Talk:Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. 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/20130418105149/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055521/http://www1.american.edu/cgp/mpaa/NarrativeReportAzerbiajan072704.pdf to http://www1.american.edu/cgp/mpaa/NarrativeReportAzerbiajan072704.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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 06:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Shoddily written, poorly researched
This article is yet another unfortunate creation that has surfaced on the pages of Wikipedia. Rather than call forth reputable sources which actually document acts of ethnic hatred, it is nothing but a set of largely unrelated incidents loosely tied together under a banner of perceived actions directed against Azerbaijanis. Editors up until now have been at pains to pin the disappearance of mosques over the past century on a concrete anti-Azerbaijani move made by Armenians. Apparently, the destruction of numerous churches during the period has little relation to the anti-religious policies of the Soviets. Likewise, the change in placenames: this itself cannot definitively be ascribed to anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, as many towns and settlements formerly had Armenian names and with the dissolution of Muslim and Soviet power and reestablishment of Armenian independence, it is not unusual that the names of current-day towns and villages revert back to their original names or ones that were imposed on from the above (again, not necessarily a sign of "anti-" anything). Coupled with other unreliable sources, it really begs belief if this article was created simply because the page for Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan existed, itself a phenomenon far easily documented and seen than any of the examples proffered here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are in this article, Valid Resources. You have said your say on this Page. It is a fact of destruction of Muslim holy in Yerevan. Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan = Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia--THE END--'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
International Law, Conventions and Justice
"International Law, Conventions and Justice. ATINER. 2011. p. 120" - This is a topic of Farhad Mirzayev ("The articles are based on selected presentations at International Conferences on Law, organised by the Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER) held in Athens, Greece The papers were peer-reviewed and selected on the basis of the reviewers' comments and their contribution to the ongoing discussion of the respective issues")
So, this is just a Mirzayev's presentation, not more.
From the Mirzayev's topic "The idea of economically and politically strong Azerbaijan with a dominance of the European values and its possible integration to Euro-Atlantic Community is a serious concern for some external forces It gives these forces grounds to carry out aggressive and unbalanced policy against Azerbaijan. As one of the main targets the active support of separatist ideas among the minority groups has been selected Set aside other separatist movements in Azerbaijan, the sanguinary conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is the most painful problem for the modern Azerbaijan The Armenian support of separatist regime in Nagorno-Karabakh and its further occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory, one million of Azeri refugees and internally displaced persons are the realities of this conflict."
According Tom de Waal and Vladimir Kazimirov, "20% of Azerbaijani territory, one million of Azeri refugees" is a fake and typical example of the Azerbaijani propaganda. So, Mirzayev's presentation is not a reliable source. Divot (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
eight mosques in Yerevan
"According to Ivan Chopin, there were eight mosques in Yerevan in the middle of the nineteenth century" - So what? Almost all mosques (like a lot of christian churches) were demolished under the Communists. It bears no relation to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. Divot (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
- Someone should AFD the whole dismal article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I agree with that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
- 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)
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)