Caucasus is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
Caucasus is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics 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.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
I took Iran out, because as far as I know, no part of Iran is in the Caucasus. The border with Iran marks the end of the Caucasus and the beginning of the Iranian plateau (relatively ofcourse).Azerbaijani21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some part of Iran are in Caucasus, Most parts of Caucasus was under control and a part of Iran at Qajar Dynasty, which was given to Russian under several wars. By the way, Iran had a long time of history and culture within Caucasus. Amiria703 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who considers Greece, the Caucasus or anything in that region European, seriously needs to actually live in these places to appreciate their profound ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greece not European? What the heck do you mean by that? It was the Greeks who came up with the concept of Europe in the first place! Wardog (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Europe is an invented continent. It's really just part of the larger Eurasian land mass. But based on conventional definitions Greece is clearly European. In fact, it was the Greeks who invented the idea of Europe as a separate continent. They considered themselves Europeans back then and still do today. So by all accounts, they are more "European" than anyone else. They symbolize the origins of the concept of Europe. Now do tell us how Greece is not European and how one can realize this by living there? What, just because it has some cultural differences than other parts of Europe? Do you think all European cultures are the same? Europe is not a monolith. Of course there is going to be differences between regions. It's a highly diverse and fragmented place. Is France like Latvia? Is Ireland like Romania? Is Finland like Italy? By your logic Hindu India is not part of "Asia" because it doesn't adhere to the Islamic and Confucian traditions that dominate the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ethno-Linguistic groups in the Caucasus region- that map is totally wrong. It shows in eastern Turkey language is Kurdish. But in East Turkey there are 3 million Kurdish, and 25 million Turkish. So, what is it? just a biased map... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.61.2 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal and think this image is suitable. As caucasus is a geographical region this picture is more suitable for the article that the other images on the wikicommons which are political maps mostly. Geographical map of Caucasus with national borders shown -ArazZeynilitalkcontrib19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the author - since when Abkhazia became southern Russia and is disputed? It's de facto independent, but for the entire world, it's still part of Georgia.
"The Caucasus or Caucasia is a region in Eurasia bordered on the north by Russia, on the southwest by Turkey, on the west by the Black Sea, on the east by the Caspian Sea, and on the south by Iran." I think the defintion is not correct. The region is not bordered with Turkey's and Russia's borders as it is bordered with Black Sea, Caspian and Iran. So a reader may get a meaning that Caucasia ends with border of Russia and Turkey, which is not correct part of these countries are included in Caucasian region. We should rephrase the first definition sentence.-ArazZeynilitalkcontrib19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove the biblical references. The human genome project proves where modern man originated from over almost 200,000 years ago. From Adam to Noah there was only a thousand years. Anyone living in the Caucus region would have been far removed from the geneology of Noah by at least 190,000 years. Even the ability of humans to speak and spread oral history is relatively new, and the ability to write is even newer. The Garden of Eden was located at the convergence of three rivers near southern Iraq, which is where the Sumarian civilization first began to write. The migration from there to the Caucasus region would have taken thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.172.227 (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally posted the following question in South Caucasus' talk page, but meant to have it here: "Does this article need to address whether or not South Caucasus has any link at all, direct or indirect, to the nationality known as "Caucasian"? (I confess that I have no idea.) Thanks."98.202.38.225 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no such a thing as nationality Caucasian. Maybe you meant race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchedela (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed how the article jumps from the Georgians to the Chechens in terms of largest ethnolinguistic groups. I think you missed the Armenians and the Azeris. I suggest a little research an re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.53.50 (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The largest peoples of the Caucasian language family..." — Armenian and Azeri don't belong to the Caucasian languages. Of course, there's no such thing as "one Caucasian language family", but it's very probable that it refers to people with languages indigenous to the Caucasus region. — N-true (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there this part of the article has some syntax issues both in English as well as Persian (where you read kuhkāf in stead of kāfkuh). Wikijamin (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this malarky? "Etymology
The word Caucasus derives from Caucas, the ancestor of the North Caucasians.[2] He was a son of Togarmah, grandson of Biblical Noah's third son Japheth. According to Leonti Mroveli after the fall of the Tower of Babel and the division of humanity into different languages, Togarmah settled with his sons: Kartlos, Haik (Georgian:ჰაოს, Haos), Movakos, Lekos (Lak people), Heros (Kindgom of Hereti), Kavkas, and Egros (Kingdom of Egrisi) between two inaccessible mountains, presumably Mount Ararat and Mount Elbrus."
