Talk:Azerbaijanis in Georgia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Azerbaijanis in Georgia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing... Accedie^{talk to me} 03

59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I cleaned up some minor issues; it could probably use a bit more polishing (some of the constructions are a little awkward, probably resulting from translation/non-native speaker), but it's generally solidly written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead should be expanded to include some of the historical and demographic details, which are very well covered in the body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I would strongly suggest more English language sources. Quite a few books come up in a Google search for Azerbaijanis in Georgia.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Providing page numbers for non-English sources would be great – I'm having a hard time finding the relevant cited facts in some of the Russian sources like this one. Given the very specific statistics and numbers that are presented, it's important to be equally precise with citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spot checks are okay on the sources I can read; AGF on the ones I can't, but again, more sources in English would be preferable for verification.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, broad and well covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good summarizing of lots of history and dense material. Good use of tables, too!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks okay to me.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars that I can see.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article looks quite good. However, I'm concerned about the sourcing issues detailed above. Therefore, I'm not passing at this time.

Any reasoning/opinion?

This picture has been interpreted here by the uploader as "Azerbaijani merchants in Tbilisi".[1] Yet when I go to the actual source page as given on the pictures' description, it simply says "Muslim Sellers of Carpets 1900s" (!) [2] Since when does Muslim equal Azerbaijani? Am I missing something? At the same time, when I google "Persian merchants in Tbilisi", I get numerous links that lead us to the same picture with the description, (which is easily possible, given the numer of Iranians in Tiflis during those times), but not a single one hit that leads me to this very same picture when I enter "Azeri merchants in Tbilisi", unless it being some mirror site of Wikipedia.

WP:OR or misinterpretation? Or am I wrong? Any (useful) opinion is valued. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon Generally speaking, a picture shouldn't state something that it clearly is not. I'm not an expert about that particular photograph but I suggest having the photograph removed on your grounds until we can find a prime source that can clarify that these were Azerbaijanis. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon I removed the photograph in question. I don't mind if it is instilled in the article, as long as we can clarify that these carpet sellers are Azerbaijani. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, I concur. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Parishan Should we really be putting up a picture of a group people merely identified as 'Muslims'? It cannot be verified that these Muslims are ethnic Azerbaijanis. That picture is more relevant in the Islam in Georgia (country). Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is hardly relevant to Islam in Georgia (country) which is an article that deals specifically with the spread of Islam in this country and the image makes absolutely no allusion to that. Keeping the image in article Azerbaijanis in Georgia makes more sense. I am not opposed to simply mentioning "Muslims" in the caption. It is no secret that Azeris have historically constituted the bulk of Muslims in Tiflis, anyway. Otherwise we should also get rid of the painting of the Shah Abbas Mosque at the bottom of the article since it was attended by "all Muslims" and not Azeris only. Parishan (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831230321/http://www.statistics.ge/main.php?pform=14&plang=1 to http://www.statistics.ge/main.php?pform=14&plang=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/178_georgia_s_armenian_and_azeri_minorities_rus.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827085753/http://geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/georgian/census/2002/II%20tomi%20.pdf to http://www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/georgian/census/2002/II%20tomi%20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514001827/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/pril.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/pril.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113172547/http://www.statistics.ge/_files/english/census/2002/Ethnic%20groups.pdf to http://www.statistics.ge/_files/english/census/2002/Ethnic%20groups.pdf

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Azerbaijanis in Georgia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630141309/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/0419dissertation.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/0419dissertation.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/178_georgia_s_armenian_and_azeri_minorities_rus.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623231435/http://www.faxrali.com/haqqinda.htm to http://www.faxrali.com/haqqinda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630141309/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/0419dissertation.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/0419dissertation.pdf

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Forcing "Azeris" in places that don't make sense

What's the rationale for forcing the word "Azeri" in places that don't need its use? There are links that have specifically been made [[Azerbaijani language|Azeri language]] as if "Azerbaijani" isn't a correct terminology. Every sentence repeats the word "Azeri" which becomes really repetitive, so at least changing it in some places like I tried would solve the problem. But Parishan seems to oppose this and imposes a false translation on things such as the "Azerbaijani Cultural Centre", which is called "Музей азербайджанской культуры", not "Музей азерэинской культуры". Not to mention the fact that a large chunk of Azerbaijanis finds the term "Azeri" offensive. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, "forcing" is not the right word, and if it is, then of the two of us, I am not the one to whom it would be applicable. The stable version of the article has contained the word "Azeri" since the day of its creation. It is completely normal for it to repeat many times throughout the article because this is essentially what the article is about.

Second of all, I do not see how "Azeri" is a false translation. There is no such word as "азерэинской" in Russian, whereas "Azeri" is just as normal of a translation of the Russian "азербайджанской" as "Azerbaijani", and is found in every major reference dictionary of English, such as Oxford. It is not that I have a problem with the term "Azerbaijani", it is that I do not see why it needs to absolutely remplace the term "Azeri" in these particular cases. So far it looks as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The part about some people "finding the term offensive" is not an issue here since the term is widely used by Azerbaijani state media. Parishan (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the word "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" is, of course, normal, but repeating the specific word of "Azeri" in each sentence, one after another is repetitive and isn't good grammar structure.

