Talk:Azerbaijani rug

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Kevo327 in topic Vandalism by Armenian Users
WikiProject Azerbaijan (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.WikiProject icon
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Textile Arts (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

2006 CommentsEdit

is this about the republic of azerbaijan carpets?Khosrow II 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its about the entire Azerbaijan's carpets including South and Northern Azerbaijan. Tabriz is part of the Southern Azerbaijan and therefore part of the Azerbaijan carpets. Stop vandalizing this web site. Your persian chavinism does not know limits. --Rembranth 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Tabriz is part of Iran, not R. of Azerbaijan. This article is about the rugs of the Republic of Azerbaijan.Khosrow II 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you might want to see it in that way. But Azerbaijni carpets are all Azerbainis carpets, this includes Tabriz carpets as well.

not when there is a seperate nation. things get confused that way. tabriz is not in the republic of azerbaijan, and has nothing to do with carpets made in the r. of azerbaijan.Khosrow II 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not my friend. Tabriz is Azerbaijani city and carptets made by Tabriz need to be classified as Azerbaijani carpets. Tabriz and everything made there are part of the Azerbaijan civilization.--Rembranth 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabriz rug is categorized as Persian Rug in all the rug stores of the word.Gol 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have fully-protected the article due to revert-warring between the editors. Please discuss changes on the talk page & reach a consensus rather than engaging in edit-warring. Request unprotection once a compromise has been reached. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to unblock and see what happens? It's been unblocked for over a week. If not could the link to Persian be disambiguated to Persian peoples. -- Jeff3000 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edited out, mistake.Khosrow II 14:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the link to Persian must be removed. It is a disambiguation page, and nothing should be linked to it. Protection is not supposed to be foreever. I'm going to contact the protecting administrator. -- Jeff3000 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only link to "persian" I see in the article refers to Nezami. The link should then refer to "persian litterature". Arash the Bowman 14:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase from the article is
"Azerbaijani carpet depicting Nizami Gandjavi, the famous Persian poet of Azerbaijan"
Notice the that the adjective Persian relates to the ethnicity of the poet, and not the literature. If there was a phrase such as the "the Persian poem", then the link should go to "Persian literature". Now back to the ethnicity. Usually such a link would be disambiguated to Iran, but given that the phrase includes "of Azerbaijan" it makes it tricky; Azerbaijan is not only a country, but also a region of Iran, and so Iran can't be linked directly. Instead the Persian people link is more wide and makes it clear the the poem is of Persian descent, but doesn't make it necessarily of Iran. -- Jeff3000 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh Jeff I am so sorry, Im in the wrong article! I thought this was the Tabriz Rug page! Sorry about it, disregard my above statment!Khosrow II 14:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem :) -- Jeff3000 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nizami is of kurdish heritage, the link of Persian should take the person to the Persian literature page.Khosrow II 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If he's Kurdish, then it should be written "Azerbaijani carpet depicting Nizami Gandjavi, the famous Kurdish poet of Azerbaijan" Persian in that part of the sentence means ethnicity. -- Jeff3000 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well, he is half kurdish, that is for sure but he is a persian (as in language) poet as in he wrote in Persian. We can change it to Kurdish Persian Poet , with Persian linking to Persian literature.Khosrow II 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking a language is very different than an ethnicity. In English when someone writes in the style
  • British football player
  • Canadian politician
  • Chinese professor
The adjective means ethnicity, and given that Nizami is Kurdish, the adjective should be Kurdish. The fact that he wrote in Persian does not change his enthnicity. You can have a Chinese persian living in the US and writing in English, but he does not become American just for the sake that he is writing in English.
Either Nizami is Kurdish, and the link should be changed to Kurdish people, or he's of Persian ancestry living in Azerbaijan, and then the link should be changed to Persian people. Regardless, this article is not about the poet, and thus every detail about him should not be in here. That he wrote in the Persian language and he is reknown in Persian literature is of little importance in this article. -- Jeff3000 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have changed it to Kurdish. As noted above, in the English language, the adjective represents ethnicity, and a link to Persian literature is not applicable regardless of what language he wrote in. -- Jeff3000 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now unprotected the page. Also due to the lack of any kind of dispute resolution dialogue here, I recommend that the editors of this article restrict themselves to the one revert rule (1RR) especially Khosrow II & Rembranth (who were involved in the previous edit war). Any further edit-warring will lead to immediate blocking of the involved parties and re-protection of the article. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I do not see much scholarly support for the term "Azerbaijani rug" (either you know it or see this). According to the handy reference page 1 the classification of "oriental carpets" is the famous one that everybody has heard (Persian, Caucasian, Turkic, Greek, ..). I propose a move to "Carpets of Azerbaijan".--Xashaiar (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That classification from 1930 might be a bit out of date - I don't think people really knew much about Cuacasian rugs at that time. But you are right that there is, both stylistically and historically, no such thing as an "Azerbaijani rug", what we have are a large number of different types of rugs woven in an area that is now within the borders of Azerbaijan. And many of them were (and are) also woven in areas beyond its borders. So, "Carpets of Azerbaijan" would be better. Meowy 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Caucasian carpets and rugsEdit