Come on religion based hearsay as an etymology?
---I find the above comment funny. Seriously though, the statement of the name descended from a folkloric person should not be presented as a cold hard fact unless there is other evidence to support it. I am surprised this got by. Few English speaking people probably read about the Caucasus. I read a little Russian, but not much. It looks like the Etymology section of the Russian wiki page mentions Herodotus. 74.101.163.144 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Etymonline says: "Caucasus: mountain range between Europe and the Middle East, from Gk. kaukhasis, said by Pliny ("Natural History," book six, chap. XVII) to be from a Scythian word similar to kroy-khasis, lit. "(the mountain) ice-shining, white with snow." But possibly from a Pelasgian root *kau- meaning "mountain."[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.190.226 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politologia's edit does not contradict any of Wikipedia's policies, while your's does. You have reverted him/her several times without any explanation given on talk.--KoberTalk08:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
An image used in this article, File:XinaligAZE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
An image used in this article, File:Caucasus.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Caucasus.png)
The map used in this article, claiming to show the Caucasus, shows only the North Caucasus plus Georgia. In addition, it appears that it is a copyright violation, and likely to be deleted. Can anyone find a suitable map that covers the whole region? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagomo Karabakh are not independent states and should not be listed as such at the beginning of the article. I realise they've been put in italics to indicate that they are partially recognised, but they should also be listed under the countries they officially belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.43.72 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're all functionally independent. It makes more sense to put them as italicised states than italicised autonomous regions, especially as both Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia don't at all match administrative divisions of their claimant. CMD (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you consider them to be functionally independent. These areas are officially part of Georgia and Azerbaijan and this is not acknowledged in the list. It's fine to mention that they are partially recognised as independent states but to have no mention of the countries these places officially belong to is ridiculous. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The note at the bottom doesn't tell us which countries these areas officially belong to. The only sensible (and neat) way to include all the information is to list the areas under their respective countries and mention in the footnote that they are partially recognised as independent.
There is also an NPOV issue in listing unrecognised countries as sovereign states in the main list and only mentioning their disputed status in a footnote. It should be the other way round. The official information should be in the main list and the unofficial recognition should be mentioned in the footnote. Seems pretty obvious that the official info. should take precedence. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "we should add". I've now done this. Official information is not more neutral than unofficial information, and actually has far more reason to hold a POV. CMD (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in an encyclopaedia. I still think it's dumb (and far less neutral) to have unrecognised states listed as sovereign nations with their true status only mentioned in a footnote, but I don't care sufficiently to change it.
Abkhazia and karabakh is recognized by UN, EU Nato and by 99% of world government as parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan. excluding Russia nauru vanautu tuvalu and venezuela. Chipmunksdavis u are provoking separatism and radicalism, if karabakh is listed as country than Chechnya must be listed as country too, Ingushetia, Dagestan Circassia Kabardia must be listed as countries too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.210.231 (talk • contribs)
Chimpunkdavis is vandal person. Abkhazia and Karabakh are official territories of Azerbaijan and Georgia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.208.159 (talk • contribs)
For crying out loud, now Nagomo Karabakh is under azerbaijan but the georgian ones are still listed as independent. So now it's both wrong an inconsistent. It really shouldn't be this hard to compile a list of countries. I'm fixing it to be in accordance with official statuses and mentioning the partial recognition in the footnote. Hopefully that will be the end of this. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was another IP. The official status of NKR and South Ossetia according to Azerbaijan and Georgia is that they don't even exist as administrative entities, despite what our table would imply. The current footnote even notes which countries the breakaway states are considered to be part of. Wikipedia doesn't just follow official positions. See WP:Official name as an example. CMD (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National borders and statuses are arbitrary man made concepts. There is no metaphysically true position here. Official international recognition is the only standard we have to work from. I have the united nations and 99% of the world on my side. On your side you have recognition from a handful of nations, some of which are not even recognised themselves. Give me one good reason why your version of events should take precedence over the official version. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my version of events, it's the reality on the ground. You don't need a metaphysical position to say that Georgia has absolutely no control in Sukhumi, or Azerbaijan in Stepanakert. As much as the Nagorno-Karabakh border may be a man made concept, it's also a bloody long trench in the ground. CMD (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yout perception of the situation on the ground is not an objective standard. This is an article about a geopolitical area. The question is whether these places are independent sovereign nations; not whether Tbilisi has real control over them. There's more to being an independent sovereign nation than having control.86.17.19.215 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my perception of the situation, it is the actual situation, which is pretty objective, as far as standards go. Please see the Declarative theory of statehood. There's more than one way to define a state. The dispute over their statehood is indicated by the italics, and by the footnote. CMD (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the dispute over their statehood is mentioned in my version in the footnote. A footnote is where it belongs. The fact that abkhazia and south ossettia enjoy a high degree of autonomy does not mean that they are free states with the same status as Russia or Georgia. They should not be on the same level of the list as them. They are bound, by international law, to Georgia and should be listed under it. Their de facto independence is noteworthy, which is why it's included in the footnote. Nagorno-Karabakh is on even shakier ground because it's not even recognised by any real country. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia and South Ossetia don't "enjoy a high degree of autonomy", they function completely separately from Georgia. Euphemisms won't change this. Placing them on the level of subdivisions gives the misleading impression that they function as such, when they are, as you say, de facto independent. Nagorno-Karabakh is also completely independent, totally outside of the control of the Azerbaijani government. CMD (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems completely clear that these entities should be under their own flag because of the fact that they are de facto independent. For me, thats it. We,as wikipedia cannot take a side in this dispute - simply present things as they are. The fact is they exist and this should be represented. Outback the koala (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on flags, but the main dispute here is whether they should be listed under their claimant states in the same way as the autonomous regions are, or in line with states (in both cases italicised). CMD (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If those breakaway regions are considered de-jure parts of certain states, that connection should be demonstrated. Completely detaching them I believe is wrong. Grandmaster17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be sufficient. Listing the unrecognized statelets in almost the same manner as de-jure states gives a wrong impression that they all have the same status. While the footnotes provide explanation of their status, the visual display kind of contradicts that. I think this causes most of objections. Italicising is not so much visible. I think the unrecognized entities should somehow be grouped together with the states they are recognized to be parts of. Grandmaster08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The italicising is part of the visual display, which in no way contradicts the note. Let's not belittle readers by assuming they can't put two and two together (3 including the map). CMD (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Russian citizen, I can proove that Tbilisi has NO control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgian laws have no power in these regions, people of these regions don't have Georgian citizenship, they don't study Georgian language and there's no titles on this language; these territories have their own flag, coat of arms and hymn, own vehicle registration plates. As a national currency uses Russian ruble but not Georgian lari.217.66.156.142 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following paragraph needs to be bumped ahead of the paragraph immediately above it:
"In modern times, the Caucasus became a region of war among the Ottoman Empire, Iran and Russia, and was eventually conquered by the latter (see Caucasian Wars)."
The article on Caucasian Wars says they took place between 1817–1864, which is a century before the 1918 conquest by the new Soviet Union. The indicated paragraph follows directly from the final sentence of the paragraph it should follow.
71.163.114.49 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened by it and wanted to say kudos... I love all the info, the flags, all the pictures, the terms in different languages, etc... Really well done! I'm nominating it for a Good Article. Wikimandia (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainians/Cossacks and Kurds/Yazidis both have significant populations in the region, so I included Ukrainian and Kurdish to the Modern Endonyms subsection. Adorkable Corgi (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:LouisAragon, Generally the letter "q" stands for the phoneme /q/ (Voiceless uvular stop). There is no such a phoneme in Tehraner Persian. The Perso-Arabic letter "qaf" in a typical RP of Tehraner Persian syllable structure pronounces /ɢ/ or /ɣ/ (intervocalic positions). On the other hand, despite the historical Persian vowel system that the vowel pairs differ in length /a/ vs. /a:/ (quantitative distinction), in RP Tehraner Persian they differ in quality /æ/ (near-open front unrounded vowel) vs. /ɒ/ (open back rounded vowel). So "Ghæfghaz" is a better Romanisation/Transcription for قفقاز. X.goodarzie 13:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Current geographic map is required to be changed. Regions are labeled with nor current legal names neither ones in any other period. The region which is on north east part of Turkish Republic is labeled with utterly irrelevant name. This map is incorrect and inappropriate. It is required to be changed. Aruperusaidu (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia is not recognized by the Pakistani government, so we must add Armenia to Partially or unrecognized states.