And it's definitely a false translation. All media, including Azerbaijani, refer to it as "Museum of Azerbaijani Culture" as seen here, here and here by TripAdvisor.

I could flip the tables and say you "don't like" the term "Azerbaijani" here as well as you've reverted it 4 times by now, but I won't and I advise you to not throw that policy around in discussions as it doesn't lead to any constructive results. I'm not requesting to "absolutely replace" the term "Azeri" as you've suggested. As I said, it's fine to use it when referring to the ethnicity and when it's not being repetitive, which is why I changed only a part of the use of the word to "Azerbaijani" in my edits.

Also not sure what state media you've seen that use "Azeri" since I, as someone who lives in Azerbaijan, have never seen such a thing in Azerbaijani language. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How would you then go about improving the "grammatical structure" of the articles on peoples who cannot afford the luxury of having alternative names? Why is it that the frequency of the ethnic name is less of a problem there? May I also mention that this article underwent major copy-editing when it was being considered for WP:GA (thanks to User:Accedie), and they apparently saw nothing ungrammatical in the frequent use of the word "Azeri" either.

Flipping the tables would not be possible in this case because I am reverting to the consensus version. The burden of proof is on the one who is introducing modifications. If you had initiated this discussion earlier (as I invited you to do) and presented these very sources, it would have been fewer than four times. For instance, I would have told you that I had no objections for changing the translation of the name of the museum.

I am talking about the Azerbaijani state media publishing in the English language since this article is written in English. There is even an English-language newspaper and an online news agency called The Azeri Times, not to mention the use of the term in articles by Trend [3], [4], [5], [6] and of course, BBC Azeri. Parishan (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Copy-editing doesn't make the article perfect. I see no way how changing some use of "Azeri" to "Azerbaijani" to avoid repetitiveness causes any problems. Why should "Azeri" be preferred over "Azerbaijani", which is the official term for ethnicity and the language?

It surely would be possible as you went out of your way to revert a 5-month-old edit to restore the original version. People don't have to open discussion about every change unless it's contested and in this case, you contested it. 4 times. I'd recommend that both of us not continue this part of the discussion as it won't lead to anything helpful.

Some Azerbaijani media using the term in the English language doesn't change what a large chunk of Azerbaijanis think. Living in Azerbaijan would be enough to know this, here is an online discussion that displays the average native view well. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said that "Azeri" was the preferred way of referring to the ethnic group in question. I said that I saw no distinction in the application of one or the other term and that I saw no reason in having to go around changing every instance of the word "Azeri" into "Azerbaijani". I do not see what you mean by "official" ; an ethnic group is not a state, it cannot have official names. The acceptability of such terms is defined by reference dictionaries and no reference dictionary mentions the term "Azeri" as inferior or pejorative.

Online forum discussions are not indicative of anything. We have no idea who is posting messages from these accounts. Parishan (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the word "Azeri" when it refers to the ethnicity, but the wording in this article makes it look as if it intentionally avoids the word "Azerbaijani" in the article body (e.g. the "Azeri language" example I mentioned earlier). So changing it in a few places, especially when it's relating to the language, would, in my opinion, make more sense to not repeat the same word over and over again. I could try to change it in fewer places than I did in my previous edit if that satisfies you.

Any person who has lived in Azerbaijan knows by now what most Azerbaijanis think of the term "Azeri" and it's been a very hot debate in the society since the country's independence from the Soviet Union. So I really don't think the term's perception by Azeris should be put under question. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get the impression that the article "intentionally avoids" the word "Azerbaijani"? The word is used throughout the article over 60 times.

I have a different impression as I see the term "Azeri" self-applied very frequently. In any event, we cannot rely on "what people think" to write articles on Wikipedia. A "large chunk" of people in Azerbaijan would even deny the existence of a separate Azeri/Azerbaijani language and prefer for it to be called "Turkish". This is no reason to suggest that the articles Turkish language and Azerbaijani language should be merged on Wikipedia. These primordial narratives and debates are typical for young nation-states in that part of the world, especially those involved in bitter ethnic conflicts, and change based on which way the wind blows. They mean little for the terminology currently accepted in English as they are extremely subjective and often based on dubious argumentation. Parishan (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani" is barely mentioned within the article body (excluding lead) with "Azeri" trumping over with much more use. Azerbaijanis being offended by it wasn't my main argument either, it's just something we should consider when making such changes. Anyway, as a compromise to reach a consensus I'm willing to change less number of uses of "Azeri" in the article than I've done in my previous edit and only change it in places where "Azerbaijani" simply, grammatically fits better. Would you agree to that? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that will not be necessary. I shall revert myself. Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion. Parishan (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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:

• Azeri language.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)