I think the term "Azerbaijani rug" is not an standard and technical term . Indeed in that region , other ethnic groups also practiced weaving ( like Karabakh Armenians ) , and also in classification , because people of Tabriz and Ardabil are ethnically Azeri , their carpets are classified as Azeri rug . But technically the term Persian rug is in use for them , because of the form of the weaving and the picture in use in the carpet .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I think Azerbaijani rugs differ from another rugs of Caucasia. Espessialy on weaving technology. See here for more information. --Interfase (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Azeri Turk Propaganda "Article"Edit

"Azerbaijan has been since the ancient times known as a centre of a large variety of crafts..." That's quite a miracle considering that "Azerbaijan" the country was established in 1918 with no prior mention anywhere of an "Azeri" nationality. Add to this the deliberate confusion of the Iranian province with the same name and we have another mess of an "article" compliments of the Turkic-Azeri propagandists who will stop at nothing in order to make themselves go from fantasy into reality. In addition, *ALL* so-called "historic Azeri Carpets" are Armenian carpets which are now being passed off as Azeri, including getting UNESCO in on this sick propaganda campaign. Armenians have been weaving carpets from the regions of the Mediterranean to the Caspian Seas and even in Central Asia where traditionally Armenian communities have existed. These are all well documented, but no serious rug scholar has even bothered to waste their time with a so-called "Azeri carpet" - and for good reason: because there is no such a thing in history. I don't doubt that today carpets are made in Azerbaijan (after the craft was stolen from the Armenians). Before the 80's Armenians have existed in present day Azerbaijan and been weaving carpets before even Turks started their westward migration. Today Azeris use traditional Armenian designs on their carpets to recreate "Caucasian" carpets to make it seem that it is part of their culture. And I agree with the above that this article must not be called "Azerbaijani rug" - 'Rug weaving in Azerbaijan' with historic credit to the Armenians is acceptable, provided that Azeri propagandist falsifiers of history are kept out, which I do not see happening so long as Azeri oil money keeps their delusions funded. This article is Another Azeri-Turk Propagandist worthless article on Wikipedia spreading false information. (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the wording of the article can be improved, but calling all the rugs in Azerbaijan as Armenian is non-sense. Whether you like it or not, Azerbaijan makes rugs, and it's part of their culture. --George Spurlin (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read again what I wrote. I don't doubt that rugs have been woven in Azerbaijan and continue to today - I doubt that Azeris wove rugs on any significant scale before the Soviet Union i.e. before 100 years ago. Even until 20 years ago with a population of several hundred thousand Armenians in Azerbaijan - they had many Armenian weaving centers. The propagandist Azeris of today use facts to distort to their own made-up "history". Antique so-called "Azeri rugs" all contain Christian and Armenian motifs, not a single one provides any evidence of an "Azeri" origin. The Soviet Union was instrumental in teaching Azeris rug weaving, a fact that Azeris today use to award themselves "ancient" status, despite that Azerbaijan never existed in history prior to 100 years. Ethnic Muslims in what is today known as "Azerbaijan" no doubt must have woven some rugs on a small scale - most likely cheap imitations of Armenian rugs, which is probably why such rugs do not exist today. (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've asked for help in getting a proper gallery together. It belongs at the bottom of the page in it's own section. I'm hoping someone can get the alt-text to work as well. Request for help here. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose to merge Azerbaijani carpet weaving here as the topic essentially overlaps with Azerbaijani rug, which seems to be a better target article. Brandmeistertalk 13:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism by Armenian UsersEdit

Dear Kevo327 and other Armenian users, can you please point by point argues here before deleting large pieces of information just because you do not like it (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stated a dozen times that all of them are unsourced, they still are unsourced. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]