Pakistan was the first country along with Turkey to recognize Azerbaijan after its independence. Pakistan does not recognize Armenia and will never do so. We speak with one voice on NagornoKarabakh. On 14th March, 2008 we together passed the first Resolution 882 on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has supported us on Kashmir and we are thankful to you for that.
Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed
Pakistan has not recognized Armenia nor established diplomatic relations with that country
That section is for countries that either have no recognition or some. Armenia is recognized by every other country in the world. Also partially means: only in part; to a limited extent. How is one country out of close to 200 partially?Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Caucasus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Caucasus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the flags of Iran and Turkey, in the right hand side table under the map of the region. There should be six countries which are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Russia, Turkey, not four. Jacob485 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon I don't know how you can say a map which misleads readers as to the extent of the region is more "useful". It's the first image they will see in the entire article and it clearly infers the region is much smaller then it actually is. Also you can't see any of the labels at the size it is in the infobox, that's why locator maps typically go in the infobox and more detailed maps go in the article body. I can't find a detailed map showing the whole region, but I'm pretty sure it's far more preferred that we have a map which shows the actual extent of the region as the first thing the reader is going to see. Rob984 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LouisAragon I'm adding quotes from the Britannica source now but in the future, but I don't think you reviewed the Britannica source before reverting. Please make sure the content is actually verified by the inline citations. If there are other reliable sources with different views we can discuss that here, but we can't cite Britannica for the statement that A less common definition also includes portions of northwestern Iran and northeastern Turkey. when Britannica itself uses that definition. (The 1910 Britannica doesn't, but the most recent one that we've cited does:
West of the Kura-Aras Lowland rises the Lesser Caucasus range, which is extended southward by the Dzhavakhet Range and the Armenian Highland, the latter extending southwestward into Turkey.
Britannica is also a pretty heavyweight source, so whatever sources are brought to bear on this would need to be equally authoritative. I'm absolutely not going to get behind miscited sources the way it was done in this article.Seraphim System(talk)22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I take back Polinarok's changes because I see already LouisAragon earlier takes back same changes for "POV" and Polinarok gave reason "Caucasus is a borderland" but current article already says this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamede (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
I added three countries to the list, since parts of Iran, Iraq and Turkey are also considered by many as being part of the Transcaucasus and therefore, part of the Caucasus. I quote, from this source, page 72 :
"Transcaucasia is in many respects part of the Middle East and more specifically of a broader area encompassing parts of northwestern Iran, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey."---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)22:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
I see nothing about the Armenian genocide in this article. This, and to a lesser extent, the Circassian genocide, are important to the history of this region.Naddruf (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
As per the USSR administration, the autonomous republics and oblasts are referred to the regions with limited autonomy, not the ones with full independence. This concept was applied to all non-abolished autonomous entities after the union republics became independent in 1991. The term "autonomous" does not mean the central government has no control over the territory, but rather it means that the territory has certain autonomy. Georgia and Azerbaijan abolished South Ossetia Autonomous Oblast and Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast respectively in 1990-1991. Officially there are no such autonomies recognized by the central governments. I propose to remove Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) from the list of "Autonomous republics and Federal regions", but to retain that under "Partially recognized states". Same is already applied to South Ossetia in this article and why not to do the same with Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) for accuracy and consistency? KHE'O (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that we both have our definitions of autonomy relating to this topic, albeit both seem to be correct (Artsakh is ultimately an autonomous country). But meh, it's a minor gripe, go ahead, I retract my objection. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran and Kheo17: Hello. It seems there is an active edit war ongoing on the article. Please try to settle it here. I accidentally got involved when I did the same edit, not knowing that it was subject to an edit war between you guys. Personally, it doesn't make much sense for Artsakh to be in the list of Autonomous territories since, firstly, Republic of Artsakh is a breakaway, de-facto independent state, not an autonomous republic and within Azerbaijan's legislature, there is no autonomy given yet to Nagorno-Karabakh (it was abolished in 1991). So, currently, only autonomous region in Azerbaijan is Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. If Azerbaijan controls Artsakh or not doesn't matter since a territory's autonomy is decided by its de-jure country (and not even Artsakh claims it's autonomous since it claims to be independent). — CuriousGolden(T·C)19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Iran and Turkey are not Caucasus. — LeoFrank Talk 07:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
