Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Azerbaijani people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Azerbaijani people

[edit]

I'm nominating this article because it meets the criteria required for a featured article and has an exhaustive 66 notes and has settled lengthy disputes with neutral writing. I put everything except the kitchen sink into it and I believe it compares well with other similar featured articles. Thank you for your consideration. Tombseye 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a lot more to women section. Kept it short as links served much of the purpose and article was getting a bit long. Still I've added as much as possible. Tombseye 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the images of Azeri people are silly and POV (how can a photograph of some children and some people be included in a article about an entire group of people?), the women section is too small, and the first sentence is strange, I don't understand the bolding of different terms. Support Re-oppose per the problems brought up by TigranTheGreat. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which other photos are silly? I can remove the children's photos, but the city scene in Baku is silly or POV how? Or the musicians playing, etc. I don't quite see how they're all POV. Tamils has numerous pictures of regular people and is a featured article. I'm okay with taking out the kids pics and I've removed the somehow confusing bold (you're the first to not understand the sentence). Women's section much bigger now as well. Anything else? Tombseye 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The street scene and musicians are great, they are general images. Had I seen the photos of the regular people on the Tamil FAC, I would have opposed for the same reasons. I don't like using personal photos for an ethnic group — it's too easy to fudge. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I gotcha. I wasn't sure if you meant all the pictures or not. I was just using them to show the general population. Is it okay now then? Tombseye 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Those were my first observations, I'm going to read the whole thing carefully tomorrow, will update vote then! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the photos that are silly, it's Páll claiming the children photos are silly that is silly. Photos of musicians are okay but not happy children playing or a photo of people of all age ranges? Get real.Rlevse 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my view, which I am allowed to express. Please do not make personal attacks. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great job! Well-referenced, balanced, informative, with nice use of summary style. A thorough copyedit would help, as there are certainly aspects which don't flow brilliantly - Caucasian theory, performance art section, and institutions section stand out as needing help. I don't object to the image of the children InvictaHOG 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited sections in question except Caucasian theory which segues into the genetics section that supports a largely Caucasian origin given the genetic data. If still not clear, I will try to rework it though. Tombseye 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All pictures with questionable copyright issues have been taken down. Will make sure any replacements have clear copyright status. Thanks. Tombseye 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad. That picture's gone too. Tombseye 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Tombseye, the article looks much better now than it did before but I do I have one concern. There is a huge gap in the Ancient period section. In general throughout the article one doesn't get the sense of which part of modern day Azerbaijan is discussed. For example Western parts of modern day Azerbaijan were part of the first Armenian (Orontid) Kingdom afterwards Seleucids absorbed that Kingdom, since the second Armenian Kingdom was created by Artaxias I most of modern day Azerbaijan was part of that Kingdom until 428 (under the Artaxiad Dynasty and Arshakuni Dynastys. The Caucasian Albanian Kingdom was to the North-East. Other than that everything is short and neutral and my porblems only exist with the main articles and not the short sections within this one. So good job.--Eupator 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added mention of the Armenian Kingdom with a citation so everything should be fine now. So we're good, right? Tombseye 08:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on that. Had problems over copyright issues so couldn't keep some pictures we had. Thanks. Tombseye 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was added today by another editor. Tombseye 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be part of the "Azeris in Iran" section, not "Institutions." --Alex S 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved cartoon riots to Azeris in Iran. Thanks for the comments. Tombseye 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do that asap. Tombseye 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good subject, and one which I've come to find most interesting.--Megaforcemedia 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job on the article, very balanced! Baku87 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work! It would be also useful to add sections on Azeris in Georgia, Azeris in Armenia and Azeris in Turkey. And personally, I think Azeri is the term we should stick to for this particular ethnic group. Ideally the term Azerbaijani refers to anyone or anything that comes from Azerbaijan, regardless of his or her ethnic background, whereas Azeri serves (or should serve) as a more specific term related to ethnic and cultural characteristics only. Anonymous 07:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done --K a s h Talk | email 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment Good article, but not all population data has references and the data of Canada is about "ethnic origin" which is not the same as "ethnicity". While it is likely that at least some of the newer generations in Canada are still ethnic Azeris, it is also likely that some have assimilated Canadian culture and are not really Azeris (culture, language, etc) anymore. The number should be replaced by a number about ethnicity, or a note should be made to warn the reader that this number should be read with caution. Sijo Ripa 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I will correct the problem. Tombseye 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the demographics page of Azerbaijan says that only 89% of the population is Azeri. Shouldn't the 8,411,000 number be multiplied by 0.89? (about 7,486,000). Sijo Ripa 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-fixed the population stats. I originally had the CIA Factbook stats and linked it, but someone decided to inflate the figures and cleverly link it to the Azerbaijan page. I wish I could monitor everything about the article, but some people just come in and make little changes that can slip past. Thanks for catching it though. Tombseye 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. I love the topic, but that doesn't mean it passes. Here are examples from the top.
