This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atabəy (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 6 July 2007 (→attempt to reinsert deleted image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:51, 6 July 2007 by Atabəy (talk | contribs) (→attempt to reinsert deleted image)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Iran Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Azerbaijan Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
POV
Articles contain some one-sided opinion and POV which should be removed. Historical context poorly written.--Dacy69 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whats POV? Everything is sourced...From neutral sources.Hajji Piruz 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dacy. It is irrelevant which country the territory of modern Azerbaijan belonged to. What matters is who lived there. India also belonged to Britain. So what? Does it mean the territory is historically Anglo-Saxon? I think the historical context must be rewritten and the reference to Iran must be removed.Batabat 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- it is different to the India-UK case. it is more like India-Pakistan. --Pejman47 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Grandmaster 11:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have talked about the Azerbaijan issue. I've talked about it with Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek. Maybe, if you guys are so insistent on the few sources, you guys should add that some sources say Armenian land extended all the way to the Caspian sea in the NK article or other disputed territorial articles. Why are you guys editing with this double standard?Hajji Piruz 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe any reference to any country's territory belonging (being part of) in the past to any modern country is absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary. We are talking about Azerbaijan, not about Iran. Such references are mostly politically motivated and carry the seads of territorial claims, which has nothing to do with history. Therefore, introducing the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Wiki users as the territory that was part of Iran in the past is just as much irrelevant as writing a page on Algeria and starting with the sentence that it belonged to France. These references take the topic off the route and divert it to a different and irrelevant direction.Batabat 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have talked about the Azerbaijan issue. I've talked about it with Grandmaster, Dacy69, and Atabek. Maybe, if you guys are so insistent on the few sources, you guys should add that some sources say Armenian land extended all the way to the Caspian sea in the NK article or other disputed territorial articles. Why are you guys editing with this double standard?Hajji Piruz 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should spill one dispute over many pages. Secondly, some statements are one-sided anyway, for example about culture and needs 1) proper references 2) more balanced approach 3) inclusion other views on the issue.--Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Iran-Azerbaijan relations, not anything else Dacy69.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then first of all issue about name has nothing to do here--Dacy69 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I said nothing about the name issue. I put in information about the relations between the two nations in 1918...Are you trying to say that Iran and Azerbaijan did not have relations in 1918?Hajji Piruz 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I mean the name of Republic of Azerbaijan. quiet controversial and you mention that it had repurcussion in Iran and the same time you are removing cartoon issue which had reopurcussion in Azerbaijan. Don;t then accuse other poeple in double standards--Dacy69 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The cartoon issue, started by an Azeri (ironically), has nothing to do with the political relations between these two COUNTRIES. The naming issue was a political relation that the two nations had in 1918. I merely quoted Swietochowski so that there wouldnt be any controversy.Hajji Piruz 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cartoon issue, much more than name issue in 1918 was implications between TWO COUNTRIES. You can check a number of articles in internet. It was mentioned many times.--Dacy69 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cartoon's issue, was a problem that still needs debate. Considering the cartoonist's picture "designed to insult Azeri identity" is a prototype of such "Articles contain some one-sided opinion and POV " that you have mentioned before. The real story is that the Persian slang has many loan words from Azeri-Turkish. I'm an Azeri-Iranian myself and know many of such words , like Qarashmish (chaotic in Persian), Yer be Yer ( even ; as in "we are even" ) and so on ... The expression " Namana" ,that is used in Persian Slang, is used when a person is encountered with a surprising task and want to reject it , something like "What did you said ?!" (Plus surprise and rejection) .The cartoonist himself was Azeri and almost all of his cartoons have such slang expressions. Changing the government from reformist to conservative , the potential for revolt was high and the reformists forces in the government help the revolt in the cover "insult to the Azeri ethnic"... So that's more complex than considering it a mere ethnic conflict, and that can't be mentioned here.... Sagh Olasan --Alborz Fallah 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cartoon issue, much more than name issue in 1918 was implications between TWO COUNTRIES. You can check a number of articles in internet. It was mentioned many times.