Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First line of the article
The first sentence of the article to me means there are six independent Turkic states in the Caucasus region of Eurasia and one of them is Azerbaijan. This is confusing since there is only one independent Turkic state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia which is Azerbaijan. Gulmammad | talk 02:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Vanadlism?
- Proger, pls refrain from anachronism, Azerbaijan did not exist in that time. It is unscientific to use the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Also it might be good to read what is vandalism before calling so an edit you somehow disagree with. --Vacio (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Punctuation edit request
{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the erroneously placed sentence periods (fullstops) from all those image captions that are not grammatically complete sentences. Thank you. --87.79.173.166 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Celestra (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have been completely specific. If you cannot determine on your own which captions are grammatically complete English sentences and which are not, I kindly suggest you leave it to someone else. Request reinstated. --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The template reads: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I'm delisting this request again; however, feel free to reinstate it, provided you specifically describe what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You guys are idiots. I have put forward an entirely unambiguous request. Idiots. Ok then, leave the article in its state. Did I mention both of you are huge idiots? --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not certain, let me read your message again to make sure... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You guys are idiots. I have put forward an entirely unambiguous request. Idiots. Ok then, leave the article in its state. Did I mention both of you are huge idiots? --78.34.223.239 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The template reads: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I'm delisting this request again; however, feel free to reinstate it, provided you specifically describe what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The editsemiprotected template is merely a way to have an autoconfirmed volunteer make the actual edits to a semiprotected article that a non-autoconfirmed user would be able to make were the article not protected. You need to be willing to spend the time to detail the change to use this template. Alternatively, you are welcome to leave general suggestions for your fellow editors. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, look, pal. You don't need to reply any more. You have already failed my personal Turing test. --78.34.250.9 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- When I see someone act in a manner which can be attributed to either ignorance or maliciousness, I give them the benefit of the doubt and try to enlighten them. This applies to your last statement as well. I'm still not sure which is the root problem here, but I've already wasted more time on this than your lofty pursuit of improved caption punctuation is worth. Celestra (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong citation from Tadeusz Swietochowski !!
Under title "Modern era" , it has been written :
The brief and successful Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan, in which the shah's claims to some of the Khanates of the Caucasus were dismissed by Russia on the ground that they had been de facto independent long before their Russian occupation.
The reference of the sentence seems to be Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920, 2004, p. 5. ; but in fact the reference sentence is not the above one and is as follows :
The brief and successful Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan,singned the same year.The treaty's provisions concerning Azerbaijan ratified the status quo resulting from the Russian military presence, and Fath Ali Shah renounced his sovereignty over the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent.The shah's claims to the northern Azerbaijani khanates were dismissed on the ground that they had been independent long before their occupation by Russia.
Comparing the book with the sentence of the text , we can see that the whole war was not brief and the war continued for several years , but the "campaign of 1812" was successful for Russians (wrong view out of a whole background ) , and more important than that , the Shah's claims about the northern Azerbaijani khanates , ( Means Daghestan , Chechen and like so ) was not covered in the Treaty of Gulistan , because indeed they have been independent for a long time - only northern khanates , and not the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent .
Overall I think we must delete the sentence because it does not add any information to the text .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should divide the problem:
- Were the khanates de-facto independent before the Russian occupation? - Swietochowski confirms it. If there are other opinions we should mention them too.
- Does using Swietochowski as a source give us wrong view out of a whole background of The Treaty of Gulistan? - The text contains information about the two Russo-Persian Wars so the background coverage does nor mislead readers. Of course you can add more information about the background. Amount of adding is limited only by the topic of the whole article.
- Does the text add any information to the text - Yes it does:about Gulistan Treaty and about the khanates' status. But there are some repeatings so the section must be modified. Let's do it.
- About coverage of Gulistan Treaty look here. I see no contradiction with what Swietochowski writes.--Quantum666 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- When we cite from a source , we may not include our understanding in the name of the original writer .The writer did not used it and the formulation de-facto , de-jure is a new one , I don't think it can give us a good view of that historical era . If we cite the exact paragraph of Swietochowski , he says "[In Russian view] Some of northern khanates where independent before their occupation by Russia." And by far , that is not the meaning used in the present text (present Wikipedia) . It not only gives weight to Russian political excuse for occupation , but also expands that to other geographical Khanates . How can we cite a sentence from a source and conclude the de-facto independence of some Khanates when among them at least four Khanates (Baku Khanate , Nakhjavan Khanate , Iravan Khanate and Ganja Khanate ) where fighting alongside the Fath ali shah , and Ibrahim Khan and Khan of Talesh where swinging between Russia and Persia ?