    • "a region that spans the Caucasus to the northwestern Iranian plateau." We've had this span thing recently in this room. You span something, or you span from somewhere to somewhere.
    • "an ancient cultural heritage that consists of Turkic, Iranian, and Caucasian elements." Why not remove "that consists"?
    • "Russian/Soviet influenced-Azerbaijan"—don't like that single hyphen, and short of rewording it (which is what I'd do), perhaps another hyphen between "Soviet" and "influenced" could make it OK. The whole sentence needs to reworded: I hate "somewhat"—so vague; what does it mean? "Where" is inappropriate; it should refer to a location. "Vary" is vague.
    • "is mutually intelligible with Turkmen and Turkish, as all of these languages can be traced back to the Turkic Oghuz"—sorry, just because they can all be traced back to a common ancestor doesn't logically make them mutually intelligible.
    • "The Azeris, as a result of this separate existence, range from mainly secularists in Azerbaijan to largely religious Muslims in Iranian Azarbaijan. Since Azerbaijan's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been some renewed interest in religion and cross-border ethnic ties." Why not deal with the separateness of the northerners and southerners in the middle paragraph? It's disorganised. Awkward word order. Try: "As a result of this separate existence, Azeris range from ...". "Mainly" and "largely" are different words in a misguided attempt to avoid repetition; sometimes repetition aids the reader.

This suggests that the whole text needs intensive work. It's so interesting: please find editors to fix it. It can't possibly pass yet. Tony 08:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have done more copyediting myself, as there are no other native English speakers available to do so. Judge for yourself if there has been improvement as I think there has been. Changes reflect an attempt to eliminate redundancy and clarify points in the article with brevity in mind. Also, changes suggested have been implemented in the opening. Tombseye 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about my object. Well, if it's "prime and ready", why is it that I can find significantly substandard prose at every turn? I took one paragraph at random—it happens to be from "Caucasian theory"—hoping to find "compelling, even brilliant" prose.

"Modern Azeris, not unlike the Turks of Turkey, have, during their journey into discovering their roots, come across forgotten possible ancestors. As many modern Turkish historians looked to the possibility that groups such as the Hittites may have contributed significantly to the modern Turks, many Azeris have also looked to ancient peoples in order to better understand their background. In the case of the Azeris, there is evidence that, despite repeated invasions and migrations, an aboriginal element may have survived in what is today Azerbaijan even as the languages and religions changed. Academic Audrey L. Alstadt notes in her book, The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule, that many Azeris regard both the Oghuz and the Caucasian Albanians as their ancestors, in particular as there is no political rivalry with either.[13] Regardless, considerable information has been learned about the Caucasian Albanians, including their language and history as well as their conversion to Christianity. Some academics believe that the Udi language is a remnant of the Albanians who were assimilated into invading cultures over time. Lastly, ethnic animosity and rivalry with many of their neighbors has possibly prevented [the] modern Azeris from examining ties to [with?] their neighbors, in particular the Armenians. What remains difficult to determine is the [overall] number of Turkic invaders, which may not have been enough [sufficient] to dramatically alter the population genetically."

