Talk:Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:53, 7 January 2022

Armenia C‑class

	Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan C‑class

	Azerbaijan portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

TIME TO DISCUSS

The change of names section is silly. And that is the most positive thing that can be said about it. Turkic names cannot have existed until after the Turkic Migrations into Persian, Arran, Armenia, Caucasian Albania, and Atropatene in the 10th Century. To say that returning names to their original Iranian, Caucasian Albanian, and Armenian is xenophobic is the equivalent of saying that English and Spanish names of many places in the Americas are their "original" names. This is a false representation of facts. If you are going to reverse the edits, be sure that you are following every step of the proper resolution process. The first of which is to cite the article, to the user or on the article talk page. You have the opportunity now to explain why the Changing Names section of this article remains. I am including the sources here that discuss when Turkic language appeared, thousandsItalic text of years after Iranian empires, and the Satrapies and Kingdoms of Armenia and Caucasian Albanian/Atropatene/Arran. I included detailed sources and examples in my edit. If the edit cannot remain, then the entire section should be removed. It is entirely anti-academic and deliberately false. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [31] [32] [33] [34] [58] [38] [35] [60] [40] [36] [62] [41] The question you have to answer is not whether the changing/reversals of Turkic names occured, but what were the original, older names. THAT is academic honesty. If you delete this comment as you reversed the edit, you are actively perpetuating something that wikipedia specifically prohibits. I understand that others have maybe not pursued this. I will, and I am giving you the opportunity to check your action here and on your talk page. Take the opportunity seriously. Wikipedia relies on factual, well sourced and cited information, and is against the removal or reversal of such. I am confident in every last factual detail of my edit, and I know that it will ultimately be restored, the question is, will you retain your current status? One of the best ways to ensure this, is not reversing facting, cited information. Youngkyf (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907, March Days, Shusha, Askeran, Khojaly, are not in or did not take place in Armenia and do not belong in this article. Also language like "Manipulative government policies that pit one group against the other for political gain" and "Armenian nationalist manifesto, which called for the expulsion of Turkic people from the holy place of Armenia" are unacceptable and this reason this article has neutral point of view and original research problems. They need to be cleaned up. --Oatitonimly (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should AFD the whole dismal article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done before, and the result was to keep the article. --92slim (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading: Destruction of mosque in Armenia

The way that this section is written sounds like Armenia is guilty of having destroyed mosques, as if Armenian churches were not demolished as well. The USSR's anti-religious policies are common knowledge, so I'm having a hard time assuming good faith from the writer of this section.

I'm not well-versed enough in this topic to contribute to it, however, I will cut down the text to make it less misleading if no one fixes this section. — [ kentronhayastan ] 19:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mosque rewording

