision 9.2 which decided to use the Pantone colour scheme. You can see it in my reference above^, I'm more than happy to provide the legal codes for the decisions. Since 2013 amendment established Pantone scheme, it's reversal in 2019 is the revert to the pre-2013 scheme. This was further confirmed by my communique to the President's Press service: the president's website will be updated at some point to reflect the proper scheme (they unfortunately didn't give me a deadline, because they don't have to).
- Also, technically president.az is a less credible source than the e-qanun, listing legal decisions: The latter is a legislative website. The official foreign affairs website is a more credible source, and it displays the proper scheme as Beshogur noted.
- To be honest, my personal theory is that when drafting 2013 pantone ruling, they mistakenly referred to the 1991-2004 flag, and reversed it, instead of having it reflect the 2004-2013 flag. 2004-2013 flag is virtually the same as the current version, and is meant to be the restoration of the 1918 flag.
- @Beshogur yes, we should revert the coat of arms scheme as well to match it, that is an excellent catch! Could you do it please?
- Hamidlinski (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamidlinski 2004 version of 9.2 was revoked in 2013 and was removed in 2019 because it was simply irrelevant with the law of hoisting and usage of the flag and it was a leftover which had to be revoked because of the 2018 law. When you read the 2019 amendment, you can see it was made to make way for the 2018 version. It is still valid and nothing has been revoked. I don't know how you have had communication with them, as they deemed 2018 version to be correct and update the website, even the videos. Presidential flag is remaining however, they'll fix it — Toghrul R (t) 04:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Toghrul R 9.2 has nothing to do with the hoisting, it specifically states the Pantone colour code. The amendment literally strikes it off, and since 8 October 2019, Pantone colours are no longer used. Just to be clear, the amendment doesn't revoke the 2018 Flag Law itself, just the use of Pantone code. You can't use 2018 law to negate 2019 amendment, that's not the order :)
- I see we are at an impasse, because you interpret it differently. But the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs website supports my point, because they are literally using the pre-pantone flag shade, which the 2019 revert results in. I contacted the press service using my personal contacts, once they update the paraphernalia on president.az you should be able to see it for yourself ;) As an FYI, the official foreign ministry website is a better source.
- Hamidlinski (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The emblem on the MFA website might have circular sourcing, compare the low detail of the oak leaves with . SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamidlinski 2004 version of 9.2 was revoked in 2013 and was removed in 2019 because it was simply irrelevant with the law of hoisting and usage of the flag and it was a leftover which had to be revoked because of the 2018 law. When you read the 2019 amendment, you can see it was made to make way for the 2018 version. It is still valid and nothing has been revoked. I don't know how you have had communication with them, as they deemed 2018 version to be correct and update the website, even the videos. Presidential flag is remaining however, they'll fix it — Toghrul R (t) 04:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. @Hamidlinski the current flag colors are regulated by the law adopted in 2018 and it's still valid. Where does 2019 law come from? If you read the law carefully, you'll see that 2013 amendment (not 2019 law) revoked the 2004 law. So, we have four flags (in terms of law lifespan): 1991-2004, 2004-2013, 2013-2018 and 2018-present. The flag colors were correct. @Beshogur no, the CoA in the article is also correct and was adapted to the law. Even president.az is using it and the section was updated two months ago :) Please check out the CoA on Commons and the file history — Toghrul R (t) 03:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Toghrul R: thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can you change the description? Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
References
parts of Nagorno-Karabakh were returned to Azerbaijani control, wrong sentence
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a sentence that needs to be updated - Following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, the seven districts and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh were returned to Azerbaijani control.
Not the 'parts of Nagorno-Karabakh' are returned. As of November 2023, it is the whole Nagorno-Karabakh.
source 1 - https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur55/7254/2023/en/ source 2 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/almost-all-ethnic-armenians-have-left-nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan source 3 - https://gulfif.org/azerbaijan-control-of-nagorno-karabakh-geopolitical-implications-for-iran-russia-and-turkey/
Theamanov (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- The paragraph has been updated. Yue🌙 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Atabeks of Azerbaijan.
I propose to add to the founding of Azerbaijan the state of the Ildegizids, founded in 1136, since this state directly played a huge role in the formation of the nation and statehood of Azerbaijan and is the first state in the history of the Azerbaijani Turks.
Formation
• Atabegs of Azerbaijan
1136
• Democratic Republic
28 May 1918
• Soviet Socialist Republic
28 April 1920
• Independence from Soviet Union
18 October 1991 (declared independence)
26 December 1991 (recognized)
• Constitution adopted
12 November 1995 Ĝavid 34 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Aq Qoyunlu Qara Qoyunlu
According to the German Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer, it is very strange that the word "Turkman" still confuses Ag Goyunlu and Gara Goyunlu Turkmens. The word Turkman actually means "nomadic Oghuz"Aggoyunlu and Karagoyunlu "Turkmen" are Azerbaijanis anyway. 5.191.113.222 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Typo found
The territory of what is now the modern Republic of "Azerbijan" Itislikethat (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Corrected, thanks. It looks like it was from this edit on 10 January. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Geography
- GA-Class vital articles in Geography
- GA-Class Azerbaijan articles
- Top-importance Azerbaijan articles
- WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- GA-Class Asia articles
- Top-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- GA-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- GA-Class Artsakh articles
- Mid-importance Artsakh articles
- WikiProject Artsakh articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report