    • There's a lot of hedging in the first two sentences (my highlighting); if it's conjectural, one announcement to that effect is enough; reword. To start with, why "may" and "significantly" (they go in opposite directions). The first sentence is awkwardly organised; re-arrange to reduce the number of commas.
    • I see a lot of "many"—this can probably be removed, since it adds nothing.
    • "in order to"—NO: just "to". Remove "also": every sentence is an also (typically, 4/5 occurrences are redundant).
    • "in what is today Azerbaijan even as the languages and religions changed"—unidiomatic word order ("today"); a comma would be good. The last clause begs questions (I think I get it, but I'm unsure).
    • "Academic Audrey L. Alstadt notes in her book, The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule, that (The details are in the reference list—don't clutter the main text with it.)
    • "... regard both the Oghuz and the Caucasian Albanians as their ancestors, in particular as there is no political rivalry with either ...". The logic doesn't hold: they regard them as ancestors because they have no political rivalry with them? And perhaps remove "in particular". I don't understand the logic of the next "Regardless".
    • Another marked "as well as": "their language and history as well as their conversion to Christianity". Why? Just make it: "their language, history, and conversion to Christianity"—so much neater.
    • "Some academics"—If you're not going to name them, or provide an e.g., ref, then don't say it; just use "may", preferably with a ref.
    • What does "over time" add?
    • Whenever I read "finally," or "lastly", I feel tired. It's a poor back-link.
    • More redundancies and suggestions in square brackets. The last sentence will confuse some readers.

Have the reviewers above who offer effusive support read the text properly? This is definitely not good enough. Let us know when it has been thoroughly copy-edited—the whole text. Tony 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I copyedited and completely changed the section as per your suggestions and some changes of my own I thought of. That was the last section that was not copyedited previously. You've helped tremendously with the article actually as it's hard (and time-consuming) to edit my own work unless I'm being graded or paid. Given the critiques you've given thus far, feel free to continue if you have any more objections. Thanks. Tombseye 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tombseye, thanks for your quick response. That's exactly why another person, who's more distant from the text, is necessary for an entire copy-edit. Have you tried AndyZ? There are other editors who may help, too.
Until this happens, the prose is not going to be "compelling, even brilliant", as required for promotion. If you ask Raul, he may extend the time of this process while you network on WP for the right kind of assistance. Tony 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good points. Okay, I will drop Raul a line. Who is AndyZ? Do you have his username wikilink so that I can contact him? I'd be really cool with someone helping me out. I think the information is definitely enough to make it as a FA, but there may be things I've missed which someone else could spot. Thanks for the help Tony and feel free to let me know of any more problems or correct them yourself if you can. Most of what you've brought is spot-on so far. Ciao. Tombseye 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did a search and found Andy so we'll see if he can help. Tombseye 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; more than one person would be good—have you researched the editors/reviewers who are good copy-editors and like this kind of subject? I'd help myself, but I'm short of time. Tony 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have done more copyediting with help from other folks. Tombseye 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The history and origins section has several POV issues. For example:
  • "The Azeris are typically at least nominally Muslim and have an ancient cultural heritage of Turkic, Iranian, and Caucasian elements": This sounds abit nationalistic. Such statement could be claimed virtually for every modern nation. The Spaniards can "have an ancient Iberian heritage," the English can "have an ancient Briton heritage," same with Iraqis and Babelonians etc. Much better to replace "ancient" with "mixed."
  • "major rebellion by Babak, who is considered both an Azerbaijani- and Iranian national hero, from 816-837" Passive subjectless statement like "is considered" falls under "Weasel words and phrases" category and contains hidden POV (see WP:AWW). Who considers so? Is it the mainstream view? Or some individual authors? Is there sufficient evidence for either 1st or 2nd? Needs to be specified. (and if it's just the cited author considering him Azeri, just state in the sentence "so and so considers him Azeri" and cite).
  • "Despite pockets of continued resistance, the vast majority of Azerbaijanis converted to Islam." We are talking about the Arab period (7-10th cc). Have we established that Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group existed *before* becoming Islamized? If not, need to change to "population of Azerbaijan" to avoid confusion.
