Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 4

message: Can FA's have disputed sections? It's not the most convincing display to a new visitor/user. --Impaciente 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed section

message: Should the image at the top be replaced with a few images of prominent Azeris? --Brand спойт 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the image of the three Azeri men in the infobox? I like it as the lead image; I'd urge that it be kept. — BrianSmithson 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't put images of prominent Azeris in a collage because it violates copyright laws. And I think the new picture is pretty great myself. Tombseye 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head image 

message: Just so folks know, the picture in the info. box has been temporarily taken down, but will return pending Khoikhoi's clarification of copyright status. Khoikhoi's on vacation touring Israel so we might have to wait as much as a month, but the picture will return hopefully. Cheers. Tombseye 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, you ought to place one of the other pictures in its place. It's always a good idea to have a picture in the lead section. — BrianSmithson 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the one of the three musicians? Or the dancers as a second choice. — BrianSmithson 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, ya know it probably won't matter for a while. I mean the article can still make it as a featured article and then we'll see if it can be on the main page at some point and then worry about the caption picture. By then Khoikhoi will be back and we can figure stuff out after that. Actually, Baku and I talked about putting up the Azeri fire symbol which also happens to the coat of arms for the modern country. Pluses and minuses to this as it symbolizes the region, but may be seen as too nationalist. It shouldn't bother the Iranians as it links to them in a way since it's a Zoroastrian symbol, but one never knows. I'd hate to see the musicians and dancers taken from their great placements in the article, so let's wait and see! Tombseye 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you say Khoikhoi is on vacation touring Israel? Kiumars 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture temporarily taken down 

message: I uploaded a new photo of Azeri Dance; see here. This picture gives a much much better view of Azeri Dance, cuz there is really alot of jumping and fast movements in the dance and you dont see that in the current picture. I want to replace the currecnt dance picture with this new one. What do you guys think? Baku87 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that picture is better! Okay go ahead and change it. Tombseye 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri Dance 

message: I just noticed that this article is now a featured article so congratulations to all you guys who worked very hard on it! Baku87 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded! — BrianSmithson 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: The text in this article seems excellent. However, though I was just a little too late to make this point at WP:FAC so I'll make it here instead, the copyright status of many of these images, or their copyright tags, is really unacceptable. In particular:
* :Image:Sattar Khan.jpg - copyright tag almost certainly wrong; "photographer dead for 100 years" is claimed even though the photographer has not been identified.
* :Image:132 610 taghiyev.jpg - copyright tag almost certainly wrong; PD-US is the tag to use if the image was published in the United States before 1923. No evidence is produced that the image was published in the U.S. before 1923.
* :Image:Mosque234.jpg - quoting "From an email in which I was told the copyright status" isn't really good enough to claim all rights released. The email should at least be quoted directly to show that (1) the emailer was the photographer and (2) they have indeed released all rights (not just "right to educational use" or "right to use in Wikipedia")
* :Image:AzizaMustafaZadeh.jpg - read the image tag. "To the uploader: ... Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page". No fair use rationale appended. It is not clear that in an article about Azerbaijani people in general that fair use applies, so a pretty strong fair use rationale would be a good idea.
* :Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg - exactly the same situation as the Mosque234.jpg.
* :Image:Kerimov21.jpg - the fact that it a Wikipedian hosts a photograph on their website does not make something "all rights released". If either (1) the photograph was taken by the Wikipedian or (2) they bought or were transferred for some other reason the actual copyright, then that Wikipedian should use the copyright tag that "I own the copyright, but am releasing the rights". Otherwise, it is not the website owner who holds the copyright but somebody else. It is the copyright holder's declaration of the releasing of rights that must be linked to - the fact that a Wikipedian has an image on their website does not give them any special rights over that photo. For instance, I could take a photo from AP or Reuters, put it on my geocities page, then claim "I am the website owner, here is the link to the photo, here is the link that certifies that I, this particular Wikipedian, own the website, so it is all rights released". The copyright holder must be identified, this is not the same thing as the website owner!
Will it be possible to get these images sorted out? TheGrappler 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Yes, we'll have to do something about the copyrighted pictures. Basically, some of the pictures were uploaded by Khoikhoi and he's out of the country at the moment so we'll have to wait and see with the mosque and refugees pics. Tombseye 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture of Kerimov comes from the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. I'll be going on holiday to Azerbaijan on July 3th, there I'll get a form were it says I have permission to publish any pictures from the Heydar Aliyev Foundation (were almost all my pictures are from). So if you could be patient and wait for my return in August then I could sort this out. Baku87 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyrights 

message: All the pictures or the majority once again seem to be from Arran or the Republic of Azarbaijan. This is unfair and biased. I seem to notice that many of the compromised or consensus pictures of Iranians have been removed. The written material is wonderful and pretty neutral, but the photographs must also reflect neutrality through even distrubition or ratios. Iranians are the majority of the Azari population and this should be reflected in the pictures too. Thank you. 69.196.164.190
:: User:69.196.164.190 , Please read the last discussion entry by Tombseye, above. the photos are temporarily removed to clarify their copy right status. At the mean time if you know of any suitable image please suggest. Mehrdad 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we see more Pictures of Iranians?

