Talk:Culture of Azerbaijan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Culture of Azerbaijan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Azerbaijan Top‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 February 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

About last edit war

There is an ongoing dispute, and in order to avoid further conflict, I would like to express my reasons for reverting.

1. The person removed the following parts without trying to find a source or adding a "source needed" template. According to Wikipedia guidelines, this information cannot be deleted this simply:

  - Azerbaijani cuisine is deeply rooted in the country's history, traditions, and values.^{[citation needed]}
  - Azerbaijani decorative arts have been documented by merchants, travelers, and diplomats.^{[citation needed]}
  - Since the Middle Ages, poets have gathered in ''meyhanes'' to exchange verses extemporaneously; their audience would decide which poet had improvised the most elegant, clever verses.^{[citation needed]}

2. North and South Azerbaijani Issue:

- In the cited literature, there is no mention of this separation. The IP address first vandalized the page by adding North and South Azerbaijani information and did WP:V/HOAX:

  "The central traditions find their continuation in a fourth group, the epic poetry of the southwestern Turkic peoples, the Turkmens, Azerbaijanis (South and North), and Anatolian Turks. Here the predominant form is prosimetric, and there is a predilection for love and adventure romance. The main hero of their adventure romances is Koroghlu."

- The bold part does not exist in the literature in either source. Following the correction of the issue with the source, the person continued to use the terms "South and North Azerbaijani" even though the wrong citation was the source of this issue.

Following these issues, I reverted the page.

My suggestions are:

- Do not remove the information but find citations or tag it as needing a citation.

- Remove the South and North Division, from the classical era part under the literature.

@Arjayay @Macaddct1984 Göycen (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically I removed unsourced content and properly cited a source which you dont believe. If thats ur only arguments, no ones gonna care. Unsourced information should be rewmoved and I improved thge article witth information and sources. You already have been scholded by an administrator at Abbas Mirza Mosque, Yerevan and now your gonna get scholded again. 93.200.97.192 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no citation to find, since It was fabricated, It would stay here forever, If that info is so important, then just add a source for that, oh you cant, since what I removed is fabricated information and you dont have any sources to back it up. 93.200.97.192 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I do not recall you. For the sake of discussion, I am answering. Otherwise, I was not able to find anything to answer, but I need to address several points and fallacies in your response.

First, attacking me personally and referencing past interactions with administrators does not contribute to resolving the current content dispute. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, where you attack the person rather than addressing the argument. It's important to focus on the content and not on past conflicts or perceived biases.

Second, stating that "no one's gonna care" about my argument and dismissing it as irrelevant without addressing the actual points I made is an appeal to ridicule. This approach does not engage with the substance of my argument and dismisses it without proper consideration.

Your claim that I don't believe the cited source and thus my argument is invalid is a straw man fallacy. I am not disputing the existence of the source but questioning the accuracy and relevance of the content added. Proper verification and accurate representation of sources are essential to maintaining Wikipedia's standards.

Furthermore, your statement that "you can’t, since what I removed is fabricated information and you don’t have any sources to back it up" is a circular reasoning fallacy. You assume the information is fabricated because there are no sources, and then use the lack of sources as proof of fabrication. This circular argument does not provide a solid basis for your claim.

Finally, presenting the situation as having only two possible outcomes—either the information is fabricated or it has sources—is a false dichotomy. There may be other explanations for the lack of sources, such as the need for further research or the information being common knowledge that has not yet been properly cited.

My suggestion remains that we should not remove information outright but instead tag it as needing citation or find proper sources to support it. Additionally, the terms "South and North Azerbaijani" should be removed if they are not supported by reliable sources.

I hope we can work together to improve the article by adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and focusing on the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. Göycen (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind I have no knowledge of the subject matter... My suggestion remains that we should not remove information outright but instead tag it as needing citation or find proper sources to support it. Additionally, the terms "South and North Azerbaijani" should be removed if they are not supported by reliable sources. - This statement seems in conflict; you seem to want have your cake and eat it too. Challenged content in particular needs to be sourced or removed until it is appropriately sourced.

Material that is actually challenged by another editor requires a source or it may be removed; and anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers (see WP:BURDEN). In practice, this means that most material is backed by an inline citation. In case of multiple possible references for a statement, the best reliable sources should be used. - WP:WHEN

I generally don't find it productive to add content and a {{cite needed}} tag in the same edit. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Macaddct1984

Thanks for your message. I understand what you mean. I will try to find sources and will re-add those sentences in the future. I am here to learn.

As my second claim is clear, I would be happy if we can delete the bold part and replace it simply with "Azerbaijanis." I am not pursuing my first claim since it has been explained.

Alpamysh and Koroghlu are Turkic epics that are widely spread among ~~North and South~~ Azerbaiajanis and enjoy high popularity among them.

I do not know the Wikipedia procedure. Since my second claim is clear, can I make this edit? I do not see any collaboration to reach a consensus. Göycen (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not familiar with the subject matter, but to me, the removal of "North and South" seems like a more neutral way to describe the broad swath of Azerbaijani people. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cry nerd, Ad hominem my ahh. The informatiön added is important, since It shows what is popular among them and South and North is important to say, in order to know wheter both ethnicities celebrate this epic. If there is a lack of sources, why dont you add them If they exist?

I cant just write something on wikipedia, add an „citation needed“ template and leave it there forever, just because (apparently) according to you we are not allowed to delete unsourxed content, with that logic everything can be written here, even the most ridicilous stuff, but no, If you add smh you need to give a prove or citation for it. If you dont, then It has no reason to be here. 2A02:3035:E08:5662:A8E8:5219:1DC6:99BC (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, hahahahahaha, bro got schooled again, my anticipation is truly amazing!🤑😂 2A02:3035:E08:5662:A8E8:5219:1DC6:99BC (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🤣🫵 2A02:3035:E08:5662:A8E8:5219:1DC6:99BC (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's ironic to be lectured about credibility and sourcing by someone hiding behind an IP address rather than using a username with honor. It's a lot easier to criticize when you're not standing behind your words with a name.

I'm learning more every day and have no intention of leaving this platform. Your attempt to undermine me only reinforces my dedication to ensuring Wikipedia maintains its standards. Göycen (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned @99BC:, but I'll remind you @Göycen not to resort to personal attacks or accusations, keep cool, and focus on the content. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]