  • "The Seljuk period marked the beginning of the turkification of Azerbaijan as the Azeri language supplanted earlier Caucasian and Iranian ones" [1] Was it the Azeri language or Turkic? Did Azeri langauge exist back then? The source itself doesn't say so. Instead it talks about early Oghus Turkic language. That's what should replace "Azeri"
  • "The Safavids established an empire that was multi-cultural (the dynasty was bilingual in Azeri and Persian" [2][3]: None of the two sources state anything about the dynasty speaking "Azeri." Again, without a proper source, should be replaced with Turkic.
  • "Archaeological surveys conducted in western Azerbaijan have uncovered numerous settlements of the Urartians, another Caucasian people who may have been assimilated" The statement implies that Urartuans *may* have been assimilated to future Azeris. Instead, Western Azerbaijan was first part of Urartu and then part of Armenia (see Strabo, with Orkhistene and Sakasene placed in Armenia). So, Urartuans were most likely assimilated to Armenians. Unless there is an actual neutral source saying that "Urartuans may have assimilated to Azeris," the statement is too dubious and should be removed.
  • "The standard Azerbaijani language dates back to the 10th century CE, and mainly existed in oral form, and then began to develop as a literary language by the 13th century" [4] Not according to the cited source. It says "the language spoke today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 11th-12th cc and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form" So, according to the source, first there is no 10th c CE, and second the language back then was not "standard Azerbaijani language" but a branch of Oghuz Turkic that developed through centuries and later became a "standard Azerbaijani language" The sentence should read "The origins of standard Azerbaijani language dates back to the 11-12th centuries CE, and then explain the Oghuz connection.

These are just some of the objections, but I will stop for now.--TigranTheGreat 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just few very quick notes per Tigran's request for clarifications: according to, for example, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, whose editor was an ethnic Armenian, Shaumyan, in the article "Azerbaijani language" it says: "Literary Azerbaijani language started to form from 11th century" ("Литературный Азербайджанский язык начал складываться с 11 в") [5]. It is also well-known that Shah Ismail Khatai wrote in Azerbaijani language, also referred to as Azerbaijani Turki, not in the general Turki, which was common to all Oghuz and other Turkic people until 11th century (part of that proof is also in the abovecited GSE article). Urartu did include some portions of Azerbaijan, and hence, it is obvious that some Urarteans were assimilated into today's Azerbaijanis, just like some did into today's Armenians, Iranians, Turks. In fact, that's what's taught in Azerbaijani schools -- that the complex ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani nation included nations of Urartu, Manna, Atropatena, Caucasian Albania from among the ancient states. Meanwhile, on Azerbaijani nation per se here's what the relevant GSE article "Azerbaijanis" writes: "Formation of Azerbaijani nation has mainly (in major part) finalized (ended) in 11-13 centuries..." ("Формирование азербайджанского народа в основном завершилось в 11 — 13 вв.") [6] --AdilBaguirov 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Safavids, see encyclopedia Iranica, very authoritative source on Iranian history: Encyclopaedia Iranica: azerbaijan :: azeri turkish viii., Azeri Turkish, Doerfer, G. page 246

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war.

As you know, Safavid dynasty started ruling Iran since 16th century. Grandmaster 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can say mixed instead. I only used ancient b/c I read in a book about the Azeris, can't remember which one as I returned them all to the library.
  • It wasn't my idea to refer to any of Babak's ethnic origins as the wikilink to his article should suffice, but people insisted. I'll take it out in the hopes that it doesn't return.
  • I'll reword to say inhabitants of Azerbaijan.
  • It's actually Oghuz which evolved into the modern mutually intelligible languages of Azeri, Turkmen, Turkish so I'll reword rather than Turkic which is much wider and vague.
  • Hmm, Ismail I wrote Azeri poetry so it's accurate, so I'll put in a source.
  • Given the genetic similarity between Armenians and Azeris, it's not that hard to believe that the Urartians were absorbed by both populations. I'll reword as the source doesn't discuss assimilation.