message: Okay I was reading this dispute and actually before hand I was interested in ethnologue data.  I emailted them slightly before July 4th, and I waiting for a response.  But here are the correspondences.
I emailed ethnologue recently and here is a correspondence:
''
Dear Ali, 
Most of our staff are away on holidays, including the man who is most knowledgable on the matter you mentioned, so I cannot answer your question at this time. We would be interested to see your sources, however, and we appreciate your taking the time to help us out like this! 
Yours sincerely, 
Conrad Hurd 
Ethnologue managing editor 
''
And then the next email:
Ray, 
I couldn't find where the 15th edition had any mention of 35% under Azerbaijani for Iran, or any percentage, for that matter. Can you figure out what his problem is? 
--Con ''
I am waiting for a feedback to see what their source was.  But it wasn't any census that was actually taken.  Sometimes ethnologue lists its sources, but with this regard it has not mentioned any source.  As you can see ethnologue has not done any census on this issue.  I am awaiting their email.  
I Found the following quote in a web-site:
The point about this debate is that the reader of Ethnologue should be aware that although Ethnologue is an invaluable source of language statistics, but the authorities for its facts are mostly Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) Bible translators. The following paragraph highlights the issue further:
What Ethnologue, in its various editions, has tried to do is to identify all the linguistically distinct traditional societies of the world; it incidentally includes all languages, including the 200 or so spoken by truly huge numbers of people. The user of Ethnologue should be aware of certain axes that are being ground. Ethnologue tends to exaggerate the number of languages in the world. A linguist who attends to linguistic structure only, leaving speaker attitudes aside, will recognize fewer than 50 per cent of the number of distinct languages that are recognized in Ethnologue. For example, Ethnologue doubles the number of languages that I, as a linguist who with colleagues has done a dialect survey of the whole of Guatemala, recognize for that country. I recognize about twenty-four languages including Spanish, while Ethnologue gives fifty-four. This proportion (`reality' 1 : SIL 2) may hold in other parts of the western hemisphere, and in some areas, such as Mexico and Peru, Ethnologue is even further from what I accept as reality. While we may concede that SIL is reporting on ethnolinguistic and sociolinguistic difference, we should not accept that low intelligibility of spoken and/or written language between communities is incontrovertible evidence for the existence of distinct languages. This is not a trivial disagreement, because while speaker attitudes can change and will often differ from individual to individual within a community, the linguistic structures do not change very readily and hence are the primary phenomena to be accounted for. I used to (and still do) think of myself as a `splitter, not a lumper', but I need to distance myself from `those who multiply entities needlessly', which is a tendency that is apparent in Ethnologue
Kaufman, Terrance; The native languages of Latin America: general remarks, In "Atlas of the World's Languages" (eds. Christopher Moseley and R.E. Asher), pp. 31-33, 1994. 
''
There has been actually two census I am aware off.  One was in the month of mordad, 1370(1991) where the mother tongue of all new borns from all the hospitals of the country was enquired:
http://asre-nou.net/1383/ordibehesht/20/m-mohsenian.html 
The census reads: 46.2% Farsi, 20.6% Turkish, 10% Kurdish, 9% Luri, 7.2% Gilaki and Persian.. and so on.
Another actual census is this source:
http://www.magiran.com/magtoc.asp?mgID=1929&Number=43&Appendix=0
I have the actual article and about 22% of the population is Turkish speaking.  The source above is really good (Although it is from around 1955).  The reason it is good is because it the most comprehensive multi-volume book on each of Iran's villages and towns.
Various different census exists:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iran_4.htm
http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html
I find the one from http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html matching actual provincial statistics.  
I found some other mistakes in ethnologue for example, Nuristani is not part of the Indo-aryan or Iranian branch, but it is the Kafiri branch of Indo-Iranian.
Some datas can be lop-sided as well, for example many Iranian immigrants are from Tehran:  http://web.mit.edu/isg/survey.htm
A good census can be taken based on actual provincial statistics and also the correspondig ethnic areas: 
I hope the data helps to help in further resolving this dispute.  Also there is much marriage from various areas specially in Tehran.  If anyone has actual data of any other census that has actually been taken(that is not guesswork) let me know.  
--Ali doostzadeh 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnologue and census issue