--Dacy69 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The cartoon issue, started by an Azeri (ironically), has nothing to do with the political relations between these two COUNTRIES. The naming issue was a political relation that the two nations had in 1918. I merely quoted Swietochowski so that there wouldnt be any controversy.Hajji Piruz 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The issue should not be completely omitted from the article. We strive for providing objective information in Misplaced Pages, and the restriction of information about the protests which did happen is not quite encyclopedic, regardless of our interpretation of them. So, I think the protest shall be mentioned and references to their interpretation by any side shall also be brought. Upon discussion, we can incorporate those in the article. Atabek 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Representing links can fulfil that need:the user himself can understand the NPOV out of them.No need to add our and /or certain media explanation in the main body of the text.YASHA!--Alborz Fallah 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a government or news agency, in order to provide some information and withhold other. Protests were a fact, and they numbered millions. So that should be presented for fairness. Interpretation of them should be left out for reader to judge. Atabek 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alborz, Misplaced Pages is based on sources. WE don't make any interpretation out of the cartoon events. I cited reference. That's it. It should stay. All your observation of cartoon issue might be interesting but it also might be your own opinion or OR. So, the event is well-known and referenced. It had repurcussion in both countries. Thus, it should be in the article.--Dacy69 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a government or news agency, in order to provide some information and withhold other. Protests were a fact, and they numbered millions. So that should be presented for fairness. Interpretation of them should be left out for reader to judge. Atabek 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Modern relations
I added some info on modern period and I believe two links in references are dead and should be removed. I put info on events which had implications for the relations. --Dacy69 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
ADR-Iran
I added couple more references on diplomatic and governmental exchanges between ADR and Qajar court. Atabek 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The claim that all Iranian Azeris objected to the words of Azerbaijani president is unsubstantiated. The reference is made only to Iranian officials. Grandmaster 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Atabek's newest addition
Atabek's newest addition really doesnt have anything to do with this article, as it belongs in the Iran-Armenia relations article, but whatever... Anyway, I took out the part about Nowruz, as that certainly has nothing to do with anything, and I put that Armenia and Azerbaijan are enemies at the end, so that it doesnt imply that the source is saying that.Hajji Piruz 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
attempt to reinsert deleted image
Alborz tries to link page to the image previously deleted in Misplaced Pages and now uploaded to personal images database. That is not reliable source.--Dacy69 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- That image was deleted only because of the copy right standards of the Misplaced Pages and not the reliablity of the source!
If there is any evidence of change in territorial claims of the Azerbaijani primary school's text books in recent years , I would be more glad to show the positive changes .
Dacy , do you mean that's not the cover of the history book ? If it's the case, I do need the new book's cover image and would be so thankful if you send me the new book- cover's image.--Alborz Fallah 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)- The image is from a news agency, it's a scan of the fifth-grade history book from the Republic of Azerbaijan showing the Iranian and Armenian territories under the modern Azerbaijani flag, I provided the correct link. AlexanderPar 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Dacy want to be positive , he can scan the new book's cover and show it here . The text book is from 1994,and I think it has been changed nowadays (after Iranian government's protest).Showing the change from the Elçibay's aggressive attitudes toward Iran to a better one is the mean reason of this article. Azerbaijan republic lost the support of the best power in the region(Iran),in the middle of his war with Armenia ,just for such a claims. Turkey is not interested in relations with Asiatic Azerbaijan and does not have the historical and cultural ties and it's geography without a good border with Azerbaijan does not help it's relations with Az.Republic, so for a land-lacked country like Az.Rep surrounded by unfriendly neighbors , that's reasonable to have the best relations with Iran .--Alborz Fallah 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- There was no support from Iran to lose it in the first place. Iranian leadership was quite nervous over the fact that Azerbaijan could become an independent state, and Elchibey only added fuel to the fire with his extreme political views. The book was published in Elchibey's times, the source says 1994, if I'm correct. Nowadays no such textbooks are being published. Grandmaster 11:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I know Iran was the first or second country that officially recognized Az.Rep. Many western sources considered Iran as a supporter of AZR in the beginning of its war with Armenia and Iran was the first country that participated in conflict mediation. Anyway, in comparison between Israel and Armenia, neither Armenia is stronger than Israel, nor the Hezbullah is more connected to Iran. There have tobe a reason for Iran in not supporting it's blood relative in full scale.
I think if such textbooks are not published anymore, that's of extreme importance to show that positive change here--Alborz Fallah 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I know Iran was the first or second country that officially recognized Az.Rep. Many western sources considered Iran as a supporter of AZR in the beginning of its war with Armenia and Iran was the first country that participated in conflict mediation. Anyway, in comparison between Israel and Armenia, neither Armenia is stronger than Israel, nor the Hezbullah is more connected to Iran. There have tobe a reason for Iran in not supporting it's blood relative in full scale.