  • Yes, I'll reword to say Oghuz Turkic, although it's just Old Azeri as far as we'd be concerned since Turkmen, Turkish, and Azeri are mutually intelligible which basically means that the Oghuz spoke the same language albeit in archaic form. I will reword though anyway.
Give the controversial nature of these ethnic articles, I had a hard time trying to reconcile nationalist views with plain academia which was my intent. By all means, if you have other objections tell me as I prefer to deal with this now and make the article worth of FA status. Thanks for your help Tigran. Tombseye 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fixed the issues raised. Let me know if there are any other issues of concern. Thanks. Tombseye 05:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Tombseye, and thank you for considering my suggestions. Almost all changes are great, the Urartu sentence is better than before.

I still think the mentioning of Urartu in the "Origins" segment insinuates a connection which is not supported by an authoritative reliable neutral source. We may think that "the Arm-Az genetic similarity leads one believe that Urartuans were absorbed by both," but this is our conjecture, and under No Original Research rules (WP:NOR), no matter how obvious, we don't put or insinuate our interpretations--they need to be based on a source. Furthermore, such conclusion precludes the possibility that Urartuans and Caucasian ancestors of Azeris, albeit not same, have come from a common Caucasian origin--i.e. Urartuans didn't have to get absorbed to Azeris to explain the modern similarity.

Please note that Western Azerbaijan was only in the periphery of the Urartu Kingdom--it's bulk was what later became the Armenian kingdom (or modern Eastern Turkey). Western Azerbaijan has come under Roman control too (when it was part of Armenia)--yet we don't say "Azeris have Latin origin" unless there is a source.

In sum, without an authoritative reliable neutral source saying so, the connection between Urartuans and Azeris is too tenuous and conjectural. The mention of Urartu may be relevant in "Azerbaijan" article, but not "Azerbaijani People".--TigranTheGreat 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Urartians removed from Caucasian origin theory section. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks. Tombseye 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could the photos be moved around a bit? Currently, they are all right aligned; it would add visual interest if every second or third photo were left aligned. — BrianSmithson 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by visual interest you mean making an article harder to read, sure. I find mixed alignment articles to be much harder to read and much less attractive. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have responded with just the the second of those two sentences, and I would not have been offended. The article is ugly with all the pictures right aligned. — BrianSmithson 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moved a few pictures to the left that didn't disrupt flow of article. Let me know if this is cool with you. Thanks! Tombseye 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Tombseye. Now it's better. I have no further objections, so you may remove my opposition. Actually the article looks way better than half a year ago. Almost unrecognizable. Did you do it all? You da man:)--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "support"? :( —Khoikhoi 00:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove pictures with uncertain status. Thanks. Tombseye 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to Oppose: The page is 62 KB in length. I wonder how much of this is due to the redundant listing of sources. In short, why two separate, full-format reference sections? It would make sense to either axe the "References and further reading" section (the citations are given in full in the footnotes), or make the footnotes much terser, with just an author name and page number (or article name for an online source). See Tasmanian Devil and Dixie (song) for examples of what I mean. This can shave quite a few KB from the article and allow for better reflection of where other cuts may need to be made to bring the article down in size. — BrianSmithson 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will take care of it. Tombseye 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update-Took care of it and considerably reduced article size by a whopping 6kb! Very good advice Brian and it should have been obvious. Thanks! Tombseye 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak oppose for the momentSupport, but read on. The article looks good! I've done some more copy editing, and now I am eager to support. However, I have a few remaining concerns:
  1. First, the name Azeris is used throughout the article as a synonym for Azerbaijanis. This should be specifically given as an alternate English name for them in the introductory paragraph and bolded.
  2. There's a lot of language like "Such and such is believed" or "are believed". Some of these are okay, but it would be nice to change some of them to active constructions: "A common theory is that . . . " etc. (I am not opposing based on this; this is just a suggestion.) Four left, but I'm striking this.
  3. A lot of things are quoted in this article. Most of these punctuated with ." rather than ". , but according to the Manual of Style, ." should only be used when the punctuation is a part of the original quotation. I ask the authors of the article to please check the source material and punctuate appropriately.