With regards to the what Mosque the quote is referring to more context "So when the Armenians refers to the "Persian mosque" in Yerevan, than name obsures the fact that...". The "Persian Mosque" of Yerevan is the Blue Mosque. The source specifically say the Vardanants Street Mosque was not called Persian. Maidyouneed (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maidyouneed: It's "ambiguous" because the source itself is ambiguous. Nowhere in the book does De Waal mention specifically Blue Mosque. Your current version is an interpretation, which is a violation per WP:PRIMARYCARE, therefore you should probably revert your edit. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: De Waaler may be very well versed in the conflict in the Caucasus, still, that does not make him credible as a historian. As far I'm aware, he is not included in the scholarship circles - he is indeed just a journalist, his most known book, is not cited by historians. He has no education in history. Using him as a history source is no different than using a CNN journalist for that. It goes without saying that we have no shortage of historians who have written something Caucasus-related, surely some of them have a say on this matter as well, and if what De Waaler says is indeed right, they would say it too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Waal is a scholar, writer and journalist. He's not just a journalist. He is one of the, if not the most prominent scholar on the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia & Azerbaijan and a well-established WP:RS. Regardless, I don't see any problem in his quote, as he's only saying that the worshippers in the mosque would have been, in effect, ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He essentially calls the mosque for Azeri, when the east Caucasus was under Iranian control, and had been a vital part of it for centuries. Iran has always been a multicultural country, I would assume it wasn't unusual that something like a mosque was established in a non-Persian populated area. By using De Waal's logic, we would have to assign every such building to the local populace. That would be like calling many Caliphate structures for Iranian because they ruled a largely Iranian population, calling some Ottoman buildings for Greek or Armenian, or even better yet, calling most of Roman structures Celtic, Germanic, and whatnot. I'm still not seeing any argument that supports he is WP:RS. What makes him credibile as a historian, when he is not even one? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take what he's saying as "calling the mosque Azeri". As far as I can see, he's arguing that the worshippers in the mosque would've been ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, which isn't contested by other historians. And De Waal being WP:RS is supported by him being cited by and being expert/author in several prominent sites such as Carnegie Europe, Eurasianet, openDemocracy and RadioFreeEurope. He is also cited in almost all Wikipedia articles relating to Nagorno-Karabakh, so saying he's not WP:RS would affect quite a large part of Wikipedia about Nagorno-Karabakh. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm missing the part that makes him relevant in history-related stuff. As I said, I'm sure he is well-versed in the conflict and whatnot, but as a historian? Doubt it. He is largely cited in Wikipedia in regards to the conflict, no? I think it's pretty obvious that Azerbaijan was mostly populated by Turks at that point, I don't think anyones contesting that. His logic of assigning a building after its local populace rather than its country is what's bizarre. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His books are about history. Several sections of the Black Garden book is dedicated to the history of Armenia (mostly Yerevan in particular) and Azerbaijan, all of which is cited alongside his journalism work in the links I provided and on Wikipedia. And again, I'm not sure how what he's saying is arguable as he's not calling the mosque an Azerbaijani mosque, but is arguing that the worshippers there would have been Azerbaijanis, which you also said wasn't contested. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then maybe we ought to look more critically at his other work as well, though I'm not here for that. Let's get back to the main issue; I'm still yet to see how he qualifies as WP:RS when he is not even a historian. You say that, yet this is the first thing he says regarding the mosque; "That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand:" As LouisAragon said, Waaler's narrative goes against the narrative of actual academic historians [1]. Perhaps he could shed more light on this issue with more credible sources, pinging @LouisAragon:. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Though, I also have to add that I don't mind the edit LouisAragon made. I would prefer including the opinions of other scholars rather than completely removing De Waal's. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just leaving this here for the record. De Waal, although he has written extensively on the Caucasus, is a journalist, not a historian. The same way John F. Baddeley extensively wrote about the history of the Caucasus in earlier times, but was still a journalist. De Waal's stance is inferior to that of actual scholars/historians, when dealing with history-related matters (WP:HISTRS). Additionally, the Armenian side accuses him of pro-Azerbaijani bias. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, literally every historian (including art historian) who has published works in peer-reviewed Western scholarly works refers to the Blue Mosque as an Iranian/Persian product. Markus Ritter's work, for instance, the main English-language work on Yerevan's mosque's, published in Brill's Iran and the Caucasus, does exactly the same. The same goes for the historian George Bournoutian. In short: when a non-historian is retroactively assigning anachronisms in history-related matters, in spite of the stance of actual historians, one should refrain from including it. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. As you pointed out in the previous version of your comment, since De Waal is famous in relation to the modern-day political course of the region, his notion can be kept with proper attribution. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I deleted that is because it shouldn't provide for a free pass for "every" journalists stance. De Waal is famous and often cited in political analyses, so his stance can be kept with proper attribution. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden:, The Persian Mosque is the "controversial" alternative name of the Blue Mosque. That isn't interpretation. The discussion you've just had above is of the same understanding; See LouisAragon comment on Ritter and Bournoutian. The whole section in this wiki article used to be called "Blue Mosque in Armenia". If you still see the source as ambiguous, and thus neither the editors nor the reader know what the source is referring to, we shouldn't use the source at all in this context. Maidyouneed (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replaced the word "erasure" since my last comment, to avoid being ambiguous and to actually match what the source says. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VestnikKavakaza

Per edit comments. Ismail Agakishiev is rather the General Manager ^[1] and as the sole Director ^[2] (under Agakishiev Ismail Alovsat Oglu) Maidyouneed (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Jabrayil city, Aerial 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://asu.edu.ru/en/news/5422-diskussiia-ob-imidje-kaspiiskogo-regiona.html

[2] ttps://www.rbc.ru/companies/id/1097746170048-ooo-obschestvo-s-ogranichennoj-otvetstvennostyu-vestnik-kavkaza/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 }}
 {{archives|age=30|units=days|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
+==TIME TO DISCUSS==
+The change of names section is silly. And that is the most positive thing that can be said about it. Turkic names cannot have existed until after the Turkic Migrations into Persian, Arran, Armenia, Caucasian Albania, and Atropatene in the 10th Century. To say that returning names to their original Iranian, Caucasian Albanian, and Armenian is xenophobic is the equivalent of saying that English and Spanish names of many places in the Americas are their "original" names. This is a false representation of facts. If you are going to reverse the edits, be sure that you are following every step of the proper resolution process. The first of which is to cite the article, to the user or on the article talk page. You have the opportunity now to explain why the Changing Names section of this article remains. I am including the sources here that discuss when Turkic language appeared, '''thousands'''''Italic text'' of years after Iranian empires, and the Satrapies and Kingdoms of Armenia and Caucasian Albanian/Atropatene/Arran. I included detailed sources and examples in my edit. If the edit cannot remain, then the entire section should be removed. It is entirely anti-academic and deliberately false. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [31] [32] [33] [34] [58] [38] [35] [60] [40] [36] [62] [41]
+The question you have to answer is not whether the changing/reversals of Turkic names occured, but what were the original, older names. THAT is academic honesty. If you delete this comment as you reversed the edit, you are actively perpetuating something that wikipedia specifically prohibits. I understand that others have maybe not pursued this. I will, and I am giving you the opportunity to check your action here and on your talk page. Take the opportunity seriously. Wikipedia relies on factual, well sourced and cited information, and is against the removal or reversal of such. I am confident in every last factual detail of my edit, and I know that it will ultimately be restored, the question is, will you retain your current status? One of the best ways to ensure this, is not reversing facting, cited information. [[User:Youngkyf|Youngkyf]] ([[User talk:Youngkyf|talk]]) 11:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 ==Clean up==