- Well, the same apply to Iran - there is book and maps showing Azerbaijan as a part of Iran. That sentence can be inserted in text where we speak about Elchibey. Nowadays, no such textbook exists. Anyway, proper reference should be used for that book. And if we gonna use Iranian refrence, Azerbajani ones can be also used.--Dacy69 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the same can be applied to Iran. If you know a history text book of Iran that shows any other country with flag of Iran , I would be glad to know it . The text is about Iran-Azerbijan,it talks about the pre-soviet era to nowadays. Don't you think it needs to discuss about the roots of some disagreements? Naturally, Iran-Azerbaijan relation tends to be the best possible relations between twin nations , but when the reality is not that, the etiology maybe discussed. Any Azeri reference that shows Iranian text books with such a flag is welcomed --Alborz Fallah 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this right, Dacy69 is now claiming that there are "maps showing Azerbaijan as a part of Iran"? Please either provide a single Iranian map or book cover showing Azerbaijan's territory, or any other country's territory, under the official Iranian flag or don't make absurd claims without evidence.AlexanderPar 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- See page Greater Iran--Dacy69 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- All I see there is historical maps.Hajji Piruz 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- See page Greater Iran--Dacy69 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was no support from Iran to lose it in the first place. Iranian leadership was quite nervous over the fact that Azerbaijan could become an independent state, and Elchibey only added fuel to the fire with his extreme political views. The book was published in Elchibey's times, the source says 1994, if I'm correct. Nowadays no such textbooks are being published. Grandmaster 11:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Dacy want to be positive , he can scan the new book's cover and show it here . The text book is from 1994,and I think it has been changed nowadays (after Iranian government's protest).Showing the change from the Elçibay's aggressive attitudes toward Iran to a better one is the mean reason of this article. Azerbaijan republic lost the support of the best power in the region(Iran),in the middle of his war with Armenia ,just for such a claims. Turkey is not interested in relations with Asiatic Azerbaijan and does not have the historical and cultural ties and it's geography without a good border with Azerbaijan does not help it's relations with Az.Republic, so for a land-lacked country like Az.Rep surrounded by unfriendly neighbors , that's reasonable to have the best relations with Iran .--Alborz Fallah 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The image is from a news agency, it's a scan of the fifth-grade history book from the Republic of Azerbaijan showing the Iranian and Armenian territories under the modern Azerbaijani flag, I provided the correct link. AlexanderPar 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually know the publication date of that book? --Grandmaster 05:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The source says 1994 , and the chief of editors is none of the three that are mentioned on the image , with the name of "Zeya Bonyadov". The date of the report in the mehrnews is 5/17/2006 (1385/2/27 Iranian calendar).--Alborz Fallah 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Ziya Bunyadov would be involved in publication of textbooks. That probably is a mistake, I think we need to see a title page with the names of editors to be sure. As for publication year, it is from Elchibey times, not surprising at all. Grandmaster 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before , the best positive responce is to scan the changed cover of the book and at least show it in the talk page . Then we can add a tag of (See talk page) to the article and fix the whole problem .That will show Iran's problems with Elchibey had justificable causes in that time ,and now there is no problem .--Alborz Fallah 09:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- And about Ziya Bunyadov , thankyou for mentioning the correct form of name. Don't you think does this report and the whole history book and the Iranian government responce had any thing to do with Ziya's secularism and nationalism ?! Do you think same as zardabi, there exists a connection between hatered toward Islamic theocracy and denial of the Iranian historical presence in Az.Re?
I find this article Writing Azerbaijan's Historyvery interesting and I think that's about the discussion and Ziya's views and his connection with Elchibey.Indeed the Iranian article's title in the Mehrnews is almost the same as the Farid Alakbarov's article : " الگوی تاریخ نویسی در جمهوری آذربایجان برگرفته از دوران شوروی سابق است"
That means : "The pattern of writting history in Azerbijan Republic is under the influence of the former USSR period" --Alborz Fallah 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)- Ziya Bunyadov had nothing to do with Elchibey. In fact, he was opposing Elchibey's government. I highly doubt he had anything to do with this book. Grandmaster 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- And about Ziya Bunyadov , thankyou for mentioning the correct form of name. Don't you think does this report and the whole history book and the Iranian government responce had any thing to do with Ziya's secularism and nationalism ?! Do you think same as zardabi, there exists a connection between hatered toward Islamic theocracy and denial of the Iranian historical presence in Az.Re?