  4. On the subject of quotations, some of them seem kind of redundant. For example, the article explains the Y-chromosome haplotypes being used in genetic studies then follows that with a quote that says essentially the same thing. Either the quote or the paraphrase should go. I would strongly prefer that most of the direct quotations in this article be changed to paraphrases (my personal style is to use quotes mainly for color), but I won't oppose based on it.
  5. I've added some {{fact}} requests for source citations.
  6. It seems to me that the "Origins" section should come before "History". After all, "Origins" describes the very earliest history of the Azeris: Where they came from.
  7. There are a few instances of weasel words. I'd like to see phrases like "some scholars" and "some academics" replaced accordingly with the names of the academics (a few at least) who believe those things.
  8. The "History" section is good, but it seems to be told from a nationalistic point of view. I'd like to see it changed slightly to seem less like the history of Azerbaijan and northern Iran and more like the history of the Azerbaijanis. By that, I mean change phrasing like "Azerbaijan is believed to be eponymously named" to "The Azerbaijanis are believed to be eponymously named . . . " and "This influx sparked a major rebellion in Iranian Azarbaijan from 816–837, lead by a local commoner named Babak" to "This influx prompted a local commoner named Babak to rally an Azeri army and rebel from 816–837." I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here, but think about this section and try to frame it from the point of view of the Azeris, not the point of view of their territory. Another example: "The Safavids established a multicultural empire . . . " becomes "The Azeris became part of the multicultural Safavid empire . . . ."
  9. The claim that "Azerbaijan falls short of being universally regarded as a democracy" is weaselly. Could it be rephrased to name some of the nations who do not regard Azerbaijan as a democracy?
  10. "As of June 2006, wide protests were being reported . . . ." Rephrase this to make it active and thus say exactly who was making such reports.
  11. I'm not sure why Languages of Azerbaijan and Languages of Iran are listed in the "See also" section. They can probably be axed.
Like I said, nice article. Just needs a bit more work, and I think it'll be there. — BrianSmithson 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brian. I implemented most of your suggestions to the article. The history section is a delicate matter because there IS a lot of nationalism involved. The final rendition has come after a lot of compromise etc. Thus, for example Babak is considered an Iranian (and he was by language), but because he lived in Azerbaijan, modern Azeris see him as one of their own. As a result, we can't say Azeri army as the Azeris as we know them didn't exist yet. Similarly, the Safavid wording took some negotiations. Now as for the many quotations, there's a reason there too. People keep arguing over the paraphrasing and so quotations were the only thing that put a stop to it. I sometimes added further paraphrasing when some people felt it wasn't clear. I've since removed some of it as per your request though. As for the Origins section, well the reason the history section comes first is because it introduces to the reader the background so that they can understand the terminology used in the Origins section. I looked at Tamils, a featured article, for some inspiration on the matter and went with the history section first as a result. In some places where the wording seems overly careful is simply due to the nationalist sentiments that this page (and others like it) invoke. I had to write it (and re-write it over and over again) to keep things both clear and not cause more friction. Everything else you've suggested I've implemented as much as possible. This article was before a battleground for constant edit wars and conflict and is now finally at a concensus point. All the groups interested, Azeris, Iranians, Armenians, have actually endorsed it so I figure we've finally reached the end. I hope. Anyway, let me know if it's all good with you at this point. Whew. Ciao. Tombseye 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through the addressed objections. I'm still not confident that the ." vs ". punctuation issue has been addressed, and some weasel words remain. I understand your reasoning for the history section, but I still think it might be possible to reword things to be told from the people's point of view. I'll post a proposed rewrite on the talk page tomorrow (probably), and if folks don't like it, I'll withdraw that comment here. I still think "Origins" should logically go before (or be part of) "History", so I'll take a look at that tomorrow, too. Looking good! — BrianSmithson 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks your help Brian. Yes, please post any major changes first. I wrote the article after consulting a lot of peope who have an interest in how things are written. It may not look it, but the weasel words (as it may appear to some) were to appease different perspectives and render a neutral view. If you look at the archived discussions, you'll see what I mean. You gotta understand that the very issue of the 'people' is questioned in that some think it's wrong to say they even existed before the 11th century, while others think they belong to a larger group etc. Re-writing it from a "people's" view will, I guarantee it, simply take us back to a position of more edit wars and conflict. So yes, by all means bring up changes (I'm not trying to dictate terms just b/c I wrote it) and if people like your ideas, then I won't disagree. As for the origins section before history, you might as well ask what others think on that issue as well. Thanks. Tombseye 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's part of the the style guide: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. And I'm not sure I understand the problem. I have a hard time believing that people would object to replacing "Some scholars believe that" or "some academics hold that" with "Academics such as Bob Johnson believe that" or "Anthropologist Francine Thomas and historian Georges Martin hold that" kinds of phrasings. There's absolutely nothing controversial about a statement like that; one need simply consult the work in question by Bob Johnson or whomever to see that the statement is 100% fact. — BrianSmithson 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That I don't have a problem with, but as I said, the issue is a delicate matter as to the ethnic identity of the Azeris. Now even if we do put up some experts who think one way, someone else will say they don't agree and will counter with someone of their own (might not even be an academic) and then it'll all fall apart. If don't believe me ask Khoikhoi as we're the two Americans here who try to be neutral about things as we're not personally involved. I wrote a number of things and even with citations debate raged over various issues. Wikipedia says avoid weasel words, but in this case and at this time, I think we can make some exceptions as weasel words is somewhat subjective AND we do avoid weasel words in the vast majority of the article with only some instances that may be questioned. Again though, if you have some changes in mind, bring them up at the discussion page and if it turns out I'm wrong, then great no problem. At this point, after having written and constantly re-written the article and finally gotten to the stage where there aren't any more edit wars and conflicts you might understand as to why I'm wary of any dramatic changes. Plus, I don't use the rules as sacrosanct so much as guidelines. Sometimes you have to bend the rules a little and I don't think people will go nuts (including admins). Tombseye 23:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as a Featured Article, this piece will be standing for the best of the best Wikipedia has to offer and as an example for which other articles should strive. In that regard, it is imperative that it follow all relevant style guides and policies. However, most of the weaseling has been dealt with, so thanks. There's one sentence that still bothers, though: "Some academics believe that the Udi language, still spoken in Azerbaijan, is a remnant of the Albanians' language." Following the source citation leads to an article by Wolfgang Schulze, but it's hard to tell whether Schulze supports the statement or not. (He reports on it, and gives some names of others.) However, I just skimmed Schulze's article; perhaps you can comment on a specific researcher or academic who holds the view that Udi is a remnant of the Albanians' langauge? As for my other concens, the ." vs ". issue has definitely not been addressed; I followed through on some of the linked sources and found one that does not match up. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks for our policy on this. — BrianSmithson 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have not heard about any dispute with regard to Udis being Albanian tribe Uti, mentioned in ancient chronicles. As far as I know, it’s pretty much an established fact. I provided some sources in the article Caucasian Albania and its talk page. Grandmaster 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't help you with a source but the Udi language is indeed considered a direct ancestor of the C.Albanian language.--Eupator 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added another source that was already in the article (the Thor Heyerdahl one) which directly discusses the Udi-Albanian link. As for the quotation marks, I went through and changed the ones I could find to conform with the Manual of Style rules. If I missed any let me know or you can feel free to change them yourself. and then also feel free to support the article. ;) Tombseye 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm almost there. :) Another thing I noticed: The sources that cite IranDokht News need to be converted to point directly to the articles that were used as a source. IrankDokht News seems to be no more than a list of pertinent articles (that probably change over time) and is not a proper source itself. — BrianSmithson 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Irandokht references are gone. I replaced one with an article from Iranian. So, done and done! Tombseye 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. I still would like to see the two unstruck suggestions implemented, but I won't oppose because of them. Nice article, and sorry for being such a bear about seemingly minor things. :) — BrianSmithson 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will temporarily take down picture as Khoikhoi, who got the picture is out of the country for a month or so. If he responds with the pertinent info. then we'll put the picture back. Okay? Tombseye 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Azerbaijani_people&oldid=1144127078"