message: Does anybody actually know the proven oil reserves of Rep Azerbaijan? I have come across figures from 589 million bbl (CIA Factbook) to some who claim 30-40 billion bbl! If it is only 589 million bbl it is going to run out in a few years! Kiumars 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I want to point out that this article is about Azaris as a people not the Republic of Azarbaijan (Arran). 69.196.164.190
- 69.196.x.x I did not suggest to incorporate the proven oil reserve figure in the article, I am interested to know the figure because it will have major impact on the future of Rep Azerbaijan economy and its people’s life style and the region's geopolitical importance. If CIA figure is correct Rep Azerbaijan and its people will be in trouble in a few years (or less than 18 month from the time they start pumping out 1 million bbl a day!).  
Kiumars 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil Reserves

message: I am coming to conclusion that there are some people with vested interest who are taking ownership of Wiki articles and if that is true Wiki will go down like a stone if this is not stopped. 
I am already losing interest and confidence in Wiki! 
Kiumars 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean?Iranian Patriot 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danger

message: The Oghuz Turks invaded, they didnt migrate. Migration would require peaceful movement from one location to another, but the oghuz invaded and subsequently conquered the land, that is not migration.Khosrow II 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello guys. See my reponse to the issue. It seems there are different views on the subject. Clearly, a change of leadership took place because the Arabs were overthrown by the Seljuks. As for invasion vs. migration, perhaps it was both. At first an invading dynasty took-over and in feudal form parcelled out lands to Turkic overlords as more Turks migrated in. Tombseye 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration or Invasion 

message: When one explains a theory, they need to have everything that proves it and disproves it in one place so that the reader can easily find and distinguish. The way it is now, the evidence is dispersed and efficiency is low. I have to suggsetions:
#rewriting all the theory sections, including all evidence that supportes or disproves
#giving each theory its own article---this one makes most sense to me, that way, the main article will not be redundant and everyone can be happy. Khosrow II 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's ok to make other articles regarding the various origin theories, BUT the article as it is written was done through concensus and the work of lots of people including Azeris, Iranians, and myself. The references are there and the most accepted ACADEMIC theories placed in the article. If you want to further analyze the Iranian origin theory then creating another article is not a problem for me as long as this article remains as it is. Tombseye 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood. I mean create a huge indepth article about each, citing the same sources except going much more deeper regarding information that both prove and disprove the theories. and then we can have the article the way it is now, except at the top of each theory section, we can write something like "see main article: ...." like on so many other articles. I think its a good idea, how about you? this can be a group effort just the same as the main article is.Khosrow II 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, actually three articles sounds like a bit much to explain the origins of the Azeris. I would go with one article and then discuss in-depth the theories, but I'm not sure how much it's needed, although I'm not against the idea. The problem is that it's hard to prove the Azeris' origins and thus most references go with the view that they are of mixed origin with links to the Caucasus, Iranian peoples, and Turks. Proving and disproving goes into original research territory and then also will lead to a lot of arguments. You have no idea how much we all had to go through to get this article to become a featured article. First, the criticism from non-Azeris/Iranians often dealt with, for example, redundancy, bad grammar, erroneous statements etc. Then people with somewhat nationalist views kept challenging each other. Finally, by working with the more rational academic minded folks I wrote the article so that it was neutral and just presented the known facts and let the reader decide who the Azeris are. The popular view will thus probably not be changed overmuch. If you want to still write the article (and I would suggest just one article), you can, but you'll probably run into the same difficulties as we did here and it will be time-consuming and ultimately may not bear the results you're looking for. I would suggest a poll though on this page. Maybe I'm wrong and people want an in-depth article and it never hurts as a poll will also get you more people who could help with the article. Cheers. Tombseye 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: sure lets do a poll.Khosrow II 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The thoeries 

message: It would be interesting to read some description of Azerbaijani clothing styles.  Is there an ethnic equivalent of a national costume?  Just going on the existing illustrations, it seems that there are various styles in favor, including the cloth belt with vest and sometimes long, flowing style; a simple cylindrical hat, and modern Western clothing.  Are the older styles influenced by other cultures, or are these largely native? -- Beland 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural dress