- When we cite from a source , we may not include our understanding in the name of the original writer .The writer did not used it and the formulation de-facto , de-jure is a new one , I don't think it can give us a good view of that historical era . If we cite the exact paragraph of Swietochowski , he says "[In Russian view] Some of northern khanates where independent before their occupation by Russia." And by far , that is not the meaning used in the present text (present Wikipedia) . It not only gives weight to Russian political excuse for occupation , but also expands that to other geographical Khanates . How can we cite a sentence from a source and conclude the de-facto independence of some Khanates when among them at least four Khanates (Baku Khanate , Nakhjavan Khanate , Iravan Khanate and Ganja Khanate ) where fighting alongside the Fath ali shah , and Ibrahim Khan and Khan of Talesh where swinging between Russia and Persia ?
In brief :
- The formulation de-facto , de-jure is not in the source and may not be used .
- Swietochowski as a source can be used , but a text has meaning on the context . This incomplete sentence misleads the reader. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have sources about de-jure/de-facto status of the khanates? If so let's see them.
- As I have already said: "you can add more information about the background. Amount of adding is limited only by the topic of the whole article." and "there are some repeatings so the section must be modified. Let's do it." Please tell me what do you want to change/add and we will discuss it. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Adding to Wikipedia "unless proven else" is not the policy of this encyclopedia . That's wrong to first add "de-jure/de-facto" sentence and then after that searching for a source to exclude it . I think if there is no direct source using de-facto/ de-jure formulation , we may not add it by ourselves . I suggest omission of the sentence OR using the exact sentence of the source . I mean this one : The Russian campaign of 1812 was concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan,singed the same year.The treaty's provisions concerning Azerbaijan ratified the status quo resulting from the Russian military presence, and Fath Ali Shah renounced his sovereignty over the khanates of Karabagh , Baku , Sheki , Shirvan , Kuba ,and Derbent.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you suggest removing this: The shah's claims to the northern Azerbaijani khanates were dismissed on the ground that they had been independent long before their occupation by Russia.? I object to ignoring this information. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well , this single sentence out of context is ambiguous . Who dismissed the claim ? Occupying Russia . Northern Azerbaijani khanates ? What does it means ? Does it mean Daghestan ?In the book itself ,the sentence is from another source (Akty sobrannye Kavkazskuiu,ArkheograficheskuiuKommissieiu,Vol.5,no.377:Sumbatzade,Mekhtiev,Prisoedinenie,pp.38-39) and Swietochowski writes about the Russians political usage of the word "independence" in this manner : First and only talking of Russians about Azerbaijani independence , albeit in the past tense . Then is it correct to use this sentence without any discussion in the article ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- He says what he says. I see no ambiguity in his words and it is not out of context. As I have already said if you have any RS to doubt Swietochowski let's see. But for now I see no need to remove Swietochowski. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well , this single sentence out of context is ambiguous . Who dismissed the claim ? Occupying Russia . Northern Azerbaijani khanates ? What does it means ? Does it mean Daghestan ?In the book itself ,the sentence is from another source (Akty sobrannye Kavkazskuiu,ArkheograficheskuiuKommissieiu,Vol.5,no.377:Sumbatzade,Mekhtiev,Prisoedinenie,pp.38-39) and Swietochowski writes about the Russians political usage of the word "independence" in this manner : First and only talking of Russians about Azerbaijani independence , albeit in the past tense . Then is it correct to use this sentence without any discussion in the article ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well , do you see any need to use the exact sentence of Swietochowski (Without de-facto/ de-jure , and with Northern Azerbaijani khanates ?)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The section must be modified. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- But before we make changes I must see the source. At the moment I don't have access to the book. Do you? I would appreciate if you helped me. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which page do you want? I can send page 5 to your email if it is sufficient .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The page 5 is enough. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which page do you want? I can send page 5 to your email if it is sufficient .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Long time , no comment ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I forgot about it. I think we should rewrite the section according to History of Azerbaijan#Khanates of Late 18th – Early 19th centuries summarizing its content. I need a few more days to look through the sources and to prepare my variant. However you can suggest your variant here and I will add my changes. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem with that , but I think that section itself needs review ( please look at [1] ).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I forgot about it. I think we should rewrite the section according to History of Azerbaijan#Khanates of Late 18th – Early 19th centuries summarizing its content. I need a few more days to look through the sources and to prepare my variant. However you can suggest your variant here and I will add my changes. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Byb3, 23 October 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the introduction should it not be mentioned that Azerbaijan is landlocked? It is part of the landlocked countries category but it is not mentioned in the introduction.
Byb3 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please make a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Map of Muslim Khanates
I think that its very annoying that users Proger and PPerviz keep reverting my modification of the above-mentioned map ignoring my arguments both in the edit summary and in this discussion page. I think its furthermore completely unacceptable that those users mark their edit as a "minor edit", as "reverting vandalism" or leave an edit summary in Azerbaijani language. I appeal to those users to respect WP rules and to use the discussion page if they don't agree with my edits. I repeat once more my arguments: map 1 is not good for this article, it's made by an Azeri user apparently based on a third party source, but its comparison with modern political borders is artificial and suggestive, moreover the language of the map is Russian. Secondly a caption as "Azerbaijani khanates" is historically incorrect. Those khanates were neither politically nor ethnically Azerbajiani. --vacio 07:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)