- Alborz, isn't historiography in Iran under the influence of a similar principle "as if Turks did not exist"? But it's interesting POV/OR being pushed. On one side we see User:AlexanderPar claiming at Ethnic minorities in Iran that Bill Samii of RFE/RL is not at a neutral source, reverting sources from BBC Persian, Amnesty International and HRW. Now we have, Mehrnews being cited here, on a topic where it obviously is NOT neutral and NOT reliable. Don't you find this dichotomy ironic?
- And also, why should the republishing maps be "positive changes" when:
- 1. Map shows flag only over territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, while clearly marking the border of terriories known as historical Azerbaijan (including the states of Ildegiz Atabakan-e Azerbaijan and Qaraqoyunlu).
- 2. There are dozens of maps of Greater Armenia in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere published mostly by Armenian sources, claiming parts of Republic of Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, about which there are never complaints from Iranian contributors.
- 3. When both Iranian officials and scholars often make insulting statements regarding the name of the Republic of Azerbaijan or invalidity of its application.
- All of the above are part of a larger Turkophobia issue, which is a problem in Iran rather than in Republic of Azerbaijan. All these campaigns and wars on Azerbaijan-related pages, POV, OR pushing, etc. seem to be leading in the same direction - anti-Turkism. And the question is: why so much hatred? What's the purpose and who is the benefactor? Atabek 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before , the best positive responce is to scan the changed cover of the book and at least show it in the talk page . Then we can add a tag of (See talk page) to the article and fix the whole problem .That will show Iran's problems with Elchibey had justificable causes in that time ,and now there is no problem .--Alborz Fallah 09:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Ziya Bunyadov would be involved in publication of textbooks. That probably is a mistake, I think we need to see a title page with the names of editors to be sure. As for publication year, it is from Elchibey times, not surprising at all. Grandmaster 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixing
I fixed up some things, such as rewording some sentences and taking out others that make no sense. This article is a mess, it should be organized better.Hajji Piruz 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I restored this line which you deleted: There were incidents involving of the use of force or its demonstration on the part of Iranian military forces. It is factually accurate. Also, there was no popular protest among Iranian Azeris over the words of Azerbaijani president. You cannot make generalizations like that without proper references. The only angered ones were Iranian officials, who act in line with the official policy of Iranian government. Grandmaster 05:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm restoring the part about Iranian Azeris. It's not just the officials who were unhappy, many Iranian Azeris were unhappy as well, there were protests outside the Azerbaijani consulate in Tabriz. As shocking as it may sound to you, most Iranian Azeris are religious Shias (far more religious than Persians) and dislike what they consider "interventionist" and "anti-religious" politics of the Azerbaijan republic. Such protests outside the Azerbaijani consulate in Tabriz are regular affairs. AlexanderPar 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a government sponcored action to me. From what I can see protests against the opression of Azerbaijani language draw bigger crowds. Grandmaster 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now you restored the line: President Ilham Aliyev's attitude of calling Iranian Azeri's as "Azerbaijanis who live in Iran" has angered some in the Iranian Azeri community. So whom exactly did those words "anger"? The only reference is made to Iranian officials. Your reference is unrelated, those students were protesting some anti-religious article in Azerbaijani media. Grandmaster 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What does this sentence even mean: There were incidents involving of the use of force or its demonstration on the part of Iranian military forces.? Did Iranian military forces suppress demonstrations in Azerbaijan?Hajji Piruz 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, they were used to exert pressure on Azerbaijan republic, attacking Azerbaijani exploration ships and invading Azerbaijani air space. Grandmaster 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the incident in July 2001, when Iranian boat opened fire on BP research vessel in Azerbaijani waters, was followed by intrusion of Iranian planes onto Azerbaijani airspace. The aggressive action was properly warned by Russian diplomatic demarche and the show of Turkish F-16s in Baku, which clearly demonstrated the limitations of aggressive conduct for the Iranian side. These details are worth exploring and incorporating into the article.Atabek 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: