Talk:Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment

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)

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. 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)

The article is about Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, not the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan. I'm gonna be blunt here; The next time you make such a edit, or attack another fellow user [1] [2] [3] (as you have also done at Talk:Melikdoms of Karabakh) I will report you to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Walter Schwimmer claiming that Kocharyan referencing the Armenian victims of the Sumgait pogrom and Baku pogrom is "hate speech" is rather odd, and plain false. Upon further research into Schwimmer, it seems he also denies there are political prisoners in Azerbaijan, which Azeri activists disagree with him on.[4] It seems the Azerbaijani laundromat sent more than $3 million to three members of the Council of Europe in order to censor criticism of Azerbaijan’s domestic policies and to adopt an Azeri bias in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.[5] With all this in mind, Schwimmer cannot be considered a reliable source.

De Waal has long been criticized for his pro-Azerbaijan bias, and has been accused of misquoting Sargsyan in that interview to make it appear as if Sargsyan was bragging about attacking civilians when he was actually shaming Azerbaijan for using its own civilians as sheilds.[6] The Poghosyan statement is WP:OR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

1. What Serzh Sargsyan, said is pure Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Alleged and baseless claims that "De Waal has long been criticized for his pro-Azerbaijan bias" supported by partisan source does not make any point. De Wall indeed was one of the most neutral sources you can find. Moreover, the source you provided it does not " appear as if Sargsyan was bragging about attacking civilians" and most importantly source does not state that Sargsyan did not tell that.

2. Serzh Sargsyan, stated that Armenians and Azerbaijanis are "ethnically incompatible". It is on its own, without any comment is Anti-Azerbaijanis sentiment. Moreover, name of the Walter Schwimmer is not mentioned in the report you mentioned. Your personal opinion is not an argument in favor of the fact that he is allegedly involved in corruption or else. Morover, Schwimmer's word cited here. I am not sure what is your concern here? Schwimmer is not reliable source for what he have said?

Zani, It is very frustrating that you following me on every article, reverting every edit without solid justifications. Abrvagl (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Focus more on quotes that peer reviewed reputable academic journals and history books have analysed rather than cherrypicking news articles or interview transcripts; especially since many of the quotes seem more than a decade old. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts thanks for joining this discussion. I think the recent edits should be reverted until better sources are provided and not some cherry-picked articles which have been criticized for inaccurate quoting. The Poghosyan quote is undeniably WP:OR btw. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Poghosyan even quoted under the official statement section of Armenia? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts Idk, I didn't do any of these edits. It's WP:OR regardless where it's put. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not find any of those comments have anything to do with Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. The "incompatible" comment (which according to Oxford Languages can mean "(of two people) unable to live together harmoniously.") is unfortunately not that far off during this day and age, considering the very hostile history and relations between the two nations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the full quote: "Armenians and Azerbaijanis are ethnically, genetically incompatible". It is pure xenophobia, and original research of rephrasing it to look civil and justify it, does not make it less xenophobic. Abrvagl (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, I will discuss statements one by one. Here are the additional sources,Humanitarian Law and Human Rights are trampled and Polish Political Science Yearbook, and theparliamentmagazine for Serzh Sargsyan "Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]." Do you find them sufficient? --Abrvagl (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Only the Polish Political Science Yearbook can be considered peer reviewed and attributes the statement to De Wall's writings. The Parliament article is a commentary article and cannot be used to assert facts while the Humanitarian Law and Human Rights are Trampled report is funded by the Azerbaijan government. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So Polish Political Science Yearbook is sufficient to support the statement? Abrvagl (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Yearbook only verifies that De Wall wrote what he wrote. Whether the statement is an appropriate example of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment for inclusion is determined by consensus. I do not have an opinion on whether the quote itself is anti-Azerbaijani. The Yearbook article does not present it that way as its main argument was that civilians were intentionally killed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Place name changes

Abrvagl, none of the references consider the name changes as Anti-Azerbaijani, and only one expresses an opinion that this might carry anti-Muslim sentiments. We can't keep content in a highly contentious article based one your interpretations, which is synthesised original research. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl, join the discussion, you're clearly free to discuss and edit. Per WP:BURDEN All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. none of the sources mention or state anything about anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Till sources are provided that this is in fact described as anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, that section violates OR and NPOV. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Kevo327,

1. all content you forcedly removing is verifiable and well sourced and does not violate anything. Nothing violates WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:NPOV here. It is just YOUR believe that material not applicable for the article. WP:BURDEN is not about forcedly and repetitively removing sourced material from the stable version of the article based on your personal opinion, and then demanding other editors to prove it to you. It is you shall prove your point of view and reach the consensus before the removal of the material from the stable article, as it is your proposal.

Ian, Bremmer: measure seen by some as a method to erase from popular memory the fact that Muslims had once formed a substantial portion of the local population. Like who you think were the muslim population of the local population, if the only muslim majority in the Armenia were Azerbaijanis? As per Ghulyan, major ethnic groups that were found in Armenia, namely Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Russians/Molokans and Yezidis/Kurds.

Ghulyan, Husik states: Renamed Turkic names were mostly located in areas that previously were heavily populated by Azerbaijanis. Names of Turkic origins are subject to change due to the prevalent anti-Turkish nationalist sentiments grounded in the country as a result of the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the Republic of Azerbaijan. It can be concluded that there has been an attempt to negate the most recent historical geography and current geography by replacing what is considered ‘foreign’ and ‘inharmonious’ geographical names, and to revenge over history through geography with anti-Turkish nationalist sentiments.

Azerbaijanis in Armenia(territorially) were the at some part majority of local population and then second majority. Azerbaijanis are Islamic Turkic people. Turkic place names in Armenia, in the areas which were heavily populated by Azerbaijanis, is Azerbaijani place names we talking here.

Now, Kevo, please revert your edit, as I explained above that it is not case of removing not verifiable and poorly sourced material. It is just your opinion consesnsus on which you have to reach. if you still not happy - we can use one of the dispute resolution tools. Abrvagl (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you repeating my point, the sources only vaguely imply anti-Muslim and/or anti-Turkish sentiment (specifically against the Turkish language) and none of them present this as Anti-Azerbaijani, thus it is OR that this is anti-Azerbaijani. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Kevo327, The material was part of the stable version of the article for a while with reached consensus, and it is on you to reach the consensus before removing the material based purely on your view. Please comply with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and we will continue our discussion. Abrvagl (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In Armenian, թուրք [turk] is for both “Turkic” (related to any Turkic ethnicity or any Turkic-speaking nation) and “Turkish” (related to a national of Turkey) terms. I.e. both terms all homonyms in Armenian. Thus, referring to an Azerbaijani [turk] in Armenian doesn’t imply that this person is considered a Turkish national or a Turkey-related person. Context is important to specify if the Armenian “turk” is for a Turkic or a Turkish

Context from the sources clearly making obvious that it is about the Azerbaijanis:

- "Renamed Turkic names were mostly located in areas that previously were heavily populated by Azerbaijanis.";

- "Names of Turkic origins are subject to change due to the prevalent anti-Turkish nationalist sentiments grounded in the country as a result of the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the Republic of Azerbaijan." - it is fact that Azerbaijanis are of Turkic origin; thus place names of Azerbaijanis also Turkic. Abrvagl (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. You referencing policies wrongly. Sources are reliable, so nothing you can state from WP:BURDEN here. Sources cited as they are and there is not a single WP:OR here. What we talking here is only your believe that statements are not related to Azerbaijanis. We can take reach consensus with help of dispute resolution tools. I strongly advice you to comply with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and revert your edit until we reach the consensus. Abrvagl (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, as you continue ignoring me here - I reverting your edit. The Muslims and Turks, who were living in the Armenia were the Azerbaijanis, and the renamed toponyms were of the places where Azerbaijanis were living. If you want remove the material, then go and reach the consensus first. Abrvagl (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Turkish, Turkic, Azerbaijani are not equivalent terms. You can claim this but you are not yourself a reliable source. Would it not be better to find a reliable source that describes names changes explicitly as anti-Azerbaijani, rather than insert your own conjecture? Does this not exist? Maidyouneed (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

hi,

1. Im not inserting anything. This was stable version of the article for a long time. The point is, that in Armenia they do not put much difference for the Turk and Azeri terms. Azeri place names has a Turkish origin, since Azerbaijanis essentially are Turkish people. All Turkish and Muslim area names, which were renamed, are indeed the areas where Azerbaijanis lived before they were expelled. If anyone want to assert that exile of Azerbaijanis, and subsequent change of the place names where Azerbaijanis were lived, is Anti-Turkish/Anti-Muslim sentiment, but not Anti-Azerbaijani sentiments, then we should take it to dispute resolution boards.

2. All of the quotes are from the referenced sources, not from the Wikipedia. How you would advice me to quote, to make it clear that is is from the source? Abrvagl (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The sources that you removed are applicable sources. The vast majority of Muslims in the Armenia were Azerbaijanis. Moreover, you modifying the sources from the section which is about to go to the dispute resolution boards. So can you please be kind and revert your edits? Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You clearly aren't showing any WP:RS saying these are "anti-Azeri sentiment". If you wish to restore it, this is the least you should do, I hope you understand it. And clearly, I'm not the only one telling this to you. Using vague justifications and coming up to your own original research doesn't help either, the material will only be restored until the mentioned criteria is met and supplemented with WP:RS. Other than that, it has nothing to do with this article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources cited as they are and there is not a single WP:OR here. What we talking here is only your believe that statements are not related to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and mine believe that they do. I reverting article to the stable version, and I strongly advice you to comply with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and do not play revert games. Instead we can reach consensus with help of dispute resolution tools, and since it is you proposing that this statement should be removed, then as per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, it is on you to reach the consensus. Abrvagl (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl You've used italic for what looks to be quotes, but it's not clear if they actually are. For Ian Bremmer it looks like you've actually quoted Wikipedia rather than the source itself. To avoid confusion in the future could you make it clear what is and isn't a quote from the source.Maidyouneed (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl The consensus is very much against you here. DRN is used as a last resort when a stalemate is reached in a discussion, which isn’t the case here. The burden is on you to show how this is related to anti-Azeri sentiment, since clearly, none of the sources make such connection. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope. As per WP:EDITCONSENSUS the need to reach consensus is on the editor who proposed change of the stable version. Just like on the Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, where 3 editors reached consensus, but you did not. So I did respect your disagreement, did not played back & forth and raised case to DNR and then RfC. Abrvagl (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to show relation to this article and exactly to anti-Azeri sentiment, and WP:consensus is against you per this reason. RfC of another article (which seems like favors your choice) doesn't have anything to do here. I don't have further comments for you, you're going further away from the subject. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is not applicable here. All inline citations provided and all material reliable. You are not removing material that lacking citation. as I already said, but you keep ignoring: Sources cited as they are and there is not a single WP:OR here. What we talking here is only your believe that statements are not related to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and mine believe that they do. I reverting article to the stable version, and I strongly advice you to comply with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and do not play revert games.. It is you guys want to remove matrerial from teh stable version of the Article, not me. You can continue playing the Wikipedia rules or, instead of pushing POV, you can comply with Wikipedia rules and take it to the dispute resolution boards as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Abrvagl (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)